all the members, whether they approve or disapprove of the convention.  And with respect to the three who disapprove of the convention,—­over and above the general impropriety of having, under these circumstances, pronounced a verdict at all in the character of members of that Board—­they are subject to an especial charge of inconsistency in having given such an opinion, in their second report, as renders nugatory that which they first pronounced.  For the reason—­assigned, in their first report, for deeming no further military proceedings necessary—­is because it appears that unquestionable zeal and firmness were exhibited throughout by the several General Officers; and the reason—­assigned by those three who condemn the convention—­is that the Generals did not insist upon the terms to which they were entitled; that is (in direct opposition to their former opinions), the Generals shewed a want of firmness and zeal.  If then the Generals were acquitted, in the first case, solely upon the ground of having displayed firmness and zeal; a confessed want of firmness and zeal, in the second case, implies conversely a ground of censure—­rendering (in the opinions of these three members) further military proceedings absolutely necessary.  They,—­who are most aware of the unconstitutional frame of this Court or Board, and of the perplexing situation in which its members must have found themselves placed,—­will have the least difficulty in excusing this inconsistency:  it is however to be regretted; particularly in the instance of the Earl of Moira;—­who, disapproving both of the Convention and Armistice, has assigned for that disapprobation unanswerable reasons drawn—­not from hidden sources, unapproachable except by judicial investigation—­but from facts known to all the world.

—­The reader will excuse this long note; to which however I must add one word:—­Is it not strange that, in the general decision of the Board, zeal and firmness—­nakedly considered, and without question of their union with judgment and such other qualities as can alone give them any value—­should be assumed as sufficient grounds on which to rest the acquittal of men lying under a charge of military delinquency?

* * * * *

B (page 72).

It is not necessary to add, that one of these fears was removed by the actual landing of ten thousand men, under Sir J. Moore, pending the negotiation:  and yet no change in the terms took place in consequence.  This was an important circumstance; and, of itself, determined two of the members of the Board of Inquiry to disapprove of the convention:  such an accession entitling Sir H. Dalrymple (and, of course, making it his duty) to insist on more favourable terms.  But the argument is complete without it.

* * * * *

C (page 75).