In this condition are 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)_.
I was unwilling to interrupt the reader upon a slight occasion; but I cannot refrain from adding here a word or two by way of comment .-- I have said at page 71, speaking of Junot's army, that the British were to encounter the same men, &c.