To two of these questions--viz. those which relate to the particular armistice and convention made by the British Generals--the members of the Board (still persevering in their blindness to the other two which express doubt as to the lawfulness of _any_ armistice or convention) severally return answers which convey an approbation of the armistice and convention by four members, a disapprobation of the convention by the remaining three, and further a disapprobation of the armistice by one of those three. Now it may be observed--first--that, even if the investigation had not been a public one, it might have reasonably been concluded, from the circumstance of the Board having omitted to report any opinion concerning the terms of the armistice and the convention, that those terms had not occupied enough of its attention to justify the Board in giving any opinion upon them--whether of approbation or disapprobation; and, secondly,--this conclusion, which might have been made _‡ priori_, is confirmed by the actual fact that no examination or inquiry of this kind appears throughout the report of its proceedings: and therefore any opinion subsequently given, in consequence of the requisition of the Commander-in-Chief, can lay claim to no more authority upon these points--than the opinion of the same men, if they had never sat in a public Court upon this question. 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