mander-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
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)_.