The whole which we gain therefore from the Board of Inquiry is—­that what we barely suspected is ripened into certainty—­and that on all, which we assuredly knew and declared without needing that any tribunal should lend us its sanction, no effort has been made at denial, or disguise, or palliation.

Thus much for the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry, upon which their decision was to be grounded.  As to the decision itself, it declares that no further military proceedings are necessary; ‘because’ (say the members of the Board). ’however some of us may differ in our sentiments respecting the fitness of the convention in the relative situation of the two armies, it is our unanimous declaration that unquestionable zeal and firmness appear throughout to have been exhibited by Generals Sir H. Dalrymple, Sir H. Burrard, and Sir A. Wellesley.’  In consequence of this decision, the Commander-in-Chief addressed a letter to the Board—­reminding them that, though the words of his Majesty’s warrant expressly enjoin that the conditions of the Armistice and Convention should be strictly examined and reported upon, they have altogether neglected to give any opinion upon those conditions.  They were therefore called upon then to declare their opinion, whether an armistice was adviseable; and (if so) whether the terms of that armistice were such as ought to be agreed upon;—­and to declare, in like manner, whether a convention was adviseable; and (if so) whether the terms of that convention were such as ought to have been agreed upon.

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 a 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