"The Court will rise!" [The throng packing the Grand Chambre at the Palais de Justice rise respectfully as the judge presiding, His Excellency le Duc Jean Senior, Jr, His Majesty's Minister of State, enters from a paneled door behind the bench and takes his seat]. JSJ: This court is gathered to hear charges of a most serious nature laid against Blanc Du Pain, currently serving as a Major with the Dragoon Guards. Before continuing, Commissioner, perhaps you could explain to me why these charges were laid so long after the events to which they refer took place? EdD: May it please Your Grace, proceedings were in fact instituted immediately when the alleged transgressions took place, but were inexplicably delayed due to events within the Commission which are currently under urgent investigation. JSJ: I see. Very well. This court will be held to order. We will start with the opening address given by the Commissioner of Public safety describing the charges, who will then move on to presenting the case for the prosecution. He will be permitted to call witnesses, whom he will name, and they will respond in short order. Contempt of this court will NOT be taken lightly. The defendant will then be permitted to plead his case, and call his own witnesses, who are expected to conduct themselves with the decorum appropriate to a gentleman. A verdict will then be returned unless there are no further questions from the court bench. Commissioner, you may proceed. EdD: Thank you, Your Grace. The defendant will rise. Blanc du Pain: you are formally charged with the most heinous crime of Mutiny, which is by its very nature treason against His Majesty, in that: Imprimis: You did knowingly and cynically contravene established regimental standing orders by submitting a purchase order for a commission which you knew full well should by rights have gone to a more senior Captain (Vicomte Guy le Vair, who has since left your regiment in disgust). Item: That you did persistently refuse to follow the course of honour in this matter by resigning said commission, culminating in your unequivocal refusal to obey a direct order from your commanding officer in this regard. Item: That you have since compounded the obvious contempt you bear for army regulations by persistently refusing to take command of the junior Dragoon Guards Squadron, in the teeth of numerous orders from your Commanding Officer that you should do so. The Defendant may be seated. The prosecution submits that the defendant's persistent refusal to obey the orders of his Royally Commissioned Commanding Officer constitutes Mutiny and that, by this very refusal to recognize the established chain of command headed by His Majesty Himself, Mutiny constitutes the most heinous form of Treason. It is the belief of this office that for such a crime to go unpunished would have a devastating effect on the morale and discipline of His Majesty's Armed Forces. The detrimental effects which the defendant's actions have had on the Dragoon Guards are already plain to see - once boasting fourteen gentlemen of note the regiment can now hardly muster six. The prosecution feels that a severe example must be made of the defendant before the rot he has started is allowed to permeate His Majesty's Armed Forces in their entirety. If found guilty as charged, the Prosecution will ask that an appropriate sentence, a minimum of one year spent serving as a private with a frontier regiment, will be handed down in the hope that the defendant comes to appreciate the importance of the discipline which he presently holds in such contempt. I will now call my first witness, Lt.General le Comte de Mylcandonai. [AdM enters the court, takes the stand, and is sworn in as a witness] EdD: For the record, My Lord, please state your name and position. AdM: Brevet Lieutenant-General le Comte Alain de Mylcandonai, His Majesty's Inspector-General of Cavalry, formerly Officer Commanding His Majesty's Horse Guards Brigade and His Majesty's Dragoon Guards. EdD: General de Mylcandonai, the defendant is charged with, amongst other things, knowingly contravening the Dragoon Guards regimental standing orders. Since these are not standard army regulations, however, what evidence is there that the defendant was ever aware of these regulations? AdM: I have here a copy of a memo which was sent to all members of the regiment in May of last year, in which this item is clearly referred to. EdD: Perhaps the General would be kind enough to read out the relevant passages to the Court. AdM: "Whatever happens, I would like to congratulate Baron le Vair, as senior captain, on his imminent Majority (though I would hope that he would remain as Regimental Adjutant at least until we return to Paris, since his unquestioned talents in this area will be sorely needed over the next few months) and Subaltern du Pain on his imminent Captaincy. If either of you gentlemen might require any financial assistance in these matters, please feel free to call upon me at Brigade HQ." This clearly indicates that the regimental protocol in force at the time was for any Majorities becoming vacant to be reserved for the Senior Captain. EdD: Thank you, General. If I may I would submit this memo into state's evidence. Your critics, General, might say that the contravention of Regimental Standing Orders is too trivial to be considered treason and that your efforts to bring this case to trial owe more to a perceived betrayal by a former protege on your part. It was indeed you yourself who admitted the Defendant into the Dragoon Guards and paid for his subaltern's commission, was it not? How would you answer such critics, General? AdM: My efforts in this case have been motivated solely by the responsibilities I bear for the Cavalry Arm as a whole in my office of Inspector-General, rather than by personal considerations. The contravention of Regimental Standing Orders would indeed be trivial - had it not led directly to the mutinous refusal to obey a direct from the Defendant's commanding officer (as, I believe, your next witness will testify). The question before the court is a fundamental one - should the refusal to obey direct orders from one's superiors be countenanced in His Majesty's Armed Forces? Should the court deem the answer to this question to be in the affirmative, I fear that the damage to morale in both the Cavalry and the Infantry will be terminal and nothing but anarchy will lie in wait for us all. EdD: Thank you General. I have one final question. What would you consider to be the motive for the Defendant's mutinous behavior? AdM: It seems plain from the hostile condemnation which his actions have drawn that his rise in society has been severely hindered, rather than aided, by his actions. Similarly, the mediocre results of his one month spent in command at the front, coupled with the month in which he had his squadron on full alert in Paris whilst he idled away his time in various clubs, do not seem to indicate a brilliant military mind demanding freedom of expression at any cost. I must confess, Commissioner, that I can see no personal advantage accruing from the defendant's actions whatsoever. EdD: Thank you General. You may leave the stand.
