Duc Senior,
I would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm or deny your intention to
pursue this preposterous 'treason' charge any further. As you will
appreciate, as things stand at present, I expect to spend the final week of
September in the Bastille and, should this be the case, will have to make
various financial arrangements with the jailors regarding a light and airy
room (with a view), visiting rights, the services of my own chef and access
to my own winecellar (so as not to have to suffer the infamously indifferent
cuisine of that establishment during the course of my confinement).
Naturally, should I be subesquently aquitted I will be directing the bills
regarding these needless expenses towards your Steward.
As you may imagine, my defence counsel have not been idle over the course of
the Summer Campaign. (A claim regarding legal fees is also pending despatch
to the Steward of your household). Indeed, my counsel even mooted the
possibility of calling Grosscanard to testify as an expert witness (despite
the exorbitant fees he charges for this service) until I told them, in no
uncertain terms, that a defence strategy based around a plea of insanity
would be singularly inappropriate in this case. (I sometimes wonder what I'm
paying them for myself...). Nevertheless, this is the brief they have come
up with:
Of the two charges you propose to bring, the first, that I 'Jeopardized the
safety of France by failing to fulfill my duties by appointing Divisional
Commanders at the proper time designated for such duties' cannot possibly
bear close examination in the light of the armies' performance over the
course of the Summer. Indeed, from the overall results, it would appear that
performance is actually _reduced_ the longer the Divisional Commanders are
in post, which would seem to turn your argument completely on its head! It
is possible (should the rumours of this 'Swedish Plot' prove true) that the
identity of our new Minister of War might have some bearing on the fact that
August was the most disappointing month of the campaign, of course.
Bringing this charge against me is far more likely to occasion hiliarity in
the court rather than the gravity which, I expect, you desire - and for the
sake of your own good name I would heartily recommend that you instructed
the Commissioner to drop it forthwith.
The second charge, that I 'Challenged and denied the lawful power, authority
and competence of His Majesty's duly appointed Minister of State' hinges
upon the question of whether or not the Minister of State actually _has_ any
lawful power or authority - or indeed competence - in the military areas in
which I allegedly challenged and denied them.
On the _competence_ issue I will merely point out that, should you yourself
apply for the post of Adjutant-General, the Field Marshal will dismiss your
application on the grounds that you are not competent to hold it. Your
military ability (about which the less said the better) would have no
bearing on the decision, of course, purely the fact that you do not possess
a high enough military rank (and therefore do not possess the required
military experience) to hold this post.
In light of the above, I completely fail to see how you could possibly
imagine the possession of a civil (ie non-military) appointment to give you
the right to attempt to over-rule the decisions of a gentleman who _is_
qualified and has been duly appointed to hold this military post, and who is
attempting to fulfil his duties according to his own (demonstrably more
reliable) judgement.
I see no grounds for complaint regarding my "challenging and denying" your
competence in this matter. Indeed, the uninvited interferrence of a
Brigadier in the affairs of Lt.General would doubtless be regarded as both
impertinent and insubordinate if submitted for consideration by a Court
Martial.
Regards the supposed _authority_ of the Minister of State in these matters,
I am sure that not even you would deny that the Adjutant-General is
appointed by and answerable to the Field Marshal who is, in turn, promoted
to the position by and thus answerable directly to His Majesty. I see no
space for the Minister of State in this clearly defined chain of command,
Sir, and must conclude that to suggest that the Minister of State has any
authority here is a complete fiction.
Consequently, I see no grounds for complaint regarding my "challenging and
denying" your of lawful authority in this matter, for clearly this would
seem to exist only in your imagination.
The fact that the Minister of State has the _power_ to force his will in any
areas he chooses to (by means of a threatened trumped-up charge of treason
being brought by the Commissioner) is something which neither I nor any
other sensible gentleman would deny. I would submit, however, that such
power is only _lawful_ in those areas for which His Majesty has delegated
His Royal responsibility to the Minister of State. This clearly excludes
matters of a military nature, for which Royal responsibility is delegated to
the both the Minister of War and the Field Marshal. Attempts on the part of
the Minister of State to exercise this power in areas outside those of the
Minister of State's responsibility are, I would submit, _flagrant abuses_ of
that power rather than a legitimate exercise of the same.
Consequently, I see no grounds for complaint regarding my "challenging and
denying" your _lawful_ power in the sphere of military matters, since
clearly this does not exist either. That I challenged and denied your
_unlawful_ power in this area I will be the first to admit, though I fail to
see how this could lawfully give rise to a charge of treason.
In conclusion, I maintain, as I have all along in this matter, that I have
absolutely _no case to answer_ with respect to these proposed charges. I
would request that you either drop this preposterous allegation of treason
forthwith or be good enough to furnish His Majesty, myself and the other
gentleman having an interest in this case with the _real_ reasons behind
your determination to pursue it.
As you will appreciate, in common with those other soldiers returning from
the front, under normal circumstances I would expect a full social calender
in September and spending a week in the Bastille would be somewhat
inconvenient.
My defence counsel assure me that, if placed before an impartial judge, the
case as it stands would be thrown out in short order. Regretably, as you, I
and the rest of Paris are perfectly aware, an impartial judge is not
something which can be safely assumed in this particular instance. My
counsel further inform me that the main issue here centres not upon the
charges proposed (of which I am clearly innocent according to current
useage) but upon the question of whether or not the Minister of State has
the right to dictate action in areas in which, by common custom and those
laws of the land currently in effect, he has received no lawful remit or
authority from His Majesty.
With all due respect, it is not for the Minister of State to hand down a
decision on this grave matter. Only His Majesty himself is in a position to
give such a ruling.
Respectfully Yours,
General le Duc Alain de Mylcandonai
P.S. Should your resolve to pursue this current course remain undiminished,
despite the above, I request that the case against me be heard in a closed
court. I shall call no witnesses in my defence, which will rest solely upon
the clear facts as detailed in the brief above and of which all interested
parties are already aware. Most importantly, I have no wish to subject the
Lords and Ladies of Paris to the embarrasment of witnessing a trial which
could, in this event, prove nothing but the nadir to which French
jurisprudence would have fallen whilst in the care of your administration.
