Major le Comte Alain de Sevigny, His Majesty's Commissioner of Public Safety, to General le Duc Alain de Mylcandonai, OC Second Division As Your Grace will be aware, despite having proven my effectiveness by successfully prosecuting two gentlemen for blatantly ignoring His edicts, His Majesty has nevertheless seen fit to terminate my appointment as Commissioner. This is particularly unfortunate as I was about to bring a charge of Treason against a gentleman who, it now appears, will escape justice by fleeing to the Americas. The only gentleman who has so far thrown his hat into the ring regarding the vacancy which will soon appear at the Ministry of State is His Grace le Duc von Fersen who, from his previous conduct and statements, is unlikely to appoint a Commissioner willing to pursue the case which I prepared. Your Grace will be aware, of course, that Duc von Fersen was perfectly willing to see yourself, an innocent man, go to trial on charges of Treason and has openly expressed his support for the treasonous view that the Minister of State should have complete authority in all things, including those areas which His Majesty has specifically appointed other gentlemen to oversee? Opinion is divided as to whether Duc von Fersen's lack of involvement in the recent cause célèbre was due to his habitual lethargy or a desire to play the jackal and steal the prey of the lions while the lions were fighting amongst themselves. I myself am undecided. Nevertheless, it seems certain that the case against Duc Senior which I so painstakingly assembled will now be lost or purposely buried. Rather than see this occur, I have decided to place all the relevant exhibits and sworn statements, together with the prosecution outline below, into your care. I have no idea what use you may put these to, though they might play a part in your own defence should my successor be encouraged to pursue the bogus charges which Duc Senior attempted to bring against you. Please use the material as you see fit. For myself I am, I hope, understandably disillusioned with public life in the wake of recent events and have requested that His Majesty find some minor commission for me which will take me away from France to foreign parts for the foreseeable future. Your Obedient Servant, Comte Alain de Sevigny _____________________ PROSECUTION OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED CASE OF THE CROWN vs DUC JEAN SENIOR, JUNIOR Treason! Your Majesty and the various Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen here assembled will agree with me that this must be the ugliest word in the French language. But what exactly _is_ treason...? Before beginning the case for the prosecution I would like to submit a definition of this, the most heinous of crimes: Treason is the wilful planning or execution of actions which are detrimental to His Most Christian Majesty's Person, Family, Interests, Realm or Dominions. The prosecution will now prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Duc Senior both planned and instructed myself as Commissioner of Public Safety to carry out such treasonable actions - apparently in a misguided bid to enlarge the responsibilities entrusted to him as Minister of State to such an extent that the power and authority of His Majesty Himself might be challenged thereby. It will further be proved that, had the Defendant's treasonable plots come to fruition, the safety of His Majesty's Person, Family, Armed Forces and very Realm itself would have been considerably imperilled. The prosecution will attach no motive to the above actions - merely pose questions regarding various possibilities. Our enquiries will be restricted to providing incontravertable proof regarding the actions and intended actions of the Defendant which will, by themselves, condemn him utterly. This prosecution will not feature any supposed Spanish Plots, documents of dubious provenence, or mistaken identies - those seeking such diversions would be best served by visiting a theatre rather than a Court of Law. The evidence presented here will be largely restricted to documents whose validity is attested by the writers and recipients thereof and sworn statements from generals, government ministers and gentlemen such as myself who were appointed by the Defendant and thus have a unique insight into the workings of his administration. The decision to bring this case to Your Majesty's attention has been a very difficult one. As I just stated, having been appointed to the position of Commissioner of Public Safety by the Defendant, to subsequently bring a charge of Treason against him smacks of unspeakable disloyalty. In the final analysis, however, I was appointed on the understanding that my _primary_ duty and loyalty were, are and forever will be to Your Majesty alone and it is on that basis that the charge has been brought. The same holds true for those witnesses I will bring forward to give evidence in this case. The prosecution attests that 1) The Defendant exceeded the limits of his governmental responsibilities to the extent of attempting to dictate the actions of the subordinates of those personally given responsibility by His Majesty in areas completely divorced from those of the Ministry of State and that, in so doing, was attempting to usurp the God-Given Power and Authority of His Majesty Himself. 2) That in the course of the above the Defendant incited a Senior Army Officer to commit mutiny by contravening the orders of the Field Marshal, his commanding officer, and then threatened to have said officer removed if he refused to comply with this mutinous action. 3) That had the Defendant been successful in his efforts and intentions, not only would the Power and Authority of His Majesty have been immeasurably eroded thereby, but the safety and security of His Majesty's Royal Person, Army, Loyal Subjects and very Realm itself would have been severely compromised. Regarding the first charge, I would first like to clarify the way in which His Majesty has seen fit to arrange the governance of His Realm by presenting a letter submitted by Princess Louisa. This letter, found amongst the papers of Her late husband, Duc Bud Y Zer, is that sent to the late Duc by His Majesty upon first appointing him Minister of State. As will be seen, it closely follows the works of the respected political theorist, La Bruyère, to which the attention of Paris was drawn but recently: ================== [Exhibit A] ================== I have found an almost identical letter in the papers relating to the _in absentia_ trial of The Traitor de Sapear, which His Majesty sent to The Traitor upon first appointing _him_ as Minister of State. I would like to submit both of these letters as evidence for the prosecution, to be denoted as exhibits A and A2. The unavoidable inference must surely be that Duc Senior also received a similar letter of appointment - and subsequently chose to treasonously ignore its directives completely. To illustrate this the prosecution will now demonstrate how the Defendant wilfully and treasonously attempted to usurp His Majesty's authority in Army Affairs by presuming to assume those powers granted by His Majesty to the Field Marshal. I will prove beyond any doubt that the Defendant, without any prior consultation with the Field Marshal whatsoever, issued dictates directly opposed to the interests of His Majesty to one of the Field Marshal's most important appointees, to wit the Adjutant General, and incited him to mutiny against the Field Marshal, threatening the direst of consequences should he fail to do so. The gentleman holding the post of Adjutant General at the time in question was Le Duc (then, le Comte) de Mylcandonai. I have here the orders he received from the Field Marshal upon being appointed, which I would also like to submit as evidence. ================== [Exhibit B] ================== The prosecution will now demonstrate that the Defendant overstepped the bounds of his authority to the extent of insisting that the Adjutant General wilfully contravene the orders he received above, and outline the circumstances in which these illegal dictates were rightly refused. ================== Testimony of Witness 1 ================== [Exhibit C] ================== [Exhibit D] ================== The witness to the next stage of this sordid and treasonous quest for Royal power on the part of the Defendant will be myself, and I would like to submit as evidence a number of inappropriate instructions I received from the Defendant to this effect - as exhibits E, F and G. As will be appreciated from His Majesty's letter to Duc Zer, it is the responsibility of the Minister of State to 'sit in judgement in any cases of Treason to the Crown which the Commissioner sees fit to bring to his attention,' _not_ to dictate who the Commissioner should arraign on charges of Treason in the first place. The initial instruction I received (by hand in the Minister of State's office), which appears to have been issued immediately upon the Defendant's receipt of le Duc de Mylcandonai's final letter, was as follows: ================== [Exhibit E] ================== These were serious charges indeed! I immediately sought the advice of a number of gentlemen far more qualified than I in military matters (General de Success, General d'Eau, the late Lt.General Inzabox, and His Excellency the then Minister of War) to clarify the situation. Without exception these gentlemen told me that the fears expressed by the Defendant were totally unfounded and that le Duc de Mylcandonai's policy regarding the Division Commands was in the best interests of the continued safety of both His Majesty and of the Realm. (Although, so as not to make excessive demands upon the Court's valuable time, only one of the above will be called as a witness. I do have signed statements from those others still living which are available for examination). Before I could relate this news to the Defendant, however, I received the following additional 'order' from him, following only two days after the previous one (during which time, of course, no new evidence which might warrant such an 'order' had come to light). ================== [Exhibit F] ================== Accompanying this exhibit were three letters sent to the Defendant by le Duc de Mylcandonai. The third such letter, which is specifically referred to above, has already been submitted as exhibit D. I would specifically like to draw the attention of the Court the timing of this 'order'. It will be plain that the Adjutant General was now to be prosecuted on a bogus charge of Treason _whether or not_ he bowed to the dictates of the Defendant. It seems clear that the Defendant had come to view the Adjutant General as a barrier to his attempts to illegally gain direct control of military affairs and, as a result, had decided that Le Duc de Mylcandonai must be punished - the fact that the actions of the Adjutant General had invariably been in the best interests of France notwithstanding. ================== Testimony of Witness 2 ================== What I would like to ask the Court at this juncture is - WHY? Why did a gentleman whose reputation was unblemished until that point decide to take such desparate and treasonous action? I confess that have no answers to furnish. The final witnesses will give an inkling into this, but no firm conclusions. The Court must decide the answer to this question based upon the evidence now presented and draw its own conclusions. Before calling upon the final witnesses, however, I must finish presenting my own evidence. Upon receiving those instructions contained in exhibits E and F above I was in something of quandry. The conclusions I had come to regarding the probable consequences of carrying them out mirrored those of the previous witness exactly and I was not willing to have the weight of responsibility for instigating such terrible events upon my conscience. I outlined this clearly to the Defendant and decided to ignore the unwarranted instructions to arrest the Adjutant General which I had received in May - at least for the time being. Although the Commissioner is appointed by the Minister of State and thus must give requests from this source the most careful consideration, in the final analysis it is the _Commissioners's_ responsibility to hunt out traitors - NOT that of the Minister. At the end of the month, however, I received further instructions from the Defendant, as follows: ================== [Exhibit G] ================== >From the above it will be clear that, despite knowing the consequences and treasonable nature of his actions, the Defendant was nevertheless determined to see the Adjutant General wrongfully convicted for treason on the basis of refusing to obey the military orders of a gentleman in no wise empowered to issue them! The incredible lengths to which the Defendant may have been prepared to go in this will be detailed by the next witness. It was at this point, Your Majesty, that I felt that I had no alternative but charge the Defendant with Treason as soon as the Summer Campaign was concluded - the delay being so as to occasion as little dislocation to the governance of His Majesty's Fair Realm of France as possible. Justice must not only be done, it must be _seen_ to be done - and such would have been impossible when all of the key witnesses along with the majority of France's nobility were, unlike the Defendant, risking their lives at the front in His Majesty's service. ================== Testimony of Witness 3 ================== It is indeed unfortunate that the late Captain Du Pain is not available to either confirm or refute the above allegations. I would submit, however, that this is not really relevant. The main point of the last witness' testimony is this: the Defendant's determination to see the Adjutant General prosecuted - no matter what the cost to His Majesty's Person, Reputation or Realm - was clearly so widely known that tales such as that allegedly recounted by Captain Du Pain could be believed without question. My final two witnesses will elaborate on this theme. ================== Testimony of Witness 4 ================== "He acts as though he were King in all but name ." Could this be the motive behind the treasonous actions which, it has been proven beyond doubt, the Defendant has recently taken? That is for the Court to decide, but perhaps the final testimony for the prosecution might shed some further light on this? ================== Testimony of Witness 5 ================== The prosecution has now established beyond any shadow of doubt that the Defendant wilfully sought to usurp the authority of His Majesty by gaining direct control of military matters and, when opposed in this heinous enterprise, wilfullly set upon a course of action which would imperil His Majesty's Person, all serving members of His Majesty's Armed Forces and the very Realm itself. That such actions comprise treason in its most dangerous and despicable form is beyond question. It is equally beyond any reasonable doubt that Defendant is indeed guilty of these treasonous actions. The only question remaining is one of motive. What possible reasoning could even the most twisted intelligence consider to be ample justification for imperilling His Majesty and the Realm in this way? In the final analysis, only the Defendant will ever truly know the motives which lay behind his base and despicable crimes. Those actions of his as reported by the final two witnesses may well give the Court an insight into the unspeakable objective of this heinous traitor, however: "He acts as though he were King in all but name - and seems to find the latter condition somewhat irkesome." "Whenever le Duc or la Duchesse Senior are alone I am to address each of them as 'Your Majesty'..." The treasonous actions of the Defendant have already condemned him on numerous counts. His motives for embarking upon them, and a suitable punishment for his heinous crimes, are for His Majesty alone to decide. May it please Your Majesty and the Court, the Prosecution rests.
