General le Duc Alain de Mylcandonai, Minister of War, to
His Most Christian Majesty Louis the Fourteenth by the Grace of God, of the
Kingdom of France and of His other Realms and Territories, King,
Greetings and Felicitations!
Your Majesty,
As the lamentable 'leapfrogging' affair which occurred whilst I was serving
as Your Majesty's Inspector-General of Cavalry demonstrated most clearly,
the whole field of Military Justice is desparately in need of urgent
attention. As Your Majesty's Minister of War this matter would appear to
fall within my remit, and I have taken the liberty of outlining some
suggestions below for Your Majesty's consideration.
As recently as October 1669 disciplinary affairs were handled by a Judge
Advocat General (the respected General Dorado then holding the post) in
whose appointment were an Army Provost for each army (whose
responisibilities were to bring instances of cowardice, conduct unbecomoing
an officer of Your Majesty's forces, insubordination, fraternising with the
enemy, mutiny etc to the Judge Advocat General's attention). During the
riots of the following November, however, the whole machinery of Military
Justice appears to have disappeared, with the result that the case mentioned
above, since mutiny is evidently treasonous, had to be tried before the
Minister of State rather than before a military court.
Having examined the former system of Military Justice, it appears that one
of the main reasons it was discontinued was that it depended upon the
maintenance of a completely new tier of officials outside the usual army
structure. I would like to propose an alternative which would lie within the
_existing_ structure. My proposals are as follows:
=======================
MILITARY JUSTICE
Any officer of the rank of Captain or above may bring instances of alleged
cowardice, conduct unbecomoing an officer of His Majesty's forces,
insubordination, fraternising with the enemy, mutiny etc on the part of a
soldier of equal or lower military rank to the attention of his Army
Adjutant.
Having investigated the allegations, the Army Adjutant in question will
decide whether or not there is a case to answer. If the Army Adjutant's
enquiries suggest that a case should be brought to Court Martial, and the
defendant holds the rank of Bvt Colonel or lower, then he will inform the
appropriate Inspector General (of Infantry where the case to be brought is
against an infantryman, and of Cavalry where the case to be brought is
against a cavalryman, with members of the Guards Brigade being considered
Cavalry due to their mounted infantry role). The Inspector General will
serve as judge in the resultant Court Martial. The Army Adjutant will submit
the case for the prosecution. The defendant will appoint a brother officer
as Council for the Defence, who will present the case for the defence.
Having heard the evidence the Inspector-General will pass judgement and, if
the defendant is found guilty, hand down an appropriate sentence - which may
range from being shot where major infractions such as mutiny are concerned,
to being fined, drummed out of his regiment, serving with a Frontier
regiment for a time and so on.
Officers having the rank of (full) Colonel or above will treated in the same
way, except that it will be the Minister of War who sits in judgement rather
than one of the Inspector-Generals.
[OOC: NPC Army Adjutants would bring a case before a Court Martial on a roll
of 7+ and NPC IGs/MoWs would reach a guilty verdict on a roll of 7+.
Sentences handed down by NPCs would be as per an NPC MoS in treason trials]
=====================
I hope Your Majesty will consider the above and find it to be an equitable
system for Military Justice to adopt. With the Army Adjutants being
appointed by the Army Commanders, whilst those sitting in judgement are the
person or the appointees of the Minister of War, I would hope that the
possibility of spurious charges of a personal nature being brought would be
minimised.
I would also, with Your Majesty's permission, like to suggest that the
disciplinary powers of Colonels be extended. In the current situation, the
only means of enforcing discipline which Regimental Commanders may exercise
is to ensure that wrongdoers find themselves permanently at the front.
Unfortunately, in many cases this entails parties who are completely
innocent of any wrongdoing having to share the same punishment.
As Your Majesty will be aware, Colonels have the unquestioned right of veto
regards who is allowed to join their respective regiments. Unfortunately, it
sometimes happens that a gentleman's background and references ensure
admission but are then found to be less than accurate, with the result that
an unfortunate Colonel can find himself saddled with a gentleman who is
completely unsuited to the military traditions of his regiment. The way
things stand at present, there is little the Colonel can do about such a
situation, so I would propose to allow Colonels the right dismiss members of
their regiments should they so desire.
To ensure that this power is used properly, however, I would allow those
dismissed the right of appeal to their Army Adjutants. Should the Adjutant
feel that there is a case of wrongful dismissal he may refer the matter to
the appropriate Inspector-General who will convene a Court Martial to
consider it, the Colonel in quesiton prosecuting in this case rather than
the Army Adjutant.
I hope that Your Majesty will find the above proposals to be of interest and
look forward to hearing Your Majesty's views on these matters at Your
Majesty's convenience.
Your Majesty's Most Loyal and Devoted Subject,
General le Duc Alain de Mylcandonai
Minister of War
