Trial of Pierre Séguier, Minister of Justice

[Louis XIV]

The charge is that on March 1st the accused, Pierre Séguier, Minister of Justice did attempt to bribe Lord Bastian Anton De’Ath, Viscomte de Plomey in his official office as Commissioner of Public Safety.

The Minister of State has appointed Mssr le Boursier,esq to prosecute the bribery charge.

The Minister of Justice has retained Mssr de Croiseus, esq to defend him against the bribery charge.

Father Adam de la Bassee and Father William Souris will testify for the prosecution.

[Louis XIV]

His Eminence Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu (Judge) opened the trial and invited the prosecutor to give an opening statement

Lord Bastian Anton De’ath, Commissioner for Public Safety (BAD) immediately stood from his seat in the gallery and move forward. “Your Grace!”

A startled Mssr le Boursier, the prosecutor reflexive admonished BAD with the utterance “Eminence!”

An undeterred BAD continued, “Your Eminence, This is a most grave case and one made far graver by the fact the accused is a government minister. Standing before you today is a man who has disgraced the very institution of national government, a man who has brought shame to the post of government minister and a man who many suspect may…”

Judge - “SILENCE! Lord De’Ath you do not have standing with this court. You are neither the accused nor a witness. As the arresting authority you are precluded by law from presenting testimony at trial. Be seated before I find you in contempt of court!”

BAD retreated to the gallery, shoving a wad of crumpled papers at the prosecutor.

Judge – “Mssr. le Boursier, you may proceed.”

Prosecutor – “Hmm? Oh yes your Eminence,” There followed an extended silence as the prosecutor smoothed the pages he was given. “Umm…Bribery…audcacity to come to my personal office at the Bastille…er… the COMMISSIONER’S office, not mine of course. I have a lovely office in a building overlooking the Seine…

The Judge cleared his throat audibly and gave the prosecutor an expectant look.

Prosecutor – “Yes, quite…” more shuffling of papers “ah…Lyon is another great rogue…um…no he isn’t on trial…err…Wait! I have it. So I tell him this is bribery Sir, bribery of a loyal government official, one pledged to protect the Country’s laws and reputation. NO! Not me, him,” pointing at BAD, “Not that I am not pledged to protect the Country…er…The Crown rather, I am a loyal servant to his Majesty and your Eminence…”

The drumming of the judge’s fingers was quite audible by now.

Prosecutor (coloring slightly) – “…picture of shame and embarrassment as he knew he had been suppered and was not…I am sorry the handwriting is legible at this point…old Bastian here! I, Bastian rather, got the warrant drawn up as soon as I could, unfortunately there was a small error of detail upon the actual warrant itself…more scribbling…ah there… make mention of more later in the proceedings, for now it’s just the bribery charge though.”

At this point BAD looks across at the defendant and gave a disconcerting smile, tapped his hip pocket and then drew his finger across his neck.

Prosecutor - “Your Grace, EMINENCE, this really is what we in the prosecution business call ‘an open and shut case’, the facts speak for themselves. I speak as your Public Safety Commissioner, HE speaks as your Public Safety Commissioner, yes, he acknowledges too that he am, is, is the very best docteur that Paris has to offer, that he is a man of prestigious social standing and a chap who has held a volume…”

Judge – “Is there a point to all of this Monsieur?”

Prosecutor – “I’m sure I don’t know.”

Judge – “Then skip to the end”

A final shuffling of papers

Prosecutor – “I trust upon your most sensible and enlightened wisdom to find the rogue, er the defendant, guilty”

Visible relived, the prosecutor returned to his seat.

Judge – “Does the defending counsel have an opening statement.”

Mssr de Croiseus (Defender) – “Yes, but not one nearly so colorful”

Laughed from the gallery. Pounding from the judge’s gavel.

Judge – “Silence. Proceed Mssr de Croiseus.”

Defender – “Your Eminence, we intend to show that the accusation is without merit or evidence to support the charge. Mssr Séguier, an esteemed minister and long standing servant of the Crown, was engaged on affairs of State at the time of the alleged bribery. The commissioner’s charges are born of something nefarious. We are confident of a total and complete acquittal.

[Louis XIV]

Prosecutor – “We have evidence of the accused’s profligate lifestyle, that he freely spent the money that he obtained through illicit means, and that this pattern of behavior leads unexoriably to his attempt to bribe the Commissioner for Public Safety.”

BAD (from the gallery) – “The Honest and Uncorruptable Commissioner for Public Safety.”

Prosecutor – “Yes, honest and INcorruptible.”

Judge – “And this evidence is?”

Prosecutor – “From a source of impeccable integrity! I call to the stand…Father Adam de la Bassee!”

Silence descends upon court room.

Prosecutor – “ahem… I call to the stand Adam de la Bassee!!”

More silence.

Prosecutor (desperately gesturing to courtroom’s double doors) – “Adam de la Bassee!!!”

The gallery turns to await the entrance of Father Adam

Judge (dryly) – “Perhaps you might try calling upon the Almighty?”

Prosecutor (waving towards BAD) – “Your Eminence, I am certain that Father Adam is detained by official duties and will be here momentarily.”

Judge – “Perhaps you would give us a preview of the Father’s testimony?”

Prosecutor – “Father Adam, in his new role as Chancellor has discovered a series of transactions where the accused would donate a large sum to the Diocese. And yet the accounts did not show the requisite increase in balance.”

Defender – “Objection your Eminence. It is not uncommon for a God-fearing Frenchman to make donations to the church and surely the accounting of the Diocese balances is not a matter that my client has responsibility for. Perhaps the absent Father Adam should see to his own chancery rather than make unfounded accusations.

Judge – “Mssr le Boursier, do you have the Diocese accounts to enter into evidence?

Prosecutor (deflated) – “I do not, your Eminence.”

Judge – “Then you shall have need to pray that Father Adam arrives before the end of the trial.”

[Louis XIV]

Prosecutor – “Please state your name for the record.”

Father William Souris (WS) – “I am Father William Souris, Parish Priest of Saint-Josse in the Diocese of Bas-Ville

Prosecutor – “What is your opinion of the accused?”

WS – “I am merely a Priest, and I view all sins as things that should be avoided. Some may not follow such a simple and direct policy. Some may not be men of faith. The Minister of Justice is such a man.”

Prosecutor – “How did you arrive at such an opinion of the accused?”

WS – “I was asked to testify at the Trial, when all I knew of the Minister was what I was told by my tutor - before I left to come to Paris. Such evidence is, I would think, not presentable. Yet my tutor has passed on to his Reward, and so I considered it my duty to make testimony on his behalf.”

Prosecutor – “Did anything else, aside from moral obligation, inspire you to testify?”

WS – “Days after I had announced my intention to testify for the prosecution, I was approached by a servant with a bag of silver, asking me to testify FOR the accused. ‘No doubt 30 coins’, I said scornfully. To my surprise the servant sneered and said ‘nay, three HUNDRED’. Well - it could have been 300 thousand, and I would still have rejected the bribe! In my view, a man who seeks to bribe witnesses to avoid the consequences of his impious acts must be punished to the full extent of the Law.”

Prosecutor – “I thank you, Father, for your most valuable testimony.”

Judge – “Your witness Mssr de Croiseus”

Defender – “Thank you, your Eminence. Father William, were you present in the office of the Commissioner for Public Safety when the alleged bribery took place?

WS – “I was not.”

Defender – “Then when did you become aware of the charge against the accused?”

WS – “When it was published in La Voix de Paris.”

Defender – “And you make the pronouncements defaming my client based on your direct, personal knowledge?”

WS (rather irritated) – “No, as I said what I know of the Minister was conveyed to me by my tutor before he died.”

Defender – “Have you ever met my client?”

WS – “He is, I believe, a parishioner in the Diocese of Premy. I would not have met with him in the course of my duties as a priest and I have been fortunate to have been spared any social dealing with the cad.”

Defender – “So your testimony as to the character of my client is based solely on second-hand innuendo from a source that is conveniently unable to defend such claim in this court.”

There is a pause before WS replies – “As I indicated, I have never had direct dealings with the accused.”

Judge – “You have made your point Monsieur. Move along.”

Defender – “Let us turn to the matter of the alleged bribery attempt on yourself for which I point out to the court that my client is NOT accused of.”

Judge – “So noted.”

The Defender inclined his head toward the Judge in grateful acknowledgement before continuing – “You say that your decision to testify against my client was inspired by an attempt by a servant to bribe you into testifying for my client.”

WS – “Indeed.”

Defender – “Did you recognize the servant?”

WS – “What gentleman has the need to recognize another’s servant?”

Laughter from the gallery. Pounding from the Judge’s gavel.

Defender (smiling) – “Quite. How did you know that the servant was in the employ of my client?

WS – “He told me so.”

Defender – “And you believed him?”

WS – “Who would dare to put their mortal soul in danger by lying to a priest?”

Defender – “In your own words, some may not follow a simple and direct policy of avoiding sin. Some may not be men of faith.”

WS shifts uncomfortably in the dock.

Defender – “Do you have any other evidence that the servant was acting at the direction of my client.”

WS – “I do not.”

Defender – “So in truth, the man could have been from someone with an agenda against my client. Someone who would prey upon the simple naivety of a man of the cloth to further his own schemes against an honest and upright servant of the Crown.”

At this point, the Commissioner for Public Safety threw a shoe at the Prosecutor to get his attention.

Prosecutor – “OUCH! What? Oh, dear! Objection your Eminence!”

Judge – “On what grounds?”

Prosecutor – “Er...he is making…my witness look bad?”

The Judge and Defender stare at the Prosecutor in disbelief.

Judge – “You have made your point Mssr de Croiseus. Move along.”

Defender – “Nothing further your Eminence.”

Judge – “Do you wish to redirect, Mssr le Boursier?”

Prosecutor (muttering) – “Boy would I ever.”

Silence as the court awaits the Prosecutor.

Prosecutor (suddenly jumping to his feet) – “Oh, right now? Yes! Father William didn’t you say that the money you received was wrapped in a handkerchief with the initials of the accused embroidered on it?”

WS – “I said that I refused the bribe.”

Prosecutor – “IF you refused the bribe then how did you come into possession of this!” (waves a handkerchief about enthusiastically)

WS – “I’ve never seen that before in my life!”

Prosecutor – “DO NOT LIE! IT IS UNBECOMING IN A PRIEST!”

WS (angrily) – “I DO NOT LIE! I never received that handkerchief because I NEVER ACCEPTED the proffered coin! Besides, there is no way that 300 coins would fit in so small a handkerchief!

The Prosecutor stops short as he realizes the truth of Father William’s statement. Strangled choking noises were heard to emanate from BAD in the gallery.

Judge – “Mssr le Boursier, you do realize that Father William is a witness FOR the prosecution.”

Prosecutor – “Umm, yes your Eminence. I am afraid that I got rather carried away. No further questions.”

Judge – “Father William, the court (or at least the Defense) thanks you for your testimony. You may step down.”

[Louis XIV]

Defender – “How long have you know my client?”

François de Bonne, Duke de Lesdiguières, Minister of War (FdB) – “I first made his acquaintance in the Summer of 1633 when he was appointed Keeper of the Seals.”

Defender – “And how often have you had dealings with my client?”

FdB – “Since he was appointed Minister of Justice in December 1635, I have had regular contact with Mssr Séguier through frequent meetings as senior ministers in the royal cabinet.”

Defender – “Have you formed an opinion as to the character of my client?”

FdB – “He strikes me as a most forthcoming and loyal servant of His Majesty. His devotion and integrity are never in doubt.”

Defender – “What was your reaction when you heard of the accusations against my client?”

FdB – “Shock and disbelief. I have never in my experience seen or heard of Mssr Séguier stooping to so low a tactic as bribing a subordinate.

Defender – “You believe that he would not bribe the Commissioner for Public Safety?”

FdB – “Why would he need to? As Minister of Justice, he has the authority to decide what cases the State will prosecute. If he had wanted to shield Lord Lyon from charges of….whatever…he would simple dismiss the charges. However, I have never observed that he would dismiss any charges of crimes against the Crown.

Defender – “Surely it is possible that my client could have commit the crime of which he stands accused?”

FdB – “It is quite impossible.”

Defender – “Why, your Grace, do you say it is impossible?”

FdB – “Because at the time he was supposed to have been offering the bribe, he was in meetings with the other senior ministers, myself included, in preparation for Government meetings in the first three weeks of March.”

Defender – “Are you saying that you vouch for the whereabouts of Mssr Séguier during the time of the alleged bribery?”

FdB – “Exactly.”

Defender – “No further questions your Eminence.”

Judge – “Do you wish to cross-examine, Mssr le Boursier?”

Prosecutor – “Yes, your Eminence. Lord de Bonne, you say that you can account for the accused’s presences at the meeting of the senior minister on the 1st of March for the entire day? That he never excused himself?

FdB – “The Minister of Justice did excuse himself shortly after lunch to relieve himself.”

Prosecutor – “Then it is entirely possible that he was able to make his way to the Bastille to bribe the Commissioner!”

FdB – “I don’t see how. The Minister of Justice was only absent for about 10 minutes. Hardly enough time, even on horseback, to travel to the Bastille and back to the Palais de Louvre.”

Prosecutor – “Surely he returned in an exhausted state, quite out of breath from his exertions and possessed of a guilty continence?”

FdB – “He did depart in some haste but upon his return his aire was one of contentment.”

Prosecutor – “AH HA! He was content that he had succeeded in his attempt to bribe the Commissioner!”

Defender – “Objection your Eminence. The prosecutor is not asking a question of the witness.”

Judge – “Sustained. Mssr le Bouriser, the charge it that the accused ATTEMPTED bribery, not that he succeeded…Unless you wish to include the Commissioner for Public Safety in the prosecution?”

More strangled sounds from BAD in the gallery.

Prosecutor – “No, your Eminence. I was momentarily mistaken. Lord de Bonne, isn’t it possible that you are mistaken about the time the accused was absent or indeed that he attended the meeting at all?”

FdB (testily) – “No, my statement about the attendance of the Minister of Justice can be verified by the Minister of State, the Controller General of Finance, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

Prosecutor – “And yet, none of them chose to appear in court today!”

Silence descends upon the court yet again.

Judge (finally breaking the silence) – “As the presiding official over this trial, it would hardly be appropriate for me to testify, isn’t that correct Mssr le Bouriser?

Prosecutor (turning red) – “Yes your Eminence. No further questions.”

Judge – “Your witness, Mssr de Croiseus.”

Defender – “Your Grace, had my client been rebuffed by the Commissioner, what would you expect his behavior to be like?”

FdB (thoughfully) – “Disconcerted, I suppose, or perhaps angry.”

Defender – “But his attitude was not one of guilt?”

FdB – “It was not”

Defender – “No further questions, your Eminence”

[Louis XIV]

Prosecutor (reading from a prepared speech) – “Your Eminence, we have heard how the accused character has been shown to be vile cad who will stoop to any low measure to defile his office and the King. We have record of his attempts to use the church to hide his bribery.  Testimony has been given by Father Souris and Father la Basse, fine men of the cloth who are publicly acclaimed as bastions of the church, men of the utmost integrity and standing, men who don’t turn up in a Court of Law to tell anything other than the truth!  Both worthy servants of Christ have spoken out against the villainy of the accused, demonstrating through their noble actions the Almighty himself declares a guilty verdict, and which mere mortal man would defy the will of the most divine?"

We have shown that the accused had the opportunity, motive and means to commit the crime of which he is accused. We demand that you find the accused guilty on all counts and imposed the harshest penalties!”

BAD was observed smiling contently while mimicking playing a violin.

[Louis XIV]

Defender – “Your Eminence, the prosecution maintained in his opening statements that this is an “open and shut case” and I cannot agree more. It is in favor of the defendant, however, rather than his accuser. The prosecution alleged a meeting that did not occur, implied records of financial misdeed that were never produced, physical evident that could not have possibly been used in the perpetration of the crime, and relies on the supposed testimony of a dead man as to the character of my client. There is simply no evidence that the alleged bribery took place.”

“The defense has disproven every one of the prosecution’s points, shown that the accused had no reason to bribe a subordinate, provided a verified alibi for the accused whereabouts during the alleged meeting in the Commissioner’s office, and given testimony from living individuals with direct knowledge of the defendant as to his good character.”

“Given the preponderance of evidence in favor of the defendant, I feel confident that you will return a verdict of Not Guilty.”

[Louis XIV]

Judge – “After carefully consideration of the evident presented by the Prosecution and the Defense, I have settled upon a verdict of Not Guilty and absolve the Defendant of any wrongdoing.”

BAD – “Your Grace!”

The Entire Gallery – “EMINENCE!”

BAD – “DOH! Your Eminence, this is a preposterous verdict, clearly, you’ve been either drugged or are in on it with Lyon and his mates?! Don’t think you’ll be outsmarting me in the future, I’ve got you marked, and your name is going onto my little ‘black scroll’ of national security threats! You’ll be hearing from me again, rest assured.”

Judge (banging his gavel) – “Lord De'Ath, I strongly suggest that you tread carefully with your slanderous accusations least you be arrested for contempt of His Majesty’s Court.”

BAD (continuing undeterred and point at the acquitted Minster of Justice) - “You sir, you sought to have me silenced, the very laws of our proud country besmirched by your foul deeds. Time has caught up with you and you’ll not be leaving this court a free man as I hereby charge you with ‘Attempted Murder of the Commissioner of Public Safety’, i.e. me (!), and under arrest you shall be….guards, seize him and take the wretch to the Bastille…to one of those deep dungeon cells”.

Judge (continuing to bang his gavel) – “Lord De'Ath, your arrest is duly noted but Mssr Séguier has demonstrated his willingness to answer charges against him. I believe that we can dispense with the stay in the Bastille.