Bang's Indictment of Queen Caroline Matilda.
After a short introduction, the accuser proceeds in the following terms:—
The command of my king alone could induce me to write against her Majesty the Queen, and it is with a feeling of the deepest submission, with horror and grief, that I here investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and the proof that she has broken her marriage vow.
I am emboldened to indict her Majesty, because the king's marriage bed must be kept pure and unsullied before that of all others. This the king can demand as a husband, and he must assert it for the honour of his house and the welfare of his nation.
As husband, he has the right of the compact on his side; as the first of his house, he is bound to guard the antiquity, supremacy, respect, honour, and purity of the Danish royal family. Who is there that is ignorant of the virtues of this exalted royal family! But, if a foreign race were grafted on the royal stem, and the descendants of lackeys were to bear the name and supremacy of the king, would not its antiquity cease, its supremacy disappear, its respect be lost, its honour be insulted, and its purity sullied?[71]
For the sake of his nation the king must demand this. The inhabitants of Denmark and Norway have sworn fidelity, obedience, and allegiance to the descendants of Frederick III., and all our progeny will do so after us. But would we or our posterity so submissively subject ourselves to descendants of Queen Caroline Matilda, who are not at the same time scions of Christian VII.? What a source of troubles! Hence, his Majesty, as husband in his house, as first of his sex, and as king in his land, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation, simultaneously demand that the justice and strictest loyalty, which alone animate this commission, should, in accordance with the laws of God, of nature, and of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which bound her Majesty Caroline Matilda to our Christian VII.
I will not speak in this affair, but allow her Majesty herself to speak: I will let the person speak, who, by her Majesty's confession has uttered the truth; I will let facts, and lastly witnesses, speak.
On March 9 last, her Majesty at Kronborg Castle, replied to the three questions submitted to her by the plenipotentiaries appointed by her lord the king. To question 2, her Majesty acknowledged that she had broken the marriage vow which she made to his Majesty; and to question 3, her Majesty acknowledged that she had thus forfeited her marriage rights.
Count Struensee, on February 21 last, replied, after long reflection and with great agitation, to question 239 laid before him by the commission, whether the intimacy between Queen Caroline Matilda and himself had gone as far as it can go between two persons of different sexes—
"As all the circumstances are so incriminating that even if the greatest intimacy had not existed, still appearances would prove it, he confessed that it was difficult to resist opportunity and the natural weakness of women, but he begged the commission, in consideration of his mental emotion, to spare him more detailed reminiscences."
Count Struensee repeated this confession on February 25 with more ample details, and then signed it with his own hand.
Count Struensee's full confession was laid before her Majesty on March 9, and its truth acknowledged by her.
These confessions, so ample and concordant, made in the presence of the royal commissioners, might in themselves be regarded as sufficient proof in accordance with the article of the law that "it is not sufficient that the accused person herself should confess her guilt, because it is often found that many persons make false statements, in order that the one may get away from the other, and injure him or her, with whom he or she confesses to have sinned."
The quoted presumption, that the one might wish to get rid of the other, cannot be applied to her Majesty, and the same is the case with the second part of the article, "in order to injure the person with whom the sin has been committed;" therefore, the entire supposition of the law, that the accused might bear false witness against him, or her, self, is not applicable. As, moreover, all the circumstances which were in this case stated in Count Struensee's confession, and acknowledged by the queen, have been proved by clear evidence and numerous other data, which are always the precedents, companions, and results of such an illicit intercourse, it is my most humble duty to lay all these things before the commission.
Thus, the answers of Count Struensee to questions 3, 4, and 5, relating to the time and way in which he entered the queen's apartments, the ensuing warnings and short abstinence are proved by the evidence of witnesses. The wives of Councillors Blechinberg and Schiötte, who were at that time maids of honour to her Majesty, and bed-chamber woman, Anna Petersen, declare that in the winter of 1769 and the beginning of 1770 they formed suspicions from Struensee's repeated and long visits to the queen, and maid Petersen more especially noticed that the door of the dark passage, which leads from the queen's bed-chamber to the hermitage (Mezzanine floor), was opened on some nights and merely left ajar; and the deceased lackey Hansen also remarked how he had heard this door opened at night. After talking together, and consulting Councillor Blechinberg and the deceased Hansen, they sought to acquire a certainty in the matter, more especially as they knew that no one but the queen could open this door, as none else except a bed-chamber woman had a key to it. With this object they put wax in the keyhole, and bits of paper between the hinges, and at the same time placed wax in the wards of the key, which lay on the queen's toilette table. They then found on each occasion next morning that the wax had fallen both out of the keyhole and the wards, and the paper slipped out of the hinges on to the floor, and thus acquired a certainty that the door had been opened during the night. The waiting maid also strewed powder on the boards of the dark passage in the evening, and on the next morning all the witnesses saw marks of large feet in the powder up to the door of the queen's bedroom, and thence to the bed. In the morning, when such footsteps were found in front of the bed, maid Petersen and maid Bruhn, now Councilloress Blechinberg, came in to make the queen's bed, and called in maid Horn, now Councilloress Schiötte.[72]
Grieved for her Majesty's beloved name and reputation, and terrified by the awful consequences of this daring deed, in which they feared they might be innocently entangled, they resolved, after due reflection and with masculine resolution, to lay their sorrows and most devoted submission at her Majesty's feet.[73] Hence the two maids, Bruhn and Horn, one day with quaking hearts and tear-laden eyes approached her Majesty, who ever then as now had a heart full of kindness, and asked them, with emotion, what was the matter with them, and if she, the queen, had done anything to grieve them? This gracious reception still more aroused in these faithful servants all the feelings of reverence and devotion, with which they were filled at that time. Maid Horn, who was so affected that she was unable to speak, left the execution of their mutual design to maid Bruhn, upon which the queen leaped from her seat, threw her arms round maid Bruhn's neck, and said, "Tell me, dear Bruhn, what is the matter with you?" This command of her Majesty loosened maid Bruhn's tongue. "There is a report," she said, "that Struensee spends the night with your Majesty. We feel so grieved at it, because it is stated that the two queens dowager and the council are aware of it, and purpose interfering." The maids then hinted that they were acquainted with the story of the door leading to the Mezzanine, and wished that the whole rumour might be unfounded. The queen asked them whether they believed it; requested to speak with Struensee at once, who, as she said, would soon find a remedy; and, in conclusion, asked, "Do you think that the rumour will die out, if I do not let him come so often? I cannot entirely abandon him, as that would arouse too much attention."
Her Majesty's confessions dispense me from making any reflections on this head.
After the queen had consulted with Struensee on the same day, she said to her waiting-women, "Do you know that any one who speaks in such a way about her queen can be punished by the loss of her tongue?"
After this incident, the intercourse between the queen and Struensee ceased for about a fortnight; but then became worse than before. Still from this time the witnesses noticed no nocturnal passage through the corridor to the Mezzanine, while the familiar and gracious intercourse of the queen with these her maids ceased from this day; so that she only addressed them in the tone of a mistress.
That which her Majesty wished to deny to her maids she confessed, however, to her lady-in-waiting, Von Eyben; for when the latter found the queen one day weeping and in grief, she asked what was the matter with her Majesty; and the queen told her of the conversation with the maids, but confessed that the affair was unfortunately true, and said that Struensee had advised her to bribe her women, which she refused to do; nor would her Majesty follow the advice of her women, and "displace" Struensee.
Among the things which are inseparable from such actions is rumour, which follows them as their shadow. And who is unacquainted with these rumours?
As regards the queen's intercourse with Count Struensee, Professor Berger, now under arrest, declares, that it had appeared to him most suspicious, and Struensee's lodgings highly improper. Struensee had always behaved to her with impropriety, and ventured on excessive familiarity. This improper conduct began first in the city in 1770, was continued in the same year on the Holstein tour, and afterwards on the return of the royal family to Denmark.
Count Brandt declares that in the summer of 1770, while the royal party were in Holstein, the queen was alone one morning early with Count Struensee, and that the latter drove out with her alone in a carriole. The intercourse between them proved in every way that they loved each other; they sought one another, were delighted to meet; in a word, love was revealed in that manner which can be perceived but not described. If at times they quarrelled, Struensee said that the queen was jealous of him, and accused him of not being so amiable as usual, and hence Struensee was always obliged to dance with the oldest ladies at balls. Brandt also declares that Struensee made him a "confidence" of this amourette, and said that he could make love to the queen best at the masquerade.
Fräulein von Eyben, and the sixth, fourth, and twenty-ninth witnesses about Struensee's suspicious intimacy with the queen, assert: "While the court was residing in Holstein in 1770, the queen drove out alone with Struensee, remained away a couple of hours, and did not return till seven o'clock." Furthermore, the two first witnesses declare that once, when they were about to enter the queen's cabinet, they found Struensee seated by her side on the sofa, and that the queen ran toward them and sent them away. Afterwards, the queen told them that the king was so frightened when they, the witnesses, came to the door, that he tried to run out of the room, and that was the reason why she hurried toward them.
Furthermore, they state: In Schleswig, there was a flight of stairs in Gottorp Castle, leading from the queen's retiring-room to Struensee's apartments, which her Majesty frequently made use of. The queen went once, at Frederiksberg, at a late hour of the night, into Struensee's room, which was next to the apartment of the prince royal, where Madame Petersen and Madame Schönberg were.[74] At Frederiksberg, too, Struensee one evening, after he was undressed, put on an over-coat, and in that state went up to the queen's cabinet.—(Cfr. the statements of witnesses, 18, 19, 20.)
Witnesses 2 and 17 have also given very incriminating evidence about Struensee's visits to the queen at a late hour of the night. Thus, during the whole of the summer of 1770, Struensee continually, and generally at unusual hours, visited the queen in his surtout and dirty boots, and frequently sat down on her bed: he drank tea and coffee with her every forenoon; often remained with her till one in the morning on evenings when there was no ball or masquerade, and on the latter evenings even later. He frequently went up the secret stairs to her bedroom unannounced, and on such occasions ordered the waiting-women, contrary to the rule, to retire from the rooms next to the queen's chamber.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 18.)[75]
Struensee acknowledges these facts, though with a certain apology, that he was obliged to hand medicines to the queen, and that he did not remain with her till a late hour of the night. Against this we have the later confession of February 25.
Her Majesty's conversations with her bed-chamber people seem to prove that her heart felt more warmly for another man than for the king her lord. Thus her Majesty, for instance, asked her maids whether they entertained love or sentiments for any man? for if they had such, they ought to follow their object to the gallows or the wheel, or, if it must be, even to Hell. On the maids objecting, but suppose such a person were to prove unfaithful, her Majesty replied: In such a case she would lose her senses, or take her own life. She next praised the good fortune of the maids, who could marry as they pleased, and added, that if ever she became a widow, she would marry a private person whom she loved, even if she were obliged to leave the country and the throne in consequence. On this occasion she showed the witnesses a garnet cross, which she always wore on her bosom, and remarked that there were sentiments connected with it, for she had it from a very dear friend; and when the witness said it must be the king, she answered jeeringly, "Of course, the king."
I do not know in which class to reckon the following fact, whether as forgetfulness of self, or as a fruit of the intercourse with Struensee. Her Majesty often displayed herself perfectly undressed to her chamber women, walking in broad daylight in a room which had windows on both sides, and at a time when the guard mounting was taking place, and then asked the maids whether they had ever seen Eve or Christ? I quote this fact here, because it appears as if this trait originated in the above-mentioned sentiments.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 2, 4, 5, and 6.)
To these strange sentiments, which were probably poisoned by Count Struensee, is attributable the fact, that her Majesty remarked to witness 6, that she was well aware what people said about her, but did not care for it; and further, that there was no harm in a wife being unfaithful to her husband, if he became old, or she had been compelled to marry him. The queen also stated to witness 10, that although she knew what people said of her she would not alter her conduct. About this time, in order to facilitate this improper intercourse, Struensee asked for a passe partout to the palace, which did not belong to his office, as he has confessed.
With the same object the queen's sleeping cabinets at Christiansborg, Frederiksborg, and Hirschholm, were at this time so arranged that people could go from her rooms to Struensee's unnoticed. This was especially the case in the autumn of 1771 at Christiansborg, when the queen's bedroom was removed to the chapel corridor, which could be reached by a private flight of stairs from the Mezzanine. It also deserves mention, that after this bedroom and two other rooms had been prepared, in 1770, for her Majesty's use, by her own orders, a privy passage and stairs, which had always been closed, were opened, and lamps were burning in the passage from three P.M. till eight in the morning, though during the whole period the valets were not allowed to look after the lamps. It was in one of these cabinets over the chapel corridor that her Majesty drank tea and coffee with Struensee in the morning.—(Cfr. the survey of the commissioners.)
The peculiar presents which her Majesty made to Struensee, and received from him in return, are of importance when connected with what the queen has acknowledged. Her Majesty received from Struensee a pair of red-striped garters, which she always insisted on wearing, whether she required them or not, (!) assuring her maids that they were "sentiments' garters." The count confesses that the queen received these garters from him. He alleges that he purchased them in Hamburg, and the queen, seeing them once, kept them, because they were perfumed; but he was paid for them.
Her Majesty also always carried about her person a green case, in which was Struensee's portrait in Indian ink, and allowed no one to see it. When she was delivered at Hirschholm, during the last summer, she asked for this portrait, and gazed at it. On her departure for Kronborg, on January 17, her Majesty took it with her, and when she arrived at the castle she fastened it on her naked body, from which Madame Schönberg dissuaded her. She now keeps it at night under her pillow, for fear lest any one might take it from her.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 5, 6, 10, 12, 13; Maid Arnsberg's answers to question 29, and Struensee's to question 227.)
Among the presents accepted by the queen there was probably a gold cross set with garnets, which her Majesty wore for a long time, and concealed in her bosom, took it out frequently and kissed it, remarking, that it was a present from a dear friend, and that sentiments were attached to it, although Struensee denies ever having seen this cross.[76]
Among Struensee's effects the following valuables were found, which, as he says, the queen gave him:—I. A case containing a concealed miniature of the queen. II. A pin with a large brilliant. III. A ring with an antique. IV. A large brilliant ring. V. A sapphire. And VI. Another large sapphire. Of the last Struensee says that it belongs to the king, but witness 6 declares that it belonged to the queen, who consequently gave it to Struensee. VII. A blue enamelled golden heart, which, as Struensee confesses, the queen gave him once when she was talking about friendship. Of this valuable, witnesses 2 and 4 state that the queen wore it on a watch, which she brought with her from England. Various other data confirm the correctness of the confessions made.
On one occasion the queen had a blue mark on her bosom, which she carefully concealed from the king. At the same time she asked her waiting-women how they supposed the mark was produced? Maid Horn answered, that it looked as if it had come from sucking. The queen laughed, and held her tongue. Modesty and the queen's confession save me from saying anything further on this point.
In the same way the queen once felt a pain in her side, under the breast. Struensee came daily to rub the spot, and the queen would not allow her maids or any one else to be present. When the lady of the bed-chamber spoke with the queen about this, her Majesty became angry, and afterwards said to the maids, that the lady of the bed-chamber treated her like a child, who must not be allowed to be alone with the doctor.—(See the evidence of witness 2.)
It appears to denote an exaggerated intimacy, that Struensee, in the summer of 1771, was present at Hirschholm when the queen was delivered, although it was not his duty, and afterwards dined alone with her, and drank tea on her bed.—(Cfr. evidence of witnesses 6, 7, 10, 12 and 15.)
During the last summer, when the sailors marched to Hirschholm, or at the time when the ox was given—for the witnesses cannot state positively on which of these occasions it was—the queen intended to ride away with Struensee, and ordered her riding-habit to be brought into her room for the night. After she had undressed, and gone to bed in great confusion without a nightcap, she rose again and collected her jewels in a coffer, while orders were sent to the stables to hold her saddle-horse in readiness. (See statements of witnesses 12, 13, and 20, and of Count Brandt.)
Before the queen commenced her journey on January 17 to Kronborg, the first thing she said, when maid Arnsberg announced to her that Count Rantzau was there with several officers, was: "Where is the count?" After this, her most Gracious Majesty ran in her night-dress down the privy stairs to Struensee's rooms, in order to seek the count. As, however, she only found his valet, who was under arrest, she said to the guards that they must fetch the count for her on peril of their heads.
At Kronborg, where her Majesty is now residing, (!) she one night asked maid Arnsberg where the count was; and when the latter answered, "In the citadel," the queen said: "Is he in chains, or does he have anything to eat? does he know that I am at Kronborg?" Hence, then, her Majesty's memory is still burdened with a tender memory of the count.
Such are the confessions and proofs on which this question, unique in its way, is founded. In my indictment I have contented myself with merely writing down and quoting the words of her Majesty, Count Struensee, and the witnesses, in order not to venture reflections of my own, and thus insult the illustrious person against whom my instructions compel me to plead.
I venture to hope that I have written in accordance with the commands given me, without encroaching on the reverence and deep respect which I owe to her Majesty.
And as the witnesses, to whose statements on oath I have appealed, were not examined in her Majesty's exalted presence, owing to the most submissive respect entertained for her Majesty's exalted rank and birth, although by the law this should be done, I expect that her Majesty's advocate, Herr Uldall, will make a declaration to the commission that he has no objections to raise to the credibility of the witnesses; and, as both her Majesty's own acknowledgment, and Count Struensee's confession, have been in every way confirmed by the evidence of the witnesses, there is no reason for believing the confession to be untrue. I, therefore, in the name of his royal Majesty, demand a verdict:—
"That by virtue of the fifth paragraph of the sixteenth section of the third book of the Code, her Majesty Caroline Matilda, shall be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be dissolved, so as not to prevent his royal Majesty, the king, from contracting a new alliance." O. L. Bang.
Copenhagen, March 24, 1772.
Every effort was made to procure evidence against the queen, and yet the result was the wretched pot-pourri which Advocate Bang brought forward. Among others whom it was attempted to suborn was Sarti the composer, who had been music-master to Caroline Matilda. So far, however, from having any such evidence to give as it was sought to extort from him, Sarti declared that the queen's conduct, of which he had numerous opportunities of judging, was marked by the most perfect propriety and decorum, and he utterly repudiated the idea of her guilt.
But the judges had not been appointed to execute justice, but to crush the vanquished, and hence it is not surprising to find that no objection was raised to the utter perversion of the law which Bang displayed throughout his atrocious indictment—an indictment, be it remembered, made in writing, and not publicly announced, because hundreds of respectable citizens would have voluntarily come forward to assert their confidence in the queen's innocence.
CHAPTER X.
THE QUEEN'S DEFENCE.
CAROLINE MATILDA'S FEELINGS—ADVOCATE ULDALL—THE DEFENCE—THE QUEEN'S INNOCENCE—A FAIR TRIAL DEMANDED—CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE—THE LAW OF ADULTERY—VALUE OF EVIDENCE—STRUENSEE'S FAVOUR—FRAULEIN VON EYBEN—TRIFLES LIGHT AS AIR—THE QUEEN'S ATTENDANTS—A FLAW IN THE ARGUMENT—REVERDIL'S APPEAL—THE SENTENCE.
So soon as Advocate Bang had concluded his indictment, the queen's advocate, Uldall, requested an adjournment of the court for eight or ten days, so that he might have sufficient time to consult with his exalted client about the defence to be offered. This being granted, Uldall proceeded to Kronborg, where he had a long, important, and affecting consultation with the queen. The unfortunate princess was standing, at a tender age, and adorned with all the gifts which could have ensured permanent felicity, on the verge of an abyss, in which her honour, her dignity, her peace, would be swallowed up for ever. A single day might tear from her her husband, children, and throne: and she would survive this loss! what fearful reflections! The queen felt them in their full extent: her whole feeling was poured into the expressions in which she depicted to Uldall the terrible images that occupied her mind.
"I should be inconsolable," she said to him, "if the least of my actions could inflict injury on the king, or his monarchy. I was, perhaps, incautious, but never wicked: my sex, my age, the circumstances in which I was, must serve as my apology. I was ever too quiet against suspicion, and this tranquillity may have led me astray. The laws speak against me; I humbly honour their terrible meaning, and feel that they must speak against me from the lips of my judges. I trust that they will lose their sharpness in such mouths. The king, my consort, must confirm their sentence. Oh! then my whole hope springs into life again! He will not repulse me, he will not hurl me into endless misery."
The queen's tears and sighs frequently interrupted this affecting speech; and at last she found some rest, more in her own weakness than in any alleviation of the painfulness of her feelings. She addressed Uldall with greater calmness, and arranged with him the arguments he should employ in her defence.[77]
The second session of the Extraordinary Council was held on April 2, and the following defence was submitted:—
Uldall's Defence of Queen Caroline Matilda.[78]
With unfeigned emotion I proceed to the fulfilment of the duty which the welfare of the queen, and the will of the king, impose on me.
The dignity of these exalted personages, the importance and consequences of the affair, the zealous wish to do my duty, and a reasonable apprehension that I shall not be able to do so properly, sufficiently justify my sorrow at being compelled to see the queen lay off her purple, descend from the throne, and, like the most wretched of women, seek protection from the law. Can there possibly be a more affecting example of the insecurity of human happiness? She, in whose person we do homage to the blood of so many kings, is suspected of having dishonoured it. She who gave the king her hand and heart, is accused by the man who, at that time, promised to be her lord and protector. She, who by the unanimous verdict of the nation, received the name of mother of the country, is tried by those men who at that day would have joyfully shed their blood for her. So unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the Queens of Denmark! At an age, and gifted with all the qualities, which seemed to determine her felicity, she finds herself on the verge of an abyss, in which her honour, her dignity, and her peace may be lost. What a thought to lose her husband, her children, her throne, on the same day, and to survive the loss! Suspected, accused, in danger of leading the most wretched life for a long course of years: can there be anything more cruel for hearts that are capable of thinking and feeling? Thus the queen regards her fate, and she described it to me, when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:
"I must despair, had my intentions been other than the welfare of the king and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my age, my sex, and my rank must excuse me. I never believed myself exposed to a suspicion, and even, though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. The law requires me to be convicted: my consort has granted me this, and I hope he will, through the mouth of his commissioners, acknowledge that I have not rendered myself unworthy of him."
I quote her Majesty's words exactly as she uttered them, but how much do I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken, the frankness that gave them increased weight, and the trembling voice, which justly claimed compassion. The latter, no one can refuse her without insulting humanity.
Among the charges brought against her Majesty, is the sanctity of the duties imposed on her by her marriage with her royal husband: it has been stated that the king's bed must remain unsullied, that his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of the country, require this. But these truths are so far from affecting the queen, that she demands the strictest investigation ere she can believe that she has acted contrariwise. The more important the duties she had to perform, the more fearful are the consequences of any infraction of them, and the more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that her Majesty has really committed a fault. We may first ask in which manner the honour of the king and his family will be best promoted? By proving the queen guilty, or must it not be sought in her innocence? Has her Majesty, perchance, never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband, and his people; or will it not rather be allowed that from the period when her accusation begins, she proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty should so easily have forgotten herself? And can she, who at that day sought her delight in modesty, virtue, and the veneration and affection of the king and the country, have banished all noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?
Advocate Bang produces, in the king's name, three varieties of proofs against the queen: Count Struensee's statement, her Majesty's confession, and, as he knew that neither was sufficient, the evidence of witnesses.
Assuredly, Count Struensee, on February 17 and 25, as the documents prove, made a statement of a most insulting nature to her Majesty. But that he forgot the reverence due to the queen, that either through unfounded alarm, confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself, if he could cause the queen to be regarded as interested in his affair, or for other reasons he has made absurd allegations, can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the assurance that he, if the queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to misuse it in so extreme a way, and that her Majesty should have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by it. And how improbable it is, that such a thing should have gone on for two whole years at court, under the eyes of the king, and in the presence of so many spies? They are accusations made by a prisoner not on his oath, and are utterly destitute of probability.
Advocate Bang allows that Count Struensee's declaration in itself is of no weight against the queen, and hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which her Majesty made on March 9, as to the correctness of Struensee's declaration, partly through her answer that she had broken her marriage vows and, hence, lost her marriage rights, which he wishes to be regarded as perfect proof after the law 1—15—1. Certainly, in all civil causes, a confession is the most perfect form of proof: but in criminal matters, and such as we are now trying, the Danish code completely rejects this evidence, when it says: "It is not sufficient that the accused person should himself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court and properly prove the offence."
Other proofs, consequently, are requisite; and as it is his Majesty's wish that the law alone shall be followed in this cause, and the judgment be founded on the evidence, it is self-evident that the queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects.
The letter of the law is clear, and does not admit of the slightest doubt. Hence it will be quite unnecessary to examine the motives which induced the Danish legislator to make this regulation. I will not speculate whether the respect and authority which the law grants to one sex over the other—fear of its abuse on the one hand and of excessive compliance on the other—an anxiety to prevent the dangerous consequences of precipitation and inattention, &c., may have had their share in it. As, however, the king's advocate remarks that her Majesty cannot appeal to this law, because it is based on two legal reasons, neither of which affects the queen, I must clear up the incorrectness of this conclusion. Though the law states that it is not enough for the accused party to make a confession, and adds: "Because it is often found that many persons make false statements, so that the one may get rid of the other, or injure the person with whom he or she declares to have committed a crime," I will humbly urge that these are not the sole motives why the law rejects a confession in this case, as is clearly shown; for it adds directly after the words quoted, "or for the sake of other things." Although, therefore, the law only mentions expressly some of the motives for its regulation, it is clear that it had various others in addition to these; and hence the benefit granted to the accused belongs to her Majesty equally in regard of the motives alleged in the law and of those unalleged, and she consequently claims it.[79]
I will now pass over to the third class of proofs, consisting of the statements of persons summoned by the prosecutor as witnesses.
Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined in my presence. But as I also have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence and what it goes to prove, I am obliged to make some prefatory remarks.
It is a remarkable fact that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other motive for the first suspicion against the queen but the town scandal which they had heard. It was not till it became universal that it was mentioned to the queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the queen's person, and yet, in her intercourse with and behaviour toward Struensee, found no reason to believe anything insulting to her, it is clear that the conduct of the queen must have been irreproachable, even at the time when apprehension existed. Everybody knows how deceptive reports are. Such a thing is often founded on nothing; and through its universal propagation alone acquires a certain strength and credibility. But however slippery its path may be, it leaves behind, even with the hardest of belief, the most cautious and best disposed, a suspicion which places the conduct of the persons affected by the report in a perfectly new and different light. The reason for the rumour may be true; the curiosity to acquire a certainty about it attracts attention to things which otherwise would be most innocent, but are now seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, a verdict is at once formed without any further investigation. It was the same with the witnesses in this case; for, although prior to the rumour they had no cause to suspect the queen, they no sooner learnt its existence than they discovered new evidence of it at every step.
This remark is the more important, as the chamber-people of the queen, after they had been informed of the rumour, did not observe those precautions which they should have done.
Instead of at once informing her Majesty, they made all sorts of investigations; and although they found no real criterion which could have confirmed the rumour, their prejudices were sufficiently active to make them regard everything with suspicion.
When her Majesty learnt this fact, she doubtless regarded it as a want of the fidelity they ought to have displayed, and of the good opinion they should have entertained of her. She consequently removed the witnesses from her immediate presence, and partly lost that perfect confidence which she had formerly placed in them. This annoyed the chamber-people, and naturally caused them to judge the actions of her Majesty even more sharply than before.
In the evidence of Frau Schiötte, we find two special instances of this: first, when she pretends that her Majesty's amendment lasted a fortnight after the warning, but that then the thing grew again worse than ever, although Frau Blechinberg says that she noticed nothing suspicious for some weeks after the time; and again, when Frau Schiötte employs the expression that her Majesty gave herself a great deal of trouble about the bolt of a door at Frederiksberg which would not fasten. That the queen had the bolt mended may have been caused by very innocent motives, especially as Frau Schiötte herself confesses that the chamber-people had no orders to close the bolt; but the expression that the queen "gave herself a deal of trouble," or "was wild about it," is excessively improper, and displays an animosity from which a witness ought to be exempt.
As her Majesty, therefore, had such keen observers in those who were about her person, it is not surprising that they should draw different conclusions, which served in confirmation of the ideas by which they were already preoccupied. No innocence is conceivable which would not succumb under such suspicious examination, and the law has foreseen the consequences of this, and recognised the fairness that every one should be safe in his own house and among his own servants. Hence it orders that "such witnesses should not be heeded."[80]
If we now ask what the facts are, by which an improper intimacy carried to extremes between the queen and Count Struensee can be proved from the evidence of the witnesses, the answer is—None. That the queen showed the count favour and confidence, cannot be denied. But who ever saw or heard that they went beyond the limits of honour? Where is the man who is able to say that the queen has broken the fidelity which she owed to her consort, or can mention a single fact which would prove the certainty of such a crime? And does not the silence of all about any convincing act prove the truth of maid Bruhn's answer to question 6, "that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the queen"?
Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own acts. They say, they concluded that Struensee was a long time with the queen, because they were not summoned; they fancied that the queen and Struensee were on familiar terms. But on what are these suppositions founded, except on rumour, and the power which it possessed over the imagination?
It is principally the favour which her Majesty showed to Count Struensee, that caused the suspicions of the witnesses and the conclusions derived from them. He was constantly about the queen, it is said, and in her company. But was he not also about the king, and must not the queen's confidence in him necessarily result from the confidence with which the king honoured him? In this respect the queen appeals in her justification to her consort's feelings, and what striking proofs of his Majesty's favour to Struensee are the offices which were entrusted to him, and the rank to which he was raised! He sought to acquire the queen's confidence in the same way as he had gained the king's. The fidelity which he always displayed toward the king, the attention he paid to the queen when she was unwell, and the devotedness he seemed to entertain, maintained an uninterrupted harmony between their Majesties, and more than all else the king's will, which was a law to the queen, made her believe that she could give Struensee her confidence without peril. His offices as cabinet secretary to the queen, and cabinet minister, required his constant presence, and hence it should not be surprising that he held a greater share of the queen's favour than any other man.
But, the counsel for the prosecution says, the queen is not solely accused on account of her intimacy with Count Struensee; the great point is, that it reached an extremity which dishonoured her consort, and, in order to prove this, he appeals to the evidence of the witnesses.
Before I go through the more material evidence, I must make the highly requisite remark, that a proof by witnesses, according to law, must be supported by not less than two persons on oath, whose statements agree, and who can with certainty give evidence in one and the same matter. In accordance with this, the proofs of the learned counsel must be placed in two general categories; some of them cannot, according to law, be accepted as evidence at all, while others do not prove what they are intended to prove.
To the first class belong especially the statements of Professor Berger, Count Brandt, and Fräulein von Eyben; those of the former, because they were not made on oath and before the judges; those of the latter, because they are only supported by one person, for in her answer to question 7 there is a complaint about the queen, that her Majesty appeared to regard her as a dangerous person; and lastly, because her Majesty declares that she never made such a "confidence" to the witness as her answers to questions 41 and 42 reveal, but all that the queen said to her was a remark perfectly natural for a lady who believes herself above all suspicion: "that it would be ridiculous to abandon Count Struensee on account of an unfounded report."[81] In this class must also be placed several other circumstances—for instance, that at Gottorp Castle there was a flight of stairs leading from the queen's room to Struensee's—that the 4th witness merely said that one night she heard the queen come out of Struensee's room, while witnesses 8 and 9 say "she came up the stairs," and they naturally could not know from whom the queen came, and whether she might not have been with one of her ladies—that Struensee one night at Frederiksberg put on a surtout and went in that state to the queen, for witnesses 18, 19, and 20, state they did not know where he went—that the queen was once seen in Struensee's room, which is only asserted by witness 20—that her Majesty remarked she did not care what people said, for the statements of witnesses 6 and 20 differ as to the time when the remark was made and the words used—that Struensee obtained a passe partout to the palace, for it was not done by the queen's orders—that the queen was once nursed by him, when she had a pain in her side, for one witness alone mentions this—that her Majesty went to the theatre because Struensee begged her to do so, of which, however, Fräulein Trolle, who was present, knows nothing—that her Majesty used scented powder—was once once out of sight of the maids of honour at a masquerade, and so on: for such trifles would never have been brought against her Majesty had not the witnesses been prejudiced.
In the proofs of the second class, we have in the first line the statements of the women Blechinberg and Schiötte, and of maid Petersen, about the opening of the door leading to the Hermitage (Mezzanine), and their experiments with wax on the key, and powder in the corridor, about the footsteps found here and in the bedroom, and the state of the bed at a time when the king had not been there, and his door was locked, on which the counsel bases his charge.
Even if all this evidence was trustworthy, it would not prove that her Majesty was guilty. But one of the facts alleged by the witnesses proves in itself how little ground for suspicion there is in all these charges. The second witness, Frau Blechinberg, says, that at the time when this occurred, the maids slept close to the queen's bedroom, and had free access to it. How incredible does it seem that her Majesty should have exposed herself so openly, as she would have done by committing any impropriety in such a situation? And if we examine the details more closely, it results that her Majesty possessed the key of the Mezzanine door since her first arrival here. Frau Schiötte is, therefore, in error when she states that the queen asked for it afterwards, and that she used it several times, though rarely; and hence it is very possible that the door remained unlocked. Although it is quite natural that the wax in the key, or keyhole, or the paper in the crack must fall out if the door was opened, the witnesses are quite unable to assert that the key was used, and the door opened, only in the night. Why could not this have happened equally well by day, before they went to look? The footsteps in the powder deserves equally slight attention; for lackey Torp declares that his post was in the Mezzanine, and lackey Hansen, according to maid Petersen, once showed her that the door leading to it was open, which proves that various men entered the corridor. It is not said, either, whence the footsteps came, or that they went to the door of the queen's bedroom, and just as little did any witnesses hear any one come to this door at night. It is the same with the footsteps alleged to have been seen on the stairs. The witnesses declare that they displayed traces of the powder, but Struensee would not have gone in such an "uncleanly" condition to the queen even at night. The marks are said to have been seen on the next morning. But are the witnesses fully convinced that these footsteps were not made on the previous day or evening, or that the king, whose servants had the key of the outer corridor, had not been there, although he might not have been seen in the queen's apartments? It is true, they state they always knew when the king was there; but on what is this knowledge based? Her Majesty declares that it was impossible for her chamber-people to be always cognisant of the circumstance, because the king did not wish them to know it; and hence she herself went in to the king after their Majesties had retired. That the door should be bolted was the usual case long before the time of the supposed intrigue; on some occasions it was caused by a trifling dispute between their Majesties; but most frequently because the queen was afraid lest the black boys or the dogs might come into her room unexpectedly, by which she had been startled several times. If there had been any mystery in it, the king would have been the first to notice the fact.
As this suspicion, which is the chief foundation of the charge, is thus removed, and the rest consists entirely of suppositions, I hope to be able to deal more shortly with the latter.
The arrangement of the apartments for Struensee in Christiansborg Palace was not done by the queen's commands, and the reason why the queen's apartment was converted into a sleeping cabinet was solely not to incommode the king at the period when the queen was suckling the prince herself. Her Majesty declares that she requested the king's permission to do so at Frederiksberg.
What incorrect conclusions witnesses 4 and 7 draw from the queen's anger with them is proved by the evidence of Frau Schiötte, who states that this happened in the summer before they warned the queen, consequently in the year 1769, and hence long before the epoch we are now discussing.
The statement of witnesses 4 and 6, that the queen passed off Struensee for the king is equally incorrect, for the king might have been present without their observing him.
If, as some witnesses state, they saw her Majesty undressed, when she was perhaps bathing or changing her clothes; if she undressed herself without the help of her maids (which was not the case, according to witness 6, however, during the last year), and of which the queen's pregnancy was the cause,—all this is no crime, so long as no one can say that Struensee or other men were present. On the contrary, all the witnesses are agreed that the queen always required very little attendance. Equally little should we feel surprised that Struensee was at times alone with the queen, or sat by her side, if he waited upon her, either by the king's command, or for other reasons. According to the evidence of maid Gabel the chamber-people remained at such times in the room where they happened to be, and from the answer of maid Boye to question 21, and the declaration of Frau Blechinberg, it must be assumed that one of them slept before the queen's sleeping cabinet. If her Majesty jested with her servants about love, her sentiments ought not to be judged from this, for in such a way even a Cato would come short. That she intended to go away with Struensee is a fable that contradicts itself, as it was not apprehended at the time when the sailors proceeded to Hirschholm, for then, as the witnesses say, the queen was perfectly indifferent; but in the days when the ox was given away at Frederiksberg, when there was nothing at all to be alarmed about.
As a physician, Struensee could be present at the queen's accouchement equally well as Berger, and the statement that the queen looked at him, and gazed on his portrait after delivery, is founded partly on the presumptions of the witnesses, partly on untrustworthy statements, as maid Boye saw that Struensee handed the queen an almanack, at which she looked, although maid Boye fancies that there was a portrait in it.
That the queen purchased something of Struensee is a matter of perfect indifference, and if she made him presents, royal personages are accustomed to display their favour in such a way.
That she wished to speak with him in her state of alarm, occasioned by the events of January 17, is not surprising, and that she on one occasion at Kronborg inquired after him, is no proof of a "tendresse," for many thousands who never saw him have asked the same question.
I pass over all the rest as things which are partly unimportant, partly do not affect the queen, or are too improper to be answered. It is sufficient that no proof is derived from all these things, examined singly, that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow. The law requires the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all sorts of self-invented conclusions; and if it were otherwise, her Majesty must regret that her rank and grandeur, which ought to secure her against such danger, are the very things that caused her misfortune.
I may therefore hope that I have shown the innocence of her Majesty the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her justification, and she feels assured of the caution and impartiality of her judges.
For these reasons she awaits the decision demanded by her honour, the king's dignity, and the welfare of the land. I therefore venture most submissively in her Majesty's name to urge—
"That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda, be acquitted from his Majesty the King's accusation, in this matter."
Uldall.
Copenhagen, April 2, 1772.
The defence was certainly clever, and merited the applause with which it is said to have been greeted in foreign countries. But, on reflection, it seems as if the counsel did not touch on the best argument in the cause: that the law refuses a divorce to the husband of a woman guilty of adultery if he has been the seducer; and if, while cognizant of her infidelity, he has continued to cohabit with her. It would have been easy to render this palpable to the king, if he had retained even a remnant of feeling and conscience. Reverdil, who, though he was fully convinced of Caroline Matilda's guilt, felt the most sincere compassion for her, supplies us with an argument which might have been used to the king:—
"Is it not true, Sire, that from the commencement of your marriage up to the moment when the party now in power seized on you and your ministers, you had not the slightest respect for the marriage tie, and that you ever testified to the queen that you dispensed with her fidelity? Did you not invite all your successive favourites to pay their court to her? Did you not say, and prove in a thousand ways, that her affection was troublesome to you, and that your greatest misfortune was in paying attention to her? Your commissioners had the effrontery to ask the queen and Struensee who their accomplices were; in prison and in chains the accused have had the generosity to be silent on your account; but what they have not done your conscience will do, and will tell you that you were the real seducer.
"Remember, Sire, the moment when this princess, whom they wish to make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity. The English left her without any adviser, or a single companion, on your shores. Hardly emerged from childhood, she retained its graces, innocence, and naïveté; but her mind was more cultivated and mature than you expected; you were astonished at it; hearts flew to meet her; her affability and beneficence captivated all classes of the nation. When you had the misfortune to give yourself up to a frivolous and reckless favourite, and to vile companions, who led you into libertinism, she saw herself neglected. You displayed more than indifference toward her. She loved you; she was silent, and maintaining her serenity in public, contented herself with lamenting in private with the grand mistress, whom you had yourself given her as a confidante. Ere long, you envied her even her sole consolation; and this lady, whose sole crime consisted in displaying conduct and principles too austere to please you, was dismissed with the most signal mark of disgrace. Frau von der Lühe, who took her place, was the sister of your favourite. You, doubtless, supposed that this lady would have as much levity and as few principles as her brother; but she foiled your expectations. Without expressly disgracing her, you had her duties performed by women of the most equivocal reputation. What more could a consummate seducer have done? This man, with whom the queen is accused of being too intimate, yourself forced on her when she repulsed him. It was the hope of avoiding the annoyances which your favourites caused her that led her to connect herself with a man who offered his services in drawing you back to her; it was you who removed all the barriers that separated her from him, who diminished the distance, who desired what is now called your disgrace, who have excused and tolerated this liaison; and who, lastly, up to January 17, talked of it as a good joke.
"Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even should the whole world condemn her, you ought to revoke this condemnation through a feeling of self-respect, if not through natural equity."
It is impossible to say whether any one of the thirty-four judges raised his voice in favour of a princess whom they were absolutely obliged to condemn, or whether not one of them dared to touch on so delicate a matter: but the sentence of divorce was pronounced after two sessions of seven hours each. It was not made public, but a rescript was sent to the provincial governors and bailiffs, in which the king informed them that he had repudiated his consort, after a solemn inquiry, in order to repair the honour of his house, and for motives of public welfare. The same tribunal pronounced that the Princess Louisa Augusta should retain the honour due to the daughters of kings. A sealed and secret document was handed at the same time to the Chanceries, which was to be read at the king's death. It doubtless regulated the regency in the event of a minority. Some persons believed that in this will the princess was disinherited: but how could that be so?[82]
The queen's confession was dated March 9: the king's counsel handed in his indictment on the 24th: Uldall's reply was made on April 2: and the sentence was passed on the 6th of the same month. Matters were certainly done very quickly. Baron Juel-Wind, Justiciary of the Supreme Court, received orders to inform the queen of the sentence, which he did on April 9, in the presence of Lieutenant-General von Hauch, commandant of Kronborg.
The original intention was to exile the unfortunate queen to Aalborg, in Jütland, where she was not to be imprisoned, but to have certain restrictions placed on her liberty. As early as February,[83] Colonel Pentz had been sent to examine the castle, and order the necessary repairs. We shall see hereafter how a change in the arrangements was made.
CHAPTER XI.
THE WOLF AND THE LAMB.
THE INDICTMENT OF STRUENSEE—HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION—COARSE JESTS—THE LIAISON WITH THE QUEEN—THE EVIDENCE—BRANDT'S ASSAULT ON THE KING—TREATMENT OF THE PRINCE ROYAL—THE MINISTER OF STATE—ABOLITION OF THE COUNCIL—DISBANDMENT OF THE GUARDS—ALLEGED FORGERY—THE QUEEN'S BOUQUET—THE SENTENCE DEMANDED.
In the meanwhile, Fiscal-General Wiwet received the king's orders on April 2 to indict Counts Struensee and Brandt before the appointed tribunal. As defenders of the accused, Uldall was selected for Struensee, and Bang for Brandt. The Fiscal-General appointed April 10 for the opening of the trial. As, however, some preliminary investigations had to be made, the trial was deferred till April 21, on which day the Fiscal produced his proofs, and the sentence he demanded in writing.
Wiwet's Indictment of Count Struensee.[84]
High and well born, highly noble and well born, gentlemen: most graciously appointed commissioners in the charges against Counts Struensee and Brandt.
I laid before this exalted commission on the 10th of the present month his royal Majesty's most gracious commands to me, to proceed against Counts Struensee and Brandt for their crimes. Hence it is only necessary to deduce, prove, and hand in the indictment for sentence; and as such deduction, proof, and demand of sentence, I most submissively deliver this my memorial.
So certain and true as the proverb generally is, "that severe lords do not reign long," it is equally certain that such severe lords, during their brief authority, can produce as much harm as cannot be redressed in double the length of time.
The Danish and Norwegian subjects have been for many hundred years accustomed to be treated mercifully, as their fidelity and sincerity deserves. The affection and veneration which they feel for their king cannot be described, and they are in return beloved by their regent. They generally feel a deep reverence for the Supreme Being and God's word, are all sensible, and have a feeling of shame for sins committed: they are quiet, and everybody lives securely in the country, so that foreigners said: "It is pleasant to live here," and built themselves all sorts of abodes among us, though without despising and offending the nation. But, during the last few years, this has become quite different, and has assumed a strange and confused aspect. Attempts have been made to render the king—that dearest part of everything temporal to his people—odious to his subjects, and the latter in turn to him. No one could obtain access to his Majesty unless he belonged to the party which did not mean well with him. Impudence and contempt were emboldened to rise against so highly venerable a royal house. The Almighty and His word were rendered ridiculous. People strove to drive away virtue and honour, and to open a gate to immorality, seeing no shame in it, but evidently seeking honour in it. The audacity was carried so far that the authority which the nation voluntarily committed to Frederick III. and his descendants, was solely exercised by a subject, and was even about to be extended, so that the man who exercised it might be absolute.
Like the nation, their language was despised. It was heart-torture for every honest man and lover of honour to see and hear all that which can be read in printed documents.
The ruin of families was like the deed of a fallen angel. But who was this fallen angel? It was John Frederick Struensee, the most foolhardy person who can be imagined, and who for this reason deserves the name of more than vir unius seculi, formerly a doctor, up to the present time a count, but of whom (as I hope), before I let him go, nothing will be left but horror, condemnation, and punishment.
Count Struensee was born at Halle, in 1737. His father is the present superintendent in Holstein. He studied medicine at Halle, passed his examination there, and lived at Gundern with his uncle, who was the private physician of Prince von Stolberg. A year later, 1758, he became city physician of Altona, where he received, as is said, veniam occidendi per totam urbem, which liberty he afterwards employed as cabinet minister, per utrumque regnum. After he had been physician for ten years at Altona, he became, in the year 1768, physician in ordinary to his royal Majesty, when his Majesty travelled abroad, as may be seen from his statement of February 25.
It required either a supernatural intellect or great daring and foolhardiness to undertake, in his twenty-first year, to be city physician and surgeon in Altona; but I believe the latter, because at the expiration of a short period he also took on himself to be the state physician; and we must consequently conclude from this, that he was as good a doctor for the city as he was in the state, and that the number of deaths in Altona, in his times, necessarily exceeded the births, unless the number of the latter was augmented by him in another way.[85] The reputation follows the man. I derive everything from documentary evidence, and in this his most intimate friend, Count Enevold Brandt, said, in his reply to question 122, "That seven or eight years ago it was generally known of Struensee that he had no religion, and that he had intercourse with women at an early age, which was reproved by many respectable people."
This "medicus," of whom common report says that he was not particularly well provided with his father's blessing, and hence could found no hopes on the promises of the fifth commandment, formed the acquaintance of Count Enevold Brandt, at the time he was attending the late Privy Councillor Söhlenthal, Brandt's step-father. He revealed to Count Brandt that he should like to be a physician in ordinary at the Danish court, just as if Denmark had a want of clever doctors, and required them as much as France did the Danish Winslöw.[86] Count Brandt promised him his good offices. Count Struensee was therefore engaged to travel with his Majesty abroad, not because his royal Majesty's health required this, but in order that he might be at hand in any unforeseen emergency, and because a physician fills up the number of the suite of such exalted personages, without being exactly regarded as superfluous. I have credible information that during the journey, when he found time heavy on his hands, he mocked at religion and the word of God (just as at a later date people mocked at his and his partisans' regulations, projects, and ridiculous enterprises), and would celebrate his pretended victory by a contemptuous laugh. I should be able to prove this, and mention it here, partly because in a criminal case nothing must be forgotten that throws light on the character or conduct of the culprit, and partly to contradict Struensee's excuse, that it was not his intention to inflict any injury on religion.
When he returned home he remained with his most gracious Majesty as physician, and to read to his Majesty whatever his Majesty might order him to read; and for this purpose waited on the king every morning, mid-day, and evening, as will be seen from his answer to question 1. Count Struensee, who had already determined to acquire honour and wealth, no matter in what way, from the "respect and purse" of the Danish and Norwegian nation, clearly saw that it would not do to serve two masters in the way he intended, and that he, as a foreigner, who had just come into a country where he had no connexions, would be unable to sustain himself. He easily perceived that, while he secured his fortunes on one side, his misfortune could be founded on the other. To be constantly about his Majesty, would be so much as to neglect those plans which must remain hidden from the king. Nor could the duty of being constantly about the king's person be safely entrusted to any one. It must be some one, in whose care he could trust as fully as in Count Brandt, who, as he was compelled by command to keep away from court, would be attached to him if he again procured him admission to it. Thus it came about that Count Brandt received leave to return to court, though he did not occupy any permanent post till the departure of Chamberlain Warnstedt, when he was attached to his Majesty, and the duty was imposed on him of so watching the king that no one reached him, and if any one came, of reporting to Struensee who it was and what was said, which Brandt faithfully carried out. All this is to be seen in Brandt's statements before the commission on March 2, to question 8.
I will now submissively proceed to prove the nature of both Count Struensee and Count Brandt's behaviour in their intercourse with his most gracious Majesty.
After Count Struensee had, in this way, secured his position—for up to then this had not been fully the case—he writes about it in his reply to Count Brandt's warnings: "Après avoir gagné la confiance, la faveur du roi et de la reine et le crédit dans le public, et cela par mes propres forces, avec tout le risque et toutes les peines attachées à une telle entreprise que vous n'auriez certainement pas supporté: et laquelle, j'ose l'assurer, vous n'auriez pas fini, je vous appelle et je partage avec vous l'effet, et tout les agréments qui en pouvaient resulter." But what could have induced him, when Count Brandt, in his aforesaid warning, gave him to understand his annoyance in a rather harsh way, to urge the said Count Brandt to remain at his post, when he writes in the following terms: "Examinez votre position et les motifs qui vous y tiennent! Rangez d'un côté les agréments et de l'autre les désagréments et comparez cela avec vos situations passées et avec celles auxquelles vous pouvez attendre et faites alors la conclusion." When he was certain of a friend who would watch the king and pay attention to everything that happened or was said, who was to take care that none should reach the king who might repeat the general dissatisfaction at a report which wounded every honest heart, and other things which it would lead me too far to mention, he began very seriously to play the master and prove how it was his intention to become the first man, if not nominally and in respect, still in might and authority. He filched the greatest power in the most impudent way, as I shall presently prove, and he also acquired adherents, not substantial ones, but men who wished to make their fortune, and obtain something through this omnipotent maître des requêtes.
There was one thing, however, that prevented him from acting as he wished, namely, the High Royal Council, which was composed of respectable men, most of whom were children of the country, and all, from youth up, educated and instructed in state science, and knew the constitution, the laws, and the nation. This college must consequently be abolished; and it was done under the excuse that his Majesty was impeded by it, and could not exercise his sovereign power with perfect liberty. But the meaning of this and other things was speedily detected when the maître des requêtes presented himself as privy cabinet minister, and the man whom all the king's subjects, high or low, or whosoever they might be, must obey as the king's representative, and whose orders, with his signature, must be as much respected as the king's. Thus this ambitious man, through greed for gain and that he might fully satisfy his pleasures, dared to undertake the affairs of two kingdoms, and, though inexperienced in the language and laws of the country, alone do that which so many worthy men had divided among them, and had found plenty to do in managing the business of their respective departments. Under the pretext that the council impeded the king, he had the audacity to abolish it, but to assume greater authority than the council ever possessed, as I shall more fully prove.
This daring measure taken by him was regarded as the second which would, some day, break his neck, and, by his ruin, put an end to that of the country. A privy cabinet minister was seen to choose people as his advisers from whom not much good could be expected,—partly because they had been educated like him, and understood nothing about what they undertook as statesmen, or in other qualities; partly, because they were selfish projectors and persons who wished to be fattened like him, though not to so great a degree. He regarded himself as the person who was summoned to promote the prosperity of Denmark and Norway and the welfare of the king; but everything must be altered, no matter whether the changes were useful or not, so long as they were made. He and his adherents tried to turn everything topsy-turvy. The official, when he rose in the morning, did not know whether he would not lose bread and office before evening. A proof of his foolhardiness, but also of his intention to strengthen his position, is, that he proposed his brother, who was "Professor Matheseos" at Liegnitz, in Silesia, as a deputy of finances in Denmark and Sweden, a man who may be good enough as a mathematician, though there is no want of natives possessed of the science, but must be as experienced in the management of the finances as a blind man in astronomy. Hence his summons here could have had no other object but, with united strength, to attack and conquer the royal exchequer, in which Struensee made various large and important grasps for himself and his adherents. He did not forget himself and his companions. Many thousand rix-dollars, even whole sums of 60,000 dollars, were, with false cunning and impudence, stolen from the royal exchequer against his Majesty's will and pleasure, solely to enrich himself and his adherents, so that they might be in a good humour with him. On the other hand, he never hesitated to rob other people of their income; and, in order to make it the more painful, it was generally done in a jeering manner. With the cabinet orders he behaved dishonestly; he issued them without the king's permission; and he did not bring them forward in the order that his duty commanded, as I shall most submissively prove. As he showed by his acts, his resolution was to treat the nation with harshness, with contempt, and as a people that had no "sentiments." His own words, in the answer to Count Brandt's warnings, are as follow: "Vous me reprochez que j'inspire la peur à tout le monde, et vous m'en deviez faire compliment parce que c'est la seule ressource pour un état énervé, affaibli, avec une cour et tout un public intriguant et un maître faible par respect et qui a le même penchant pour le changement que son peuple;" and in another passage: "Le conte et la complaisance ont été la source du malheur de Danemarc." But is it surprising that he should treat the people with contempt, when he ventured to do the same to its head, as I shall prove?
It might have been supposed that the affairs of the kingdom would have given him enough to do: but he still thought proper to play the doctor, by his own explanation, through affection for the royal family. His Royal Highness the Prince Royal was to be educated in accordance with his (here the right expression fails me) sentiments. I shall return to this presently, for which reason I will mention it now as shortly as possible, but no man of sense could understand how this could go on well for any time, for it seemed as if the doctor first wished to deprive the prince of his health, in order to show that he was capable of restoring it,—an attempt by which the two kingdoms could not be benefited. The other amiable royal personages, whom his craft and power could not prevent from being an obstruction to him in his undertakings, he was seen to treat with a certain degree of indifference. The exalted commissioners know as well as I that I am speaking the language of truth: for I could prove by many thousands of witnesses, the universal sorrow which was felt at seeing the king's brother, who was certainly the king's best friend, separated from him in a very marked way. The king's servants trembled at Struensee; he was so harsh to his own servants, that he threatened them with the "Blue Tower:" he reproved them because they were not used to wait on great people, by which he alluded to himself, which he could do the more safely, as these people either were not aware of his former servitude, or did not dare remind him of it, and which had been a service with honest men, it is true, but not with great persons. From these facts, however, his audacity and extraordinary foolhardiness can be seen, for he was not only harsh to his servants, (who, according to his principles, could not expect a government post, but must live on the means which they had saved up after years of extraordinary roguery,) but was even so impudent as to reprimand the servants in the presence of the exalted person whose subject and fellow-servant of servants he was. He not only interfered in things which he did not understand, but also appointed persons to offices in colleges of whose duties they were ignorant, from which many people concluded that he wished to convert everything into a chaos, or perform some extraordinary feat as a physician—as, for instance, prove that land animals were best fitted to the sea; as otherwise, this man's enterprises cannot be comprehended, and as they are mad things, I can only represent them in this ridiculous manner, in which I employ his own expression which he used against his king: "that is ridiculous." He despised the language and laws of the country. Everything must be translated for him into German, by which the work was doubled for others, and affairs could not be expedited so quickly, although it seemed in other respects as if he wished everything to be done at the double.
He overturned the laws which served to maintain honesty and respectability, but after his fall they regained their old validity, which is a sufficient proof for me in this respect.
In addition to the exalted ministers, other persons of noble birth and rank were treated by him with contumely, whence they could not remain at court, but retired to their estates and retrenched their expenses, by which the city of Copenhagen lost considerably through the reduced value of house property, and the inhabitants through the loss of the custom of the nobles. He did not like Copenhagen: it seemed to him too large for a city in Denmark. Consequently, he wished to weaken its power and prestige, and he was so daring as to take away the privileges accorded to its citizens, which they gained by risking their life and blood for their king, the royal family, and the Fatherland. On the other hand, he sought to amuse the mob by various displays of fireworks, free night toping and other jollities and carnal pleasures, which, however, he wished so contrived that they could be carried on without infection.[87]
It would surely lead too far to reckon up all the follies which were set in work by this foolhardy person. And in the midst of all this he believed he had de Daniâ bené meritus, so it was no excessive honour for him to become a Danish count.
Foolhardiness is seen in all his undertakings. He considers himself worthy of so great an honour, because he has had for two years an opportunity of leading a horrible life in Denmark. To be raised to this height has always been reckoned a proof of worthiness, and services rendered to the king and the kingdoms. In this instance, however, it is quite the contrary. Count Struensee regarded all that which is called rank or title as something which must not be sought after, but be bestowed on specially distinguished men, who have rendered themselves worthy of it through their services,—Exempli gratiâ, his brother, who was made Councillor of Justice, on account of his knowledge of finances. If he became a count, therefore, it must be assumed how great his services had been. The only humility he displayed in the receipt of this dignity was, that he procured his friend, Chamberlain Brandt, the same honour, although the latter had not taken such interest in the prosperity of the country as Count Struensee. But as we may say of him and Struensee, vivimus ex rapto, they must be equal in the honours as in the plunder. Though the Order (of Matilda) was so innocent when received from the exalted hand which founded it, Count Struensee entertained the daring design of being honoured immediately after with the Order of the Elephant.
All this impudence, in the midst of his most brilliant and powerful position, lowered him in the eyes of all people: his recipes for the state were regarded as quacksalvery; his services as dead flies in an apothecary's gallipot. Both himself and his adherents could not hold their tongues; partly, because they wished to know beforehand what people would say about this or the other design which was going to be carried out; partly, because in case of need they wished to be able to place themselves in a position of defence, or fly to Kronborg; for in Copenhagen they had nothing good to expect. But the discontent increased so greatly, that as many "one thousand million execrations" were heaped upon him, as there were brilliants in the golden shield which his running footman wears in his cap. This discontent with his conduct could not remain hidden from him. Count Brandt, who is to some extent to be pitied, on account of the friendship which he formed with Count Struensee, but cannot be excused, warned him: the daily pasquinades published about the count and his band, and of which he was informed every morning, at length disquieted him. The Horse Guards were abolished, and no longer stood in his way. The Foot Guards must also be got rid of. This was effected; but in a way which proves that Count Struensee in this affair also behaved like a villain to his king and benefactor.
The émeute which took place on the Christmas eve rendered him equally attentive and timid. I shall revert to the proofs of this. When the royal family, with whom he lived, came to town, such precautions were taken that people must believe that the king was afraid of his subjects; but Count Struensee, with his fellow-conspirators, intended to make himself Protector, even if he did not at once take the king's life.
The gates of Copenhagen were ordered always to stand open, so that if necessary it might be a refuge for those outside the city.
When his royal Majesty came to the capital, he drove through the streets as if flying before an enemy, so that no one might approach the king, and impart to him his well-meant thoughts.
When Count Struensee's conscience (for that is always found in a man) convinced him that his actions, judging from the value which the inhabitants of the land, high and low, attached to them, would be but badly rewarded, he resolved to venture on extremities. I must most submissively and conscientiously assert, that I do not know what his motto was; but judging from his conduct, it must be believed that it agreed with the character which is given of the Greek robbers, in the words:—
"Fidens animi atque in utrumque paratus,
Seu versare dolos seu certæ occumbere morti."
After the return to Copenhagen, after the body-guard had been dismissed, and the guard of the palace confided to other troops, the latter received rations in addition to their pay, and contrary to all custom, which reminds me of the answer given to the thief in the fable:—"Ita subita me jubet benignitas vigilare, facias ne meâ culpâ lucrum."
When the report spread in the city that the count was meditating dangerous designs, because the inhabitants were annoyed at being ruled by a doctor medicinæ, and as, too, the doctor was afraid of being dissected by the populace, though not secundum artem, and for the benefit of his colleagues, he chose another town commandant, who could terrify the whole city with his voice and gestures, and the cannon were also to be loaded for the same purpose. It may be supposed what was intended to take place at the palace. I do not believe there was any intention to lay hands on the person of his royal Majesty and take his life. But suppose an insurrection had broken out, not against the king—for everybody knows that he is innocent—but against this impudent count, this foolhardy person, it is only a necessary consequence that he and his partisans must have audaciously attacked the king in order to save themselves, and in such an event Count Struensee knew himself to be secure, as may be seen from his answer to Count Brandt.
It is certainly a proof of the peculiar consciousness which Count Struensee possessed about his conduct in Denmark being that of the most foolhardy and contemptible person conceivable, when he fears the people, among whom he tried to insinuate himself. But, on the other hand, it is also a proof that the Danish and Norwegian nation, although they at times endure what cannot be offered to any other, still love God, the king, the royal family, and good manners. Hence their wishes and sighs were raised to Him, through whom kings reign, who did not forget the prayers of Christian III. when the land was groaning in the days of a former Count, and who with a mighty arm and in an instant, put an end to the shame which the king, the royal house, and the kingdoms, had been compelled to endure.[88]
How great the joy of the people was when the change took place, and how great its dissatisfaction at the preceding state of things had been, was seen on January 17, whence the count might have learned quam caduca sit ista felicitas. And how excessively great the joy at this change was in other circles also, was seen at the court held on the birthday of his royal Majesty, where sincere anxiety for the country and affection for the king met, and where the oppressed man greeted the liberated man with a loving kiss, and forgot his own wretched position in his love for the royal family.
For the sake of future ages, when my present indictment may perhaps be seen by many, I must remark, that it is only a short narrative of all that has happened, but, as I think, it will suffice to give a perfect explanation of the misdeeds of this count, and show that the sentence I demand is in conformity with the law, and adapted to his crimes. I must not, therefore, be reproached with having attempted to render him ridiculous, especially in an action which demands the utmost earnestness, for a distinction must be drawn between a minister who may have committed an error, and a mountebank who wishes to be a minister, and, as such, was an enemy of the country, and must therefore be treated with the same harshness as he displayed to others. But, in order that Count Struensee and every one may thoroughly learn that nothing is brought forward which might be regarded as a charge without proof, I will now, in accordance with the most gracious command given me, proceed to bring my charges against him, together with the evidence.
To reckon up all the crimes committed by him would be a most useless task, the more so when we reflect that the count has only one head, and that when that is lost by a crime, the other offences would be superfluous. I will hence close my deduction with the words—
"——Longa est injuria, longæ
Ambages, sed summa sequar fastigia rerum."
First.
"Count Struensee crept into the familiarity of the highest lady in the land, to such a degree that it went beyond the limits that are drawn between persons of different sexes, who cannot and must not be connected."
As I am commanded to indict Count Struensee—and I regard the above as one of the greatest crimes committed by him, and as the first which hurled him into the others—I bring it forward first: for it is certainly the most foolhardy one, which no one forgives him, and for which he cannot be excused.
I here produce the testimony on oath of Fräulein von Eyben, not in order to prove what is sufficiently explained, but only to request it may be remarked how Struensee strove to be present at places when there was an opportunity for him to acquire what he desired, and how the indifference with which he was at first regarded by the person whose confidence he afterwards gained, proves that it was not he who was tempted, but that his "inhuman" impudence, his bold, crafty, and villanous conduct, were powerful enough to attain that which virtue and education never grant, and that he is the more criminal, because he brought others into despair, in order to acquire honours himself.[89]
As proofs of this most audacious deed committed by Count Struensee, I produce—(1) The examination of Counts Struensee and Brandt and Professor Berger, made on February 20. The first two hundred and eighteen questions, and the twenty asked him on the 21st, contain Count Struensee's explanations of his intercourse with the exalted lady, and her intimacy with him, but all of which he reckons among the things she would have so. That he could be excused as a doctor, and she also, as there is in this no confession of the crime, I need not stay to disprove, as there is better evidence. (Here follow five passages from the report of the examination.) In these passages, Count Struensee, voluntarily and with great emotion, publicly confessed the most audacious crime committed by him. The commissioners possess his signature, as well as this most important document. (2) The said Count Struensee's confession signed with his own hand. (3) Her royal Majesty Caroline Matilda's declaration of the truth of Struensee's confession, dated Kronborg, March 9, 1772. (4) Fräulein von Eyben's deposition. (5) Count Brandt's statement of February 22. These statements are confirmed by Professor Berger's deposition. From all these documents we perceive Count Struensee's atrocious conduct; how, without shame he advanced with the greatest security in his crimes, and especially in the one which can only be thought of with horror, when we look at the person hurled into shame by him, and notice how he behaved, as if he wished the whole world to learn his deeds.
His frequent unannounced running in to the queen: his lengthened stay: his riding and driving out with her: the giving and receiving of presents—all this confirms the truth of the evidence, and shows that he has not spoken falsely.
For this reason, he has in this matter committed the crime of high treason in the highest degree. He has openly acted against the fidelity which he owed the king his master, and the reverence he should have displayed toward their Majesties. He has deprived the king of the confidence, love, and personal security (i.e. the certainty of alone possessing the queen's person) which his Majesty had a right to expect after so sacred a promise, entered into in the sight of God; he has tried to affix a stain on the royal family, in order thus to attain dignities and power.
What honest man in the country, however mean he may be, would not feel most highly insulted by such a thing! But how awful is the thought of such an insult offered to the highest persons! a crime which the legislator has not even supposed, and which it would be improper to mention. But if a verbal insult of the king is bad, how much greater is the crime of disgracing the king and queen by an action! I do not, therefore, require to dwell longer on this head; for the facts and the confession of the deed cannot be denied, and ere I end, Count Struensee can peruse his crime and its well-merited punishment in 6—4—1 of the law. I therefore refer him to this passage of the law.
Secondly.
"Count Struensee was not only informed that his royal Majesty was ill-treated by Count Brandt, and even assaulted, but he also advised it; hence he neither prevented it, nor took measures to prevent it, and he himself also treated his royal Majesty in a contemptuous way."
From my deduction, the evidence and the indictment of Count Brandt, the court will learn how the affair happened: how his Majesty was attacked by the aforesaid Count Brandt in his cabinet, abused, and treated in an unexampled manner. As far as I am aware, there is no instance of such a thing in history—there is, unfortunately, of royal murders; but none of such treatment. That Count Struensee was not only aware of this fact, but urged Count Brandt to commit it, and approved of the crime, is proved by the following:—
Count Brandt declares that after his Majesty had threatened to beat him with a stick, Count Struensee said to him, at six o'clock on the same evening, "I have reproved the king, and he answered me, 'Brandt is a coward; he has no courage, and I will fight with him.'" Struensee then said further to Brandt, "What will you do? You must go to the king one evening and say, 'You insist upon fighting with me: here I am; if you want anything, come on;'" and he added, that this had repeatedly occurred with Count Holck. When Brandt returned from the king, the queen had begun her game of cards, and, when it was ended, Struensee stood by the stove, where Brandt told him what had occurred; to which Struensee answered, "That is right: now you will have peace; but not a soul must know it." Count Struensee not only confesses that he had spoken about it previously with Count Brandt, but also that he was informed by him of what had happened, as will be seen from Struensee's answer to quest. 402-412.
That the count himself also forgot the respect he owed the king, is further proved by his addressing him harshly, as is seen by the evidence of the witness Detlev Christopher Aabyn: "If he will not bathe, he shall be beaten;" and the other statements of the same witness.
In the same way, then, as Count Brandt, as I have shown, has rendered himself guilty of the crime of high treason by his audacious deed and harsh treatment of the king—for which Count Struensee even promises him a reward, as we read in his reply to Count Brandt's warnings concerning the harshness with which he is obliged to treat the king: "la reconnaissance que la reine vous aura, si vous reussissiez, et les marques incontestables que vous en avez dejà reçu, vous en recompenseront"—Count Struensee, as adviser, seducer, and accomplice, has been guilty of the same crime, and must be punished for it by the same penalty.
Thirdly.
"Count Struensee harshly treated the king's son, his Royal Highness Crown Prince Frederick, so that it seems as if it had been his sole intention to remove the crown prince from the world, or, at least, to bring him up so that he would be incapable of reigning."
In addition to all that is known, and has been seen, by so many persons, the exalted commission learns from Hans Heinrich Majoll's declaration and Gündel Marie Schönberg's evidence, that this treatment applied to a tender child was a fruit of the brain of this impudent and foolhardy man. Had he not found it to his advantage to remain a doctor, if he had not given orders in this affair, it might be said in his excuse that the education of the crown prince in no way concerned the maître des requêtes or the cabinet minister. But everything was done by his orders, although he, as a doctor, must have been aware that it is utterly impossible to rear children in such a way. I am convinced Count Struensee will be unable to mention any instance of such a way of child-rearing as he recommended. He therefore ordered it thus through special malice against the innocent prince, in order, as I have already said, to get him out of the way, or try what results such a training would have. But, in either case, he offends most grievously against the royal personage, as the crown prince could not be allowed to be his "testing rag."
I will not say any more about this matter, for which there is no apology, even though Count Struensee were to appeal—as his remarks seem to indicate—to the training or keep of irrational animals. Count Struensee, who was not trained in this way, has as fat a paunch as if he were Vitellius. There is a difference between pampering children so that not a breath of air may reach them, and giving them too little food, and making them endure hunger and cold. Animals have more care for their young, and Count Struensee will not attain the honour of being placed in the same class with them. As he asserts that he possesses intelligence, all this was done by him through sheer arrogance and malice against the king's son, whose life was endangered by his advice given as doctor; and as God has hitherto held His hand over him, it is no merit of Struensee that he is still alive. But I am of opinion that any man who endangers the life of royal children, is fully as worthy of punishment as one who tries to take their life; and hence deserves to be sentenced in accordance with the law 6—4—1.
Fourthly.
"Count Struensee has grievously offended, and committed the crime of high treason, by usurping the royal authority, passing resolutions in the place of his royal Majesty, and attaching his own signature to these resolutions."
Count Struensee's evil intentions against the king and his subjects are especially displayed in this matter, even though he and some of his defenders (if he really have any) may regard it as perfectly innocent. Count Struensee considers that, as he only intended to undertake things which would prove advantageous, there was no harm in it. But the contrary has been shown; and it would be something incredible if a person who knew nothing previously of state affairs, should become competent, in a period of two years, to govern two kingdoms. Who can believe that a person who considers himself the most honourable man in the country, entertaining the best intentions for the king and the state, but who possesses no religion, and consequently can have no other intentions but the satisfaction of his desires,—that such a man should try to persuade a nation like the Danish and Norwegian that he is the man who will promote everybody's fortunes in the kingdom? I here write what must be regarded as incredible, if we were not so perfectly convinced of it. Count Struensee has committed crimes which the meanest man in the kingdom, who has but the most general ideas about morality and the reverence he owes his king, will regard as the most detestable. It is true that an evident crime entails on the culprit the extremest public contumely,—as, for instance, robbing one's neighbour; seducing his wife, &c. But it is unanswerable, under the appearance of friendship, fidelity, true love of the welfare of the country, disinterestedness, and sparing the royal treasury, for a man to strive to put his fingers into everything, and to rule with unbounded authority instead of the regent,—in a word, to make a brilliant display of his villany (I call things by their right names). Count Struensee alleges that the cause of the abolition of the council of state was partly that his royal Majesty was not satisfied with the condition of the country and the indebtedness in which the kingdom was; partly, that he was impeded by the council. If his Majesty himself had the idea of abolishing the council, Count Struensee ought to have opposed it in a different way from that which he employed in coercing the king to bathe. But it was his duty to represent to the king his master that his royal Majesty, having only recently ascended the throne, required advice; and if among the councillors there were some who did not possess his Majesty's confidence, others could be found to fill their place; that a monarch, however wise he may be, still remains a man; that, although the King of Denmark was not bound to retain advisers, still it was to his honour and profit to have them; and that he who was instructed in medical science was not fitted to undertake the management of such affairs. Everybody knows that a king should never love hypocrisy. But truth can be expressed in various ways. A truth urged in a coarse manner is an insult; an attempt to apply it sarcastically is a mockery; but when expressed with honourable straightforwardness, it is useful, and the latter is the duty of an honest subject. Count Struensee, however, was so daring as to take on himself the functions of many men.
In my historical preface, I have called attention to the fact, how strange it appeared to all who are aware that a knowledge of the welfare of kingdoms cannot be acquired by whistling or dancing, when he attained the most gracious royal order and instruction of July 14, 1771, to be privy cabinet minister. From this instruction, which was communicated to the colleges, we learn that Count Struensee not only exercised a power which not even the great chancellor of the kingdom possessed in former times, but exercised it as fully as only his royal Majesty could do himself. It is true there was an appearance as if everything still depended on his Majesty's approbation; but if the matter is looked into more closely, this is only delusion and juggling. For if everything in the cabinet is decided by Count Struensee, and his orders and regulations are to have the same value as the king's commands, it is clear that if anything was issued from the cabinet which opposed existing regulations and resolutions, and that this should be returned to the cabinet for alteration, the eventual decision depended on the count himself. And what assurance was given the king and his subjects that nothing wrong would be done by the cabinet minister when he possessed the power himself to examine, defend, and approve everything he had resolved on?
When Count Struensee had the fortune, favour, and honour to come to the Danish court and stand well there, he probably took the Danish and Norwegian subjects for such cattle, that they might be called together and led to the shambles by a cabinet resolution of his, without being allowed to murmur, for in no other way can we explain his daring to undertake such an enterprise. Any man who presumes to manage the affairs of a kingdom, and direct them instead of the king, must be acquainted with the duties of the king to his subjects, and the duties of the subjects to the king. He must be a simple doctor who merely knows that there is a heart in the human body, but not where it is seated, and what parts are connected with it or have influence over it. Any man who did not wish merely to play the harlequin, but maintain his honour, ought to be acquainted with the duties of the regent and the people. Struensee could have seen in the Danish and Norwegian code, and in the Lex Regia of Frederick III. of blessed memory, signed on November 14, 1665, that sovereignty, but not despotism, is granted to the king. There is not a subject of his Majesty who would feel offended because the king rules with unlimited power, for that is his right. Any one who asserts that the king can alter the >Lex Regia without the assent of the nation, and against the will of all classes, is a traitor, hypocrite, and scoundrel. The royal law, which the kings must obey, and which is a sine quâ non on their part and that of their subjects, cannot be altered by the king, without at once overthrowing and restricting his rule, for it is ordered (as Frederick III. could order his descendants as primus adquirens), that the royal law shall not be altered, and the right to the monarchy is solely derived from this supreme royal law, as an immutable fundamental law for both kingdoms.
(Wiwet here quotes the two passages of the Lex Regia, 3 and 26, referring to this. As I have given them already literally, they may be omitted here.)
If Count Struensee was so stupid that he knew nothing about the royal law, although he undertook to be director of the kingdom, his audacity might perhaps be expiated in prison, in a mad-house, or on the pillory. But as he has declared that he was acquainted with the contents and prescriptions of the royal law, but is at the same time of opinion that there is no harm in appropriating the king's authority for the purpose of pulling the skin of the subjects over their ears, he has on this point been guilty of the crime of high treason in a high degree. Just as little as an alteration can be effected in the king's hereditary government, which insults the king, can this be done in another way, even though it might appear as if it were done in favour of the king. The royal law must so remain unchanged that Count Struensee can introduce no other form of government but that prescribed by it. The apology with which Count Struensee tries to excuse his enterprise I need not contradict, for the king cannot forgive his audacity. The honour, life, and property of the people, were entrusted to the autocracy of the descendants of Frederick III., but to no one else. Any one, therefore, who attempts to appropriate this power, offends against the reverence which he owes the king.
Fifthly.
Even if Count Struensee could be for a moment excused for acquiring, in contradiction to the royal law, such authority as was granted him in the cabinet decree of July 14, 1771, he still remains criminal, because he did not behave honestly after the contents of this instruction, from which it is plainly seen that he did not employ this power to relieve his royal Majesty, but merely to play the part which he had invented for himself and his colleagues. To mention all the intrigues of which he was guilty in this respect, is superfluous, and would lead me too far. I consider, therefore, that one example will be sufficient. Should it appear to the count, however, that I have not sufficiently convicted him of being a clumsy criminal, I have various further proofs at his service.
When Count Struensee had effected the dismissal of the Horse Guards, the Foot Guards were also to be dismissed from their duty at the palace. The matter was connected in this way: Count Struensee apprehended that he might some day receive the reward of his crimes, and therefore he must see to his precautions. The natives of the country, as a wall of defence round the royal house, were a thorn in his eye, and hence such obstacles must be removed for coming events. Consequently, he drew up a cabinet decree of December 21, 1771, concerning the disbandment of the Foot Guards, of which his royal Majesty was not informed. These men were to be placed in other regiments, because, as the count alleges, equality ought to prevail among all officers and soldiers, as they all served the same king; while the true reason was, that the count, in the event of ill-success, did not wish to have them against him, as they might assist in seizing him by the ear. But when this order became known, and the Guards refused to obey it, he procured a royal order of December 24, by which his Majesty most graciously granted discharges to those Guards, who would not perform duty at the palace with the grenadiers. This was an extraordinarily foolhardy action, as will be seen from the following facts:—
First. His Majesty never knew anything about such a dismissal of the body-guard: for this reason it has been re-embodied, which proves that the disbandment took place against the king's will. Secondly. His Majesty did not sign the said order. Thirdly. Count Struensee, when he extorted his royal Majesty's approbation for the disbandment of the Guards, represented that they refused to do duty at the palace with the grenadiers, which was an evident falsehood, as the Guards only refused to enter other regiments. Fourthly. Although, from December 21 to 24, there were various resolutions which ought to have been approved by the king, Struensee did not lay them before his Majesty, solely from the motive of having the former orders of December 21 confirmed by the approbation of the last. He therefore acted falsely as regards the commands and resolutions, the drawing-up of which, and laying before the king for approbation, depended on him as privy cabinet minister, and thus acted contrary to the law I—I—I.
Sixthly.
After Count Struensee had acquired the mastery over his Majesty's treasury, both the private and the special cabinet treasury, he contrived to turn it to his own advantage. It would lead me too far if I mentioned all the cunning tricks done by him, and the commission will pardon me if I do not lay all the instances before it. Count Struensee has, therefore, no reason to complain, for all his malversations are not mentioned, and, indeed, they are countless. He takes 10,000 dollars, and 3,000 at the new year, procures Count Brandt 3,000, so that he may not overthrow and betray him, and the Countess Holstein a gratification of 3,000 dollars, because she has lost her money at play, although her royal Majesty graciously and justly refuses it, for the earnings of 3,000 poor women by spinning pay for her extravagance. One gratification after the other is granted to Falckenskjold,[90] that chosen instrument for all events, that sheet-anchor on which the whole machine (so Count Struensee calls his arrangements) depended, and who was well aware that, if the count's rule broke up, he (the colonel) would also lose his regiment. For his brother he procures money from the king's treasury, on the grounds that a financier must have money to prevent him from stealing; for such is the right conclusion that should be drawn from his defence.
That Count Struensee is as great a villain as was ever rung in and out of a German fair, any one can see from the fact that he obtained money and office for his brother. I will not refer to the circumstance that the king was obliged to pay for the journey of a person to an office of which the person summoned had no knowledge. My God, what a mockery of so many worthy men, who meant sincerely by the king and country! But to propose his brother as deputy of finances, and to give him 3,000 dollars so that he might not plunder the king in other ways of an equal sum, is so extraordinarily audacious and foolhardy, that it renders Count Struensee most excessively contemptible. Who could invent such motives without prostituting himself, and revealing that in such dealing no true honour was intended!
In the same way as Count Struensee managed to procure his brother money, he also continued to obtain considerable sums for himself and his confidants. When he acquired full authority over the king's treasury, on learning that it was by no means a matter of indifference to his Majesty whether there was money in the treasury or not, he requested his Majesty, upon some money being paid in, most graciously to give him and Brandt a trifle, probably under the same pretext as he afterwards employed for his brother. His Majesty therefore gave—
| To the Queen | 10,000 | dollars. | |
| To Count Brandt | 6,000 | " | and |
| To him, Count Struensee | 6,000 | " | |
| ——— | |||
| Making a total of | 22,000 | dollars, |
which is perfectly correct. But after his Majesty's approval of the donations had been obtained, Count Struensee, who was able to take the money out of the king's special treasury—for he cannot prove that he took it from anywhere else—hit on the idea of adding a 0, so that the document now reads
| To the Queen | 10,000 | dollars. | |
| To Count Brandt | 60,000 | " | and |
| To him, Count Struensee | 60,000 | " | |
| ——— | |||
| Together | 130,000 | dollars. |
As in reckoning up this did not agree with the 22,000 dollars, in order to avoid an alteration of both the figures 2, the matter was thus arranged:
| To the Queen | 10,000 | dollars. | |
| To Count Brandt | 60,000 | " | |
| To Count Struensee | 60,000 | " | and |
| To Falckenskjold | 2,000 | " | |
| ——— | |||
| Total | 132,000 | dollars. |
Apart from the fact that any one can easily detect how the two ciphers were added, and also that a figure 2 has been altered into a 3, it is clear, as Counts Brandt and Struensee themselves, will be obliged to confess, that there is the greatest reason for regarding the affair with suspicion; and it will be proved an evident forgery, when we take into consideration the following facts:—1. His royal Majesty has himself declared that he did not give them 60,000 dollars. 2. It is remarkable that in the same document by which the king gave his two subjects and servants 60,000 dollars apiece, he granted his consort only 10,000; and 3. All the proofs brought forward by the count in this matter, hobble.
He has, therefore, in addition to the insult offered his Majesty by robbing him of so large a capital, been guilty of peculation in this instance also, and offended against the regulations of the law 6—4—10.
Seventhly.
Furthermore, Count Struensee was an accomplice, adviser, and helper, in selling her royal Majesty's costly bouquet, which was composed of precious stones, and taxed at the value of 40,000 dollars, for 10,000 dollars in Hamburg, and entrusting the sale to Etats-rath Waitz, although this concerned an article which served as an ornament to the queen regnant of the country, and ought not to have been taken from her. (Here come eight passages from the evidence.) In this he has not only acted faithlessly, in allowing so valuable an ornament to be sold for so ridiculous a price, but it was also quite unnecessary to dispose of a valuable in such a way "to the prostitution of its owner."
Eighthly.
In order that this intrigue and other disgraceful undertakings might not come to the knowledge of the king, he gave orders that all letters addressed to his Majesty should be delivered in the cabinet, so that he might be the first to learn everything, and, if necessary, take those measures which his safety demanded, and be the conductor and defender of any proceedings that might be found requisite.
Ninthly.
At length, when Struensee perceived that matters were not going on right, and that he was about to be attacked, he tried to defend himself. Those persons whom he feared were dismissed; the citizens only remained, but these he fancied he could easily terrify. Hence, after obtaining the nomination of another commandant, he gave orders to have the cannon held in readiness. It is true that he denies this, and only acknowledges that he gave Major-General Gude orders to hold everything in readiness which would serve for the maintenance of good order. But when we consider that this was not necessary, as such cases are always provided for in Copenhagen, we presume this unusual regulation was either the fruit of an apprehension that he was at length about to receive the reward of his actions, or that it had reference to a measure that was about to be taken and defended. That he intended to fly and take some one with him, in the event of his not being able to hold his ground, is seen from litt. F., pp. 33, 41, and 52.
I consider, therefore, that I have proved Count Struensee's enormous crimes against his royal Majesty, the royal family, and the kingdoms; and that he has been guilty of high treason in many ways. The punishment I demand consequently is—
"That Count John Frederick Struensee, for the crimes committed by him, be condemned to have lost his dignity of count, his honour, life, and property; and that, after his coat of arms has been broken by the executioner, his right hand be cut off while he is alive, his body quartered and exposed on a wheel, his head and hand stuck on a pole, and also that his fortune be confiscated to the king, and his heirs, if he have any, forfeit their rank and birth."
F. W. Wiwet.
Copenhagen, April 21, 1772.
I am afraid that my translation of this unexampled document will be regarded as extremely inelegant; but this could not be avoided, if the literal meaning were to be adhered to. The original itself is written in the most barbarous style; wherever the advocates Danish runs short he helps himself out with a German word, which he generally misapplies, and puts in scraps of Latin here and there, which have the most absurd counter-sense. As my object, however, was to give an exact idea of charges which would not have hung a dog in this country, I have thought it advisable to sacrifice elegance to correctness.
Ere I conclude this chapter, I may be permitted to supply one example of the way in which the judges tried to scrape up evidence against the unfortunate ex-minister. On the same day when the Russian minister, Filosofow, insulted Struensee so grossly, as has been already recorded, a report was spread that the latter had quarrelled with one of the first gentlemen in the land, and treacherously assailed him, sword in hand; but this rumour died out as rapidly as it had been propagated. After the arrest of Struensee, and the difficulty felt of proving the already resolved death-sentence by credible testimony, the president of the court, Justiciary Baron von Juel-Wind, went to this gentleman, and asked him if he were disposed to bring a charge against Struensee before the commission? The gentleman nobly rejected such a proposal, and answered, that he was accustomed to pity the unfortunate, and not increase their misery; besides, there was not the slightest truth in the rumour.
This proves that even Wiwet's diatribes were not considered sufficient evidence of Struensee's guilt, and that every opportunity was sought to bolster up the case. It is very possible, however, that the judges were more successful with other witnesses whom they tried to suborn, and therefore the evidence, such as it is, ought to be regarded with extra suspicion.
CHAPTER XII.
A LUKEWARM DEFENCE.
ULDALL'S SPEEDY REPLY—BREACH OF THE LAW—WEAK ARGUMENTS—PERSONALITIES APPEALED AGAINST—EXPLANATIONS—AN APPEAL TO MERCY—FALCKENSKJOLD'S OPINION OF THE AFFAIR—REVERDIL SPEAKS HIS MIND—CONDUCT OF THE FAVOURITES—THE BRIBE TO HOLCK—COUNT BERNSTORFF—THE FISCAL GENERAL'S REPLY—A SAVAGE OPPONENT.
On the very next day after Wiwet's indictment was handed in to the commission, the following written defence was delivered to the judges.
It is clear that Advocate Uldall could not have produced a reply to the indictment so quickly unless the accusation had been delivered to him beforehand, which was not only a breach of the law, and proves the haste with which condemnation and execution were desired, but also supplies a further and striking proof of the plans of the conspirators. After they had thrown their victims into chains, they hurried to play out the judicial farce, and shed the blood for which they thirsted.