[63] That Struensee's contemporaries were of the same opinion, will be seen from what Baron von Bülow said to Mr. Wraxall on the subject:—"Had Struensee persisted pertinaciously in disclaiming any sort of criminal intimacy with the queen, should a contrary declaration have afterwards been made by him under torture, all the world would have said that such a confession was worth nothing; as having been extorted by the rack—as being the mere effect of pain. He would probably have then been put out of the way in prison, but to latest ages he would have been called a great man: nor could they then have touched Queen Matilda. She denied everything till she was shown Struensee's confession."
[64] This confession still exists: indeed, I have a copy of it. But, however anxious I may feel to arrive at the truth, it is simply impossible to republish it. The few general hints I give in the text, and further on in the indictment of the queen, will suffice to indicate its disgusting character.
[65] Reverdil makes a remark on this, which would have weight if we could believe a word that Brandt said. He observes:—"I learnt from Brandt such peculiar details, which at the same time agreed with all the rest, that I could neither doubt their truth nor their origin. Brandt was so petulant in his curiosity about matters of gallantry, that it was necessary either to deny as impudently as he questioned, or to confess everything. And as he spared nobody, and took a pride in dispensing with those reservations most commanded by decency, I do not doubt that by showing himself thoroughly acquainted with the affair, he forced the queen to speak to him as clearly as his friend did. In his examination he confessed to having been a confidant."
[66] This letter was first published in the English papers early in April, 1772.
[67] "Authentische Aufklärungen," pp. 223, 224.
[68] According to another version of the story, given by Falckenskjold and the "Authentische Aufklärungen," the queen fainted after writing the first syllable, Carol——. Schack Rathlau seized the queen's hand, forced the fallen pen into it, and guiding it, added the missing syllables ine Matilda. This statement, however, is highly improbable, and nowhere confirmed by the queen.
[69] Falckenskjold's "Memoirs," p. 232.
[70] The indictment and defence of the queen have never before been published—with the exception of a few fragments in Höst's "Grev Struensee og hans Ministerium." They are given here in full, save some passages which decency forbids being rendered public. Höst, who wrote his history in the reign of Frederick VI., was compelled to omit the passages which might compromise the memory of the queen. But historic truth urges me to publish everything that may serve to clear up this matter and enable a correct opinion to be formed.
[71] No objection can be raised against this assertion generally. But the Danish code forbade the courts from hearing charges against the domestic honour of royal persons, and decreed that the king must be sole judge in such affairs. The constitution of the commission was therefore illegal from the outset.
[72] The queen's women respected nothing, and even made their mistress's bed and linen the object of their examination.