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.