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.