(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!