Count Struensee is to be charged and convicted for crimes against the laws of the land, and it is in this I have to defend him. As such, the Fiscal General alleges nine various chief points, which are said to be equally as many crimes of high treason. But as all these charges generally either concern the state arrangements, and the form and administration of the government, or are crimes against the person of his Majesty the King and members of the royal house, I will give my answers to them after the above divisions.
The first charge brought against Count Struensee, is the cabinet decree of July 14, 1771, and the authority delivered to him by it.
In order to convict him of audacity in this, the Fiscal General employs two different grounds: partly, Count Struensee's impudence in mixing himself up, though a physician, in affairs of state, and in abolishing the council, whence disorder in the affairs, oppression of the nation and the nobility, and a decrease of the prosperity of the capital, are said to have emanated: partly, that the power which he obtained was royal, as he formed resolutions, and signed in the king's name, and had it in his power to lay before the king the objections sent in against the cabinet decrees, or not to do so, which is said to be opposed to articles 3 and 26 of the Lex Regia, in which such a possession of power is declared to be treason.
It appears as if the first of the grounds alleged by the Fiscal General exceeds his competency to examine, and that of the commission to decide. For, as the share which Count Struensee had in affairs only emanated from the king's will, Count Struensee cannot be rendered responsible for this, because the consequences must revert to his Majesty.
An investigation, whether Count Struensee ought to give the king advice in affairs of state, and what results this advice had, is in reality an examination as to how his Majesty established the government; and Count Struensee cannot be called to account for the advice he gave, as it met with the king's approval. Still I do not see how this can be made a crime on the part of Count Struensee. It is certainly true that his original position did not seem to promise the dignity which he eventually acquired. But history offers many instances of such elevation, and, if the king fancied he deserved it, was not Struensee at liberty to accept it?
The form of the council is no material portion of the Danish constitution. That the king was dissatisfied with its arrangement, is visible from many passages in the examination; and there can be no better proof of this than that his Majesty signed the decree of its abolition with his own hand. Even though Count Struensee advised it, we find from Count Brandt's explanation to quest. 18, that several persons considered his sentiments correct, and that the plan was that the colleges should be heard in ordinary cases, and commissions in extraordinary affairs, the final decision being left to the king; so that it cannot be asserted that the royal power was thus rendered greater or less than it should be according to the Lex Regia.
For a belief that affairs consequently were carried on with less vigour than before, or that the nation was unequally oppressed by the promotion of foreigners, neither the documents nor experience afford a reason.
No other noble was prohibited from appearing at court except Count Laurvig (Ahlefeldt Laurvig), who had met with the same fate once before; and if several nobles retired to their estates, and Copenhagen suffered through the declension of luxury, this may be ascribed to the hard times rather than other causes.
If we were to examine the matter politically, the prosperity of the two kingdoms could hardly be sought in the size of Copenhagen, and the value of its buildings. Nor do I believe that the wise king, Frederick IV., when he laid on Copenhagen a consumption tax double that of the other cities in the country, so much intended the increase of his revenues, as to prevent the too rapid growth of a single city, which would at last attract to it all the sources of a livelihood. France and England have long complained that their capitals insensibly swallowed up everything; and experience has shown that the Duc de Sully reasoned correctly, when he, in order to prevent this, decided that those French nobles who were not employed in the public service should sooner serve the state and themselves by good management of their estates, than ruin themselves and other families by indolence and extravagance.
As regards the second of the Fiscal General's grounds—Count Struensee's authority—it cannot be denied that his Majesty the King was at liberty to grant his confidence to whom he pleased, and decide to what extent he should confer it on Count Struensee.