As to the crime said to have been committed in omitting several of the extracts from the cabinet decrees in this week, so that the king might approve of the two concerning the body-guard, I do not understand it, as his Majesty would sooner be surprised by a long report than by a short extract, and the answers of Panning and Morack (the cabinet secretaries) prove that this error must be ascribed to them rather than to Struensee.
The second charge concerns the presents which Count Struensee is said to have procured for himself and others, and more especially the forgery which is said to have been committed in the accounts of the special treasury for the months of April and May, 1771. As concerns the gratifications, it is sufficient for Struensee's defence that the king himself granted or approved of them, and Count Struensee is of opinion that, if compared with those given on former occasions, they will not be found extraordinary. As regards the falsification, he learns to his deep grief that even his Majesty himself appears to bear witness against him. But, as he solemnly asserts in his memorial that he was never guilty of such things, he also hopes that he will be permitted to quote the circumstances serving to prove his innocence.
The Fiscal General employs two suppositions to prove this forgery, namely, that a cipher was added to each of the two amounts of 6,000 dollars, and that the gratification for Falckenskjold was inserted at a later date. But that this is not correct is proved by the document itself, in which the figures of all the four amounts and Falckenskjold's name are written with the same ink as the approbation, without mentioning that his Majesty (if we compare the document with the approval of other calculations written afterwards) must have signed higher up, if the line concerning Falckenskjold had not existed at the time when the royal signature was appended. It is true that the adding up seems to be written with a different ink, and the figure 3 in the 132,000 dollars to have been first a 2. But the former is of no consequence when it is remarked, that the adding up took place after the approval had been given, while the latter could easily occur through an error in casting up, as Panning has regarded it in his explanation, lit. I., p. 379.
If we add to this—1. That Count Struensee had no necessity to have recourse to such a forgery, partly because his Majesty never refused him what he asked in such matters; partly, because a hundred other ways of enriching himself stood at his service, if he wished to act dishonestly, of which not the slightest evidence has been brought forward. 2. That he never made a secret of it, which might be supposed in a dishonest action, either from Count von Schimmelmann, who paid the money, or from Count Brandt, who, on the very same day thanked the king for the 50,000 dollars which he had received, to which his Majesty replied, it was but fair that he should make him a sort, leading to the supposition that the sum was a considerable one (see Brandt's answer to question 44, p. 250) and lastly, 3. That it could not be concealed from the king, as credit was taken for the amount in the next balance-sheet, in which the sum was again approved—I am of opinion that this circumstance cannot be regarded as dishonesty, but that everything really is as Count Struensee has explained it.
The third charge relates to the sale of the bouquet. As this affair depended entirely on the will of her royal Majesty the Queen, and Count Struensee declares that he never knew otherwise but that the sale took place with the king's consent, and as he did not profit in the slightest degree by it, he had not supposed that this would be alleged as a crime against him.
These are the principal charges brought against Count Struensee as regards his administration. For though the Fiscal General, in his indictment, has touched on all sorts of small matters: for instance, the appointment of Councillor of Justice Struensee to the College of Finances, &c., as they all depended on the general principles which his Majesty the King had accepted in the administration, and his Majesty had given his special approval to their execution, it is unnecessary to dwell on them.
On the other hand, I will in conclusion of this portion of the indictment show, that the Fiscal General incorrectly charges Count Struensee with having formed dangerous designs, and of wishing to sustain himself in the most improper way in the post which his Majesty entrusted to him.
As a proof of this, the dismissal of the body-guard and the loading of the cannon are first alleged. It was proved in the examination that the reasons for this were perfectly legal; it is also seen from the confrontation of Major-General Gude and Count Struensee, that the intention of the latter order was only to hold the populace in check, for the sake of the public tranquillity, and that Count Struensee never ordered Major-General Gude to take the latter precaution, but the general was of opinion that it was merely a consequence of the general reminder given him, "that everything must be tranquil and in order."
Equally little probable or proven is it that Count Struensee had undertaken, or wished to undertake anything which would have procured him an opportunity for escaping, if his supposed meditated design of assuming the character of a protector had failed.
That nothing was attempted against the person of his royal Majesty is proved by the documents and the acknowledgment of the Fiscal General himself. And how could gratitude or caution have suggested so detestable a thought to the count? It was the king alone to whom he owed his fortune, and the confidence of his Majesty was the sole basis of his respect and his security.