But if he could have been so malicious as to deny all his obligations, where was the party he had formed to carry out his design? Would he have been so incautious as to announce his intention to the whole public? For such was the case with the loading of the cannon; and would he not rather have taken precautions to secure himself against such surprises as might easily take place, and really did take place, especially as we see from Christian Näses' declaration and Count Brandt's acknowledgment, that he had received some intimations to that effect?
That Count Struensee employed other illegal means to support himself is equally incorrect. It certainly seems as if Count Brandt were attached to the king in order to watch him; but the latter declares exactly the contrary, and that Count Struensee did not at all need him to support himself. Equally little can it be concluded from point eight of the indictment, that letters addressed to the king were to be delivered in the cabinet; for, without mentioning that this order was given by the king himself, and that, if it had any secret object, it ought to have been given long before, Panning and Morack's statements prove that the disorder in which letters and other papers lay about the king's apartment was the sole cause for this order, and that his Majesty, after this time, received his letters as punctually as before.
As regards the accusations, then, which have been brought against Count Struensee with respect to public affairs, I hope I have proved that he only acted according to the will of his Majesty; that it was not his intention to acquire power at the expense of his royal Majesty; and that, if he erred in one point or the other, it was not done through petulance, or deserves the harsh expressions employed by the Fiscal General, but that it is solely to be explained by the fallibility which is inseparably connected with every man. Nowhere has anything been found which raised a doubt as to the safety of the king, his family, or his supremacy, or could give cause for the supposition that Count Struensee wished to treat his king and benefactor in so shameful a way. He declares most sacredly, even now, that his only desire was to promote the king's welfare and the prosperity of the kingdoms.
I will now pass to the second portion of the charges, which relate to the insults said to have been offered to the persons of the royal house. As regards the "éloignement" in which her Majesty Queen Juliana Maria and his royal highness the hereditary prince were held, Count Struensee declares that he has given the true reason in his answers to questions 486 and 469; that he never attempted to maintain or increase it; that he was not aware of any other reason for a different box being given the prince at the theatre, except that the king did not wish to have the prince's suite in his box; and that, lastly, so far as he could remember, he had no share in the correspondence carried on, upon this subject, between Count Brandt and Count Scheel.
As regards the education of his royal highness the prince royal, I refer to the count's own memorial; he protests most sacredly against ever having entertained such thoughts as the Fiscal General imputes to him. In this matter, he is so conscious of the purity of his intentions, that he is willing to submit it to the verdict of experienced physicians, whether the prince's health has not been improved by it. Moreover, it was the queen's will that this course should be pursued; and Count Struensee more than once drew on himself her displeasure, by representing to her that the right measure was exceeded in it. (Cfr. letter F., pp. 361 and 362.)
As concerns the "passage" between his royal Majesty and Count Brandt, which forms a charge in the Fiscal General's indictment, the explanations of Count Struensee show that he could never have conjectured that Count Brandt would undertake it in so audacious a way as he did, but that the affair would be settled en badinant between the king and Brandt. His advice was to the effect that Brandt should keep aloof from the king; and that Brandt did not, in the remotest degree, expect Count Struensee's assent, or subsequent approval, in this affair, is seen from the fact that he not only previously kept secret the way in which he had resolved to go to work, as he merely said "that he would demand an explanation of the king," but that, afterwards, he also concealed the most aggravating portions of his deed,—the circumstance with the riding-whip; his bolting the door; and the challenging and abusive language which he employed. In so far, then, as regards the share which Count Struensee had in this "passage," he hopes the more to be excused, because his Majesty the King, in such private matters, did not wish to be regarded as king, but as a private person, which was the reason why he, Count Struensee, did not oppose Brandt's design, so far as it was known to him.
That it was never his "sentiment" to neglect the proper reverence in intercourse with the king; and that no one can mention an instance of it, strengthens his innocence in this case; for what the Fiscal General alleges to the contrary only consists of mere gossip. Equally little can Brandt's letter, quoted by the Fiscal General, serve as a proof that Brandt was rewarded for his conduct to the king, as it was written in September, 1771, and the "passage" with Brandt did not take place till November of that year. And should not all this be a sufficient justification for Count Struensee, he appeals to the kindness which his Majesty has so frequently shown him, to obtain his pardon.
In the same way he throws himself at his Majesty's feet, and implores his mercy for the crime against his Majesty's person, the first mentioned by the Fiscal General, but hitherto unalluded to by me. It is the only thing in which he knows that he consciously sinned against his king; but he confesses, with contrition, that this crime is too great for him to expect forgiveness of it. If, however, regard for human weakness, a truly penitent feeling of his error, the deepest grief at it, the tears with which he laments it, and the sighs which he dedicates to the king and the welfare of his family, deserve any compassion, he will not be found unworthy of it.
In all the rest he supposes that the law and his innocence will defend him, and that for this reason he can expect an acquittal. But, in the same way as in the last point, he seeks refuge in the king's mercy alone; he begs this high court, who have witnessed the sincerity of his grief and sorrow, to be kind enough to procure him the greatest possible alleviation of his fate by a favourable representation of his repentance to his Majesty.