Uldall.
Copenhagen, April 22, 1772.
This defence, though neatly written, is still so weak and lukewarm, that it cannot protect its author from the suspicion that he had an understanding with the conspirators, and that his defence was only intended to throw dust in the eyes of Europe. Falckenskjold, who, as a native, contemporary, and adherent of Struensee, and who, as unattached to the court, is an impartial witness, expresses himself as follows on the subject in his "Memoirs:"—
"The royal law supplied Uldall with an article which, by formally authorising the king to suppress or create any council or office he thought proper, consequently gave the right of proposing the suppression of the privy council and of other offices which might appear injurious to the interests of the monarchy, as well as the creation of a cabinet minister. Further, Uldall did not develope all the absurdity of the charge of forgery brought against his client. He did not make use of the means he possessed to justify him about the ill-treatment of the king, of which Brandt was accused: means the more easy, because there was in this point no evidence against Struensee. He ought to have discussed the reforms effected by this minister, and have shown that far from being criminal and injurious, they generally tended to the welfare of the state and the advantage of the monarch. This examination would have given him occasion to display the conduct of Struensee, and show him, as he really was, vigilant and anxious to simplify affairs, so that the king might see and know them, and decide them himself. It was very easy to heighten the merit of such conduct by comparing it with that of previous ministers; by placing in its true light that royal law by virtue of which every Danish monarch binds himself on ascending the throne not to suffer any attack on his power, and to maintain it in its integrity. It was not sufficient to say, as if en passant, that the will of the king covered the acts of Struensee's administration with an inviolable defence; he ought to have made those who attacked them feel the consequences to which they exposed themselves; he ought to have shown them in the royal law the sword that menaced those who dared to condemn in Struensee the wishes and orders of the king."[91]
But Uldall had been one of Struensee's opponents from the beginning, and hence was most unfitted to be a defender; and that he consented to be so, on being selected by the chief conspirator, throws a sufficient light on his good will as a lawyer.
But what will my readers think of the two advocates, and the legal members of the commission, when I state that the criminal code of Christian V. prohibits every judge from listening to or trying charges that dishonour members of the reigning family? Falckenskjold says about this:—
"How could Uldall insert in his defence Struensee's declarations about his relations with the queen? Was he ignorant of the Danish law that nullified this declaration, and prohibited the judges from paying any attention to it? How, if he was versed in the principles and duties of his profession, did he dare, in a memoir intended to be made public, to represent his client as demanding mercy for this pretended crime, and imploring the intercession of his persecutor? And how was it he did not feel that by acting thus he joined a perfidious cabal, which was abusing the unhappy Struensee with deceitful hopes of escape, in order to drag from him the means of ruining him more completely?"
Another witness to the shamefulness of the charges against Struensee steps forward in honest Reverdil, himself no admirer of the favourite, but who valued truth above everything. He carefully analyses the charges. The one about the queen's bouquet was most unjust, he considers. It belonged to the queen, and she ordered it to be sold. The price it fetched was much lower than that paid for it, because princes pay long prices for jewels, and sell them cheaply, especially those of great value. The purpose for which it was sold was to get the money for making the badges for the new Order of Matilda.
As regards the forgery, Reverdil's evidence is decidedly in favour of Struensee. His argument, which seems to be conclusive, is to the following effect:—
1. At the time when this account was made out, Struensee, overwhelmed with business, had no secretary to assist him. Pleasure, audiences, races, and attentions to the queen, occupied the greater part of his time. He was ignorant of forms and their consequences: therefore, it is very credible that he cast up the account incorrectly, corrected, and presented it for signature with the erasures. The king signed without looking, and useless crimes ought not to be supposed.