It is not creditable to discuss personal matters, when disputing about property or things which do not affect the persons themselves. But when a criminal has to be convicted whose head is at stake, we must not be so sparing as Herr Uldall, as defender, desires, especially in things which are not inventions, but everybody knows they have happened. Everything must be brought to light. The style must be arranged in accordance with the matter to be discussed, and Count Struensee cannot be thoroughly convinced of his crimes, if he considers my charge insulting to the man on whom his Majesty cast his favour.
I have not attacked him for being a foreigner, but because the business he undertook was foreign to him. I will not allow with Advocate Uldall that it is no state crime not to understand the language of the country when a man holds such a station as Count Struensee. Herr Uldall cannot produce any instance of it. Perhaps one man might be found who did not understand the language like a native, but in that case he occupied a station in which he did not require to understand it.[92] I have alleged this, his ignorance of the language, as a proof of his foolhardiness in accepting a post in which it was his duty to talk with Danes and Norwegians, and to read their petitions, without being compelled to trust to the fidelity of a translator. The count must himself confess that he did not know the laws of the country; was he not, therefore, deficient in the two "great things" which are requisite to examine the demands of the nation? and can I be blamed for mentioning that he, Struensee, had no religion, when his friend, Count Brandt, acknowledges it, and even declares that he did not dare propose attendance at church, solely through fear of Struensee? Ought not every one who is about the king to fear God, as that is made a duty of the king in article 1 of the royal law? Can any one deny that he was bold and impudent? If he turned his attention to affairs of state when he was a doctor of medicine, he was an indolent doctor, for a skilful minister of state does not spring up like a mushroom, and in that case how dared he take on himself to become physician in ordinary? But if he devoted himself to medicine, how could he desire to become the highest and sole authority in the affairs of the country? Can a man be treated mildly whose principle it is that goodness injures a country? through goodness mutual love is acquired. Which king is the more secure—the one who is beloved, or the one before whom people tremble? Oderint dum metuant was the consolation of the tyrant, but he is amiable who seeks his honour in love of his country. Therefore, I have called things by their right name, and do not do so in order to display my courage against a prisoner—for I never took pleasure in my neighbour's misfortune—but in order to perform my duty.
Advocate Uldall has represented the count first from the side where his crimes find an apparent excuse, so that that comes last in his reply which stands first in my statement. I shall follow his example, and concisely answer his defence.
As regards Struensee's crimes against the royal law, the counsel for the defence entertains the same views as his principal, that the king was able to do it. It is true that the king can select any adviser he pleases, but is the man whom he selects as adviser permitted to consent to things which have injurious results? The royal law states the duty of the king and of his subjects. According to article 3, no alteration can be made in it. If anything is done to the royal law, the right of reigning is lost (I write juridically, and do not suppose that the law is maintained by the sword). The King of Denmark is sovereign on the conditions to which Frederick III. pledged himself, and, as primus adquirens, was able in turn to pledge his descendants and successors on the throne. In article 7 of the royal law, he commanded that all government decrees and letters should be issued in no other name but the king's, and that the king himself must sign them, if he has attained his majority. In article 26, employed against me, he determined the punishment of any man who attempted any almost imperceptible encroachment on the king's authority. Hence it was Count Struensee's duty, if he wished to be an honest adviser of the king, to represent that it was not right to make known the king's will in such a way, as it was contrary to the royal law, in which the king has no power to make the slightest alterations: that the obedience of the subjects ceases if the royal law is altered without their consent: that hence the king ran the highest risk in acting thus, and it might cost him, Struensee, his head.
That Count Struensee really misused the power which he appropriated, I have clearly proved by his conduct in the order for the dissolution of the body-guard, and also that in this instance he laid incorrect statements before the king.
The other things that Herr Uldall mentions as agreeing with the royal law, are not applicable here. I have shown that Count Struensee had impure intentions in the abolition of the council, namely, to be alone, and be able to do whatever he liked.
That he failed in the reverence which he owed his Majesty, has been proved by witnesses. The falsification is so evident to everybody, that only Count Struensee's confession of it is wanting, which he holds back, however, because he does not wish to be regarded as a forger after his death. That he afterwards brought the same sum under his Majesty's notice cannot be employed in his defence, for there was no special statement which could have reminded his royal Majesty of the incorrectness.
As regards the bouquet, it is not denied that he was aware of the sale, but he defends himself with his sacred assurance, that he supposed the sale took place with the king's assent. The commission is aware that the ornament did not fetch its full value, as one stone alone in it was estimated at 18,000 dollars. He excuses his knowledge of Brandt's conduct to the king, and pretends that he had not been so fully aware of the affair before. All the rest consists of excuses and palliations, which are only founded on his statements, but which have been proved quite differently by me.