The attendance of the valets was for this purpose shortened. On the other hand, the king was to receive every morning the visit of a doctor, who gave him powders, although there was nothing the matter with his Majesty, and, as valet Torp stated, lit. F., p. 52, his Majesty was just as healthy as he had been before, and demanded no attendance from a doctor.
This doctor, Professor Berger, who, as the chosen instrument of Counts Struensee and Brandt, there can be no doubt indulged in thoughts about great posts of honour to be acquired in Denmark, allowed himself to be employed in incommoding his Majesty every morning. The two other physicians in ordinary, Etats-rath von Berger and Piper, could not be induced to do such useless things; and hence we see that Professor Berger did not go solely on account of his Majesty's health, but in order that the morning hour might be spent with him, the confidant of the counts.
It is not easy to understand how Count Brandt, of whom it must be confessed that he possessed common sense, and might have been useful to the king and country as a native, allowed himself to be persuaded to become a promoter of the Struensian undertakings. Nor is it possible to discover what could induce him, as a person of rank and family, to deny that hauteur which is generally observed toward people of low origin, unless it was caused by an unbounded desire for honours and wealth, and that he consequently behaved like those who consort with, and are the accomplices of, thieves.
If Count Brandt, as he says and writes, wished to leave the court and go on his travels, if only an income of 1,000 dollars were allowed him, because he saw that his remaining would do him no good, why did he remain? Why did he not say to his Majesty that he did not wish to stay at court any longer? What Count Brandt alleges, therefore, is only a subterfuge; and what he states in his memorials to Count Struensee is not earnestness, but merely threats against Count Struensee, who must effect that which Count Brandt desired to attain, as is visible from the fact that Count Struensee appears to have employed soothing language. For if Count Brandt regarded his position at court as a Hell (his own expression), he was at liberty to get rid of it by sending in his resignation. But it was not meant seriously. Hence he is not to be excused for accepting a post of which himself says:—"Mais je le force de vivre avec moi et pour comble de disgrâce je suis encore obligé à le (the king) traiter durement, à ce qu'il l'appelle pour qu'il ne devient insolent vis-à-vis de la Reine, et si cela arrive par hazard j'en porte la faute: cela tout seul est un Enfer." In this position with his royal Majesty he has proved himself guilty of the following capital crimes:—
I.
After free consideration and consultation he went in to the king his master, and then challenged, abused, attacked, beat, and bit his Majesty. This is certainly unheard of, and, I must say of this deed, "animus meminisse horret luctuque refugit." But it happened so, and Count Brandt's own confession and the statements of the witnesses confirm it.
Count Brandt confessed before the commission that he—after his royal Majesty one day at breakfast had said something which he, Count Brandt, considered insulting, and his Majesty had thrown a lemon at him—consulted with Count Struensee on the matter, who advised him to go to the king and demand satisfaction. In consequence of this, after laying a riding-whip previously in a pianoforte standing in the king's ante-chamber, in order to threaten the king with it, he went into the king's cabinet, challenged, assaulted, and maltreated him. (V. his confession, lit. F., pp. 309 and 322.)
This confession is confirmed by his Majesty's own declaration to valet Schleel, who, on the morning after the assault, came to his Majesty, and saw that the king's neck was scratched; by the statements of valet Brieghil, page of the bed-chamber Schack, valet Torp, and also by the evidence of the negro boy Moranti. From all this it is indisputably fully proved that Count Brandt laid hands on his Majesty in order to insult him—an awful deed, as King David says in the second book of Samuel, chap, i., vv. 14, 15, 16: "How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed? * * * * Thy blood be on thine own head."
It is true that Count Brandt has tried to excuse this audacious deed, partly by the assurance that such things were frequently done to his Majesty by Count Holck and Warnstedt, partly by asserting that his royal Majesty has forgiven him this crime. But even if, as regards the first apology, we were to assume for a moment that such audacious deeds were really done by Count Holck and Von Warnstedt, this cannot exculpate Count Brandt, who was not justified in acting thus because another before him had committed these crimes and escaped punishment. And as regards the second excuse, his royal Majesty never forgave him his crime, for the witnesses I have mentioned declare, that after this occurrence his Majesty could not endure Count Brandt, and was afraid of being attacked by him; that his Majesty locked his door on the following night, which was not usually the case, and thus revealed that his Majesty had not forgiven Count Brandt the offence, and also that his Majesty ordered page Schack[1] to denounce Count Brandt's treatment of him to this commission, which would not have happened had the offence been pardoned. Although such conduct toward a king can never meet with an apology, still, if the assault had been made at the moment when Count Brandt considered himself insulted, and if it might appear that he had undertaken it in an outburst of excitement, a good deal might still be said against it. But in this case, where he goes in to his king after reflection, and in cold blood, orders out the persons present, so that there may be no witnesses of the improper deed, locks the door, in order that no one may afford assistance, seizes the king round the neck, threatens him with death; and when he at length lets him loose, after the king has spoken soothingly, threatens him that another time he shall not get off so cheaply; and, in addition, abuses the king, as himself is obliged to confess—nothing can be brought forward as the slightest excuse for him; he is a child of death, and one of the greatest criminals that ever trod the earth. He has acted against his oath, which commands him to risk his life and blood for his king and the defence of his life; but exactly contrary to this oath he attacks his king, and in such a way that the latter suffers a loss of blood.