It is an easy matter for a person who is daily with his king, and in such a manner that no one else can reach him, to grow rich. But such an enterprise cannot be so easily excused, even if there be the king's assent to it, for the king's favour must be as little abused in money matters as in other things. To pocket a sum of 60,000 dollars for so short a period of service, because he annoyed the king, and waited on him, not to his comfort, but to his vexation and that of others, seems to denote audacity and impudence as well as slight reflection. To appropriate so large a sum in so short a time, while the land was sunk in debt, and seventy thousand human beings must contribute to it from their poverty, and save it out of their food, was not a wise action on the part of a man who wished to be regarded as a patriot. But his royal Majesty did not give Count Brandt any such sum; but Count Struensee procured it for him by converting 6,000 dollars into 60,000.
I produce here the questions laid before Count Brandt in respect to this matter, and his answers. From these we learn that Count Brandt declares he first received 10,000 dollars and afterwards 60,000, although he alleges it was only 50,000, and lastly, at the new year, in addition to 300 dollars, 3,000 more.
Count Brandt is obliged himself to confess that there appears to him something strange and very suspicious in the document in which credit is taken for the 60,000 dollars, and which I have discussed more amply in the indictment of Count Struensee. Count Brandt does not deny having received the money, and that he gave no receipt for it, but thanked the king for it, though without mentioning the amount. If we now take into consideration what I said about this in my accusation against Count Struensee, not the slightest doubt can exist that Count Brandt was an accomplice in this audacious deed, and therefore was guilty of the crime of forgery.
These are the principal crimes of Count Brandt as regards his own person. In addition, he took part in all the crimes which Count Struensee committed; he had confidants and instruments to set in work everything that Count Struensee wished, instead of acting in accordance with his oath and his duty, and avoiding those things which he knew would have evil results. I may be permitted to regard it as superfluous to enter more fully into these matters, as they are well known to the exalted commission, and I have sufficient proofs for my proposed sentence, which I most submissively offer for decision in the following terms:—
"That Count Chamberlain Enevold Brandt, who has not only forgotten the most submissive veneration which he owed to the king his master, but also had the audacity to go into the king's cabinet, and then not only address his supreme royal Majesty in bad language, but also to commit the most audacious and unheard-of deed of laying hands on his lord the king, the anointed of God, as an insult to his royal Majesty, as well as behaved in many points unfaithfully to his Majesty, and consented to many things against his better knowledge, although his royal Majesty had shown him great favour,—be condemned by virtue of the paragraphs of the law 6—4—1—14, to forfeit his dignity as count and his office of chamberlain as well as his honour, life and estate; that after his coat of arms has been broken by the executioner, his right hand shall be cut off while alive, the body quartered and exposed on the wheel, his head and hands affixed to a pole, his fortune confiscated to the king, and his heirs, should he possess any, lose their rank and name."
April 21, 1772. F. W. WIWET.
As regards Brandt's confession of a knowledge of the familiarity between the queen and Struensee, it is probable that Brandt was persuaded that his life depended on what he might say about the liaison. What other motive could he have had for making such a confession? If Brandt had merely declared, like Berger and others, that he had suspicions on the subject, it would have been of no use. Something positive being required, he declared that he was informed of it. How could he be so? Was it by Struensee, who concealed nothing from him?
But Struensee, instead of acknowledging this confidence, absolutely denied it, and no confrontation was ventured. Again, if Brandt's declaration was correct, why did Struensee repulse it so loudly? It appears indisputable that he did so because it was false.
And the position in which Brandt placed himself by yielding to the solicitations of the commissioners was very probably the cause of his ruin. The mysteries of this trial must be buried with him. Without this motive, what interest could there have been in destroying a man like Brandt? Was there a shadow of justice in condemning him to death for things which were quite common with the king?