There remained a great deal of servants’ gossip, such as the Queen’s conversations with her women. Thus, for instance, the Queen’s words, that if a woman loved a man, she should follow the object of her devotion to the gallows or the wheel, if need be, or even down to hell itself, were repeated here with additions. One of the maids objected, and said that there were few men worthy of such sacrifices; what was a woman to do if her lover proved unfaithful? The Queen replied that in her case she would either go mad or kill herself. She envied her waiting-women their good fortune in being able to marry whom they would, and said she had been married once against her will, but if she ever had the good fortune to become a widow, she would marry the next time whom she pleased, even if he were a private person, and she had to leave the country and abandon her crown in consequence. The fact that she asked for Struensee, and tried to rush to his room at the time of her arrest, was noted against her; also her tears and lamentations at Kronborg, and the inquiries she had made after him. It was also put in as evidence that she always wore a miniature of Struensee, that she took it with her to Kronborg, and kept it at night under her pillow for fear any one should take it from her. Finally, several presents that the Queen had given Struensee were put in as evidence against her, though they were of no particular value. A great deal was made out of a blue enamelled heart which the Queen had brought with her from England, and afterwards gave to Struensee as the pledge of their friendship. Having duly noted all this and a great deal more, Bang wound up his indictment by demanding a verdict in the name of the King to this effect:—
“That in accordance with the law of Denmark set forth in the sixth section of the third book of the code of Christian V., her Majesty Caroline Matilda shall now be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be forthwith dissolved, so as not to prevent his Majesty the King, if he will, from contracting a new alliance.”
The indictment of Bang was neither very able nor very convincing, and, except for the Queen’s admission of Struensee’s confession, the evidence which he adduced was hardly worthy of credence. It was all of the nature of circumstantial evidence, and there was no direct proof of the Queen’s guilt; on the contrary, it was in her favour that notwithstanding every effort of cajolery, bribery and threat had been employed to procure evidence against the Queen, no better result could be obtained than this hotch-potch of servants’ gossip and vague suppositions. It may be doubted whether any ordinary court of law would pass sentence on such evidence; but the judges of the unfortunate Matilda had been appointed not to execute justice, but to carry out the behests of her enemies. Their minds were already made up as to the verdict before they entered the court. Still, to maintain an appearance of fairness before the world, they announced their willingness to hear the Queen’s defence, and offered no objection when the Queen’s advocate, Uhldahl, requested an adjournment of the court for a week, so that he might have time to submit Bang’s indictment to the Queen, and consult with her concerning the defence to be offered. The court was then adjourned until April 2.
In the interval Uhldahl went to Kronborg, and took with him Bang’s indictment. He had several audiences of the Queen, who was now more mistress of her emotions, and they went through the charges against her point by point. The Queen was moved to indignation at the revelations of the treachery of those whom she had trusted, and she was aghast at the unfairness with which some of her most innocent actions were distorted into proofs of her guilt. Blinded as she had been by her love for Struensee, the Queen now realised for the first time what her conduct must have looked like to the eyes of other people. Still, even admitting her lack of discretion to the fullest extent, a great deal of the evidence submitted against her was both unfair and untrue. Unfortunately, the damning testimony of her own confession remained, and not all her tears could wash out the signature which she had so incautiously written. It was therefore resolved to fall back on the strict letter of the Danish law, which did not permit the confession of an accused person to be put in as evidence, and treated it as null and void. The Queen, it is true, admitted that appearances were against her, but she pleaded that she was not guilty of the worst offence. The intimacy between herself and Struensee had been carried beyond the bounds of discretion and propriety, considering their relative positions, but it was not wicked. For the rest, she threw herself upon the mercy of the King, who in any case would have to confirm the sentence of her judges. The Queen’s forlorn condition, her youth, her tears, her prayers, her evident goodness of heart, moved even her advocate to pity, prejudiced though he was against her, and hired for the purpose of conniving at her destruction. He drew up his defence with her, and threw into the work so much heart that when he left his client it became a very different document to that which he had contemplated at first.
On Uhldahl’s return to Copenhagen the second session was held on April 2, and the advocate then submitted his defence.[52]
[52] The original draft of Uhldahl’s defence of Queen Matilda is still among the heirlooms of the Uhldahl family. A copy of this celebrated document, in Danish, is preserved in the royal archives in Copenhagen. The above is a translation of that copy.
“It is with unfeigned emotion that I rise to fulfil the duty which the well-being of the Queen as well as the command of the King have imposed upon me.
“The rank of these exalted personages, the importance and far-reaching consequences of this trial, the intense desire I have to do my duty, and the fear that I may not be able to do it as I wish, add to my anxiety, and justify my regret at seeing the Queen compelled to lay aside her purple, come down from her throne, and, like the meanest of women, seek the protection of the law. Could any more affecting illustration of the insecurity of human happiness possibly be imagined? She in whose veins flows the blood of so many kings is suspected of having dishonoured her illustrious ancestry. She, who gave her lord the King her hand and heart, stands accused by the man who at that time swore to be her protector. She who, when she came among us, by the unanimous verdict of the nation, was regarded as the mother of her people, is now tried by the men who in that day would have shed their blood in her defence. Thus unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the queens of Denmark. In the bloom of her youth, and dowered with every gift to ensure happiness, she finds herself to-day standing on the brink of an abyss, down which her honour, her dignity, her peace of mind, may be cast. In one day she may lose her husband, her children and her throne, and yet be compelled to survive the loss. Suspected, accused, in danger of living a life of wretchedness for long years to come—can anything be more heart-rending than her position? Thus the Queen regards her situation, and thus she depicted it to me when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:—
“‘I should utterly despair had not my intentions been always for the welfare of the King and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my youth, my sex and my rank must plead in my favour. I never believed myself exposed to suspicion, and, even though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. I understand that the law requires me to be tried: my consort has granted me this much; I hope he will also, through the mouth of his judges, acknowledge that I have not made myself unworthy of him.’
“I repeat her Majesty’s words exactly as she uttered them. How I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken—the frankness that carried conviction, the trembling voice which pleaded for pity! This last, indeed, no one can refuse her without outraging every sentiment of humanity.
“Chief among the charges brought against the Queen is that she has been false to the vows and duties imposed upon her by her marriage with the King her husband. It has been well urged that the King’s bed must remain unsullied in the interests of his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of his country. These truths all will admit, but they are so far from affecting the Queen that she demands the strictest investigation; she believes that she has not acted contrary to them. The more exalted her duties, the more exacting her obligations, the more terrible are the consequences of any infraction of them. The more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that the Queen has really committed a sin. How will the honour of the King and his royal family be better promoted—by proving the Queen guilty, or by showing her innocence? Has the Queen never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband and his people? Is it not admitted that, up to the time, at all events, when the accusations begin, she had proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy Queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty could so easily have forgotten herself? Can it be that she, who up to that day sought delight in modesty, virtue, respect of the King, and affection of the country, banished all these noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?
“Advocate Bang in the King’s name submitted three varieties of proofs against the Queen—Count Struensee’s confession, her Majesty’s statement, and (as he knew that neither of these was sufficient) the evidence of witnesses.
“Undoubtedly Count Struensee on February 21 and 24, as the documents show, made statements of the most insulting nature against her Majesty. He forgot the reverence due to his Queen, and through unfounded alarm, or confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself by implicating the Queen in his affair, or for other reasons, he made these absurd allegations, which can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the statement that he, if the Queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to abuse it in so scandalous a manner, or that the Queen would have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by such a statement. And how improbable it is that such a state of affairs should have gone on at court for two whole years under the nose of the King, and under the eyes of so many spies. The accusation is made by a prisoner not on his oath, and is utterly destitute of probability.
“Advocate Bang admits that Count Struensee’s declaration is in itself no evidence against the Queen. Hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which the Queen made on March 9 as to the correctness of Struensee’s declaration, partly through her admission that she had broken her marriage vows, and hence lost her marriage rights. This he wishes to be regarded as proof. Certainly, in all civil causes confession is the most complete form of proof, but in criminal actions, and those such as we are now trying, the law of Denmark utterly rejects this evidence when it says: ‘It is not sufficient that the accused person should herself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court, and properly prove the offence’.
“Other proofs therefore are necessary, and since it is the King’s wish that the law should be strictly followed in this action, and judgment be founded on the evidence submitted, it follows that the Queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects....[53]
[53] Here follows an argument to show that the Queen could not be convicted on her own confession, or on the confession of Struensee, as the Danish code demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons, who agreed as to the facts as well as the motives.
“I now pass to the third class of proofs, which consist of the evidence of persons summoned by the prosecution as witnesses. Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined by me, but I have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence, and what it goes to prove.
“It is worthy of note that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other foundation for his, or her, first suspicion against the Queen than common gossip [‘town-scandal’] which they had heard. It was not until this gossip became universal that it was mentioned to the Queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the Queen’s person, and yet found no reason for believing anything wrong in her intercourse with Struensee, it is clear that the conduct of the Queen must have been irreproachable up to this time. Every one knows that rumour is a lying jade; scandal is often founded on nothing, and through its propagation alone acquires credibility. But however false the slander may be, it leaves behind it, after once being uttered, a suspicion, which places the conduct of the person slandered in a new and different light. Words and actions before regarded as innocent are henceforth seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, the slander is regarded as confirmed. Thus it is with the witnesses in this case, for though, prior to hearing the rumour, they did not suspect the Queen, no sooner had they heard it than they imagined evidence against her at every point.”
Uhldahl then proceeded to subject the evidence of the witnesses to analysis, with a view of showing how contradictory and worthless most of it was.