First: His adultery with the Queen. This was based almost wholly on Struensee’s own confession and its confirmation by the Queen, and thus the very deed which Struensee signed in the hope of saving his life was brought forward as the head and front of the evidence against him. Fräulein von Eyben’s deposition, and Brandt’s and Berger’s depositions were also read, but the evidence of the other witnesses in the Queen’s divorce was not put forward at all.
With reference to the testimony of Fräulein von Eyben, the advocate said he produced it “not in order to prove what is already sufficiently proved, but only to point out how Struensee strove always to be present at places when there was an opportunity for him to obtain what he desired, and how the indifference with which he was at first regarded by the Person [the Queen] whose confidence he afterwards gained, proves that it was not he who was tempted, but that his superhuman impudence, his bold, crafty and villainous conduct were so powerful that he at last obtained that which virtue and education would never otherwise have granted, and therefore he is the more criminal because he effected the ruin of another in order to gain honour himself”. This shows what even the Queen’s enemies thought of Struensee’s baseness in trying to shield himself behind the pitiful plea that the Queen tempted him. His prosecutors did quite right in scouting such a plea, which, so far from extenuating him, only added to his infamy.
Secondly: Struensee’s complicity in Brandt’s ill-treatment of the King.
Thirdly: The harshness with which he had treated the Crown Prince, “so that it seems as if it had been his sole intention to remove the Crown Prince from the world, or at least to bring him up so that he would be incapable of reigning.”
Fourthly: His usurpation of the royal authority by issuing decrees instead of the King, and attaching his own signature to these decrees.
Fifthly: His suppression and dismissal of the Guards, which was declared to be without the consent of the King.
Sixthly: His peculations from the Treasury. It was stated that Struensee had not only taken large sums of money for himself, but for his brother, for Falckenskjold, for the Countess Holstein, for the Queen, and for Brandt. The Queen’s grant from the Treasury was 10,000 dollars, not a very large sum, and one to which she was surely entitled, as the grant was signed by the King. But the same paper contained grants of money to Brandt, Struensee and Falckenskjold—a grant of 60,000 to Brandt, 60,000 to Struensee and 2,000 to Falckenskjold, a total of 122,000 dollars. It was said that the document which the King signed contained only a grant of 10,000 dollars to the Queen, and 6,000 each to Brandt and Struensee; but Struensee added a nought to the donations to himself and Brandt, and wrote in 2,000 dollars for Falckenskjold, so that he tampered with the document to the extent of forgery. The King now protested that he had never made such a grant.
Seventhly: Struensee had sold, with the Queen’s consent, a “bouquet” of precious stones, although this was one of the crown jewels and an heirloom.
Eighthly: He had given orders that all letters addressed to the King should be brought to him, and he opened them, and thus kept the King in ignorance of what was going on.
Ninthly: He had so arranged the military in Copenhagen in the month of December that everything pointed to hostile intentions on his part, probably directed against the King and the people.
These were the principal charges brought against Struensee by Wivet; but, the advocate said: “To reckon up all the crimes committed by him would be a useless task, the more so when we reflect that the accused has only one head, and that, when that is lost by one of these crimes, to enumerate the other offences would be superfluous.” He therefore demanded that Struensee should be found guilty of high treason, and suffer death with ignominy.
The next day Uhldahl, who had defended the Queen, also undertook the defence of Struensee. The defence was lukewarm—so lukewarm that it could hardly be called a defence at all. The only time when Uhldahl waxed eloquent was when he reproved Wivet for his brutal attacks on the accused, and here it is probable that professional jealousy had to do with his warmth, rather than interest in his client. The chief count in the indictment against Struensee—his alleged adultery with the Queen—Uhldahl kept to the last, and here he offered no defence, for the prisoner had recanted in nowise his confession, but on the contrary made it the ground of a craven cry for mercy. To quote Uhldahl:—
“He throws himself at his Majesty’s feet, and implores his mercy for the crime against his Majesty’s person [adultery with the Queen] first maintained by the Fiscal-General Wivet, but till now unalluded to by him. It is the only thing in which he knows he has consciously sinned against his King, but he confesses with contrition that this crime is too great for him to expect forgiveness of it. If, however, regard for human weakness, a truly penitent feeling of his error, the deepest grief at it, the tears with which he laments it, and the prayers which he devotes to the welfare of the King and his royal family, deserve any compassion, he will not be found unworthy of it. In all the other charges made against him, he believes that the law and his innocence will defend him, and for this reason he can expect an acquittal, but for the first point (which he admits) he seeks refuge in the King’s mercy alone.”
Thus it will be seen, even in his advocate’s defence, Struensee, though denying all the other charges against him, reaffirmed his adultery with the Queen, and on the strength of that admission threw himself on the King’s mercy. The only satisfactory thing about this sordid business is that mercy was not granted to him.
Wivet replied, but Uhldahl waived his right of answering him again, and thus saying the last word in favour of the prisoner. The two advocates had in fact played into each other’s hands; the first inflamed the prejudices of the judges, already sufficiently prejudiced, by malevolent details, the second by scandalously neglecting his duty, and putting in a defence hardly worthy of the name.
Struensee became aware of how the advocate appointed to defend him had given him away, and so he resolved to make a defence of his own, which was certainly abler and more to the point. He wrote a long document, containing an elaborate review of, and apology for, his administration, answering his indictment at every point except one—his intimacy with the Queen; on that alone he kept silence. This document offers a remarkable contrast to the rambling and incoherent effusion in which he gave an account of his conversion. One can only suppose that his heart was in the one and not in the other. In both cases he might have spared himself the trouble, for neither his conversion nor his apology availed him anything.
Brandt’s trial followed immediately on that of Struensee. His treatment in prison had been the same as that of his fellow-malefactor. After his examination he, too, was granted certain indulgences, and an eminent divine was appointed to look after his soul. Brandt’s spiritual adviser was Hee, Dean of the Navy Church. Hee was more of a scholar than Münter, and less of a bigot; moreover, he had the instincts of a gentleman, which Münter had not, as was shown by the insults he heaped upon the unfortunate young Queen. These considerations perhaps hindered him in his work, for Hee’s “conversion” of Brandt was not so successful as Münter’s conversion of Struensee. Brandt received Hee courteously, conversed with him freely, and appeared to be much affected by his arguments; but it may be doubted whether they made any real impression on him, for Brandt, like Struensee, was a convinced freethinker, and, moreover, suffered from an incurable levity of temperament. But, like Struensee, he was anxious to save his life, and to this end he was quite ready to be converted by Hee or any one else. Even so, Brandt’s conversion did not seem to extend much beyond Deism; but that may have been due to his converter, for Hee was not nearly so orthodox a Christian as Münter. Brandt was very emotional, and frequently burst into tears when Hee reproved him for the wickedness of his former life, but as soon as the preacher’s back was turned he relapsed into his old levity. This being reported to Hee, he reprimanded the prisoner, and gave him several religious books to read, such as Hervey’s Meditations. Brandt then became very quiet, and his conduct was reported as being most edifying. In fact, he seems rather to have overdone his part, for he would sometimes take up his chains and kiss them, and exclaim: “When I thought myself free I was really a slave to my passions; and now that I am a prisoner, truth and grace have set me at liberty.” He also denounced Voltaire, whom he had met on his travels, and his teaching with great vehemence, and, as for Struensee, he said that he was “a man without any religion, who, from his infancy, according to his own admission, never had the slightest idea or sentiment of piety about him”. Shortly after this denunciation Struensee sent to inform Brandt that he had “found salvation” and he was praying that he too might repent him of his sins. Whereupon Brandt, not to be outdone in hypocrisy, replied that “he greatly rejoiced to hear of Struensee’s conversion. For his own part, he found comfort only in religion, and from his heart forgave Struensee for all he had done to draw him into his misfortunes.”