Thus it will be seen that Brandt’s defence, though it actually denied none of the charges, gave a plausible explanation of them all. Brandt does not seem to have realised his danger, nor to have imagined that anything he had done, or left undone, could be considered worthy of death. In addition to his defence, he sent a memorial to his judges, and a letter to the King, in which he begged to be allowed to go away, and end his days quietly in Holstein. The letter to the King is lost; but the memorial to the judges remains, and is written in such a spirit of levity that it suggests doubt as to the writer’s sanity. Of course it was unavailing.
The legal farce was now drawing swiftly to a close. On April 25 the judges assembled at the Christiansborg Palace to deliver judgment on both cases. The judgments were very long and argumentative. There is no need to give them at length; to do so would be merely to recapitulate in other words the arguments brought forward by the prosecution. In Struensee’s sentence the chief count against him—his alleged adultery with the Queen—was summed up in a few words: “He has already been convicted of it” (presumably by the Queen’s sentence), “and has himself confessed it: he has thereby committed a terrible crime, which involves in an eminent degree an assault on the King’s supremacy, or high treason, and according to the law deserves the penalty of death”. The rest of the judgment, which occupied some thirty pages, dealt in detail with the other offences alleged against him, and condemned him on every count.
“Therefore,” the judgment concluded, “as it is clear that Count Struensee in more than one way, and in more than one respect, has not only himself committed the crime of high treason in an extreme degree, but has participated in similar crimes with others; and that, further, his whole administration was a chain of violence and selfishness, which he ever sought to attain in a disgraceful and criminal manner; and as he also displayed contempt of religion, morality and good manners, not only by word and deed, but also through public regulations,—the following sentence is passed on him, according to the words of Article I. of Chapter 4 of Book 6 of the Danish law:—
“Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment for himself, and as an example and warning for others of like mind, have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours which have been conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner; his right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head; his body quartered and broken on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck on a pole.
“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
Here follow the signatures of the nine judges, headed by that of Baron Juell-Wind, and ending with that of Guldberg.
Brandt’s sentence was delivered at the same time. It contained no direct allusion to the Queen, and was a long, rambling and confused document. Finally, it declared that, by his treacherous and audacious assault on the person of the King, he had committed an act of high treason, which deserved the punishment of death, according to the same article of the Danish law as that quoted in the case of Struensee. Therefore:—
“Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner on the scaffold, his right hand cut off while he is still alive, then his head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and hand stuck on a pole.
“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
The judgments were immediately published in the Danish journals. Thence they found their way into foreign newspapers, and were by them adversely criticised, not so much on account of the punishment, as for the extraordinary and diffuse way in which the judgments were written. In Denmark they were received with enthusiasm by the great majority of the people, but there was a minority growing up which regarded them more dubiously, and was disposed to criticise. The Government, however, determined to allow little time for criticism or reaction, and resolved to carry the sentences into effect at the earliest possible moment, before any change took place in public opinion.