LIFE AND TIMES
OF
HER MAJESTY
CAROLINE MATILDA.
QUEEN OF DENMARK AND NORWAY,
AND
SISTER OF H. M. GEORGE III. OF ENGLAND,
FROM FAMILY DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE STATE ARCHIVES.
BY
SIR C. F. LASCELLES WRAXALL, BART.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
LONDON:
WM. H. ALLEN & CO., 13, WATERLOO PLACE, S.W.
1864.
[All Rights reserved.]
LEWIS AND SON, PRINTERS, SWAN BUILDINGS, MOORGATE STREET.
CONTENTS OF VOL. III.
——♦——
THE TRIAL OF COUNT BRANDT.
PAGE
The Indictment—Brandt at Court—The Assault on the King—The King's Deposition—The Queen and Struensee—Duty of a Good Citizen—The Confidant—The Alleged Forgery—The Sentence Proposed—The Defence—The King at Home—Duties of the Favourite—A Man of Courage—The Royal Gift—Brandt's Letter to his Judges—A Modest Request—Hurried Proceedings [1]
THE TWO COUNTS.
Struensee's Sentence—His General Conduct—The Maître des Requêtes—The German Language—Struensee's Despotism—The Council of the Thirty-two—The Cabinet Minister—The King's Presents—Struensee's Precautions—His Downfall—The Sentence Approved—Count Brandt—His Assault on the King—His Behaviour—The Royal Assent [33]
THE EXECUTION.
Confirmation of the Sentence—Struensee's Correspondence—Rantzau's Treachery—An Unfeeling Court—Struensee's Penitence—The Scaffold—April 28—Execution of Brandt—Horrible Details—Death of Struensee—His Character—Enlightened Despotism—The First Servant of the State—The Queen Dowager [71]
THE HIGH COMMISSION.
The Ten Prisoners—The Report—Lt.-Colonel von Hesselberg—Etats-rath Willebrandt—Professor Berger—Unjust Sentences—Von Gähler—Falckenskjold and Struensee—Serious Crimes—The Sentence—The Royal Approval—The Fortress of Munkholm—The Commandant—Resignation—The Order of Release—Curious Conditions—Death of Falckenskjold [103]
DEPARTURE OF THE QUEEN.
The British Fleet—Spirited Conduct of Keith—The Order of Release—The Prisoner Louisa Augusta—The Departure—The Landing at Stade—The Stay at Göhrde—Arrival in Celle—The Queen's Court—A Happy Family—Keith's Mission—Literary Pirates—Reverdil to the Rescue [141]
THE SECRET AGENT.
The Court at Celle—Mr. Wraxall—Presentation to the Queen—Hamburg—The Danish Nobility—The Proposition—The Credentials—Return to Celle—Baron von Seckendorf—The Queen's Acceptance—Another Visit to Celle—The Interview in the Jardin François—Caroline Matilda's Agreement—The Inn in the Wood—Baron von Bülow—A Strange Adventure—Arrival in England [167]
'TWIXT THE CUP AND THE LIP.
Baron von Lichtenstein—The King's Instructions—The Arrival from Hamburg—The Four Articles—A Terrible Journey—Arrival at Celle—Interview with the Queen—Baron von Seckendorf—The Answer from Copenhagen—The Appeal to George III.—The Counter-Revolution—Another Visit to Celle—The Last Interview—The Queen's Gratitude—Return to London—Waiting for the Answer—A Sudden Blow [202]
DEATH OF CAROLINE MATILDA.
The Typhus Fever—Death of the Page—The Queen's Visit—Symptoms of Illness—Dr. Zimmermann—Pastor Lehzen—Caroline Matilda's Goodness of Heart—Her Death—The Funeral—General Grief—The Monuments—Letter to George III.—Proofs of Caroline Matilda's Innocence—The Queen's Character [242]
WHEN ROGUES FALL OUT——.
The Reaction—The King's Will—Köller-Banner—Rantzau's Dismissal—Prince Charles of Hesse—Court Intrigues—Eickstedt's Career—Beringskjold's Career and Death—Von der Osten—The Guldberg Ministry—The Prince Regent—The Coup d'État—Uncle and Nephew—Fate of Guldberg—Death of Juliana Maria [259]
APPENDIX A. [291]
APPENDIX B. [307]
APPENDIX C. [313]
LIFE AND TIMES
OF
CAROLINE MATILDA.
——♦——
CHAPTER I.
THE TRIAL OF COUNT BRANDT.
THE INDICTMENT—BRANDT AT COURT—THE ASSAULT ON THE KING—THE KING'S DEPOSITION—THE QUEEN AND STRUENSEE—DUTY OF A GOOD CITIZEN—THE CONFIDANT—THE ALLEGED FORGERY—THE SENTENCE PROPOSED—THE DEFENCE—THE KING AT HOME—DUTIES OF THE FAVOURITE—A MAN OF COURAGE—THE ROYAL GIFT—BRANDT'S LETTER TO HIS JUDGES—A MODEST REQUEST—HURRIED PROCEEDINGS.
On the same day that the Fiscal General Wiwet handed in his indictment of Struensee, he delivered to the commission his charges against Count Brandt, which were to the following effect:—
THE INDICTMENT OF COUNT BRANDT.
As concerns the second principal prisoner, Count Enevold Brandt, we cannot say of him that he undertook something which he did not understand, but he has committed actions in which he ought not to have allowed himself to be used.
I have already most submissively stated how he, after being dismissed from court, again returned to it; that it took place through the intercession of Count Struensee, who required a person in whom he could trust, who was bound to him, and who would neither betray Struensee's enterprises, nor allow other persons to betray them. It was his function, therefore, to pay attention to everything that his royal Majesty undertook, in word and in deed, and to prevent any one having access to the king who did not belong to the party.
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.
It is of no avail in his excuse that he alleges his royal Majesty assaulted him first, unless this occurred at a time when his Majesty was angry with him, and he merely defended himself, which is human; but still could not be permitted to any subject against his king. But that he goes in to the king at a time when he had no duties to perform, and only in order to say harsh things to the king; that he goes in to terrify the king; that he abuses him; that he defies the king,—all this leaves him no other mode of escape but his statement, that the king assaulted him first. But, in my opinion, every man who suffers such treatment in his own house has the right to regale a man with a cudgel who comes into his room for the purpose of prostituting him, and how much more so a king. If his Majesty had killed him, Count Brandt, on the spot, it would have been his well-merited reward, and could have been answered before God and man.
As concerns Count Brandt's general behaviour toward his royal Majesty; for instance, his going in to the king in his peignoir, remaining with his Majesty with his hat on, or entering the king's room while playing the flute, this is really such conduct as no master would put up with from his servant, much less a king from his subject.
Count Brandt, it is true, apologises for all this by saying that his Majesty would have it so, and that the same thing was done in the time of earlier servants in an even more indifferent way. But the former is only a proof of his Majesty's gentleness and kindness, which do not like to express what a man ought to say to himself, and the latter gives him no right; for must I be a churl because my predecessor was one? In this matter I could mention several instances of bad conduct on the part of Count Brandt in treating his royal Majesty contemptuously. But as the great crime swallows up all the rest, it is unnecessary to mention them here, and so make the trial longer. Crimine ab uno discimus omnia.
I will, therefore, now proceed to Count Brandt's second capital offence.
II.
Count Brandt has broken the fidelity which he owed to the king his master by virtue of the oath he took to his Majesty, by being an accomplice in the improper intercourse and intimacy which Count Struensee had acquired with the person to whom he certainly owed reverence and affection, but no tenderness. Count Brandt confesses this, and that Count Struensee confided it to him is proved by his, Brandt's, own confession, lit. a, pp. 40 and 41. It is true that Count Struensee, in his declaration, lit. a, p. 50, will not quite admit Count Brandt's statement; but no doubt can be possible when we remember that Count Brandt was placed about his Majesty to prevent other persons having access to the king, in order that Count Struensee might have the better opportunity to play his part. What could induce Count Struensee to share the booty with him, and to allow him to rise in honour equally with himself, unless it were done to render him, Brandt, faithful, silent, and attentive?
That Count Brandt was cognizant of this illicit familiarity is furthermore shown by Count Struensee's reply to Count Brandt's letter, in which we read: "Je n'ai partagé avec personne la confiance que je vous ai donné: vous êtes le seul qui possède mes secrets, et à qui je m'explique sur tous les objets sans reserve." Count Brandt, generally as a subject, and specially as a royal official, Danish count and chamberlain, was commanded by the law to promote the king's welfare and prevent his detriment by his utmost efforts. Hence two duties were offered him: either to reveal the affair to the king, or to observe to the guilty party that such things must not be allowed; to oppose such a disgusting life, and threaten to reveal it to the king. I fancy I can hear a sincere friend of the king and of the honour of the royal family speaking thus to Count Struensee: "Audacious traitor and most impudent of the human race! you who ought to recognise and honour the supremacy and majesty, turn back from your impudence, and know that I, even through my birth, am bound to avert everything that entails the dishonour of the house of the king and his family." I believe that such language would have had more effect than all the memoirs. But, unhappily, money flowed, which Count Brandt needed; and hence he did not dare say, "May you be damned with your money!" I certainly see that I may be answered: "Why did not others do so? Why did the Fiscal General himself neglect it?" But to this it may be answered: "No one knew so much about it as Count Brandt. No one was so near the king as he; he kept every one away from the king, for the purpose that his royal Majesty might learn nothing about it from one or the other." But it was his duty, as he was always about the king, and was accurately acquainted with everything. If he were, on the contrary, to object that such matters did not concern him, although he is forced to confess having warned Count Struensee of what happened to them both on January 17, still he could have learned from Councillor of Chancery Blechinberg and his wife, and Mesdames Schiötte and Buch, what his duty was, and what he ought to have done. But as he not only omitted to do this, but did everything that lay in his power to prevent the affair reaching the king, and as Count Struensee has been found guilty in this matter of an assault on the king's supremacy, Count Brandt must be regarded as an accomplice, and punished in accordance with the paragraph of the law 6—4—14.
III.
In the same way as Count Brandt displayed faithlessness toward his king in the previous point, he furthermore showed it in the following affair, by joining Count Struensee in robbing the royal treasury of various sums of money.
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?
Two days after this wretched indictment, which was merely handed in to the commission as a matter of form, the defence was delivered by Advocate Bang to the same judges, and was to the following effect:—
BANG'S DEFENCE OF COUNT BRANDT.
By the most gracious commands of his royal Majesty, of March 23, which are attached to this under lit. A, I shall lay before this high commission Count Brandt's defence—not the defence of the actions of which he is accused, but his defence in so far as the accusations are incorrect.
It must reasonably insult Count Brandt to find that he whom his Majesty, through his own special favour, and as a reward for his faithful services to his king and master, raised to the rank of Count, selected for his daily intimate society, and honoured with many superfluous proofs of favour and confidence,—that he, I say, should see himself condemned to lose his dignity of count, his honour, life, and fortune, and have his body ill-treated by the executioner. But, according to his own declaration, made to me, his defender, neither his death, his disgrace, nor his torture, will be so painful to him as the sole idea that he has failed in the most submissive reverence, willingness, devotion, and fidelity, which his duty to his king and benefactor commanded, and by which he would have descended below humanity, and, so to speak, have borrowed a model of his actions from the evil spirits. If his conscience reproached him on these points, the bodily punishments would be no torture as compared with this grief; but he has, with a calm conscience, and unassailed by its gnawings, listened to the charges brought against him, and requested me to bring forward the following in his defence:—
Ad Præliminaria.
The Fiscal General accuses Count Brandt (a) that by Count Struensee's regulation, and in liaison with him, he was employed at court after his foreign tour, so that Count Struensee might have in him a man in whom he could trust, who would neither betray his designs, nor allow any one else to reveal them; (b) that Count Brandt kept people from the king who did not belong to the party; (c) that he shortened the attendance of the valets on the king's person, and, instead of it, arranged that Professor Berger, contrary to the king's wish, should wait on his Majesty in the mornings for the purpose of giving him powders, which were innocent, however; and (d) that he compelled the king to live with him, and treated him harshly.
Count Brandt has never regarded it as a crime to have allowed himself to be recommended to his Majesty by the man to whom the king granted his favour and confidence. What he attained through Struensee's recommendation was only a continuation of what Privy Councillors Saldern and Bernstorff had begun. The aforesaid post was neither given him to keep things secret, nor to conceal from the king things which, according to the Fiscal General's opinion, his Majesty must not be allowed to know. As it is not specially mentioned what the things were which must be concealed from the king, while the counsel only appears to refer to that which is alleged under the third chief point, I will reserve my special reply to it, and here content myself with offering a general denial to the general statement. I do not know what sort of party it was of which the Fiscal General speaks when he says that Count Brandt prevented persons having access to the king who were not useful to the party. He probably supposes a party which was opposed to the king or the welfare of the country; but as he does not state of what persons the assumed party was composed, the nature of their actions, what designs they entertained, or by what means they were to be realised, I am here dispensed from the obligation of answering this specially, and can content myself with the remark that there was no such party hostile to the king and country so far as came to Count Brandt's knowledge. He certainly had the permission to be near the king's person, but had neither the power nor the wish to keep any one away from his Majesty; and the Fiscal General has not been able to mention a single person of sufficient dignity to have access to the king, and who was refused it by Count Brandt. I must remark here that the king was lord and master, and had merely to command by a sign who was to come and who to go, and how long each was to remain, in which Count Brandt never opposed the king's will.
Had the king wished that the valets should remain longer with his Majesty, Count Brandt would not have prevented him; and this charge can the less be brought against him, as it can be seen from valet Schleel's evidence, how it had been ordered long before that not the valet, but Von Warnstedt, who formerly occupied Count Brandt's post, should dress and undress the king; and after Count Brandt, the black boys were ordered to perform this duty. Equally little can Professor Berger's morning visits be brought as a charge against Count Brandt, even if they had had evil consequences; while, on the contrary, the powders which the king took did not impair his health. Berger paid these visits so long as the king was willing to accept them; but when his Majesty no longer desired them, Berger kept away.
The words in Count Brandt's letter to Count Struensee, which the Fiscal General treats as a crime, have been so fully explained by Count Brandt's reply to questions 92 and 93, p. 120 of the examination, that I have nothing to add but refer to it, and this explanation deprives that passage in the letter of all the harshness which might otherwise be found in it. With what right Count Brandt could be accused of having an understanding with Count Struensee, and of striving to sustain him, is proved by his explanation to questions 64, 65, and 68 of the examination, in which he gives a full account how he had resolved to overthrow Count Struensee, from the time when he perceived the encroachments of the latter; that he consulted with Count von der Osten about this operation, by which Count Struensee was to be placed under arrest at Kronborg—a proposal which was not carried into effect, solely through an earlier, riper, and more successful interruption. As regards this disposition, the count has appealed to the testimony of Privy Councillor von der Osten, and I am convinced that this statement of Count Brandt has been imparted to his excellency, who has not disavowed it. Count Brandt's letter to Struensee, and the answer of the latter, which have been produced by the Fiscal General, prove how little desire Count Brandt had to enter into Count Struensee's views; that his whole conduct and thought was to surrender the post which he occupied, and to be allowed to quit the court. There is further evidence of this in the fact that when Count Struensee offered him the ministerial post of Privy Councillor von der Osten, he refused it, and preferred retirement from court to this pleasant office. All this destroys the charges which the Fiscal General has alleged in the preliminary part of his indictment of Count Brandt.
Ad possum 1mum.
"According to the Fiscal General, Count Brandt, of his free will, and after due reflection, went in to his master the king and challenged, abused, attacked, and bit him."
If Count Brandt performed this execrable deed in the way the Fiscal General represents it, his righteous king would not have hesitated a moment to have had him thrown into fetters, and given him his well-merited reward—the hardest death. His Majesty, however after this event is stated to have occurred, namely, at the end of September, for several months admitted him to his presence as before, and granted him his most gracious daily intercourse, which satisfactorily proves that his royal Majesty did not regard the aforesaid occurrence as criminal.
Count Brandt, for his part, equally little regarded it as audacious, either when the affair occurred, or afterwards. For, just as he described it, in its full details, in presence of the commission, when nothing could induce him to do so but the innocence which, according to his opinion, lay in the whole affair, if the circumstances connected with it were taken into consideration in the same way, his open confession proves the confidence he placed in his innocence, as the affair could not be proved by witnesses; and the man who knows himself to be innocent is never criminal. This confession of Count Brandt, therefore, must, as the sole existing proof in the affair, be registered as credible, just as well in those passages where it speaks for his acquittal as where it serves to testify against him.
From this deposition, which perfectly agrees with Count Struensee's statement before the commission on March 21, we see what in this strange affair speaks in Count Brandt's defence. We must, therefore, regard in the first instance the peculiar circumstance that his Majesty the King, for the sake of enjoying the pleasures of private intercourse, as people of equal rank carry it on together—although the "sweetness" of such intercourse usually shuns thrones—commanded that the man whom he selected as his intimate should not consort with him as the king, but as his equal, or as one friend with the other. If Count Brandt, through submissive respect, addressed him differently, the king answered sarcastically, "Most submissive knave," in order to remind him of the commands which had been given, that Count Brandt in daily intercourse should forget he was the king, just as one of his Majesty's ancestors, of most revered memory used to act, and at times remarked, "Now the king is not at home;" and, again, when the free conversation was to have an end, "The king is at home again now."[2] But his present Majesty never would be at home, so to speak, for the man he had admitted to his intimacy, but demanded equality.
From those men selected for his constant society, the king demanded what is understood by the term un homme fait, that they should be smart fellows, and before all, have their heart in the right place, of which they must furnish a proof if he desired it, and he could not on any terms endure cowards, because such disgusted his heroic nature. As now his Majesty had seen no proof of this good quality from Count Brandt, not even after many inducements had been given, because Count Brandt always held back, his Majesty most effectually forced them from him by threatening to cudgel him in the presence of the queen, Struensee, and other persons. Count Brandt, who regarded this as a real sign of the king's disfavour, fell into a state of desperation about it, until he was informed by Struensee, who had spoken with the king on the subject, that his Majesty's wishes and most gracious intentions were only directed to obtain a proof of Brandt's courage. It was for this reason that Count Brandt one evening, without feeling the slightest anger, went into the king, and, after ordering out the lad, who was not to witness the sport, stated to the king that he had been told by Count Struensee that his Majesty wished him to prove himself a man of courage, and to do so against the king. His Majesty, far from being offended at such a scene on the part of Count Brandt, "admitted" him, in accordance with his given order, at once to a fight, and the king himself made the first five or six attacks. This would have assuredly taken a very different course if the king had regarded it as an insult. On this occasion, his Majesty involuntarily thrust a finger into Count Brandt's mouth, which the latter quite as innocently seized with his teeth. The defence followed the attack: the king demanded of Count Brandt, presta te virum. Upon this Count Brandt seized the king by the coat, thrust him against the wall, and thus proved that he was stronger than the king; and with this the whole affair ended.
Count Brandt persistently denies having beaten the king, or audaciously raised his hand against his Majesty; he only proved himself to be strong and brave, without seriousness or passion, by his Majesty's commands. His Majesty's own most gracious conduct to Count Brandt also proves that everything passed off without anger and annoyance, as his Majesty showed the count the signal favour of kissing him on the spot, and requesting him to remain and kill the time with conversation, which Count Brandt did by the king's orders, and all of which points to the disposition of their minds, and proves that they were not excited, as is also confirmed by Count Struensee's statement in the examination of March 21, that Count Brandt, when he went in to the king, was not at all irritated, but perfectly calm. After this time his Majesty also promoted him to be grand maître de la garderobe, and carried on his confidential intercourse with him for several months as before, all of which speaks for the nature of this affair. In Count Brandt's heart reigned no bitterness against the king, and no contempt: trembling from veneration, he performed the action which he would have regarded as audacious, had it not been for the king's command. It is true that Count Brandt, a few days previously, laid a riding whip upon a pianoforte standing in the king's ante-chamber, but only did so thoughtlessly, which he afterwards regretted, and as ill-deeds consist in actions carried out but not in inconsiderate designs, this occurrence cannot be reckoned as a crime on the part of Count Brandt.
If Count Brandt employed some expressions against the king which, according to the strict letter, would be highly criminal, he only employed them in the tone of all the rest, and consequently only in jest. I pass over the statements of the witnesses examined, as these people neither heard nor saw the occurrence, but only testify what they heard said about it. On the other hand, the declaration which his Majesty laid before the commission, through his page of the chamber Schack, is of the extremest importance. I read it to Count Brandt, and he has requested me to make the following explanation about it:—
"He did not remember this 'passage' in the way that it flowed from the page's lips: he considers himself too insignificant to contradict a declaration which emanated from the king his master, and only emboldens himself in dust and fetters to mention, that if his Majesty were most graciously disposed to take this affair seriously, as the declaration made by page of the chamber Schack appears to intimate, he regards himself as lost, and will not from this moment attempt any further justification, but will at once throw himself at his Majesty's feet, and seek his salvation in the king's clemency; but in the most submissive confidence in his Majesty's mercy, he would venture most humbly to remind him of the circumstances already mentioned."
As concerns the charge which the Fiscal General derives from the fact that Count Brandt at times went to the king playing the flute, and with his hat on his head, and also in his peignoir, Count Brandt acknowledges that this did occur when he returned from the chase and was heated, but that it was not done through contempt of the king, but because his Majesty preferred such conduct, and never evinced any anger at it. He also dared to appear before the king in his peignoir, which consisted of a cloth surtout, because it was his Majesty's wish that he should come in the dress he was wearing when the king summoned him.
Ad passum 2dum.
"That Count Brandt did not reveal to the king the improper intercourse which is said to have taken place between the queen and Struensee, by which he has rendered himself guilty of the punishment which the law dictates for this in 6—4—14."
Although Count Brandt felt morally convinced of this improper intercourse between the queen and Count Struensee, still he possessed no juridical proof of it, much less such proofs as he could at once have produced in his defence against the denial of the guilty parties. And what might Count Brandt have reasonably expected if he had alleged such a crime against a reigning queen, who at that time possessed the king's heart, which would have disturbed the king, shamed the queen, and dishonoured the royal house? In that case, 6—4—1 of the law would have been proper for him, even if he could have proved his denunciation instantly. If, for his own part, he could have proved this crime with his life, he would, probably, not have spared his life. Things, however, under the circumstances, remained as they were. Count Brandt would have been a ruined man, without amending the business; and if such a sort of silence were a neck-breaking crime, only few persons in the country would retain their heads.
Ad passum 3tium.
"That Count Brandt has been guilty of the crime of forgery."
Whatever forgery Count Struensee may have committed, it does not affect Count Brandt. Even if Count Struensee may have converted the sum of 6,000 dollars, approved by the king into 60,000, Count Brandt knows nothing about it. Count Brandt has not acknowledged this, and it has not been proved against him, nor did he receive 60,000 dollars all at once; but, on one occasion, 10,000 dollars, for which the king's note is still in existence; and the other 50,000 dollars were paid him by Baron Schimmelmann, and, according to Count Struensee's statement, were a present to him from the king. Count Brandt thanked the king for this, who answered him, "It was but fair he should give him a douceur, as he was always with him." Count Brandt never asked for this sum, and if it was given him by the king, he could not refuse it, the less so as, through his daily intercourse with the royal family, he was compelled to play high, in which he lost considerable sums. Count Brandt even declared on this occasion that if the king were indisposed to grant such large sums, he was ready to give the money back.
From all this I believe I have proved that the crimes alleged against Count Brandt are exaggerated. I must therefore most submissively request that Count Enevold Brandt may be acquitted from the accusation of the Fiscal General.
In all the rest he submits himself to the clemency of his most gracious king.
O. L. BANG.
April 23, 1772.
So little did Brandt comprehend the danger of his position, that he sent to the judges the following letter, in which, as Reverdil justly remarks, the Don Quixotism, levity, and inconsequence of his character are displayed in a manner which would be ridiculous under any other circumstances:—
COUNT BRANDT'S PETITION.
"Pro Memoriâ."
I send you, my judges, a letter to his Majesty,[3] and leave it to you, when you have read it and this pro memoriâ, whether you will then think proper to have it delivered to the king or not. What I now write to you is in the same manner no document which I wish to be placed with the rest, or to be regarded as if it belonged to my trial.
The letter to the king is rather badly written, but the pens given me were very bad. I beg the king's forgiveness, as I now know that in all cases, none excepted, it is the duty of a subject to humiliate himself before his monarch. Previously a flashing sword would not have brought me to do so.
My letter could be more imploring and submissive, but I did not believe that this would please his Majesty. I employ the expression which the king so frequently used: "That no one knew so much about his affairs as I did." This he was accustomed to say to me when he was in a good temper, and I hope thus to recall his thoughts. He often added, that no one bore such a resemblance to him as myself; but I have omitted this expression, as the words would be too bold. I should prefer that this letter should be read to the king at a favourable moment, than that he should read it first himself.
I find it natural that a double doubt will arise with you, my judges, and with all to whom you may show this letter:
(1) Does Brandt deserve, from the nature of the affair, that the king should pardon him fully? and
(2) What more does he want?
With the same frankness with which I have explained myself during the whole of my trial, I can assert, that you would at once feel the heartiest compassion, if it were feasible to bring my affair entirely to light, partly by summoning fresh witnesses, partly by cross-examining those who have been heard: but I do not wish this, even though it might cost me life and liberty. I will only mention a few slight but important circumstances, which might induce you to believe that I must feel a bitterness against the king:
(1) That I am said to have bitten the king's finger. My statement proves that I did not hear of it till afterwards. Consequently, it was not done animo nocendi, but was a natural movement for a man to close his mouth when his tongue was caught hold of, and as soon as I perceived it, I asked for pardon. The king tapped me on the cheek, and said: "It does not hurt."
(2) I myself mentioned that I laid a riding whip on the pianoforte, with the intention of taking it in with me to the king: but could that have been known without my frankness? and woe to us, if every thought were to be punished!
(3) On this occasion I employed improper language to the king, although not that of which I am accused: but in the melancholy alternative of displaying my courage either in words or deeds, I chose the former.
(4) An important circumstance, which rendered a proof of such courage rather necessary, was that the king often said: "If I was certain you were a coward, I would post myself behind the door and kill you."
(5) But why was the king so angry? Solely because, from that time, I was more serious and submissive than before, which I did to render the king more reserved, but which had the effect that he supposed I disliked him; and a temper, which has been once rendered captious, soon places the worst construction upon everything.
(6) I declare before God, who knows my heart, that a similar scene never occurred before or afterwards. The king once threw his glove in my face: I stooped, picked it up, and said: "Why do you do that? I am really not cross with you;" and with this he was satisfied.
(7) That I never regarded this occurrence as anything but a joke, the result of youth and eccentricity, is seen from the fact that when the commission began sitting, I was not aware of my offence.
In this way I believe I have answered all doubts. I am quite ready to die, and to endure all the punishments that are imposed upon me. It is God's chastening hand, which I have deserved: but I consider it my duty to speak this once.
His Majesty was angry with me: hence, I was imprisoned; hence, I was put in fetters. I can offer no objection to this: I kiss the hand that smites me, but the hand which smites me can also let loose and forgive, in the same way as Henri IV. frequently forgave much greater offences. Even should you consider that this is too great mercy, and if you wish that I should humiliate myself, personally, before his Majesty, I should not regard such a thing at all as a disgrace.
Oh! my judges, if you would only see what my situation with the king was! and would you could feel as greatly, but forget quite as quickly, what my present position is! Your eyes would assuredly shed tears, and your hearts would be moved by the sincerest compassion! I commend my cause to the hands of God, and beg you for what I have no occasion to beg, namely, to follow your own convictions: with that I shall be perfectly satisfied.
In the letter to his Majesty, I have begged to be allowed to pass my days in peace, and by that I mean a bailiwick in a remote province. I do not know whether such a post is vacant, of which I might entertain hopes, but I know that Bailiff Arnholdt, of Bramstedt[4] (in Holstein) has long wished himself away from there, and that this post is one of the worst. Further my wishes do not extend, and what right could I have to ask!
BRANDT.
Frederikshaven, April 14, 1772.
The drama of the great trial rapidly approached the catastrophe after the charges against Struensee and Brandt were delivered to the commissioners on April 21. Struensee's defence followed on the 22nd; the Fiscal General's reply and Brandt's defence on the 23rd; and so early as the 25th the sentences were promulgated. In Brandt's trial a reply was not even considered necessary, for the accuser had announced this to be superfluous in his sentence, ab uno discimus omnia. But the orders from the highest quarters were for the greatest possible speed, and the length of the sentence proves that it had been drawn up beforehand. That two human lives were at stake, was only so far taken into consideration as it was necessary to prove two judicial murders justifiable by every resource of sophistry; but how little the venal judges succeeded in doing so, will be seen from a perusal of the memorable documents which are here published for the first time without any abbreviation.
CHAPTER II.
THE TWO COUNTS.
STRUENSEE'S SENTENCE—HIS GENERAL CONDUCT—THE MAITRE DES REQUETES—THE GERMAN LANGUAGE—STRUENSEE'S DESPOTISM—THE COUNCIL OF THE THIRTY-TWO—THE CABINET MINISTER—THE KING'S PRESENTS—STRUENSEE'S PRECAUTIONS—HIS DOWNFALL—THE SENTENCE APPROVED—COUNT BRANDT—HIS ASSAULT ON THE KING—HIS BEHAVIOUR—THE ROYAL ASSENT.
STRUENSEE'S SENTENCE.[5]
Apart from the fact that Count John Frederick Struensee has already been convicted, and has himself confessed that he has committed a terrible crime, which involves in an eminent degree an assault on the king's supremacy, or the crime of high treason, and according to the law (especially art. 1 of cap. iv. of book vi.) deserves the severe penalty of death; it is sufficiently notorious and proven that his whole conduct and management during the time when he had a share in the administration of the affairs was a chain, which, on one side, was composed of vain and audacious impetuosity; on the other, of tricks and intrigues, all of which operated to secure him the whole power and authority to the exclusion of others. At the same time he boldly employed all the measures which appeared to be useful in attaining his ends, without in the slightest degree reflecting whether they were permitted or not, and how far they accorded with the form of government and the constitution, the genius of the nation and the regulations and laws, both civil and fundamental, or were in strict opposition to them.
His great design was partly to become privy cabinet minister, with the extraordinary and unparalleled authority which he filched in the last month of July, partly to exclude all the subjects from their king, and the king from them; partly to exercise at court and over his Majesty such an unbridled power as has been seen with astonishment.
In order to attain this end, he strove, during his Majesty's foreign journey, to gain his most gracious favour by proved care for the king's health and pleasure. When his Majesty returned, Struensee behaved quietly, and seemed to think of nothing less than the attachment of charges and honours, although his ambition and his love of power desired them.
He lived at court, amused himself, demanded no increase of his salary, and seemed to satisfy himself with peace and voluptuousness; but in secret he zealously strove to lay the foundation on which he intended to raise his proud fortune.
It was not his business to learn the language of the country, to study the position and true interest of the kingdom, and to learn its civil laws and constitution. This was the way which he ought to have chosen; but about all these things he was, and remained, in the deepest ignorance. Instead of this, he preferred to establish the principles which his Majesty should follow in the government, so that he might use them in concealing his infamous propositions behind them, and as he had every reason to apprehend that either faithfully minded men might reveal his designs, or that the king himself should detect them; in order to prevent the former effect, he calumniated without distinction all those who had the honour of being allowed to approach the monarch, and in order to secure the latter, he strove to acquire a powerful protection, and to have in the king's neighbourhood so close, constant, and trustworthy a friend, that it was rendered almost impossible for his Majesty to penetrate this man's ways and designs.
No sooner had he got his machine in perfect readiness in the year 1770 than he at once set it in motion.
Since the sovereignty our kings have had a council, composed of men who were experienced in the laws and customs of the country, and had studied the true state-system and real interests of the land, while, at the same time, they knew the rules which were applicable in cases that occurred.
It was their office to attend the king, as often as matters of importance were to be laid before him, in order to afford his Majesty the necessary explanations about everything he wished to know, so that he might give his decision.
These men, however, as members of the council, had no vote, no expedition, no secretaries; for everything depended on the king's will, and everything was carried into effect by the departments concerned.
This traditional and so natural council Struensee and his adherents[6] wished to have entirely abolished and quashed, for this man apprehended that if such a council existed, and even if it were composed of his own friends, the time would arrive when it would oppose his injurious propositions, and reveal them to the king, as he could not exclude them (the members) from speaking with his Majesty, and representing to him what was best for him and the land.
For this end Struensee had previously calumniated the ministry by all sorts of insinuations, and even depicted in the blackest colours those of their actions which were evidently to the advantage of the king and the state.
His Majesty the king, who heartily loves his people, only desires honest officials, and jealously holds to his sovereign power, now lost his confidence in the council, wished to appoint other men to it, and to give it a different constitution; but Struensee, by false statements, and the most cunning tricks, laid such obstacles in the king's way that the council gradually ceased to meet, and was finally solemnly abolished by a decree of December 27, 1770.
At the same time, he became maître des requêtes, and as it was his plan that only he should have the right to speak to the king about the affairs, and that all other persons should be excluded from doing so, it appeared to him that the remaining colleges might still lay some impediments in his way.
In order to prevent this, he represented to his Majesty the King, who wished to be thoroughly acquainted with the affairs sent in from the colleges for his most gracious decision, that nothing would be more useful for this object than for the colleges to be ordered to deliver their written requests in a portfolio, so that the king might be allowed the requisite time to read through the memoirs and reflect.
By this brilliant, and apparently so useful advice, this man gained his object of also "excluding" the colleges from the king.
He soon seizes the portfolios, and thus becomes the sole master to lay matters before the king at his pleasure.
If the colleges wished to produce further reasons for the king's better information, they must apply to Struensee, and thus he alone became what the council and the colleges together had formerly been.
Under the pretext of a more rapid expedition of various matters, and in order to display the royal authority in its right supremacy, he issued cabinet decrees, which were carried out without the colleges concerned being informed of them,—a conduct which necessarily produced the greatest confusion, and which a man dared, who was neither acquainted with the country nor its laws, its condition nor its language. But this did not trouble him at all, so long as he could grasp all the respect and all the power.
This ignorance of Count Struensee in everything, which every minister in Denmark must know, and his extremely slight efforts to obtain a knowledge of it, entailed innumerable disadvantages, both generally and for private persons.
In the colleges, which were formerly accustomed to send in their reports in Danish, a special official had to be appointed to translate them into German, so that Count Struensee might read them in this language. The Danish Chancery, the only college which continued to report in Danish, had only too often opportunity for learning that these representations were not read at all, as only an extract of the proposition, which, by command, was inserted in what was called the Rotulus, was translated into German and seen by Count Struensee, after which the resolution ensued in the German language, and was again translated into Danish in the Chancery. It could not fail but that the resolution often proved equivocal, incomprehensible, and but little adapted to the affair, of which the man who represented it to his Majesty had only rarely a correct idea.
Private persons who wished to send in petitions to the cabinet, and had drawn them up in the Danish language, ran about to find a German translator, as they were of the possibly not incorrect opinion that their memorial, if such was only in Danish, would not be read, while these cheap translations often turned out so, that it was impossible to discern what was the real object of the petition.
Count Struensee's ignorance of the organization of the colleges, his unwillingness to instruct himself about it, and his exertions to reform the entire old state constitution, and to increase the number of his adherents by appointing persons everywhere, and to the highest offices, who owed their fortune to him—all this led him to lay hands on one college after the other. And as he would not and could not work himself, he employed other men in carrying out the important reforms, several of whom afterwards confessed that they had no knowledge of the advantages and defects of the former organization of these colleges, nor attempted to acquire it, as they were only ordered to draw up a plan of the new arrangements after a certain predetermined date.
After Count Struensee had drawn all power and authority into his own hands by removing the privy council, by weakening and reconstituting, and by the exclusion of verbal reports, it was not long ere his Majesty's subjects perceived the effects of his, Struensee's, despotic principles and ideas.
As a consequence of the before-mentioned paternal and mild government, to which people had been long accustomed in Denmark, and which had to some extent acquired a traditional right, every one who had obtained a royal appointment considered himself justified in believing that he should retain it so long as he behaved himself properly and attended to his duties, and therefore ran no risk of losing his post against his will, so long as he was not declared unworthy of it through a judicial sentence on account of malversation, errors, or negligence. These moderate principles, which characterised the mildness of the government, and had many excellent results, were not at all to Count Struensee's taste, who did not wish to be in the least degree impeded when the object was to ruin people, and imbue others with terror.
For this reason it was heard frequently, nay, almost daily, that first one, then the other, royal official was removed by a cabinet order, without their learning what error they had committed, or in what their offence consisted.[7]
Several persons also lost their posts without any royal resolution on the subject being imparted to them, and without knowing anything of it, till they learned that their office had been given to another man by a cabinet order. This conduct was even extended to the dismissal of entire colleges.
The entire magistracy, consisting of from eighteen to twenty, or even more persons, was abolished, and a new magistracy was appointed by a cabinet order addressed on April 3, 1771, to the president, who had been appointed to this post only a few days previously, and also by a cabinet decree, and who contented himself with informing the previous members of the magistracy by letter that they were dismissed, and the new ones that they were to assemble at the town-hall without the deposed members learning what offence they had committed, or why they were discharged.
In addition to the magistracy, there was another college or public assembly in Copenhagen, namely, the so-called thirty-two men, as, owing to the bravery and fidelity so solemnly displayed by the Copenhageners during the siege, and on the establishment of the sovereignty,[8] it was conceded among the privileges granted to the citizens on June 24, 1664, that they should be allowed to elect thirty-two of the best and most respected citizens, who would, with the magistracy, consult about the welfare of the city, and its revenues and out-goings. In these privileges access to his Majesty's person was also granted to the city deputies and the magistracy.
This assembly, which was regarded as the highest of these privileges, and had had many good results, and, moreover, did not cost the king or city a farthing, was also dissolved by the aforesaid cabinet order, by virtue of which the chief president informed the men that they were no longer permitted to meet, and ordered the council-hall to be closed. This, and many other instances of a similar nature, which all proved that nothing was sacred to this equally incautious and absolute man, and that he was as great an enemy of all sense and mildness as he was of order and good morals, produced a striking effect upon the nation, which fancied itself suddenly removed under an "Oriental climate."
Some lamented and sighed, others expressed their amazement or bitterness in one way or the other. But all were agreed that his Majesty's mild and paternal heart for his subjects was still the same, if their complaints and sighs could only penetrate to the throne, and the real posture of the affair be represented to his Majesty.
This, however, seemed quite impossible, owing to the precautions which Count Struensee had taken in this respect. He had placed his intimate friend, Count Brandt, near the king,[9] and as he, in accordance with the well-known proverb, nulla amicitia nisi inter bonos, was not fully convinced of the duration of this friendship, he sought to insure its permanence by a mutual interest, and, as will be shown presently, at the expense of his Majesty and the royal treasury.
Count Brandt, who was always about the king, confirmed him in everything that Count Struensee alleged or insinuated, and prevented everybody from having an opportunity to convince his Majesty of the opposite truth.
There was no council, and, so to speak, no minister. No one succeeded in speaking alone with the king, save those persons of whose devotion Count Struensee considered himself assured and if it ever happened, it was only for moments which admitted of no detailed explanation or discussion. All the rest were held aloof from his Majesty, which was even extended to his Majesty's own most exalted relatives and his nearest family, toward whom the king had formerly displayed special tenderness and affection. But from the time when Count Struensee had usurped the administration of the court and of the whole country, the latter never had an opportunity of conversing alone with the king, as they would not have omitted to represent to his Majesty the good of his subjects and their grief, of which these exalted personages afterwards, when the opportunity was offered, have given incontrovertible proofs, which can never be sufficiently praised and recognised.
It could not fail but that Count Struensee should render himself odious to all, through such despotic, arbitrary, and unreasonable conduct.
His emissaries, and the adherents whom he still possessed, tried, even though they did not dare to justify or excuse his undertakings, at least to boast of his asserted disinterestedness, and to spread far and wide that he was satisfied with his moderate salary, without asking either money or honours for himself or his friends. How far this met with belief may be left an open question. But it is certain that Count Struensee took very carefully-devised measures to conceal his selfishness at that time, and so long as it lasted. But it was afterwards seen only too plainly that he was an extremely interested and selfish man, of whom it may be justly said that he pillaged his Majesty's treasury.
He had a very respectable and considerable salary, which ought to have been sufficient, as he had everything free at court down to the very banquets he gave. He knew, and often enough proclaimed, in what a bad state the public treasury and his Majesty's were from former times.
For all that, after the council was dissolved, and he had become maître des requêtes, he allowed hardly three months to pass ere he, by an abuse of his Majesty's good heart, demanded and received from his most gracious lord a present of 10,000 dollars for himself, and a similar sum for his friend Count Brandt. It might be supposed that so considerable a present for these two persons, of whom one was maître des requêtes, and the other directeur des spectacles, and who both had only held these offices for a short time, would have satisfied their greediness for a while. But, instead of this, we find that it grew and increased, for Count Struensee, after receiving the above mentioned present in February or March, again received in May, or at the end of two or three months, from his Majesty 50,000 or 60,000 dollars, and Count Brandt the same sum, so that these two persons, in the short time of three or four months, cost his Majesty, in addition to their regular salary, 140,000 dollars, or at least 120,000—for which of these two sums is the correct one cannot as yet be stated with certainty, owing to the confusion prevailing in Count Struensee's accounts—and this in addition to the presents which before and after this date they procured for their good friends: such as Justiz-rath Struensee 4,000 dollars, Countess Holstein 3,000, Chamberlain Falckenskjold 3,500 or more, and so on.
That Count Struensee's irresponsible selfishness was duly considered and intended, is seen from the artificial machinery which he formed, solely that he might be able to take these sums without any one detecting it.
For this purpose, he first proposed the abolition of what was called the "Trésor"—which consisted of a sum of money laid by for unforeseen expenses, and that it should be paid into the public treasury. As the Trésor, however, must pass through the cabinet on its way to the public exchequer, he proposed to his Majesty to reserve 250,000 dollars of the same, in order to form a special cabinet treasury which would stand under his control.
In this way Count Struensee obtained a good opportunity for receiving considerable sums, without any one being acquainted with the fact.
He behaved in such a way with this treasury, that after it was established in April, 1771, and at that time consisted of 250,000 dollars, at the end of May only 118,000 dollars remained of the original contents, although the king had no other out-goings but these presents.
The remaining 118,000 dollars would have gone by degrees the same road as the others if Struensee had been allowed sufficient time.
Count Struensee's disgraceful avarice and selfishness are thus rendered so evident, that those persons who proclaimed him as disinterested must fairly confess that they knew him badly, and were not properly informed.[10]
But this is not sufficient. There is the very strongest presumption that Count Struensee in this traffic committed an impudent, disgraceful, and highly criminal fraud. When the account found among Count Struensee's papers, and approved by his Majesty, of the income and expenditure of the special treasury for the months of April and May, was laid before his Majesty, as it was considered suspicious, the king at once declared that he perfectly well remembered having at that time given 10,000 dollars to the queen, 6,000 to Count Brandt, and other 6,000 to Count Struensee, but no more. Just as these sums amount to 22,000 dollars, it is on an inspection of the document as clear as the sun that the addition was in the first instance 22,000 dollars, but the first figure two was converted into a three—a change which is so visible that it is at once noticed—and that a one was afterwards added, for which there was no other room but in front of the line drawn underneath, which is quite contrary to the practice in the other accounts, and in this very one on the preceding page, where the in-comings are calculated. Hence, then, the said sum of 22,000 dollars became 132,000, which is proved by the fact that the two sums of 6,000 dollars for Struensee and Brandt were converted into 60,000 by the addition of a cipher, and 2,000 dollars were added for Falckenskjold. This last sum seems to have been added, in order not to be obliged to convert the second two into a cipher in the sum of 22,000 dollars, which had become 130,000.
These suppositions, the real strength of which only that man can comprehend who has the document in question before him, is also confirmed by other concurrent circumstances—as, for instance, that the account for April and May is written by Struensee himself, while the other extracts and calculations are written by the secretary of the cabinet, which probably occurred because Count Struensee wished no one to be cognizant of the embezzlement effected by him, and further by the fact that, from this time, Count Struensee laid no account of the treasury before the king until the end of October, although in June there was an out-going of 2,000 dollars, which were given to Justiz-rath Struensee.[11]
This negligence or omission appears to have taken place purposely, so that his Majesty, after so long an interval, might not thoroughly remember the real state of the treasury. To this must be added his Majesty's own alleged and very natural conjecture that it cannot be credited that he gave Counts Struensee and Brandt 50,000 or 60,000 dollars apiece, while he only made the queen a present of 10,000.
Count Struensee, who is obliged to confess the selfishness of having requested this money of the king, will not, however, acknowledge this embezzlement, but asserts that his Majesty at that time, on his request, gave him 50,000 dollars, and Count Brandt the same sum, and that, as the 10,000 dollars previously given had not been taken to account, they were included in this amount. On the document being produced before the commission, however, he was obliged to allow that all the facts concurred against him to arouse such a presumption, which he had no evidence to refute, while at the same time, he regretted his want of accuracy and his negligence.
That Count Struensee's ambition was not less than his avidity, and that his "moderation," as regards honours and titles, was in no way inferior to that for money and resources, is equally self-evident.
Within two years he made such progress as others of greater nobility and higher merit hardly make in thirty years and more. According to the position which he occupied, he could not fail to stand in great honour both at court and in the city. But all this was not enough for him.
Through constant persuasion he brought it about that his Majesty appointed him on July 14, 1771, privy cabinet minister, which design he contrived to conceal up to the last moment, even from his most intimate friends, just as he, and Chamberlain Brandt were a few days later raised to the rank of counts.[12]
Although as privy cabinet minister he regarded himself as the first private person in the whole kingdom, still, the title and the authority he had hitherto possessed did not suffice him; but he wished to have prerogatives connected with them which were not at all seemly for a subject, and involved a portion of the sovereign authority which belonged to the king alone.
Count Struensee had already seized on all the power, and as those persons who were about the king spoke in Struensee's behalf, and his Majesty thus only heard praises of his minister, it was perfectly natural that he should have a certain liking for him, and as he was nearly the only person who discussed the affairs with his Majesty, it could not fail that the latter should consent to everything he proposed. Thus he had everything that he could crave; but this was not sufficient to satisfy his immoderate ambition, as the colleges refused to obey unless they saw the king's signature.
This did not suit Struensee, and there are grounds for believing that it did not agree with his secret designs, and his wish that his signature should be worth as much as the king's, and that the persons concerned should obey both signatures.
This he attained by the royal order projected by himself, which was issued to the colleges on July 15, 1771, with reference to his office as privy cabinet minister, and was afterwards published by them; for in the first article of this cabinet order the decrees signed by Struensee, and provided with the cabinet seal, were placed perfectly parallel with those signed by his Majesty himself, and countersigned by Struensee, and in the fourth article it is expressly ordered that everybody should execute the cabinet orders issued and expedited by Struensee. It is true that this article seems to contain a certain limitation, where it states, "so far as no royal regulation or resolution speaks to the contrary;" but what follows on this may be rather regarded as an extension, for, instead of stating, as might be expected, that in such a case execution was to be deferred until a royal resolution was issued, it continues, "in which case, the fact is to be immediately reported to the cabinet," so that if any one thought it his duty to remonstrate against Struensee or his order, he would have to apply to Struensee himself; and if the minister then commanded him to obey his first order and carry it out, he must do so. This is what Count Struensee intended and practiced. In this way, however, he filched a portion of the sovereignty, and, from what had previously happened, it might be concluded that he intended to exercise it alone.
As Struensee acknowledges having read the Lex Regia, and as he as minister must have been fully acquainted with its contents, he must have known that article 7 resolves "that all government decrees, letters, and documents shall be signed by the king himself." But the article of the royal law most applicable here is the 26th, in which the most revered king and first autocrat, Frederick III., appears to have had a species of presentiment that a Struensee might one day arise in Denmark, because it is stated in it how injurious it is when the mildness and kindness of kings and masters are so abused that their power and authority are cut away in an almost imperceptible manner, and for this reason it is recommended to, and impressed on, the kings of Denmark zealously to watch over their sovereignty and autocracy in order to keep it uninjured; and the conclusion is, that if any one should dare to desire or appropriate anything which might in any way be prejudicial to the sovereign authority and monarchical power of the king, everything of the sort shall be regarded as null and void, and those who have not hesitated to acquire such a thing, or tried to do so, shall be punished as insulters of majesty, because they have committed the greatest crime against the supremacy of the royal autocracy.
Count Struensee could have read his sentence here, if he had not committed another and equally coarse offense against the king's highness, apart from the fact that he was not only an accomplice and adviser, but also an inciter of the assault made on his Majesty's person by his intimate friend Count Brandt.
The way in which Count Struensee exercised the power and authority entrusted to him as privy cabinet minister does not excuse him, but, on the contrary, incriminates him in the highest degree, because it is a further proof that he regarded the welfare, honour, life, and property of his Majesty's subjects as purely dependent on his discretion.
He revoked, by cabinet orders drawn up by himself, and under his hand, former royal resolutions, of whose existence he was cognizant.
In the most important affairs he issued orders without his Majesty's knowledge, and he partly neglected the extracts from cabinet decrees imposed upon him as a duty by the resolution of July 15, which he was to lay before the king every week, or drew them up in such a way that it was impossible to discover the nature of the orders, or the effect they were intended to produce.
When the direction of the privy treasury was entrusted to him—for he wished to direct all the treasuries—he thought proper to give the cashier fresh instructions from his hand; and when the cashier represented to him that he held a royal instruction which could only be revoked by another royal resolution, he gave him an answer which contained a species of reprimand, and ordered him to obey the order and instruction given by him, Struensee.
The pretty corps of Horse Guards, which was composed exclusively of Danes and Norwegians, and consequently did not please Count Struensee—or, as it only consisted of two squadrons, was not very expensive—was disbanded in February, 1771, by Count Struensee's proposition, and in accordance with his wish, but against the opinion of the college.[13]
The Fusilier Guards still remained. They consisted of five companies, and were composed of none but clever and trustworthy men, to whom the guard of the royal palace, and before the apartments of the royal house, could be safely entrusted; but they possessed a "quality" which prevented Struensee from being able to place confidence in them,—they were nearly all Danes and Norwegians.
He had long resolved on the reduction of this corps, and spoken with several persons about it, most of whom, however, dissuaded him. At length he carried it through, and without his Majesty's knowledge (as the king himself has declared)[14] issued, on December 21, 1771, a cabinet order to the Generalty and Commissariat College, by which the five companies of Foot Guards were to be transformed into five companies of grenadiers, and one company of them be attached to each of the five regiments quartered in Copenhagen.
He allowed December 21, 22, and 23 to pass without telling his Majesty anything about it, although Struensee, on the 23rd, procured the Generalty the royal approbation of the said order of the 21st, because this college required a royal resolution, and refused without it to execute the cabinet order, as it considered the affair of too great importance, and foresaw the consequences that would result from it.
As, however, the Guards on December 24 declared that their capitulation must be kept, and that it was contrary to it to make them serve in other regiments, Struensee found himself compelled to lay the whole matter before his Majesty, and advised that force should be employed, and the Guards compelled to obey. However, a royal order was issued on December 24, by which those guards who would not serve as grenadiers were granted their discharge.
The result of this operation of Count Struensee's therefore was, that his Majesty lost from his military service several hundred brave, faithful, and trustworthy men, who were all natives. Count Struensee's improper and treacherous conduct in this affair is at once seen on comparing the protocol kept about the cabinet orders, with the weekly extract from them, which was laid before his Majesty.
In the protocol we find the said order of December 21, under No. 709, quoted with the correct date. After this, several other cabinet orders were drawn up, to No. 733, on December 22, 23, and 24; but the second cabinet order of December 24 is not found among them, but a space is left open at the very end, in order to book it afterwards. But in the extract from the cabinet orders expedited from December 18 to 25, which was drawn up on December 31, and afterwards laid before his Majesty, we find these two orders of December 21 and 24 quoted together at the end, under the numbers 22 and 23, just as if they had been expedited at the same time and under the same date, while, on the contrary, the cabinet orders issued from December 22 to 23 are omitted from this extract. From this a general idea of the completeness and trustworthiness of these extracts may be formed.
This protocol further proves how Count Struensee—although he had long before sufficiently provided that no one should bring before the king either verbally or in writing anything that might injure him, Struensee—found himself obliged, at the time when the guards were dismissed, to take just precautions. For under date of December 23 he expedited two cabinet orders, one to (the Danish chief postmaster) Etats-rath Waitz, in Hamburg, that the packets for his Majesty sent by post should be addressed to the cabinet, the other to Court-Intendant Wegener, by which all letters and parcels sent to the king, and letters and portfolios that came in from Copenhagen, should not be delivered in the king's ante-chamber, but in the cabinet. One of these orders, though they immediately concerned the king, was entirely omitted in the above-mentioned extract, while the other was quoted imperfectly, so that his Majesty was not at all informed of these regulations.
Just as Count Struensee more and more evinced his distrust of the nation, so the reciprocal hatred of the nation against him increased more and more (and was expressed), in various ways. Thus, in the summer of 1771, various pasquinades were in circulation, and although their contents and style sufficiently proved that they emanated from the common people, still they all displayed the strongest attachment to his Majesty's person, and a readiness to sacrifice life and blood for him, while the bitterness had no other object but the privy cabinet minister and his adherents.
This, and the fact that a few sailors and others who believed themselves insulted, went out to Hirschholm in order to lay their complaints before his Majesty himself, caused Count Struensee such terror, that he made preparations and was on the point of taking flight and running away.
As he, however—probably by the advice of his friends—desisted from this design, it seemed as if he, on the other hand, prepared to maintain himself in his post, and against everybody, in every possible way. This gave cause to various hitherto unknown measures.
When their Majesties came to town, at which times Count Struensee always accompanied them, they were surrounded by an unusual escort; wherever they stopped in town, at the palace or in the theatre, double sentries were posted, &c.
Such a course increased the bitterness of the nation, and especially of the Copenhageners, against Count Struensee in more than one respect. They saw in it a proof that he persuaded his Majesty to believe there were among the inhabitants people who entertained bad designs against his Majesty and the royal house. They were confirmed in their suspicion that Count Struensee entertained other, more extensive, ambitious, and, at the same time, most audacious and criminal designs.
It must also be confessed that much of what happened during this summer, but more especially in autumn, must confirm them in this belief, and produce a strong presumption of it, as he has himself been obliged to confess that several of his measures were intended to maintain himself in every way in the situation he occupied.
As already stated, the Horse Guards were disbanded.
As, however, Count Struensee, who always lived in fear, wished to have some cavalry in the vicinity of the court, an exercising troop was formed. But, ere long, he learned that both the officers and men of this corps were natives, so that they were not at all the sort he wanted, whence his confidence in them was lost, and this troop was also disbanded in the autumn.
He then ordered the Seeland Dragoons to the court and the city, but they have given incontrovertible testimony that they were no better disposed toward him than the preceding dragoons.
He now obtained a resolution that two of the regiments lying in garrison here should be removed to other towns in the spring. But, instead of letting this fall on the two youngest regiments, as the rule was, he wished—for reasons known to himself, and which it is not difficult to conjecture—that they should be his Majesty the King's, and his brother the Prince Frederick's, regiments, contrary to the opinion of the Generalty, and without informing his royal highness, the colonel of the latter regiment, or asking his assent to it. Furthermore, he managed to have a new commandant of Copenhagen appointed, in whom he believed he could place full confidence.
But what heightened the distrust most, and excited the inhabitants of Copenhagen, was the following last-discovered circumstance, that, according to Struensee's instructions to the commandant, cannon, with cartridges and the proper complement of men, were held in readiness at the arsenal, so that they could be used at the first signal,—a regulation which was also concealed from his Majesty.[15]
The king and the royal house, as well as the whole nation, must at last lose all patience when they were compelled to see, in addition to all the rest, how audaciously he behaved in the harsh and extraordinary education which he dared to give to the crown prince, and by which his royal highness ran the greatest risk of losing his health and life.
Thus, then, the bitterness was raised to the highest pitch, and must have had the most dangerous consequences, when a fortunate end was put to the widely-extended designs and despotic administration of this vain, thoughtless, arbitrary, and ambitious man.
As it is clear, therefore, that Count Struensee, in more than one way and in more than one respect, has both himself committed the crime of high treason in an eminent degree, as well as 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 that 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 1 of chapter iv. of the 6th book of the Danish law:—
Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment for himself and an example and warning for others of the same 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, and his noble coat of arms be broken by the executioner: John Frederick Struensee's right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head, his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck upon a pole.
The commission at the Christiansborg Palace, April 25, 1772.
- J. K. JUELL-WIND.
- H. STAMPE. LUXDORPH.
- KOFOD ANCHER.
- F. C. SEVEL.
- G. A. BRAËM.
- A. G. CARSTENS.
- J. C. E. SCHMIDT.
- O. GULDBERG.
Two days after this barbarous sentence was passed, it received the full royal confirmation in the following words:—
We hereby approve, in all points, the sentence passed by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by us at our Palace of Christiansborg, which declares John Frederick Struensee, on account of his crimen læsæ Majestatis, in more than one point to have forfeited honour, life, and property; he shall be degraded from his dignity of count, and all the other dignities conferred on him; his coat of arms shall also be broken by the executioner; his right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head, his body quartered and exposed on a wheel, but his head and hand stuck on a pole. To which those whom it concerns will pay most submissive attention.
Given at our Palace of Christiansborg, this April 27, 1772.
CHRISTIAN.
O. THOTT.
LUXDORPH. A. SCHUMACHER.
DONS. HOYER.
COUNT BRANDT'S SENTENCE.
By Count Brandt's own confession, the declaration of the ex-cabinet minister John Frederick Struensee, and various circumstances, it has been already proved that Count Enevold Brandt was not only Struensee's good friend, but also his intimate, whom he (Struensee) entrusted with his greatest secrets.
In consideration of the gracious intimacy in which he stood with his Majesty the King, it would have been his duty, therefore, to prevent all the things which, according to his own declaration when examined, he disapproved, and must have recognised in Struensee's life, sentiments, and undertakings, as foolish, audacious, and detrimental both for the king and the government and the country.
Instead of this, he, as a criminal subject and unworthy confidential servant of the king, made common cause with Struensee, continually remained his confidant, and sought to sustain him.
He allowed himself to be employed by Struensee in keeping everybody from the king, so that nothing should be revealed to his Majesty about Struensee's criminal conduct, and the share himself had in it.
To the great concern of all his fellow-subjects he behaved haughtily, and not with the due respect to his king, both in private and in the sight of all men.
He did not show the submissive reverence to the king which every subject owes him, and expresses voluntary from his heart on every occasion in word and deed, but he rather opposed the king, in order to maintain Struensee's favour, and acquire an extravagant fortune and special advantages for himself.
The memoirs exchanged between him and Struensee furnish a proof of his unreasonable pretension, and that he was conscious of his reprehensible behaviour toward the king. From this cause he should have altered his conduct, or sooner have resigned a post which was repulsive to him, and for which he did not consider himself equal. But no, he did not wish to oppose his patron and protector, who, for his own purposes, desired to keep him, Brandt, about the king's person, while, on the other hand, Count Brandt expected greater fortunes in service and pecuniary affairs from him, Struensee.
As directeur des spectacles, he assisted Struensee in producing a misunderstanding in the royal family by contriving that a separate box should be given Prince Frederick in the playhouse, so that his royal highness should not be in the king's box, and thus have an opportunity for revealing to his Majesty, Brandt and his intimate friend's most culpable conduct.[16]
He obtained through Struensee in a short period 60,000 dollars from the royal treasury, although he must have known, or at least could not have doubted, that he had not earned them by his services or general conduct.
When he thanked his Majesty for this large sum, he did not mention the amount which Struensee had procured him, because he knew that the matter was not all right, and Struensee had forbidden his doing so, lest his Majesty might thus be informed of that which the approved extract, found among Struensee's papers, has since revealed to his Majesty and every other person who sees the extract.
Count Brandt has been guilty of all this criminality, although his conscience must reveal to him at every moment that he was acting as an unfaithful subject, and against the duty and the bond imposed on him by the king's gracious familiarity, and in defiance of the warnings which the two letters from an anonymous writer found in Brandt's pocket-book so impressively and clearly contained, by reminding him of his duties, and advising him what he should do if he did not wish to risk his head.
He only allowed himself to be ruled and guided by his arrogance, fortune-hunting, and avarice.
But though the things mentioned appear so criminal, they cannot be compared with the crime of laying hands on the exalted person of his Majesty the King, which Count Enevold Brandt has himself clearly and regularly confessed in his examination before the commission, and as it has been proved and confirmed by several witnesses. For this crime may be regarded as if Count Brandt wished to hazard the king's death, because the result of such an assault cannot be foreseen, and an unlucky blow on a tender part has frequently caused death.
He was angry with the king, and demanded satisfaction of his master, whose well-deserved admonition he ought to have accepted in penitence for his previous conduct, and have withdrawn himself from his (the king's) countenance, in order not to irritate him more.
On the contrary, he consulted with his intimate friend Struensee how and when he should assault the king, and reflected what sort of weapon he should employ, and held it in readiness; but after more mature reflection, made no use of it.
After he had been warned by Struensee that the king was now alone, and the right time had arrived, he goes with reflection, and a firm determination to avenge himself, in to the king, orders out the two lads in attendance, and bolts the door, so that no one may come in to oppose his resolution or to prevent his design, and forces his Majesty the King, by language and assault, to offer resistance.
While doing so, he wounds his Majesty in the neck, bites his finger, and at the same time insults his benefactor and king by audacious words and expressions of such a nature that everybody must feel horrified at repeating them.
It is true that Count Brandt has urged, in his excuse, that his Majesty has pardoned him for this occurrence, yet, even were it so, it can only be supposed that his Majesty wished to overlook so great an insult for a time. Count Brandt, however, has produced no proof of this, and his Majesty alone is in a position to judge how far this indulgence should extend.
This most atrocious and audacious undertaking of Count Brandt cannot be regarded otherwise than as an open attack on the king's person, and the greatest crime of high treason, which deserves the punishment attached to such a crime in art. 1, 4th chapter of the 6th book of the Danish law.
We, therefore, consider ourselves justified in condemning Count Brandt, and passing the following sentence:—
Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life, and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count, and all the 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 the head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel; but his head and hand stuck on a pole.
The Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th April, 1772.
- J. K. JUELL-WIND.
- H. STAMPE. LUXDORPH.
- KOFOD ANCHER.
- F. E. SEVEL.
- G. A. BRAËM.
- A. G. CARSTENS.
- J. E. E. SCHMIDT.
- O. GULDBERG.
The royal confirmation of the sentence was to the following effect:—
We hereby approve in all points the sentence passed by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by us at the Christiansborg Palace, which declares that Enevold Brandt, for his most atrocious and audacious design and assault on our own person, shall have forfeited honour, life, and property, and that he shall be degraded from his dignity as count, and all the other honours conferred on him; that his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner on the scaffold; after that his right hand be cut off while he is alive; and then his head; and that the body shall be quartered and exposed on the wheel; but the head and hand stuck on a pole. Whereupon those whom it concerns are ordered to act accordingly.
Given at our Palace of Christiansborg, this April 27, 1772.
CHRISTIAN.
O. THOTT.
LUXDORPH. A. SCHUMACHER.
DONS. HOYER.
These sentences are certainly among the rarest documents which the annals of justice contain. Struensee was convicted of a single crime; Brandt was innocent. In the sentence, Struensee's crime is not stated, and the whole document is a disgustingly long narrative of undecided actions, not one of which would offer grounds for a sentence of death. Reverdil, usually so cool and impartial, cannot restrain his feelings when he writes about these atrocious verdicts:—
"The sentences were minuted by Wiwet. They were inserted in the newspapers; among others, the Leyden Gazette. They seem expressly drawn up to dishonour the king, the judges, and the country. The crimes proved are confounded in them with presumptions, offences with imprudences, faults peculiar to favourites with those in which, as they were covered by the king's authority, the culpability falls on him. In the fear of not charging enough, intentions and passions are taken into account. In the sentence passed on Brandt, after describing the scene of fisticuffs, which so strongly revealed the king's imbecility, they were not ashamed to add: 'Count Brandt has certainly alleged in his defence that the king had pardoned him; but even supposing that the fact was proved, it could not be understood otherwise than that his Majesty was kind enough to suffer so great an extremity for a time. After all, the culprit has proved nothing in this respect, and his Majesty is the sole judge of the extent he gives to his own indulgence.' When this extraordinary document was read to the man whom it concerned, he said very justly in his way, that its author deserved a hundred lashes with a stirrup-leather."
It is not surprising to find that the authenticity of the sentences was not believed when they were published in foreign countries. Thus we read in the Annales Belgiques for May, 1772:—
"A sentence ought to state the facts simply, and declare the penalty which is pronounced against the man who has been guilty of them. Care should be taken to avoid mixing up in it reasonings and epithets which denote in the judge a disposition for vengeance or any passion: now this pamphlet, which is offered us under the title of a sentence, displays from one end to the other such marked characters of a violent prejudice against the condemned, that this in itself would be sufficient to render it suspicious. It forms a tissue of vague imputations which can be easily destroyed."
But the dominant faction did not trouble itself about what might be said: sentence had been passed, and the next matter of importance was to have it executed before any revulsion took place in public opinion.
CHAPTER III.
THE EXECUTION.
CONFIRMATION OF THE SENTENCE—STRUENSEE'S CORRESPONDENCE—RANTZAU'S TREACHERY—AN UNFEELING COURT—STRUENSEE'S PENITENCE—THE SCAFFOLD—APRIL 28—EXECUTION OF BRANDT—HORRIBLE DETAILS—DEATH OF STRUENSEE—HIS CHARACTER—ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM—THE FIRST SERVANT OF THE STATE—THE QUEEN DOWAGER.
On the same day that the sentences were signed by the Commissioners, Uldall, the counsel, went to Struensee, in order to inform him of the termination of the trial.
When the advocate entered the cell, he said to the unhappy victim of a conspiracy:
"Good count, I bring you bad news."
And with these scant words he drew a copy of the approved sentence out of his pocket.
Calmly and silently the man condemned to such a cruel death perused the sentence, but not the slightest alteration took place in his countenance. Then, he handed the ominous paper to Dr. Münter, who happened to be with him at the time.
While the latter was trembling as he read the sentence, Struensee began to talk with composure with his counsel, and asked if all the points of his accusation had been regarded in passing his sentence, especially that about the education of the crown prince; to which Uldall answered in the affirmative. Struensee added, that he must confess that, if he had had children of his own, he would not have reared them in any other way.
"And what will Brandt's fate be?" he exclaimed.
"His sentence is exactly the same as yours," Uldall replied.