CHAPTER VIII.THE DIVORCE OF THE QUEEN.1772.The trial of the Queen began on March 14, in the great hall of the Court of Exchequer at Copenhagen. The whole of the commissioners were present, and the proceedings were vested with every possible solemnity. The court was opened by prayer, offered by the aged Bishop of Zealand, who had officiated at the Queen’s marriage five and a half years before. The judges who formed part of the commission were formally released from their oath of allegiance to the King during the trial, that they might judge of the matter between Christian and his consort in the same way as they would that between any ordinary man and wife.Bang, a lawyer of the Court of Exchequer, undertook the King’s cause, and Uhldahl, an eloquent advocate of the Supreme Court, was appointed to defend the Queen. He was not chosen by Matilda, but by her enemies, with the object of throwing dust in the eyes of the world. A demand had been made that the Queen should receive a fair trial, and as a proof of its fairness Juliana Maria was able to point to the fact that the most eloquent advocate inDenmark had been retained for the Queen’s defence. The device was clever, but transparent. Though the trial was that of the King against the Queen, neither of these exalted personages put in an appearance: the King was probably ignorant of what was going on; the Queen, who might reasonably have expected to be present at her own trial, was not given the option of attending. Nothing would have induced the Queen-Dowager to permit Matilda to return to Copenhagen, even as a prisoner. Her youth, her beauty, her misfortunes, might have hastened a reaction in her favour, and, moreover, it was even possible that she might by some means have effected a meeting with the King, and such a meeting would have been fatal to all the plans. The King would probably have forgiven her straight away, and taken her back as his reigning Queen. Therefore, the Queen-Dowager determined to keep Matilda safely shut up at Kronborg until she could remove her to a more distant fortress—that of Aalborg in Jutland, a most desolate spot. The fact that, so early as February 8, or more than a month before the trial opened, commissioners had been sent to Aalborg to inspect the castle with a view to its occupation by the young Queen, is sufficient to prove that the whole trial was a farce, since her sentence and punishment had been determined before it began.RÖSKILDE CATHEDRAL, WHERE THE KINGS AND QUEENS OF DENMARK ARE BURIED.RÖSKILDE CATHEDRAL, WHERE THE KINGS AND QUEENS OF DENMARK ARE BURIED.The first week of the trial was occupied in preliminaries, such as taking the depositions of witnesses. These witnesses were many in number.The most prominent of them was Fräulein von Eyben, who had been maid of honour to the Queen. This woman, whose virtue was by no means above suspicion, had been thrust upon the Queen by Holck after the dismissal of Madame Plessen. The Queen had never liked von Eyben, and when she became mistress of her own household, she dismissed her. That she was wise in doing so was shown by the fact that this woman now came forward with detailed accounts of the traps she had set to convict the Queen of a guilty intimacy with Struensee. Her evidence was categorical, but it was given with so much animus that it would have been regarded as prejudiced by any unbiassed judges. The other witnesses were all of the kind common in divorce courts—servants, maids, footmen, and the like—all of whom a few dollars would buy to swear anything. Such evidence is tainted at the source, and no judge ought to be influenced by it. Matilda was always the most generous and indulgent of mistresses; yet these menials, who had been treated with every kindness, now turned and gave evidence against her—the usual kind of evidence, such as listening at doors, peeping through keyholes, strewing sand on the floor, turning out lamps or lighting them, and other details of a more particular nature, unfit to be related here. Suffice it to say that the dear secrets of the Queen’s unhappy love were profaned by the coarse lips of these hirelings.The depositions of these witnesses are still preserved in a small iron box in the secret archives ofCopenhagen. For many years they were missing, but about twenty years ago the box was found, and opened in the presence of the chief of the archives, the Prussian minister then at Copenhagen, and Prince Hans of Glucksburg, a brother of the present King of Denmark, Christian IX. The papers were examined and sorted, put back in the box again, and passed into the safe keeping of the secret archives, where they have since remained. The papers include not only the depositions of witnesses, but also some letters of the Queen. Yet, curiously enough, a few of these depositions were published in a pamphlet by Jenssen-Tusch[50]some years before the existence of the box was known to the authorities. Wittich afterwards repeated these quotations with great force against the Queen.[51]The great bulk of these papers have never been published, and it may be hoped never will be, for their publication would only gratify prurient curiosity. If such evidence be admitted, then all possibility of the Queen’s innocence is at an end; but the question will always remain how far these witnesses, mostly drawn from the lowest class, were suborned to testify against their mistress.[50]G. F. von Jenssen-Tusch,Die Verschwörung gegen die Königin Caroline Mathilde und die Grafen Struensee und Brandt(Leipzig, 1864).[51]K. Wittich,Struensee(Leipzig, 1879).On March 24, before the whole assembly of the commissioners, Bang, the King’s advocate, submitted his indictment of Queen Matilda. It was a lengthy document, prepared with great care. The beginning sounds the keynote of the whole:—“Only the command of my King could induce me to speak against the Queen, and it is with a sense of the deepest humility, and with horror and grief, that I proceed to investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and submit the proofs that she has broken her marriage vow. I am compelled to indict her Majesty on these counts, because above all others the King’s marriage bed must be kept pure and undefiled. As a husband the King can demand this right, and he is bound to assert it for the honour of his royal house, and the welfare of his nation. As a husband the King can demand this right given him by the marriage vow; as the head of his royal house he is bound to guard the supremacy, antiquity, honour and purity of the Danish royal family. The virtues of this exalted family are known to the whole world; but if a foreign stock were grafted on the royal stem, and the offspring of lackeys came to bear the name of the King, the antiquity of this exalted family would cease, its supremacy weaken, its respect be lost, its honour abased, and its purity sullied.... Hence his Majesty, as husband of his wife, as first of his race, and as King of his people, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation simultaneously demand that the justice and loyalty which animate this commission should, in accordance with the law of God, the law of nature, and the law of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which binds Christian VII. to her Majesty, Caroline Matilda.”Bang then proceeded to submit his evidence. It may be divided into five heads.First and foremost, there was the confession of Struensee on February 21, a confession which he repeated subsequently on February 24 with the fullest details, and signed with his own hand.Secondly, there was the Queen’s confirmation of this document, which she signed at Kronborg on March 9. By doing so she admitted that she had broken her marriage vow, and so forfeited her rights as wife and queen.But since it might be argued that these confessions were extorted by threat, torture or other unfair means, the evidence of other persons was submitted. Moreover, according to the law of Denmark, it was not alone sufficient that the accused persons should confess their guilt, as for divers reasons, known to themselves, they might not be speaking the truth. The advocate, therefore, proceeded to quote the evidence of a great number of witnesses, who had been previously examined by the commission. This evidence went to show that so long ago as the winter of 1769 and the beginning of 1770 the Queen’s bed-chamber women and sundry lackeys formed suspicions that there was something wrong between Struensee and the Queen. They therefore spied on the Queen’s movements, and set a trap for Struensee, with the result that their suspicions were confirmed. After taking counsel together, these women, “with quaking hearts and tear-laden eyes,” approached the Queen,who, seeing them thus disturbed, asked them kindly what was the matter. They then, instead of telling her they had spied, said there were evil rumours about the court concerning herself and Struensee, that the Queen-Dowager was aware of them, and threatened to bring the matter before the Council of State. They affected to believe that the rumours were unfounded, but wished the Queen to be more careful. The Queen apparently neither admitted nor denied anything; at that time she was ill, and Struensee was the medical attendant sent her by the King, but she said that she would consult him about it, and perhaps if she did not see him so often the rumours would die out. But after the Queen had consulted Struensee, she changed her tone, and said to her women: “Do you know that any woman who speaks in such a way about the Queen can be punished by the loss of her tongue?”At this point the evidence of the lady-in-waiting, von Eyben, was taken, who said that what the Queen had denied to her women she had confessed to her. She found her mistress one day weeping and in great distress, and on asking what was the matter, the Queen told her of the whole affair, confessed that she was guilty, and said that Struensee had advised her to bribe the women, which she refused to do.Then came the deposition of Professor Berger, now under arrest, who said that, though he had no positive evidence, the intimacy between the Queen and Struensee had appeared to him mostsuspicious. Struensee behaved towards the Queen with a familiarity that was improper, considering their relative positions.The evidence of Brandt was also taken. Brandt declared that Struensee had confided to him the intrigue, but his confidence was unnecessary, as every word and look which passed between the Queen and Struensee showed that they were deeply attached to one another. Sometimes they quarrelled, and the Queen was very jealous of Struensee, but they always became reconciled again, and were better friends than before. Struensee’s apartments at Christiansborg, Frederiksberg and Hirschholm were so arranged that he could go from them to the Queen’s rooms unnoticed.There remained a great deal of servants’ gossip, such as the Queen’s conversations with her women. Thus, for instance, the Queen’s words, that if a woman loved a man, she should follow the object of her devotion to the gallows or the wheel, if need be, or even down to hell itself, were repeated here with additions. One of the maids objected, and said that there were few men worthy of such sacrifices; what was a woman to do if her lover proved unfaithful? The Queen replied that in her case she would either go mad or kill herself. She envied her waiting-women their good fortune in being able to marry whom they would, and said she had been married once against her will, but if she ever had the good fortune to become a widow, she would marry the next time whom she pleased, even if hewere a private person, and she had to leave the country and abandon her crown in consequence. The fact that she asked for Struensee, and tried to rush to his room at the time of her arrest, was noted against her; also her tears and lamentations at Kronborg, and the inquiries she had made after him. It was also put in as evidence that she always wore a miniature of Struensee, that she took it with her to Kronborg, and kept it at night under her pillow for fear any one should take it from her. Finally, several presents that the Queen had given Struensee were put in as evidence against her, though they were of no particular value. A great deal was made out of a blue enamelled heart which the Queen had brought with her from England, and afterwards gave to Struensee as the pledge of their friendship. Having duly noted all this and a great deal more, Bang wound up his indictment by demanding a verdict in the name of the King to this effect:—“That in accordance with the law of Denmark set forth in the sixth section of the third book of the code of Christian V., her Majesty Caroline Matilda shall now be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be forthwith dissolved, so as not to prevent his Majesty the King, if he will, from contracting a new alliance.”The indictment of Bang was neither very able nor very convincing, and, except for the Queen’s admission of Struensee’s confession, the evidence which he adduced was hardly worthy of credence.It was all of the nature of circumstantial evidence, and there was no direct proof of the Queen’s guilt; on the contrary, it was in her favour that notwithstanding every effort of cajolery, bribery and threat had been employed to procure evidence against the Queen, no better result could be obtained than this hotch-potch of servants’ gossip and vague suppositions. It may be doubted whether any ordinary court of law would pass sentence on such evidence; but the judges of the unfortunate Matilda had been appointed not to execute justice, but to carry out the behests of her enemies. Their minds were already made up as to the verdict before they entered the court. Still, to maintain an appearance of fairness before the world, they announced their willingness to hear the Queen’s defence, and offered no objection when the Queen’s advocate, Uhldahl, requested an adjournment of the court for a week, so that he might have time to submit Bang’s indictment to the Queen, and consult with her concerning the defence to be offered. The court was then adjourned until April 2.In the interval Uhldahl went to Kronborg, and took with him Bang’s indictment. He had several audiences of the Queen, who was now more mistress of her emotions, and they went through the charges against her point by point. The Queen was moved to indignation at the revelations of the treachery of those whom she had trusted, and she was aghast at the unfairness with which some of her most innocent actions were distorted into proofs ofher guilt. Blinded as she had been by her love for Struensee, the Queen now realised for the first time what her conduct must have looked like to the eyes of other people. Still, even admitting her lack of discretion to the fullest extent, a great deal of the evidence submitted against her was both unfair and untrue. Unfortunately, the damning testimony of her own confession remained, and not all her tears could wash out the signature which she had so incautiously written. It was therefore resolved to fall back on the strict letter of the Danish law, which did not permit the confession of an accused person to be put in as evidence, and treated it as null and void. The Queen, it is true, admitted that appearances were against her, but she pleaded that she was not guilty of the worst offence. The intimacy between herself and Struensee had been carried beyond the bounds of discretion and propriety, considering their relative positions, but it was not wicked. For the rest, she threw herself upon the mercy of the King, who in any case would have to confirm the sentence of her judges. The Queen’s forlorn condition, her youth, her tears, her prayers, her evident goodness of heart, moved even her advocate to pity, prejudiced though he was against her, and hired for the purpose of conniving at her destruction. He drew up his defence with her, and threw into the work so much heart that when he left his client it became a very different document to that which he had contemplated at first.On Uhldahl’s return to Copenhagen the secondsession was held on April 2, and the advocate then submitted his defence.[52][52]The original draft of Uhldahl’s defence of Queen Matilda is still among the heirlooms of the Uhldahl family. A copy of this celebrated document, in Danish, is preserved in the royal archives in Copenhagen. The above is a translation of that copy.“It is with unfeigned emotion that I rise to fulfil the duty which the well-being of the Queen as well as the command of the King have imposed upon me.“The rank of these exalted personages, the importance and far-reaching consequences of this trial, the intense desire I have to do my duty, and the fear that I may not be able to do it as I wish, add to my anxiety, and justify my regret at seeing the Queen compelled to lay aside her purple, come down from her throne, and, like the meanest of women, seek the protection of the law. Could any more affecting illustration of the insecurity of human happiness possibly be imagined? She in whose veins flows the blood of so many kings is suspected of having dishonoured her illustrious ancestry. She, who gave her lord the King her hand and heart, stands accused by the man who at that time swore to be her protector. She who, when she came among us, by the unanimous verdict of the nation, was regarded as the mother of her people, is now tried by the men who in that day would have shed their blood in her defence. Thus unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the queens of Denmark. In the bloom of her youth,and dowered with every gift to ensure happiness, she finds herself to-day standing on the brink of an abyss, down which her honour, her dignity, her peace of mind, may be cast. In one day she may lose her husband, her children and her throne, and yet be compelled to survive the loss. Suspected, accused, in danger of living a life of wretchedness for long years to come—can anything be more heart-rending than her position? Thus the Queen regards her situation, and thus she depicted it to me when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:—“‘I should utterly despair had not my intentions been always for the welfare of the King and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my youth, my sex and my rank must plead in my favour. I never believed myself exposed to suspicion, and, even though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. I understand that the law requires me to be tried: my consort has granted me this much; I hope he will also, through the mouth of his judges, acknowledge that I have not made myself unworthy of him.’“I repeat her Majesty’s words exactly as she uttered them. How I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken—the frankness that carried conviction, the trembling voice which pleaded for pity! This last, indeed, no one can refuse her without outraging every sentiment of humanity.“Chief among the charges brought against the Queen is that she has been false to the vows and duties imposed upon her by her marriage with the King her husband. It has been well urged that the King’s bed must remain unsullied in the interests of his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of his country. These truths all will admit, but they are so far from affecting the Queen that she demands the strictest investigation; she believes that she has not acted contrary to them. The more exalted her duties, the more exacting her obligations, the more terrible are the consequences of any infraction of them. The more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that the Queen has really committed a sin. How will the honour of the King and his royal family be better promoted—by proving the Queen guilty, or by showing her innocence? Has the Queen never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband and his people? Is it not admitted that, up to the time, at all events, when the accusations begin, she had proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy Queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty could so easily have forgotten herself? Can it be that she, who up to that day sought delight in modesty, virtue, respect of the King, and affection of the country, banished all these noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?“Advocate Bang in the King’s name submitted three varieties of proofs against the Queen—Count Struensee’s confession, her Majesty’s statement, and(as he knew that neither of these was sufficient) the evidence of witnesses.“Undoubtedly Count Struensee on February 21 and 24, as the documents show, made statements of the most insulting nature against her Majesty. He forgot the reverence due to his Queen, and through unfounded alarm, or confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself by implicating the Queen in his affair, or for other reasons, he made these absurd allegations, which can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the statement that he, if the Queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to abuse it in so scandalous a manner, or that the Queen would have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by such a statement. And how improbable it is that such a state of affairs should have gone on at court for two whole years under the nose of the King, and under the eyes of so many spies. The accusation is made by a prisoner not on his oath, and is utterly destitute of probability.“Advocate Bang admits that Count Struensee’s declaration is in itself no evidence against the Queen. Hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which the Queen made on March 9 as to the correctness of Struensee’s declaration, partly through her admission that she had broken her marriage vows, and hence lost her marriage rights. This he wishes to be regarded as proof. Certainly, in all civil causes confession is the most completeform of proof, but in criminal actions, and those such as we are now trying, the law of Denmark utterly rejects this evidence when it says: ‘It is not sufficient that the accused person should herself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court, and properly prove the offence’.“Other proofs therefore are necessary, and since it is the King’s wish that the law should be strictly followed in this action, and judgment be founded on the evidence submitted, it follows that the Queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects....[53][53]Here follows an argument to show that the Queen could not be convicted on her own confession, or on the confession of Struensee, as the Danish code demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons, who agreed as to the facts as well as the motives.“I now pass to the third class of proofs, which consist of the evidence of persons summoned by the prosecution as witnesses. Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined by me, but I have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence, and what it goes to prove.“It is worthy of note that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other foundation for his, or her, first suspicion against the Queen than common gossip [‘town-scandal’] which they had heard. It was not until this gossip became universal that it was mentioned to the Queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the Queen’s person, and yet found no reason for believing anything wrong in herintercourse with Struensee, it is clear that the conduct of the Queen must have been irreproachable up to this time. Every one knows that rumour is a lying jade; scandal is often founded on nothing, and through its propagation alone acquires credibility. But however false the slander may be, it leaves behind it, after once being uttered, a suspicion, which places the conduct of the person slandered in a new and different light. Words and actions before regarded as innocent are henceforth seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, the slander is regarded as confirmed. Thus it is with the witnesses in this case, for though, prior to hearing the rumour, they did not suspect the Queen, no sooner had they heard it than they imagined evidence against her at every point.”Uhldahl then proceeded to subject the evidence of the witnesses to analysis, with a view of showing how contradictory and worthless most of it was.Summing up all this testimony, Uhldahl said: “If we now ask if there are anyfactsin the evidence of the witnesses to prove that an extreme and improper intimacy existed between the Queen and Struensee, the answer must be: ‘There are none.’ That the Queen showed the Count marks of favour and confidence cannot be denied, but no one ever saw or heard that these went beyond the limits of honour. No witness is able to say positively that the Queen has broken the vows she made to her consort, nor can any adduce a single fact which would prove the certainty of her guilt. Indeed, oneof the witnesses on whom the prosecution most relies, the maid Bruhn, is constrained to admit ‘that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the Queen’. Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own suppositions. They say theythoughtthat Struensee was a long time with the Queen, because they were not summoned: theyimaginedthat the Queen and Struensee were guilty because they were on familiar terms. But these conjectures had their origin in rumour, and in the power which rumour possesses to stimulate the imagination. It is chiefly the favour shown by her Majesty to Count Struensee that roused the suspicions of witnesses, and caused them to draw such conclusions. It is said that he was constantly about the Queen, and in her company. But was he not also about the King? And must not the Queen’s confidence in him necessarily result from the confidence with which the King honoured him? As her justification of this, the Queen appeals to her consort’s action, and points to the striking proofs of the King’s favour to Struensee—the offices with which the King entrusted him, and the rank to which the King raised him. There can be no doubt that he sought to acquire the Queen’s confidence in the same way as he had gained the King’s. The loyalty which he always showed to the King, the attention he paid to the Queen when she was ill, the devotion which he seemed to entertain for them both, maintained an uninterrupted harmony between their Majesties. Above all else,the King’s will was law to the Queen, and this above all else made her believe that she could freely give Struensee her confidence without danger. His offices as Secretary to the Queen, and Privy Cabinet Minister to the King, required his constant presence. Hence it is not surprising that he acquired a greater share of the Queen’s favour than any other man....“I pass over all the rest of the evidence as things which are partly unimportant, partly irrelevant, or too improper to be answered. It is sufficient to say that no proof that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow can be derived from any of these witnesses, if we examine their evidence singly. The law requires the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all kinds of self-invented conclusions. If it were otherwise, her Majesty’s rank and dignity, which ought to shield her from such danger, would be the very things to cause her ruin.“I hope that I have now proved the innocence of the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her justification, and she feels assured of the discretion and impartiality of her judges. Therefore she awaits confidently the decision demanded by her honour, the King’s dignity, and the welfare of the land. I venture in her Majesty’s name to submit—“That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda be acquitted from his Majesty the King’s accusation in this matter.”Uhldahl’s defence was clever and ingenious, but it lacked the stamp of sincerity which carries conviction. His omission to cross-examine the witnesses, though he ascribes this to the wish of the Queen (who could have had no voice in the matter, and was entirely in the hands of her counsel), was the course probably dictated by her enemies. If these witnesses had been taken singly, and subjected to a searching cross-examination, they would probably have contradicted each other, and broken down one by one. Moreover, Uhldahl was fighting for the Queen with one arm tied behind his back. In any divorce court, if a husband petitions against his wife, his conduct, as well as hers, is liable to investigation, and if it can be shown that he is as guilty, or guiltier, than she, or that he has connived at her indiscretion, his petition falls to the ground. But this line of defence was forbidden to Uhldahl: he dared not say a word against the King, though he could have shown that the King had from the first been guilty of the grossest infidelity and cruelty towards his Queen—that he had outraged her every sentiment of religion and virtue, that he had often told her to do as she pleased, that he had repeatedly thrust temptation in her way, and when at last she yielded, or seemed to yield, to it, he had not only acquiesced in this condition of things, but at first, at any rate, actively encouraged and abetted it. These facts—and they were all of them notorious, and perfectly well known to the Queen’s judges and accusers—were not allowed to be pleaded in her favour.Reverdil, who had an intimate knowledge of the facts, who had been with the King when Matildafirst came to Denmark, who had been dismissed from court because he protested against the insults heaped upon her, who had been recalled three years later, when the intimacy between the Queen and Struensee was at its height, and who, much though he pitied her, believed her to be guilty, has supplied the arguments in her favour which were omitted by Uhldahl. He thus arraigns the King:—“Is it not true, Sir, that from the very day of your marriage up to the moment when the faction, now dominant, seized on you and your ministers some weeks ago, you had not the slightest regard for the marriage tie, and all this time you had declared to the Queen that you dispensed with her fidelity? Have you not invited all your successive favourites to tempt her? [a lui faire la cour]. Have you not said and proved in a thousand ways that her affection was wearisome to you, and that your greatest misery was to perform your duties to her? Your commissioners have had the effrontery to ask the Queen and Struensee who were their accomplices. In prison and in irons the accused have had the generosity to be silent for your sake; but what they have not done your conscience itself must do, and proclaim to you that you have been her real seducer.“Do you remember, Sir, the moment when this Princess, whom they wish to make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity? The English sent her without any adviser, without a single companion to your shores. Little more thana child, she had all the grace, the innocence and thenaïvetéof childhood, while her mind was more enlightened and mature than you could have expected; you were astonished at it. All hearts went out to meet her; her affability and kindness captivated all classes of the nation. When you were wicked enough to give yourself up to a frivolous and reckless favourite [Holck], and to vile companions who led you into libertinism, she found herself neglected, and you showed yourself more than indifferent to her. She loved you; she was silent, and maintained her serenity in public; she only wept in private with her chief lady [Madame de Plessen], whom you, yourself, had appointed as herconfidante. Before long you grudged her even this poor consolation, and the lady, whose only crime was that her conduct and principles were too correct for your taste, was dismissed with the most signal marks of disgrace. Madame von der Lühe, who took her place, was the sister of your favourite. No doubt you supposed that this lady would show as much levity, and have as few principles, as her brother; but she disappointed your expectations. Therefore, without actually disgracing her, you replaced her by ladies whose reputation was the most equivocal in the kingdom. What more could the most consummate corrupter have done? This very man, with whom the Queen is accused for having shown weakness, you, yourself, forced upon her after she had first repulsed him. It was in the hope of avoiding thetracasserieswith which your favourites annoyed herthat she was at last induced tolierherself with the man who offered his services to bring you nearer her. It was you who broke down all the barriers which separated her from him, who diminished the distance between them, who desired to bring about what to-day is called your ‘dishonour,’ who excused, nay, tolerated, thisliaison, and who, up to January 17 last, even talked of it as a good joke.“Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even though the whole world should condemn her, you ought, if not from natural equity, at least from self-respect, to revoke that condemnation.”[54][54]Mémoires de Reverdil, pp. 403-406.Uhldahl made his defence on April 2. The court then adjourned, and after taking four days to consider the verdict, delivered judgment. The verdict was to the effect that Queen Matilda had been found guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and the marriage between her and King Christian VII. was therefore dissolved, and the King was free to make another alliance, if it should seem good to him. The Queen’s sentence would depend upon the King’s pleasure. The court at the same time declared that the Princess Louise Augusta was legitimate, and was entitled to all the honours due to the daughter of the King. Thus the verdict was contradictory, for if the Queen were guilty with Struensee, it followed almost surely (though not necessarily for certain) that the Princess was not legitimate, for the intimacy between the Queen andStruensee was declared by the evidence, upon which the judges pretended to found their verdict, to have begun more than a year before the birth of the Princess, and to have gone on continuously ever since.The exact reasons which led to this extraordinary verdict being promulgated will probably never be known, but during the four days that elapsed between Uhldahl’s defence and the judgment, violent disputes and intrigues were being waged at the Christiansborg Palace. According to some, the Queen-Dowager not only fiercely insisted upon the divorce, but also the bastardising of both the Queen’s children (though why the Crown Prince it is difficult to say), and so making way for the succession of her son to the throne, but was prevented from having her way by the remonstrances of Guldberg. According to others, it was Rantzau and Osten who wished these drastic measures, and Juliana Maria who interposed on behalf of the Queen’s children. Be this as it may, it is certain that Matilda’s enemies were divided in their opinions; and even at this early hour there seems to have been a slight reaction in favour of the young Queen. The situation was also complicated by the interference of Keith, who, though he had received no instructions to prevent the divorce of the Queen, yet, now that the trial was over, and had shown itself to be manifestly unfair, entered vigorous protests on behalf of the King of England’s sister—protests which he backed by menaces. Several of the Queen-Dowager’s advisers took fright; perhaps,too, they had some secret pity for the young Queen, for they urged that it was not wise to enrage the King of England too far. The result was a compromise: the Queen was declared to be guilty, but her daughter was declared to be legitimate.THE GREAT COURT OF FREDERIKSBORG PALACE.THE GREAT COURT OF FREDERIKSBORG PALACE.From a Painting by Heinrich Hansen.Doubtless in consequence of the remonstrances of the English envoy, the proceedings of the court were kept secret, and the sentence of divorce was not published—at least, not through the medium of the press. But a royal rescript was sent to the governors of the provinces and the viceroy of the duchies, in which the King stated that he had repudiated his Queen after a solemn inquiry, in order to vindicate the honour of his house, and from motives of public welfare. The verdict was also communicated to the foreign envoys for transmission to their various courts. This was done in a theatrical manner. The court assumed mourning, and thecorps diplomatiquewere summoned to the Christiansborg Palace and proceeded thither, also in mourning. But the King did not appear. The Grand Chamberlain of the court announced to them the verdict, and said that the King had no longer a consort, and there was no longer a Queen. At the same time an order was issued to omit the Queen’s name from the public prayers. Henceforth she was to be considered as dead in law.Uhldahl saw the Queen the day after the decision of the court, and told her of the judgment. According to him she merely answered: “I thought as much. But what will become of Struensee?” And when hereplied that Struensee would certainly be sentenced to death, “she cried and shook all over”. She bewailed the fact that it was she who was the cause of his misfortunes. “The Queen would have sacrificed everything to save him; she thought nothing of herself.” Despite his base confession, which she was forced at last to believe he had made, she forgave him everything. Several times she bade Uhldahl to tell Struensee that she forgave him. “When you see him,” she said, “tell him that I am not angry with him for the wrong he has done me.”[55]Her love was boundless.[55]Christian VII. og Caroline Mathilde, by Chr. Blangstrup, Copenhagen.The unfortunate Matilda was formally acquainted with the sentence of divorce on April 9, when Baron Juell-Wind, one of her judges, went to Kronborg by order of the Council of State, and read to the Queen the verdict of the court in the presence of the commandant of Kronborg. The Queen, who had been prepared by Uhldahl, heard the sentence without emotion, but was greatly distressed at the thought that it might involve separation from her child. She did not ask, and did not seem to care, what her fate would be, but she was informed that it would depend upon the King’s pleasure.Her punishment indeed was still under debate, and was being discussed as hotly at the Christiansborg Palace as the verdict of divorce had been. The Queen had been unfaithful to the King’s bed; therefore she had been found guilty of high treason;therefore, urged some, she was worthy of death. The other alternative was perpetual imprisonment, and this seems to have been seriously considered, for the preparations at the fortress of Aalborg—a storm-beaten town at the extreme edge of Jutland—were pushed on with all speed. In theory, the last three months Matilda had been residing at one of her husband’s country palaces, for Kronborg was a royal palace as well as a fortress; she was now to be stripped of every appurtenance of her rank, and sent to Aalborg. Once there she would probably have died mysteriously.But Keith, who had interfered to prevent the Queen from being publicly disgraced, now interfered again, with even more determination, to mitigate her punishment. He could not prevent the divorce, but he could prevent the punishment. The King, the Grand Chamberlain had informed the foreign ministers, had no longer a consort; Denmark had no longer a Queen; Matilda was dead in law. This declaration gave Keith his opportunity. Though, he argued, it might please the King of Denmark to declare that Matilda was no longer his wife or his queen, it must be remembered that she was still a princess of Great Britain, and the sister of the King of England. Since the King, her consort, had repudiated her, it followed that the King, her brother, became her guardian, and her interests and future welfare were his care. By the sentence of divorce she had passed entirely out of the jurisdiction of Denmark to that of her native country; she becamean English subject, and as an English subject was free as air. Osten shuffled and changed his ground from day to day, but Keith became more and more insistent, and his tone grew more and more menacing. He sent home the most urgent despatches, describing the unfairness of the Queen’s trial, and the danger she was in through the malice of her enemies. In default of particular instructions, he could do nothing but threaten in general terms; but his intervention secured a respite. The Queen remained at Kronborg; her punishment was still undecided, and her fate uncertain.
THE DIVORCE OF THE QUEEN.
1772.
The trial of the Queen began on March 14, in the great hall of the Court of Exchequer at Copenhagen. The whole of the commissioners were present, and the proceedings were vested with every possible solemnity. The court was opened by prayer, offered by the aged Bishop of Zealand, who had officiated at the Queen’s marriage five and a half years before. The judges who formed part of the commission were formally released from their oath of allegiance to the King during the trial, that they might judge of the matter between Christian and his consort in the same way as they would that between any ordinary man and wife.
Bang, a lawyer of the Court of Exchequer, undertook the King’s cause, and Uhldahl, an eloquent advocate of the Supreme Court, was appointed to defend the Queen. He was not chosen by Matilda, but by her enemies, with the object of throwing dust in the eyes of the world. A demand had been made that the Queen should receive a fair trial, and as a proof of its fairness Juliana Maria was able to point to the fact that the most eloquent advocate inDenmark had been retained for the Queen’s defence. The device was clever, but transparent. Though the trial was that of the King against the Queen, neither of these exalted personages put in an appearance: the King was probably ignorant of what was going on; the Queen, who might reasonably have expected to be present at her own trial, was not given the option of attending. Nothing would have induced the Queen-Dowager to permit Matilda to return to Copenhagen, even as a prisoner. Her youth, her beauty, her misfortunes, might have hastened a reaction in her favour, and, moreover, it was even possible that she might by some means have effected a meeting with the King, and such a meeting would have been fatal to all the plans. The King would probably have forgiven her straight away, and taken her back as his reigning Queen. Therefore, the Queen-Dowager determined to keep Matilda safely shut up at Kronborg until she could remove her to a more distant fortress—that of Aalborg in Jutland, a most desolate spot. The fact that, so early as February 8, or more than a month before the trial opened, commissioners had been sent to Aalborg to inspect the castle with a view to its occupation by the young Queen, is sufficient to prove that the whole trial was a farce, since her sentence and punishment had been determined before it began.
RÖSKILDE CATHEDRAL, WHERE THE KINGS AND QUEENS OF DENMARK ARE BURIED.RÖSKILDE CATHEDRAL, WHERE THE KINGS AND QUEENS OF DENMARK ARE BURIED.
RÖSKILDE CATHEDRAL, WHERE THE KINGS AND QUEENS OF DENMARK ARE BURIED.
The first week of the trial was occupied in preliminaries, such as taking the depositions of witnesses. These witnesses were many in number.The most prominent of them was Fräulein von Eyben, who had been maid of honour to the Queen. This woman, whose virtue was by no means above suspicion, had been thrust upon the Queen by Holck after the dismissal of Madame Plessen. The Queen had never liked von Eyben, and when she became mistress of her own household, she dismissed her. That she was wise in doing so was shown by the fact that this woman now came forward with detailed accounts of the traps she had set to convict the Queen of a guilty intimacy with Struensee. Her evidence was categorical, but it was given with so much animus that it would have been regarded as prejudiced by any unbiassed judges. The other witnesses were all of the kind common in divorce courts—servants, maids, footmen, and the like—all of whom a few dollars would buy to swear anything. Such evidence is tainted at the source, and no judge ought to be influenced by it. Matilda was always the most generous and indulgent of mistresses; yet these menials, who had been treated with every kindness, now turned and gave evidence against her—the usual kind of evidence, such as listening at doors, peeping through keyholes, strewing sand on the floor, turning out lamps or lighting them, and other details of a more particular nature, unfit to be related here. Suffice it to say that the dear secrets of the Queen’s unhappy love were profaned by the coarse lips of these hirelings.
The depositions of these witnesses are still preserved in a small iron box in the secret archives ofCopenhagen. For many years they were missing, but about twenty years ago the box was found, and opened in the presence of the chief of the archives, the Prussian minister then at Copenhagen, and Prince Hans of Glucksburg, a brother of the present King of Denmark, Christian IX. The papers were examined and sorted, put back in the box again, and passed into the safe keeping of the secret archives, where they have since remained. The papers include not only the depositions of witnesses, but also some letters of the Queen. Yet, curiously enough, a few of these depositions were published in a pamphlet by Jenssen-Tusch[50]some years before the existence of the box was known to the authorities. Wittich afterwards repeated these quotations with great force against the Queen.[51]The great bulk of these papers have never been published, and it may be hoped never will be, for their publication would only gratify prurient curiosity. If such evidence be admitted, then all possibility of the Queen’s innocence is at an end; but the question will always remain how far these witnesses, mostly drawn from the lowest class, were suborned to testify against their mistress.
[50]G. F. von Jenssen-Tusch,Die Verschwörung gegen die Königin Caroline Mathilde und die Grafen Struensee und Brandt(Leipzig, 1864).
[50]G. F. von Jenssen-Tusch,Die Verschwörung gegen die Königin Caroline Mathilde und die Grafen Struensee und Brandt(Leipzig, 1864).
[51]K. Wittich,Struensee(Leipzig, 1879).
[51]K. Wittich,Struensee(Leipzig, 1879).
On March 24, before the whole assembly of the commissioners, Bang, the King’s advocate, submitted his indictment of Queen Matilda. It was a lengthy document, prepared with great care. The beginning sounds the keynote of the whole:—
“Only the command of my King could induce me to speak against the Queen, and it is with a sense of the deepest humility, and with horror and grief, that I proceed to investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and submit the proofs that she has broken her marriage vow. I am compelled to indict her Majesty on these counts, because above all others the King’s marriage bed must be kept pure and undefiled. As a husband the King can demand this right, and he is bound to assert it for the honour of his royal house, and the welfare of his nation. As a husband the King can demand this right given him by the marriage vow; as the head of his royal house he is bound to guard the supremacy, antiquity, honour and purity of the Danish royal family. The virtues of this exalted family are known to the whole world; but if a foreign stock were grafted on the royal stem, and the offspring of lackeys came to bear the name of the King, the antiquity of this exalted family would cease, its supremacy weaken, its respect be lost, its honour abased, and its purity sullied.... Hence his Majesty, as husband of his wife, as first of his race, and as King of his people, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation simultaneously demand that the justice and loyalty which animate this commission should, in accordance with the law of God, the law of nature, and the law of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which binds Christian VII. to her Majesty, Caroline Matilda.”
“Only the command of my King could induce me to speak against the Queen, and it is with a sense of the deepest humility, and with horror and grief, that I proceed to investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and submit the proofs that she has broken her marriage vow. I am compelled to indict her Majesty on these counts, because above all others the King’s marriage bed must be kept pure and undefiled. As a husband the King can demand this right, and he is bound to assert it for the honour of his royal house, and the welfare of his nation. As a husband the King can demand this right given him by the marriage vow; as the head of his royal house he is bound to guard the supremacy, antiquity, honour and purity of the Danish royal family. The virtues of this exalted family are known to the whole world; but if a foreign stock were grafted on the royal stem, and the offspring of lackeys came to bear the name of the King, the antiquity of this exalted family would cease, its supremacy weaken, its respect be lost, its honour abased, and its purity sullied.... Hence his Majesty, as husband of his wife, as first of his race, and as King of his people, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation simultaneously demand that the justice and loyalty which animate this commission should, in accordance with the law of God, the law of nature, and the law of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which binds Christian VII. to her Majesty, Caroline Matilda.”
Bang then proceeded to submit his evidence. It may be divided into five heads.
First and foremost, there was the confession of Struensee on February 21, a confession which he repeated subsequently on February 24 with the fullest details, and signed with his own hand.
Secondly, there was the Queen’s confirmation of this document, which she signed at Kronborg on March 9. By doing so she admitted that she had broken her marriage vow, and so forfeited her rights as wife and queen.
But since it might be argued that these confessions were extorted by threat, torture or other unfair means, the evidence of other persons was submitted. Moreover, according to the law of Denmark, it was not alone sufficient that the accused persons should confess their guilt, as for divers reasons, known to themselves, they might not be speaking the truth. The advocate, therefore, proceeded to quote the evidence of a great number of witnesses, who had been previously examined by the commission. This evidence went to show that so long ago as the winter of 1769 and the beginning of 1770 the Queen’s bed-chamber women and sundry lackeys formed suspicions that there was something wrong between Struensee and the Queen. They therefore spied on the Queen’s movements, and set a trap for Struensee, with the result that their suspicions were confirmed. After taking counsel together, these women, “with quaking hearts and tear-laden eyes,” approached the Queen,who, seeing them thus disturbed, asked them kindly what was the matter. They then, instead of telling her they had spied, said there were evil rumours about the court concerning herself and Struensee, that the Queen-Dowager was aware of them, and threatened to bring the matter before the Council of State. They affected to believe that the rumours were unfounded, but wished the Queen to be more careful. The Queen apparently neither admitted nor denied anything; at that time she was ill, and Struensee was the medical attendant sent her by the King, but she said that she would consult him about it, and perhaps if she did not see him so often the rumours would die out. But after the Queen had consulted Struensee, she changed her tone, and said to her women: “Do you know that any woman who speaks in such a way about the Queen can be punished by the loss of her tongue?”
At this point the evidence of the lady-in-waiting, von Eyben, was taken, who said that what the Queen had denied to her women she had confessed to her. She found her mistress one day weeping and in great distress, and on asking what was the matter, the Queen told her of the whole affair, confessed that she was guilty, and said that Struensee had advised her to bribe the women, which she refused to do.
Then came the deposition of Professor Berger, now under arrest, who said that, though he had no positive evidence, the intimacy between the Queen and Struensee had appeared to him mostsuspicious. Struensee behaved towards the Queen with a familiarity that was improper, considering their relative positions.
The evidence of Brandt was also taken. Brandt declared that Struensee had confided to him the intrigue, but his confidence was unnecessary, as every word and look which passed between the Queen and Struensee showed that they were deeply attached to one another. Sometimes they quarrelled, and the Queen was very jealous of Struensee, but they always became reconciled again, and were better friends than before. Struensee’s apartments at Christiansborg, Frederiksberg and Hirschholm were so arranged that he could go from them to the Queen’s rooms unnoticed.
There remained a great deal of servants’ gossip, such as the Queen’s conversations with her women. Thus, for instance, the Queen’s words, that if a woman loved a man, she should follow the object of her devotion to the gallows or the wheel, if need be, or even down to hell itself, were repeated here with additions. One of the maids objected, and said that there were few men worthy of such sacrifices; what was a woman to do if her lover proved unfaithful? The Queen replied that in her case she would either go mad or kill herself. She envied her waiting-women their good fortune in being able to marry whom they would, and said she had been married once against her will, but if she ever had the good fortune to become a widow, she would marry the next time whom she pleased, even if hewere a private person, and she had to leave the country and abandon her crown in consequence. The fact that she asked for Struensee, and tried to rush to his room at the time of her arrest, was noted against her; also her tears and lamentations at Kronborg, and the inquiries she had made after him. It was also put in as evidence that she always wore a miniature of Struensee, that she took it with her to Kronborg, and kept it at night under her pillow for fear any one should take it from her. Finally, several presents that the Queen had given Struensee were put in as evidence against her, though they were of no particular value. A great deal was made out of a blue enamelled heart which the Queen had brought with her from England, and afterwards gave to Struensee as the pledge of their friendship. Having duly noted all this and a great deal more, Bang wound up his indictment by demanding a verdict in the name of the King to this effect:—
“That in accordance with the law of Denmark set forth in the sixth section of the third book of the code of Christian V., her Majesty Caroline Matilda shall now be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be forthwith dissolved, so as not to prevent his Majesty the King, if he will, from contracting a new alliance.”
“That in accordance with the law of Denmark set forth in the sixth section of the third book of the code of Christian V., her Majesty Caroline Matilda shall now be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be forthwith dissolved, so as not to prevent his Majesty the King, if he will, from contracting a new alliance.”
The indictment of Bang was neither very able nor very convincing, and, except for the Queen’s admission of Struensee’s confession, the evidence which he adduced was hardly worthy of credence.It was all of the nature of circumstantial evidence, and there was no direct proof of the Queen’s guilt; on the contrary, it was in her favour that notwithstanding every effort of cajolery, bribery and threat had been employed to procure evidence against the Queen, no better result could be obtained than this hotch-potch of servants’ gossip and vague suppositions. It may be doubted whether any ordinary court of law would pass sentence on such evidence; but the judges of the unfortunate Matilda had been appointed not to execute justice, but to carry out the behests of her enemies. Their minds were already made up as to the verdict before they entered the court. Still, to maintain an appearance of fairness before the world, they announced their willingness to hear the Queen’s defence, and offered no objection when the Queen’s advocate, Uhldahl, requested an adjournment of the court for a week, so that he might have time to submit Bang’s indictment to the Queen, and consult with her concerning the defence to be offered. The court was then adjourned until April 2.
In the interval Uhldahl went to Kronborg, and took with him Bang’s indictment. He had several audiences of the Queen, who was now more mistress of her emotions, and they went through the charges against her point by point. The Queen was moved to indignation at the revelations of the treachery of those whom she had trusted, and she was aghast at the unfairness with which some of her most innocent actions were distorted into proofs ofher guilt. Blinded as she had been by her love for Struensee, the Queen now realised for the first time what her conduct must have looked like to the eyes of other people. Still, even admitting her lack of discretion to the fullest extent, a great deal of the evidence submitted against her was both unfair and untrue. Unfortunately, the damning testimony of her own confession remained, and not all her tears could wash out the signature which she had so incautiously written. It was therefore resolved to fall back on the strict letter of the Danish law, which did not permit the confession of an accused person to be put in as evidence, and treated it as null and void. The Queen, it is true, admitted that appearances were against her, but she pleaded that she was not guilty of the worst offence. The intimacy between herself and Struensee had been carried beyond the bounds of discretion and propriety, considering their relative positions, but it was not wicked. For the rest, she threw herself upon the mercy of the King, who in any case would have to confirm the sentence of her judges. The Queen’s forlorn condition, her youth, her tears, her prayers, her evident goodness of heart, moved even her advocate to pity, prejudiced though he was against her, and hired for the purpose of conniving at her destruction. He drew up his defence with her, and threw into the work so much heart that when he left his client it became a very different document to that which he had contemplated at first.
On Uhldahl’s return to Copenhagen the secondsession was held on April 2, and the advocate then submitted his defence.[52]
[52]The original draft of Uhldahl’s defence of Queen Matilda is still among the heirlooms of the Uhldahl family. A copy of this celebrated document, in Danish, is preserved in the royal archives in Copenhagen. The above is a translation of that copy.
[52]The original draft of Uhldahl’s defence of Queen Matilda is still among the heirlooms of the Uhldahl family. A copy of this celebrated document, in Danish, is preserved in the royal archives in Copenhagen. The above is a translation of that copy.
“It is with unfeigned emotion that I rise to fulfil the duty which the well-being of the Queen as well as the command of the King have imposed upon me.“The rank of these exalted personages, the importance and far-reaching consequences of this trial, the intense desire I have to do my duty, and the fear that I may not be able to do it as I wish, add to my anxiety, and justify my regret at seeing the Queen compelled to lay aside her purple, come down from her throne, and, like the meanest of women, seek the protection of the law. Could any more affecting illustration of the insecurity of human happiness possibly be imagined? She in whose veins flows the blood of so many kings is suspected of having dishonoured her illustrious ancestry. She, who gave her lord the King her hand and heart, stands accused by the man who at that time swore to be her protector. She who, when she came among us, by the unanimous verdict of the nation, was regarded as the mother of her people, is now tried by the men who in that day would have shed their blood in her defence. Thus unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the queens of Denmark. In the bloom of her youth,and dowered with every gift to ensure happiness, she finds herself to-day standing on the brink of an abyss, down which her honour, her dignity, her peace of mind, may be cast. In one day she may lose her husband, her children and her throne, and yet be compelled to survive the loss. Suspected, accused, in danger of living a life of wretchedness for long years to come—can anything be more heart-rending than her position? Thus the Queen regards her situation, and thus she depicted it to me when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:—“‘I should utterly despair had not my intentions been always for the welfare of the King and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my youth, my sex and my rank must plead in my favour. I never believed myself exposed to suspicion, and, even though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. I understand that the law requires me to be tried: my consort has granted me this much; I hope he will also, through the mouth of his judges, acknowledge that I have not made myself unworthy of him.’“I repeat her Majesty’s words exactly as she uttered them. How I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken—the frankness that carried conviction, the trembling voice which pleaded for pity! This last, indeed, no one can refuse her without outraging every sentiment of humanity.“Chief among the charges brought against the Queen is that she has been false to the vows and duties imposed upon her by her marriage with the King her husband. It has been well urged that the King’s bed must remain unsullied in the interests of his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of his country. These truths all will admit, but they are so far from affecting the Queen that she demands the strictest investigation; she believes that she has not acted contrary to them. The more exalted her duties, the more exacting her obligations, the more terrible are the consequences of any infraction of them. The more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that the Queen has really committed a sin. How will the honour of the King and his royal family be better promoted—by proving the Queen guilty, or by showing her innocence? Has the Queen never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband and his people? Is it not admitted that, up to the time, at all events, when the accusations begin, she had proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy Queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty could so easily have forgotten herself? Can it be that she, who up to that day sought delight in modesty, virtue, respect of the King, and affection of the country, banished all these noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?“Advocate Bang in the King’s name submitted three varieties of proofs against the Queen—Count Struensee’s confession, her Majesty’s statement, and(as he knew that neither of these was sufficient) the evidence of witnesses.“Undoubtedly Count Struensee on February 21 and 24, as the documents show, made statements of the most insulting nature against her Majesty. He forgot the reverence due to his Queen, and through unfounded alarm, or confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself by implicating the Queen in his affair, or for other reasons, he made these absurd allegations, which can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the statement that he, if the Queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to abuse it in so scandalous a manner, or that the Queen would have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by such a statement. And how improbable it is that such a state of affairs should have gone on at court for two whole years under the nose of the King, and under the eyes of so many spies. The accusation is made by a prisoner not on his oath, and is utterly destitute of probability.“Advocate Bang admits that Count Struensee’s declaration is in itself no evidence against the Queen. Hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which the Queen made on March 9 as to the correctness of Struensee’s declaration, partly through her admission that she had broken her marriage vows, and hence lost her marriage rights. This he wishes to be regarded as proof. Certainly, in all civil causes confession is the most completeform of proof, but in criminal actions, and those such as we are now trying, the law of Denmark utterly rejects this evidence when it says: ‘It is not sufficient that the accused person should herself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court, and properly prove the offence’.“Other proofs therefore are necessary, and since it is the King’s wish that the law should be strictly followed in this action, and judgment be founded on the evidence submitted, it follows that the Queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects....[53]
“It is with unfeigned emotion that I rise to fulfil the duty which the well-being of the Queen as well as the command of the King have imposed upon me.
“The rank of these exalted personages, the importance and far-reaching consequences of this trial, the intense desire I have to do my duty, and the fear that I may not be able to do it as I wish, add to my anxiety, and justify my regret at seeing the Queen compelled to lay aside her purple, come down from her throne, and, like the meanest of women, seek the protection of the law. Could any more affecting illustration of the insecurity of human happiness possibly be imagined? She in whose veins flows the blood of so many kings is suspected of having dishonoured her illustrious ancestry. She, who gave her lord the King her hand and heart, stands accused by the man who at that time swore to be her protector. She who, when she came among us, by the unanimous verdict of the nation, was regarded as the mother of her people, is now tried by the men who in that day would have shed their blood in her defence. Thus unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the queens of Denmark. In the bloom of her youth,and dowered with every gift to ensure happiness, she finds herself to-day standing on the brink of an abyss, down which her honour, her dignity, her peace of mind, may be cast. In one day she may lose her husband, her children and her throne, and yet be compelled to survive the loss. Suspected, accused, in danger of living a life of wretchedness for long years to come—can anything be more heart-rending than her position? Thus the Queen regards her situation, and thus she depicted it to me when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:—
“‘I should utterly despair had not my intentions been always for the welfare of the King and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my youth, my sex and my rank must plead in my favour. I never believed myself exposed to suspicion, and, even though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. I understand that the law requires me to be tried: my consort has granted me this much; I hope he will also, through the mouth of his judges, acknowledge that I have not made myself unworthy of him.’
“I repeat her Majesty’s words exactly as she uttered them. How I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken—the frankness that carried conviction, the trembling voice which pleaded for pity! This last, indeed, no one can refuse her without outraging every sentiment of humanity.
“Chief among the charges brought against the Queen is that she has been false to the vows and duties imposed upon her by her marriage with the King her husband. It has been well urged that the King’s bed must remain unsullied in the interests of his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of his country. These truths all will admit, but they are so far from affecting the Queen that she demands the strictest investigation; she believes that she has not acted contrary to them. The more exalted her duties, the more exacting her obligations, the more terrible are the consequences of any infraction of them. The more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that the Queen has really committed a sin. How will the honour of the King and his royal family be better promoted—by proving the Queen guilty, or by showing her innocence? Has the Queen never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband and his people? Is it not admitted that, up to the time, at all events, when the accusations begin, she had proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy Queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty could so easily have forgotten herself? Can it be that she, who up to that day sought delight in modesty, virtue, respect of the King, and affection of the country, banished all these noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?
“Advocate Bang in the King’s name submitted three varieties of proofs against the Queen—Count Struensee’s confession, her Majesty’s statement, and(as he knew that neither of these was sufficient) the evidence of witnesses.
“Undoubtedly Count Struensee on February 21 and 24, as the documents show, made statements of the most insulting nature against her Majesty. He forgot the reverence due to his Queen, and through unfounded alarm, or confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself by implicating the Queen in his affair, or for other reasons, he made these absurd allegations, which can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the statement that he, if the Queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to abuse it in so scandalous a manner, or that the Queen would have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by such a statement. And how improbable it is that such a state of affairs should have gone on at court for two whole years under the nose of the King, and under the eyes of so many spies. The accusation is made by a prisoner not on his oath, and is utterly destitute of probability.
“Advocate Bang admits that Count Struensee’s declaration is in itself no evidence against the Queen. Hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which the Queen made on March 9 as to the correctness of Struensee’s declaration, partly through her admission that she had broken her marriage vows, and hence lost her marriage rights. This he wishes to be regarded as proof. Certainly, in all civil causes confession is the most completeform of proof, but in criminal actions, and those such as we are now trying, the law of Denmark utterly rejects this evidence when it says: ‘It is not sufficient that the accused person should herself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court, and properly prove the offence’.
“Other proofs therefore are necessary, and since it is the King’s wish that the law should be strictly followed in this action, and judgment be founded on the evidence submitted, it follows that the Queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects....[53]
[53]Here follows an argument to show that the Queen could not be convicted on her own confession, or on the confession of Struensee, as the Danish code demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons, who agreed as to the facts as well as the motives.
[53]Here follows an argument to show that the Queen could not be convicted on her own confession, or on the confession of Struensee, as the Danish code demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons, who agreed as to the facts as well as the motives.
“I now pass to the third class of proofs, which consist of the evidence of persons summoned by the prosecution as witnesses. Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined by me, but I have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence, and what it goes to prove.“It is worthy of note that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other foundation for his, or her, first suspicion against the Queen than common gossip [‘town-scandal’] which they had heard. It was not until this gossip became universal that it was mentioned to the Queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the Queen’s person, and yet found no reason for believing anything wrong in herintercourse with Struensee, it is clear that the conduct of the Queen must have been irreproachable up to this time. Every one knows that rumour is a lying jade; scandal is often founded on nothing, and through its propagation alone acquires credibility. But however false the slander may be, it leaves behind it, after once being uttered, a suspicion, which places the conduct of the person slandered in a new and different light. Words and actions before regarded as innocent are henceforth seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, the slander is regarded as confirmed. Thus it is with the witnesses in this case, for though, prior to hearing the rumour, they did not suspect the Queen, no sooner had they heard it than they imagined evidence against her at every point.”
“I now pass to the third class of proofs, which consist of the evidence of persons summoned by the prosecution as witnesses. Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined by me, but I have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence, and what it goes to prove.
“It is worthy of note that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other foundation for his, or her, first suspicion against the Queen than common gossip [‘town-scandal’] which they had heard. It was not until this gossip became universal that it was mentioned to the Queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the Queen’s person, and yet found no reason for believing anything wrong in herintercourse with Struensee, it is clear that the conduct of the Queen must have been irreproachable up to this time. Every one knows that rumour is a lying jade; scandal is often founded on nothing, and through its propagation alone acquires credibility. But however false the slander may be, it leaves behind it, after once being uttered, a suspicion, which places the conduct of the person slandered in a new and different light. Words and actions before regarded as innocent are henceforth seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, the slander is regarded as confirmed. Thus it is with the witnesses in this case, for though, prior to hearing the rumour, they did not suspect the Queen, no sooner had they heard it than they imagined evidence against her at every point.”
Uhldahl then proceeded to subject the evidence of the witnesses to analysis, with a view of showing how contradictory and worthless most of it was.
Summing up all this testimony, Uhldahl said: “If we now ask if there are anyfactsin the evidence of the witnesses to prove that an extreme and improper intimacy existed between the Queen and Struensee, the answer must be: ‘There are none.’ That the Queen showed the Count marks of favour and confidence cannot be denied, but no one ever saw or heard that these went beyond the limits of honour. No witness is able to say positively that the Queen has broken the vows she made to her consort, nor can any adduce a single fact which would prove the certainty of her guilt. Indeed, oneof the witnesses on whom the prosecution most relies, the maid Bruhn, is constrained to admit ‘that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the Queen’. Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own suppositions. They say theythoughtthat Struensee was a long time with the Queen, because they were not summoned: theyimaginedthat the Queen and Struensee were guilty because they were on familiar terms. But these conjectures had their origin in rumour, and in the power which rumour possesses to stimulate the imagination. It is chiefly the favour shown by her Majesty to Count Struensee that roused the suspicions of witnesses, and caused them to draw such conclusions. It is said that he was constantly about the Queen, and in her company. But was he not also about the King? And must not the Queen’s confidence in him necessarily result from the confidence with which the King honoured him? As her justification of this, the Queen appeals to her consort’s action, and points to the striking proofs of the King’s favour to Struensee—the offices with which the King entrusted him, and the rank to which the King raised him. There can be no doubt that he sought to acquire the Queen’s confidence in the same way as he had gained the King’s. The loyalty which he always showed to the King, the attention he paid to the Queen when she was ill, the devotion which he seemed to entertain for them both, maintained an uninterrupted harmony between their Majesties. Above all else,the King’s will was law to the Queen, and this above all else made her believe that she could freely give Struensee her confidence without danger. His offices as Secretary to the Queen, and Privy Cabinet Minister to the King, required his constant presence. Hence it is not surprising that he acquired a greater share of the Queen’s favour than any other man....“I pass over all the rest of the evidence as things which are partly unimportant, partly irrelevant, or too improper to be answered. It is sufficient to say that no proof that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow can be derived from any of these witnesses, if we examine their evidence singly. The law requires the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all kinds of self-invented conclusions. If it were otherwise, her Majesty’s rank and dignity, which ought to shield her from such danger, would be the very things to cause her ruin.“I hope that I have now proved the innocence of the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her justification, and she feels assured of the discretion and impartiality of her judges. Therefore she awaits confidently the decision demanded by her honour, the King’s dignity, and the welfare of the land. I venture in her Majesty’s name to submit—“That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda be acquitted from his Majesty the King’s accusation in this matter.”
Summing up all this testimony, Uhldahl said: “If we now ask if there are anyfactsin the evidence of the witnesses to prove that an extreme and improper intimacy existed between the Queen and Struensee, the answer must be: ‘There are none.’ That the Queen showed the Count marks of favour and confidence cannot be denied, but no one ever saw or heard that these went beyond the limits of honour. No witness is able to say positively that the Queen has broken the vows she made to her consort, nor can any adduce a single fact which would prove the certainty of her guilt. Indeed, oneof the witnesses on whom the prosecution most relies, the maid Bruhn, is constrained to admit ‘that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the Queen’. Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own suppositions. They say theythoughtthat Struensee was a long time with the Queen, because they were not summoned: theyimaginedthat the Queen and Struensee were guilty because they were on familiar terms. But these conjectures had their origin in rumour, and in the power which rumour possesses to stimulate the imagination. It is chiefly the favour shown by her Majesty to Count Struensee that roused the suspicions of witnesses, and caused them to draw such conclusions. It is said that he was constantly about the Queen, and in her company. But was he not also about the King? And must not the Queen’s confidence in him necessarily result from the confidence with which the King honoured him? As her justification of this, the Queen appeals to her consort’s action, and points to the striking proofs of the King’s favour to Struensee—the offices with which the King entrusted him, and the rank to which the King raised him. There can be no doubt that he sought to acquire the Queen’s confidence in the same way as he had gained the King’s. The loyalty which he always showed to the King, the attention he paid to the Queen when she was ill, the devotion which he seemed to entertain for them both, maintained an uninterrupted harmony between their Majesties. Above all else,the King’s will was law to the Queen, and this above all else made her believe that she could freely give Struensee her confidence without danger. His offices as Secretary to the Queen, and Privy Cabinet Minister to the King, required his constant presence. Hence it is not surprising that he acquired a greater share of the Queen’s favour than any other man....
“I pass over all the rest of the evidence as things which are partly unimportant, partly irrelevant, or too improper to be answered. It is sufficient to say that no proof that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow can be derived from any of these witnesses, if we examine their evidence singly. The law requires the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all kinds of self-invented conclusions. If it were otherwise, her Majesty’s rank and dignity, which ought to shield her from such danger, would be the very things to cause her ruin.
“I hope that I have now proved the innocence of the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her justification, and she feels assured of the discretion and impartiality of her judges. Therefore she awaits confidently the decision demanded by her honour, the King’s dignity, and the welfare of the land. I venture in her Majesty’s name to submit—
“That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda be acquitted from his Majesty the King’s accusation in this matter.”
Uhldahl’s defence was clever and ingenious, but it lacked the stamp of sincerity which carries conviction. His omission to cross-examine the witnesses, though he ascribes this to the wish of the Queen (who could have had no voice in the matter, and was entirely in the hands of her counsel), was the course probably dictated by her enemies. If these witnesses had been taken singly, and subjected to a searching cross-examination, they would probably have contradicted each other, and broken down one by one. Moreover, Uhldahl was fighting for the Queen with one arm tied behind his back. In any divorce court, if a husband petitions against his wife, his conduct, as well as hers, is liable to investigation, and if it can be shown that he is as guilty, or guiltier, than she, or that he has connived at her indiscretion, his petition falls to the ground. But this line of defence was forbidden to Uhldahl: he dared not say a word against the King, though he could have shown that the King had from the first been guilty of the grossest infidelity and cruelty towards his Queen—that he had outraged her every sentiment of religion and virtue, that he had often told her to do as she pleased, that he had repeatedly thrust temptation in her way, and when at last she yielded, or seemed to yield, to it, he had not only acquiesced in this condition of things, but at first, at any rate, actively encouraged and abetted it. These facts—and they were all of them notorious, and perfectly well known to the Queen’s judges and accusers—were not allowed to be pleaded in her favour.
Reverdil, who had an intimate knowledge of the facts, who had been with the King when Matildafirst came to Denmark, who had been dismissed from court because he protested against the insults heaped upon her, who had been recalled three years later, when the intimacy between the Queen and Struensee was at its height, and who, much though he pitied her, believed her to be guilty, has supplied the arguments in her favour which were omitted by Uhldahl. He thus arraigns the King:—
“Is it not true, Sir, that from the very day of your marriage up to the moment when the faction, now dominant, seized on you and your ministers some weeks ago, you had not the slightest regard for the marriage tie, and all this time you had declared to the Queen that you dispensed with her fidelity? Have you not invited all your successive favourites to tempt her? [a lui faire la cour]. Have you not said and proved in a thousand ways that her affection was wearisome to you, and that your greatest misery was to perform your duties to her? Your commissioners have had the effrontery to ask the Queen and Struensee who were their accomplices. In prison and in irons the accused have had the generosity to be silent for your sake; but what they have not done your conscience itself must do, and proclaim to you that you have been her real seducer.“Do you remember, Sir, the moment when this Princess, whom they wish to make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity? The English sent her without any adviser, without a single companion to your shores. Little more thana child, she had all the grace, the innocence and thenaïvetéof childhood, while her mind was more enlightened and mature than you could have expected; you were astonished at it. All hearts went out to meet her; her affability and kindness captivated all classes of the nation. When you were wicked enough to give yourself up to a frivolous and reckless favourite [Holck], and to vile companions who led you into libertinism, she found herself neglected, and you showed yourself more than indifferent to her. She loved you; she was silent, and maintained her serenity in public; she only wept in private with her chief lady [Madame de Plessen], whom you, yourself, had appointed as herconfidante. Before long you grudged her even this poor consolation, and the lady, whose only crime was that her conduct and principles were too correct for your taste, was dismissed with the most signal marks of disgrace. Madame von der Lühe, who took her place, was the sister of your favourite. No doubt you supposed that this lady would show as much levity, and have as few principles, as her brother; but she disappointed your expectations. Therefore, without actually disgracing her, you replaced her by ladies whose reputation was the most equivocal in the kingdom. What more could the most consummate corrupter have done? This very man, with whom the Queen is accused for having shown weakness, you, yourself, forced upon her after she had first repulsed him. It was in the hope of avoiding thetracasserieswith which your favourites annoyed herthat she was at last induced tolierherself with the man who offered his services to bring you nearer her. It was you who broke down all the barriers which separated her from him, who diminished the distance between them, who desired to bring about what to-day is called your ‘dishonour,’ who excused, nay, tolerated, thisliaison, and who, up to January 17 last, even talked of it as a good joke.“Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even though the whole world should condemn her, you ought, if not from natural equity, at least from self-respect, to revoke that condemnation.”[54]
“Is it not true, Sir, that from the very day of your marriage up to the moment when the faction, now dominant, seized on you and your ministers some weeks ago, you had not the slightest regard for the marriage tie, and all this time you had declared to the Queen that you dispensed with her fidelity? Have you not invited all your successive favourites to tempt her? [a lui faire la cour]. Have you not said and proved in a thousand ways that her affection was wearisome to you, and that your greatest misery was to perform your duties to her? Your commissioners have had the effrontery to ask the Queen and Struensee who were their accomplices. In prison and in irons the accused have had the generosity to be silent for your sake; but what they have not done your conscience itself must do, and proclaim to you that you have been her real seducer.
“Do you remember, Sir, the moment when this Princess, whom they wish to make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity? The English sent her without any adviser, without a single companion to your shores. Little more thana child, she had all the grace, the innocence and thenaïvetéof childhood, while her mind was more enlightened and mature than you could have expected; you were astonished at it. All hearts went out to meet her; her affability and kindness captivated all classes of the nation. When you were wicked enough to give yourself up to a frivolous and reckless favourite [Holck], and to vile companions who led you into libertinism, she found herself neglected, and you showed yourself more than indifferent to her. She loved you; she was silent, and maintained her serenity in public; she only wept in private with her chief lady [Madame de Plessen], whom you, yourself, had appointed as herconfidante. Before long you grudged her even this poor consolation, and the lady, whose only crime was that her conduct and principles were too correct for your taste, was dismissed with the most signal marks of disgrace. Madame von der Lühe, who took her place, was the sister of your favourite. No doubt you supposed that this lady would show as much levity, and have as few principles, as her brother; but she disappointed your expectations. Therefore, without actually disgracing her, you replaced her by ladies whose reputation was the most equivocal in the kingdom. What more could the most consummate corrupter have done? This very man, with whom the Queen is accused for having shown weakness, you, yourself, forced upon her after she had first repulsed him. It was in the hope of avoiding thetracasserieswith which your favourites annoyed herthat she was at last induced tolierherself with the man who offered his services to bring you nearer her. It was you who broke down all the barriers which separated her from him, who diminished the distance between them, who desired to bring about what to-day is called your ‘dishonour,’ who excused, nay, tolerated, thisliaison, and who, up to January 17 last, even talked of it as a good joke.
“Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even though the whole world should condemn her, you ought, if not from natural equity, at least from self-respect, to revoke that condemnation.”[54]
[54]Mémoires de Reverdil, pp. 403-406.
[54]Mémoires de Reverdil, pp. 403-406.
Uhldahl made his defence on April 2. The court then adjourned, and after taking four days to consider the verdict, delivered judgment. The verdict was to the effect that Queen Matilda had been found guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and the marriage between her and King Christian VII. was therefore dissolved, and the King was free to make another alliance, if it should seem good to him. The Queen’s sentence would depend upon the King’s pleasure. The court at the same time declared that the Princess Louise Augusta was legitimate, and was entitled to all the honours due to the daughter of the King. Thus the verdict was contradictory, for if the Queen were guilty with Struensee, it followed almost surely (though not necessarily for certain) that the Princess was not legitimate, for the intimacy between the Queen andStruensee was declared by the evidence, upon which the judges pretended to found their verdict, to have begun more than a year before the birth of the Princess, and to have gone on continuously ever since.
The exact reasons which led to this extraordinary verdict being promulgated will probably never be known, but during the four days that elapsed between Uhldahl’s defence and the judgment, violent disputes and intrigues were being waged at the Christiansborg Palace. According to some, the Queen-Dowager not only fiercely insisted upon the divorce, but also the bastardising of both the Queen’s children (though why the Crown Prince it is difficult to say), and so making way for the succession of her son to the throne, but was prevented from having her way by the remonstrances of Guldberg. According to others, it was Rantzau and Osten who wished these drastic measures, and Juliana Maria who interposed on behalf of the Queen’s children. Be this as it may, it is certain that Matilda’s enemies were divided in their opinions; and even at this early hour there seems to have been a slight reaction in favour of the young Queen. The situation was also complicated by the interference of Keith, who, though he had received no instructions to prevent the divorce of the Queen, yet, now that the trial was over, and had shown itself to be manifestly unfair, entered vigorous protests on behalf of the King of England’s sister—protests which he backed by menaces. Several of the Queen-Dowager’s advisers took fright; perhaps,too, they had some secret pity for the young Queen, for they urged that it was not wise to enrage the King of England too far. The result was a compromise: the Queen was declared to be guilty, but her daughter was declared to be legitimate.
THE GREAT COURT OF FREDERIKSBORG PALACE.THE GREAT COURT OF FREDERIKSBORG PALACE.From a Painting by Heinrich Hansen.
THE GREAT COURT OF FREDERIKSBORG PALACE.From a Painting by Heinrich Hansen.
Doubtless in consequence of the remonstrances of the English envoy, the proceedings of the court were kept secret, and the sentence of divorce was not published—at least, not through the medium of the press. But a royal rescript was sent to the governors of the provinces and the viceroy of the duchies, in which the King stated that he had repudiated his Queen after a solemn inquiry, in order to vindicate the honour of his house, and from motives of public welfare. The verdict was also communicated to the foreign envoys for transmission to their various courts. This was done in a theatrical manner. The court assumed mourning, and thecorps diplomatiquewere summoned to the Christiansborg Palace and proceeded thither, also in mourning. But the King did not appear. The Grand Chamberlain of the court announced to them the verdict, and said that the King had no longer a consort, and there was no longer a Queen. At the same time an order was issued to omit the Queen’s name from the public prayers. Henceforth she was to be considered as dead in law.
Uhldahl saw the Queen the day after the decision of the court, and told her of the judgment. According to him she merely answered: “I thought as much. But what will become of Struensee?” And when hereplied that Struensee would certainly be sentenced to death, “she cried and shook all over”. She bewailed the fact that it was she who was the cause of his misfortunes. “The Queen would have sacrificed everything to save him; she thought nothing of herself.” Despite his base confession, which she was forced at last to believe he had made, she forgave him everything. Several times she bade Uhldahl to tell Struensee that she forgave him. “When you see him,” she said, “tell him that I am not angry with him for the wrong he has done me.”[55]Her love was boundless.
[55]Christian VII. og Caroline Mathilde, by Chr. Blangstrup, Copenhagen.
[55]Christian VII. og Caroline Mathilde, by Chr. Blangstrup, Copenhagen.
The unfortunate Matilda was formally acquainted with the sentence of divorce on April 9, when Baron Juell-Wind, one of her judges, went to Kronborg by order of the Council of State, and read to the Queen the verdict of the court in the presence of the commandant of Kronborg. The Queen, who had been prepared by Uhldahl, heard the sentence without emotion, but was greatly distressed at the thought that it might involve separation from her child. She did not ask, and did not seem to care, what her fate would be, but she was informed that it would depend upon the King’s pleasure.
Her punishment indeed was still under debate, and was being discussed as hotly at the Christiansborg Palace as the verdict of divorce had been. The Queen had been unfaithful to the King’s bed; therefore she had been found guilty of high treason;therefore, urged some, she was worthy of death. The other alternative was perpetual imprisonment, and this seems to have been seriously considered, for the preparations at the fortress of Aalborg—a storm-beaten town at the extreme edge of Jutland—were pushed on with all speed. In theory, the last three months Matilda had been residing at one of her husband’s country palaces, for Kronborg was a royal palace as well as a fortress; she was now to be stripped of every appurtenance of her rank, and sent to Aalborg. Once there she would probably have died mysteriously.
But Keith, who had interfered to prevent the Queen from being publicly disgraced, now interfered again, with even more determination, to mitigate her punishment. He could not prevent the divorce, but he could prevent the punishment. The King, the Grand Chamberlain had informed the foreign ministers, had no longer a consort; Denmark had no longer a Queen; Matilda was dead in law. This declaration gave Keith his opportunity. Though, he argued, it might please the King of Denmark to declare that Matilda was no longer his wife or his queen, it must be remembered that she was still a princess of Great Britain, and the sister of the King of England. Since the King, her consort, had repudiated her, it followed that the King, her brother, became her guardian, and her interests and future welfare were his care. By the sentence of divorce she had passed entirely out of the jurisdiction of Denmark to that of her native country; she becamean English subject, and as an English subject was free as air. Osten shuffled and changed his ground from day to day, but Keith became more and more insistent, and his tone grew more and more menacing. He sent home the most urgent despatches, describing the unfairness of the Queen’s trial, and the danger she was in through the malice of her enemies. In default of particular instructions, he could do nothing but threaten in general terms; but his intervention secured a respite. The Queen remained at Kronborg; her punishment was still undecided, and her fate uncertain.
CHAPTER IX.THE TRIALS OF STRUENSEE AND BRANDT.1772.The Queen’s case being ended, it was resolved to proceed without delay against the other prisoners, and chief among these were Struensee and Brandt. Struensee was tried first. The day of his trial was originally fixed for April 10, the day after the sentence of her divorce had been communicated to the Queen at Kronborg, but, as the advocate appointed to prosecute Struensee was not quite ready with his brief, the trial was deferred for eleven days.Struensee had now been in prison more than three months, and had ample time for reflection. Seven weeks had passed since his shameful confession compromising the Queen, but he made no sign of recanting it; on the contrary, he imagined that it would tell in his favour. Struensee was now a broken man; the signs of premature decay, which first made themselves manifest in the days of his prosperity, had, since his imprisonment, developed with great rapidity. He had shown himself unable to bear prosperity; he was even less able to cope with adversity. Every now and then a flash of the old Struensee would assert itself, but for the most parthe was a feeble creature who brooded day after day in his dungeon, and bore but little resemblance to the once imperious minister. All Struensee’s thoughts were now concentrated on a craven desire for life—life at any cost—and to this end he offered up in sacrifice not only the woman who had done everything for him, but all the principles and ideals which had guided him throughout his career.The Queen-Dowager, who had affected so much concern for the welfare of Queen Matilda’s soul, was equally interested in the soul of Struensee. Perhaps she thought that spiritual terrors might induce him to amplify his already too detailed confession. From the first days of his imprisonment Struensee had been urged to see a clergyman, but had always refused. After his confession of adultery with Matilda, which was taken as a sign of grace, the Queen-Dowager insisted that he should receive a ghostly counsellor, even against his will. To that end she appointed Dr. Münter as the fittest instrument to effect Struensee’s conversion. The choice of Dr. Münter was of course designed. He was the most fanatical and violent of all the preachers in Copenhagen, and had shown himself a bitter opponent of Struensee and the Queen. He had denounced them from the pulpit in the days of their prosperity, and from the same sanctuary he had savagely gloated over them in the days of their ruin. It was a refinement of cruelty, therefore, to send him, of all others, to the miserable prisoner now.Münter entered upon his task with alacrity. Hetook a professional pride in his work, and apparently felt much as a doctor would feel who had before him a difficult case; if he could effect a cure, it would be a great triumph for him. But, apart from this, there is no doubt that Münter was perfectly sincere. By nature a bigot, and by education narrow-minded, he had all the thoroughness born of that same narrowness. To him it was all-important that he should save Struensee’s soul: the greater the sinner, the greater would be his salvation. Therefore, Münter set to work to make Struensee confess everything, heedless, or oblivious, of the fact that, while he was labouring to effect the miserable man’s conversion, he was (by repeating his confessions) helping his enemies to complete his ruin.[56][56]Münter wrote a full and particular account of his efforts, entitled,Narrative of the Conversion and Death of Count Struensee, by Dr. Münter. This book was translated into the English by the Rev. Thomas Rennell: Rivingtons, 1824. It contains long and (to me) not very edifying conversations on religion which are alleged to have taken place between Struensee and the divine. But since these are matters on which people take different views, it is only fair to say that Sir James Mackintosh awards theNarrativehigh praise as a “perfect model of the manner in which a person circumstanced like Struensee ought to be treated by a kind and considerate minister of religion” (Misc. Works, vol. ii.). To support this view he suggests that “as Dr. Münter’sNarrativewas published under the eye of the Queen’s oppressors, they might have caused the confessions of Struensee to be inserted in it by their own agents without the consent, perhaps without the knowledge, of Münter”. But even he is fain to admit that the “internal evidence” does not favour this preposterous hypothesis. The confessions extorted by Münter from Struensee were used not only against the wretched man, but to the prejudice of the Queen.Münter paid his first visit to Struensee on March 1. The prisoner, who had been told that he mustsee the man, whom he had always regarded as his enemy, did so under protest, and received the preacher in gloomy silence, and with a look that showed his contempt. But Münter—we are quoting his own version of the interview—so far from overwhelming the prisoner with reproaches or exhortations, greeted him in a cordial and sympathetic manner, and told him that he wished to make his visits both pleasant and useful. Struensee, who had not seen a friendly face for months, was disarmed by Münter’s manner, and offered him his hand. The latter then opened the conversation by saying that he hoped if he said anything displeasing to Struensee by mistake the latter would overlook it. “Oh, you may say what you please,” answered the prisoner indifferently. Münter then began his exhortations with the warning: “If you desire to receive comfort from me, your only friend on earth, do not hug that mistaken idea of dying like a philosophic hero.” Struensee answered, not very truthfully: “In all my adversities I have shown firmness of mind, and therefore I hope I shall not die like a hypocrite.” Then followed a long and animated conversation, in which Münter bore the leading part. Struensee now and then ventured to advance arguments which were knocked down like ninepins by the nimble divine. Struensee, though the son of a clergyman, had in his youth become a freethinker, and had always remained so. He was saturated with German rationalism, and by every act and utterance had shown himself to be a confirmed unbeliever in Christianity. It is therefore very unlikely that a man of Struensee’s calibre would be convinced by such arguments as Münter adduced—at least, by those which he states he adduced in his book.[57]But Struensee clung to life; he knew that Münter was a power in the land, and he thought that, if he allowed him to effect his conversion, he would make a friend who would probably save him from death. In this first conversation he admitted that he was afraid of death: “He wished to live, even though it were with less happiness than he now enjoyed in his prison.” But he would not seem to yield all at once. “My views, which are opposed to yours, are so strongly woven into my mind; I have so many arguments in favour of them; I have made so many observations from physic and anatomy that confirm them, that I think it will be impossible for me to renounce my principles. This, however, I promise: I will not wilfully oppose your efforts to enlighten me, but rather wish, as far as lies in my power, to agree with you.”[57]I should be the last to say that such changes are not possible. I only wish to suggest that in Struensee’s case the motives which led him to yield to Münter’s arguments were not sincere.On the second visit Struensee showed himself to be a little more yielding, though he said his mind was neither composed nor serene enough to examine into the nature of Münter’s arguments. Struensee wept when he thought of the trouble he had brought upon his friends; he had no tears for the woman whom he had betrayed. Münter exhorted him toacknowledge his errors and crimes, and search his former life, in order to qualify himself for God’s mercy. “God,” said Münter, “has given you an uncommon understanding, and, I believe, a good natural disposition of heart, but through voluptuousness, ambition and levity you have corrupted yourself.” Struensee was flattered by this view of his character, and admitted unctuously that voluptuousness had been his chief passion, and had contributed most to his moral depravity. After seven conferences Münter gave Struensee a letter from his father, which he had for some time carried in his pocket, awaiting a favourable opportunity to deliver. The letter was a long and affecting one. It assumed Struensee’s guilt as a matter of no doubt, and worthy of the worst punishment; it lamented that he had not remained a doctor—that his ambition had led him into all these crimes: now nothing would bring his afflicted parents comfort but the knowledge of his conversion. This letter affected Struensee much, and so did another one from his mother, written in the same strain.There is no need to trace this process step by step. Suffice it to say that after twenty-one days of exhortation, when his trial was drawing near, Struensee was so far converted as to declare to Münter: “I should be guilty of the greatest folly if I did not embrace Christianity with joy, when its arguments are so convincing, and when it breathes such a spirit of general benevolence. Its effects on my heart are too strong”—and so forth. In the days that followedStruensee often expatiated on the advantages of the Christian religion, and even advised Münter as to the best way of spreading the truths of Christianity among the people. He suggested the distribution of tracts, which does not seem very novel. So zealous was he that he even drew up, in consultation with Münter, a long description of his conversion. The document shows undoubted signs that the man’s brain had weakened; it is in parts so confused as to be almost unintelligible. But such as it was, it sufficed for Münter, who was overjoyed at the thought that he had snatched this brand from the burning. Yet Struensee, though he expressed repentance for his sins, showed neither repentance nor remorse for his most grievous one—his betrayal of the woman to whom he owed everything. Recantation of this base treachery would have done more to rehabilitate Struensee in the eyes of the world than any number of maudlin confessions detailing his conversion, and it would have been quite as effective for the object which, it is to be feared, the newly-made convert had in view. Struensee’s conversion availed nothing with his merciless enemies; on the contrary, his confessions of weakness and guilt made their task easier. Münter’s good-will also availed him nothing; the fanatical divine was only interested in saving his soul; he cared nothing what became of his body. Thus the wretched criminal sacrificed both his Queen and his convictions, and in either case the sacrifice was vain.Struensee’s trial began on April 21, and Wivet, who had received the King’s orders to prosecute him, opened his indictment in a speech of almost incredible coarseness and ferocity. In his attack, Wivet exceeded the bounds of common decency, though there is no doubt that he voiced the malevolent hatred which was felt against Struensee, not only in the breasts of his judges, but among all classes in the kingdom. Apart from his undoubted offences, which surely were heavy enough, Wivet twitted Struensee with his low birth, his complaisance as a doctor, his ignorance of the Danish language, his errors in etiquette, his fondness for eating and drinking, his corpulence, his unbelieving views, and other peculiarities, forgetting that invective of this kind proved nothing.THE DOCKS AT COPENHAGENTHE DOCKS, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.THE MARKET PLACE AND TOWN HALL, COPENHAGENTHE MARKET PLACE AND TOWN HALL, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.The substance of the accusation against Struensee was catalogued under nine heads.First: His adultery with the Queen. This was based almost wholly on Struensee’s own confession and its confirmation by the Queen, and thus the very deed which Struensee signed in the hope of saving his life was brought forward as the head and front of the evidence against him. Fräulein von Eyben’s deposition, and Brandt’s and Berger’s depositions were also read, but the evidence of the other witnesses in the Queen’s divorce was not put forward at all.With reference to the testimony of Fräulein von Eyben, the advocate said he produced it “not in order to prove what is already sufficiently proved,but only to point out how Struensee strove always to be present at places when there was an opportunity for him to obtain what he desired, and how the indifference with which he was at first regarded by the Person [the Queen] whose confidence he afterwards gained, proves that it was not he who was tempted, but that his superhuman impudence, his bold, crafty and villainous conduct were so powerful that he at last obtained that which virtue and education would never otherwise have granted, and therefore he is the more criminal because he effected the ruin of another in order to gain honour himself”. This shows what even the Queen’s enemies thought of Struensee’s baseness in trying to shield himself behind the pitiful plea that the Queen tempted him. His prosecutors did quite right in scouting such a plea, which, so far from extenuating him, only added to his infamy.Secondly: Struensee’s complicity in Brandt’s ill-treatment of the King.Thirdly: The harshness with which he had treated the Crown Prince, “so that it seems as if it had been his sole intention to remove the Crown Prince from the world, or at least to bring him up so that he would be incapable of reigning.”Fourthly: His usurpation of the royal authority by issuing decrees instead of the King, and attaching his own signature to these decrees.Fifthly: His suppression and dismissal of the Guards, which was declared to be without the consent of the King.Sixthly: His peculations from the Treasury. It was stated that Struensee had not only taken large sums of money for himself, but for his brother, for Falckenskjold, for the Countess Holstein, for the Queen, and for Brandt. The Queen’s grant from the Treasury was 10,000 dollars, not a very large sum, and one to which she was surely entitled, as the grant was signed by the King. But the same paper contained grants of money to Brandt, Struensee and Falckenskjold—a grant of 60,000 to Brandt, 60,000 to Struensee and 2,000 to Falckenskjold, a total of 122,000 dollars. It was said that the document which the King signed contained only a grant of 10,000 dollars to the Queen, and 6,000 each to Brandt and Struensee; but Struensee added a nought to the donations to himself and Brandt, and wrote in 2,000 dollars for Falckenskjold, so that he tampered with the document to the extent of forgery. The King now protested that he had never made such a grant.Seventhly: Struensee had sold, with the Queen’s consent, a “bouquet” of precious stones, although this was one of the crown jewels and an heirloom.Eighthly: He had given orders that all letters addressed to the King should be brought to him, and he opened them, and thus kept the King in ignorance of what was going on.Ninthly: He had so arranged the military in Copenhagen in the month of December that everything pointed to hostile intentions on his part, probably directed against the King and the people.These were the principal charges brought against Struensee by Wivet; but, the advocate said: “To reckon up all the crimes committed by him would be a useless task, the more so when we reflect that the accused has only one head, and that, when that is lost by one of these crimes, to enumerate the other offences would be superfluous.” He therefore demanded that Struensee should be found guilty of high treason, and suffer death with ignominy.The next day Uhldahl, who had defended the Queen, also undertook the defence of Struensee. The defence was lukewarm—so lukewarm that it could hardly be called a defence at all. The only time when Uhldahl waxed eloquent was when he reproved Wivet for his brutal attacks on the accused, and here it is probable that professional jealousy had to do with his warmth, rather than interest in his client. The chief count in the indictment against Struensee—his alleged adultery with the Queen—Uhldahl kept to the last, and here he offered no defence, for the prisoner had recanted in nowise his confession, but on the contrary made it the ground of a craven cry for mercy. To quote Uhldahl:—“He throws himself at his Majesty’s feet, and implores his mercy for the crime against his Majesty’s person [adultery with the Queen] first maintained by the Fiscal-General Wivet, but till now unalluded to by him. It is the only thing in which he knows he has consciously sinned against his King, but he confesses with contrition that this crime is too great for him to expect forgiveness of it. If, however, regard forhuman weakness, a truly penitent feeling of his error, the deepest grief at it, the tears with which he laments it, and the prayers which he devotes to the welfare of the King and his royal family, deserve any compassion, he will not be found unworthy of it. In all the other charges made against him, he believes that the law and his innocence will defend him, and for this reason he can expect an acquittal, but for the first point (which he admits) he seeks refuge in the King’s mercy alone.”Thus it will be seen, even in his advocate’s defence, Struensee, though denying all the other charges against him, reaffirmed his adultery with the Queen, and on the strength of that admission threw himself on the King’s mercy. The only satisfactory thing about this sordid business is that mercy was not granted to him.Wivet replied, but Uhldahl waived his right of answering him again, and thus saying the last word in favour of the prisoner. The two advocates had in fact played into each other’s hands; the first inflamed the prejudices of the judges, already sufficiently prejudiced, by malevolent details, the second by scandalously neglecting his duty, and putting in a defence hardly worthy of the name.Struensee became aware of how the advocate appointed to defend him had given him away, and so he resolved to make a defence of his own, which was certainly abler and more to the point. He wrote a long document, containing an elaborate review of, and apology for, his administration, answering hisindictment at every point except one—his intimacy with the Queen; on that alone he kept silence. This document offers a remarkable contrast to the rambling and incoherent effusion in which he gave an account of his conversion. One can only suppose that his heart was in the one and not in the other. In both cases he might have spared himself the trouble, for neither his conversion nor his apology availed him anything.Brandt’s trial followed immediately on that of Struensee. His treatment in prison had been the same as that of his fellow-malefactor. After his examination he, too, was granted certain indulgences, and an eminent divine was appointed to look after his soul. Brandt’s spiritual adviser was Hee, Dean of the Navy Church. Hee was more of a scholar than Münter, and less of a bigot; moreover, he had the instincts of a gentleman, which Münter had not, as was shown by the insults he heaped upon the unfortunate young Queen. These considerations perhaps hindered him in his work, for Hee’s “conversion” of Brandt was not so successful as Münter’s conversion of Struensee. Brandt received Hee courteously, conversed with him freely, and appeared to be much affected by his arguments; but it may be doubted whether they made any real impression on him, for Brandt, like Struensee, was a convinced freethinker, and, moreover, suffered from an incurable levity of temperament. But, like Struensee, he was anxious to save his life, and to this end he was quite ready to be converted by Hee or any one else. Even so, Brandt’s conversion didnot seem to extend much beyond Deism; but that may have been due to his converter, for Hee was not nearly so orthodox a Christian as Münter. Brandt was very emotional, and frequently burst into tears when Hee reproved him for the wickedness of his former life, but as soon as the preacher’s back was turned he relapsed into his old levity. This being reported to Hee, he reprimanded the prisoner, and gave him several religious books to read, such as Hervey’sMeditations. Brandt then became very quiet, and his conduct was reported as being most edifying. In fact, he seems rather to have overdone his part, for he would sometimes take up his chains and kiss them, and exclaim: “When I thought myself free I was really a slave to my passions; and now that I am a prisoner, truth and grace have set me at liberty.” He also denounced Voltaire, whom he had met on his travels, and his teaching with great vehemence, and, as for Struensee, he said that he was “a man without any religion, who, from his infancy, according to his own admission, never had the slightest idea or sentiment of piety about him”. Shortly after this denunciation Struensee sent to inform Brandt that he had “found salvation” and he was praying that he too might repent him of his sins. Whereupon Brandt, not to be outdone in hypocrisy, replied that “he greatly rejoiced to hear of Struensee’s conversion. For his own part, he found comfort only in religion, and from his heart forgave Struensee for all he had done to draw him into his misfortunes.”But Brandt’s pious sentiments and edifying behaviour availed him nothing at his trial. Wivet, who had prosecuted Struensee, also prosecuted Brandt; and Bang, who had prosecuted the Queen, was now appointed to conduct Brandt’s defence. Brandt was indicted on three counts.First: That he had deliberately committed a gross attack on the person of the King—an awful deed, declared his prosecutor. “In the words of David: ‘How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?... Thy blood be upon thy head.’”[58][58]2 Sam. i. 14, 16.Secondly: That he was an accomplice to the improper intimacy which Struensee had with the Queen.Thirdly: That he joined Struensee in robbing the Treasury, and was an accomplice to the forged document, whereby he received sixty thousand dollars.He was also, in a greater or lesser degree, an accomplice in all the offences committed by Struensee. On these grounds Wivet asked for sentence of death.Wivet handed in this indictment to the judges the same day as the indictment of Struensee. Two days later Bang delivered a half-hearted defence, which may be summarised thus:—First: Though Brandt fought with the King, he did so at the King’s own command—that he only fought in self-defence, and left off directly the King wished him to do so. He had voluntarily inflicted noinjury on his Majesty, and the account given by the prosecution of the affray was very much exaggerated.Secondly: He was in no sense an accomplice of the intrigue between Struensee and the Queen. Though he felt morally convinced that improper intercourse took place, he had no absolute proof of it, and he could not take any steps in the matter without such proof. Moreover, it would have been as much as his life was worth to have said anything.[59][59]This does not tally with his assertion that Struensee had confided in him.Thirdly: If Struensee had committed a forgery, that did not affect Brandt, as he was ignorant of the matter. The grants which had been given him were given with the approval of the King, and, though he received large sums, yet he had to play cards daily with the King and Queen, at which he lost heavily.Thus it will be seen that Brandt’s defence, though it actually denied none of the charges, gave a plausible explanation of them all. Brandt does not seem to have realised his danger, nor to have imagined that anything he had done, or left undone, could be considered worthy of death. In addition to his defence, he sent a memorial to his judges, and a letter to the King, in which he begged to be allowed to go away, and end his days quietly in Holstein. The letter to the King is lost; but the memorial to the judges remains, and is written in such a spirit of levity that it suggests doubt as to the writer’s sanity. Of course it was unavailing.The legal farce was now drawing swiftly to a close. On April 25 the judges assembled at the Christiansborg Palace to deliver judgment on both cases. The judgments were very long and argumentative. There is no need to give them at length; to do so would be merely to recapitulate in other words the arguments brought forward by the prosecution. In Struensee’s sentence the chief count against him—his alleged adultery with the Queen—was summed up in a few words: “He has already been convicted of it” (presumably by the Queen’s sentence), “and has himself confessed it: he has thereby committed a terrible crime, which involves in an eminent degree an assault on the King’s supremacy, or high treason, and according to the law deserves the penalty of death”. The rest of the judgment, which occupied some thirty pages, dealt in detail with the other offences alleged against him, and condemned him on every count.“Therefore,” the judgment concluded, “as it is clear that Count Struensee in more than one way, and in more than one respect, has not only himself committed the crime of high treason in an extreme degree, but has participated in similar crimes with others; and that, further, his whole administration was a chain of violence and selfishness, which he ever sought to attain in a disgraceful and criminal manner; and as he also displayed contempt of religion, morality and good manners, not only by word and deed, but also through public regulations,—the following sentence is passed on him, according to thewords of Article I. of Chapter 4 of Book 6 of the Danish law:—“Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment for himself, and as an example and warning for others of like mind, have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours which have been conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner; his right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head; his body quartered and broken on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck on a pole.“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”Here follow the signatures of the nine judges, headed by that of Baron Juell-Wind, and ending with that of Guldberg.Brandt’s sentence was delivered at the same time. It contained no direct allusion to the Queen, and was a long, rambling and confused document. Finally, it declared that, by his treacherous and audacious assault on the person of the King, he had committed an act of high treason, which deserved the punishment of death, according to the same article of the Danish law as that quoted in the case of Struensee. Therefore:—“Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by theexecutioner on the scaffold, his right hand cut off while he is still alive, then his head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and hand stuck on a pole.“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”The judgments were immediately published in the Danish journals. Thence they found their way into foreign newspapers, and were by them adversely criticised, not so much on account of the punishment, as for the extraordinary and diffuse way in which the judgments were written. In Denmark they were received with enthusiasm by the great majority of the people, but there was a minority growing up which regarded them more dubiously, and was disposed to criticise. The Government, however, determined to allow little time for criticism or reaction, and resolved to carry the sentences into effect at the earliest possible moment, before any change took place in public opinion.
THE TRIALS OF STRUENSEE AND BRANDT.
1772.
The Queen’s case being ended, it was resolved to proceed without delay against the other prisoners, and chief among these were Struensee and Brandt. Struensee was tried first. The day of his trial was originally fixed for April 10, the day after the sentence of her divorce had been communicated to the Queen at Kronborg, but, as the advocate appointed to prosecute Struensee was not quite ready with his brief, the trial was deferred for eleven days.
Struensee had now been in prison more than three months, and had ample time for reflection. Seven weeks had passed since his shameful confession compromising the Queen, but he made no sign of recanting it; on the contrary, he imagined that it would tell in his favour. Struensee was now a broken man; the signs of premature decay, which first made themselves manifest in the days of his prosperity, had, since his imprisonment, developed with great rapidity. He had shown himself unable to bear prosperity; he was even less able to cope with adversity. Every now and then a flash of the old Struensee would assert itself, but for the most parthe was a feeble creature who brooded day after day in his dungeon, and bore but little resemblance to the once imperious minister. All Struensee’s thoughts were now concentrated on a craven desire for life—life at any cost—and to this end he offered up in sacrifice not only the woman who had done everything for him, but all the principles and ideals which had guided him throughout his career.
The Queen-Dowager, who had affected so much concern for the welfare of Queen Matilda’s soul, was equally interested in the soul of Struensee. Perhaps she thought that spiritual terrors might induce him to amplify his already too detailed confession. From the first days of his imprisonment Struensee had been urged to see a clergyman, but had always refused. After his confession of adultery with Matilda, which was taken as a sign of grace, the Queen-Dowager insisted that he should receive a ghostly counsellor, even against his will. To that end she appointed Dr. Münter as the fittest instrument to effect Struensee’s conversion. The choice of Dr. Münter was of course designed. He was the most fanatical and violent of all the preachers in Copenhagen, and had shown himself a bitter opponent of Struensee and the Queen. He had denounced them from the pulpit in the days of their prosperity, and from the same sanctuary he had savagely gloated over them in the days of their ruin. It was a refinement of cruelty, therefore, to send him, of all others, to the miserable prisoner now.
Münter entered upon his task with alacrity. Hetook a professional pride in his work, and apparently felt much as a doctor would feel who had before him a difficult case; if he could effect a cure, it would be a great triumph for him. But, apart from this, there is no doubt that Münter was perfectly sincere. By nature a bigot, and by education narrow-minded, he had all the thoroughness born of that same narrowness. To him it was all-important that he should save Struensee’s soul: the greater the sinner, the greater would be his salvation. Therefore, Münter set to work to make Struensee confess everything, heedless, or oblivious, of the fact that, while he was labouring to effect the miserable man’s conversion, he was (by repeating his confessions) helping his enemies to complete his ruin.[56]
[56]Münter wrote a full and particular account of his efforts, entitled,Narrative of the Conversion and Death of Count Struensee, by Dr. Münter. This book was translated into the English by the Rev. Thomas Rennell: Rivingtons, 1824. It contains long and (to me) not very edifying conversations on religion which are alleged to have taken place between Struensee and the divine. But since these are matters on which people take different views, it is only fair to say that Sir James Mackintosh awards theNarrativehigh praise as a “perfect model of the manner in which a person circumstanced like Struensee ought to be treated by a kind and considerate minister of religion” (Misc. Works, vol. ii.). To support this view he suggests that “as Dr. Münter’sNarrativewas published under the eye of the Queen’s oppressors, they might have caused the confessions of Struensee to be inserted in it by their own agents without the consent, perhaps without the knowledge, of Münter”. But even he is fain to admit that the “internal evidence” does not favour this preposterous hypothesis. The confessions extorted by Münter from Struensee were used not only against the wretched man, but to the prejudice of the Queen.
[56]Münter wrote a full and particular account of his efforts, entitled,Narrative of the Conversion and Death of Count Struensee, by Dr. Münter. This book was translated into the English by the Rev. Thomas Rennell: Rivingtons, 1824. It contains long and (to me) not very edifying conversations on religion which are alleged to have taken place between Struensee and the divine. But since these are matters on which people take different views, it is only fair to say that Sir James Mackintosh awards theNarrativehigh praise as a “perfect model of the manner in which a person circumstanced like Struensee ought to be treated by a kind and considerate minister of religion” (Misc. Works, vol. ii.). To support this view he suggests that “as Dr. Münter’sNarrativewas published under the eye of the Queen’s oppressors, they might have caused the confessions of Struensee to be inserted in it by their own agents without the consent, perhaps without the knowledge, of Münter”. But even he is fain to admit that the “internal evidence” does not favour this preposterous hypothesis. The confessions extorted by Münter from Struensee were used not only against the wretched man, but to the prejudice of the Queen.
Münter paid his first visit to Struensee on March 1. The prisoner, who had been told that he mustsee the man, whom he had always regarded as his enemy, did so under protest, and received the preacher in gloomy silence, and with a look that showed his contempt. But Münter—we are quoting his own version of the interview—so far from overwhelming the prisoner with reproaches or exhortations, greeted him in a cordial and sympathetic manner, and told him that he wished to make his visits both pleasant and useful. Struensee, who had not seen a friendly face for months, was disarmed by Münter’s manner, and offered him his hand. The latter then opened the conversation by saying that he hoped if he said anything displeasing to Struensee by mistake the latter would overlook it. “Oh, you may say what you please,” answered the prisoner indifferently. Münter then began his exhortations with the warning: “If you desire to receive comfort from me, your only friend on earth, do not hug that mistaken idea of dying like a philosophic hero.” Struensee answered, not very truthfully: “In all my adversities I have shown firmness of mind, and therefore I hope I shall not die like a hypocrite.” Then followed a long and animated conversation, in which Münter bore the leading part. Struensee now and then ventured to advance arguments which were knocked down like ninepins by the nimble divine. Struensee, though the son of a clergyman, had in his youth become a freethinker, and had always remained so. He was saturated with German rationalism, and by every act and utterance had shown himself to be a confirmed unbeliever in Christianity. It is therefore very unlikely that a man of Struensee’s calibre would be convinced by such arguments as Münter adduced—at least, by those which he states he adduced in his book.[57]But Struensee clung to life; he knew that Münter was a power in the land, and he thought that, if he allowed him to effect his conversion, he would make a friend who would probably save him from death. In this first conversation he admitted that he was afraid of death: “He wished to live, even though it were with less happiness than he now enjoyed in his prison.” But he would not seem to yield all at once. “My views, which are opposed to yours, are so strongly woven into my mind; I have so many arguments in favour of them; I have made so many observations from physic and anatomy that confirm them, that I think it will be impossible for me to renounce my principles. This, however, I promise: I will not wilfully oppose your efforts to enlighten me, but rather wish, as far as lies in my power, to agree with you.”
[57]I should be the last to say that such changes are not possible. I only wish to suggest that in Struensee’s case the motives which led him to yield to Münter’s arguments were not sincere.
[57]I should be the last to say that such changes are not possible. I only wish to suggest that in Struensee’s case the motives which led him to yield to Münter’s arguments were not sincere.
On the second visit Struensee showed himself to be a little more yielding, though he said his mind was neither composed nor serene enough to examine into the nature of Münter’s arguments. Struensee wept when he thought of the trouble he had brought upon his friends; he had no tears for the woman whom he had betrayed. Münter exhorted him toacknowledge his errors and crimes, and search his former life, in order to qualify himself for God’s mercy. “God,” said Münter, “has given you an uncommon understanding, and, I believe, a good natural disposition of heart, but through voluptuousness, ambition and levity you have corrupted yourself.” Struensee was flattered by this view of his character, and admitted unctuously that voluptuousness had been his chief passion, and had contributed most to his moral depravity. After seven conferences Münter gave Struensee a letter from his father, which he had for some time carried in his pocket, awaiting a favourable opportunity to deliver. The letter was a long and affecting one. It assumed Struensee’s guilt as a matter of no doubt, and worthy of the worst punishment; it lamented that he had not remained a doctor—that his ambition had led him into all these crimes: now nothing would bring his afflicted parents comfort but the knowledge of his conversion. This letter affected Struensee much, and so did another one from his mother, written in the same strain.
There is no need to trace this process step by step. Suffice it to say that after twenty-one days of exhortation, when his trial was drawing near, Struensee was so far converted as to declare to Münter: “I should be guilty of the greatest folly if I did not embrace Christianity with joy, when its arguments are so convincing, and when it breathes such a spirit of general benevolence. Its effects on my heart are too strong”—and so forth. In the days that followedStruensee often expatiated on the advantages of the Christian religion, and even advised Münter as to the best way of spreading the truths of Christianity among the people. He suggested the distribution of tracts, which does not seem very novel. So zealous was he that he even drew up, in consultation with Münter, a long description of his conversion. The document shows undoubted signs that the man’s brain had weakened; it is in parts so confused as to be almost unintelligible. But such as it was, it sufficed for Münter, who was overjoyed at the thought that he had snatched this brand from the burning. Yet Struensee, though he expressed repentance for his sins, showed neither repentance nor remorse for his most grievous one—his betrayal of the woman to whom he owed everything. Recantation of this base treachery would have done more to rehabilitate Struensee in the eyes of the world than any number of maudlin confessions detailing his conversion, and it would have been quite as effective for the object which, it is to be feared, the newly-made convert had in view. Struensee’s conversion availed nothing with his merciless enemies; on the contrary, his confessions of weakness and guilt made their task easier. Münter’s good-will also availed him nothing; the fanatical divine was only interested in saving his soul; he cared nothing what became of his body. Thus the wretched criminal sacrificed both his Queen and his convictions, and in either case the sacrifice was vain.
Struensee’s trial began on April 21, and Wivet, who had received the King’s orders to prosecute him, opened his indictment in a speech of almost incredible coarseness and ferocity. In his attack, Wivet exceeded the bounds of common decency, though there is no doubt that he voiced the malevolent hatred which was felt against Struensee, not only in the breasts of his judges, but among all classes in the kingdom. Apart from his undoubted offences, which surely were heavy enough, Wivet twitted Struensee with his low birth, his complaisance as a doctor, his ignorance of the Danish language, his errors in etiquette, his fondness for eating and drinking, his corpulence, his unbelieving views, and other peculiarities, forgetting that invective of this kind proved nothing.
THE DOCKS AT COPENHAGENTHE DOCKS, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.
THE DOCKS, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.
THE MARKET PLACE AND TOWN HALL, COPENHAGENTHE MARKET PLACE AND TOWN HALL, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.
THE MARKET PLACE AND TOWN HALL, COPENHAGEN,TEMP.1770.
The substance of the accusation against Struensee was catalogued under nine heads.
First: His adultery with the Queen. This was based almost wholly on Struensee’s own confession and its confirmation by the Queen, and thus the very deed which Struensee signed in the hope of saving his life was brought forward as the head and front of the evidence against him. Fräulein von Eyben’s deposition, and Brandt’s and Berger’s depositions were also read, but the evidence of the other witnesses in the Queen’s divorce was not put forward at all.With reference to the testimony of Fräulein von Eyben, the advocate said he produced it “not in order to prove what is already sufficiently proved,but only to point out how Struensee strove always to be present at places when there was an opportunity for him to obtain what he desired, and how the indifference with which he was at first regarded by the Person [the Queen] whose confidence he afterwards gained, proves that it was not he who was tempted, but that his superhuman impudence, his bold, crafty and villainous conduct were so powerful that he at last obtained that which virtue and education would never otherwise have granted, and therefore he is the more criminal because he effected the ruin of another in order to gain honour himself”. This shows what even the Queen’s enemies thought of Struensee’s baseness in trying to shield himself behind the pitiful plea that the Queen tempted him. His prosecutors did quite right in scouting such a plea, which, so far from extenuating him, only added to his infamy.Secondly: Struensee’s complicity in Brandt’s ill-treatment of the King.Thirdly: The harshness with which he had treated the Crown Prince, “so that it seems as if it had been his sole intention to remove the Crown Prince from the world, or at least to bring him up so that he would be incapable of reigning.”Fourthly: His usurpation of the royal authority by issuing decrees instead of the King, and attaching his own signature to these decrees.Fifthly: His suppression and dismissal of the Guards, which was declared to be without the consent of the King.Sixthly: His peculations from the Treasury. It was stated that Struensee had not only taken large sums of money for himself, but for his brother, for Falckenskjold, for the Countess Holstein, for the Queen, and for Brandt. The Queen’s grant from the Treasury was 10,000 dollars, not a very large sum, and one to which she was surely entitled, as the grant was signed by the King. But the same paper contained grants of money to Brandt, Struensee and Falckenskjold—a grant of 60,000 to Brandt, 60,000 to Struensee and 2,000 to Falckenskjold, a total of 122,000 dollars. It was said that the document which the King signed contained only a grant of 10,000 dollars to the Queen, and 6,000 each to Brandt and Struensee; but Struensee added a nought to the donations to himself and Brandt, and wrote in 2,000 dollars for Falckenskjold, so that he tampered with the document to the extent of forgery. The King now protested that he had never made such a grant.Seventhly: Struensee had sold, with the Queen’s consent, a “bouquet” of precious stones, although this was one of the crown jewels and an heirloom.Eighthly: He had given orders that all letters addressed to the King should be brought to him, and he opened them, and thus kept the King in ignorance of what was going on.Ninthly: He had so arranged the military in Copenhagen in the month of December that everything pointed to hostile intentions on his part, probably directed against the King and the people.
First: His adultery with the Queen. This was based almost wholly on Struensee’s own confession and its confirmation by the Queen, and thus the very deed which Struensee signed in the hope of saving his life was brought forward as the head and front of the evidence against him. Fräulein von Eyben’s deposition, and Brandt’s and Berger’s depositions were also read, but the evidence of the other witnesses in the Queen’s divorce was not put forward at all.
With reference to the testimony of Fräulein von Eyben, the advocate said he produced it “not in order to prove what is already sufficiently proved,but only to point out how Struensee strove always to be present at places when there was an opportunity for him to obtain what he desired, and how the indifference with which he was at first regarded by the Person [the Queen] whose confidence he afterwards gained, proves that it was not he who was tempted, but that his superhuman impudence, his bold, crafty and villainous conduct were so powerful that he at last obtained that which virtue and education would never otherwise have granted, and therefore he is the more criminal because he effected the ruin of another in order to gain honour himself”. This shows what even the Queen’s enemies thought of Struensee’s baseness in trying to shield himself behind the pitiful plea that the Queen tempted him. His prosecutors did quite right in scouting such a plea, which, so far from extenuating him, only added to his infamy.
Secondly: Struensee’s complicity in Brandt’s ill-treatment of the King.
Thirdly: The harshness with which he had treated the Crown Prince, “so that it seems as if it had been his sole intention to remove the Crown Prince from the world, or at least to bring him up so that he would be incapable of reigning.”
Fourthly: His usurpation of the royal authority by issuing decrees instead of the King, and attaching his own signature to these decrees.
Fifthly: His suppression and dismissal of the Guards, which was declared to be without the consent of the King.
Sixthly: His peculations from the Treasury. It was stated that Struensee had not only taken large sums of money for himself, but for his brother, for Falckenskjold, for the Countess Holstein, for the Queen, and for Brandt. The Queen’s grant from the Treasury was 10,000 dollars, not a very large sum, and one to which she was surely entitled, as the grant was signed by the King. But the same paper contained grants of money to Brandt, Struensee and Falckenskjold—a grant of 60,000 to Brandt, 60,000 to Struensee and 2,000 to Falckenskjold, a total of 122,000 dollars. It was said that the document which the King signed contained only a grant of 10,000 dollars to the Queen, and 6,000 each to Brandt and Struensee; but Struensee added a nought to the donations to himself and Brandt, and wrote in 2,000 dollars for Falckenskjold, so that he tampered with the document to the extent of forgery. The King now protested that he had never made such a grant.
Seventhly: Struensee had sold, with the Queen’s consent, a “bouquet” of precious stones, although this was one of the crown jewels and an heirloom.
Eighthly: He had given orders that all letters addressed to the King should be brought to him, and he opened them, and thus kept the King in ignorance of what was going on.
Ninthly: He had so arranged the military in Copenhagen in the month of December that everything pointed to hostile intentions on his part, probably directed against the King and the people.
These were the principal charges brought against Struensee by Wivet; but, the advocate said: “To reckon up all the crimes committed by him would be a useless task, the more so when we reflect that the accused has only one head, and that, when that is lost by one of these crimes, to enumerate the other offences would be superfluous.” He therefore demanded that Struensee should be found guilty of high treason, and suffer death with ignominy.
The next day Uhldahl, who had defended the Queen, also undertook the defence of Struensee. The defence was lukewarm—so lukewarm that it could hardly be called a defence at all. The only time when Uhldahl waxed eloquent was when he reproved Wivet for his brutal attacks on the accused, and here it is probable that professional jealousy had to do with his warmth, rather than interest in his client. The chief count in the indictment against Struensee—his alleged adultery with the Queen—Uhldahl kept to the last, and here he offered no defence, for the prisoner had recanted in nowise his confession, but on the contrary made it the ground of a craven cry for mercy. To quote Uhldahl:—
“He throws himself at his Majesty’s feet, and implores his mercy for the crime against his Majesty’s person [adultery with the Queen] first maintained by the Fiscal-General Wivet, but till now unalluded to by him. It is the only thing in which he knows he has consciously sinned against his King, but he confesses with contrition that this crime is too great for him to expect forgiveness of it. If, however, regard forhuman weakness, a truly penitent feeling of his error, the deepest grief at it, the tears with which he laments it, and the prayers which he devotes to the welfare of the King and his royal family, deserve any compassion, he will not be found unworthy of it. In all the other charges made against him, he believes that the law and his innocence will defend him, and for this reason he can expect an acquittal, but for the first point (which he admits) he seeks refuge in the King’s mercy alone.”
“He throws himself at his Majesty’s feet, and implores his mercy for the crime against his Majesty’s person [adultery with the Queen] first maintained by the Fiscal-General Wivet, but till now unalluded to by him. It is the only thing in which he knows he has consciously sinned against his King, but he confesses with contrition that this crime is too great for him to expect forgiveness of it. If, however, regard forhuman weakness, a truly penitent feeling of his error, the deepest grief at it, the tears with which he laments it, and the prayers which he devotes to the welfare of the King and his royal family, deserve any compassion, he will not be found unworthy of it. In all the other charges made against him, he believes that the law and his innocence will defend him, and for this reason he can expect an acquittal, but for the first point (which he admits) he seeks refuge in the King’s mercy alone.”
Thus it will be seen, even in his advocate’s defence, Struensee, though denying all the other charges against him, reaffirmed his adultery with the Queen, and on the strength of that admission threw himself on the King’s mercy. The only satisfactory thing about this sordid business is that mercy was not granted to him.
Wivet replied, but Uhldahl waived his right of answering him again, and thus saying the last word in favour of the prisoner. The two advocates had in fact played into each other’s hands; the first inflamed the prejudices of the judges, already sufficiently prejudiced, by malevolent details, the second by scandalously neglecting his duty, and putting in a defence hardly worthy of the name.
Struensee became aware of how the advocate appointed to defend him had given him away, and so he resolved to make a defence of his own, which was certainly abler and more to the point. He wrote a long document, containing an elaborate review of, and apology for, his administration, answering hisindictment at every point except one—his intimacy with the Queen; on that alone he kept silence. This document offers a remarkable contrast to the rambling and incoherent effusion in which he gave an account of his conversion. One can only suppose that his heart was in the one and not in the other. In both cases he might have spared himself the trouble, for neither his conversion nor his apology availed him anything.
Brandt’s trial followed immediately on that of Struensee. His treatment in prison had been the same as that of his fellow-malefactor. After his examination he, too, was granted certain indulgences, and an eminent divine was appointed to look after his soul. Brandt’s spiritual adviser was Hee, Dean of the Navy Church. Hee was more of a scholar than Münter, and less of a bigot; moreover, he had the instincts of a gentleman, which Münter had not, as was shown by the insults he heaped upon the unfortunate young Queen. These considerations perhaps hindered him in his work, for Hee’s “conversion” of Brandt was not so successful as Münter’s conversion of Struensee. Brandt received Hee courteously, conversed with him freely, and appeared to be much affected by his arguments; but it may be doubted whether they made any real impression on him, for Brandt, like Struensee, was a convinced freethinker, and, moreover, suffered from an incurable levity of temperament. But, like Struensee, he was anxious to save his life, and to this end he was quite ready to be converted by Hee or any one else. Even so, Brandt’s conversion didnot seem to extend much beyond Deism; but that may have been due to his converter, for Hee was not nearly so orthodox a Christian as Münter. Brandt was very emotional, and frequently burst into tears when Hee reproved him for the wickedness of his former life, but as soon as the preacher’s back was turned he relapsed into his old levity. This being reported to Hee, he reprimanded the prisoner, and gave him several religious books to read, such as Hervey’sMeditations. Brandt then became very quiet, and his conduct was reported as being most edifying. In fact, he seems rather to have overdone his part, for he would sometimes take up his chains and kiss them, and exclaim: “When I thought myself free I was really a slave to my passions; and now that I am a prisoner, truth and grace have set me at liberty.” He also denounced Voltaire, whom he had met on his travels, and his teaching with great vehemence, and, as for Struensee, he said that he was “a man without any religion, who, from his infancy, according to his own admission, never had the slightest idea or sentiment of piety about him”. Shortly after this denunciation Struensee sent to inform Brandt that he had “found salvation” and he was praying that he too might repent him of his sins. Whereupon Brandt, not to be outdone in hypocrisy, replied that “he greatly rejoiced to hear of Struensee’s conversion. For his own part, he found comfort only in religion, and from his heart forgave Struensee for all he had done to draw him into his misfortunes.”
But Brandt’s pious sentiments and edifying behaviour availed him nothing at his trial. Wivet, who had prosecuted Struensee, also prosecuted Brandt; and Bang, who had prosecuted the Queen, was now appointed to conduct Brandt’s defence. Brandt was indicted on three counts.
First: That he had deliberately committed a gross attack on the person of the King—an awful deed, declared his prosecutor. “In the words of David: ‘How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?... Thy blood be upon thy head.’”[58]
First: That he had deliberately committed a gross attack on the person of the King—an awful deed, declared his prosecutor. “In the words of David: ‘How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?... Thy blood be upon thy head.’”[58]
[58]2 Sam. i. 14, 16.
[58]2 Sam. i. 14, 16.
Secondly: That he was an accomplice to the improper intimacy which Struensee had with the Queen.Thirdly: That he joined Struensee in robbing the Treasury, and was an accomplice to the forged document, whereby he received sixty thousand dollars.
Secondly: That he was an accomplice to the improper intimacy which Struensee had with the Queen.
Thirdly: That he joined Struensee in robbing the Treasury, and was an accomplice to the forged document, whereby he received sixty thousand dollars.
He was also, in a greater or lesser degree, an accomplice in all the offences committed by Struensee. On these grounds Wivet asked for sentence of death.
Wivet handed in this indictment to the judges the same day as the indictment of Struensee. Two days later Bang delivered a half-hearted defence, which may be summarised thus:—
First: Though Brandt fought with the King, he did so at the King’s own command—that he only fought in self-defence, and left off directly the King wished him to do so. He had voluntarily inflicted noinjury on his Majesty, and the account given by the prosecution of the affray was very much exaggerated.
Secondly: He was in no sense an accomplice of the intrigue between Struensee and the Queen. Though he felt morally convinced that improper intercourse took place, he had no absolute proof of it, and he could not take any steps in the matter without such proof. Moreover, it would have been as much as his life was worth to have said anything.[59]
[59]This does not tally with his assertion that Struensee had confided in him.
[59]This does not tally with his assertion that Struensee had confided in him.
Thirdly: If Struensee had committed a forgery, that did not affect Brandt, as he was ignorant of the matter. The grants which had been given him were given with the approval of the King, and, though he received large sums, yet he had to play cards daily with the King and Queen, at which he lost heavily.
Thus it will be seen that Brandt’s defence, though it actually denied none of the charges, gave a plausible explanation of them all. Brandt does not seem to have realised his danger, nor to have imagined that anything he had done, or left undone, could be considered worthy of death. In addition to his defence, he sent a memorial to his judges, and a letter to the King, in which he begged to be allowed to go away, and end his days quietly in Holstein. The letter to the King is lost; but the memorial to the judges remains, and is written in such a spirit of levity that it suggests doubt as to the writer’s sanity. Of course it was unavailing.
The legal farce was now drawing swiftly to a close. On April 25 the judges assembled at the Christiansborg Palace to deliver judgment on both cases. The judgments were very long and argumentative. There is no need to give them at length; to do so would be merely to recapitulate in other words the arguments brought forward by the prosecution. In Struensee’s sentence the chief count against him—his alleged adultery with the Queen—was summed up in a few words: “He has already been convicted of it” (presumably by the Queen’s sentence), “and has himself confessed it: he has thereby committed a terrible crime, which involves in an eminent degree an assault on the King’s supremacy, or high treason, and according to the law deserves the penalty of death”. The rest of the judgment, which occupied some thirty pages, dealt in detail with the other offences alleged against him, and condemned him on every count.
“Therefore,” the judgment concluded, “as it is clear that Count Struensee in more than one way, and in more than one respect, has not only himself committed the crime of high treason in an extreme degree, but has participated in similar crimes with others; and that, further, his whole administration was a chain of violence and selfishness, which he ever sought to attain in a disgraceful and criminal manner; and as he also displayed contempt of religion, morality and good manners, not only by word and deed, but also through public regulations,—the following sentence is passed on him, according to thewords of Article I. of Chapter 4 of Book 6 of the Danish law:—“Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment for himself, and as an example and warning for others of like mind, have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours which have been conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner; his right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head; his body quartered and broken on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck on a pole.“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
“Therefore,” the judgment concluded, “as it is clear that Count Struensee in more than one way, and in more than one respect, has not only himself committed the crime of high treason in an extreme degree, but has participated in similar crimes with others; and that, further, his whole administration was a chain of violence and selfishness, which he ever sought to attain in a disgraceful and criminal manner; and as he also displayed contempt of religion, morality and good manners, not only by word and deed, but also through public regulations,—the following sentence is passed on him, according to thewords of Article I. of Chapter 4 of Book 6 of the Danish law:—
“Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment for himself, and as an example and warning for others of like mind, have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours which have been conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner; his right hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head; his body quartered and broken on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck on a pole.
“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
Here follow the signatures of the nine judges, headed by that of Baron Juell-Wind, and ending with that of Guldberg.
Brandt’s sentence was delivered at the same time. It contained no direct allusion to the Queen, and was a long, rambling and confused document. Finally, it declared that, by his treacherous and audacious assault on the person of the King, he had committed an act of high treason, which deserved the punishment of death, according to the same article of the Danish law as that quoted in the case of Struensee. Therefore:—
“Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by theexecutioner on the scaffold, his right hand cut off while he is still alive, then his head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and hand stuck on a pole.“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
“Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by theexecutioner on the scaffold, his right hand cut off while he is still alive, then his head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and hand stuck on a pole.
“Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of April, 1772.”
The judgments were immediately published in the Danish journals. Thence they found their way into foreign newspapers, and were by them adversely criticised, not so much on account of the punishment, as for the extraordinary and diffuse way in which the judgments were written. In Denmark they were received with enthusiasm by the great majority of the people, but there was a minority growing up which regarded them more dubiously, and was disposed to criticise. The Government, however, determined to allow little time for criticism or reaction, and resolved to carry the sentences into effect at the earliest possible moment, before any change took place in public opinion.