THE QUEEN'S DEFENCE.
CAROLINE MATILDA'S FEELINGS--ADVOCATE ULDALL--THE DEFENCE--THE
QUEEN'S INNOCENCE--A FAIR TRIAL DEMANDED--CHARACTER OF THE
EVIDENCE--THE LAW OF ADULTERY--VALUE OF EVIDENCE--STRUENSEE'S
FAVOUR--FRAULEIN VON EYBEN--TRIFLES LIGHT AS AIR--THE QUEEN'S
ATTENDANTS--A FLAW IN THE ARGUMENT--REVERDIL'S APPEAL--THE SENTENCE.
So soon as Advocate Bang had concluded his indictment, the queen's
advocate, Uldall, requested an adjournment of the court for eight or
ten days, so that he might have sufficient time to consult with his
exalted client about the defence to be offered. This being granted,
Uldall proceeded to Kronborg, where he had a long, important, and
affecting consultation with the queen. The unfortunate princess was
standing, at a tender age, and adorned with all the gifts which could
have ensured permanent felicity, on the verge of an abyss, in which
her honour, her dignity, her peace, would be swallowed up for ever.
A single day might tear from her her husband, children, and throne:
and she would survive this loss! what fearful reflections! The queen
felt them in their full extent: her whole feeling was poured into the
expressions in which she depicted to Uldall the terrible images that
occupied her mind.
"I should be inconsolable," she said to him, "if the least of
my actions could inflict injury on the king, or his monarchy. I
was, perhaps, incautious, but never wicked: my sex, my age, the
circumstances in which I was, must serve as my apology. I was ever too
quiet against suspicion, and this tranquillity may have led me astray.
The laws speak against me; I humbly honour their terrible meaning, and
feel that they must speak against me from the lips of my judges. I
trust that they will lose their sharpness in such mouths. The king, my
consort, must confirm their sentence. Oh! then my whole hope springs
into life again! He will not repulse me, he will not hurl me into
endless misery."
The queen's tears and sighs frequently interrupted this affecting
speech; and at last she found some rest, more in her own weakness than
in any alleviation of the painfulness of her feelings. She addressed
Uldall with greater calmness, and arranged with him the arguments he
should employ in her defence.[77]
The second session of the Extraordinary Council was held on April 2,
and the following defence was submitted:--
ULDALL'S DEFENCE OF QUEEN CAROLINE MATILDA.[78]
With unfeigned emotion I proceed to the fulfilment of the duty which
the welfare of the queen, and the will of the king, impose on me.
The dignity of these exalted personages, the importance and
consequences of the affair, the zealous wish to do my duty, and a
reasonable apprehension that I shall not be able to do so properly,
sufficiently justify my sorrow at being compelled to see the queen lay
off her purple, descend from the throne, and, like the most wretched
of women, seek protection from the law. Can there possibly be a more
affecting example of the insecurity of human happiness? She, in whose
person we do homage to the blood of so many kings, is suspected of
having dishonoured it. She who gave the king her hand and heart, is
accused by the man who, at that time, promised to be her lord and
protector. She, who by the unanimous verdict of the nation, received
the name of mother of the country, is tried by those men who at that
day would have joyfully shed their blood for her. So unhappy is Queen
Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the Queens of Denmark! At
an age, and gifted with all the qualities, which seemed to determine
her felicity, she finds herself on the verge of an abyss, in which her
honour, her dignity, and her peace may be lost. What a thought to lose
her husband, her children, her throne, on the same day, and to survive
the loss! Suspected, accused, in danger of leading the most wretched
life for a long course of years: can there be anything more cruel for
hearts that are capable of thinking and feeling? Thus the queen regards
her fate, and she described it to me, when I had the honour of waiting
upon her, in the following words:
"I must despair, had my intentions been other than the welfare of the
king and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my age, my
sex, and my rank must excuse me. I never believed myself exposed to a
suspicion, and even, though my confession appears to confirm my guilt,
I know myself to be perfectly innocent. The law requires me to be
convicted: my consort has granted me this, and I hope he will, through
the mouth of his commissioners, acknowledge that I have not rendered
myself unworthy of him."
I quote her Majesty's words exactly as she uttered them, but how
much do I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they
were spoken, the frankness that gave them increased weight, and the
trembling voice, which justly claimed compassion. The latter, no one
can refuse her without insulting humanity.
Among the charges brought against her Majesty, is the sanctity of
the duties imposed on her by her marriage with her royal husband: it
has been stated that the king's bed must remain unsullied, that his
own honour, and the honour and prosperity of the country, require
this. But these truths are so far from affecting the queen, that she
demands the strictest investigation ere she can believe that she has
acted contrariwise. The more important the duties she had to perform,
the more fearful are the consequences of any infraction of them,
and the more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the
evidence that her Majesty has really committed a fault. We may first
ask in which manner the honour of the king and his family will be best
promoted? By proving the queen guilty, or must it not be sought in her
innocence? Has her Majesty, perchance, never known and fulfilled what
she owed to herself, her husband, and his people; or will it not rather
be allowed that from the period when her accusation begins, she proved
herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy queen?
Can it be credited that her Majesty should so easily have forgotten
herself? And can she, who at that day sought her delight in modesty,
virtue, and the veneration and affection of the king and the country,
have banished all noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?
Advocate Bang produces, in the king's name, three varieties of
proofs against the queen: Count Struensee's statement, her Majesty's
confession, and, as he knew that neither was sufficient, the evidence
of witnesses.
Assuredly, Count Struensee, on February 17 and 25, as the documents
prove, made a statement of a most insulting nature to her Majesty. But
that he forgot the reverence due to the queen, that either through
unfounded alarm, confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself, if
he could cause the queen to be regarded as interested in his affair,
or for other reasons he has made absurd allegations, can only injure
himself. For what belief can be given to the assurance that he, if
the queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so
daring as to misuse it in so extreme a way, and that her Majesty should
have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of
a queen, could not be affected by it. And how improbable it is, that
such a thing should have gone on for two whole years at court, under
the eyes of the king, and in the presence of so many spies? They
are accusations made by a prisoner not on his oath, and are utterly
destitute of probability.
Advocate Bang allows that Count Struensee's declaration in itself is of
no weight against the queen, and hence he tries to confirm it, partly
by the acknowledgment which her Majesty made on March 9, as to the
correctness of Struensee's declaration, partly through her answer that
she had broken her marriage vows and, hence, lost her marriage rights,
which he wishes to be regarded as perfect proof after the law 1--15--1.
Certainly, in all civil causes, a confession is the most perfect form
of proof: but in criminal matters, and such as we are now trying, the
Danish code completely rejects this evidence, when it says: "It is not
sufficient that the accused person should himself confess it, but the
accuser must legally bring the accused before the court and properly
prove the offence."
Other proofs, consequently, are requisite; and as it is his Majesty's
wish that the law alone shall be followed in this cause, and the
judgment be founded on the evidence, it is self-evident that the
queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her
subjects.
The letter of the law is clear, and does not admit of the slightest
doubt. Hence it will be quite unnecessary to examine the motives
which induced the Danish legislator to make this regulation. I will
not speculate whether the respect and authority which the law grants
to one sex over the other--fear of its abuse on the one hand and of
excessive compliance on the other--an anxiety to prevent the dangerous
consequences of precipitation and inattention, &c., may have had their
share in it. As, however, the king's advocate remarks that her Majesty
cannot appeal to this law, because it is based on two legal reasons,
neither of which affects the queen, I must clear up the incorrectness
of this conclusion. Though the law states that it is not enough for
the accused party to make a confession, and adds: "Because it is often
found that many persons make false statements, so that the one may get
rid of the other, or injure the person with whom he or she declares to
have committed a crime," I will humbly urge that these are not the sole
motives why the law rejects a confession in this case, as is clearly
shown; for it adds directly after the words quoted, "or for the sake
of other things." Although, therefore, the law only mentions expressly
some of the motives for its regulation, it is clear that it had various
others in addition to these; and hence the benefit granted to the
accused belongs to her Majesty equally in regard of the motives alleged
in the law and of those unalleged, and she consequently claims it.[79]
I will now pass over to the third class of proofs, consisting of the
statements of persons summoned by the prosecutor as witnesses.
Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them
to be recalled and examined in my presence. But as I also have her
commands to investigate the nature of this evidence and what it goes to
prove, I am obliged to make some prefatory remarks.
It is a remarkable fact that not one of the witnesses examined alleges
any other motive for the first suspicion against the queen but the
town scandal which they had heard. It was not till it became universal
that it was mentioned to the queen. As most of the witnesses were
constantly about the queen's person, and yet, in her intercourse
with and behaviour toward Struensee, found no reason to believe
anything insulting to her, it is clear that the conduct of the queen
must have been irreproachable, even at the time when apprehension
existed. Everybody knows how deceptive reports are. Such a thing is
often founded on nothing; and through its universal propagation alone
acquires a certain strength and credibility. But however slippery its
path may be, it leaves behind, even with the hardest of belief, the
most cautious and best disposed, a suspicion which places the conduct
of the persons affected by the report in a perfectly new and different
light. The reason for the rumour may be true; the curiosity to acquire
a certainty about it attracts attention to things which otherwise
would be most innocent, but are now seriously weighed, and if anything
equivocal is detected, a verdict is at once formed without any further
investigation. It was the same with the witnesses in this case; for,
although prior to the rumour they had no cause to suspect the queen,
they no sooner learnt its existence than they discovered new evidence
of it at every step.
This remark is the more important, as the chamber-people of the queen,
after they had been informed of the rumour, did not observe those
precautions which they should have done.
Instead of at once informing her Majesty, they made all sorts of
investigations; and although they found no real criterion which could
have confirmed the rumour, their prejudices were sufficiently active to
make them regard everything with suspicion.
When her Majesty learnt this fact, she doubtless regarded it as a want
of the fidelity they ought to have displayed, and of the good opinion
they should have entertained of her. She consequently removed the
witnesses from her immediate presence, and partly lost that perfect
confidence which she had formerly placed in them. This annoyed the
chamber-people, and naturally caused them to judge the actions of her
Majesty even more sharply than before.
In the evidence of Frau Schiötte, we find two special instances of
this: first, when she pretends that her Majesty's amendment lasted a
fortnight after the warning, but that then the thing grew again worse
than ever, although Frau Blechinberg says that she noticed nothing
suspicious for some weeks after the time; and again, when Frau Schiötte
employs the expression that her Majesty gave herself a great deal of
trouble about the bolt of a door at Frederiksberg which would not
fasten. That the queen had the bolt mended may have been caused by very
innocent motives, especially as Frau Schiötte herself confesses that
the chamber-people had no orders to close the bolt; but the expression
that the queen "gave herself a deal of trouble," or "was wild about
it," is excessively improper, and displays an animosity from which a
witness ought to be exempt.
As her Majesty, therefore, had such keen observers in those who were
about her person, it is not surprising that they should draw different
conclusions, which served in confirmation of the ideas by which they
were already preoccupied. No innocence is conceivable which would not
succumb under such suspicious examination, and the law has foreseen
the consequences of this, and recognised the fairness that every one
should be safe in his own house and among his own servants. Hence it
orders that "such witnesses should not be heeded."[80]
If we now ask what the facts are, by which an improper intimacy carried
to extremes between the queen and Count Struensee can be proved from
the evidence of the witnesses, the answer is--None. That the queen
showed the count favour and confidence, cannot be denied. But who ever
saw or heard that they went beyond the limits of honour? Where is the
man who is able to say that the queen has broken the fidelity which she
owed to her consort, or can mention a single fact which would prove the
certainty of such a crime? And does not the silence of all about any
convincing act prove the truth of maid Bruhn's answer to question 6,
"that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the queen"?
Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own acts. They
say, they concluded that Struensee was a long time with the queen,
because they were not summoned; they fancied that the queen and
Struensee were on familiar terms. But on what are these suppositions
founded, except on rumour, and the power which it possessed over the
imagination?
It is principally the favour which her Majesty showed to Count
Struensee, that caused the suspicions of the witnesses and the
conclusions derived from them. He was constantly about the queen,
it is said, 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? In this respect the
queen appeals in her justification to her consort's feelings, and what
striking proofs of his Majesty's favour to Struensee are the offices
which were entrusted to him, and the rank to which he was raised! He
sought to acquire the queen's confidence in the same way as he had
gained the king's. The fidelity which he always displayed toward the
king, the attention he paid to the queen when she was unwell, and the
devotedness he seemed to entertain, maintained an uninterrupted harmony
between their Majesties, and more than all else the king's will, which
was a law to the queen, made her believe that she could give Struensee
her confidence without peril. His offices as cabinet secretary to the
queen, and cabinet minister, required his constant presence, and hence
it should not be surprising that he held a greater share of the queen's
favour than any other man.
But, the counsel for the prosecution says, the queen is not solely
accused on account of her intimacy with Count Struensee; the great
point is, that it reached an extremity which dishonoured her consort,
and, in order to prove this, he appeals to the evidence of the
witnesses.
Before I go through the more material evidence, I must make the highly
requisite remark, that a proof by witnesses, according to law, must be
supported by not less than two persons on oath, whose statements agree,
and who can with certainty give evidence in one and the same matter. In
accordance with this, the proofs of the learned counsel must be placed
in two general categories; some of them cannot, according to law, be
accepted as evidence at all, while others do not prove what they are
intended to prove.
To the first class belong especially the statements of Professor
Berger, Count Brandt, and Fräulein von Eyben; those of the former,
because they were not made on oath and before the judges; those of
the latter, because they are only supported by one person, for in her
answer to question 7 there is a complaint about the queen, that her
Majesty appeared to regard her as a dangerous person; and lastly,
because her Majesty declares that she never made such a "confidence"
to the witness as her answers to questions 41 and 42 reveal, but all
that the queen said to her was a remark perfectly natural for a lady
who believes herself above all suspicion: "that it would be ridiculous
to abandon Count Struensee on account of an unfounded report."[81]
In this class must also be placed several other circumstances--for
instance, that at Gottorp Castle there was a flight of stairs leading
from the queen's room to Struensee's--that the 4th witness merely said
that one night she heard the queen come out of Struensee's room, while
witnesses 8 and 9 say "she came up the stairs," and they naturally
could not know from whom the queen came, and whether she might not have
been with one of her ladies--that Struensee one night at Frederiksberg
put on a surtout and went in that state to the queen, for witnesses
18, 19, and 20, state they did not know where he went--that the queen
was once seen in Struensee's room, which is only asserted by witness
20--that her Majesty remarked she did not care what people said, for
the statements of witnesses 6 and 20 differ as to the time when the
remark was made and the words used--that Struensee obtained a _passe
partout_ to the palace, for it was not done by the queen's orders--that
the queen was once nursed by him, when she had a pain in her side,
for one witness alone mentions this--that her Majesty went to the
theatre because Struensee begged her to do so, of which, however,
Fräulein Trolle, who was present, knows nothing--that her Majesty used
scented powder--was once once out of sight of the maids of honour at a
masquerade, and so on: for such trifles would never have been brought
against her Majesty had not the witnesses been prejudiced.
In the proofs of the second class, we have in the first line the
statements of the women Blechinberg and Schiötte, and of maid Petersen,
about the opening of the door leading to the Hermitage (Mezzanine),
and their experiments with wax on the key, and powder in the corridor,
about the footsteps found here and in the bedroom, and the state of
the bed at a time when the king had not been there, and his door was
locked, on which the counsel bases his charge.
Even if all this evidence was trustworthy, it would not prove that
her Majesty was guilty. But one of the facts alleged by the witnesses
proves in itself how little ground for suspicion there is in all these
charges. The second witness, Frau Blechinberg, says, that at the time
when this occurred, the maids slept close to the queen's bedroom, and
had free access to it. How incredible does it seem that her Majesty
should have exposed herself so openly, as she would have done by
committing any impropriety in such a situation? And if we examine the
details more closely, it results that her Majesty possessed the key
of the Mezzanine door since her first arrival here. Frau Schiötte
is, therefore, in error when she states that the queen asked for it
afterwards, and that she used it several times, though rarely; and
hence it is very possible that the door remained unlocked. Although it
is quite natural that the wax in the key, or keyhole, or the paper
in the crack must fall out if the door was opened, the witnesses are
quite unable to assert that the key was used, and the door opened,
only in the night. Why could not this have happened equally well by
day, before they went to look? The footsteps in the powder deserves
equally slight attention; for lackey Torp declares that his post was
in the Mezzanine, and lackey Hansen, according to maid Petersen, once
showed her that the door leading to it was open, which proves that
various men entered the corridor. It is not said, either, whence the
footsteps came, or that they went to the door of the queen's bedroom,
and just as little did any witnesses hear any one come to this door
at night. It is the same with the footsteps alleged to have been seen
on the stairs. The witnesses declare that they displayed traces of
the powder, but Struensee would not have gone in such an "uncleanly"
condition to the queen even at night. The marks are said to have been
seen on the next morning. But are the witnesses fully convinced that
these footsteps were not made on the previous day or evening, or
that the king, whose servants had the key of the outer corridor, had
not been there, although he might not have been seen in the queen's
apartments? It is true, they state they always knew when the king was
there; but on what is this knowledge based? Her Majesty declares that
it was impossible for her chamber-people to be always cognisant of the
circumstance, because the king did not wish them to know it; and hence
she herself went in to the king after their Majesties had retired. That
the door should be bolted was the usual case long before the time of
the supposed intrigue; on some occasions it was caused by a trifling
dispute between their Majesties; but most frequently because the queen
was afraid lest the black boys or the dogs might come into her room
unexpectedly, by which she had been startled several times. If there
had been any mystery in it, the king would have been the first to
notice the fact.
As this suspicion, which is the chief foundation of the charge, is thus
removed, and the rest consists entirely of suppositions, I hope to be
able to deal more shortly with the latter.
The arrangement of the apartments for Struensee in Christiansborg
Palace was not done by the queen's commands, and the reason why the
queen's apartment was converted into a sleeping cabinet was solely not
to incommode the king at the period when the queen was suckling the
prince herself. Her Majesty declares that she requested the king's
permission to do so at Frederiksberg.
What incorrect conclusions witnesses 4 and 7 draw from the queen's
anger with them is proved by the evidence of Frau Schiötte, who
states that this happened in the summer before they warned the queen,
consequently in the year 1769, and hence long before the epoch we are
now discussing.
The statement of witnesses 4 and 6, that the queen passed off
Struensee for the king is equally incorrect, for the king might have
been present without their observing him.
If, as some witnesses state, they saw her Majesty undressed, when she
was perhaps bathing or changing her clothes; if she undressed herself
without the help of her maids (which was not the case, according to
witness 6, however, during the last year), and of which the queen's
pregnancy was the cause,--all this is no crime, so long as no one can
say that Struensee or other men were present. On the contrary, all
the witnesses are agreed that the queen always required very little
attendance. Equally little should we feel surprised that Struensee was
at times alone with the queen, or sat by her side, if he waited upon
her, either by the king's command, or for other reasons. According to
the evidence of maid Gabel the chamber-people remained at such times in
the room where they happened to be, and from the answer of maid Boye
to question 21, and the declaration of Frau Blechinberg, it must be
assumed that one of them slept before the queen's sleeping cabinet. If
her Majesty jested with her servants about love, her sentiments ought
not to be judged from this, for in such a way even a Cato would come
short. That she intended to go away with Struensee is a fable that
contradicts itself, as it was not apprehended at the time when the
sailors proceeded to Hirschholm, for then, as the witnesses say, the
queen was perfectly indifferent; but in the days when the ox was given
away at Frederiksberg, when there was nothing at all to be alarmed
about.
As a physician, Struensee could be present at the queen's accouchement
equally well as Berger, and the statement that the queen looked at him,
and gazed on his portrait after delivery, is founded partly on the
presumptions of the witnesses, partly on untrustworthy statements, as
maid Boye saw that Struensee handed the queen an almanack, at which she
looked, although maid Boye fancies that there was a portrait in it.
That the queen purchased something of Struensee is a matter of perfect
indifference, and if she made him presents, royal personages are
accustomed to display their favour in such a way.
That she wished to speak with him in her state of alarm, occasioned
by the events of January 17, is not surprising, and that she on one
occasion at Kronborg inquired after him, is no proof of a "tendresse,"
for many thousands who never saw him have asked the same question.
I pass over all the rest as things which are partly unimportant, partly
do not affect the queen, or are too improper to be answered. It is
sufficient that no proof is derived from all these things, examined
singly, that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow. The law requires
the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all sorts of self-invented
conclusions; and if it were otherwise, her Majesty must regret that
her rank and grandeur, which ought to secure her against such danger,
are the very things that caused her misfortune.
I may therefore hope that I have shown the innocence of her Majesty
the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her
justification, and she feels assured of the caution and impartiality of
her judges.
For these reasons she awaits the decision demanded by her honour, the
king's dignity, and the welfare of the land. I therefore venture most
submissively in her Majesty's name to urge--
"That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda, be acquitted from his Majesty
the King's accusation, in this matter."
ULDALL.
_Copenhagen, April 2, 1772._
The defence was certainly clever, and merited the applause with
which it is said to have been greeted in foreign countries. But, on
reflection, it seems as if the counsel did not touch on the best
argument in the cause: that the law refuses a divorce to the husband of
a woman guilty of adultery if he has been the seducer; and if, while
cognizant of her infidelity, he has continued to cohabit with her.
It would have been easy to render this palpable to the king, if he
had retained even a remnant of feeling and conscience. Reverdil, who,
though he was fully convinced of Caroline Matilda's guilt, felt the
most sincere compassion for her, supplies us with an argument which
might have been used to the king:--
"Is it not true, Sire, that from the commencement of your marriage
up to the moment when the party now in power seized on you and your
ministers, you had not the slightest respect for the marriage tie,
and that you ever testified to the queen that you dispensed with her
fidelity? Did you not invite all your successive favourites to pay
their court to her? Did you not say, and prove in a thousand ways, that
her affection was troublesome to you, and that your greatest misfortune
was in paying attention to her? Your commissioners had the effrontery
to ask the queen and Struensee who their accomplices were; in prison
and in chains the accused have had the generosity to be silent on your
account; but what they have not done your conscience will do, and will
tell you that you were the real seducer.
"Remember, Sire, the moment when this princess, whom they wish to
make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity.
The English left her without any adviser, or a single companion,
on your shores. Hardly emerged from childhood, she retained its
graces, innocence, and _naïveté_; but her mind was more cultivated
and mature than you expected; you were astonished at it; hearts flew
to meet her; her affability and beneficence captivated all classes
of the nation. When you had the misfortune to give yourself up to
a frivolous and reckless favourite, and to vile companions, who led
you into libertinism, she saw herself neglected. You displayed more
than indifference toward her. She loved you; she was silent, and
maintaining her serenity in public, contented herself with lamenting
in private with the grand mistress, whom you had yourself given her
as a confidante. Ere long, you envied her even her sole consolation;
and this lady, whose sole crime consisted in displaying conduct and
principles too austere to please you, was dismissed with the most
signal mark of disgrace. Frau von der Lühe, who took her place, was
the sister of your favourite. You, doubtless, supposed that this lady
would have as much levity and as few principles as her brother; but she
foiled your expectations. Without expressly disgracing her, you had her
duties performed by women of the most equivocal reputation. What more
could a consummate seducer have done? This man, with whom the queen is
accused of being too intimate, yourself forced on her when she repulsed
him. It was the hope of avoiding the annoyances which your favourites
caused her that led her to connect herself with a man who offered his
services in drawing you back to her; it was you who removed all the
barriers that separated her from him, who diminished the distance,
who desired what is now called your disgrace, who have excused and
tolerated this liaison; and who, lastly, up to January 17, talked of it
as a good joke.
"Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even should the
whole world condemn her, you ought to revoke this condemnation through
a feeling of self-respect, if not through natural equity."
It is impossible to say whether any one of the thirty-four judges
raised his voice in favour of a princess whom they were absolutely
obliged to condemn, or whether not one of them dared to touch on so
delicate a matter: but the sentence of divorce was pronounced after
two sessions of seven hours each. It was not made public, but a
rescript was sent to the provincial governors and bailiffs, in which
the king informed them that he had repudiated his consort, after a
solemn inquiry, in order to repair the honour of his house, and for
motives of public welfare. The same tribunal pronounced that the
Princess Louisa Augusta should retain the honour due to the daughters
of kings. A sealed and secret document was handed at the same time to
the Chanceries, which was to be read at the king's death. It doubtless
regulated the regency in the event of a minority. Some persons believed
that in this will the princess was disinherited: but how could that be
so?[82]
The queen's confession was dated March 9: the king's counsel handed
in his indictment on the 24th: Uldall's reply was made on April 2:
and the sentence was passed on the 6th of the same month. Matters were
certainly done very quickly. Baron Juel-Wind, Justiciary of the Supreme
Court, received orders to inform the queen of the sentence, which
he did on April 9, in the presence of Lieutenant-General von Hauch,
commandant of Kronborg.
The original intention was to exile the unfortunate queen to Aalborg,
in Jütland, where she was not to be imprisoned, but to have certain
restrictions placed on her liberty. As early as February,[83] Colonel
Pentz had been sent to examine the castle, and order the necessary
repairs. We shall see hereafter how a change in the arrangements was
made.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 77: "Authentische Aufklärungen."]
[Footnote 78: This state paper has never before been published in
England, and is literally translated from the original text.]
[Footnote 79: What Uldall wished to say, seems to be, that the queen
could not be convicted on her own confession or on that of Struensee,
as the law demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons who
agreed in the facts as well as the motives.]
[Footnote 80: How could Colonel Keith allow such a trial as this
to be carried on when the sister of his own king was the victim?
And yet, it is said, he makes a merit of having saved her from the
scaffold.--_Falckenskjold's Memoirs_, p. 233.]
[Footnote 81: Mademoiselle d'Eyben had been a lady-in-waiting on
the queen, and, it is said, often twitted her with her conjugal
fidelity. They had a quarrel, the nature of which is not known, and
Mademoiselle d'Eyben's deposition was taken at Lübeck. This lady was
not very scrupulous in matters of gallantry, and caused considerable
scandal by her open liaison with a French actor of the name of
Latour.--_Falckenskjold's Memoirs_, p. 233.]
[Footnote 82: According to Falckenskjold, it would have been as easy
to pronounce the illegitimacy of Caroline Matilda's children, as to
declare a divorce on account of adultery. Guldberg and his partisans
were interested in doing so; hence it is plain that Queen Juliana
Maria, and Prince Frederick would not allow it. If this be so, credit
must be given them for this generosity. I fancy, however, that my
earlier assertion is correct, and that Guldberg prevented a step which
the queen dowager urged on behalf of the possible posterity of her
beloved son.]
[Footnote 83: This circumstance, in itself, is a sufficient proof that
the trial of Caroline Matilda was solely intended to throw dust in the
eyes of Europe. That her place of banishment should have been selected
before her trial, is of a piece with the miserable evidence produced
against her.]