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 in Denmark 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.
[Illustration: 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 of Copenhagen. 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 most suspicious. 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 he were 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 of her 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 second session 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 complete form 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 her intercourse
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 any _facts_ in 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, one of 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
they _thought_ that Struensee was a long time with the Queen, because
they were not summoned: they _imagined_ that 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 Matilda first 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 than a child, she had all the grace,
the innocence and the _naïveté_ of 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 her _confidante_.
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 the _tracasseries_ with which your
favourites annoyed her that she was at last induced to _lier_ herself
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, this
_liaison_, 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 and
Struensee 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.
[Illustration: 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 the _corps diplomatique_ were 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 he replied 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 became an 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.