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 part he 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. He took 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 the _Narrative_ high 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's _Narrative_ was 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 must see 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 to acknowledge 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 followed Struensee
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.
[Illustration: THE DOCKS, COPENHAGEN, _TEMP._ 1770.]
[Illustration: 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.
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 for
human 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 his indictment 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 did not 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's _Meditations_. 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 no injury 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 the words of Article
I. of Chapter 4 of Book 6 of the Danish law:--
"Count John Frederick Struensee shall, as a well-deserved punishment
for himself, and as an example and warning for others of like mind,
have forfeited honour, life and property, and be degraded from his
dignity of count and all other honours which have been conferred on
him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner; his right
hand shall be cut off while he is alive, and then his head; his body
quartered and broken on the wheel, but his head and hand shall be stuck
on a pole.
"Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of
April, 1772."
Here follow the signatures of the nine judges, headed by that of Baron
Juell-Wind, and ending with that of Guldberg.
Brandt's sentence was delivered at the same time. It contained no
direct allusion to the Queen, and was a long, rambling and confused
document. Finally, it declared that, by his treacherous and audacious
assault on the person of the King, he had committed an act of high
treason, which deserved the punishment of death, according to the same
article of the Danish law as that quoted in the case of Struensee.
Therefore:--
"Count Enevold Brandt shall have forfeited honour, life and property,
and be degraded from his dignity of count and all other honours
conferred on him; his coat of arms shall be broken by the executioner
on the scaffold, his right hand cut off while he is still alive, then
his head; his body quartered and exposed on the wheel, but his head and
hand stuck on a pole.
"Given by the Commission at the Christiansborg Palace, this 25th day of
April, 1772."
The judgments were immediately published in the Danish journals.
Thence they found their way into foreign newspapers, and were by them
adversely criticised, not so much on account of the punishment, as for
the extraordinary and diffuse way in which the judgments were written.
In Denmark they were received with enthusiasm by the great majority of
the people, but there was a minority growing up which regarded them
more dubiously, and was disposed to criticise. The Government, however,
determined to allow little time for criticism or reaction, and resolved
to carry the sentences into effect at the earliest possible moment,
before any change took place in public opinion.