+-------------------------------------------+
| Note: |
| |
| = around word indicates bold =CAPSULE.= |
| _ around word indicated italics _Erebus_ |
+-------------------------------------------+
LIFE AND TIMES
OF
HER MAJESTY CAROLINE MATILDA.
LIFE AND TIMES
OF
HER MAJESTY
CAROLINE MATILDA,
QUEEN OF DENMARK AND NORWAY,
AND
SISTER OF H. M. GEORGE III. OF ENGLAND,
FROM FAMILY DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE STATE ARCHIVES.
BY
SIR C. F. LASCELLES WRAXALL, BART.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
LONDON:
WM. H. ALLEN & CO., 13, WATERLOO PLACE, S.W.
1864.
[_All Rights reserved._]
LEWIS AND SON, PRINTERS, SWAN BUILDINGS, MOORGATE STREET.
CONTENTS OF VOL. III.
CHAPTER I.
THE TRIAL OF COUNT BRANDT.
PAGE
The Indictment--Brandt at Court--The Assault on the King--The
King's Deposition--The Queen and Struensee--Duty of
a Good Citizen--The Confidant--The Alleged Forgery--The
Sentence Proposed--The Defence--The King at Home--Duties
of the Favourite--A Man of Courage--The Royal Gift--Brandt's
Letter to his Judges--A Modest Request--Hurried
Proceedings 1
CHAPTER II.
THE TWO COUNTS.
Struensee's Sentence--His General Conduct--The Maître des Requêtes--The
German Language--Struensee's Despotism--The
Council of the Thirty-two--The Cabinet Minister--The King's
Presents--Struensee's Precautions--His Downfall--The Sentence
Approved--Count Brandt--His Assault on the King--His
Behaviour--The Royal Assent 33
CHAPTER III.
THE EXECUTION.
Confirmation of the Sentence--Struensee's Correspondence--Rantzau's
Treachery--An Unfeeling Court--Struensee's Penitence--The
Scaffold--April 28--Execution of Brandt--Horrible
Details--Death of Struensee--His Character--Enlightened
Despotism--The First Servant of the State--The Queen
Dowager 71
CHAPTER IV.
THE HIGH COMMISSION.
PAGE
The Ten Prisoners--The Report--Lt.-Colonel von Hesselberg--Etats-rath
Willebrandt--Professor Berger--Unjust Sentences--Von
Gähler--Falckenskjold and Struensee--Serious Crimes--The
Sentence--The Royal Approval--The Fortress of Munkholm--The
Commandant--Resignation--The Order of Release--Curious
Conditions--Death of Falckenskjold 103
CHAPTER V.
DEPARTURE OF THE QUEEN.
The British Fleet--Spirited Conduct of Keith--The Order of Release--The
Prisoner Louisa Augusta--The Departure--The
Landing at Stade--The Stay at Göhrde--Arrival in Celle--The
Queen's Court--A Happy Family--Keith's Mission--Literary
Pirates--Reverdil to the Rescue 141
CHAPTER VI.
THE SECRET AGENT.
The Court at Celle--Mr. Wraxall--Presentation to the
Queen--Hamburg--The Danish Nobility--The Proposition--The
Credentials--Return to Celle--Baron von Seckendorf--The
Queen's Acceptance--Another Visit to Celle--The Interview
in the Jardin François--Caroline Matilda's Agreement--The
Inn in the Wood--Baron von Bülow--A Strange Adventure--Arrival
in England 167
CHAPTER VII.
'TWIXT THE CUP AND THE LIP.
Baron von Lichtenstein--The King's Instructions--The Arrival
from Hamburg--The Four Articles--A Terrible Journey--Arrival
at Celle--Interview with the Queen--Baron von Seckendorf--The
Answer from Copenhagen--The Appeal to George
III.--The Counter-Revolution--Another Visit to Celle--The
Last Interview--The Queen's Gratitude--Return to London--Waiting
for the Answer--A Sudden Blow 202
CHAPTER VIII.
DEATH OF CAROLINE MATILDA.
PAGE
The Typhus Fever--Death of the Page--The Queen's Visit--Symptoms
of Illness--Dr. Zimmermann--Pastor Lehzen--Caroline
Matilda's Goodness of Heart--Her Death--The Funeral--General
Grief--The Monuments--Letter to George III.--Proofs
of Caroline Matilda's Innocence--The Queen's Character 242
CHAPTER IX.
WHEN ROGUES FALL OUT----.
The Reaction--The King's Will--Köller-Banner--Rantzau's
Dismissal--Prince Charles of Hesse--Court Intrigues--Eickstedt's
Career--Beringskjold's Career and Death--Von der Osten--The
Guldberg Ministry--The Prince Regent--The Coup d'État--Uncle
and Nephew--Fate of Guldberg--Death of Juliana Maria 259
APPENDIX A. 291
APPENDIX B. 307
APPENDIX C. 313
LIFE AND TIMES
OF
CAROLINE MATILDA.
CHAPTER I.
THE TRIAL OF COUNT BRANDT.
THE INDICTMENT--BRANDT AT COURT--THE ASSAULT ON THE KING--THE KING'S
DEPOSITION--THE QUEEN AND STRUENSEE--DUTY OF A GOOD CITIZEN--THE
CONFIDANT--THE ALLEGED FORGERY--THE SENTENCE PROPOSED--THE
DEFENCE--THE KING AT HOME--DUTIES OF THE FAVOURITE--A MAN OF
COURAGE--THE ROYAL GIFT--BRANDT'S LETTER TO HIS JUDGES--A MODEST
REQUEST--HURRIED PROCEEDINGS.
On the same day that the Fiscal General Wiwet handed in his indictment
of Struensee, he delivered to the commission his charges against Count
Brandt, which were to the following effect:--
THE INDICTMENT OF COUNT BRANDT.
As concerns the second principal prisoner, Count Enevold Brandt,
we cannot say of him that he undertook something which he did not
understand, but he has committed actions in which he ought not to have
allowed himself to be used.
I have already most submissively stated how he, after being dismissed
from court, again returned to it; that it took place through the
intercession of Count Struensee, who required a person in whom he could
trust, who was bound to him, and who would neither betray Struensee's
enterprises, nor allow other persons to betray them. It was his function,
therefore, to pay attention to everything that his royal Majesty
undertook, in word and in deed, and to prevent any one having access to
the king who did not belong to the party.
The attendance of the valets was for this purpose shortened. On the other
hand, the king was to receive every morning the visit of a doctor, who
gave him powders, although there was nothing the matter with his Majesty,
and, as valet Torp stated, lit. F., p. 52, his Majesty was just as
healthy as he had been before, and demanded no attendance from a doctor.
This doctor, Professor Berger, who, as the chosen instrument of Counts
Struensee and Brandt, there can be no doubt indulged in thoughts about
great posts of honour to be acquired in Denmark, allowed himself to
be employed in incommoding his Majesty every morning. The two other
physicians in ordinary, Etats-rath von Berger and Piper, could not be
induced to do such useless things; and hence we see that Professor Berger
did not go solely on account of his Majesty's health, but in order that
the morning hour might be spent with him, the confidant of the counts.
It is not easy to understand how Count Brandt, of whom it must be
confessed that he possessed common sense, and might have been useful to
the king and country as a native, allowed himself to be persuaded to
become a promoter of the Struensian undertakings. Nor is it possible to
discover what could induce him, as a person of rank and family, to deny
that _hauteur_ which is generally observed toward people of low origin,
unless it was caused by an unbounded desire for honours and wealth, and
that he consequently behaved like those who consort with, and are the
accomplices of, thieves.
If Count Brandt, as he says and writes, wished to leave the court and
go on his travels, if only an income of 1,000 dollars were allowed
him, because he saw that his remaining would do him no good, why did
he remain? Why did he not say to his Majesty that he did not wish to
stay at court any longer? What Count Brandt alleges, therefore, is only
a subterfuge; and what he states in his memorials to Count Struensee
is not earnestness, but merely threats against Count Struensee, who
must effect that which Count Brandt desired to attain, as is visible
from the fact that Count Struensee appears to have employed soothing
language. For if Count Brandt regarded his position at court as a Hell
(his own expression), he was at liberty to get rid of it by sending in
his resignation. But it was not meant seriously. Hence he is not to be
excused for accepting a post of which himself says:--"Mais je le force
de vivre avec moi et pour comble de disgrâce je suis encore obligé à le
(the king) traiter durement, à ce qu'il l'appelle pour qu'il ne devient
insolent vis-à-vis de la Reine, et si cela arrive par hazard j'en porte
la faute: cela tout seul est un Enfer." In this position with his royal
Majesty he has proved himself guilty of the following capital crimes:--
I.
After free consideration and consultation he went in to the king his
master, and then challenged, abused, attacked, beat, and bit his Majesty.
This is certainly unheard of, and, I must say of this deed, "animus
meminisse horret luctuque refugit." But it happened so, and Count
Brandt's own confession and the statements of the witnesses confirm it.
Count Brandt confessed before the commission that he--after his royal
Majesty one day at breakfast had said something which he, Count
Brandt, considered insulting, and his Majesty had thrown a lemon at
him--consulted with Count Struensee on the matter, who advised him to
go to the king and demand satisfaction. In consequence of this, after
laying a riding-whip previously in a pianoforte standing in the king's
ante-chamber, in order to threaten the king with it, he went into the
king's cabinet, challenged, assaulted, and maltreated him. (_V._ his
confession, lit. F., pp. 309 and 322.)
This confession is confirmed by his Majesty's own declaration to valet
Schleel, who, on the morning after the assault, came to his Majesty,
and saw that the king's neck was scratched; by the statements of valet
Brieghil, page of the bed-chamber Schack, valet Torp, and also by the
evidence of the negro boy Moranti. From all this it is indisputably fully
proved that Count Brandt laid hands on his Majesty in order to insult
him--an awful deed, as King David says in the second book of Samuel,
chap, i., vv. 14, 15, 16: "How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth
thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed? * * * * Thy blood be on thine
own head."
It is true that Count Brandt has tried to excuse this audacious deed,
partly by the assurance that such things were frequently done to his
Majesty by Count Holck and Warnstedt, partly by asserting that his royal
Majesty has forgiven him this crime. But even if, as regards the first
apology, we were to assume for a moment that such audacious deeds were
really done by Count Holck and Von Warnstedt, this cannot exculpate Count
Brandt, who was not justified in acting thus because another before
him had committed these crimes and escaped punishment. And as regards
the second excuse, his royal Majesty never forgave him his crime, for
the witnesses I have mentioned declare, that after this occurrence his
Majesty could not endure Count Brandt, and was afraid of being attacked
by him; that his Majesty locked his door on the following night, which
was not usually the case, and thus revealed that his Majesty had not
forgiven Count Brandt the offence, and also that his Majesty ordered page
Schack[1] to denounce Count Brandt's treatment of him to this commission,
which would not have happened had the offence been pardoned. Although
such conduct toward a king can never meet with an apology, still, if
the assault had been made at the moment when Count Brandt considered
himself insulted, and if it might appear that he had undertaken it in an
outburst of excitement, a good deal might still be said against it. But
in this case, where he goes in to his king after reflection, and in cold
blood, orders out the persons present, so that there may be no witnesses
of the improper deed, locks the door, in order that no one may afford
assistance, seizes the king round the neck, threatens him with death; and
when he at length lets him loose, after the king has spoken soothingly,
threatens him that another time he shall not get off so cheaply; and,
in addition, abuses the king, as himself is obliged to confess--nothing
can be brought forward as the slightest excuse for him; he is a child of
death, and one of the greatest criminals that ever trod the earth. He has
acted against his oath, which commands him to risk his life and blood for
his king and the defence of his life; but exactly contrary to this oath
he attacks his king, and in such a way that the latter suffers a loss of
blood.
It is of no avail in his excuse that he alleges his royal Majesty
assaulted him first, unless this occurred at a time when his Majesty was
angry with him, and he merely defended himself, which is human; but still
could not be permitted to any subject against his king. But that he goes
in to the king at a time when he had no duties to perform, and only in
order to say harsh things to the king; that he goes in to terrify the
king; that he abuses him; that he defies the king,--all this leaves him
no other mode of escape but his statement, that the king assaulted him
first. But, in my opinion, every man who suffers such treatment in his
own house has the right to regale a man with a cudgel who comes into his
room for the purpose of prostituting him, and how much more so a king. If
his Majesty had killed him, Count Brandt, on the spot, it would have been
his well-merited reward, and could have been answered before God and man.
As concerns Count Brandt's general behaviour toward his royal Majesty;
for instance, his going in to the king in his _peignoir_, remaining with
his Majesty with his hat on, or entering the king's room while playing
the flute, this is really such conduct as no master would put up with
from his servant, much less a king from his subject.
Count Brandt, it is true, apologises for all this by saying that his
Majesty would have it so, and that the same thing was done in the time
of earlier servants in an even more indifferent way. But the former is
only a proof of his Majesty's gentleness and kindness, which do not like
to express what a man ought to say to himself, and the latter gives him
no right; for must I be a churl because my predecessor was one? In this
matter I could mention several instances of bad conduct on the part of
Count Brandt in treating his royal Majesty contemptuously. But as the
great crime swallows up all the rest, it is unnecessary to mention them
here, and so make the trial longer. _Crimine ab uno discimus omnia._
I will, therefore, now proceed to Count Brandt's second capital offence.
II.
Count Brandt has broken the fidelity which he owed to the king his master
by virtue of the oath he took to his Majesty, by being an accomplice in
the improper intercourse and intimacy which Count Struensee had acquired
with the person to whom he certainly owed reverence and affection, but
no tenderness. Count Brandt confesses this, and that Count Struensee
confided it to him is proved by his, Brandt's, own confession, lit. a,
pp. 40 and 41. It is true that Count Struensee, in his declaration, lit.
a, p. 50, will not quite admit Count Brandt's statement; but no doubt
can be possible when we remember that Count Brandt was placed about his
Majesty to prevent other persons having access to the king, in order that
Count Struensee might have the better opportunity to play his part. What
could induce Count Struensee to share the booty with him, and to allow
him to rise in honour equally with himself, unless it were done to render
him, Brandt, faithful, silent, and attentive?
That Count Brandt was cognizant of this illicit familiarity is
furthermore shown by Count Struensee's reply to Count Brandt's letter,
in which we read: "Je n'ai partagé avec personne la confiance que je
vous ai donné: vous êtes le seul qui possède mes secrets, et à qui je
m'explique sur tous les objets sans reserve." Count Brandt, generally
as a subject, and specially as a royal official, Danish count and
chamberlain, was commanded by the law to promote the king's welfare
and prevent his detriment by his utmost efforts. Hence two duties were
offered him: either to reveal the affair to the king, or to observe to
the guilty party that such things must not be allowed; to oppose such a
disgusting life, and threaten to reveal it to the king. I fancy I can
hear a sincere friend of the king and of the honour of the royal family
speaking thus to Count Struensee: "Audacious traitor and most impudent of
the human race! you who ought to recognise and honour the supremacy and
majesty, turn back from your impudence, and know that I, even through my
birth, am bound to avert everything that entails the dishonour of the
house of the king and his family." I believe that such language would
have had more effect than all the memoirs. But, unhappily, money flowed,
which Count Brandt needed; and hence he did not dare say, "May you be
damned with your money!" I certainly see that I may be answered: "Why did
not others do so? Why did the Fiscal General himself neglect it?" But to
this it may be answered: "No one knew so much about it as Count Brandt.
No one was so near the king as he; he kept every one away from the king,
for the purpose that his royal Majesty might learn nothing about it
from one or the other." But it was his duty, as he was always about the
king, and was accurately acquainted with everything. If he were, on the
contrary, to object that such matters did not concern him, although he
is forced to confess having warned Count Struensee of what happened to
them both on January 17, still he could have learned from Councillor of
Chancery Blechinberg and his wife, and Mesdames Schiötte and Buch, what
his duty was, and what he ought to have done. But as he not only omitted
to do this, but did everything that lay in his power to prevent the
affair reaching the king, and as Count Struensee has been found guilty in
this matter of an assault on the king's supremacy, Count Brandt must be
regarded as an accomplice, and punished in accordance with the paragraph
of the law 6--4--14.
III.
In the same way as Count Brandt displayed faithlessness toward his king
in the previous point, he furthermore showed it in the following affair,
by joining Count Struensee in robbing the royal treasury of various sums
of money.
It is an easy matter for a person who is daily with his king, and in
such a manner that no one else can reach him, to grow rich. But such
an enterprise cannot be so easily excused, even if there be the king's
assent to it, for the king's favour must be as little abused in money
matters as in other things. To pocket a sum of 60,000 dollars for so
short a period of service, because he annoyed the king, and waited on
him, not to his comfort, but to his vexation and that of others, seems
to denote audacity and impudence as well as slight reflection. To
appropriate so large a sum in so short a time, while the land was sunk in
debt, and seventy thousand human beings must contribute to it from their
poverty, and save it out of their food, was not a wise action on the part
of a man who wished to be regarded as a patriot. But his royal Majesty
did not give Count Brandt any such sum; but Count Struensee procured it
for him by converting 6,000 dollars into 60,000.
I produce here the questions laid before Count Brandt in respect to this
matter, and his answers. From these we learn that Count Brandt declares
he first received 10,000 dollars and afterwards 60,000, although he
alleges it was only 50,000, and lastly, at the new year, in addition to
300 dollars, 3,000 more.
Count Brandt is obliged himself to confess that there appears to him
something strange and very suspicious in the document in which credit
is taken for the 60,000 dollars, and which I have discussed more amply
in the indictment of Count Struensee. Count Brandt does not deny having
received the money, and that he gave no receipt for it, but thanked the
king for it, though without mentioning the amount. If we now take into
consideration what I said about this in my accusation against Count
Struensee, not the slightest doubt can exist that Count Brandt was an
accomplice in this audacious deed, and therefore was guilty of the crime
of forgery.
These are the principal crimes of Count Brandt as regards his own person.
In addition, he took part in all the crimes which Count Struensee
committed; he had confidants and instruments to set in work everything
that Count Struensee wished, instead of acting in accordance with his
oath and his duty, and avoiding those things which he knew would have
evil results. I may be permitted to regard it as superfluous to enter
more fully into these matters, as they are well known to the exalted
commission, and I have sufficient proofs for my proposed sentence, which
I most submissively offer for decision in the following terms:--
"That Count Chamberlain Enevold Brandt, who has not only forgotten the
most submissive veneration which he owed to the king his master, but
also had the audacity to go into the king's cabinet, and then not only
address his supreme royal Majesty in bad language, but also to commit
the most audacious and unheard-of deed of laying hands on his lord the
king, the anointed of God, as an insult to his royal Majesty, as well
as behaved in many points unfaithfully to his Majesty, and consented to
many things against his better knowledge, although his royal Majesty had
shown him great favour,--be condemned by virtue of the paragraphs of
the law 6--4--1--14, to forfeit his dignity as count and his office of
chamberlain as well as his honour, life and estate; that after his coat
of arms has been broken by the executioner, his right hand shall be cut
off while alive, the body quartered and exposed on the wheel, his head
and hands affixed to a pole, his fortune confiscated to the king, and his
heirs, should he possess any, lose their rank and name."
_April_ 21, 1772.
F. W. WIWET.
* * * * *
As regards Brandt's confession of a knowledge of the familiarity between
the queen and Struensee, it is probable that Brandt was persuaded that
his life depended on what he might say about the _liaison_. What other
motive could he have had for making such a confession? If Brandt had
merely declared, like Berger and others, that he had suspicions on
the subject, it would have been of no use. Something positive being
required, he declared that he was informed of it. How could he be so? Was
it by Struensee, who concealed nothing from him?
But Struensee, instead of acknowledging this confidence, absolutely
denied it, and no confrontation was ventured. Again, if Brandt's
declaration was correct, why did Struensee repulse it so loudly? It
appears indisputable that he did so because it was false.
And the position in which Brandt placed himself by yielding to the
solicitations of the commissioners was very probably the cause of his
ruin. The mysteries of this trial must be buried with him. Without this
motive, what interest could there have been in destroying a man like
Brandt? Was there a shadow of justice in condemning him to death for
things which were quite common with the king?
Two days after this wretched indictment, which was merely handed in to
the commission as a matter of form, the defence was delivered by Advocate
Bang to the same judges, and was to the following effect:--
BANG'S DEFENCE OF COUNT BRANDT.
By the most gracious commands of his royal Majesty, of March 23,
which are attached to this under lit. A, I shall lay before this high
commission Count Brandt's defence--not the defence of the actions of
which he is accused, but his defence in so far as the accusations are
incorrect.
It must reasonably insult Count Brandt to find that he whom his Majesty,
through his own special favour, and as a reward for his faithful services
to his king and master, raised to the rank of Count, selected for his
daily intimate society, and honoured with many superfluous proofs of
favour and confidence,--that he, I say, should see himself condemned
to lose his dignity of count, his honour, life, and fortune, and have
his body ill-treated by the executioner. But, according to his own
declaration, made to me, his defender, neither his death, his disgrace,
nor his torture, will be so painful to him as the sole idea that he has
failed in the most submissive reverence, willingness, devotion, and
fidelity, which his duty to his king and benefactor commanded, and by
which he would have descended below humanity, and, so to speak, have
borrowed a model of his actions from the evil spirits. If his conscience
reproached him on these points, the bodily punishments would be no
torture as compared with this grief; but he has, with a calm conscience,
and unassailed by its gnawings, listened to the charges brought against
him, and requested me to bring forward the following in his defence:--
_Ad Præliminaria._
The Fiscal General accuses Count Brandt (_a_) that by Count Struensee's
regulation, and in _liaison_ with him, he was employed at court after his
foreign tour, so that Count Struensee might have in him a man in whom he
could trust, who would neither betray his designs, nor allow any one else
to reveal them; (_b_) that Count Brandt kept people from the king who did
not belong to the party; (_c_) that he shortened the attendance of the
valets on the king's person, and, instead of it, arranged that Professor
Berger, contrary to the king's wish, should wait on his Majesty in the
mornings for the purpose of giving him powders, which were innocent,
however; and (_d_) that he compelled the king to live with him, and
treated him harshly.
Count Brandt has never regarded it as a crime to have allowed himself
to be recommended to his Majesty by the man to whom the king granted
his favour and confidence. What he attained through Struensee's
recommendation was only a continuation of what Privy Councillors Saldern
and Bernstorff had begun. The aforesaid post was neither given him to
keep things secret, nor to conceal from the king things which, according
to the Fiscal General's opinion, his Majesty must not be allowed to know.
As it is not specially mentioned what the things were which must be
concealed from the king, while the counsel only appears to refer to that
which is alleged under the third chief point, I will reserve my special
reply to it, and here content myself with offering a general denial to
the general statement. I do not know what sort of party it was of which
the Fiscal General speaks when he says that Count Brandt prevented
persons having access to the king who were not useful to the party. He
probably supposes a party which was opposed to the king or the welfare of
the country; but as he does not state of what persons the assumed party
was composed, the nature of their actions, what designs they entertained,
or by what means they were to be realised, I am here dispensed from the
obligation of answering this specially, and can content myself with the
remark that there was no such party hostile to the king and country so
far as came to Count Brandt's knowledge. He certainly had the permission
to be near the king's person, but had neither the power nor the wish to
keep any one away from his Majesty; and the Fiscal General has not been
able to mention a single person of sufficient dignity to have access to
the king, and who was refused it by Count Brandt. I must remark here that
the king was lord and master, and had merely to command by a sign who was
to come and who to go, and how long each was to remain, in which Count
Brandt never opposed the king's will.
Had the king wished that the valets should remain longer with his
Majesty, Count Brandt would not have prevented him; and this charge can
the less be brought against him, as it can be seen from valet Schleel's
evidence, how it had been ordered long before that not the valet, but Von
Warnstedt, who formerly occupied Count Brandt's post, should dress and
undress the king; and after Count Brandt, the black boys were ordered to
perform this duty. Equally little can Professor Berger's morning visits
be brought as a charge against Count Brandt, even if they had had evil
consequences; while, on the contrary, the powders which the king took
did not impair his health. Berger paid these visits so long as the king
was willing to accept them; but when his Majesty no longer desired them,
Berger kept away.
The words in Count Brandt's letter to Count Struensee, which the Fiscal
General treats as a crime, have been so fully explained by Count Brandt's
reply to questions 92 and 93, p. 120 of the examination, that I have
nothing to add but refer to it, and this explanation deprives that
passage in the letter of all the harshness which might otherwise be
found in it. With what right Count Brandt could be accused of having an
understanding with Count Struensee, and of striving to sustain him, is
proved by his explanation to questions 64, 65, and 68 of the examination,
in which he gives a full account how he had resolved to overthrow Count
Struensee, from the time when he perceived the encroachments of the
latter; that he consulted with Count von der Osten about this operation,
by which Count Struensee was to be placed under arrest at Kronborg--a
proposal which was not carried into effect, solely through an earlier,
riper, and more successful interruption. As regards this disposition, the
count has appealed to the testimony of Privy Councillor von der Osten,
and I am convinced that this statement of Count Brandt has been imparted
to his excellency, who has not disavowed it. Count Brandt's letter to
Struensee, and the answer of the latter, which have been produced by
the Fiscal General, prove how little desire Count Brandt had to enter
into Count Struensee's views; that his whole conduct and thought was
to surrender the post which he occupied, and to be allowed to quit the
court. There is further evidence of this in the fact that when Count
Struensee offered him the ministerial post of Privy Councillor von
der Osten, he refused it, and preferred retirement from court to this
pleasant office. All this destroys the charges which the Fiscal General
has alleged in the preliminary part of his indictment of Count Brandt.
_Ad possum 1mum._
"According to the Fiscal General, Count Brandt, of his free will, and
after due reflection, went in to his master the king and challenged,
abused, attacked, and bit him."
If Count Brandt performed this execrable deed in the way the Fiscal
General represents it, his righteous king would not have hesitated
a moment to have had him thrown into fetters, and given him his
well-merited reward--the hardest death. His Majesty, however after this
event is stated to have occurred, namely, at the end of September, for
several months admitted him to his presence as before, and granted him
his most gracious daily intercourse, which satisfactorily proves that his
royal Majesty did not regard the aforesaid occurrence as criminal.
Count Brandt, for his part, equally little regarded it as audacious,
either when the affair occurred, or afterwards. For, just as he described
it, in its full details, in presence of the commission, when nothing
could induce him to do so but the innocence which, according to his
opinion, lay in the whole affair, if the circumstances connected with
it were taken into consideration in the same way, his open confession
proves the confidence he placed in his innocence, as the affair could
not be proved by witnesses; and the man who knows himself to be innocent
is never criminal. This confession of Count Brandt, therefore, must, as
the sole existing proof in the affair, be registered as credible, just
as well in those passages where it speaks for his acquittal as where it
serves to testify against him.
From this deposition, which perfectly agrees with Count Struensee's
statement before the commission on March 21, we see what in this strange
affair speaks in Count Brandt's defence. We must, therefore, regard
in the first instance the peculiar circumstance that his Majesty the
King, for the sake of enjoying the pleasures of private intercourse, as
people of equal rank carry it on together--although the "sweetness" of
such intercourse usually shuns thrones--commanded that the man whom
he selected as his intimate should not consort with him as the king,
but as his equal, or as one friend with the other. If Count Brandt,
through submissive respect, addressed him differently, the king answered
sarcastically, "Most submissive knave," in order to remind him of the
commands which had been given, that Count Brandt in daily intercourse
should forget he was the king, just as one of his Majesty's ancestors, of
most revered memory used to act, and at times remarked, "Now the king is
not at home;" and, again, when the free conversation was to have an end,
"The king is at home again now."[2] But his present Majesty never would
be at home, so to speak, for the man he had admitted to his intimacy, but
demanded equality.
From those men selected for his constant society, the king demanded what
is understood by the term _un homme fait_, that they should be smart
fellows, and before all, have their heart in the right place, of which
they must furnish a proof if he desired it, and he could not on any
terms endure cowards, because such disgusted his heroic nature. As now
his Majesty had seen no proof of this good quality from Count Brandt,
not even after many inducements had been given, because Count Brandt
always held back, his Majesty most effectually forced them from him by
threatening to cudgel him in the presence of the queen, Struensee, and
other persons. Count Brandt, who regarded this as a real sign of the
king's disfavour, fell into a state of desperation about it, until he was
informed by Struensee, who had spoken with the king on the subject, that
his Majesty's wishes and most gracious intentions were only directed to
obtain a proof of Brandt's courage. It was for this reason that Count
Brandt one evening, without feeling the slightest anger, went into
the king, and, after ordering out the lad, who was not to witness the
sport, stated to the king that he had been told by Count Struensee that
his Majesty wished him to prove himself a man of courage, and to do so
against the king. His Majesty, far from being offended at such a scene on
the part of Count Brandt, "admitted" him, in accordance with his given
order, at once to a fight, and the king himself made the first five or
six attacks. This would have assuredly taken a very different course if
the king had regarded it as an insult. On this occasion, his Majesty
involuntarily thrust a finger into Count Brandt's mouth, which the latter
quite as innocently seized with his teeth. The defence followed the
attack: the king demanded of Count Brandt, _presta te virum_. Upon this
Count Brandt seized the king by the coat, thrust him against the wall,
and thus proved that he was stronger than the king; and with this the
whole affair ended.
Count Brandt persistently denies having beaten the king, or audaciously
raised his hand against his Majesty; he only proved himself to be strong
and brave, without seriousness or passion, by his Majesty's commands.
His Majesty's own most gracious conduct to Count Brandt also proves that
everything passed off without anger and annoyance, as his Majesty showed
the count the signal favour of kissing him on the spot, and requesting
him to remain and kill the time with conversation, which Count Brandt
did by the king's orders, and all of which points to the disposition of
their minds, and proves that they were not excited, as is also confirmed
by Count Struensee's statement in the examination of March 21, that
Count Brandt, when he went in to the king, was not at all irritated,
but perfectly calm. After this time his Majesty also promoted him to
be _grand maître de la garderobe_, and carried on his confidential
intercourse with him for several months as before, all of which speaks
for the nature of this affair. In Count Brandt's heart reigned no
bitterness against the king, and no contempt: trembling from veneration,
he performed the action which he would have regarded as audacious, had
it not been for the king's command. It is true that Count Brandt, a few
days previously, laid a riding whip upon a pianoforte standing in the
king's ante-chamber, but only did so thoughtlessly, which he afterwards
regretted, and as ill-deeds consist in actions carried out but not in
inconsiderate designs, this occurrence cannot be reckoned as a crime on
the part of Count Brandt.
If Count Brandt employed some expressions against the king which,
according to the strict letter, would be highly criminal, he only
employed them in the tone of all the rest, and consequently only in jest.
I pass over the statements of the witnesses examined, as these people
neither heard nor saw the occurrence, but only testify what they heard
said about it. On the other hand, the declaration which his Majesty laid
before the commission, through his page of the chamber Schack, is of the
extremest importance. I read it to Count Brandt, and he has requested me
to make the following explanation about it:--
"He did not remember this 'passage' in the way that it flowed from the
page's lips: he considers himself too insignificant to contradict a
declaration which emanated from the king his master, and only emboldens
himself in dust and fetters to mention, that if his Majesty were most
graciously disposed to take this affair seriously, as the declaration
made by page of the chamber Schack appears to intimate, he regards
himself as lost, and will not from this moment attempt any further
justification, but will at once throw himself at his Majesty's feet, and
seek his salvation in the king's clemency; but in the most submissive
confidence in his Majesty's mercy, he would venture most humbly to remind
him of the circumstances already mentioned."
As concerns the charge which the Fiscal General derives from the fact
that Count Brandt at times went to the king playing the flute, and
with his hat on his head, and also in his _peignoir_, Count Brandt
acknowledges that this did occur when he returned from the chase and
was heated, but that it was not done through contempt of the king, but
because his Majesty preferred such conduct, and never evinced any anger
at it. He also dared to appear before the king in his _peignoir_, which
consisted of a cloth surtout, because it was his Majesty's wish that he
should come in the dress he was wearing when the king summoned him.
_Ad passum_ 2_dum_.
"That Count Brandt did not reveal to the king the improper intercourse
which is said to have taken place between the queen and Struensee, by
which he has rendered himself guilty of the punishment which the law
dictates for this in 6--4--14."
Although Count Brandt felt morally convinced of this improper intercourse
between the queen and Count Struensee, still he possessed no juridical
proof of it, much less such proofs as he could at once have produced in
his defence against the denial of the guilty parties. And what might
Count Brandt have reasonably expected if he had alleged such a crime
against a reigning queen, who at that time possessed the king's heart,
which would have disturbed the king, shamed the queen, and dishonoured
the royal house? In that case, 6--4--1 of the law would have been proper
for him, even if he could have proved his denunciation instantly. If,
for his own part, he could have proved this crime with his life, he
would, probably, not have spared his life. Things, however, under the
circumstances, remained as they were. Count Brandt would have been a
ruined man, without amending the business; and if such a sort of silence
were a neck-breaking crime, only few persons in the country would retain
their heads.
_Ad passum_ 3_tium_.
"That Count Brandt has been guilty of the crime of forgery."
Whatever forgery Count Struensee may have committed, it does not affect
Count Brandt. Even if Count Struensee may have converted the sum of
6,000 dollars, approved by the king into 60,000, Count Brandt knows
nothing about it. Count Brandt has not acknowledged this, and it has
not been proved against him, nor did he receive 60,000 dollars all at
once; but, on one occasion, 10,000 dollars, for which the king's note is
still in existence; and the other 50,000 dollars were paid him by Baron
Schimmelmann, and, according to Count Struensee's statement, were a
present to him from the king. Count Brandt thanked the king for this, who
answered him, "It was but fair he should give him a _douceur_, as he was
always with him." Count Brandt never asked for this sum, and if it was
given him by the king, he could not refuse it, the less so as, through
his daily intercourse with the royal family, he was compelled to play
high, in which he lost considerable sums. Count Brandt even declared on
this occasion that if the king were indisposed to grant such large sums,
he was ready to give the money back.
From all this I believe I have proved that the crimes alleged against
Count Brandt are exaggerated. I must therefore most submissively request
that Count Enevold Brandt may be acquitted from the accusation of the
Fiscal General.
In all the rest he submits himself to the clemency of his most gracious
king.
O. L. BANG.
_April_ 23, 1772.
So little did Brandt comprehend the danger of his position, that he
sent to the judges the following letter, in which, as Reverdil justly
remarks, the Don Quixotism, levity, and inconsequence of his character
are displayed in a manner which would be ridiculous under any other
circumstances:--
COUNT BRANDT'S PETITION.
"_Pro Memoriâ._"
I send you, my judges, a letter to his Majesty,[3] and leave it to you,
when you have read it and this pro memoriâ, whether you will then think
proper to have it delivered to the king or not. What I now write to you
is in the same manner no document which I wish to be placed with the
rest, or to be regarded as if it belonged to my trial.
The letter to the king is rather badly written, but the pens given me
were very bad. I beg the king's forgiveness, as I now know that in all
cases, none excepted, it is the duty of a subject to humiliate himself
before his monarch. Previously a flashing sword would not have brought me
to do so.
My letter could be more imploring and submissive, but I did not believe
that this would please his Majesty. I employ the expression which the
king so frequently used: "That no one knew so much about his affairs as I
did." This he was accustomed to say to me when he was in a good temper,
and I hope thus to recall his thoughts. He often added, that no one bore
such a resemblance to him as myself; but I have omitted this expression,
as the words would be too bold. I should prefer that this letter should
be read to the king at a favourable moment, than that he should read it
first himself.
I find it natural that a double doubt will arise with you, my judges, and
with all to whom you may show this letter:
(1) Does Brandt deserve, from the nature of the affair, that the king
should pardon him fully? and
(2) What more does he want?
With the same frankness with which I have explained myself during
the whole of my trial, I can assert, that you would at once feel the
heartiest compassion, if it were feasible to bring my affair entirely to
light, partly by summoning fresh witnesses, partly by cross-examining
those who have been heard: but I do not wish this, even though it might
cost me life and liberty. I will only mention a few slight but important
circumstances, which might induce you to believe that I must feel a
bitterness against the king:
(1) That I am said to have bitten the king's finger. My statement proves
that I did not hear of it till afterwards. Consequently, it was not done
_animo nocendi_, but was a natural movement for a man to close his mouth
when his tongue was caught hold of, and as soon as I perceived it, I
asked for pardon. The king tapped me on the cheek, and said: "It does not
hurt."
(2) I myself mentioned that I laid a riding whip on the pianoforte, with
the intention of taking it in with me to the king: but could that have
been known without my frankness? and woe to us, if every thought were to
be punished!
(3) On this occasion I employed improper language to the king, although
not that of which I am accused: but in the melancholy alternative of
displaying my courage either in words or deeds, I chose the former.
(4) An important circumstance, which rendered a proof of such courage
rather necessary, was that the king often said: "If I was certain you
were a coward, I would post myself behind the door and kill you."
(5) But why was the king so angry? Solely because, from that time, I was
more serious and submissive than before, which I did to render the king
more reserved, but which had the effect that he supposed I disliked him;
and a temper, which has been once rendered captious, soon places the
worst construction upon everything.
(6) I declare before God, who knows my heart, that a similar scene never
occurred before or afterwards. The king once threw his glove in my face:
I stooped, picked it up, and said: "Why do you do that? I am really not
cross with you;" and with this he was satisfied.
(7) That I never regarded this occurrence as anything but a joke, the
result of youth and eccentricity, is seen from the fact that when the
commission began sitting, I was not aware of my offence.
In this way I believe I have answered all doubts. I am quite ready to
die, and to endure all the punishments that are imposed upon me. It is
God's chastening hand, which I have deserved: but I consider it my duty
to speak this once.
His Majesty was angry with me: hence, I was imprisoned; hence, I was put
in fetters. I can offer no objection to this: I kiss the hand that smites
me, but the hand which smites me can also let loose and forgive, in the
same way as Henri IV. frequently forgave much greater offences. Even
should you consider that this is too great mercy, and if you wish that
I should humiliate myself, personally, before his Majesty, I should not
regard such a thing at all as a disgrace.
Oh! my judges, if you would only see what my situation with the king was!
and would you could feel as greatly, but forget quite as quickly, what
my present position is! Your eyes would assuredly shed tears, and your
hearts would be moved by the sincerest compassion! I commend my cause to
the hands of God, and beg you for what I have no occasion to beg, namely,
to follow your own convictions: with that I shall be perfectly satisfied.
In the letter to his Majesty, I have begged to be allowed to pass my days
in peace, and by that I mean a bailiwick in a remote province. I do not
know whether such a post is vacant, of which I might entertain hopes, but
I know that Bailiff Arnholdt, of Bramstedt[4] (in Holstein) has long
wished himself away from there, and that this post is one of the worst.
Further my wishes do not extend, and what right could I have to ask!
BRANDT.
_Frederikshaven, April_ 14, 1772.
The drama of the great trial rapidly approached the catastrophe after the
charges against Struensee and Brandt were delivered to the commissioners
on April 21. Struensee's defence followed on the 22nd; the Fiscal
General's reply and Brandt's defence on the 23rd; and so early as the
25th the sentences were promulgated. In Brandt's trial a reply was not
even considered necessary, for the accuser had announced this to be
superfluous in his sentence, _ab uno discimus omnia_. But the orders
from the highest quarters were for the greatest possible speed, and the
length of the sentence proves that it had been drawn up beforehand. That
two human lives were at stake, was only so far taken into consideration
as it was necessary to prove two judicial murders justifiable by every
resource of sophistry; but how little the venal judges succeeded in doing
so, will be seen from a perusal of the memorable documents which are here
published for the first time without any abbreviation.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: To form an idea of the pretended denunciation made by
the king to the commission, it is only necessary to observe that page
Schack, who was the intermediary, received for this gratifications and an
employment whose appointments amounted to 4,000 crowns a-year.--_Mémoires
de Falckenskjold_, p. 214.]
[Footnote 2: An allusion to King Frederick III., who was fond of the
bowl, and in his orgies permitted a general fraternity. In reference to
this remark of the advocate, Mr. Wraxall says (in his "Northern Tour"):
"This seems more like the speech of an Englishman than a Dane, and
breathes a manly and unfettered spirit."]
[Footnote 3: This letter no longer exists, and was, in all probability,
suppressed by the commission.]
[Footnote 4: On this point Reverdil writes: "The bailiwick of Bramstedt,
bordering that held by M. Brandt the elder, was situated in the
southernmost province of the kingdom, and near Hamburg. This remote
province, consequently, suited him better than any other, and what he
solicited as an exile, and to some extent as the equivalent of a capital
punishment, would have been to any other person a very considerable
recompense, and the end desired by some old servant of the state for a
life usefully devoted to the advantage of the country."]