CHAPTER X.

THE QUEEN'S DEFENCE.

CAROLINE MATILDA'S FEELINGS--ADVOCATE ULDALL--THE DEFENCE--THE QUEEN'S INNOCENCE--A FAIR TRIAL DEMANDED--CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE--THE LAW OF ADULTERY--VALUE OF EVIDENCE--STRUENSEE'S FAVOUR--FRAULEIN VON EYBEN--TRIFLES LIGHT AS AIR--THE QUEEN'S ATTENDANTS--A FLAW IN THE ARGUMENT--REVERDIL'S APPEAL--THE SENTENCE.

So soon as Advocate Bang had concluded his indictment, the queen's advocate, Uldall, requested an adjournment of the court for eight or ten days, so that he might have sufficient time to consult with his exalted client about the defence to be offered. This being granted, Uldall proceeded to Kronborg, where he had a long, important, and affecting consultation with the queen. The unfortunate princess was standing, at a tender age, and adorned with all the gifts which could have ensured permanent felicity, on the verge of an abyss, in which her honour, her dignity, her peace, would be swallowed up for ever. A single day might tear from her her husband, children, and throne: and she would survive this loss! what fearful reflections! The queen felt them in their full extent: her whole feeling was poured into the expressions in which she depicted to Uldall the terrible images that occupied her mind.

"I should be inconsolable," she said to him, "if the least of my actions could inflict injury on the king, or his monarchy. I was, perhaps, incautious, but never wicked: my sex, my age, the circumstances in which I was, must serve as my apology. I was ever too quiet against suspicion, and this tranquillity may have led me astray. The laws speak against me; I humbly honour their terrible meaning, and feel that they must speak against me from the lips of my judges. I trust that they will lose their sharpness in such mouths. The king, my consort, must confirm their sentence. Oh! then my whole hope springs into life again! He will not repulse me, he will not hurl me into endless misery."

The queen's tears and sighs frequently interrupted this affecting speech; and at last she found some rest, more in her own weakness than in any alleviation of the painfulness of her feelings. She addressed Uldall with greater calmness, and arranged with him the arguments he should employ in her defence.[77]

The second session of the Extraordinary Council was held on April 2, and the following defence was submitted:--

ULDALL'S DEFENCE OF QUEEN CAROLINE MATILDA.[78]

With unfeigned emotion I proceed to the fulfilment of the duty which the welfare of the queen, and the will of the king, impose on me.

The dignity of these exalted personages, the importance and consequences of the affair, the zealous wish to do my duty, and a reasonable apprehension that I shall not be able to do so properly, sufficiently justify my sorrow at being compelled to see the queen lay off her purple, descend from the throne, and, like the most wretched of women, seek protection from the law. Can there possibly be a more affecting example of the insecurity of human happiness? She, in whose person we do homage to the blood of so many kings, is suspected of having dishonoured it. She who gave the king her hand and heart, is accused by the man who, at that time, promised to be her lord and protector. She, who by the unanimous verdict of the nation, received the name of mother of the country, is tried by those men who at that day would have joyfully shed their blood for her. So unhappy is Queen Caroline Matilda, and she alone among all the Queens of Denmark! At an age, and gifted with all the qualities, which seemed to determine her felicity, she finds herself on the verge of an abyss, in which her honour, her dignity, and her peace may be lost. What a thought to lose her husband, her children, her throne, on the same day, and to survive the loss! Suspected, accused, in danger of leading the most wretched life for a long course of years: can there be anything more cruel for hearts that are capable of thinking and feeling? Thus the queen regards her fate, and she described it to me, when I had the honour of waiting upon her, in the following words:

"I must despair, had my intentions been other than the welfare of the king and the country. If I have possibly acted incautiously, my age, my sex, and my rank must excuse me. I never believed myself exposed to a suspicion, and even, though my confession appears to confirm my guilt, I know myself to be perfectly innocent. The law requires me to be convicted: my consort has granted me this, and I hope he will, through the mouth of his commissioners, acknowledge that I have not rendered myself unworthy of him."

I quote her Majesty's words exactly as she uttered them, but how much do I wish that I could reproduce the emotion with which they were spoken, the frankness that gave them increased weight, and the trembling voice, which justly claimed compassion. The latter, no one can refuse her without insulting humanity.

Among the charges brought against her Majesty, is the sanctity of the duties imposed on her by her marriage with her royal husband: it has been stated that the king's bed must remain unsullied, that his own honour, and the honour and prosperity of the country, require this. But these truths are so far from affecting the queen, that she demands the strictest investigation ere she can believe that she has acted contrariwise. The more important the duties she had to perform, the more fearful are the consequences of any infraction of them, and the more familiar the two parties were, the clearer must be the evidence that her Majesty has really committed a fault. We may first ask in which manner the honour of the king and his family will be best promoted? By proving the queen guilty, or must it not be sought in her innocence? Has her Majesty, perchance, never known and fulfilled what she owed to herself, her husband, and his people; or will it not rather be allowed that from the period when her accusation begins, she proved herself a tender mother, an affectionate wife, and a worthy queen? Can it be credited that her Majesty should so easily have forgotten herself? And can she, who at that day sought her delight in modesty, virtue, and the veneration and affection of the king and the country, have banished all noble feelings from her heart in a single moment?

Advocate Bang produces, in the king's name, three varieties of proofs against the queen: Count Struensee's statement, her Majesty's confession, and, as he knew that neither was sufficient, the evidence of witnesses.

Assuredly, Count Struensee, on February 17 and 25, as the documents prove, made a statement of a most insulting nature to her Majesty. But that he forgot the reverence due to the queen, that either through unfounded alarm, confusion of mind, or the hope of saving himself, if he could cause the queen to be regarded as interested in his affair, or for other reasons he has made absurd allegations, can only injure himself. For what belief can be given to the assurance that he, if the queen thought him worthy of her confidence, should have been so daring as to misuse it in so extreme a way, and that her Majesty should have tolerated it? The honour of a private person, much more that of a queen, could not be affected by it. And how improbable it is, that such a thing should have gone on for two whole years at court, under the eyes of the king, and in the presence of so many spies? They are accusations made by a prisoner not on his oath, and are utterly destitute of probability.

Advocate Bang allows that Count Struensee's declaration in itself is of no weight against the queen, and hence he tries to confirm it, partly by the acknowledgment which her Majesty made on March 9, as to the correctness of Struensee's declaration, partly through her answer that she had broken her marriage vows and, hence, lost her marriage rights, which he wishes to be regarded as perfect proof after the law 1--15--1. Certainly, in all civil causes, a confession is the most perfect form of proof: but in criminal matters, and such as we are now trying, the Danish code completely rejects this evidence, when it says: "It is not sufficient that the accused person should himself confess it, but the accuser must legally bring the accused before the court and properly prove the offence."

Other proofs, consequently, are requisite; and as it is his Majesty's wish that the law alone shall be followed in this cause, and the judgment be founded on the evidence, it is self-evident that the queen must have a claim to this benefit as much as the meanest of her subjects.

The letter of the law is clear, and does not admit of the slightest doubt. Hence it will be quite unnecessary to examine the motives which induced the Danish legislator to make this regulation. I will not speculate whether the respect and authority which the law grants to one sex over the other--fear of its abuse on the one hand and of excessive compliance on the other--an anxiety to prevent the dangerous consequences of precipitation and inattention, &c., may have had their share in it. As, however, the king's advocate remarks that her Majesty cannot appeal to this law, because it is based on two legal reasons, neither of which affects the queen, I must clear up the incorrectness of this conclusion. Though the law states that it is not enough for the accused party to make a confession, and adds: "Because it is often found that many persons make false statements, so that the one may get rid of the other, or injure the person with whom he or she declares to have committed a crime," I will humbly urge that these are not the sole motives why the law rejects a confession in this case, as is clearly shown; for it adds directly after the words quoted, "or for the sake of other things." Although, therefore, the law only mentions expressly some of the motives for its regulation, it is clear that it had various others in addition to these; and hence the benefit granted to the accused belongs to her Majesty equally in regard of the motives alleged in the law and of those unalleged, and she consequently claims it.[79]

I will now pass over to the third class of proofs, consisting of the statements of persons summoned by the prosecutor as witnesses.

Her Majesty has commanded me to declare that she does not desire them to be recalled and examined in my presence. But as I also have her commands to investigate the nature of this evidence and what it goes to prove, I am obliged to make some prefatory remarks.

It is a remarkable fact that not one of the witnesses examined alleges any other motive for the first suspicion against the queen but the town scandal which they had heard. It was not till it became universal that it was mentioned to the queen. As most of the witnesses were constantly about the queen's person, and yet, in her intercourse with and behaviour toward Struensee, found no reason to believe anything insulting to her, it is clear that the conduct of the queen must have been irreproachable, even at the time when apprehension existed. Everybody knows how deceptive reports are. Such a thing is often founded on nothing; and through its universal propagation alone acquires a certain strength and credibility. But however slippery its path may be, it leaves behind, even with the hardest of belief, the most cautious and best disposed, a suspicion which places the conduct of the persons affected by the report in a perfectly new and different light. The reason for the rumour may be true; the curiosity to acquire a certainty about it attracts attention to things which otherwise would be most innocent, but are now seriously weighed, and if anything equivocal is detected, a verdict is at once formed without any further investigation. It was the same with the witnesses in this case; for, although prior to the rumour they had no cause to suspect the queen, they no sooner learnt its existence than they discovered new evidence of it at every step.

This remark is the more important, as the chamber-people of the queen, after they had been informed of the rumour, did not observe those precautions which they should have done.

Instead of at once informing her Majesty, they made all sorts of investigations; and although they found no real criterion which could have confirmed the rumour, their prejudices were sufficiently active to make them regard everything with suspicion.

When her Majesty learnt this fact, she doubtless regarded it as a want of the fidelity they ought to have displayed, and of the good opinion they should have entertained of her. She consequently removed the witnesses from her immediate presence, and partly lost that perfect confidence which she had formerly placed in them. This annoyed the chamber-people, and naturally caused them to judge the actions of her Majesty even more sharply than before.

In the evidence of Frau Schiötte, we find two special instances of this: first, when she pretends that her Majesty's amendment lasted a fortnight after the warning, but that then the thing grew again worse than ever, although Frau Blechinberg says that she noticed nothing suspicious for some weeks after the time; and again, when Frau Schiötte employs the expression that her Majesty gave herself a great deal of trouble about the bolt of a door at Frederiksberg which would not fasten. That the queen had the bolt mended may have been caused by very innocent motives, especially as Frau Schiötte herself confesses that the chamber-people had no orders to close the bolt; but the expression that the queen "gave herself a deal of trouble," or "was wild about it," is excessively improper, and displays an animosity from which a witness ought to be exempt.

As her Majesty, therefore, had such keen observers in those who were about her person, it is not surprising that they should draw different conclusions, which served in confirmation of the ideas by which they were already preoccupied. No innocence is conceivable which would not succumb under such suspicious examination, and the law has foreseen the consequences of this, and recognised the fairness that every one should be safe in his own house and among his own servants. Hence it orders that "such witnesses should not be heeded."[80]

If we now ask what the facts are, by which an improper intimacy carried to extremes between the queen and Count Struensee can be proved from the evidence of the witnesses, the answer is--None. That the queen showed the count favour and confidence, cannot be denied. But who ever saw or heard that they went beyond the limits of honour? Where is the man who is able to say that the queen has broken the fidelity which she owed to her consort, or can mention a single fact which would prove the certainty of such a crime? And does not the silence of all about any convincing act prove the truth of maid Bruhn's answer to question 6, "that she never witnessed any impropriety on the part of the queen"?

Regarded generally, all the witnesses appeal to their own acts. They say, they concluded that Struensee was a long time with the queen, because they were not summoned; they fancied that the queen and Struensee were on familiar terms. But on what are these suppositions founded, except on rumour, and the power which it possessed over the imagination?

It is principally the favour which her Majesty showed to Count Struensee, that caused the suspicions of the witnesses and the conclusions derived from them. He was constantly about the queen, it is said, and in her company. But was he not also about the king, and must not the queen's confidence in him necessarily result from the confidence with which the king honoured him? In this respect the queen appeals in her justification to her consort's feelings, and what striking proofs of his Majesty's favour to Struensee are the offices which were entrusted to him, and the rank to which he was raised! He sought to acquire the queen's confidence in the same way as he had gained the king's. The fidelity which he always displayed toward the king, the attention he paid to the queen when she was unwell, and the devotedness he seemed to entertain, maintained an uninterrupted harmony between their Majesties, and more than all else the king's will, which was a law to the queen, made her believe that she could give Struensee her confidence without peril. His offices as cabinet secretary to the queen, and cabinet minister, required his constant presence, and hence it should not be surprising that he held a greater share of the queen's favour than any other man.

But, the counsel for the prosecution says, the queen is not solely accused on account of her intimacy with Count Struensee; the great point is, that it reached an extremity which dishonoured her consort, and, in order to prove this, he appeals to the evidence of the witnesses.

Before I go through the more material evidence, I must make the highly requisite remark, that a proof by witnesses, according to law, must be supported by not less than two persons on oath, whose statements agree, and who can with certainty give evidence in one and the same matter. In accordance with this, the proofs of the learned counsel must be placed in two general categories; some of them cannot, according to law, be accepted as evidence at all, while others do not prove what they are intended to prove.

To the first class belong especially the statements of Professor Berger, Count Brandt, and Fräulein von Eyben; those of the former, because they were not made on oath and before the judges; those of the latter, because they are only supported by one person, for in her answer to question 7 there is a complaint about the queen, that her Majesty appeared to regard her as a dangerous person; and lastly, because her Majesty declares that she never made such a "confidence" to the witness as her answers to questions 41 and 42 reveal, but all that the queen said to her was a remark perfectly natural for a lady who believes herself above all suspicion: "that it would be ridiculous to abandon Count Struensee on account of an unfounded report."[81] In this class must also be placed several other circumstances--for instance, that at Gottorp Castle there was a flight of stairs leading from the queen's room to Struensee's--that the 4th witness merely said that one night she heard the queen come out of Struensee's room, while witnesses 8 and 9 say "she came up the stairs," and they naturally could not know from whom the queen came, and whether she might not have been with one of her ladies--that Struensee one night at Frederiksberg put on a surtout and went in that state to the queen, for witnesses 18, 19, and 20, state they did not know where he went--that the queen was once seen in Struensee's room, which is only asserted by witness 20--that her Majesty remarked she did not care what people said, for the statements of witnesses 6 and 20 differ as to the time when the remark was made and the words used--that Struensee obtained a _passe partout_ to the palace, for it was not done by the queen's orders--that the queen was once nursed by him, when she had a pain in her side, for one witness alone mentions this--that her Majesty went to the theatre because Struensee begged her to do so, of which, however, Fräulein Trolle, who was present, knows nothing--that her Majesty used scented powder--was once once out of sight of the maids of honour at a masquerade, and so on: for such trifles would never have been brought against her Majesty had not the witnesses been prejudiced.

In the proofs of the second class, we have in the first line the statements of the women Blechinberg and Schiötte, and of maid Petersen, about the opening of the door leading to the Hermitage (Mezzanine), and their experiments with wax on the key, and powder in the corridor, about the footsteps found here and in the bedroom, and the state of the bed at a time when the king had not been there, and his door was locked, on which the counsel bases his charge.

Even if all this evidence was trustworthy, it would not prove that her Majesty was guilty. But one of the facts alleged by the witnesses proves in itself how little ground for suspicion there is in all these charges. The second witness, Frau Blechinberg, says, that at the time when this occurred, the maids slept close to the queen's bedroom, and had free access to it. How incredible does it seem that her Majesty should have exposed herself so openly, as she would have done by committing any impropriety in such a situation? And if we examine the details more closely, it results that her Majesty possessed the key of the Mezzanine door since her first arrival here. Frau Schiötte is, therefore, in error when she states that the queen asked for it afterwards, and that she used it several times, though rarely; and hence it is very possible that the door remained unlocked. Although it is quite natural that the wax in the key, or keyhole, or the paper in the crack must fall out if the door was opened, the witnesses are quite unable to assert that the key was used, and the door opened, only in the night. Why could not this have happened equally well by day, before they went to look? The footsteps in the powder deserves equally slight attention; for lackey Torp declares that his post was in the Mezzanine, and lackey Hansen, according to maid Petersen, once showed her that the door leading to it was open, which proves that various men entered the corridor. It is not said, either, whence the footsteps came, or that they went to the door of the queen's bedroom, and just as little did any witnesses hear any one come to this door at night. It is the same with the footsteps alleged to have been seen on the stairs. The witnesses declare that they displayed traces of the powder, but Struensee would not have gone in such an "uncleanly" condition to the queen even at night. The marks are said to have been seen on the next morning. But are the witnesses fully convinced that these footsteps were not made on the previous day or evening, or that the king, whose servants had the key of the outer corridor, had not been there, although he might not have been seen in the queen's apartments? It is true, they state they always knew when the king was there; but on what is this knowledge based? Her Majesty declares that it was impossible for her chamber-people to be always cognisant of the circumstance, because the king did not wish them to know it; and hence she herself went in to the king after their Majesties had retired. That the door should be bolted was the usual case long before the time of the supposed intrigue; on some occasions it was caused by a trifling dispute between their Majesties; but most frequently because the queen was afraid lest the black boys or the dogs might come into her room unexpectedly, by which she had been startled several times. If there had been any mystery in it, the king would have been the first to notice the fact.

As this suspicion, which is the chief foundation of the charge, is thus removed, and the rest consists entirely of suppositions, I hope to be able to deal more shortly with the latter.

The arrangement of the apartments for Struensee in Christiansborg Palace was not done by the queen's commands, and the reason why the queen's apartment was converted into a sleeping cabinet was solely not to incommode the king at the period when the queen was suckling the prince herself. Her Majesty declares that she requested the king's permission to do so at Frederiksberg.

What incorrect conclusions witnesses 4 and 7 draw from the queen's anger with them is proved by the evidence of Frau Schiötte, who states that this happened in the summer before they warned the queen, consequently in the year 1769, and hence long before the epoch we are now discussing.

The statement of witnesses 4 and 6, that the queen passed off Struensee for the king is equally incorrect, for the king might have been present without their observing him.

If, as some witnesses state, they saw her Majesty undressed, when she was perhaps bathing or changing her clothes; if she undressed herself without the help of her maids (which was not the case, according to witness 6, however, during the last year), and of which the queen's pregnancy was the cause,--all this is no crime, so long as no one can say that Struensee or other men were present. On the contrary, all the witnesses are agreed that the queen always required very little attendance. Equally little should we feel surprised that Struensee was at times alone with the queen, or sat by her side, if he waited upon her, either by the king's command, or for other reasons. According to the evidence of maid Gabel the chamber-people remained at such times in the room where they happened to be, and from the answer of maid Boye to question 21, and the declaration of Frau Blechinberg, it must be assumed that one of them slept before the queen's sleeping cabinet. If her Majesty jested with her servants about love, her sentiments ought not to be judged from this, for in such a way even a Cato would come short. That she intended to go away with Struensee is a fable that contradicts itself, as it was not apprehended at the time when the sailors proceeded to Hirschholm, for then, as the witnesses say, the queen was perfectly indifferent; but in the days when the ox was given away at Frederiksberg, when there was nothing at all to be alarmed about.

As a physician, Struensee could be present at the queen's accouchement equally well as Berger, and the statement that the queen looked at him, and gazed on his portrait after delivery, is founded partly on the presumptions of the witnesses, partly on untrustworthy statements, as maid Boye saw that Struensee handed the queen an almanack, at which she looked, although maid Boye fancies that there was a portrait in it.

That the queen purchased something of Struensee is a matter of perfect indifference, and if she made him presents, royal personages are accustomed to display their favour in such a way.

That she wished to speak with him in her state of alarm, occasioned by the events of January 17, is not surprising, and that she on one occasion at Kronborg inquired after him, is no proof of a "tendresse," for many thousands who never saw him have asked the same question.

I pass over all the rest as things which are partly unimportant, partly do not affect the queen, or are too improper to be answered. It is sufficient that no proof is derived from all these things, examined singly, that her Majesty has broken her marriage vow. The law requires the truthful evidence of witnesses, not all sorts of self-invented conclusions; and if it were otherwise, her Majesty must regret that her rank and grandeur, which ought to secure her against such danger, are the very things that caused her misfortune.

I may therefore hope that I have shown the innocence of her Majesty the Queen. Her Majesty assumes that her consort only desires her justification, and she feels assured of the caution and impartiality of her judges.

For these reasons she awaits the decision demanded by her honour, the king's dignity, and the welfare of the land. I therefore venture most submissively in her Majesty's name to urge--

"That her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda, be acquitted from his Majesty the King's accusation, in this matter."

ULDALL.

_Copenhagen, April 2, 1772._

The defence was certainly clever, and merited the applause with which it is said to have been greeted in foreign countries. But, on reflection, it seems as if the counsel did not touch on the best argument in the cause: that the law refuses a divorce to the husband of a woman guilty of adultery if he has been the seducer; and if, while cognizant of her infidelity, he has continued to cohabit with her. It would have been easy to render this palpable to the king, if he had retained even a remnant of feeling and conscience. Reverdil, who, though he was fully convinced of Caroline Matilda's guilt, felt the most sincere compassion for her, supplies us with an argument which might have been used to the king:--

"Is it not true, Sire, that from the commencement of your marriage up to the moment when the party now in power seized on you and your ministers, you had not the slightest respect for the marriage tie, and that you ever testified to the queen that you dispensed with her fidelity? Did you not invite all your successive favourites to pay their court to her? Did you not say, and prove in a thousand ways, that her affection was troublesome to you, and that your greatest misfortune was in paying attention to her? Your commissioners had the effrontery to ask the queen and Struensee who their accomplices were; in prison and in chains the accused have had the generosity to be silent on your account; but what they have not done your conscience will do, and will tell you that you were the real seducer.

"Remember, Sire, the moment when this princess, whom they wish to make you condemn to-day, was confided to your love and generosity. The English left her without any adviser, or a single companion, on your shores. Hardly emerged from childhood, she retained its graces, innocence, and _naïveté_; but her mind was more cultivated and mature than you expected; you were astonished at it; hearts flew to meet her; her affability and beneficence captivated all classes of the nation. When you had the misfortune to give yourself up to a frivolous and reckless favourite, and to vile companions, who led you into libertinism, she saw herself neglected. You displayed more than indifference toward her. She loved you; she was silent, and maintaining her serenity in public, contented herself with lamenting in private with the grand mistress, whom you had yourself given her as a confidante. Ere long, you envied her even her sole consolation; and this lady, whose sole crime consisted in displaying conduct and principles too austere to please you, was dismissed with the most signal mark of disgrace. Frau von der Lühe, who took her place, was the sister of your favourite. You, doubtless, supposed that this lady would have as much levity and as few principles as her brother; but she foiled your expectations. Without expressly disgracing her, you had her duties performed by women of the most equivocal reputation. What more could a consummate seducer have done? This man, with whom the queen is accused of being too intimate, yourself forced on her when she repulsed him. It was the hope of avoiding the annoyances which your favourites caused her that led her to connect herself with a man who offered his services in drawing you back to her; it was you who removed all the barriers that separated her from him, who diminished the distance, who desired what is now called your disgrace, who have excused and tolerated this liaison; and who, lastly, up to January 17, talked of it as a good joke.

"Your cause is inseparable from that of your wife, and even should the whole world condemn her, you ought to revoke this condemnation through a feeling of self-respect, if not through natural equity."

It is impossible to say whether any one of the thirty-four judges raised his voice in favour of a princess whom they were absolutely obliged to condemn, or whether not one of them dared to touch on so delicate a matter: but the sentence of divorce was pronounced after two sessions of seven hours each. It was not made public, but a rescript was sent to the provincial governors and bailiffs, in which the king informed them that he had repudiated his consort, after a solemn inquiry, in order to repair the honour of his house, and for motives of public welfare. The same tribunal pronounced that the Princess Louisa Augusta should retain the honour due to the daughters of kings. A sealed and secret document was handed at the same time to the Chanceries, which was to be read at the king's death. It doubtless regulated the regency in the event of a minority. Some persons believed that in this will the princess was disinherited: but how could that be so?[82]

The queen's confession was dated March 9: the king's counsel handed in his indictment on the 24th: Uldall's reply was made on April 2: and the sentence was passed on the 6th of the same month. Matters were certainly done very quickly. Baron Juel-Wind, Justiciary of the Supreme Court, received orders to inform the queen of the sentence, which he did on April 9, in the presence of Lieutenant-General von Hauch, commandant of Kronborg.

The original intention was to exile the unfortunate queen to Aalborg, in Jütland, where she was not to be imprisoned, but to have certain restrictions placed on her liberty. As early as February,[83] Colonel Pentz had been sent to examine the castle, and order the necessary repairs. We shall see hereafter how a change in the arrangements was made.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 77: "Authentische Aufklärungen."]

[Footnote 78: This state paper has never before been published in England, and is literally translated from the original text.]

[Footnote 79: What Uldall wished to say, seems to be, that the queen could not be convicted on her own confession or on that of Struensee, as the law demanded that the evidence must be given by two persons who agreed in the facts as well as the motives.]

[Footnote 80: How could Colonel Keith allow such a trial as this to be carried on when the sister of his own king was the victim? And yet, it is said, he makes a merit of having saved her from the scaffold.--_Falckenskjold's Memoirs_, p. 233.]

[Footnote 81: Mademoiselle d'Eyben had been a lady-in-waiting on the queen, and, it is said, often twitted her with her conjugal fidelity. They had a quarrel, the nature of which is not known, and Mademoiselle d'Eyben's deposition was taken at Lübeck. This lady was not very scrupulous in matters of gallantry, and caused considerable scandal by her open liaison with a French actor of the name of Latour.--_Falckenskjold's Memoirs_, p. 233.]

[Footnote 82: According to Falckenskjold, it would have been as easy to pronounce the illegitimacy of Caroline Matilda's children, as to declare a divorce on account of adultery. Guldberg and his partisans were interested in doing so; hence it is plain that Queen Juliana Maria, and Prince Frederick would not allow it. If this be so, credit must be given them for this generosity. I fancy, however, that my earlier assertion is correct, and that Guldberg prevented a step which the queen dowager urged on behalf of the possible posterity of her beloved son.]

[Footnote 83: This circumstance, in itself, is a sufficient proof that the trial of Caroline Matilda was solely intended to throw dust in the eyes of Europe. That her place of banishment should have been selected before her trial, is of a piece with the miserable evidence produced against her.]