Struensee took this letter with eagerness, and began reading it; but it is not surprising to find that he had not half finished it when he laid it down, weeping bitterly. Shortly after, he received a letter from his mother, written precisely in the same Calvinistic strain as that from his father, and not containing one single trait of that maternal affection so necessary under such trying circumstances.

At length, after twenty-one days' exertions, Struensee was so far converted, partly by reading the New Testament, Jerusalem and Gellert's works, and partly, also, by Münter's earnest exhortations, that he burst into the following penitent words:—

"I should be guilty of the greatest folly if I would not embrace Christianity with joy, when its arguments are so overbalancing, and when it breathes such general benevolence. Its effects upon my heart are too strong. Oftentimes I cannot help crying when I read the history of Christ. Even now I think with hope on my death. I have acquainted myself with its most terrifying circumstances. I do not know how I shall be when the awful hour arrives. At present, I am not uneasy about it; I find nothing that makes me anxiously wish for life. I will confidently expect forgiveness of my sins through Christ. And to you, my dear friend, I am infinitely obliged that you have brought me so far."

Struensee then expressed a wish that those friends of his who entertained the same sentiments as he had done on religious matters might also be brought to a sense of their errors; and he felt an especial interest in Brandt's fate. It was consequently arranged that Münter should bring Dean Hee to Struensee; and, when this took place a few days afterwards, the prisoner begged the latter to inform Brandt of his conversion. Shortly after, the dean delivered Brandt's answer, to the effect, "that he greatly rejoiced to hear of Struensee's conversion. For his own part, he found his only comfort in religion, and from his heart forgave Struensee for all that he had done to draw him into his misfortunes." Struensee was pleased to hear this, and from this period seemed to have his mind relieved of a great burden. Of the sincerity of his conversion the following passage seems to offer a convincing proof:—

"The Christian religion," Struensee said on one occasion, "is so engaging, that it must certainly please every one who is properly acquainted with it. We should see the best effects of it among the common people in reforming the world, if it were properly represented and rendered intelligible to the capacity of different sorts of people. They should be made sensible that in this life they could never be happier than by following the precepts of Christianity. Every one then would be convinced that, supposing even this religion to be a mistake, it must be such a one as contradicts entirely the nature of error and delusion, because it is the best and truest way of happiness. Every one would think it worth his while to maintain this opinion, and to propagate it.

"I wish you and other divines," he continued to Münter, "would write small pamphlets, to acquaint the people with the advantages of Christianity, which might be of greater service than preaching. In this manner Voltaire has written, as you are aware, innumerable little pieces against religion, which contain the same ideas over again under different titles, and in a different dress. Rational friends of Christianity should learn of him this method, by which he does much mischief, and apply it to better purposes. Voltaire boasts of having found out this method, as he says, to enlighten the world. I remember, that when I conversed with d'Alembert in Paris, he spoke in high terms of praise of this method, and admired Voltaire's wisdom on this point. However, I do not believe him to be the inventor of it. Perhaps he borrowed this way of spreading his principles from Christ himself, who taught truth, sometimes in parables, sometimes in questions and answers, sometimes in sermons."

When Struensee at length received permission to write, he drew up, after consulting with Münter, a description of his conversion, which, however, was in some passages quite confused, and far from clear. It is a further proof how greatly the mind of this naturally talented man was thrown off the balance by the awful position in which he found himself.

The examination of the other prisoners, and the hearing of the witnesses, took place alternately in the citadel and in the Christiansborg Palace. Professor Berger appeared at the bar on February 22, and so soon as he returned to prison he was allowed to be shaved and to eat with a knife and a fork. He was also granted a better room, was permitted to sleep in his own bed, was allowed tobacco, and to read books from his own library.

Justiz-rath Struensee passed his time in prison in playing at chess with the officers of the watch. After he had undergone an examination on March 7, the favour was also granted him of smoking a pipe, and drinking wine from his own cellar.

At last, on March 18, or two months after their arrest, came the turn of Colonel von Falckenskjold and Lieutenant-Colonel von Hesselberg to be examined. It has already been stated how scandalously these two gentlemen had been treated during their imprisonment at the main guard of the royal docks. Permission had been asked of Prince Frederick to have Falckenskjold removed to a more wholesome cell, but he refused it, and answered, with a jeering laugh, "A man who has fought with the Turks must be able to endure such a punishment." On the day of examination, the two prisoners were conveyed in litters to the citadel, but when they returned to prison they were allowed knives and forks, and freed from the constant presence of the officers of the guard in their room.

On March 25, Major-General Gude and Count Struensee were confronted. On the following day, Admiral Hansen and Lieutenant Aboe made their statements, and as Etats-rath Willebrandt had been taken ill, he was examined in his house by a special commission.

The investigation gradually assumed such immense proportions, that the sittings to examine the prisoners and witnesses could not be closed till the end of March, or for nearly two months and a half.

CHAPTER IX.

"And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

"And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressors ceased! the golden city ceased!"

Another preacher, Hansen, who was appointed to the same duty on alternate days with Chemnitz, derived, from chapter lxiii. of the same prophet, the subject of an even more cruel insult:—

"Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?

"I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

"For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come."

Neither of these clerical ruffians was either punished or even reprimanded for his shameless audacity.

At first, the royal prisoner was confined on the ground floor of the castle, the windows being lined with iron bars; she was strictly guarded, none but her watchers being allowed to have access to her. In February, she received another heavy blow on hearing of the death of her beloved mother, and, in her agony, wrote the two following letters, which she contrived by some means to send out of the castle:—

To Sir Robert Keith, Envoy of Great Britain.

From the first day of my iniquitous arrest and severe captivity, I foresaw that the rage of my enemies would insist on the loss of my liberty and life. I am perfectly resigned to my fate either way; but the thought of my reputation being tarnished and my dear children abandoned to the mercy of a people unjustly prejudiced against the legitimacy of their birth, overwhelms me with the most pungent grief. Has the king, my brother, then abandoned me? Great God! will no one, then, avenge my innocence and my memory? I doubt whether my merciless Arguses will suffer this letter to reach you; in case you receive it, contrive to do me all the good offices in your power. I shall never forget the zeal which you have testified in the cause of innocence; and if ever Heaven should restore me to the rank and pre-eminence from which I have been so unjustly degraded, you shall have more convincing proofs of my gratitude. Oh! were I in England, my dear country, where the meanest criminal has the privilege of being tried by his peers! Am I forgot by the whole universe? I am greatly fallen away, and my health is much impaired since I have been immured within these walls. There is not a single person about me whom I do not suspect; and I despair of ever recovering my liberty. For the love of God, endeavour to visit me. The time approaches when my trial will take place; but I am apprehensive my sentence is already determined. I pray God that He will take you under his holy protection.[66]

Matilda.

The queen wrote about the same time another letter to the king, which, of course, never reached its destination, though a copy of it was fortunately preserved:—

Sire,

If justice and humanity still dwell in your royal breast, I have an undoubted right, as your most injured wife, to claim your Majesty's protection from this vale of misery. Your honour is impeached as well as my virtue; if the sense of both cannot inspire you with tender feelings for my inexpressible woes and the indignities offered to supreme authority by the most flagitious combination of all the engines the blackest calumnies could play to blast my innocence and reputation, I appeal to your Majesty's own conviction of my spotless and inviolable fidelity. I do not entreat mercy, but I demand justice. Were your heart callous to my inexpressible sufferings, sure what you owe to yourself and the dear pledges of conjugal affection should call for the utmost exertion of your power to maintain your prerogative, which has been so daringly encroached upon, and to avenge the outrages I have been forced to submit to, by an unparalleled confederacy of traitors determined to snatch the sceptre from your hands, and to sacrifice your guiltless consort and your progeny to their wicked ambition. I wish for a fair trial, and that I may face and confound my accusers. To the Supreme Judge, who knows all hearts and all motives, I submit the justice of my cause.

Matilda.

On March 8, 1772, the commission appointed by the new authorities, acting in the name of a king without a will, arrived at the fortress of Kronborg for the purpose of examining the queen. It consisted of two members of the lately-established privy council, Count Thott and Schack Rathlau, and two members of the committee of investigation, Actuary of the Supreme Court Baron Juel-Wind, and Stampe, Attorney-General of the Danish Chancery; that is to say, of opponents of the fallen minister, and zealous participators in the conspiracy.

This composition of the commission justifies the supposition that it was solely intended to extort from the unhappy queen a confirmation of the confession made by Struensee on February 21, of improper intercourse with her, and thus afford an excuse to the English court for the way in which she had been treated.

According to Reverdil, Colonel Keith had contrived to warn Caroline Matilda beforehand of the impending arrival of the commission, and to advise her conduct. She would receive these pretended judges with kindness and dignity, like subjects who had come to pay their court to their sovereign. If they afterwards attempted to interrogate her, she would act wisely in merely saying that she had no answer to give them, and that she recognised no superior, or judge, but her husband.

Thus forewarned, the queen, whose heroic soul had not been bowed down by a succession of agonising days spent in the most miserable solitude and the most torturing suspense, received the commissioners with a calm dignity, in which her strength of mind was fully displayed. The complicated and crafty questions asked her had no power to confuse her senses; her answers were noble, short, and, accurate; she declared that she had nothing to reproach herself with, and caused the commissioners the utmost embarrassment by her steady and unexpected behaviour. When the crafty Schack lost all hope of overcoming the queen's mind, he fancied that her heart would not have the strength to withstand a similar attack. In order, therefore, to obtain the confession which was required for the predetermined condemnation of the queen, he employed a villanous device which will brand his name for ever. He was no longer the noble-minded man who, once on a time, preferred to sacrifice rank, prestige, and fortune, sooner than remain in a council whose traditional authority had been degraded; he was now a crawling courtier, who allowed himself to be used for anything, so long as favour, power, or money was promised him; who had lost all his strength of mind, and no longer possessed any marked character, but could only flatter the powerful, defy the weak, and deceive the good hearted. A long and painful illness had weakened his intellect; the vexations of a hampered fortune had rendered him selfish, and deprived him of all respect from those of noble mind; and, on this occasion, he put the final touch to his character.[67]

Schack Rathlau hastened to inform the queen that their next proceeding would be to lay before her Majesty Struensee's confessions, and to request her confirmation of them; after which he read to her the original document signed by the unfortunate man.

Blushing with anger at the accusation it contained, the queen indignantly denied everything, and declared the impossibility of Struensee having made such statements, as they were utterly false!

Schack Rathlau presented the damning paper, so that the queen might herself read it, and be convinced of Struensee's autograph. She rejected it with scorn, but took a searching glance at the signature, and to her horror recognised the well-known hand. Schack, noticing the betrayed queen's embarrassment, thought the moment favourable to complete her temptation. With a reverential bow he advanced a step nearer, and said, as if disgusted by the false charge:

"Si l'aveu de M. Struensee n'est point vrai, Madame, alors il n'y a pas de mort assez cruelle pour ce monstre qui a osé vous compromettre à ce point."

Caroline Matilda, who had been kept in utter ignorance of all that was taking place in Copenhagen, and probably had formed no idea of the deadly peril impending over her ex-cabinet secretary, fell back into her chair on hearing Schack Rathlau's fearful menace: honour and feeling contended powerfully in her breast, while the inquisitor eagerly tried to read the effect of these words of terror on the queen's countenance. At length, she regained some slight composure, and looking Schack firmly in the face, asked:

"Mais si j'avouais les mots de Struensee, pourrais-je sauver sa vie par là?"

Schack Rathlau—it is hard to say whether he believed in the probability of such a rescue, or merely in his legal arrogance triumphed at the palpable result of his menace—answered, with brazen brow:

"Surement, Madame, cela pourrait adoucir son sort de toute manière."

Saying this, he spread out the prepared document, containing the confirmation of Struensee's confession for the queen to sign.

"Eh bien, je signerai," the unfortunate lady said, as she seized the pen eagerly offered by Schack Rathlau, and appended her signature. She had hardly done so, however, when the consciousness of her want of caution and precipitation so affected her, that she sank back on the sofa in a fainting state.[68] The commissioners, however, hastened back to Copenhagen in great delight with the decisive document.

After ninety-two years posterity gazes with compassion on the historical picture of the royal martyr who, in the first bloom of youth, fettered through political motives to a husband, from whom all eyes were averted with feelings of anger and disgust, certainly committed no other crime than that of taking pleasure in the society of the only man who seemed her sincere friend, a man who had a heart for her connubial sufferings, who ever tried to alleviate them, and to whom alone she dared impart her wrongs. The confirmation of this truth must be left to the poor betrayed martyr herself. Still, for a proper comprehension of the cabal against her, one fact, speaking decidedly for the queen's innocence, may be quoted, in which a plausible explanation of Struensee's otherwise inexplicable conduct can be found:

"On avait dit à Struensee qu'il se sauverait en compromettant la reine, dont la conduite ne pouvait être l'objet d'une condamnation juridique, ou même d'un procès criminal, et on avoit ajouté à ce motif le menace de la torture."[69]

The twofold treachery explained by this passage hardly requires comment. To overthrow Struensee was not sufficient, as the queen might have regained her authority over her husband. Hence, Caroline Matilda must be destroyed, and though the Lex Regia expressly prohibited the judges from trying matters of high treason, the new authorities did not care for that.

Immediately after the return of the commissioners from their successful expedition, a General Commission, consisting of no less than thirty-four members, was appointed as a Supreme Court to pass sentence in the cause of the king against the queen. The court was composed of—the Bishop of Seeland and four other clerical councillors: the four ministers, Counts von Thott and Osten, Baron von Schack Rathlau and Admiral Römeling: the members of the commission, to whom the trial of the other prisoners had up to the present been entrusted: the other members of the Supreme Court not belonging to the commission: two officers of the army and two of the navy: several councillors of state and one of the civic authorities.

The court opened its session on March 16, in the audience hall of the Exchequer. A royal order appointed Bang, lawyer in the Court of Exchequer, to undertake the king's cause, and Uldall, of the Supreme Court, that of the queen. Both the judges and the lawyers were released from their oath of allegiance during the trial.

In his indictment of March 24, Bang demanded that her Majesty Queen Caroline Matilda, by virtue of par. v. of the xvi. cap. of section 3 of the code of Christian V. should be condemned as guilty of having broken her marriage vows with his Majesty King Christian VII., and that the latter might be at liberty to form another alliance.[70]

Bang's Indictment of Queen Caroline Matilda.

After a short introduction, the accuser proceeds in the following terms:—

The command of my king alone could induce me to write against her Majesty the Queen, and it is with a feeling of the deepest submission, with horror and grief, that I here investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and the proof that she has broken her marriage vow.

I am emboldened to indict her Majesty, because the king's marriage bed must be kept pure and unsullied before that of all others. This the king can demand as a husband, and he must assert it for the honour of his house and the welfare of his nation.

As husband, he has the right of the compact on his side; as the first of his house, he is bound to guard the antiquity, supremacy, respect, honour, and purity of the Danish royal family. Who is there that is ignorant of the virtues of this exalted royal family! But, if a foreign race were grafted on the royal stem, and the descendants of lackeys were to bear the name and supremacy of the king, would not its antiquity cease, its supremacy disappear, its respect be lost, its honour be insulted, and its purity sullied?[71]

For the sake of his nation the king must demand this. The inhabitants of Denmark and Norway have sworn fidelity, obedience, and allegiance to the descendants of Frederick III., and all our progeny will do so after us. But would we or our posterity so submissively subject ourselves to descendants of Queen Caroline Matilda, who are not at the same time scions of Christian VII.? What a source of troubles! Hence, his Majesty, as husband in his house, as first of his sex, and as king in his land, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation, simultaneously demand that the justice and strictest loyalty, which alone animate this commission, should, in accordance with the laws of God, of nature, and of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which bound her Majesty Caroline Matilda to our Christian VII.

I will not speak in this affair, but allow her Majesty herself to speak: I will let the person speak, who, by her Majesty's confession has uttered the truth; I will let facts, and lastly witnesses, speak.

On March 9 last, her Majesty at Kronborg Castle, replied to the three questions submitted to her by the plenipotentiaries appointed by her lord the king. To question 2, her Majesty acknowledged that she had broken the marriage vow which she made to his Majesty; and to question 3, her Majesty acknowledged that she had thus forfeited her marriage rights.

Count Struensee, on February 21 last, replied, after long reflection and with great agitation, to question 239 laid before him by the commission, whether the intimacy between Queen Caroline Matilda and himself had gone as far as it can go between two persons of different sexes—

"As all the circumstances are so incriminating that even if the greatest intimacy had not existed, still appearances would prove it, he confessed that it was difficult to resist opportunity and the natural weakness of women, but he begged the commission, in consideration of his mental emotion, to spare him more detailed reminiscences."

Count Struensee repeated this confession on February 25 with more ample details, and then signed it with his own hand.

Count Struensee's full confession was laid before her Majesty on March 9, and its truth acknowledged by her.

These confessions, so ample and concordant, made in the presence of the royal commissioners, might in themselves be regarded as sufficient proof in accordance with the article of the law that "it is not sufficient that the accused person herself should confess her guilt, because it is often found that many persons make false statements, in order that the one may get away from the other, and injure him or her, with whom he or she confesses to have sinned."

The quoted presumption, that the one might wish to get rid of the other, cannot be applied to her Majesty, and the same is the case with the second part of the article, "in order to injure the person with whom the sin has been committed;" therefore, the entire supposition of the law, that the accused might bear false witness against him, or her, self, is not applicable. As, moreover, all the circumstances which were in this case stated in Count Struensee's confession, and acknowledged by the queen, have been proved by clear evidence and numerous other data, which are always the precedents, companions, and results of such an illicit intercourse, it is my most humble duty to lay all these things before the commission.

Thus, the answers of Count Struensee to questions 3, 4, and 5, relating to the time and way in which he entered the queen's apartments, the ensuing warnings and short abstinence are proved by the evidence of witnesses. The wives of Councillors Blechinberg and Schiötte, who were at that time maids of honour to her Majesty, and bed-chamber woman, Anna Petersen, declare that in the winter of 1769 and the beginning of 1770 they formed suspicions from Struensee's repeated and long visits to the queen, and maid Petersen more especially noticed that the door of the dark passage, which leads from the queen's bed-chamber to the hermitage (Mezzanine floor), was opened on some nights and merely left ajar; and the deceased lackey Hansen also remarked how he had heard this door opened at night. After talking together, and consulting Councillor Blechinberg and the deceased Hansen, they sought to acquire a certainty in the matter, more especially as they knew that no one but the queen could open this door, as none else except a bed-chamber woman had a key to it. With this object they put wax in the keyhole, and bits of paper between the hinges, and at the same time placed wax in the wards of the key, which lay on the queen's toilette table. They then found on each occasion next morning that the wax had fallen both out of the keyhole and the wards, and the paper slipped out of the hinges on to the floor, and thus acquired a certainty that the door had been opened during the night. The waiting maid also strewed powder on the boards of the dark passage in the evening, and on the next morning all the witnesses saw marks of large feet in the powder up to the door of the queen's bedroom, and thence to the bed. In the morning, when such footsteps were found in front of the bed, maid Petersen and maid Bruhn, now Councilloress Blechinberg, came in to make the queen's bed, and called in maid Horn, now Councilloress Schiötte.[72]

Grieved for her Majesty's beloved name and reputation, and terrified by the awful consequences of this daring deed, in which they feared they might be innocently entangled, they resolved, after due reflection and with masculine resolution, to lay their sorrows and most devoted submission at her Majesty's feet.[73] Hence the two maids, Bruhn and Horn, one day with quaking hearts and tear-laden eyes approached her Majesty, who ever then as now had a heart full of kindness, and asked them, with emotion, what was the matter with them, and if she, the queen, had done anything to grieve them? This gracious reception still more aroused in these faithful servants all the feelings of reverence and devotion, with which they were filled at that time. Maid Horn, who was so affected that she was unable to speak, left the execution of their mutual design to maid Bruhn, upon which the queen leaped from her seat, threw her arms round maid Bruhn's neck, and said, "Tell me, dear Bruhn, what is the matter with you?" This command of her Majesty loosened maid Bruhn's tongue. "There is a report," she said, "that Struensee spends the night with your Majesty. We feel so grieved at it, because it is stated that the two queens dowager and the council are aware of it, and purpose interfering." The maids then hinted that they were acquainted with the story of the door leading to the Mezzanine, and wished that the whole rumour might be unfounded. The queen asked them whether they believed it; requested to speak with Struensee at once, who, as she said, would soon find a remedy; and, in conclusion, asked, "Do you think that the rumour will die out, if I do not let him come so often? I cannot entirely abandon him, as that would arouse too much attention."

Her Majesty's confessions dispense me from making any reflections on this head.

After the queen had consulted with Struensee on the same day, she said to her waiting-women, "Do you know that any one who speaks in such a way about her queen can be punished by the loss of her tongue?"

After this incident, the intercourse between the queen and Struensee ceased for about a fortnight; but then became worse than before. Still from this time the witnesses noticed no nocturnal passage through the corridor to the Mezzanine, while the familiar and gracious intercourse of the queen with these her maids ceased from this day; so that she only addressed them in the tone of a mistress.

That which her Majesty wished to deny to her maids she confessed, however, to her lady-in-waiting, Von Eyben; for when the latter found the queen one day weeping and in grief, she asked what was the matter with her Majesty; and the queen told her of the conversation with the maids, but confessed that the affair was unfortunately true, and said that Struensee had advised her to bribe her women, which she refused to do; nor would her Majesty follow the advice of her women, and "displace" Struensee.

Among the things which are inseparable from such actions is rumour, which follows them as their shadow. And who is unacquainted with these rumours?

As regards the queen's intercourse with Count Struensee, Professor Berger, now under arrest, declares, that it had appeared to him most suspicious, and Struensee's lodgings highly improper. Struensee had always behaved to her with impropriety, and ventured on excessive familiarity. This improper conduct began first in the city in 1770, was continued in the same year on the Holstein tour, and afterwards on the return of the royal family to Denmark.

Count Brandt declares that in the summer of 1770, while the royal party were in Holstein, the queen was alone one morning early with Count Struensee, and that the latter drove out with her alone in a carriole. The intercourse between them proved in every way that they loved each other; they sought one another, were delighted to meet; in a word, love was revealed in that manner which can be perceived but not described. If at times they quarrelled, Struensee said that the queen was jealous of him, and accused him of not being so amiable as usual, and hence Struensee was always obliged to dance with the oldest ladies at balls. Brandt also declares that Struensee made him a "confidence" of this amourette, and said that he could make love to the queen best at the masquerade.

Fräulein von Eyben, and the sixth, fourth, and twenty-ninth witnesses about Struensee's suspicious intimacy with the queen, assert: "While the court was residing in Holstein in 1770, the queen drove out alone with Struensee, remained away a couple of hours, and did not return till seven o'clock." Furthermore, the two first witnesses declare that once, when they were about to enter the queen's cabinet, they found Struensee seated by her side on the sofa, and that the queen ran toward them and sent them away. Afterwards, the queen told them that the king was so frightened when they, the witnesses, came to the door, that he tried to run out of the room, and that was the reason why she hurried toward them.

Furthermore, they state: In Schleswig, there was a flight of stairs in Gottorp Castle, leading from the queen's retiring-room to Struensee's apartments, which her Majesty frequently made use of. The queen went once, at Frederiksberg, at a late hour of the night, into Struensee's room, which was next to the apartment of the prince royal, where Madame Petersen and Madame Schönberg were.[74] At Frederiksberg, too, Struensee one evening, after he was undressed, put on an over-coat, and in that state went up to the queen's cabinet.—(Cfr. the statements of witnesses, 18, 19, 20.)

Witnesses 2 and 17 have also given very incriminating evidence about Struensee's visits to the queen at a late hour of the night. Thus, during the whole of the summer of 1770, Struensee continually, and generally at unusual hours, visited the queen in his surtout and dirty boots, and frequently sat down on her bed: he drank tea and coffee with her every forenoon; often remained with her till one in the morning on evenings when there was no ball or masquerade, and on the latter evenings even later. He frequently went up the secret stairs to her bedroom unannounced, and on such occasions ordered the waiting-women, contrary to the rule, to retire from the rooms next to the queen's chamber.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 18.)[75]

Struensee acknowledges these facts, though with a certain apology, that he was obliged to hand medicines to the queen, and that he did not remain with her till a late hour of the night. Against this we have the later confession of February 25.

Her Majesty's conversations with her bed-chamber people seem to prove that her heart felt more warmly for another man than for the king her lord. Thus her Majesty, for instance, asked her maids whether they entertained love or sentiments for any man? for if they had such, they ought to follow their object to the gallows or the wheel, or, if it must be, even to Hell. On the maids objecting, but suppose such a person were to prove unfaithful, her Majesty replied: In such a case she would lose her senses, or take her own life. She next praised the good fortune of the maids, who could marry as they pleased, and added, that if ever she became a widow, she would marry a private person whom she loved, even if she were obliged to leave the country and the throne in consequence. On this occasion she showed the witnesses a garnet cross, which she always wore on her bosom, and remarked that there were sentiments connected with it, for she had it from a very dear friend; and when the witness said it must be the king, she answered jeeringly, "Of course, the king."

I do not know in which class to reckon the following fact, whether as forgetfulness of self, or as a fruit of the intercourse with Struensee. Her Majesty often displayed herself perfectly undressed to her chamber women, walking in broad daylight in a room which had windows on both sides, and at a time when the guard mounting was taking place, and then asked the maids whether they had ever seen Eve or Christ? I quote this fact here, because it appears as if this trait originated in the above-mentioned sentiments.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 2, 4, 5, and 6.)

To these strange sentiments, which were probably poisoned by Count Struensee, is attributable the fact, that her Majesty remarked to witness 6, that she was well aware what people said about her, but did not care for it; and further, that there was no harm in a wife being unfaithful to her husband, if he became old, or she had been compelled to marry him. The queen also stated to witness 10, that although she knew what people said of her she would not alter her conduct. About this time, in order to facilitate this improper intercourse, Struensee asked for a passe partout to the palace, which did not belong to his office, as he has confessed.

With the same object the queen's sleeping cabinets at Christiansborg, Frederiksborg, and Hirschholm, were at this time so arranged that people could go from her rooms to Struensee's unnoticed. This was especially the case in the autumn of 1771 at Christiansborg, when the queen's bedroom was removed to the chapel corridor, which could be reached by a private flight of stairs from the Mezzanine. It also deserves mention, that after this bedroom and two other rooms had been prepared, in 1770, for her Majesty's use, by her own orders, a privy passage and stairs, which had always been closed, were opened, and lamps were burning in the passage from three P.M. till eight in the morning, though during the whole period the valets were not allowed to look after the lamps. It was in one of these cabinets over the chapel corridor that her Majesty drank tea and coffee with Struensee in the morning.—(Cfr. the survey of the commissioners.)

The peculiar presents which her Majesty made to Struensee, and received from him in return, are of importance when connected with what the queen has acknowledged. Her Majesty received from Struensee a pair of red-striped garters, which she always insisted on wearing, whether she required them or not, (!) assuring her maids that they were "sentiments' garters." The count confesses that the queen received these garters from him. He alleges that he purchased them in Hamburg, and the queen, seeing them once, kept them, because they were perfumed; but he was paid for them.

Her Majesty also always carried about her person a green case, in which was Struensee's portrait in Indian ink, and allowed no one to see it. When she was delivered at Hirschholm, during the last summer, she asked for this portrait, and gazed at it. On her departure for Kronborg, on January 17, her Majesty took it with her, and when she arrived at the castle she fastened it on her naked body, from which Madame Schönberg dissuaded her. She now keeps it at night under her pillow, for fear lest any one might take it from her.—(Cfr. statements of witnesses 5, 6, 10, 12, 13; Maid Arnsberg's answers to question 29, and Struensee's to question 227.)

Among the presents accepted by the queen there was probably a gold cross set with garnets, which her Majesty wore for a long time, and concealed in her bosom, took it out frequently and kissed it, remarking, that it was a present from a dear friend, and that sentiments were attached to it, although Struensee denies ever having seen this cross.[76]

Among Struensee's effects the following valuables were found, which, as he says, the queen gave him:—I. A case containing a concealed miniature of the queen. II. A pin with a large brilliant. III. A ring with an antique. IV. A large brilliant ring. V. A sapphire. And VI. Another large sapphire. Of the last Struensee says that it belongs to the king, but witness 6 declares that it belonged to the queen, who consequently gave it to Struensee. VII. A blue enamelled golden heart, which, as Struensee confesses, the queen gave him once when she was talking about friendship. Of this valuable, witnesses 2 and 4 state that the queen wore it on a watch, which she brought with her from England. Various other data confirm the correctness of the confessions made.

On one occasion the queen had a blue mark on her bosom, which she carefully concealed from the king. At the same time she asked her waiting-women how they supposed the mark was produced? Maid Horn answered, that it looked as if it had come from sucking. The queen laughed, and held her tongue. Modesty and the queen's confession save me from saying anything further on this point.

In the same way the queen once felt a pain in her side, under the breast. Struensee came daily to rub the spot, and the queen would not allow her maids or any one else to be present. When the lady of the bed-chamber spoke with the queen about this, her Majesty became angry, and afterwards said to the maids, that the lady of the bed-chamber treated her like a child, who must not be allowed to be alone with the doctor.—(See the evidence of witness 2.)

It appears to denote an exaggerated intimacy, that Struensee, in the summer of 1771, was present at Hirschholm when the queen was delivered, although it was not his duty, and afterwards dined alone with her, and drank tea on her bed.—(Cfr. evidence of witnesses 6, 7, 10, 12 and 15.)

During the last summer, when the sailors marched to Hirschholm, or at the time when the ox was given—for the witnesses cannot state positively on which of these occasions it was—the queen intended to ride away with Struensee, and ordered her riding-habit to be brought into her room for the night. After she had undressed, and gone to bed in great confusion without a nightcap, she rose again and collected her jewels in a coffer, while orders were sent to the stables to hold her saddle-horse in readiness. (See statements of witnesses 12, 13, and 20, and of Count Brandt.)

Before the queen commenced her journey on January 17 to Kronborg, the first thing she said, when maid Arnsberg announced to her that Count Rantzau was there with several officers, was: "Where is the count?" After this, her most Gracious Majesty ran in her night-dress down the privy stairs to Struensee's rooms, in order to seek the count. As, however, she only found his valet, who was under arrest, she said to the guards that they must fetch the count for her on peril of their heads.

At Kronborg, where her Majesty is now residing, (!) she one night asked maid Arnsberg where the count was; and when the latter answered, "In the citadel," the queen said: "Is he in chains, or does he have anything to eat? does he know that I am at Kronborg?" Hence, then, her Majesty's memory is still burdened with a tender memory of the count.

Such are the confessions and proofs on which this question, unique in its way, is founded. In my indictment I have contented myself with merely writing down and quoting the words of her Majesty, Count Struensee, and the witnesses, in order not to venture reflections of my own, and thus insult the illustrious person against whom my instructions compel me to plead.

I venture to hope that I have written in accordance with the commands given me, without encroaching on the reverence and deep respect which I owe to her Majesty.

And as the witnesses, to whose statements on oath I have appealed, were not examined in her Majesty's exalted presence, owing to the most submissive respect entertained for her Majesty's exalted rank and birth, although by the law this should be done, I expect that her Majesty's advocate, Herr Uldall, will make a declaration to the commission that he has no objections to raise to the credibility of the witnesses; and, as both her Majesty's own acknowledgment, and Count Struensee's confession, have been in every way confirmed by the evidence of the witnesses, there is no reason for believing the confession to be untrue. I, therefore, in the name of his royal Majesty, demand a verdict:—

"That by virtue of the fifth paragraph of the sixteenth section of the third book of the Code, her Majesty Caroline Matilda, shall be declared guilty of having broken her marriage vow, and that it be dissolved, so as not to prevent his royal Majesty, the king, from contracting a new alliance." O. L. Bang.

Copenhagen, March 24, 1772.

Every effort was made to procure evidence against the queen, and yet the result was the wretched pot-pourri which Advocate Bang brought forward. Among others whom it was attempted to suborn was Sarti the composer, who had been music-master to Caroline Matilda. So far, however, from having any such evidence to give as it was sought to extort from him, Sarti declared that the queen's conduct, of which he had numerous opportunities of judging, was marked by the most perfect propriety and decorum, and he utterly repudiated the idea of her guilt.

But the judges had not been appointed to execute justice, but to crush the vanquished, and hence it is not surprising to find that no objection was raised to the utter perversion of the law which Bang displayed throughout his atrocious indictment—an indictment, be it remembered, made in writing, and not publicly announced, because hundreds of respectable citizens would have voluntarily come forward to assert their confidence in the queen's innocence.

CHAPTER X.

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.