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.