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.