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.