When Count Struensee had effected the dismissal of the Horse Guards, the Foot Guards were also to be dismissed from their duty at the palace. The matter was connected in this way: Count Struensee apprehended that he might some day receive the reward of his crimes, and therefore he must see to his precautions. The natives of the country, as a wall of defence round the royal house, were a thorn in his eye, and hence such obstacles must be removed for coming events. Consequently, he drew up a cabinet decree of December 21, 1771, concerning the disbandment of the Foot Guards, of which his royal Majesty was not informed. These men were to be placed in other regiments, because, as the count alleges, equality ought to prevail among all officers and soldiers, as they all served the same king; while the true reason was, that the count, in the event of ill-success, did not wish to have them against him, as they might assist in seizing him by the ear. But when this order became known, and the Guards refused to obey it, he procured a royal order of December 24, by which his Majesty most graciously granted discharges to those Guards, who would not perform duty at the palace with the grenadiers. This was an extraordinarily foolhardy action, as will be seen from the following facts:-- _First._ His Majesty never knew anything about such a dismissal of the body-guard: for this reason it has been re-embodied, which proves that the disbandment took place against the king's will. _Secondly._ His Majesty did not sign the said order. _Thirdly._ Count Struensee, when he extorted his royal Majesty's approbation for the disbandment of the Guards, represented that they refused to do duty at the palace with the grenadiers, which was an evident falsehood, as the Guards only refused to enter other regiments. _Fourthly._ Although, from December 21 to 24, there were various resolutions which ought to have been approved by the king, Struensee did not lay them before his Majesty, solely from the motive of having the former orders of December 21 confirmed by the approbation of the last. He therefore acted falsely as regards the commands and resolutions, the drawing-up of which, and laying before the king for approbation, depended on him as privy cabinet minister, and thus acted contrary to the law I--I--I. _Sixthly._