In order to convict him of audacity in this, the Fiscal General employs two different grounds: partly, Count Struensee's impudence in mixing himself up, though a physician, in affairs of state, and in abolishing the council, whence disorder in the affairs, oppression of the nation and the nobility, and a decrease of the prosperity of the capital, are said to have emanated: partly, that the power which he obtained was royal, as he formed resolutions, and signed in the king's name, and had it in his power to lay before the king the objections sent in against the cabinet decrees, or not to do so, which is said to be opposed to articles 3 and 26 of the _Lex Regia_, in which such a possession of power is declared to be treason. It appears as if the first of the grounds alleged by the Fiscal General exceeds his competency to examine, and that of the commission to decide. For, as the share which Count Struensee had in affairs only emanated from the king's will, Count Struensee cannot be rendered responsible for this, because the consequences must revert to his Majesty. An investigation, whether Count Struensee ought to give the king advice in affairs of state, and what results this advice had, is in reality an examination as to how his Majesty established the government; and Count Struensee cannot be called to account for the advice he gave, as it met with the king's approval. Still I do not see how this can be made a crime on the part of Count Struensee. It is certainly true that his original position did not seem to promise the dignity which he eventually acquired. But history offers many instances of such elevation, and, if the king fancied he deserved it, was not Struensee at liberty to accept it? The form of the council is no material portion of the Danish constitution. That the king was dissatisfied with its arrangement, is visible from many passages in the examination; and there can be no better proof of this than that his Majesty signed the decree of its abolition with his own hand. Even though Count Struensee advised it, we find from Count Brandt's explanation to quest. 18, that several persons considered his sentiments correct, and that the plan was that the colleges should be heard in ordinary cases, and commissions in extraordinary affairs, the final decision being left to the king; so that it cannot be asserted that the royal power was thus rendered greater or less than it should be according to the _Lex Regia_. For a belief that affairs consequently were carried on with less vigour than before, or that the nation was unequally oppressed by the promotion of foreigners, neither the documents nor experience afford a reason. No other noble was prohibited from appearing at court except Count Laurvig (Ahlefeldt Laurvig), who had met with the same fate once before; and if several nobles retired to their estates, and Copenhagen suffered through the declension of luxury, this may be ascribed to the hard times rather than other causes.