As regards the education of his royal highness the prince royal, I refer to the count's own memorial; he protests most sacredly against ever having entertained such thoughts as the Fiscal General imputes to him. In this matter, he is so conscious of the purity of his intentions, that he is willing to submit it to the verdict of experienced physicians, whether the prince's health has not been improved by it. Moreover, it was the queen's will that this course should be pursued; and Count Struensee more than once drew on himself her displeasure, by representing to her that the right measure was exceeded in it. (_Cfr._ letter F., pp. 361 and 362.) As concerns the "passage" between his royal Majesty and Count Brandt, which forms a charge in the Fiscal General's indictment, the explanations of Count Struensee show that he could never have conjectured that Count Brandt would undertake it in so audacious a way as he did, but that the affair would be settled _en badinant_ between the king and Brandt. His advice was to the effect that Brandt should keep aloof from the king; and that Brandt did not, in the remotest degree, expect Count Struensee's assent, or subsequent approval, in this affair, is seen from the fact that he not only previously kept secret the way in which he had resolved to go to work, as he merely said "that he would demand an explanation of the king," but that, afterwards, he also concealed the most aggravating portions of his deed,--the circumstance with the riding-whip; his bolting the door; and the challenging and abusive language which he employed. In so far, then, as regards the share which Count Struensee had in this "passage," he hopes the more to be excused, because his Majesty the King, in such private matters, did not wish to be regarded as king, but as a private person, which was the reason why he, Count Struensee, did not oppose Brandt's design, so far as it was known to him. That it was never his "sentiment" to neglect the proper reverence in intercourse with the king; and that no one can mention an instance of it, strengthens his innocence in this case; for what the Fiscal General alleges to the contrary only consists of mere gossip. Equally little can Brandt's letter, quoted by the Fiscal General, serve as a proof that Brandt was rewarded for his conduct to the king, as it was written in September, 1771, and the "passage" with Brandt did not take place till November of that year. And should not all this be a sufficient justification for Count Struensee, he appeals to the kindness which his Majesty has so frequently shown him, to obtain his pardon.