"The royal law supplied Uldall with an article which, by formally authorising the king to suppress or create any council or office he thought proper, consequently gave the right of proposing the suppression of the privy council and of other offices which might appear injurious to the interests of the monarchy, as well as the creation of a cabinet minister. Further, Uldall did not develope all the absurdity of the charge of forgery brought against his client. He did not make use of the means he possessed to justify him about the ill-treatment of the king, of which Brandt was accused: means the more easy, because there was in this point no evidence against Struensee. He ought to have discussed the reforms effected by this minister, and have shown that far from being criminal and injurious, they generally tended to the welfare of the state and the advantage of the monarch. This examination would have given him occasion to display the conduct of Struensee, and show him, as he really was, vigilant and anxious to simplify affairs, so that the king might see and know them, and decide them himself. It was very easy to heighten the merit of such conduct by comparing it with that of previous ministers; by placing in its true light that royal law by virtue of which every Danish monarch binds himself on ascending the throne not to suffer any attack on his power, and to maintain it in its integrity. It was not sufficient to say, as if _en passant_, that the will of the king covered the acts of Struensee's administration with an inviolable defence; he ought to have made those who attacked them feel the consequences to which they exposed themselves; he ought to have shown them in the royal law the sword that menaced those who dared to condemn in Struensee the wishes and orders of the king."[91] But Uldall had been one of Struensee's opponents from the beginning, and hence was most unfitted to be a defender; and that he consented to be so, on being selected by the chief conspirator, throws a sufficient light on his good will as a lawyer. But what will my readers think of the two advocates, and the legal members of the commission, when I state that the criminal code of Christian V. prohibits every judge from listening to or trying charges that dishonour members of the reigning family? Falckenskjold says about this:--