I have not attacked him for being a foreigner, but because the business he undertook was foreign to him. I will not allow with Advocate Uldall that it is no state crime not to understand the language of the country when a man holds such a station as Count Struensee. Herr Uldall cannot produce any instance of it. Perhaps one man might be found who did not understand the language like a native, but in that case he occupied a station in which he did not require to understand it.[92] I have alleged this, his ignorance of the language, as a proof of his foolhardiness in accepting a post in which it was his duty to talk with Danes and Norwegians, and to read their petitions, without being compelled to trust to the fidelity of a translator. The count must himself confess that he did not know the laws of the country; was he not, therefore, deficient in the two "great things" which are requisite to examine the demands of the nation? and can I be blamed for mentioning that he, Struensee, had no religion, when his friend, Count Brandt, acknowledges it, and even declares that he did not dare propose attendance at church, solely through fear of Struensee? Ought not every one who is about the king to fear God, as that is made a duty of the king in article 1 of the royal law? Can any one deny that he was bold and impudent? If he turned his attention to affairs of state when he was a doctor of medicine, he was an indolent doctor, for a skilful minister of state does not spring up like a mushroom, and in that case how dared he take on himself to become physician in ordinary? But if he devoted himself to medicine, how could he desire to become the highest and sole authority in the affairs of the country? Can a man be treated mildly whose principle it is that goodness injures a country? through goodness mutual love is acquired. Which king is the more secure--the one who is beloved, or the one before whom people tremble? _Oderint dum metuant_ was the consolation of the tyrant, but he is amiable who seeks his honour in love of his country. Therefore, I have called things by their right name, and do not do so in order to display my courage against a prisoner--for I never took pleasure in my neighbour's misfortune--but in order to perform my duty. Advocate Uldall has represented the count first from the side where his crimes find an apparent excuse, so that that comes last in his reply which stands first in my statement. I shall follow his example, and concisely answer his defence.