As regards Struensee's crimes against the royal law, the counsel for the defence entertains the same views as his principal, that the king was able to do it. It is true that the king can select any adviser he pleases, but is the man whom he selects as adviser permitted to consent to things which have injurious results? The royal law states the duty of the king and of his subjects. According to article 3, no alteration can be made in it. If anything is done to the royal law, the right of reigning is lost (I write juridically, and do not suppose that the law is maintained by the sword). The King of Denmark is sovereign on the conditions to which Frederick III. pledged himself, and, as _primus adquirens_, was able in turn to pledge his descendants and successors on the throne. In article 7 of the royal law, he commanded that all government decrees and letters should be issued in no other name but the king's, and that the king himself must sign them, if he has attained his majority. In article 26, employed against me, he determined the punishment of any man who attempted any almost imperceptible encroachment on the king's authority. Hence it was Count Struensee's duty, if he wished to be an honest adviser of the king, to represent that it was not right to make known the king's will in such a way, as it was contrary to the royal law, in which the king has no power to make the slightest alterations: that the obedience of the subjects ceases if the royal law is altered without their consent: that hence the king ran the highest risk in acting thus, and it might cost him, Struensee, his head. That Count Struensee really misused the power which he appropriated, I have clearly proved by his conduct in the order for the dissolution of the body-guard, and also that in this instance he laid incorrect statements before the king. The other things that Herr Uldall mentions as agreeing with the royal law, are not applicable here. I have shown that Count Struensee had impure intentions in the abolition of the council, namely, to be alone, and be able to do whatever he liked. That he failed in the reverence which he owed his Majesty, has been proved by witnesses. The falsification is so evident to everybody, that only Count Struensee's confession of it is wanting, which he holds back, however, because he does not wish to be regarded as a forger after his death. That he afterwards brought the same sum under his Majesty's notice cannot be employed in his defence, for there was no special statement which could have reminded his royal Majesty of the incorrectness.