representation of his department, or a direct report to the king. I understood to what confusion it would give rise if I listened to all the insinuations and suggestions laid before the king, and carried them out through the cabinet. I was therefore induced to take great care not to speak with any one about affairs unconnected with his department, and I directed my attention solely to information that reached the cabinet through ordinary channels. This conduct injured me personally, though it might be advantageous to the affairs, for it drew on me a suspicion that I was distrustful and reserved, and unwilling to accept any good advice. By degrees several persons were suspected of exerting an influence over me, but I can declare that no one ever possessed such an ascendancy, and that the only person to whom I gave unlimited confidence was Count Brandt. Still, I can assert that I said but little, even to Count Brandt, about the affairs, and the rest shared my confidence only in isolated instances. In the affairs I had no secrets affecting myself, and the other matters I could not and would not confide to any one but Count Brandt. I wished that persons in business matters should act according to their convictions, and not look to me. For this reason, I believed it requisite for the king formally to declare that his Majesty had entrusted the cabinet business to me, so that it might not appear as if I had usurped it. This occasioned the cabinet decree of July 14, 1771, which is so greatly brought against me, and is said to be opposed to the _Lex Regia_. I will honestly declare my intentions and principles. 1. I am free to confess that I tried to concentrate the royal authority in the cabinet, in accordance with the above-mentioned form and principles. 2. I had frequently remarked that royal orders were given by persons who had an opportunity to approach his Majesty, without having any other justification for doing so, than the fact that they had spoken with the king on the matter. This might give rise to many abuses, which I tried to prevent by having every direct order copied in a register. The persons who executed them were thus rendered secure, and the king knew who was answerable for the execution. 3. Instead of such orders not being brought under the king's notice, as was formerly the case, his Majesty saw them three or four times. 4. The king signed them in the extract, which was kept in the cabinet, or on the representations of the department, which reported receipt of the order. 5. No department could have any influence over another, except through the king, and there was a copy of it in the cabinet.