[Footnote 7: Did they forget that the constitution which governs Denmark gives the king absolute power? Could not the king dismiss one of his officers without form of trial or the intervention of justice? Remember, that those who brought this charge against Struensee also removed from office persons who displeased them, and even deprived them of their liberty and property. What I personally experienced certainly places me in the position to judge.--_Falckenskjold_, p. 205.] [Footnote 8: A reference to the sieges of Charles X. in 1658 and 1659, and more especially to the violent assault by the Swedes on the night of February 11, 1659, which was repulsed by the citizens, and to the conduct of the Copenhageners at the Diet of 1660, when the sovereignty was handed over to Frederick III., and the previous electoral kingdom was converted into an agnatic-cognatic Denmark-Norway, exclusive of the German Duchies and counties.] [Footnote 9: This accusation is devoid of truth. Brandt could not always be about his Majesty. The truth is, that the king was no more difficult to approach under Struensee's administration than he had been under the previous ministry. He was frequently alone, and I saw him arrive thus at Gripsholm. It was after the fall of Struensee that the king, being closely watched, was only accessible as far as pleased the dominant party.-—_Falckenskjold_, p. 205.] [Footnote 10: I may remark that Struensee had a salary of 1,500 crowns as secretary to the cabinet; that he afterwards had 3,000 in his quality of councillor; that he lived inexpensively and dressed plainly; that only a few days before his fall he set up his carriage, the magnificence of which was imputed as a crime--it was a carriage in the English style, without gilding or painting, lined with straw-coloured cloth. Guldberg, who charged him with avidity, afterwards thought proper to accept a gratification of 100,000 crowns in one sum, by a note signed by the king.--_Falckenskjold_, p. 208.] [Footnote 11: If Struensee's enemies had not been his accusers and judges, they would not have compared a small present made to the queen with what the king gave to simple private persons without fortune, whom he had summoned and admitted to his familiarity. They would not have pretended to be ignorant why Struensee wrote the accounts of May, 1771, and did not write the following accounts when he had ceased to be cabinet secretary.—-_Falckenskjold_, p. 206.]