It is true that Count Brandt has tried to excuse this audacious deed, partly by the assurance that such things were frequently done to his Majesty by Count Holck and Warnstedt, partly by asserting that his royal Majesty has forgiven him this crime. But even if, as regards the first apology, we were to assume for a moment that such audacious deeds were really done by Count Holck and Von Warnstedt, this cannot exculpate Count Brandt, who was not justified in acting thus because another before him had committed these crimes and escaped punishment. And as regards the second excuse, his royal Majesty never forgave him his crime, for the witnesses I have mentioned declare, that after this occurrence his Majesty could not endure Count Brandt, and was afraid of being attacked by him; that his Majesty locked his door on the following night, which was not usually the case, and thus revealed that his Majesty had not forgiven Count Brandt the offence, and also that his Majesty ordered page Schack[1] to denounce Count Brandt's treatment of him to this commission, which would not have happened had the offence been pardoned. Although such conduct toward a king can never meet with an apology, still, if the assault had been made at the moment when Count Brandt considered himself insulted, and if it might appear that he had undertaken it in an outburst of excitement, a good deal might still be said against it. But in this case, where he goes in to his king after reflection, and in cold blood, orders out the persons present, so that there may be no witnesses of the improper deed, locks the door, in order that no one may afford assistance, seizes the king round the neck, threatens him with death; and when he at length lets him loose, after the king has spoken soothingly, threatens him that another time he shall not get off so cheaply; and, in addition, abuses the king, as himself is obliged to confess--nothing can be brought forward as the slightest excuse for him; he is a child of death, and one of the greatest criminals that ever trod the earth. He has acted against his oath, which commands him to risk his life and blood for his king and the defence of his life; but exactly contrary to this oath he attacks his king, and in such a way that the latter suffers a loss of blood.