ought not to have advised the suppression of verbal reports, but to have always opposed it. But he appeared to have been possessed by a mania for reformation. As a proof, it might be mentioned that he proposed the reform for which was introduced into Norway by the regulation of January 14, 1771, that lands, after ten years' tenure, should become freehold, which no man of perspicuity could have advised.[27] The commission found a second instance in the reform of the two Chanceries, although the division of business, according to provinces, had had the best results. Before all, however, Von Gähler wished to remodel the navy. It was quite incredible what tricks he employed to get it into his hands, and the commission reports that the misfortune which befel the Algerine expedition gave Von Gähler the desired opportunity for effecting it. Herr von Gähler's crime, therefore, principally consisted in the fact, that he interfered in everything, and wished to reform all the regulations of the state, without possessing the requisite knowledge and insight, without knowing the advantages or defects of what existed, and without sufficiently pondering over the consequences of his propositions. The commission, however, could find no excuse in the circumstance that Von Gähler's proposed reforms only consisted of ideas and thoughts, whose trial by experiments injured nobody, because most of the affairs in which he interfered in no way concerned him, and the trouble he took in order to obtain a justification for doing so, proved a greater offence; for he had applied to Struensee, a man who was even more ignorant than himself in such things, and blindly followed everything that was proposed to him, especially when such propositions suggested radical changes. The commission, however, would not omit mentioning that the general, since May, 1771, had possessed no special influence over Struensee, because he had joined the opposition against the reduction of the Horse Guards, and besides, he had not commended himself to the cabinet minister, by representing to him how little the power he had appropriated agreed with the royal law. Lastly, the general also displayed firmness when the Foot Guards were disbanded; he had likewise resisted the removal of the two regiments, and in the Generalty represented to Chamberlain von Falckenskjold how improper it was to propose the regiment of the hereditary prince for such a dislocation, without first asking whether this would be agreeable to the prince.