These are the principal crimes of Count Brandt as regards his own person. In addition, he took part in all the crimes which Count Struensee committed; he had confidants and instruments to set in work everything that Count Struensee wished, instead of acting in accordance with his oath and his duty, and avoiding those things which he knew would have evil results. I may be permitted to regard it as superfluous to enter more fully into these matters, as they are well known to the exalted commission, and I have sufficient proofs for my proposed sentence, which I most submissively offer for decision in the following terms:-- "That Count Chamberlain Enevold Brandt, who has not only forgotten the most submissive veneration which he owed to the king his master, but also had the audacity to go into the king's cabinet, and then not only address his supreme royal Majesty in bad language, but also to commit the most audacious and unheard-of deed of laying hands on his lord the king, the anointed of God, as an insult to his royal Majesty, as well as behaved in many points unfaithfully to his Majesty, and consented to many things against his better knowledge, although his royal Majesty had shown him great favour,--be condemned by virtue of the paragraphs of the law 6--4--1--14, to forfeit his dignity as count and his office of chamberlain as well as his honour, life and estate; that after his coat of arms has been broken by the executioner, his right hand shall be cut off while alive, the body quartered and exposed on the wheel, his head and hands affixed to a pole, his fortune confiscated to the king, and his heirs, should he possess any, lose their rank and name." _April_ 21, 1772. F. W. WIWET. * * * * * As regards Brandt's confession of a knowledge of the familiarity between the queen and Struensee, it is probable that Brandt was persuaded that his life depended on what he might say about the _liaison_. What other motive could he have had for making such a confession? If Brandt had merely declared, like Berger and others, that he had suspicions on the subject, it would have been of no use. Something positive being required, he declared that he was informed of it. How could he be so? Was it by Struensee, who concealed nothing from him? But Struensee, instead of acknowledging this confidence, absolutely denied it, and no confrontation was ventured. Again, if Brandt's declaration was correct, why did Struensee repulse it so loudly? It appears indisputable that he did so because it was false. And the position in which Brandt placed himself by yielding to the solicitations of the commissioners was very probably the cause of his ruin. The mysteries of this trial must be buried with him. Without this motive, what interest could there have been in destroying a man like Brandt? Was there a shadow of justice in condemning him to death for things which were quite common with the king?