A short history of Belgium

by Léon van der Essen

The French now treated the conquered territory with great harshness. The followers of the Catholic religion were severely persecuted, the churches were closed, the priests were sentenced to death or deported to French Guiana and to the islands of Ré and Oléron, the Catholic worship was suppressed and replaced by that of the “Goddess of Reason.” For the first time in Belgian history military conscription was forced upon the inhabitants, and the youth of the country was compelled to shed its blood on foreign battlefields for a régime it abhorred.

This naturally stirred up bitter resentment; and, even as they had risen against Joseph II, so a part at least of the Belgians rose against the French. This revolt is known as the War of the Peasants (1798-99), because it was mainly the people of the countryside in Flanders, Campine, and Luxemburg who fought in defense of their hearths and their religion. They fought heroically with old weapons, scythes, pikes, and guns of old pattern, under the leadership of a few nobles and burgesses. There is a close resemblance between their struggle and that of the French peasants in the Vendée. But what could they accomplish against the well-equipped armies of the Republic? The egotism of the educated classes, which gave them no support at all, and their lack of training and experience, soon brought their valiant resistance to an inglorious end. One after another their bands were exterminated, and those who did not fall on the battlefield died against a wall by the bullets of a firing squad.

Their gallantry did not save the country. Belgium remained fifteen years longer under French domination. The Concordat concluded in 1801 between Pope Pius VII and Napoleon Bonaparte brought the religious persecution to an end, and the Catholic worship was restored. When Bonaparte had become Emperor Napoleon I, the glory which surrounded his name made a profound impression on the Belgians, and the great Emperor became very popular among them. Antwerp attracted all his attention; and it is due to him that the Scheldt, after a century and a half of being closed, was again opened to trade and was freed from the tyrannous control of the Dutch. As military conscription still prevailed, the Belgians filled the ranks of the imperial army, and their blood was shed for the fame and the power of Napoleon all over Europe. The conqueror left on the country, however, the impress of his spirit of organization in the famous Code Napoléon, that monument of civil law that still forms the basis of Belgian jurisprudence. The spell of his name appeared from the fact that after the defeat of his armies at Leipzig in 1813 there was no revolt against him in Belgium as there was in Holland.

The fall of Napoleon ended the French domination of the Belgians (1814). However, the diplomats who rearranged the map of Europe, while the once mighty Emperor was sent to St. Helena, had determined that the country was not to be restored to its former political status.

CHAPTER XII

THE DUTCH RULE AND THE BELGIAN REVOLT OF 1830

After the fall of Napoleon, the powers were called upon to decide the political status of Belgium. The Belgians were not consulted in the matter, vitally important as it was, and their country was considered merely as the spoil of the Allies. The main idea that actuated the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) in rearranging the map of Europe was to prevent a new menace from the side of France. This country was not allowed to hold more territory than it possessed in 1789, before the outbreak of the Revolution; at the same time the Allies who had defeated Napoleon sought to erect a bulwark against any new extension of France in the North. They could have granted independence to Belgium, but as the country was weak it seemed that independence would mean reabsorption by France. The final settlement of this important question resulted, therefore, in the formation of the new Kingdom of the Netherlands, whereby both Belgium and Holland, united under the same sovereign, would, it was expected, present a sufficiently strong barrier against France. The new kingdom was declared also to be neutral territory. This is the first time that the conception of neutrality was realized with regard to a buffer-state in Western Europe, located between England, France, and Germany. But the conception of neutrality, as applied to the Netherlands, is much older than the Congress of Vienna; and it seems worth while to trace the different schemes dealing with Belgian neutrality before the years 1814-15.[19]

The idea of establishing the neutrality of the Netherlands goes back in history as far as the government of Maria of Hungary, at the time of Emperor Charles V. The former proposed the neutrality of the Belgian provinces on February 8, 1536, in order that they might escape being made the battlefield of Europe during the impending international conflicts. Charles V refused to consider the scheme, as he himself was planning to raise the Netherlands into an independent kingdom, to be governed by the son of Francis I, King of France. This plan, of course, was never carried out.

In 1634 France and Holland concluded a special treaty against Spain, by which the Netherlands should either become an independent kingdom or be divided between the contracting powers. Cardinal Richelieu, the French minister, preferred the idea of an independent Belgium, and went so far as to propose that this kingdom should be permanently neutral. In that way the cornerstone of Spanish power in Europe would have been destroyed. Although neutral, Belgium would have had the right to conclude offensive alliances, but would not enjoy the benefit of having the integrity of its territory guaranteed. If that scheme had been carried out, the Belgians would have had to revolt against Spanish rule. But the Belgians, owing to the presence of strong Spanish armies within their borders, did not revolt. The plan of Richelieu failed. His scheme was, however, taken over by Cardinal Mazarin, minister of Louis XIV. Mazarin had first suggested the annexation of Belgium by France, but he met with strong opposition on the part of Holland and England, both interested in keeping the French menace from extending right to their own doors. Changing his mind, Mazarin, in 1658, reverted to Richelieu’s plan concerning the creation of an independent and neutral Belgium. This proposal met with the strong opposition of the Dutch “Staatspensionnaris” De Witt, who expressed the fear that such a state would ruin Dutch trade—an independent Belgium would necessarily be given a free Scheldt. He also made it clear that Holland could not forego her right to meddle in the affairs of the Catholic Netherlands, and that the idea of a common protectorate over them would be welcome. Mazarin seems not to have been sincere when proposing his plan. It may be inferred that his main object was to quiet the fear of Holland that the French and the English would use Belgium as a base during their operations against Spain.

When the Treaty of the Barriers (1715) threatened to impose upon Belgium the Dutch garrisons which were maintained for protection against France, the latter presented (February 17) a memoir to Holland, again proposing the status of permanent neutrality for Belgium. The egotism and ill-will of the Dutch defeated this proposal. They would never have consented to the opening of the Scheldt, which was a necessary condition for an independent Belgium. Their policy on this point is made clear by the declaration of the States-General of the United Provinces, when Emperor Joseph II, in 1756, endeavored to obtain the opening of the Scheldt and free shipping on the river. The States-General declared that “the salvation or the loss of the Republic and its inhabitants depended upon this point.”