A short history of Belgium

by Léon van der Essen

When the Revolution of the Belgians against Austrian rule broke out in 1789, the Elector Frederick-William of Prussia tried in vain to obtain from the other powers, England and Holland, the recognition of the Belgian Republic. He proposed that they should recognize the independence of Belgium and compel the Belgians “to establish a firm, strong constitution, in conformity with the interests of the Allies...; to create, subject to the advice of the Allies, a respectable military state that would inspire confidence; to avoid alliances with powers, enemies of the Allies, and also trade with them.”

As Prussia was ready to make war on Austria, her hereditary enemy, Emperor Leopold II declared that he would, in case of war, cede the “Austrian Netherlands” to France. This England could not have permitted, and therefore that country withdrew support from Prussia, causing the Elector Frederick-William to abandon his plan concerning Belgium.

The French conquest of Belgium entirely changed the policy of the European powers with regard to the Belgian problem. England now saw the French menace facing her own shores, and, according to her traditional policy, began to take measures to avoid the danger. On November 13, 1813, Lord Castlereagh wrote to the English ambassador in Vienna: “I must particularly recommend you to pay attention to Antwerp.... Leaving Antwerp in the hands of France means, or almost means, imposing on us the necessity of a continuous state of war.” It was now England that was specially interested in the future status of Belgium, and it is from that country that emanated the idea, forcibly expressed, of establishing a strong bulwark against France by the creation of the neutral kingdom of the Netherlands. The idea, supported by Prussia, which, as we have seen, had advocated it some years before, was, however, this time expressed by Lord Castlereagh; and the aggrandizement of Holland by its union with Belgium was strongly supported by the Duke of Wellington. Accordingly, on July 31, 1814, the Belgian provinces were formally handed over to the Prince of Orange, whom the Dutch had made their sovereign the year before. The arrangement was confirmed by the Congress of Vienna, and made to include Liège and Luxemburg.

The union of Belgium and Holland was the work of diplomacy: the Belgians had not even been consulted. It was an essentially bad combination. Had the “complete and intimate fusion,” of which the diplomats spoke, been possible between both countries, the projectors would have accomplished an admirable work, offering the surest guaranties for the maintenance of European peace and the durability of their own fabric. But unfortunately the conception was utopian.

Independently of the fact that the Allies disdained to consult the feelings of the Belgian people, they appeared to have lost sight of the moral history of the Netherlands, and to have forgotten those deep-rooted hatreds, jealousies, and dissensions, both religious and political, that had divided the two peoples since the time of their separation in the sixteenth century. Count Charles Van Hoogendorp, a prominent member of the Dutch chamber, in a pamphlet entitled Séparation de la Hollande et de la Belgique, October, 1830 (Amsterdam), himself acknowledged the lack of sympathy between these peoples: “The difference of national character had engendered grievances, and these grievances had excited universal discontent, and national animosity. The division between the two countries existed de facto. Instead of a fusion, all the means employed to amalgamate the two people had only served to disunite them still further. This discontent was not the birth of a day; it dates from the first union of the two states.”

After peace had been restored in 1815, when Napoleon had suffered defeat at Waterloo, difficulties began at once. In March, 1814, Holland had adopted a constitution. Inspired by the old laws of the United Provinces, it was in the main strongly Protestant. Eleven Dutch, eleven Belgians, and two delegates representing Luxemburg were appointed to transform this constitution into one that could be applied to the new kingdom of the Netherlands. The commission proposed the introduction of equality and toleration for all creeds throughout the kingdom, and the creation of a two-chambered Parliament in which Holland and Belgium were to have an equal number of representatives, although the Belgians had 50 per cent more population. No national capital was specified, but the King was to be invested both at Amsterdam and at some city in Belgium. On these principles a fundamental constitution was drafted and submitted contemporaneously to the Dutch States-General and to the notables of the different Belgian provinces. The Dutch passed it unanimously; the Belgians rejected it by a vote of 1,603 to 527. This rejection was partly due to the unwillingness of the Belgian notables to legalize religious equality. The Dutch King, William I, decided to meet the difficulty in a simple manner. He announced that all who had abstained from voting should be counted as voting for the act, and that the 126 hostile votes still remaining as a majority against the act after counting in its favor those refraining from voting should not count, as the principle of religious liberty had been imposed by the Congress of Vienna and had to be observed. This method, which the Belgians called “Dutch arithmetic,” gave to the act 933 votes in its favor as against 670 hostile votes, and it was declared passed.

It became more and more clear that William I was not “the right man in the right place”: he was too Protestant, too Dutch, too autocratic for the Belgians. The latter soon complained of new grievances, among which the following were the most important: the imposition of the Dutch language upon all functionaries, whether civil or military, without granting time to learn it to those who could not speak it; the extreme partiality shown in the distribution of all offices and emoluments; and a financial system that bore heavily and unjustly on Belgium. The Belgians were made to contribute to the payment of debts incurred by Holland long prior to the union, and to pay for the defense of the Dutch colonies, which yielded them no returns at all. The Haute Cour, or supreme court of justice, and all other great public institutions were established in Holland. The religious grievances were also numerous: the government was ill disposed toward the Catholics, and it was supposed that it desired to “Protestantize” the people. Since 1815, the Belgian bishops, under the leadership of Monsignor de Broglie, bishop of Ghent, had dissuaded their flocks from taking the oath to a constitution that introduced liberty of worship. Moreover, in 1825, William I, imitating the plan formerly developed by Joseph II, had established a Philosophic College at Louvain where all priests would receive their education; and, claiming the monopoly for the state in educational matters, had suppressed the episcopal and other national colleges and free schools. Sundry oppressive taxes, repugnant to the habits and usages of the people, were imposed. The freedom of the press was destroyed, and journalists were continually prosecuted before the tribunals. The King even pressed into service ignominious French pamphleteers, expelled from their own country, who daily insulted the Belgians.

This was too much for the descendants of those who had fought the tyrannies of Spain, Austria, and France. Public opinion became excited, and in 1828 a union was concluded between the Catholics, partisans of tradition, and the Liberals, who had adopted the ideas of the French Revolution. Threatened in their common interests and privileges, Catholics and Liberals worked together to obtain redress of their grievances and to defend their liberties.

Like Joseph II, the Dutch King refused to hear their complaints, and continued to offend the Belgian people. In 1830 an event of great importance fanned the revolt into flame.[20] In July the people of Paris overthrew the French legitimist monarchy and the government of Charles X. Just as the Brabant Revolution of 1789 was inspired in the first instance by events in Paris and by the fall of the Bastile, so the “July days” gave the final impulse to the Belgians in August. On the evening of August 25, the Brussels Opera House gave a performance of Auber’s La Muette de Portici. When the hero of the piece sang the famous air appealing for revolt and liberty, the effect on the emotions of his hearers was such as to cause them to rush into the streets and then and there inaugurate a revolt against the Dutch. They sacked the house of Van Maenen, the unpopular minister of William I, and that of Libri, the editor of the official governmental newspaper, and attacked the homes of many against whom hatred had long been growing. A guard of citizens was raised to maintain order and a Committee of Regency was established in the Hôtel de Ville. The French tricolor, which had first been hoisted—and this proves the interference of French clubs at the beginning of the Revolution—was replaced by the old Brabant tricolor (black, yellow, red), which is now the Belgian flag. The other chief towns followed and confined their Dutch garrisons within the citadels and forts. Meanwhile a deputation was sent to the King, to petition for the administrative separation of Belgium and Holland, retaining, however, their personal union. William I, unaware of the gravity of the situation, paid scarcely any attention to the delegates. He sent a Dutch army nearly 10,000 strong, with many guns, under Prince Frederick, his younger son, to attack Brussels, where the revolutionists held the lower town. The troops fought their way to the very heart of the upper town, but were stopped at the Place Royale by the stubborn resistance of the Belgian volunteers. These were merely Brussels citizens, reinforced by 300 volunteers from Liège under Charles Rogier, 200 from Louvain, with Jenneval, author of the “Brabançonne,”[21] and others from various Walloon towns. For three days there was terrible street fighting, and on the night of September 26-27 Prince Frederick, with at least 1,500 killed and many wounded, admitted his defeat and left Brussels. Meanwhile a provisional government had been established, composed of Baron d’Hoogvorst, the commander of the volunteers; Charles Rogier, who afterward became the Belgian prime minister; Count Felix de Merode; Van de Weyer, afterward Belgian minister in London; Gendebien, the leader of the French party among the revolutionists, Joly, and De Potter. On October 4, 1830, this provisional government declared Belgium an independent state, and announced its intention of preparing a constitution which was to be approved and adopted by a national congress. A special commission decided, on October 12, in favor of a constitutional monarchy. The final decree of the congress establishing this constitution as law was voted on February 7, 1831.

The basis of the new Belgian constitution consisted of the charters and privileges of the different Belgian provinces and cities, which dated from the Middle Ages, and especially the “Joyeuse Entrée” of Brabant, of which mention has already been made. Other liberties, required by the spirit of modern times, were added: equality of all the Belgians before the law; freedom of worship, of the press, of association, of educational teaching, and the right to vote was accorded to all Belgians who paid a certain amount in taxes.