Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Bedlam" to "Benson, George" / Volume 3, Slice 5

by Various

For sixteen years (1725-1741) the archduchess Mary Elizabeth, sister of the emperor, filled the post of governor-general. Her rule was marked by the restoration of the old form Archduchess Mary Elizabeth. of administration under the three councils, and was a period of general tranquillity. She died (1741) in the Netherlands, and the empress-queen, Maria Theresa, who had succeeded under the Pragmatic Sanction to the Burgundian domains of her father about a year before, appointed her brother-in-law, Charles of Lorraine, to be governor-general in her aunt’s place, and he retained that post, to the great advantage of Belgium, for nearly forty years. Charles of Lorraine. He was deservedly known as the “Good Governor.” The first years of his administration were stormy. During the Austrian War of Succession the country was conquered by the French, and for two years Marshal Saxe bore the title of governor-general, but it was restored to Austria by the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748). Belgium was undisturbed by the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), and during the long peace which followed enjoyed considerable prosperity. Charles of Lorraine thoroughly identified himself with the best interests of the country, and was the champion of its liberties, and though he had at times to make a stand against the imperialistic tendencies of the chancellor Kaunitz, he was able to rely on the steady support of the empress, who appreciated the wise and liberal policy of her brother-in-law. Although the Scheldt was still closed, Charles endeavoured by a large extension of the canal system to facilitate commercial intercourse, he encouraged agriculture, and was successful in restoring the prosperity of the country. He also did much for the advancement of learning, founding, among other institutions, the Academy of Science, and he consistently restrained the undue intervention of the church in secular affairs, and placed restrictions upon the accumulation of property in the hands of religious bodies.

The death of Charles of Lorraine preceded only by a few months that of Maria Theresa, whose son Joseph II. not only appointed his sister, the archduchess Maria Christine, governor-general, but visited Belgium in person and Reforming zeal of Joseph II. showed a great and active interest in its affairs. Here as elsewhere in his dominions his intentions were excellent, but his reforming zeal outran discretion, and his hasty and self-opinionated interferences with treaty rights and traditional privileges ended in provoking opposition and disaster. Finding the United Provinces hampered by a war with England, he seized the opportunity to try to get rid of the impediments placed upon Belgian development by the Barrier and other treaties with Holland. He was able to compel the Dutch to withdraw their garrisons from the Barrier towns, but was wholly unsuccessful in his high-handed attempt to free the navigation of the Scheldt. These efforts to coerce the Dutch, though marred by partial failure, were, however, calculated to win for Joseph II. popularity with his Belgian subjects; but it was far otherwise with his policy of internal reform. He offended the states by seeking to sweep away many of their inherited privileges and to change the time-honoured, if somewhat obsolete, system of civil government. He further excited the religious feelings of the people against him, by his edict of Tolerance (1780), and his later attempts at the reform of clerical abuses, which were pronounced to be an infraction of the Joyous Entry (see [Joyeuse Entrée]). Fierce opposition was aroused. Numbers of malcontents left the country and organized themselves as a military force in Holland. As the discontent became more general, the The Brabancon revolt. insurgents returned, took several forts, defeated the Austrians at Turnhout, and overran the country. On the 11th of December 1789, the people of Brussels rose against the Austrian garrison, and compelled it to capitulate, and, on the 27th, the states of Brabant declared their independence. The other provinces followed and, on the 11th of January 1790, the whole formed themselves into an independent state, under the name of the “Belgian United States.” A few weeks later, on the 20th of February, Joseph II. died, his end hastened by chagrin at the utter failure of his well-meant efforts, and was succeeded by Leopold II.

The new emperor at once took steps to re-assert, if possible, his authority in Belgium without having recourse to armed force. He offered the states, if the people would return to their allegiance, the restoration of their ancient Leopold II. pacifies the country. constitution and a general amnesty. This, however, did not suit views of the popular party, who, under the leadership of an advocate named Van der Noot, had possession of the reins of power, and were uplifted by their success. The terms offered in an imperial proclamation were rejected, and preparations were made to resist coercion by the levée en masse of a national army. When, however, in November 1790, a powerful Austrian force entered the country, there was practically little opposition to its advance. The popular leaders fled, the form of government, as it existed at the end of the reign of Maria Theresa, and an amnesty for past offences was proclaimed; a superficial pacification of the revolted provinces was effected, and Austrian rule re-established. It was destined to be short-lived. In 1792 the armies of revolutionary France assailed Austria at her weakest point by an invasion of Belgium. The battle of Jemappes (7th of November) made the French Conquest of Belgium by the French. masters of the southern portion of the Austrian Netherlands; the battle of Fleurus (26th of June 1794) put an end to the rule of the Habsburgs over the Belgic provinces. The treaty of Campo Formio (1797) and the subsequent treaty of Lunéville (1801) confirmed the conquerors in the possession of the country, and Belgium became an integral part of France, being governed on the same footing, receiving the Code Napoléon, and sharing in the fortunes of the Republic and the Empire. After the fall of Napoleon and the conclusion of the first peace of Paris (30th of May 1814) Belgium was indeed for some months placed under the administration Union of Holland and Belgium under William I. of an Austrian governor-general, but it was shortly afterwards united with Holland to form the kingdom of the Netherlands. The sovereignty of the newly formed state was given to the prince of Orange, who mounted the throne (23rd of March 1815) under the title of William I. The congress of Vienna (31st of May 1815) determined the relations and fixed the boundaries of the kingdom; and the new constitution was promulgated on the 24th of August following, the king taking the oath at Brussels on the 27th of September.

From this date until the Belgian revolt of 1830, the history of Holland and Belgium is that of two portions of one political entity, but in the relations of those two portions were to be found from the very outset fundamental causes 1814-1830. tending to disagreement and separation. The Dutch and Belgian provinces of the Netherlands had for one hundred and thirty years passed through totally different experiences, and had drifted farther and farther apart from one another in character, in habits, in ideas and above all in religion. In the south the policy of Alva and Philip II. had been wholly successful, and the Belgian people, Flemings and Walloons alike, were perhaps more devoted to the Catholic faith than any other in Europe. On the other hand the incorporation of the country for two decades in the French republic and empire had left deep traces on a considerable section of the population, the French language was commonly spoken and was exclusively used in the law courts and in all public proceedings, and French political theories had made many converts. The Fundamental Law promulgated by William I. aroused strong opposition among both the Catholic and Liberal parties in Belgium. The large powers granted to the king under the new constitution displeased the Liberals, who saw in its provision only a disguised form of personal government. The principle of liberty of worship and of the press, which it laid down, was so offensive to the Catholics that the bishops condemned it publicly, and in the Doctrinal Judgment actually forbade their flocks to take the oath. The “close and complete union,” which was stipulated under the treaty of 1814, began under unfavourable auspices. Nevertheless the difficulties might have been smoothed away in the course of time, had the Belgians felt that the Dutch were treating them in a fair and conciliatory spirit. This, despite the undoubtedly good intentions of the king, was far from being the case. Belgium was regarded too much in the light of an annexed Causes of disagreement between Holland and Belgium. territory, handed over to Holland as compensation for the losses sustained by the Dutch in the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. The idea that Holland was the predominant partner in the kingdom of the Netherlands was firmly rooted in the north and naturally provoked in the south the feeling that Belgium was being exploited for the benefit of the Dutch. The grievances of the Belgians were indeed very substantial. The seat of government was in Holland, the king was a Dutchman by birth and training, and a Calvinistic protestant by religion. Though the population of Belgium was 3,400,000 and that of Holland only a little more than 2,000,000 the two countries had equal representation in the second chamber of the states-general. Practically in all important legislative measures affecting the interests of the two countries the Dutch government were able to command a small but permanent majority. The use of the term “the Dutch Government” is strictly accurate, for the great majority of the public offices were filled by northerners. In 1830, of the seven members of the ministry only one was a Belgian; in the home department out of 117 officials 11 only were Belgians; in the ministry of war 3 were Belgians out of 102; of the officers of the army 288 out of 1967. All the public Attitude of the king. establishments, the Bank, the military schools, were Dutch. That such was the case must not be entirely charged to partiality, still less to deliberate unfairness on the part of William I. The conduct of the king proves that he had a most sincere regard for the welfare of his Belgian subjects, and in his choice of measures and men his aim was to secure the prosperity of his new kingdom by a policy of unification. This was the object he had in view in his attempt to make Dutch, except in the Walloon districts, the official language for all public and judicial acts, and a knowledge of Dutch a necessary qualification for every person entering the public service. That the fierce opposition which this attempt Language question. aroused in the Flemish-speaking provinces was ill-considered and unwise, is shown by the fact that in recent years there has been a patriotic movement in these same provinces which has been successful in forcing the Belgian government to adopt Flemish (i.e. Dutch) as well as French for official usage. This Flemish movement is all in favour of establishing close relations with the sister people of the north. Moreover it cannot be gainsaid that Belgium during her union with Holland enjoyed a degree of prosperity that Belgian prosperity during the union. was quite remarkable. The mineral wealth of the country was largely developed, the iron manufactures of Liége made rapid advance, the woollen manufactures of Verviers received a similar impulse, and many large establishments were formed at Ghent and other places, where cotton goods were produced which rivalled those of England and surpassed those of France. The extensive colonial and foreign trade of the Dutch furnished them with markets, while the opening of the navigation of the Scheldt raised Antwerp once more to a place of high commercial importance. The government also did much in the way of improving the internal communications of the country, in repairing the roads and canals, in forming new ones, in deepening and widening rivers, and the like. Nor was the social and intellectual improvement of the people by any means neglected. A new university was formed at Liége, normal schools for the instruction of teachers were instituted, and numerous elementary schools and schools for higher instruction were established over the country. These measures for the furthering of education among the people on the part of a government mainly composed of Protestants were received with suspicion and disfavour by the priests, and still more the attempts subsequently made to regulate the education of the priests themselves. The establishment under the auspices of the king in 1825 of the Philosophical College at Louvain, and the requirement that every priest before ordination should spend two years in study there, gave great offence to the clerical party, and some of the bishops were prosecuted for the violence of their denunciations at this intrusion of the secular arm into the religious domain. With the view of terminating these differences the king in 1827 entered into a concordat with the pope, and an agreement was reached with regard to nominations to bishoprics, clerical education and other questions, which should have satisfied all reasonable men. But in 1828 the two extreme parties, the Catholic Ultramontanes and the revolutionary Liberals, in their common hatred to the Dutch régime, formed an alliance, the union, for the overthrow of the government. Petitions were sent in setting forth the Belgian grievances, demanding a separate administration for Belgium and a full concession of the liberties guaranteed by the constitution.

Matters were in this state when the news of the success of the July revolution of 1830 at Paris reached Brussels, at this time a city of refuge for the intriguing and discontented of almost every country of Europe. The first outbreak Brussels outbreak of 1830. took place on the 25th of August, the anniversary of the king’s accession. An opera called La Muette, which abounds in appeals to liberty, was played, and the audience were so excited that they rushed out into the street crying, “Imitons les Parisiens!” A mob speedily gathered together, who proceeded to destroy or damage a number of public buildings and the private residences of unpopular officials. The troops were few in number and offered no opposition to the mob, but a burgher guard was enrolled among the influential and middle-class citizens for the protection of life and property. The intelligence of these events in the capital soon spread through the provinces; and in most of the large towns similar scenes were enacted, beginning with plunderings and outrages, followed by the institution of burgher guards for the maintenance of peace. The leading men of Brussels were most anxious not to push matters to extremities. They demanded the dismissal of the specially obnoxious minister, Van Maanen, and a separate administration for Belgium. The government, however, could not make up their minds what course to pursue, and by allowing things to drift ended by converting a popular riot into a national revolt. The heir apparent, the prince of Orange (see [William II.] of the Netherlands), was sent on a peaceful mission to Brussels, but furnished with such limited powers, as under the circumstances were utterly inadequate. He did his best to get at the real facts, and after a number of conferences with the leaders became so convinced that nothing but a separate administration of the two countries would restore tranquillity that he promised to use his influence with his father to bring about that object—on receiving assurances that the personal union under the house of Orange would be maintained. The king summoned an extraordinary session of the states-general, which met at the Hague on the 13th of September and was opened by a speech from the throne, which was firm and temperate, but by no means definite. The proceedings were dilatory, and the attitude of the Dutch deputies exceedingly exasperating. The result was that the moderate party in Belgium quickly lost their influence, and those in favour of violent measures prevailed. Meanwhile although the states were still sitting at the Hague, an army of 14,000 troops under the command of Prince Frederick, second son of the king, was gradually approaching Brussels. It was hoped that the inhabitants would welcome the prince and that a display of armed force would speedily restore order. After much unnecessary delay, at a time when prompt action was required, the prince on the 23rd of September entered Brussels and, with little opposition, occupied the upper or court portion of it, but when they attempted to advance into the lower town the troops found the streets barricaded and defended by citizens in arms. Desultory fighting between the soldiers and the insurgents continued for three days until, finding that he was making no headway, the prince ordered a retreat. The news spread like wildfire through the country, and the principal towns declared for separation. A provisional government was formed at Brussels, which declared Belgium to be an independent state, and summoned a national congress to establish a system of government. King William now did his utmost to avoid a rupture, and sent the prince of Orange to Antwerp to promise that Belgium should have a separate administration; but it was too late. Antwerp was the only important place that remained in the hands of the Dutch, and the army on retreating from Brussels had fallen back on this town. At the end of October an insurgent army had arrived before the gates, which were opened by the populace to receive them, and the troops, under General Chassé, retired within the citadel. The general ordered a bombardment of the town for two days, destroying a number of houses and large quantities of merchandize. This act served still further to inflame the minds of the Belgians against the Dutch.

A convention of the representatives of the five great powers met in London in the beginning of November, at the request of the king of the Netherlands, and both sides were brought to consent to a cessation of hostilities. On the Meeting of the National Congress. 10th of November the National Congress, consisting of 200 deputies, met at Brussels and came to three important decisions: (1) the independence of the country—carried unanimously; (2) a constitutional hereditary monarchy—174 votes against 13; (3) the perpetual exclusion of the Orange-Nassau family—161 votes against 28. On the 20th of December the conference of London proclaimed the dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands, but claimed the right of regulating the conditions under which it should take place. On the 28th of January 1831, the congress proceeded to the election of a king, and out of a number of candidates the choice fell on the duke of Nemours, second son of Louis Philippe, but he declined the office. The congress then elected Baron Surlet de Chokier to the temporary post of regent, and proceeded to draw up a constitution on the British parliamentary pattern. The constitution expressly declared that the king has no powers except those formally assigned to him. Ministers were to be The new constitution. appointed by him, but be responsible to the chambers. The legislature was composed of two chambers—the senate and the chamber of deputies. Both chambers were elected by the same voters, but senators required a property qualification,—the payment of at least 2000 florins in taxes. Senators and deputies received salaries. The franchise was for that time a low one—every one who paid at least 20 florins in taxes had a vote. The choice of a king was more difficult than that of drawing up a constitution. It was desirable that the new sovereign should be able to count upon the friendly support of the great powers, and yet not be actually a member of their reigning dynasties. It was from fear of arousing the susceptibilities of neighbouring states, especially Great Britain, that Louis Philippe had refused to sanction the election of his son. It was for this reason that the name of Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of Princess Charlotte of England, had not been placed among the candidates in January. Overtures were, however, made to him, as soon as it was understood that, as the result of private negotiations at the London conference, the selection of this prince would be favourably Leopold I., king of the Belgians. received both by Great Britain and France. Leopold signified his readiness to accept the crown after having first ascertained that he would have the support of the great powers in bringing about a satisfactory settlement with Holland on those points which he considered essential to the security and welfare of the new kingdom. The election took place on the 4th of June, when 152 votes out of 196, four being absent, determined that Leopold should be proclaimed king of the Belgians, under the express condition that he “would accept the constitution and swear to maintain the national independence and territorial integrity.” Leopold made his public entry into Brussels, on the 21st, and subsequently visited other parts of the kingdom, and was everywhere received with demonstrations of loyalty and respect.

At this juncture news suddenly arrived that the Dutch were preparing to invade the country with a large army. It comprised 45,000 infantry and 6000 cavalry with 72 pieces of artillery, while Leopold could scarcely bring forward 25,000 men to oppose it. On the 2nd of August the whole of the Dutch army had crossed the frontier; Leopold collected his forces, such as they were, near Louvain in order to cover his capital. The two armies met on the 9th of August. The undisciplined Belgians, despite the personal efforts of their king, were speedily routed, and Leopold and his staff narrowly escaped capture. He, however, made good his retreat to the capital, and, on the advance of a French army, the prince of Orange did not deem it prudent to push on farther. A convention was concluded between him and the French general, in consequence of which he returned to Holland and the French likewise recrossed the frontier. Leopold now proceeded with vigour to strengthen his position and to restore order and confidence. French officers were selected for the training and disciplining of the army, the civil list was arranged with economy and order, and reforms were introduced into the public service and system of administration. He kept on the best of terms, though a Protestant, with the Roman Catholic clergy and nobility, and his subsequent marriage with the daughter of the French king (9th of August 1832), and the contract that the children of the marriage should be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, did much to inspire confidence in his good intentions.

Meanwhile the conference in London had drawn up the project of a treaty for the separation of Holland and Belgium, which was declared “to be final and irrevocable.” The conditions were far less favourable to Belgium The treaty of separation. than had been hoped, and it was not without much heart-burning and considerable opposition, that the senate and chamber of deputies gave their assent to them. The treaty, which contained 24 articles, was signed on the 15th of November 1831. By these articles the grand-duchy of Luxemburg was divided, but the king of Holland retained possession of the fortress of Luxemburg, and also received a portion of Limburg to compensate him for the part of Luxemburg assigned to Belgium. The district of Maestricht was likewise partitioned, but the fortress remained Dutch. The Scheldt was declared open to the commerce of both countries. The national debt was divided. The powers recognized the independence of Belgium, “as a neutral state.”

This agreement was ratified by the Belgian and French sovereigns on the 20th and 24th of November, by the British on the 6th of December, but the Austrian and Prussian and Russian governments, whose sympathies were with the “legitimate” King William rather than with a prince who owed his crown to a revolution, did not give their ratification till some five months later. Even then King William remained obdurate, refused to sign and continued to keep possession of Antwerp. After fruitless efforts on the part of the great powers to obtain his acquiescence, France and Great Britain resolved to have recourse to force. On the 5th of November their combined fleets sailed for the coast of Holland, and, on the 18th, The French besiege Antwerp. a French army of 60,000 men, under the command of Marshal Gérard, crossed the Belgian frontier to besiege Antwerp. The Dutch garrison capitulated on the 23rd of December, and on the 31st the town was handed over to the Belgians, and the French troops withdrew across the frontier. The Dutch, however, still held two forts, which enabled them to command the navigation of the Scheldt, and these they stubbornly refused to yield. Belgium therefore kept possession of Limburg and Luxemburg, except the fortress of Luxemburg, which as a fortress of the German confederation was, under the terms of the treaty of Vienna, garrisoned by Prussian troops. These territories were treated in every way as a part of Belgium, and sent representatives to the chambers. Great The Luxemburg question. indignation was therefore felt at the idea of giving them up, when Holland (14th of March 1838) signified its readiness to accept the conditions of the treaty. The chambers argued that Belgium had been induced to agree to the twenty-four articles in 1832 in the hope of thereby at once terminating all harassing disputes, but as Holland refused then to accept them, the conditions were no longer binding and the circumstances were now quite changed. They urged that Luxemburg in fact formed an integral part of Belgium and that the people were totally opposed to a union with Holland. They offered to pay for the territory in dispute, but the treaty gave them no right of purchase, and the proposal was not entertained. Final settlement between Holland and Belgium. Addresses were unanimously voted urging the king to resist separation, great excitement was aroused throughout the country and preparations were made for war. But the firmness of the allied powers and their determination to uphold the condtions of the treaty compelled the king most reluctantly to submit to the inevitable. The treaty was signed in London on the 19th of April 1839. It saddled Belgium with a portion of Holland’s debt, and a severe financial crisis followed.

The Belgian revolution owed its success to the union of the Catholic and Liberal parties; and the king had been very careful to maintain the alliance between them. This continued to be the character of the government till 1840, but by Struggle between the Catholics and Liberals. degrees it had been growing more and more conservative, and was giving rise to dissatisfaction. A ministry was formed on more liberal principles, but it clashed with the Catholic aristocracy, who had the majority in the senate. A neutral ministry under M. Charles Nothomb was then formed. In 1842 it carried a new law of primary instruction, which aroused the dislike of the anti-clerical Liberals. The Nothomb ministry retired in 1845. In March 1846 the king formed a purely Catholic ministry, but it was fiercely attacked by the Liberals, who had for several years been steadily organizing. A congress was summoned to meet at Brussels (14th of June 1846) composed of delegates from the different Liberal associations throughout the country. Three hundred and twenty delegates met and drew up an Act of Federation and a programme of reforms. The election of 1847 gave a majority to the Liberals and a purely Liberal ministry was formed, and from this date onwards it has been the constitutional practice in Belgium to choose a homogeneous ministry from the party which possesses a working majority in the chamber. In 1848 a new electoral Electoral reform. law was passed, which lowered the franchise to 20 florins’ worth of property and doubled the number of electors. Hence it came to pass that Belgium passed safely through the crisis of the French revolution of 1848. The extreme democratic and socialistic party made with French aid some spasmodic efforts to stir up a revolutionary movement, but they met with no popular sympathy; the throne of Leopold stood firmly based upon the trust and respect of the Belgian nation for the wisdom and moderation of their king.