CHAPTER VI.BRUSSELS.EFFECTS OF THE REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH HOLLAND.
BRUSSELS.
EFFECTS OF THE REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH HOLLAND.
The Belgian revolution has produced no man of leading genius—The present ministry—M. Rogier—M. Liedtz, the Minister of the Interior—An interview at the Home Office—Project of steam navigation between Belgium and the United States—Freedom of political discussion in Belgium—Character of King Leopold—Public feeling in Brussels—The original union of Holland and Belgium apparently desirable—Commercial obstacles—Obstinacy of the King of Holland—Anecdote of the King of Prussia—The extraordinary care of the King for manufactures—Prosperouscondition of Belgium under Holland—Les Griefs Belges—Singular coincidence between the proceedings ofthe repealers in Ireland and the repealers in Belgium—Ambition for separate nationality—Imposition of the Dutch language unwise—Abolition of trial by jury—Now disliked by the Belgians themselves—Financial grievances—Inequality of representation—Conduct of the Roman Catholics—Hatred of toleration—Attachment of the clergy to Austria—Remarkable manifestoof the clergy to the Congress of Vienna—Resistance to liberty of conscience, and freedom of the press—Demand for tithes—Resistance of the priests to the toleration of Protestants—The official oath—Protest of the Roman Catholic Bishops against freedom of opinion and education by the State—Perfect impartiality of the Sovereign—Resistance of the priesthood—The Revolution—Union of the Liberals and Roman Catholics—Intolerant ambition of the clergy—Separation of theClerico-liberal party—Present state of parties in the legislature—Unconstitutional ascendancy of the priests—State of public feeling—Universal disaffection—Curious list of candidates for the crown of Belgium in 1831—“La Belgique de Leopold,” its treasonable publications—Future prospects uncertain—Vain attempts to remedy the evils of the revolution—Connexion with the Prussian League refused—Impossibility of an union with Austria or Prussia—Union with France impracticable—Partition of Belgium with the surrounding states—Possible restoration of the House of Nassau, in the event of any fresh disturbance.
The Belgian revolution has produced no man of leading genius—The present ministry—M. Rogier—M. Liedtz, the Minister of the Interior—An interview at the Home Office—Project of steam navigation between Belgium and the United States—Freedom of political discussion in Belgium—Character of King Leopold—Public feeling in Brussels—The original union of Holland and Belgium apparently desirable—Commercial obstacles—Obstinacy of the King of Holland—Anecdote of the King of Prussia—The extraordinary care of the King for manufactures—Prosperouscondition of Belgium under Holland—Les Griefs Belges—Singular coincidence between the proceedings ofthe repealers in Ireland and the repealers in Belgium—Ambition for separate nationality—Imposition of the Dutch language unwise—Abolition of trial by jury—Now disliked by the Belgians themselves—Financial grievances—Inequality of representation—Conduct of the Roman Catholics—Hatred of toleration—Attachment of the clergy to Austria—Remarkable manifestoof the clergy to the Congress of Vienna—Resistance to liberty of conscience, and freedom of the press—Demand for tithes—Resistance of the priests to the toleration of Protestants—The official oath—Protest of the Roman Catholic Bishops against freedom of opinion and education by the State—Perfect impartiality of the Sovereign—Resistance of the priesthood—The Revolution—Union of the Liberals and Roman Catholics—Intolerant ambition of the clergy—Separation of theClerico-liberal party—Present state of parties in the legislature—Unconstitutional ascendancy of the priests—State of public feeling—Universal disaffection—Curious list of candidates for the crown of Belgium in 1831—“La Belgique de Leopold,” its treasonable publications—Future prospects uncertain—Vain attempts to remedy the evils of the revolution—Connexion with the Prussian League refused—Impossibility of an union with Austria or Prussia—Union with France impracticable—Partition of Belgium with the surrounding states—Possible restoration of the House of Nassau, in the event of any fresh disturbance.
Wethis morning paid a visit to M. Liedtz, the minister of the interior, in his hotel at the “Palais de la Nation.” It is rather remarkable that neither the actual eruption of the revolution nor its subsequent influence, has been sufficient to draw forth any individual of leading genius, to give a complexion to the policy of the newstate. The actors who have played the most prominentrôleduring the last ten years have been a few of the ancient Catholic noblesse, whose titles gave éclat to the movement, but who have long since withdrawn into retirement, or ceased to take a lead in the administration—and the body of lawyers whose professional aptitude to promote or profit by any change, has enabled them to step over the heads of their less adroit, but not less qualified associates, and to appropriate to themselves the “loaves and fishes” of office. Lastly, there were “the masses” whose impetuosity achieved the revolution, the “patrioterie” who form the tools of every revolution to be worked for the benefit of their more clear sighted superiors. But the daring spirits of 1830 have all disappeared; the present times do not require such fiery agents; the violence which effects a revolution, must be the first thing to be got rid of by those who would perpetuate it, and who speedily learn to exchange the exciting demand of “delenda est Carthago,”for the milder supplication of “panem et Circenses.” In this way the Masaniello of the revolution, M. de Potter, having been given to comprehend that his services had been rendered, and his presence no longer desirable, has long since withdrawn himself to ponder over, and, it is even added,to regretthe events of 1830; but certainly to lament, in strong terms, his disappointment at their practical results.
The present ministry did not, from all we could observe, command the confidence of their fellow citizens, nor do I recollect any one of them spoken of without a reference to some incapacity or disqualification for the office. M. Rogier, the minister of public works, had been a third or fourth rate barrister at Liege, and eked out an insufficient professional income by delivering lectures on French literature. His daring and energetic share in the events which displaced the old dynasty, recommended him to employment under the new, but the office assigned to him, that of the interior, involving the guardianship of tradeand manufactures, was one for which he was little suited, either by education or taste, and he utterly destroyed the confidence of the merchants and mill owners, by avowing in one of his addresses to them, that they must be prepared to see “commerce die a lingering death,” if it were conducive to the permanence of the new order of things. M. Liedtz, with whom we had an interview this morning, had, like M. Rogier, been a lawyer, but of some standing and eminence in his profession. He had been, we heard, unfavourable to the revolution at its first out-break, but his talents speedily recommended him to the notice of the new authorities, who promoted him to be judge in the district of Antwerp, whence he was transferred to his present office on the removal of M. Rogier, to that of public works. He received us in a suite of very elegant apartments, much superior to those with which our own ministers are accommodated in Downing Street. He is a native of Audenarde, of humble parentage, but of considerable practical acquirements,especially on agricultural matters. He received us most affably, and after some conversation on commercial subjects, reverted at once to his own hobby, by asking after the progress of agriculture in Great Britain. The object of greatest interest with us was the duty which it had been announced that it was in contemplation by the government to impose upon the export of flax, and to which I have before alluded as the extraordinary expedient suggested by the agricultural members of the chambers, in order to protect the hand spinners from being superseded by machinery. The minister seemed fully to understand the absurdity of the suggestion, but still admitted that the “pressure from without” might compel him to introduce a bill upon the subject. He informed us, that a negociation has just been concluded with some speculators in the United States, supported by the Belgian government, with a view to running a line of steam-packets of great power from New York and Philadelphia to Antwerp and Ostend, touching at one of the southern ports of England, and thus it was expectedsecuring a share of the passenger trade, as well as opening, by degrees, a market for Belgian produce in the United States.
One thing, in Belgium, I cannot but allude to as characteristic—the unrestrained freedom with which every individual discusses politics, and the unreserved candour and frankness with which each details his views and strictures. This is the more remarkable, because the universal tenor of opinion is, if not directly to complain, at least, to admit the existence of much cause for complaint. I never met with lessbigottedpoliticians, and I have not seen a single individual, whom I would designatea party-man, in the English acceptation of the term, that is one who finds all right, or all wrong, precisely as the party with whom he sympathises be censured or lauded by the inference. But the fact is, there are no “optimists” in Belgium as yet, and there is so much that is unsatisfactory in every department, that the consciousness of it forces itself upon the conviction, if not the admission of every individual. The press,too, is equally unreserved, and in the shops of the booksellers, we found numbers of publications devoted to the exposure of the present condition of the country.
Still no creature, not even the most violent partisan of the House of Nassau whom I have met with, includes King Leopold in the scope of his censures. The revolution itself, its immediate agents and its consequences are the objects of their condemnation; but no one of the results from which they suffer, is ascribed to the influence or interference of the King. Those who regret the expulsion of the King of Holland, look upon King Leopold merely as his involuntary successor, and whilst they condemn the incapacity of his ministers, and the violence of the party in the house and in the country by whom they are controlled—all seemed to regard the King as only borne upon a tide of circumstances, which he is equally unable with them to resist or direct. His fondness for locomotion, his frequent visits to England and journeys to Paris, were thesubject of good humoured badinage, and have procured him the titles of “le roi voyageur,” and “l’estafette nomade.” “Il s’amuse,” said an intelligent Belgian, when I asked him what share the King took in politics, “he goes out of the way to Wiesbaden, and leaves things very much to themselves, or, what is nearly the same thingto his ministers.”
In Brussels, of course, we found the revolution still popular; its population were the first to promote, and are the last to regret it. But it is an inland town, the residence of the court and the nobles, unconnected either with manufactures or commerce, and its shopkeepers have not suffered by the change, which has affected the prosperity of the trading districts. Equally independent of the loom and the sail, they only hear of the embarrassments of others, as a sound from a distance. Their intercourse is with the wealthy, who are congregated round the seat of the legislation and the palace of the sovereign; as yet their pursuits have not been affectedby the diminished resources of the middle and labouring classes, and besides the constant passage of strangers, as well as the permanent residence of some thousands of English and other wealthy foreigners, is a permanent source of income. But, throughout the country and in the provincial towns, we met with but one feeling of keen discontent with the result of the revolution, and alarm for the condition and prospects of the country.
That the union of Belgium with Holland in 1815 was one conceived, less with an eye to the interests of the two countries, than in an anxiety for the erection of a substantial power in that precise locality, as a security for the peace of Europe, is admitted by all engaged in its actual arrangements; but it is equally admitted, that whatever discordances there might have existed at the time between the feelings, the peculiarities and the interests of the two states, they presented no permanent obstacle to that “complete and intimate fusion” of the two people, which was ultimately anticipatedby the Congress of Vienna. It was in order to erect the new kingdom into a state of adequate importance, that England, in addition to concurring in the restoration of the ancient Netherlands of Charles V, divested herself of a portion of her colonial conquests during the war to re-annex them to Holland, thus feeding the national resources of both sections of the new alliance—the Belgian by an outlet for its manufactures, and the Dutch by a carrying trade for their shipping.
The union, too, was a natural one, not only geographically, but intrinsically. Belgium had been compelled to become a manufacturing country by the closing of the Scheldt, at the treaty of Munster which ended the Thirty years’ war in 1648, one of those unnatural acts of state policy, that seems almost an impious interference with the benevolence of providence; and which by annihilating this noble river for all purposes of trade, had the contemplated effect of driving commerce to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, thus constraining the Belgians to betake themselves to industry and handicrafts athome. With such elasticity did they conform to this necessity, that when the unnatural embargo was taken off by the progress of the French in 1794, the energies and genius of the population had made such a decided development, that they were not to be seduced back into their old pursuits of traffic, and themanufacturesof Belgium continued to prosper under “the continental system” of Napoleon, down to the period of the general peace. Holland, on the contrary, with her hands fully employed by her shipping and her trade, and possessing no mines of iron or coal, had never either the inducement or the temptation to become a manufacturing country, so that nothing could apparently be more happy, than the union of one producing nation all alive with machinery, with its neighbour proportionably rich in shipping; and to open to both an extensive colonial territory, whose population the merchantmen of the one could supply with the produce of the other.
But even here lay the seeds of unforeseen dissentions. Belgium, all whose notions ofcommercial policy were formed upon the false and narrow basis of France, was perpetually calling for protective duties, bounties and prohibitions, without which her artisans were sinking under the effects of foreign competition; whilst to the Dutch, with their spirit of traffic and fleets of shipping, every restriction upon absolute free trade was a positive interception of gain. This antagonism of interests led to perpetual animosity in the states-general upon all questions of customs and imposts, and to such an extent did Holland give way upon these points, in order to protect the interests of Belgium at the sacrifice of her own, that a well informed author observes that, “even supposing the desire for separation had not arisen in Belgium, the Dutch, ere long, would have been forced to call for this divorce in order to save Amsterdam and Rotterdam from ruin.” It is more likely, however, that the march of manufacturing prosperity in Belgium, and the increased demand and consumption of her produce would have ultimately compensatedher commercial colleague for all intermediate loss.[30]
But added to these pecuniary squabbles, there were deeper and less tangible causes of mutual repulsion, differences of language and religion, and local prejudices and antipathies,out of which speedily sprung an infinity of definite “grievances,” which timely and conciliating interference andconstitutional reforms might have allayed; but which, there can be no doubt, were obstinately and fatally neglected by the King of Holland, and his irresponsible ministers; and though it is absurd to regard them, even if unredressed, as justifiable grounds for revolution, they led ultimately to the expulsion of the family of Nassau from the Netherlands.
It seems to be admitted upon all hands, that in this the King of Holland was seriously to blame, and that whilst the political causes of complaint were all capable of easy removal or redress, they were overlooked in his anxiety to stimulate and promote the commercial prosperity of the country. From the outset, he aimed at eradicating the French institutions, to which, during the twenty years of their connexion with that country, the Belgianshad become strongly attached, and to assimilate them to the model of Holland. His conduct, in this attempt, was strongly contrasted with the prudence of the King of Prussia, who having received his Transrhenan provinces under precisely similar circumstances, had never once attempted to interfere with those habits and local constitutions to which the people had become familiarised. He even ventured to remonstrate with the King of Holland on the impolicy of his course, and to warn him of the discontents it was likely to engender, but received only a pettish reply that, “his Majesty was old enough to act for himself,”—a rebuff which the Prussian monarch is said to have retorted when, at a subsequent period, the King of Holland applied to him for assistance to reconquer Belgium, and he accompanied his refusal with a remark, that he presumed “his Majesty was old enoughto fightfor himself.”
This unwise neglect of the political grievances of Belgium, cannot be compensated by the King’s exclusive devotion to itsmanufacturing and substantial interests; and even in this, it is doubtful whether his zeal did not hurry him into an unwise extreme. His great ambition was to render his people “a nation of shopkeepers,” and develop as thoroughly the manufacturing resources of Belgium, as industry and care had matured the agricultural and commercial riches of Holland. There was no labour, no expense, no care, no experiment left unemployed to give life and impulse to their grand object. One engrossing topic was uppermost in his mind; which was not inaptly compared to a “price current,” solely influenced by the rise and fall of produce, or the fluctuations of the funds. The inventions of Watt and Fulton stood higher in his estimation than the achievements of Frederick or Napoleon. He protected the arts, not so much from admiration as policy, and he countenanced literature, not from any devotion to letters, but because it created a demand for articles of commerce. In short, there was nothing classic, inspiring or chivalrous in his bearing, all wasmaterial, positive and mathematical. Business was his element, his recreation; and amusement, but a robbery of that time which he thought he ought to devote entirely to his people. He loved to surround himself with practical men, and he gained the good will of all the great commercial and financial aristocracy by the attention he paid to them, individually and collectively. It is incontestible, that if the happiness and welfare of a nation had depended on the laborious exertions and unremitting devotion of the sovereign to commercial affairs, then Belgium ought to have been as contented as it was prosperous, and its sovereign the most popular monarch in Europe.[31]
Under the auspices of such a sovereign, Belgium, during the fifteen years of its connexion with Holland, attained a height of prosperity which no human being presumes to question. Agriculture, recovering from the sad effects of war, and receiving anaugmented impulse from the demand created by the commerce of Holland, speedily attained the highest possible point of prosperity—mines were opened, coal, iron and all other, mineral wealth extensively explored; manufactures and machinery were multiplied to an extent beyond belief, and the trade of Antwerp even outstepped that of Holland in exporting the produce of Belgium. Roads, canals and means of communication were constructed with surprising rapidity; sound and practical education was universally diffused, in short, every element of material prosperity became fully developed, and what rendered the progress of the nation the more important, was the fact that it was not intermittent or capricious, but exhibited one steady march in its ascent in each successive year, from the period of the union to the hour of its disruption.[32]
In such a combination of circumstances, one is impatient to discover the specific causes of discontent which could inflame an entire population into all the fury of revolt, and to the expulsion by blood and the sword of a King, under whose sway they acknowledge themselves to be debtors for so many blessings. This is not the place to canvas their merits, but in merely enumerating the principal grievances of which they complain, the “griefs Belges,” as they were specially headed in the newspapers of the time, it is impossible to avoid being struck with the identity between the vast majority of the pretexts for revolt propounded by the “patrioterie” who Repealed the Union in Belgium, and the “patriots” who clamour for “the Repeal of the Union” in Ireland. Nor did this similarity escape the promoters of the revolution in either country. In Ireland, it has been ostentatiouslyand perseveringly dwelt upon, and even down to the present hour, the example of the Belgians is paraded as an incentive to the ambition of the enemies of British connexion; and in Belgium, even before the revolution, the position of the two countries, as regarded their several legislative connexions with England and Holland, was the subject of repeated comparisons and condolence. The “Belge,” a journal which was active in the encouragement of the movement, thus alludes to the coincidence of their circumstances in 1830. “Belgium has been long the Ireland of Holland, the relation of the dominant power has been in almost every particular, that of “the Sister Island” to England—with the intolerable addition, however, that while Ireland has had the less population by far, Belgium had by far the greater—that Belgium paid much more than her proportion of the taxes, whilst Ireland paid much less—that Ireland often sent her inhabitants to share in the distribution of places, pensions and honours, whilst such a distribution amongstthe Belgians was of extremely rare occurrence.”
But the similarity consists not less in the ostensible grounds for revolt, than in the identity of the actual instruments and agents. In Belgium, as in Ireland, they were the uneducated and bigotted mob, inflamed by the half-educated press, and led on by a propaganda of priests and a crowd of unsuccessful and hungry lawyers. In both countries, too, the leaders of the movement, whatever may have been their real and secret sentiments, ostensibly professed to seek merely a redress of grievances, and to start with alarm at the idea ofseparation; their only desire being afederative unionunder the same crown, but with a distinct administration. The Belgian, however, soon felt that he wanted a power, which there is but little reason to ascribe to the Irishman of saying “thus far shalt thou go, and no farther,” and the stimulants applied to the versatile vanity of the people, soon rendered them impatient of any proposition short of actual independence.An unfortunate phrase in the treaty of Paris that Belgium was to be to Holland “as an accession of territory,” was construed into a national indignity, notwithstanding the expression of perfect equality and “fusion” which pervaded every other passage of the document, and the cry of “a nation no longer a province” became forthwith the aspiration of every discontented coterie. That distinction they have, at length, attained, and enjoy the barren eminence of a throne, but unfortunately without either the power, the wealth, or the influence as an European state, that are essential to give it dignity and stability.
There are, however, some points of marked distinction between the two cases, inasmuch as whilst the Irish sufferers clamourforassimilation to England, those in Belgium flew to armsagainstassimilation with Holland; and, besides the Belgian repealer pursued his object of separation notwithstanding the admitted prosperity of his country, whilst the Irish one, less barefaced, tries eagerly to invent a case of distress inorder to justify his treason. Above all, there is this happy difference, that whilst in Belgium the repeal has been achieved at the expense of national prosperity, Ireland has still the opportunity to reflect and to be warned by her lamentable example.
The civil grievances of the revolutionists arose out of certain measures of the King, in some of which he was manifestly wrong; his attempts to render Dutch the national language for all public documents in certain provinces—to abolish trial by jury, which had been established by the French—to remove the supreme court of judicature to the Hague—and to introduce the principles of Dutch law into all their pleas and proceedings. The two latter were the usual vexatious manifestations of the spirit of centralization, which a prudent government would never have attempted to force upon the unwilling prejudices of a nation; and the substitution of the Dutch tribunal for the trial by jury would have been a substantial injustice, had the people been unanimous, or even, in a considerable proportion, favourableto it; but in the divisions upon the question in the States General, large bodies of the Belgian representatives were found voting constantly against it; andeven now, notwithstanding its re-establishment, it has become more and more unpopular, and even those who supported it in 1830, refuse to sit upon juries themselves, or to uphold the system by their co-operation. The alteration of the language was an unwise attempt to force upon four millions of Belgians the dialect of three millions of Dutch. This has, however, been sought to be defended by stating, that of the entire population of the united kingdom, one fifth alone spoke French, namely in Hainault, the Waloons, South Brabant, and a part of Luxembourg; and the remainder dialects of German, in the proportion of two fifths Dutch, and two fifths Flemish. The imposing Dutch upon the entire was not, therefore, more unjust than would have been a similar imposition of Flemish,and yet, within this very year, the party who reviled the one to the death in 1830, have begunto petition the legislature for the other! They are contented now to abandon French, which they then contended for, and to accept the barbarous patois of Flanders as its substitute, which would be equally unintelligible to the Waloons, and even in those districts of Antwerp which border upon Holland.
Another complaint had reference to the disproportionate distribution of government patronage between the subjects of Holland and Belgium, in which there may have been much truth, and to which the government did not take the most wise nor the most soothing steps to reconcile the minority, by ascribing it to thedearth of talentamongst their countrymen.Like the Irish, the Belgian agitators protested against the taxes of Belgium being made applicable to the discharge of the national debt, of which the largest proportion had been contracted by Holland before the period of the union—but having by the Revolution secured the management of the national revenues in their own hands,an evil of more seriousmagnitude has been discovered, in the fact, that the expenditure of Belgium in every year since the Revolution, with the single exception of 1835, has exceeded the revenue by some millions of francs. In 1831 and 1832 this was strikingly the case, the expenses of the war and of new establishments leading in the former year to an expenditure of upwards of four millions, and in the latter to eight millions sterling. In
The interest upon the national debt of the independent state exceeds at the present moment £800,000 a year. Besides, during the Dutch regime, it appeared that inBelgium,as in Ireland, the malcontents bore the most trifling proportion of the national burthens, the revenue of the three years preceding the revolt being paid in the proportion of sixteen florins per head for every inhabitant of Holland, and only ten for those of the Netherlands.
Another grievance, no lessIrishthan Belgian, was that the number of representatives was not regulated exclusively in proportion to thepopulationof the two states, totally irrespective of the relative territory and possessions of each—and although the representation was exactly divided, one half of the States General being Dutch and one half Belgian, a division warranted by the large territorial interests of the former; the patriots and their disturbers complained “Si l’on nous avait attribué une représentation en rapport avec la population,NOUS AURIONS DOMINÉ LE NORD.”[33]The frankness of this avowal has not yetbeen imitated by the Repealers of Ireland; but its aspiration is not the less manifest in the similarity of their pretensions; and the frequent references of the Irish agitator in the House of Commons to the relative population and comparative electoral constituencies of the counties of England and Ireland, irrespective of their relative wealth and property, parrotted as they have recently been by members of her Majesty’s government, may no doubt be construed into an ill-concealed adoption of the sentiments of the repealers of Belgium.
These, and a few other minor points, were the burthen of all thecivilgrievances against which the oppressed patriots of Belgium had to protest; and it is not difficult to perceive that it required but a little complaisance on the part of the Dutch government to redress them, although it is too late to regret that that redress was not timely applied. It is impossible, however, for any sober minded citizen to discern in the entire mass of these complaints, even in all their aggravation, any adequate groundfor a resort to the last remedy of oppression—war, and revolution; and in vain would the restless promoters of the revolt have laboured to inflame the populace by rhapsodies on the glory of independence, or diatribes against the pronunciation of Dutch,—in vain would they have attempted to sting them into madness by calculations of finance, or lamentations over the exclusion of some provincial orator, from a seat in the legislature or a portfolio in some public bureau,—all these whips and stimulants would have been powerless and unfelt, had notreligionbeen introduced in association with each, and the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic church been made the alpha and the omega—the beginning and the end—the burthen of every complaint, and the object of every exhortation.
The avowed cause of the dissatisfaction of the clergy, was that the Kingwas a protestant, and that protection and full toleration was extended to all sects and religious communities. The genius and pretensions of the Roman Catholic churchseems, down to the present hour, to have undergone less modification in Belgium than in any other country of Europe, with the single exception, perhaps, of Rome itself. It was to preserve it in all its integrity that Philip II. and the Duke of Alva for thirty years exhausted the blood and treasure of Spain in its defence, and down to the present hour, its clergy exhibit a practical gratitude for their devotion, by the uncompromising assertion of every attribute for which they contended. Belgium is, at this moment, the most thoroughly catholic country in Europe, and the recent exploits of the Archbishop of Cologne attest the power of its example and its influence even over the adjoining states.
Under the dominion of Austria, the authority of the church had been recognized by the crown, in all its plenitude and power, and the subsequent union of Belgium to France in 1795, was eagerly resisted by the clergy, who naturally saw in it the subversion of their power before that of the Goddess of Reason. But even theinfluence of twenty years of intimate association with France, proved incapable to diminish the ardent subjection of the Belgians to their priesthood, or temper the ambition of their prelates and their clergy; and when, at length, the clasps which held together the empire of Napoleon, flew asunder in 1814, the utmost desire of the priesthood was to have Belgium again restored to her ancient masters, andre-constructed as a province of Austria, in which event, they calculated that the elevation of the church would follow, as of course. This, however, European policy forbade; and when, in 1814, the prelates of Flanders found themselves abandoned by their chosen sovereign, who accepted, in exchange, the more attractive provinces of Italy, and handed them over to one of the most Protestant monarchs in Europe, their consternation was unbounded, and in the extravagance of their disappointment, they had the madness to address a memorial to the Congress of Vienna, which is well worthy of being preserved as an authentic manifestoof the pretensions of the Roman Catholic church in modern times.[34]
It bears date in October, 1814, and is signed by the vicars-general of the Prince de Broglie, who was then Bishop of Ghent. It sets out by an exposition of a principle learned, they say, from experience, that it is indispensable for a catholic country passing under the government of a protestant sovereign, to stipulate for the free exercise of its own worship, and for placing all its ancient rights and privileges beyond the reach of any interference of the state (“hors de toute atteinte de la part du Souverain”). The religion of Luther, the vicars-general proceeded to remind the Congress, is merelytoleratedin Germany beside that of Rome, although it is very absurd to approve of two doctrines that contradict each other; but in Belgium, the latter has been distinctly recognized from immemorial time, and they, therefore, feel it is incumbent on them early to demand aformal guarantee for its exclusive exercise, “l’exercice exclusif,” which had been secured to them, at former times, by the most solemn treaties. They warn the Prince of Orange, that he will find it his future interest, as well as that of Europe in general, whose object it must be to have Belgium peaceful and contented, to enter into an inaugural compact with the church, regarding the maintenance of all its ancient authority, and candidly intimate that the result shall never be satisfactory, if their own demands are not complied with in the following particulars:—First, the exclusive establishment of the Roman Catholic religion,with this exception, that the royal family and the court may have a place of protestant worship in their palaces or chateaus, but that on no pretence whatever, is a protestant church to be erected elsewhere. The words of this postulate are as distinct as their import is remarkable in the nineteenthcentury:—“Avec cette exception, que le Prince Souverain et son auguste famille seront libresde professer leur religion, et d’en exercer le culte dans leurs palais, chateaux, et maisons royales, ou les seigneurs de sa cour auront des chapelles et des ministres de leur religion,sans qu’il soit permis d’ériger des temples hors de l’enceinte de ces palais, sous quelque pretexte que ce soit.” Secondly, that the church was to have absolute dominion in all matters concerning its own affairs. Thirdly, that the Council of State was to be composedexclusively of Roman Catholics, includingtwo bishopsof the establishment. Fourthly and fifthly, that a nuncio should be received from the Roman See, to treat with the council, and a new concordat obtained with the Pope. Sixthly,that it was indispensably essential, in order to provide a perpetual maintenance for the clergy beyond all control of the state, that tithes should be re-established throughout Belgium; the protestants, of course, contributing to the maintenance of the church from which they dissented! Seventhly, the re-establishment of the university of Louvain; and lastly, the restoration of themonks andreligious orderswhich had been suppressed by the Emperor Joseph II, and “as one of the most excellent means, and, perhaps, the only one, at the present day, to secure to youth the blessings of an education combining, at once, the principles of genuine religion and the acquirements of human learning, the re-establishment of the Jesuits throughout Belgium.[35]”
Whether this extraordinary document was really framed with a view to influence the deliberations of the Congress, or written with a full anticipation of their ultimate conclusion, and designed only as a defiance and a bold forewarning of the consequence, it had but little weight at Vienna, and the provinces were consigned, without the required stipulations, to the King of Holland.
The constitution of the new state wasbased upon principles of the most unrestricted toleration and protection for all denominations of religion. But toleration and freedom of opinion are the very essence of the reformation, and the Roman Catholic clergy had the discernment to perceive that no more effectual system could have been established for the silent but ultimate subversion of their church, than by reducing it to an equality with every other, thus lending the authority of the state in ascribing to many the possession of that saving faith, which it is fatal to the very spirit of catholicism to have attributed to any but one—and that one, herself. Equal rights and protection were to her more pernicious than proscription and persecution, and no other course was left to her than that precisely which she adopted to protest against toleration in the first instance, and to revolt against it in the end.
By an arrangement of the new government, no public functionary or officer connected with any department of the state,was to enter upon his functions before having taken an oath to maintain all the principles and observe all the enactments of the Constitution. But as amongst these were comprised the fundamental law of “toleration,” another manifesto was instantly issued by the prelates, prohibiting all Roman Catholics from subscribing to the obnoxious oath, as subversive of all the principles of the church of Rome, and ruinous to her attributes and claims!
The articles which they objected to were those which guaranteed to all religious denominations of Christians perfect liberty of conscience, freedom of worship, an equality of civil rights and indiscriminate eligibility to all public employments.[36]To swear to the observance of such a law, the prelates declared to be neither more nor less than to exact equal protection for error as for truth,—and to countenance the admission to places of honour and trust, without distinction of religion, was merely sanctioning,by anticipation, measures that might hereafter be taken for permitting the interference of protestants in the affairs of the catholic community. The words of the Constitution established the unlimited exercise of public worship, “unless where it gave rise to any public disturbance,”lorsqu’il a été l’occasion d’un trouble; “but the bishops protested, that to give a power to the government to interfere under any limitation, was to submit the church to the authority of its enemies; and thatto swear obedience to any constitution which presumed the Catholic Church to be subject to the temporal law was manifestly to subscribe to its humiliation.”[37]“To ascribe,” they said, “to a sovereign of a different faith,a right of interference in the regulation of national educationwould be to hand over public instruction to the secular power, and would exhibit a shameful betrayal of the dearestinterests of the church. There are other articles of the Constitution,” continues the manifesto, “which no true child of the Catholic Church can ever undertake, by a solemn oath, to observe or to support, andabove all others that which establishesTHE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS!”
This singular document bore the signatures of the Prince Maurice de Broglie, Bishop of Ghent, Charles Francis Joseph Pisani de la Gaude, Bishop of Namur, François Joseph, Bishop of Tournai, and of J. Forgeur and J. A. Barrett, the Vicars-General of Malines and Liege. I have preserved it and the memorial to the Congress of Vienna, as the most remarkable denunciations against liberty of conscience that modern times have produced, and a singular evidence of how little influence the example, or the intimate association of twenty years with the liberalism of France, was capable of producing on the spirit and genius of the church of Rome.
Its promulgation produced an instant effect upon the weak consciences of thepeople, which, for a time, was productive of the utmost embarrassment to the establishment and arrangements of the new government, as individuals were prevented from accepting offices, which were open to them, from a dread of the vengeance of the altar. Its mischievous consequences were, however, after a time, defeated by the temperate conduct of the Prince de Mean, the last Prince Bishop of Liege, and subsequently Bishop of Malines, who had not signed the document, and who took the requisite oath,subject to approval of the Pope, an example which was speedily followed by all whom the incentive of office inspired with a natural anxiety to avail themselves of so high an authority.
The King now administered the law with an apparent oblivion of every previous act of the Roman Catholic clergy. The income which was appropriated by the state for their support, wasaugmentedat his suggestion, the remotest interference with their worship was in no solitary instance attempted, and churches were built for theiraccommodation in the poorer districts, to which his Majesty himself was a liberal contributor. For some years every pretext for special complaint was successfully avoided, and the country was too rapidly prosperous to be yet ripe for any efforts to excite abstract discontent. But, at length, about 1825, the striking results of the Dutch system of National Education, to which I have referred in a former chapter, were so apparent, that the spread of intelligence and instruction became too alarming to permit the church to be longer quiescent, and resistance was at once commenced, notwithstanding the fact, that the religious education in the primary schools was scrupulously reserved for the superintendence of the priests, and theology was utterly excluded from the courses of the universities, and handed over exclusively to the college of Louvain. But education, even under these limitations, must be instantly suppressed, or unreservedly submitted to the church, without any control from the ministry of the interior. Someconcessions upon this point served only to give confidence to the boldness of further demands, and when these were resisted, every other grievance, civil and religious, having in the mean time undergone the necessary process of aggravation and distortion to ripen the passions of the “patrioterie” for revolt, the mine was considered ready for explosion, “and the whole country,” to use the words of Baron Keverberg,[38]“resounded with the cry of the priests, who filled Europe with their denunciations of resentment. To listen to them, one would imagine that the Catholic Church in the Netherlands groaned in the chains of an unrelenting oppression, and that the King had sworn to tear the faith of their fathers from the hearts of his subjects, and to hesitate at no measure, however furious or tyrannical, to “protestantize their country.” It is unnecessary to say that these were not only pure fabrications, “mere rhetorical artifices,” to serve thepurpose of the hour, since even their authors now admit this to be the fact. In a recent publication of the journal of Bruges, which is devoted to theliberalparty, it avows that William I. so far from being the “protestant tyrant which it was then expedient to represent him, was the most tolerant of princes, ‘le plus tolerant que l’on puisse s’imaginer,’ and only hated by the priesthood because he would not endure them toplace the altar upon the throne itself, as they have succeeded in doing by the revolution of 1830.”
With this imperfectaperçuof the origin of the Belgian revolution, it is easy to collect its objects, its agents, and its effects. The union of the Liberals, with the priesthood and their followers, who formed the preponderating mass of the population, formed an alliance so powerful, that the whole strength of Holland was unequal to withstand it, much less the small body of reflecting and loyal subjects, who still remained faithful to the union and the crown, and who were not only overwhelmed by theviolence of the commotion at the moment, but so utterly discomfited by its ultimate consequences, that they have never since been able to rally as a party. But the immediate object being once achieved, the union of the “clerico-liberal” confederacy did not long survive its consummation. The “compact alliance” between the priests and the liberals had been sought by the former only to effect a definite purpose, which could not otherwise be attained,the Repeal of the Union; and no sooner was this accomplished, than the intolerant ambition of the clergy, put an end to all further co-operation between them. The party of the priests had then become all powerful by their numbers, and no longer requiring the assistance of their former allies, they boldly attempted their own objects independently, and in defiance of them. It is rather a ludicrous illustration of their zeal and its aim, that among the crowd of aspirants who were named for the crown of Belgium in 1831, thePopehimself was put in nomination! and had the decisionremained with the revolutionists, there can be no doubt that the Netherlands would have been added to the territory of the Holy See.[39]Before twelve months from the expulsion of the King of Holland, the body by whom it was effected was split into two contending factions, and, at the present hour, the two opposing parties who contest every measure in the legislation of Belgium, are the quondam allies of the revolution,—the Liberals, and the “parti prêtre,” the latter of whom have the decided majority, and rule their former associates with a rod of iron.
Every thing, in fact, is regulated by the wishes of that numerous body of the priesthood, who from their ardent exertions forascendancy, have obtained the title of theLa Mennaisiens, and whose influence in every family and in every parish, rules, regulates and determines every political movement. They it is who conduct all the elections, name the candidates, and marshal the constituency to the poll, and when I was at Ghent, the curate of Bottelaer, a rural district in the vicinity, read from the altar the persons for whom the congregation were to vote, at a pending contest, on pain of the displeasure of the Bishop. If the coincidence does not strike irresistibly every individual, who has attended to what is passing in Belgium, it is here again unnecessary to point out the parallel, between the composition of the two parties, in that country and Ireland, who sympathise in the principle of repeal and separation. In each country the majority of the “movement” is composed of the Roman Catholic clergy, and the devotees of the church, but in both their strength would be ineffectual, and certainly their object suspected, had they not been joinedby honest but mistaken individuals, who, aiming at Utopian theories in politics, have been content to employ for their accomplishment, the aid of those, whose designs are more essentially sectarian, than civil or political.
In Belgium, however, the demonstration has been made, of what may be expected to ensue, should the project of Repealing the Union be ever successfully effected in Ireland. There, as in Flanders and Brabant, the priests and their followers would have the overwhelming majority; and caution or concealment being no longer essential, the triumph of their attempt, would be but the signal for discarding their allies, and proceeding boldly to the consummation of their own ambition. The union once repealed, the objects of the liberal protestants of Ireland and the Roman Catholic party, would be as distinct as the very spirit of freedom, and the genius of despotism could render them. The manifesto of the Roman Catholic prelates to the Congress of Vienna, and their protest againstLiberty of Conscience,Education,andthe Freedom of the Pressin Belgium, made, not at any remote or antiquated era of history,but within the last ten years, sufficiently attest the animus in which their admirers and imitators would set about the regeneration of Ireland. The Archbishop of Malines would find a cotemporary and congenial spirit in the benignant prelate of Tuam, the pastoral superintendance of the clergy would be as vigorous in the elections for a domestic, as for a “Saxon” legislature, and as successful in securing a majority in the parliament of Dublin, as in the “Palace of the Nation,” and the services of the patriots who now shout in the train of the Agitator, could be as readily dispensed with in Ireland, as they have been summarily discarded in Belgium.
Were the union between the two countries once repealed, the union between the two sections, by whose co-operation direct or indirect it had been effected, would not survive it one single year—the influence of the protestant and English party in Ireland, would in such a conjuncture be as effectuallyannihilated, as had been the adherents of Holland, in Belgium; and the deluded liberals, by whose unwise assistance they had been overwhelmed, would find themselves in the position of the moderate section of the chambers of Brussels, theconscientious, but inefficient opponents of a despotism, more formidable than that they had overthrown, inasmuch as the tyranny of the million exceeds the tyranny of the individual, and infinitely more galling, inasmuch as they had themselves contributed unwillingly to impose it upon their country.
In such a state of things, it is easy to imagine the discontent and disunion, which pervades every department of Belgium; its trade and manufactures, labouring under wants and pressures, which the government have not the power, however anxious their inclination, to relieve; the civil grievances for the abatement of which the revolution was undertaken, only partially redressed, and in some instances, exchanged for others, the immediate offspring of the remedy itself,—and to crown all, thegovernment and the country submitted to a religious ascendancy, which is as unwisely exercised by the party who have attained to it, as it is suspected and disliked by their opponents, who smart under its caprices and suffer from its indiscretion.
Even the very last act of the revolution, and that which might be regarded as placing the seal to the European bond, for its permanency, namely the ratification of the final treaty for the partition with Holland last year, seems to have only added to the existing insecurity; the leaders of 1830, loudly protesting against the assignment to Holland of these portions of Luxembourg and Limbourg, which have been decreed to her, and the mercantile interests, uniting in complaints, that the government of King Leopold, have been outwitted by the ministers of the Hague, and have not only submitted to surrender 350,000 of their already reduced population of consumers to Holland, but have ceded to her demands, which will inflict injury upon the navigation of the Meuse and the Scheldt.
I can state from my own observation, that I have not conversed on the subject with a single individual in Belgium, who expressed himself thoroughly satisfied with the present posture of affairs. On the contrary, I have found every where irritated dissatisfaction, and if not open regret for the events of 1830, and distinct wishes for a reunion with Holland, the utmost perplexity to discover some yet untried expedient, which would hold out a hope of restoring the country to its tranquil prosperity, whether as an independent nation, or in incorporation with some other state.On all hands, it seemed to be felt that for things to go on as at present is impossible, this was the constant theme of conversation in society, and the pamphlets and brochures which I picked up in the shops, are filled with discussions of the same subject, but in terms much more acrimonious and exciting.
One of these, which I found selling at Ghent, entitled “La Belgique de Leopold, par un voyageur Français,” and whichthough strongly in favour of Holland, is evidently written by a person well informed on the state of Belgium, thus speaks of the present state of feeling in that country; and the publicity with which pamphlets of this kind are exposed for sale, and their circulation are evidences of an extensive sympathy with the author’s views. “The Belgians,” the author says, “of all classes, representatives and constituencies, rich and poor, long for the arrival of the moment, which is to disembarrass them from an imaginary nationality, a delusive freedom and an independence, whose very name has become a jest—but they want as yet the energy which is essential to hasten their relief. It is possible, that in the little circle, whose life and fortunes are dependent upon Leopold, there may be some who flatter themselves with the hope that the ratification of the treaty of 1839, is the consolidation and establishment of his power * * But the vast body of the nation less involved in the immediate question of the revolution, arefar from regarding the present peaceful position as one of long duration, although guaranteed to the new state in the name of the same powerful courts, which by treaties not less solemn and sage had conferred the crown upon the former dynasty from whose brows, it had been rudely torn by the revolution * * * At this moment, the prolonged existence of Belgium, as an independent state, is a matter of impossibility, its manufactures, its commerce and its prosperity are annihilated, and it is crushed to the earth under the pressure of its debt and taxes. Without ships, colonies or commerce, and encumbered by an army, which never fights, and fortresses destined for demolition, it is merely the jibe and the laughing stock of Europe * * * The very authors of the revolt of 1830, blush for their own handiwork, and those who were then the most zealous apostles of revolution, now preach only contrition and repentance. The defection is universal—and above all the army,—the army, exposed every day to the most cutting sarcasms,vents its indignation in menaces and murmurs. Every class of the population, including those who would have been perfectly contented with the present order of things, were the circumstances of the country at all tolerable; the whole nation, in short, except the fraction of a fraction, without numbers, wealth nor weight, unite in aspiration for the return of the House of Orange; and the restoration of the kingdom of 1815, is in every heart and on every tongue * * Belgium, has herself, no other alternative left to her, and if from predilection and choice she does not invoke the return of a race of princes enlightened, paternal, courageous and brave, she must speedily be reduced by famine, to implore the restoration, as her only relief from evils of the last extremity. Their restoration may be regarded, at this moment, as morally accomplished, the universal voice of the nation has decreed it, and it requires but an accident, an excuse, a name, a banner, and the existence of the revolutionarykingdom is terminated without another ‘protocol.’”[40]
Under these circumstances, the position of King Leopold must be any thing but an easy one, if his ambition extends to the foundation of a royal dynasty for his descendants. The religious grievances of the nation are, it is too much to be feared, beyond his reach to correct, and the evils which beset and endanger its internal prosperity, arising out of the circumscribed resources of the nation, must look in vain to them for redress. The fundamental defect is the want of an adequate consumption for the produce of the national industry, and for this the ingenuity of the government has been ineffectually tortured to discover a remedy. It is idle to look to Germany or England forcommercial treatieswhich would afford an opening for Belgian manufactures in competition with their own; important concessions have been made to France, by the reduction of duties upon her produce,when imported into Belgium, but no reciprocal advantages have been obtained in return; on the contrary, ever since 1815, when the Netherlands were taken from her, to be given to Holland, she has exhibited a waspish impatience to embarrass and undermine her prosperity.Prospects of colonizationhave been discussed and even proposals made to other states for permission to attempt settlements on their distant territory—and where these have failed, commercial expeditions have been dispatched to Algiers, to Egypt, to Brasil, to Bolivia and Peru, all with a view to open a trading intercourse with the natives, but each and all have proved hopelessly unsuccessful.
The manufacturers of Ghent and Verviers, have thus turned their eyes towards the Zoll-Verein, and year after year attempts have been made to effect a connexion, if not a formal juncture with the Prussian Commercial League; but here again disappointment alone awaited them,for independently of the fact, that by the constitution of the Zoll-Verein, it is accessible only to those of German blood (on which score Luxembourg might have been admissible), it was manifestly hostile to the very spirit of the league, whose object is to protect their own native manufacturers, to admit amongst them a formidable rival, who would inundate them with her produce, and could take nothing from them in return.
But if the necessities and weakness of Belgium, render it impracticable for her to continue as she is, and if national independence be irreconcilable with her prosperity, the question which occupies the thoughts of her discontented subjects, is to what quarter she shall turn for relief from without. To attach herself again to Austria, as before the French revolution, is a matter impracticable and could be productive of no advantage, even if it were otherwise. The condition of the Rhenish provinces, under the dominion of Prussia, would make hereager for a similar incorporation, but this the interests of Europe, as well as those of Prussia herself forbid.
An union with France would be equally hopeless and incompatible with the policy of the Congress of Vienna, and would, with the exception of the districts immediately bordering on the French frontier, be in the highest degree distasteful to the population at large. Their annexation to the territory of France in 1794, had been resisted by the clergy, and its termination in 1814 was hailed with rapturous impatience by all classes. Their condition under the empire had been one “of the most insignificant vassalage. Their religious institutions destroyed, their cherished privileges annihilated, and all their rights and immunities for which they had been contending for centuries before, trodden under foot.”[41]Even their commerce and manufactures werejeopardisedby the jealous rivalry of their new allies, their clergy debased, and their youth drafted off by conscription tofeed the slaughter of Europe. The recollection of this has left no vigorous desire for a return to fraternization with France, nor would France herself, however important Belgium might be as a political acquisition, consult the interest of her native manufactures by imparting an equality in all her advantages to competitors so formidable. Still so impatient are the Belgians to fly from the “ills they have,” that at the present moment, whilst the possibility of war between France and the rest of Europe occupies the attention of all the world, I was repeatedly assured in Belgium that it would only require France to give the signal, and a powerful section of the people would declare in her favour. So conscious are all parties of this, that the bare probability of war in Europe is looked to with the utmost alarm by the government, and theControleur, an appropriately named journal, the organ of the clerical party, was anxiously busied, whilst I was in Ghent, in decrying any idea of a re-union with France, declaring in oneof its publications early in September: “Et comme nous n’avons pas pour habitude de cacher notre manière de voir, nous dirons rondement,que nous serions plutôt Hollandais que Français.—En dépit de M. Rogier.”
Another suggestion has been thepartitionof Belgium between the surrounding states, but to this equally insurmountable obstacles present themselves. Antwerp and the districts on the Dutch frontier, if assigned to Holland, would have no longer employment for their capital and ships, and would again sink under the more favoured rivalry of Amsterdam and Rotterdam; and as Hainault and the fortresses along the Meuse and the Sambre would necessarily fall to the lot of France, a measure so menacing to the future security of Europe, would not be tolerated by her courts, unless these strongholds were garrisoned by the allies, an expedient which would be equally opposed by the pride and ambition of the French.
If the further experience should unfortunately decide finally against the permanence of Belgium as an independent nation, the only practical expedient which remains, and that which has already received the sanction of all the great powers of Europe, would be a return to the disposition made by the Congress of Vienna, and the reincorporation of Holland and Belgium, to form again the united kingdom of the Netherlands. Personal aversion to King William would no longer oppose a barrier to such an arrangement, as his dominion has passed into other hands, and the Prince of Orange, the present king at all times enjoyed the popular affections, if not the national confidence of the people. Should any fresh convulsion arise, which for the sake of the peace of Europe, not less than for that of King Leopold, it is most earnestly to be hoped may be yet averted, all I have either seen or been able to learn from those best informed upon the matter, leaves little doubt in my mind, that the almost unanimouswish of the people, should they be compelled to change their present dynasty, would point to the restoration of the House of Nassau.
END OF VOL. I.
LONDON:PRINTED BY SCHULZE AND CO., 13, POLAND STREET.