THÉÂTRE DE LA MONNAIE, BRUSSELS.
THÉÂTRE DE LA MONNAIE, BRUSSELS.
The throng that was assembled in the Brussels Théâtre de la Monnaie on the evening of the 25th of August, 1830, listened for a timequietly enough to Auber’s new opera of “Musette de Portici.” But when the Italian tenor in a stirring solo made an appeal to his countrymen to rise against foreign tyranny, the excitement of the audience could not be controlled. Springing to their feet, they caught up the words of the refrain and sang them over and over again. They rushed from the opera house into the street, still singing,
“A mon pays je dois la vie,Il me devra la liberté!”
“A mon pays je dois la vie,Il me devra la liberté!”
“A mon pays je dois la vie,
Il me devra la liberté!”
The revolution begun in this dramatic fashion continued until Belgium took its place as a nation among the European powers. The new Constitution made it one of the freest countries in the world, with representative government, freedom of the press, trial by jury, freedom of education, and complete religious tolerance. The family of Orange-Nassau was forever excluded from the throne, and Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg was chosen king.
Although a Protestant, Leopold proved an excellent king of a Catholic country, by his wisdom and prudence tiding the nation over several political crises and firmly establishing the kingdom. While still prince, he had married Princess Charlotte, heir to the crown of GreatBritain. If she had lived, he would have become Prince Consort of England, but both the Princess and her only child died the following year. After assuming the crown of Belgium, Leopold formed an alliance with France by marrying Emilie Louise, daughter of Louis Philippe.
Leopold’s eldest child, a boy, died in babyhood. The daughter, Charlotte, became the wife of the unfortunate Maximilian, whom Napoleon III sent to establish a monarchy in Mexico during our Civil War. She accompanied him to Mexico, was crowned Empress at his side, and when the Mexicans rose against them, returned to Europe to seek aid. Maximilian was shot in her absence. At the news of his death she lost her reason, but she always remembers the fatal date, and shuts herself up in her château near Brussels and refuses to see any one on that day. She never forgets that she has been an Empress. In the first days of her madness she thought she was being poisoned, but this fear was finally overcome and she was persuaded to eat by one of her favourite ladies-in-waiting.
The third son of Leopold I was Philip, Comte de Flandre, father of King Albert. Philip died in 1905. It was the second son, Leopold II, who,in 1865, began a reign of nearly forty-five years. When only eighteen, he married the Archduchess Marie Henriette of Austria, a woman of many prejudices and peculiarities, who cared for little but horses and dogs. She did not approve of tennis; she objected to Wagner. She was an invalid for many years, and it is charitable to suppose that the King’s lack of home life was accountable for some of the scandals associated with his name.
LEOPOLD I.
LEOPOLD I.
Leopold’s only son died before he was ten years old, but there were three daughters—Louise, who married Duke Philip of Saxe-Coburg; Stephanie, who married Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria; and Clémentine, the wife of Prince Victor Napoleon. The marriage of Louise was most unfortunate, and she left her husband, who was said to be unkind to her. She has married several times since, and has contracted large debts. Stephanie’s marriage was also unhappy, and ended in the mysterious death of her husband, who either took his own life or was murdered in his shooting lodge near Vienna. They had one son, who died in boyhood. His death, as well as that of King Albert’s elder brother, occurred in January, and it is for that reason that the Belgian royal family say that January always brings them illluck. Stephanie is now the wife of an Austrian Count, and I have heard that during this war she has become a nurse on the Austrian side. Clémentine and her husband were living in Brussels at last accounts, and they have two sons. The King prevented this marriage for some years, as he felt it might make complications with Republican France. While we were in Belgium, they very kindly received us.
A charming French lady-in-waiting took us directly into the salon, where we saw a fine collection of Napoleonic relics. The Princess soon entered. We found her regal, with dark eyes and blonde hair. She struck us as a clever woman, with a good deal of power and dash. After a little while the Prince entered. He was good looking, of medium size, with dark hair and moustache and handsome eyes. We had a very pleasant half hour.
With all the pageantry of Burgundian days, in a splendid procession of church dignitaries, troops, and officials of the Government, and surrounded by royalties, Leopold began his reign with a Joyous Entry into Brussels, and was duly presented with the keys of the city. The capital was his immediate care. His first speech from the throne was upon the subject of beautifying the city and improving its sanitarycondition. It is said, “He found Brussels a city of brick and left it a city of marble,“ that ”he found a weak kingdom and left a strong one.”
Belgium had now a sovereign who was strong, both physically and mentally. He entered the Senate while still Duc de Brabant, and was soon recognized as a thinker and orator. But before all else, he was an able man of business. He had the foresight and breadth of view of a statesman, with the financial ability and power to handle men that belong to a captain of industry. He was interested in the construction of roads and tramway lines, in the extension of the canal system, and in measures for restoring Antwerp and Bruges, and other Belgian towns to their ancient position as queens of commerce.
In every way the King sought to develop the resources of his realm, and the marvelous prosperity of the country before the present war broke out is proof that he succeeded. In addressing the delegates of industry and commerce, early in his reign, he said, “We have been the first on the Continent to construct railways; let us understand how to prolong them by lines of navigation.” It was not many years before Belgian steamship lines were formed.Under his rule the army was strengthened, and if he had been allowed to carry out his plans, the country would have had at least the nucleus of a navy. He had new forts built and the army increased. It was decided that the army was deficient in numbers and in quality. The latter defect was owing to a system of recruiting which allowed any man called to the barracks by the ballot, who did not wish to serve, to find a substitute, who for a small sum of money, would take his place. The law doing away with substitutes in the army was one of the last signed by King Leopold before his death.
An early riser and indefatigable worker, Leopold often summoned his attendants at five o’clock in the morning and remained at his desk until evening. All day long, a procession of orderlies on bicycles, in swift succession, bore his orders from the study at Laeken, where he worked, to his secretary’s office in Brussels.
Although in the previous reign the two political parties, Clericals and Liberals, had fought some hard battles, the Liberals continued in power more or less for twenty years. The return of the Catholic party was effected in 1884, and although their rule has been bitterly contested by the Opposition, they have held the reins of government for thirty years.
LEOPOLD II.
LEOPOLD II.
While still Duc de Brabant, Leopold traveled in Morocco and Tunis, and Algeria and Egypt, as well as in China. On his return he presented to the statesmen of Belgium a Grecian stone, on which he had inscribed, “Il faut à la Belgique des Colonies.” Ten years later, his dream of colonization began to be realized.
At the Geographical Congress held in Brussels in September, 1876, which was attended by representatives from all the great Powers, the question of the suppression of the slave trade in Africa was discussed. Leopold wanted to open Africa to civilization, and records and letters of the time show that he was apparently quite sincere in wishing to suppress a traffic of unspeakable cruelty, carried on by Arabs and Portuguese adventurers of the worst type.
The King’s speech before the Congress contained the following words:
“The Slave Trade, which still exists over a large part of the African continent, is a plague spot that every friend of civilization would wish to see disappear. If we succeed in establishing stations along the routes followed by the slave merchants this odious traffic will be wiped out. The stations, while serving as points for travelers, will powerfully contribute toward the evangelization of the blacks and toward the introductionto them of commerce and modern industry.”
The most important result of the Conference was the formation of the International Association for the Suppression of the Slave Trade and the Opening of Central Africa. Leopold was made president, and it was due to his energy and wisdom that Belgium persevered in this undertaking. In answer to his appeal for money and men, men of good standing applied, and money poured in from his people—a little came from other countries—and his private fortune was freely spent in opening up the Dark Continent.
When Stanley returned to Europe in 1878, Leopold’s agents met him at Marseilles and secured his services to conduct the work of the International Association on the Congo. In five years six expeditions were sent out, and many lives were lost. Stanley planted forty stations, and established a line of steamers on the river to connect with the caravan route from the coast. Stations were granted by chiefs in exchange for guns, coats and other articles that pleased their fancy.
America was first to recognize the new State. At the Congress of Berlin, in 1884, it was recognized by the great Powers, was declared opento the commerce of all nations, and the slave trade was prohibited. Ten years later, the extinction of the African slave trade was accomplished. Baron Dhanis, with a large force of Belgian troops, conquered the Arab traders, and completely broke up their iniquitous traffic.
By the decree of 1885 all “vacant” land in the Congo was declared the property of the State, but in reality it became the property of Leopold. Land was considered vacant when not actually occupied by buildings or cultivated for foodstuffs. Not until 1892, however, was this theory made the actual rule of administration. Before that time, in the words of the distinguished Belgian Socialist leader, M. Vandervelde (whose wife has lately been lecturing in America in the cause of Belgian Relief), “The rights of the natives were recognized, not only over the land they cultivated, and over the land upon which they had built their habitations, but also over the forests which form the markets of their villages; the forests where, from time immemorial, they and their ancestors hunted the elephant and the antelope, collected palm oil and kernels, and gathered rubber either for the purposes of sale or for home use. During that period the Congo State acted as sovereign and not as merchant.”
To secure rubber now became, however, the single aim of the man who ruled the Congo. Three commissioners were appointed to enforce the “system”; a governor-general was selected and district commissioners were chosen. Under these governors of districts were native captains, or “capitas.” The agents in charge of thesecapitaswere paid according to the amount of rubber collected, so most of them were unscrupulous as to the means used in obtaining it. The capitas were also paid in proportion to the quantity of rubber they were able to squeeze from the natives, and they were so brutal that often whole villages rose up and killed them.
From travelers, from missionaries, and finally from the British consul in the Congo came reports of the cruelties practised on the natives. In July, 1903, a memorable debate took place in the Belgian Chamber, in which M. Vandervelde and M. Lorand fiercely denounced the policy of Leopold in the Congo.
M. Vandervelde began by saying he had never denied the greatness of the effort accomplished by some of his compatriots in Africa. He went on to say that the object of the discussion was solely to learn if the Congo State had fulfilled its international obligations; that Belgium had put fifteen million francs into theCongo railway, had lent thirty-five million francs to the State; it had given money and men. Among other things, he emphasized that the commercial question was closely and inseparably linked to the question of the treatment of the natives.
“The Congo State,” said M. Lorand, “has not only become the greatest vendor of ivory and rubber in the world, but has been enabled with its surplus revenues to conduct enterprises in China and elsewhere, to purchase property in Belgium, and concessions at Hankow.”
Though there was no immediate result from the agitation in the Belgian House, the efforts of English reformers made it necessary to take some action in regard to the complaints. Leopold accordingly appointed a Commission of Inquiry, composed of a Belgian, an Italian and a Swiss, all able men. They went out to the Congo, where they examined a multitude of witnesses, and at the end of a year their conclusions were published. In this report they practically reiterated—though in diplomatic language—all the charges of the reformers.
Finally, in 1908, this vast African dependency was annexed to Belgium, which secured complete parliamentary control over the whole region. The next year, Prince, now King,Albert and the Colonial Minister, M. Renkin, visited the Congo State, entering it from opposite sides, and reform work was soon inaugurated. Forced labour was suppressed, payments to the natives were made in money, and several zones were opened up to free trade. The African colony pays its own expenses to-day, but it contributes little money to Belgium. King Albert refused to receive an annuity from its revenues, and that money has been used as a pension fund for those who have served well in the Congo.
In the early days many Belgians went to the Congo to escape debt; today, they pass examinations, and, if fitted for the positions, are given good salaries. As the climate is very trying for whites, and the deadly sleeping sickness still exists, carried by the tsetse fly, the number of Belgians there, from latest accounts, is only one thousand six hundred. This includes over three hundred priests. No men from the larger countries of Europe are wanted in the service of the State, but there are some fifty Swedes, Americans, Swiss and Italians among the officials. The justices of the courts are of mixed nationality, but the most important civil and military positions are kept for Belgians.
Boma, the capital of the Congo State, is now a flourishing town, with several hundred European houses, a Governor’s palace, the Palace of Justice, and other government buildings, both Protestant and Catholic churches, a Red Cross hospital, and a telegraphic service to the interior.
KING ALBERT.
KING ALBERT.
A large part of Leopold’s revenue from the Congo was expended in beautifying Brussels and doing over both the royal palaces. The Congo Museum, with its fine park and drives, the Colonial School, and the Cinquantenaire Museum, erected to commemorate fifty years of Belgian nationality, with its splendid Arch of Triumph, were all built by this means.
Leopold’s long reign came to an end in 1909. His nephew, Prince Baudouin, who should have succeeded him, died suddenly, so, as women do not inherit, the crown descended to Baudouin’s brother Albert. As I have said, Albert’s father was Philip, Comte de Flandre, the younger brother of Leopold, and his mother was Marie-Louise-Alexandrine-Caroline, of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.
King Albert was born in his father’s palace in Brussels, on April 8, 1875. He has the best of French and German blood, that of the Orleans and the Saxe-Coburgs. It is said he resembles his grandfather, Leopold I. His sisterJosephine is the wife of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, a cousin of the Kaiser, and his other sister, Henriette, married the Duc de Vendôme. Prince Charles, who was fair, with a pointed beard, was bright and amusing when we met him; his wife, although very handsome, was a little deaf. The Duchesse de Vendôme was distinguished looking, tall and blonde, like her brother, and the Duke, although rather short, was most attractive.
Albert’s boyhood was spent quietly in study and outdoor life on his father’s estate at Ciergnon. He went through the usual preparation for military service under the supervision of General Jungblüth, then Chief of Staff of the Belgian army. From the moment he became heir to the throne, he set to work to prepare himself for the high position. He studied political economy with M. Waxweiler, a distinguished member of the Liberal party, who was at the head of the Sociological Institute. That he might not be one-sided in his opinions, he became the pupil of two Catholic priests, one a Jesuit of notable courage and fairness, the other a Dominican friar. And, finally, it was from Baron Lambremont, one of the greatest of Belgian diplomats, that he learned the difficult art of dealing with governments.
Even before the present war, the King’s mechanical tastes led him to take a deep interest in the problems of engineering construction, of shipbuilding and of aviation. While traveling in this country in 1898, he is said to have studied American railways under the tutelage of Mr. James J. Hill, and ten years later, to have gone to Great Britain incognito in order that he might become familiar with conditions in the shipyards there. Finally, he is known as a skilful and daring chauffeur.
In view of this fact, the well known journalist, Major Seaman, shortly returned from Belgium, told me the story was true that King Albert (accompanied only by his chauffeur) when motoring one day from one part of the lines to another, noticed that they were taking the road toward the German trenches. He directed the man to change his course, but soon found they were still going in the wrong direction. After a second order had proved unavailing, the King shot the chauffeur and himself drove the car to his destination, thus defeating an attempt to betray him into the hands of the Teutons. The money given to the traitor by the Germans was found on his body.
The Brussels Exposition was held the year after Albert became King. With his usual conscientiousness,the King not only attended innumerable congresses that were held in Brussels that year, but personally entertained the delegates at the royal palace; and, with all this, he is said to have found time to visit, with the Queen, every exhibit in every section of the Exposition.
Even before the present war, he was known as “The People’s King,” and during this war he has shown himself a man and leader, this hero King, whose name will be honoured through the centuries. Queen Elizabeth, too, has their hearts’ devotion. “Queen Elizabeth is over there with King Albert in the midst of the fighting troops. From town to town, from camp to camp, from trench to trench she goes. She inspires the living, she consoles the dying; she smiles upon them, she binds up their wounds. There she is, so gentle, so pitying, in that Flemish land, that sad Country wrapped in heavy mist, a gray winding sheet softly falling over so many rigid shrouds. Queen errant, but more a Queen than ever has been the consort of the most puissant King, she symbolizes her Country, that Country which is so gashed and wounded, but which will not die. Far from proud cities and sumptuous palaces, she goes to the soldiers fallen beneath the leaden rain, andas she passes near them the eyes of the dying are lifted up to her for a last look, a last tear.”[3]
QUEEN ELIZABETH.
QUEEN ELIZABETH.
The Crown Prince, although only thirteen years old, is in the Belgian army. The Queen entered a meek protest against her husband’s taking their son to the front, but he answered, “I have him with me to teach him how serious a thing it is to be a King.”
In an interview with Mr. Hall—a journalist whom I met at the Belgian Legation in Washington,—one of the most striking things King Albert said was this:
“This war was unavoidable. It had been postponed several times within the last few years, and if it had not been for England’s efforts it would have come at the time of the last Balkan crisis. Germany had been piling on armament for years, had been building up a war machine so perfect and so powerful that at a given time it was bound to start itself. When you have built a monster ship, you cannot continue piling on weight all the time, or the day will come when the vessel will slip off the ways of her own accord. This thing has happened in more than one shipyard.
“When the crisis came I had hopes that theprotection of international treaties would be sufficient to protect Belgium, but in any case there was no question as to what the Belgian people would do. The violation of our territory united every faction, and although we were taken by surprise we did our best and offered what resistance we could.”
Mr. Hall writes: “After the defense of Liège King Albert took the field with his army and fought back all the way to Antwerp. He led both the sorties from Antwerp in person, and fought with the rear guard that covered the retreat of his army to the Yser.”
The Germans drove the Belgian army from one position to another until only a strip of Belgium was left. “The King continued to fight in the bogs and marshes of western Flanders, still undaunted, still defiant, still calm and serene.”
An Englishman asked a Belgian soldier if King Albert was beloved. The answer was, “No, Monsieur, he is not beloved.... Before the war he was beloved—today he is adored.”
Emile Verhaeren wrote in King Albert’s book: “At this moment you are the one King in the world whose subjects, without exception, unite in loving and admiring him with all the strength of their soul. This unique fate isyours, sire. No leader of men on earth has had it in the same degree as you.
“In spite of the immensity of the sorrow surrounding you, I think you have a right to rejoice, the more so as your consort, Her Majesty the Queen, shares this rare privilege with you.
“Sire, your name will be great throughout the ages to come. You are in such perfect sympathy with your people that you will always be their symbol. Their courage, their tenacity, their stifled grief, their pride, their future greatness, their immortality all live with you. Our hearts are yours in their very depths. Being yourself, you are all of us. And this you will remain.”
BELGIANpolitics had a peculiar fascination for me from the first. It began perhaps with my amazement at their system of plural voting, which was different from anything of which I had ever heard. But the more I learned of the various issues and parties, the stronger the spell became. The little country was working very hard trying to solve its many problems, and was so fearless and original in some of the methods it used that you could not help but admire its pluck and spirit.
To any casual traveler it must have seemed that the country was divided against itself. It had two languages, one based on French, the other a Low German dialect, and the people themselves were of two different races. The Walloons have Latin blood, while the Flemings are of Teutonic ancestry. In spite of all this, they lived together in peace for many years, and during the past year have stood shoulder to shoulder against their common enemy.
Another extraordinary thing about politicalconditions there was, that while ninety-nine per cent. of the people were Roman Catholics, Socialism flourished. That these two bitterly opposed organizations should both grow strong in the same soil was even more surprising—on the surface—than the bi-lingual and bi-racial patriotism of the country.
“Thanks to Belgium’s very advanced capitalistic development,” said M. Vandervelde in this connection, “it constitutes a curious laboratory of social experiment.”
The Clerical party had been in power twenty-eight years when we were there, and the diplomats rarely came in contact with the members of any other faction. I do remember seeing a big Socialist parade, held on the first of May; it was made up, apparently, of quiet and orderly men. On the other hand, the country seemed to swarm with priests. In addition to those who lived there, many thousands had come in a few years before when they left France.
There were practically only two political parties: the Clerical, which was the conservative or Church party, and the Liberal, which was closely allied with the Socialists and Democrats. The members of these last three factions formed indeed a coalition, or “bloc,” which frequently contrived to check the work of the opposition,despite the fact that they had but eighty representatives to the Clericals’ eighty-six. This coalition had been gaining steadily for the past twelve years.
The national assembly was composed of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies, both of which were, in the main, elective. The former had 102 members who served eight years without pay, except a railroad pass. The lower house had 166 members who served four years and received, not only a railroad pass, but $800 a year besides.
Belgium was divided into nine provinces, whose governors were appointed by the King, just as the governors of our territories are appointed by the President. These provinces were subdivided into 342 cantons, much like our counties, and these again into over two thousand communes. Every two years the country voted in sections for half of each house. A majority of the five Flemish provinces went Clerical, while the four Walloon districts went Liberal.
Every man old enough to do so was compelled by law to go to the polls and cast his vote or votes when election day arrived. If for any reason he was absolutely unable to go, he must send a written explanation of his absence.
Belgium’s novel method of voting was adopted some twenty-odd years ago, as a compromise between the existing property qualification and the equal suffrage which the Socialists were demanding. Like most compromises, it was not wholly satisfactory to any one. Up to the time when the war turned the attention of the people to more important matters than politics it was the cause of a great deal of controversy. But as conditions stood in 1893, the system of plural voting was a masterpiece of diplomacy, for each of the three parties—Clerical, Liberal and Socialist—had its own ideas as to the sort of persons who should be granted the ballot, and of course no two agreed as to the necessary qualifications.
The Clericals wished to have the franchise granted on the basis of occupation and property; the Liberals thought it should be bestowed on all who were sufficiently educated to use the power intelligently; the Socialists, however, insisted upon universal suffrage for men and women alike, without preference or favour.
The Clericals got their wish outright—property and professional rights were recognized generously. The Liberals also got what they wanted—a vote for every man with a college education. The Socialists got half of their demands,which was all that they could reasonably have expected at a time when votes for women were not being widely advertised.
But of the three parties, only the first has shown any measure of satisfaction with the arrangement, for plural voting plays into the hands of the Church. Indeed, the only hope of the Clerical party was said to lie in its maintenance, while the great hope of the Liberal wing lay in its overthrow.
Briefly, the system of plural voting is this: Every male citizen of Belgium who had reached the age of twenty-five years was qualified to cast—and by law must cast—one vote. Every man of thirty-five who had children and paid at least $1 a year income tax, might cast two votes, while those without children could get this second vote if they had real estate amounting to $400, or $20 a year income from state securities. Any man who had filled a public position, who had a profession, or who held a college diploma, was entitled to a third vote, or to two in addition to his first manhood suffrage. This third vote could also be obtained by a property qualification. No one might have more than three votes in all.
This was the way it would work out in an individual case: A workman at twenty-five receivesone vote. He marries, becomes the head of a family, and at thirty-five receives a second vote. Then, if he buys a house—even if it is mortgaged—he gets a third. It can easily be seen how such a system might encourage thrift and industry, and even responsible citizenship.
Indeed, on the face of it, this system of plural voting seems nearly ideal. A writer in theContemporary Reviewseriously advocated its adoption in England. It has the advantage of putting the weight of power on the educated classes, while still giving to every man some share in the government. Our own “one man, one vote” appears rather crude and arbitrary by contrast with this carefully graded electorate.
For all that, it did not work out very well in practice. The educated upper classes were not always disinterested, and they were nearly always conservative. Poor men are naturally adventurous when they see a chance for gain, but when comfortable they are more and more inclined to hang back, reluctant to risk their present comfort for any hazardous improvement. The story of a young captain of militia who got separated from his company in a strike riot and cried—“Where are my men? I am their leader—I must follow them!” illustratesthis point. There was a lively agitation for electoral reform while we were there.
At the root of much of the political strife was the question of schools. Should the Church share with the State in the education of the children, or should the public schools be purely secular?
The coalition of liberal parties demanded for every child up to fourteen years of age a compulsory education, which must be followed by two years of training along some technical line. They insisted, moreover, that every commune should be bound to provide adequate schools, from which both religion and politics must be barred. Although they never achieved this, the steady gain of the coalition in recent years has been attributed to their stand in educational matters.
The Belgian Constitution provides for two kinds of schools, State and “free.” The latter, corresponding to private schools in our country, were not under Government control, and were, indeed, generally under the management of the clergy. Prior to 1878 the Church had also, step by step, gained a certain amount of influence in the State schools, but in that year the Liberals came into power and suppressed clerical inspection. As a result of this, sixyears later, the Liberals went down to defeat and did not regain their power. From that time on, the curriculum of the State schools included religious instruction, although it was not compulsory.
It seems strange now to remember that only a very short time ago one of the burning issues in Belgium was militarism. Then they were facing much the same question which is before us today in this country: Should they have a large standing army, with all the burden of service and taxation that it entailed, or should they try the system in use in Switzerland? There every man is equipped, and drilled for a short time each year, but there is only a very small regular army. The Belgians compromised by blocking up all the entrances to their country by means of strong fortifications, with the idea that no invader would gain enough by crossing their territory to make it worth the trouble. If they had had the army too, the story might have had a somewhat different ending.
The year that we were there, there was much fear as to the result of the elections. The talk was such as to make you feel that the end of the world was at hand if the Clericals failed to win, and that if they did win, there would surely be a revolution. Our own papers had greatly exaggeratedaccounts of the trouble in Brussels following the elections, with stories of sieges and revolutions and all kinds of violence. But although the riots themselves amounted to little, they were of such significance as a part of the general social and political unrest throughout the world that I insert an account of them here.
The general elections were held in Belgium on Sunday, the second of June, 1913, and resulted in the maintenance in power of the clerical conservative Government. The dissolution had been brought about by the gradually diminishing majority of the Clericals in Parliament till they had kept themselves in office by an excess in the Chamber of Deputies of only six votes.
It was expected that the elections would be very close, owing to the alliance which had been formed for this campaign between the two opposition parties of Liberals and Socialists. It was the surprise of the election that the returns for the new Parliament showed a substantial gain for the party in power. It seemed that the Clericals had come back from the country with a majority of sixteen in the Chamber, while in the Senate their supremacy was also maintained.
An explanation of these gains was afterwards found in the defection of many Liberals at thelast moment because they feared the alliance with the Socialists and preferred, after all, as the lesser of the two evils, the Clerical ministry, such as Belgium had prospered under for nearly thirty years. Liberal officers of the army could not bear alliance with the anti-monarchical party, moreover, and the high finance and commerce—the Liberal bourgeoisie—feared radical changes.
The defeated parties raised the cry of corruption, and of the advantage which the plural vote gave the government forces, since it was the educated and official classes and the rural population which benefited by the allowance of a second or third vote. Afterwards a more active campaign than ever was waged in favour of the “one man, one vote” suffrage by those out of power. Throughout the rural communities the Clericals developed a well-organized machine in the “Boerenbonden,” or agricultural syndicates, which might have been subventions of the Government but were generally in the hands of the priests.
A more immediate result of the conclusive character of the elections was that many of the demonstrations that were feared in case of a close vote lapsed through lack of heart and of excuse for agitation. The Government had expresseda determination to maintain the peace, and troops were held in readiness in their barracks; civil guards were also ordered under arms during certain hours of the day when trouble was especially likely, and were bivouacked in the parks and the courts of public buildings, as evidence to the people of serious preparations for the repression of disorder.
There were small riots in Brussels, resulting in a few wounds and arrests, but these seem to have been more or less formal, and the work of the rougher element. In some of the other cities, especially in the industrial parts of Belgium, and in the Borinage, or colliery district, there were disorders and strikes more or less serious. In Liège there was a riot with several deaths resulting.
But everywhere the result of the election was accepted more quietly than had been feared. The leaders of the defeated parties showed selfcontrol and attempted to restrain their following, so that the rioting and strikes were more the result of the excitement of the masses, who were taking advantage of the excuse which politics always gives for breaking out into disorder, than of agitation with any immediate political effect in view.
The Premier of the continued Governmentwas Baron de Broqueville, an astute and moderate man. But there were able and fanatic elements in the Clerical party which it was feared might try to force legislation, especially in the matter of education. This would prove such an aggravation to the more liberal thinkers in the country as to lead to further disorders.
BARON DE BROQUEVILLE.
BARON DE BROQUEVILLE.
But when the war broke, all differences of opinion were forgotten, and every man, Clerical or Socialist, gave himself without reserve to the common cause of his country’s need. Baron de Broqueville and M. Vandervelde worked side by side in the Cabinet. The Government was moved from Brussels to Antwerp, as the invaders drew near, and on again from Antwerp to Ostend and later to Havre. But in the narrow strip of Belgian soil which still remains, the King and his Ministers daily share the same dangers and hardships, and toil for the same end. For the time at least, party differences have been forgotten in a cause immeasurably greater.
BELGIUMwas slightly larger than the State of Massachusetts, yet she ranked eighth among the nations in wealth, and sixth in commerce. Antwerp was one of the five great ports of the world, with more dock-room than New York.
Several favouring conditions enabled her to compete so successfully with her big neighbours. Rivers and canals gave her inland cities easy access to the sea. Much of the raw material for her foundries and factories was to be found within her own boundaries, while fuel for her engines was furnished cheaply by her own mines. Most important, perhaps, labour was abundant, low of cost, and highly skilled. In her people really lay Belgium’s greatest strength, for they are hardy and thrifty, and peculiarly skilled as mechanicians.
They used to say that while France furnished mankind with their luxuries, Belgium supplied them with their necessities. But this is notwholly true, for the smaller country is celebrated for its exquisite lace and superb tapestries, while the gardens of Ghent raised orchids, azaleas and camellias for the flower-markets of France, Germany, England and even America.
These were the exports of Belgium, in the order of their importance: coal, iron, steel and zinc; firearms; glass; cement; ceramics; cotton, wool and flax; furniture and lace.
The centers of the metal, coal and glass industries were in the Walloon districts, especially in Charleroi and Liège, while the textile centers were, for the most part, in Flanders.
The story of how coal was first discovered in Belgium has been told a thousand times, but rarely, I think, in America. It seems that in a village not far from Liège there lived—some seven hundred years ago—a poor blacksmith named Houllos. One day he found himself quite out of money. He could not work to earn more, because he had no wood to heat his forge. While he sat bewailing his fate a mysterious stranger appeared and asked the cause of his woe. When he had heard the mournful story, “Take a large sack,” said he, “and go to the Mountain of the People. There you must dig down three feet into the earth. You will find a black, rocky substance, which you must put intothe sack and bring home. Break it up, and burn it in your forge.” This is the reason why, in Belgium, coal still bears the name ofhuille, in memory of the blacksmith of Liège. Some think the stranger was an Englishman, since coal was already in use in London. But tradition has insisted thatangeand notAnglais, is the proper word, and that Houllos entertained an angel.
Near Mons are the great mounds of slag which were begun in the earliest times and look today not unlike the pyramids of Egypt. Whatever the origin of the mining industry in Belgium, there is nothing idyllic about the conditions there in modern times. The coal region of the Borinage is known as Le Pays Noir, and it certainly deserves the name.
The miners are calledBorains, or coal-borers. “They live both on the earth and in the earth, delving amid the black deposits of vast primeval forests.” Owing to their former long hours, which have been somewhat shortened in late years, the present generation is dwarfish, the men often under five feet and the women still less. Most of them cannot read or write, and they have little pleasure save what comes from beer. (More beer was sold per head in Belgium than even in Germany.) Of the hundredand twenty-five thousand miners in the country, three-quarters belonged to Hainault.
There are in all over a hundred coal mines in Belgium, the area of those that were worked amounting to over ninety thousand acres, and of those not worked to forty thousand more. A new coal field has been discovered in the north but has not been exploited as yet. Although the home consumption was steadily increasing, and averaged nearly three tons per capita, large amounts were exported to France and Holland. It was sold at a closer margin than in any other of the mining countries.
Mining was commenced on the out-crops eight or nine hundred years ago, but it was only when steam-engines were invented that the miners were able to reach the deeper parts of the coal measures, and the yield was greatly increased.
Firearms have been manufactured in Liège since midway in the fourteenth century. The first portable arms were the cannon and handgun, both adjusted to very heavy, straight butt-ends and very difficult to handle. They were loaded with stones, lead or iron balls. The musket and arquebus came later, and had matchlocks, an idea suggested by the trigger of the crossbow.
The first exporters of Liège arms were naildealers,who possessed from immemorial times commercial relations with the most distant countries. After the invention of the flint-lock in the seventeenth century the gun trade made rapid progress. The number of workmen became enormous. The superiority of Liège arms was recognized all over the world, and the gunworkmen received offers of high salaries to induce them to go to France, England, Germany and Austria. Several of them were engaged to work at the Royal Manufactory of Arms at Potsdam. Much of the best work was done at the worker’s own house, and in order to prevent any decline in the individual skill of the men to whom Liège owed so much of its fame, the union of manufacturers of arms created a professional school of gunnery, where they could be specially trained. In this way they hoped to avoid the danger that the facility which machinery gives the workman would cause him to lose interest in his hand-work at home, which requires such varied knowledge and ability.
Cotton spinning was one of the most important textile industries. Over a million spindles were employed, most of them in the two provinces of Hainault and Brabant, and in the city of Ghent. Most of the cotton came from America and Egypt.