THE SCRAP OF PAPER
Having failed to repress the revolution, King William appealed to the
Powers signatories of the eight articles creating the joint kingdom.
Lord Aberdeen answered that the independence of the Belgians was an
accomplished fact, but a Conference was, nevertheless, called in
London, in order to mediate between the two parties, to which France
was invited to send a representative. On November 14, 1830, the
conditions of an armistice were settled, according to which both
belligerents were to withdraw their forces behind the frontier which
divided the two countries before their reunion in 1814.
This arrangement would have restored to Belgium the left bank of the
Scheldt, which she had lost since the Muenster treaty. The Dutch king
protested, and the line was altered from the frontier of 1814 to that
of 1790--that is to say, five years before the annexation by the French
of the contested territory.
Throughout the negotiations the autocratic Powers--Prussia, Austria and
Russia--were opposed to the Belgians. They treated them as rebels who
ought to be only too happy to buy their independence at any price. As a
matter of fact, if the same wave of nationalism which had stirred
Belgium had not, at the same time, caused serious trouble in Poland and
Italy, it is doubtful whether England and France could have induced
the Conference to accept even the principle of Belgian independence.
But, owing to their internal troubles, both Russia and Austria were
disinclined to take action, and Prussia would have found herself
isolated if she had maintained an uncompromising attitude.
The Belgians, on the other hand, from the very beginning of the
negotiations, placed themselves on an equal footing with Holland, and
considered the Conference as a mediator, not as an arbiter. They
gratefully accepted its intervention as "prompted by feelings of
sympathy for the sufferings of Belgium and by humanitarian motives,"
but refused energetically to bind themselves by any engagement. When,
on December 20th, Belgian independence was finally recognized, the
Provisory Government remarked that "the balance of power in Europe can
still be ensured, and a general peace maintained, by making Belgium
independent, strong and happy. If Belgium were to be left without
strength and happiness, the new arrangement would be threatened with
the same fate as that of the political combination of 1815. Independent
Belgium has her share of European duties to fulfil, but it would be
difficult to conceive what obligations could be imposed upon her by
treaties in the conclusion of which she had no voice."
Such a complete consciousness of their national rights on the part of
the Belgian plenipotentiaries can only be explained by the fact that
such consciousness had never ceased to exist. This was no new nation
struggling for its birth, but an Old nation, as old as any of those who
had assumed the responsibility of planning her future. The Belgian
statesmen of 1830 had nothing to improvise. They had merely to pick up
the threads broken through the vicissitudes of European struggle. Their
new Constitution was based on the old Joyous Entry of Brabant, which
Joseph II had vainly attempted to abolish, and whose memory forty years
of French and Dutch centralization had not succeeded in obliterating.
Their foreign policy was, in the same way, inspired by a firm
attachment to their past and a firmer belief in their future. The
London Conference was not long in realizing, when faced by such men as
Lebeau, Van de Weyer and De Merode, that they had not merely to deal
with vague idealists or eloquent demagogues. It is not enough to say
that Belgium was well represented. It would be more accurate to say
that her delegates had a good case to defend.
[_THE LONDON CONFERENCE_]
Three treaties were prepared by the London Conference in the course of
the negotiations. The first included a series of conditions formulated
in January 1831 and known as "Bases of Separation." The second was the
outcome of new negotiations which took place during the following
months, and is known as "the Treaty of XVIII Articles" (July 1831). The
third, framed after the defeat of the Belgian troops by the Dutch and
the military and naval intervention of the Powers, is known as "the
Treaty of XXIV Articles" (November 1831). Accepted by the Belgians, it
was first rejected by William I, and finally sanctioned by him in 1839.
This is the final settlement which popular history will remember as the
"scrap of paper."
According to the Bases of Separation, Belgium lost the left bank of the
Scheldt, but this stream was to remain entirely free. She also lost
Luxemburg, which "would continue to belong to the German
Confederation."
It will be remembered that, under the treaty of Vienna, this Belgian
province had been converted into a Grand Duchy and given to King
William, in exchange for his possessions in Germany, but the king had
declared, at the time, that the "Grand Duchy would be considered as an
integral part of the State." Accordingly, Luxemburg shared the
political life of the rest of the kingdom, sending deputies to the
Chambers and being, from every point of view, considered as a Belgian
province. Luxemburgers had even taken a prominent part in the
revolutionary movement. One of them remarked in Congress, during the
debate which followed the Conference resolutions, that "national
sovereignty was transferred from Brussels to the Foreign Office," and
by an overwhelming majority (169 against 9) the Congress protested
against any delimitation of Belgian territory made without the consent
of the representatives of the nation.
[_BASES OF SEPARATION_]
A period of acute tension followed this refusal. King William had not
raised the blockade of the Scheldt, in spite of the conditions of the
armistice, and the Belgians consequently continued their military
operations in front of Maestricht, which had not yet been evacuated.
The Conference urged cessation of hostilities and prompt acceptance.
The Government remaining obdurate, an ultimatum was sent fixing June
1st as the last date on which the Belgians had to submit and
threatening military intervention. On June 6th, Lord Ponsonby, British
representative at Brussels, and General Belliard, the French
representative, were formally recalled by their respective Governments,
but the action of the Powers was delayed owing to differences of
opinion concerning the method of intervention. This allowed Belgium
some time to reopen negotiations, and her delegates in London finally
obtained the revision of the "Bases of Separation." A new agreement was
drafted, on June 26th, known as "the Treaty of XVIII Articles,"
according to which Belgium became permanently neutral, while the
questions of Luxemburg and Maestricht remained in abeyance, further
negotiations concerning the contested territories having to be pursued
direct between Belgium and Holland.
Illustration: LEOPOLD I. (REIGNED 1831-1865).
From a portrait by Lievin de Winne.
_Ph. B._
This diplomatic success was not only due to the perseverance of the
Belgian delegates but also to Prince Leopold's wise decision not to
accept the crown unless a satisfactory solution was reached. It must be
recalled that, as soon as the Belgian Congress had decided on
constitutional monarchy, the names of several candidates had been
discussed. The conservative Powers favoured the candidature of the
Prince of Orange, hoping thus to restore in the future the union of the
two countries. But this proposal had met with an overwhelming
opposition in Belgium. The candidature of the Duke of Nemours, son of
Louis Philippe, had then been considered, and by a narrow majority of
two votes the Belgian Congress decided in his favour. Such a choice
could not be approved in England, since it would have meant, sooner or
later, French hegemony over the Belgian coast and Antwerp. Louis
Philippe, therefore, refused the Belgian offer. Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, widower of Princess Charlotte, was practically an
English Prince, having spent most of his life in England; he was of
German extraction, and a marriage was contemplated between him and
Princess Marie Louise, Louis Philippe's daughter. He had already
acquired a great reputation for wisdom, which gained him later the
title of the "Nestor of Europe." It was felt that no better man could
be found to fill such a delicate post, and both English and French
diplomats were inclined to remove all obstacles which might prevent him
from accepting the Belgian offer.
The Prince's influence and the Belgian diplomats' firm attitude
succeeded in altering the Conference's views. The Belgians were no
longer treated as rebels and ordered to submit, but as free people
whose claims must be considered. "Everybody says," wrote Lord
Palmerston to Lord Granville, "that the Belgians are mad and that it is
useless to discuss with them. I have noticed that there is a good deal
of method in their madness." Talleyrand, who was not too well disposed
towards the Belgian emissaries and "their reticences," wrote on June
24th: "We have been in conference for forty hours, but the Belgian
delegates are so little accustomed to this kind of negotiations, they
create so many difficulties, that we cannot get on and I am tired out.
A conference took place to-day at Prince Leopold's; it lasted until
eight. It will continue at my house and last probably till late in the
night." The next day, the XVIII Articles were signed.
Prince Leopold having accepted the crown, the new treaty was sanctioned
by the Belgian Congress on July 9th. Less than a month later, on August
2nd, the Dutch armies, breaking the armistice, invaded Belgian
territory and defeated the Belgian forces at Louvain. Owing to the
armed intervention both of England and France, the Dutch were forced to
retreat, but these military operations had set the seal on Belgian
hopes.
[_THE XXIV ARTICLES_]
The Powers were now "firmly determined to stop, by all available means,
the resumption of hostilities which would threaten Europe with a
general war," and, on November 15th, King Leopold was obliged to
accept, under strong protest, a new agreement, known as "the Treaty of
XXIV Articles," which, though preserving the country's independence and
neutrality, deprived her of her natural frontiers and tore from her
territories whose inhabitants had shared her life since the early
Middle Ages. The Scheldt was given the status of an international
river, according to the General Act of Vienna, the supervision of
pilotage, buoying and dredging operations being entrusted to a
Dutch-Belgian commission. Belgium retained half of Luxemburg (the area
known to-day as the province of Luxemburg), while the other half, with
the town of Luxemburg, remained in the hands of the Dutch king, and
constituted a Grand Duchy attached to the German Confederation. "In
exchange" for their portion of Luxemburg, the Belgians were obliged to
relinquish their rights over Eastern Limburg and Maestricht, which
became the Dutch provinces of the same name. Such were the "final and
irrevocable" decisions of the Powers.
Though the compromise was entirely in his favour, King William refused
to sanction it. From the beginning of the negotiations the Dutch had
contended that, by the separation of Belgium and Holland, Article XIV
of the treaty of Muenster (that is to say, the right of Holland to close
the Scheldt in time of peace or war) came into force again.
Disregarding the liberal principles laid down at Vienna, they wanted to
go back to the old regime of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
which subjected Belgium to their control. Holding Maestricht, the key
of the Meuse, and the Lower Scheldt, the key of Antwerp, they intended
to treat independent Belgium as they had treated the Spanish and
Austrian provinces.
Laborious negotiations proceeded during the following years, and, in
1838, King William declared himself at last prepared to sign the treaty
on the consideration of the payment of a toll of one florin and a half
per ton on every ship entering and leaving the stream on its way to
Antwerp.
Meanwhile, Limburg and Luxemburg had remained Belgian, and the bonds
attaching the sacrificed provinces to the country had become so strong
that the forthcoming settlement provoked emphatic protests. Petitions
were sent to the king, and delegations came to Brussels urging
resistance. Once more, Belgian negotiators multiplied their efforts in
London and Paris. But, this time, the friendly Powers remained adamant
and the Government was made to understand that, if the Belgians created
difficulties, nothing would prevent the German Confederation and the
King of Holland from annexing Luxemburg and Limburg by force. In the
spring of 1839 the Belgian Chamber was at last compelled to give its
final decision. Three ministers had resigned from the Government. The
Austrian and Prussian "charges d'affaires" had left the capital. It was
common knowledge that several Prussian army corps were massed on the
Eastern frontier. Under such a threat, and this time without the
support of England and France, the Chamber was faced with the cruel
alternative of sanctioning partial annexation or seeing the very life
of the nation jeopardized by foreign invasion. The deputies of Limburg
and Luxemburg were the most emphatic in their opposition: "Suicide will
follow fratricide," exclaimed a deputy of Maestricht, while a
representative of Ruremonde urged armed resistance. "I would rather
give my life a thousand times," protested a Luxemburger, "than a vote
which would oppress my conscience until my last day." On March 12th,
Mr. Metz, who was unable to walk through illness, was carried to his
seat and declared that "neither the king, nor the Conference, nor the
Government, nor the Chambers had the right to dispose of his life" by
"a sacrilegious treaty which takes away four hundred thousand Belgians
from the country of their choice and covers Belgium with eternal
shame."
[_SUBMISSION_]
The Government's action was defended by Mr. Nothomb, who, though a
Luxemburger and an ardent patriot, realized too well the danger of the
situation not to urge submission: "We have not yet had the opportunity
of rendering any service to Europe. She has no reason to be grateful to
us. If it were not for our pressing need of independence, nothing up to
now justifies our existence. What matter to her our national soul
tempered by age-long traditions! If we resist, she will put an end to
our existence as a free State with a stroke of the pen. In bending
before the inevitable, Belgium will save her nationality, spare the
disputed districts the horrors of war, and make a sacrifice which
Europe will be obliged to take into account on the day when, bearing no
responsibility in the outbreak of war, the country will be able to
claim her revenge!" Another argument urged by some supporters of the
Government was based on the fact that, though not legally bound by her
former acceptance of the XXIV Articles, which had remained in abeyance
for seven years, Belgium's faith had been pledged to it: "I believe,"
said one of them, "that international treaties have a real value, that
they are not merely scraps of paper. I believe that Right more than
Force governs the affairs of this world, and that, in the end, it pays
to fulfil one's obligations, however painful these may be."
A tragic incident occurred on March 14th. Mr. Bekaert-Baekelandt,
deputy of Courtrai, had first been opposed to the Government's policy.
He had, however, been gradually convinced that all resistance had
become useless. This conversion to the inevitable had broken his heart.
He ended his speech by alluding to the return at a future date of the
deputies of the sacrificed provinces to the Belgian Chamber.
"Meanwhile," he said, "they will remain Belgians like ourselves, and
they will be generous enough to consider that our votes are extorted by
force, that they are a painful sacrifice imposed upon us by foreign
nations. They will no doubt appreciate how powerless we are to avoid
this sad obligation...." He did not proceed further, and fell dead.
[_NEUTRALITY_]
These manifestations have been compared with the heartrending scenes
which took place at the time of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by
Germany, but it would be wrong to draw too hasty conclusions from such
a comparison. On the one hand, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine is far
more recent. On the other, Dutch administration and the Grand-Ducal
regime did not provoke the same opposition among the people. If Belgian
irredentism proved very strong at the beginning, it gradually
diminished, owing mainly to the fact that the patriots, on both sides
of the frontier, were unable to entertain any hope of reunion during
the long period of neutrality which paralysed Belgian foreign policy.
Recent manifestations which took place on the occasion of the revision
of the 1839 treaties towards the reunion of Zeeland Flanders, Luxemburg
and Limburg to Belgium must, however, not be misjudged. They must not
be considered as the outcome of a crude instinct towards
aggrandisement, following the military success of the Belgian army at
the end of the Great War, or of a wild thirst for revenge, but merely
as the outburst of irredentist feelings, nursed in silence during
eighty years of neutrality, and revived, among a certain group of
intellectuals, by the fierce struggle waged by the nation for the
safeguard of its liberties. As for the demand of military guarantees
made by the Government during these negotiations, a demand which must
be clearly distinguished from the irredentist agitation just mentioned,
it was merely prompted by the circumstances in which Belgium is placed
at the present time. The territorial losses inflicted upon the country
in 1839 were largely compensated for by the pact of neutrality entered
into by the Great Powers, which provided Belgium with the strongest and
most unequivocal guarantees respecting her territorial integrity.
Provided these guarantees were observed faithfully, the closing of the
Scheldt by Holland in time of war, the critical situation on the
Eastern frontier created by the indefensible cul-de-sac of Dutch
Limburg, and the supremacy in Luxemburg of a foreign Power, did not
seriously jeopardize the country's security. The treaties of 1839 were
considered as forming a whole, the moral safeguard of guaranteed
neutrality counterbalancing, to a certain extent, the new territorial
encroachments. With the disappearance of neutrality, the substitution
of new guarantees of security for the old ones seemed obvious. The
demands formulated at the Paris Conference by the Belgian people and
Government--free access from the sea towards Belgian ports in order to
ensure communication between the country and her allies in time of war,
a military entente with Holland towards the defence of Dutch Limburg,
and a rapprochement with Luxemburg--were therefore the natural outcome
of the revision of the 1839 settlement.