NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

Marlborough's first campaigns.

"The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,

owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of

Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part

with France. About the middle of April, the prince of

Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to

the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with

the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice

of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the

French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a

vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful

carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to

relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself

between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that

place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more

rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and

moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton

barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to

take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by

Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the

peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives

of the states, who attended the army under the name of field

deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the

Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without

the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,

with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the

ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The

Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates

were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit

of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;

and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,

said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of

these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly

retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing

Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a

demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson

of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had

commanded the French army in name. He now returned to

Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst

Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and

Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with

Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;

and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The

duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries

about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and

menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,

fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late

campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of

Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost

3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this

year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black

Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;

whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army

under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum

was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.

Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent

this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of

Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture

of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the

emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was

once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,

liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,

in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for

recovering the ground and the strong places from which

Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The

campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with

the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before

the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation

was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with

the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal

abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on

the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented

from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch

generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field

deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the

easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage

of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near

Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field

deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed

with a facility which only proves the extent of his

superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of

Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the

emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very

capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the

19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter

upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.

… On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states

general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the

Moselle.

{2292}

Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own

security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in

Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked

were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,

thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and

Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or

allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and

the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince

of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the

Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march

upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the

states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour

of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted

they would permit their troops to share the glory of his

enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his

confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed

to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He

met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.

Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career

of war and victory."

_Sir J. Mackintosh,

The History of England,

volume 9, chapter 4._

ALSO IN:

_L. Creighton,

Life of Marlborough,

chapters 6-7._

_G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 5._

_W. Coxe,

Memoirs of Marlborough,

chapters 11-22 (volume 1)._

_J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

Sec, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.

After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the

field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough

passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of

1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,

again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in

Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,

commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must

depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and

promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also

were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated

an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as

were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince

Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the

time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and

set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise

whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few

ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed

himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough

nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give

battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded

Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He

intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,

where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.

And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there

came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had

suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of

Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."

Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid

by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his

colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,

leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security

of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the

citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so

that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with

ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the

fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of

July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,

Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch

troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first

object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across

the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous

fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and

morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,

under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough

laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as

also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to

commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that

for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for

a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a

nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;

but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division

of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,

General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and

compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius

devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river

[Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On

the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk

in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe

near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of

battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main

chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day

being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of

Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,

observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding

movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They

encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and

rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before

they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed

to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main

posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now

ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly

the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and

ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take

place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg

interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that

Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a

victory which he confidently declared would have been greater

than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the

year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the

stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch

deputies and the general who counselled them.

_Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 6._

In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by

Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

{2293}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

"The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,

his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English

political business detaining him in London till the end of

April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were

still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and

intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.

… He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,

which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen

what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a

successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the

kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom

Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant

as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the

Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever

reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was

condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time

fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made

which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all

posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached

most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,

Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he

had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight

at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had

for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at

once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two

generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,

Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows

at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines

had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely

more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as

before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of

the general. … The battle itself was one completely of

generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.

It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that

Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French

and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of

the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was

not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of

the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting

on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the

French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his

hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a

completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell

before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered

and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.

Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison

precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.

Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the

French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.

And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,

reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks

from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in

a district which the day before that battle had been occupied

by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of

80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,

tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a

small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss

of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as

Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of

Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the

campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any

importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as

that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all

generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and

certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The

Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone

of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,

between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected

to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The

barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which

Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of

the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.

… It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and

hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of

the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion

of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an

almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is

almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to

anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

_G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 6._

In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years

terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in

April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;

see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

_Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 7 and 9._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of

Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the

spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss

plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up

the various contingents that would compose his army. He

encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to

bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,

meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst

the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite

and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its

side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of

the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of

Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm

Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry

out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the

Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and

learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an

escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his

arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had

attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then

besieging the castle."

{2294}

The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their

movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the

fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,

convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome

would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward

their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies

united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and

crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th

Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to

the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde

and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7

o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by

the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's

grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after

another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were

carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to

make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had

been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have

the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at

Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were

fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The

Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or

Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The

French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied

finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take

advantage of their victory. They were within a circle

commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and

Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the

proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The

siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by

the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison

of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable

undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and

defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would

have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth

who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on

the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The

siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on

the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of

1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was

humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies

would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose

too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the

campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same

skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful

an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,

consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and

Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000

strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,

had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had

been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong

[under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position

between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in

the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his

troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong

position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying

siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of

July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned

their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary

to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to

drive the allied army from the position it had gained between

themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody

battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern

history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the

vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to

20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German

writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.

… The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.

The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all

its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.

There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it

watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,

the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].

… But this was the solitary result of the victory."

_Colonel G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapters 10-11._

ALSO IN:

_W. Coxe,

Memoirs of Marlborough,

chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5)._

_H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 2, chapters 5-6._

_J. W. Gerard,

Peace of Utrecht,

chapters 17-19._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D, 1709.

The Barrier Treaty with England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The last campaigns of Marlborough.

"As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at

Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough

at once began the active business of the campaign. …

Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession

of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In

spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the

capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of

disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war

into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so

placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content

himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.

Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops

prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was

somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in

England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party

had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of

Marlborough and the war had come into power.

_L. Creighton,

Life of Marlborough,

chapters 15-16._

"In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,

Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to

Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his

lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the

campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some

16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French

system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number

not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire

7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask

themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,

Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded

the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had

himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.

{2295}

He had given them four great victories in a little more than

five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not

unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them

none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the

war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,

independently of the more strictly political considerations,

… it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing

Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He

was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon

his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;

and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had

inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military

situation was changed from one very much in favour of the

allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond

all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

_G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 7._

ALSO IN:

_G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapter 12._

_C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3)._

See, also,

ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.

The Treaties of Utrecht.

Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.

Barrier towns secured.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.

Second Barrier Treaty with England.

Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the

treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a

new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and

providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the

Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now

become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole

nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The

States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the

succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of

England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the

States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,

Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,

Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to

the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they

should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the

subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,

"he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed

in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought

security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of

Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;

Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and

Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of

Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and

Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted

upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence

to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and

cost of its maintenance."

_C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

chapter 11 (volume 3)._

(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.

Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.

The Triple Alliance.

The Quadruple Alliance.

The Alliance of Hanover.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.

The Treaty of Seville.

The second Treaty of Vienna.

The Ostend Company abolished.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.

The question of the Austrian Succession.

Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.

Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.

Invasion by the French.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.

French conquests.

In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War

were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.

D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to

his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the

Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded

there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,

England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but

Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there

were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely

exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young

Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the

control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged

to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against

these inferior numbers and divided councils the French

advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various

movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,

on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this

important city, immediately became the principal object with

the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous

in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.

… On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful

dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover

the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a

few miles further, in an excellent position, which he

strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were

inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had

hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three

allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them

encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin

and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow

valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their

left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,

were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête

de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis

were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin

and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully

fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy

and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by

the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French

officers thought, the strength of the position might bid

defiance to the boldest assailant.

{2296}

Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a

general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts

on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their

intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning

of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and

his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,

while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and

Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His

Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent

General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood

of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's

division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the

latter made no further effort. But the British and

Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with

them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between

Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which

the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which

the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of

the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of

the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,

diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,

repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and

gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be

decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his

congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had

Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated

messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,

while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued

inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander

to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while

he brought another battery to bear on the head of the

advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own

exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed

by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column

wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for

such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few

pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any

prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,

was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only

1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise

acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of

Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily

surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar

attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while

the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels

and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against

Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile

the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:

A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to

withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the

approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into

quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining

fortresses of Flanders."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 26 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:

_F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 52 (volume 6)._

_J. G. Wilson,

Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

French conquest of the Austrian provinces.

Humiliation of Holland.

The Stadtholdership restored.

"In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up

the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.

Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places

successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of

Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,

reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of

Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and

completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides

went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse

and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining

only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some

negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch

for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had

proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of

Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,

conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great

Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had

gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were

protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had

endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and

active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of

Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the

States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April

17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find

on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against

the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories

'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit

the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the

States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count

Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less

than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and

other places. Holland had now very much declined from the

position she had held a century before. There were indeed many

large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had

been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial

prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and

steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and

money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her

brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt

of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the

Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.

Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been

engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally

with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the

arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the

satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear

of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against

that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the

republican or aristocratic party had again seized the

ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William

Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the

Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a

Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,

however, become highly unpopular.

{2297}

It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the

Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach

of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The

Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment

of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the

example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who

was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and

Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,

Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William

IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of

George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French

threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of

Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here

they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a

bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of

Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the

French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl

[a Swedish general in the French service] carried

Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring

(1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,

notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was

surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been

going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been

appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference

took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was

intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it

undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the

war were signed the following October.

_T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:

_C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapter 12,

part 4, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.

The restored Stadtholdership.

Forty years of peace.

War with England and trouble with Austria.

The razing of the Barriers.

Premature revolutions.

In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic

were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the

House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of

Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to

the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of

Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a

line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland

since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …

William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had

done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of

Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the

consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for

his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been

elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male

and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The

constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the

appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many

… to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The

election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his

people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious

days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without

abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he

was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the

forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle

restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the

stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt

that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,

and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well

for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her

greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested

her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of

peace, … When war again arrived it was again external

circumstances [connected with the war between England and her

revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to

take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,

an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her

designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which

was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies

both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle

was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781

off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a

success that made them claim a victory, and that at least

secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed

caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been

supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of

her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were

restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use

of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon

the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be

apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against

the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the

opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and

treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor

will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our

connection with France has made them needless': and the

fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough

had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable

at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;

and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for

more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the

opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from

the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear

too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left

them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to

navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The

support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,

was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he

had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be

restored; but the claims which had been put forward were

abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the

States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and

party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and

had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with

America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against

the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,

and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his

restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian

provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result

in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had

enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under

Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000

men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of

Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the

coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

_C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 2._

ALSO IN:

_T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

_F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century, period 4,

chapter 1, section 2,

and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5)._

{2298}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.

Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.

Recognition of the United States of America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.

The Austrian provinces occupied

by the French revolutionary army.

Determination to annex them to the French Republic.

Preparations to attack Holland.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).

French invasion of Holland.

Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.

Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).

The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.

French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.

Holland open to invasion.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.

Subjugation and occupation by the French.

Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.

Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.

Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 17\!7 (MAY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.

English and Russian invasion.

Capture of the Dutch fleet.

Ignominious ending of the expedition.

Capitulation of the Duke of York.

Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.

Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

A new Constitution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.

The Peace of Amiens.

Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.

Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and

Napoleon's Decrees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.

The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.

Louis Bonaparte made King.

His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.

His abdication.

Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

"While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had

no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the

north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine

republic in the south. But after the coronation all the

republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand

republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,

if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was

no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The

latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it

was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former

into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an

extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a

deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian

republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to

solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis

[Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis

became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he

opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an

objection the state of his health, to which certainly the

climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly

replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than

live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He

went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not

stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved

by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial

people, the best way to win their affections was … not to

adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse

with England. Hence the first coolness between the two

brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not

whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for

at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of

the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission

in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph

was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of

Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally

seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating

from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,

the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully

resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too

intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion

in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden

already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist

upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed

augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he

got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself

struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change

his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to

him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved

expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over

all his family in order to make them the instruments of his

despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of

policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,

and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he

said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade

with Holland. In this state of things we may consider

ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body

I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,

that my intention is to unite Holland with France.

{2299}

This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,

and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the

plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.

The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to

belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the

interdiction of all trade and communication with England.

Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,

seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.

Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the

rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges

of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your

Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,

through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on

the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will

restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who

may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at

the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you

prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments

which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it

extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature

has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and

France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland

and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to

England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'

… Here the correspondence between the two brothers was

suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new

vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the

Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called

his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not

shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a

council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the

interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He

did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the

throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general

silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings

and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I

have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be

kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The

Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly

incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to

the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united

to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had

exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom

Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the

accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the

victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,

permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the

stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch

of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.

Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no

remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert

the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd

of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …

Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than

verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,

whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to

address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His

brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months

after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he

addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few

days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more

phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether

you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose

that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you

should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have

recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a

Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains

there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.

My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.

Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been

repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which

is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write

to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel

alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving

that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down

his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a

message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,

explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French

troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de

Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King

himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended

from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the

people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of

which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was

living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother

had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then

published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all

intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite

in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged

that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in

energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the

empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was

summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.

Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and

Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him

again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.

Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The

Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the

latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being

considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and

the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

_M. de Bourrienne,

Private Memoirs of Napoleon,

volume 4, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:

_D. A. Bingham,

Marriages of the Bonapartes,

chapter 11 (volume 2)._

_T. C. Grattan,

History of the Netherlands,

chapter 22._

See, also,

FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.

The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.

Java taken by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

{2300}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.

Expulsion of the French.

Independence regained.

Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

"The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the

deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch

Provinces.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous

pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the

wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,

had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,

from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the

total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the

naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had

occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the

last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of

being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system

which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with

the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These

feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to

have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident

hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no

longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown

down the colossus of French external power, and the approach

of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the

people the means of salvation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER) and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the

nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small

number of French troops in the country at once encouraged

revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the

whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed

6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose

fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.

Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who

advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon

followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew

from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the

whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at

Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to

circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At

Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than

the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial

authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a

provisional government with a view to the restoration of the

ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,

but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise

of social rights by a people long habituated to their

enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in

the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,

Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,

everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal

rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the

ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences

of the highest importance immediately followed this

uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation

from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the

Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked

on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on

the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the

Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had

concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence

was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that

the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were

not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their

consternation, and made it general forward movement against

Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300

Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received

with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after

followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after

travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the

latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached

Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately

advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he

made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600

prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with

Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the

23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000

strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with

great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up

with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were

still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely

successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to

Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,

finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew

altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the

orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with

a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,

threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the

Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received

the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the

close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on

Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;

and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been

transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to

those of the Scheldt."

_Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 82 (volume 17)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).

Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed

to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.

The Waterloo campaign.

Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.

Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.

Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.

Siege of Antwerp citadel.

"In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the

kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,

"was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any

other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in

the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,

the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch

Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted

Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with

the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the

rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that

Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.

{2301}

These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable

of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for

themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian

dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a

population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000

persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the

States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,

and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch

pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The

public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five

in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was

almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors

were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian

schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of

Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of

the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all

judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.

… On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the

elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers

failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the

political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union

was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July

[at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides

crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of

revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine

years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax

upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;

and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch

members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in

Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed

against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the

interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the

Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops

were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded

to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August

the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.

Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the

people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,

and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square

of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,

the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable

citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,

organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was

preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted

Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control

of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had

unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could

hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given

to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;

victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the

Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king

urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation

of the States-General. The king had received the news of the

events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at

once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,

an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The

citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops

would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the

officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively

outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make

terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to

admit the prince into the city unless he came without his

soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of

this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people

alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium

had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,

compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned

the States-General for the 13th of September. But this

concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.

They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded

independence, the dissolution of the union, and the

independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had

originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to

other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,

Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the

example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the

union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a

mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;

and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously

impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.

The question of separation was referred to them by the king;

and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its

consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which

their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had

completed the preliminary discussions which they thought

necessary the march of events had taken the question out of

their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke

out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the

riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their

success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,

who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of

Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up

his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his

command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of

September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the

columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining

possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were

unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the

contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,

unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which

they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the

States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the

union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the

gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to

preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the

Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a

separate Administration for the southern provinces of the

kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …

Arrangements of this character had, however, already become

impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached

Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an

ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the

immediate convocation of a National Congress. …

{2302}

On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following

up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating

the composition of the National Congress and the

qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were

fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the

Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence

of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its

authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the

five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the

invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice

should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops

should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this

protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,

virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which

the Congress immediately proclaimed."

_S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 11 (volume 2)._

It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for

Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian

Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.

The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice

of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The

second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides

to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by

dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.

The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland

rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who

expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A

French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet

blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,

December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until

April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and

Holland was signed.

_C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 5._

ALSO IN:

_Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-1852,

chapters 24-25 and 29._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.

Constitutional and material progress.

The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

"After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been

free to work out its own career of prosperous development.

King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model

of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The

first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between

Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most

complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by

more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,

numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as

Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France

all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing

Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection

of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]

with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted

the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been

the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850

there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and

nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for

many years to abolish these and control education; but neither

party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst

of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after

seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial

crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a

constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question

seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.

had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take

Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as

the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

… Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain

on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this

danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical

parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,

and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals

succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over

State education. The constitution is that of a limited

monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of

Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens

paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was

extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection

with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see

below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands

(Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize

Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.

The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,

and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of

1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a

thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the

States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by

the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower

house by electors having a property qualification. The king's

ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of

the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief

questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy

debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of

agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and

difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage

28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She

there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the

Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in

South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was

not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves

in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of

Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];

but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main

purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour

system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the

people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

_J. H. Rose,

A Century of Continental History,

chapter 43._

"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals

exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,

and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic

provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely

absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the

lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order

thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious

strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in

the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution

of 1830.

{2303}

This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and

liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of

the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free

press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form

associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,

representative administration—all exactly as in England. How

was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose

members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour

of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also

the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is

explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,

La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest

influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur

l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human

reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance

of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,

seminarists, and priests, established the author as an

unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he

pretended that the Church would regain her former power by

separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,

most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …

Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.

They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in

their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to

reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals

united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence

after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot

tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in

its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,

the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a

plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would

inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the

Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the

vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,

and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.

The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'

of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William

and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,

however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly

announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed

of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear

a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …

When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as

regards their political, not their religious opinions. The

Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events

by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the

bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the

clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from

a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by

the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine

Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,

of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and

progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass

of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country

populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,

and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no

material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend

liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the

Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as

threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to

fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but

which they foresee. … The educational question, which has

been the centre of the political life of the country during

the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important

in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is

everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was

organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the

two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders

of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,

where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of

forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess

schools sufficient for the number of children needing

instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private

schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control

of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,

was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour

for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they

perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests

over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became

the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately

effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must

provide the schools necessary for the children of its

inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.

Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction

may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in

the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This

system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of

the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the

communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the

school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose

to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,

now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving

rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it

is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …

In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private

school in every commune and village not formerly possessing

one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a

devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the

Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have

been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools

without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents

were forbidden to place their children, under pain of

committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed

their children still to frequent the communal schools, were

deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused

absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.

All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban

of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce

a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary

instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step

is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the

House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in

progress, and the results of which in this last six months,

fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by

what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As

a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the

two parties end by justifying the accusations of their

adversaries.

{2304}

The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion

is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the

Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against

their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the

necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in

Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,

offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good

working of Parliamentary government."

_E. de Laveleye,

The Political Condition of Belgium

(Contemporary Review, April, 1882),

pages 715-724, with foot-note._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.

The founding of the Congo Free State.

See CONGO FREE STATE.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):

A. D. 1887.

Revision of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the

Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative

spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect

a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage

qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and

certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the

franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,

which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private

soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are

excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States

General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its

membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting

of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In

the new constitution, the succession to the throne is

definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct

heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be

accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of

Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess

Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess

Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,

died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to

succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under

the regency of her mother.

_The Statesman's Year-book, 1894._

ALSO IN:

_The Annual Register, 1887._

_Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.

The revised Belgian Constitution.

Introduction of plural Suffrage.

A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a

formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise

from the government of a revision of the constitution and the

introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,

elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the

11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated

on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on

every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in

the same commune for not less than one year, and not under

legal disqualification. The new constitution is made

especially interesting by its introduction of a system of

cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is

conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five

years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at

least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen

not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to

the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not

less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public

debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are

given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has

received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions

which imply the possession of a superior education. The same

citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these

qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.

On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels

correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;

"This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in

France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and

the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple

suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as

to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a

profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of

the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just

principle that votes must be considered in reference to their

weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of

putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which

disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much

enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The

moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract

theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An

attempt to introduce proportional representation along with

the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the

Senate raised questions hardly less important than those

connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent

quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had

proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political

representation of the territorial interests of the country, by

a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social

forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to

agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their

representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have

made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,

may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators

hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of

its application. This combination rejected, there remained for

the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,

to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or

else by its composition. The Senate and the Government

preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct

elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the

Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by

specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these

proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a

general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate

consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26

elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight

years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a

property qualification; those popularly elected are required

to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000

francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in

direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the

voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.

{2305}

The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned

according to population and elected for four years, one half

retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually

in November, and are required to be in session for at least

forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,

and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.

In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an

election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the

Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of

Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to

the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven

ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and

Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of

Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.

The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.