BRUSSELS.
EFFECTS OF THE REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH HOLLAND.
The Belgian revolution has produced no man of leading genius--The
present ministry--M. Rogier--M. Liedtz, the Minister of the
Interior--An interview at the Home Office--Project of steam
navigation between Belgium and the United States--Freedom
of political discussion in Belgium--_Character of King
Leopold_--Public feeling in Brussels--The original union
of Holland and Belgium apparently desirable--Commercial
obstacles--Obstinacy of the King of Holland--Anecdote of
the King of Prussia--The extraordinary care of the King
for manufactures--_Prosperous_ condition of Belgium under
Holland--_Les Griefs Belges_--Singular coincidence between
the proceedings of THE REPEALERS IN IRELAND AND THE REPEALERS
IN BELGIUM--Ambition for separate nationality--Imposition
of the Dutch language unwise--Abolition of trial by
jury--Now disliked by the Belgians themselves--Financial
grievances--Inequality of representation--CONDUCT OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLICS--Hatred of toleration--Attachment of the clergy to
Austria--_Remarkable manifesto of the clergy to the Congress
of Vienna_--Resistance to liberty of conscience, and freedom
of the press--Demand for tithes--Resistance of the priests to
the toleration of Protestants--The official oath--_Protest
of the Roman Catholic Bishops against freedom of opinion
and education by the State_--Perfect impartiality of the
Sovereign--Resistance of the priesthood--_The Revolution_--Union
of the Liberals and Roman Catholics--Intolerant ambition of
the clergy--Separation of the _Clerico-liberal party_--Present
state of parties in the legislature--Unconstitutional
ascendancy of the priests--_State of public feeling_--Universal
disaffection--Curious list of candidates for the crown of
Belgium in 1831--“_La Belgique de Leopold_,” its treasonable
publications--Future prospects uncertain--Vain attempts to
remedy the evils of the revolution--_Connexion with the Prussian
League refused_--Impossibility of an union with Austria or
Prussia--Union with France impracticable--Partition of Belgium
with the surrounding states--_Possible restoration of the House
of Nassau, in the event of any fresh disturbance_.
WE this morning paid a visit to M. Liedtz, the minister of the
interior, in his hotel at the “Palais de la Nation.” It is rather
remarkable that neither the actual eruption of the revolution nor its
subsequent influence, has been sufficient to draw forth any individual
of leading genius, to give a complexion to the policy of the new
state. The actors who have played the most prominent _rôle_ during the
last ten years have been a few of the ancient Catholic noblesse, whose
titles gave éclat to the movement, but who have long since withdrawn
into retirement, or ceased to take a lead in the administration--and
the body of lawyers whose professional aptitude to promote or profit
by any change, has enabled them to step over the heads of their less
adroit, but not less qualified associates, and to appropriate to
themselves the “loaves and fishes” of office. Lastly, there were “the
masses” whose impetuosity achieved the revolution, the “patrioterie”
who form the tools of every revolution to be worked for the benefit of
their more clear sighted superiors. But the daring spirits of 1830 have
all disappeared; the present times do not require such fiery agents;
the violence which effects a revolution, must be the first thing to
be got rid of by those who would perpetuate it, and who speedily
learn to exchange the exciting demand of “_delenda est Carthago_,”
for the milder supplication of “_panem et Circenses_.” In this way
the Masaniello of the revolution, M. de Potter, having been given to
comprehend that his services had been rendered, and his presence no
longer desirable, has long since withdrawn himself to ponder over, and,
it is even added, _to regret_ the events of 1830; but certainly to
lament, in strong terms, his disappointment at their practical results.
The present ministry did not, from all we could observe, command the
confidence of their fellow citizens, nor do I recollect any one of them
spoken of without a reference to some incapacity or disqualification
for the office. M. Rogier, the minister of public works, had been a
third or fourth rate barrister at Liege, and eked out an insufficient
professional income by delivering lectures on French literature. His
daring and energetic share in the events which displaced the old
dynasty, recommended him to employment under the new, but the office
assigned to him, that of the interior, involving the guardianship
of trade and manufactures, was one for which he was little suited,
either by education or taste, and he utterly destroyed the confidence
of the merchants and mill owners, by avowing in one of his addresses
to them, that they must be prepared to see “_commerce die a lingering
death_,” if it were conducive to the permanence of the new order of
things. M. Liedtz, with whom we had an interview this morning, had,
like M. Rogier, been a lawyer, but of some standing and eminence in
his profession. He had been, we heard, unfavourable to the revolution
at its first out-break, but his talents speedily recommended him to
the notice of the new authorities, who promoted him to be judge in the
district of Antwerp, whence he was transferred to his present office
on the removal of M. Rogier, to that of public works. He received us
in a suite of very elegant apartments, much superior to those with
which our own ministers are accommodated in Downing Street. He is a
native of Audenarde, of humble parentage, but of considerable practical
acquirements, especially on agricultural matters. He received us
most affably, and after some conversation on commercial subjects,
reverted at once to his own hobby, by asking after the progress of
agriculture in Great Britain. The object of greatest interest with us
was the duty which it had been announced that it was in contemplation
by the government to impose upon the export of flax, and to which I
have before alluded as the extraordinary expedient suggested by the
agricultural members of the chambers, in order to protect the hand
spinners from being superseded by machinery. The minister seemed fully
to understand the absurdity of the suggestion, but still admitted that
the “pressure from without” might compel him to introduce a bill upon
the subject. He informed us, that a negociation has just been concluded
with some speculators in the United States, supported by the Belgian
government, with a view to running a line of steam-packets of great
power from New York and Philadelphia to Antwerp and Ostend, touching
at one of the southern ports of England, and thus it was expected
securing a share of the passenger trade, as well as opening, by
degrees, a market for Belgian produce in the United States.
One thing, in Belgium, I cannot but allude to as characteristic--the
unrestrained freedom with which every individual discusses politics,
and the unreserved candour and frankness with which each details
his views and strictures. This is the more remarkable, because the
universal tenor of opinion is, if not directly to complain, at least,
to admit the existence of much cause for complaint. I never met with
less _bigotted_ politicians, and I have not seen a single individual,
whom I would designate _a party-man_, in the English acceptation of
the term, that is one who finds all right, or all wrong, precisely
as the party with whom he sympathises be censured or lauded by the
inference. But the fact is, there are no “optimists” in Belgium as yet,
and there is so much that is unsatisfactory in every department, that
the consciousness of it forces itself upon the conviction, if not the
admission of every individual. The press, too, is equally unreserved,
and in the shops of the booksellers, we found numbers of publications
devoted to the exposure of the present condition of the country.
Still no creature, not even the most violent partisan of the House
of Nassau whom I have met with, includes King Leopold in the scope
of his censures. The revolution itself, its immediate agents and its
consequences are the objects of their condemnation; but no one of
the results from which they suffer, is ascribed to the influence or
interference of the King. Those who regret the expulsion of the King of
Holland, look upon King Leopold merely as his involuntary successor,
and whilst they condemn the incapacity of his ministers, and the
violence of the party in the house and in the country by whom they are
controlled--all seemed to regard the King as only borne upon a tide
of circumstances, which he is equally unable with them to resist or
direct. His fondness for locomotion, his frequent visits to England and
journeys to Paris, were the subject of good humoured badinage, and
have procured him the titles of “_le roi voyageur_,” and “_l’estafette
nomade_.” “Il s’amuse,” said an intelligent Belgian, when I asked
him what share the King took in politics, “he goes out of the way to
Wiesbaden, and leaves things very much to themselves, or, what is
nearly the same thing _to his ministers_.”
In Brussels, of course, we found the revolution still popular; its
population were the first to promote, and are the last to regret it.
But it is an inland town, the residence of the court and the nobles,
unconnected either with manufactures or commerce, and its shopkeepers
have not suffered by the change, which has affected the prosperity of
the trading districts. Equally independent of the loom and the sail,
they only hear of the embarrassments of others, as a sound from a
distance. Their intercourse is with the wealthy, who are congregated
round the seat of the legislation and the palace of the sovereign; as
yet their pursuits have not been affected by the diminished resources
of the middle and labouring classes, and besides the constant passage
of strangers, as well as the permanent residence of some thousands of
English and other wealthy foreigners, is a permanent source of income.
But, throughout the country and in the provincial towns, we met with
but one feeling of keen discontent with the result of the revolution,
and alarm for the condition and prospects of the country.
That the union of Belgium with Holland in 1815 was one conceived, less
with an eye to the interests of the two countries, than in an anxiety
for the erection of a substantial power in that precise locality, as
a security for the peace of Europe, is admitted by all engaged in
its actual arrangements; but it is equally admitted, that whatever
discordances there might have existed at the time between the feelings,
the peculiarities and the interests of the two states, they presented
no permanent obstacle to that “complete and intimate fusion” of the two
people, which was ultimately anticipated by the Congress of Vienna.
It was in order to erect the new kingdom into a state of adequate
importance, that England, in addition to concurring in the restoration
of the ancient Netherlands of Charles V, divested herself of a portion
of her colonial conquests during the war to re-annex them to Holland,
thus feeding the national resources of both sections of the new
alliance--the Belgian by an outlet for its manufactures, and the Dutch
by a carrying trade for their shipping.
The union, too, was a natural one, not only geographically, but
intrinsically. Belgium had been compelled to become a manufacturing
country by the closing of the Scheldt, at the treaty of Munster which
ended the Thirty years’ war in 1648, one of those unnatural acts of
state policy, that seems almost an impious interference with the
benevolence of providence; and which by annihilating this noble river
for all purposes of trade, had the contemplated effect of driving
commerce to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, thus constraining the Belgians
to betake themselves to industry and handicrafts at home. With
such elasticity did they conform to this necessity, that when the
unnatural embargo was taken off by the progress of the French in 1794,
the energies and genius of the population had made such a decided
development, that they were not to be seduced back into their old
pursuits of traffic, and the _manufactures_ of Belgium continued to
prosper under “the continental system” of Napoleon, down to the period
of the general peace. Holland, on the contrary, with her hands fully
employed by her shipping and her trade, and possessing no mines of iron
or coal, had never either the inducement or the temptation to become a
manufacturing country, so that nothing could apparently be more happy,
than the union of one producing nation all alive with machinery, with
its neighbour proportionably rich in shipping; and to open to both an
extensive colonial territory, whose population the merchantmen of the
one could supply with the produce of the other.
But even here lay the seeds of unforeseen dissentions. Belgium,
all whose notions of commercial policy were formed upon the false
and narrow basis of France, was perpetually calling for protective
duties, bounties and prohibitions, without which her artisans were
sinking under the effects of foreign competition; whilst to the
Dutch, with their spirit of traffic and fleets of shipping, every
restriction upon absolute free trade was a positive interception of
gain. This antagonism of interests led to perpetual animosity in the
states-general upon all questions of customs and imposts, and to
such an extent did Holland give way upon these points, in order to
protect the interests of Belgium at the sacrifice of her own, that a
well informed author observes that, “_even supposing the desire for
separation had not arisen in Belgium, the Dutch, ere long, would have
been forced to call for this divorce in order to save Amsterdam and
Rotterdam from ruin_.” It is more likely, however, that the march of
manufacturing prosperity in Belgium, and the increased demand and
consumption of her produce would have ultimately compensated her
commercial colleague for all intermediate loss.[30]
But added to these pecuniary squabbles, there were deeper and less
tangible causes of mutual repulsion, differences of language and
religion, and local prejudices and antipathies, out of which
speedily sprung an infinity of definite “grievances,” which timely
and conciliating interference and constitutional reforms might have
allayed; but which, there can be no doubt, were obstinately and fatally
neglected by the King of Holland, and his irresponsible ministers; and
though it is absurd to regard them, even if unredressed, as justifiable
grounds for revolution, they led ultimately to the expulsion of the
family of Nassau from the Netherlands.
It seems to be admitted upon all hands, that in this the King of
Holland was seriously to blame, and that whilst the political causes
of complaint were all capable of easy removal or redress, they were
overlooked in his anxiety to stimulate and promote the commercial
prosperity of the country. From the outset, he aimed at eradicating
the French institutions, to which, during the twenty years of their
connexion with that country, the Belgians had become strongly
attached, and to assimilate them to the model of Holland. His conduct,
in this attempt, was strongly contrasted with the prudence of the
King of Prussia, who having received his Transrhenan provinces under
precisely similar circumstances, had never once attempted to interfere
with those habits and local constitutions to which the people had
become familiarised. He even ventured to remonstrate with the King
of Holland on the impolicy of his course, and to warn him of the
discontents it was likely to engender, but received only a pettish
reply that, “his Majesty was old enough to act for himself,”--a
rebuff which the Prussian monarch is said to have retorted when, at a
subsequent period, the King of Holland applied to him for assistance to
reconquer Belgium, and he accompanied his refusal with a remark, that
he presumed “his Majesty was old enough _to fight_ for himself.”
This unwise neglect of the political grievances of Belgium, cannot be
compensated by the King’s exclusive devotion to its manufacturing
and substantial interests; and even in this, it is doubtful whether
his zeal did not hurry him into an unwise extreme. His great ambition
was to render his people “a nation of shopkeepers,” and develop as
thoroughly the manufacturing resources of Belgium, as industry and
care had matured the agricultural and commercial riches of Holland.
There was no labour, no expense, no care, no experiment left unemployed
to give life and impulse to their grand object. One engrossing topic
was uppermost in his mind; which was not inaptly compared to a
“price current,” solely influenced by the rise and fall of produce,
or the fluctuations of the funds. The inventions of Watt and Fulton
stood higher in his estimation than the achievements of Frederick or
Napoleon. He protected the arts, not so much from admiration as policy,
and he countenanced literature, not from any devotion to letters,
but because it created a demand for articles of commerce. In short,
there was nothing classic, inspiring or chivalrous in his bearing, all
was material, positive and mathematical. Business was his element,
his recreation; and amusement, but a robbery of that time which he
thought he ought to devote entirely to his people. He loved to surround
himself with practical men, and he gained the good will of all the
great commercial and financial aristocracy by the attention he paid
to them, individually and collectively. It is incontestible, that if
the happiness and welfare of a nation had depended on the laborious
exertions and unremitting devotion of the sovereign to commercial
affairs, then Belgium ought to have been as contented as it was
prosperous, and its sovereign the most popular monarch in Europe.[31]
Under the auspices of such a sovereign, Belgium, during the fifteen
years of its connexion with Holland, attained a height of prosperity
which no human being presumes to question. Agriculture, recovering
from the sad effects of war, and receiving an augmented impulse from
the demand created by the commerce of Holland, speedily attained the
highest possible point of prosperity--mines were opened, coal, iron
and all other, mineral wealth extensively explored; manufactures and
machinery were multiplied to an extent beyond belief, and the trade
of Antwerp even outstepped that of Holland in exporting the produce
of Belgium. Roads, canals and means of communication were constructed
with surprising rapidity; sound and practical education was universally
diffused, in short, every element of material prosperity became fully
developed, and what rendered the progress of the nation the more
important, was the fact that it was not intermittent or capricious, but
exhibited one steady march in its ascent in each successive year, from
the period of the union to the hour of its disruption.[32]
In such a combination of circumstances, one is impatient to discover
the specific causes of discontent which could inflame an entire
population into all the fury of revolt, and to the expulsion by blood
and the sword of a King, under whose sway they acknowledge themselves
to be debtors for so many blessings. This is not the place to canvas
their merits, but in merely enumerating the principal grievances of
which they complain, the “_griefs Belges_,” as they were specially
headed in the newspapers of the time, it is impossible to avoid being
struck with the identity between the vast majority of the pretexts
for revolt propounded by the “patrioterie” who Repealed the Union
in Belgium, and the “patriots” who clamour for “the Repeal of the
Union” in Ireland. Nor did this similarity escape the promoters of the
revolution in either country. In Ireland, it has been ostentatiously
and perseveringly dwelt upon, and even down to the present hour, the
example of the Belgians is paraded as an incentive to the ambition
of the enemies of British connexion; and in Belgium, even before the
revolution, the position of the two countries, as regarded their
several legislative connexions with England and Holland, was the
subject of repeated comparisons and condolence. The “Belge,” a journal
which was active in the encouragement of the movement, thus alludes
to the coincidence of their circumstances in 1830. “Belgium has been
long the Ireland of Holland, the relation of the dominant power has
been in almost every particular, that of “_the Sister Island_” to
England--with the intolerable addition, however, that while Ireland has
had the less population by far, Belgium had by far the greater--that
Belgium paid much more than her proportion of the taxes, whilst Ireland
paid much less--that Ireland often sent her inhabitants to share
in the distribution of places, pensions and honours, whilst such a
distribution amongst the Belgians was of extremely rare occurrence.”
But the similarity consists not less in the ostensible grounds for
revolt, than in the identity of the actual instruments and agents.
In Belgium, as in Ireland, they were the uneducated and bigotted
mob, inflamed by the half-educated press, and led on by a propaganda
of priests and a crowd of unsuccessful and hungry lawyers. In both
countries, too, the leaders of the movement, whatever may have been
their real and secret sentiments, ostensibly professed to seek merely
a redress of grievances, and to start with alarm at the idea of
_separation_; their only desire being a _federative union_ under the
same crown, but with a distinct administration. The Belgian, however,
soon felt that he wanted a power, which there is but little reason
to ascribe to the Irishman of saying “thus far shalt thou go, and
no farther,” and the stimulants applied to the versatile vanity of
the people, soon rendered them impatient of any proposition short of
actual independence. An unfortunate phrase in the treaty of Paris
that Belgium was to be to Holland “as an accession of territory,” was
construed into a national indignity, notwithstanding the expression
of perfect equality and “fusion” which pervaded every other passage
of the document, and the cry of “_a nation no longer a province_”
became forthwith the aspiration of every discontented coterie. That
distinction they have, at length, attained, and enjoy the barren
eminence of a throne, but unfortunately without either the power, the
wealth, or the influence as an European state, that are essential to
give it dignity and stability.
There are, however, some points of marked distinction between the
two cases, inasmuch as whilst the Irish sufferers clamour _for_
assimilation to England, those in Belgium flew to arms _against_
assimilation with Holland; and, besides the Belgian repealer pursued
his object of separation notwithstanding the admitted prosperity of his
country, whilst the Irish one, less barefaced, tries eagerly to invent
a case of distress in order to justify his treason. Above all, there
is this happy difference, that whilst in Belgium the repeal has been
achieved at the expense of national prosperity, Ireland has still the
opportunity to reflect and to be warned by her lamentable example.
The civil grievances of the revolutionists arose out of certain
measures of the King, in some of which he was manifestly wrong; his
attempts to render Dutch the national language for all public documents
in certain provinces--to abolish trial by jury, which had been
established by the French--to remove the supreme court of judicature
to the Hague--and to introduce the principles of Dutch law into all
their pleas and proceedings. The two latter were the usual vexatious
manifestations of the spirit of centralization, which a prudent
government would never have attempted to force upon the unwilling
prejudices of a nation; and the substitution of the Dutch tribunal
for the trial by jury would have been a substantial injustice, had
the people been unanimous, or even, in a considerable proportion,
favourable to it; but in the divisions upon the question in the
States General, large bodies of the Belgian representatives were
found voting constantly against it; and _even now, notwithstanding
its re-establishment, it has become more and more unpopular, and even
those who supported it in 1830, refuse to sit upon juries themselves,
or to uphold the system by their co-operation_. The alteration of the
language was an unwise attempt to force upon four millions of Belgians
the dialect of three millions of Dutch. This has, however, been sought
to be defended by stating, that of the entire population of the united
kingdom, one fifth alone spoke French, namely in Hainault, the Waloons,
South Brabant, and a part of Luxembourg; and the remainder dialects of
German, in the proportion of two fifths Dutch, and two fifths Flemish.
The imposing Dutch upon the entire was not, therefore, more unjust than
would have been a similar imposition of Flemish, _and yet, within this
very year, the party who reviled the one to the death in 1830, have
begun to petition the legislature for the other_! They are contented
now to abandon French, which they then contended for, and to accept the
barbarous patois of Flanders as its substitute, which would be equally
unintelligible to the Waloons, and even in those districts of Antwerp
which border upon Holland.
Another complaint had reference to the disproportionate distribution
of government patronage between the subjects of Holland and Belgium,
in which there may have been much truth, and to which the government
did not take the most wise nor the most soothing steps to reconcile
the minority, by ascribing it to the _dearth of talent_ amongst their
countrymen. _Like the Irish_, the Belgian agitators protested against
the taxes of Belgium being made applicable to the discharge of the
national debt, of which the largest proportion had been contracted by
Holland before the period of the union--but having by the Revolution
secured the management of the national revenues in their own hands, _an
evil of more serious magnitude has been discovered, in the fact, that
the expenditure of Belgium in every year since the Revolution, with the
single exception of 1835, has exceeded the revenue by some millions of
francs_. In 1831 and 1832 this was strikingly the case, the expenses
of the war and of new establishments leading in the former year to an
expenditure of upwards of four millions, and in the latter to eight
millions sterling. In
1833 the revenue was £3,441,519 and
the expenditure 3,765,993 excess £324,474
1834 the revenue was 3,371,182 and
the expenditure 3,554,960 excess 183,778
1835 the revenue was 3,695,225 excess 112,852
the expenditure 3,582,373
1836 the revenue was 3,382,286 and
the expenditure 3,469,031 excess 86,746
1837 the revenue was 3,436,468 and
the expenditure 3,817,621 excess 381,153
1838 the revenue was 3,784,253 and
the expenditure 3,885,232 excess 100,979
1839 the revenue was 4,163,821 and
the expenditure 4,476,613 excess 312,792
The interest upon the national debt of the independent state exceeds at
the present moment £800,000 a year. Besides, during the Dutch regime,
it appeared that in Belgium, _as in Ireland_, the malcontents bore
the most trifling proportion of the national burthens, the revenue of
the three years preceding the revolt being paid in the proportion of
sixteen florins per head for every inhabitant of Holland, and only ten
for those of the Netherlands.
Another grievance, no less _Irish_ than Belgian, was that the number
of representatives was not regulated exclusively in proportion to the
_population_ of the two states, totally irrespective of the relative
territory and possessions of each--and although the representation was
exactly divided, one half of the States General being Dutch and one
half Belgian, a division warranted by the large territorial interests
of the former; the patriots and their disturbers complained “_Si l’on
nous avait attribué une représentation en rapport avec la population_,
NOUS AURIONS DOMINÉ LE NORD.”[33] The frankness of this avowal has not
yet been imitated by the Repealers of Ireland; but its aspiration is
not the less manifest in the similarity of their pretensions; and the
frequent references of the Irish agitator in the House of Commons to
the relative population and comparative electoral constituencies of the
counties of England and Ireland, irrespective of their relative wealth
and property, parrotted as they have recently been by members of her
Majesty’s government, may no doubt be construed into an ill-concealed
adoption of the sentiments of the repealers of Belgium.
These, and a few other minor points, were the burthen of all the
_civil_ grievances against which the oppressed patriots of Belgium
had to protest; and it is not difficult to perceive that it required
but a little complaisance on the part of the Dutch government to
redress them, although it is too late to regret that that redress was
not timely applied. It is impossible, however, for any sober minded
citizen to discern in the entire mass of these complaints, even in
all their aggravation, any adequate ground for a resort to the last
remedy of oppression--war, and revolution; and in vain would the
restless promoters of the revolt have laboured to inflame the populace
by rhapsodies on the glory of independence, or diatribes against
the pronunciation of Dutch,--in vain would they have attempted to
sting them into madness by calculations of finance, or lamentations
over the exclusion of some provincial orator, from a seat in the
legislature or a portfolio in some public bureau,--all these whips and
stimulants would have been powerless and unfelt, had not _religion_
been introduced in association with each, and the ascendancy of the
Roman Catholic church been made the alpha and the omega--the beginning
and the end--the burthen of every complaint, and the object of every
exhortation.
The avowed cause of the dissatisfaction of the clergy, was that the
King _was a protestant_, and that protection and full toleration
was extended to all sects and religious communities. The genius and
pretensions of the Roman Catholic church seems, down to the present
hour, to have undergone less modification in Belgium than in any other
country of Europe, with the single exception, perhaps, of Rome itself.
It was to preserve it in all its integrity that Philip II. and the Duke
of Alva for thirty years exhausted the blood and treasure of Spain
in its defence, and down to the present hour, its clergy exhibit a
practical gratitude for their devotion, by the uncompromising assertion
of every attribute for which they contended. Belgium is, at this
moment, the most thoroughly catholic country in Europe, and the recent
exploits of the Archbishop of Cologne attest the power of its example
and its influence even over the adjoining states.
Under the dominion of Austria, the authority of the church had been
recognized by the crown, in all its plenitude and power, and the
subsequent union of Belgium to France in 1795, was eagerly resisted
by the clergy, who naturally saw in it the subversion of their power
before that of the Goddess of Reason. But even the influence of twenty
years of intimate association with France, proved incapable to diminish
the ardent subjection of the Belgians to their priesthood, or temper
the ambition of their prelates and their clergy; and when, at length,
the clasps which held together the empire of Napoleon, flew asunder in
1814, the utmost desire of the priesthood was to have Belgium again
restored to her ancient masters, and _re-constructed as a province
of Austria_, in which event, they calculated that the elevation of
the church would follow, as of course. This, however, European policy
forbade; and when, in 1814, the prelates of Flanders found themselves
abandoned by their chosen sovereign, who accepted, in exchange, the
more attractive provinces of Italy, and handed them over to one of the
most Protestant monarchs in Europe, their consternation was unbounded,
and in the extravagance of their disappointment, they had the madness
to address a memorial to the Congress of Vienna, which is well worthy
of being preserved as an authentic manifesto of the pretensions of the
Roman Catholic church in modern times.[34]
It bears date in October, 1814, and is signed by the vicars-general
of the Prince de Broglie, who was then Bishop of Ghent. It sets out
by an exposition of a principle learned, they say, from experience,
that it is indispensable for a catholic country passing under the
government of a protestant sovereign, to stipulate for the free
exercise of its own worship, and for placing all its ancient rights
and privileges beyond the reach of any interference of the state
(“_hors de toute atteinte de la part du Souverain_”). The religion of
Luther, the vicars-general proceeded to remind the Congress, is merely
_tolerated_ in Germany beside that of Rome, although it is very absurd
to approve of two doctrines that contradict each other; but in Belgium,
the latter has been distinctly recognized from immemorial time, and
they, therefore, feel it is incumbent on them early to demand a
formal guarantee for its exclusive exercise, “_l’exercice exclusif_,”
which had been secured to them, at former times, by the most solemn
treaties. They warn the Prince of Orange, that he will find it his
future interest, as well as that of Europe in general, whose object
it must be to have Belgium peaceful and contented, to enter into an
inaugural compact with the church, regarding the maintenance of all
its ancient authority, and candidly intimate that the result shall
never be satisfactory, if their own demands are not complied with in
the following particulars:--First, the exclusive establishment of the
Roman Catholic religion, _with this exception, that the royal family
and the court may have a place of protestant worship in their palaces
or chateaus, but that on no pretence whatever, is a protestant church
to be erected elsewhere_. The words of this postulate are as distinct
as their import is remarkable in the nineteenth century:--“Avec cette
exception, que le Prince Souverain et son auguste famille seront
libres de professer leur religion, et d’en exercer le culte dans leurs
palais, chateaux, et maisons royales, ou les seigneurs de sa cour
auront des chapelles et des ministres de leur religion, _sans qu’il
soit permis d’ériger des temples hors de l’enceinte de ces palais,
sous quelque pretexte que ce soit_.” Secondly, that the church was
to have absolute dominion in all matters concerning its own affairs.
Thirdly, that the Council of State was to be composed _exclusively
of Roman Catholics_, including _two bishops_ of the establishment.
Fourthly and fifthly, that a nuncio should be received from the Roman
See, to treat with the council, and a new concordat obtained with
the Pope. Sixthly, _that it was indispensably essential, in order to
provide a perpetual maintenance for the clergy beyond all control of
the state, that tithes should be re-established throughout Belgium_;
the protestants, of course, contributing to the maintenance of the
church from which they dissented! Seventhly, the re-establishment of
the university of Louvain; and lastly, the restoration of the _monks
and religious orders_ which had been suppressed by the Emperor Joseph
II, and “_as one of the most excellent means, and, perhaps, the only
one, at the present day, to secure to youth the blessings of an
education combining, at once, the principles of genuine religion and
the acquirements of human learning, the re-establishment of the Jesuits
throughout Belgium_.[35]”
Whether this extraordinary document was really framed with a view
to influence the deliberations of the Congress, or written with a
full anticipation of their ultimate conclusion, and designed only
as a defiance and a bold forewarning of the consequence, it had but
little weight at Vienna, and the provinces were consigned, without the
required stipulations, to the King of Holland.
The constitution of the new state was based upon principles of the
most unrestricted toleration and protection for all denominations of
religion. But toleration and freedom of opinion are the very essence of
the reformation, and the Roman Catholic clergy had the discernment to
perceive that no more effectual system could have been established for
the silent but ultimate subversion of their church, than by reducing
it to an equality with every other, thus lending the authority of the
state in ascribing to many the possession of that saving faith, which
it is fatal to the very spirit of catholicism to have attributed to
any but one--and that one, herself. Equal rights and protection were
to her more pernicious than proscription and persecution, and no other
course was left to her than that precisely which she adopted to protest
against toleration in the first instance, and to revolt against it in
the end.
By an arrangement of the new government, no public functionary or
officer connected with any department of the state, was to enter
upon his functions before having taken an oath to maintain all the
principles and observe all the enactments of the Constitution. But
as amongst these were comprised the fundamental law of “toleration,”
another manifesto was instantly issued by the prelates, prohibiting all
Roman Catholics from subscribing to the obnoxious oath, as subversive
of all the principles of the church of Rome, and ruinous to her
attributes and claims!
The articles which they objected to were those which guaranteed to all
religious denominations of Christians perfect liberty of conscience,
freedom of worship, an equality of civil rights and indiscriminate
eligibility to all public employments.[36] To swear to the observance
of such a law, the prelates declared to be neither more nor less than
to exact equal protection for error as for truth,--and to countenance
the admission to places of honour and trust, without distinction of
religion, was merely sanctioning, by anticipation, measures that might
hereafter be taken for permitting the interference of protestants in
the affairs of the catholic community. The words of the Constitution
established the unlimited exercise of public worship, “unless where
it gave rise to any public disturbance,” _lorsqu’il a été l’occasion
d’un trouble_; “but the bishops protested, that to give a power to the
government to interfere under any limitation, was to submit the church
to the authority of its enemies; and that _to swear obedience to any
constitution which presumed the Catholic Church to be subject to the
temporal law was manifestly to subscribe to its humiliation_.”[37] “To
ascribe,” they said, “to a sovereign of a different faith, _a right
of interference in the regulation of national education_ would be to
hand over public instruction to the secular power, and would exhibit a
shameful betrayal of the dearest interests of the church. There are
other articles of the Constitution,” continues the manifesto, “which no
true child of the Catholic Church can ever undertake, by a solemn oath,
to observe or to support, and _above all others that which establishes_
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS!”
This singular document bore the signatures of the Prince Maurice de
Broglie, Bishop of Ghent, Charles Francis Joseph Pisani de la Gaude,
Bishop of Namur, François Joseph, Bishop of Tournai, and of J. Forgeur
and J. A. Barrett, the Vicars-General of Malines and Liege. I have
preserved it and the memorial to the Congress of Vienna, as the most
remarkable denunciations against liberty of conscience that modern
times have produced, and a singular evidence of how little influence
the example, or the intimate association of twenty years with the
liberalism of France, was capable of producing on the spirit and genius
of the church of Rome.
Its promulgation produced an instant effect upon the weak consciences
of the people, which, for a time, was productive of the utmost
embarrassment to the establishment and arrangements of the new
government, as individuals were prevented from accepting offices,
which were open to them, from a dread of the vengeance of the altar.
Its mischievous consequences were, however, after a time, defeated by
the temperate conduct of the Prince de Mean, the last Prince Bishop
of Liege, and subsequently Bishop of Malines, who had not signed the
document, and who took the requisite oath, _subject to approval of the
Pope_, an example which was speedily followed by all whom the incentive
of office inspired with a natural anxiety to avail themselves of so
high an authority.
The King now administered the law with an apparent oblivion of
every previous act of the Roman Catholic clergy. The income which
was appropriated by the state for their support, was _augmented_
at his suggestion, the remotest interference with their worship
was in no solitary instance attempted, and churches were built for
their accommodation in the poorer districts, to which his Majesty
himself was a liberal contributor. For some years every pretext for
special complaint was successfully avoided, and the country was too
rapidly prosperous to be yet ripe for any efforts to excite abstract
discontent. But, at length, about 1825, the striking results of the
Dutch system of National Education, to which I have referred in a
former chapter, were so apparent, that the spread of intelligence and
instruction became too alarming to permit the church to be longer
quiescent, and resistance was at once commenced, notwithstanding
the fact, that the religious education in the primary schools was
scrupulously reserved for the superintendence of the priests, and
theology was utterly excluded from the courses of the universities, and
handed over exclusively to the college of Louvain. But education, even
under these limitations, must be instantly suppressed, or unreservedly
submitted to the church, without any control from the ministry of
the interior. Some concessions upon this point served only to give
confidence to the boldness of further demands, and when these were
resisted, every other grievance, civil and religious, having in the
mean time undergone the necessary process of aggravation and distortion
to ripen the passions of the “patrioterie” for revolt, the mine was
considered ready for explosion, “and the whole country,” to use the
words of Baron Keverberg,[38] “resounded with the cry of the priests,
who filled Europe with their denunciations of resentment. To listen to
them, one would imagine that the Catholic Church in the Netherlands
groaned in the chains of an unrelenting oppression, and that the King
had sworn to tear the faith of their fathers from the hearts of his
subjects, and to hesitate at no measure, however furious or tyrannical,
to “protestantize their country.” It is unnecessary to say that these
were not only pure fabrications, “mere rhetorical artifices,” to serve
the purpose of the hour, since even their authors now admit this to be
the fact. In a recent publication of the journal of Bruges, which is
devoted to the _liberal_ party, it avows that William I. so far from
being the “protestant tyrant which it was then expedient to represent
him, was the most tolerant of princes, ‘le plus tolerant que l’on
puisse s’imaginer,’ and only hated by the priesthood because he would
not endure them to _place the altar upon the throne itself_, as they
have succeeded in doing by the revolution of 1830.”
With this imperfect _aperçu_ of the origin of the Belgian revolution,
it is easy to collect its objects, its agents, and its effects. The
union of the Liberals, with the priesthood and their followers, who
formed the preponderating mass of the population, formed an alliance so
powerful, that the whole strength of Holland was unequal to withstand
it, much less the small body of reflecting and loyal subjects, who
still remained faithful to the union and the crown, and who were not
only overwhelmed by the violence of the commotion at the moment, but
so utterly discomfited by its ultimate consequences, that they have
never since been able to rally as a party. But the immediate object
being once achieved, the union of the “_clerico-liberal_” confederacy
did not long survive its consummation. The “compact alliance” between
the priests and the liberals had been sought by the former only to
effect a definite purpose, which could not otherwise be attained,
_the Repeal of the Union_; and no sooner was this accomplished, than
the intolerant ambition of the clergy, put an end to all further
co-operation between them. The party of the priests had then become
all powerful by their numbers, and no longer requiring the assistance
of their former allies, they boldly attempted their own objects
independently, and in defiance of them. It is rather a ludicrous
illustration of their zeal and its aim, that among the crowd of
aspirants who were named for the crown of Belgium in 1831, the _Pope_
himself was put in nomination! and had the decision remained with
the revolutionists, there can be no doubt that the Netherlands would
have been added to the territory of the Holy See.[39] Before twelve
months from the expulsion of the King of Holland, the body by whom
it was effected was split into two contending factions, and, at the
present hour, the two opposing parties who contest every measure in the
legislation of Belgium, are the quondam allies of the revolution,--the
Liberals, and the “_parti prêtre_,” the latter of whom have the decided
majority, and rule their former associates with a rod of iron.
Every thing, in fact, is regulated by the wishes of that numerous body
of the priesthood, who from their ardent exertions for ascendancy,
have obtained the title of the _La Mennaisiens_, and whose influence in
every family and in every parish, rules, regulates and determines every
political movement. They it is who conduct all the elections, name the
candidates, and marshal the constituency to the poll, and when I was
at Ghent, the curate of Bottelaer, a rural district in the vicinity,
read from the altar the persons for whom the congregation were to vote,
at a pending contest, on pain of the displeasure of the Bishop. If the
coincidence does not strike irresistibly every individual, who has
attended to what is passing in Belgium, it is here again unnecessary
to point out the parallel, between the composition of the two parties,
in that country and Ireland, who sympathise in the principle of repeal
and separation. In each country the majority of the “movement” is
composed of the Roman Catholic clergy, and the devotees of the church,
but in both their strength would be ineffectual, and certainly their
object suspected, had they not been joined by honest but mistaken
individuals, who, aiming at Utopian theories in politics, have been
content to employ for their accomplishment, the aid of those, whose
designs are more essentially sectarian, than civil or political.
In Belgium, however, the demonstration has been made, of what may be
expected to ensue, should the project of Repealing the Union be ever
successfully effected in Ireland. There, as in Flanders and Brabant,
the priests and their followers would have the overwhelming majority;
and caution or concealment being no longer essential, the triumph of
their attempt, would be but the signal for discarding their allies, and
proceeding boldly to the consummation of their own ambition. The union
once repealed, the objects of the liberal protestants of Ireland and
the Roman Catholic party, would be as distinct as the very spirit of
freedom, and the genius of despotism could render them. The manifesto
of the Roman Catholic prelates to the Congress of Vienna, and their
protest against _Liberty of Conscience_, _Education_, and _the Freedom
of the Press_ in Belgium, made, not at any remote or antiquated era
of history, _but within the last ten years_, sufficiently attest
the animus in which their admirers and imitators would set about
the regeneration of Ireland. The Archbishop of Malines would find a
cotemporary and congenial spirit in the benignant prelate of Tuam,
the pastoral superintendance of the clergy would be as vigorous in
the elections for a domestic, as for a “Saxon” legislature, and as
successful in securing a majority in the parliament of Dublin, as in
the “Palace of the Nation,” and the services of the patriots who now
shout in the train of the Agitator, could be as readily dispensed with
in Ireland, as they have been summarily discarded in Belgium.
Were the union between the two countries once repealed, the union
between the two sections, by whose co-operation direct or indirect
it had been effected, would not survive it one single year--the
influence of the protestant and English party in Ireland, would in
such a conjuncture be as effectually annihilated, as had been the
adherents of Holland, in Belgium; and the deluded liberals, by whose
unwise assistance they had been overwhelmed, would find themselves
in the position of the moderate section of the chambers of Brussels,
the conscientious, but inefficient opponents of a despotism, more
formidable than that they had overthrown, inasmuch as the tyranny of
the million exceeds the tyranny of the individual, and infinitely more
galling, inasmuch as they had themselves contributed unwillingly to
impose it upon their country.
In such a state of things, it is easy to imagine the discontent and
disunion, which pervades every department of Belgium; its trade and
manufactures, labouring under wants and pressures, which the government
have not the power, however anxious their inclination, to relieve;
the civil grievances for the abatement of which the revolution was
undertaken, only partially redressed, and in some instances, exchanged
for others, the immediate offspring of the remedy itself,--and to
crown all, the government and the country submitted to a religious
ascendancy, which is as unwisely exercised by the party who have
attained to it, as it is suspected and disliked by their opponents, who
smart under its caprices and suffer from its indiscretion.
Even the very last act of the revolution, and that which might be
regarded as placing the seal to the European bond, for its permanency,
namely the ratification of the final treaty for the partition with
Holland last year, seems to have only added to the existing insecurity;
the leaders of 1830, loudly protesting against the assignment to
Holland of these portions of Luxembourg and Limbourg, which have been
decreed to her, and the mercantile interests, uniting in complaints,
that the government of King Leopold, have been outwitted by the
ministers of the Hague, and have not only submitted to surrender
350,000 of their already reduced population of consumers to Holland,
but have ceded to her demands, which will inflict injury upon the
navigation of the Meuse and the Scheldt.
I can state from my own observation, that I have not conversed on the
subject with a single individual in Belgium, who expressed himself
thoroughly satisfied with the present posture of affairs. On the
contrary, I have found every where irritated dissatisfaction, and
if not open regret for the events of 1830, and distinct wishes for
a reunion with Holland, the utmost perplexity to discover some yet
untried expedient, which would hold out a hope of restoring the country
to its tranquil prosperity, whether as an independent nation, or in
incorporation with some other state. _On all hands, it seemed to be
felt that for things to go on as at present is impossible_, this was
the constant theme of conversation in society, and the pamphlets and
brochures which I picked up in the shops, are filled with discussions
of the same subject, but in terms much more acrimonious and exciting.
One of these, which I found selling at Ghent, entitled “_La Belgique
de Leopold, par un voyageur Français_,” and which though strongly in
favour of Holland, is evidently written by a person well informed on
the state of Belgium, thus speaks of the present state of feeling in
that country; and the publicity with which pamphlets of this kind are
exposed for sale, and their circulation are evidences of an extensive
sympathy with the author’s views. “The Belgians,” the author says, “of
all classes, representatives and constituencies, rich and poor, long
for the arrival of the moment, which is to disembarrass them from an
imaginary nationality, a delusive freedom and an independence, whose
very name has become a jest--but they want as yet the energy which is
essential to hasten their relief. It is possible, that in the little
circle, whose life and fortunes are dependent upon Leopold, there may
be some who flatter themselves with the hope that the ratification of
the treaty of 1839, is the consolidation and establishment of his power
* * But the vast body of the nation less involved in the immediate
question of the revolution, are far from regarding the present
peaceful position as one of long duration, although guaranteed to the
new state in the name of the same powerful courts, which by treaties
not less solemn and sage had conferred the crown upon the former
dynasty from whose brows, it had been rudely torn by the revolution * *
* At this moment, the prolonged existence of Belgium, as an independent
state, is a matter of impossibility, its manufactures, its commerce
and its prosperity are annihilated, and it is crushed to the earth
under the pressure of its debt and taxes. Without ships, colonies or
commerce, and encumbered by an army, which never fights, and fortresses
destined for demolition, it is merely the jibe and the laughing stock
of Europe * * * The very authors of the revolt of 1830, blush for their
own handiwork, and those who were then the most zealous apostles of
revolution, now preach only contrition and repentance. The defection
is universal--and above all the army,--the army, exposed every day
to the most cutting sarcasms, vents its indignation in menaces and
murmurs. Every class of the population, including those who would have
been perfectly contented with the present order of things, were the
circumstances of the country at all tolerable; the whole nation, in
short, except the fraction of a fraction, without numbers, wealth nor
weight, unite in aspiration for the return of the House of Orange;
and the restoration of the kingdom of 1815, is in every heart and on
every tongue * * Belgium, has herself, no other alternative left to
her, and if from predilection and choice she does not invoke the return
of a race of princes enlightened, paternal, courageous and brave, she
must speedily be reduced by famine, to implore the restoration, as her
only relief from evils of the last extremity. Their restoration may
be regarded, at this moment, as morally accomplished, the universal
voice of the nation has decreed it, and it requires but an accident,
an excuse, a name, a banner, and the existence of the revolutionary
kingdom is terminated without another ‘protocol.’”[40]
Under these circumstances, the position of King Leopold must be any
thing but an easy one, if his ambition extends to the foundation of
a royal dynasty for his descendants. The religious grievances of the
nation are, it is too much to be feared, beyond his reach to correct,
and the evils which beset and endanger its internal prosperity, arising
out of the circumscribed resources of the nation, must look in vain to
them for redress. The fundamental defect is the want of an adequate
consumption for the produce of the national industry, and for this the
ingenuity of the government has been ineffectually tortured to discover
a remedy. It is idle to look to Germany or England for _commercial
treaties_ which would afford an opening for Belgian manufactures in
competition with their own; important concessions have been made to
France, by the reduction of duties upon her produce, when imported
into Belgium, but no reciprocal advantages have been obtained in
return; on the contrary, ever since 1815, when the Netherlands were
taken from her, to be given to Holland, she has exhibited a waspish
impatience to embarrass and undermine her prosperity. _Prospects
of colonization_ have been discussed and even proposals made to
other states for permission to attempt settlements on their distant
territory--and where these have failed, commercial expeditions have
been dispatched to Algiers, to Egypt, to Brasil, to Bolivia and Peru,
all with a view to open a trading intercourse with the natives, but
each and all have proved hopelessly unsuccessful.
The manufacturers of Ghent and Verviers, have thus turned their eyes
towards the Zoll-Verein, and year after year attempts have been made
to effect a connexion, if not a formal juncture with the Prussian
Commercial League; but here again disappointment alone awaited them,
for independently of the fact, that by the constitution of the
Zoll-Verein, it is accessible only to those of German blood (on which
score Luxembourg might have been admissible), it was manifestly hostile
to the very spirit of the league, whose object is to protect their own
native manufacturers, to admit amongst them a formidable rival, who
would inundate them with her produce, and could take nothing from them
in return.
But if the necessities and weakness of Belgium, render it impracticable
for her to continue as she is, and if national independence be
irreconcilable with her prosperity, the question which occupies the
thoughts of her discontented subjects, is to what quarter she shall
turn for relief from without. To attach herself again to Austria, as
before the French revolution, is a matter impracticable and could be
productive of no advantage, even if it were otherwise. The condition of
the Rhenish provinces, under the dominion of Prussia, would make her
eager for a similar incorporation, but this the interests of Europe, as
well as those of Prussia herself forbid.
An union with France would be equally hopeless and incompatible with
the policy of the Congress of Vienna, and would, with the exception of
the districts immediately bordering on the French frontier, be in the
highest degree distasteful to the population at large. Their annexation
to the territory of France in 1794, had been resisted by the clergy,
and its termination in 1814 was hailed with rapturous impatience by all
classes. Their condition under the empire had been one “of the most
insignificant vassalage. Their religious institutions destroyed, their
cherished privileges annihilated, and all their rights and immunities
for which they had been contending for centuries before, trodden under
foot.”[41] Even their commerce and manufactures were jeopardised by the
jealous rivalry of their new allies, their clergy debased, and their
youth drafted off by conscription to feed the slaughter of Europe.
The recollection of this has left no vigorous desire for a return to
fraternization with France, nor would France herself, however important
Belgium might be as a political acquisition, consult the interest of
her native manufactures by imparting an equality in all her advantages
to competitors so formidable. Still so impatient are the Belgians to
fly from the “ills they have,” that at the present moment, whilst the
possibility of war between France and the rest of Europe occupies the
attention of all the world, I was repeatedly assured in Belgium that it
would only require France to give the signal, and a powerful section of
the people would declare in her favour. So conscious are all parties of
this, that the bare probability of war in Europe is looked to with the
utmost alarm by the government, and the _Controleur_, an appropriately
named journal, the organ of the clerical party, was anxiously busied,
whilst I was in Ghent, in decrying any idea of a re-union with
France, declaring in one of its publications early in September:
“Et comme nous n’avons pas pour habitude de cacher notre manière de
voir, nous dirons rondement, _que nous serions plutôt Hollandais que
Français_.--En dépit de M. Rogier.”
Another suggestion has been the _partition_ of Belgium between the
surrounding states, but to this equally insurmountable obstacles
present themselves. Antwerp and the districts on the Dutch frontier,
if assigned to Holland, would have no longer employment for their
capital and ships, and would again sink under the more favoured rivalry
of Amsterdam and Rotterdam; and as Hainault and the fortresses along
the Meuse and the Sambre would necessarily fall to the lot of France,
a measure so menacing to the future security of Europe, would not be
tolerated by her courts, unless these strongholds were garrisoned by
the allies, an expedient which would be equally opposed by the pride
and ambition of the French.
If the further experience should unfortunately decide finally against
the permanence of Belgium as an independent nation, the only practical
expedient which remains, and that which has already received the
sanction of all the great powers of Europe, would be a return to the
disposition made by the Congress of Vienna, and the reincorporation
of Holland and Belgium, to form again the united kingdom of the
Netherlands. Personal aversion to King William would no longer oppose a
barrier to such an arrangement, as his dominion has passed into other
hands, and the Prince of Orange, the present king at all times enjoyed
the popular affections, if not the national confidence of the people.
Should any fresh convulsion arise, which for the sake of the peace of
Europe, not less than for that of King Leopold, it is most earnestly
to be hoped may be yet averted, all I have either seen or been able to
learn from those best informed upon the matter, leaves little doubt
in my mind, that the almost unanimous wish of the people, should
they be compelled to change their present dynasty, would point to the
restoration of the House of Nassau.
END OF VOL. I.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SCHULZE AND CO., 13, POLAND STREET.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Made by Nurse and Co. Crawford Street, Bryanstone Square.
[2] So styled in the act by which Philip II, ceded to them the
Sovereignty of the Low Countries.
[3] Wordsworth’s Sonnet to Bruges.
[4] Query, St. Salvador.
[5] I must take this early opportunity of adding my tribute of
gratitude to the compiler of these most invaluable volumes, the
Hand-books of Northern and Southern Germany, they have been my constant
companions, and I cannot do less than unite with every tourist, whom I
met on the continent, in pronouncing them as matchless in the value and
variety of their contents, as they are faultless in their accuracy.
[6] It is the custom in Belgium, in order to distinguish one member of
the same family, to append to the surname of the husband that of his
lady.
[7] At Ghent, this fee has been reduced to one half the sum.
[8] De l’Industrie en Belgique, Causes de Decadence et de Prosperité,
&c. par M. N. Briavionne, Bruxelles, 1839, vol. ii, p. 345.
[9] By the French commercial code, there are three descriptions of
trading companies. First, _sociétés en nom collectif_, with all the
attributes of an ordinary partnership in England; secondly, _sociétés
en commandite_, where the great majority of the associated capitalists
are sleeping partners, with no share in the management, no name in
the firm, and responsible only to the extent of their registered
capital, one or more of the partners, alone, having the conduct of the
establishment, and being responsible to the public to the full extent
of their property; and thirdly, the _sociétés anonymes_, which are, in
every incident and particular analogous to the joint stock companies of
England, only with a liability, limited in every instance to the amount
of their shares.
[10] These engines are in great esteem, and I have found them in almost
universal use in Belgium. The one alluded to above, was consuming from
5½ of to 6½ lbs. of coals, per hour, per horse power; whilst a low
pressure engine in England, would require from 12 to 14lbs. In this
country, they are likewise coming in greater demand, although here
the saving of coal is a matter of less importance, and may be, in
some degree, counterbalanced by the risk, and more frequent repairs,
incidental to high pressure engines.
[11] The price of coal at Ghent, when I visited its manufactories was
20 francs for 1000 kilogrammes, or about sixteen shillings a ton for
coals of Mons, which are brought from a considerable distance by the
Scheldt; those of Charleroi are of better quality, and a shade higher
in price. Coals have increased in price in Belgium within the last few
years, as well from the greater demand, as an apprehension that the
coal fields of the Ardennes were rapidly exhausting, but this alarm has
of late been regarded as groundless. England, with a liberality, which
manufactoring jealousy scarcely sanctions, has recently permitted the
free export of coal both to Belgium, France and Prussia, a boon for
which these governments, which are prohibiting British manufactures,
and their mechanics and mill owners, who are contending with our own
for the market, cannot be too grateful.
[12] Three hundred bundles per day, being as nearly as possible eleven
cuts to the spindle.
[13] COMPARATIVE WAGES PAID WORKERS.
+-----------------------+----------------+-------------+-------------+
| | Wages per day |Wages per day|Wages per day|
|Description of Workers.| of 11½ hours. |of 11½ hours.|of 11 hours. |
| | ENGLAND. |BELFAST. |GHENT. |
+-----------------------+----------------+-------------+-------------+
| | Average. | Average. | Average. |
| | _s. d. s. d._| _d._ | _s. d._ |
| Spreaders | 1 3 to 1 6 | 10 | 0 11¾ |
| First Drawing | 1 0 1 3 | 8½ | 0 8½ |
| Second Drawing | 1 0 1 3 | 8½ | 0 8½ |
| Roving | 1 1 1 5 | 9 | 0 9¼ |
| Carding | 1 0 1 6 | 7½ to 9½ | 0 9¼ |
| Spinner | 1 0 1 4 | 10 | 0 8½ |
| Doffer | 0 8 | 5½ | 0 4¾ |
| Reeler (piece work) | 1 0 1 6 | 10 to 11 | 0 9¼ |
| Dyer | 2 6 3 0 | 1_s._ 4_d._ | 1 3 |
| Bundler | 2 6 3 0 | 1_s._ 5½ | 1 5 |
| Hackler (Roughing for | | | |
| Machine) | 1_s._ 6_d._ | 1_s._ 4_d._ | 1 7 |
| Overlooker | 4_s._ 6_d._ | 3_s._ 6_d._ | 2 4½ |
+-----------------------+----------------+-------------+-------------+
These wages, _at present_, paying in Ghent, it must be borne in mind,
are hardly a fair criterion, as flax spinning being entirely a new
trade there, it was necessary to give an inducement by extra wages, for
the cotton spinner’s to leave the work to which they were accustomed;
but this will soon find its level.
[14] One cannot but remark the wretched quality of the window-glass,
even in the most luxurious houses. It is uneven, warped, and of a
dirty-green colour. It is chiefly made at Charleroi.
[15] The joke against Mechlin arises from an alarm being given that the
cathedral was on fire, by some one who had seen the moonbeams shining
through its gothic steeple--whence the proverb, that “the wise men of
Mechlin went to put out the moon.”
[16] Les machines sont là aussi multipliés, aussi variées que les
besoins où on les applique: il y en a une pour chaque pensée, ou
plutôt, c’est la même pensée qui a mille ministres; l’une scie,
l’autre fend, l’autre coupe, l’autre rabotte; il y en a pour degrossir
la pièce, il y en a pour lui donner la forme exacte, il y en a pour
l’orner; il y en a pour la polir, le ciseau, le tour, le rabot,
l’emporte pièce la tenaille, le marteau tous les instruments du
menuisier, du tourneur, du forgeron, s’évertuent sur le fer comme
sur le bois la plus tendre, mais sans menuisier, sans tourneur, sans
forgeron--_la main qui les meut est une machine_, cette main, toujours
sûre, toujours ferme, délicate, légère, qui n’a pas d’inégalité, qui
ne depende pas d’une pensée capricieuse, qui ne se lasse pas, qui ne
s’alourdit pas, qui ne vieillit pas! * * * * Cette machine n’a besoin
de personne: on lui donne sa tâche un certain jour, et pourvu qu’on ne
lui retire pas la portion de force motrice qui l’anime, elle terminera
cette tâche à jour fixe: elle vous la livrera comme un ouvrier à la
pièce: vous arriverez un beau matin, et vous la trouverez sortie du
cylindre et tournant à vide, en attendant que vous lui donniez une
nouvelle tâche.--_From an account of the great works at Seraing, in
the_ REVUE DE PARIS.
[17] “Les manufactures de Manchester ne voulant pas s’en remettre de
ce soin au gouvernement, se sont cotisés, out réuni une somme annuelle
suffisante pour organiser autour de leur ville une ligne de douane
specialement consacré à empêcher la sortie des mécaniques qu’ils
inventaient.”--DE L’INDUSTRIE DE BELGIQUE, vol. ii, p. 326.
[18] “She was in black down to her toes, with her hair concealed under
a cambric border, laid close to the forehead: she was one of those kind
of nuns, and please your honour, of which there are a good many in
Flanders.” “By thy description Trim,” said my uncle Toby, “I dare say
she was a young Beguine, of whom there are none to be found any where,
except in the Spanish Netherlands, they differ from other nuns in this,
that they can quit their cloisters, if they chose to marry--they visit,
and take care of the sick by profession, but I had rather, for my own
part, they did it out of good nature.”--STERNE.
[19] The 17th article of the _Constitution Belge_, contains the
following pithy enactment as to national education. “L’Enseignement
_est libre_, toute mesure préventive est interdite.”
[20] “_Quelques mots sur l’état actuel de l’instruction primaire en
Belgique, et sur la nécessité de l’améliorer._”
See also a clever paper by R. W. Rawson, Esq. in the Quarterly Journal
of the Statistical Society of London, vol. 2, p. 385.
[21] The linen which we saw was of low quality, coarse and strong,
and by no means cheap. It consisted of sheeting, for export to the
Havannah, which, for five quarter’s wide, was sold at one shilling a
yard.
[22] This latter quantity is found in the tables published by the Board
of Trade, under the head of “Flax, Tow, or Codilla of Hemp and Tow.”
The importation of “undressed hemp” is under another head, and amounts
to 730,375 cwt.
[23] It is curious that this process which all concur in representing
to be one requiring the utmost cleanliness and purity, should of all
places be performed in Holland with an utter neglect of both. In an
able document by Mr. Acton, in the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture for
1832, he gives the following account of the operation. “The mode of
watering flax in Holland, and in the low lands of Belgium and France,
is to put a dam across the canal, clean out the weeds and mud for a few
yards next the dam, lay in three or four rows of sheaves of flax next
the dam, and then covering these six inches deep with the rank herbage
that grows in the canal, and the mud raked up from its bottom. A few
more courses of sheaves are next placed in the same way as the first,
and covered in the same way with weeds and mud, till the whole is put
in steep. These fosses, and the mode of placing the flax in them, are
as they ought to be, but the propriety of dragging up so much mud or
slime from the bottom of the canals, to cover the sheaves, six inches
deep, may well be doubted, it cannot fail to besmear the lint so much,
as to render it so nasty, that it would require to be much rinsed and
washed in the water to remove the mud. This not only creates labour,
by no means the most agreeable, but must greatly injure the flax by
ruffling it in the water, a thing that ought to be avoided.”--Vol. iv.
p. 174.
[24] This important association has been for some years in operation,
and amongst its functions has sent several commissioners into other
countries to ascertain the relative value of their various processes.
The result of these inquiries, they have condensed into a short
manual for the use of the farmers and others engaged in the trade
in Flanders; in order to confine it to whom it has been written and
printed in Flemish. A copy of this valuable document translated into
French, for which I am indebted to a particular source, I have placed
in the appendix to these volumes. Knowing it as I do, to be the genuine
and anxious suggestions of the best practical men in Belgium, it may
be regarded as a faithful guide to their process, and would be well
deserving of extensive circulation in the flax districts of Great
Britain and Ireland.
[25] It consists, I believe, of about thirteen sail of small vessels.
[26] On the first out-break of the revolution, the people of Antwerp,
strongly opposed to it, sent the following address to the King of
Holland. “Sire, it is not without painful sensations that we have
been apprised of the demand made to your Majesty, tending to obtain a
separation of interests between the southern and northern provinces.
The fear that our silence may be interpreted as an adhesion to this
proposition, imposes upon us the duty of exposing to your Majesty,
that the wish is in no way participated in by us. The experience of
fifteen years has proved to us, in the most evident manner, that is
to the free and mutual exchange of produce, that we are indebted for
reciprocal prosperity. _The advantages that navigation derives from the
colonies, the increasing outlets that these same colonies constantly
offer to the produce of our industry, are irrefragible proofs, that
any separation would not only be fatal to this province, but to the
commercial industry of all Belgium._ Intimately persuaded of this great
truth, we dare to make it known to your Majesty, with that confidence
and respect inspired by a King, who desires the welfare of his people,
and who will never labour but in the interest of its well understood
prosperity.”--_Antwerp, September _13_th, 1830.
[27] De l’Industrie en Belgique, vol. 2, p. 384.
[28] _Exposé de la situation de la Province de la Flandre Orientale,
pour l’année 1840. Ghent de l’imprimerie de Vanryckegem-Hovaerz,
imprimeur du Governement Provincial._
The numbers are as follows:
Two whose deficiency is between 1,000 ff. and 2,000.
Four ” ” 2,000 ” 3,000.
One ” ” 3,000 ” 4,000.
One ” ” 6,000 ” 7,000.
Two ” ” 7,000 ” 8,000.
One ” ” 14,000 ” 15,000.
One ” ” 19,000 ” 20,000.
One ” ” 20,000 ” 25,000.
Three ” ” 25,000 ” 30,000.
One ” ” 35,000 ” 40,000.
Two ” ” unknown
[29] Le Guide Indispensable, p. 103.
[30] The Belgian manufacturers themselves were, as I have before
stated, perfectly alive to the mischief which the separation from
Holland was certain to entail upon them; and it is curious, as well as
interesting, to remark the circumstantial fidelity with which these
protectors warned the movement party of the consequences which they
were provoking, and which have since been accomplished to the letter.
The following reasons against separation from Holland were published
at the time in one of the journals of Antwerp, when the prospect of
Repealing the Union was most unpalatable:
“Ever since some parts of our southern provinces have unfurled the
banner of insurrection, all business has ceased. Circulation has been
interrupted, and several establishments, which required the employment
of great capital and afforded the means of subsistance to numerous
families, have been destroyed and burned. Public tranquillity disturbed
in every manner; men, the most peaceable, and a short time ago happy in
the bosom of their families, prospering under the protection of order
and the laws, now forcibly torn from their homes to perform military
service of which they are ignorant, and which they dislike; their
property every day exposed and ready to become the prey of an unbridled
populace--a state of anarchy which will end by creating parties who
will shortly lacerate each other; and lastly, a most forbidding future
preparing for them. Such is a faint picture of the evils which a
rebellious and unconstitutional rising has already produced. But all
that has hitherto been witnessed is in no wise to be compared to the
consequences which must result from an unseasonable separation, which
has been demanded with a levity which no man of sense can comprehend.
It is true, that among the men who figure as the authors and supporters
of a separation, there are to be observed no manufacturers: and,
indeed, what manufacturer, what merchant, what agriculturist even,
could fall into such an error?
You cry out for a separation, and would fain persuade yourselves that
it would be all in your favour. With similar levity you take upon
yourselves to dictate the conditions of a separation. This shows but
little foresight.
The northern part of the kingdom has taken up the gauntlet, which you
so imprudently threw down. Hear one of their organs, and consider
the consequences which must, and ought to ensue to Belgium when once
isolated and abandoned to itself.”
The following is the reply of the Dutch to your challenge:--
“‘We are glad,’ say they, ‘that the proposal for a divorce has been
made by you. Let it take place, and the cloud which has darkened the
horizon of our country will be dissipated. A glorious sun will then
soon shine upon it. Soon will the decadence of Amsterdam and its causes
cease, and the separation will give it the life and activity which it
lost by the union.
But let us examine what will be the result of this divorce to the
northern provinces?
Relieved from an odious manufacturing system, we shall be able to
establish our customs on a perfectly commercial system: Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, Dort, Middleburgh, will become so many free ports, into
which moderate duties, exempt from vexatious modes of collection, will
bring back our old commerce in all its force. The duties at present
imposed upon sugar, coffee, and other articles of trade, will be
revoked.
The inhabitants will purchase fuel, clothing, stuffs, and all the
commodities which trade, manufacture, and the necessities of a people
require, in England, and wherever they can produce them upon better
terms than in the southern provinces, where all these articles will be
loaded with duties and restrictions, and will be therefore dearer.
Our country will again become the centre and mart of all the
productions and riches of the world which are destined for and consumed
in Germany and the provinces of France bordering on the Rhine, as well
as in many other places which now escape us.
The products of our colonies will be no longer carried except to our
own ports, to the exclusion of all others, and they will be freed from
all the duties and charges with which they are at present burdened, and
which our Sovereign has established for the advantage of the Belgians
alone. Thus not only the mother country, but the colonies, also,
will enjoy the advantage of the separation. The duty of 25 per cent.
established at Java in favour of the Belgians will be abolished, and
it is thus that, wherever the standard of Holland shall be displayed,
liberty, prosperity, and public happiness will prevail; and let no one
present to you as a burdensome set-off the debt which will remain to
our charge.’”
[31] White, v. i, p. 124, &c.
[32] A full detail of the state of the kingdom, at the outbreak of the
revolution will be found in a volume published by the Baron Keverberg,
who had been governor of East Flanders under the King of Holland,
_Du Royaume des Pays-Bas, sous la rapport de son origine, de son
developement, et de sa crise actuelle, Brussels, 1836_.
[33] _Essai historique et critique sur la révolution Belge._ _Par_ M.
NOTHCOMB. _Brussels, 1833._
[34] A copy of this singular document, will be found at the end of
these volume.
[35] Un des plus excellens moyens, et peut-être le seul qui existe
aujourd’hui, d’assurer aux jeunes gens une éducation qui réunit tout à
la fois l’esprit de la religion et les talens les plus éminens _serait
de rétablie les jesuites_ dans la Belgique.--_Memor. art. 8._
[36] This singular manifesto will be found in the appendix at the end
of these volumes.
[37] Jurer d’observer et de maintenir une loi qui _suppose_ (_!_) que
l’église catholique est soumise aux lois d’état, c’est manifestaient
s’exposer a coopérer à l’asservissement de l’église.--_Jugement
doctrinal_, (Art. 193, see appendix).
[38] Page 193.
[39] The list of candidates suggested for the throne of Belgium in
1831, contains some names which are rather extraordinary, such as
Colonel Murat, La Fayette, Colonel Fabvier the Philhellene, Sebastiani,
Châteaubriand, Prince Carignan of Piedmont, M. Rogier, Count de
Merode, the present King of Greece, Prince John of Saxony, the Duke of
Leuchtenberg, son to Eugene Beauharnais, Louis Philippe, and the Duke
de Nemours, who was actually chosen, but declined the honour.
[40] La Belgique, No. 1, p. 13, 16, 20, 23, 24, 27; and No. 2, p. 49.
[41] White, vol. i. p. 23.
Corrections
The word “controul” was changed to “control” throughout the text.
The first line indicates the original, the second the correction.
p. 39
the sign-board of the “Diaman-zetter,”
the sign-board of the “Diamant-zetter,”
p. 91
it was ever dragged to to the field
it was ever dragged to the field
p. 115
lying immediatetely in front
lying immediately in front
p. 153
would get over their associaton
would get over their association
p. 160
that the goverment reduced the term
that the government reduced the term
p. 176
fearful of the slighest speculation
fearful of the slightest speculation
p. 252
in the nineteenth centurry
in the nineteenth century
p. 261
at no measure, how-ver
at no measure, however
p. 268
the consciencious, but inefficient opponents
the conscientious, but inefficient opponents
p. 277
were jeopardied by the jealous rivalry
were jeopardised by the jealous rivalry
Errata
“Hans Hemling” should read “Hans Memling”.
“Audeghem” should read “Auderghem”.
The errata have been applied to this etext.