THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS--UNION OF HOLLAND AND BELGIUM, 1815-1830
The autocratic powers that were conferred upon King William by the
Fundamental Law rendered his personality a factor of the utmost
importance in the difficult task which lay before him. William's
character was strong and self-confident, and he did not shrink from
responsibility. His intentions were of the best; he was capable,
industrious, a good financier, sparing himself no trouble in mastering
the details of State business. But he had the defects of his qualities,
being self-opinionated, stubborn and inclined, as in the matter of the
vote of the Belgian notables, to override opposition with a high hand.
He had at the beginning of his reign the good fortune of being on the
best of terms with Castlereagh, the British Foreign Minister. To
Castlereagh more than to any other statesman the kingdom of the
Netherlands owed its existence. The Peace of Paris saw Great Britain in
possession by conquest of all the Dutch colonies. By the Convention of
London (August 13, 1814), which was Castlereagh's work, it was arranged
that all the captured colonies, including Java, the richest and most
valuable of all, should be restored, with the exception of the Cape of
Good Hope and the Guiana colonies--Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo. In
the latter the plantations had almost all passed into British hands
during the eighteen years since their conquest; and Cape Colony was
retained as essential for the security of the sea-route to India. But
these surrenders were not made without ample compensation. Great Britain
contributed £2,000,000 towards erecting fortresses along the French
frontier; £1,000,000 to satisfy a claim of Sweden with regard to the
island of Guadeloupe; and £3,000,000 or one-half of a debt from Holland
to Russia, _i.e._ a sum of £6,000,000 in all.
One of the most urgent problems with which the Sovereign-Prince had to
deal on his accession to power was the state of the finances. Napoleon
by a stroke of the pen had reduced the public debt to one-third of its
amount. William, however, was too honest a man to avail himself of the
opportunity for partial repudiation that was offered him. He recalled
into existence the two-thirds on which no interest had been paid and
called it "deferred debt" (_uitgestelde schuld_); the other third
received the name of "working debt" (_werkelijke schuld_). The figures
stood at 1200 million florins and 600 million florins respectively.
Every year four millions of the "working debt" were to be paid off, and
a similar amount from the "deferred" added to it. Other measures taken
in 1814 for effecting economies were of little avail, as the campaign of
Waterloo in the following year added 40 million florins to the debt.
Heavier taxation had to be imposed, but even then the charges for the
debt made it almost impossible to avoid an annual deficit in the budget.
It was one of the chief grievances of the Belgians that they were called
upon to share the burden of a crushing debt which they had not incurred.
The voting of ways and means for ten years gave the king the control
over all ordinary finance; it was only extraordinary expenditure that
had to be submitted annually to the representatives of the people.
The dislike of the Catholic hierarchy in Belgium to Dutch rule had been
intensified by the manner in which the king had dealt with the vote of
the notables. Their leader was Maurice de Broglie, Bishop of Ghent, a
Frenchman by birth. His efforts by speech and by pen to stir up active
enmity in Belgium to the union aroused William's anger, and he resolved
to prosecute him. It was an act of courage rather than of statesmanship,
but the king could not brook opposition. Broglie refused to appear
before the court and fled to France. In his absence he was condemned to
banishment and the payment of costs. The powerful clerical party
regarded him as a martyr and continued to criticise the policy of the
Protestant king with watchful and hostile suspicion. Nor were the
Belgian liberal party more friendly. They did not indeed support the
clerical claim to practical predominance in the State, but they were
patriotic Belgians who had no love for Holland and resented the thought
that they were being treated as a dependency of their northern
neighbours. They were at one with the clericals in claiming that the
Belgian representation in the Second Chamber of the States-General
should be proportional to their population. But this grievance might
have been tolerated had the king shown any inclination to treat his
Belgian subjects on a footing of equality with the Dutch. He was, as
will be seen, keenly interested in the welfare and progress of the
south, but in spirit and in his conduct of affairs he proved himself to
be an out-and-out Hollander. The provision of the Fundamental Law that
the seat of government and the meetings of the States-General should be
alternately from year to year at the Hague and at Brussels was never
carried out. All the ministries were permanently located at the Hague;
and of the seven ministers who held office in 1816 only one, the Duke
d'Ursel, was a Belgian, and he held the post of Minister of Public Works
and Waterways. Fourteen years later (at the time of the revolt) six out
of seven were still northerners. The military establishments were all in
Holland, and nearly all the diplomatic and civil posts were given to
Dutchmen. Nor was this merely due to the fact that, when the union took
place, Holland already possessed an organised government and a supply of
experienced officials, while Belgium lacked both. On the contrary, the
policy of the king remained fixed and unwavering. In 1830 out of 39
diplomatists 30 were Dutch. All the chief military posts were filled by
Dutchmen. Nor was it different in the civil service. In the home
department there were 117 Dutch, 11 Belgians; in the war department 102
Dutch, 3 Belgians; in finance 59 Dutch, 5 Belgians. Such a state of
things was bound to cause resentment. Parties in the Belgic provinces
were in the early days of the Union divided very much as they have been
in recent years. The Catholic or Clerical party had its stronghold in
the two Flanders and Antwerp, _i.e._ in the Flemish-speaking districts.
In Walloon Belgium the Liberals had a considerable majority. The
opposition to the Fundamental Law came overwhelmingly from Flemish
Belgium; the support from Liège, Namur, Luxemburg and other Walloon
districts. But the sense of injustice brought both parties together, so
that in the representative Chamber the Belgian members were soon found
voting solidly together, as a permanent opposition, while the Dutch
voted _en bloc_ for the government. As the representation of north and
south was equal, 55 members each, the result would have been a deadlock,
but there were always two or three Belgians who held government offices;
and these were compelled, on pain of instant dismissal, to vote for a
government measure or at least to abstain. Thus the king could always
rely on a small but constant majority, and by its aid he did not
hesitate to force through financial and legislative proposals in the
teeth of Belgian opposition. It is only fair, however, to the
arbitrary king to point out how earnestly he endeavoured to promote the
material and industrial welfare of the whole land, and to encourage to
the best of his power literary, scientific and educational progress. In
Holland the carrying-trade, which had so long been the chief source of
the country's wealth, had been utterly ruined by Napoleon's Continental
System. On the other hand, Belgian industries, which had been
flourishing through the strict embargo placed upon the import of British
goods, were now threatened with British competition. The steps taken by
the energy and initiative of the king were, considering the state of the
national finances, remarkable in the variety of their aims and the
results that they achieved. The old Amsterdam Bank was transformed into
a Bank of the Netherlands. A number of canals were planned and
constructed. Chief among these was the North Holland Canal, connecting
Amsterdam with the Helder. The approaches to Rotterdam were improved, so
that this port became the meeting-point of sea-traffic from England and
river-traffic by the Rhine from Germany. But both these ports were
quickly overshadowed by the rapid recovery of Antwerp, now that the
Scheldt was free and open to commerce. Other important canals, begun and
wholly or in part constructed, during this period were the
Zuid-Willemsvaart, the Zederik, the Appeldoorn and the Voorne canals.
Water communication was not so necessary in the south as in the north,
but care was there also bestowed upon the canals, especially upon the
canal of Terneuzen connecting Ghent with the western Scheldt, and many
highways were constructed. To restore the prosperity of the Dutch
carrying-trade, especially that with their East Indies, in 1824 a
Company--_de Nederlandsche Handekmaatschappij_--was founded; and at the
same time a commercial treaty was concluded with Great Britain, by which
both nations were to enjoy free trade with each other's East Indian
possessions. The _Handekmaatschappij_ had a capital of 37 million
florins; to this the king contributed four millions and guaranteed to
the shareholders for 20 years a dividend of 4 1/2 per cent. The Company
at first worked at a loss, and in 1831 William had to pay four million
florins out of his privy purse to meet his guarantee. This was partly
due to the set-back of a revolt in Java which lasted some years.
Agriculture received equal attention. Marshy districts were impoldered
or turned into pasture-land. More especially did the _Maatschappij van
Weldadigheid_, a society founded in 1818 by General van den Bosch with
the king's strong support, undertake the task of reclaiming land with
the special aim of relieving poverty. No less zealous was the king for
the prosperity of Belgian industries; Ghent with its cotton factories
and sugar refineries, Tournai with its porcelain industry, and Liège
with its hardware, all were the objects of royal interest. The great
machine factory at Seraing near Liège under the management of an
Englishman, Cockerill, owed its existence to the king. Nor was William's
care only directed to the material interests of his people. In 1815 the
University at Utrecht was restored; and in Belgium, besides Louvain, two
new foundations for higher education were in 1816 created at Ghent and
Liège. Royal Academies of the Arts were placed at Amsterdam and Antwerp,
which were to bear good fruit. His attention was also given to the
much-needed improvement of primary education, which in the south was
almost non-existent in large parts of the country. Here the presence of
a number of illiterate dialects was a great obstacle and was the cause
of the unfortunate effort to make literary Dutch into a national
language for his whole realm.
Nevertheless the king's political mistakes (of which the attempted
compulsory use of Dutch was one) rendered all his thoughtful
watchfulness over his people's welfare unavailing. Great as were the
autocratic powers conferred upon the sovereign, he overstepped them.
Plans, in which he was interested, he carried out without consulting the
States-General. His ministers he regarded as bound to execute his
orders. If their views differed from his, they were dismissed. This was
the fate even of Van Hogendorp, to whom he owed so much; Roëll and Falck
also had to make way for less competent but more obsequious ministers.
The chief difficulty with which the king had to contend throughout this
period was the ceaseless and irreconcilable opposition of the Catholic
hierarchy and clergy to the principle of absolute religious equality
established by the Fundamental Law (Articles CXC-CXCIII). Their leader,
Maurice de Broglie, Bishop of Ghent, actually published a _jugement
doctrinal_ in which he declared that the taking of the oath to the
Constitution was an act of treason to the Catholic Church. In this
defiance to the government he had the support of the Pope, who only
permitted the Count de Méan to take the oath on his appointment to the
Archbishopric of Malines on the understanding that he held Articles
CXC-CXCIII to refer only to civil matters. From this time to take the
oath "dans le sens de M. Méan" became with the ultra-clerical party a
common practice.
Other measures of the government aroused Catholic hostility. In this
year, 1819, a decree forbade the holding of more than two religious
processions in a year. In such a country as Belgium this restriction was
strongly resented. But the establishment in 1825 by the king of a
_Collegium Philosophicum_ at Louvain, at which all candidates for the
priesthood were by royal decree required (after 1826) to have a
two-years' course before proceeding to an episcopal seminary, met with
strenuous resistance. The instruction was in ancient languages, history,
ethics and canon-law; and the teachers were nominated by the king. The
first effect of this decree was that young men began to seek education
in foreign seminaries. Another royal decree at once forbade this, and
all youths were ordered to proceed either to the _Collegium_ or to one
of the High Schools of the land; unless they did so, access to the
priesthood or to any public office was barred to them. This was perhaps
the most serious of all the king's mistakes. He miscalculated both the
strength and the sincerity of the opposition he thus deliberately
courted. His decrees were doomed to failure. The bishops on their part
refused to admit to their seminaries or to ordination anyone who
attended the _Collegium Philosophicum_. The king, in the face of the
irrevocable decision of the Belgian hierarchy, found himself in an
untenable position. He could not compel the bishops to ordain candidates
for Holy Orders, and his decrees were therefore a dead letter; nor on
the other hand could he trample upon the convictions of the vast
majority of his Belgian subjects by making admission to the priesthood
impossible. He had to give way and to send a special envoy--De
Celles--to the Pope in 1827 to endeavour to negotiate a Concordat. It
was accomplished. By Article III of the Concordat, there were to be
eight bishops in the Netherlands instead of five. They were to be chosen
by the Pope, but the king was to have the right of objection, and they
were required to take the oath of allegiance. The course at the
_Collegium Philosophicum_ was made optional. William thus yielded on
practically all the points at issue, but prided himself on having
obtained the right of rejecting a papal nominee. The Pope, however, in
an allocution made no mention of this right, and declared that the
decree about the _Collegium_ was annulled, and that in matters of
education the bishops would act in accordance with instructions from
Rome. The government immediately issued a confidential notice to the
governors of provinces, that the carrying-out of the Concordat was
indefinitely postponed. Thus the effort at conciliation ended in the
humiliation of the king, and the triumph of the astute diplomacy of the
Vatican.
The financial situation, as we have seen, was from the outset full of
difficulty. The king was personally parsimonious, but his many projects
for the general welfare of the land involved large outlay, and the
consequence was an annual average deficit of seven million florins. At
first the revenue was raised by the increase of customs and excise,
including colonial imports. This caused much dissatisfaction in Holland,
especially when duties were placed on coffee and sugar. The complaint
was that thus an undue share of taxation fell on the maritime north. In
order to lighten these duties on colonial wares, other taxes had to be
imposed. In 1821 accordingly it was proposed to meet the deficit by two
most unwise and obnoxious taxes, known as _mouture_ and _abbatage_. The
first was on ground corn, the second on the carcases of beasts, exacted
at the mill or the slaughter-house--in other words on bread and on
butcher's meat. Both were intensely unpopular, and the _mouture_ in
particular fell with especial severity on the Belgian working classes
and peasantry, who consumed much more bread per head than the Dutch.
Nevertheless by ministerial pressure the bill was passed (July 21, 1821)
by a narrow majority of four--55 to 51. All the minority were Belgians,
only two Belgians voted with the majority. It is inconceivable how the
government could have been so impolitic as to impose these taxes in face
of such a display of national animosity. The _mouture_ only produced a
revenue of 5,500,000 fl.; the _abbatage_ 2,500,000 fl.
This amount, though its exaction pressed heavily on the very poor,
afforded little relief; and to meet recurring deficits the only resource
was borrowing. To extricate the national finances from ever-increasing
difficulties the _Amortisatie-Syndikaat_ was created in December, 1822.
Considerable sources of income from various public domains and from
tolls passed into the hands of the seven members of the Syndicate, all
of whom were bound to secrecy, both as to its public and private
transactions. Its effect was to diminish still further the control of
the Representative Chamber over the national finances. The Syndicate
did indeed assist the State, for between 1823 and 1829 it advanced no
less than 58,885,443 fl. to meet the deficits in the budget, but the
means by which it achieved this result were not revealed.
Yet another device to help the government in its undertakings was the
_million de l'industrie_, which was voted every year, as an
extraordinary charge, but of which no account was ever given. That this
sum was beneficially used for the assistance of manufacturing and
industrial enterprise, as at Seraing and elsewhere, and that it
contributed to the growing prosperity of the southern provinces, is
certain. But the needless mystery which surrounded its expenditure led
to the suspicion that it was used as a fund for secret service and
political jobbery.
The autocratic temper of the king showed itself not merely in keeping
the control of finance largely in his own hands, but also in carrying
out a series of measures arousing popular discontent by simple _arrêtés_
or decrees of the Council of State without consultation with the
representative Chamber. Such were the decree of November 6,1814,
abolishing trial by jury and making certain other changes in judicial
proceedings; that of April 15, 1815, imposing great restrictions on the
liberty of the press; that of September 15, 1819, making Dutch the
official language of the country; that of June 25,1825, establishing the
_Collegium Philosophicum_; and finally that of June 21, 1830, making the
Hague the seat of the supreme court of justice. All these produced
profound discontent and had a cumulative effect.
The language decree of 1819 was tentative, declaring a knowledge of
Dutch obligatory for admission to all public offices, but it was
followed by a much more stringent decree in 1822 by which, in the two
Flanders, South Brabant and Limburg, Dutch was to be used in the
law-courts and in all public acts and notices. Although the operation of
this decree was confined to the Flemish-speaking districts, it must be
remembered that, from the time of the Burgundian dukes right through the
Spanish and Austrian periods, French had always been the official
language of the country, the upper classes only spoke French, and with
few exceptions the advocates could only plead in that language. This was
a great hardship upon the Belgian bar, which would have been greatly
increased had the royal decree (June 21,1830), placing the court of
appeal for the whole kingdom at the Hague, been carried into effect.
More serious in its results was the infringement of Art. CCXXVII of the
Fundamental Law guaranteeing liberty of the press. The return of
Napoleon from Elba, and the imminent danger to which the, as yet,
unorganised kingdom of the Netherlands was exposed, led to the issue of
an _arrêté_ of the severest character. By it all persons publishing news
of any kind, or giving information injurious to the State, or writing or
distributing political pamphlets, were to be brought before a special
tribunal of nine judges holding office at the king's pleasure; and, if
condemned, were liable to be sentenced to exposure in the pillory,
deprivation of civic rights, branding, imprisonment, and fines varying
from 100 to 10,000 francs. This harsh measure was possibly justifiable
in an extreme emergency upon the plea that it was necessary for the
safety of the State. When the danger was over, and the Fundamental Law
was passed, there was no excuse for its further maintenance on the
Statute-book. Yet before this court Abbé de Foere was summoned for
having defended in the _Spectateur Beige_ the _jugement doctrinal_ of
Bishop de Broglie, and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. In
the following year, 1818, the government obtained the approval of the
States-General (with slight modification) for the continuance of this
war-time censorship of the press. The penalties remained, but the court
consisted of a judge and four assessors, all government nominees. Under
this law a Brussels advocate, Van der Straeten, was fined 3000 fl. for a
brochure attacking the ministers; and several other advocates were
disbarred for protesting that this sentence was in conflict with the
Fundamental Law. Prosecutions henceforth followed prosecutions, and the
press was gagged.
As a result of these press persecutions, the two Belgian political
parties, the clericals and the liberals, poles apart as they were in
their principles, drew closer together. All differences of religious and
political creed were fused in a common sense of national grievances
under what was regarded as a foreign tyranny. This brought about in 1828
the formation of the _Union_, an association for the co-operation of
Belgians of all parties in defence of liberty of worship, liberty of
instruction and liberty of the press. The ultra-clericals, who looked to
the Vatican for their guidance, and the advanced liberals who professed
the principles of the French Revolution were thus by the force of
events led on step by step to convert an informal into a formal
alliance. The Abbe de Foere in the _Spectateur_ and MM. D'Ellougue and
Donker in the _Observateur_ had been for some years advocating united
action; and it was their success in winning over to their side the
support and powerful pen of Louis de Potter, a young advocate and
journalist of Franco-radical sympathies, that the _Union_, as a party,
was actually effected. From this time the onslaughts in the press became
more and more violent and embittered, and stirred up a spirit of unrest
throughout the country. Petitions began to pour in against the _mouture_
and _abbatage_ taxes and other unpopular measures, especially from the
Walloon provinces. These were followed by a National Petition, signed by
representatives of every class of the community asking for redress of
grievances, but it met with no response from the unyielding king. He had
in the early summer of this year, 1828, made a tour in Belgium and had
in several towns, especially in Antwerp and Ghent, met with a warm
reception, which led him to underestimate the extent and seriousness of
the existing discontent. At Liège, a centre of Walloon liberalism, he
was annoyed by a number of petitions being presented to him; and, in a
moment of irritation, he described the conduct of those who there
protested against "pretended grievances" as infamous, "une conduite
in-fâme." The words gave deep offence; and the incident called forth a
parody of the League of the Beggars in 1566, an Order of Infamy being
started with a medal bearing the motto _fidèles jusqu' à l'infamie._ The
movement spread rapidly, but it remains a curious fact that the
animosity of the Belgians, as yet, was directed against the Dutch
ministers (especially Van Maanen the Minister of Justice) and the Dutch
people, whose overbearing attitude was bitterly resented, rather than
against the king or the House of Orange. William's good deeds for the
benefit of the country were appreciated; his arbitrary measures in
contravention to the Fundamental Law were attributed chiefly to his bad
advisers.
The month of December, 1829, was however to bring the king and his
Belgian subjects into violent collision. A motion was brought forward in
the Second Chamber (December 8) by M. Charles de Broukère, an eminent
Belgian liberal supported by the Catholics under the leadership of M. de
Gerlache, for the abolition of the hated Press Law of 1815. The motion
was defeated by the solid Dutch vote, supplemented by the support of
seven Belgians. The decennial budget was due, and opposition to it was
threatened unless grievances were remedied--the cry was "point de
redressements de griefs, point d'argent." On December 11 came a royal
message to the States-General which, while promising certain concessions
regarding the taxes, the _Collegium Philosophicum_ and the language
decree, stated in unequivocal terms the principle of royal absolutism.
To quote the words of a competent observer of these events:
The message declared in substance that the constitution was an act of
condescension on the part of the throne; that the king had restrained
rather than carried to excess the rights of his house; that the press
had been guilty of sowing discord and confusion throughout the State;
and that the opposition was but the fanatic working of a few misguided
men, who, forgetting the benefits they enjoyed, had risen up in an
alarming and scandalous manner against a paternal government[10].
The Minister of Justice, Van Maanen, on the next day issued a circular
calling upon all civil officials to signify their adherence to the
principles of the message within 24 hours. Several functionaries, who
had taken part in the petition-agitation, were summarily dismissed; and
prosecutions against the press were instituted with renewed energy. From
this time Van Maanen became the special object of Belgian hatred.
The threat of the Belgian deputies to oppose the decennial budget was
now carried out. At the end of December the ministerial proposals were
brought before the States-General. The expenditure was sanctioned, the
ways and means to meet it were rejected by 55 votes to 52. The Finance
Minister in this emergency was obliged to introduce fresh estimates for
one year only, from which the _mouture_ and _abbatage_ taxes were
omitted. This was passed without opposition, but in his vexation at this
rebuff the king acted unworthily of his position by issuing an _arrêté_
(January 8, 1830) depriving six deputies, who had voted in the majority,
of their official posts. Meanwhile the virulence of the attacks in the
press against the king and his ministers from the pens of a number of
able and unscrupulous journalists were too daring and offensive to be
overlooked by any government. Foremost in the bitterness of his
onslaught was Louis de Potter, whose _Lettre de Démophile au Roi_ was
throughout a direct challenge to the autocratic claims advanced by the
royal message. Nor was De Potter content only with words. An appeal
dated December 11, of which he and his friend Tielemans were
originators, appeared (January 31,1830) in seventeen news-papers, for
raising a national subscription to indemnify the deputies who had been
ejected from their posts and salaries for voting against the budget.
Proceedings were taken against De Potter and Tielemans, and also against
Barthels, editor of the _Catholique_, and the printer, De Nève, and all
were sentenced by the court to banishment--De Potter for eight years,
Tielemans and Barthels for seven years, DeNève for five years. These men
had all committed offences which the government were fully justified in
punishing, for their language had passed the limits not only of good
order but of decency, and was subversive of all authority. Nevertheless
they were regarded by their Belgian compatriots as political martyrs
suffering for the cause of their country's liberties. Their condemnation
was attributed to Van Maanen, already the object of general detestation.
The ministry had meanwhile taken the wise step of starting an organ, the
_National_, at Brussels to take their part in the field of controversy.
But in the circumstances it was an act of almost inconceivable folly to
select as the editor a certain Libri-Bagnano, a man of Italian
extraction, who, as it was soon discovered by his opponents, had twice
suffered heavy sentences in France as a forger. He was a brilliant and
caustic writer, well able to carry the polemical war into his
adversaries' camp. But his antecedents were against him, and he aroused
a hatred second only to the aversion felt for Van Maanen.
We have now arrived at the eve of the Belgian Revolt, which had its
actual origin in a riot. But the riot was not the cause of the revolt;
it was but the spark which brought about an explosion, the materials for
which had been for years preparing. The French secret agent, Julian,
reports a conversation which took place between the king and Count
Bylandt on July 20,1823[11]. The following extract proves that, so early
as this date, William had begun to perceive the impossibility of the
situation:
I say it and I repeat it often to Clancarty (the British Minister)
that I should love much better to have my Holland quite alone. I
should be then a hundred times happier.... When I am exerting
myself to make a whole of this country, a party, which in
collusion with the foreigner never ceases to gain ground, is
working to disunite it. Besides the allies have not given me this
kingdom to submit it to every kind of influence. This situation
cannot last.
Another extract from a despatch of the French Minister at the Hague,
Lamoussaye, dated December 26, 1828, depicts a state of things in the
relations between the two peoples, tending sooner or later to make a
political separation of some kind inevitable:
The Belgian hates the Hollander and he (the Hollander) despises
the Belgian, besides which he assumes an infinite _hauteur_, both
from his national character, by the creations of his industry and
by the memories of his history. Disdained by their neighbour of
the North, governed by a prince whose confidence they do not
possess, hindered in the exercise of their worship, and, as they
say, in the enjoyment of their liberties, overburdened with taxes,
having but a share in the National Representation disproportionate
to the population of the South, the Belgians ask themselves
whether they have a country, and are restless in a painful
situation, the outcome of which they seek vainly to discover[12].
From an intercepted letter from Louvain, dated July 30, 1829:
What does one see? Hesitation uncertainty, embarrassment and fear
in the march of the government; organisation, re-organisation and
finally disorganisation of all and every administration. Again a
rude shock and the machine crumbles.
A true forecast of coming events.
* * * * *