THE BELGIAN REVOLUTION, 1830-1842
During the last days of July, 1830, came the revolution at Paris that
overthrew Charles X and placed the Duke of Orleans at the head of a
constitutional monarchy with the title of Louis Philippe, King of the
French. The Belgian liberals had always felt drawn towards France rather
than Holland, and several of the more influential among them were in
Paris during the days of July. Through their close intercourse with
their friends in Brussels the news of all that had occurred spread
rapidly, and was eagerly discussed. Probably at this time few
contemplated the complete separation of Belgium from Holland, but rather
looked to the northern and southern provinces becoming administratively
autonomous under the same crown. This indeed appeared to be the only
practical solution of the _impasse_ which had been reached. Even had the
king met the complaints of the Belgians by large concessions, had he
dismissed Van Maanen, removed Libri-Bagnano from the editorship of the
_National_, and created a responsible ministry--which he had no
intention of doing--he could not have granted the demand for a
representation of the south in the Second Chamber proportionate to the
population. For this would have meant that the position of Holland would
have henceforth been subordinate to that of Belgium; and to this the
Dutch, proud of their history and achievements, would never have
submitted. It had been proved that amalgamation was impossible, but the
king personally was popular with those large sections of the Belgian
mercantile and industrial population whose prosperity was so largely due
to the royal care and paternal interest; and, had he consented to the
setting-up of a separate administration at Brussels, he might by a
conciliatory attitude have retained the loyalty of his Belgian subjects.
He did none of these things; but, when in August, he and his two sons
paid a visit to Brussels at a time when the town was celebrating with
festivities the holding of an exhibition of national industry, he was
well received and was probably quite unaware of the imminence of the
storm that was brewing. It had been intended to close the exhibition by
a grand display of fireworks on the evening of August 23, and to have a
general illumination on the king's birthday (August 24). But the king
had hurried back to the Hague to keep his birthday, and during the
preceding days there were abundant signs of a spirit of revolutionary
ferment. Inscriptions were found on blank walls--_Down with Van Maanen;
Death to the Dutch; Down with Libri-Bagnano and the National_; and, more
ominous still, leaflets were distributed containing the words _le 23
Août, feu d'artifice; le 24 Août, anniversaïre du Roi; le 25 Août,
révolution._
In consequence of these indications of subterranean unrest, which were
well known to Baron van der Fosse, the civil governor of Brabant, and to
M. Kuyff, the head of the city police, the municipal authorities weakly
decided on the ground of unfavourable weather to postpone the fireworks
and the illumination. The evening of the 23rd, as it turned out, was
exceedingly fine. At the same time the authorities permitted, on the
evening of the 25th, the first performance of an opera by Scribe and
Auber, entitled _La Muette de Portici_, which had been previously
proscribed. The hero, Masaniello, headed a revolt at Naples in 1648
against foreign (Spanish) rule. The piece was full of patriotic,
revolutionary songs likely to arouse popular passion.
The evening of the performance arrived, and the theatre was crowded. The
excitement of the audience grew as the play proceeded; and the thunders
of applause were taken up by the throng which had gathered outside.
Finally the spectators rushed out with loud cries of vengeance against
Libri-Bagnano and Van Maanen, in which the mob eagerly joined. Brussels
was at that time a chosen shelter of political refugees, ready for any
excesses; and a terrible riot ensued. The house of Van Maanen and the
offices of the _National_ were attacked, pillaged and burnt. The city
was given over to wild confusion and anarchy; and many of the mob
secured arms by the plunder of the gun-smiths' shops. Meanwhile the
military authorities delayed action. Several small patrols were
surrounded and compelled to surrender, while the main body of troops,
instead of attacking and dispersing the rioters, was withdrawn and
stationed in front of the royal palace. Thus by the extraordinary
passiveness of Lieut.-General Bylandt, the military governor of the
province, and of Major-General Wauthier, commandant of the city, who
must have been acting under secret orders, the wild outbreak of the
night began, as the next day progressed and the troops were still
inactive, to assume more of the character of a revolution.
This was checked by the action of the municipal authorities and certain
of the principal inhabitants, who called together the civic-guard to
protect any further tumultuary attacks by marauders and ne'er-do-wells
on private property. The guard were joined by numbers of volunteers of
the better classes and, under the command of Baron D'Hoogvoort, were
distributed in different quarters of the town, and restored order. The
French flags, which at first were in evidence, were replaced at the Town
Hall by the Brabant tricolor--red, yellow and black. The royal insignia
had in many places been torn down, and the Orange cockades had
disappeared; nevertheless there was at this time no symptom of an
uprising to overthrow the dynasty, only a national demand for redress of
grievances. Meanwhile news arrived that reinforcements from Ghent were
marching upon the city. The notables however informed General Bylandt
that no troops would be allowed to enter the city without resistance;
and he agreed to stop the advance and to keep his own troops in their
encampment until he received further orders from the Hague. For this
abandonment of any attempt to re-assert the royal authority he has been
generally blamed.
There is no lack of evidence to show that the riot of August 25 and its
consequences were not the work of the popular leaders. The
correspondence of Gendebien with De Potter at this time, and the tone of
the Belgian press before and after the outbreak, are proofs of this. The
_Catholique_ of Ghent (the former organ of Barthels) for instance
declared:
There is no salvation for the throne, but in an ample concession
of our rights. The essential points to be accorded are royal
inviolability and ministerial responsibility; the dismissal of Van
Maanen; liberty of education and the press; a diminution of
taxation ... in short, justice and liberty in all and for all, in
strict conformity with the fundamental law.
The _Coursier des Pays Bos_ (the former organ of De Potter), after
demanding the dismissal of Van Maanen as the absolute condition of
pacification, adds:
We repeat that we are neither in a state of insurrection nor
revolution; all we want is a mitigation of the grievances we have
so long endured, and some guarantees for a better future.
In accordance with such sentiments an infuencial meeting on the on
the 28th at the townhall appointed a deputation of five, headed by
Alexandre de Gendebien and Felix, count de Mérode, to bear to the
king a loyal address setting forth the just grievances which had led
to the Brussels disturbances, and asking respectfully for their removal.
The news of the uprising reached the king on the 27th, and he was much
affected. At a Council held at the Hague the Prince of Orange earnestly
besought his father to accept the proffered resignation of Van Maanen,
and to consider in a conciliatory spirit the grievances of the Belgians.
But William refused flatly to dismiss the minister or to treat with
rebels. He gave the prince, however, permission to visit Brussels, not
armed with powers to act, but merely with a mission of enquiry. He also
consented to receive the deputation from Brussels, and summoned an
extraordinary meeting of the States-General at the Hague for September
13. Troops were at once ordered to move south and to join the camp at
Vilvoorde, where the regiments sent to reinforce the Brussels garrison
had been halted. The Prince of Orange and his brother Frederick
meanwhile had left the Hague and reached Vilvoorde on August 31. Here
Frederick assumed command of the troops; and Orange sent his
_aide-de-camp_ to Baron D'Hoogvoort to invite him to a conference at
headquarters. The news of the gathering troops had aroused immense
excitement in the capital; and it was resolved that Hoogvoort, at the
head of a representative deputation, should go to Vilvoorde to urge the
prince to stop any advance of the troops on Brussels, as their entrance
into the town would be resisted, unless the citizens were assured that
Van Maanen was dismissed, and that the other grievances were removed.
They invited Orange to come to Brussels attended only by his personal
suite, and offered to be sureties for his safety.
The prince made his entry on September 1, the streets being lined with
the civic guard. He was personally popular, but, possessing no powers,
he could effect nothing. After three days of parleying he returned to
the camp, and his mission was a failure. On the same day when Orange
entered Brussels the deputation of five was received by King William at
the Hague. His reply to their representations was that by the
Fundamental Law he had the right to choose his ministers, that the
principle of ministerial responsibility was contrary to the
Constitution, and that he would not dismiss Van Maanen or deal with any
alleged grievances with a pistol at his head.
William, however, despite his uncompromising words, did actually accept
the resignation of Van Maanen (September 3); but when the Prince of
Orange, returning from his experiences at Brussels, urged the necessity
of an administrative separation of north and south, and offered to
return to the Belgian capital if armed with full authority to carry it
out, his offer was declined. The king would only consent to bring the
matter to the consideration of the States-General, which was to meet on
the 13th. Instead of taking any immediate action he issued a
proclamation, which in no way faced the exigencies of the situation, and
was no sooner posted on the walls at Brussels than it was torn down and
trampled underfoot. It is only just to say that the king had behind him
the unanimous support of the Dutch people, especially the commercial
classes. To them separation was far preferable to admitting the Belgians
to that predominant share of the representation which they claimed on
the ground of their larger population.
Meanwhile at Brussels, owing to the inaction of the government, matters
were moving fast. The spirit of revolt had spread to other towns,
principally in the Walloon provinces. Liège and Louvain were the first
to move. Charles Rogier, an advocate by profession and a Frenchman by
birth, was the leader of the revolt at Liège; and such was his fiery
ardour that at the head of some 400 men, whom he had supplied with arms
from the armourer's warehouses, he marched to Brussels, and arrived in
that disturbed city without encountering any Dutch force. The example of
Liège was followed by Jemappes, Wavre, and by the miners of the
Borinage; and Brussels was filled with a growing crowd of men filled
with a revolutionary spirit. Their aim was to proclaim the independence
of Belgium, and set up a provisional government.
For such a step even pronounced liberals like Gendebien, Van de Weyer
and Rouppe, the veteran burgomaster of the city, were not yet prepared;
and they combined with the moderates, Count Felix de Mérode and
Ferdinand Meeus, to form a Committee of Public Safety. They were aided,
in the maintenance of order, by the two Barons D'Hoogvoort (Emmanuel and
Joseph), the first the commander of the civic guard, and both popular
and influential, and by the municipality. While these were still
struggling to maintain their authority, the States-General had met at
the Hague on September 13. It was opened by a speech from the king which
announced his firm determination to maintain law and order in the face
of revolutionary violence. He had submitted two questions to the
consideration of the States-General: (1) whether experience had shown
the necessity for a modification of the Fundamental Law; (2) whether any
change should be made in the relations between the two parts of the
kingdom. Both questions were, after long debate (September 29) answered
in the affirmative; but, before this took place, events at Brussels had
already rendered deliberations at the Hague futile and useless.
The contents of the king's speech were no sooner known in Brussels than
they were used by the revolutionary leaders to stir up the passions of
the mob by inflammatory harangues. Rogier and Ducpétiaux, at the head of
the Liègeois and the contingents from the other Walloon towns, with the
support of the lowest elements of the Brussels population, demanded the
dissolution of the Committee of Public Safety and the establishment of a
Provisional Government. The members of the Committee and of the
Municipality, sitting in permanence at the Hotel de Ville, did their
utmost to maintain order with the strong support of Baron D'Hoogvoort
and the Civic Guard. But it was in vain. On the evening of September 20
an immense mob rushed the Hotel de Ville, after disarming the Civic
Guard; and Rogier and Ducpétiaux were henceforth masters of the city.
The Committee of Public Safety disappeared and is heard of no more.
Hoogvoort resigned his command. On receipt of this news Prince Frederick
at Vilvoorde was ordered to advance upon the city and compel submission.
But the passions of the crowd had been aroused, and the mere rumour that
the Dutch troops were moving caused the most vigorous steps to be taken
to resist _à outrance_ their penetrating into the town.
The royal forces, on the morning of September 23, entered the city at
three gates and advanced as far as the Park. But beyond that point they
were unable to proceed, so desperate was the resistance, and such the
hail of bullets that met them from barricades and from the windows and
roofs of the houses. For three days almost without cessation the fierce
contest went on, the troops losing ground rather than gaining it. On
the evening of the 26th the prince gave orders to retreat, his troops
having suffered severely.
The effect of this withdrawal was to convert a street insurrection into
a national revolt. The moderates now united with the liberals, and a
Provisional Government was formed, having amongst its members Rogier,
Van de Weyer, Gendebien, Emmanuel D'Hoogvoort, Felix de Mérode and
Louis de Potter, who a few days later returned triumphantly from
banishment. The Provisional Government issued a series of decrees
declaring Belgium independent, releasing the Belgian soldiers from their
allegiance, and calling upon them to abandon the Dutch standard. They
were obeyed. The revolt, which had been confined mainly to the Walloon
districts, now spread rapidly over Flanders. Garrison after garrison
surrendered; and the remnants of the disorganised Dutch forces retired
upon Antwerp (October 2). Two days later the Provisional Government
summoned a National Congress to be elected by all Belgian citizens of 25
years of age. The news of these events caused great perturbation at the
Hague. The Prince of Orange, who had throughout advocated conciliation,
was now permitted by his father to go to Antwerp (October 4) and
endeavour to place himself at the head of the Belgian movement on the
basis of a grant of administrative separation, but without severance of
the dynastic bond with Holland.
King William meanwhile had already (October 2) appealed to the Great
Powers, signatories of the Articles of London in 1814, to intervene and
to restore order in the Belgic provinces. The difficulties of the prince
at Antwerp were very great, for he was hampered throughout by his
father's unwillingness to grant him full liberty of action. He issued a
proclamation, but it was coldly received; and his attempts to negotiate
with the Provisional Government at Brussels met with no success. Things
had now gone too far, and any proposal to make Belgium connected with
Holland by any ties, dynastic or otherwise, was unacceptable. The
well-meaning prince returned disappointed to the Hague on October 24. A
most unfortunate occurrence now took place. As General Chassé, the Dutch
commander at Antwerp, was withdrawing his troops from the town to the
citadel, attacks were made upon them by the mob, and some lives were
lost. Chassé in reprisal (October 27) ordered the town to be bombarded
from the citadel and the gunboats upon the river. This impolitic act
increased throughout Belgium the feeling of hatred against the Dutch,
and made the demand for absolute independence deeper and stronger.
The appeal of William to the signatory Powers had immediate effect; and
representatives of Austria, Prussia, Russia and Great Britain, to whom a
representative of France was now added, met at London on November 4.
This course of action was far from what the king expected or wished.
Their first step was to impose an armistice; their next to make it clear
that their intervention would be confined to negotiating a settlement on
the basis of separation. A Whig ministry in England had (November 16)
taken the place of that of Wellington; and Lord Palmerston, the new
Foreign Secretary, was well-disposed to Belgium and found himself able
to work in accord with Talleyrand, the French plenipotentiary. Austria
and Russia were too much occupied with their own internal difficulties
to think of supporting the Dutch king by force of arms; and Prussia,
despite the close family connection, did not venture to oppose the
determination of the two western Powers to work for a peaceful
settlement. While they were deliberating, the National Congress had met
at Brussels, and important decisions had been taken. By overwhelming
majorities (November 18) Belgium was declared to be an independent
State; and four days later, after vigorous debates, the Congress (by 174
votes to 13) resolved that the new State should be a constitutional
monarchy and (by 161 votes to 28) that the house of Orange-Nassau be for
ever excluded from the throne. A committee was appointed to draw up a
constitution.
William had appealed to the Powers to maintain the Treaties of Paris and
Vienna and to support him in what he regarded, on the basis of those
treaties, as his undoubted rights; and it was with indignation that he
saw the Conference decline to admit his envoy, Falck, except as a
witness and on precisely the same terms as the representatives of the
Brussels Congress. On December 20 a protocol was issued by the Powers
which defined their attitude. They accepted the principle of separation
and independence, subject to arrangements being made for assuring
European peace. The Conference, however, declared that such arrangements
would not affect the rights of King William and of the German
Confederation in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. This part of the protocol
was as objectionable to the Belgians as the former part was to the
Dutch king. The London Plenipotentiaries had in fact no choice, for they
were bound by the unfortunate clauses of the treaties of 1815, which, to
gratify Prussian ambition for cis-Rhenan territory, converted this
ancient Belgian province into a German state. This ill-advised step was
now to be the chief obstacle to a settlement in 1831. The mere fact that
William had throughout the period of union always treated Luxemburg as
an integral part of the southern portion of his kingdom made its
threatened severance from the Belgic provinces a burning question. For
Luxemburgers had taken a considerable part in the revolt, and Luxemburg
representatives sat in the National Congress. Of these eleven voted for
the perpetual exclusion of the Orange-Nassau dynasty, one only in its
favour. It is not surprising, therefore, that a strong protest was made
against the decision of the London Conference to treat the status of
Luxemburg as outside the subject of their deliberations. The Conference,
however, unmoved by this protest, proceeded in a protocol of January
20,1831, to define the conditions of separation. Holland was to retain
her old boundaries of the year 1790, and Belgium to have the remainder
of the territory assigned to the kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815.
Luxemburg was again excluded. The Five Powers, moreover, declared that
within these limits the new Belgian State was to be perpetually neutral,
its integrity and inviolability being guaranteed by all and each of the
Powers. A second protocol (January 27) fixed the proportion of the
national debt to be borne by Belgium at sixteen parts out of thirty-one.
The sovereign of Belgium was required to give his assent to these
protocols, as a condition to being recognised by the Powers. But the
Congress of Brussels was in no submissive mood. They had already
(January 19) resolved to proceed to the election of a king without
consulting anyone. The territorial boundaries assigned to Belgium met
with almost unanimous reprobation, a claim being made to the
incorporation not merely of Luxemburg, but also of Maestrieht, Limburg
and Dutch Flanders, in the new State. Nor were they more contented with
the proportion of the debt Belgium was asked to bear. On February 1 the
Five Powers had agreed that they would not assent to a member of any of
the reigning dynasties being elected to the throne of Belgium.
Nevertheless (February 3) the Duc de Nemours, son of Louis Philippe, was
elected by 94 votes, as against 67 recorded for the Duke of
Leuchtenberg, son of Eugène Beauharnais. The Conference took immediate
action by refusing to permit either Nemours or Leuchtenberg to accept
the proffered crown.
These acute differences between the Conference and the Belgian Congress
were a cause of much satisfaction to the Dutch king, who was closely
watching the course of events; and he thought it good policy (February
18) to signify his assent to the conditions set forth in the protocols
of January 20 and 27. He had still some hopes of the candidature of the
Prince of Orange (who was in London) being supported by the Powers, but
for this the time was past.
At this juncture the name of Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who had resided in
England since the death of his wife the Princess Charlotte, was put
forward. This candidature was supported by Great Britain; France raised
no objection; and in Belgium it met with official support. Early in
April a deputation of five commissioners was sent to offer the crown
provisionally to the prince, subject to his endeavouring to obtain some
modification of the protocols of January 20 and 27. The Five Powers,
however, in a protocol, dated April 15, announced to the Belgian
Government that the conditions of separation as laid down in the January
protocols were final and irrevocable, and, if not accepted, relations
would be broken off. Leopold was not discouraged, however; and such was
his influence that he did succeed in obtaining from the Conference an
undertaking that they would enter into negotiations with King William in
regard both to the territorial and financial disputes with a view to a
settlement, _moyennant de justes compensations_.
The Saxe-Coburg prince was elected king by the Congress (June 4); and in
redemption of their undertaking the Conference promulgated (June 26) the
preliminary treaty, generally known as the Treaty of the XVIII Articles.
By this treaty the question of Luxemburg was reserved for a separate
negotiation, the _status quo_ being meanwhile maintained. Other boundary
disputes (Maestricht, Limburg and various _enclaves_) were to be
amicably arranged, and the share of Belgium in the public debt was
reduced. Leopold had made his acceptance of the crown depend upon the
assent of the Congress being given to the Treaty. This assent was given,
but in the face of strong opposition (July 9); and the new king made his
public entry into Brussels and took the oath to the Constitution twelve
days later. On the same day (July 21) the Dutch king refused to accept
the XVIII Articles, declaring that he adhered to the protocols of
January 20 and 27, which the plenipotentiaries had themselves declared
(April 15) to be fundamental and irrevocable. Nor did he confine himself
to a refusal. He declared that if any prince should accept the
sovereignty of Belgium or take possession of it without having assented
to the protocols as the basis of separation he could only regard such
prince as his enemy. He followed this up (August 2) by a despatch
addressed to the Foreign Ministers of the Five Powers, announcing his
intention "to throw his army into the balance with a view to obtaining
more equitable terms of separation."
These were no empty words. The facile success of the Belgian revolution
had led to the Dutch army being branded as a set of cowards. The king,
therefore, despite a solemn warning from the Conference, was determined
to show the world that Holland was perfectly able to assert her rights
by armed force if she chose to do so. In this course he had the
whole-hearted support of his people. It was a bold act politically
justified by events. Unexpectedly, on August 2, the Prince of Orange at
the head of an army of 30,000 picked men with 72 guns crossed the
frontier. The Belgians were quite taken by surprise. Their army, though
not perhaps inferior in numbers to the invaders, was badly organised,
and was divided into two parts--the army of the Scheldt and the army of
the Meuse. The prince knew that he must act with promptness and
decision, and he thrust his army by rapid movements between the two
Belgian corps. That of the Meuse fell back in great disorder upon Liège;
that of the Scheldt was also forced to beat a rapid retreat. Leopold,
whose reign was not yet a fortnight old, joined the western corps and
did all that man could do to organise and stiffen resistance. At Louvain
(August 12) he made a last effort to save the capital and repeatedly
exposed his life, but the Belgians were completely routed and Brussels
lay at the victor's mercy. It was a terrible humiliation for the new
Belgian state. But the prince had accomplished his task and did not
advance beyond Louvain. On hearing that a French army, at the invitation
of King Leopold, had entered Belgium with the sanction of the Powers, he
concluded an armistice, by the mediation of the British Minister, Sir
Robert Adair, and undertook to evacuate Belgian territory. His army
recrossed the Dutch frontier (August 20), and the French thereupon
withdrew.
The Ten Days' Campaign had effected its purpose; and, when the
Conference met to consider the new situation, it was felt that the XVIII
Articles must be revised. Belgium, saved only from conquest by French
intervention, had to pay the penalty of defeat. A new treaty in XXIV
Articles was drawn up, and was (October 14) again declared to be final
and irrevocable. By this treaty the northwestern (Walloon) portion of
Luxemburg was assigned to Belgium, but at the cost of ceding to Holland
a considerable piece of Belgian Limburg giving the Dutch the command of
both banks of the river Meuse from Maestricht to the Gelderland
frontier. The proportion of the debt was likewise altered in favour of
Holland. King William was informed that he must obtain the assent of the
Germanic Confederation and of the Nassau agnates to the territorial
adjustments.
These conditions created profound dissatisfaction both in Belgium and
Holland. It was again the unhappy Luxemburg question which caused so
much heart-burning. The Conference however felt itself bound by the
territorial arrangements of the Congress of Vienna; and Palmerston and
Talleyrand, acting in concert throughout, could not on this matter
overrule the opposition of Prussia and Austria supported by Russia. All
they could do was to secure the compromise by which Walloon Luxemburg
was given to Belgium in exchange for territorial compensation in
Limburg. Belgian feeling was strong against surrendering any part either
of Luxemburg or Limburg; but King Leopold saw that surrender was
inevitable and by a threat of abdication he managed to secure, though
against vehement opposition, the acceptance of the Treaty of the XXIV
Articles by the Belgian Chambers (November 1). The treaty was signed at
London by the plenipotentiaries of the Five Great Powers and by the
Belgian envoy, Van de Weyer, on November 15, 1831; and Belgium was
solemnly recognised as an independent State, whose perpetual neutrality
and inviolability was guaranteed by each of the signatories
severally[13].
Once more the obstinacy of King William proved an insuperable obstacle
to a settlement. He had expected better results from the Ten Days'
Campaign, and he emphatically denied the right of the Conference to
interfere with the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, as this was not a Belgian
question, but concerned only the House of Nassau and the Germanic
Confederation. He also objected to the proposed regulations regarding
the navigation of the river Scheldt, and refused to evacuate Antwerp or
other places occupied by Dutch troops. He was aware that Great Britain
and France had taken the leading part in drawing up the treaty, but he
relied for support upon his close family relations with Prussia and
Russia[14], with whom Austria acted. But, although these Powers bore him
good will, they had no intention of encouraging his resistance. Their
object in delaying their ratification of the treaty was to afford time
to bring good advice to bear upon the unbending temper of the Dutch
king. The Tsar even sent Count Alexis Orloff on a special mission to the
Hague, with instructions to act with the Prussian and Austrian envoys in
urging William to take a reasonable course. All their efforts ended in
failure.
During the first nine months of the year 1832 a vigorous exchange of
notes took place between London and the Hague; and the Conference did
its utmost to effect an accommodation. At last patience was exhausted,
and the Powers had to threaten coercion. The three eastern Powers
declined indeed to take any active share in coercive measures, but were
willing that Great Britain and France should be their delegates.
Palmerston and Talleyrand, however, were determined that the King of
Holland should no longer continue to defy the will of the European Great
Powers; and on October 22 the English and French governments concluded a
Convention for joint action. Notice was given to King William (November
2) that he must withdraw his troops before November 13 from all places
assigned to Belgium by the Treaty of the XXIV Articles. If he refused,
the Dutch ports would be blockaded and an embargo placed upon Dutch
ships in the allies' harbours. Further, if on November 13 any Dutch
garrisons remained on Belgian soil, they would be expelled by armed
force. William at once (November 2) replied to the notice by a flat
refusal. In so acting he had behind him the practically unanimous
support of Dutch public opinion. The allies took prompt measures. An
Anglo-French squadron set sail (November 7) to blockade the Dutch ports
and the mouth of the Scheldt; and in response to an appeal from the
Belgian government (as was required by the terms of the Convention) a
French army of 60,000 men under Marshal Gérard crossed the Belgian
frontier (November 15) and laid siege to the Antwerp citadel, held by a
garrison of 5000 men commanded by General Chassé. The siege began on
November 20, and it was not until December 22 that Chassé, after a most
gallant defence, was compelled to capitulate. Rear-Admiral Koopman
preferred to burn his twelve gunboats rather than surrender them to the
enemy. Marshal Gérard offered to release his prisoners if the Dutch
would evacuate the forts of Lillo and Liefkenshoeck, lower down the
river. His offer was refused; and the French army, having achieved its
purpose, withdrew. For some time longer the blockade and embargo
continued, to the great injury of Dutch trade. An interchange of notes
between the Hague and London led to the drawing up of a convention,
known as the Convention of London, on May 21, 1833. By this agreement
King William undertook to commit no acts of hostility against Belgium
until a definitive treaty of peace was signed, and to open the
navigation of the Scheldt and the Meuse for commerce. The Convention was
in fact a recognition of the _status quo_ and was highly advantageous to
Belgium, as both Luxemburg and Limburg were _ad interim_ treated as if
they were integral parts of the new kingdom.
The cessation of hostilities, however, led to a fresh attempt to reach a
settlement. In response to an invitation sent by the western Powers to
Austria, Prussia and Russia, the Conference again met in London on July
15. The thread of the negotiations was taken up; but the Belgian
government insisted, with the full support of Palmerston, that as a
preliminary to any further discussion the King of Holland must obtain
the assent of the German Confederation and of the Nassau agnates to the
proposed territorial rearrangements. William declined to ask for this
assent. The Conference on this was indefinitely suspended. That the
king's refusal in August was a part of his fixed policy of waiting upon
events was shown by his actually approaching the Confederation and the
agnates in the following November (1833). Neither of these would consent
to any partition of Luxemburg, unless they received full territorial
compensation elsewhere. So matters drifted on through the years
1834-1837. Meanwhile in Holland a change of opinion had been gradually
taking place. The heavy taxes consequent upon the maintenance of an army
on a war footing pressed more and more upon a country whose income was
insufficient to meet its expenses. People grew tired of waiting for a
change in the political position that became every year more remote.
Luxemburg was of little interest to the Dutch; they only saw that
Belgium was prosperous, and that the maintenance of the _status quo_ was
apparently all to her advantage. The dissatisfaction of the Dutch
people, so long patient and loyal, made itself heard with increasing
insistence in the States-General; and the king saw that the time had
arrived for abandoning his obstinate _non-possumus_ attitude.
Accordingly, in March, 1838, he suddenly instructed his minister in
London (Dedel) to inform Palmerston that he (the king) was ready to sign
the treaty of the XXIV Articles, and to agree _pleinement et
entièrement_ to the conditions it imposed.
The unexpected news of this sudden step came upon the Belgians like a
thunderclap. From every part of the kingdom arose a storm of protest
against any surrender of territory. The people of Luxemburg and Limburg
appealed to their fellow-citizens not to abandon them; and their appeal
met with the strongest support from all classes and in both Chambers.
They argued that Holland had refused to sign the treaty of 1831, which
had been imposed on Belgium in her hour of defeat; and that now, after
seven years, the treaty had ceased to be in force and required revision.
The Belgians expected to receive support from Great Britain and France,
and more especially from Palmerston, their consistent friend. But
Palmerston was tired of the endless wrangling; and, acting on his
initiative, the Five Powers determined that they would insist on the
Treaty of the XXIV Articles being carried out as it stood. The
Conference met again in October, 1838; and all the efforts of the
Belgian government, and of King Leopold personally, to obtain more
favoured terms proved unavailing. An offer to pay sixty million francs
indemnity for Luxemburg and Limburg was rejected both by King William
and the Germanic Confederation. Such was the passionate feeling in
Belgium that there was actually much talk of resisting in the last
resort by force of arms. Volunteers poured in; and in Holland also the
government began to make military preparations. But it was an act of
sheer madness for isolated Belgium to think of opposing the will of the
Great Powers of Europe. The angry interchange of diplomatic notes
resulted only in one modification in favour of Belgium. The annual
charge of 8,400,000 francs placed upon Belgium on account of her share
in the public debt of the Netherlands was reduced to a payment of
5,000,000 francs. The Dutch king signed the treaty on February 1, 1839.
Finally the proposal that the treaty should be signed, opposition being
useless, met with a sullen assent from the two Belgian Chambers. On
April 19, 1839, the Belgian envoy, Van de Weyer, affixed his signature
at the Foreign Office in London and so brought to an end the long
controversy, which had lasted for nine years. There were still many
details to be settled between the two kingdoms, which from this time
became two separate and distinct political entities; but these were
finally arranged in an amicable spirit, and were embodied in a
subsidiary treaty signed November 5, 1842.
* * * * *