The Death of the King--Intrigues and Legal Proceedings
A certain book exists of which only 110 copies have been printed, and
these have been carefully distributed among those who were unlikely to
mislay them.
This book, of which I deplore the fact that a greater number of copies
were not printed, contains all the evidence concerning Niederfullbach,
and the various judgments against my claims. Such as it is, and for the
sake of what it contains and does not contain, I should be glad to see
this book in the colleges and schools of Law throughout the world. It
would be both useful and suggestive. Also if it were under the eyes of
the general public it would doubtless be consulted with great interest.
What reflections would it not inspire, not only amongst jurists,
but still more amongst deep thinkers, historians and writers, to see
documents which throw new light on a century, a people and a man.
What would not be found hidden in high-sounding words and enormous
figures! What a prodigious part is played in this book by a gifted
spirit surrounded by collaborators devoted to his greatness so long as
he lived, but who, enriched and satisfied, forgot his work and his name
when once he was dead.
"Gratitude," said Jules Sandeau, "is like those perfumes of the East
which retain their strength when kept in vessels of gold, but lose it
when placed in vessels of lead."
There are few golden vessels amongst men. There are vases which seem to
glow with this precious metal, but which are really made of the worst
kind of lead. Appearances are mostly deceitful.
The book which I should like to see more widely circulated, is a large
volume bound in green cardboard, printed at Brussels under the title,
"The Account of The Inheritance of His Majesty Leopold II--Documents
published by the Belgian State."
One of the best-known French lawyers wrote to me concerning this work:
"It is a great treasure, an inexhaustible mine. Some day lovers of
Right, the young and old of every country, will publish essays and works
inspired by the documents concerning the estate of King Leopold II. They
are priceless. Here are to be found a glowing romance of business, of
magnificent conceptions, of astonishing forms of contracts, of statutes
and entails, and finally a marvellous judicial discussion where morality
and immorality are at variance. The whole terminates in a fantastic
judgment, preceded and followed by stupefying transactions.
"It was thought that this lawsuit was finished. It will recommence and
perhaps continue for a hundred years, under various forms and under
certain conditions which cannot be foretold. It is impossible that the
menace by Belgian justice against natural rights will be accepted and
remain unchallenged."
If, as will be seen presently, it is indisputable that the King freely
made over the Congo to Belgium, a possession which originally was
secured by his money and under his direct superintendence, Reason must
admit that such a gift could not have been accepted without Belgium, on
her side, incurring some indebtedness to the family of the Sovereign,
principally to his children.
That the donor may have wished to exclude his daughters from his real
estate is not to be disputed, but that he could do so in justice is not
presumable, and this action will never be admitted. To agree to such an
iniquity would mean a conflict with that sacred principle which forms
the basis of the continuity of the family.
I will now quote the opinion of a lawyer. His brother lawyers who read
these lines will know him. I could quote a thousand opinions. But one
will suffice: that of a Belgian lawyer, who was powerful enough to
obtain "in the name of the State" what can only be called a sacrilegious
judgment.
On the evening before the judgment which settled in my person the defeat
of Law and Justice, one of my principal lawyers at Brussels was so sure
of success that he telegraphed to one of my counsel, whose advice had
been of great value: "Congratulations in anticipation."
How could this be doubted? The public prosecutor, a real lawyer, had
summed up in my favour. He was an honest man. He saved the honour of
Belgian justice on this eventful day.
My leading Belgian counsel was so convinced of not being beaten that
he was opposed to a compromise, which was then perhaps possible, and I
agreed. For I (who had appeared so many times before the courts) had a
horror of legal proceedings. Here, as elsewhere, I have been seized
and crushed in a fatal cogwheel. It would be easy to prove it. But the
interest does not lie there; it lies in the extraordinary struggle
which I have had to sustain, almost alone, in the lawsuit concerning the
King's estate.
My sister Clémentine, who perhaps had not read Hippolyte Taine, yielded
to dynastic illusions, and unhesitatingly sacrificed her claims. She
accepted from the Belgian Government that which the State was pleased to
offer her. She did not take into consideration the fact that she
ought to join forces with her sisters. The Belgian motto is "Union is
strength." This motto is not applicable to all Belgian families!
My sister Stéphanie at first sided with me, then she backed out, then
she came in with me, and again she backed out....
I remained firm in my mistake--if it be thought a mistake. I knew at
least what I wanted. My younger sister was not so sure. That is her
affair. It cannot be counted against me that my cause, being that of the
right, was not always hers.
I trust that I may be believed; I only struggled for justice. Nobody can
possibly say what I should have done had I won.
As regards the Congo, it was never my intention to pretend that my
sisters and I could possibly dispute the wishes of the King and the laws
passed in Belgium for taking over the colony. But, between the conflict
of certain points at issue and the acceptance of a disinheritance
against nature and against legality, a space existed which could have
been, and should have been, bridged by an honourable settlement.
The Belgian State had one proposition to make, which it timidly
outlined. My leading counsel did not consider this sufficient. The
Belgian people, left to themselves, would have known better how to act,
and how to honour the memory of Leopold II, but this duty was delegated
to those who, to this day, have wilfully and lamentably failed.
Let us consider Belgium as a human being, endowed with honour and
reason, and jealous of the judgment of history and the esteem of the
world; mistress of millions of Congolese and of other millions of
colonial treasure. As a reasoning being, would she have considered
herself free from all obligations towards the unfortunate children of
the giver of these gifts? Most assuredly not.
If she thought otherwise she would be without honour, without reason,
a cruel cynic, justly mistrusted by all right-minded people. All the
decrees in the world would never make her otherwise.
I have reasoned this out, and I still adhere to my view I was not alone
in this opinion. My Belgian lawyers had other opinions besides mine, and
believed them to be conclusive.
If I have not succeeded in proving my case I have had, at least, the
satisfaction of knowing that my lawyers have lost nothing.
My case brought them luck. They eventually became Ministers, men to be
envied in every way, who are proud of having defended me.
But let us turn to the written words; they are more eloquent than any of
mine. I only wish to be sincere. Here, as elsewhere, I say exactly what
I think. I do not gloss over or twist things round. I only restrain
myself from being too vehement. You see me as I am.
I express myself as if I were standing in the presence of the King. I
wish to reach my father's spirit, commune with his soul, and convince
him in the invisible world that my claims were just.
At the commencement of these pages I have placed his name, which has
remained dear to my respect as a daughter. I was never able, and I
never dared discuss matters with this father who was so deceived and
misinformed about me.
* * * * *
On December 18, 1909, the _Moniteur_ published the following statement:
"The Belgian nation has lost its King!
"The son of an illustrious sovereign, whose memory will remain for
ever as a venerated symbol of constitutional monarchy, Leopold II,
after a reign of forty-five years, has died in harness, having, up
to his last hour, devoted the best of his life and strength to the
aggrandizement and prosperity of the country.
"On December 17, 1865, before the reunited Chambers, the King
pronounced these memorable words, which since then have often been
recalled:
"'If I do not promise Belgium either a great reign like that of the
King who founded her independence, or to be a noble King like him
whom we now lament, I promise at least that I will prove myself a
King whose whole life will be devoted to the service of Belgium.'
"We know with what powerful energy he has kept and even exceeded
this solemn promise.
"The creation of the African State which to-day forms the Belgian
Colony of the Congo was the personal work of the King, and
constitutes a unique achievement in the annals of history.
"Posterity will say that his was a great reign, and that he was a
great King.
"The country now mourning his loss must worthily honour one who has
died leaving such a splendid record behind him.
"The country places all its hopes in the loyal co-operation, already
so happily manifested, of the Prince who has been called to preside
over the destiny of Belgium.
"He will be inspired by the illustrious examples of those who
became, by the help of Providence, the benefactors of the Belgian
people.
"The Council of Ministers:
F. Schollaert, _Minister of the Interior and of Agriculture_.
Leon de Lantsheere, _Minister of Justice_.
J. Davignon, _Minister of Foreign Affairs_.
J. Liebaert, _Minister of Finance_.
Bon Descamps, _Minister of Science and Art_.
Arm. Hubert, _Minister of Industry and Labour_.
M. Delbeke, _Minister of Public Works_.
G. Hellepute,_ Minister of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs_.
J. Hellepute, _Minister of War_.
J. Renkin, _Colonial Minister_."
Of the signatories of this moving proclamation some are dead, others are
still living.
To those who are no more, and to those who are still alive, I say:
"You have written and attested that the creation of the African State
was the _personal_ work of the King. In his _person_, then, you have
recognized _the man_, _the head of the family_--and _therefore the
family itself_; otherwise the word _personal_ is without meaning....
And, as a matter of fact, it has suddenly lost its meaning. The King,
now an entity without terrestrial chains, has enriched Belgium to the
exclusion of his children, who are declared non-existent.
"And how, with or without you, has he been honoured?
"In continuing the endowment of Niederfullbach and other creations of
this gifted benefactor?
"Ah! In no way whatever!
"You have liquidated, realized, destroyed and abandoned all that he
conceived and ordered. I do not wish to describe in detail all that has
passed, and I have no desire to touch on the sadness connected with the
secrets of Niederfullbach and other works of the King, from the day
when they ceased to be under his direction. I will take my stand on the
ground of the sin against morality which most concerns me.
"Eleven years have passed since the death of the 'Great King.' Where is
the monument erected to his memory?
"The people of Ostend, who owe to him the prosperity and beauty of their
town, have not even dared to show an example of their gratitude. They
are afraid of vexing the ungrateful people of Brussels, who prefer
silence."
His wishes with respect to the Congo and his heirs are in three
documents, which I append below:
First:
(I) An explanatory letter of the King, dated June 3, 1906, in
testamentary form.
(Attached to exhibit No. 36 in the collection published by the Belgian
Government.)
"I undertook, more than twenty years ago, the work of the Congo in
the interests of civilization and for the benefit of Belgium. It was
in the realization of this double aim that I annexed the Congo to my
country in 1889.
"Cognizant with all the ideas which governed the foundation of
the independent State, and which inspired the Act of Berlin, I
am anxious to specify, in the interests of the nation, the wishes
expressed in my will.
"The title of Belgium to the possession of the Congo is due to my
double initiative, namely the rights which I acquired in Africa, and
the uses which I have made of these rights in favour of my country.
"This situation imposed on me the obligation of ensuring, in
accordance with my initial and dominant idea, that my legacy should
prove useful in the future to civilization and to Belgium.
"In consequence thereof I wish to make the following points
clear--points which are in perfect harmony with my immutable wish
to assure to my beloved country the fruits of the work which I have
pursued for long years in the continent of Africa, with the general
consent of most of my subjects:
"Upon taking possession of the sovereignty of the Congo, with all
the benefits, rights and advantages attached thereto, my legatee
will assume, as is only just and necessary, the obligation of
respecting all the engagements of the State assigned to third
parties, and likewise to respect all acts which I have established
touching the privileges of the natives for donations for land,
for the endowment of philanthropic or religious works, for the
foundation of the domain of the Crown, for the establishment of
the natural domain, as well as the obligation not to lessen by any
measure the rights of the revenues of these various institutions
without giving at the same time an equivalent compensation. I
consider the observation of these rules as essential to assure
to the sovereignty of the Congo the resources and the power
indispensable for the accomplishment of the task.
"In voluntarily surrendering the Congo and the benefits derived
therefrom in favour of Belgium, I must, without adding to the
national obligation, strive to ensure to Belgium the perpetuity of
the benefits which I bequeath her.
"I wish to state definitely that the legacy of the Congo to Belgium
should always be maintained by her in its integrity. In consequence,
the territory bequeathed will be inalienable under the same
conditions as Belgian territory.
"I do not hesitate to specify this inalienability, for I know how
great is the value of the Congo, and I have, in consequence, the
conviction that this possession will never cost the Belgian nation
any lasting sacrifice.
"(Signed) Leopold.
"_Brussels, June 3, 1906._"
Having read this, no really right-minded person can deny that the King
speaks of the Congo as private property which he surrenders voluntarily
to Belgium, which he was quite at liberty to do, and which Belgium was
equally at liberty to accept as a Royal gift.
But there is no right without duty.
I ask whether it was right of the Belgian Government to ruin me, an
exile and a prisoner, calumniated and mistrusted; to deny me my Belgian
nationality, and to sequestrate the little money left me in Belgium?
This, I have said before, was, I believe, the fatal result of a general
measure, misinterpreted perhaps by an inexpert official.
But let it go!!
I only ask whether the Belgian Government can assert to-day that it has
fulfilled the conditions imposed on it by its benefactor, and especially
"the obligation to respect the integrity of the revenues of the various
institutions" established by the King in favour of the Congo.
I await an answer. I now come to the question of the Will.
Will of the King. (Document No. 42.)
"This is my will.
"I inherited from my parents fifteen millions. These fifteen
millions I have scrupulously kept intact, in spite of many
vicissitudes.
"I possess nothing else.
"After my death these fifteen millions become the property of my
heirs and must be made over to them by the executor of my will, to
be divided between them.
"I die in the Catholic religion, to which I belong; I wish no
post-mortem to be made; I wish to be buried without pomp in the
early morning.
"Except my nephew Albert and the members of my household, no person
is to follow my remains.
"May God protect Belgium, and may He in His goodness be merciful to
me.
"(Sgd.) Leopold.
"_Brussels, November 20, 1907._"
A great deal has been written about this Will. The statement "I possess
nothing" except the declared fifteen millions caused the ink to flow.
The statement itself was proved untrue on the death of the King, since
in the abundance of wealth of all sorts which was found, the Belgian
Government was obliged to specify as "litigious" certain shares and
moneys which it could not take over, and which it left to my sisters
and to myself. These shares and moneys have nearly doubled the fortune
bequeathed us by our father.
Let no one say: "The fortune was considerable." As a statement it is
true. But it must not be forgotten that everything is comparative, and
that if I explain a point of succession which is unique in history it is
not because I am avaricious. It is because I must insist, as a question
of principle, to defend what I consider right, and to enlighten the
public on a hitherto entangled and obscure discussion.
The second Will, reproduced below, merely states precisely the intention
of the first:
The Other Will of the King. (Document No. 49.)
"I have inherited from my mother and my father fifteen millions.
"I leave those to be divided amongst my children.
"Owing to my position and the confidence of various people, large
sums have at certain times passed through my hands without belonging
to me.
"I do not possess more than the fifteen millions mentioned above.
"(Sgd.) Leopold.
"_Laeken, October 18, 1908._"
In this document the King said no more about having "scrupulously" saved
the fifteen millions. A great deal has been written about this, because
elsewhere the King often declared in his most formal manner that not
only had he used his own fortune, but also that of my aunt, the Empress
Charlotte, in the Congo enterprise.
He might have lost all. If this had been the case, would Belgium have
indemnified his children at his death? Certainly not! Fortunately
Belgium has been the gainer.
Is it logical that the King's children should be objects of indifference
to him?
To finish with the question of the fifteen millions, one fact remains
which I cannot pass over, and which will suffice to invalidate the
characteristic declaration of the King, if the discovery had not already
been made at his death.
About this well-known fact everyone will guess beforehand what I could
say....
It is not wise to enlarge on this subject. Age is excusable in its
errors, and the disposal of sixty millions will find many willing
helpers.
But, truly, whom does one deceive, and by whom is one deceived? Virtuous
airs are strangely a matter of circumstance with certain people who
lend themselves to an astonishing favouritism, to the detriment of the
natural heirs of the King.
However, let us forget this. Let us only remember the material point,
which was that the King _wished_ to disinherit his daughters.
Was it right and moral of Belgium to associate herself with this inhuman
error and this illegality?
Ought she not to have assumed another line of conduct on behalf of
myself and my sisters?
I ask it of the King as if he were alive and in the entire possession of
his faculties; I ask this of the King who is now enlightened by death.
I ask it of my brave compatriots.
I ask it of the jurists of the entire world.
I ask it of history.
Let us put aside the millions of future generations and the hundreds of
millions of the past.
I have renounced expectations and the promises of fairy tales more
easily than most people. I would have liked to have made many
people happy, to have helped beautiful works, to have created useful
institutions. God knows all my dreams. He has decided that they should
not be fulfilled, and I am resigned.
I have only wished to defend a principle and to obtain for myself a
minimum of the possibilities of a free and honourable existence in
accordance with my rank.
Was my action then unjustifiable?
What do certain documents--which it is easy to consult--establish, but
which I cannot reproduce here without giving to these pages a different
character from that I wish to give?
These documents prove that the _personal_ fortune of the King had
attained a minimum of twenty millions at the time of his last illness.
On the decease of the Sovereign this fortune, or the greater portion
of it, had disappeared. My sisters and I had a round figure of twelve
millions.
But what of the rest?
It has been said to us, and to me especially:
"What? You are complaining? By the terms of your father's will you
should only have five millions. You have twelve millions, and you are
not satisfied. You argue, you accuse, you incriminate! You are always at
war with someone."
I am not at war with any particular person in this affair. I have simply
upheld the right, and I believe it to be my duty.
The Government, the judge and the party opponents have told me, in
fine-sounding sentences, that I was wrong.
Would they agree to submit their judgments to the final verdict of a
tribunal composed of jurists from countries friendly to Belgium?
I renounce in advance the benefit of their decision if it should be in
my favour.
Would they agree to accept an inquiry into the subject of the _real
and personal_ fortune of the King at the time of his death and what has
become of it?
I know beforehand. These indiscreet questions will only meet with
profound silence.
What consoles me in my misfortunes is the knowledge that the men in the
confidence of the King have become wonderfully enriched. If my father
could only leave fifteen millions I am confident that they, at any rate,
will be able to leave much more. I am very pleased to think that this is
so, as I find it only natural that merit, valour, conscientiousness and
fidelity should be recompensed on earth.
I only regret one thing, which is common to human nature. Money, alas!
does not tend to improve it. Instead it seems to harden the hearts of
those who possess it.
How can the King's faithful servants and those of my family be at ease
in palaces, where everything breathes comfort and luxury, when I am
reduced to living as I am now obliged to live, practically from hand to
mouth, uncertain to-day where to look to-morrow for sustenance,
although within the grasp of two fortunes: one already mine by right
of inheritance, and the other which I have every anticipation of
inheriting?
People may say that instead of complaining I could continue to defend
my rights, and it avails nothing to abuse the injustice of men. I do not
ignore the fact that I have only to attack the Société des Sites, and
the French property which the King has given to Belgium, for French
justice, which is worthy of the name of justice, to condemn a fictitious
society, whose so-called existence is not unwelcome to a Parisian lawyer
and the servants of my family who have lent their name as circumstances
required.
Law is law for everyone in France, and when the Société des Sites was
founded in Paris, it was done with the most flagrant disregard of French
legality.
I do not forget that the German law would equally condemn what
transpired between Belgium and the administrators of Niederfullbach, if
I were to attack these persons before the Justice of Germany, as I
could easily do. The two Germans who are included in the list of
administrators have sensed danger so strongly, owing to their properties
and positions being in Germany, that, in face of possible dangerous
retaliations, they have sheltered themselves behind the Belgium State
by the "arrangement" which they have accepted, and which has robbed my
sisters and myself of considerable sums.
I also know that the Royal Gift of 1901 is open to an attack in
Belgium, based on the material error committed over the question of the
disposable share of the King's property. But, really, it is too painful
for me to think about this and to go into these details. I only give
certain of them in order to show that I have resisted, and I shall still
resist, assuring myself that if I have not found justice in Belgium I
shall find it elsewhere.
To speak with perfect frankness, I have suffered cruelly, and I still
suffer on account of the strife in which I have been involved.
When I occasionally re-read the pleadings of the talented lawyers who
defended or attacked me over the question of the King's inheritance, a
sort of faintness overcomes me. Before so many words, in the face of so
many reasons for and against, I feel that all things except equity can
be expected of mankind.
It is positively stupefying for me to realize that three of my lawyers
are Ministers, or are on the point of becoming Ministers, as I write
these pages. I have only to take up their "pleadings" to hear the voice
of their conscience proclaiming the justice of my cause, and accusing
the State in which they are embodied to-day of collusion and fraud--in
one word, of unqualified actions.
Do they not remember what they said, wrote and published? I listen in
vain for some words from them.... Nothing ... never a word. I am dead,
so far as they are concerned.
I am unhappy. They know it, and they keep silence.
Never a thought, a memory for one who confided in them. They are in
power--and I am in misery; they are living in their own country--I am
an exile. They are _Men_, and I am a _Woman_. Oh, pettiness of the human
soul!
I think again of all that has been said and written against me in
the land of my birth for which I was sacrificed. What errors, what
exaggerations, what passions, what ignorance concerning my real self!
Nevertheless, taken as individuals, those who attack me and defame me
are really good and brave men at heart. But they rend one's soul. Do
they not understand what they do?
Has Belgium no conscience? She ranks so high to-day in the opinion of
the world, that it seems impossible for her to expose herself to the
diminution of her moral glory which will inevitably follow when History
goes into the vexed question of the King's Inheritance, and its results
in my own case. Can she rightly and peacefully enjoy that which has been
unjustly obtained, or more or less greedily seized by her? History will
find, as I find, certain ineffaceable words in the address to the Sénat
by M. de Lantsheere, Minister of State, touching the Royal Gift of 1901,
which all that was best in the Belgian soul then found inacceptable.
I reproduce these words for the contemplation and consideration of all
honest men.
M. de Lantsheere spoke as follows in the Belgian Sénat on December 3,
1901, to contest the acceptance by the Chambre des Représentants of the
King's Gift, and all that had privately enriched the King:
"I intend to remain faithful to a principle which King Leopold I
always upheld and from which he never departed, one which I also
upheld twenty-six years ago with M. Malou, M. Beernaert, and M.
Delcour, Members of the Cabinet of which I had the honour to be
a member--which MM. Hubert Dolez, d'Anethan and Notcomb, chief of
those preceding me, who, like others after me, have equally upheld.
This principle, which it has been reserved for the law to abandon
for the first time, can be summed up in few words. _The common law
is an indispensable support of the Royal Patrimony._ The present
project offends Justice.... Two of the Royal princesses are married.
From these marriages children have been born. Therefore families
have been founded. These children have married in their turn, and
have founded new families. These families may very reasonably have
expected that nothing detrimental could happen to the hereditary
rights which the Code declares unalienable from the descendants....
If, owing to some aberration of which you will give the first
example ... you do not respect the laws by which families are
founded, ... _one universal voice will be heard in Belgium which
will curse the dominions which have enriched the nation at the
expense of the King's children_....
"Do you not think that it will look very disgraceful for Royalty
to be exposed to the suspicion of wishing (under the cloak of
liberality towards a country) to reserve the means, if not of
disinheriting its descendants, at least of depriving them of that
to which they are legally and morally entitled? I venture to believe
that those persons will serve the interests of the State much more
faithfully who insist that she must remain firm in her acceptance
of the rights of Common Law, than those persons who uphold the
acceptance of the disastrous gift of an unlimited authority. I wish
to ignore the possibility of any of these ulterior motives having
entered the mind of His Majesty; you must ignore them if they have
not already occurred to you; but I know that man's will is variable
and certain laws are made in order to prevent possible injustice.
"If at the time of the King's death a point had been made of
encroaching on the disposable funds, you would not have had the
courage to lay the hand upon this patrimony. Why, then, do you forge
weapons which, when the moment is ripe, you will blush to use?
"Therefore, Sirs, the uselessness of the project again reveals
itself, as well as its equally odious and dangerous character ...
it is a juridical monstrosity.... It must never be said that in the
Kingdom of Belgium any poor girl possesses more legal rights in her
father's inheritance than the King's daughters now possess in the
inheritance of their father."...