Handbook of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Belgium appeared among the nations of Europe as an independent monarchy in 1831. At that time a constitution was adopted which remained without change for more than half a century, and, in fact, continues to be with some amendment the organic law of the state. With its independence and neutrality guaranteed by the great powers, with sagacious rulers on the throne, and with an industrious population, Belgium for the greater part of the nineteenth century has had a singularly fortunate history, and among observers of political affairs has often been pointed out as a model government of its kind. It might be said, however, that this success has been due as much to the temperate political action of the people as to the excellence of the machinery of government, for the progress of the state has not been without periods of serious friction. The framers of the constitution neither severed themselves completely from the past nor provided for all the contingencies of the future, hence the gradual spread of democratic ideas caused in time uneasiness and finally change, so that the year 1893 marks an important epoch in the history of the nation.

One hundred years ago the French Revolution found Belgium under the dominion of the House of Austria, as it had been since before the Reformation. Yet we observe that even this long submission to a

single dynasty had not obliterated the spirit of local independence which had been so conspicuous in the early history of Brabant. Charles the Fifth, despot though he was, was not the sovereign of the Netherlands as a whole but the duke of one province or the count of another, and swore allegiance to each one separately. So the philosophic Joseph II., with his well-meant reforms, at the close of the eighteenth century, had met with resistance largely because the recipients of his favors had not been consulted. Communities and provinces had been so long in the habit of managing their own internal affairs that they did not take kindly to outside interference. In this we may find one explanation of the large measure of local autonomy existing to-day in Belgium, and, furthermore, may see some reasons for the lack of united resistance to outside invasion at certain critical points in her history. One of these crises was the French Revolution.

When the armies of the Directory appeared in Belgium their superior force was aided by the hatred of the people to the Austrian dominion and the conquest was easy. In fact, the French were welcomed as deliverers, but the disappointment was sad, for besides loss in plunder, the country was practically annexed to the republic by being divided into arbitrary departments and administered as a part of France.

For a time Napoleon inherited this conquest and used it as his own, but at the collapse of his empire the Congress of Powers which administered his estate determined to join the Belgian provinces to those of Holland under the title of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A working constitution was

established for this new monarchy, which provided a legislative assembly in which each country was to be equally represented, although the population of Belgium was far more numerous than that of Holland. Under this arrangement the countries lived for a decade and a half, until, by the episode known as the Revolution of 1830, these uncongenial parts were separated and the independent kingdom of Belgium came into being.

This has sometimes been regarded merely as an echo of the crisis in France of the same year, but the Belgian revolution of 1830 was by no means a timental copy of the democratic movement across the border, nor was it likely to have occurred, had not the grievances which caused it been of many years standing. The Belgians were not pleased with their political situation for numerous reasons. That the union brought about by the European Powers was not a success ought to have been evident even to its creators, though the Hollanders were blind to the reasons of it. Whatever opinion we may have of the motives of William of Holland, or of his Dutch statesmen, it must be conceded that the policy pursued was very unlikely to conciliate the Belgian people. Not only was there disproportion in the legislature, but in the administration as well; the Dutch were given place and advancement in overwhelming majority. National jealousy was thus needlessly aroused and the ill feeling was kept alive and further embittered by the differences of the two peoples in religious faith.

Other causes of irritation might be mentioned, which occurred from time to time during the fifteen years of union. The arbitrary abolition of trial by jury by royal

« Predošlá Pokračovať »

Knihy