CHAPTER IV.

MINOR STATES OF EUROPE.

I. BELGIUM.

THE most important political event of the year was the discussion and passing by the Legislative Chambers of the electoral law concerning the Communal Councils. As in the case of the election of the Chamber of Representatives, the Senate, and the Provincial Councils, the Communal Elections Bill admitted the principle of universal suffrage and the plural vote; the obligation to vote was also included and enforced by more or less severe penalties. Still, there were between the two laws several and not unimportant differences. Thus, whereas in Parliamentary elections no one could give more than three votes, certain electors for the Communal Councils were allowed four, granted in respect of the conditions of age, habitation, intellectual capacity, and payment of personal or property taxes. But the most essential feature of the communal law was that it admitted the principle of proportional representation, which, it will be remembered, had been excluded from the legislative electoral law. This principle was applied in every case where the first polling had not resulted in an actual majority, and when there were several lists of candidates. The law, moreover, laid down at great length the details regulating the application of this principle.

Another new and interesting point of the new law related to those who were eligible for seats on the Communal Councils. Independently of the number of members existing according to the previous laws on the matter, the Communal Councils were to be augmented by four supplementary members in communes numbering from 20,000 to 70,000 inhabitants, and eight in the communes of more than 70,000 inhabitants. These additional members were not, however, elected by the ordinary electoral body, but by a special and limited class of citizens possessing conditions required for election to Trade Councils, one-half being chosen by electors belonging to the working class, and the other half by employers of labour (les patrons).

This very complicated law was rather hastily voted by the Chambers, whose attention was, at about the same time, called away to various other and important questions. The consequence was that several serious anomalies were suffered to pass unnoticed, which would necessitate sooner or later important modifications in the existing law. Thus, in order to become communal elector, three years' residence in the commune was a primary condition, whilst under the Parliamentary electoral law an elector continued to be inscribed upon the lists of the commune he had left until such time as his new domicile was

sufficient to give him the right of being registered on the electoral roll of this district. This was not foreseen in the communal law, and the consequence was that numerous persons, especially civil functionaries and military officers, although legally in possession of the right of vote, would be practically disfranchised for years on account of the frequent changes of abode imposed upon them. Again, whilst a man aged twentyfive was considered of age to elect a representative to Parliament, no one under the age of thirty was considered fitted to be an elector for the smallest Communal Council. It might also happen that an elector who had two or three votes (under the fancy franchise) for the elections for the Chamber, might possess only a single vote for the Communal Council.

The elections for the renewal of all the Communal Councils throughout the kingdom took place, according to the terms of the new law, in November. The results were, as had been generally foreseen, widely different from what they would have been under the former law, and in several cases they caused considerable surprise. On the whole, they disclosed most unmistakably the important fact that another and important victory had been gained by the Socialists. The Radical party sustained the most serious losses, whereas the Catholic and Liberal parties generally held their ground. From a practical point of view, it seemed that considerable difficulties might arise from the new state of things, inasmuch as in most of the large towns, Brussels and Liége amongst others, the number of seats in the Communal Councils was pretty equally divided between the three parties; and it was anticipated that, whichever party obtained the direction of communal affairs, the two others would promptly on important questions unite against the first and paralyse, if not entirely annihilate, its power of

action.

Another question which greatly occupied public opinion in the course of the year related to a new school law presented by the Government, of which the leading feature was the re-establishment of the teaching of religion in public as well as in private schools. According to the new law, this teaching was to be made obligatory; but every parent was authorised to give a written attestation declaring his wish that his child should not receive religious instruction, given during school hours by the Catholic priests. This law called forth the most violent opposition on the part of the Liberal and Socialist parties, who considered it as opposed to the principle of liberty of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. They momentarily forgot their dissensions, and united to organise important public manifestations against the projected law. It was, moreover, worthy of notice that the law was somewhat reluctantly accepted even by the Catholic party; thus its essential article, declaring religious instruction to be necessarily a part of primary instruction, was only voted by 79 against 60 and 2

abstentions by the Chamber of Representatives, where the Catholics held two-thirds of the seats. In the end, however, notwithstanding the opposition it evoked, the law was voted by the Chambers and sanctioned by the King.

The important question of military reforms received no solution, notwithstanding the formal assertions of the Minister for War during the previous Parliamentary session. Quite at the close of the present year the War Minister, LieutenantGeneral Brassine, recalled the fact that the Government, during the session of 1894, had recognised the necessity of a more equitable repartition of the military charges. In accordance with these views, the minister announced that he had carefully worked out a project for the reorganisation of the army, that his work was completely achieved, but that he could not immediately submit it to the Chambers, as certain parts of it had still to be examined by other Ministerial Departments. The minister said that his proposals would be laid before the Chambers as soon as possible, adding that only on this condition would he continue to occupy a seat on the Ministerial bench.

No notice of the War Minister's declaration was taken by his colleagues, and by the majority of the students of politics it was inferred that no general ministerial crisis would arise upon the important questions of national defence. This idea was strengthened when, at a later date, the most ardent adversary of the project-M. Woeste-met with no contradiction when he publicly declared in the Chamber of Representatives that the announced project of military reform would not be presented as a proposal of the Government.

An incident illustrative of the change introduced into parliamentary life by the new constitution occurred at the beginning of the year. A Socialist representative who was vividly describing abuses committed against workmen by their employers, was heatedly interrupted by a Conservative member. The President of the House-M. de Lantsheere-at once called the interrupter to order. The latter refused to accept the censure, whereupon the Speaker immediately put the question to the Chamber. The whole of the Left (Liberals and Radicals) voted that the censure should be maintained, but the Right, or Conservatives, voted in the opposite sense. The Speaker thereupon immediately declared that since he could not obtain the means he deemed necessary for the maintenance of order, he was obliged to resign his office; and all the efforts of the Liberals, as well as of the Catholics, to make him change his resolution were unavailing. The Chamber of Representatives then elected as its President, M. Beernaert, the former Prime Minister, who somewhat unwillingly accepted the task imposed upon him.

An important question with reference to the history of Belgium was forced upon public opinion in the course of the

year. In 1885, King Leopold II. was authorised by the legislative Chambers to add to his title of King of the Belgians that of Sovereign of the Independent State of Congo. At a subsequent date (1889) the King executed his will, by which he bequeathed to Belgium the Congo State, that he had created and governed until then. Since that time, however, the rapid growth of the King's enterprise in Africa had increased beyond anticipations the cost of administering the Independent State, and rendered financial help from others absolutely inevitable. It was but natural that Belgium-which was to inherit the State-should come to its aid; and with this object in view, the Belgian Government concluded with the Independent State of Congo an arrangement (July 3, 1890), according to which a loan of 25,000,000 francs, spread over a period of ten years, was raised on account of the Independent State. At the end of this decennial period-in 1900-Belgium was to have the option between the repayment of the principal of this loan and the annexation of the Independent State, which in this way would become a Belgian colony. Various unforeseen financial circumstances caused the Belgian Government, in the course of the present year, to examine whether it would not be expedient to hasten the term fixed by the convention of 1890, and to take into consideration the immediate annexation of the Congo State. Early in the year a bill, signed by the King, and countersigned by all the ministers, was submitted to the Chambers, asking Parliament to approve a treaty for the cession of the Independent State of Congo to Belgium. Before taking any decision upon so highly important a question, the Chamber of Representatives nominated a committee of twenty-one members of this body, for the purpose of closely examining the question. Before this committee had had time to bring its labours to a close, the country learned, with the utmost surprise, that the Government, fearing that a Parliamentary majority in favour of the proposal would not be forthcoming, had decided to postpone the whole affair indefinitely. The surprise caused by this decision was the greater, inasmuch as it was an open secret that the question of the annexation of Congo had provoked protracted and rather difficult diplomatic negotiations with the French Government, of which the happy conclusion had been hailed with great satisfaction by the country.

Although the whole Ministry had signed the proposal thus summarily withdrawn, the Minister for Foreign Affairs-M. de Mérode-alone considered he could no longer remain in office; and notwithstanding the remonstrance of his colleagues, persisted in his resignation. The Ministerial crisis that ensued was promptly ended. The Government created a new department-the Ministry of Industry and of Labour-which was confided to M. Nyssens-a Catholic representative for Louvain, and the principal author of the revised Art. 47 of the constitution. The President of the Council-M. de Burlet-took

over the portfolio of Foreign Affairs, and was replaced as Minister of Interior by M. Schollaert, another Catholic representative for Louvain.

Hardly had the emotion created by these events subsided, when a fresh incident-also relative to the Independent State of Congo-was forced upon public attention. An officer belonging to the Belgian army-Captain Lothaire-who had been authorised to serve in Congo, had, it was reported, captured a British citizen-Mr. Stokes-accused of selling arms to the Arabs. Mr. Stokes, by a council of war, was summarily condemned to be hanged, without having been allowed the time and opportunity of lodging an appeal before the Court of Justice of Boma. The culpability of Stokes appeared to the Belgian press and public to be beyond any doubt; but on the other hand, Captain Lothaire's proceeding was recognised to be decidedly illegal. The British Government, after a strong protest, claimed from the Independent State of Congo a heavy indemnity, which was paid without demur; and further, insisted that Captain Lothaire should be tried by a regular tribunal. After some hesitation, his recall from Africa was agreed to; and his trial by court martial in Belgium on his return was accepted as the best solution of the very involved question of jurisdiction.

II. THE NETHERLANDS.

Few events of importance marked the history of Holland during the year, the primary question of electoral reform being again postponed. Of the Socialist agitation noticeable in recent years a new token was given on the occasion of the Queen's annual visit to Amsterdam in April. The child Queen and her mother were grossly insulted by men in disguise; and in the meanwhile the well-known Socialist leader, Domela Nieuwenhuys, and his followers scattered among the crowd, from the windows of their printing office, offensive and seditious. libels. The same scenes were again enacted in August, during the royal visit to the Amsterdam exhibition, when, in spite of the measures taken by the police and military authorities, their Majesties became the objects of insulting and hostile manifestations. The offenders arrested on these occasions were doubtless aware that in all probability they would escape any penalty, the Dutch code not having foreseen the case of insults against royalty. The absence of any notice of such offences from the code called for considerable criticism, and it was urged that the time had come to introduce into the code special articles similar to those in force in other countries, punishing acts, speeches, or writings injuriously hostile to the royal person.

Riots of a worse kind, and unfortunately followed by bloodshed, broke out on the occasion of strikes among the Amsterdam