The attempt made by the Duke of Alba and his successors to suppress the troubles of the Netherlands had failed. The excesses of the Spanish troops in Antwerp and other places in 1576 (Spanish fury) in the same year provoked the conclusion of the “Pacification of Ghent” (by the States General and the States of Holland and Zeeland): an agreement aimed at freeing the “common homeland” from foreign domination and allowing the Protestant religion in all the provinces, at least temporarily. But contrary to the efforts made by Prince William of Orange to obtain a complete understanding, a mutual tolerance tending to ensure definitive independence for the Netherlands, the dissensions between Calvinists and Catholics reopened to such a degree as to facilitate the Spanish restoration and from lead to the final division of the Netherlands. Already in 1579, the Walloon Catholics had formed the Union of Arras among themselves (v.) while the Protestants of the northern provinces and those of the main cities of Flanders and Brabant linked themselves with the Union of Utrecht. Thanks to this opposition, the skilled diplomacy and military prowess of the new governor general, Alessandro Farnese, managed to re-establish royal authority in all the southern provinces. The Catholic religion was the only one allowed and thousands of Protestants fled the country to take refuge in the Calvinist regions of the north which formed the federal republic of the United Provinces (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, Groningen, Gelderland, minus one district, Drenthe and Overyssel). they succeeded in re-establishing royal authority in all the southern provinces. The Catholic religion was the only one allowed and thousands of Protestants fled the country to take refuge in the Calvinist regions of the north which formed the federal republic of the United Provinces (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, Groningen, Gelderland, minus one district, Drenthe and Overyssel). they succeeded in re-establishing royal authority in all the southern provinces. The Catholic religion was the only one allowed and thousands of Protestants fled the country to take refuge in the Calvinist regions of the north which formed the federal republic of the United Provinces (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, Groningen, Gelderland, minus one district, Drenthe and Overyssel).
In the struggle between Spain and the United Provinces, which lasted until 1648, the southern or Catholic Netherlands were sacrificed: the Dutch military forces conquered a part of Flanders, Brabant and the regions of Beyond Meuse, while, from 1635, the fourth phase of the Thirty Years’ War, in Artois, Brabant and Luxembourg, brought the French and Spanish armies to the battle. Following a truce, the war was interrupted for a period that lasted only twelve years (1609-1621) and which corresponds to most of the reign of the archdukes Albert and Isabella, daughter of Philip II, to whom the king of Spain had ceded any sovereignty in the government of the Netherlands. It was a regime of independence: but illusory independence. In fact, King Philip III ruled the Netherlands through third parties. It was this, in Belgium, the most characteristic period of the Catholic Renaissance. The Society of Jesus was then in control of almost all the intellectual activity of the country: in 1616, one of the members of the Belgian province, Father Rosweyde, published his Vitae Patrum, the starting point of one of the greatest enterprises of the order, the famous collection of the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists. In the same years or so, the University of Leuven made a renewal effort; but, despite the fame that the teaching of the great humanist Giusto Lipsio (v.) gave her, this effort was not followed up. Free development of thought was made almost impossible; and on the other hand the Protestant emigration had deprived the Catholic provinces of an elect group that had gone to put their wits at the service of the United Provinces. Only art was allowed an intense activity: and it is enough to mention the name of Rubens (1577-1640), to remember what splendor the Catholic Renaissance gave to Flemish painting.
The war between Spain and the United Provinces ended with the Treaty of Münster of January 30, 1648. The southern Netherlands paid the costs of reconciliation: a part of Flanders south of the Schelde, all the northern part of Brabant, Maastricht and most of the regions beyond Meuse were ceded to the United Provinces, which also obtained the closure of the Scheldt. This meant killing Antwerp, which developed so intensely in the 9th century. XVI, for the benefit of Dutch ports. The second half of the century XVII was no less fatal to the Netherlands or Belgian Provinces, as they were beginning to be called. They are the cause of the permanent conflict between the king of France, on the one hand, Louis XIV, who is thinking of nothing but seizing them, and on the other the United Provinces who see them as a bulwark, a barrier against France and defend them together with Spain. During each war of Louis XIV, military operations take place in Belgian land which he devastates, and each peace marks the loss of some territory. For the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659), most of the Artois, a fraction of the Hainaut and Luxembourg, Philippeville and Mariembourg; for that of Aachen (1668), a large part of Flanders with Lilla in Douai; for that of Nijmegen (1678), the rest of the Artois and other parts of Flanders and Hainaut pass to France. During the war for the succession of Spain (1701-1713), the southern Netherlands constituted one of the most important posts, and again the most bitter struggle took place on their territory (victory of the Duke of Marlborough over Villeroy in Ramillies, 1706). The treaties of Utrecht (1713), of Rastatt and Baden (1714), of the Barrier (Antwerp 1715), which put an end to the war, gave the Belgian provinces a new statute: they passed from the king of Spain to the head of the house of Austria, Emperor Charles VI. They were to serve as a barrier to the United Provinces which acquired the right to hold a garrison in a number of fortified cities.
During the sec. XVII, the closure of the Scheldt, the continuous wars, emigration, had thrown the southern Netherlands into a profound economic stagnation. At the beginning of the century XVIII, under the reign of Charles VI, the government strongly encouraged an initiative intended to revive trade: the creation of the Company of the Indies (1723), intended to put the port of Ostend in communication with the Far East, hence the name of Ostend company which is generally given to her. But England and the United Provinces, fearing that this competition was pernicious to their seafaring enterprises, managed to obtain its suppression in 1727, otherwise threatening not to recognize the Pragmatic sanction, with which the emperor instituted his daughter Maria Theresa, heir of the its states. Moreover, the rights of Maria Theresa were contested; and the war for the succession of Austria took place partly on Belgian territory. For the victory of Fontenoy (1745), the southern Netherlands was given to France; but the treaty of Aachen (1748) soon restored the previous state of affairs.
The Austrian sovereigns, Charles VI (1711-1740), Maria Teresa (1740-1780), Joseph II (1780-1790) were represented in Brussels by governors, among whom the most famous was Prince Charles of Lorraine, brother-in-law of the empress (1744-1780); but in reality, power was in the hands of the plenipotentiary minister, a direct agent of the Viennese administration. These plenipotentiaries – including several Italians: Ercole Turinetti, Marquis of Prié, under Charles VI; the Marquis Botta-Adorno, under Maria Teresa; the count of Belgioioso, under Joseph II – made great efforts to revive commercial and industrial activity, developed the network of canals and roads, protected, according to the principles of “colbertism”, the creation of new businesses. Thanks to this policy, and thanks also to the fact that during the Franco-English naval war (1778-1783) Austria was the only great neutral power in the West, there was a certain commercial and industrial awakening in the Netherlands, especially in the manufacture of linen and cotton and in the domain of transit trade. But all the efforts made by the emperor to obtain the opening of the Scheldt were in vain.
With Joseph II, even in the southern Netherlands – as in all his other dominions – the tendencies of “enlightened despotism” triumph. A series of edicts proclaimed the freedom of worship (1781) and the suppression of several convents (1783); attributed to the civil authorities the registration of births, marriages and deaths (1784); he created a general seminary where the education of the clergy was to be supervised by the state (1786); he separated administration and justice, entrusting them to officials and specialized courts with their own hierarchy (1787). This led at the same time to move the clergy – whose influence had remained preponderant, despite the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 -, the conservative elements attached to traditional institutions, and finally the innovators, impacted by the despotic procedures adopted by the emperor to implement his reforms. The struggle between the emperor and his opponents became increasingly bitter between 1787 and 1789, the year in which, when the “Brabantine Revolution” broke out, the Austrian forces had to evacuate the country which was constituted into a federative republic, under the name of States United of Belgium (Belgiques États Unis), with a constitution that s ‘ inspired by that of the United States of America.
But the United States of Belgium proved that they were totally unable to govern themselves. They were in the grip of a violent struggle between the conservatives – called statesmen – supporters of decentralization, of class and state privileges, of the prerogatives of the clergy, of all the traditions of the ancient regime, and the progressives who aimed at the establishment of a unitary state and a government based on the sovereignty of the people. The statesmen led by Henry van der Noot, had the victory; and the progressives, who were led by Gian Francesco Vonck, had to undergo a real ban. Taking advantage of these dissensions and this inability, the Austrian forces, in 1790, disrupted the troops of the United States and restored the authority of Emperor Leopold II. The Austrian army also put an end to a another revolution, that of Liege. After being an ally of Spain, in the century. XVI, the episcopal principality, which had retained its independence, had endeavored to remain neutral during the wars of the seventeenth century. In the interior, the bishops-princes of the house of Bavaria had succeeded in imposing a monarchical regime, the essential principles of which were established with the regulation of 1684. But with the growth of economic prosperity, thanks to the development of the coal, metallurgical and textile industries, democratic ideas had gained most of the bourgeoisie. In 1789, a conflict between the states of the principality and the bishop-prince of Hoensbroeck over the games of ‘ipa triggered a revolution which ended with the fall of Hoensbroeck and the establishment of a democratic republic.
The following year, in 1792, having declared war on Francis II, successor of Leopoldo, the French army invaded the Austrian Netherlands and the victory of Jemappes was followed by a first annexation. After a new Austrian offensive (battle of Neerwinden, 1793), the definitive annexation of the Belgian provinces and the country of Liège to France followed the victory of Fleurus on 26 June 1794.
In the years that followed, the French domination was particularly painful: the systematic exploitation of the country, the religious persecutions, the conscripts ‘levers made it so hateful as to determine in 1798-99 a rural uprising, severely repressed (Peasants’ War). The establishment of the consulate, the conclusion of the concordat and the restoration of the cult, then the imperial regime restored peace. Belgium owed to the French government, in addition to the disappearance of the last vestiges of the ancient regime, the division of the country into departments, from which the present provinces came, and the introduction of the civil code. Napoleon made happy efforts to favor industry, especially the textile industry which developed greatly due to the introduction of the mechanical system made in Ghent by Liévin Bauwens. The object of his care was also Antwerp, put back in communication with the sea for the opening of the Scheldt. But the continental blockade and the constant requests for men, which the emperor wanted for his wars, alienated him from all sympathies. When the French administration and army evacuated Belgium in 1814, they left no regrets.
The allies disposed of Belgium and united with Holland, to form the kingdom of the Netherlands under the scepter of King William I, of the house of Orange-Nassau, definitively constituted by the Treaty of Vienna of May 31, 1815. A few weeks later, his army took part, on the homeland, in the battle of Waterloo (June 18) which marked the final fall of Napoleon. The Kingdom of the Netherlands to which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was united – which the Vienna Act of 9 June 1815 had brought into the new Germanic Confederation – had lost to Prussia some of the eastern fractions of the ancient Austrian Netherlands, of the ancient episcopal principality of Liège, of the ancient abbey principality of Stavelot Malmédy which, generally, in history, he had followed the fate of that of Liege. On the other hand, with the second treaty of Paris (November 20, 1815), he was able to recover from France some cantons of the country between the Sambre and the Meuse, with the fortresses of Philippeville and Mariembourg, and enlarge with the ancient sovereign duchy of Bouillon, detached in 1678 by the principality of Liège and annexed to France in 1795.
United with Holland to form a barrier against France, Belgium could benefit from the union. The trade, shipping, and colonies of the former formed an excellent complement to the agriculture and industry of the latter. In fact, King William I tried in every way to intensify the economic life of the country. His personal initiative was responsible for the creation of the General Society (1822), the first large financial institution in Belgium; and he also personally intervened to facilitate the development of the large metallurgical industry in the Liège basin (Officine cockerill, Seraing, 1817). The results matched the efforts: by around 1830, real prosperity reigned in the country. In the intellectual field, there had also been serious progress, especially with the creation of state universities in Ghent,
But all these important advantages did not prevent the formation and growth of discontent against the government and the union with Holland. Already from the beginning of the reign, a conflict had occurred due to the constitution of 1815, which proclaimed freedom of conscience, a freedom all the more indispensable since the vast majority of the Dutch were Protestant and almost all Belgians Catholic. The clergy had fought fiercely for this freedom and the conflict had not subsided until around 1821. New disputes arose shortly after. The government was reproached for reserving public employment for the Dutch rather than for the Belgians, for imposing Dutch as the only official language on the Flemish provinces of Belgium (1819,1822), the bourgeoisie of which it had gradually become French. The Catholic party, which had been formed since 1815, did not forgive the king for a series of measures against the teaching imparted by religious congregations or secular clergy (1824.1825), nor above all an attempt, a repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, with popular sovereignty, with the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. The Catholic party, which had been formed since 1815, did not forgive the king for a series of measures against the teaching imparted by religious congregations or secular clergy (1824.1825), nor above all an attempt, a repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, with popular sovereignty, with the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. The Catholic party, which had been formed since 1815, did not forgive the king for a series of measures against the teaching imparted by religious congregations or secular clergy (1824.1825), nor above all an attempt, a repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, with popular sovereignty, with the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. did not forgive the king a series of measures against the teaching imparted by religious congregations or secular clergy (1824,1825), nor above all an attempt, a repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the college philosopher of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, with popular sovereignty, with the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. did not forgive the king a series of measures against the teaching imparted by religious congregations or secular clergy (1824,1825), nor above all an attempt, repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the college philosopher of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, popular sovereignty, the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. teaching imparted by religious congregations or by secular clergy (1824,1825), nor above all an attempt, repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, popular sovereignty, the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. teaching imparted by religious congregations or by secular clergy (1824,1825), nor above all an attempt, repetition of that of Joseph II, to intervene in the formation of the clergy, with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, popular sovereignty, the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, popular sovereignty, the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions. with the creation of the philosophical college of Louvain (1825). Even in the liberal party, also born shortly after 1815 and made up of men fervent with freedom, popular sovereignty, the supremacy of civil power, complaints arose: freedom of the press was claimed, the restoration of the jury, ministerial responsibility. Finally, in 1828, the union of oppositions was concluded between Catholics and liberals: but the king did not want to resign himself to the indispensable concessions.
I l Belgium the revolution (1830) onwards. – When the Congress of Vienna deliberated the union of Belgium with Holland, the most astute politicians, such as Talleyrand, foresaw its failure, which sensationally took place, prepared by two years of lively agitation, in 1830.
The violent discontent, to which it was already mentioned, provoked by the Dutch misunderstanding of Belgian interests, and the diversity of historical, religious, economic and social conditions gave rise to frequent incidents between Belgians and Dutchmen. At the end of 1829 the agitation was very strong. A royal message stigmatized the work of the agitators and announced a law restricting the press, promising in return concessions of a national character. The sovereign’s absolutism was accentuated by the circulars and the provisions of the notorious minister of justice Van Maanen. Opposition to the government manifested itself in the chamber during the discussion of the budget. Some deputies, guilty of having participated in the parliamentary struggle, were deprived of offices and checks (January 1830).
The liberal and Catholic press then threw themselves into the fray, attacking the king, the government, Holland. Then became popular the names of Gendebien, Ducpétiaux, Nothomb, Barthels, Lebeau, Rogier and, especially, Louis De Potter, to whom the violence of the articles brought prison and a fine. In his Lettre de Démophile au roi De Potter made a stinging critique of the royal message, arguing that the ruler was not the master of the Belgians and the state, but the first of the Belgians and the highest of state officials.
New reactionary measures by the government and the founding of a too blatantly and too clumsily unofficial newspaper in Brussels, Le National, directed by Libri-Bagnano, exasperated the spirits. The first six months of 1830 passed without calm returning to the country.
News of the Paris revolution in July sparked the fire. Brussels was then celebrating an industrial exhibition. The crowd could read violent inscriptions against the Dutch, Libri-Bagnano, Van Maanen and were excited at the sight of a singular appeal to revolution (Le 23 août: feu d’artifice ; le 24 août: anniversaire du roi ; le 25 août: revolution). The government seemed not to care what was happening and took no precautionary measures. The garrison was scarce, the popular excitement was growing. Under the pretext of bad weather the fires and the lights were suspended, but this increased the discontent. The performance of Portici ‘s Muta, the work of Auber and Scribe which has as its background the Neapolitan riot of Masaniello, aroused a burst of patriotic enthusiasm in the theater. From the theater it spread to the street, where enthusiasm turned into revolution.
The looting of the National, the home of Van Maanen, offices and factories were the first acts of the revolt. The weak and unarmed authorities could do nothing; the insufficient and disunited militias had to surrender. On the 26th, the city turmoil became a national movement, which, having demolished the royal coats of arms, had as its banner the old Brabant tricolor, red, yellow and black. The moderate element tried to come to an agreement with the king, who was inclined to make concessions. But now the people were unwilling to fulfill their promises. The conciliatory acts carried out by the royal princes sent to Brussels were taken as signs of weakness. Vane succeeded the resignation of Van Maanen and the convocation of the States General. The entry into Brussels of Rogier’s Liege, the
The public safety committee, made up mostly of moderates, was wiped out by popular acclaim (September 20). At this moment the king could have regained the upper hand with decisive action. Instead, his speech at the extraordinary session of the States-General sparked new passions. To his question whether a modification of the constitutional systems was necessary and if the relations between the two parts of the kingdom were to change, the second chamber replied in the affirmative. But while the deputies deliberated, decisive events were maturing in Brussels.
Upon hearing of the extremist faction’s triumph in the city, the king had ordered his second son, Prince Frederick, to march with an army to Brussels. On 23 September the prince tried to enter, but the desperate resistance of the people, the difficulty of overcoming the barricades, the heavy losses suffered by his troops, forced him to retreat after three days of struggle. This failure was irreparable and immediately made its effects felt. The retreat of the Dutch brought about an almost general uprising of the country. Demoralized and disorganized due to the desertion of the Belgian military, fought and rejected by the voluntary corps that had improvised with the insurrection, the royal militias evacuated the territory, except for the citadel of Antwerp, Maastricht and Luxembourg.
At the end of September, especially with the help of the Walloon element, after the army of Prince Frederick was defeated, a provisional government was established, in which Luigi De Potter, the Liège journalist Carlo Rogier, the Count Felice de Mérode, the Lovaniense Silvano van participated. de Weyer. On this occasion, the Brabançonne was written by the French Luigi Alessandro Dechet, known as Jenneval. The provisional government proclaimed the independence of Belgium from 24 October 1830 and convened a national congress of 200 directly elected members. Meeting in Brussels on 10 November, the congress began its work and on the 18th unanimously renewed the declaration of independence, already made by the provisional government. After lively discussions, the assembly expressed itself in favor of the monarchy, declaring, however, forever excluded from any power the members of the house of Orange-Nassau (November 22-24). With this date begins the history of independent Belgium.
The moderation of Congress displeased the most ardent Democrats. De Potter no longer wanted to participate in the government and returned to France. Meanwhile, the assembly, after a few weeks of discussion, issued the new constitution (February 7, 1831).
The European powers had turned their attention to Belgium, not only because of the repeated appeals of the King of Holland, but because of mutual fears. France followed the nascent state with greedy sympathy; England would have favored independence, had France not taken advantage of it; Austria would have liked to protect the princes of the Holy Alliance, but was committed to Italy; the Polish insurrection was harassing Russia; Prussia dared not intervene alone. The conference of ambassadors, meeting in London, adopted the principle of non-intervention, especially thanks to Talleyrand, who succeeded in imposing the Belgian state on a Europe that did not want it (December 20, 1830).
With the protocols of 20 and 27 January 1831 the conditions for the separation of Belgium from Holland and its independence were sanctioned. Holland returned to the borders of 1790; the rest of the Netherlands, minus the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, assigned to the House of Nassau, formed the new Belgian state, which was to be perpetually neutral, under the protection of the Powers. Once part of the public debt of the Netherlands was assigned to Belgium, the conference decreed that no Belgian king could be recognized if he did not accept the conditions of the two protocols and was not acceptable to the Powers. The Belgians, disappointed in their territorial ambitions, protested and sought a king. On February 3, 1831, the congress elected Louis Philippe’s second son, Louis of Nemours, who obtained 97 votes against the 74 given to Duke Augustus of Leuchtenberg, eldest son of Eugene of Beauharnais. But the conference warned the Belgians that it could not recognize the Duke of Nemours as king.
After the short and weak regency of Surlet de Chokier, troubled by Orangemen, on June 4, 1831, Leopoldo of Saxe-Coburg, a brave soldier and shrewd politician, crowned the crown, whose first act was to obtain the stipulation of the “Treaty of 18 articles “in favor of Belgian nationalism (June 24). With this treaty the two protocols of January, already declared fundamental and irrevocable, were abolished; Belgium obtained that the question of Luxembourg and Maastricht be reopened and discussed in separate negotiations, and that the share of the debt be limited to what it was entitled to at the date of the union. On July 9, after stormy sessions, the congress ratified the treaty, and on the 17 the elected king entered Belgium, enthusiastically received. It was good for Belgium to have at its head in those difficult beginnings a sovereign like Leopoldo, wise and courageous, shrewd and tenacious. No one in Belgium believed that Holland wanted to oppose the deliberations of June 24, and most were deluded as to the possibility of retaining possession of Luxembourg and Maastricht.
But Holland reacted with singular impetus: 50,000 men crossed the border and smashed any resistance, even before it was organized. The Franco-English intervention saved Belgium; but the London conference was hard on the losers. On October 15, 1831, the “treaty of 24 articles” was published which annulled the previous one. Despite the advantages that came to him, the king of Holland tried to reject the treaty, but the armed intervention of France and England (1833) and the difficult economic conditions of the state forced him to accept it on March 14, 1838. To it Maastricht and all of Luxembourg, except the western part, were assigned to Holland, in exchange for some districts of Limburg; the share of the debt was set at a disadvantage for the Belgians, and the freedom of navigation of the Scheldt was subject to the payment of dues to Holland. The Belgian opposition to the new treaty was very strong, but King Leopold, who understood how the independence of Belgium was linked to its acceptance, did everything to get it approved, going so far as to threaten his abdication in case of refusal by of parliament.
Not without tragic sessions, the Belgian parliament ratified the treaty, and therefore the first period of the formation of the state was closed, which arose not “by boiling holy water” (Wilmotte) and not even for a clear and widespread awareness of nationality, but for the right intuition of a minority aware of the function of Belgium, thus becoming a state which, by now certain of the inviolability of its borders, free from the dross of revolutionary intransigence and Orangemen, could devote itself entirely to the fervent works of peace. After eight years of negotiations and diplomatic disputes, the treaty became final on May 19, 1839. And the party struggles immediately began.
The Belgian liberal party, authoritarian, centralizing, statolatry, anticlerical, impressed upon itself the beginnings of Belgian political life, after an initial period of eight years in which they tried to keep Unionism alive with coalition ministries, ready to resolve with skilful transactions even the most acute divergences (Nothomb, Van de Weyer, De Theux). The first liberal ministry was that of Charles Rogier and Walter Frère-Orban (June 8, 1847). The army was seriously organized; the Hainaut and the Meuse valley became densely packed with factories; Antwerp became one of the busiest stopovers in Northern Europe. The economic revival was favored by the free-trade regime; intellectual life was fueled by the two government universities of Liège and Ghent; a another in Louvain was supported by contributions from the diocesan coffers; and a fourth in Brussels was founded by Freemasonry. The revolutionary disturbances of ’48 did not shake Belgium; Delíosse, a left-wing deputy, was able to say: “Freedom does not need to go through Belgium to travel around the world”. On the banks of the Scheldt and the Meuse, however, the crisis caused by the political transformation that took place in France was felt, and Rogier skilfully faced it, with various initiatives (the general fund for life insurance, mutual aid societies, electoral reform, the scholastic reform for which the family and local conception of teaching was replaced by that of state function). But with the so-called Antwerp regulation the secular process of the middle school was arrested by the Catholics, the new De Brouckere ministry, a moderate liberal, soon succeeded by the Catholic one of Pierre de Decker, consenting. Meanwhile, a process of involution was taking place among Catholics; in 1855, they appear more backward than in 1831. The bishops were the leaders of intransigence. The liberals were ready for a close battle (l’émeute des gants glacés) on the occasion of the presentation of the bill on the freedom of charity, also known as the law of convents (1856), which would have increased the power and wealth, already enormous, of the regular clergy. The Catholics were defeated and the Liberal Party returned to power with Charles Rogier.
In foreign policy the personal influence of King Leopold I was always great, at first following an anti-French approach, when the Napoleonic empire was still weak. France, when it became influential again, did not forget this attitude of Belgium, not being able to tolerate, for the security of its borders, a hostile Belgium, and the independence of the young state ran into serious danger, in 1859 and shortly after the death of Leopold I, in 1866. When the first Belgian ruler died (December 7, 1865), many doubted the survival of the state, whose constitution had been cemented by the authority, skill, continuity of the monarch’s work. The services rendered by Leopold I to Belgium, which has become the England of the continent in industrial reflections, are unanimously recognized. Inner steadfastness saved the state in 1866,
Meanwhile, serious causes of decadence were revealed within the liberal party, in which a very combative progressive-radical wing had formed; the Flemish movement extended; considerable opposition was met with the project to increase the army, despite the sad expedition to Mexico in 1864, and to fortify Antwerp, where, led by Victor Jacobs, the meeting stood, a strong opposition party to the military projects of the Brialmom, so that the elections of June 14, 1870 gave power to the Catholics, while the British vigilance saved the neutrality of Belgium against whose borders the French army found itself crushed, without daring to violate them. The Catholics had benefited from the rise of the Flemish movement. The separation of Belgium from Holland had awakened national sentiment among Flemish-speaking citizens. Historical traditions and economic interests went hand in hand with the resurgent interest in the national speech. There had always been a clear dividing line between the Flemish and the Walloon in the southern Netherlands, and a strong movement opposing French intrusiveness had arisen under the leadership of Jan Frans Willems, H. Conscience and a few others. , extending to North Brabant and Flanders. As early as 1840 there had been petitions for the introduction of Flemish alongside French in legislation, in the army, in the courts. In the following years the movement had expanded, and petitions had become more frequent, arousing opposition from the Liberal Party, strong in the Walloon provinces, and from C. Rogier, born in France to a French mother, and nurtured by French culture. THE and of C. Rogier, born in France of a French mother, and nurtured by French culture. THE and of C. Rogier, born in France of a French mother, and nurtured by French culture. THE Flamingants were especially numerous in the regions where the Catholic party was based. The votes of the peasants, the adhesion of the working class of the Flemish cities, the defection of Antwerp and Ghent, which passed to the Catholics, ensured them the victory in the elections and consequently the government. The conservative majority who had given power to Catholics did not disintegrate until 1878, and his work was summarized in Malou’s well-known phrase: Nous avons vécu. Lack of activity, small administration, dangerous diplomatic tension with Germany at the time of the Kulturkampf. As the clerical tendencies became more and more uncompromising, the liberal factions formed the union for action. With the elections of 11 June 1878, the majority passed to the liberals, and their leader, Frère-Orban, anti-democratic and anti-clerical, formed a cabinet of moderates and progressives and ruled the fate of the country for six years. The capital point of the liberal program was the repeal of the school law of 1842. Frère-Orban created the Ministry of Education and founded the public and free elementary schools in every municipality (July 1879), unleashing, while another great school battle took place was debating in France, a violent struggle with the bishops and with Rome, from which the ambassador was recalled while the nuncio was dismissed in Brussels. deficit. The Catholics shouted that for the civil war and the deficit the liberal ministry had to disappear, in the name of the general interest, and the elections of 1884 gave them a large majority.
Liberalism was hopelessly defeated; his men were attracted, according to their tendencies, either by the Catholic right or by the new socialist doctrine, and could no longer seize the rule of the state. Catholics, both moderate, like Malou and Beernaert, and intransigent, like Woeste, began their legislative work, annulling that of the liberals, especially in terms of public education and in relations with the Holy See; they were then able to understand the gravity and importance of the economic problems and the misery of the fourth estate. The workers’ claims were sponsored by the abbot Pottier, by Monsignor Doutreloux, with serious scandal of the clericals and large owners (the delirious safes), who managed to prevail, although the Socialist Party had already awakened the popular consciousness, and began its rapid conquests (E. Vandervelde and J. Destrée. Le Socialisme en Belgique, Brussels 1898). The strikes of ’86 prompted the ministry to appoint a labor commission and order an inquiry into the conditions of the industry. Huge abuses were documented; but the Catholics contented themselves with partially alleviating the misery of the workers, following that line of conduct in which was the secret of their strength: a temperate conciliation, a clear opposition to all extremism. The Socialist Party strongly advocated the adoption of universal suffrage and at the same time advocated military reforms aimed at transforming the army into an armed nation. When in April 1893 the Chamber rejected universal suffrage, the workers deserted the factories and in Brussels the king himself was greeted with hostile shouts; the Chamber, fearing a riot, yielded. But while allowing the disappearance of the census criterion for the electorate, he wanted to limit the effects of universal suffrage with plural voting. Voters rose from 137,772 to 1,354,891. The general elections of ’94 marked the complete defeat of the Liberals, who obtained only 15 seats, against 104 given to the Catholics and 35 to the Socialists, led by Vandervelde and Anseele. However, the socialist propaganda did not make deep furrows in the moral conscience of the Belgian people. The new gospel and the heralds of the promised land were not unlike those of other countries, except for a singular indulgence towards small rural owners. Belgian socialism was above all that expressed by the poet of Voters rose from 137,772 to 1,354,891. The general elections of ’94 marked the complete defeat of the Liberals, who obtained only 15 seats, against 104 given to the Catholics and 35 to the Socialists, led by Vandervelde and Anseele. However, the socialist propaganda did not make deep furrows in the moral conscience of the Belgian people. The new gospel and the heralds of the promised land were not unlike those of other countries, except for a singular indulgence towards small rural owners. Belgian socialism was above all that expressed by the poet of Voters rose from 137,772 to 1,354,891. The general elections of ’94 marked the complete defeat of the liberals, who obtained only 15 seats, against 104 given to the Catholics and 35 to the socialists, led by Vandervelde and Anseele. However, the socialist propaganda did not make deep furrows in the moral conscience of the Belgian people. The new gospel and the heralds of the promised land were not unlike those of other countries, except for a singular indulgence towards small rural owners. Belgian socialism was above all that expressed by the poet of However, the socialist propaganda did not make deep furrows in the moral conscience of the Belgian people. The new gospel and the heralds of the promised land were not unlike those of other countries, except for a singular indulgence towards small rural owners. Belgian socialism was above all that expressed by the poet of However, the socialist propaganda did not make deep furrows in the moral conscience of the Belgian people. The new gospel and the heralds of the promised land were not unlike those of other countries, except for a singular indulgence towards small rural owners. Belgian socialism was above all that expressed by the poet of Villes tentaculaires and of the Campagnes hallucinées, Émile Verhaeren, brilliant interpreter of the values and trends of the popular soul. But, with the exception of English Tradunionism, in no country was socialism able to create such a flourishing set of institutions in the fields of cooperation and mutuality, elements of economic prosperity and political temperance, as in Belgium. In 1895, the Ministry of Industry and Labor was established. In the Catholic party, the struggle between the conservatives and the democratic tendencies did not stop even after the condemnation of the extremist Abbot Daens, who in the constituency of Alost had beaten the Woeste, a typical reactionary; but the supremacy of moderate tendencies had not been diminished by this; the mistakes of the liberals, the grotesque exaggerations of the socialists rejected or held back thousands of fearful consciences in the Catholic camp. Not even with the application of proportional representation, sponsored by the liberals, did the protection afforded to minorities against the majority deprive the clericals of the direction of state affairs.
In this period Leopold II, le géant dans un entresol, a diplomat of consummate skill, succeeded, by reawakening the humanitarian concerns against the trafficking of blacks, to first establish the African International Association (1876), then, after Stanley’s journey across the country. Africa, the Committee of the Upper Congo and finally the Free State of the Congo (February 23, 1885).
In August 1889 Leopold II, drafting his political will, decided to “bind and transmit to Belgium all his sovereign rights over the independent state of Congo”; but the Chamber on 9 July 1890 coldly received the communication of the very important act, by which the king, with magnificent generosity, donated a colony to his homeland. The Leopoldian enterprise had been the most remarkable and complete breakthrough in tropical Africa; and the nation was later happy to acquire sovereignty over the five provinces from Katanga to Kasai (August 20, 1908), rich in gold, ivory, rubber, radio, diamonds, which offer more than half a billion a year to the mother country. Those regions were visited in 1925-26 by the Crown Prince, Leopoldo Duke of Brabant,
At the beginning of the century XX two issues, one social, the other military, beset Belgium, which in the travail of class competitions, in the discussions on the state ownership of coal mines, in the elaboration of the laws protecting labor, consolidated that excellent economic structure that could to say: except coal, we have nothing, yet we are, in proportion, the first nation in the world. The fortunate differentiation of the two races that complement each other (and the danger of a division between Flemings and Walloons, despite the liveliness of the discussions, does not seem to have serious reasons for existing), the multiple centers of vigorous productive energy, the disciplined and fruitful organization of the trade revealed all the prodigious beauty of a new age. Germany undertook a peaceful conquest of Belgium, proposing a customs union, the dangers of which were denounced to the senate, while the progressive liberals, led by Lorand, sensing how the wealth of a neutral and defenseless people was an incentive to the rapacious intentions of the most strong, they were able to obtain the strengthening of the army. When the new law on conscription entered into force, Leopold II passed away (December 17, 1909): what was true and less true in the worldly life of the sovereign, had prevented the people from forming a fair evaluation of what he he had done with rare energy for the country’s economic prosperity. However, he had not cared for letters or the arts, although his was the age in which Carlo De Coster, narrator of the epic of Ulenspiegel, in Pirmez, Jeune Belgique.
Albert I, having ascended the throne, was able to mitigate the resurgence of political and religious struggles, keeping the Catholics in power constitutionally with De Broqueville. The socialists and liberals moved against the Catholic party with their programs, demanding scholastic and electoral reforms. In 1913 the Socialists tried with particular vehemence to obtain a radical change in the voting system, but the elections of 1914 sent a considerable Catholic majority back to parliament. For Belgium history, please check ehistorylib.com.
The Leopoldine donation of the Congo led Belgium to participate more actively in world politics. The wealth of the great colony, the internal prosperity, the importance of Antwerp, which already rivaled Hamburg, the strategic-geographical situation of Belgium forced the government of King Albert to take radical military measures, because for more signs it appeared certain that in a probable European war the neutrality of the country would not have been respected. Since 1912 there had been conversations between the chief of staff of the Belgian army and British senior officers about the possible help of England in the event of an invasion. A profound change in military systems and the strengthening of the defenses of Antwerp, Liege, Namur had shown since 1913 that Belgium did not feel comfortable, in the face of systematic statements by German writers and politicians. The European conflagration of 1914 was preceded by an appeal by the Belgian government to the powers guaranteeing the treaty of 1839 to declare that Belgium would defend itself in the event of an invasion and to invoke the help of the states that would eventually have to help it. On 2 August Germany asked Belgium for free passage for its troops through the territory of the small state. To the noble refusal of the Belgian government, Germany responded with an invasion, already prepared by its staff for years (v. The European conflagration of 1914 was preceded by an appeal by the Belgian government to the powers guaranteeing the treaty of 1839 to declare that Belgium would defend itself in the event of an invasion and to invoke the help of the states that would eventually have to help it. On 2 August Germany asked Belgium for free passage for its troops through the territory of the small state. To the noble refusal of the Belgian government, Germany responded with an invasion, already prepared by its staff for years (v. The European conflagration of 1914 was preceded by an appeal by the Belgian government to the powers guaranteeing the treaty of 1839 to declare that Belgium would defend itself in the event of an invasion and to invoke the help of the states that would eventually have to help it. On 2 August Germany asked Belgium for free passage for its troops through the territory of the small state. To the noble refusal of the Belgian government, Germany responded with an invasion, already prepared by its staff for years (v.world war). The violation of Belgian neutrality was the main motive for the British intervention, and the brutal aggression and contempt for the treaties (pieces of paper) determined the alignment of world public opinion against Germany. The patriotism and heroic resistance of the Belgians, led by their king, were not enough to drive back the aggressors, but they contributed to delaying the German march, allowing the strategically surprised French army to prepare its own recovery. Gradually the whole country, except a very small portion, was occupied by the Germans, who imposed the harsh law of war everywhere. Destruction of cities, summary executions, devastation and looting (think of the library of Louvain) first, deportation of citizens, systematic exploitation of the region then, characterized the period of German occupation, which caused industrial paralysis and the impoverishment of Belgium. This was treated as a conquered province and entrusted to a military governor. But nothing succeeded in taming the firm patriotism of the Belgians: threats and flattery were equally useless. In the face of the invading foreigner, the heroic nation gathered in its grief and in its uncontrollable hope. The great figure of Cardinal Mercier appeared as the symbol of this spiritual resistance.
While Belgium awaited the hour of liberation, its small army was bravely doing its duty in the trenches of Flanders, where on the Yser it barred the roads of Calais and Boulogne to the enemy. The government of the Sacred Union, which had brought together all the parties, had moved to Le Havre. The victory of the allies and the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919) gave Belgium Eupen and Malmédy, abolishing the treaties of 1839; and they procured him a small part of German East Africa and indemnity for the destroyed wealth.
With surprising rapidity, in the aftermath of the war, the high national spirit of the Belgians provoked an admirable resumption of those activities which make Belgium a great industrial and commercial society, in whose prosperity the whole world is interested.
Particular agreements with Holland, for the navigation of the Scheldt, and with Luxembourg, for the railway regime, benefited the economic recovery (1920), while the military alliance with France ensured the borders. The electoral reform of 1919 replaced the proportional system with the uninominal one, and that of 1921 gave the vote to women. The lively participation in the European reconstruction policy (especially at the two conferences in The Hague of 1929-1930) was accompanied by a fervent internal life. Having dealt with and solved the most important national problems (in February 1930 the Flemings were satisfied, designating Flemish as the official language of the University of Ghent), Belgium, which relations of interest.
