The youthful experience of Leopold was herein of eminent use to him. Let it be remembered that in early life, indeed so far back as 1808, he had entered the Russian service with the rank of general, later had accompanied Alexander to the congress of Erfurt; from 1813 to the peace of Paris he was on the staff of the Russian army, exhibiting that personal bravery of which he has always given an example; but it is not so well known that even thus early he gave the promise of military talents, while he was initiated into civil affairs by an attendance at the Con. gress of Vienna. Thus schooled in military and civil life, the king had an opportunity of bringing his experience and knowledge to play with advantage to Belgium and with credit to himself.

In his household and domestic arrangements the monarch exhi bited the simplicity that distinguished him at Claremont, nor did his union with a daughter of the House of Orleans, though it imposed on him the necessity of encouraging the elaborate pageantry of a court, alter his personal habits, and frugal, unostentatious tastes. The marriage of the king, blessed as it was with issue, did much to consolidate the new throne, but notwithstanding the good sense and moderation of the sovereign, his task was one of great delicacy and difficulty.

There was a war and a French party within and without the Chambers, and though the dissolution of 1833 produced a majority more frankly devoted to the system of peace, yet the opposition of the German Diet in the question of Luxembourg had excited much fermentation. Orangeist intrigues were also rife, and the situation became complicated by Cabinet discords and dissensions. A liberal Roman-catholic replaced a Doctrinaire Ministry, but the high and somewhat ultra-Roman-catholic element soon obtained an ascendancy in the Chambers and in the Administration. The unsettled state of Europe during the course of 1834 and 1835, by rendering a continental war possible, if not probable, obliged Belgium to continue its armaments. But from 1835 till the end of 1837, the country enjoyed a period of calm and

tranquillity, during which Belgian industry made immense progress. During all this period the attention of the King was, amidst a multitude of other objects, more particularly directed to the necessity of a good law on public instruction, to the greater development of railway communication, and to a treaty of commerce with France. Meanwhile, a commercial and manufacturing party had sprung up, which was sometimes neither in harmony with the Ministry or the Chamber. The existence of this third party did not arrest the progress of a purely Roman-catholic party in its advance to power, for M. de Theux became the chief of what our neighbours would call a combination purement Catholique, in 1837, in which a place was reserved for M. Nothomb, a man of ability and moderate opinions. We mention these circumstances to show the difficulties which the King has had to deal with in the management of parties swayed not merely by strong political, but also by strong religious opinions. In every Ministerial interregnum, however, his Majesty has displayed the greatest adroitness and tact, exhibiting neither prejudice nor passion, but a desire to be guided by the will of the country. The Ministry of M. de Theux lasted till the month of March, 1840, when M. Nothomb, who previously and during its continuance had rendered essential services in regulating the differences with Holland, touching Limbourg and Luxembourg, was rewarded by being sent Envoy to the Germanic Confederation. The discreetness of this selection, made by the King himself, was soon apparent, for the Envoy succeeded in establishing friendly relations between the Germanic Diet and his native country. A Liberal succeeded the Romancatholic Ministry of M. de Theux, of which M. Lebeau and Charles Rogier were the principal members, and this in its turn was succeeded by a Moderate Ministry, into which M. Nothomb entered as Minister of the Interior. In 1843, this Cabinet gave place to another combination, of which M. Nothomb was the head -a combination which succeeded in fairly maintaining the balance between the Catholic and Liberal par

ties in the interval between 1843 and 1845. These two parties having subsequently coalesced, this Ministry retired from office, and a Deschamps d'Hoffschmidt, d'Ancthan, and Van de Weyer, Cabinet was appointed in July, 1845, which was not of long duration. M. Van de Weyer, vanquished by the Parti Pretre, was obliged to retire, and De Theux, the representative of high Roman-catholic opinions, at the close of 1846 again entered the Cabinet, in which he remained, if we mistake not, till the elections of 1847 had concluded.

These elections were considerably influenced by a meeting of Liberals, which had taken place at Brussels in the July of 1846, and at which three hundred and sixty persons were present. At this meeting the most celebrated speaker was Frere Orban, an advocate of Liège, who subsequently became Minister. The principal points for which these gentlemen contended were a reduction of the electoral qualification to forty francs. 2nd, The independence of the civil over the ecclesiastical power. 3rdly, The exclusive power of the State over public instruction without the official interference of the clergy. 4thly, The emancipation of the inferior clergy from the oppressive interference of the bishops. As a set off to this political congress at Brussels the bishops and high dignitaries of the Roman-catholic Church celebrated at Liège the 600th anniversary of the procession of the holy sacrament. So that there was a religious demonstration as well as a political one, both of which were meant by their authors to have a significancy with the executive.

The elections of 1847 put an end to a Ministry prepared only to elevate and favour the parti prêtre. A new Cabinet, composed of moderate liberals, was formed, containing within its ranks MM. Rogier, d'Hoffschmidt, de Haussy, Vedt, and General Chazal. The king on this occasion no longer hesitated to give his countenance to this manifestation of public opinion.

We enter into these particulars to show with what unceasing watchfulness and circumspection party changes must be regarded in

Belgium by the chief of a State in such proximate contact with France; for there is no extravagant opinion or doctrine prevalent in France which may not be transplanted into Belgium, or which may not have an effect on its political or financial position. Thus, for example, when, in 1840, the position assumed by M. Thiers on the Eastern question obliged France to arm, if not to assume a threatning attitude, the Belgian Chambers, with a view to cause the neutrality of the country to be respected, voted an augmentation of 30,000 men to the effective of the army.

We have already shown that at the close of 1830, and during the early portion of 1831, Bonapartist intrigues were prevalent in Brussels and in the considerable towns of Belgium. The consanguinity of the Duke of Leuchtenberg, whose pretensions were at one time put forth, revived the intrigues of the Imperialists, and filled the country with the active partisans of a dynasty which had not renounced its pretensions to the French throne. Soon after the election of Leopold also, as we before stated, Colonel Murat arrived in Brussels, it is now, and was then known, with sinister objects, and the Belgian as well as the Parisian police could prove that Bonapartist agents abounded in Brussels in October, 1836, and in July and August, 1840, antecedent and subsequent to the events of Strasbourgh and Boulogne. Nor was this the only danger of a political propagand which the Belgian kingdom encountered. For notwithstanding that when the French revolution of 1848 broke out the Rogier Ministry had succeeded in giving a more solid basis to the constitution of 1848; notwithstanding that the Chambers had for some time before exhibited a laudable economy, nevertheless a possé of propagandists succeeded in penetrating from France to the Belgian frontiers. The chiefs of this expedition were two Belgians, a German and Swiss. They succeeded in arriving at the village of Risquons Tout, but were there warmly received and soon dispersed by a body of Belgian troops, who made a good number of prisoners. Neither the

news of the events in France, nor of this foray of propagandists dismayed the king. His majesty openly declared that he was at the orders of the nation, and that it was for the nation to decide whether he should continue to wear or to lay down a constitutional crown. This straightforward and sensible declaration produced an instantaneous and admirable effect. The confidence of the great majority of the Belgian people was augmented, the very few discontented were scared, and the Chambers granted an extraordinary impost of eight-twelfths on real property, and a loan of twenty-five millions of francs, and guaranteed the payment of an issue of thirty millions of francs in bank notes. The conduct of the Ministers of the king was not less judicious. They presented a bill for lowering the franchise, and abolished the tax on newspapers, so that if any discontent existed it was neutralized by these means. The new electoral law produced a more liberal Chamber, reducing by a third the party of which the old ultramontanes, or clerical section, was composed. But although the number of this party was reduced, still they occasionally coalesced with the revolutionary or movement party.

reci

In November, 1849, the Belgian Government concluded a ten years' commercial treaty with France, founded on the basis of procity, a treaty in which his Majesty took a personal interest. It was in the following year that the consort of Leopold was seized with an illness which terminated fatally, to the bereavement of the monarch, and the great regret of the nation. It was a compensation to the people, however, to know that a successor was assured to his Majesty in the person of the Duke of Brabant, then in his sixteenth, now in his nineteenth year, and that a second son and a daughter were further left to perpetuate a race so justly dear to the nation. In the course of 1850, too, a partial change took place in the Ministry, which was placed in a position of some difficulty in consequence of reductions to the amount of twenty-five millions of francs, which it was necessary to introduce into the expenditure of the army. Further

difficulties arose in consequence of the rejection by the Senate of the tax on successions. The Ministry did not retire before this factious vote, and the Senate was dissolved.

Though the events which occurred in France in the month of December, 1851, had undoubtedly some influence on Belgium, and gave cause to a certain misgiving and disquietude, yet they in no degree operated to render the nation weary of constitutional government. On the contrary, both Chambers and people rejoiced to acknowledge that the Prince to whom they had confided their destinies had shown himself worthy of their choice. At a time when the ablest and most distinguished men in France were in prison or in exile, Leopold was acknowledged by his people as the model of a truly constitutional king. In the days of the elder Bourbons, when Louis XVIII. and Charles X. obliged certain regicides, conventionalists, and Bonapartists to leave the kingdom of France, these expatriated exiles found a refuge at Brussels, under William of the Netherlands, who gave an asylum to Barrère and Barras, to Gregoire, to David, and many others. In the last proscriptions of all that is distinguished and enlightened in France, the greater number of the refugees of 1851 flocked to Brussels, to Bruges, or to Malines. In these towns may now be found the Changarniers, the Bedeaus, the Leflos, the Lamoricieres, the Charras, attracted by the centrality of the position, by the perfect liberty which they enjoy under the shadow of a free constitution, as well as by the proximity of Belgium to the land of their birth and affections. The perfect freedom which these exiles enjoyed on a soil so near to that of France, the respect and consideration with which they were treated, gave umbrage to the morose and gloomy spirit who has for a moment extinguished the liberties of France. The French envoy at Brussels, a son of the Secretary and Minister of the first Bonaparte, the Duke of Bassano, was instructed, in December, 1851, to complain and threaten; and in the year 1852 these complaints and threats became louder and more bitter in expression. The language of the Belgian press

1853.]

was taken exception to, and it was suggested that prosecutions should be commenced against certain journals, and if convictions could not be obtained, that more stringent laws should be passed by the Chamber. Representations of this kind are rarely made between friendly and independent states, and should never be resorted to unless in extreme cases. But France went beyond this. It was gravely stated in the Government press of Paris that Belgium was under a heavy pecuniary obligation to France, and that unless the Belgians exhibited a more docile and subservient spirit, demands would be made of reimbursement of the expenses to which France was put in sending a French army to Antwerp in 1831.

While this imperious and undignified language was being held by journals existing only by the will and arbitrary pleasure of the French Government, it was discovered that the Belgian army was on more than one point being tampered with by French emissaries, and that some of the clergy were indoctrinated with the idea that the great champion of their faith was the Emperor of France. Notwithstanding these covert intrigues and indecent threats, nothing could be fairer than the conduct of the Belgian Ministry and Chamber. While temperate and candid discussion was tolerated in the press, everything like wanton abuse and provocation was restrained. Prosecutions were commenced in one or two instances, and were carried on by the instrumentality of juries, who did their duty fairly. The Chambers, too, passed a new law, and public men in Belgium of all parties seemed determined, while maintaining the independence of the country, to give no offence to France or its ruler.

This moderation and temperance did not satisfy ultra-Imperialists. It was proclaimed aloud in the Government press, by the familiars of the Tuileries, and in pamphlets published by retainers of the Bonapartes, that the Rhine was the natural boundary of France, and that if Russia or Austria should possess themselves of a foot of territory in the East or in the South, France would march an army to Antwerp

123

any con

or Brussels. When opinions of this kind were enunciated day by day, and when, in addition to such opinions, specific facts were communicated by the Belgian ambassador at Paris, it of course became a matter of the mightiest importance for Belgium to be prepared for tingency that might happen. Belgium, as Sir William Temple said, is not of a size to support a large army, nor of a figure to be defended by a small one. But her King and people were resolved to make every effort in organization to maintain the national independence at all costs. Men and munitions were both put in requisition. The Cabinet and the Sovereign at once saw the importance of uniting more firmly the bonds of friendship with Germany.

Without going the length of maintaining that the Barrier Treaties of 1709, 1713, and 1715, ought to be renewed, Belgian politicians and statesmen recognised the necessity of being prepared against the machinations of an Emperor who looked more to his own aggrandizement than to the repose of Europe or the happiness and prosperity of France. It was clear to every thinking man in Europe in 1830 and 1831 that Belgium could not be united to France without bringing about an European war, and possibly overturning the throne of Louis Philippe. Nay, it was then admitted as a species of political axiom, that a member of the family of the King of the French could not be allowed to sit on the Belgian throne, and in obedience to this view entertained by the European powers, the King of the French renounced the crown for his son, the Duke of Nemours. That which was politically true and expedient in 1830 and 1831 is more essentially so in 1853. Louis Philippe had given hostages to peace. His policy, his inclinations, and his interests lay in that road. Not so in the case of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. He has given no hostages to peace, and it is believed his inclinations, and it is thought his interests lie quite the other way. But there is still further difference between the case of the House of Orleans and the family of Bonaparte. The crown of Belgium was not to

be worn by the King of the French, but by his son, with a separate constitution. The kingdom was altogether to be governed as an independent kingdom. Under a Bonapartist régime it would be merged in the empire of France, and the country would altogether lose its distinct individuality, administration, and nationality. In fact, Belgium would become a series of departments of France, and the empire of France, in possession of Ostend and Antwerp, would have immense facilities afforded to it for gaining the mouths of the Thames and the

Medway. It is therefore impossible that any English or any European statesman could consent to see the same man governing at Paris and Ostend; at Cherbourg, Brest, Rochefort, Toulon, and Antwerp.Such a combination would render France most potent-almost irresistiblebut would it render Belgium happy or prosperous?

Austria has possessed Belgium without making it Austrian; Holland, without making it Dutch; and France, both republican and imperial, has possessed Belgium, without making it either republican or imperial, or happy or prosperous. Is Louis Napoleon Bonaparte likely to succeed in an attempt in which Napoleon Bonaparte failed? Under a foreign master, Belgium was restive to Philip II., to Joseph II., nay, even to Napoleon, whose fall it saw without regret. Under a foreign master, Belgium resisted the Congresscreated sway of William of the Netherlands, and rent his crown in twain. Why was this? Because these governments were imposed on the country-because they were not national or racy of the soil. The Belgian partakes, as we said in an earlier part of this article, of the proud and jealous nature of the Spaniard. He must either have a native-born king, or a king the off spring of his own choice. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte is not a nativeborn Belgian, and he could never be the offspring of the Belgian people's choice, like Leopold. In the territorial system of Europe, the merging of Belgium with France is an impossibility. The Bonapartists may try it, and for a short time, owing to an accident or a happy

conjuncture of circumstances, it may be successful, but it must infallibly bring on war, for it would give to the French power a preponderance which would wholly destroy the European balance. It would alter the relations of this country with the Continent, it would destroy the independence of Holland, and wholly overbear Germany. The nationality and independence of the people beyond the Rhine would not be safe, if France extended her limits to that river. The question is, indeed, an old one. Louis XI. in the fifteenth century conceived the hope of peaceably uniting Belgium with his kingdom by a marriage with the heiress of Burgundy; but if this union had taken place would England have given up Calais? Would she not have sought to regain her footings in Normandy, or to prevent the union of Brittany with the kingdom of France? Louis XIV., more than two centuries after, sought to conquer that Belgium which his predecessor had hoped to obtain as a marriage dowry; but after a long succession of wars, he was foiled in his attempt.

In the eighteenth century Belgium was twice upon the point of being erected into an independent State, under the sovereignty of the Palatine House of Bavaria. But this project, which would have put an end to the ambitious designs of France, twice failed.

France, under a Napoleon or a Louis Napoleon-under a republic or a dictator-under a constitutional monarch, or under an absolute king, may do what she pleases or what seems best to her within the limits of her own territory; but the moment she proceeds exterritorially, to use a word adopted from the French-the moment she makes an attack on the independence of any other people, whether it be the people of Savoy, or of Holland, or of Belgium, that moment she throws down the gauntlet of defiance to all Europe. It was not the trial and execution of Louis XVI. that induced Great Britain in the late war to enter into the coalition against France, but the appropriation and conquest of Belgium, in 1793. Unless the Queen and people of England are prepared to lose all Con