TOPICS OP THE DAY.
DUTY OF ENGLAND IN REGARD TO BELGIUM.
Is England called on to interfere in the dispute between the King of the Netherlands and his subjects ? Will she interfere ? These are questions Which many ask and few answer. We say No, to both. It is extremely difficult to guess, in respect of a subject which depends on so nice combinations, what an hour may bring forth. A. few days ago, the Belejan insurrection was down among the dead men, now it is up in the air—perhaps while we are dis- cussing its probable results it may be down again. We shall, however, assume its fixity at least until our article be in types.
The first demand of the insurgents was the separation of the Northern and Southern portions of the kingdom. The King has twaddled about the lot fondainentale, apiealed to the States-Ge- neral, promised little, done nothing for the petitioners, and at- tempted to do a great deal against them. His troops have attacked their strong hold ; mid after four or five days' fighting—after plun- dering unprotected houses, murdering unarmed strangers, outrag- ing every law of mercy and morality, they have been beaten— shamefully beaten—by an enemy whom they affected to despise. The spirit of revenge has now been added to the spirit of freedom. The Belgians may no longer be content with moderate conces- sions. While their hands were weak and their success doubtful, they demanded a federal government ; now that their hands are strengthened and that victory has crowned their efforts, will they rest satisfied without a complete separation ? A month back, we said we could see nothing in the case of the Netherlands to justify revolution; the events reported last week confirmed us in our opinion. But at present the face of affairs is wholly changed. In the movements of a nation, success is justification. No people ever rose against their rulers but for some solid cause. The real reason may not be put forth, but real reason there ever is. Believing this rule to apply to Belgium as it does to every other country, we cannot but wish the insur- gents victory, we cannot but believe they will obtain it.
The struggle may end by the Belgians receiving what they at first demanded—a separate legislature under the same King. To ask whether we or any other people are called on to interfere for the purpose of preventing such a termination, would be childish. It would affect no external relation. To foreigners, "the united kingdom of the Netherlands," while it remained under one fede- ral head, would be the "united kingdom of the Netherlands" still, though every province, .yea, though every town, had its own lawmakers and its own laws.
The struggle may end in the complete separation of Belgium from Holland—in the erection of an independent state. Let us see what argument for interference can be built on such a conclu- sion. It may be said that Holland will be too weak if Belgium be dissevered from it. Will it be weaker than it was before Belgium was joined to it? Holland was able to vindicate its liberty against the tyranny of PHILIP; it was able to maintain it against the as- saults of Louis the Fourteenth ; it bore up under the oppressions of CHARLES the Second ; and it delivered England from the me- ditated yoke of his bigoted brother. It did all this single-handed. What rational fear then can be entertained of Holland, were it left to-morrow to its own resources ? And if none of Holland, as- suredly there can be none of' Belgium. But grant their separate weakness—will a forced conjunction strengthen either ? The Dutch dislike the Belgians, the Belgians abhor the Dutch—will the put- ting of those together which nature has not joined, strengthen the hands of the one or the other? Vis ynita fortior was the wise motto of the Seven Provinces ; but where is the power if the union be wanting? As separate and independent states, the Belgic and Dutch provinces might and would prove valuable allies ; as parts of the same kingdom, while their present feelings remain, they can only add to each other's burdens. But then, there are treaties—are not we bound by treaty to preserve the integrity of the kingdom of the- Netherlands ? Where ? how? We have conned all the treaties we could find that bear directly or indirectly on the subject, and we have found neither article nor clause nor phrase that binds us to any such a purpose. True, we gave three millions sterling to build fortresses in the Netherlands, and that might give us a pecuniary claim on them ; but we got an equivalent for the outlay—we got the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo, Demerary, Berbice. Before we :seek back our money, we must give up our colonies ; and even then, we could only ask what we gave. There is one treaty, indeed, by which we and our excellent allies bind and oblige ourselves in very strong terms to keep all things that are, as they are--we allude to the treaty of the 25th of March, 1815. We suppose it must have been this on which the minds of newspaper statesmen were fixed when they conceived that England was bound to pre- vent the separation of Belgium from Holland. We know nothing else, unless it be the Holy Alliance, that could justify such a no- tion. Fortunately the treaty of the 25th of March lets out the secret of the purpose for which it was entered into. The 8th ar- ticle states that it has no other end in view. but—what ?—to sup- ped Fiance, or any other country which may be invaded, against the enterprises of BONAPARTE and his adherents. :Unless DE POTTER and VAN HALEN are adherents of the bones that he mouldering under the willow-tree at Longwood, they are lawfully exempt from all the pains and penalties of this treaty. There is a third catastrophe to the play at present rehearsing—. Belgium may throw itself into the arms of Prance. Let us see what France would gain. It would acquire a harbour or two, a small addition of land boundary, some millions of acres of terri- tory, and four millions of inhabitants. Its population and area would receive an increase of about an eighth, its real strength would remain pretty much as it is. We do not mean to enter into the' question of the original junction of Belgium and Holland : but we may Observe, that there was hardlya politician or economist of note who did not condemn it as injurious to the interests of England. Those who have read LAS CASES book, cannot have forgotten NAPOLEON'S admirable expose of the shortsightedness of that most bunglingof all diplomatists, my Lord CASTLEREAGH, in respect to the junction in question. But granting the acquisition of Belgium by France to be an evil, would our interference prevent it ? For what would we in- terfere? To make Belgium submit to a yoke which it had deter- mined to shake , off—that is, to subjugate a free nation—would France permit this ? We don't say the King, or the Ministers, or the Parliament of the French, but would the French nation, hold- ing the position which they at present hold, permit it ? King Louis PHILIP will not interpose in the present struggle if others do not. He has said so, and, though a king, he will keep his word. But if England go to war to put down freedom in the Ne- therlands, he must go to war to support it. This is not matter of choice with him—his people will do it whether he be inclined or not. The only thing that can prevent the Netherlands from fall- ing into the hands of France, is the establishment of their inde- pendence. As a free state, they are guaranteed from attack. If Holland subdue these provinces, they will revolt to France the instant that a war on the Continent of Europe affords them a favourable opportunity : if any other country subdue them, a Continental war will be the necessary result, and the opportunity which might otherwise be long in arriving, will be instantly pre- sented.
We think we have proved the soundness of our answer to the question, is England called on to interfere in the affairs of the Netherlands ?
We have said England will not interfere. 'We speak by rule when we say this. In the first place, ought she ? If John Bull be not really and truly of that class of individuals whom the wise man says you- may bray in a mortar with wheat, and they will come out the same—if he be not fool positive, comparative, and superlative—he may well be wearied of- risking his own head in endeavours to save the heads of his neighbours. If he had not gained saving knowledge before, he must surely have gained it since the 25th of July, that ever memorable day, when his enlight- ened protege CHARLES threw at his feet the fruits of six hundred millions of expenditure and five and twenty years' hard fighting, with as stupid an indifference as a swine would a pearl. If after all that John has spent, and all that he has suffered and does suffer from his attempts to maintain a system which the breath of such a thing as the present tenant of Lulworth could in a moment destroy, he were to enter with his eyes open on such a course as that which he pursued from 1793 to 1815, what punishment would be ade- quate to his perseverance in absurdity ? But England cannot interfere—she cannot afford it. There is no danger that, with an impoverished people, a falling revenue, find a millstone of eight hundred millions round our neck, we should go to war unless upon strong compulsion. Let us not be misunderstood. We are no croakers. We have no doubts of the power of England were she required to show it : let the integrity of her territory be assailed, let her bright honour be impeached, and he that dares the injury or the insuit will find that she has yet as many bold hearts and as many willing hands as in the times of her heyday prosperity. The lion, wet e he to wake u? his strength, could shake from him the incumbrances that cramp his peaceful energies as easily as he would the dew-drops from his mane. But the present is not an occasion calculated to rouse Englishmen. They will neither drain their veins nor their purses to consolidate the power of a Muddling old man, or to remedy the blunders of' a booby young one, if the Dutch beat the Belgians, well for the Dutch ; if the Belgians beat the Dutch, well for the Bel- gians; but England will beat or be beaten by neither. Her weal lies in minding her own business, and leaving other nations to attend to theirs.
But some one may say—for there is no end to a fearful mares ap- prehensions—what if Prussia interfere ? What if she do ? Cannot France manage Prussia, as she has done before? It is not we believe, supposed by any one that England will interfere in behalf of the Netherlanders, although that would unquestionably be the most ra- tional form of interference ; and it would be strange if, because we disapproved of the interference of the Lord of Brandenburgh against them, we were to join him. But Prussia will not interfere. There is a more powerful drag there than even a national debt. The * we mentioned, when noticing this topic on a former occasion, the attacks on the Press au, a cause of revolution. It is worth while to trace the manner in which these attacks are made. The loi fonclumentale—which, by-the-by, the Belgians sever accepted (Westminster Review for October, article "Belgium"), does not pro- vide for the responsibility of the King's Ministers—it declares the judicial office Inviolable, but the judges are removable at pleasure notwithstanding. M. VAN .MAANEN, who is irresponsible (this worthy is still in office), appoints the judge, -and can turn him off when he pleases : he-directs a prosecution against a newspaper —there is no interposing jury—what must follow 1—Degradation of the judge, or condemnation of the journal, of course. The judges may be honest, but they have always condetnned the jdurnals: The Belgians say, Give us jury trials, judges for life, responsible Ministers. Ah ! for responsible Ministers quoth the King, that is not in the loi fontlainentale. It is not in the bond, is an answer to all petitions for redress—what wonder that the petitIoners should call out to tear it people have not forgotten WILLIAM FREDERICK'S solemn pra rnises in 1815, and how they have been kept. If he do not act with extreme circumspection, he will soon have enough to occupy his wits at home.
Previous page
