THE KING OF HOLLAND.

HC Deb 22 August 1831 vol 6 cc403-15

Lord Eliot

said, that he wished to take that opportunity to mention a few facts in refutation of the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, on a former evening, with regard to the king of Holland, and his conduct towards Belgium. From whatever quarter or whatever publication that hon. and learned Member had derived the information which he had given to the House on that occasion, he should be able, he hoped, to show that hon. and learned Member, that it was quite incorrect, and he was sure that the hon. and learned Member would be the first to retract, when he found that such was the case. The first accusation which the hon. Member had preferred against the king of Holland, respected the union of Holland with Belgium. That union was determined on by the great Powers in the month of July, 1814, and it was not till the month of August, 1815, that it was carried into complete effect. The Belgians, therefore, had ample time allowed to them to send remonstrances or Representations to the allied Congress against that union, if they had a mind to do so; but no such remonstrance or representation was fowarded by them, and it was therefore to be assumed, that they entertained no objection to the Union. The first act of the king of Holland in ascending the throne was, to order a Commission to be issued for the purpose of framing a constitution founded upon the fundamental laws of the country, and which should be in unison with the habits, and feelings, and manners of the people. That Commission was composed equally of Dutchmen and Belgians, and after they had drawn up a code of laws, the king submitted it to the States-General, in which the Belgians were represented by one Deputy for every 2,000 inhabitants of Belgium. It was quite true, that a certain majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against that constitution. He was ready to admit, that such was the fact, but it should also be stated, that their principal objection was made against the two first articles of that Constitution, which went to give equal protection and equal toleration to all religions in Belgium. The Catholic Bishops in Belgium specially addressed the king against the proposed constitution, and in that address they used the following words:—"Sire—The existence and the privileges of the Catholic Church in this part of the kingdom are inconsistent with an article of the plan of the new constitution, by which equal favour and protection are promised to all religions." They further said, in the same address, "Sire, we do not hesitate to declare to your Majesty, that the canonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions of the country, are incompatible with the projected constitution which would give in Belgium, equal favour and protection to all religions." It was upon such grounds as those, that the majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against the proposed constitution. But it would be absurd to take that majority as the majority of the whole Chamber of the States-General, and it would have been absurd for the king to have acceded to its wishes, regarding it as such. Again he would say, that he did not know to what publication, or to what authority, the hon. and learned Member was indebted for his facts and statements, but he could assure that hon. Member, that the authority to which he had trusted, had completely misled him in this instance. The hon. Member had accused the king of Holland of having abolished trial by Jury, which it was said the Belgians possessed in the time of Napoleon. But that Emperor several times interfered with it, and it was not much resorted to. It was never well understood in Belgium, and the fact was, that three Jury laws which were successively proposed by the king of Holland to the Chamber in Brussels had been rejected by them. In truth, the trial by Jury was not popular in Belgium, and no attempt was made by the Belgians to obtain it till 1827, when a bill brought forward for this purpose, was rejected by two-thirds of the Chambers. The charge of the hon. and learned Member against the king of Holland, for reducing the Judges to a state of dependence on him, was quite unfounded. The 106th article of the constitution guaranteed their complete independence; and, as a proof that they were not at all interfered with, or controlled by the Crown, he begged to mention the fact, that there was not a single instance of the removal of a Judge from his situation during the fifteen years that the king of Holland had reigned over Belgium. The decree as to the change of the language in judicial and legal proceedings, whatever objections might be urged to it, or whatever reasons might be urged in its defence, had been, in fact, rescinded some months before the revolution had taken place in Belgium. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a most unjust attack upon the king of Holland for his conduct with regard to the Press. There was no censorship over the Press in Belgium; there was, in fact, during his reign there, no restriction on the Press with regard to publication under the charter which he had granted to Belgium, and the fullest liberty was granted to the Press to publish whatever was not libellous. With respect to schools, about which the hon. Member had complained so much the only regulation enforced was, that the persons who opened them, should be properly qualified for the education of youth. The complaint with respect to the Philosophical College which the king had established at Louvain, was equally unfounded; and, at all events, as it was found to be unpopular, it was suppressed some months before the breaking out of the revolution. As to the non-appointment of Bishops to vacant Sees in Belgium, it should be recollected, that the king of Holland was a Protestant Sovereign, and that as such he could not appoint Roman Catholic Prelates. About three years ago, however, he succeeded in obtaining a concordat with the See of Rome, and the Pope had expressed his satisfaction at the appointments which had taken place since that time. It was said, that few Belgians were employed in diplomatic situations. The paucity of the Belgians employed in such situations was to be accounted for principally through non-application on their part for employment of that description. Nevertheless it did so happen, that at this moment there were three Belgians in diplomatic situations, under the king of Holland. Another of the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that no Belgians were employed in the higher departments of the army, which was, perhaps, owing to the Belgians themselves, for a vast deal fewer of them, in proportion, than the Dutch were promoted to the upper ranks of the French army, when both were in the service of Napoleon. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the unpopularity which the Belgian Deputies who had taken the side of the king of Holland in the States-general, had earned for themselves. As a proof of their unpopularity, he begged to state, that two-thirds of them were at present members of the National Congress in Brussels. He had shortly stated those facts, to show that the hon. and learned Member had been grossly misled by the authority on which he had relied, and he was sure, that the hon. Member, when he was disabused of the error into which he had fallen, would be the first to retract a mis-statement, of the having made which wilfully he need scarcely say, that he altogether acquitted the hon. Member.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that the noble Lord had, with great courtesy, made a statement in reply to what had fallen from him (Mr. O'Connell) on a former evening, in reference to the conduct of the king of Holland. He (Mr. O'Connell) should feel the utmost delight in retracting any statement which he had made, if it were proved that such statement were unfounded. Instead, however, of retracting any thing which he had stated, with regard to the conduct of the king of Holland, he had only to regret, that his charges against that personage, on a former evening, had been preferred in a very mitigated shape. He had not stated a single fact which he was not ready to substantiate by documents. He hoped, that the House would bear with him on this occasion, while he proceeded to vindicate that statement which the noble Lord had endeavoured to impugn. As to the non-presentation of remonstrances from the Belgians, against the annexation of Belgium to Holland, he was aware that that annexation was only finally arranged in 1815, though it had been determined upon in July, 1814; but the noble Lord had forgotten to state, that the king of Holland was in possession of Belgium, as the commissary of the Holy Alliance, all the time between the period when Napoleon was completely defeated, and the period when the union of the two kingdoms was arranged and finally agreed to. When it was said, therefore, that the Belgians sent forward no remonstrances against that union to the Holy Alliance, let it be recollected, that the king of Holland was in military possession of Belgium, and there was in that country no magistracy, no civil authority, no law but the will of the Stadtholder; and it might very truly be said, that the Belgians expressed no unwillingness to the union. How could they? Dare any man of them, under such circumstances, throw out a hint about it? The king, indeed, referred the constitution to a Committee. But the way he managed was distinguished by the chicanery which pervaded the whole conduct of that king. The Dutch had already agreed to the constitution, and well they might, as they had all the advantages of it on their own side: but the constitution was referred to a Congress of an equal number of Dutch and Belgian Notables. With respect to the Dutch, then, it was merely acta agere. The Dutch nominees of the king in the States General of course voted for it, because it was favourable to themselves; but of the 1,323 Belgic deputies in the States-General, 796 voted against the acceptance of the constitution, and 527 in favour of it. Was not that a rejection of the proposed constitution on the part of Belgium? Could any man in his senses say, that the Belgians did not thus reject this constitution by a majority against it? His Dutch majesty, however, decided, that 527 votes were more than 796, and that the minority was greater than the majority. Because 126 of the Belgian deputies who voted against the constitution, assigned as a reason for doing so, that the king was a Protestant, his majesty struck their votes out of the list, on the ground of their having given a reason for their votes. There were 282 of the Belgian deputies who did not vote at all, and the king at once decided that every one of them had voted on his side. Such conduct was an insult to common sense, and an outrage upon the feelings of the people of Belgium. All these Notables had been selected by the king, and yet they voted against the constitution, than which there could not be a more decisive proof that it was opposed to the feelings of the nation, and that it was eventually forced upon them by fraud and violence. But then they were told, that the Belgian Bishops had protested against the giving equal favour and protection to all religions in Belgium. In doing so they only imitated the example, and followed the steps, of the Protestant Tories in this country. In doing so, they only acted in accordance with the principles of the hon. member for Oxford, for instance, and of many other hon. Members in that House. For his part, he differed from the Belgian Bishops, and from the hon. member for Oxford, on that point; he was for giving the same protection to all religions; but again he would say on behalf of those Belgian Bishops, that they only protested against the protection of the Protestant religion in Belgium, as the Protestant Tories would protest against the protection of the Catholic religion here. Such was the reason that some of the Belgic deputies assigned, for voting against the constitution proposed by the king of Holland; but though it was not a good reason, it was no just cause for disqualifying them for voting. Could any decision afford a greater evidence of fraud and force than that decision, on the part of the king of Holland? It was in such a way that this constitution was forced upon Belgium. By means of that constitution, Belgium was saddled with the debt of Holland. The only debt that had previously existed in Belgium, was the Austro-Belgic debt, which amounted to about 1,000,000l. sterling. By the constitution, however, which the king of Holland imposed upon Belgium, it was saddled in addition with the Dutch debt, which amounted to 80,000,000l. sterling. It was not at all wonderful that the Dutch Deputies had voted for the imposition of that constitution upon Belgium, when, by means of it, they transferred 39,500,000l. of it to the shoulders of the Belgians. The consequence was, that the increase of taxation in Belgium was enormous. To such an extent, indeed, was it carried, that the French war taxes in Belgium under Napoleon, amounted only to one-third of the Dutch peace taxes in that country. This taxation was, besides, increasing every year during the reign of his Dutch majesty over Belgium, and the result must have been either a bankruptcy, or a revolution, if that cause alone had been allowed to operate. In the year 1821, the king of Holland imposed additional taxes to the amount of 4,000,000l., 3,000,000l. of which were thrown on Belgium, and the remaining 1,000,000l. on the Dutch. Was that a fair or a just distribution of the burthen of taxation between the two countries? Besides, though the Belgic population amounted to 4,000,000, and the Dutch to only 2,000,000, the Dutch had an equal number of representatives in the States General. The consequence was, that the king being always sure of the Dutch Deputies, had only to bribe one or two of the Belgic Deputies, to secure a majority for any measure which he might propose with regard to Belgium, however onerous or unjust such a measure might be towards that country. It was by that means that he secured a majority of two in 1821, when the unjustly disproportionate share of the new taxes was laid upon Belgium. In truth and fact, there never was a more iniquitous and unjust union, than that which subsisted between Belgium and Holland, unless, perhaps, that which at present existed between two other countries, to which he would not further allude. The Dutch king, in 1814, when acting as commissary of the Holy Alliance, abolished by a decree the Trial by Jury in Belgium, and he never restored it, though the Belgians frequently petitioned for it. In one of the petitions, the Belgians, though living under the rule of this Dutch king, had the courage to repeat that the Trial by Jury "had been assassinated in Belgium." It was said by the apologists of the king, that he had presented three Jury codes to the Chamber, which were successively rejected by it. But when were they presented? It was not until the year 1828 that the first of them was offered to the Chamber, and the legislation of the middle ages was enlightened, compared with the specimen of legislation which they afforded. The fact was, that the Belgians were obliged to reject them, they were so extremely bad. In a message to the Chamber, on the 11th of December, 1829, the king of Holland expressly declared, that the Trial by Jury was an "exotic innovation" in Belgium. In the same decree by which the king of Holland abolished the Trial by Jury in Belgium, he ordained, that the examination of witnesses should no longer take place in open Court, and he thus removed one of the surest safeguards of public justice. Still further, he rendered the Judges in Belgium, quite dependent on his will and power. It was true, that not a single one of them had been removed, during the fifteen years that his Dutch majesty ruled in Belgium but his (Mr. O'Connell's) complaint was, that such was the case, and that all that time those Judges held their offices provisionally. The constitution declared, that the Judges should be irremovable; but then the king was to have the first nomination of them, and afterwards the Chamber was to have it; and by thus keeping in the original Judges, he rendered them perfectly dependent on him, for they were well aware that they only held their situations "during their good behaviour." Yet this king, who by thus withholding the execution of that part of the constitution which related to the Judges, rendered the judicial office provisional, and completely dependent, had been lauded in that House as a philosophic monarch! Undoubtedly, if cunning meant philosophy, he possessed a most superabundant store of wisdom, for, by withholding the constitution of the Courts, he contrived to keep in his hands, during the fifteen years of his reign in Belgium, an unlimited control over the Judges in that kingdom. The law of libel declared, that whoever excited a hatred of the government, or created any distrust (mefiance) of the government, should receive, as a minimum of punishment, one year's imprisonment, and six hours in the pillory, whilst the maximum of punishment should be death. This was the detestable law, under which Belgium had laboured for fourteen years. The law was published on the 25th of April, 1815, and not a single year had elapsed without somebody being prosecuted under this law. In the month of June, 1830, no less than thirty-two prosecutions were commenced under this law, on the same day. He would now name a few of the leading cases of oppression which had occurred under this mild philosophic king of the Netherlands. The first case lie would allude to, was that of Mr. Wallace, who had presented a memorial to the assembly at the Hague, praying that he might be allowed to institute a prosecution against the minister of police, for having illegally and tyrannically banished from Brussels two French gentlemen, who had resided at that capital, and who were entitled to all the rights and privileges of free and natural born subjects. For laying this petition before the house, Mr. Wallace was thrown into solitary confinement for sixty-six days. He was then brought to trial, for a transportable felony, and if he was acquitted he did not owe his escape to the king, or to his prosecutors. He could quote very many other instances of oppression. He would allude to a case of a priest at Antwerp, a man of the highest respectability, a most exemplary character, and one who employed his leisure time in the pursuits of literature. This person was invited to a dinner in a private family at Antwerp, and in the course of the entertainment, he produced some Latin verses, in which there was a line expressive of the sentiment, that the Belgians were ignorant of submitting to a foreign yoke— Nescit subire jugum. For this line he had to suffer two years' imprisonment. He would now come to the case of M. de Potter. That gentleman's articles in the newspapers were so written, that it was impossible to attack any one of them with a view of bringing it under the law of libel; and what was the stratagem of Government? They took them all together, declaring, that though not separately libels, they were libels taken as a whole, and tried M. de Potter before the Premier President, without a Jury, and sentenced him to seven years' transportation. M. de Potter was a politician, and might merit the anger of Government; but what could be thought of the case of M. Vander Spragen? This gentleman published a large octavo volume upon Political Economy, and a prosecution was immediately commenced against him. M. de Potter's prosecution was going on at the same time; and a gentleman, M. Van de Weyer, now the Ambassador to this country, was the Keeper of the Public Library; he was Professor of Philosophy, and he had been elected Keeper of the Royal Manuscripts. M. de Potter sent to him to know if he would act as his counsel, and he replied in the affirmative; but on this being known, an intimation was forthwith conveyed to him, that if he acted as counsel for M. de Potter, he would be immediately deprived of his office. "You may deprive me of twenty places," he replied; "but I will do my duty?" Immediately he rose in Court to defend his friend; no sooner had he uttered the word "Messieurs"—the term in which Pleaders commence in addressing the Court—than a royal messenger rose, and gave him his dismissal from his official situations. How, too, did the upright King of Holland proceed in the case of M. Van Staaten. That gentleman had applied to seven members of the legal profession to draw up his case. The very next day all these seven gentlemen were committed to gaol, and were held without bail or mainprize, nor was it until a twelvemonth had elapsed that they were restored to their profession. In hearing of this case, who could forget that of the seven Bishops in England, which was followed by a revolution that no man could hesitate to justify, and yet the bigotted tyrant who prosecuted the seven Bishops never thought of prosecuting the Counsel that undertook their defence? But the Press in Belgium was open to prosecutions by foreigners. The king of France had a Belgian writer prosecuted and punished. And who was the next prosecutor? Why, it was no less a man than the beloved Ferdinand. A paragraph had appeared in the papers acknowledging that Ferdinand was an excellent embroiderer, but at the same time the writer took the liberty of doubting if the Virgin Mary would be much pleased with a petticoat embroidered by hands that were stained with innocent blood. The beloved Ferdinand prosecuted the writer of this, and he was punished. Even the Duke of Wellington tried his hand at these prosecutions. The Governor of some colony had neglected his duty, and great disturbance had been produced in consequence in the interior. The writer stated, that the Governor was a friend of the Duke of Wellington, and that his object was to throw the colony into the arms of England. The Duke of Wellington on this instituted a prosecution for libel, and had laid his damages at 10,000 florins, and what did he get? why, five fanes. He would do his Grace the justice to say, that he believed, that he did not put one penny of this in his own pocket. The Burgomaster of Maestricht, for opposing an illegal tax, had been tried and acquitted, but was deprived of his office, and of all his political rights. Another Burgomaster, for suggesting a petition to the House of Assembly in favour of the Jury law, was dismissed from his office, and deprived of his political rights, by which he lost his chance of being returned as a member of the Chambers. A Baron Stassart, a native Belgian, who had served in the French army, had resigned his pension of 10,000 francs in France, and had preferred to reside in his native country, upon a pension of only 1,800 guilders. He was a member of the second Chamber, before which was laid a petition complaining of grievances, and he voted that the petition should be received and considered. The next day he was deprived of his pension, and his political rights were taken away from him by this philosophic king. The noble Lord was wrong in his opinion of the press. The public press was intelligent enough. The noble Lord should reflect that there were 80,000,000l. of Dutch debt, some of which was due to English subjects, and this, he might easily imagine, would have its influence on the English press. The manner in which he had been reported in the leading journal was rather singular. It was something new for a reporter to state that a speech of his had received "a sneering answer." Such a thing had never before happened to him, and it had never happened except to him. To call the Belgians rebels was an abuse of terms, and a gross calumny. With respect to the religious part of the question, the Pope had considered himself to be defrauded in the transaction. The greatest tyranny had been shown in the licensing of schools. Not Carlile or Taylor could have gone farther in religious freedom than the Emperor Joseph 2nd, and his foundation of the College at Brussels had created the revolution of 1787, and yet the Catholic clergy were obliged to pass three years in study at this college. He had now shown hat he had exaggerated nothing. He had been attacked, but what had been his crime? He had merely assailed the Toryism of Holland, a Toryism similar to that which had devastated his own country, and yet this had excited the anger of a right hon. Baronet. Sejanus, Wolsey hurt not honest Fleury, But yet would put some statesmen in a fury. He had now shown, that the Belgians were called upon by every sanction of religion to endure their tyranny only until they could snap their chains, and he trusted that they would never again be united.

Lord Althorp

did not think an attack upon the king of the Netherlands a proper mode of proceeding, and it was only because the noble Lord had made a statement in answer to what the learned Gentleman had said on a previous night, that he felt disinclined to interrupt the learned Gentleman, although the whole discussion was very irregular. He thought it far from desirable, that the discussion should be proceeded in. The subject extended over fifteen years, and it was not likely that the debate would be speedily concluded.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the Belgians had had sufficient ground for the course they had adopted; but surely there was no one who had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, both on that and on a former night, who would not admit, that what he said was more directed to another country than to that which formed the ostensible object of his two speeches. Much had been said respecting the Belgian Debt. It might be true, that it was not so large as that of Holland; but the hon. and learned Gentleman now admitted, there was a debt, which he had before denied. The hon. and learned Member had again misstated the facts of several divisions of the second Chamber on the Jury question. As to all the special cases of individual hardship which the hon. and learned Gentleman had enlarged upon, they had nothing but bare assertion to rest upon; but all the cases and circumstances he had mentioned did not justify the Belgians in casting off their allegiance. Contenting himself with these observations for the present, he should only say, that whenever the hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to bring forward a motion on the subject, or bring the subject in any form again before the House, under circumstances in which it would be practicable to collect evidence, he should be prepared to answer him.