Belgium

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The Napoleonic era

The victory of Fleurus, gained by the French army over the Austrian forces, 26 June, 1794, gave torevolutionary France all the territories which constitute Belgium of today: the AustrianNetherlands, theecclesiastical principality ofLiège, the little monastic principality of Stevelot-Malmedy, and the Duchy of Bouillon. The French, who professed to have entered the country to deliver the Belgians form the yoke of tyranny and to liberate them, in reality gave themselves up to such pillaging and extortion that, as aBrussels magistrate said, they left the inhabitants nothing but their eyes to weep with. After this, in alleged compliance with the express wish of the Belgians, who as a matter of fact had not been consulted, adecree of the Convention,dated 1 October, 1795, proclaimed the annexation of the Belgian provinces toFrance.

At the beginning of the French rule, which was to last twenty years (1794-1814), religious conditions were not identical in the annexed countries. Religion was deeply rooted in what had formerly been the AustrianNetherlands. They had revolted in 1789 against the reforms ofJoseph II, which were inspired by the spirit of sophistry.Jansenism,Febronianism, and Josephinism had gained but few partisans there; theUniversity of Louvain was a bulwark ofCatholicorthodoxy; even the Vonckist party, which in 1789 had been clamouring for political reforms, showed great respect for religion and had taken as its mottoPro aris et focis. On the other hand, in the ancient principality ofLiège, which, since the fourteenth century had shown the deepest sympathy withFrance, public sentiment was gallophile, revolutionary, and even somewhat Voltairean; the predominant desire was to throw off the yoke of thepriests, and the principality had literally cast itself into the arms ofFrance throughhatred of the theocracy. But the French Government soon caused these local differences to be lost sight of in the commonhatred of the foreign oppressor.

The Directory began by enforcing, one after another, theFrench revolutionarylaws concerning monastic orders and public worship in Belgium. Religious houses, except those devoted to teaching or to the care of the sick, were suppressed; it was forbidden to wear anecclesiastical garb; theclergy were forced to publish a declaration recognizing the people ofFrance as the sovereign authority, and promising submission and obedience to thelaws of the Republic; the communes were forbidden to contribute to the expenses of public worship and every external symbol of religion was prohibited. The Belgians stood firm, and the elections of the fifth year having shown an undeniable reaction of public opinion against the revolutionary spirit, theclergy appealed to the Five Hundred (Cinq Cents) to demand a suspension of the declaration until apapal decision should be received settling the question its licitness. In the meanwhile, thepriests who had not made the declaration continued to exercise theirpriestly functions in the Belgian provinces, and the tribunal of La Dyle acquitted those who were brought before it. At this juncture, Camille Jordan made a favourable report to theCinq Cents on theclergy's request, and thus the Belgians had thehonour of changing the current of French legislation for the better.

Thecoup d'état of the fifth Fructidor, however, carried out by the revolutionary members of the Directory, destroyed all hope. The victorious conspirators dismissed many Belgians who had been elected, and the elections of the sixth year, conducted under the violent pressure of republican deputies, gave the Government the wished-for results. Thenpersecution began again. The observance of thedecadi, or the last day of the republican decade (week of ten days), was madeobligatory and the Sunday rest was forbidden; for the second time, the wearing of anyecclesiastical garb was prohibited; in the suppression ofreligious orders no exception was made for nursing and teaching orders;seminaries and secular chapters were likewise abolished. TheUniversity of Louvain was closed on the ground of not having "the kind of public instruction conformable to Republican principles". As if the "declaration" had not sufficiently overtaxed consciences,priests were compelled to take anoath ofhatred for royalty. On the refusal of the great majority, they were banisheden masse and adecree issued, closing all churches served by recalcitrantpriests. The officials of many communes ignored this order, and in more than one respect, it became a source of trouble. The interdictedpriests continued to exercise their functions in the woods, or in private houses which afforded them places of retreat; in many places thefaithful, deprived of theclergy, assembled in churches or in barns, to celebrate "blind Masses" as they were called, viz. Masses withoutconsecration, or any services at the altar. The French deputies daily devised new methods ofpersecution in revenge for the opposition of public opinion, all the more unconquerable by reason of its silence and its tranquillity.

Things did not rest here. The spark that started the conflagration was the enforcing (1798) in the Belgian provinces of the French conscriptionlaws requiring the enlistment of young men in the armies of the Republic. Rather than shed their blood for masters whom theyhated, they rose in revolt, first in Waesland and in Campine, then inFlanders and in German Luxemburg. The Walloon provinces took part in the movement, but with much less energy. This was "the peasants'war" called inLuxemburg, "thewar of the cudgels" (Klöppelkrieg). There was no lack ofcourage and devotion among the combatants, and some among them afforded admirable examples of heroism. However, they were poorly armed, had inefficient commanders, and were totally lacking in discipline and military organization; they were deprived of the support of the nobility and of the middle class, who remained absolutely inactive, and they were abandoned even by theAustrian Government which had every reason to stir up a Belgian insurrection. Consequently they could offer no serious resistance to the French troops. They fell back every time they met the enemy in open field; those who did not die in battle were later shot.

After this rising had been quelled, thepersecution of theclergy was resumed; 7,500priests were illegally condemned to be deported. The great majority escaped, only four or five hundred being arrested. Of this number, the oldest and those who were ill were detained in Belgium and inFrance; about three hundred were sent to Rochefort with Guiana as their ultimate destination, and, in the interval, were held at the Ile de Re and the Ile d'Oleron where they had much to undergo from ill treatment. It was the darkest hour during the French domination, and was terminated by thecoup d'état of 18 Brumaire, 1799. The new Government did not persecute on principle, but only in so far as it was believednecessary to enforce the revolutionarylaws to maintain the interests of the party in power. A solution of difficulties was supposed to have been discovered when theclergy were required to take merely anoath of "fidelity to the Republic as resting on the sovereignty of the people". The Belgianbishops who were refugees inEngland condemned thisoath because thedoctrine of the sovereignty of the peopled seemed to themheretical. They also refused to sanction the promise of fidelity to the Constitution of the seventh year, which the Government exacted of theclergy before permitting them to exercise theduties of their ministry, because the Constitution rested onfalse bases and contained articles deserving of condemnation. The leader of this opposition was apriest named Corneille Stevens (1747-1828), who, appointed administrator of theDiocese of Namur (1799) by Cardinal Frankenberg,Archbishop ofMechlin, forbade theclergy to promise fidelity to the Constitution, and who, in a series of pamphlets appearing under the pseudonym of Lemaigre, continued to advocate resistance. Finally, the Concordat of 15 August, 1801, brought, if not final peace, at least a truce. At thepope's request, the four Belgianbishops who had survived the persecutions tendered their resignations and of the nineepiscopal sees into which Belgium had been divided since 1559, five only were retained:Mechlin Tournai,Ghent,Namur, andLiège. Thebishoprics ofAntwerp,Bruges, Ypres, and Ruremonde were suppressed. This organization of 1801 is still effective with this difference, however, that theSee of Bruges was re-established in 1834, and that of Ruremonde in 1840.

Great was the rejoicing in the Belgian provinces when, on Pentecost day, 1802 (6 June),Catholic worship wassolemnly re-established throughout the country. For some years, the name ofBonaparte, the First Consul, was most popular, and it even seemed as if the "new Cyrus", by the great boon which he had granted Belgium, had gained the support of the Belgians for a foreign government. Thebishops appointed byNapoleon fostered in the people sentiments of personal devotion to him, and to such an extent that today they cannot be acquitted of the charge of exceeding all bounds in the adulation and servility. There were, it istrue, protests against the new regime. The "non-communicants", as they were styled, refused to recognize the Concordat, contending that it had been forced upon thepope, and they formed aschismatical group, termed the "little church" (la petite église), which, though continually falling off in numbers, has preserved its existence, until very recent times. The members have often beenerroneously designated as Stevenists. Stevens did not oppose the Concordat. The champion of a rigorous and uncompromisingorthodoxy, he recognized the authority of thebishops of the Concordat, but mercilessly condemned their cringing attitude towards thecivil authorities, against whose religious policy he never ceased protesting. Form the recesses of his retreat he sent forth brochures, training his guns upon "Saint Napoleon", whosefeast day had been fixed by the Government as the 15th of August. He also attacked bitterly the imperialcatechism of 1806 already adopted by the great part of the Frenchclergy, which contained a special chapter upon theduties of the faithful toward the emperor. This uninterrupted propaganda struck a responsive chord in the national consciousness and was doubtless responsible for thecourage displayed by the Belgianepiscopacy in refusing to accept the imperialcatechism, which was adopted only in the Diocese ofMechlin. Stevens was perhaps the most unbending adversaryNapoleon ever encountered, and their contest was extremely interesting. Although the emperor offered thirty thousand francs to anyone who would deliver Father Stevens into his hands, thepriest was never seized; nor was he silenced as long as the Empire lasted. WhenNapoleon fell (1814) he came out of his retreat, entered thejurisdiction of theBishop ofNamur, and submitted all his writings to the judgment of theHoly See, which, however, never pronounced upon them.

The Belgianbishops were wearied with the exactions of the Government, which went so far as to require every year special pastoral letters impressing upon the people their militaryduty on the occasion of each call for conscripts, and they, as well as the body of the people, had already lost confidence inNapoleon, when, in 1809, he made the tremendous mistake of suppressing the temporal power of thepope and of annexing theStates of the Church to the Empire. From that day, he was regarded by the Belgians as a persecutor. Count de Morode-Westerloo, a Belgian, and Prince Corsini, an Italian, alone dared to express publicly in the Senate their disapproval of this usurpation, and thus prevent it from receiving a unanimous ratification. The more anti-religious the policy of the emperor, the more energetic became the resistance of the Belgians, and the more spirited the conduct of theirbishops, who discarded the language of the courtier for that of thepastor. While thebishops ofMechlin andLiège, recently appointed by the emperor, denounced their ownclergy, atGhent,Tournai, and Namur, Bishops de Broglie, Hirn, and Pisani de la Gaude, respectively gave examples of noble firmness. Named Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, Bishop de Broglie declined on the plea of being unable inconscience to take theoath to maintain the territorial integrity of the Empire which thenceforth would comprise theStates of the Church. "Your conscience is a fool", said theEmperor, turning his back. At the famous council of 1811, convoked byNapoleon without the authorization of theimprisonedpope, the attitude of de Broglie and of Hirn was no lesscourageous; they, together with theBishop ofTroyes, succeeded in inducing the council to defeat the imperialdecree limiting thepope's right of institution. The very next day, the council was dissolved by imperial command, and the threebishops were arrested and thrown intoprison, not to be released until they had been forced to tender their resignations. Their successors appointed byNapoleon were not recognized in their respective diocese, in which theclergy and thefaithful were a unit in their resistance. More and more incensed, the emperor fell to striking blindly; numbers ofpriests wereimprisoned, and all the seminarists ofGhent were drafted into the army and dispatched to Wesel on the Rhine, where forty-nine of them succumbed to contagious diseases (1813). Such was the end of a regime which had been acclaimed by the Belgians with universaljoy. The fall ofNapoleon was greeted with no less satisfaction, and many Belgian volunteers took up arms against him in the campaigns of 1814 and 1815. In this nation of loyalCatholics, it wasNapoleon's blundering religious policy which alienated his subjects.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-30)

Soon after the victory of the Allied Powers, who became masters of Belgium, they established there a provisional government under the Duke of Beaufort (11 June, 1814). The new governing powers promptly proclaimed to the Belgians that, in conformity with the intentions of the Allied Powers, "they would maintain inviolable the spiritual and thecivil authority in their respective spheres, as determined by the canonicallaws of theChurch and by the old constitutionallaws of the country". These declarations roused hopes which, however, were destined to be disappointed; for by the secret treaty of Chaumont (1 March, 1814), confirmed by Article 6 of the Treaty ofParis (30 May, 1814), it had even then been decided thatHolland should receive an addition of territory, and that this addition should be Belgium. The secret Treaty ofLondon (23 June, 1814) furthermore provided that the union of the two countries was to be internal and thorough, so that they "would form one and the same State governed by the constitution already established inHolland, which would be modified by mutual consent to accord with new conditions". The new State took the name of the Kingdom of theNetherlands, and was placed under the sovereignty of William I of Orange-Nassau.

The object of the Powers in creating the Kingdom of theNetherlands was to giveFrance on her northern frontier a neighbour strong enough to serve as a barrier against her, and with this aim in view they disposed of the Belgian provinces without consulting them. The State resulting form this union seemed to offer numerous guarantees of prosperity from the standpoint of economics. Unfortunately, however, the two peoples, after being separated for more than two centuries, had conflicting temperaments; theDutch wereCalvinists, the BelgiansCatholics, and the former, although greatly in the minority, 2,000,000 as against 3,500,000 Belgians, expected to rule the Belgians and to treat them as subjects. These differences could have been lessened by a sovereign who would take theduty on himself; they were, however, aggravated by the policy adopted by William I. Arbitrary, narrow-minded, obstinate, and moreover an intolerantCalvinist, he surrounded himself almost exclusively with Dutchmen, who were totallyignorant ofCatholic matters and of the Belgian character. In addition, he was imbued with the principles of "enlightened despotism" which made him regard his absolutism as the form of government best suited to the needs of his kingdom, and thus he was unequal to his tasks from the very outset. While still Prince ofFulda, he hadpersecuted hisCatholic subjects until the Diet was forced to check him. As King of theNetherlands, he showed that he had learned nothing by experience, and imagined that he could effect the fusion of the two peoples by transforming Belgium intoHolland as far as possible.

On the other hand, the Belgians, passionately attached to their national traditions, and even more to their religious unity, did not take sufficiently into account the profound changes which had taken place in the conditions of the two peoples. Forgetful of theFrench Revolution and the consequent upheaval of WesternEurope they were convinced that past conditions could be restored even in the midst of asociety that had outgrown them; nor did they grasp the fact that as the Treaty ofLondon established freedom of worship in the Kingdom of theNetherlands they were under an internationalobligation which could not be put aside. They calmly demanded, first of the Allied Sovereigns, then of the Congress of Vienna, not only the restoration of the formerrights of theChurch, but the re-establishment of their old constitution in its entirety. Their disappointment was great when their sovereign, obeying the provisions of the Treaty ofLondon, submitted for their acceptance the "Fundamental Law of Holland", with some modifications. Leaving out of the question the initialinjustice in granting each country the same numerical representation in the States-General, despite the fact that the population of Belgium was almost twice that ofHolland, it entirely overthrew the old order of things, suppressed theclergy as an order, abolished the privileges of theCatholicChurch, and guaranteed the enjoyment of the same civil and politicalrights to every subject of the king, and equal protection to every religious creed. The Belgianbishops promptly made respectful appeals to the king. William having disregarded these, they issued a "Pastoral Instruction" for the use of the prominent Belgians summoned to present their views on the revised Fundamental Law. This condemned the Law as contrary to religion and forbade its acceptance. The high-handed course taken by the Government to hinder the effectiveness of these measuresproved unavailing; of the 1,603 prominent Belgians consulted, 280 did not vote, 796 voted against the Fundamental Law, and only 527 declared themselves in favour of it. The Fundamental Law was therefore rejected by the nation; for, adding to the 527 favourable votes the 100 unanimous votes of the States ofHolland, there was a total of only 637 votes. Nevertheless, the king declared the Fundamental Law adopted, because, according to him, those who did not vote were to be regarded as favouring it, while of the 796 who opposed it, 126 did so only because they misunderstood its meaning. Owing to this "Dutch arithmetic", as King William's computations were termed, Belgium found itself under a constitution which it had legally repudiated, a constitution too whichproved to the Kingdom of theNetherlands a heavy burden during its brief, stormy existence.

The adoption of the Fundamental Law, by the king's decision, did not end the conflict between thecivil authority and the Belgianconscience. Besieged with questions as to whether it was permissible to take theoath of fidelity to the Fundamental Law, thebishops published their "Doctrinal Decision", which condemned it (1815). In consequence, manyCatholics in obedience to their religious superiours, refused to take theoath, resigned their offices and their seats in the legislature. On the other hand, the Prince de Méan, former Prince-Bishop ofLiège, took the requiredoath, and the king immediately appointed him to thearchiepiscopal See of Mechlin, then vacant. The king next had attempted to gain theHoly See for his side in his struggle with the Belgianepiscopacy, by practically demanding of itBulls of canonical investiture for his candidate as well as a formal censure of the "Doctrinal Decision". Thepope replied gently but firmly, condemning the words of theoath of allegiance to the Fundamental Law, sending aBrief of commendation to thebishops, and refusing investiture to the Prince de Méan until he should have publicly declared that hisoath had not bound him to anything "contrary to thedogmas andlaws of theCatholicChurch, and that in swearing to protect all religious communions, he understood this protection only in its civil sense". The condescension of theHoly See in this matter, instead of winning the king to moderation, seemed to make him bolder. Reviving the obsolete claims of the old Gallican and Josephinist governments, and determined to overcome the opposition of theBishop ofGhent, he had thebishop prosecuted for having published the "Doctrinal Decision"; for having corresponded withRome without authorization; and for having published thepapal Bulls withoutapprobation. TheBrussels Court of Assizes condemned thebishop to be deported forcontumacy (1817), and the Government, carrying the sentence even farther, had thebishop's name written on the pillory, between two professional thieves sentenced to be pilloried and branded. Theclergy of theDiocese of Ghent who remained faithful to thebishop were alsopersecuted by the State. The conflict would have continued indefinitely had not theprelate died in exile, in 1821, after having had twice confessed the Faith in the face ofpersecution. After his death, the Government conceded that theoath should be binding only from the civil point of view, which set at rest theCatholicconscience and ended the difficulties which had beset the first six years of the Kingdom of theNetherlands.

If there had been any real desire on the part of King William to respect theconscience ofCatholics, who constituted the greater part of the nation, he would now have inaugurated a policy, which would have set aside religious differences, and started the kingdom along lines leading to the frank and cordial fusion of the two peoples. This was not done. On the contrary, in his obstinate determination to treat thesovereign pontiff as an outsider, and to bring theCatholicChurch under theomnipotence of the State, William in his blind fury continued his policy of oppression. Before the above-mentioned conflict, the king had created a State commission forCatholic affairs and had declared in thedecree that "no church ordinance coming from a foreign authority — [i.e. thepope] could be published without the approval of the Government". This was equivalent to re-establishing in the full dawn of the nineteenth century theplacet of the despotic governments of the former regime. Going farther, he instructed this commission "to be on their guard in maintaining the liberties of the Belgian Church", an extravagant formula borrowed from defunct Gallicanism, implying that the commission should take care to withdraw the Belgian Church from the legitimate authority of thepope. The men he had chosen to help him pushed their distrust andhatred of theCatholichierarchy farther than he did. Baron Goubau, the head of the board ofCatholic worship, and his superior, Van Maanen the minister of justice, by a system of petty persecutions soon made their names the mosthated in Belgium, and largely increased the unpopularity of the Government.

In 1821 the Government began to be chiefly occupied with the suppression of liberty in the matter ofeducation. Since the foundation, in 1817, of the three Stateuniversities,Liège,Ghent, andLouvain, highereducation had been entirely under the control of the State, which now assumed control of middle inferioreducation (20 May, 1821) by a ministerial ordinance which allowed no freeschool to exist without the express consent of the Government. Lastly, adecree of 14 June, 1825, suppressed free middle superior instruction by determining that no college could exist without being expressly authorized, and that no one could teach the children of more than onefamily without an official diploma. A seconddecree of the samedate declared anyone who made his studies abroad ineligible for any public office in the kingdom. The State having monopolized all layeducation, there still remained the training of theclergy, which by the general canons of theChurch, and those of theCouncil of Trent, in particular, belonged exclusively to thebishops. By a thirddecree, 14 June, 1825, said to be a revival of that ofJoseph II, establishing the General Seminary, a State institution was erected under the name of Philosophical College (College philosophique), in which every aspirant for thepriesthood wasobliged to make a course of at least two years before he could be admitted to agrand séminaire.

On this occasion, theArchbishop ofMechlin, whose servility toward the king had till then known no limit, did not hesitate to make some respectful remonstrances to the Government, declaring that he could not inconscience accept these decrees. Goubau, in answering, repeated in substanceNapoleon's gibe to the Prince de Broglie, "Yourconscience will be regarded as a mere pretext and for good reasons". The otherbishops, however, the capitular vicars of vacant sees, and the rest of theclergy, unanimously took sides with theArchbishop ofMechlin and joined in his protest. TheCatholic Belgian deputies to the States-General protested; theHoly See protested in its turn. Nothing availed; the Government closed the free colleges one after another, thereby ruining a flourishingeducational system in which Belgianfamilies had absolute confidence; the Philosophical College was opened with great pomp, with a corps of instructors little thought of, either from a scientific or a moral point of view; students were drawn thither by bursaries or scholarships, and by exemption from military service. The Government becoming more radical than ever, then undertook to createschism in the Belgian Church by elaborating a plan, whereby the authority of theHoly See would be abolished and thebishops placed immediately under the Government.

But all these measures only increased the discontent of the Belgians and their passive resistance. To get the mastery, the Government conceived theidea of having recourse a second time to thesovereign pontiff, and broaching again the project of a Concordat, which had failed in 1823, on account of the king's inadmissible claims. The king counted, on the one hand, on wresting as many concessions as possible from theHoly See, and on the other, on gaining popularity among the Belgians through the arrangement he would make with thepope. These calculations failed, and once more the superiority of papal diplomacy was made manifest in the difficult negotiations which finally resulted in the Concordat of 1827. The Philosophical College ceased to beobligatory forclerics and became a matter of choice; in place of having the right of designating thebishops, the king wasobliged to content himself with that of vetoing the choice made by the Chapters. The Concordat, which filled theCatholics withjoy, excited the ire of theCalvinists and theLiberals, and the Government tried hard to quiet the latter by showing the worst possible will in the application of the treaty which it had just concluded with the Vatican. The Philosophical College was not declared optional until 20 June, 1829; vacantepiscopal sees were provided with titulars elected according to the conditions laid down in the Concordat, but a royal decree rendered the recruiting of theclergy almost impossible save from the ranks of the old pupils of the Philosophical College. TheCatholic opposition, headed byBishop Van Bommel, the newBishop ofLiège, was so vigorous, and political complications so grave, that the king at last consented to permit thebishops to reorganize theirseminaries as they wished (20 October, 1829). Then, as the crisis became more serious, he went farther, and on 9 June, 1830, entirely suppressed the Philosophical College, which had been deserted form the time attendance had become optional. On 27 May of the same year, the king even revoked his decrees regarding freedom ineducation; he thanked Goubau and committed toCatholiczeal the direction of matters concerningCatholic worship, and would have left no ground for grievance on the part ofCatholics had he not, at the last moment, seen fit, in the negotiations with theHoly See, to demand the right of approving appointments tocanonries. But all the king's concessions, which were really extorted from him by force of circumstances, and despite his dogged reluctance, came too late, and the negotiations in regard to the question of canons were still in progress when the Belgian Revolution broke out.

As to the causes of an event so decisive for the future of the Belgian people, it is highly improbable that if King William had given them grounds for complaint only in religious matters, the public discontent would have culminated in a revolution. TheCatholics, faithful to the teachings of theChurch and to the counsels of theirpastors, had no wish to exceed what was lawful andknew that they should confine themselves to peaceful protests. But the Government had injured many other interests to which a great number were more sensitive than they were to the oppression of theCatholicChurch, at which they would have been wholly indifferent if, indeed, they would not have rejoiced. It will suffice to recall the principal grievances. AlthoughHolland's population was less than Belgium by almost half, each nation was allowed the same number of deputies in the States-General. Acquaintance with theDutch language was at once madeobligatory for all officials. The greater number of institutions of the central Government were located inHolland, and the majority of the offices were reserved for theDutch. Taxes on corn and on slaughtering weighed most heavily on the southern provinces. The press was under the arbitrary control of the Government and the courts, and they vigorously prohibited any criticism of the Government and its deputies. The Government stubbornly opposed the introduction of the jury system, the verdicts of which, inspired by a saner appreciation of public feeling, would often have calmed opinion instead of inflaming it. Lastly, as if wishing to fill the measure of its blunders, the Government shamelessly hired aninfamousforger condemned by the French tribunals, a certain Libri-Bagnano, whose journal, the "National", never ceased insulting and taunting every Belgian who had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of the Government. There came a time when theLiberals, who, as late as 1825, had applauded the Government in itspersecution of theChurch, found themselves attacked in their turn, and began to protest with moreviolence than theCatholics had ever done.

Then the inevitable happened. Equally oppressed, the two parties forgot their differences, and joined forces. The fiery anti-clerical Louis de Potter, author of various historical works extremely irreligious in tone, was one of the first to advocate, fromprison in which he was confined for some violation oflaws concerning the press, the union of theCatholics and theLiberals. This union was made the more easy because the greater part of theCatholics, under the influence of the teachings ofLamennais and the pressure of events, had abandoned their stand of 1815 and had rallied to thedoctrine of "liberty in all and for all". Once effected, the union ofCatholics andLiberals soon bore fruit. Their first step, proposed by theCatholics who wished to employ lawful means only, was the presentation of petitions by every class ofsociety in turn. Hundreds of petitions piled up in the offices of the States-General, demanding liberty ofeducation, freedom of the press, and the righting of other wrongs. While these petitions were being circulated the perfect order that was maintained deceived the king. On a tour which he made through the southern provinces, to convince himself personally as to the state of the public mind, he received such demonstrations of loyalty that he persuaded himself that the petition was a factitious movement, and went so far as to declare, atLiège, that the conduct of the petitioners wasinfamous (1829).

Thisfalse step was his undoing. In the face of his refusal to initiate any reforms, the country became incensed, and the direction of the national movement passed from the hands of the peacefulCatholics into those of the impatientLiberals. The resistance soon took on a revolutionary character. Theecclesiastical authorities had foreseen this, and had for a long time opposed both the "Union", and the petitions which were its first manifestation. The Bishops ofGhent andLiège had come forward to remind the faithful of theirduties to the sovereign; theArchbishop ofMechlin had assured the Government of the neutrality of theclergy; thenuncio had shown his disapproval of the "Union", and the Cardinal-Secretary of State had stigmatized it as monstrous. But the religious authorities soon found themselves powerless to control the movement. TheCatholics, imitating theLiberals, had recourse to violent language; their most important periodical refused to print the conciliatory letter of theBishop ofLiège, which one of the Liberal leaders styled an episcopal-ministerial document; the lowerclergy, in turn, allowed itself to be drawn into the current; the Government, wilfully blind, continued wantonly, in its imprudence, to pile up the materials for a great conflagration; at last nothing was lacking but a fuse. This came fromFrance. The revolution of July, 1830, lasting from the 27th to the 29th, overthrew the government of Charles X; on 25 August, of the same year, a riot broke out inBrussels and brought on the revolution which culminated in the conflicts between (24-26 September) theDutch troops and the people ofBrussels assisted by re-enforcements of volunteers from the provinces. The whole country rose up; at the end of some weeks theDutch army had evacuated the soil of the southern provinces, and Belgium was free.

Independent Belgium (1830-1905)

As has been shown, not only was the revolution the work of two parties but the chief role in it had been played by theLiberals, and for a long time, although a minority in the nation, their ranks supplied the principal leaders in national life. TheCatholics did not close their eyes to this state of things. Sincerely attached to the Union of 1828, they wanted a unionist policy without laying too much stress on party names. The provisional government which assumed the direction of affairs after the revolution had but oneCatholic among its ten members, and had as head and inspiration, Charles Rogier, who, in September, 1830, had come, at the head of theLiège volunteers, to lend a strong helping hand to the combatants inBrussels. The constituent Congress, convoked by the provisional government, was in great majority composed ofCatholics; partisans of liberty "in all and for all", in conformity with the teachings ofLamennais. The Liberal minority was split into two groups; the stronger professed the sameideas of liberty as theCatholics; the other was made up of a small number of sectarians and of Stateidolaters who had dreams of bringing theCatholicChurch into subjection to thecivil power. The leaders of theCatholic group were Count Félix de Mérode, a member of the provisional government, and Baron de Gerlache, President of the Congress; the most prominent among theLiberals were Charles Rogier, Joseph Lebeau, Paul Devaux,J.B. Nothomb, and Sylvan Van de Weyer; the group of sectarians followed the orders of Eugene Defacqz. The Constitution which resulted from the deliberations of the Congress reflected the dispositions of the great majority of the assembly and showed at the same time a reaction against the tyrannical regime of King William. It proclaimed the absolute freedom of worship and of the press, which theLiberals put first, and also freedom ofeducation and association, two things especially dear to theCatholics; concessions were even made to the prejudices of some, by renderingobligatory the priority ofcivil marriage over the religiousceremony and commanding that no one should be forced to observe the religious holidays of any denomination. The Congress showed the same broad-mindedness in the choice of a sovereign. The first selection fell on the Duke de Nemours, son of Louis Philippe, but the French king, fearing the jealousy of theEuropean powers, dared not accept the throne for his son. Then, after having given the regency for some months to Baron Surlet de Chokier, the Congress declared in favour of Prince Leopold de Saxe-Coburg Gotha, widower of the Princess Charlotte, heir presumptive to the Crown ofEngland. Though aProtestant prince, Leopold I (1831-65) showed himself worthy of the confidence of aCatholic people; during his entire reign he maintained an even balance between the two parties, and never lost his solicitude for the moral and religious interests of the nation. Owing largely to Leopold's wise policy, Belgium successfully inaugurated free institutions, and showed the world that aCatholic people is capable of progress in every field.

During the early years of the new kingdom both sides remained faithful to the union of 1828, the administration being divided between theCatholics andLiberals. The dominant thought was to defend againstHolland the patrimony of independence and of liberty won by the revolution, patriotism inspiring unanimous opposition to the foreigner. The tendency towards mutual conciliation was evident in the organiclaws perfected during these early years, especially in that of 1842 on primaryeducation which was passed unanimously by the Chamber, save for three blank votes, and received the unanimous vote of the senate. This law, the work ofJ.B. Nothomb, the minister, made religious teachingobligatory, but dispensed dissidents from attendance. King Leopold expressed his gratification on signing it. For thirty-seven years this remained the fundamental charter of publiceducation. At this time, everyone of whatever party was convinced of the necessity of religion in theeducation of the people. Theclergy readily rallied to the support of the bill and even suffered a great number of the 2,284 privateschools which they had opened to be closed that they might co-operate in the establishment of the publicschools.

Thelaw of 1842 was, in a way, the last product of Unionist principles. Since the treaty of 1839 had definitely regulated Belgium's position in regard toHolland, the fear of an outside enemy had been removed, and the Liberal party was convinced that there was no longer anything to hinder its political doctrines from prevailing in the national government. This attitude was partly justified by the state of affairs. TheCatholics were weak, without organization, without a press, without consciousness of their own strength; they had no relish for partisan contests, and they counted on Unionism to maintain public life along the lines of 1830. In contrast to theCatholic masses who lacked cohesion, and consciousness of their strength, theLiberals formed a young, spirited, united party, gaining recruits form the bourgeoisie and the learned classes alike, commanding much sympathetic support from official circles, in possession of a press with twenty times the influence of theCatholic press, in a word, master of the Belgium Government since 1830. Paul Devaux, one of the most remarkable men of this party and one of the organizers of the Union in 1828, became the apostle ofLiberalism in its later development, which implied the abolition of the Union and the victory of a policy exclusively Liberal in character. The articles which, beginning with 1839, he published in the "National Review", founded by him, exerted an enormous influence upon his party and even gradually won over to hisideas a large number of moderateLiberals.

While the Union of 1828 was being dissolved and some of its promoters were seeking to give a partisan predominance to mixed ministries, the dissenters, who cherished an implacablehatred for theCatholicChurch, wished to profit by the new turn of affairs in Liberal ranks to avenge the defeat they had met with at the hands of the constituent Congress. TheMasonic lodges entered on the scene with the avowed intention of forming the "conscience" of the Liberal party and of outlining its programme. They established a largesociety called "The Alliance", which soon numbered 1,000 members, and which was to serve as their agent and go-between with that part of the people in whichFreemasonry awakened distrustfulness. In 1846, the Alliance called together a Liberal Congress, presided over by Eugene Defacqz, the dissenter of 1830, now Grand Master of BelgianFreemasonry. The same secrecy was preserved in the deliberations of the Congress as in the Lodges, from which it originated, and the onlyknowledge its proceedings was to be gained from the programme which it published. In this document, side by side with political reforms, appeared "the real independence of the civil power", a mere formula signifying systematicwar on theChurch, and "the organization of public instruction under the exclusive direction ofcivil authority, which should be granted legal means to maintain a competition with private establishments, without the interference of theclergy, on the ground of authority. At the time that this programme was being drawn up, the Congress made plans for a general confederation ofLiberalism in Belgium, which with the Alliance as centre and type, was to establish in each district an association of free Liberal electors, bound inhonour to vote for the candidates chosen by the Congress. There were also be electoral division in every one of the cantons to extend the influence of the association. General reunions were to be held periodically to enable the alliance to reach the members of the associations and imbue them with theMasonic spirit. The Liberal Congress of 1846 brought the session to a close with "a resolution favouring the liberation of the lower clergy", whom they hoped to incite against thebishops by suggesting possibilities of bettering their condition. This resolution brought out strongly thetrue character of the Congress, as a reactionary movement against the work of the National Congress of 1830. It stands to reason that the strong impulse stirred up by the Congress in the ranks of the Liberal party, and the ardent hopes based on it reacted on the legislative elections, while theCatholics remained buried in their dream of Unionism, then merely an anachronism. The elections of 1847 placed theLiberals in power.

The new Government brought together in the same ministry Charles Rogier, member of the Congress of 1830, and Frere-Orban, one of the promoters of the Congress of 1846. Under the influence of the latter, a man of great talent but extremely arbitrary, whose imperious will got the better of the unionist scruples of his colleague, the Cabinet declared that it would inaugurate a "new policy" taking as its principle the "independence of thecivil power". And as a matter of fact, from this time forth,war was made on religious influence with a bitterness destined to divide the Belgian nation into two hostile camps. De Haussy, the Minister of Justice, set about applying to charitable foundations the most unheard-of principles. According to him, only charitable (State) bureaux could receive charitable bequests, and all endowments were to be turned over to them, even though the testator had made the selection of an administrator for the endowment an indispensable condition. On the other hand, thelaw of 1850 on middle-superioreducation was inspired by a spirit diametrically opposite to that of thelaw concerning primaryeducation; it showed the Government's intention of using the taxpayers' money to start competition with freeeducation, and if, as a matter of policy, theclergy were invited to give religious instruction in public institutions, conditions were such as to make their co-operation lack both dignity and effectiveness.

The Belgian nation was not yet ripe for the adoption of a policy so out of harmony with the spirit of its national traditions, and after five years, the cabinet was overthrown. A more moderate Liberal cabinet modified thelaw of 1850 by adopting the "agreement ofAntwerp" made between the communal administration of that city and thebishops, giving to theclergy the guarantees required for their admission to the public institutions of secondaryeducation. The support given to this agreement, by the chamber, the vote being 86 to 7, showed that the necessity of religious instruction was still understood by a large number ofLiberals. The elections of 1855, which returned aCatholic majority, resulted in a cabinet presided over by P. de Decker, who may be called the last of the Unionists. This cabinet, which its friends might have reproached with excessive moderation, was destined to be overthrown as reactionary. One of its members,A. Nothomb, drafted a law concerning charitable bequests intended to protect the interest of testators and repair the unfortunate effects of De Haussy's legislation. Testators were authorized to appoint special administrators for their bequests, but the powers of the latter were circumscribed and their exercise placed under the strict supervision of the State (1857). Under the leadership of Frere-Orban, who under the pseudonym of Jean Van Damme had just written a sensational pamphlet, theLiberals pretended to find in this scheme a roundabout restoration of the monasticmain-morte; they called it thelaw of theconvents, and when the plan was brought up for discussion, they organized riots which intimidated the head of the cabinet. He took advantage of the communal elections, which had been favourable to the Liberal party, to tender the resignation of the cabinet. This pusillanimous conduct delivered the Government again into the hands of theLiberals, who held power for thirteen years (1857-70).

During this long period the new ministry, which was merely the outcome of a riot, did nothing but emphasize the anti-religious character of its policy. The real head was Frere-Orban, who in the end forced his colleague, Rogier, to retire (1868), and carried out successively the principal features in his programme of secularization. More prominent than ever was the alleged aim of protecting civilsociety against the "encroachments of theclergy". Thelaw of 1859 on charitable endowments was the counterpart of that of 1857 and the despoiling policy inaugurated in 1847 by de Haussy. A law of 1869, of the same animus, confiscated all the bursaries for free scholarships, nine-tenths of which had been established to advance theChristianeducation of the young, annulling the formal provision of the testators. A law of 1870 confined exemption from military service to students of thegrands séminaires, refusing it tonovices ofreligious orders. In actual practice, the Government was sectarian and intolerant towards religion and theclergy. It countenanced the efforts prompted by theMasonic lodges to secularize cemeteries, notwithstanding thedecree of Prairial, twelfth year, that there should be a cemetery for each denomination, which leftCatholic cemeteries under theChurch'sjurisdiction. Appointments to public offices, especially to the magistracy, were noticeably partisan. An example of the petty prejudice of the Government was its suppression of the annual subsidy which theBollandists had hitherto received for the continuation of their magnificent work, the "Acta Sanctorum".

It seemed as if the rule of the Liberal party would continue indefinitely, and thatCatholics were permanently excluded from power, which their adversaries declared they were incapable of exercising. However, theCatholics made use of their long exclusion from a share in governmental affairs in at last seriously attempting to organize their forces. Jules Malou devoted himself most energetically to this task, and for the first time, the broad outlines of organization were visible, an organization such as the Liberal party had long possessed. At the same time, in imitation of the GermanCatholics, they held important Congresses atMechlin, in 1863, 1864, and 1867, which awakenedCatholic enthusiasm and gavecourage to the pessimists. In this way,Catholics found themselves able to resume the struggle with new vigour. Dissensions in the Liberal party, the strenuous opposition to theLiberals, or Doctrinaires, of the Government, on the part of men of advancedideas, who claimed the double title of Progressists, and of Radicals, combined to help theCatholics and in 1870, they finally succeeded in overthrowing the Liberal Government.

TheLiberals then had recourse to the means which had contributed to their success in 1857. The ministry had appointed as Governor ofLimburg P. de Decker, who had been the head of the ministry of 1855, and whose name had been connected with the failure of a financial association. TheLiberals affected to be greatlyscandalized and organized riots which so frightened Leopold II that he dismissed his ministry (1871). He replaced it, it istrue, by anotherCatholic ministry, of which Jules Malou was president. Though formed during the disturbances of a popular outbreak in defiance of the wishes of the large cities, which were all Liberal in their sympathies, and secretly impugned before the king by Jules Van Praet, the royal secretary, who was nicknamed the "Seventh Ministry", this ministry managed to hold out until 1878 only by dint of being as unobtrusive as possible. None of the anti-religiouslaws made by theLiberals were revised, not even the one concerning bursaries, which had been passed by a bare majority. There was no restoration of the balance of power in public offices, which continued to be held by theLiberals. In 1875, the Burgomaster ofLiège having forbidden the Jubilee processions in that city, in defiance of the Constitution, the Government dared not annul his illegal order and had the humiliation of seeing the 1,500Liberals tender him a complimentary banquet.Catholic rule seemed in verytruth what its adversaries called it, an "empty parenthesis", and, towards the end of his administration, Jules Malou in aCatholic meeting, summed it up in these words: "we have existed" —Nous avons vécu.

When a turn in the elections brought theLiberals back into power, after theCatholic administration had dragged out a precarious existence of eight years, they were able to continue their anti-Catholic policy from the point where they had left it. While out of office they had become more irreligious owing to the growing influence ofMasonry. Not only theclergy, but theChurch, and religion itself, became the objects of their attack. They encouraged writers who, like Professor Laurent of theUniversity ofGhent, denied the necessity of granting liberty to theChurch, or who, like Professor de Laveleye of the University ofLiège, asserted the superiority ofProtestantism. Their Antwerp associations flooded the country with copies of a pamphlet written by the latter in this vein. Besides this, theLiberals sought to make the countryProtestant by supporting de Laveleye and Goblet d'Alviella, who, taking advantage of a quarrel between the villagers of Sart-Dame-Aveline and theparishpriest, introducedProtestant worship there and tried to proselytize the inhabitants. They adopted the nameGueux (beggars) which they found in the story of the religious troubles of the sixteenth century. Their presses daily wagedwar on theCatholic religion; their carnival pageants were vulgar parodies which exposed the most sacred things to popular derision. Lastly, the leaders of the movement agreed upon a revision of thelaw of 1842 dealing with primary instruction. Once more in power they set about their work of uprootingChristianity without delay, and framed the famousschool law of 1879, which theCatholics called the "Law of Misfortune" (Loi de malheur), a name it still retains.

The work of drafting thislaw was placed in charge of Van Humbeck, the Minister of Public Instruction, aFreemason who some years before had declared in his lodge that "Catholicism was a corpse that barred the way of progress and would have to be thrown into the grave". The law did himjustice, being in every respect the reverse of thelaw of 1842; it excluded from theschools all religious instruction, and barred from the ranks of teachers all graduates of free normal, i.e. religiousschools. But for once,Freemasonry had counted too much on the apathy and good nature of theCatholic masses. The resistance was unanimous. At the call of thebishopsCatholics rose in a body and entered on a campaign of petitions; committees for resistance were everywhere formed; publicprayers were offered in all the churches for delivery from "teachers without faith", and "godlessschools". In the Chambers, theCatholics after emphatic protests refused to take any part in the discussion of thelaw even of its amendment, which forced theLiberals to do their worst and to shoulder the entire responsibility. It was carried without formal opposition. The President of the Senate, Prince de Ligne, a Liberal, resigned his post, deploring the division of the nation in toGuelphs and Ghibellines. TheCatholics, co-operating with thebishops and theclergy, achieved wonders. In one year they erected three or four thousandCatholicschools; the rule that there should be one to each commune was obeyed with few exceptions. More than 2,000 teachers of both sexes resigned their position, the great number to take part in freeeducation often at a very small salary. At the end of a year, the Stateschools had lost fifty-five per cent of their pupils, and retained only thirty-eight per cent of the entire body ofschool children, while theCatholicschools had sixty-one per cent. Many of the Stateschools were entirely deserted, and others had a ridiculously small attendance. Dumbfounded and enraged at such unexpected resistance, the Government tried every resource, however contemptible or absurd. Negotiations were begun with the Vatican, and a breach of diplomatic relations threatened, in the hope of forcingLeo XIII to condemn the action of the Belgianbishops. Nothing came of this, and in consequence the Belgian ambassador to theHoly See was recalled. To intimidate theclergy and theCatholics, adecree was passed ordering an inquiry as to the execution of theschool law, and the investigators journeyed through the country like real judges, and cited people before their tribunal at random, exposing the most respectable people to the insults of the mob. This tour of investigation was scarcely finished, when theFreemasons, carrying their blindness to the limit, proposed to the Chamber another inquiry concerning themain-morte measure that is to say, a campaign againstconvents. This time, the nearness of elections dictated a more prudent policy and the motion was lost by a majority of two votes.

The country was roused to great excitement. In the face of openpersecution, theCatholics showed unexpected energy. Foreseeing their triumph, they established the "Union for the Redress of Grievances", to compel their candidates in the event of their election to adopt a vigorous policy. On 10 June, 1884, the country was called on to pronounce judgment. The result was overwhelming. Half the members of the Chamber had been candidates for re-election. Only two Liberal deputies were returned, the others being defeated in the whirlwind which uprootedLiberalism. Amid great national rejoicing, theCatholics resumed the reins of power, which they have held uninterruptedly for twenty-three years. "We shall surprise the world by our moderation" said one of their leaders; and in this moderation which is not devoid of energy, lies their strength. Theschool law of 1879 was repealed without delay, the first time in the history of Belgium that aCatholic Government hadcourage to repeal a law made by theLiberals. The legislators of 1884, however, did not revive thelaw of 1842. Taking into consideration the change of times, they took the primaryschools from State control and placed them under the communes, leaving each commune to decide whether or not religious instruction should be given; the State subsidized theseschools, on condition that they would accept the State programme and would submit to State inspection; alllaws subversive of liberty were repealed, and, needless to say, relations with the Vatican were resumed.

TheLiberals, counting on the support of the cities, thought that byviolence they could bring about a reaction against the decision of the electoral body, as they had done in 1857 and 1871. With the connivance of the Burgomaster ofBrussels, they assailed and scattered a peaceful procession of 80,000Catholics who had come to the capital to make a demonstration in favour of the Government, and, as in 1857, appealed tofalse statistics of the communal elections of 1884, to prove that the voters had changed theirminds. In this way, they obtained from King Leopold II the dismissal of Charles Woeste and Victor Jacobs, the twoministers whom they held in special aversion. Jules Malou, the head of the Cabinet, protested, and followed his colleagues into retirement. But theCatholic party remained in power and M. Beernaert, who succeeded Malou, inaugurated the era of prosperity which has placed Belgium in the front rank among nations.

The situation confronting the Government bore no resemblance to that of former years. Since 1830, the inner national energy had been absorbed by the struggle between theCatholics and theLiberals, both representing bourgeois voters, who were divided as to the amount of influence to be allowed toCatholicism in public affairs. By 1886 a change had come about. A third party had come into existence known as the "Workingman's Party", which, recruited entirely from the labouring classes, presented a dangerous platform, comprehending not reforms buteconomic and social revolutionary measures. This Socialist party had been secretly taking shape since 1867, and continued in Belgium the traditions of the "Internationale", created by Karl Marx. It proclaimed to the workingmen that they were slaves, promised to give them liberty and prosperity and, as the first means towards thenecessary reforms, to secure for them the right of suffrage. In this way the great mass of the people were won over and organized while the two older parties were wholly occupied with their traditional quarrel. Not that eminentCatholics, such as Edouard Ducpetiaux, to mention one of the highest rank, had not sought for a long time a way of bettering the condition of theworking classes, or that manyzealous men had not made disinterested attempts to bring about such a result; but the body of the nation had not realized the political role soon to be played by the dense ranks of the organized proletariat, and hence had not tried to find legislative means of satisfying their demands. Moreover, the administrative classes,Liberals as well asCatholics, were under the influence of the Manchesterschool. The policy of non-interference was accepted as the guiding principle, and particularly when there was any question of labour legislation, the words on every tongue were: "most liberty, least government".

When, therefore, in 1886, serious uprisings, plainly revolutionary in character, took place, first atLiège (18 March), and soon afterwards in the industrial districts of Hainaut, the whole country was thrown into a state of consternation and alarm. The labour party came forward and put the social question before the country in the form of incendiarism and riots. The most enlightenedCatholics grasped the significance of these events and saw that the time had come for turning their attention towards labour reform. Under the presidency of Bishop Doutreloux ofLiège, three Congresses of Social Works were held atLiège, in 1886, 1887, and 1890, in which the most vital question were studied and exhaustively discussed. Groups were formed, especially among the younger men, to introduce the most urgent reforms into theCatholic platform; Canon Pottier, professor ofmoral theology in thegrand séminaire ofLiège, became the apostle of the reform movement; theCatholic friends of reform established a Democratic Christian League, which, encouraged by thebishops and keeping within the bounds of the strictestorthodoxy, bent all its energies on reform. TheBishop ofLiège formed among thesecular priests a new order, "The Almoners of Labour", whosezeal and devotion were entirely directed to bettering the lot of the working people.

As for the Government, itproved equal to its task, new and unforeseen as it was. A through investigation of the labour question gave an understanding of the nature and extent of the principal grievances of theworking classes, after which thenecessary reforms were energetically entered upon. For several years, the entire legislative activity devoted itself to the redress of the most crying evils. Councils of Industry and of Labour were formed; legislation was passed on the following subjects: workingmen's dwellings, wages, the abolition of the truck system, the illegality of attaching or assigning wages, labour inspection, child-labour, and the labour ofwomen. Strong encouragement was given to mutual benefitsocieties which had been hitherto in anything but a flourishingcondition. To these importantlaws was added the commendable law of conditional condemnation and liberation, the work of M. Lejeune, the minister of justice; it has since been imitated by many larger countries.

This work, which extended over ten years, culminated in a revision of the Constitution, which the advanced members of the Liberal party had been demanding for a long time, and which the Socialists were now insisting on. This revision had become imperative. Belgium was a country which had very few voters; out of a population of more than six millions there never were more than 150,000, and during the last years of the Liberal Government no less than sixlaws had been passed to diminish this number still further by excluding entire classes ofCatholic voters. In spite of this, and though it was clear to all that theCatholics would be the first to profit by a revision, through a spirit of conservatism, they shrank from taking the initiative in this matter. One of the their leaders, M. Woeste, was its declared adversary. TheLiberals, observing this hesitation on the part of their opponents, joined the Socialists in demanding the revision, hoping for its refusal. Under these circumstances, and with a full appreciation of the necessities of the situation, M. Beernaert proposed the revision of the Constitution, and succeeded, after many difficulties, in having the revision adopted by the party of the Right. The revision was as broad as possible: the motion for universal suffrage was passed without opposition — a suffrage, however, modified by plural voting as proposed by M. Nyssens, a deputy of the Right. Each Belgian was to have one vote; a married man who could prove his title to someproperty had two; a man able to give certainproofs ofeducation had three. The electoral body was increased tenfold, and henceforth only the worthless and the incompetent were excluded form the administration of public affairs in Belgium (1893).

In this way the Belgian Government, by exercisingprudence as well ascourage, succeeded in a few years in carrying out a splendid reform programme, and deserved the admirable eulogy of Fernand Payen, a French jurisconsult: "We have before us the most complete body of legislation which the history of this century can show in any country." A former liberal minister praised hardly less emphatically the wise policy of theCatholic Government, by declaring that it was difficult to combat it because if offered no grounds for complaint. For the first time in the history of BelgiumCatholics showed their ability to govern, that is to say, their ability to comprehend at a glance the needs of the times and to meet them satisfactorily. Even the king, hitherto distrustful ofCatholics, gradually gave up his prejudices, and at every election the voters confirmed their tenure of power. The party of the Right showed their ingratitude towards M. Beernaert, by declining, partly through motives of personal interest, to vote for the proportional representation of parties, and this the head of the Cabinet demanded as an indispensable item in the revision of the Constitution. On this refusal, M. Beernaert resigned his position at the head of the Cabinet, in 1894, depriving Belgium of her greatest statesman.

Resultsproved M. Beernaert's wisdom. From the time of the revision, the Liberal party, which had its exclusive support in the bourgeoisie of the cities, had been entirely shut out of Parliament, where its place had been taken by a strong group of Socialists. This group, destitute, for the most part of culture and parliamentary training, introduced coarse and violent methods of discussion into the Chamber, seriously compromising the dignity of parliamentary debate. On the other hand, the total suppression of Liberal representation was both aninjustice, since this party still retained the sympathies of the middle class in the large cities, and a danger for thetrue parliamentary spirit was violated by the exclusion from public life of views which had lately been all powerful and were still very much alive. Proportional representation seemed to be the only way of restoring parliamentary balance, and it came about that those who had caused M. Beernaert's loss of power to avoid this very thing were won over to his views. Proportional representation was therefore proposed and carried, making electoral legislation in Belgium the most complete in the world. TheLiberals returned to the Chambers, theCatholics sacrificing their overwhelming majority in their desire for the representation of every shade of opinion to be found in the electoral body, thus substituting the three parties for the two which had divided the power previous to 1893.

TheCatholics, nevertheless, retained a permanent majority. The successors of M. Beernaert continued to conduct the Government along his lines, even if with less prestige and authority. From time to time the administration was affected by reactionary influences, occasionally compromised by mistakes in policy, but the current of social legislation has not changed its course. In 1895, a special department of Labour was created, and M. Nyssens, the first minister, filled the position with great distinction. Laws were passed regulating workshops, trade unions, pensions for workmen, insurance against accidents while working, and providing for rest onSundays. The number and importance of these legislative enactments was such that a Socialist deputy codified and published them in a collection, rendering thereby tacit but significant homage to the Government responsible for them.

But the very stability of the Government, which each successive election retained in power, was the despair of its enemies who saw the impossibility of overthrowing it by legal methods. The Socialists decided that their success would be greater if they obtained by threats, or, ifnecessary, byviolence, a new revision of the Constitution, suppressing the plural vote and replacing it by universal suffrage, pure and simple: "One man, one vote." Failing to bring about this reform by intimidating the Chamber, they sent revolutionary bands into the streets. "I have always tried to dissuade you from violence", said Vandervelde, their leader, to his audience of workingmen; "but today, I say to you: The pear is ripe, and must be plucked." Another leader, Grimard, the Socialist senator, and a millionaire, even went to far as to declare that he would turn over his whole fortune to the workingmen and would start again at nothing. Intoxicated by these words, the workingmen of many large cities and industrial districts abandoned themselves to excesses, and blood was shed in several places, notably atLouvain. The energy with which the Government applied repressive measures, however, soon put an end to these attempts. Then the General Council of the workingmen's party declared a general strike, the last weapon of the revolutionary party. This failed after a few days, and the General Council was forced to advise the workmen to return to work. The prestige of the Socialists with the popular masses was greatly impaired by the failure of so great an effort and theCatholic Government came out of the crisis stronger than ever (1902).

There remained but one way of overcoming the Government: the alliance of the two opposition parties, the Socialists and theLiberals. This was effected at the time of the general elections of 1906. Although from theeconomic point of view the two parties were antipodal, they were united in their anticlerical sympathies, and there was reason to fear that their success would mean the downfall of religion. In theircertainty of success they circulated the names of their futureministers, and open preparation were made for the festivities attendant on their victory. But their alliance met with a crushing defeat in the elections of 1906, which left theCatholic Government as strong as ever. The fetes, commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of national independence, had been celebrated throughout the country with unrestrained enthusiasm, under the patronage of theCatholic Government, which, in 1909, will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of its own existence. In the history of Belgium no government has held power so long, and theCatholic party has come to be more and more of a national party, or, to speak more correctly, the nation itself.

This summary would be incomplete if the history of the struggles in defence of religion and of social order were not supplemented by the internal history of theCatholic people of Belgium, i.e. the development of popular opinion during a quarter of a century. Generally, in the face of adversaries who attacked their most precious possession, the religion of their fathers,Catholics had proclaimed themselves "conservatives"; their political association were thus designated and it was the name which the leaders of the party were fond of applying to themselves in Parliament. But the appearance of the workingmen on the political scene and the programme of their claims in pointed opposition to the conservatives (1886), brought home to enlightenedCatholics the danger of this name. Hence the name "Conservative" was repudiated not only by the advanced members of the party, who called themselves "Democratic Christians", but even by theCatholics opposed to reforms, who really aimed at preserving theeconomic regime which had caused all the grievances of theworking class. The latter, rejecting the term "Conservative" as a wrong done them, desire to be called simply "Catholics". Of the two groups, that of the DemocraticChristians is at present numerically inferior, although more influential by reason of its enthusiasm, its activity, its faculty for taking the initiative, and its propaganda. To understand this it must be recalled that before the revision of the Constitution theCatholic, like the Liberal, party was exclusively a bourgeois party, as its members had to pay a large poll tax for the privilege of suffrage. Its leaders for the most part were drawn from the upper bourgeoisie, and those whose ability and energy called them to a share in the direction of affairs had no other ideals, or interests, than those of the bourgeoisie. When the revision heavily recruited their ranks, the new voters, though large in number, played the part of mere privates and had no active part in the management of the parties. Those of the newcomers, who were conscious of possessing the requisite ability andcourage in order to carry out theirideas and programme wereobliged to organize new groups, which were looked at askance by the former leaders, often even regarded with suspicion, and accused of socialistic tendencies.

In a large number of arrondissements, the rivalry of conservative and democratic tendencies among BelgianCatholics resulted in the establishment of two distinct political groups, and the Belgianbishops, and the most farsighted leaders, found it a hard task to prevent an open rupture. At Ghent, where the DemocraticChristians assumed the harmless name of Anti-Socialists, there was never any real danger of a break in the ranks. AtLiège, which was a centre of opposition to democraticideas,Catholic circles being under the control of employers and financiers inimical to reform principles, a rupture was barely averted. At Alost, where the break was beyond control, the Abbé Daens organized an independent and radical body, which, taking the name of "Christene Volksparty" (Christian people's party), abandoned by the Anti-Socialists, opposed theCatholics more bitterly than the Socialists. It made common cause with the latter in carrying on a campaign against the Government in the elections of 1906. But, apart from the Daensists, a group, very small at most, which in its best days was unable to send more than two or three representatives to the Chamber, the DemocraticChristians, in all their electoral battles, have always marched to the polls side by side with the conservativeCatholics. They hold the controlling vote indispensable for any victory, and their leaders in Parliament have been in the front ranks in advocating the labour legislation which has produced the sociallaws. After opposing them for a long time, the Conservatives have gradually become accustomed to regard them as an essential factor of theCatholic army. In the meantime, the birth and progress of this group clearly marked the evolution which is taking place in theCatholic party in the direction of a new social ideal, an evolution too slow for some, and too rapid for others, but in any case, evident and undeniable.

Conclusion

This politico-religious history of Belgium, covering over a hundred years, contains more than one lesson. In the first place, it clearly establishes the fact that in every generation the Belgian nation has fought with vigour against every regime that was inimical to itsfaith. It struggled against the French Republic, againstNapoleon I, against William I, against the Liberal Government, against the coalition of theLiberals and the Socialists, and has come forth victorious. In the second place it must be remarked that thewar on the religion of the people has daily assumed a more threatening aspect. At the close of the eighteenth century, Belgium had no enemies except its foreign oppressors, abetted by a few handfuls of traitors. Under theDutch Government, it was evident that the generation which developed under the French domination had been partly won over to revolutionary doctrines, and that among the bourgeoisie of the cities there was a body which no longer recognized the authority of religion in social matters. After 1846, it was manifest that this faction was under the control of theMasonic lodges, and had positively declared itself forwar upon religion and theChurch. In 1886, it was evident that, in the bourgeois class, the great mass of workingmen had been won over to the cause of irreligion and that the population of the industrial districts had been seriously affected. In addition to this, the four larger cities of Belgium,Brussels,Antwerp,Liège, and Ghent, and most of the cities of the Walloon provinces, had gone over to the Anti-Catholic party. The defenders of religion and its oppressors tended to become numerically equal, a state of things that would be apparent to all, were it not masked in a way by the system of plural voting. In the votes cast at the general elections there is always aCatholic majority, but it is a question whether the majority of voters areCatholics. If it is asked whether theCatholics, namely, the Belgians who submit to the teachings of theChurch, still constitute the majority of the nation, the answer would be more or lessdoubtful. This leads to a third remark. The resistance to the enemies of religion has not been as effective as the duration and intensity of the contest might lead one to believe. Whenever theCatholics were successful, they have been satisfied with keeping the power in their hands; they have not exercised it to carry out their programme. NoCatholic wrongs have been redressed; every law made by theLiberals against the church and theclergy has remained unrepealed, and it was only in 1884 that the Government, supported by the entire nation, felt strong enough to inaugurate a bolder policy. But the revision of the School Law of 1879 is the solitary instance of this progress, and will probably continue to be so for some time to come.

The social condition of theCatholic religion in Belgium, while doubtless favourable, is not, therefore, free from danger. The School Law of 1884, amended in 1895, is inadequate to guarantee theChristianeducation of the people. It is evaded by the municipal government of the capital, which manages by trickery to exempt the majority of the children from religious instruction, and even in the Liberal communes, where the pupils receive religious instruction, it is neutralized by the lessons given them by theirfreethinking teachers. Many of the publicschools are now developing generations of unbelievers. This is a matter that needs attention. It is also imperative to re-enforce theCatholic army by drawing recruits from the only source open to it, namely, the people. To do this the Government must accentuate the character of its social legislation, which is too often compromised by provisions which deprive it of a large part of its effectiveness. Thelaw on trade unions deprives them of the means most likely to make them prosper, which is to make trade. Thelaw on labour accidents would be excellent, if insurance against accidents was madeobligatory. The law enjoining the Sunday rest, carried with the co-operation of the Socialists, contains such a large number of exceptions and is enforced with such want of earnestness that it is almost a dead letter. The Socialists declare, often with a semblance oftruth, that thelaws passed to benefit the workingmen are mere blinds, and it is not always easy to convince them of the contrary. The continuation of theCatholic regime in Belgium seems to be contingent on a radical reform ofschool legislation, on provision for the division of State subventions among all the communal or privateschools in proportion to the services that they render, and greater boldness in the solution of the labour questions. Religion has in Belgium so strong a support in popular loyalty and devotion that by judiciously taking advantage of them at the proper time, an indefinite tenure of power will be ensured.

Statistics

According to the census of 31 December, 1905, the population of Belgium is 7,160,547. The great majority of the inhabitants areCatholic, but the lack ofreligious statistics makes it difficult to give the exact number of non-Catholics. There are about 30,000Protestants, 3,000 to 4,000Jews and several thousandpersons who, not having beenbaptized, do not belong to anyfaith. The kingdom is divided into sixdioceses, namely: TheArchdiocese of Mechlin and the suffragan Dioceses ofBruges,Ghent,Liège,Namur, andTournai. Each diocese has aseminary and one or several preparatoryschools for the training of theclergy; there are, in addition, the Belgian College atRome, aseminary to which all the Belgianbishops send the best of their pupils, and the College of the Saint-Esprit atLouvain, where a superiortheological course is pursued. Thesecular clergy number 5,419; theregularclergy, 6,237; these latter are distributed in 293 houses. Thereligious orders in Belgium have 29,303 members living in 2,207 houses; the members of the orders, both male andfemale, devote their time chiefly to teaching and nursing the sick; the male orders also aid thesecular clergy inparochial work.

Under the guidance of this large body of labourers for theChurch, thereligious life in Belgium is intense, and the works ofpiety and charity are very numerous. Statistics of these charities are given in Madame Charles Vloebergh's "La Belgique charitable", in the preface to which M. Beernaert states that no country has their equal. Belgium also takes a share out of all proportion to the size of its territory in international works ofpiety and in foreign missions. It is at the head of the work of the Eucharistic Congress, two of itsbishops, Monseigneur Doutreloux, ofLiège, and Monseigneur Heylen, ofNamur, having been the first two presidents of the association. Five sessions of this congress have been held in Belgium; atLiège (1883),Antwerp,Brussels,Namur, andTournai. Equally distinguished are the services of Belgium in the sphere ofCatholic missions. The congregation ofsecular priests of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded at Scheutveld nearBrussels in 1862, labour for the evangelization ofMongolia and the Congo; several of their members have sufferedmartyrdom in these countries. The BelgianJesuits have for their mission-field Calcutta and Western Bengal. Their missionaries are trained in the Apostolic school established at Turnhout. The Americanseminary atLouvain (1857) aids in recruiting thesecular clergy of theUnited States. Otherreligious orders also labour for the evangelization of foreign regions. The toils and heroism of a number of the Belgian missionaries have given them a world-wide renown; such are, Father Charles de Smedt, the apostle to the Indians of the Rocky Mountains, andFather Damien de Veuster, who devoted himself to thelepers of Molokai.

The great success ofCatholicism in Belgium is largely explained by the freedom it enjoys under the Constitution. "The freedom ofreligions and their public exercise, as well as theright to the expression of opinions on all subjects are guaranteed, with the exception of misdemeanours committed in exercising this liberty" (art. 14). The sole restriction to this liberty is contained in article 16 of the Constitution which says that acivil marriage must always precede the religiousceremony, with such exceptions as may be established bylaw. Thepriest who, in fulfilling hisduty,blesses a marriagein extremis under this article is in danger of prosecution and condemnation; thelaw which the Constitution provided for, and which would have protected such cases, has never been passed. With the exception of this and thelaw authorizingdivorce, to which, however, recourse is seldom had, it may be said that the legislation of Belgium conforms to theCatholic standard of morality. Although theChurch is independent in Belgium, and the country has no State religion, it does not follow that the governmental and the religious authorities have no connection with each other. Tradition and custom have produced numerous points of contact and relation of courtesy betweenChurch and State. The latter pays the stipends of theCatholicclergy as well as of theclergy of theProtestant and Jewishreligions, very moderate salaries which have been slightly increased by a law passed in 1900. The State also assists in the expense of erecting buildings for religious purposes and of keeping them in repair. Theparishes have been granted a civil existence and can holdproperty; eachparish has a board of administration, of which the major of the town is a member by law, for the aid of theclergy in the management of the finances of theChurch. The Liberal party, it istrue, has tried a number of times to get control of thechurch property, but thelaw of 1870 (a compromise law), concerning the temporalities of the differentreligions, only requires the supervision of the public authorities over expenses concerning which the intervention of these authorities is requested. Students at thetheologicalseminaries, who are to beparishpriests, are exempted from militaryduty. Finally, thecivil authorities are officially present at the "Te Deum" which is sung on the national anniversaries; and except during the period of 1880-84 (see above) the Government has maintained diplomatic relations with theHoly See.

Education

The most successful work of the Belgian Church as been done in the field ofeducation, in spite of most violent opposition on the part of the Liberal party. Article 17 of the Constitution, says, concerning instruction: "Teaching is free; all preventive measures are forbidden; the repression of offences is reserved to thelaw. Public instruction given by the State is equally regulated bylaw." The Constitution, therefore, supposed at the same time a free instruction and an instruction by the State; it guarantees complete liberty to the first and subordinates the latter to the enactments of thelaw. TheCatholics alone have made use of this article of the Constitution to establish a flourishing series ofschools and colleges leading up to auniversity. TheLiberals have contented themselves with founding auniversity (subsidized by the city ofBrussels and the province of Brabant) and an insignificant number ofschools, and are generally satisfied with State instruction for their children; this instruction they endeavour to make as neutral, that is, as irreligious as possible. They also favour in every way State instruction to the detriment of the free teaching. There are two Stateuniversities,Ghent andLiège, which have, respectively, 1000 and 2000 students. There are also 20 State athenaeums with 6000 students, besides 7 communal colleges having about 1000 pupils; these institutions are for secondaryeducation in its upper classes. The lower classes are taught in 112 intermediateschools, 78 of which are for boys and 34 for girls, with a total of 20,000 pupils. There are also 11 intermediateschools opened by the communes, 5 for boys and 6 for girls, with a total of 4000 pupils. Thelaw of 1895 makes the communes responsible for primary instruction; each commune isobliged to have at least oneschool, but it may be relieved of this responsibility if it is shown that private initiative has made sufficient provision for instruction. The State intervenes also in primary instruction by means of its normalschools for male andfemale teachers, by employingschool inspectors whose business it is to see whether all the legal requirements are observed, and by the subsidies granted to communes which carry out thelaw.

Compared with these State institutions theschools established for freeeducation are equal and in several respects superior. TheCatholicUniversity of Louvain, founded by thebishops, has 2200 students; it is surrounded by several institutes, one of the most famous of which is the "Institut philosophique", of which Monseigneur Mercier, nowCardinalArchbishop ofMechlin, was the founder and first president (until 1906). The Episcopal Institute of St. Louis atBrussels and theJesuit College of Notre-Dame atNamur prepare pupils for the degrees ofphilosophy and letters. There are 90 free colleges for intermediate instruction, most of themdiocesan, other carried on by the differentreligious orders, among whom theJesuits take the lead with 12 colleges, having 5500 pupils. The free colleges have a total of 18,000 pupils, which is more than three times that of corresponding Stateschools. The situation is the intermediate classes of the lower grade is not so satisfactory forCatholics and may be called the dark page of theirschool statistics.

Since 1879 the subject of primaryeducation has been the real battle-field; during this struggle theCatholics almost attained the ideal, having at least oneschool in almost every commune. But this was done at the cost of greatsacrifices, so that since the suppression of the "Law of Misfortune" (Loi de malheur) of 1879, which had taken theChristian character from the primaryschools,Catholics have accepted the communalschools in their renewedChristian form and have given up those which they had founded. The State, moreover, subsidizes the freeschools when they give the guaranteesnecessary from a pedagogical point of view, and it authorizes the communes to adopt them as communalschools. Notwithstanding this, the legislation concerning primary teaching is far from being absolutely satisfactory; the large communes evade or even openly disregard thelaw, and it is only at long intervals that the Government interferes to check the mostscandalous abuses. The law puts the State instruction and the free teaching on an absolute equality, and this equality is maintained by the Government; the diplomas granted by the freeuniversities open the way to government positions just as do those granted by the Stateuniversities; the certificates given by the free institutes are equal to those of the Stateschools.

Cemeteries

It is only by the greatest exertions that theCatholics of Belgium have saved theCatholicschools. In regard to the question of cemeteries they have shown less vigour. Thedecree of Prairial of the year XII (1804), by which the cemeteries of Belgium were regulated, stipulated that, in localities where severalreligions exist, each form offaith should have its own cemetery, and that where there was but one cemetery it should be divided into as many sections as there were differentdenominations. TheCatholic cemeteries, in conformity with the Ritual, had separate sections for those who had died in communion with Church, for infants dying withoutbaptism, for those to whom theChurch had refused religious burial, and forfree-thinkers who died outside of theCatholic communion. There was no conflict until 1862 when, obedient to the order of theFreemason lodges, theLiberals declared thelaw of 1804 to be unconstitutional. The Government, then carried on by theLiberals, left it to the communal authorities to apply thelaw of 1804 or not, and for some fifteen years thelaw was disregarded or observed at the pleasure of the mayors of the town. With the lapse of time the enforcement of thelaw declined, and a further step was taken; in 1879, the year of theLoi de malheur, the Court of Cassation suddenly changed its traditional method and began to convict those mayors who enforced thelaw of 1804. From this date the enforcement of thelaw became a misdemeanour, and many adverse sentences fell on the authorities who believed themselves bound inconscience to maintain thisdecree. Owing to the inactivity of theCatholics, there has been, since that time, no freedom with regard to cemeteries in Belgium.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT