The Regency of Brussels

The Belgians were gradually worked up to revolt against a new-made sovereign, the type and instrument of foreign domination.

Continuing Revolution in Belgium,
our selection from an article in Great Events by Famous Historians, Vol. 16 by Thomas Colley Grattan published in 1905. The selection is presented in seven easy 5-minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in Revolution in Belgium.

Time: 1830

By these means he succeeded in forming a body of personal partisans; while a certain result of this peculiar policy was to alienate the great mass of influential men, who smarted under his system of exclusion, and who would not consent to separate the great questions of national good from the selfish speculations of the monarch. It was in vain that the Treaty of London, of July 21, 1814, stipulated that the amalgamation between Holland and Belgium should be intimate and complete, while the royal artisan to whom the task was entrusted was incapable of performing it.

The three revolutions in Belgium had different results. That of the sixteenth century restored to Belgium its internal liberties without giving independence to the country. That of 1789, failing from the incapacity of its leaders, threw Belgium, exhausted and demoralized, underneath the feet of France. That of 1830 gave Belgium independence, neutrality, a dynasty of its choice, and an opportunity, never before possessed, for the development of its great and unsuspected resources, moral and physical.

The French Revolution, begun and finished in three days in July, 1830, was unquestionably the proximate cause of that of Belgium, two months later. But the latter was widely different in its outbursts and progress, although the provocations of both were similar. No violent coup d’état roused the people of Belgium to an abrupt resistance; nor did a contest of sixty or seventy hours in a single city suffice to establish their sovereignty on the ruins of the throne. The contest was not confined to the capital but was spread all over the country during a period of some weeks. But it is not merely in these respects that the difference lies. The French people were suddenly forced into rebellion against an old hereditary dynasty, for the vindication of national rights. The Belgians were gradually worked up to revolt against a new-made sovereign, the type and instrument of foreign domination. France had to drive out a family; Belgium to conquer an army. The first fought a domestic battle for the recovery of its liberties. The latter combated an alien foe, for the deliverance of the soil. In one main point, and one only, those memorable events were strictly alike — in the total absence of preparation for the conflict, and of expectation that it was at hand.

Remonstrances, petitions, and declamation were the only means of redress attempted in Belgium, until the infatuated confidence of the authorities, acting in the spirit and under the order of the monarch, encouraged the people to proceed in preparations for the insurrection which their rulers seemed to court. Had King William shown the least foresight, had he listened in time to the popular complaints, dismissed his obnoxious minister, Van Maanen, abolished a few odious imposts, and re moved the absurd restriction against the use of the French language in the public pleadings — all reasonable demands, and all conceded, but invariably too late — he might have been King of the Netherlands to the day of his death. Belgium was led on, coaxed as it may be said, from step to step; so that remonstrance, riot, revolt, and revolution followed in a gradual succession, that seemed arranged by the monarch, rather than intended by the people. Everything renders it likely that William calculated that his irritated subjects would proceed to excess, and that his foreign allies would then interfere, to uphold him by force, with increased prerogative over a prostrate people.

It is impossible, in the limits of this sketch, to detail the progress of the public discontent, or the various acts by which King William effectually alienated the affections of his subjects. The prosecution of Louis de Potter, for some seditious publications in a Brussels newspaper, was the last immediate measure of irritation previous to the outbreak in Paris. When this great event occurred, the people of all Belgium were quite prepared for an explosion, as soon as the signal should be given.

The Regency of Brussels (as the city government was called), as if for the purpose of giving this signal, commanded the representation, at the principal theatre, of the Muette de Portici, for the evening of August 25th; this opera having been considered, from its political bearing, so exciting and dangerous as to have been specially prohibited for several weeks previously. The civil authorities having thus admirably played their part, the people entered upon theirs; and the Dutch military commanders effectively joined, by their incapacity or cowardice, to bring about the dénouement.

On that memorable night, marking the opening of the Belgian Revolution, the rioters were almost unopposed. One movement of ordinary vigor on the part of the authorities would have stopped the tumult which the next day assumed so grave a character. The second day, August 26th, was decisive of the fate of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But its dismemberment was solely due to the wavering and uncandid conduct of the King; for during four ensuing weeks sufficient opportunities occurred to remedy the successive evils so rapidly accumulated. On the morning of the 26th the affrighted Regency made some show of authority. They issued a proclamation promising certain measures of political redress; and they sanctioned the formation of a “burgher guard,” to whom arms were freely issued, and for whom a chief was found in the person of Baron Vander linden d’Hoogvorst, an amiable, benevolent, incapable person, who consequently stood well with all classes, being neither feared nor envied by any.

The Revolution had now made its second step. Power had passed from the hands of the populace into those of the people. The Burgher Guard rapidly increased in numbers and soon began to exercise the authority now wholly vested in it. Baron d’Hoogvorst called a meeting of the notables of the city to take into consideration the perilous state of affairs. A deputation was ordered to proceed to The Hague with an address to the King; and a council was elected for the staff of the Burgher Guard, in whom the whole executive authority was vested. The deputation from the notables was received by the King. Professions of loyalty on the one side and of confidence on the other were bandied between them. A royal ordinance summoned the States-General to assemble on the 13th of the ensuing month. While the King was thus deceiving the deputation with fair words, military preparations were making, on a grand scale, to overawe Brussels if possible, and, at any rate, to force it into submission.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history