Chapter 07 - The Belgian Constitution

CHAPTER VII

THE BELGIAN CONSTITUTION

SOME dates and facts as to the way in which the Belgian Constitution was drafted and passed into law will be of use to the general reader.

In 1815 the Vienna Congress declared that the South or old Spanish Netherlands were to be joined to Holland, and to form the Kingdom of the United Netherlands under the sovereign rule of the House of Orange Nassau. This union lasted for fifteen years. Various grievances developed during that period, and the Belgians considered that they were treated with some harshness by the Dutch. The French Revolution of July, 1830, when the absolutist Bourbon monarchy was superseded by the constitutional Orleanist regime, greatly increased the confidence of the Belgians in themselves and their cause by leading them to think that the French nation would sympathize with and second their efforts to achieve their own independence. The first disturbance occurred in Brussels during the night of August 25-26, 1830, after a performance at the opera of the "Muett de Portia," when Massaniello's appeal for the emancipation of his country inflamed the audience and set fire to the aspirations of the public. Opinions differ as to whether the scene had been carefully prepared, or whether it was one of those impromptus that constitute the eternal fitness of things. At any rate, the night was passed in plundering and destroying the houses of some of the Ministers and others identified in the public mind with the Dutch regime. The Belgian revolution then began.

Its second and more important phase covered the four days, September 23-26. The Dutch decided to recover Brussels by force, and sent an army to capture it. The troops succeeded after some severe street fighting in reaching the Park facing the Royal Palace, but they had marched into a trap. Instead of crushing the citizens and recovering the city, they found themselves besieged in the Park, and more or less cut off from their communications. The incidents of the fighting that went on for four days showed that regular troops have little superiority over armed citizens in street fighting, and on September 26 the Dutch extricated themselves from their false position by retreating during the night, leaving however, 1,500 killed behind them. The Belgian revolution, which most observers outside the country had affected to regard as of trivial moment, then became a matter of European importance.

A week after the withdrawal of the Dutch troops the Provisional Government which had been carrying on the administration in Brussels, issued the Decree of Independence. Its terms deserve quotation:

"Art I. The province of Belgium detached by force from Holland shall constitute an Independent State.

"Art. II. The Central Committee will occupy itself as soon as possible with the draft of a Constitution.

"Art. III. A National Congress representing all the interests of the Provinces shall be convoked. It will examine the bill drafted for a Belgian Constitution, modify it as it thinks proper, and then will make it the definitive Constitution of force throughout Belgium."

The drafting of the Constitution was entrusted to a special commission, and at its first meeting the important question was raised and decided as to the form the new government should take. There had been some irresponsible talk of creating a Belgian Republic. The commission decided that the government should be a hereditary constitutional monarchy, and when the point was raised before the National Congress some weeks later, it was promptly decided in the same sense.

The commission took three months in accomplishing its task, and at the end of January, 1831, it presented the Congress with the draft of a Constitution consisting of 139 Articles. As the Congress had discussed and decided what may be called the vital principles underlying the Articles of the Constitution concurrently with the labors of the commission, the draft bill did not require alteration, and after a week's formal discussion it was passed into law on February 7.

The Constitution bill contained 139 Articles, one of which (No. 31) provided for the right to revise it should a future occasion arise to make it desirable or necessary. Having denned the character of the monarchy to be established, and the administrative divisions of the kingdom which by ancient tradition contained nine provinces, the law proceeded to set forth the constitutional functions of the respective powers in the State. The King was relieved of responsibility by the simple regulation that all his acts had to be countersigned by one of his ministers, who thereby became responsible for what was done. The King had, however, one or two privileges that do not fall, as a rule, to the constitutional monarch. He could dissolve the Chambers, and he could also initiate legislation by decreeing that a draft bill (projet de hi) should be prepared on any specific matter of an urgent character. The King was also declared commander-in-chief of the army and navy, the latter of which did not and does not yet exist. When Leopold I read the constitution law through before accepting the crown, he made the caustic remark: "You seem to have left your King very little to do."

The executive and legislative powers in the State were divided between the King, the Chamber of "Representatives, and the Senate. The Chamber of Representatives originally consisted qf 102 members chosen by the duly qualified electors of the country, who, until 1894, were few in number. In that year the Representatives had increased to 152. A general election had to be held every four years, and at the end of two years half the members had to seek reelection. Of course, Ministers had the right, in common with the King, of dissolving the Parliament at any time and appealing to the country, but the right has been very sparingly used. Members of the Chamber must be not less than twenty-five years of age, and since 1894 they have been paid a salary of $800 on the stipulation of regular attendance. They are also furnished with a free railway pass from the seat of their constituency to the capital.

The strength of the Senate or Second Chamber was originally fixed at fifty-one members, but in 1893 the total was raised to 102, seventy-six being elected by the qualified electors, and twenty-six being nominated by the Provincial Councils. A senator sits for eight years. He receives no payment, and no one is eligible for a seat in the Upper House under the age of forty. It may be mentioned, as a distinctive feature of the Belgian system, that Ministers who may be taken indiscriminately from either the Senate or the Chamber of Representatives, have the right of speaking in both Houses as occasion may arise. The King's sons or other Princes of the Royal Family become by right members of the Senate on reaching the age of eighteen, but they have no vote until they are twentyfive years old. A bill must be approved of by both Houses before it can be submitted to the King for the necessary Royal decree to make it law. Consequently, the possibility of an unseemly collision between the two Chambers in so far as it would threaten to involve the name or person of the King is eliminated by the Belgian constitution. No Belgian minister could talk of inviting or compelling the Sovereign to be the ally or tool of the Lower House in coercing the Upper, and a proposal to flood an ancient Chamber with new immigrants would be derisive when the total number of occupants is fixed by law. There are some good points to be borrowed from the young Belgian constitution.

At the time of the passing of the constitution into law, in February, 1831, no sovereign had been selected for the Belgian throne. Five months later Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was inaugurated as King of the Belgians in Brussels, thus founding the Coburg dynasty which still occupies the throne. The constitution provided that the crown was to be vested in the male line to the perpetual exclusion of females, but in the event of the failure of all male heirs the King was to have the right of nominating his successor with the consent of the Chambers. Should he not have made such a nomination, the throne would be "declared vacant" on his death, and the Chambers elected in double strength for the occasion would then proceed to elect a new ruler.

At one period it seemed not impossible that such an occasion might arise. Leopold I, who at the time of his accession was a widower (having married in 1816 the Princess Charlotte of England, who died in childbirth the following year), married in 1832 the Princess Louise of Orleans, daughter of Louis Philippe, King of the French, and by her had a family of three sons and one daughter. The eldest son died when he was less than a year old. The second son, Leopold, born in 1835, succeeded his father in 1865, the second of his name, and reigned for nearly forty-five years. His death took place in December, 1909. The third son was Philip, Count of Flanders, born in 1837 and died in 1905, and the only daughter, Charlotte, the unhappy Empress of Mexico, is still living. Leopold II, who married in 1853 the Archduchess Marie Henrietta of Austria, had only one son, who bore the title of Duke of Brabant, and died in 1869 in his tenth year. The reversion to the throne thus passed to the Count of Flanders, who had married in 1867 the Princess Mary of HohenzollernSigmaringen. The issue of this marriage was two sons and two daughters. As the Salic Law prevails, it is unnecessary to say anything either of these princesses or of the three daughters of Leopold II, all of whom survive.

The two sons of the Count of Flanders were named Baudouin (Baldwin) and Albert. Prince Baudouin, who was extremely popular with the people, died suddenly in 1891 without having married. There remained only his brother Albert to prevent the Belgian royal family from extinction in the male line. For some years the situation gave rise to considerable anxiety, but Prince Albert's marriage in 1900 to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of the late Duke Charles Theodore of Bavaria, followed by the birth of two sons named Leopold and Charles, removed all ground for apprehension, and assured the succession in the male line. In December, 1909, Prince Albert succeeded his uncle *&s Albert I, and he and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, who is renowned for her charitable deeds, have begun what promises to prove a new era in Belgian history. Their sons are now known by the historic titles of Duke of Brabant and Count of Flanders respectively.

But the Belgian Constitution did a great deal more than found and define a constitutional monarchy. It provided for the liberties of a people in a manner then almost without example in Europe. It is rare indeed to find legislators more animated by the principles of true freedom for individuals as well as the community than were the framers of the Belgian Constitution in 1830-31. The modern politician seems bent on devising new forms of tyranny which are more irritating than those favored by the most absolute sovereigns. The Belgian Solons displayed a remarkable tolerance not only for their own views, but for those of their fellow citizens. For instance, Belgium was a Catholic country - in the old constitution the Church had been one of the States - the overwhelming majority of the people were devoted followers of the Church of Rome. Yet one of the Articles of the Constitution separates church and state, and lays down the law that all cults are equal and free. Another ordains that no one was to be interfered with or disqualified for public service or office on account of his religious opinions. These provisions for religious tolerance and equality were all the more remarkable because no popular movement existed to force or induce the Legislature to adopt them. They might be styled voluntary efforts in the quest of supposed perfection or at least of unfettered liberty. It may be added that the establishment of religious equality has not led to any change in the religion of the people. A Protestant propaganda has never had any chance of success in the Southern Netherlands.

Although the influence of the Church did not avail to prevent its deposition from the privileged place it had enjoyed in the State from time immemorial, it was felt that it would not be in accordance with the fitness of things to allow of a non-Catholic prince ruling a Catholic people, and it was consequently stipulated that the King should be of the Catholic religion. But here again the extraordinary broad-mindedness of the Belgian legislators was revealed, for during the first thirty-five years of its national independence, Belgium was ruled by a Protestant King because Leopold I declined to change his religion. His children were, however, brought up as Catholics in accordance with the Constitution and also with the marriage contract signed at Compiegne on the occasion of his marriage with the French Princess.

Among the salient vital principles embodied in the Constitution were freedom of the press, of the person and of the right of meeting. Nowhere has the press been more free and nowhere has the individual citizen been more secure against press attack than in Belgium. The sensational journalism to which we have grown painfully accustomed is unknown in Belgium. No Belgian citizen is ever accused or exposed in the papers until he has been condemned and sentenced by a court of justice. The accused and their relations are spared by the adoption of asterisks and initials instead of names. It may be due to the smallness of the country, but at least Belgian procedure is considerate of the feelings of the innocent bearers of an unusual name. Among other important changes introduced by the new Constitution was the abolition of the forfeiture of civil rights and of the confiscation of property. The right of public meeting, which includes that of street processions, is absolute with the sole reservation that during the session of the Legislature there is a prohibited area round the Parliament House and Royal Palace.

Everybody knows that Belgium is a neutral State, but contrary to what seems to be generally supposed, this neutrality was not a condition imposed by the Belgians on themselves. There is not a word in the Constitution on the subject. It was a condition imposed on Belgium by the Great Powers as the price for their recognition of her existence. The Belgians were quick to see the advantage of the new arrangement which would save their country from again being turned into the cockpit of Europe, and far from raising any objection on the ground of its being an interference in their internal affairs, they welcomed the proposal. Now the Powers were not thinking of the Belgians when they came to this decision, but of themselves; and the problem in their own mind was how to compose their own rivalries and discords so that the balance of power might be preserved. A few facts as to how this arrangement was brought about, and as to its precise meaning may be appropriately added here to the description already given of the Constitution, for the neutrality of Belgium is an essential feature in its political existence.

When the Belgians revolted, and showed that they were likely to bring their revolution to a successful issue, the Five Powers (England, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia) at once came together and opened the London Conference. The first decisions as to the future status of Belgium in Europe were contained in the document known as the "Eighteen Articles," which was signed in London on June 26, 1831. The 9th and 10th Articles defined what was the first view and intention of the Powers on the subject of Belgian neutrality, and the following is their text:

"Art. 9. Belgium within the limits traced in conformity with the principles laid down in the present preliminaries shall form a perpetually neutral State. The five Powers, without wishing to intervene in the internal affairs of Belgium, guarantee her that perpetual neutrality as well as the integrity and inviolability of her territory in the limits mentioned in the present Article.

"Art. 10. By just reciprocity Belgium shall be held to observe this same neutrality towards all the other States and to make no attack on their internal or external tranquility whilst preserving the right to defend herself against every foreign aggression."

The pasages in italics show that in June, 1831, the Powers were disposed to guarantee Belgium against attack and invasion as a sort of return for imposing on her a condition of permanent neutrality.

But events led to the abandonment of the Eighteen Articles, and to the substitution in their place of the Twentyfour Articles, which were eventually embodied in the binding treaties. The definition of Belgium's neutrality (although none the less fettering on her action) in the later instrument is far less clearly defined or binding on the Powers than it was in the earlier. One brief Article was deemed sufficient, and read as follows:

"Art. 7. Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles 1, 2, and 4 shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. She shall be bound to observe this same neutrality towards all other States."

While pundits in international law will keenly discuss the significance of the very marked difference in language employed in the two sets of Articles, there remains clear the one essential fact - that Belgium was deemed in the eyes of the Powers, and had to accept as the price of their recognition of her existence the statute of, a "perpetually neutral State."

Belgium's neutrality in international law comes under the heading of "imposed" or "obligatory" neutrality as contradistinguished from the "voluntary neutrality" of Switzerland.

Source: Boulger, Demetrius C. Belgium. Detroit: Published for the Bay View Reading Club, 1913. Print.

• Prev
• Next