to the very elements against whom it has authorized its adherents to wage relentless war.

SELECTED REFERENCES

W. F. Dodd, Modern Constitutions (Chicago, 1909), II, 5-16, containing text of constitution; A. L. Lowell, Governments and Parties in Continental Europe (Boston, 1896), I, Chaps. iii-iv; B. King and T. Okey, Italy To-day (2d ed., London, 1909), Chaps. i-iii, xiii-xiv; F. M. Underwood, United Italy (London, 1912), Chaps. v-viii, xi-xii; C. D. Hazen, Europe since 1815 (New York, 1910), Chap. xvi; B. King, History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871, 2 vols. (London, 1899); W. R. Thayer, Count Cavour, 2 vols. (Boston, 1911); W. J. Stillman, Francesco Crispi (London, 1899); M. Prichard-Agnetti (trans.), Memoirs of Francesco Crispi, 3 vols. (New York, 1912-1914); F. Nielsen, History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1906).

CHAPTER XXI

THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM

The Nation and Its Constitution. With a view to erecting a northern barrier against French aggression, and at the same time compensating Holland for colonial losses recently suffered in the East, the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, agreed to incorporate in the Dutch kingdom the old Austrian Netherlands, the bishopric of Liège, the duchy of Limburg, and the duchy (henceforth to be known as grand-duchy) of Luxemburg. The union, however, was purely artificial; the Dutch and the Belgians were unlike in racial descent, language, religion, and economic interests; King William I's government was autocratic, partisan, and stupid; and in 1830 the whole arrangement was broken up by a war of independence waged by the Belgians under the not altogether disapproving eyes of the powers that had been responsible for the union fifteen years before. An international agreement reached at London in 1831 recognized both the independence and the neutrality of the new nation, although on account of the refusal of William I to evacuate certain territories claimed by the Belgians the final settlement was delayed eight years. On April 18, 1839, the treaty that regulated Belgium's international status down to August 3, 1914, was signed at London; the country's neutrality being unreservedly guaranteed by Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia.1

Meanwhile a constitution was framed for the new state by an appointed commission and ratified by a national congress of two hundred elected delegates; and on July 21, 1831, the first independent Belgian sovereign, Leopold I, took oath to observe and maintain it. Circumstances combined to give the instrument an exceptionally liberal character. Devised in the midst of a revolution brought on principally by the autocratic rule of

1 This treaty is the "scrap of paper" contemptuously referred to by the German chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, in the early days of the Great War.

William I, it is, and was intended to be, uncommonly explicit in its limitations on the royal prerogative. There were Belgians in 1831, indeed, who advocated the establishment of a republic. Against such a course various considerations were successfully urged; but the monarchy that was set up, depending for its very existence upon popular approval, is of the strictly limited, constitutional type. "All powers," it is expressly declared in the fundamental law, "emanate from the people." The principles of liberalism are the more in evidence by reason of the fact that the framers of the constitution deliberately accepted as models the French instruments of 1791 and 1830, and were likewise influenced greatly by their admiration for the governmental system of Great Britain.

A striking testimony to the thoroughness with which the work was done, and to the liberal character of the government established, is the fact that the text of the Belgian fundamental law operated for more than half a century absolutely unchanged, and, further, that when in our own day the work of amendment was actively taken up, not even the most ardent revisionists cared to insist upon more than the overhauling of the arrangements concerning the franchise. The instrument is to-day the oldest written constitution in force on the continent, except the Dutch. Leopold I (1831-1865), and Leopold II (18651909), frankly recognized the conditional basis of the royal tenure and, although conspicuously active in the management of public affairs, gave little occasion for popular criticism or disaffection. Even the revolutionary year 1848 passed without producing in Belgium more than a ripple of unrest. In 1893 the constitution was amended to provide for universal male suffrage, and in 1899 a further amendment introduced a system of proportional representation. Otherwise, the instrument stands to-day practically as it was put into operation in 1831. It need hardly be remarked that, in Belgium as elsewhere, the written constitution does not by any means contain the whole of the actually operative political system. Numerous aspects of parliamentarism, and of other well-established governmental forms and practices, depend for their sanction upon the conventions, rather than upon the law, of the constitution; but they are none the less real and enduring.

The written instrument is comprehensive in scope. It comprises an extended bill of rights; a detailed definition of the framework of the national executive, legislative, and judicial departments; special provisions relating to finance and the army; and an enumeration of the principles underlying provincial and communal administration. The process of amendment is calculated to ascertain the public will unmistakably before any change in the fundamental law is actually made. When both houses of Parliament vote favorably upon a proposed amendment they are forthwith dissolved, and a national election takes place. If the new chambers approve the proposition by a two-thirds vote, and the sovereign gives his assent (this being a mere formality), it is declared adopted.

In the forthcoming brief description of the Belgian governmental system it will be necessary to allude to certain features that hitherto have obstructed the fullest expression of democracy. It is the more desirable, therefore, at this point to emphasize the fact that so far as the legal rights and personal liberties of the individual go, there is hardly a country in the world in which the laws afford better protection than in the Belgium of earlier and happier days. Let a great Belgian lawyer himself state the situation. "Freedom reigns among us," he says, "without flaw and without infringement. It takes every form; it sustains every right. I have freedom of the person; and I can only be arrested in the prescribed manner. I have freedom of the home; and my dwelling is inviolable, subject to the rule of law. I have freedom of property; and I am guaranteed against expropriation, confiscation, and arbitrary taxes, as well as the forfeitures which have been abolished. I have freedom of activity; I am free to work, to choose my trade, to enter into industrial contracts. I have freedom of opinion; for all the channels of the press and of publication are open to me. I have freedom of speech; for I can speak freely, whether in Parliament, in the pulpit, in the police court, at the bar, and in whatever language. I have freedom of thought; for no one may violate the privacy of my letters, and the law lays no hand on my thoughts, even my guilty thoughts. I have freedom of worship; for my conscience is free, the ministers of my religion are independent, I may let it exert its full influence and efficacy

for me. I have freedom of instruction; for I am allowed to teach and to learn, where I like and at every stage, what is known and what is believed. I have freedom of movement; for every barrier has disappeared within the country, and the protection of foreigners is assured. I am free to seek help, to claim justice, to make my voice heard against any oppression; for I can use when I please the right of petition." 1

The Governmental System. The general scheme of government represents a constitutional monarchy modeled on early nineteenth-century England and the France of Louis Philippe, and superimposed upon, and cleverly articulated with, the historic governmental usages of the old Belgian provinces and cities. Executive power is vested nominally in the king, who, however, can act only through the responsible ministers. So far as the actual conduct of the government is concerned, the king's personal position differs in no important respect from that of the English sovereign. The ministers are eleven in number. Individually, they preside over the eleven executive departments; collectively, they form an advisory and deliberative body which determines policy, leads in legislation, and looks after the interests of the party to which the members belong. They are selected precisely as in England and France; all belong to the party (or party coalition) which is at the time in power; with only an occasional exception, all have seats in Parliament, and usually in the lower house; all go out of office together when a working majority in the lower chamber fails them. In England a minister can appear and speak in only the house of Parliament of which he is a member. In Belgium, on the contrary, ministers are entitled to be heard, upon their own demand, in either chamber, although of course they can vote only in the body to which they belong. Either chamber can, in fact, demand a minister's presence, in order to interrogate him. On the responsibility of ministers the constitution is very explicit. "No decree of the king," it is stipulated, "shall take effect unless it is countersigned by a minister who, by that act alone, renders himself responsible for it." Furthermore, "in no case shall the verbal or written order of the king relieve a

1 M. Charles Faider, in a speech before the Court of Cassation. Quoted in Ensor, Belgium, 163–164.