Creating Links and Innovative Overviews for a New History Research Agenda for the Citizens of a Growing Europe
CLIOHRES.net
Doctoral Dissertations X
CLIOHRES.net is a largescale research project, supported by the European Commission through the Sixth Framework Programme of its Directorate General for Research as a “Network of Excellence” for European History. It includes 180 researchers (90 staff and 90 doctoral students) from 45 universities in 31 countries. Working together in six thematic work groups, their aim is to achieve greater understanding of both the histories and the representations of the past current in Europe today, highlighting both diversities and connections.
The Consortium Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz (Austria) Universiteit Gent (Belgium) Sofiyski Universitet “Sveti Kliment Ohridski” (Bulgaria) Univerzita Karlova v Praze (Czech Republic) Panepistimio Kyprou (Cyprus) Roskilde Universitetscenter (Denmark) Tartu Ülikool (Estonia) Turun Yliopisto (Finland) Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble II (France) Université de Toulouse II - Le Mirail (France) Universität Potsdam (Germany) Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg (Germany) University of Aberdeen (Great Britain) Cardiff University (Great Britain) University of Sussex (Great Britain) Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (Greece) Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Greece) Debreceni Egyetem (Hungary) Miskolci Egyetem (Hungary) Háskóli Íslands (Iceland) National University of Ireland, Galway/Ollscoil na hĖireann, Gaillimh (Ireland) Università di Bologna (Italy)
Università degli Studi di Milano (Italy) Università degli Studi di Padova (Italy) Università di Pisa (Italy) Latvijas Universitāte, Riga (Latvia) L-Università ta’ Malta (Malta) Universiteit Utrecht (The Netherlands) Universitetet i Oslo (Norway) Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Krakow (Poland) Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal) Universidade Aberta (Portugal) Universitatea Babeş Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca (Romania) Universitatea ‘Stefan cel Mare’, Suceava (Romania) Moskowskij Gosudarstvennyj Oblastnoj Universitet (Russian Federation) Univerzitet u Novom Sadu (Serbia) Slovenskej Akademie Vied (Slovakia) Univerza v Mariboru (Slovenia) University of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) Universidad de Alcalá de Henares (Spain) Universidad de Deusto (Spain) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain) Universitat de Valencia (Spain) Universität Basel (Switzerland) Orta Dogu Teknik Üniversitesi (Turkey)
‘A Little Britain on the Continent’ British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
Pieter François
François, Pieter ‘A Little Britain on the Continent’: British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870 / Pieter François. - Pisa : Plus-Pisa University Press, 2010. - (Doctoral Dissertations ; 10) 914.93042 (21.) 1. Belgio – Viaggiatori inglesi – 1830-1870 2. Belgio – Descrizioni e viaggi – 18301870 CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa This volume is published thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission, by the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005006164. The volume is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held responsible for its contents or for any use which may be made of it.
Cover: Thomas Allom (1804-1872), The Great Canal with Antique Gothic Houses, Ghent, from Belgium, The Rhine, Italy, Greece, London, Fisher, Son & Co., [1851]. Engraved by James Baylis Allen (1803-1876).
© 2010 by CLIOHRES.net The materials published as part of the CLIOHRES Project are the property of the CLIOHRES.net Consortium. They are available for study and use, provided that the source is clearly acknowledged.
[email protected] - www.cliohres.net Published by Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press Lungarno Pacinotti, 43 56126 Pisa Tel. 050 2212056 – Fax 050 2212945
[email protected] www.edizioniplus.it - Section “Biblioteca” Member of
ISBN: 978-88-8492-722-4 Informatic Editing Răzvan Adrian Marinescu Editorial assistance Viktoriya Kolp
Contents Preface Ann Katherine Isaacs, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson .......................................................
VII p.
The CLIOHRES Network of Excellence.......................................................................
» IX
Acknowledgements . .................................................................................................
» XI
Introduction ..............................................................................................................
»
1
1. Travel observations as a source for the study of intercultural imagery and identity . ................................................... British travellers to Belgium in the mid-nineteenth century .............................. Travel guides as promoters of change ................................................................... Travel accounts as sources for the analysis of British views on Belgium .............
» » » »
17 18 25 30
2. The Belgian Revolution of 1830: from ‘parody revolution’ to ‘glorious revolution’ .............................................................................
» 39
3. From excitement to indifference: the many faces of Belgian politics .............................................................................................. The viability of Belgium as an independent state ................................................ The role of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgian politics .............................. The collapse of the positive liberal image ............................................................. Belgium as the political pawn of France . ........................................................ Belgium’s neutrality in 1870: a cause of worry ............................................... The image of Leopold as a British prince. British perceptions of Belgian monarchy . ................................................................................................
» » » » » »
51 53 59 64 66 70
» 73
4. British perceptions of Belgian national identity ...........................
» 77
5. Protestant Citizens and Catholic Institutions: British perceptions of Belgian religious identity .......................... Belgium as an ultra-Catholic state . ...................................................................... Ignorance and superstition .............................................................................. Morality and Sunday Sabbath ......................................................................... The Roman Catholic Church as corrupt and hypocrite . ............................... Towards a more nuanced perception of Belgian Catholicism . ...................... The Belgians as Protestants ................................................................................... Catholicism as foreign to the Belgian society ................................................. Belgium’s future as a Protestant nation ...........................................................
» 85 » 88 » 90 » 91 » 94 » 95 » 97 » 97 » 100
6. Belgian heroes and Spanish villains: British perceptions of the ‘Belgian’ past ............................................. Belgian views on the ‘Belgian’ past ....................................................................... British views on the ‘Belgian’ past ........................................................................
» 103 » 105 » 106
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................
» 113
Notes .......................................................................................................................
» 117
Bibliography ........................................................................................................ Primary sources .............................................................................................. Unpublished sources ........................................................................................ Governmental documents . .......................................................................... Private Papers . .............................................................................................. Published sources ............................................................................................. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates: 1830-1870 . .......................................... Newspapers: 1830-1870 .............................................................................. Travel literature and periodical articles ....................................................... Secondary sources ......................................................................................... Consulted websites ..........................................................................................
» 133 » 133 » 133 » 133 » 133 » 135 » 135 » 137 » 138 » 147 » 163
Dutch summary ................................................................................................... Note on the author ..........................................................................................
» 165 » 174
Preface Pieter François’s study, ‘A Little Britain on the Continent’. British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870 is a significant contribution to the understanding of the formation of national stereotypes and images of ourselves and others – part of the complex of notions and problems that go under the name of ‘identity’. The volume is the most recent in a series of doctoral dissertations by members of the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence, CLIOHRES. François very explicitly positions his work at a crossroads between ‘Image Studies’ and History. His contention is that in the increasingly rich and complex research that is taking place on images, national and other stereotypes and their development, are often examined on the basis of the work of a very few well-known literary authors, who – in reality – have gained fame because they are unique, not because they are typical. Instead, the historian – with his or her much greater knowledge and ability to use sources of various kinds (including political documentation, public and reserved; the periodical press, both directed at various elites and at mass readership; travel literature) – has the possibility of coming closer to being able to portray the processes that create our imaginary, and hence our way of looking at and ‘seeing’ our surroundings. On the basis of a remarkably large number of texts of various sorts, produced in the four decades following the ‘Belgian Revolution’ of 1830, François traces the presuppositions, the hidden scripts, and the subtexts that British people entertained as they observed, and in great number, wrote about Belgium and the Belgians. This book occupies a pivotal place in the study of national stereotypes and the formation of the development of national images. British tourism in the mid 19th century was in rapid expansion, and many ‘Brits’ could easily make their way to the Continent. The newly independent Belgium was a convenient and attractive objective. It was possible to ‘see’ the prescribed sights in a very few days, often with very little contact with ‘Belgians’. British travellers could admire the medieval cities and art works, staying in hotels that catered to them, and taking their meals there. Many of them wrote down their impressions and published them. Their writings form a rich source, quite different in character from those produced by the more aristocratic travellers of the previous century, and from the products of the mass tourism of our own day. For the 19th century thus we possess an immense
VIII
Pieter François
store of written sources, which François uses adroitly to explore the reciprocal influences between the observer and his or her cultural, social and political context, and the ‘observed’. In this way, the volume, although it seemingly deals with a particular and limited part of the Victorian experience and world view, actually poses a number of general questions about the formation of identities and stereotypes. François is able to show convincingly how Tory and Whig views of Belgium initially were quite opposite, but how eventually the Whig view, of Belgium as a new and worthy polity well able to act as a buffer state against France (the original purpose of the winners over Napoleon in setting up the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815), won out. It is clear that wishful thinking coloured the lenses through which the British observed Belgium, as did the Irish question: attitudes towards the Catholic Church and understandings of the Belgians’ religiosity tell us vastly more about the writers’ attitudes towards the Union with Ireland than they do about Belgium. François traces the connections between the changing political situation in Britain and on the Continent and the changes in judgements on Belgium. His work is complementary to a previous CLIOHRES dissertation, that by Neval Berber on British travellers to Bosnia. In both cases we have a politically and socially sensitive analysis of how the outillage mental with which we observe our world develops, and how fast it changes. We thank Pieter François for preparing his text for publication in the CLIOHRES series, and for his committed contribution to the work of the Network. Ann Katherine Isaacs University of Pisa Guðmundur Hálfdanarson University of Iceland, Reykjavik
The CLIOHRES Network of Excellence CLIOHRES is a consortium of 45 universities and research institutions in 31 countries. Each institution is represented by two senior researchers and two doctoral students coming from various academic fields – primarily from history, but also from art history, archaeology, architecture, philology, political science, literary studies and geography. The 180 researchers in the network are divided into six “Thematic Work Groups”, each of which deals with a broadly defined research area – ‘States, Institutions and Legislation’, ‘Power and Culture’, ‘Religion and Philosophy’, ‘Work, Gender and Society’, ‘Frontiers and Identities’, and ‘Europe and the Wider World’. Furthermore, the Network as a whole addresses ‘transversal themes’ of general relevance. These include ‘Citizenship’, ‘Migration’, ‘Tolerance and Discrimination’, ‘Gender’ and ‘Identities’; one of these is targeted each year. As a Network of Excellence, CLIOHRES is not an ordinary research project. It does not focus on a single research question or on a set of specific questions. Rather it is conceived as a forum where researchers representing various national and regional traditions can meet and elaborate their work in new ways thanks to structured interaction with their colleagues. The objective is not only to transcend the national boundaries that still largely define historical research agendas, opening new avenues for research, but also to use those very differences to become critically aware of how current research agendas have evolved. Thus, the goal is to examine basic and unquestioned attitudes about ourselves and others, which are rooted in the ways that the scientific community in each country looks at history. Historians create and cultivate selective views of the national or local past, which in turn underpin pervasive ideas about identities and stereotypes: national, religious, gender, political, etc. National historiographies today are still largely shaped by problems and preoccupations reflecting previous political and cultural contexts. CLIOHRES aims to create and promote a new structure and agenda for the community of historical research, redirecting its critical efforts along more fruitful lines. The Network began its work in June 2005, thanks to a five-year contract with the European Commission through the Sixth Framework Programme of its Directorate General for Research, under Priority 7, dealing with “Citizenship”. Its activities aim to contribute to the development of innovative approaches to history as regards both the European Research Area and European Higher Education Area. The Network works for a closer connection between research and learning/teaching,
Pieter François
holding that this is essential in order to ensure that European citizens possess the necessary information, conceptual tools and more in general the vital critical and self-critical abilities which they will need in the future. All the thematic groups have worked from the start according to a common research plan, beginning in the first year with reconnaissance or mapping, of how the questions perceived as important for the thematic area appear in the different national historiographies. During the second year they defined ‘connecting’ themes, which are relevant for research in a wider geographical and chronological context. The third phase has concentrated on comparing and reviewing sources and methodologies; the fourth has focussed on cross-fertilisation, that is on showing how problems identified in the previous phases can be developed in new contexts. During the last phase, the groups are defining new and relevant projects, in the broadest sense, for future research in the sector. Each Thematic Work Group publishes one volume a year in order to share and discuss the results of their work with the broader academic community. The volumes are not conceived as the final word on the issues that they deal with, but rather as work-in-progress. In addition to the six Thematic Work Group volumes, the Network publishes one common volume per year dealing with the transversal theme targeted. It also publishes abridged versions of the dissertations written by doctoral students who have participated in its work. Together the volumes already published form an invitation to discuss the results of the Network and the novel directions that are emerging from its work; they also constitute a unique patrimony of up-to-date studies on well-known and less well-known aspects of Europe and its history. All publications are available in book form and on the www.cliohres.net website. They can be downloaded without charge. A list of publications to date can be found at the end of this volume.
Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the publication of this dissertation. My appreciation goes above all to my supervisor Prof. Pamela Pilbeam at Royal Holloway, University of London. In every single meeting she struck the right balance between providing me with assistance and encouraging me on the one hand and pushing me further and challenging me on the other. The enthusiasm and energy with which she has supervised this thesis has been remarkable. From the University of Ghent I would like to thank my Belgian supervisor Prof. Dr. Bruno de Wever for his intellectual support and also his encouragement of my decision to study abroad. In the same vein, I would like to show my appreciation to Prof. Dr. Keith Wrightson for his hospitality and encouragement during my stay at Yale University. Writing this dissertation would never have been possible without the financial support of the Research Foundation Flanders – FWO. I insist on thanking this very fine organisation for its support and also for the travel grants that have enabled me to have a research stay in the United States. Equally important for the publication of this dissertation was the support I have enjoyed over the past four years by Cliohres.net. Not only did they provide me through their workshops and meetings with essential feedback and an encouraging intellectual environment, they also provided me with this wonderful opportunity to publish this dissertation in their series. I would like to thank especially Professor Ann Katherine Isaacs, Professor Guðmundur Hálfdanarson and Professor Steven Ellis for their work as editors of this series. I would like to thank Dr. Rodney Dean and Neil Arksey for their help with proof reading. I would like to thank some people for other, non-academic reasons. Above all my gratitude goes to both of my parents who have been the biggest supporters of this thesis and who have always given me at the right moment the right encouragement and confidence. Finally, I would like to thank Keiko for having given me all her support and love over the past five years. That I have hardly ever experienced writing this book as stressful is in no small degree a result of her encouragement, optimism and good care. Pieter François Postdoctoral Researcher for the Research Foundation Flanders – FWO Ghent University/The University of Warwick
Introduction Belgium is entitled to the deep gratitude and continued attention of Europe at large. No other country offers so useful and so gratifying a lesson. Her independence is the only perfect political result of the Revolutions of 1830. She has taught us that government and diplomacy do not form that deep and abstract science which interested men – the holders of the reins – would wish the world to believe. Her self-taught statesmen and undrilled ambassadors have proved that the secret consists in perceiving the spirit of the age, and in guiding it with skill; in adapting measures to the tastes, the wants, and the wishes of mankind. Belgium worked out her own salvation, in the teeth of the coalesced despotisms, and in spite of every sort of danger which could beset a people struggling into nationality. Religious bigotry and aristocratic power crept into her cradle only to be strangled. It may be thought she has ‘but scotched the snakes, not killed them’; but experiment will prove that they are finally defunct. The Belgian people have started at once from infancy to manhood. They now afford the example of a great social experiment, and not on a diminutive scale. A population above four millions, which formed for several centuries what the Abbé de Pradt happily called a continental colony, are now established as an independent nation, labouring for the accomplishment of its internal organization, on the basis of a constitution unparalleled for liberality among the various codes of Europe1.
This book analyses British perceptions of Belgium for the period 1830-1870. Explaining the rise and fall of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ will be the centrepiece in this analysis. This image was created during the first half of the 1830s and managed to become the dominant lens through which British observers made sense of Belgium for the following two decades. The period 1855-1870 witnessed the gradual downfall of this positive image, the creation of a more critical image, and, especially, the loss of British interest in Belgium. Whereas the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ originated as a Whiggish interpretation of Belgium, and in answer to the Belgian Revolution of 1830 and the following Belgian independence, the image was soon supported over almost all major dividing lines and was developed into a full-bodied image. From the second half of the 1830s this image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ changed, for example, the British views on Belgian national and religious identity and even the British views on the ‘Belgian’ past. In short, this very positive image structured the whole range of British observations on Belgium. The quotation above, published in the “Westminster Review” of 1834, offers an early and typical example of this positive image. According to the article Belgium had become a stable nation-state
Pieter François
in a time span of less than four years. The revolutionary spirit of 1830 was by 1834 nothing more than a distant memory. Belgium was already firmly associated with moderation and success. The main dangers threatening the young nation-state, in this article labelled as religious bigotry and aristocratic power, were swiftly dealt with and the Belgians were already enjoying their independent lives under a liberal constitution. To explain the rise and fall of this positive image the following research questions will be answered throughout this book: of what elements did the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ consist, when exactly did this image become popular, when did this image lose its purely political connotation and start to act as the structuring lens for the whole range of British observations of Belgium, and when did this positive image start to lose its appeal? How broad was the support for this positive image of Belgium? What was the relation of this image with the weaker counter-images and alternative traditions of viewing and judging Belgium? When exactly were those counter-images abandoned in the 1830s and when exactly did they re-emerge during the 1850s? How does this chronology relate to Belgian history, which developments and changes in Belgium cause serious shifts in the British perception, and how did the British observers come into contact with Belgium and these changes? Finally, and most importantly, how does this chronology relate to mid-nineteenth-century British history, how and to what extent do the observations, interpretations and their changes reflect the British home-context, expectations and values? Two important questions need to be answered. Firstly, the origin of this positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ has to be explained. Why did the Whigs adopt this positive image in the autumn of 1830? This question is even more pertinent as before 1830 there were hardly any clues that Belgium would become the object of great popularity in Britain. Secondly, the question has to be answered why this positive image became so dominant so quickly. This second question will be dealt with extensively in the consecutive chapters of this book. Some elements of the answer to the first question deserve mention here. For both the Tories and the Whigs it was paramount to avoid another costly Continental war. The consecutive wars between 1789 and 1815 had put an extremely heavy financial burden on Britain and avoiding a similar situation in the future was an aim shared by all politicians. In 1830 the Tories still depended on the logic of 1815 to realise this important goal. The Vienna Treaty of 1815, which the Tories had
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
negotiated for Britain, stipulated that the best way to avoid French expansion was to create a series of middle-sized buffer states at the French borders2. The creation of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of both the Northern Netherlands and the Southern Netherlands ruled by King William, has to be seen in this light. It was believed that the merging of both parts would make a stable nation strong enough to withstand any future French attempt to acquire the Southern Netherlands. Belgium was believed to be, as a result of its strategic value and geographical closeness to France, one of the main targets of any future French expansionist plans. This strong French interest had already been clear after the French Revolution of 1789 and during the Napoleonic wars when Belgium was one of the first victims of French conquest. When the Austrian emperor, who was the ruler of the Southern Netherlands before 1789, was no longer really interested in the Southern Netherlands and when the independence of the Southern Netherlands was not seen as a stable and strong enough option, a merger with the Northern Netherlands was believed to be the best solution. The Tories held on to this logic almost dogmatically and this explains partly why British public opinion remained largely blind to the growing discontent in the southern part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Since the late eighteenth century the Southern Netherlands developed a growing sense of national consciousness and an identity distinctively separate from the Northern Netherlands. For the international community this ‘Belgian’ national identity first became visible in 1789 during the Brabantian Revolution against the Austrians. The experience of being subjected to French rule strengthened this feeling of unity considerably3. After 1815, when the Southern and Northern Netherlands were merged into the United Kingdom of the Netherlands this feeling of a separate ‘Belgian’ national identity developed further and was fuelled by a strong resentment against some aspects of King William’s policies on religion, language and education4. When the Whigs came finally to power in Britain in November 1830 they were forced to incorporate these events and the existence of a separate young Belgian national identity in their new attitude towards the former Southern Netherlands. Although their sympathy for Belgium was a novelty, it was seriously helped by some changes in British attitudes towards the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in the decade before 1830. The image of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands went seriously downhill during that decade and was, therefore, already considerably different from the positive eighteenth-century image of Holland. In particular King William was blamed for the deterioration in the relationship between Britain and the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Both in his politics and commercial policy he stood
Pieter François
diametrically opposed to what Britain and especially the Whigs stood for. In the 1820s he was increasingly seen as an authoritarian king and ally of Prussia and Russia and his commercial policy was believed to be protectionist and specifically designed the keep the British out of the Low Countries and their colonial markets. After the Revolution of 1830 the Whigs, therefore, associated this criticism with the North, whilst the positive eighteenth century tradition was now shifted to the South. That the Whigs adopted a positive image of Belgium so quickly after the Revolution was also inspired by the fact that they were forced to balance two elements. On the one hand the Whigs too wanted to avoid another Continental war and on the other hand they realised that the United Kingdom of the Netherlands no longer had a future5. After the Belgian Revolution of 1830 the hope that the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was a stable stronghold on the French border had to be given up. The Whigs were, therefore, in favour of readjusting the 1815 Vienna Treaty, but tried to do so without surrendering Belgium to French influence. To achieve this and to sell the concept of Belgium and this change of the Vienna Treaty to British public opinion, for whom any change of the Vienna Treaty presented an increased danger of another Continental war, Belgium had, therefore, to be represented as something very positive and stable in order to be convincing and justify this ‘dangerous’ alteration. This book will thus argue that the positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ started within a specific political context, but was soon picked up and supported by the vast majority of British observers of Belgium. Whereas the positive image started off as a Whig image and was strongly influenced by how these Whigs saw British national interests best defended, by the late 1830s the image has to be understood from a much broader cultural context and has to be seen as one example of how a British identity was created in opposition to a specific Continental other. One important additional element that further influenced the Whigs in adopting a very positive view of Belgium and the Belgians was the opportunity to present them as ‘good Catholics’. As supporters of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 the Whigs were keen to prove that Catholics could be constitutional and freedom-loving and that, therefore, granting British Catholics more rights had been a just measure6. The Irish Catholics were ill suited to provide the example of good Catholics. The Belgians, however, were for the Whigs the living example of how constitutionalism and ‘good Catholicism’ could go hand in hand. That the Whigs thus quickly adopted the positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ was strongly influenced
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
by these two political needs and this positive image was therefore an integral part of a larger Whig political view. The analysis of the British image of Belgium involves a combination of two different branches of historiography. The reconstruction of the precise meaning of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ and the smaller counter-images, borrows heavily from the history of ideas and Begriffsgeschichte7. The analysis of their popularity and the reasons why these images were considered to be convincing lenses through which to make sense of Belgium and in which to structure individual observations, is closely related to social and cultural history8. Explanations will, therefore, be sought both in the existing language and ideas in which the views on Belgium were rooted and in the social context in which those images were used. The study of the British image of Belgium is an analysis of how one group observes, defines and judges another group. This study of intercultural imagery has, therefore, an important relevance for the study of ‘identity’. The construction of the ‘other’ is an essential part of the creation and continuing repositioning of the own identity and image of the ‘self ’. Observations of the ‘other’ always reveal information on both the ‘observed’ and the ‘observers’9. The British image of Belgium teaches us as much about the British as about the Belgians. The ‘other’ can play very different roles for the ‘self ’. The ‘other’ is, for example, often associated with those characteristics and values that are in direct opposition to those associated with the own group. However, the ‘other’ can also be portrayed as identical to the ‘self ’, or even as an improved model or inspiring example. In the mid-nineteenth century Belgium played often contradictory roles for Britain. As long as Belgium was praised as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’, Belgium combined the roles of the loyal British disciple and an inspiring example. Once the praise for Belgium had disappeared, Belgium performed the typical role of the ‘eternal other’, and was associated with the exact opposite characteristics and values the British associated themselves with, such as Catholicism, superstition, or authoritarianism. The study of intercultural imagery as a negotiation between the ‘self ’ and the ‘other’ has been popular in Literary Studies and Cultural Studies since the mid-1980s. In Literary Studies, ambitious research programmes, theoretical concepts, and larger frameworks of interpretation have even been set up. The most popular and influential approach is the one of ‘Image Studies’10. Historians’ participation in this type of research has been only lukewarm. The strong focus of Image Studies on the intertextual relationships between the different texts, the limited belief in the importance of
Pieter François
the links between text and context, the resulting shaky causality of the explanations, and the tradition of focusing on a limited number of sources, often famous literary texts, within a large timeframe, are some of the many causes for this reluctance and unease of historians. It is surprising to see how easily the criticism of, amongst others, Quentin Skinner and John Pocock from the 1960s against the old approaches of the history of ideas can be repeated with respect to the way Image Studies analyses intercultural imagery11. In particular the lack of attention to the context in which images are used is, for the historian, unsatisfactory. As a result historians have kept a low profile in the study of intercultural imagery and left the field largely to scholars of Literary Studies. However, in my opinion the historian is well placed to join the debate and he or she can make a valuable contribution. The historian’s acquaintance with a much broader range of sources and his or her focus on the context in which the images were used, are two excellent ways to break open and challenge the often too straightforward explanation of Image Studies for the popularity and use of intercultural images. Intercultural imagery can only be fully understood when images are explained by referring to both their larger linguistic context and the social context in which they were used. A second relevance of this study is that this book provides an excellent example of the complementarity and intertwinedness of different types of identity, especially national and religious identity. The study of national identity has been a very popular topic in recent historiography. This topic has, however, largely been studied in relation to the nation or nationalism, and to a much lesser extent in relation to other forms of identity. However, this book shows precisely how difficult or distorting it can be to single out the issue of national identity alone. The British views on Belgian national and religious identity, for example, can only be understood as a by-product of the adjustment of British views on Belgium and the new political situation created by the Belgian Revolution. The new views on Belgian national and religious identity were heavily intertwined and did not develop slowly, but were surprisingly quickly constructed to address the changing political situation. A final relevance of this study lies in its strong focus on the constructed and artificial character of the identity of the observed. Although Belgian events and developments had a considerable impact on the British image of Belgium, and the British had a considerable knowledge of these events and their changes, this study shows how the general framework of interpretation was in the first place a British affair. In many ways the Belgians played a largely passive role and their image was foremost decided by changes in British politics, by British expectations, standards of judgement, wish-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
ful thinking, and the liberal belief in the changeability of society. For example, the interpretation of the Belgian Revolution and the changes in this interpretation will prove to be most heavily influenced by the change of British government in the autumn of 1830, and consequent alterations in foreign policy. In the same vein the fading of the positive British image of Belgium and the Belgians may be explained, to a considerable extent, by profound alterations in Britain’s foreign policy in general and in particular towards France after Napoleon III came to power. In general, the belief in Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ would have been simply impossible without the optimism and the ideas of progress of mid-nineteenth century British liberalism on the one hand and the fact that the rise and fall of British sympathy towards Belgium was largely determined by the larger European context and the British attitudes towards France and Ireland on the other12. The existing scholarship provides some useful conceptual constructs, hypotheses, and background information that will contribute to the analysis of the research questions. Besides more general works on Belgium and Britain in the mid-nineteenth century, scholarship on (national) identity, on intercultural imagery, and on the world of nineteenth-century travel proved to be extremely useful. A selected number of works were highly influential for the formulation of the ideas and research hypotheses of this study, and are here briefly discussed. Any student of Belgian history can rely with confidence on the authority of the general works on nineteenth-century Belgian history by Kossman, Blom and Lamberts, Witte, Stengers and Gubin, and Deprez and Vos13. For the scholar of mid-nineteenth-century international relations and intercultural images Vincent Viaene’s Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX (1831-1859). Catholic revival, society and politics in 19th-century Europe can be added to this list14. In this book Vincent Viaene analyses the relations between Belgium and the Holy See, and although the focus of the book is predominantly placed on diplomatic interaction and high politics, it gives the reader an idea of what was perceived as important and what made Belgium unique in the eyes of the mid-nineteenth-century foreign observer, and, especially, how the observers perceived and interpreted Belgian Catholicism. On the British side there is a much longer list to choose from and this book builds further, consciously and unconsciously, on the ideas of many scholars of mid-nineteenth-century Britain. Besides the work of frequently quoted historians, for example, Linda Colley or John Wolffe, this study is especially indebted to the work of
Pieter François
Jonathan Parry and Georgios Varouxakis15. In The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain Jonathan Parry links the strength of the Liberals in midnineteenth-century British politics with the growing popularity of a general liberal worldview and liberal concepts of, for example, progress, history, or success. This book supplies important supporting evidence for his plea to consider this liberal worldview as much more influential and dominant than is to be concluded from an analysis focusing on party politics alone. Whereas the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ originated as a Whig interpretation of Belgium, the manner and ease with which it became the dominant perspective with which to make sense of Belgium and was copied by all British observers, including those with a strong Tory sympathy, provide further evidence for Jonathan Parry’s thesis on the strength and dominance of a general liberal worldview. Georgios Varouxakis’ Victorian Political Thought on France and the French is inspirational for both its thorough reconstruction of the world of Victorian political observers with an interest in France or the Continent and the analysis of Victorian attitudes towards France and the French. As the British attitudes towards France influenced heavily their attitudes towards Belgium, this work has been highly useful. The most inspirational scholarship on identity for this book is found in some psychological approaches towards identity and stereotypes, in the approach of ‘Image Studies’, and, finally, in the vast historical scholarship on national identity. That social psychology can open up a set of interesting research questions and can be of great use for the study of the past is, for example, shown by Jon Mills and Janusz Polanowski, and especially by Penelope Oakes, Alexander Haslam and John Turner16. In Stereotyping and Social Reality, Penelope Oakes, Alexander and John Turner make a plea to use the concept ‘prejudice’ as an analytical tool. Instead of considering prejudices pejoratively as mere deformations of an underlying reality and, therefore, as threats to the ‘objective’ judgement of the historian, prejudices are considered as an essential part of observing and making sense of the world. This focus on the centrality of prejudices in the observation process is very much in tune with the way the British travellers experienced and made sense of Belgium. Their actual travels can be better understood when their observations and judgements are not only focused upon as encounters with new situations, but also as a continual play between previous ideas and expectations on the one hand and the reinforcement of, contradiction, or challenge to these expectations during the travel on the other. Image Studies examines intercultural imagery by analysing literary works. This branch of Literary Studies has, as mentioned previously, developed into a clear research pro-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
gramme and well defined theoretical and methodological framework of analysis. An excellent introduction to Image Studies and its research programme can be found in the work of Barfoot and Leerssen17. The usefulness and relevance, but also the limitations of this approach for the historian, have already been mentioned. From the works on nationalism and national identity, Alexander Motyl’s Revolutions, nations, empires. Conceptual limits and theoretical possibilities was most interesting and inspirational for this book18. Alexander Motyl agrees in general with the ‘constructivist’ view on nationalism and national identity. However, he is less sympathetic towards the strong, or sometimes even exclusive, focus on the role of elites in the creation of a national identity in the works of, for example, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm19. More in line with Anthony Smith, Alexander Motyl analyses the nation as a set of coherent propositions relating to historicity and boundaries20. In this view it is the historicity that gives a nation a place in the past and the boundaries that provide a present-day distinctiveness. These propositions are by no means restricted to the elites, nor do these propositions become popular only through an exclusive top-down handing over of them. Focusing on those propositions on historicity and boundaries and analysing how they were shared by the different social groups, has proved to be a most interesting conceptual tool in the reconstruction of the British views on Belgium. Furthermore, Alexander Motyl’s plea to understand this ‘historicity’ not exclusively in terms of the past, but also in terms of making projections into the future, has again been key in the understanding of the British attitudes and expectations towards Belgium. In addition, Alf Lüdtke’s research on Eigen-Sinn has been inspirational21. Lüdtke too, this time from the angle of Alltagsgeschichte or ‘history of everyday life’, stresses that thinking on identity and especially the attribution of labels to the ‘Self ’ and the ‘Other’, is not limited to political elites, but a standard practice for all social groups. A proper understanding of the British attitudes towards Belgium and their popularity can not, therefore, exclusively be conducted by analysing diplomatic or other ‘high politics’ sources. Two works from a long list of books and articles on nineteenth-century travel stand out, and influenced this study in an important way. In the article ‘What Ought to be Seen’: Tourists’ Guidebooks and National Identities in Modern Germany and Europe, Rudy Koshar provides a state-of-the-art analysis of the world of the nineteenthcentury traveller22. The focus of the article is placed upon the ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ of travel, on travel as a business activity. This is achieved by analysing, for example, the evolution of the different functions of travel guides and what the travellers expected from their guides. What the travellers did and how this was made
10
Pieter François
possible is well explained in the article, how the travels were experienced and understood, and how these travels are connected to society at large is beyond the scope of the article. This is, however, the focus of Marjorie Morgan’s National Identities and Travel in Victorian Britain23. Marjorie Morgan analyses how travelling was an integral part of middle class life in Victorian Britain and how these travels cannot be understood outside this larger context. Both her focus on the ‘national’ as the main lens through which to make sense of the ‘other’ in the nineteenth century and her plea to revalue the importance of the Continent as the ‘other’, have influenced this book importantly. Partly as a result of the popularity of postcolonial studies, the ‘imperial other’ has received a much larger share of attention than the ‘Continental other’. It is, however, difficult to overestimate the importance of nineteenth-century British travel to the Continent for Victorian society and its worldview. Finally, two works deserve a special assessment as they deal directly with the British image of Belgium in the nineteenth-century. Firstly, Guy Townsend’s British reactions to the Belgian and Polish Revolutions of 1830: a study of diplomatic, parliamentary, and press responses must be considered24. The focus of this unpublished PhDdissertation from 1974 is clearly high politics. For the period 1830-1833 this book lists for every key moment of the Belgian and Polish Revolutions and their aftermaths the immediate British reaction in parliament and press. As a result this work summarized and made accessible a lot of the primary sources. The purely descriptive nature of the work made it less useful as a first step towards the reconstruction of a general British image of Belgium, let alone the explanation of this image. The image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ in the 1830s is, for example, not even touched upon. To its credit it has to be noted that any analysis solely based upon the study of the diplomatic correspondence, the parliamentary papers, and the contemporary press, would have missed out on most of the essential features of the British image of Belgium. This unpublished work again emphasises that these ‘classic’ sources are simply insufficient for the study of intercultural imagery and have to be supplemented with richer and more relevant sources, like the travel literature and the periodical publications. Secondly, the literary scholar Marysa Demoor published in 2002 The Fields of Flanders. Alles, of bijna alles wat Engelse auteurs ooit schreven over Vlaanderen en België ... en waarom25. Marysa Demoor looked in English novels and poems for references and observations on Belgium and Flanders starting from the Roman Period to 2002. Marysa Demoor has discovered a vast number of writers who made references to Belgium or Flanders. For example, the brief chapter on the nineteenth century is built around observations made by
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
11
Frances Trollope, William Makepeace Thackeray, Charlotte Brontë, George Gissing, Marie Louise de la Ramée, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, Thomas Hood, Alfred Tennyson, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Robert Louis Stevenson, Henry James and Joseph Conrad. Most of her sources, especially the novels she considered, give a negative picture of Belgium. As a result this is the focus of her analysis. The mid-nineteenth-century positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ is, therefore, partly missed out. This book is, however, influenced by Demoor’s work as it provided access to a list of English authors and placed the research in a valuable larger timeframe. With the help of the conceptual framework and the background information provided by the existing historiography, a broad range of sources were consulted in order to answer the research questions. Diplomatic correspondence, articles and reports in British newspapers and periodical publications, parliamentary papers, the extensive British travel literature on Belgium, and, finally, some smaller collections of sources, such as novels, or scientific studies, provided the source material upon which this study is built. In the research chapters these different sources, and the images of Belgium they contain, are compared. In selecting these sources careful attention is paid to covering not only as wide a range as possible of different political, social, religious, and gender backgrounds, but also area as wide a geographical as possible. Furthermore, a balance is sought between public and governmental sources on the one hand and private sources on the other. Nevertheless, the sources reveal unavoidably to some extent an elitist point of view: it was hard to discern the views of the lower classes and to incorporate them in this study. A second argument for combining different sources is to avoid the trap of images that are too sourcespecific. Intercultural imagery is often strongly influenced by the specific context in which the sources originated and by the specific narrative structures and traditions of these sources. In a first phase a group of ‘classic’ sources, like parliamentary papers, diplomatic correspondence, and newspapers, were consulted for the period 1830-1870. Although their time consuming consultation was an essential step for establishing the themes and key moments the British were interested in Belgium and the Belgians, the overall results of this consultation were less rich than hoped for. The observations on Belgium in these sources focus most often on recent events and hardly ever hint at broader and more fundamental attitudes. As a result the opinions range from extremely positive to extremely negative, often even over a short time span.
12
Pieter François
The parliamentary papers strongly reflect these fast shifting sympathies, especially as opinions on Belgium were most often part of a bigger (Continental) debate; a debate in which Belgium played a largely passive role and was often reduced by all parties to the role of a familiar country that was expected to produce the easy example in support of the own argument26. The relevance of the diplomatic correspondence for this study is also rather small27. The vast ambassadorial and consular correspondence, hardly classified and kept in more than 800 boxes, contains only a limited number of relevant documents for the study of intercultural imagery. A very large number of documents focus on internal and bureaucratic issues, like discussions on wages, leave, and promotion. The observations on Belgian events in the remaining documents are most often extremely short and descriptive. Furthermore, these observations suffer from an important source-specific deformation as the British diplomatic staff often exaggerated the events. By this exaggeration of the Belgian events, they hoped to increase their own importance, which in turn could potentially lead to an increase in pay or even promotion. When asked by Parliament, the Foreign Office bundled and published in a special series the correspondence on important topics. However, on Belgian topics only a very limited number of such ‘blue books’ were published. One can only properly reconstruct governmental attitudes and how they changed over time on those limited topics for which adequate information was published28. Of the classic sources, newspapers proved to be by far the richest source. The total number of newspaper articles on Belgium is overwhelming. “The Times”, for example, published over a thousand articles on Belgium for the period 1830-1870. As a result of this vast amount of material, the focus of analysis is placed on a selected number of key moments and events, such as the Belgian Revolution, the visit of Queen Victoria to Belgium in 1843, or the death of King Leopold in 186529. For the selection of the newspapers, the political and ideological background played a crucial role. On the liberal side, the “Daily News”, the “Manchester Guardian”, and the “Morning Chronicle”, were consulted. This last newspaper was often more liberal-conservative, than strictly liberal. On the Conservative side, the “Standard” and the “Morning Post” are analysed. “The Times” occupied throughout the mid-nineteenth century a more or less independent position. The preference for London-based newspapers is the result of these newspapers being in general more opinionated and, therefore, more interesting for the study of intercultural imagery. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the newspaper articles have a very limited and descriptive focus, or are copied from other British, French, or Belgian newspapers.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
13
As a result even among newspapers with a very different ideological background like the “Standard” and the “Daily News”, it was most often difficult to retrieve this difference in ideology. This difference in ideological background is only noticeable in a limited number of leading articles or editorials. In general, newspaper articles focus on very immediate events and fundamental changes in sympathy are common, sometimes even over relatively short time spans. The same set of events can be praised or fully condemned in the same newspaper in a time span of less than one week. The study of mid-nineteenth-century newspaper articles for the reconstruction of long lasting intercultural imagery is, therefore, an essential, but insufficient, step. Despite this criticism, it is possible to distil from the vast amount of articles a general evolution in British sympathy for Belgium. This image, although less noticeable, is in tune with the rise and fall of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’; an image highly visible when the articles of the Victorian periodical press and the travel literature are analysed. Articles in periodical publications are a source extremely well suited to the study of intercultural imagery. It is, therefore, surprising that so far its potential has hardly been recognised in the existing scholarship. In general the articles have a larger scope and provide more in depth analysis. Furthermore, where the short newspaper articles were often descriptive and, therefore, more difficult to situate ideologically, the vast majority of periodical articles expressed a strong ideological undertone. The periodical in which the article is published already provides a strong indication of whether the article will have sympathy for Belgium or be critical. Furthermore, the articles attack each other openly, and refute each other’s points of view30. It is much clearer which elements of the home-context they want to praise or criticise. If periodicals have frequently published articles on Belgium during the period 18301870, it is even possible to observe the rise and fall of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ on the level of the individual periodicals. Especially long-existing and prestigious periodicals, such as the “Edinburgh Review”, the “Westminster Review”, or the “Quarterly Review”, published articles on most major Belgian events, like the Revolution of 1830, the signing of the final peace agreement of 1839, or the death of King Leopold in 1865, and are, therefore, open to such an analysis. To these longer articles or essays published in the main periodicals are added a whole series of shorter articles, published in a very diverse range of Victorian periodicals. For example, specialised journals, like the “Journal of the Statistical Society of London”, could devote one article to railways, mining, or prisons in Belgium31. More popular periodicals, like “Fraser’s Magazine for town and country” or
14
Pieter François
“Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine”, preferred to publish frequent, short contributions on, for example, folklore, music, or travel in Belgium. The large number of articles on Belgium allows important themes, like the Church-State relationship, to be studied over the whole research period, the full ideological spectrum and over the different types of periodicals. The British periodicals which are analysed here clearly cover the whole range of periodicals from serious to popular, from long-existing reviews to periodicals with a very short lifespan, and also from the whole political and ideological spectrum. Periodicals are analysed that were strongly in favour of the Whigs, the Tories, the Radicals, or that were critical of all of them32. Despite ideological and other differences, the periodicals also have a lot in common, like the kind of information they offer on Belgium. They offer a lot of information on both the political and socio-economic events in Belgium and are as a result complementary to the more cultural and historical orientated travel literature. Periodical articles also offer a way to analyse quantitatively British interest in Belgium compared with other Continental states. Furthermore, the amount of articles published on Belgium in the period 1830-1870 allows an analysis of the changes in the British interest over time. In general the number of articles published on Continental countries, like France, Prussia, the Netherlands or Russia, shows a pronounced increase between 1830 and 187033. For Belgium, however, the exact opposite is true. Whereas there were 72 articles published for the period 1830-1850, this number had dropped to 43 for the period 1850-1870. Also meaningful is British attention to Belgium in the first decade after the Belgian Revolution of 1830. This attention was in the same order as British interest in Prussia and there was considerably more attention to Belgium than for Austria or the Netherlands34. Compared with France, however, Belgium received approximately ten percent of the British interest in her neighbours. By 1870 the decline in British interest in Belgium is highly visible. Belgium receives only four percent of the attention France received, slightly more than twenty percent of the interest in Prussia or Austria, and the interest in Belgium is also clearly taken over by the interest in the Netherlands35. The travel guides and accounts on Belgium are also a very interesting source for the analysis of intercultural imagery36. The value of travel literature for the study of the reconstruction of the ‘Self ’ and the ‘Other’ has been strongly recognised in recent scholarship. However, this book is different to most other research in its focus on a large number of travel accounts and by the fact that these accounts are compared with a broad range of other sources. Whereas the existing scholarship, partly under the influence of Image Studies, tends to focus on a limited number of often famous
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
15
travel accounts, this study is based upon as many travel accounts as possible, including unpublished ones. This approach has revealed that the most famous accounts, like the ones of Frances Trollope, William Makepeace Thackeray, or the Irish Member of Parliament James Emerson Tennent, are precisely the least representative ones. Part of the reason these accounts became famous had not only to do with the fact that they were written by famous people, but also that they sparked off an often long and heated debate. That they sparked off this debate was, however, the result of the fact that they broke with the standard conventions and dominant expectations the British held when reading about Belgium37. Secondly, incorporating the reception of the travel accounts by British public opinion has also proved to be an interesting approach. Travel accounts were widely reviewed in the contemporary British press. Newspapers serialized travel accounts and letters to the editors were often inspired by travel accounts. Furthermore, the articles in the Victorian periodical publications were often based upon a series of travel accounts and these accounts were interpreted very differently according to the journal and its ideological background. This approach made it possible to establish to some extent the political and ideological background of some of the travellers. This is particularly valuable information as the accounts themselves only rarely refer to the ideological background. By analysing this reception, the observations of Belgium can to some degree be judged on their consensus and support in the wider British public opinion and this study thus gains in relevance over the borders of the immediate world of travel. The results of the research are presented thematically in a series of chapters. A first chapter is set up as a showcase to illustrate how British observations on Belgium and the Belgians can be used as a way to analyse the construction of both Belgian and British identity. This chapter shows the usefulness of some of the theoretical constructs and concepts, which are mentioned in this introduction. This chapter focuses specifically on one group of observers, namely the numerous mid-nineteenthcentury British travellers to Belgium. Here the social background of the travellers, their travel experience, and set of beliefs and expectations are reconstructed. This thorough contextualisation permits the study of their individual observations on Belgium as singular negotiations with the ‘other’ and, therefore, as elements in the process of identity construction. Furthermore, this contextualisation allows one to link individual observations with more general collective attitudes to the other. The next two chapters look into some of the political aspects of British perceptions of Belgium. The first chapter focuses on British attitudes towards the Belgian Revolution of 1830. The British observers of Belgium treated the Belgian Revolution as a
16
Pieter François
kind of ‘lieu de mémoire’ and as a founding myth of Belgium. As a result the whole range of British attitudes towards Belgium is reflected on a micro scale in the different perceptions of the Revolution. The different appreciations of the Revolution are, therefore, very revealing of the general British sympathy for Belgium and the Belgians. Special attention is paid to how this Revolution had originally split British public opinion, how and why opinions clashed, and how the positive image of the Belgian Revolution managed to become the dominant image by the end of the 1830s. The second political chapter focuses on how the British perceived Belgian politics, the monarchy, and Belgium’s international relations, especially those with France. Much attention is paid to Church-State relations, since British observers commented widely on them and they were considered as one of the most peculiar aspects of Belgium. The political chapters are followed by three shorter chapters on identity. The first chapter focuses on the concept of a Belgian national identity, and the similarities and differences between this Belgian national identity and the British/English national identity. The second chapter focuses on the closely related topic of religious identity and, more generally, the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgian society. The final chapter of the three analyses the British perception of the ‘Belgian’ past by focusing on how the sudden British sympathy for Belgium after 1830 had important consequences for the British appreciation of the ‘Belgian’ past, and resulted in a dramatic shift of attention towards the sixteenth century.
1. Travel observations as a source for the study of intercultural imagery and identity
The selected sources provide a vast amount of very diverse British observations on Belgium and the Belgians. These observations can come in the shape of a news item, a specific travel experience, or even a graph in one of the British surveys on Belgium. Apart from the topic they specifically deal with, these observations can also be analysed as sources for intercultural imagery. The observations are more than merely descriptive. They also contain a judgement or interpretation of Belgium. The rather limited number of observations dealing directly with the British image of Belgium is thus supplemented by a very considerable amount of observations containing, indirectly, information on how the British saw, interpreted, and experienced Belgium. To incorporate this layer of indirect information of the observations into the reconstruction of the British views of Belgium a thorough contextualisation is essential. Who exactly were the British observers of Belgium, and were they representative of the British at large? On what topics did they make their observations, and which topics were excluded? Does this focus of attention reflect the British home-context, the observed Belgian situation, or is this focus rather determined by source specific conventions? The representativeness of every single observation has, therefore, to be established in relation to the other observations made on this topic, to the author and his or her specific (social) background, and to British society at large. This thorough contextualisation is essential to make the step from the individual observations, as found in the sources, to the general collective background in which these observations originated and which provided the framework of interpretation. Whereas the sources provide information on how individuals continually negotiated their own identity when confronted with the ‘other’, the relevance of this study lies predominantly on the collective level; on how one group described, interpreted, and judged another group, and how this influenced the observers’ identity as a group. To illustrate how a thorough contextualisation can help to make the step from a collection of individual observations to collective intercultural imagery, this chapter focuses on one specific set of observations, namely those of the British middle-class travellers to Belgium in the mid-nineteenth century. This chapter has, therefore, the character of a showcase of how the observations of this one specific
18
Pieter François
group have to be interpreted as a source for the study of intercultural imagery, and to what extent their observations are representative of British society at large. In this contextualisation of the middle-class traveller as a British observer of Belgium, the focus will be placed on the (social) background of the traveller, on the specific layout of a mid-nineteenth-century visit to Belgium, the technology that made these visits possible and fashionable, the impact and normative influence of the existing travel guides on the actual travel experience, and the frequency and character of the encounters with Belgians. The choice of travel literature as a showcase is not only inspired by the fact that travel accounts and guides proved to be, together with articles published in the periodical press, the most important sources. There is also a significant methodological motive. By comparing individual observations with other similar observations, with the authorial and general context in which they were written, it becomes once more clear how misleading the famous travel accounts are for the study of intercultural imagery. Although the analysis of travel literature is rather popular as a means to study intercultural imagery, this point is largely ignored by most present-day scholars.
British travellers to Belgium in the mid-nineteenth century In the historiography on travel, the mid-nineteenth century is often interpreted as a period of important transformations and a watershed between the eighteenthcentury tradition of the Grand Tour and the emerging mass tourism of the early twentieth century38. For both the Grand Tour and the period of mass tourism historiography provides many interesting concepts, models and hypotheses. The two periods are, however, studied very differently. The Grand Tour is seen as a cultural experience and its sources are studied from a literary point of view. Twentieth century mass tourism, however, is studied as a commercial activity. As a result nineteenthcentury travel is often seen from one of these two models. Either its continuity with the earlier tradition is stressed or the elements that hint towards the era of masstourism. This approach of analysing nineteenth-century travel from the perspective of continuity and change with the preceding or following period has its advantages. However, the 19th century is presented as a century with a relatively small dynamic of its own, the exact chronology of the changes is not explicit, and elements that do not fit into the pattern of the transition from Grand Tour to mass-tourism are less focused upon39. However, many decades of the nineteenth century have interest-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
19
ing and specific characteristics of their own. The mid-nineteenth-century travels to Belgium are easy to distinguish from similar travels in the previous and following periods. Amongst the most visible characteristics are the growing numbers of travellers and the popularity of Belgium as a destination, the middle class background of the travellers, the budgets and pace with which they travel, the tension between the standardized tours they make on the one hand and the desperate search for authenticity on the other, and, finally, the all British environment in which they travel. The world of travel changed fundamentally during the nineteenth century. The number of British travellers rose spectacularly, technological innovations made travelling more comfortable, there was an important democratisation of travelling to the Continent, as it was opened up for the middle classes, and the motives to choose Belgium as the travel destination also underwent some serious changes. In 1815, just after the Battle of Waterloo, Charles Campbell published his guide book The Travellers Complete Guide through Belgium, Holland and Germany: containing full directions for Gentleman, Lovers of the Fine Arts and Travellers in General 40. As the title indicates the intended readership was above all the ‘gentleman’. This is reflected in the type of advice the guide provides. Compared with the mid-nineteenth-century travel literature this advice feels archaic. The account is set up in a world of slowpaced travelling on the back of a horse, in barques, or ‘trekschuyts’. According to the guide book, aristocratic letters of recommendation and even pistols are crucial elements of a successful tour. This whole set of travel experiences changed dramatically in the course of a few decades. In 1887 the British traveller Percy Fitzgerald decided on a Wednesday afternoon to visit Belgium and Northern France. The fact he needed to be back in London on Friday was not considered to be a problem: This was Wednesday, already three-quarters spent; but there was the coming night and the whole of Thursday. But Friday morning imperatively required that the traveller should be found back at home again. The whole span, the irreducible maximum, not to be stretched by any contrivance beyond about thirty hours. Something could be done, but not much. As I thought of the strict and narrow limits, it seemed that these were some precious golden hours, and never to recur again; the opportunity must be seized, or lost for ever!41.
Appropriately he called his account A Day’s Tour. In thirty hours he visited no fewer than nine cities in northern France and three Belgian ones. He made full use of the well-developed railway system in France and Belgium and in every city he made a short stop of less than one hour. For Percy Fitzgerald fast-paced travel is not only evident, but also comfortable and stress free: “the epicurean tourist will be facetious
20
Pieter François
on the loss of sleep and comfort, money, etc.; but to a person in good health and spirits these are but trifling inconveniences”42. John Pemble, Marjorie Morgan and other historians claim that in the 1830s approximately 50,000 British passengers crossed the Channel annually, and that by the end of the century this number had risen to 660,00043. The gradual emergence of an efficient British passport system in the second half of the nineteenth century produced a relatively reliable source to reconstruct the exact number of British passengers. For the mid-nineteenth century numbers are much harder to retrieve. The British travellers did not think highly of the obligation to travel with a British passport in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1847 the Foreign Office issued only 785 passports in total for all continental destinations together. It is obvious that most travellers left for the Continent without any passport at all. Another option was to use a passport from another country, especially passports of the visited countries. After all, the use of a passport was the proof of identity, and not of nationality. In that same year 1847 the Belgian embassy in London issued, for example, no fewer than 2,550 passports to British subjects who wanted to travel in Belgium. The fact that Thomas Cook, for the tours he organised to the Continent in the 1840s and 1850s, inscribed all his fellow travellers on one passport is further proof of this British lack of interest in the emerging passport system. In fact, Thomas Cook only inscribed the names of the men; the women were simply counted44! In the 1850s Lord Palmerston made the process of obtaining a British passport easier. He reduced drastically its price and abolished the previous compulsory letter of recommendation by a valuable member of the community. Despite the removal of these financial and practical hurdles, it took some time before the results were visible and compared to other countries the British remained reluctant towards passports and other governmental infringements of the personal sphere45. The traveller Robert Scott Burn expressed in his journal this British attachment to personal liberty and the horror of governmental interference “thrown upon every traveller when leaving the ship in Ostend and passing the custom officers”: He is no longer a free agent - no longer at liberty to roam - ‘no man to bid him nay’, as in brave old England; but tracked from place to place in the pages of the police books, obliged to be but a poor unit of countless numbers, who for reasons to be vainly understood by him, consent to give up to a few all freedom of action, and perhaps to a great extent all liberty of expression of thought46.
The British government, however, felt uneasy with the fact that their subjects could so easily roam abroad and there was a growing desire for more knowledge, control,
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
21
and a firmer grip on them. In 1849 the Foreign Office published, as a result of one of the parliamentary questions in this continuing debate, the numbers of travellers to the Continent throughout the 1840s. The ever growing numbers of travellers between Britain and Ostend is a clear indication of the fast changing nature of the mid-nineteenth-century world of travel. Whereas the total number for 1843 is 13,857 passengers, by 1846, in a time span of less than three years, this number had risen to 35,748. This spectacular increase is partly the result of the decline of Antwerp as a serious alternative for the Ostend route. Antwerp saw its numbers dropping in this period from 9,677 to 5,63547. However, even after this correction, the net increase in the number of travellers remains spectacular and is a good indication of the growing popularity of (Continental) travel in Victorian Britain. The vast majority of the travellers made an extremely standardized tour of five to seven days through Belgium. During the morning of the first day the travellers arrived at Ostend, after they had crossed the Channel during the night. Part of the morning was spent at the custom house. Approximately half of the travellers left immediately for Bruges; the other paid a short visit of a couple of hours to Ostend. This visit consisted of a stroll on the Digue, and a visit to the church and central square. In Bruges a similar short visit included the cathedral, the beguinage, the Saint John’s Hospital, and a stroll through the medieval city centre. The following morning most travellers left for Ghent, where they also spent one day. The next day was usually spent in Antwerp. The last two or three days the travellers stayed in Brussels. A visit to the battlefield of Waterloo was essential during this stay in Brussels48. Occasionally Malines, Courtrai, Spa, or Liège were included in these tours. In each of these places the travellers stayed on average only a couple of hours. After this tour of more or less a week, approximately half of the travellers returned to Britain. The other half travelled further to the Rhine, Switzerland, or Paris for one more week. During these standardized tours most time was spent visiting the main churches, central squares, town halls, and the old medieval parts of the visited cities. The periodical “Bentley’s Miscellany” published some excerpts from a popular travel account in its 1848 issue. One of them summarized perfectly what the British travellers looked for on their travels in Belgium: A tour through Belgium is literally an art-tour. The most spiritual and enjoyable part of the pleasure is to explore the cathedrals and museums, to turn over illuminated missals and illegible manuscripts, to criticise paintings, .... to wonder at fine saints, and virgins dressed in lace and tinfoil, and to undergo much astonishment at the marriage of pure taste and vulgar glitter, which we find consummated so often in such scenes49.
22
Pieter François
The theme of Belgium as one big museum was highly popular amongst the British travellers. Art and beauty were the main reasons to visit Belgium. The travellers wanted especially to have a stroll in the medieval towns of Belgium and be amazed by what they encountered on the streets, in churches, shops, and pubs. Proper visits to museums, interesting places slightly further away or visits of natural scenery were hardly included50. A visit to a local pub or café was also on the agenda of every traveller and seen as essential for getting a flavour of the national culture and local traditions. Going out for a meal was usually no part of the programme of the traveller, as most meals were eaten at the English-speaking hotels. In the eighteenth century, travelling to the Continent for leisure was limited to the happy few; mainly, but not exclusively, from an aristocratic background. During the nineteenth-century more social groups gained access to the medium of travel. By the mid-nineteenth-century the aristocratic travellers to Belgium were completely outnumbered by their bourgeois counterparts. As Belgium was close to Britain and on the way to the Rhine, Belgium became one of the most popular travel destinations. By the end of the century Belgium was for the same reasons of proximity a favourite destination of the lower-middle-classes and even some lower-class travellers. The bourgeoisie did not leave Belgium completely, but joined the re-emerged aristocracy in a few very specific places, like the watering places Ostend and Spa. This democratisation, or opening-up, of the Continent to the (upper-)middle-class in the mid-nineteenth-century resulted in numerous complaints by the aristocratic and upper-class travellers. They were horrified by the emergence of middle-class travellers, their relatively large numbers, and what they perceived as terrible guidebooks, like Henry Gazé’s Holland and Belgium: How to see them for seven guineas51. “Punch” ridiculed the recommended third class hotels and referred to Gazé’s travel guides as ‘A Week in the Moon for a Pound’52. These complaints were very common and were perceived by the new travellers as snobbery. In 1844 the ‘Fat Contributor’, one of the fiction journalists on a Continental tour featured regularly in “Punch”, hinted at this aristocratic sensitiveness. In his pastiche of a travel account on Belgium, the Fat Contributor described his contemplation in front of a painting of Peter Paul Rubens in the Cathedral of Antwerp: We examined these works of art at our leisure. We thought to ourselves what a privilege it is to be allowed to look at the works of Reuben [Rubens] (or any other painter) after the nobility have gazed on them! ‘What did the Noble Marquis think about Reuben [Rubens]?’ we mentally inquired - it would be a comfort to know this opinion; and that of the respected aristocracy in general53.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
23
Not all complaints about the number of British travellers in Belgium and the loss of authenticity came, however, from the aristocracy. It is a recurrent theme throughout the nineteenth century. Every time a new social group gained access to travelling, the older groups snubbed them, tried desperately to distinguish themselves from the new arrivals, and left eventually for other destinations. When travelling to Belgium was no longer perceived as unique or authentic, the aristocracy shifted their attention to the Mediterranean and to other continents. By 1850 the number of aristocratic travellers to Belgium is negligible compared with the first decades of the nineteenth-century. When, by the end of the century, travelling to Belgium came in the reach of the lowermiddle classes, the upper-middle classes tried passionately to distinguish themselves by singling out other parts of Belgium or by changing the medium of travelling54. The British had many reasons to travel to the Continent. Travelling for business purposes was common, but resulted in a relatively small number of accounts. The spectacular nineteenth-century growth of travel for leisure did result in a large amount of travel accounts and guides. However, acknowledging that the main motive of the travel was leisure became only ‘bon ton’ by the end of the century. In the mid-nineteenth century purposeful travelling was still regarded as much more respectable and the early Victorian travellers were, therefore, masters in disguising the true motives of their travels. According to John Pemble a prolonged absence from home was suspect and had the image of endangering values like “fidelity, obedience, connubial affection, and a stable and rooted existence”55. Furthermore it could trigger the suspicion of financial difficulties, because residing on the Continent had the image of being cheap56. Travelling for leisure was, therefore, often camouflaged by literary aspirations or as a health trip on doctor’s order. The traveller Robert Bell described the rejuvenating effect of travel on the rusted habits of middle-aged British man: But change of scenery works miracles. It flutters the blood, breaks up the lethargy of monotonous habits, and sets the spring of life going with renewed elasticity. Observe that obese, middle-aged gentleman, in the broad-leafed, fawn-coloured travelling-hat, how he stands gazing at the odd costumes of the people in the market-place. At home he doesn’t walk two miles a-day, on an average, spends a couple of hours of a morning over the newspaper, and crawls about, very much after the manner of a turtle, till dinner-time. Now, ever since he has come abroad he has been in perpetual flurry57.
On the Continent the travellers were surrounded by other British travellers and lived for most of the time in their own little British world. C. Borrer’s surprise when he discovered an old friend at the dinner table of an Antwerp hotel might have been genuine, but is no surprise for the historian of nineteenth-century travel58. The British went
24
Pieter François
on a Sunday to one of their seven Anglican or other Protestant churches or chapels in Belgium, and stayed in hotels largely occupied by other British tourists. They shared breakfast, lunch and dinner in the hotel and during the meals the British manners and expectations were reproduced and no violation was tolerated. Travel plans were discussed at the breakfast table and little groups were formed. By travelling in this British atmosphere the contacts with the Belgians were limited. For the traveller and journalist George Sala, this British atmosphere was judged absurd and, in his colourful style, he criticised it vehemently whilst visiting the battlefield of Waterloo. According to George Sala, the Belgians were very well aware of this desire for Britishness by the traveller and tapped into that feeling skilfully. He claimed that for commercial reasons the Belgians placed an English Common Prayerbook on each table, that the Queen gazed at you from drawings behind every window in the village, and: You will find English newspapers in the smallest taverns; time bills of the Dover and Calais route are stuck on every doorpost; others bear forged transcripts of the outstretched palm of Allsop, and the blood-red triangle of Bass, and you are invited to partake of apocryphal bitter beer, which is merely faro in extra fits of sourness59.
The ubiquitous British traveller not only resulted in the image of Britain as a country of restless travellers, but also in the image of the British as bold and impolite travellers. Contact between the Belgians and the British was very limited and this contributed to the fact that both the British and the Belgians saw each other in a stereotypical way. Most British travellers knew very well that they were not always popular in Belgium and even agreed on taking some blame for the sometimes sour relations and difficult encounters. Robert Scott Burn was disgusted by the behaviour of some of his fellow-travellers towards the Belgian population: We have, we confess, but little sympathy with that class of Englishmen - by no means a small one - who travel on the Continent in a perpetual fever of irate impatience - who growl at the douane, and grumble at the table-d’hôte, and pooh-pooh at passports and police, and seem moreover to think it passing strange that the people will not talk English60.
Time after time the travel journals reveal the expectation that mastering the English language should be sufficient for travelling in Belgium. Where the British had some respect for French, Flemish could only count on very limited sympathy. Flemish had the image of being a funny dialect, being neither Dutch nor German. Because the British had little contact with the Belgians, travel guides advised trying to have at least one conversation with a Flemish-speaking Belgian. According to Henry Addison it was even fairly easy to conduct a conversation as long as the following principle was respected:
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
25
If you do not speak flemish, and meet with a peasant or other person who only understands this language, talk English to him in preference to French, he will comprehend better. Transpose the words, pronounce them with a broad Yorkshire dialect, and it is almost a certainty you will make yourself understood61.
The bad reputation of the British travellers in Belgium, and on the Continent in general, resulted in the tongue in cheek article ‘Why Englishmen are so beloved upon the Continent’ published in “Punch” in 185862. This article sums up many ironic examples why precisely the British were so ‘loved’ abroad. The most popular reasons given for their bad reputation were their numerous threats to tell Palmerston in person or write to “The Times” when something went wrong, being noisy during mass in a Catholic church, and their endless referring to Waterloo. The, in total, twenty reasons “Punch” offered could not offer a better sample of British behaviour in Belgium and is supported by the analysed contemporary evidence. Reading George Sala’s account of his visit of Antwerp, the annoyance some of the British travellers caused becomes more understandable: I walked the other day, being my own guide, into a handsome building, and right upstairs to the first floor, thinking it was a museum. I was stopped by a servitor in a shabby livery, who had a plate full of butter brods and sliced sausage in one hand, and a black bottle in the other, and who was in a dreadful rage at my intrusion. “No muséé! no musée!” he exclaimed, as he bundled me out63.
The British in their turn became very suspicious of the Belgians, especially when they tried to speak English. There was the constant fear of being overcharged. Some travellers felt nervous the moment they left the hotel and hoped to be able to leave without being stopped by all sort of commissionaires, guides and ‘friends’ who wanted to show them around for a small fee. The big advantage of travelling in a group was precisely to be able to avoid these persons hanging around at the customs and hotels. Especially the compulsory visit to the Battlefield of Waterloo was perceived as one shrewd attempt of the Belgians to make the British spend their pounds.
Travel guides as promoters of change The British travel guides on Belgium both reflected and strongly promoted some of the important mid-nineteenth-century changes in the world of travel. From the 1815 onwards a new generation of travel guides conquered the market. The new guides were no longer upgraded travel accounts, but increasingly ‘modern’. Their targeted readership was no longer the aristocracy, who had plenty of time to travel,
26
Pieter François
but the emerging generation of middle-class travellers. These travellers had a limited time to travel, and wanted to see as much as possible in this short time span. This new type of traveller demanded above all that his or her travel guide be efficient and straightforward. He or she read the travel guides for information, not for entertainment. These new guides, of which Murray’s Handbooks, and by the end of the century the Baedeker’s Handbooks, became the symbol, were very accessible, full of practical information, rich in detail, and contained all sorts of timetables, rates of exchange, lists of hotels and so on. As a result the individual travel accounts no longer tried to give lengthy descriptions of cities, buildings or landscapes. The descriptions in the guides of Murray, Cook and Baedeker were top of the range and, therefore, hard to rival. With the arrival of this new generation of travel guides, the travel accounts shifted increasingly their focus to how the travels were experienced. This objective is more difficult, easier to criticise, but, in a way, also more interesting. Understanding the impact of this new type of travel guides is, therefore, an important step in understanding the many changes of the mid-nineteenth-century travel account, and its value as a source for the study of intercultural imagery. Over the course of the entire nineteenth century the number of sold travel guides on the most visited countries could, according to Marjorie Morgan, run between 500,000 and 700,00064. Considering these numbers, it is no wonder that, with the exception of the novel, travel literature was the most popular literary genre of the nineteenth century. Retrieving the exact number of travel guides on Belgium is difficult. However, all gathered information supports the figures proposed by Marjorie Morgan. Murray’s Handbook for Belgium and the Rhine had more than twenty editions during the nineteenth-century and by 1875 Baedeker’s Belgium and Holland. Handbook for Travellers already counted four editions in the English translation and surpassed Murray’s Handbook in copies and editions by the end of the century. George Bradshaw’s Bradshaw’s Illustrated Handbook for Travellers in Belgium, up the Rhine, and through portions of Rhenish Prussia counted eight editions for the period 1853-1866 alone65. In the 1850s, the period that Murray’s Handbooks were dominant, Alexander Gregory still managed to sell in a few years more than 10,000 copies of his A Practical Rhine Guide, with the leading routes through France, Belgium, Holland. Finally, writers of other travel guides were well aware of the limited impact of their own travel guides. Henry Addison, for example, refered to the dominance of Murray with both admiration and envy: There is no surer indication of the Traveller we behold gazing at public Buildings and examining works of art being a native of Great Britain, than the little red book which
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
27
he carries jauntily under his arm. … the aforesaid exhibition of Murray’s Hand-Book, the sale of which must be exactly coequal with the number of our Countrymen who have left England since the publication of that work, for I verily and truly believe, and I have taken some pains to ascertain the fact, that there is not a single person who disembarks on the shores of the Continent unaccompanied by one or more of these useful volumes66.
The success of this new type of travel guides had to provoke a reaction by “Punch”. In 1850 Murray’s Handbooks were criticized in the article ‘Punch’s Hand-books for travellers’: Mr. Punch, envious of the reputation of Mr. Murray and his celebrated Handbooks, announces his intention of publishing a new series of Handbooks, which he is sure will soon be met with in every railway, auberge, bierbraurci, gasthof, hotel, palazzo, and mountain top throughout the travelling world. The following are the titles of a few to which he has already affixed the passport of his name: -Punch’s Handbook for Railway Talk, with conversations for second and third Class, and rules how to hold your tongue with becoming dignity in the first class, … 67.
Besides these popular travel guides, a whole range of smaller and less popular guides were published. Their quality was at best mixed, but anything related to travel sold. By analysing these lesser known guides, an important chronology upheld in presentday historiography is challenged. In the case of Belgium the dominance of famous travel guides, like Murray’s Handbooks, was already challenged by some specialised travel guides from the 1850s and 1860s onwards. The end of their monopoly is, however, conventionally situated at the end of the nineteenth century. During the final decades of the nineteenth century travel guides did target more specific groups of travellers, and as a result retrieved much of the diversity of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century travel guides. For example, The Cyclists’s Continental Companion. A Road Book of Belgium, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland, Italy was published in 1899 under the pen name of Viatores68. Also other guides shifted their attention from the cultural cities of Flanders towards the coast with its watering places and the Ardennes. However, as throughout the nineteenth century Belgium was continually on the edge of travel innovation and was a favourite destination of every new group of travellers, this specialisation of the travel guides and the diversification of travel destinations are older than when compared with the travel guides other parts of the Continent. Already in the 1850s, and definitely from the 1860s, the dominance of Murray, Cook and Baedeker was challenged by guides that targeted other groups than the typical upper-middle-classes. In 1866 Alexander Tyghe shifted his attention to the lower-middle-classes and assembled all information nec-
28
Pieter François
essary for a cheaper tour than the ones suggested, for example, by Murray69. Henry Gaze too tried to persuade the same public with his Holland and Belgium: How to see them for seven guineas. He advised his readers to travel solely with backpack and cheap train tickets. He realised that the greatest challenge was to sell the idea and to persuade his readers that travelling was not limited to the wealthy, and, therefore, was also perfectly within their means as well70. Not surprisingly this second and less famous group of travel guides hoped to increase its popularity by criticising the extreme standardization of the tours as suggested by Murray, Cook, and Baedeker. They wanted to persuade the travellers that their tours and travel advice offered a much better introduction to Belgium. They criticised the fact that the guides no longer promoted the full diversity of Belgian places of interest, but had reduced their focus to a small canon of historical-cultural cities; namely Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp and Brussels (with Waterloo). They claimed that ‘authentic Belgium’ had been sacrified in the name of pace, efficiency, and economy. Every place that did not correspond with a typical one-day visit and was not easily accessible by train was left out of the standardized tour. Already in 1843, Henry Addison expressed a strong criticism of the suffocating influence of the extreme standardization and homogenization of the travels to Belgium: It is too often a mistake on the part of the English traveller, after visiting Antwerp, Brussels, and Waterloo, to hurry on at railway speed for the Rhine, fancying that he has seen all that is worth of notice in Belgium, but his mistake is as unfortunate for himself, as his ignorance is deplorable71.
Henry Addison’s criticism reveals also that travel guides could be experienced very differently. On the one hand they offered a sense of familiarity and security in a new world and opened up new, previously inaccessible, destinations. On the other hand, they could also be experienced as a burden. Some travellers regarded the guides as too strong a competition. Entering Brussels, Robert Bell’s desire to write disappeared completely after reading Murray’s Handbook. His account of Brussels opened with the following despondent words “Having brought the reader to this point, I will now leave him to Mr. Murray’s excellent hand-book, confining myself exclusively to matters of personal observation. Every stone in Brussels is as well known as the dome of St. Paul’s72”. William Makepeace Thackeray too claimed that he saw in Antwerp, in less than an hour, more than a hundred British tourists with the ‘infallible red book [of Murray] in their hands’73. He praised the accurate information of the guide. However, he also claimed that he no longer felt the desire to describe what he saw. The feeling of being bossed around by a travel guide and the pressure for
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
The Egg Market, Antwerp Engraved by W. Sprent from an original study by the celebrated William Henry Bartlett (1809-1854), it was originally produced for the part-work series “History and Topography of Holland and Belgium” (1837) [London : G. Virtue, 1837]
29
30
Pieter François
completeness felt by so many travellers was picked up by “Punch”. Vacuus Viator, another fictitious traveller of “Punch”, made a tour through Belgium in 1873. In his account on Antwerp, he wrote: “‘The Traveller’, according to Baedeker, ‘should at once direct his steps to the Cathedral’. Not going to be bullied around by Baedeker! Shall assert my independence by directing steps somewhere else first74”. Equally annoying for the traveller was the fact that not all descriptions of buildings and scenery matched the reality and the guide books often greatly exaggerated. Feelings of betrayal and disappointment were, therefore, most common on a tour. Henry Addison described the Digue of Ostend as impressive as the walls of China75. An anonymous travel writer, using Henry Addison’s guide, expressed his disappointment and did not understand how this claim had ended up in his travel guide: The Digue is a very pleasant place for a walk, quite equal to the Parade at Brighton, and free from the dust, though it hardly deserves the description that has been given of it, saying that ‘it is certainly the finest walk in Europe; the only thing indeed throughout the world with which it can be compared being the much talked of walls of China76.
Travel accounts Belgium
as sources for the analysis of
British
views on
The travel accounts reflect the many changes in the nature of travel and the travel guides in the mid-nineteenth century. For example, compared with mid-nineteenth-century accounts, Henry Smithers’ account of his tour through Flanders, which was published in 1818, felt old fashioned77. He dedicated his account to the Duke of Richmond, and published the list of subscribers, among them the King of the Netherlands, the Prince of Orange, the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Wellington, and a considerable number of Lords and lower aristocratic titles. Henry Smithers’ account is no exception and the aristocratic background of this account not exceptional. By 1850 these travel accounts had become very rare. This reflects foremost the fact that for the aristocracy Belgium had become a much less popular travel destination. However, for the aristocracy writing a travel account was also no longer fashionable. In their opinion ‘everybody’ wrote a travel journal by 1850. This attitude was strongly embedded in the broader search for authenticity and the rejection of new groups of travellers. As a result the aristocracy stopped writing their travel accounts at the moment the middle classes were convinced they were behaving aristocratically by setting up a journal. The omnipresent British trav-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
31
eller who quickly wrote some notes down in his journal or drafted endless letters to his family at home suffered numerous snubs: They have afflicted our generation with one desperate evil; they have covered Europe with Tourists, all pen in hand, all determined not to let a henroost undescribed, all portofolioed, all handbooked, all ‘getting up a Journal’, and all pouring their busy nothings on the ‘reading public’, without compassion or conscience78.
Contemporary book reviews of travel accounts sharply criticise the lack of literary and intellectual quality of the accounts. W. Trollope, author of Belgium since the Revolution of 1830, is, for example, ridiculed by the “Monthly Review”: In so far as the intelligence and opinions of the author are concerned, the work is not of a high order. At least he does not appear to have a penetrating mind, or to have cultivated such habits as would prevent him from coming to hasty and harsh conclusions. His prejudices indeed are characteristic of John Bull; and accordingly he is apt to measure things in the lump and with a weep79.
Historians often copy these complaints. They criticize the poor literary quality of the majority of the mid-nineteenth-century accounts and prefer the more sophisticated eighteenth-century accounts. This attitude is often embedded in a language of loss of artistry and the ascendancy of mass consumerism80. This view is, however, one-sided. Mid-nineteenth-century travel accounts are very distinct from earlier ones and should as a result be judged on their own merits. The literary quality of the bulk of these accounts is indeed poor. Especially the unpublished ones are hardly readable and of an enormous length. A minority, however, are little treasures, well written, funny and to the point. Most of the mid-nineteenth-century travel accounts that have been analysed are written by the middle classes and reflect strongly the standardized tour of approximately one week. However, a small, but interesting, group of travel accounts were written from the background of whole range of different tours. These journals can be the account of a longer stay in Belgium, can be based upon a short residence in Belgium, can even include fictional elements, or claim to study one specific aspect of Belgium, ranging from church architecture or Protestantism, to diseases, prisons, agriculture, or Belgian caves81. Whereas the total number of these travellers is relatively small, they wrote a proportionally high number of travel accounts. These travellers often considered their travel experiences special and, therefore, worthy of being written down.
32
Pieter François
The travel accounts offer information on a wide range of topics. Nevertheless, as a result of the nature of travel and the high standardisation of the tours, some topics are frequently dealt with and others are hardly touched upon. Travellers commented, for example, constantly on some physical aspects of Belgium, like the Belgian landscape or some architectural features of the towns. These architectural observations were in their turn frequently used as a stepping stone for elaborate anecdotes and stories on the Belgian past. Contact with Belgian people resulted frequently in observations on the Belgian national and religious identity. The perception of the political and socio-economical situation on the other hand is more difficult to analyse by using British travel accounts and guides on Belgium. The reconstruction of the individual background of most travellers is most often impossible. Travel accounts are often anonymous and, as a result of the narrative conventions, written in an impersonal style. Furthermore, they hardly ever contained biographical information. References to the traveller’s home-context, his or her family, age, marital status, or even to his or her travel companions are extremely rare. The ideological and religious preferences too have to be read between the lines. Christopher Davies is an exception to this rule by claiming that he and his two travel companions could not be more different in politics. According to him one was an ardent Tory, the other a moderate Tory, and the last one a passionate Radical82. However, it is not surprising that neither the names of the two travel companions are mentioned, nor which one of the three he himself is. Only if the traveller is famous, is it possible to retrieve some background information. These famous travellers form, however, a tiny minority and are not at all representative of the vast majority of the travellers. Another typical feature of the mid-nineteenth-century travel account is the need, felt by most travel writers, to justify their reasons to write or even publish their accounts. These justifications show that they were well aware of the criticism of the often poor quality of the average travel account. These justifications can, therefore, also be interpreted as a way to shield themselves in advance from too much criticism. George Sala too felt this pressure, but was on the other hand well aware that most other journals also started with a similar excuse. Once again, he found his own blunt solution: Very rarely indeed is a preface written without its author feeling bound to apologize for something or another. Now the excuse is elaborate; now it is abject. Sometimes the writer begs pardon all round; again he deprecates the ire of only one particular critic,or seeks to explain away his shortcomings in one particular respect. ... I apologize for all; I retract everything. I am sorry that there are so many pages in this book, and I grieve,
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
33
from the bottom of my heart, that there are not more. I confess that having ‘done’ the field of Waterloo, I ought also to have attempted Jemappes and Fleurus. I am aware of having wholly neglected Oudenaerde, and scandalously given Malplaquet the go-by83.
George Sala clearly criticised the prefaces of his fellow travellers. The excuse that his travel journal is too short is definitely tongue in cheek, because the two volumes together count more than 650 pages. Most mid-nineteenth-century accounts start with a series of excuses of which George Sala’s is a pastiche. The authors call upon the most diverse reasons for publishing their journals. According to John Hux, he was persuaded to publish it by his friends and he claimed at the same time some educational motives by expressing his hope that young people would learn some valuable lessons84. John Hoppus too claimed some moral grounds for publishing his account. He described his task as instructing the young people85. Christopher Davies was more honest about why he had published his account. He liked the idea of being an author and admitted frankly that there was a market for travel journals, if wellwritten86. The anonymous traveller H. G. too did not try to conceal his motives for publishing his account. His preface starts with the words ‘They are now published, almost word for word, from my pencillings by the way, without the smallest pretension to literary merit87’. A book review of a travel account in the “Foreign Quarterly Review” refused even to dwell on the standard part of the travel account, as it was already too well known to the readers88. Still, some travel writers were envious about the sales of guidebooks of Murray and Baedeker, and pointed in their direction to explain the disappointing sales figures of their own guides and accounts: Though Murray’s inimitable Guides have deservedly taken the wind out of the sail (some spell it sale) of all manner of journals, - though Sterne has exhausted the sentimental, Thackeray the humourous, Forbes the scientific, and ( ) the dull, I will be rash enough to hazard a few cordial candid notes of travel, on a route that you have gone yourself, or some day will go – and trust that in charity no less than justice you will not bid me occupy that last intolerable blank89.
Travel accounts are excellent and promising sources to study intercultural imagery. Written from the perspective of an outsider, travel accounts often ask fundamental and challenging questions. A travel abroad can be an excellent opportunity to question the evident and familiar aspects of one’s own society. This freshness of perspective was, for example, lauded in a book review of a travel account, published in the “Edinburgh Review” of 1831: Natives seldom publish their travels. Indeed there are great advantages on the side of a foreigner, which almost counterbalance the imperfection of his information. The reviv-
34
Pieter François
ing air of youth again breathes over us, from the new points of view, and in the freshness of emotion, under which he regards objects which have been long as indifferent to us as the clothes to wear90.
As a result of this fresh perspective, travel accounts offer most interesting and original windows of observation on a foreign society. There are, however, also some pitfalls and dangers involved in using travel accounts for the study of intercultural imagery. Some of the most important pitfalls can be illustrated by analysing in depth the following description of people bathing on the beach of Ostend by Henry Addison: It is true each person, male of female, is forced by the police to wear a particular dress: that is to say, gowns are put on by the ladies, short drawers by the gentlemen; thus equipped, they jump from the bathing-machines, and begin playing about like naiads in the water: their dresses, soon saturated, leave but little to the imagination of those who stand on the Digue within fifty paces of them anxiously watching the floating ladies (this is a very favourite mode adopted by the bathing women here) the swimming gentlemen, or the gay parties of both sexes, dancing quadrilles together midst the waves91.
The sight of floating ladies and dancing bathers in revealing swimsuits at the beach of Ostend shocked Henry Addison. This sight was so unusual for him that he felt compelled to tell his readers that his description was not exaggerated and that any other visitor to Ostend could confirm his story. However, by the evening, when he was rethinking the scene on the beach, his judgement had become already much milder: “Habit, however, is the second nature, and when you have been at this place some few weeks you will probably lose the horror with which these sights at first strike you, and begin to think nothing of them”92. Henry Addison’s remarks on the baths of Ostend reveal three important elements. To be aware of them is crucial for a critical analysis of travel writing. Firstly, the example illustrates that most observations were firmly rooted in a day-to-day base. Secondly, it shows how heavily the home-context of the travellers influenced the observations. This home-context is especially influential when Belgium is not only described, but also judged and interpreted. It is, therefore, no surprise that this home-context was frequently described in moral terms. The sameness or otherness with the familiar home-context proved often to be the strongest criterion to write an observation down in the accounts or not. Travel accounts are, therefore, often more interesting sources for the history of the observers, than for the history of the observed. In addition travel accounts do not necessarily select those elements that are most relevant for present-day historians. Interesting topics can be hardly touched upon and they can refer endlessly to aspects judged less relevant. If Henry Addison had been familiar with similar sights in
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
35
English watering places, what were the chances his moral condemnation would have made it into his journal? Finally, the empirical base on which most remarks were based is often astonishingly small. Descriptions or judgements are, therefore, often highly stereotypical in nature. These three characteristics deserve a closer look. Henry Addison’s remarks on the beach of Ostend are an excellent example of the day-to-day base of most observations of the travellers. His comments are based on an observation made during a stroll on the Digue. Observations are rarely embedded in larger or more abstract frameworks of reference. Only a few concepts, like the concept of national and religious identity, and physiognomy, circulated widely amongst British travellers. But even those were used rather unsystematically and structured only a minority of the observations of the travellers. Most travellers felt they were able to compare Britain with Belgium as they left Britain with a considerable knowledge of what to expect in Belgium. Through the travel guides and accounts of other travellers, the average traveller was well prepared. They had clear expectations of what to find different and what similar, what to approve of or condemn. In this respect, Robert Scott Burn’s description of his feelings when arriving at Ostend is illuminating: We could see at a glance that we were among a new people, and environed by habits and customs very different to those with which we have been in England so habituated. And it was somewhat strange to think that so short a sail should transport us to such totally different scenes, and place us amongst a population so strange in ways and manners to us93.
When his ship arrived in the harbour of Ostend and, thus, before having set one foot on the Belgian shore or having spoken with one single Belgian, Robert Scott Burn claimed that the scenery was completely different in Belgium, and that the Belgians behaved differently and had other manners. Besides for reasons of style, this reveals also Robert Scott Burn’s expectations. He might well have read that other travellers were struck by the ‘otherness’ of Belgium during the first day of their stay. Travellers were almost forced to explore this topic in their accounts, to give their opinion on it, and Robert Burn simply anticipated this. A similar example are W. Moens remarks on Belgium’s distinctiveness when compared with other countries. On the occasion that his steam yacht slowly crossed the border between France and Belgium, he wrote: “The banks were higher here, and we could see in Belgium already a change in the aspect of the country, which appeared very rich with farms, many churches and spires showing the distance”94. Of course, this claim can be true or partly true. However, it also reveals that he was expecting a difference and he might
36
Pieter François
have anticipated this feeling the moment he crossed the border. When the British traveller Seth William Stevenson left the Rhineland and changed carriage at the border with Belgium, he even claimed that he immediately knew that he was in a new and French speaking country, as the driver “cracks his whip à la mode de France, treats himself with brandy, and feeds his animals with bread”95. Again these remarks are possibly based upon some observations, but they reveal at the same time the expectation, and even anticipation, of distinctive and visible borders. This wish for a clear change can be partly explained by the fact that national identity was one of the strongest and most popular concepts travellers employed to make sense of what they saw. However, breaking up the tour into several blocs or periods each with a distinctive character had also some narrative advantages. In order to read travel accounts as historical sources, the travels have to be seen as a constant confrontation between observations and experiences on the one hand and pre-existing expectations, attitudes and values on the other. Old models of analysis often presented the traveller as an empty sheet; a sheet that is slowly filled with experiences during the actual travel. Recent scholarship focuses more on the process of how the actual travel experience refines, reinforces, and refutes the existing expectations. Furthermore, these expectations can also shape to a large extent the actual travel. These expectations can be a very powerful lens through which the British travellers saw Belgium; a lens so strong that some travellers could remain blind to obvious contradictions between expectation and observation. This mechanism partly explains why some perceptions managed to survive for a long time, even when they were no longer supported by the actual situation. A powerful example of this mechanism can be found in the way that during the nineteenth century British travellers linked most Belgian cities with a British counterpart. Linking Manchester with Ghent started already from around 1800. However, by 1850 not only all major Belgian cities had a British partner, also some more surprising combinations were made. Ostend was linked up with Brighton, Liège with Birmingham, Bruges with Liverpool, Antwerp with Liverpool or Oxford, Charleroi was linked up with Wolverhampton and Spa with Tunbridge Wells96. These combinations were repeated time after time and made their way into the travel guides. This association between Belgian and British cities became an extremely powerful tool to make sense of Belgium. The travellers expected, for example, Ghent to be an industrial town with a rebellious working class population. A strike, a pub fight, or even a broken window was interpreted as proof of this rebellious image. A similar broken window in another city could be interpreted in a very different way. The travellers strolled through the cities mentally
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
37
ticking boxes. They knew Brighton had a beach, a sea, bathing tourists, big hotels, quays and piers, and they expected to find the same in Ostend. They searched actively for what they expected and ignored, to some extent, the rest. Energetically looking for what the travel guides recommended, they stubbornly refused to devote even the shortest glimpse to beautiful cities, buildings, or other places of interest that were not described. The information contained in travel guides and accounts is highly stereotypical in nature. In general, great accuracy is achieved in the practical information, like prices, routes or travel procedures. Views on the Belgian society, the national identity or the Belgian past are, however, basic and contain a lot of mythical elements. Most travel guides and accounts relied heavily on clichés, caricatures and jokes. It is, however, striking that less famous and popular travel guides and accounts often compensated their poorer literary quality and narrow scope with a greater openness, nuance, and more balanced views. Only by reading many different accounts does the extent of the stereotypical nature of the travel literature become visible. Percy Fitzgerald, as mentioned before, travelled in thirty hours from London to the Continent and visited no fewer than twelve Belgian and French cities. His account shows perfectly some of the motives and necessities for the traveller to rely on stereotypes and caricatures. Percy Fitzgerald’s empirical base is extremely narrow. For example, his condemnation of ‘those new spick-and-span little towns, useful after their kind, but disagreeable to the aesthetic eye’ was based upon a glimpse from the train of one of these towns. Also his choice to label the old town-hall of Ypres as “the most astonishing and overpowering of all Belgian monuments” is at least remarkable97. Besides Ypres, he did not visit any Belgian town of importance. It is, therefore, ironical that precisely Percy Fitzgerald uttered “the worst of such visits is that only a faint impression is left: and to gather the full import of such a monument one should stay for a few days at least, and grow familiar with it98”. Often clichés were used as a means to cover up the extremely narrow empirical base upon which the observations of the travellers were founded. There was a great contemporary awareness of this small empirical base, and it was often criticised as one of the most important weaknesses of contemporary travel writing. The reviewer of Frances Trollope’s Belgium and Western Germany in 1833 criticised strongly her lack of contact with the Belgian population99. Finally, it is necessary to analyse what kind of information is missing from the travel literature. On what topics do travel accounts and guides remain silent? These silences can only be fully discovered by consulting a range of different sources, as these silences are often genre specific. These silences always reveal some limitations
38
Pieter François
of the genre on the one hand and hint to a specific home-context, expectations, and conventions on the other. For example, love, romance, or sex, are not mentioned as a motive to travel, these topics as such were not even mentioned in most of the analysed accounts. The British travellers, mostly young males, toured through Belgium and the Continent, but references to their marital status, or to the encounters they had with Belgian women, or fellow British female travellers, were completely absent from their accounts. Travel writers were clearly not expected to write on this topic as this would have violated the rules and expectations of their British readers. A similar example is the almost total absence of references to what the travellers did during the evening. References to a cultural evening, like going to the opera, concert, or ballet, were relatively uncommon. References to pub visits in the evening were also rare. The habit of most travellers to go to bed early explains this silence only partly. Even the otherwise provocative George Sala, did not fully transgress this border imposed on him by literary and moral convention. However, he did admit he went to see a play in Brussels; a play where the female dancers were “capering about in the longest of pink tights and the shortest of knickerbockers”100. He regretted that the originally French play was performed by Flemish dancers and endlessly preferred the Parisian ones. Imagining “Lise, Gretchen, and Ursula” as beautiful girls, was for him a bridge too far101. It is, however, remarkable that his description is one of the few explicit ones related to this topic. Other, less explicit, remarks are more in tune with H. G.’s complaint that he was forced to have dinner in the hotel next to two British snobs and far away from the lonely beautiful English girl102.
2. The Belgian Revolution ‘glorious revolution’
of
1830:
from ‘parody revolution’ to
The aim of this chapter is to explore the different mid-nineteenth-century British attitudes towards the Belgian Revolution of 1830, to explain why this Revolution had caught the British off guard, and how one stereotypical representation of the Revolution managed to become dominant over the many initial and more fragmented reactions. Furthermore, this chapter explains how the Belgian Revolution had changed the British understanding of the Southern Netherlands and how the emerging positive interpretation of the Belgian Revolution became a first step towards the creation of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’. The Belgian Revolution of 1830 and the establishment of an independent Belgian nation-state created a new situation, distinctively different from that which had existed in the years before 1830, and this forced the British observers to adjust their views on the Low Countries fundamentally. The creation of The United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815, with King William as its monarch, had been above all the creation of the major European powers. The population of the Southern and Northern Netherlands had not been consulted on the plans for such unification and from the start, the South felt disadvantaged: the policy on language, education and religion was most strongly resented. By 1828 this resentment had resulted in a coalition between the Liberals and Catholics of the South. From that year, the opposition between the North and the South became the single, paralysing political division. In August 1830 some minor revolutionary activities were taken over by part of the political establishment and were turned into a national revolution. The Revolution was above all carried by ambitious young men longing for full membership of the establishment. Whereas their contributions were the most vocal and recognisable, the Revolution as such was characterised by moderation and compromise with the existing establishment and interests. Despite an aura of newness, progressivism and democracy, power remained firmly in the hands of a small elite. Political and civic rights were constitutionally recognised; but the right to vote remained very restricted. A more democratic first chamber was balanced with a more conservative and strongly aristocratic second chamber. The legitimacy for the new nation-state was found in both the past and the future. The desire to make a fresh start was balanced with claims that Belgium was an old and historic na-
40
Pieter François
tion. The concept of national identity played an especially important role in this argument. A Belgian national identity was believed to have been always present throughout history and after 1830, the political situation was finally in tune with this national identity. Older loyalties like Flanders or Brabant soon lost their appeal and the new Belgian nation-state tapped into growing feelings of a shared community, present in the Southern Netherlands since the late eighteenth century. This rise of a Belgian national identity was strongly helped by the popularity of the first monarch, King Leopold, and the fact that competing national identities, like the desire for annexation with the Northern Netherlands or with France, had lost their appeal as both options had been tried out in the recent past without having inspired much enthusiasm. In the immediate decades after the Revolution, the new Belgian nation-state was blessed with a period of relative peace and, therefore, with stability. After the Revolution, Belgian politics were dominated by a government of national union. Until 1839, when the final peace treaty with The Netherlands was signed, this ‘Unionism’ was believed to be an essential step in the political survival of Belgium. After 1839, Unionism was gradually abandoned and made room for party politics. The liberals, who were the ‘de facto’ opposition, were the first to establish a proper party system and network of supporting institutions. The Catholics followed soon afterwards and Belgian politics became even more polarised. Liberalism became more and more associated with anti-confessionalism, the industrial interest, the middle classes and the cities; Catholicism was associated with conservatism, the countryside, and the landed interest. In name, however, this Unionism survived until the 1850s. Belgium’s relative political stability in the period 1830-1870 coincided with and was supported by a period of economic growth and prosperity. The rise of the industrial interests was facilitated by the fact that they had already a share of political power. The rise of the industrial cities of Wallonia and Brussels formed, however, a marked contrast with the agricultural decline of some regions of the Flemish countryside, symbolized by the 1846 potato crisis103. The Belgian Revolution of August and September 1830 was, by far, the single most important Belgian event to stir British public opinion during the whole of the nineteenth century. Although clearly overshadowed in importance by the July Revolution in Paris, British public opinion soon realised that the Belgian Revolution too would have long lasting consequences, and it was considered by contemporaries as one of the most complicated issues of international politics of the previous decades.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
41
An independent Belgian nation-state was clearly in breach of the 1815 peace agreement. The British found themselves in a position where they could tip the balance between the Courts of Eastern Europe, which were in favour of reuniting Belgium with The Netherlands, if necessary by employing military force, and France, which favoured an independent Belgium in the hope that this would be a first step towards the annexation of Belgium. The new Whig government, in power from November 1830, was in favour of an independent Belgium. However, avoiding a costly war on the continent was a much more important aim. There was thus very little room for manoeuvring and it was to take nine years before the final peace agreement was signed by all parties. On the diplomatic front, the Whig government, and especially Palmerston, got what they wanted; an independent Belgium without a war104. This well-known account of diplomatic events does, however, not stand on its own. The diplomatic settlement of the ‘Belgian Affair’ influenced, and was influenced by, the British attitudes towards the revolutionary South. The Belgian Revolution caught the British off guard. The first British reports and accounts of the Belgian Revolution expressed above all surprise. Even the “Westminster Review”, one of the earliest and most ardent champions of Belgium, did not mention any discontent or revolutionary spirit in Belgium in their 1829 article on the French and Belgian political situation. In the article the word ‘Belgium’ was used simply as a geographical description and there were hardly any references to the Belgians as a people. Belgium was still presented as a passive entity, without any trace of an independent national identity105. One year later most British observers were confronted with an unexpected revolution and had to explain why a people, previously thought of as happy and prosperous, had risen against King William. The British observers did not have an immediate answer and the ‘Belgian question’ was turned into a war of words that reflected the divisions and tensions within British politics and society. The interpretation of the Belgian Revolution got especially entangled with a change of government from the Tories to the Whigs in November 1830 and the rise to dominance of the liberal worldview. This war of words triggered countless newspaper reports, diplomatic observations, and a flood of periodical articles, all trying to make sense of this revolution and its unexpected character. The article Affairs of Belgium and Holland, published in the “Edinburgh Review” of 1833, contained already all the elements of the later dominant, positive interpretation of the Belgian Revolution106. According to the article, the start date for the Revolution had not to be situated in August 1830, but back in 1815, when the peace settlement of Vienna was signed and the article strongly questioned the belief
42
Pieter François
that the unification of the Northern and Southern Netherlands, without consulting the population, could provide the healthy base of such a buffer state. Parliamentary speeches of Tory politicians were quoted and commented upon to ridicule the Tories and by 1833 the creation of a United Kingdom of the Netherlands was seen as a naïve idea. The article also provided a full list of the grievances of the South during the period 1815-1830 and defended these grievances as perfectly justifiable. Firstly, according to the article, there were very different economies in the two regions. The North was above all a commercial nation, whilst the South depended mainly on agriculture and industry. These two different orientations needed two different government economic policies. Secondly, in 1815 the population of ‘Belgium’ stood at almost four million whilst that of the Northern Netherlands was only half that. The total number of parliamentary representatives was, however, equally distributed. Thirdly, whereas the mother tongue of the North was Dutch, the upper and middle classes of the South spoke French almost exclusively. Fourthly, Protestantism was the dominant and official religion in the North, whilst Roman Catholicism was uncontested in the South. Finally, the article claimed that no two national identities were less suitable to be united than the Dutch and the Belgian. Both people had learned to despise each other over centuries: There was dissimilarity in habits, in feelings, in associations – in all the most prominent constituents of the national character; and there was also an antipathy of each to the other, which, unreasonably as it might be, was not undeserving the consideration of those who seemed to expect a cordial union of the two people107.
Finally, according to this article, the July Revolution in Paris provided nothing more than the last spark to an already very explosive situation. The Revolution itself was, therefore, seen as an essentially Belgian product and was believed to have been obvious to any sensible observer during the preceding fifteen years. This interpretation of the Belgian Revolution was made with remarkable confidence. The tone of the article was no longer polemical, the article did not challenge other interpretations but seemed merely to state the obvious. This positive interpretation of the Belgian Revolution became surprisingly quickly the dominant interpretation. However, until 1832 other interpretations of the Belgian Revolution circulated widely and it was far from evident that the positive Whiggish interpretation would become so quickly and easily dominant. There is, for example, an important difference between the confident tone of the 1833 article in the “Edinburgh Review” and articles defending the same interpretation, but published in 1830 and 1831. The pro-Belgian “Westminster Review” published in
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
43
October 1830 The Potter’s Trial; and the Belgian Insurrection and, in January 1831, Belgian Insurrection. Both articles were still actively engaged in the initial war of words on the interpretation of the Belgian Revolution. The articles openly challenged other interpretations. The anonymous author of the October 1830 article knew well that he was one of the first observers to choose the side of the rebellious Belgians, and that this choice involved some risks. He defended his choice, by claiming that the substantial support for the Dutch in British public opinion was the result of a lack of ‘true’ knowledge of the Low Countries. He was confident that once a better and truthful framework of reference was provided, the rebellious Belgians would receive full British sympathy and support: We are certain that it only requires a knowledge of the real political condition of the Pays Bas to vindicate completely the steps the people have lately taken in their own behalf. Not that we advocate the burning of houses and the destruction of the property of obnoxious persons, but we would lay the blame on the true malefactor. If an ignorant people are oppressed and injured, and their interests and wishes neglected or despised, what is to be expected, but that they will pursue the measures open to them, and be it said, the only measures open to them, of procuring redress108.
When in January 1831 the “Westminster Review” published its second article on the Belgian Revolution, there was no longer the need to look for excuses for its revolutionary character. The moderate character of the new Belgian state and its first legislation was believed to be well known to the reader. Nevertheless, the author again challenged other interpretations and blamed these on the fact that parts of the British press circulated misinterpretations of the Belgian Revolution: “There are many reasons why the late Revolution in Belgium has been so ill understood in England. The sources of information both official and popular, have been for the most part Dutch109”. Different interpretations of the Belgian Revolution circulated widely during the Revolution and in the first few years afterwards. Especially in Tory circles – they were in opposition from November 1830 – there were many objections to the Revolution which was believed to be too easily favoured by the Whig government. However, this criticism never developed into one coherent and elaborate counter-image. Nevertheless, three elements can be singled out in most accounts that were critical of the Belgian Revolution. These elements have in common that they challenge the idea of the inevitability of the Revolution and that the Revolution was the logical outcome of a natural process. Firstly, the Belgianness of the revolution was played down. Far more than the result of a growing sense of injustice or that it reflected an
44
Pieter François
independent national identity, the Belgian Revolution was presented as a mere spin off of the July Revolution in Paris. The French example had destabilised the otherwise peaceful and prosperous United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The claim to interpret the situation before 1830 as explosive was judged absurd. Furthermore, if the critical accounts of the Belgian Revolution referred to Belgian grievances, these grievances were presented as based upon a misunderstanding. The population of the Southern Netherlands had misread King William’s intentions. For the critics, the Belgian Revolution was, therefore, essentially a parody of the Parisian one. Even as late as 1843, this interpretation was echoed bluntly in “Fraser’s Magazine for town and country”: ‘The ‘parody’ revolution at Brussels gave more trouble to kings, prime ministers, and diplomatists, than did that of Paris, of which it was the stupid and slavish copy’110. The often quoted champion of this point of view came, ironically, from France. Alexandre Dumas wrote on the Belgian Revolution in his Souvenir de Voyage that ‘les Belges’ were apparently not satisfied with pirating French literature and had, therefore, decided to pirate ‘our Revolution’ as well111. In the critical, substantially Tory, interpretation, the ‘inflamability of the public opinion was only skin deep; it had no profound or pressing causes; and the country enjoyed all essential advantages’112. The Revolution was considered to be the work of a small group of agitators and of the radical and republican press. However, the positive Whig interpretation actively challenged and even refuted this argument: The revolution in France did not produce the revolution in Belgium; it merely accelerated what must eventually have occurred. There were grounds for disaffection in each country, and it was natural that successful resistance in one should encourage an attempt at resistance in the other113.
Secondly, the admirers and critics of the Belgian Revolution differed in their interpretations of the role of the Catholic Church. For the Tory critics, the Revolution was above all a Catholic trap. The clergy were depicted as a conspiratorial minority whose aim was the domination of Belgian society. As long as Belgium was part of a larger kingdom with a strong Protestant character and a Protestant king, this aim was difficult to achieve. The idea that the Union had failed above all because of religious differences, was strongly promoted by “Fraser’s Magazine”. According to the article, the fact that King William was a Protestant was sufficient reason for the Roman Catholic Church to destroy the union: “We feel confident, that if the dynasty of Nassau should be finally sent adrift, the priests will have been greatly concerned in the measure, and that simply because he is a Protestant”114. The clergy were believed to have promoted their own interests behind the façade of national
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
45
and liberal claims for national independence and freedom. The Whig observers, on the other hand, saw the Revolution as the work of the Belgian people, as the logical outcome of a deeply rooted desire for national independence. They too were initially suspicious of the influence of the Catholic Church, but by the end of the 1830s they were praising the Church for being in tune with this national desire without trying to impose too strong a Catholic character on the country. The third and last important difference between the two interpretations centred on who exactly the revolutionaries were. In the Whig interpretation, the Revolution was carried out by the moderate elements in society, and especially the middle classes. Radicalism had soon been replaced by a wise and moderate project. For the “British and Foreign Review” this rapid transition from a revolutionary phase into a moderate and stable national movement was an essential feature of the Belgian Revolution: ..., these and a hundred other as anomalous transactions gave a notoriety to Belgium, which by turns excited the disgust or gained the sympathy of Europe. The world was long undecided as to the opinion to adopt or the course to pursue; and nothing ever appeared more marvellous than the quiet subsiding of those troubled elements into an orderly constitutional monarchy and an industrious commonwealth115.
In short, the Revolution had been carried out by the core of Belgian society and in tune with the wishes of the whole nation. For the critics, however, the Revolution had on the one hand been carried out by a bunch of rebels, republicans and Jacobins, all highly influenced by France, and had on the other hand been the work of the Roman Catholic Church: The Revolution of 1830 in France soon spread its contagious influence into other countries, and Belgium was the first to catch the infection. This was not surprising. The policy of France had always been to induce the Belgian priests to believe, feel, and proclaim that the Belgians would never be happy until they should once more become united to that country, or be, at least, governed by the same crown116.
The most remarkable characteristic of this war of interpretations is the extent of the defeat of the Tory interpretation. Despite the fact that this negative interpretation was more in tune with the general pre-1830 sympathy for the Dutch as important and loyal allies, this interpretation was defeated remarkably quickly in the years after 1830. Pryse Gordon’s Belgium and Holland; with a Sketch of the Revolution in the year 1830 illustrates perfectly the pace and profoundness of this change in sympathy of British public opinion. Pryse Gordon was a long term British resident in Brussels,
46
Pieter François
settling there long before 1830. He was familiar with the increased output of British travel accounts and guides on the Southern Netherlands, but was shocked by their lack of accuracy and their superficiality. He decided, therefore, to tap into the market and publish his own account, which would incorporate the superior perspective of the long term resident. That his account was written over a time span of seven years, from 1827 to 1834, makes Belgium and Holland an extremely interesting document. His introduction and most of his chapters on Belgium as a tourist destination were written before 1830. His preface, conclusion and, obviously, his account of over a hundred pages on the Belgian Revolution, were written after 1830. The Belgian Revolution and the establishment of an independent Belgium posed serious problems of loyalty for him. In the preface, Pryse Gordon stated clearly his sympathy and admiration for the new Belgian state. A revolution which, I trust my readers will see, resulted from no fickle love of change in that nation, but from a pure desire to emancipate themselves from the justly odious and oppressive government of King William, and to obtain one more in unison with the principles of rational liberty117.
In the introduction and the chapters he had written before 1830, however, he praised the union between the Northern and Southern Netherlands, the politics of King William, the compatibility of the two parts of the nation, and the historical reasons why both parts should form one single historical national state. In 1834, however, he wrote at the end of this introduction, a very extensive footnote and claimed that the peaceful and prosperous situation he had depicted in his introduction, had changed dramatically in 1828 and that King William had turned out to be an authoritarian despot, that Belgium differed fundamentally from Holland, and that the two regions and the two peoples were not compatible after all. Also his account of the Revolution and his conclusions are in line with this footnote. He apologised to his readers for his chaotic text and claimed on the one hand that this criticism of the personality of King William was very recent and on the other hand he claimed that he had been fooled, like most Belgians, by William’s rhetoric during the first thirteen years of his reign. He hoped he would be forgiven that he had not rewritten his introduction and most of the chapters of his guide, as this would have taken him too long a time. By the second half of the 1830s, the hostile interpretation of the Belgian Revolution had lost its appeal and traces of the negative interpretation in British public opinion are hard to find. There was, however, one important exception to this change. Politicians, journalists or travellers strongly in favour of the Union between Britain and
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
47
Ireland were not prepared to endorse the positive Whig interpretation. Throughout the 1830s and 1840s they challenged the positive interpretation. In 1842 the “Dublin University Magazine” published an article which was highly critical of the Belgians and which blamed the failure of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands on Belgian Roman Catholicism: The Dutch were a nation of fast-believing Protestants – the Belgians were about the most bigoted Roman Catholics north of the Alps. From this sprung all the evils which resulted from their junction – every political act was tinged by the hue of religious discord118.
These supporters of the Union between Britain and Ireland strongly relied on the elements of the Tories’ hostile interpretation from the early 1830s. However, they never succeeded in posing a real threat to the dominant perception. Most of their observations, accounts, articles and pamphlets started from a comparison between Ireland and Belgium. The Belgian Revolution was labelled as a ‘Repeal of the Union with Holland’. This tendency to compare Ireland and Belgium did not originate in 1830, but went back to 1815, when a Catholic region was incorporated into a clearly Protestant state. The debates on the prospects of an assimilation between the British and Irish on the one hand and the Dutch and the Belgians on the other and on the issue of the existence of separate Belgian and Irish national identities developed along similar lines. Belgium served as an important example for both the supporters and the opponents of the Union. Before 1830, the first group stressed that the Netherlands demonstrated the success of incorporating an important Catholic community within a Protestant state. The second group referred to the growing protest of the Belgians after 1825. As a result, the opponents of the Union were the only group in Britain to whom the Belgian Revolution did not come as a complete surprise. Carew O’Dwyer’s Belgium in 1828 – Ireland in 1851 is a good example of these comparisons between Belgium and Ireland119. This publication consists of a series of letters written in 1828, but published in and supplemented by one letter from 1851. The comparison between Belgium and Ireland forms the central argument in all letters. Carew O’Dwyer, a Member of Parliament for Drogheda and strong believer in ‘No Popery’, wanted to tell his readers that he, and many other authors, had already predicted the failure of the United Kingdom for the Netherlands by 1828. Understanding the way the Revolution had been prepared was seen as an important step in developing a realistic policy for Ireland. Already in 1828 he was pessimistic about the future of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands:
48
Pieter François
The experiment of altering a people has been tried for centuries in Ireland, and it has failed. It is now in progress of experiment in Belgium, and it will fail. I am certain there will be change of Governors in Belgium before there is a change of people. …but nations are in most respects constituted like individuals, and they naturally revolt against severe innovations upon their customary habits120.
According to Carew O’Dwyer, the conduct and aims of the Roman Catholic Church were obviously the main reasons for the failure. Another example is the article The Belgic Revolution of 1830, published in the “Dublin University Magazine” in 1835121. This article was a hostile review of Charles White’s pro-Belgian The Belgic Revolution of 1830122. The review lacked clarity and this reflected in many ways the difficult position it tried to defend. The article illustrated how many elements of the positive interpretation of the Belgian Revolution had become already so dominant that they were repeated here too, although the main aim of the article was to question the existence of an independent Belgium. Furthermore, the article admitted that the 1815 peace agreement was hopelessly naïve, but for different reasons. That both people did not share the same interests and that their respective national identities were not suitable to one another, only partly explained the failure. According to the article, Castlereagh’s desire to prove that Catholics and Protestants could live together in one nation was a more important motive for the establishment of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands than the wishes of the people. According to the “Dublin University Magazine”, the whole concept of the unification was, therefore, a mistake: Wisdom, after events we are told, is cheap; but it is strange that the difference of religion, of language, of habits, and of character, which so widely discriminated the Belgians from the Dutch, should have never suggested to the great European arbitrators and diplomatists, that the union which they were bent upon effecting was one of which nature had forbidden the banns123.
James Emerson Tennent’s Belgium, published in 1842, provides a last example124. Perhaps no other single book, article or account on Belgium provoked a greater reaction. In the immediate years after its publication Belgium was frequently reviewed, quoted, approved of, challenged or refuted. Precisely because its content was by 1842 so out of tune with the dominant positive perception of Belgium and the Belgian Revolution, it aroused such a controversy. James Emerson Tennent had been Member of Parliament for Belfast for the past decade. During his political career he gradually became more and more conservative and Tory. Belgium is not only interesting because it professed, in 1842, views that had been abandoned, almost
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
49
forgotten by most other observers, but also because it stretched the ‘Irish’ logic and argument to its maximum extent. For James Emerson Tennent too the comparison between Belgium and Ireland was central: Belgium has been long the Ireland of Holland, the relation of the dominant power has been in almost every particular, that of ‘the Sister Island’ to England – with the intolerable addition, however, that while Ireland has had the less population by far, Belgium had by far the greater – that Belgium paid much more than her proportion of the taxes, whilst Ireland paid much less – that Ireland often sent her inhabitants to share in the distribution of places, pensions and honours, whilst such a distribution amongst the Belgians was of extremely rare occurrence125.
Despite his negative attitude and his highly critical analysis of Belgium as an independent nation-state and economic entity, he too admitted that the Dutch government and especially King William could have done a much better job. Nevertheless, the main reason for the breaking of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was, in James Emerson Tennent’s opinion, the malicious and treacherous role the Roman Catholic Church had played in what he called ‘the Repeal of the Union126’. The different elements of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ had different life spans. Whereas some were fiercely contested in the 1850s and especially in the 1860s, which resulted in the breakdown of the general image, other elements were not considered relevant enough to be attacked or modified. As a result, some elements, especially the peripheral ones, managed to survive the original context in which they have been created. The positive interpretation of the Belgian Revolution is an excellent example of one element that survived the collapse of the general positive image of Belgium. For example, even in 1869, the “London Quarterly Review” published an analysis of the Belgian Revolution that could have been written thirty years before127. Its analysis too was exclusively based upon Belgian sources, Belgian independence being seen as the logical outcome of a process inscribed into the Belgian national identity, and the causes for the revolution were believed to be just. The changes in the perception of Belgium and the Belgians in the 1850s and the 1860s had not resulted in a reinterpretation of the Belgian Revolution. As the new attitude towards Belgium was in the first place characterised by a diminished interest in Belgium, the British observers did not pour their energy into creating a whole new and more critical framework of understanding the Belgian Revolution, but simply claimed that the Belgians had betrayed their own Revolution, and had failed to live up to the expectations and the initial British confidence in them.
3. From excitement to indifference: the many faces of Belgian politics After the Revolution of 1830 the dominant Whig perception of Belgian politics became positive very quickly. The Belgians were believed to have left their revolutionary days behind and to have built a stable and moderate political framework that suited their freedom-loving national identity, their liberalism, and their progressivism. According to the vast majority of British observers, the Belgians had, in the aftermath of the Revolution, made the right choices. Options that were too radical and republican and which were favoured by a minority of the revolutionaries, were brushed aside, and the establishment and middle classes, who had soon taken over the Revolution, had chosen wisely for a constitutional monarchy. The extent of suffrage was believed to be broad enough to be in tune with the national identity and restricted enough to favour moderation. This image was further reinforced by the fact that Leopold was elected as the first king of the Belgians. This perceived smooth transition from revolutionary chaos to stability formed the cornerstone of the British perception of Belgian politics. In the 1838 issue of the “British and Foreign Review”, this transition received full praise: It is true, we can no longer look to the Netherlands, except with a retrospective glance, for daring deeds or ‘moving accidents’; but among all the political phenomena of the present eventful century, we hold none to be more thoroughly striking and instructive than the prompt transition from turbulence to tranquility, the perfect process from chaos to creation, exemplified by the Belgium of 1830 and the Belgium of 1838128.
The Belgian Constitution and its institutions received most praise. According to the author of the 1838 article Belgium and Holland the recently gained freedom of the Belgians was given a central place in the Constitution and as a result, the Belgian Constitution was believed to be the most liberal Constitution at that time: We are proud of this fact, because that constitution is beyond comparison the most liberal upon the Continent, … . Liberty of conscience, freedom of the press and of instruction, trial by jury, a suffrage we may call almost universal, and the ballot; – these are the great benefits secured to the Belgians, by a charter which might serve as a model to all people wishing for useful and permanent reforms. And it is not only as a theory, as a speculation, that it deserves our approbation, – it has worked well129.
The quotation above shows also that this British perception did not always correspond with reality. Many elements were greatly exaggerated and reflected, above all, British expectations. The belief was, for example, that there was almost universal
52
Pieter François
suffrage. This was clearly not the case and, in fact, even acknowledged later in the article. The image that was reinforced, however, was one of a perfect little Belgium. For many British observers there were many similarities between the British and Belgian political system as Belgium was believed to have largely copied the British system. The Belgians were perceived as looking up to Britain as a sort of leading example. On some occasions, however, the master-pupil relation could be reversed and in some respects Belgium was believed to possess a perfect political system. According to the article Leopold and the Belgians, published in the “Westminster Review” of 1838, the British could learn something from the Belgians: We hold the general political conduct of the Belgians since 1830 in the highest honour. The free institutions of Belgium, are; like those of all the constitutional governments of the Continent, founded on those of England; but, unlike almost all the others, they offer instances of great improvement on their original models. They have in no instance degenerated into excess; and they ought to excite among us none but gratifying feelings. With a country so small as Belgium, England can have no jealousies. Our envy cannot be excited by her political improvement or her commercial prosperity, which only tends to strengthen and enlarge our own. Her progress is the child of our example. She has been eminently useful to us, as the miniature model of a great machine130.
This illustrates too how delicate it was to depict countries as better than Britain. There is a balance between asserting one’s own superiority and acknowledging the quality of the Belgian political system. The key element is that Britain had nothing to fear from Belgium. Belgium acted only as an example to Britain, as long as Belgium was perceived as loyal, docile, and innocent. Whereas the similarities between the political systems of both countries were constantly referred to, the differences were largely ignored. Some observers even crafted complex arguments to prove that these differences were only superficial and that deep down there were only similarities131. This belief in, and desire for, a stable political Belgium was another core element of the British image of Belgium as a ‘little Britain on the Continent’. During the heyday of the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium this element was hardly attacked, and criticism of the political viability of Belgium was rare, even in clearly Tory/Conservative circles. Even when the general positive image disintegrated, outright hostility towards Belgium was rare. Instead of questioning Belgium’s political viability, two other subjects were the chief targets of criticism. Firstly, the Belgians were depicted as treacherous and ungrateful. Secondly, and more importantly, the British had lost their interest in Belgium, and Belgian politics were considered boring, petty and irrelevant. This more critical interpretation of Belgian politics be-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
53
came in the 1850s, and especially in the 1860s, an important counter-image to that of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’, and both images survived alongside each other for the rest of the nineteenth century. This chapter aims to analyse the different British perceptions of Belgian politics and why the liberal view became so dominant in the 1830s and 1840s. A special focus is placed on how this liberal view dealt with questions related to the viability of Belgium as an independent state and to the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgian politics, as most British observers structured almost all major events of Belgian politics through the lens of one of these two issues132.The chapter will also explain how a more critical counter-image originated in the 1850s and 1860s and, finally, it will deal with the British perception of the Belgian monarchy and, more specifically, King Leopold.
The viability of Belgium as an independent state The viability of Belgium as an independent state and possible alternatives for national independence such as a reunification with the Netherlands or a union, or absorption, by France, were questioned on three different occasions in the mid-nineteenth century: firstly, during the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, then at the signing in 1839 of the definitive peace agreement, and, finally, during the revolutionary days of 1848. The British attitudes on this national question changed considerably over the period 1830-1848 and these attitudes reflected well the changes in sympathy for Belgium over this same period. Despite the fact that the actual revolutionary period had been relatively short, that the ruling establishment had soon claimed power, and that the British government had agreed that national independence was the best option both for Belgium and for the chances of a long-lasting European peace, the viability of Belgium as an independent nation-state was repeatedly questioned by some British critics of Belgium during the first years after the Revolution. The debate centred around three different key moments or issues: the presence of French troops in Belgium in the summer of 1831, the Belgian inability and refusal to maintain a series of forts on the border with France, and the presence of a pro-Dutch Orangist party in Belgian politics in the 1830s133. On each topic the Whigs and the Tories had different views. For the Whigs, these debates were important steps in their developing a coherent image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’. For the Tories, the debates increasingly revealed they were fighting a losing battle.
54
Pieter François
The fact that Belgium had to rely on the British navy and, especially, on French troops in the summer of 1831 to counter an attack by the Dutch army and that Belgium refused to provide the necessary military and financial means to maintain the forts on its border with France was seen by many Tories as proof that their assessment of the viability of Belgium was the correct one. Both events triggered fierce criticism of the Whig government. The Marquis of Londonderry, for example, criticised in parliament the fact that French troops had been asked to fight in Belgium, that they showed no inclination to leave soon and that the British government seemed to accept this: For what purpose or with what object, could these troops be retained in Belgium? Prince Leopold had not as yet been acknowledged king of Belgium by Austria, Prussia, or Russia, and he had no right to demand these troops as bodyguard. Could Prince Leopold not trust Les braves Belges? and if he could not, and we were to allow the French to remain on that pretence, it was quite clear, that the Ministers of this country had been bamboozled by the arrangement134.
For the Tories, the Belgians were not fit for national independence, Britain had lost the powerful position it had obtained at Waterloo and the Whigs were accepting the French demands for reasons of fear and naivety. The Tories questioned especially why the Whig government had approved of the demolition of the Belgian forts, which was so clearly in the interest of France. For many Tories this meant overturning the cornerstone of the Tory foreign policy of the past decades135. This criticism was not limited to parliamentary debates, but was also picked up by the conservative press during the first years after 1830. In the article The Belgian Question the “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” vigorously attacked the decision to demolish some of the forts: In truth, the treaty for the demolition of the barrier, which England has now signed, is utterly inexplicable on any principle of reason, and of which no account can be given but from the blindness of the innovating passion. … France and Belgium are revolutionary powers; Mr. Pitt did his utmost to coerce the democratic spirit; therefore, our present rulers have done every thing they could to encourage it. In making this charge, we by no means mean to assert that Ministers are traitors to their country, or intend in what they do to degrade or injure Great Britain. We know perfectly they have no such intention; we believe they think they are promoting its real interests, … . What we say is, that the long habit of opposition has utterly perverted their judgement, and the passion for innovation swept away their reason136.
A similar article The Belgic Revolution of 1830, published in the “Dublin University Magazine” of 1835, claimed that it was Palmerston’s personal dislike of the Duke
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
55
of Wellington that had made him agree with this measure to overturn this work of “English blood and treasure” and with it “all the principal advantages gained in 1814”: “What England and Europe are to gain by this is yet to be seen; but, doubtless, Lord Palmerston conceived, and rightly conceived, that it would be a great mortification to the Duke of Wellington”137. The article went on to accuse Lord Palmerston of “mean and paltry jealousies and resentments” and pointed out that these endangered the safety and interests of Britain. The Whigs never found a satisfying answer to these accusations. They pointed out that it was unreasonable to expect the Belgians to maintain the forts, which initially had to be maintained by the whole United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Furthermore, by diplomatic pressure they obtained the removal of all French troops. They also asked for some patience and trust in newly established Belgium. However, their main counter-attack was to ignore Tory criticism of Belgium. More and more Tories began to show some sympathy for Belgium and their original criticism soon disintegrated into a small minority point of view. By the signing of the final peace agreement in 1839 this development had been concluded. This development had already been visible previously in the changing attitude towards the Orangist party in Belgium which had remained loyal to King William and whose aim it was to undo the Belgian Revolution. Events in Belgium, however, were clearly in favour of the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium and the Revolution. On the national level the pro-Dutch movement had already been silenced as a political force in the months immediate after the Revolution. On a local level, especially amongst the liberal middle classes of the industrial city of Ghent, they managed to keep their claim to power alive until the signing of the peace agreement in 1839. After 1839, the Orangist movement died out silently in Ghent too and merged with the Liberals. In 1834, “Fraser’s Magazine”, although without too much enthusiasm, still referred to the Orangist party and a reunification with the Netherlands as a potential alternative to Belgian independence138. The pro-Belgian “Westminster Review” of that same year, however, described the movement as dead: There is a certain clique appertaining to the equestrian order in Belgium, consisting chiefly of old ladies, that has taken a fancy to call itself ‘Orangiste’. ... The ‘Orangistes’ starve on their regrets, and have no fund but the past. … The notion of any thing like a serious political party for Orangism in the country is quite exploded139.
Helped by the disintegration of the Orangist movement, the liberal interpretation achieved general acceptance convincingly. Moreover, this clash of interpretations of
56
Pieter François
the Orangist party and the defeat of the Tory argument was presented by the liberal press as symptomatic of the Tory lies about Belgium in general. The liberal press, for example, attacked the image, propagated by some Tory publications, that Belgium had been economically ruined by the separation from Dutch markets. Again, the admirers of Belgium were greatly helped by the economic development in Belgium and, by reprinting some official Belgian statistics, they proved that the theory of economic downfall in Belgium was false. By 1838, the positive interpretation of Belgium had become so dominant that the “British and Foreign Review” stated that the period of ‘dangerous Tory lies’ on Belgium was fortunately over: England has been for several years kept well informed on the true state of this most interesting country, by means of elaborate works and clever pamphlets, through the pages of our own and other reviews, and the columns of the most widely circulating newspapers. Many original and outrageous calumnies having been silenced in the first instance, vapid slanders at second-hand have little chance of doing mischief now. Those puny missiles, of which we have lately remarked the occasional appearance, fly wide of the broad target of kingly worth and national security; the clumsy marksman is the only person injured; the recoil is far more dangerous than the discharge; and Belgium is, at any rate, now armed in proof 140.
By the signing of the definitive peace agreement in 1839 the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium and the Revolution had obtained the status of a consensus image. Only a small minority of the most ardent supporters of the Union between Britain and Ireland remained critical. As a result, the idea that Belgium had to hand over two of its provinces to the Netherlands, according to what had been agreed in 1833, was seen, by 1839, as totally unacceptable and as a violation of Belgian national integrity. The 1839 agreement had been negotiated in 1833 and reflected the political situation at that time. All partners had signed the agreement, except King William who refused to do so until 1839. On few issues was British public opinion more unanimous than on the condemnation of this treaty. The fact that the British government eventually accepted the deal as negotiated in 1833 and did not support the Belgians in their vehement opposition was, therefore, treated with disbelief. In the flood of articles and accounts published on the peace treaty of 1839, all elements of the liberal perception were integrated into one coherent framework of interpretation that remained unchallenged throughout the 1840s. The article Belgium and Holland, published in the “Dublin Review” during the build up to the signing of the peace treaty, captured perfectly the outrage of British public opinion towards the Dutch claims:
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
57
After the enjoyment of eight years of prosperous and peaceful independence, Belgium is now threatened with the loss of an important portion of her territory. The King of Holland, by his tardy acceptance of the Twenty-four Articles, claims a portion of Limbourg and Luxembourg; and the plenipotentiaries of the great European powers are called upon to give up to his dominion, and perhaps to his vengeance, 400,000 souls, unanimous in their hatred to Holland, and unanimous in their protestations agianst the yoke which they cast off in 1830141.
However, the 1838 article was still optimistic that the combined effort of Britain and France would be enough to prevent the ‘fatal mutilation’. The 1838 article Commerce and Manufactures of Belgium, published in the “British and Foreign Review”, also combined a feeling of injustice with an optimism for the future142. Here too, the perceived malicious character of King William, who supposedly could not see the Belgian part of his old kingdom in a state of prosperity and stability, was believed to be the main reasons for this sudden change of mind that led to his signing of the peace treaty. One year later, the tone had changed and it was recognised that a partition of Belgium was most likely. The same “British and Foreign Review” published, therefore, another article on the topic, but this time with a much more aggressive tone. The dismemberment of Belgium would, according to the article: ... diminish the prospect of her permanent stability as an independent power. We are among those who set a high value upon the well-being of the Belgian kingdom, not only because it is the seat of an intelligent, industrious, amiable and happy people, but because its free constitution and truly liberal institutions are unequalled in Europe143.
Further in the article, Belgium was presented as the victim of the conservative and authoritarian powers of Europe, to which Britain too would belong, if the Tories were in power: The diplomatic struggle, apparently between Belgium and Holland, has really been one between those conflicting principles which divide the world. On the side of Holland have been ranged those powers which represent continental Toryism; in alliance with Belgium have been the representatives of the spirit of movement, or reform. The aim of Russia, Austria, and Prussia has unquestionably been to prop up, so far as in them lay, the falling fortunes of Holland, and to reduce to the smallest possible compass the gain of European liberalism by means of Belgic independence144.
By 1839, the situation in Belgium was seen as part of a general European struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism. Belgium was considered as the first success of British liberalism on the Continent and a loyal ally:
58
Pieter François
The stability of Belgium, as an independent power is, we repeat, of the utmost moment to the progress of liberty in Europe. She is the natural ally of England and France, not merely by the ties of consanguinity between their sovereigns, but by their common adoption of the great principles of constitutional freedom145.
Furthermore, the Tory argument from 1830 that as a result of the Revolution a middle-sized buffer state against France had disappeared, was, by 1839, shamelessly appropriated. This time, according to the dominant liberal perception, the partition of the two provinces from Belgium was considered to threaten Belgium’s role as such a buffer state. According to the “Westminster Review” of 1839, the reopening of the negotiations should be used as the starting point to reconsider the map of the whole region. With the central aim of long-lasting peace in mind, any reduction of Belgium was considered to be a fatal mistake. As a result, the article was even in favour of adding to Belgium some of the southern provinces of the Netherlands and of expanding Belgium until the Rhine formed its eastern border. Only then would Belgium be believed to be truly viable: “Belgium would thus obtain undoubted natural boundaries to the east, south-east, west, and a considerable portion of the north. She would by virtue become of right a member of the Germanic Confederation, and a riverain state of the Rhine, with rights of navigation on that river”146. The article admitted that this enlargement of Belgian territory was not only inspired by a profound sympathy for Belgium and the Belgians, but also reflected British interests:“There is not a natural production of Belgium, nor a branch of her manufacturing industry, that would not be incalculably improved. She would become almost at once a great commercial country, and she would be the direct channel of English trade into the very heart of Europe”147. For the admirers of Belgium, Belgian stability during the revolutionary turmoil of 1848 was seen as the ultimate proof of the viability of the Belgian nation-state and, therefore, the argument of stability was incorporated in the positive liberal interpretation. The conduct and moderation of the Belgian politicians, the stability of the Belgian financial world, and the loyalty of the Belgian people towards their state and government were highly praised. King Leopold’s offer to resign if the people wanted a change of political system, and the public support for Leopold this offer triggered, were especially interpreted as the final proof of the moderation of Belgium. This Belgian stability was frequently contrasted by the British observers with the instability of Paris: The vehement outbursts of patriotic feeling, the enthusiastic expressions of loyalty called forth by the king’s declaration, were viewed with mingled contempt and incredulity by a large party of French republicans. Belgium had solved a problem which France had been unable to solve. Belgium had realized a Utopia, a republican monarchy. The
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
59
French saw a king guiding himself by the Constitution, and a democracy clinging to the throne as the palladium of its liberties. Separation of Church and State; an untrammelled press; freedom of election, of petition, of education, of assembly, of association: such were the rights and guarantees for which France was clamouring in 1848, and which Belgium had enjoyed for seventeen years148.
In the press coverage of the revolutionary days in 1848, the words of the Belgian minister of foreign affairs on the prospects of a revolution in Belgium were continuously referred to and became famous: “if this revolution were to make the tour of the world, it might pass over Belgium, for there was no liberty which this revolution promised to the world that Belgium was not already in possession of at this day”149. The British press was unanimous in its analysis that Belgium had easily withstood the revolutionary challenges. The “Daily News” stated that all had remained quiet in Belgium150. The “Standard” wrote that on the central square one hundred foreigners had assembled and started shouting. There was, however, no clear agenda and Belgians themselves did not join in, but watched with indifference to see how the police rounded them up after having asked them to leave151. This British perception was in tune with the analysis of most Belgian and other foreign commentators. The reasons used to explain why Belgium was so little affected by the revolutionary ferment were, however, diverse. For the vast majority of British observers the stable political system of Belgium, its prosperity, and its loyal citizens all explained Belgium’s stability. However, the Revolution of 1848 was also the first issue where a certain indifference in Belgium became discernible. These first signs of a loss of interest did not only appear in some conservative circles, but were also visible in some more traditionally liberal circles. Although praising the stability of Belgium, the conservative “Standard” also referred to the idea that the Revolution had no chance because of the attitude of the people: “For the Belgians themselves, what can be expected from a people who cannot get up a cry at the theatre or in the streets, and who start up at the opera, as the curtain falls at half-past ten, exclaiming ‘Qu’il est tard!’ and hurry off to bed!152” John Stuart Mill too referred to this emerging image of a prosperous, dull and boring Belgium by claiming that the Revolution of 1848 had stopped at the Belgian frontier simply because the Flemish peasantry was too ignorant to understand its principles and showed no interest in politics whatsoever153.
The role of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgian politics Opinions differed greatly on the amount of influence the Roman Catholic Church had on Belgian politics. That the Belgian clergy had played an important role in the
60
Pieter François
Belgian Revolution and in the establishment of the new nation-state was well known. Alarming British press reports of a strong Catholic presence in the National Congress were, therefore, common in the first months after the Revolution. This initial suspicion changed, however, completely during the 1830s as the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium and the Belgian Revolution gained ground. By the late 1830s the clergy was generally believed to be trustworthy and loyal towards the liberal constitution: “We are proud of this fact, because that constitution is beyond comparison the most liberal upon the Continent; and in both the chambers which it instituted, the Catholic members have, up to the present moment, watched vigilantly over its faithful execution”154. The Belgian Roman Catholic clergy was strongly believed to be an exception compared with the clergy of other Continental countries. The traditional British perception of a conflict between Roman Catholicism, as the archconservative ally of a despotic monarchism, and the liberal people was thus in Belgium’s case abandoned. The clergy was believed to be working side by side with the liberals within the framework of the new nation-state. According to this interpretation, the clergy had accepted and respected the limitations of the Constitution and shown no desire to increase their own power over the country. As a result, political struggles between Liberals and Catholics were, therefore, largely ignored during the first two decades after the Revolution by most British observers. Belgian governments were depicted as stable governments of national union. In the article State and Prospects of Belgium, published in the “Westminster Review” of 1834, Belgian politics are highly praised for their internal stability, coherence, and unity. According to the article, the main reason for this achievement was the perfect understanding between the two parties: The distinction commonly adopted of ‘Catholics’ and ‘Liberals’ leads to a very erroneous notion in other countries. It conveys an idea of two factions, like Whigs and Tories, struggling against each other, with no feelings or sympathies in common but the lust of power and the greediness of self. The distinctive words applied to designate each, are in reality appropriate to both; for both are catholics in religion, and liberals in politics155.
British observers stressed that this tolerant attitude of the Belgian clergy was not surprising. They claimed that their toleration had been the chief trade mark of the Belgian Roman Catholic Church over centuries: … the Belgian Catholic clergy, even if they did not as yet quite understand the theory of civil liberty, had nevertheless always shown themselves to be its vigilant and uncompromising defenders. Never, during the struggles between the municipalities of Brabant and Flanders, and their ancient dukes and counts, had they separated their cause from that of the people156.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
61
However, the main argument to justify this optimism and faith in the Belgian clergy was not actually found in the past history of Belgium, but in the way Belgium currently treated people from a different creed from the Catholic one. The British observers praised the fact that the small minorities of Belgian Protestants and Jews enjoyed exactly the same rights as the Roman Catholics. That the Belgian state paid a wage for all pastors, allowed each religion to establish its own schools and to publish whatever it wanted, and that each person, no matter his or her religious opinions, could apply for any public position, was seen as the ultimate proof of the tolerance of the Roman Catholic Church157. Moreover, the fact that the clergy had agreed on Leopold, a Protestant, as their first King was also considered proof of the open-mindness of the clergy and their commitment to tolerance. According to the Tory critics of Belgium, this was naïve and the Constitution was considered to be a façade behind which the Church, as elsewhere in Europe, was in fact preparing to increase its power over Belgian society. The Church was believed to be waiting for the right moment to curb the liberties of others and to increase its own power. For the “Dublin University Magazine” the Belgian Roman Catholic Church did not respect the limitations imposed by the liberal constitution and was trying actively to take over power in Belgium: Popery, adopting the garb of liberalism, has stood forward in defence of toleration, freedom of thought, and liberty of action. Making a monopoly of patriotism, … the priests have come into the field as avowed political agents, using all the terrors of the church to promote their objects, and making the confessional a new agent in political warfare, they have turned the hearts of the people from their natural friends and protectors, have disseminated distrust and discontent where confidence and good faith reposed, and presented to the world the frightful anomaly of a country rich in every feature of production, gifted in every attribute of wealth, the poorest and most miserable to be met with in Europe158.
Despite the fact that this negative perception of the Roman Catholic Church was always present in Tory criticism, a coherent counter-image was never developed before the 1850s. However, when the positive liberal image started to break down in the 1850s, the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium by the Tories became more forceful and managed to win over many liberal observers too. This shift in importance between the two interpretations is clearly visible in the analysis of the two main confessional debates in Belgian politics of the 1840s and 1850s. Two political issues with a clear confessional dimension were not dealt with in the Constitution. The first issue was related to the question who was allowed to
62
Pieter François
organise education. There were different opinions on how to interpret the Constitution. It was not entirely clear to what extent the State was obliged to provide education and, therefore, was obliged to break the dominance of the Church. During the 1840s this question was debated and resolved for the different levels of education, but each time these discussions resulted in a fundamental debate on the relationship between State and Church. As the 1840s were the heyday of the positive image, this important issue in Belgian politics was rarely commented upon by British observers. The liberals never really had to defend their own point of view. By 1857, when the Convent Law was brought before parliament, the debate could not have been more different. Again the purpose of this Law was to clarify one of the last grey areas of interpretation of the Constitution. The specific discussion was centred around the question if, and to what extent, parents would be allowed to disinherit their children in favour of Catholic institutions. Until 1857 this had been prohibited. Deep down the question was again that of the relationship between the State and the Church and was, therefore, very similar to that of the previous decade. This time the critics managed to challenge successfully the liberal perception for the first time on a fundamental point. It was no longer possible to hide the fact that there was a serious confessional tension in Belgium and that the image of perfect Belgian national unity did not correspond to reality. The positive image was forced on the defensive and this resulted in a first major adjustment to the positive interpretation. The liberals made a phenomenal u-turn in their judgement of the Belgian Roman Catholic Church. In their own ranks also criticism of the Belgian clergy had erupted and around 1857, this criticism was incorporated into their strongly amended positive interpretation of Belgium. As a first step to incorporate this criticism, the Roman Catholic Church was represented as foreign to ‘true’ Belgian society and national identity. However, this ‘true’ Belgian national identity was believed to be strong enough to curb the influence of the ambitious clergy on Belgian politics: The church, however, being free from State control, gradually increased in wealth and power and though independent of the State received large revenues from it. Still the intelligence of the country kept it effectually in check, and political power being chiefly in the hands of the more educated classes no great mischief could be done.159
On its own this adjustment was, however, too small a concession. Therefore, a second step was to focus on the huge opposition of Belgian citizens to the plans of the Church. Any act of opposition was considered a true expression of national identity and received an extremely good press. As a result, Belgium was increasingly depicted as a brave nation that was struggling for its independence from the Catholic clergy.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
63
The “Morning Chronicle”, for example, dwelt extensively on this opposition. Its reports on the Convent Law focused solely on the parliamentary opposition to the Convent Law and the demonstrations by the people outside parliament. Belgium was even depicted as a country full of protest marches and violent riots, like those in Mons, Antwerp, Ghent and Liege160. The claim that Roman Catholicism was foreign to the true Belgian national identity did not solve all the problems. How did it explain the parliamentary majority of the Catholics? How could it be explained that some of the attempts to increase the power of the Church succeeded in parliament, if the Church was foreign and parliament was in tune with the Belgian national identity? To depict the Belgian constitutional system as corrupt or poorly designed was not possible, because the British observers strongly believed it to be modelled upon the British system. The positive liberal image never fully recovered from this blow. As a result a second important change was made to the image. This final readjustment, however, was less convincing. The strongest admirers of Belgium pointed out by 1857 that not only was the Catholic Church foreign to the Belgian society, but that there were in fact two different Belgiums. The truly modern Belgium, or the ‘little Britain on the Continent’, was still limited to the cities and was surrounded by a vast backward and Catholic countryside. Whereas the Revolution was the product of the liberal and modern cities, they had lost momentum temporarily as a result of the large extension of the suffrage in 1848. This extension had resulted in an increase of Catholic Members of Parliament. Belgian politics were, therefore, in the hands of the Flemish peasantry, which in its turn was dominated by the priests: In 1848 a large extension of the suffrage was granted. The peasants were for the first time invested with political rights, which they were unable to exercise without advice and assistance. They therefore consulted the curés, who, in fact, became the delegates of the entire body of peasantry. Thenceforth the power of the clerical party has been gradually increasing. At the last election no Liberal candidate was returned for Ghent, and the whole of the Flemish provinces are rotten boroughs in the hands of the priests. Hence the danger lest the church should become the greater, the State the minor power in the country161.
This image of a populous peasantry dominated by the clergy became an integral part of the positive liberal analysis of Belgium and the 1850s were considered only as a temporary setback: “the might of numbers, governed by political prejudice and religious bigotry, has triumphed; reason and argument have succumbed to brute force162”. By creating this opposition between the two Belgiums, the British admirers of Belgium managed to present Catholicism as not essential to Belgian identity. Catholicism was
64
Pieter François
relegated to those parts of society, especially the countryside, with which the British had little contact and which they were less interested in. The traveller John Trotandot made a very striking distinction between these two categories of Belgians: Here and there I had peeps of real Belgian life and of quaintly dressed old Belgian people in all their picturesqueness of costume and primitiveness of habits. But modern Belgium is a second edition of England. The people are thoroughly English in appearance, especially the town and city girls, with their tasteful dresses, their auburn tresses slightly be-laced or beribboned, their modest looks, their ‘Leaden eyes that seek the ground’ not leaden in the literal sense but blue and sparkling like the eyes of ‘a bonny English rose’ – and modest163.
The British sympathy went obviously to the modern Belgians and not surprisingly, they are depicted as thoroughly British164. Finally, according to this amended interpretation of Belgian Roman Catholicism, 1857 was also a turning point. True Belgian society was not any longer prepared to accept this Catholic dominance, and the defeat of the Convent Law was considered to be the start of another resurrection of the true Belgians. For “The Times” the victory of modern Belgium was still beyond a doubt in 1857: “How comes it, then, that the Nuncio of the Pope, God’s vicegerent upon earth, is hooted in the streets; that priests are mobbed; and nuns molested; that convents are attacked; and bishops condemned to seek safety in flight?165”.
The collapse of the positive liberal image The image of Belgium in an 1897 article of “Punch” was resolutely that of boring Belgium166. Even bearing in mind the exaggerated nature of its articles, this depiction of Belgium in “Punch” shows how much of its credibility the once so positive interpretation of Belgium had lost. In the article Brussels Barricaded! Scenes in the Streets. The Police Helpless! The Army Inactive! Our extra Special Correspondent Stopped!! Intentions of the Great Powers, one of the regularly featured reporters claimed to be the first and only reporter to witness the most important political event in Brussels over the past decades. According to the reporter the city was in a condition of terrible disorder’ and that The trenches are occupied by determined men of the lowest classes, armed with rough weapons, pick-axes, even spades. The police are helpless; the army, probably sympathising with the disturbers of the peace, remains inactive. I myself have been stopped!167.
At the end of the article, when the reporter sends a second additional postcard to “Punch”, it becomes clear that the overzealous reporter had made a mistake and had
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
65
interpreted some road works as the first signs of a revolution. The article openly criticised the way “The Times” and “Daily Chronicle” collected their information and jumped to sensational conclusions. However, it is no coincidence that road works were confused with a revolution in Brussels and the article contained plenty of references to the boring and dull image of Belgium and Belgian politics. This image of boring Belgium slowly developed from the 1850s onwards and went hand in hand with a growing disinterest of the British in Belgium and in Belgian politics. For William Makepeace Thackeray, for example, it was evident that Belgian politics were amongst the most boring in the world. As a result, he expected the Belgians to show no interest at all in politics: Think what a comfort it would be to belong to a little state like this; not to abuse their privilege, but philosophically to use it. If I were a Belgian, I would not care a single fig about politics. I would not read thundering leading articles. I would not have an opinion. What’s the use of an opinion here? Happy fellows! do not the French, the English, and the Prussians, spare them the trouble of thinking, and make all their opinions for them?168
As the Belgians, to his surprise, did show an interest in politics, he treated this interest with contempt and pity. Belgians were increasingly seen as a people who had no real worries, but were nevertheless arguing all the time over petty and unimportant trivialities. The British traveller and later journalist George Augustus Sala noted in 1867 that: “On really political questions these good people are, although they are unconscious of the fact, nearly unanimous”169. However, according to George Sala too, this situation did not prevent the Belgians from having continual arguments about trivialities. In his opinion it was clear that these arguments were a pastime and had no real impact on life in Belgium: “The Belgians, being prosperous and free, have agreed to fight tooth and nail about religion”170. This more critical, and sometimes even negative, perception of Belgium was never as fully developed as the positive liberal one. Some elements of the positive perception were never seriously challenged and were, therefore, also part of this counter-image. The fact that the critics did not go back to the old negative perception of the Belgian Revolution of the Tories of the early 1830s, is further proof of the general decreasing interest in Belgium. Belgium was simply no longer important enough to change all the elements of the perception, especially the peripheral ones. The only attempt to link this new criticism with the older Tory criticism of the early 1830s was made by Thomas Wilson in his England’s Foreign Policy, or Grey-Whigs and Cotton-Whigs, with Lord Palmerston’s pet Belgian Constitution of Catholics and
66
Pieter François
Liberals, published in 1852171. Thomas Wilson made a creative, but not altogether convincing jump from the 1830s to the 1850s and tried to prove that the old Tory arguments had never lost their validity. Not only did he defend the old criticism on the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands, the weakness of the Whig government in accepting the demolition of the fortresses and the presence of French troops on Belgian soil in 1831, he also tried to prove the continuing relevance of this Tory criticism for contemporary politics. The fact that Thomas Wilson’s attempt was far from convincing was not only due to the drastic changes in the British political situation, but also, and more importantly, to the overtly pro-Belgian sources on which based his analysis for the period 1830-1850. Although he wanted to challenge the positive liberal perception of Belgium, his work reflected above all how broadly accepted the positive image was. Thomas Wilson had adopted many elements of the positive perception without being aware of it and in this respect his work differed greatly from the 1830s’ Tory publications to which he tried to go back. As a result the work, which is in general highly critical of Belgium, contained many paragraphs full of praise for Belgium: “The Congress felt proud to resuscitate to political existence that ancient nation of Belgians, so celebrated in history since the time of Caesar, and always absorbed, oppressed, or enslaved by the great powers”172. The rise of the more negative image of Belgium was largely the result of two events that changed both British and Belgian politics173. Firstly, the relationship between Britain and France had changed fundamentally. Since the coming to power of Napoleon III, France was no longer perceived as a British ally in the struggle of constitutionalism and liberalism against authoritarianism and conservatism. Belgium was believed to be too easily bullied by France. France’s influence on Belgium was considered to be suspicious and dangerous. Belgium was no longer seen as the successful and docile continental pupil of Britain on the Continent, but increasingly as the political pawn of France. Secondly, in the build up of the war between France and Prussia in 1870, Belgium and its repeated requests for unconditional British support in case of a violation of its national integrity put Britain in an uncomfortable position. Belgium as the political pawn of France In 1848, some two hundred revolutionaries had crossed the border from France into Belgium at Risquons-Tout in order to establish a republic. The moment they arrived on Belgian territory, they were, however, easily stopped and arrested by the Belgian army. The British reaction was one of pity and laughter, not of anxiety. The rise to
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
67
power of Napoleon III completely undermined this British confidence. Although there had never been an actual attempt to invade Belgium, with the exception of the attempt at Risquons-Tout, British public opinion was obsessed with the perceived French interest in Belgium, with the supposed plans for annexation, and a perceived success in persuading the Belgian population to support these plans. Present day historiography stresses the stability of the young Belgian nation-state, shows how the idea of a Belgian national identity had already gained much strength by 1852, and drops the idea of successful French propaganda174. For British public opinion in the mid-nineteenth century French interest in Belgium was, however, a reality. Immediately after 1852, rumours started circulating. For the French, Belgium, and especially Brussels, was the place where the opponents of the French government gathered and made full use of the Belgian freedom of the press to publish highly critical pamphlets. For the French government Brussels soon became a synonym for libel and slander175. What worried the British observers was how easily the French managed to persuade the Belgians to take measures against these French dissidents. For the British observers this was not only a violation of Belgium’s national integrity, but also of its Constitution. Questions were raised why the Belgians gave in so easily. That French politicians and the press considered Belgium a pushover and expected Belgium to show loyalty and obedience towards France in return for the French support in 1830 and in 1831, considerably increased British unease. In 1853, “Fraser’s Magazine” published an article on the French refugees in Brussels and stated: Representations of this kind are rarely made between friendly and independent states, and should never be resorted to unless in extreme cases. But France went beyond this. It was gravely stated in the Government press of Paris that Belgium was under a heavy pecuniary obligation to France, and that unless the Belgians exhibited a more docile and subservient spirit, demands would be made of reimbursement of the expenses to which France was put in sending a French army to Antwerp in 1831176.
This and many other similar articles showed not only surprise at the French interpretation of the 1830 Revolution, but also questioned why the Belgians did not refute it. Questions were, therefore, raised if it was possible that Belgium had two champions and protectors? Could Belgium serve both? Where exactly was Belgian loyalty located? From the early 1850s more and more British observers started to focus on the fact that King Leopold had taken as his second wife a French princess, that the Belgians spoke French, that France was Belgium’s most important commercial partner, and that both nations were predominantly Catholic. In short, some British observers started to question seriously their own way of looking at Belgium
68
Pieter François
and the perceived loyalty of the Belgians. This questioning was not to disappear ever again and was to become stronger in the following decades. The obsession of British public opinion with a possible annexation of Belgium by France has to be understood from this background. Such an annexation would, it was believed, be a disaster for both the Belgians and the British. According to British observers, Britain could only lose from such an annexation. The “Quarterly Review” of 1862 summarized the main arguments that circulated widely in the British press: The relative weight of taxation in the two countries is greatly in favour of Belgium. An inhabitant of France contributes 60f 42c to the state; an inhabitant of Belgium only 22f 41c. The commerce of Belgium is, in proportion to the size of the country, three times greater than that of France. It is preposterous to suppose that a state, so rich and prosperous, should willingly consent to be absorbed into the empire of France. The position would be both anomalous and humiliating: the nationality would be extinguished; the people would cease to be Belgians, and they could never become French177.
Nightmare scenarios started to circulate widely in the British, and especially the conservative press; journalists asked what could happen if France were to push ahead with its plans for annexation, what the chances of Belgium were in such a case of aggression, and what the British and Prussian reaction should be. The British press was almost unanimous in believing that a French annexation of Belgium would be simply intolerable and would inevitably lead to war. Old rhetoric was reintroduced and the French possession of Antwerp was once more compared with a “loaded pistol directed at the heart of Britain”178. For “Fraser’s Magazine” such an annexation would simply be unacceptable to all other European countries: In fact, Belgium would become a series of departments of France, and the empire of France, in possession of Ostend and Antwerp, would have immense facilities afforded to it for gaining the mouths of the Thames and the Medway. It is therefore impossible that any English or any European statesman could consent to see the same man governing at Paris and Ostend; at Cherbourg, Brest, Rochefort, Toulon, and Antwerp179.
Once in possession of Belgium, France would be too strong both politically and economically, the balance of Europe distorted and war inevitable. With the exception of the Radicals, the British press unanimously reiterated the British commitment towards Belgium and adopted a confident and belligerent tone. The conservatives took the lead in the defence of Belgium. The commitment towards Belgium of the “Quarterly Review” illustrates this new logic: The independence of every country in Europe would be in jeopardy from the day on which Belgium ceased to be a sovereign State; but for England in particular it is a vital
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
69
necessity that it should remain such. Whenever a French army has set a hostile foot in Belgium, an English army has invariably followed to confront it; there England has repeatedly fought the battle of independence, instead of on her own unpolluted soil, and there, under similar circumstances, she would assuredly fight it again180.
This conservative interest in Belgium never ran really deep and cannot be interpreted as a fundamental expression of sympathy. For the Conservatives too had lost their interest in Belgium. The specific British political context of the time and a different view of foreign policy priorities turned Belgium for once into a useful example for the Conservatives. In their opinion, the Liberals were too soft and were shifting the focus from the Continent to the Empire too quickly. The Conservatives were especially unhappy with the loss of British influence on the Continent since 1830, if not since 1815. Not only were the Liberals spurred into firmer action, the radical point of view was even more strongly condemned. The idea of non-interference on the Continent, whatever the situation, was believed to be naïve and even dangerous. For the Conservatives, the other European powers were as a result given too much freedom of action. According to “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, the reaction of the government and the Radicals to the threat of a French invasion of Belgium was shameful and revealed a fundamental weakness: “There was a period in our history – and not too far back for men still young to recall it – when the prospect of French designs on Belgium would have called this country into active preparation. Now, it is the signal of a Radical song of triumph, and the reduction of our army to fifty thousand men”181. The article went on to claim that the only response of the government to an actual annexation would be to accept it, just as had happened in the case of Savoy. Moreover, this new Conservative interest was limited to seeing Belgium as a nationstate, as one element in a specific international context, but did not include viewing the Belgians as a people. On the contrary, the Belgians were believed to be strongly in favour of an annexation by France. Again, present-day historians refute this analysis, but contemporary British public opinion believed in it strongly182. The British press, both liberal and conservative, reacted with a mixture of shock and disbelief and perceived Belgium as fundamentally ungrateful and disloyal. The “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” wondered: “It is certainly not easy to understand the cry of the day, that Belgium desires annexation to France; but that there is a strong party who so wish, and that France has long intrigued to encourage these views, is beyond a doubt”183. For British observers it was utterly inexplicable why the Belgians desired such an annexation. The Belgians were believed to enjoy much more free-
70
Pieter François
dom as an independent nation than they would do as a part of France. Why would they throw away their constitutionalism and freedom, their system of low taxation and a flourishing economy? Why had they made so much effort to get rid of one despotism in 1830, to reintroduce it again a few decades later184? Whereas both Liberals and Conservatives reacted with disbelief, the specific ways in which France was believed to be gaining control of Belgium reflected once more the old differences in the respective appreciations of Belgium. According to the Liberals, this influence was mainly the product of the military strength of the French with the poor Belgians being bullied into acceptance. As a result, the essentially peace loving Belgians hoped to escape a war by anticipating the inevitable outcome of a French annexation. The Conservatives on the other hand saw the growing French influence in the light of their own interpretation of Belgium. Napoleon III was believed to be infiltrating Belgium through the Roman Catholic clergy. By depicting himself as the staunch defender of Catholicism, Napoleon III had, it was believed, convinced the clergy that they would enjoy a much more powerful position in Belgian society after its annexation by France185. The changing European political context, and especially the relationship between France and Britain, had thus shaped a different context in which to make sense of Belgium and the Belgians. British observers of all ideological shades of opinion perceived a great French influence that they had not been fully aware of before, or did not want to be aware of. This change was the single most important element that led to the collapse of the positive liberal view of Belgium, to a general loss of interest in Belgium and to the development of a more critical counter-image of Belgium. Belgium’s neutrality in 1870: a cause of worry In the definitive peace agreement of 1839 Belgium’s neutrality was guaranteed by Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia. In case Belgium’s neutrality was violated by another country, these guarantors were obliged to provide Belgium with assistance. In case Belgium was attacked by one or more of the guarantors, the others were expected to defend Belgium automatically. During the first decades after 1839, Belgium never encountered a serious threat to her national independence. Only the French plans for an annexation formed an exception, and these plans were greatly exaggerated by British public opinion. As a result of a changing European context in which Russia and Austria lost some of their interest in Western Europe, the value of the agreement too had changed, gradually and largely unnoticed. With the excep-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
71
tion of France, the guarantors were not keen to be reminded of their promise and, especially as regards Russia and Austria, the agreement was already a dead letter by the 1850s. For Belgian public opinion, however, the agreement was still considered sacrosanct and automatic intervention, especially by Britain, was considered binding. In the build up to the war between France and Prussia in 1870, the danger of Belgium getting caught up in a European war increased dramatically. Neither the British government nor the opposition were, however, interested in getting involved in a European war and Belgium’s repeated requests for a clear sign of Britain’s unconditional commitment towards Belgium placed Britain in a difficult position. The article Belgium in 1848 and 1870, published in “Macmillan’s Magazine” of 1870 by a British resident in Brussels, captured the great expectations of Britain by the Belgians: “There had been at no time a belief that the French would be kept off, if they chose to come; but there had been always a steadfast resolution to die hard rather than submit to Imperial despotism. ‘Can England help us?’ ‘Will England help us?’ was the question of the day”186. Despite frequent requests from the Belgian government and increased pressure from the Belgian royal family on the British royal family, a strong and clear commitment was not officially forthcoming. Britain was not indifferent to Belgium’s position and wanted to avoid Belgium becoming part of the French or Prussian state, either by war or as the result of a secret deal between France and Prussia187. However, an a priori commitment, which would result inevitably in Britain getting involved in the war, was too much to hope for. Belgium’s frequent requests placed Britain in an awkward position and it did not take long before the British started to put the Belgians on the defensive by a series of parliamentary interventions, and newspaper and periodical reports. Questions were asked as to what Belgium had done so far for its own safety, if Belgium had deserved the British loyalty it desired so much, and whether the Belgians were pressing the other powers as hard. Belgium’s attitude towards her forts and army was especially criticised. Belgium was believed not to be willing to pay money for its own defence and, in time of crisis, to look to Britain to pay for this lack of preparation. If Belgium had not demolished its forts, neither France nor Prussia would have even considered an attack on each other through Belgium. Also, Belgium’s delay in building a chain of new forts around Antwerp was criticised and orders were given to discover the origin of this delay. Why had Belgium, despite British pressure, delayed the construction? Who was to blame?188. In the parliamentary debates of early August 1870 the question of how to deal with the Belgian request was again discussed. It became increasingly clear that the British government was not prepared to go to war for Belgium unconditionally, but
72
Pieter François
preferred to keep her options open and to see how the situation developed. Gladstone and Disraeli were the main protagonists in the debate. In principle, Gladstone claimed to be in favour of reaffirming automatic British assistance, but on the condition the other four powers did the same. In practice, this answer had, therefore, to be interpreted as a polite ‘no’189. For the Conservatives and Disraeli especially, this answer was an easy target, as they could still claim that the Liberals were apparently prepared to go to war. Disraeli criticised the fact that the 1839 agreement was too vague and, therefore, dangerous as it did not state clearly if the British support could be withdrawn the moment the aggressor had left Belgian soil, or if the war had to be continued until the aggressor surrendered. Furthermore, Disraeli stressed that the political situation on the Continent had changed drastically over the past three decades and that the 1839 agreement made sense in 1839 but was less relevant within the 1870 context. According to Disraeli, not only the political situation on the Continent had changed, but British interests had shifted: “The policy of England ought certainly not to be a merely European policy. She has an ocean empire, and an Asiatic empire”190. The Tory M.P. Rylands also considered such a commitment as an act of foolishness, which would be totally opposed to the real British interests: … but if it did occur, and if we were called upon to defend Belgium by allying ourselves with a crushed Power against an army and a nation flushed with victory and conquest; if in the interest of the 4,000,000 of the population of Belgium, our own 30,000,000 of people were involved in all the horrors, privations, and sufferings of a protracted war, then he ventured to say that the authors of this Treaty would be condemned in the page of history191.
The response of the Liberals was weak and was essentially built around repeating Britain’s old sympathy for Belgium. For the Liberal M.P. Osborne, this historical relationship between Belgium and Britain and the long lasting British sympathy for their small neighbour, was still of the utmost importance: “And is it not better to regard Belgium as an outwork of our own liberties and independence than to take a narrow view and say we will not go to war for any purpose whatever?192” Gladstone’s response was also still expressed in the liberal language of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’: But we have an interest in the independence of Belgium which is wider than that – which is wider than that which we may have in the literal operation of the guarantee. It is found in the answer to the question whether, under the circumstances of the case, this country, endowed as it is with influence and power, would quietly stand by and witness the perpetration of the direst crime that ever stained the pages of history, and thus become participators in the sin?193
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
73
Despite this firm rhetoric, it was clear for all that the discussion was in the end useless. The image of Belgium was once more being challenged and the support for it was less strong and could no longer be taken for granted. An anonymous British resident in Brussels captured sharply the following disappointment of the Belgians with the British: All [Belgian] parties united in severe criticism of the conduct of England. Everything which she might have done she was declared to have left undone. Had Lord Clarendon or Lord Palmerston been alive, or had Earl Russell been at the Foreign Office, it was asserted that events would have taken a different turn. The English ambassadors at Paris and Berlin were accused of the most culpable indifference194.
The image of Leopold Belgian monarchy
as a
British
prince.
British
perceptions of
British perceptions of King Leopold and the Belgian monarchy in general were strongly linked to the British perception of Belgian politics. On the other hand, there were also some considerable differences, which justify this separate analysis. In general, praise for Leopold was almost unanimous. On this specific element the positive liberal image was hardly challenged and was adopted even by the most ardent Tory critics. When the positive image of Belgium was being challenged from the 1850s onwards, the image of King Leopold largely escaped this growing criticism. Even in the most critical analyses of the early 1830s and again in the 1860s, King Leopold was untouchable. King Leopold was praised for several reasons. He was depicted as a wise and moderate king who had become the example of a new ‘constitutional monarch’ by his perceived intelligent government and moral conduct. He was believed to stand above party politics and to have built up a strong reputation as a well respected and trusted arbiter. In 1833 the pro-Belgian “Edinburgh Review” stated: In the choice of a sovereign the Belgians had at length been wise. They had selected a Prince who, in this country, where the fever of party is ever raging, had, with great good sense, pursued, during many years, the even tenor of his way; – unstained by even the imputation of political intrigue, quietly securing, by unostentatious propriety, the respect alike of either side; – one in whose character moderation and discretion were prominently displayed, and who seemed peculiarly well calculated to fulfil the best objects of his allotted task, – to compose the troubles of a distracted country, to be the peaceful monarch of a neutral state195.
74
Pieter François
Leopold’s central place in the positive liberal image of Belgium was determined by the fact that the British were convinced Leopold was their candidate. The first candidate for the throne had been the Duke of Nemours, who was the son of the French king Louis-Philippe. This was unacceptable to Britain and the other European powers and Britain held the key for the next choice. They hoped that Leopold, who was clearly a British candidate, would be acceptable to the other powers as well. For British public opinion he was considered to be almost British. British observers often stressed his Britishness to illustrate once more the closeness of Belgium and Britain. References to his German background were considerably toned down and rare196. In the British imagination Leopold was still the husband of the late Princess Charlotte. After her death in 1817, he had remained in Britain and had become an important society figure with many connections to British politics. The eulogy, published in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” in 1865, also made his close connection with Britain a central theme: That he understood England as no man born out of England understood her, is beyond a doubt. He knew every trait and every temper of our people; and we ought never to forget in our affectionate remembrance of the Prince Consort how much we owe to the wisdom of the uncle who guided and counselled him. It was a rare stroke of fortune that united the destinies of King Leopold with Belgium197.
This Britishness of Leopold was more than an observation. By ascribing these qualities to Leopold, British observers frequently used him as an example to members of the British royal family, and by doing so indirectly criticised or pleaded for some changes in the British monarchy. This tendency to depict Leopold as the ideal constitutional monarch survived throughout the whole mid-nineteenth century. Even in 1869, after three decades of Queen Victoria, the “London Quarterly Review” still remarked: We, in England, since her Majesty ascended the throne, have been so accustomed to see the sovereign holding aloof from the strife of party and leaving the ministry in undisputed possession of power, that we are apt perhaps to forget how recent is this total abstinence on the part of royalty. Certainly it was exercised neither by William IV, George IV, nor their royal father. But even before our Queen had adopted this line of conduct, Leopold was consistently following it in Belgium. Perhaps, it is not too much to assume that his niece and nephew had learnt part at least of the lesson of wisdom from him198.
Leopold’s ability to deal with the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium and to strike a balance between Church and State was often seen as the ultimate proof of his qualities as a constitutional monarch. The fact that Leopold was a Protestant was seen as an advantage, as he was neutral and acceptable to both liberals and Catholics. Even the Tory press, which was otherwise keen on stressing the religious difficulties in
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
75
Belgium, supported the image of Leopold as a successful mediator. “Fraser’s Magazine” admitted that “a member of the Reformed Church, he has had the rare merit of contenting a people so ultra-Catholic that they have been called plus Catholique que le Saint Pere lui même”199. Criticism of Leopold by British observers was a very rare occurrence. Even James Emerson Tennent, who was otherwise highly critical of Belgium, exempted Leopold as much as possible from his criticisms and admitted that even the Orangists in Belgium were not hostile to Leopold as a person: Those who regret the expulsion of the King of Holland, look upon King Leopold merely as his involuntary successor, and whilst they condemn the incapacity of his ministers, and the violence of the party in the house and in the country by whom they are controlled – all seemed to regard the King as only borne upon a tide of circumstances, which he is equally unable with them to resist or direct200.
However, a closer reading of the sources that were in general more critical of Belgium showed that there were some revealing silences or small remarks. The first criticism of Leopold can be discerned in a slightly different reading of his life before 1830 and of his marriage to Princess Charlotte. In the most common interpretation, his life reads like a fairy tale filled with military adventure and love. His success in the Russian army during the Napoleonic wars was seen as the highlight of his military adventures, his marriage with Princess Charlotte as the symbol of a great love. Napoleon’s famous description of Leopold as the most handsome man of his generation and Charlotte’s dramatic rejection of King William of the Netherlands as a potential husband in favour of the young, modest, and handsome Leopold, were only two elements of this stereotypical description of Leopold’s life. According to received wisdom Princess Charlotte’s decision is seen as a revealing anticipation of the second feud between Leopold and William over Belgium. Critics never dared to challenge openly this image of a ‘marriage without a cloud’ nor the idea that Princess Charlotte had chosen the better of the two men. However, the most hostile observers of Belgium always noted that the original reaction of British public opinion to Princess Charlotte’s rejection of William was one of disbelief. The otherwise anti-Belgian “Fraser’s Magazine”, for example, did not directly challenge the notion that Charlotte had chosen the right man, but the article did challenge the notion that British sympathy for Leopold had been eternal or natural. The article stated categorically that there were times when the British considered Leopold as the lesser of the two princes: The family of Orange was so popular in Great Britain; the old ally Holland was so confided in, loved, and honoured; and the breaking off of negotiations, for the mar-
76
Pieter François
riage of the princess with the present king of that land of dykes, canals, and honest men, had created so great a degree of annoyance, that the caricaturists set to work to ridicule the foreign prince; the song-writers, for the people to laugh at him in their common street songs; and the makers of bon-mots and jests for the million added their efforts to bring into contempt, if possible, ‘the poor German’. There was a general feeling that the Dutch offer was so ‘advantageous’, and that the Coburg offer was exactly the reverse201.
In a similarly cautious way his private life after 1830 was criticised. A comparative analysis of the large number of eulogies of Leopold in the British press of 1865 and 1866, shows that in the anti-Belgian newspapers and journals his public life was not depicted differently and received as much praise as in the liberal press. However, these eulogies ended almost without exception with some remarks referring to continual rumours about his private life. The author of an eulogy published in the “London Quarterly Review”, claimed to stand above the circulating rumours. Of course by making this claim, he deliberately repeated them in a cautious and indirect way: “Rumours used to be current in Brussels about his private life. Such rumours ever cast a shadow. ... Into these we do not at all consider it our duty to enter. In his public life he was really great”202. Repeating the opinions of third persons and rumours was a tactic often used by the anti-Belgian press. The often repeated remarks of the Russian Emperor that ‘there never was a crown tumbled into a gutter, without a Coburgh being by to pick it up’ provide a second example. Although these remarks were explained as stemming from the Emperor’s friendship with King William of the Netherlands, once more an indirect snub was made to the modest background of Leopold203. Finally, a brief examination of the British attitude towards Leopold’s successor reveals a similar caution. In general, the Crown Prince and future Leopold II was also exempted from criticism by most observers. The British traveller A. Kirwan, for example, noted in his account, published in the otherwise critical “Fraser’s Magazine”, that: “In the party contentions of the country he takes no ostensible part. He is neither Liberal, nor Ultramontane, nor Catholic, but wholly and entirely Belgian, wishing the prosperity of the kingdom at large”204. Also in “Temple Bar’s” analysis of the first two years of the reign of Leopold II there was praise for the new king and here too, he was depicted as very close to Britain: “Léopold II has followed in the footsteps of his father, by taking an interest in all things British”205. A small part of the most critical press was, however, less favourable to the future king. In another article in “Fraser’s Magazine”, it was stated that Leopold II was “in the hands of the ultramontane party”206. Still, the overall judgement was not too negative, as his Catholic education was believed to be balanced by “an openness of mind and a range of travel experiences”207.
4. British perceptions of Belgian national identity For British observers of Belgium the concept of national identity was an important explanatory tool. Belgian national identity was constantly referred to; its qualities pointed out, and compared with other national identities. Furthermore, national identity was frequently the fundamental element in a chain of causalities. In the end, the Belgians behaved in a certain way or had certain preferences, simply because they were Belgians; these preferences were believed to be engrained into Belgian national identity. British views on Belgian national identity played, therefore, a crucial role in the general British perception of Belgium and the Belgians. These British views on Belgian national identity ranged from the very positive, and considering Belgian national identity similar to that of the British, to the very negative. These differences in appreciation are not surprising as remarks on Belgian national identity, especially those in the travel accounts, were most often related to very specific experiences and confrontations with the ‘foreignness’ of Belgium. Everything the British observers were unfamiliar with was explained as ‘typically Belgian’. These encounters with the unfamiliar could easily result in either very positive or equally negative judgements. The ‘unfamiliar’ was very perceptible and immediate for the British observers. The traveller Henry Smithers, for example, recalled from a conversation with another traveller that ‘when he crossed from the shores of Britain to Ostend, in a few hours only, he was struck with such an entire contrast in dress, food and costume, as induced him to think he had been landed in some new world208’. For an anonymous traveller, who published the article Belgium in “Fraser’s Magazine” in 1830, the Belgians were “a jealous and irritable race”209. For Henry Addison, on the other hand, the Belgians were above all honest, industrious, and good humoured, while Henry Coleman associated Belgian national identity with cleanliness, industriousness, civility and courtesy210. The descriptions of both Henry Addison and Henry Coleman are good examples of the way Belgian national identity was judged according to the dominant positive interpretation of Belgium. In general, those observers who praised Belgium’s constitutionalism, economic performance or internal stability, and who supported the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’, were also more positive in their judgement of Belgian national identity. The minority of critical observers of Belgium also tended to have more negative views on Belgian national identity. Exceptions to this general rule were almost always the result of a very positive or negative travel experience.
78
Pieter François
Of course, the most fundamental question was whether there existed a separate Belgian national identity or not. According to the positive liberal perception the existence of a strong and unique Belgian identity was beyond doubt. Belgian national identity was believed to be strongly visible in both past and present. For the “British and Foreign Review”, it was incontrovertible that “some of the elements of a true nationality have existed at all times in the different tribes which compose the population of the nine provinces now comprehended in the general name of Belgium”211. The British resident in Belgium, Henry Addison, developed the same argument and considered the existence of a Belgian national identity as a constant throughout history: Nothing is more remarkable in the study of Belgium, than that certain spring upon which foreign despotisms have imposed their weight, and which, by its nice tempering and accurate adjustment, has so constantly rebounded at the moment when the pressure has menaced it with destruction212.
Another argument was to claim that Belgian national identity had always been present, but that it was only after 1830 that the Belgians had increasingly become conscious of it. The “British and Foreign Review” of 1836 strongly promoted this view: Some of the elements of a true nationality have existed at all times in the different tribes which compose the population of the nine provinces now comprehended in the general name of Belgium; but the national feeling is incomplete, and the people are scarcely yet conscious of their own identity213.
The article intended to show the remarkable progress Belgian national identity had made since 1830, and how quickly this identity had become deeply rooted. As Belgian national identity was believed to be a ‘natural’ one, the British observers were not surprised to see how quickly the Belgians became aware of their national identity. For the author of the article, the main challenge for the Belgians was to forget their earlier local loyalties and to become aware of what united them in the framework of their new nation-state. It was believed that this could be more easily obtained if the Belgians forgot the past and its many examples of a lack of unity: It has been emphatically said that the best chance for Belgian nationality is, that the country should be satisfied to begin its history from the year 1830. For every purpose of practical policy this is certainly true. To forget in some cases is quite as important as to retain in others. … Modern, monarchical, and independent Belgium must cast aside altogether the prejudices and pride of those disjointed provinces which constituted in former times the appanage of so many distant and powerful states214.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
79
It was only during the first half of the 1830s that the belief in an independent Belgian national identity needed the support of peripheral and heavily constructed arguments. By the early 1840s, British sympathy for Belgium had become so dominant, that it was sufficient for the British observers simply to state that Belgium had a separate national identity and therefore deserved national independence. There was no longer any need to argue or defend this claim. For the extremely pro-Belgian “Westminster Review” the existence of a separate Belgian national identity was already certitude by 1834: “The feeling of nationality has now so taken root in Belgium. … Belgium is and must be a nation, with a dynasty, a constitution, and an existence of its own”215. For the “British and Foreign Review” too the existence of a Belgian national identity was beyond doubt by 1839: “Nobody who has studied the Belgian revolution can come to any other conclusion, than that it was the termination of a national conflict, – of a struggle for the maintenance of Belgic institutions, laws, religion, customs, – in short, of Belgic nationality”216. Despite this dominance of British sympathy for a separate Belgian national identity, during the mid-nineteenth century a small minority remained critical of the existence of a Belgian national identity. Not surprisingly this interpretation received its support mainly from some Tories and the most ardent supporters of the Union with Ireland. In a book review of James Emerson Tennent’s Belgium, published in the “Quarterly Review” of 1841, his criticism of the existence of a separate Belgian national identity was summarized as follows: “She [Belgium] is a nation without nationality – a kingdom without kingly authority – a republic without a people. Never having, from her earliest days, trusted to her own legs, she is now incapable of doing so, and there she affects to stand, a grown cripple in a go-cart”217. Belgian national identity was not observed in a vacuum. Most of its defining characteristics and attributes it obtained by comparison with other national identities. Comparisons with the British and French national identities were most common while comparisons with the Dutch and German national identities were less frequent. In the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium, Belgian national identity was obviously considered as being very similar to that of the British and at the same time very different to that of the French. The “British Quarterly Review” explicitly stated this similarity between the Belgian and British national identities and argued that the idea of considering Belgian national identity as similar to the French was vicious Tory propaganda, built upon a fundamental and deliberately false understanding of Belgium and the Belgians:
80
Pieter François
But this type of recondite Gasconading does not sit naturally on the Belgians, and is really unworthy of them. Their character approximates more nearly to the Teutonic than the Gallic type. They are more inclined to be serious than frivolous. They combine some of the most remarkable attributes of the French and English, with a nearer affinity to the latter than the former; gaiety tempered by prudence, solid energy lighted up by a lively temperament, skill beyond other nations in particular pursuits, and a steadfast love of free institutions. In England we are accustomed to look upon the Belgians as upon a branch of our own family, which, however remote in habits and associations, is closely allied to us in sympathy; while in Belgium the popular ambition to raise the country into a little England has passed into a proverb. A people so happily constituted need not have recourse to French plumes to set off their historic costume, which would show a hundredfold more nobly if it were divested of all foreign ornament218.
Besides stressing the quality of Belgian national identity and its similarity to the British, this quotation also demonstrates how national identity was considered to be fundamentally linked with ancestry. According to the positive interpretation of Belgium, the Belgians were considered to be either Teutonic, Germanic, or even Saxon and although there was a certain amount of confusion on the precise Germanic background of the Belgians and their precise relationship with the British, there was unanimity that the Belgians had no Gallic background. This perceived common Saxon or Teutonic ancestry between the Belgians and the British was used to explain the similarities between mid-nineteenth-century Belgium and Britain. The argument was that the Belgians were inclined towards constitutionalism and freedom because they were from the same Saxon stock as the British. According to the article Flemish Popular Traditions, published in the “Eclectic Review” of 1846, this common ancestry was particularly visible in the language: “There can be little doubt of the fact, that the Flemish and our Saxon speech had a common origin, and a very extensive similarity exists to this day, more especially among the common people”219. This difference of interpretation was not limited to the ancestry of the Belgians, but appeared again in the interpretation of Belgian national identity during the previous three centuries. What had happened to Belgian national identity during the long period of foreign rule? To what extent was this national identity shaped by this experience and to what extent was it, therefore, possible to speak of a typical or uniquely Belgian national identity? In the dominant liberal interpretation two arguments were popular, although they were partly contradictory to each other. According to the first argument, the long period of foreign rule had not had the slightest impact on the Belgians; Belgian identity, although in hiding for most of the time, survived this period without a change. According to the second argument, Belgian
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
81
national identity had been heavily influenced by this exposure to different foreign influences, and its merit was that it had incorporated into Belgian national identity the best of all the foreign national identities. This interpretation was commonly accepted before 1830, and was used to understand the Southern Netherlands. The British traveller and Member of Parliament Richard Bernard, for example, pointed out in 1815 that: The manners of the people do not seem to me very dissimilar from those of the French, but others think they most resemble the Dutch. In fact, the Netherlanders, have no very peculiar characteristics, but partake, in many respects, of those which distinguish the various nations from whom they are descended220.
Richard Bernard’s observation that the national identity of the Southern Netherlands had no specific or unique character was not intended in a negative way. After 1830, the British critics of Belgium stayed loyal to this argument, but now this lack of unique characteristics of Belgian national identity was judged in a very negative way. Belgium became a nation of dull and boring people, lacking originality and distinctiveness. According to these critics, this lack of a strong and independent national identity made them an easy prey for France, and annexation by the French was believed to be inevitable in the near future. During the heyday of the positive liberal perception of Belgium, this critical interpretation was vehemently countered. John Mill, for example, stated explicitly in his account of the visit of the Belgian king to Britain in 1869 that the idea of a ‘mixed character’ was a Tory invention and nothing more than negative propaganda. According to John Mill, the Belgians had a distinctive and strong national identity: The Belgian burghers have always displayed a passionate fondness for social liberty - an impatience of control that embroiled them with their rulers, and involved them in ruinous disasters during successive centuries”. It seems never to have occurred to our Tory historian that the source of the Belgian progress lies in the restless energy of the people, their daring independence, self-sacrifice, and devotion to their country, no matter how mistaken their notions may have been on some particular occasions221.
The most important area of controversy was related to the question of whether Belgian national identity bore more resemblance to the British or of the French. In the positive liberal interpretation, the resemblance between the Belgian and British national identities was obviously stressed. The “Art Journal” of 1865, for example, stated clearly: The Englishman will find the habits of the people more in accordance with his own than those of our more volatile nearer neighbours of France. They possess in a large
82
Pieter François
degree the English love of liberty and home. They have the same tendency to home comforts and enjoyments. Their business habits are distinguished by the steady regularity that has made the English trader famous; but this may well be the characteristic of a nation that first raised trading to any eminence, and taught the world this great way to wealth222.
For the critics of Belgium, the Belgians “resembled the French in their manners, and spoke the French language”223. For some Tories, the Belgians were even worse than French, and were above all similar to the Irish. The anti-Belgian “Fraser’s Magazine” wrote in the first weeks after the Belgian Revolution: They are difficult folk to deal with. They are kickable to a certain point, but, after that, the brain gets charged, they are bullish, they are unmanageable, vindictive, and irreconcilable. They are like the Irish in the more savage parts of the Green Island224.
In the second half of the 1830s the increasingly dominant liberal interpretation actively counterattacked the notion that Belgian national identity was anything other than similar to the British: “A notion is prevalent both in England and Germany that the tendencies of Belgium are essentially and exclusively French. … This notion, however prevalent, is and has been proved to be erroneous in various ways”225. In the mid-nineteenth century national identity was believed to be visible in a wide variety of actions and expressions. For example, most British observers firmly believed in a strong connection between national identity on the one hand and issues of physiognomy, the way people look, intelligence, and morals on the other. On those issues too there was a clear division of judgement. In the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium the similarity between Belgium and Britain was equally extended to the physical appearance of the Belgians and British. The British traveller John Trotandot traced in the beautiful Belgian girls traces of a “female loveliness proper of a thorough English type and affording striking proofs of a common ancestry”226. As previously mentioned John Trotandot strongly believed in the distinction between a ‘modern’ Belgium, which he believed to be very similar to Britain, and a backward Belgium, in his opinion to be situated in the countryside and believed to be ultra-Catholic. The Belgians in the modern liberal cities were in general believed to look and behave very similar to the British. However, according to most observers the Flemish, who were, almost without exception, believed to be peasants, differed greatly from the other Belgians and, thus, the British. The British observers of Belgium never managed to deal with the Flemishness of parts of Belgium. As they visited mainly the cities and dealt with people who spoke French and came from a certain social background the number of confrontations with the ‘Flemish peasant’
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
83
and the Flemish language were extremely limited. Julia Corner, as always critical of Belgium, explained to her readers the existence of a Flemish language as followed: The people of Brussels resembled the French in their manners, and spoke the French language, which had become the general language in several of the provinces, and in all the great towns, except among the lowest orders of the labouring people, who spoke Flemish, which is much like the Dutch and German, though mixed with many French words. The domestic servants, and shopkeepers, in the towns, spoke French, and it was only in the districts nearest to Holland that Flemish was in general use among the peasantry227.
Even Charlotte Brontë, who had after all resided in Brussels and had a broader perspective than the average traveller who stayed one week in Belgium, let her main character in The Professor make the following observation of her Flemish maid: On the first landing I met a Flemish housemaid. She had wooden shoes, a short red petticoat, a printed cotton bed-gown, her face was broad, her physiognomy eminently stupid. When I spoke to her in French, she answered me in Flemish, with an air the reverse of civil, yet I thought her charming; if she was not pretty or polite, she was, I conceived, very picturesque228.
Here too there is a close connection between national identity and physiognomy and the judgement of the Flemish is far from favourable. On a second occasion too, Charlotte Brontë made this link with physiognomy. The main character, overhearing the conversation between Pelet, the director of the school, and his Flemish maid, was shocked by the contemptuous manner with which the director treated his maid. When Pelet noticed this, he had the following reaction: ‘Ce ne sont que des Flamands – allez’. … Flamands certainly they were, and both had the true Flamand physiognomy, where intellectual inferiority is marked in lines none can mistake; still they were men, and, in the main, honest men; and I could not see why their being aboriginals of the flat, dull soil should serve as a pretext for treating them with perpetual severity and contempt229.
For critical observers of Belgium the Flemish peasants and lower classes, and for the most ardent critics every one of the Belgians, were believed to be notoriously unintelligent. For the British traveller A. Kirwan “the people of Belgium generally are not above the average intelligence, and the gentry are not distinguished by high intellectual cultivation”230. National identity was believed to be visible not only in the behaviour and physiognomy of the Belgians, but also in the customs and traditions, even some of the material aspects of Belgium. The landscape of Belgium was believed both to have
84
Pieter François
particularly shaped and also to reflect the national identity. The idea that Belgium possessed a distinctive national landscape was widespread and commonly accepted and even the critics did not deny the existence of a distinctive Belgian landscape, although, of course, the appreciation of the landscape differed greatly. The Belgian landscape was on the one hand praised by the admirers of Belgium while being seen as unauthentic by the critics. As previously mentioned, most travellers expected and sought to observe this national distinctiveness of the landscape. Two interpretations of the Belgian landscape circulated widely, the most common of which was to narrow the Belgian national landscape down to the flat Flemish countryside between the sea and Brussels. As most of the travel destinations were situated on this plain, it was frequently the only type of landscape that travellers experienced in their journeys in Belgium. Charlotte Brontë’s main character in The Professor explained to the readers that the flat Belgian landscape was not dull or boring to her. The Belgian landscape of “green, reedy swamps; fields, fertile but flat, cultivated in patches that made them look like magnified kitchen-gardens; belts of cut trees, formal as pollards willows, skirting the horizon; narrow canals” might not have possessed any objectively beautiful or picturesque quality according to the main character, she nevertheless admitted that it had made a lasting impression on her: “yet to me it was all beautiful, all was more than picturesque”231. The anonymous writer of A Week in Brussels used a different image. The differences in landscape in Belgium were believed to reflect the differences in Belgian national identity. The Belgian landscape was described as followed: In the different parts of Flanders, you have distinct climates. Her people, who in her various provinces are strongly marked with the race of Spain, of Holland, and of France, differ not more widely than the temperature of her several provinces: she has her swampy flat towns, intersected with canals, adapted to peculiar constitutions; she has her rarefied and salubrious air of Brussels; while, in her southern parts she has mountainous localities differing in nothing from the invigorating breezes of Switzerland232.
5: Protestant Citizens and Catholic Institutions: British perceptions of Belgian religious identity233 An anonymous traveller toured the Continent in 1828 and as well as the Rhine Valley and Paris he also visited both parts of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, commonly referred to by the British before 1830 as ‘Belgium’ and ‘Holland’. The traveller passed as a result through Protestant and Catholic parts of the Continent and his sympathy went clearly to the Protestant parts. On the occasion of observing priests in the Southern Netherlands, he remarked: By what principle in human nature is it that the priests of all ages, of all countries, and of all religions, are ever cruel in their punishments, and merciless in their application? It would seem that, in assuming the prerogatives of Deity, and finding the beatitudes of the Almighty unapproachable, they endeavour to imitate His thunders, and aim at inflicting wounds deeper than stripes234.
This travel account was published in 1829 when the Catholic Emancipation Act was debated in Britain. Whereas this act was a major legal breakthrough in the struggle for equal rights, the short term consequences were negative as the long preceding battle had left many scars and had resulted in an increased popular anti-Catholicism235. Comparing the observations of the anonymous traveller from 1829 with those of the Protestant Reverend E. Morgan more than three decades later, little seemed to have changed. On the occasion of observing a Roman Catholic procession through the streets of Bruges, E. Morgan came to the same negative conclusions on Belgian Catholicism: This day a Roman Catholic procession took place, on account, they say, of the assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven! I went to one or two of the churches to see what they were doing. Alas! what folly; such manoeuvres of the priest, bowing before the host, a bit of bread in a box! – genuflexions, changes of dresses, swinging the censer with incense, and other mummeries236.
A first superficial reading of the sources could, therefore, give the impression that Britain’s rejection of Belgian Catholicism was a constant characteristic of the whole mid-nineteenth century. Although this condemnation of Belgian Catholicism was definitely always present, there were also some important changes. For example, the chief targets of British criticism of Belgian Catholicism changed considerably and so did the relationship between the British perception of Belgian and Continental Catholicism.
86
Pieter François
The extent of this strong anti-Catholicism in the travel accounts and in other observations of Belgium is not surprising. During their tours on the Continent, the Protestant travellers were often confronted for the first time with Catholic churches, priests and rituals. Thomas Brightwell’s description of his first and cautious encounter with Catholicism is representative of the experience of the vast majority of Protestant travellers: “I was about, for the first time in my life, to witness the forms of Roman Catholic worship; and, at the entrance of the church, I had a full taste of the character of the service within”237. Although Thomas Brightwell stayed at the entrance, he labelled this first encounter with Roman Catholicism as intense. This encounter is representative of the way the vast majority of British travellers came into contact with Belgian Catholicism. Only a minority of travellers had a more in depth introduction and were in a position to compare Catholicism and Protestantism in a systematic way. It is, therefore, no surprise that the British perception of religion in Belgium contained many artificial and creative elements. According to the historian of travel Marjorie Morgan the perception of religion on the Continent by the British travellers and the consequences of this encounter for their self-perception and identity differed greatly if they travelled through a Protestant or a Catholic part of the Continent238. Travelling through a Protestant region the observations and remarks of the travellers both reflect their common Protestant background and stress some denominational differences. In general, their own denomination was considered superior, but there was an open-mindness to learn from other Protestant denominations. The language in which these observations were written, was never solely negative or hostile. When travelling through Catholic parts of the Continent, references to the specific Protestant denomination of the travellers were extremely rare. The travellers rallied to a much greater extent around a common Protestant identity, which they opposed to Roman Catholicism in general. Protestantism and Catholicism were seen as two opposing monoliths locked in an eternal battle. This battle was often depicted as one between good and bad. Protestantism was associated with industry, progress, learning, patriotism, and liberty. Catholicism was associated with poverty, dirt, authoritarianism, and Britian’s archenemies France and Spain239. My own research supports Marjorie Morgan’s thesis that the travellers, although from different Protestant denominations, structured their analysis of religion in Belgium solely through the lens of the division between Protestantism and Catholicism. The fact that the accounts rarely contain biographical information, made it extremely difficult to retrieve the exact Protestant denomination of the British travellers.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
87
According to the same historiography a slow, but gradual, decline of anti-Catholicism and an increased tolerance is to be expected. Again this evolution is visible in the accounts of British travellers in Belgium, but is less straightforward and clear cut than expected. Compared with the British perception of Continental Catholicism in the mid-nineteenth century in general, the perception of Belgian Catholicism has always been less hostile, the rejection less total. This relatively more positive attitude towards Belgian Catholicism reflected the general British sympathy for Belgium. As more and more British observers were convinced that Belgium was a ‘little Britain on the Continent’ and that the British and Belgians were very similar to one another, the idea became highly popular that the true Belgian national identity was Protestant in nature and that the Belgians were in fact hidden Protestants. George Augustus Sala’s following observation was no coincidence, but reflected a conviction shared by many observers: And I have never been able to get rid of the idea that, after all, Roman Catholicism is an exotic in Flanders; that its redundance – for there is no country where it is so repulsively prominent – is forced and artificial; and that in this temperate, methodical, cabbage-bearing, cattle-breeding land, the hips and haws of Protestantism should have been indigenous. The people have a Protestant look240.
Slowly the British image of Continental Catholicism improved. However, this improvement was more or less nullified in Belgium’s case as it coincided with the decline of the perception of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’. By the last third of the nineteenth century, the British perception of Belgian Catholicism was again in tune with the image of Continental Catholicism in general, just as it had been before 1830. The myth of the Protestant Belgians was, therefore, a break with an otherwise rather traditional perception of Belgian Catholicism. The idea of the Belgians as ‘hidden’ Protestants, was clearly the most creative element of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’. It was also the last element to be fully developed and the first element to be criticised and abandoned during the 1850s and 1860s. The lifespan of the idea that the Belgians were hidden Protestants, was in fact limited to the 1840s and 1850s only. A first section of this chapter explores the British image of Belgium as a typical Catholic state. Throughout the whole nineteenth century anti-Catholicism had been present in the British accounts on Belgium. In this section the elements of this anti-Catholicism and the slow, but gradual, tendency towards greater tolerance are analysed. A second section analyses how the British believed in the 1840s and 1850s in the idea of the Belgians as hidden Protestants, and how this idea influenced the
88
Pieter François
initial idea that the Belgian Roman Catholic Church could be trusted. This section also focuses on the transformation of this image of a trustworthy Roman Catholic Church into the image of the Catholic Church as foreign to the ‘true’ Belgian national identity.
Belgium as an ultra-Catholic state For the British observers Belgium was an ultra-Catholic country and this was a valid observation. According to the census of 1850, Belgium counted 4,426,202 people of whom 4,339,196 were Catholic. Officially there were 1,336 Jews and 6,578 Protestants241. On top of this small number of Protestants, there were also the foreign Protestant residents. For example, around 1850 there were approximately 4,500 long term British residents in Belgium242. The number of Belgian Protestants increased marginally throughout the nineteenth century. By 1901, there were 15,000 British residents and Belgians who worshipped in the several Protestant churches in Belgium243. This small increase reveals above all how dominant Roman Catholicism had managed to remain throughout the nineteenth century in Belgium. An early and important confrontation with the strength of Catholicism in Belgium was in the eyes of the British travellers caused by the enormous number of churches, statues of saints, processions, priests and nuns. The extent of this presence of Roman Catholic symbols in the cities, streets and daily lives of the Belgians was believed to be one of the most characteristic elements of Belgium. For the British traveller John Rodwell Hux the presence of statues of Mary in the streets of Antwerp was the most remarkable feature of that city: The devotion of the lower orders appears almost approaching to idolatry; and the number of the figures of Saints and the Virgin on the outside of the houses is incredible; they are generally elevated to the height of the first story, and with some ceremony lighted up at sunset244.
In general the British attitude towards these expressions of Belgian Catholicism was very negative. The description of Lucy Snowe, the main character in Charlotte Brontë’s novel Villette, of the book of saints, which was read aloud every evening to the children in the boarding school illustrates the strength and emotionality of the British rejection of Belgian Catholicism: This book contained legends of the saints. Good God! (I speak the words reverently) what legends they were. What gasconading rascals those saints must have been, if they first boasted these exploits or invented these miracles! These legends, however, were
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
89
no more than monkish extravagances, over which one laughed inwardly ... . The ears burned on each side of my head as I listened, perforce, to tales of moral martyrdom inflicted by Rome.245
This strong condemnation was not limited to the many descriptions of Catholic traditions, rituals or symbols, but also projected on the physical appearance of the priests. In tune with the strong belief in physiognomy in the mid-nineteenth century, an association was often made between the perceived corruption of the Church on the one hand and the physical traits of the clergy on the other. G. Christopher Davies described the priests as “detestably sly” and claimed that the “possessors of such villanous faces ought to be hung without trial”246. Every encounter with a priest evoked a strong sense of unease and associations with evil and the devil were never far away. His encounter with a priest in a Belgian railway station captures the directness and almost physicality of the rejection: A fat and “leary” friar was standing on the platform, with bare sandalled feet, bare head, and rope girdle rounds his brown cloak. I won’t vilify him by saying more than that there wasn’t a single prepossessing feature in his face, but he gave us the impression that he was a ghoul from the past spying upon the present, and that he would presently go back and hatch some devilry, to be wreaked upon the irreverent present247.
The physical appearance of the clergy was only one expression of British criticism of Belgian Catholicism. In general, the ‘Catholic atmosphere’ was criticised. In The Professor. A Tale, Charlotte Brontë evoked this perceived narrow and enclosed Catholic atmosphere of the boarding school. Again there is an active link between Catholicism as a religion, the personality and character traits of the worshippers, and even the atmosphere and outlook of the building: I long to live once more among Protestants, they are more honest than Catholics. A Rhomish school is a building with porous walls, a hollow floor, a false ceiling. Every room in this house, Monsieur, has eye-holes and ear-holes, and what the house is the inhabitants are, very treacherous: they all think it lawful to tell lies; they all call it politeness to profess friendship where they feel hatred248.
Whereas the expressions of this British anti-Catholicism were highly diverse, criticism can nevertheless be broken down into three main categories. Firstly, Belgian Catholicism was most often seen as a synonym for superstition and idolatry. This conviction was strongly linked with the idea that Protestantism stood for the ideals of education and rationality. Secondly, Catholicism was believed not to lead to good morals, and especially the lower classes were believed to be very vulnerable to this lack of moral education. The lack of respect for the Sunday Sabbath was seen
90
Pieter François
as a symptom of this poor moral standard. Finally, closely intertwined with the two first criticisms, the Catholic Church was believed to be concerned primarily with its own well-being and wealth, and not with the well-being of the believers. Roman Catholicism was, therefore, seen as highly hypocritical and corrupt. Ignorance and superstition We hastened to the splendid cathedral of St. Bavon, rich in black and white marble; and in this land of costly churches one of the finest. At eleven o’clock a most pompous mass began, performed by richly-dressed priests, and accompanied with the musical thunder of the pealing organ reverberating through the aisles; so that the whole effect was very striking. But, oh – to call this divine worship! some people were walking about; some crossing themselves at the receptacle for holy water; some gazing at the magnificent altars; others down on their knees praying by themselves, and appearing to have no sympathy with the general service. The church was crowded with military, who as they stood in their ranks down the nave, talked and laughed in the most unconcerned manner possible. It was truly a strange mixture of a holiday, with all the genuflections, and bowings, and mummery of popery249.
Ignorance and superstition were two sides of the same coin according to most British observers. The Catholic Church was believed to keep the people ignorant in order to maintain her dominant position in Belgium. Edward Michelsen pointed out in his 1855 study on Jesuitism that “the bulk of the Belgian people was and is in some measures still in a state of intellectual immaturity” as a result of priestly subjection250. For the vast majority of British observers of Belgium, Catholicism was believed to be opposed to knowledge and rationality. It had replaced ‘true knowledge’ with a spectacular ritualism in a pompous setting. Like the John Hoppus’s quotation above indicates, this formalism was disliked by the British observers and considered as superficial, and, therefore, as no serious alternative for Protestantism. The sharpest mockery and jokes of the British observers were, however, aimed at the Catholic rituals. The British traveller Grantham, for example, claimed that the unfortunate believers sang fast because they had to repeat endless strands of Ave Marias when they all wanted to go home quickly251. Another traveller believed to have discovered the latest spectacular trick of Catholicism to evoke amazement amongst the worshippers. When he entered the Church he believed he had spotted a moving tapestry next to the altar. Only after a while he discovered it was the richly decorated robe of a heavily gesticulating priest252. For an anonymous traveller, Belgium was a very religious place, if God was worshipped by temples and not in temples. If the criterion was intelligent and
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
91
true worship, Belgium was a sad place full of superstition. He too condemned the Catholic service as pure formalism conducted by pompous and arrogant priests253. For the British, the ignorance and superstition was not limited to the service and the Catholic rituals, but was also spread into the whole society. It was almost impossible for British travellers not to be confronted by the widespread examples of outward devotion. The British traveller John Hoppus was struck with disbelief when he observed the following situation in the streets of Ghent: The summary way in which even the priests frequently perform their private devotions in the churches, borders hard upon the ludicrous. At one place, while looking at an image of the Virgin, we suddenly heard a peculiar rush behind us, which caused us to turn around: it was a priest, who, en passant, had fallen upon his knees, in the twinkling of an eye, and had as suddenly proceeded on his course across the cathedral. It is not uncommon to see a priest taking a pinch of snuff on his knees, in the church254.
The British observers were puzzled by the amount of ignorance of the Belgians concerning religious matters. In their opinion the Catholic Church deliberately prevented ‘true’ education, especially on religious and moral issues. The British traveller and Protestant Reverend E. Morgan praised Belgium for the high distribution of newspapers. However, he pointed to the lack of bibles as the single most important reason of the poor state of education in Belgium255. Furthermore, he found the other source of religious learning, namely preaching, scanty too and the priests employed their preaching only to “add more darkness to the already existing darkness’256”. Belgium was often seen as the land of hellfire and damnation sermons. In 1838 “The Times” reported on the tradition of these sermons in Belgium. On the occasion of a preaching campaign in the county of Waes, the report described how the parish priests prepared in advance the lodging and meals of more than fifty preachers for a whole weekend. During that weekend all the villagers were gathered in the church and bombarded with one sermon after the other. According to the account, every possible dissident had made sure he or she had left the village long before. The article concluded that due to the enormous social pressure, it was virtually impossible to stay in the village and not to attend the services257. Morality and Sunday Sabbath Most British observers struggled hard to judge Belgian morality. In general, the British observers considered the Belgians, as they were believed to be very similar to the British, to be people of high moral standards. The Belgians were well man-
92
Pieter François
nered, respectable and, most important, clean and tidy. In these respects they were compared favourably to the neighbouring French. Having a well-mannered and neat appearance were for most observers closely connected. The traveller Reverend R. Lundie was extremely positive in his judgement of the behaviour of the Belgian lower classes and compared their behaviour favourably with the behaviour of the British lower classes: The industry and thrift of the people are very great. I had good opportunities of seeing the working-classes in their works and in their homes, and I nowhere saw people in rags. When on my way to hold an evening meeting in the manufacturing town of Verviers, I encountered troops of girls leaving the mills. They presented universally a great neat appearance, being clothed in clean and well-fitting garments, though made of the most inexpensive material. I could not help contrasting their aspect with that of the girls let loose from the mills of Manchester, Bolton, and other manufacturing towns at home. We must not be above learning from our neighbours258.
The British traveller Thomas Ramsay too spoke favourably of the moral conduct of the Belgians and he believed: that it would be difficult to find a better conducted people than the citizens of Brussels...; ‘they exhibit much of the refinement of continental cities, with the sobriety and quiet of a rural population; there is a good feeling subsisting between the different classes of society; and the poorest are looked upon with becoming sympathy and respect259.
Maria Charlotte Lee praised the orderly aspect of the Belgians and she believed that poverty was much better dealt with than in her own London260. Especially in respect to crime and drunkenness, Belgium made a highly favourable impression on her. These positive images fit well into the general positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Belgium on the Continent’. However, when moral standards were referred to in relation with religion and religious education, most British observers changed this positive image and the image of Belgian morality became a far less favourable one. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church failed to provide her worshippers with a solid moral education, proved to be too strong. As a result opposing perceptions can be found in the same accounts. The harshest British criticism on the moral conduct of the Belgians was aimed at their behaviour on Sunday Sabbath. Most British observers had little sympathy for the different Continental attitude towards the Sunday. The public character of the Sunday and its traditions of drinking and dancing were not well received. However, Marjorie Morgan’s thesis that rejection was the only attitude of the British travellers towards Continental Sundays needs to be nuanced261. A minority of observers was
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
93
able to leave their prejudices behind and there was some room for judging the situation by its own merits. Reader’s conventions are, however, respected as much as possible and accusations of pro-Catholicism were carefully avoided and anticipated. It is also no coincidence that these more open minded accounts were predominantly from the last third of the nineteenth century, and not from the first decades after the Catholic Emancipation Act. E. Morgan’s description of the Sunday was a very dark one. In his opinion, the restitution of Sunday Sabbath would be a first major step towards moral improvement in Belgium262. Other travellers, like Thomas Ramsay, were also negative and condemned the priests for allowing gaiety and profanity to prevail on a Sunday: It is impossible to justify this method of spending the Lord’s Day. There is a time for everything; and the Sabbath, instituted as it was for the spiritual improvement, no less than for the bodily rest of man, is certainly not the time for such employments as these. This is one of the gross iniquities of the Roman Catholic system; for although the priesthood may not directly sanction it, yet they decidedly permit it, and having the power to prevent it – as no doubt they have – and refusing to exert their influence for the suppression of such breaches of a positive command of the Most High, they are to all intents and purposes participators in the guilt that is thereby incurred263.
Further in the account, however, Thomas Ramsay admitted that the feared moral breakdown did never actually occur and that the prevalent atmosphere was one of order and peace. As a next step, he then predicted that the evening would be the moment of immoral behaviour as the whole day had been spent with drinking and dancing. Again he was very surprised, almost disappointed, to see that the evening did not lead to the feared moral breakdown: “one might expect to find a fête day ending in noisy if not tumultuous revelry. But all was quiet, and well conducted”264. The traveller John Ashton was similarly surprised when he found out that the expected despicable atmosphere was absent and he too had to admit that ‘amidst all the pleasure-seeking and enjoyment on which the Belgians were intent today, we failed to notice anything like drunkenness, or even coarseness, noise, or roughness – a cheerful, gentle temperance and politeness seemed to pervade all the people265’. Finally, the traveller Thomas Dyke too had to acknowledge that his prejudices were wrong and that in the end the situation between Belgium and Britain did not differ that much. He even condemned the British hypocrisy regarding their own mythical presentation of the British Sunday Sabbath: During the hours of mass the streets are deserted; when they are over, the laugh, the jest, the frolic, are predominant. A protestant who for the first time witnesses a catholic
94
Pieter François
Sabbath cannot but turn aside affrighted and disgusted at what he considers a gross desecration of ‘the holy-day’. I am not going to write a sermon, but it will be well for him, while he is blaming the catholic, to examine the state of our own Sundays, and see whether, in London, or in the provincial towns of England, there is not a growing indifference to the duties of that day266.
The Roman Catholic Church as corrupt and hypocrite Besides keeping the believers ignorant and superstitious, and failing in moral education, the Belgian Catholic Church was for most British observers also too much preoccupied with its own position in Belgian society, with its own wealth and influence. The British observers accused the Catholic Church of seeking an ‘imperium in imperio’. As a result the British press was extremely sensitive to any attempt by the Church to dominate Belgian politics, to influence the Members of Parliament or the King. The Church was seen as a danger in undermining Belgium’s stability. This criticism was clearly less visible during the heyday of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’, as the observers initially believed the Church was willing to cooperate within the limits of the liberal state. However, from the 1850s onwards and especially during the political struggle over the Convent Law in 1857, the image of the Belgian Catholic Church was increasingly one defined by concepts like conspiracy, corruption, and evil. Parish priests, for example, were increasingly seen as local agents or pawns in a centrally orchestrated plot to take over Belgium. The influence of the priests on the Belgian population was believed to be solely of a negative character. Confession, a practice with which most observers were not familiar with, was seen as a central element to keep control of the population. Priests were believed to misuse the secrecy of the confession box and were believed to be skilful manipulators of, especially the female, conscience. According to the traveller Robert Bell confession was the main source of the social power of the priesthood: Through the confessional they acquire an intimate knowledge of family secrets, and by a subtle use of their information, they set people by the ears, that they may come in afterwards and still the storms of their own raisings. Their interference thus becomes indispensable, and their spiritual authority firmly fixed. They are indefatigable gossips, and skillful judges of character. ... profoundly acquainted with the tempers, passions, designs, and resources of individuals, they render all subservient to the working of the close details by which they are enabled to spread an intricate network of priestly rule over the surface of society. ... This fatal influence is mainly won and exercised through the women. They are the keys of domestic life267.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
95
The British press in particular was almost obsessed by this image of a scheming Church268. British newspapers published continually alarming reports on the ever increasing power of the Church. Even in “The Times” a critical attitude was replaced by one of almost fatalistic disapproval. The strength of the Belgian Catholic Church was met with disbelief: “Large sums are obtained by the clergy, and everywhere spent in building and embellishing churches, and seminaries for priests. In the time of the Dutch King there were about 15 convents; now 453, containing probably 25,000 idle, vagabond monks and nuns269”. The money-grubbing aspect of the Church was not only spotted on the highest level, but also on the lower levels and in the individual behaviour of the priests. Shocking for the British travellers was the selling of offerings and candles “for larger or smaller sums, according to size270”. As Protestants they strongly criticized the idea that one could gain salvation of the soul by simply donating money. Another shock was the discovery that the travellers had to pay to see some of the finest art works in the churches. According to the travellers, the prices were ridiculously high and even more disappointing for them was to find out that these masterpieces were covered during mass so that no traveller could see them without paying271. The enormous number of statues of the Virgin on every street corner and the box below to receive the alms was equally condemned272. According to the traveller Grantham the greatest surprise was, however, the bottle of holy blood kept in Bruges: “... here, people are crowding in to kiss a crystal vial for a fee, – the priest who holds forth the idolized bottle of blood knowing very well that it is a fabricated miracle – most likely duck’s blood shed this morning ...”. For the Protestant Reverend R. Lundie, Catholic priests were evidently moneygrubbers. Visiting some small Protestant communities in the mining region of the Borinage, he described the astonishment of the local shop owners when they found out that he, as a Protestant Reverend, wanted to pay his bills instead of promising to do it tomorrow: “In such cases contrasts are drawn not flattering to the priests, when they find that the butchers’ and bakers’ bills are punctually paid by the pastors, and that in all things they are men thoroughly to be trusted273”. Towards a more nuanced perception of Belgian Catholicism By the end of the nineteenth century the British condemnation of Belgian Catholicism had became more moderate and less emotional. There was room for more moderate views and the atmosphere had become more tolerant. However, these judgements were very wrapped up in apologies. The British still considered their
96
Pieter François
Protestantism as the better of the two systems, but agreed that not all aspects of Roman Catholicism were bad and that, therefore, some lessons could be learnt. John Ashton, for example, pointed out that Catholicism was better suited to deal with some emotional aspects of human nature; namely fear, anxiety and sentiments. Also the old and magnificent churches of Belgium were, according to John Ashton, better suited for religious service than the newly erected churches: Will any unprejudiced mind say that divine service in these circumstances is not another, and in some respects a better, thing than when performed in the tawdry buildings which modern Christianity erects, and where the service is as plain and devoid of sentiment and attraction as the building itself274?
This and similar remarks were, however, always embedded and wrapped up in some apology towards the reader in order to make sure that the message was not misunderstood and that the reader would not believe that the author favoured Catholicism above Protestantism. John Ashton, after having pointed out some of the positive elements of Roman Catholicism, wrote, therefore, in his final paragraph: But I must close this long digression. My object has been, not to defend in the smallest degree a system so opposed to civil and religious freedom and progress as is practical Catholicism, but rather to show that some of its tenets and practices are in the truest accord and sympathy with human desires and feelings, and, considered apart from the abuses with which they have been loaded, not opposed to the spirit of Christianity275.
Furthermore, a more nuanced and even positive view of Belgian Catholicism had always existed amongst British Catholics. However, they formed, especially amongst the travellers, a small minority. Especially when there was a close link with Irish Catholicism, Belgian Catholicism received a much more positive judgement. The “Dublin Review” of 1845, for example, refused to accept that Catholicism was automatically associated with despotism and Protestantism with liberalism, freedom and constitutionalism: ‘Popery and arbitrary power’, was a favourite cry of the Protestants of the last generation. But a better acquaintance with our religion, as well as the spectacle of the important events that the present age has given birth to, have much contributed to hush this absurd clamour. … the more successful struggle of Belgium against the irreligious and insulting despotism of the Dutch Government, must have proved to the most bigoted Protestant, that it is precisely the most Catholic nations, who are most strongly devoted to the sacred cause of constitutional, well-ordered liberty, national independence, and religious freedom276.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
97
The Belgians as Protestants The perception of what is foreign focuses inevitably on some elements and ignores others. As a result this perception reveals to a great extent the context of the observers, their prejudices and expectations. This process definitely played a role in the British perception of Belgian Catholicism. The British had a considerable, yet stereotypical, knowledge of Belgian Catholicism. They supported their views with a sufficient amount of details, facts and observations. However, shifting the focus to the image of the Protestant Belgians, this is no longer the case. The mythical and creative elements are much more present. The origin of the image of the Protestant Belgians is more difficult to discover and explain. How the British observers squeezed this image into their overall perception of Belgium was an intellectual achievement of remarkable originality and creativity. It enabled the observers to reduce the potential tension between the image of Belgium as their own diplomatic creation, their favourite and prosperous child on the Continent on the one hand, and the negative attitude towards continental Catholicism on the other. It enabled the Belgians as a people to escape the strong British condemnations of Catholicism, despite the apparent Catholic outlook of the country. Catholicism as foreign to Belgian society There were many factors that made the image of the Protestant Belgians a convincing one for the mid-nineteenth century British observers of Belgium. Most importantly, in most of the negative descriptions of Belgian Catholicism, the Belgians as a people were left out. The British observers focused their anti-Catholicism solely on Belgian Catholicism as an institution, on its personnel and its behaviour on the one hand and on the mass and its ritual aspects on the other. The impact of these institutions and rituals on the religious beliefs and attitudes of the Belgian people was hardly touched upon277. As a result, with the exception of the 1830s, it was relatively easy for most British observers to depict the Catholic Church as a foreign element to the true, original Belgian society. These foreign influences were evidently judged negatively. Especially the Pope and the Jesuits were in this narrative structure presented as evil parasites who wished to take over power in Belgium. The original Belgian society and national identity stood in sharp contrast to this foreign influence. As mentioned before, in the positive liberal interpretation the British observers projected on Belgium many British virtues and qualities, like the love of tolerance, freedom, constitutionalism and liberalism. Only Protestantism,
98
Pieter François
the final British virtue, seemed to be excluded from the list of mutual British and Belgian qualities. That this final virtue was, therefore, also added, is not so surprising in this context. Furthermore, the perception of the Roman Catholic Church as foreign, fitted well into a long established British tradition. Since the Reformation, Britain’s own Protestantism was contrasted with the Catholicism of their consecutive arch enemies Spain and France. For most British observers Roman Catholicism was, therefore, almost automatically associated with foreign influences and with foreign attempts to plot. Their own Catholic minority too was believed to be directed from Rome. In the language used to describe the contemporary religious situation in Britain concepts such as conspiracy, plotting and corruption were, therefore, no strangers278. The idea that innocent people and original national identity had to be protected against a complotting Catholic Church was not new for the British and could, therefore, easily be projected from their own context onto the Belgian one. The idea of an opposition between a foreign Roman Catholic Church and the true Belgian national identity had always been present in British views of Belgium and the Belgians. However, in the dominant positive liberal interpretation of Belgium, this opposition was till the 1840s tempered by a belief in the good intentions of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium. The Church was praised for its contribution towards the Belgian Revolution and it was believed to respect the liberal principles of pluralism and tolerance in matters of education, faith, and charity. However, as seen in a previous chapter, this belief crumbled rapidly in the 1840s and the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was precisely foreign to the true Belgian society and national identity soon became dominant. The majority of British observers no longer believed the Church respected the neutrality of the liberal state. Instead, they believed the Church desired a monopoly on religious, educational, moral and charity issues without any form of state control. Rome and the Jesuits were perceived as the masterminds behind the scenes. Alarming press reports on the advancement of the Jesuits in Belgian education were frequently published279. A proper analysis of the religious situation in Belgium was lacking and, for example, the success of the Jesuits was always superficially explained by some vague references to a supposedly incredible wealth on the one hand and a mythical dominance within the committee of Belgian bishops on the other. According to the British press all potential candidates for bishop had to sympathize with the Jesuits in order to be eligible for Rome. The fact that the future King Leopold II was educated by Jesuits further fuelled these theories. Belgium was even presented as the land from where the Jesuit action in Britain was organised and supported. The British Catholic priests were
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
99
believed to be indoctrinated during their many research visits to Belgium and to have received there their secret orders. In this way the Belgian Catholic Church was believed to play an active role in the perceived success and spectacular increase of Catholicism in Britain280. George Augustus Sala’s already mentioned observation that Catholicism was in Belgium “repulsively prominent” and that Protestantism should have been ‘indigenous’ in Belgium as the Belgians had a “Protestant look”, has to be understood from this tension between the images of a foreign Catholic Church and the ‘true’ Protestant Belgian national identity281. This conviction, or wish, that the Belgians as a people were almost not affected by the Catholic Church often formed the basis of the British attitudes towards religion in Belgium. The division of Belgium into a Catholic and backward countryside and modern, and Protestant, cities, as professed by the already mentioned traveller John Trotandot, was only one of the many ways to deal with this fundamental tension282. The traveller James Grant had another original solution: And here it is important to remark, because the fact is not always remembered, that though Popery is the prevalent religion in Belgium, the King and the Government are Protestant. This explains how it is that toleration is extended to Protestant denominations in Belgium, – a fact to which the Roman Catholics so often point with an air of triumph as a proof that Popery is not the intolerant system which we affirm it to be. Popery is not the persecuting religion in Belgium which it is in other countries, simply because, having to deal with a Protestant Sovereign and a Protestant Government, it is not permitted to indulge its taste for the prison, and for persecution in all its diversified forms283.
Time after time travellers and other British observers expressed their confusion about the relation between Protestantism and the Belgian government. As they were convinced that the Belgian political system was a copy of the British, it was for many observers simply inconceivable that this government would be anything else than Protestant. According to the British observers, the Belgian government belonged clearly to the enlightened part of the country and the victory over the Catholic countryside was, therefore, only a matter of time. Straightforward remarks on the Protestant character of the present Belgian government were rare. A degree of uncertainty about the exact confessional nature of the government was, however, widespread. There was much less room for confusion when Belgium’s future as a Protestant country was discussed. In the 1840s and 1850s many British observers believed passionately that Belgium would turn Protestant again in the near future. Traces of this belief even lived on in their travel journals until the early 1870s.
100
Pieter François
Belgium’s future as a Protestant nation The British confidence in the Protestant national identity of the Belgians had some major consequences for the British attitude towards Belgium’s past and future. The British image of the Belgian past was highly modelled by the theory of Protestant Belgians and is dealt with in the next chapter. As for Belgium’s future, the British believed strongly that the actual Protestant ascendancy was only a matter of time. Again according to George Augustus Sala this ascendancy was to be expected sooner than later: Finally, if the present scandalous squabble between Clericals and Liberals continue much longer in Belgium, the nation may be found some day much nearer Protestantism than is supposed. The only hope of the clergy is in staving off the secularization of public instruction. At present the lower kind of people are grossly ignorant: but after ten years of a system of teaching akin to that of the American common school, I would not augur much for their Roman Catholicism284.
The belief in an ultimate Protestant victory was very strong. Belgium was compared with a field promising a rich harvest once the Protestant seeds were planted285. Again this language was not made in a vacuum. Here too the British borrowed extensively from an existing tradition. The promise of an easy conversion was developed as part of the British religious policy towards Ireland in the 1820s286. Similar to their attitudes towards Ireland in the 1820s, the British were convinced that time was on their side. A few small-scale initiatives would be sufficient to start the conversion of the Belgian people. The British observers were convinced that Roman Catholicism was only superficial and that after the granting of religious freedom in 1830, the future generations of Belgians would go back to their Protestant roots of the sixteenth century and Belgium would become once more a Protestant nation of the first order. The traveller and Protestant Reverend R. Lundie propounded this blatant optimism: yet when the gospel is preached, it becomes evident that the villagers have no great confidence in their own superstitions, or in those who have encouraged belief in them. Romanism has flung a blight upon the moral life of Belgium: but conscience is awakening, liberty is beginning to assert itself. A death-struggle is now in progress between the power of Ultramontanism and the power of which the nation is beginning to feel conscious with itself. There may be wavering in the lines of the true and the brave, but it cannot be doubtful on which side victory will ultimately be secured287.
A Protestant victory was seen as a logical result of the Constitution of 1830. According to the British, Romanism needed darkness to survive and could not stand the test of rationality. Because of the freedom of press and education, Belgians would
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
101
become increasingly aware of the appalling practices of the Catholic Church. British observers found proof of this idea in the many Belgian press reports on abuse of power, reports they interpreted very selectively, and in the strong opposition of many Catholic believers against the “priestly party”288. Especially as a result of the continual extension of education, the days of Catholicism in Belgium were believed to be numbered. According to most British observers the grimness of the Vatican in its efforts to keep education, morality and charity in the sphere of the church and not in that of the state revealed the high stakes. For most British observers there was no doubt which side victory would chose: “when the Gospel comes in, subservience to the priesthood goes out289”. The perceived Protestant ascendancy in Belgium was not only seen as the result of the efforts and sufferings of the Belgian people, but also to some extent as a British victory. The traveller John Hoppus praised the contribution of Britain in that victory: “The progress of Protestant faith received a temporary check, ... through the influence of England, however, a government has been established, on enlightened principles, under Leopold; and by the charter, perfect toleration is secured to all religious opinions290”. By the late 1840s British observers realised more and more that time alone might not be sufficient for a Protestant victory in Belgium. A more active stance was required. British support was now seen as a necessary condition for a successful conversion. As a result detailed information about the religious situation in Belgium was urgently required. The travels of some Protestant Reverends to Belgium from the 1840s onwards have to be understood from this background. Richard Burgess’ analysis of the Church of England on the Continent is an excellent example of such an account291. His three month tour of the Continent provided the material for a well-balanced account of the functioning of the Anglican communities in France and in Belgium. Despite the fact that he still believed in a Protestant ascendancy in Belgium, he had to admit that the actual results so far were disappointing. He pointed to the lack of structural support from the Anglican Church in Britain as the main factor for the failure to challenge the Catholic Church. In the Church hierarchy there was no clear place for the Anglican communities abroad. To tackle this problem he suggested the creation of a specific diocese for the Continent, with its seat in Jersey or Gibraltar. The fact that the British civil government was hardly interested in its citizens abroad was pointed out as a second important cause of the failure. As a result, the Anglican communities suffered from serious financial problems. The number of paid clergymen was too low, the few Churches were in a poor condition and all that did not add to the appeal of the Anglican Church. For Bel-
102
Pieter François
gium there were only seven Anglican Churches and six paid clergymen. According to Richard Burgess, the Anglican clergymen in Belgium blamed the financial difficulties for the fact that together they could only assemble 1,000 worshippers on an average Sunday in 1849, whilst there were already more than 4,500 permanent British residents in Belgium at that time and an equally large number of travellers. H. Heugh subscribed to this negative view in his analysis of Protestantism in Belgium. He too admitted that the actual struggle against the dominance of Roman Catholicism was far from successful. On the other hand, he too never doubted the victory of Protestantism in the end and pointed out that theoretically Belgium had everything needed to turn it into a Protestant success story. He actively encouraged the British to support the Protestant cause in Belgium and the work the Belgian Evangelical Society did: The constitution of the country, affording the Society the fullest liberty to develop its activity, the spirit of inquiry now abroad, the measure of light which has already broken in and a large number of Roman Catholics, and the abundant distribution of the Holy Scriptures carried on at the present moment by means of the several Colporteurs employed by the British and Foreign Bible Society, are so many encouraging voices saying, ‘Go in and possess the land’.292
He claimed that of all countries Belgium promised the biggest return for the smallest effort. He questioned why the British invested so much time and energy into the conversion of people far away, while nearby Belgium offered a historical opportunity. Even in 1880 the Reverend R. Lundie, when visiting the Annual Synod of the Belgian Protestant Church, urged for a more active British involvement: In portions of Belgium, indeed in some whole provinces, the fields are white unto the harvest, but the labourers are few; everywhere doors are open, but only here and there are those found who can enter in. The work to be done is great and inviting, but the financial position is straitened.293
At the same time this final appeal revealed the great anxiety that the opportunity had already been missed. By 1880 most British observers had realised the naivety of their belief in the Protestant Belgians and had lost their interest. As part of the quickly deteriorating Belgian image as a result of the changing political situation, the British saw Belgium increasingly as just another Catholic country on the Continent and no longer felt the need to protect the Belgians as a people from this criticism. Whereas the British judgement of Catholicism in general had slowly improved and had become less emotional, the Belgians as a people were less and less excused from this condemnation.
6: Belgian heroes and Spanish villains: British perceptions of the ‘Belgian’ past294 The Duke of Alva, who delighted in blood, was despatched into the Netherlands to torture and destroy. He was an agent well suited to execute the designs of his master, and he entered on his execrable office with a demoniacal zeal. No age, sex, or condition was spared; many, who had been only once present at a Protestant assembly, even though they declared their faith in the Catholic religion to be firm and unshaken, were hanged or drowned; while these, who professed themselves Protestants, were put to the rack to force them to discover their associates! Hundreds were dragged by horses to the place of execution, their bodies committed to the flames, and their sufferings prolonged with ingenious cruelty!295
Mid-nineteenth-century British travel accounts are generally very descriptive, the emotions of the traveller are rarely touched upon and strongly opinionated comments are more the exception than the rule. The above quotation from Pryse Gordon, a long time British resident in Belgium, definitely qualifies as one of those exceptions. The Duke of Alva and King Philip II of Spain are judged extremely negatively. However it is neither coincidental nor surprising that this exception is connected with the fortunes of Belgium during the sixteenth century. Mid-nineteenth-century British observers of Belgium were almost obsessed with this era and the language used to describe the sixteenth century was highly emotional. In this context, the whole of ‘Belgian’ history was often reduced to the history of the sixteenth century only. According to the mid-nineteenth-century British observers of Belgium the sixteenth century not only gave Belgium its heroes and villains, its moments of glory and tragedy; it was also believed to be a crucial era for the development of the Belgian national identity. Other periods received hardly any attention or were judged solely on their functionality towards the master narrative centred on the sixteenth century. This exclusive focus on the sixteenth century by British observers reflects not only a primary genuine interest in a pivotal century of the ‘Belgian’ past but also the strong popularity of, and interest in, the British sixteenth century in midnineteenth-century Britain. Moreover, the focus on the sixteenth century was also closely related to the establishment of the new Belgian nation-state and the contemporary British sympathy for it. The exclusive focus on Belgium’s sixteenth century is, therefore, a typical post-1830 phenomenon; before 1830 British attention for the past of the ‘Southern Netherlands’ or ‘Belgium’ was more evenly distributed and all centuries got their fair amount of attention. This change of perspective is, therefore,
104
Pieter François
an integral part of the changing general British attitudes towards Belgium in the mid-nineteenth century. Selection is a crucial and inescapable element in the representation of the past. By choosing a certain focus, some periods, processes or groups of people are invariably favoured. During the nineteenth century this selection occurred frequently in the name of the ‘nation’. Nations were strongly believed to have existed forever. An irreducible core of a nation had always been present throughout history, although often dormant. A ‘soul’ or a national character/identity was believed to connect past and present, to give a country its continuity, and, as a result, the nature and character of the contemporary nation-state was often projected into the past. The impact of this ‘national’ perspective on the representation of the past and the selection of themes, periods and people has been thoroughly investigated296. This same mechanism is, not surprisingly, also at work in the nineteenth-century perception of the past of foreign countries. Here too, there is a delicate balance between building upon some basic historical facts on the one hand and projecting the contemporary (national) situation into the past on the other. In practice this division can, and to some extent always will, coincide with the division between the observers and observed: the contemporary context and views, or their antithesis, of the observers are projected on the past of the observed. As a result the focus of analysis has to be placed on the context of both the observers and the observed. Nineteenth-century British views on the Belgian past are no exception and are greatly influenced by the contemporary British home-context and the contemporary views on British history. These views, and especially the fact that so many British themes were copied into the Belgian past, explain to a large extent the differences between the Belgian and the British mid-nineteenth century views of the Belgian past. Most of the sources contain ample references to Belgium’s past. British travel literature especially offers an exceptionally rich view of British perceptions of Belgian history. Travel accounts are often history books or historical novels in disguise, in which the actual travel and visits of places of historical importance are used as the starting point for an elaborate historical narrative297. Travellers and other British observers, such as journalists, politicians, or writers, read extensively Belgian historical works, contemporary surveys, biographies, novels, travel guides on Belgium, and Belgian press reports. These Belgian sources provided the observers with the basic historical facts298. The strong focus on travel literature and on contemporary periodical articles in this book stems also from the lack of a representative number of nineteenth-century British academic works on Belgian history. This situation
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
105
is, however, not only of negative importance. Nineteenth-century historiography frequently reflects a strongly elitist perspective, primarily insistent on the manner in which the past should be seen. The impact of the official historiography on popular images is not always profound, let alone easy to retrieve; furthermore, in nineteenth-century Britain, in contrast to the Continent, the reading public made contact with the past primarily through narrative sources and not academic ones. The historian Peter Mandler has argued convincingly that it is a myth to consider the British perception of, and dealing with, the past as less nationalistic than that of its continental counterparts299. However whereas in the continental context the nationalistic perspective was more or less imposed from above through official academies and historiography, in Britain, until well into the mid-nineteenth century, it came in the first place from below, through novels or travel literature. This chapter is further proof of the validity of this thesis. In the first short section of this chapter the mid-nineteenth-century Belgian perception of the Belgian past is analysed while the second section deals with the British perception focussing on the motives behind both the similarities and the important differences between the Belgian and British views, as well as elaborating further on the strong British belief in a Protestant Belgian national identity.
Belgian views on the ‘Belgian’ past To discover the uniqueness of British views on the Belgian past, an understanding of Belgian views is essential. Not only did the Belgian views strongly influence the British but the major differences are also highly revealing. After Belgium’s independence in 1830 Belgian historians forcefully chose a Belgian or nationalistic perspective to write the history of the former Southern Netherlands. Competing regional perspectives either became less popular or were abandoned altogether. This first group of Belgian historians saw it as their mission to give Belgium its own history, and were encouraged to do so by the state. They hoped to influence directly popular perceptions of the Belgian past300. Their views are also important because British observers read these historians, and their works were widely reviewed in the British press and, as a result, references to these historians were frequently made in many travel guides and travel accounts. There was, therefore, a direct line between these Belgian works and the popular British representation of the Belgian past. The Belgian historian Johan Tollebeek argues that the main challenge for the first generation of Belgian historians was to bring unity into the Belgian past, to give it
106
Pieter François
both a territorial cohesion and a meaningful chronology as internationally it was often believed that Belgium was a mere juxtaposition of independent principalities301. This unity and continuity was often found in religion, since Catholicism was believed to be the unifying factor for the Belgian nation over the centuries. Another possibility was to see the common people as the main bearers of the desired continuity. However, according to Johan Tollebeek, the search for recurrent themes in the historical process itself was more popular than looking for such an aprioristic solution. The most popular themes were the intertwined images of ‘Belgium as the battlefield of Europe’ and ‘Belgium under foreign rule’. This last myth offered an especially useful and straightforward chronology; Belgium was handed over consecutively from the sixteenth century onwards from the Spanish to the Austrians, then to the French and, finally, to the Dutch. In this view the Belgians had, however, a largely passive or negative role and the real history was, therefore, written by foreigners. In order to give the Belgians a more active role in and a more active contribution to the progress of civilisation, Belgian historians focused on two further topics within this basic chronological structure. The first is the resistance of the Belgians to these foreign rulers. Here the focus is particularly placed on the sixteenth-century resistance to the Spanish, the late 1780s Brabantic Revolution against the Austrians, the 1790s uprising against the French, and, of course, the Belgian Revolution of 1830 against the Dutch. All these revolts were interpreted as national revolts. The second strategy existed in the focus on ‘wise’ monarchs. The main criterion for the label of ‘wise’ was, of course, that the monarch respected the Belgian national identity and the privileges and ancient traditions of local government. In the Revolution of 1830 those two elements came together. The Belgian resistance fighters made an end of ‘foreign rule’ and installed, instead, a wise monarch of their own. 1830 was, as a result seen both as an end of history, and an end of the pattern of foreign rule.
British views on the ‘Belgian’ past The British observers of Belgium copied extensively from these Belgians views on the Belgian past. The vast majority of British observers readily adopted therefore the belief in an independent Belgian national identity. In addition, the images of Belgium as the battlefield of Europe and as a country under foreign rule were at the centre of British views of the Belgian past. The traveller Thomas William Newton, for example, recollects extensively “the stormy past of the old battleground of Europe” where “foreign legions, meeting in deadly hatred on her soil, have deluged it in blood302”. The focus
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
107
was placed even more strongly on the Belgian resistance to this foreign rule. Belgian history was, above all, a history of foreign aggressors and Belgian resistance fighters, of repression and revolution. A striking difference, however, is that the British reading of Belgian history completely ignored the ‘wise monarchs’; Belgium was assumed to have been constantly oppressed for more than three centuries and the question of territorial cohesion was almost never asked, since most British observers took this for granted. Histories of specific regions were adopted within a national framework without great difficulties, and matters of regional or local loyalties were simply brushed aside. Crucially, in these accounts, however, was that Catholicism was hardly ever seen as an essential part of the Belgian national identity. This striking difference will prove to be the centrepiece around which the British views on Belgian past were built. Whereas the Belgian historians shopped selectively in the past, the British observers took this process clearly one step further. They saw the Belgian past from an even more straightforward and smooth perspective: in their view, from the sixteenth century onwards, the ‘true’ Belgian national identity was being repressed by a chain of foreign rulers and the Belgians were in constant rebellion against this oppression, and in this master narrative the focus was placed on the sixteenth-century revolt against Spain. The British traveller H. Heugh had not the slightest doubt about the centrality of the sixteenth century for Belgian history: “By far the most important aspect of Belgic history is that which relates to its connexion with the Protestant Reformation”303. The sixteenth century symbolized for him at once the most touching and revolting narrative of modern history, “touching, as it respects the faith, patience, and heroism of the martyred saints - and revolting, as it details the remorseless cruelties, the tyrannic rage, and the senseless and wicked accusations of their enemies”304. Sympathy went obviously to the unfortunate but brave Belgians and against their foreign oppressors, who happened to include both Britain’s archenemies Spain and France. Elements of the Belgian past that enforced this master perspective were selected. Elements that were at odds with this view were ignored, which accounts, for example, for the complete omission of the ‘wise monarchs’. Wise monarchs were at odds with the thesis that Belgium was oppressed throughout the whole period and that the Belgians were in constant resistance against their rulers. This also explains why British observers focused so strongly on the sixteenth century; it was after all the only century with a major Belgian resistance to their foreign rulers and, therefore, the only century upon which they could easily focus without their general perspective being questioned. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were on the whole peaceful, and, apart from the relatively small uprisings in the 1780s and
108
Pieter François
1790s, existing rulers were never seriously challenged. Furthermore, discontent in the form of non-violent and, therefore, less visible resistance was more difficult to incorporate in the black and white picture and was, therefore, left out. This interest in the Belgian sixteenth century was also helped by the fact that at the time it was the most popular period in British history. ‘England in the Olden Time’ became a hugely popular topic, partly as a result of a series of novels written by Sir Walter Scott that were set in this period and, according to the research of Peter Mandler, the sixteenth century was ideally suited to the needs of mid-nineteenth-century society for a period on which to project their wishes and ideals305. The Belgian past was thus turned into a highly moral story. The Belgians were good and their foreign rulers were bad. The strength of this moral dimension becomes very clear in Amelia Edward’s novel Sights and Stories. As an experienced traveller in Belgium she supported the strong dislike of Philip II: Philip has more than once been likened to Tiberius of Rome; but, bad as he was, Tiberius suffers in comparison. Tiberius led his legions himself to the field, and fought at the head of them; but Philip used to shut himself up in his chapel with his priests and friars, while others fought his battles by land and sea. Tiberius was neither superstitious nor hypocritical; but Philip was both, and has been known to give orders for a murder while holding a crucifix in his hand. Silent, cruel, dissipated, a lover of persecution, a heartless bigot, and a slave to the Church of Rome306.
The choice of Philip II as the symbol of all catastrophic events of Belgian history is no surprise as he was no stranger to British history in which he had also played a very negative role. The “Art Journal” of 1865, for example, claimed that the way he “devoted a whole country to torture and death” is unimaginable as a matter of fact, and even in fiction his actions “would seem grotesque”: “yet they fill the pages of sober history, compiled from official documents of icy coldness. Indiscriminate massacre or slow torture destroyed hundreds of thousands of Belgic people”307. An exceptionally strong moral perspective on the Belgian past was, however, only a first step in the attempt to argue that the Belgian and British pasts were fundamentally similar. Stressing the intertwinedness of the histories of both countries and their historical interdependence was the next logical step. The “Art Journal” of 1865 stated, for example: the early history of England is much mixed up with that of the Low Countries, and to the Englishman, whose love of liberty is at once honest and profound, the actions of the brave men who so perseveringly fought against spiritual and regal tyranny when the hope of victory was indeed a forlorn one, must ever be dear308.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
109
A close connection was not only visible when the pasts of both countries were compared, but also in the interaction and migration of the people. Naturally the main focus was upon the sixteenth-century influx of Protestant emigrants from the Southern Netherlands. Britain was believed to have offered a safe haven for those escaping the Catholic terror and torture and British observers believed that these emigrants managed to save the most valuable of their culture, skills and lifestyle and brought them to Britain to develop them further. For the British traveller Leitch Ritchie this exodus resulted in the important transfer of “the arts and industry of Brussels to England”309. Pryse Gordon, the long time British resident in Belgium mentioned previously, takes this argument one stage further and claims that the start of many branches of manufacture in Britain had precisely their origin in this exodus: A great proportion of these emigrants sought refuge in England, where they were kindly received by Elizabeth. That Princess was well rewarded for the asylum she wisely afforded to these unfortunate persons, by the introduction into her kingdom of many branches of manufacture with which her subjects had been before unacquainted. From this period we may date the origin of English manufactures (in many branches) in the kingdom310.
It is, however, difficult to postulate an over-similar historical development in both Britain and Belgium, since it was also strongly believed that the Southern Netherlands had been ruled consecutively from Madrid, Vienna, Paris and The Hague and that all those regimes were authoritarian. The idea that Belgium had somehow escaped the general pattern of continental history encountered some important obstacles, so most British observers argued that, while the British and Belgian national identities were very similar, if not identical, the historical process would also have been identical, if Belgian national identity had been allowed to grow naturally rather than being oppressed. British observers argued that until the Reformation the history of both countries had been very similar, but whereas Britain had experienced a successful Reformation, in Belgium the same Reformation was crushed by the Spanish army after a decade long struggle. The Belgians were, therefore, prevented from developing according to the pattern that was ascribed to their national identity. They did, however, revolt against this oppression and, in this perspective the 1830 Revolution was interpreted as a going back to the ‘true’ historical pattern. The British observers were convinced that Belgium would very shortly once again become very similar to Britain. The British traveller Heugh expressed this optimism very clearly in his 1844 travel account: “This state of prosperity was crushed beneath the tyrannic power of Spain; but Belgium has risen again, and presents, at this day, a picture of national enterprize and rapid progression in the arts of life probably unequalled by any European state, our own excepted”311.
110
Pieter François
That Belgian Catholicism was largely left out from the British perception of the Belgian past is perfectly in tune with this general narrative. As mentioned in the previous chapter, many British observers believed in a Protestant Belgian national identity and were convinced that the strong outward Catholicism was foreign to the true Belgian society. It is, therefore, not surprisingly that this conviction was also projected into the past. Belgium was believed to have taken part wholeheartedly in the Reformation in the sixteenth century, and this development was only prevented by the overwhelming military power of Spain. The traveller Lundie, for example, claimed that “no country welcomed the Reformation of the sixteenth century more warmly than Belgium” and that: So effectually were the weapons of persecution employed, that, in the view of Rome, the ‘unity of the Church’ was restored, not a voice was raised on behalf of the condemned doctrine, conscience was crushed, and every generous impulse among the people was rooted out312.
Catholicism was, therefore, situated in the camp of the oppressors, whilst Protestantism was believed to be part of the Belgian national identity. As mentioned before, the ultimate victory of the latter over the former was for Lundie beyond doubt. Strong admiration was, however, not the only British attitude towards the Belgian past, there was also a strong conviction in the mid-nineteenth century that the world was rapidly evolving and that the connection between past and present was not believed to be that thorough after all. Society had changed too fundamentally for the past to remain a useful explanatory tool. Besides a genuine belief in modernity, this is also a rhetorical strategy to explain one’s own interpretation of the past and then to warn against the ‘false’ use of isolated details and examples. A minority of observers preferred, therefore, to skip an excessive use of the past for present day purposes altogether, and they considered 1830 as a completely new start date. The British traveller Amelia Opie, for example, expressed this desire to focus more strongly on present day Belgium rather than on past glories: When I read the History of Ghent, and it is a most interesting one, I cannot regret the days of its former magnificence: but I turn with far greater satisfaction to dwell on what it is now. For, as trade and manufactures are still so flourishing, that, though they do not tempt the citizens to indulge in unbecoming and mischievous luxury, they entitle the city to be called the Manchester of Belgium. … surely, both the moralist and the Christian must agree with me in the opinion, that the present days of the City and the Men of Ghent may be justly called their BEST days313.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
111
This combination of admiration of the Belgian past with, at the same time, the wish to focus on the contemporary situation is highly representative of the mid-nineteenth-century ambiguity in dealing with the past and the historical roots of national identity. The general mid-nineteenth-century British interest and sympathy for the Belgian past forms a marked contrast with both earlier and later periods. Before 1830 the very same Belgian past did not stir much passion in the British observers and their attitude was at best neutral. Not only was the attitude more critical and nuanced, there was also a different master narrative, accounts were more descriptive, written from a neutral observer’s point of view as they had less to prove, and there was not such a strong contemporary need to prove similarity between the British and Belgian national identities and pasts. As a result the focus before 1830 was much more evenly divided over all periods and the sixteenth century never got such a central position as it got after 1830. The sixteenth century was a very important century in Belgian history, but not fundamentally different than the preceding and following ones. Furthermore, both the Belgian people and their foreign rulers were given a more balanced treatment, and they were much less divided in two opposite camps and judged in terms of good and bad314. With the collapse of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent, there was a serious possibility of another fundamental change in the perspective of the Belgian past, similar to what had occurred after the Revolution of 1830. However, this did not happen. By 1870 there was, therefore, an important incongruence between an increasingly critical, even negative, view of contemporary Belgium and the very sympathetic view of its past. While Belgium’s political importance for Britain had fundamentally changed by 1870, this change was not projected onto the views of the Belgian past, and the increasingly negative view of Belgium was in the end overshadowed by the more fundamental loss of interest in Belgium by the British. As Belgium was simply no longer important enough to stir the British public opinion as it had been in the 1830s, only some vital areas of the British perception of Belgium were adjusted to the changing situation. Views on the past had always played an instrumental role and were not that important. As a result, for the rest of the nineteenth century the British kept referring, if they referred to it at all, to this very positive view of the Belgian past. The historic Belgians were praised highly, whilst their contemporary descendants made a much less favourable impression.
Conclusion The analysis of mid-nineteenth-century British perceptions of Belgium has been the focus of this book. This analysis has been built upon a large number of individual observations of Belgium and the Belgians by a broad range of British observers, such as journalists, politicians, writers and travellers. These individual observations have been analysed in such a way that they have allowed the discernment of a general pattern, or patterns, in the British judgement of and sympathy for Belgium and the Belgians. The positive image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ provided the main lens through which the British observers made sense of Belgium in the midnineteenth century. This book has therefore analysed in detail the development of this positive image in the early 1830s, its dominance in the late 1830s and 1840s, and its gradual decline in the 1850s and 1860s. In order to measure the popularity and dominance of this positive image it has been compared with some smaller, and most often more critical, counter-images. In addition, the changes of the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ have been tracked over time and these changes were related to developments and changes in Belgian society and politics on the one hand and, above all, with important changes in the home-context of the British observers on the other. The rise to power of the Whigs, the breakthrough of a liberal worldview, optimism and belief in the changeability of society, and the close intertwinedness of national and religious identity in Victorian Britain were all crucial elements for a full understanding of why the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ was so popular. More specifically, the British attitudes have been analysed in detail in relation to the Belgian Revolution of 1830, Belgian politics and monarchy, Belgian national and religious identities, and, finally, the Belgian past. Although there is little historiography dealing directly with nineteenth-century British perceptions of Belgium and the Belgians, this book nevertheless engages actively in the wider debate on the study of intercultural imagery and has challenged especially the approach of Image Studies by searching to focus not only on literary, and often famous, sources, but to incorporate instead as wide a range of sources as possible, as the famous literary ones are often misleading and not representative at all. This analysis of mid-nineteenth-century British perceptions of Belgium and the Belgians is relevant for many historiographical debates. Above all, it provides an il-
114
Pieter François
lustration of the fragmented nature of identity and of the importance of the ‘other’ in the process of continually adapting one’s own identity. Although Belgium was a small country without a clearly identifiable historical background and was surrounded by larger and more important neighbours, Belgium nevertheless played a part in this process of creating identity for the British observers. Whereas the focus of most existing scholarship has often been placed on the ‘imperial other’, this study seeks to put the ‘continental other’ on an equal footing. The extent of Victorian travel to the Continent in the mid-nineteenth century made of the ‘continental other’ an extremely important ‘other’ against which to define one’s own identity. The complexity of the construction of identity was especially visible in the intertwinedness of national and religious identity for the British observers of Belgium. The way in which the British observers argued for almost a generation that Belgian national identity was Protestant in nature and that the Belgians were deep down ‘hidden’ Protestants illustrates that the concepts of national and religious identity were to an important degree the same. Without this supposed Protestant nature of Belgian national identity, Belgium’s ‘Britishness’ would simply have been unconvincing for most observers. This study also contains, therefore, a warning of how misleading it can be to study one form of identity in isolation. National identity can only be fully understood when brought into confrontation with other types of identity, such as political, religious or historical identity. Furthermore, this book stresses that intercultural imagery not only depends on some factual observations but also on the creativity of the observers. British perceptions of Belgium and the Belgians were not built upon Belgian developments alone but above all on the home-context of the British observers. Very often a certain sympathy pre-dated the actual observations made about Belgium. The observers’ opinions on, for example, British politics, religion or Ireland predetermined a certain sympathy or lack thereof, and Belgian events were interpreted in such a way that they supported this sympathy. It is only possible to understand the idea that Belgian national identity was Protestant in nature from the background of this complex relationship between observations and expectations. Finally, this study supports Jonathan Parry’s thesis that the general ascendancy of a liberal worldview and optimism in mid-nineteenth-century Britain was much more profound and broad than can be concluded from the analysis of British politics alone315. This explains why the image of Belgium as ‘a little Britain on the Continent’ became in the early 1830s so quickly the dominant lens through which it was
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
115
possible to make sense of Belgium and the Belgians. During the heyday of this positive image this lens was shared by almost all British observers, irrespective of their political sympathies and religious denomination. The pace with which this image became dominant amongst British travellers, even the Tory ones, can only be explained if the focus is moved away from the Whig origins of the image and towards the ways it tapped into this general liberal worldview.
Notes 1
State and Prospects of Belgium, in “Westminster Review”, 1834, 20, p. 434.
2
L. Colley, Britons forging the nation, 1707-1837, London 1996, pp. 338-384.
3
L. François, De boerenkrijg: twee eeuwen feiten en fictie, Leuven 1998.
4
J. A. Bornewasser, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 1815-1830, in P. Blok, W. Prevenier, J. Roorda (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 11 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 223-278.
5
The initial reactions from both the Tories and Whigs towards the Belgian Revolution of 1830 is dealt extensively with in chapter 2 ‘The Belgian Revolution of 1830: from ‘parody revolution’ to ‘glorious revolution’’.
6
J. Wolffe, The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain 1829-1860, Oxford 1991, p. 86.
7
For an excellent introduction to ‘Begriffsgeschichte’ and conceptual history, see: R. Koselleck, Einleitung, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexickon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Band I, A-D, Stuttgart 1972, pp. xiiixiv; T. Ball, J. Farr, R. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, Cambridge 1989., and I. Hampsher-Monk, K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree, A Comparative Perspective on Conceptual History - An Introduction, in I. Hampsher-Monk, K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 1-10. For an introduction on the history of ideas, see J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context. Quentin Skinner and his Critics, London 1988. and M. Bevir, The Logic of the History of Ideas, Cambridge 1999.
8
For introductions to recent social and cultural history, see: P. Cartledge, What is Social History Now?, in D. Cannadine (ed.), What is history now?, Basingstoke - New York 2002, pp. 19-35, and M. Rubin, What is Cultural History Now?, in Cannadine, What is cit., pp. 80-94.
9
P. Oakes, A. Haslam, J. Turner, Stereotyping and Social Reality, Oxford - Cambridge (Mass.) 1994.
10
For an excellent introduction to Image Studies, see the exhaustive Image Studies website: http:// cf.hum.uva.nl/images/; and C. C. Barfoot, Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997.
11
J. Tully, The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner’s analysis of politics, in Tully, Meaning cit., pp. 7-25., and J. Pocock, Concepts and Discourses: A Difference in Culture? Comment on a Paper by Melvin Richter, in H. Lehmann, M. Richter (eds.), The Meaning of Historical Terms and Concepts, Washington 1996, pp. 47-58.
12
J. Parry, The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, New Haven - London 1993. and G. Varouxakis, Victorian Political Thought on France and the French, Basingstoke - New York 2002.
13
E. H. Kossmann, The Low Countries 1780-1940, Oxford (1978) 1988; J. C. H. Blom, E. Lamberts (eds.), Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, Baarn 2001; E. Witte, J. Craeybeckx, A. Meynen, Politieke geschiedenis van België; van 1830 tot heden, Brussels 1990; J. Stengers, E. Gubin, Le grand siècle de la nationalité belge: de 1830 à 1914, Bruxelles 2002; and K. Deprez, L. Vos (eds.), Nationalism in Belgium. Shifting Identities, 1780-1995, London 1998.
118
Pieter François
14
V. Viaene, Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX (1831-1859). Catholic revival, society and politics in 19th-century Europe, Brussels - Rome 2001.
15
Colley, Britons cit., Wolffe, The Protestant cit., Parry, The Rise cit., and Varouxakis, Victorian cit.
16
J. Mills, J. Polanowski, The Ontology of Prejudice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997; and P. Oakes, A. Haslam, J. Turner, Stereotyping cit. Other interesting works are, for example: R. Amossy, A. Herschberg Pierrot, Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue, discours, société, Paris 1997; M. Cinnirella, Ethnic and national stereotypes: a social identity perspective, C. C. Barfoot (ed.), Beyond Pug’s cit., pp. 37-51; B. Six, Stereotype und Vorurteile im Kontext sozialpsychologischer Forschung, in G. Blaicher (ed.), Erstarrtes Denken. Studien zu Klischee, Stereotyp und Vorurteil in englischprachiger Literatur, Tübingen 1987, pp. 41-54; A. Zijderveld, On the Nature and Functions of Clichés, in G. Blaicher (ed.), Erstarrtes cit., pp. 26-40.
17
For a good introduction to the work of Barfoot, see C. C. Barfoot, Beyond Pug’s Tour: stereotyping our ‘fellow-creatures, C. C. Barfoot (ed.), Beyond Pug’s cit., pp. 6-36. Joep Leerssen’s previously mentioned website of the Image Studies Centre of the University of Amsterdam (http://cf.hum. uva.nl/images/) contains not only an extensive outline and definition of Image Studies and the theoretical and methodological premises of the research programme, but also a full and interdisciplinary bibliography on intercultural imagery.
18
A. Motyl, Revolutions, nations, empires. Conceptual limits and theoretical possibilities, New York 1999.
19
B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London - New York (1983) 1991; E. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge 1992; E. Hobsbawm, T. Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge (1983) 1994.
20
A.D. Smith, National identity, London 1991, p. 227.
21
A. Lüdtke, Eigen-Sinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik vom Kaiserreich bis in den Faschismus, Hamburg 1993; A. Lüdtke (ed.), The History of Everyday Life. Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life, Princeton 1995.
22
R. Koshar, ‘What Ought to Be Seen’: Tourists’ Guidebooks and National Identities in Modern Germany and Europe, in “Journal of Contemporary History”, 1998, 33, pp. 323-340.
23
M. Morgan, National Identities and Travel in Victorian Britain, New York 2001.
24
G. M. Townsend, British reactions to the Belgian and Polish Revolutions of 1830: a study of diplomatic, parliament, and press responses, Tulane 1974.
25
M. Demoor, The Fields of Flanders. Alles, of bijna alles wat Engelse auteurs ooit schreven over Vlaanderen en België ... en waarom, Roeselare 2002.
26
For the period 1830-1870 Belgium and the Belgians were the central topic of a parliamentary discussion 57 times. The negotiations for a definite peace treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands in the period 1830-1839 and the ongoing negotiations for a Commercial Treaty between Belgium and Britain in the 1840s and 1850s were by far the most popular topics. For a full overview of all topics related to Belgium, see the bibliography.
27
For an introduction to the archives of the Foreign Office, see M. Roper, The Records of the Foreign Office, 1782-1968, London 2002.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
119
28
The information the Foreign Office collected on twenty-nine issues related to Belgium has been published (FO 881: Confidential Print). The three main issues on which the information is bundled and published, are the Belgian independence of 1830 (5 publications), Britain’s commercial interests in Belgium (17 publications) and the 1870 war between France and Prussia (4 publications). Other issues are the freedom of press (1 publication), mixed marriages (1 publication) and the British consulates in Belgium (1 publication).
29
The enormous number of newspaper articles made a thorough selection essential. As the full content of “The Times” has been digitalised for the period 1830-1870, all articles on Belgium and the Belgians could easily be analysed. For other newspapers, namely the “Daily News”, the “Manchester Guardian”, the “Standard”, the “Morning Post”, the “Morning Chronicle”, and the weekly “Punch”, the reports on specific dates or around significant events were analysed. The selected dates and events are the Belgian Revolution (August till November 1830), the candidacy of the Duc de Nemours for the Belgian throne (February 1831), the candidacy and selection of Leopold for the Belgian throne ( June 1831), Leopold’s arrival in Belgium ( July 1831), the presence of French troops in Belgium ( July till September 1831), Leopold’s visit of Britain (August 1837), the signing of the definitive peace agreement (March 1839), the negotiation of a commercial treaty with France ( July till November 1842), the negotiation of a commercial treaty with France (March 1846), the potato crisis of 1846 (December 1846), the 1848 Revolution (February till March 1848), the celebration of twenty five years of national independence ( July 1856), the unrest over the proposed Charity Bill ( June 1857), the celebrations of national independence in 1860 ( July 1860), the Catholic Conference in Malines (September 1863), the death of King Leopold and the coronation of the King Leopold II (December 1865 till January 1866), the Belgian neutrality in the Franco-Prussian war (August 1870), and the visit of Queen Victoria to Belgium (August 1870). The following work provides a good introduction to the press in mid-nineteenth-century Britain and the ideological background of the newspapers: L. Brake, J. Codell (eds.), Encounters in the Victorian Press. Editors, Authors, Readers, Basingstoke 2005.
30
A famous example of such a war of words is the one on the interpretation of the travel account Belgium, published in 1841 by the Irish Member of Parliament James Emerson Tennent ( J. Emerson Tennent, Belgium, 2 vols., London 1841).
31
R. Rawson, On Railways in Belgium, in “Journal of the Statistical Society of London”, 1839, 2, pp. 47-62.
32
The long-lasting, prestigious reviews were clearly divided over political and ideological lines. The “Edinburgh Review”, for example, had a strong Whig orientation, whilst the “Quarterly Review” was close to the Tories. Another powerful example is the diametrically opposed position of the “Dublin Review” and the “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”. Whereas the first periodical was clearly in favour of Belgium and supported the positive liberal interpretation of Belgium and the Belgian Revolution, the second periodical was radically opposed to Belgium. Besides the usual tension between the more liberal and conservative views on Belgium, also the Irish home-context played an important role in this debate. For the “Dublin Review”, Belgian Catholicism could be trusted and was believed to be kept in check by the liberal orientation of the Belgian national identity. For the “Dublin University Magazine”, Belgium was above all a Catholic country and its constitutionalism and liberalism were believed to be a mere façade and part of a Catholic complot. Comparisons between the position of Belgium towards the
120
Pieter François
Netherlands and of Ireland towards Britain, were frequently made by both periodicals, but judged differently. For an introduction to the ideological dimension of the Victorian periodicals, see B. Fontana, Rethinking the politics of commercial society: the “Edinburgh Review”, 1802-1832, Cambridge 1985., Shattock, Wolff, The Victorian cit., J. Shattock, Politics and Reviewers: the Edinburgh and the Quarterly. In the early Victorian age, Leicester 1989. 33
This research is based upon the analysis of the ‘19th Century Masterfile’-database, which lists a title index of almost all Victorian periodicals and is, therefore, an extremely useful and reliable tool to analyse comparatively the British interest in other states, see http://poolesplus.odyssi. com/19centWelcome.htm.
34
In the decade 1830-1840 there were 36 references to Belgium, 10 to the Netherlands, 29 to Prussia and 16 to Austria. To France, however, there were 329 references.
35
For the decade 1860-1870 Belgium only accounted for 23 references, whilst the number of references to the Netherlands had risen to 44, that of Prussia to 100 and for Austria to 91. France remained clearly on top with 509 references.
36
A full list of the travel guides and accounts analysed can be found in the bibliography.
37
This is a very similar observation to Quentin Skinner’s thesis that most famous political texts are precisely challenging the dominant views and are, therefore, far from representative for the context in which they were published. Their ‘revolutionary’ dimension or the way they broke with the existing traditions, was often the reason they became famous. (Tully, Meaning cit.,351 p.)
38
For an overview of the different conceptual approaches and models to study the history of travel, see Koshar, ‘What Ought cit., pp. 323-340.
39
Especially in the case of studies based upon a very limited number of travel journals, the analysis can depend heavily on too straightforward an interpretation of the transition from Grand Tour to mass-tourism.
40
C. Campbell, The Travellers Complete Guide through Belgium, Holland and Germany: containing full directions for Gentlemen, Lovers of the Fine Arts and Travellers in General, London 1815.
41
P. Fitzgerald, A Day’s Tour. A Journey through France and Belgium by Calais, Tournay, Orchies, Douai, Arras, Bethune, Lille, Comines, Ypres, Hazebrouck, Bergues, and St. Omer, with a few sketches, London 1887.
Fitzgerald, A Day’s cit., p. ii.
42
43
J. Pemble, The Mediterranean Passion. Victorians and Edwardians in the South, Oxford 1987, p. 1; Morgan, National Identities cit., p. 14.
44
Morgan, National Identities cit., p. 25.
45
Pemble, The Mediterranean cit., p. 33. Also the necessity of carrying a passport on a Continental tour was only stressed in the travel guides from the late 1850s and 1860s.
46
R. S. Burn, Notes on a Agricultural Tour in Belgium, Holland, & the Rhine. With Practical Notes on the Peculiarities of Flemish Husbandry; the Saving, Treatment and Use of Liquid Manure; the Cultivation of Special Crops, as Flax, Colza, and Beet-root; etc., etc., London 1862, p. 3.
47
“The Times”, 9 February 1849, p. 8, col. d.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
121
48
Queen Victorian too in the fall of 1843 made such a highly standardized tour. Although she did not start this tradition, her example promoted this tour through Belgium further amongst British middle-class travellers. In the years immediately after 1843 references to Queen Victoria’s visit were made frequently and many travellers prided themselves to have copied her visit. For an account of this royal tour and the reception it got in both the British and Belgian press, see The Progresses of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and His Royal Highness Prince Albert, in France, Belgium, and England. With one hundred engravings, London 1844.
49
Wayside Pictures through France, Belgium, and Holland. Part IV, in “Bentley’s Miscellany”, 1848, 25, p. 634.
50
The lack of interest in the Belgian countryside formed a sharp contrast with the motives for travelling to the Rhine Valley or Switzerland. However, by combining Belgium with a visit to the Rhine or Switzerland, travellers felt they had achieved a nice balance between nature and culture.
51
H. Gaze, Holland and Belgium: How to see them for seven guineas. Containing a daily plan of progress, a reference to the principal routes, towns, public buildings, and noticeable places; the best modes of conveyance; the most recommendable hotels; and a table of proposed expenditure, London 1864.
52
L. Withey, Grand Tours and Cook’s Tours. A History of Leisure Travel, 1750 to 1915, London 1998, p. 161.
53
Travelling Notes, by our Fat Contributor, in “Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1844, 7, p. 83.
54
An excellent example of this need for authenticity is the anonymously published account of a tour through Belgium in a canoe: Our Cruise in the Undine: The Journal of an English Pair-Oar Expedition through France, Baden, Rhenish Bavaria, Prussia and Belgium, London 1854.
Pemble, The Mediterranean cit., p. 53.
55
56
For an example of the popular belief that residing on the Continent, and in the case of Belgium especially in Bruges, was considered cheap, see Emerson Tennent, Belgium cit., 1, p. 44.
57
R. Bell, Wayside Pictures through France, Belgium, and Holland, London 1849, p. 349.
58
Add Mss 17734, C. H. Borrer, The Journals of C.H. Borrer. Journal of a continental tour commencing at Antwerp, and passing through Brussels,Liège, Cologne, Coblenz, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Strasburg, Zurich, Altdorf, Interlaken, Chamonix, Geneva, Milan, Venice, Dijon, Paris and Boulogne, 2 vols., Chichester, West Sussex County Archives 1836, 1, p. 3.
59
G. A. Sala, From Waterloo to the Peninsula. Four Month’s Hard Labour in Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Spain, 2 vols., London 1867, 1, p. 10. George August Sala was a well known journalist. Apart from founding and editing “Temple Bar”, he was also a reporter for the “Daily Telegraph”.
60
Burn, Notes cit., p. 5.
61
Addison, Belgium cit., pp. 220-221.
62
“Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1858, 34, p. 8.
63
Sala, From Waterloo cit., 1, pp. 87-88.
Morgan, National Identities cit., p. 19.
64
65
A. T. Gregory, A Practical Rhine Guide, with the leading routes through France, Belgium, Holland. The German Spas, practical maps, and, in the briefest possible space, every necessary advice, hotels,
122
Pieter François
posts, steamers, tarifs, rails, London 1857; J. Murray, Murray’s Handbook for Belgium and the Rhine. With Travelling Map, London 1852; K. Baedeker, Belgium and Holland. Handbook for Travellers. With 6 Maps and 15 Plans, Leipzig 1875; G. Bradshaw, Bradshaw’s Illustrated Handbook for Travellers in Belgium, up the Rhine, and through portions of Rhenish Prussia, with Maps and Illustrations, London 1853. 66
Addison, Belgium cit., p. i.
67
“Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1850, 19, p. 101.
68
Viatores [pseud.], The Cyclists’s Continental Companion. A Road Book of Belgium, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland, Italy. With indications of Distances, lists of Hotels and Pensions, and other useful information, London 1899.
69
A. Tyghe, Practical General Continental Guide. France, Belgium, Holland, the Rhine, the Rhenish Spas, parts of Germany, Austria, the Tyrol, and Venice, Switzerland, Savoy, Piedmont, Italy. Red book for the Continent, with every necessary information, to see all that ought to be seen in the shortest period and at the least expense, London 1866.
70
Gaze, Holland cit., p. 4.
71
Addison, Belgium cit., p. 258.
72
Bell, Wayside cit., p. 373.
73
W. M. Thackeray, Early and Late Papers. Hitherto Uncollected, Boston 1867, p. 184.
74
“Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1892, 102, p. 277.
75
H. R. Addison, Handbook for Residents and Tourists in Belgium, Brussels 1838, p. 23.
76
Our Cruise cit., p. 145.
77
H. Smithers, Observations made during a tour in 1816 and 1817, through that part of the Netherlands, which comprises Ostend, Bruges, Ghent, Brussels, Malines & Antwerp; with remarks on the works of art, in carving, painting, and sculpture; and enquiries into the present state of agriculture, political oeconomy, literature, the arts, law, government, and religion. To which is added, from the most authentic information, several original anecdotes relative to the Battle of Waterloo, and the humane conduct of the inhabitants of the City of Brussels on that occasion. In a series of lettres, Brussels 1818.
78
Modern Tourism, in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1848, 64, p. 185.
79
Belgium since the Revolution of 1830, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1842, 158 (NS 35), p. 437.
80
Koshar, ‘What Ought cit., p. 324; Withey, Grand cit., p. viii.
81
For a full list of these diverse travel guides and accounts, see the bibliography.
82
Davies, On Dutch Waterways. The Cruise of the S.S. Atalanta on the rivers & canals of Holland & the North of Belgium, London 1887, p. 299.
83
Sala, From Waterloo cit., pp. v-vii.
84
J. R. Hux, A Mirror of France and Belgium, for the present day: With a Prelude to the Battle of Waterloo: a pocket companion and guide for the youthful tourist, London 1854.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
123
85
J. Hoppus, Sketches on the Continent, in 1835: in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Savoy, and France; indulging Historical Notices of those Countries; and Statements relative to the Existing Aspect of the Protestant Religion, 2 vols., London 1836, 1, p. iv; Hux, A Mirror cit., p. v.
86
Davies, On Dutch cit., pp. 1-2.
87
G., A travellers cit., p. 3.
88
Four Months in Belgium and Holland, in “The Foreign Quaterly Review”, 1829, 5, p. 222.
89
Paterfamilias’s Diary of Everybody’s Tour: Belgium and the Rhine, Munich, Switzerland, Milan, Geneva and Paris, London 1856, p. 2.
90
Book review cit., p. 384.
91
Addison, Handbook cit., p. 20.
92
Addison, Handbook cit., p. 20.
93
Burn, Notes cit., p. 2.
94
W. J. C. Moens, Through France and Belgium. By river and canal in the steam yacht ‘Ytene’, London 1876, pp. 150-151.
95
S. W. Stevenson, A tour in France, Savoy, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, in the summer of 1852: including some observations on the scenery of the Neckar and the Rhine, 2 vols., London 1827, 2, p. 787.
96
The only important Belgian city without a British counterpart was Brussels. Brussels was, however, always compared with Paris. ‘Little Paris’ or ‘Paris in miniature’ were well-known concepts for the travellers. The fact that Paris was a French city does not undermine the principle as most travellers had a clear image of Paris. They had often already visited Paris or intended to do so. In fact, for a Londoner Paris was certainly better known than, for example, Wolverhampton. In the end, it was especially the image of the cities, and not their actual appearance or the factual knowledge the traveller had of them, that determined the association.
97
Fitzgerald, A Day’s cit., p. 33.
98
Fitzgerald, A Day’s cit., p. 54.
99
Belgium and Western Germany in 1833, Mrs. Trollope, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1834, 134 (NS 11), p. 468.
100
Sala, From Waterloo cit., p. 39.
101
George Augustus Sala’s choice for the names is remarkable as they are typically German names.
102
G., A travellers cit., p. 32.
103
Witte, Craeybeckx, Meynen, Politieke cit.
104
R. Coolsaet, België en zijn buitenlandse politiek, 1830-2000, Leuven 2001, pp. 20-60.
105
T. P. Thompson, Change of Ministry in France, in “Westminster Review”, 1829, 11, pp. 494-509.
106
Affairs of Belgium and Holland, in “The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal”,1833, 112, pp. 412-460.
107
Affairs of cit., p. 414.
108
De Potter’s Trial, and the Belgian Insurrection, in “Westminster Review”, 1830, 13, p. 380.
124
Pieter François
109
Belgian Insurrection, in “Westminster Review”,1831, 14, p. 161.
110
Reminiscences of men and things, by one who has a good memory, no. X, Leopold I. King of the Belgians, in “Fraser’s Magazine for town and country”,1843, 28, p. 663.
111
Continental countries, no. 1: Belgium, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1842, 20, p. 407.
112
Reminiscences cit., p. 605.
113
Affairs of cit., p. 421.
114
Belgium, in “Fraser’s Magazine for town and country”, 1830, 2, p. 10.
115
The Political, Social, and Commercial State of Belgium, in “The British and Foreign Review; or, European Quarterly Journal”, 1836, 3, p. 3.
116
Reminiscences cit., p. 662.
117
P. L. Gordon, Belgium and Holland; with a Sketch of the Revolution in the year 1830, 2 vols., London 1834.
118
Continental cit., p. 403.
119
C. O’Dwyer, Belgium in 1828 - Ireland in 1851, London 1851.
120
O’Dwyer, Belgium cit., p. 28.
121
The Belgic Revolution of 1830, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1835, 6, pp. 570-586, and pp. 593-611.
122
C. White, The Belgic Revolution of 1830, 2 vols., London 1835.
123
The Belgic cit., p. 573.
124
Emerson Tennent, Belgium cit.
125
Emerson Tennent, Belgium cit., 1, pp. 239-240.
126
Emerson Tennent, Belgium cit., 1, p. 263.
127
Leopold, King of the Belgians, in “London Quarterly Review”, 1869, 32, pp. 42-64.
128
Commerce and Manufactures of Belgium, in “British and foreign Review; or European Quarterly Journal”, 1838, 7, p. 524.
129
Belgium and Holland, in “The Dublin Review”, 1838, 5, p. 478.
130
Leopold and the Belgians, in “London and Westminster Review”, 1839, 32, p. 358.
131
A later chapter analyses how the British observers argued that the most important difference, the strength of Belgian Catholicism and its influence on Belgian politics, was much less fundamental than expected.
132
The socialist and Flemish, or regionalist, questions became only of a similar importance in the final third of the nineteenth century.
133
The intensity of the debate on the presence of French troops in Belgium in both British parliament and press, shows how much the British interest in Belgium was related directly with the FrancoBritish relations in the early 1830s. Preventing Belgium from becoming part of France was one of the central aims of British policy towards France. The British believed that if Belgium were to
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
125
become a French province, France would become politically too powerful and would threaten the balance of power on the Continent. A costly Continental war would thus become unavoidable. 134
“Hansard’s”, VI, 29 August 1831, Lords, p. 741.
135
“Hansard’s”, V, 26 July 1831, Commons, pp. 311-325.
136
The Belgian Question, in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1832, 31, pp. 453-455.
137
The Belgic Revolution of 1830 - part 2, in “The Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1835, 6, p. 610.
138
Belgium, Leopold, and the Duke of Brabant in relation to France and Europe, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1853, 48, p. 120.
139
State and Prospects of Belgium, in “Westminster Review”, 1834, 20, p. 443.
140
Commerce cit., pp. 529-530.
141
Belgium and cit., p. 463.
142
Commerce cit., pp. 521-569.
143
Territorial Dismemberment of Belgium, in “The British and Foreign Review; or, European Quarterly Journal”, 1839, 9, p. 588.
144
Territorial cit., p. 558.
145
Territorial cit., p. 589.
146
Leopold and cit., p. 400.
147
Leopold and cit., pp. 401-402.
148
Belgium in 1848 and 1870, in “Macmillan’s Magazine”, 1870, 22, p. 435.
149
“Standard”, 4 March 1848, p. 3, col. f.
150
“Daily News”, 29 February 1848, p. 3, cols. d and e.
151
“Standard”, 2 March 1848, p. 3, col. d.
152
“Standard”, 6 March 1848, p. 3, col. b.
153
Varouxakis, Victorian cit., p. 120.
154
Belgium and cit., p. 478.
155
State and cit., pp. 434-435.
156
Belgium and cit., p. 472.
157
Belgium and cit., p. 478.
158
Continental cit., pp. 412-413.
159
“The Times”, 8 June 1857, p. 12, col f.
160
“The Morning Chronicle”, 29 May 1857, p. 5, col. e.
161
“The Times”, 8 June 1857, p. 12, col. f.
162
“The Times”, 8 June 1857, p. 12, col. f.
163
Trotandot, Roaming cit., pp. 104-105.
126
Pieter François
164
The British belief that the Belgians were deep down hidden Protestants and that the Belgian national identity was Protestant in nature, ties in neatly with this image of the two Belgiums. A separate chapter focuses extensively on this topic.
165
“The Times”, 8 June 1857, p. 12, col f.
166
“Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1897, 112, p. 195.
167
“Punch, or the London Charivari”, 1897, 112, p. 195.
168
Thackeray, Early cit., p. 158.
169
Sala, From Waterloo cit., 1, p. 56.
170
Sala, From Waterloo cit., 1, p. 57.
171
T. Wilson, England’s Foreign Policy, or Grey-Whigs and Cotton-Whigs, with Lord Palmerston’s pet Belgian Constitution of Catholics and Liberals, London 1852.
172
Wilson, England’s cit., p. 30.
173
Apart from these two political causes, the perceived Belgian reluctance in concluding far reaching free trade agreements with Britain also resulted in a growing British impatience with Belgium.
174
E. Witte, Politieke machtsstrijd in en om de voornaamste Belgische steden, 1830-1848, 2 vols., Brussel 1973.
175
This image of Belgium and Brussels as a haven for dissenters and revolutionaries is almost absent in the British perceptions of Belgium. Only rarely minor references were made to it.
176
Belgium, Leopold, cit., p. 122.
177
Belgium, in “Quarterly Review”, 1862, 112, p. 405.
178
Belgium, in “Quarterly cit., p. 406.
179
Belgium, Leopold cit. p. 124.
180
Belgium, in “Quarterly cit., p. 404.
181
The Late King of the Belgians, in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1866, 99, p. 133.
182
Witte, Politieke cit.., 1, p. 33.
183
The Late King of the Belgians, in “Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, 1866, 66 (NS 3), p. 132.
184
The late cit., pp. 546-550.
185
Belgium, Leopold cit., p. 123.
186
Belgium in cit., p. 437.
187
FO 881/1781, ‘Memorandum respecting supposed Negotiations between Prussia and France for Acquisition of Territory’, London, Foreign Office, 28 July 1870.
188
FO 881/1512, Memorandum relative to the Demolition of Antwerp, London, Foreign Office, 17 April 1867.
189
“Hansard’s”, CCIII, 8 August, 1870, Commons, pp. 1700-1701.
190
“Hansard’s”, CCIII, 8 August 1870, Commons, pp. 1703-1704.
191
“Hansard’s”, CCIII, 9 August 1870, Commons, p. 1744.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
127
192
“Hansard’s”, CCIII, 10 August 1870, Commons, p. 1779.
193
“Hansard’s”, CCIII, 10 August 1870, Commons, p. 1788.
194
Belgium in cit., pp. 437-438.
195
Affairs of cit., p. 437.
196
This ‘Britishness’ of King Leopold was never perceived as such by the Belgians. In Belgian public opinion Leopold was a German Prince and extremely well connected with most of the European courts. His connection with Britain was not necessarily considered stronger than his connection with France, Russia or Prussia. Furthermore, Leopold was from the start of the election process clearly one of the popular options in the eyes of Belgian public opinion and was not considered to such a great extent the British candidate or as imposed upon Belgium by Britain.
197
The Late cit., p. 130.
198
Leopold, King of the Belgians, in “London Quarterly Review”, 1869, 32, p. 59.
199
Belgium, Leopold cit., p. 125.
200
Emerson Tennent, Belgium cit., 1, p. 224.
201
Reminiscences cit., p. 653.
202
Leopold, King cit., p. 64.
203
A King’s Tour. Belgium and old Brabant, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1856, 48, p. 454.
204
A.V. Kirwan, A Fortnight in Belgium in the June and July of 1863, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1863, 68, p. 350.
205
Léopold-Ferdinand, Duc de Brabant, in “Temple Bar, a London Magazine for Town and Country Readers”, 1868, 25, p. 462.
206
Belgium!, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1866, 73, p. 809.
207
Belgium!, in “Fraser’s cit., p. 809.
208
Smithers, Observations cit., p. 7.
209
Belgium, in “Fraser’s cit., p. 604.
210
Addison, Handbook cit., p. 46., H. Colman, The Agriculture and rural economy of France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland; from personal observation, London 1848, p.26.
211
The Political, Social cit., p. 2.
212
Addison, Handbook cit., p. 268.
213
The Political, Social cit., p. 2.
214
The Political, Social cit., p. 3.
215
State and cit., p. 452.
216
Territorial Dismemberment cit., p. 557.
217
Tennent’s Belgium, in “Quarterly Review”, 1841, 68, p. 15.
218
Commerce of Belgium/Belgium and China, in “British Quarterly Review”, 1860, 31, p. 376.
219
Flemish Popular Traditions, in “Eclectic Review”, 1846, 83 (NS 19), p. 362.
128
Pieter François
220
R. B. Bernard, A Tour through some parts of France, Switzerland, Savoy, Germany and Belgium, during the Summer and Autumn of 1814, London 1815, p. 298. The name ‘Netherlanders’ was commonly used to refer to the inhabitants of the Southern Netherlands. The people from the Northern Netherlands were most often referred to as the Dutch, although confusion on the precise use of the two terms was very common.
221
J. Mill, The Visit of the King of the Belgians, being an account of the National Address presented at Buckingham Palace, November 25th, 1869, London 1870, p. 89.
222
Art-Rambles in Belgium. Chapter 3, in “Art Journal”, 1865, 17 (NS 4), p. 280.
223
J. Corner, The History of Holland and Belgium, from the earliest period to the present time. Adapted for youth, schools, and families, London 1842, p. 142.
224
Belgium, in “Fraser’s cit., p. 610.
225
C. White, Belgium and the Twenty-four Articles, Brussels 1838, pp. xx-xxi.
226
Trotandot, Roaming cit., p. 100.
227
Corner, The History cit., p. 142.
228
C. Bell [pseud. of C. Brontë], The Professor. A Tale, London 1857, p. 71.
229
Bell, The Professor cit., p. 85.
230
Kirwan, A Fortnight cit., p. 344.
231
Bell, The Professor cit., p. 69.
232
A Week cit., p. ix.
233
Parts of this chapter have already been published as a book chapter, see: P. François, Lived Spatiality, Expectations and Travel Literature. The Construction of a Protestant Sphere in Belgium by British Travellers (1830-70), in P. François, T. Syrjama, H. Terho (eds.), Power and Culture. New Perspectives on Spatiality in European History. Pisa 2008, pp. 125-145.
234
Diary of Occurences on a Journey through a part of Belgium, Holland, and up the Rhine to Mayence, and thence to Paris, in the months of August and September 1828, London 1829, p. 6.
235
Wolffe, The Protestant cit., p. 2. This anti-Catholicism was strongly represented in large parts of the British press and also in the middle classes, where most of the travellers came from.
236
E. Morgan, Voice from the Continent: or, Interesting Observations on Remarkable Places, Health and Religion in Belgium, Germany, and on the Rhine, London 1861, p. 7.
237
T. Brightwell, Journal of a Tour made by a Party of Friends in the Autumn of 1825, through Belgium, Up the Rhine, to Frankfort and Heidelberg, and across the Eastern Side of France to Paris, Norwich 1828, p. 2.
238
Morgan, National Identities cit., p. 86.
239
S. Gilley, The Roman Catholic Church in England, 1780-1940, in S. Gilley, W. Sheils (eds.), A History of Religion in Britain. Practice and Belief from Pre-Roman Times to the Present, Cambridge (Mass.) - Oxford 1994, p. 346; Colley, Britons cit., Morgan, National Identities cit.
240
Sala, From Waterloo cit., 1, p. 99.
241
Belgium, in “Quarterly cit., p. 392.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
129
242
R. Burgess, An Enquiry into the State of the Church of England Congregations in France, Belgium, and Switzerland, made under the authority and with the sanction of the Right Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of London, in August, September, and October, of 1849, London 1850, p. 18.
243
C. Scudamore, Belgium and the Belgians, Edinburgh – London 1901, p. 238.
244
Hux, A Mirror cit., p. 14.
245
C. Brontë, Villette, Oxford - New York (1853) 2000, p. 117.
246
Davies, On Dutch cit., p. 283.
247
Davies, On Dutch cit., p. 304.
248
Bell, The Professor cit., p. 179.
249
Hoppus, Sketches cit., 1, p. 19.
250
E. H. Michelsen, Modern Jesuitism; or, the Movements and Vicissitudes of the Jesuits in the Nineteenth Century in Russia, England, Belgium, France, Switzerland, and other parts, London 1855, p. 135.
251
ACC 4789/86, Grantham family of Barcombe Place, Lewes, East Sussex County Record Office, 1855, pp. 128-129.
252
Brightwell, Journal cit., p. 2.
253
Paterfamilias’s Diary cit., pp. 33-34.
254
Hoppus, Sketches cit., 1, pp. 42-43.
255
Morgan, Voice cit., p. 22.
256
Morgan, Voice cit., p. 3.
257
“The Times”, 13 January 1838, p. 5 col d.
258
R.H. Lundie, Seed-corn in Belgium, being a Visit to the Belgian Churches, London – Liverpool 1880, pp. 59-60.
259
T. Ramsay, A Glance of Belgium and the Rhine, London 1845, p. 95.
260
Lee, M. C.. A few days in Belgium and Holland. An idle book for an idle hour. London 1872, p. 64.
261
Marjorie Morgan, for example, claims that the continental Sabbath provoked ‘uniformly negative reactions’ by all Victorian travellers: Morgan, National cit., p. 117.
262
Morgan, Voice cit., p. 3.
263
Ramsay, A Glance cit., pp. 104-105.
264
Ramsay, A Glance cit., p. 105.
265
J. Ashton, Rough notes of a visit to Belgium, Sedan, and Paris. In September 1870-1871, London 1873, pp. 11-12.
266
T. Dyke, Travelling Memories, during a Tour through Belgium, Rhenish Prussia, Germany, Switzerland, and France, in the Summer and Autumn of 1832; including an Excursion up the Rhine, 2 vols., London 1834, 1, pp. 8-9.
267
Bell, Wayside cit., p. 250.
130
Pieter François
268
Add. Mss. 17734, Borrer, The Journals cit., 1, pp. 9-10.
269
“The Times”, 10 July 1845, p. 7 col c.
270
Ashton, Rough cit., p. 5.
271
G., A travellers cit., p. 26., Mitford Ms. 37, Mitford, Journal of a tour through Denmark, Russia, Sweden, Germany, France and Belgium, Chichester, West Sussex County Record Office, 1842, p. 245.
272
ACC 4789/86, ‘Grantham cit., pp. 101-102.
273
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., p. 30.
274
Ashton, Rough cit, p. 90.
275
Ashton, Rough cit., p. 92. The more nuanced judgement of Continental Catholicism is also very clear in the comparison of the travel accounts of E. Morgan and Reginald Smith: Morgan, Voice cit. and R. Smith, Impressions on Revisiting the Churches of Belgium and Rhenish Prussia, in connection with questions now agitating the religious mind of England, London - Dorchester 1875. Both authors undertook a very similar journey, but their accounts illustrate perfectly how much the judgement had already changed in the course of only fifteen years. Whereas E. Morgan still condemned Belgian Catholicism wholeheartedly, Reginald Smith was very sensitive to the positive aspects of Catholicism and analysed in what respects the British could learn something from it.
276
Religious and Social Condition of Belgium, in “Dublin Review”, 1845, 19, p. 332.
277
The exclusive focus upon institutional and ritual aspects is a unique feature of the British perception of religion in Belgium. In the perception of other Catholic Continental countries, the people were by no means excluded from the anti-Catholic judgements. The French, for example, were always included in the negative descriptions of French Catholicism. In sharp contrast with the perception of Belgian Catholicism, French Catholicism was seen as an integral and important part of the French national identity.
278
Gilley, The Roman cit., pp. 346-362.
279
“The Times”, 13 January 1838, p. 5, col d; 7 October 1844, p. 5 col d; 10 July 1845, p. 7, col c; 30 July 1853, p. 5 col a.
280
The spectacular increase of Catholics by conversion in Britain was largely a myth. The number of proper conversions remained small. General demographic factors and the Irish immigration accounted for much greater numbers. The myth of a Catholic ascendancy in Britain was in many respects the counterpart of the Protestant ascendancy in Belgium. In both cases the strength of the myth was contradictory to the factual base that supported these claims.
281
Sala, From cit., 1, p. 99.
282
Trotandot, Roaming cit., pp. 104-105.
283
J. Grant, Records of a Run through Continental Countries: embracing Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Savoy, and France, 2 vols., London 1853, 1, pp. 99-100.
284
Sala, From cit., 1, p. 99.
285
Lunie, Seed-corn cit., p. 18.
286
John Wolffe’s analysis of anti-Catholic organisations offers an excellent introduction to the British attitudes towards Irish Catholicism in the 1820s: Wolffe, The Protestant cit. The similarities with
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
131
the British attitude towards Belgium in the first decades after the Belgian Revolution are striking. Especially the language to describe both religious contexts is very similar. Furthermore, according to John Wolffe, the British originally believed that Irish Catholicism would die out naturally as a result of enhanced education and social progress. When this did not happen, active conversion attempts became more central in the British religious policy towards Ireland. However, an important difference between the Irish and Belgian situation was that the easy distinction between the Roman Catholic Church as an institution and the Catholic believers as victims, as was believed for Belgium, was much more problematic to defend for Ireland. In my opinion this was to a great extent the result of the fact that the British were actively committed to Ireland and received immediate and strong feedback on their policy. The Irish experience shaped, therefore, actively the British language on religion. In the case of Belgium, however, the British only copied the existing language. Discrepancies between the British framework of reference and expectations on the one hand and the actual situation on the other became less visible because there was no actual feedback and the discrepancies did not lead to a failure in policy. As a result the myth of the Protestant Belgians managed to survive for almost two decades. 287
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., p. 16.
288
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., p. 79.
289
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., p. 17.
290
Hoppus, Sketches cit., 1, p. 89.
291
Burgess, An Enquiry cit., p. 34.
292
Heugh, Notices cit., p. 182.
293
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., p. 18.
294
Parts of this chapter have already been published as an article, see P. François, The construction of a Whig interpretation of the Belgian past: British travellers and their attitudes towards the ‘Belgian’ past (1830-1870), in “Dutch Crossing. A journal of Low Countries Studies”, 2007, 31, pp. 39-54.
295
Gordon, Belgium cit., 1, p. 12.
296
See, for example, S. Berger, M. Donovan, K. Passmore (eds.), Writing National Histories. Western Europe since 1800, London - New York 1999.
297
A typical example of this mixture between history handbook, historical novel, and travel account is A. Edwards, Sights and Stories: being Some Account of a Holiday Tour through the North of Belgium, London 1862. Amelia Edwards narrated in this book the tour through Belgium of teenager Joe Simpson, a fictional character. His tour was, however, only the pretext to write a highly readable history of Belgium.
298
This familiarity with Belgian sources is clearly visible in the Victorian periodical articles on Belgium. For example, the already quoted article State and Prospects, published in the “Westminster Review” of 1834, was based upon six contemporary Belgian publications and official documents ranging from two works of the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet to Budget Général des Dépenses et Services de la Belgique for the year 1834.
299
P. Mandler, History and National Life, London 2002, pp. 18-23.
132
Pieter François
300
The most famous historians who wrote a general Belgian history in the first decades after the Belgian Revolution of 1830 were Etienne-Constantin de Gerlache, Henri Moke and Théodore Juste.
301
J. Tollebeek, Historical Representation and the Nation-State in Romantic Belgium (1830-1850), in “The Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1998, 59, pp. 329-353. In this excellent article Johan Tollebeek analyses the ways in which the Belgians, and especially the first post-1830 generation of historians, represented the past of Belgium. This paragraph borrows heavily from this article and summarizes some of Tollebeek’s main arguments and conclusions.
302
T. W. Newton, How We Saw Belgium, the Rhine, the Meuse, and Paris, in fifteen days, London 1860, pp. 3-4.
303
Heugh, Notices cit., p. 156.
304
Heugh, Notices cit., p. 158.
305
Mandler, History cit., p. 25.
306
Edwards, Sights cit., p. 115.
307
Art-Rambles cit., p. 253.
308
Art-Rambles cit., p. 209.
309
L. Ritchie, Travelling Sketches on the Rhine, and in Belgium, and Holland. with twenty-six beautifully finished engravings, from drawings by Clarkson Stanfield, London 1833, p. 220.
310
Gordon, Belgium cit., pp. 13-14.
311
Heugh, Notices cit., p. 155.
312
Lundie, Seed-corn cit., pp. 7-9.
313
A. Opie, Recollections of Days in Belgium, II, in “Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1840, 7, p. 301.
314
Excellent examples of this more evenly distributed attention in the Belgian past can, for example, be found in two pre-1830 travel accounts: Bernard, A Tour cit. and Smithers, Observations cit.
315
Parry, The Rise cit.
Bibliography Primary sources Unpublished sources Governmental documents Kew, National Archives, Foreign Office archives: -FO 10: -FO 26: -FO 37: -FO 38:
Political and Other Departments: General Correspondance before 1906, Belgium. Political and Other Departments: General Correspondance before 1906, Flanders. Political and Other Departments: General Correspondence before 1906, Holland Political and Other Departments: General Correspondence before 1906, British Secret Service in Europe -FO 123: Embassy and Consulates, Belgium: General Correspondence: 235 -FO 124: Consulates, Belgium: Letter Books -FO 125: Consulates, Belgium: Registers of Correspondence -FO 300: Embassy and Consulates, Belgium: Miscellanea -FO 425: Confidential Print Western Europe -FO 432: Confidential Print France -FO 466: Confidential Print Belgium and Luxembourg -FO 603: Embassy and Consulate, Belgium: Indexes to Correspondence -FO 606: Consulate Antwerp, Belgium: General Correspondence and Letter Books -FO 607: vConsulate Antwerp, Belgium: Registers of Correspondence -FO 629: Consulates, Belgian Congo: General Correspondence -FO 744: Embassy and Consulate, Brussels, Belgium: General Correspondence and Registers of Correspondence -FO 881: Confidential Print
Private papers Chichester, West Sussex County Archives -Add Ms 13206-9, European travel diaries of Charlotte Palmer, 1837-1883, 260 p. -Add Mss 17734, Borrer, C. H., The Journals of C. H. Borrer. Journal of a continental tour commencing at Antwerp, and passing through Brussel, Liège, Cologne, Coblenz, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Strasburg, Zurich, Altdorf, Interlaken, Chamonix , Geneva, Milan, Venice, Dijon, Paris and Boulogne, 1836, 104 p. -Add Ms 22367, Diaries and Journals of John Abel Smith, MP, including details of foreign tours, national politics, and Catholic affairs, 1820-1869, 51 p. -Add Mss 22570, Diaries of Anne Smith. Journal of a tour through France, Belgium (including a visit to the battlefield of Waterloo), Germany, Austria and Italy, 1834, 82 p.
134
Pieter François
-Add Ms 22571, Diaries of Anne Smith. Incomplete journal of a tour through Flanders and Germany, 1841, 19 p. -Mitford Ms 33, Diary of a European tour of Charles Mitford, 1814, 74 folios. -Mitford Ms 37, Journal of a tour through Denmark, Russia, Sweden, Germany, France and Belgium, 1842, 247 p. -Mitford Ms. 38, Journal kept during a tour in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and France, 1844, 141 p.
Lewes, East Sussex County Archives -ACC 4789/86, Grantham family of Barcombe Place, 1855, 171 p. -Acc 4789/88, Reminiscences of a tour made in July and August 1857 by Mrs. Grantham and george and William through parts of Belgium, Prussia and baden, Switzerland and parts of Austrian Italy and Sardinia and France, 1857, 146 p. -Gil 4/367, Travels of Anne Gilbert, 1842-1843, 184 p. -Say 3389, Travel diary and accounts of Katherine Sayer, 1833, 39 p. -Say 3417, Visit of Charles Gatty to countries, including Belgium in 1859, 1850, 4 p. -Shr/832, Foreign Travel Diary of Sir George Shiffner, 1829, 48 p.
Edinburgh, National Archives of Scotland -MS 2541, Journal kept by the Hon. Helen Anne Mackenzie, wife of Lord Mackenzie, during a tour on the Continent, 1823. 113 ff. -MS 2542, Journals of travel of Frances Mary, daughter of Lord Mackenzie. Tour in France, Belgium, and Germany (chiefly Rhineland), 1844, ii + 70 ff. -MS 3975, Journal by William Robertson, afterwards Robertson-Macdonald, of a Continental tour, 1823, 90 ff. -MS 6340, Journal of a Continental tour, 1840-1, of France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Belgium, 1841, v + 231 ff. -MS 6341, Journal of an unknown Irish lady, 1846, travelling in Belgium and Switzerland, 1846, 66 + v ff. -MS 8110, Sketch-book of Hannah C. Scott-Kerr, then Lady Scott-Douglas, 1827-31, 1831, 44 ff. -MS 8939, Macdougal. Journal of a tour to London, Liège, Brussels, and Paris, 1840, i + 58 + 2 ff. -MS 9265, Journals of Alexander Graham Dunlop, eldest son of John Dunlop of Gairbraid, kept during his tours abroad, 1838-9, ii + 94 ff. -MS 9815, Journals of tours by Charles Abbot, 1822, ii + 41 ff. -MS 17945, Journal kept by Margaret T. Laurie of a tour in Europe in August 1852, 1852, 32 ff. -MS 21040, Diary of Robert Cadell, 1828, 54 ff. -MS 31056, Journal of tour in Belgium by Catharine Selby, 1832. 10 ff.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
Published sources “Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates”: 1830-1870 1830-1831 Commons -‘Interference with Affairs of Belgium’, I, 8 November 1830, col. 297-299. -‘Army Estimates – Belgium’, II, 11 February 1831, col. 693-697. -‘Belgium – Conduct of France’, II, 17 February 1831, col. 553-557. -‘Speech of the King of the French – Belgian Fortresses’, V, 25 July 1831, col. 271-273. -‘Belgian Fortresses’, V, 26 July 1831, col. 327. -‘Holland and Belgium’, V, 27 July 1831, col. 395. -‘French King’s Speech – Razing Fortresses’, V, 27 July 1831, col. 396-404. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 3 August 1831, col. 662-663. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 6 August 1831, col. 880-881. -‘Affairs of Belgium’, V, 8 August 1831, col. 933-935. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 9 August 1831, col. 1044-1046. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 11 August 1831, col. 1209-1214. -‘Holland and Belgium’, V, 12 August 1831, col. 1270-1310. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, VI, p. 159. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, VI, 18 August 1831, col. 225-265. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, VI, 2 September 1831, col. 1031-1032.
Lords -‘Belgium’, I, 8 November 1830, col. 245-264. -‘Foreign Policy’, IV, 24 June 1831, col. 296-319. -‘Negotiations to Belgium’, IV, 15 July 1831, col. 1311-1314. -‘Speech of the King of the French’, V, 26 July 1831, col. 311-325 -‘Papers relative to the Belgic Negotiations’, V, 28 July 1831, col. 461-464. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 29 July 1831, col. 514-515. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, V, 9 August 1831, col. 968-1033. -‘Belgic Negotiations’, VI, 16 August 1831, col. 75-83. -‘French Troops in Belgium’, VI, 25 August 1831, col. 587-588. -‘French Troops in Belgium’, VI, 29 August 1831, col. 740-749. -‘Belgium’, VII, 29 September 1831, col. 786-816.
135
136
Pieter François
1831-1832 Commons -‘Holland and Belgium’, IX, 3 February 1832, col. 1268-1274. -‘Treaty relative to Belgium’, IX, 6 February 1832, col. 1282-1284.
Lords -‘Belgic Negotiations’, IX, 9 December 1831, col. 131-132. -‘Holland and Belgium’, IX, 15 December 1831, col. 228-229. -‘Treaty for the Settlement of Belgium’, IX, 19 January 1832, col. 586-587. -‘Belgium’, IX, 26 January 1832, col. 834-890. -‘Holland and Belgium’, X, 7 February 1832, col. 11-14. -‘Belgium’, XI, 13 March 1832, col. 124-125. -‘Belgian Affairs’, XI, 16 March 1832, col. 302-315.
1847-1848 Commons -‘Belgium international politics’, XCVIII, 7 April 1848, col. 5-6.
1851-1852 Commons -‘Seizure of publications in Belgium’, CXX, 6 April 1852, col. 778-780.
Lords -‘Treaty with Belgium’, CXX, 6 April 1852, col. 774-778.
1852-1853. Commons -‘Commerce with Holland and Belgium’, CXXIV, 21 February 1853, col. 350-351.
1855-1856 Commons -‘Mission to Belgium’, CXLIII, 24 July 1856, col. 1386.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
137
1861-1862 Commons -‘Commercial Treaty with Belgium’, CLXVI, 25 March 1862, col. 20. -‘Commercial Treaty with Belgium’, CLXVI, 28 March 1862, col. 236-240. -‘Commercial Treaty with Belgium’, CLXVII, 27 June 1862, col. 1150. -‘Commercial Treaty with Belgium’, CLXVIII, 11 July 1862, col. 240. -‘Commercial Treaties with Belgium and Italy’, CLXVIII, 24 July 1862, col. 737-738. -‘Commercial Treaty with Belgium’, CLXVIII, 4 August 1862, col. 1190-1192.
1867-1868 Commons -‘Riots in Belgium’, CXCI, 3 April 1868, col. 837.
1869-1870 Commons -‘Treaties as to Belgium’, CCIII, 2 August 1870, col. 1412. -‘Independence of the kingdom of Belgium’, CCIII, 5 August 1870, col. 1576-1577. -‘Neutrality of Belgium – Observations’, CCIII, 8 August 1870, col. 1699-1706. -‘Neutrality of Belgium – Observations’, CCIII, 9 August 1870, col. 1738-1745. -‘Neutrality of Belgium – Observations’, CCIII, 10 August 1870, col. 1776-1792.
Lords -‘Neutrality of Belgium. Treaty with France and Prussia’, CCIII, 10 August 1870, col. 1746-1765.
Newspapers: 1830-1870 “Annual register” “Daily News” “Manchester Guardian” “Morning Chronicle” “Morning Post” “Punch” “Standard” “The Times”
138
Pieter François
Travel literature and periodical articles A History of the Revolutions in Europe since the Downfall of Napoleon; comprising those of France, Belgium and Poland, Hartford 1831. A King’s Tour. Belgium and old Brabant, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1856, 48, pp. 454-471. A Summer Ramble through Belgium and Holland. First Paper, in “Leisure Hour”, 1855, 4, pp. 503506. A Summer’s Ramble through Belgium and Holland, in “Leisure Hour”, 1855, 4, pp. 536-540. A Visit to some remarkable Caves in Belgium, in “Leisure Hour”, 1854, 3, pp. 181-184. A Week in Brussels. The Stranger’s Guide to the Capital of Belgium; containing a variety of useful and entertaining information for the tourist and the economist, by an old resident, Brussels - London 1846. Addison H. R., Belgium as she is, Brussels – Leipzig 1843. Addison H. R., Handbook for Residents and Tourists in Belgium, Brussels 1838. Affairs of Belgium and Holland, in “Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal”, 1833, 107, pp. 412-460. Anderson J., Observations on the Railroads in Belgium, in “Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, Exhibiting a View of the Progressive Improvements and Discoveries in the Sciences and the Arts”, 1845, 39, pp. 302-321. Appleton D., Appleton’s European Guide Book. Illustrated. Including England, Scotland, and Ireland, France, Belgium, Holland, Northern and Southern Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Portugal, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Containing a Map of Europe, and nine other maps, with Plans of 20 of the Principal Cities, and 120 Engravings, London - New York 1870. Art-Rambles in Belgium. Chapter 1, in “Art Journal”, 1865, 17 (NS 4), pp. 209-212. Art-Rambles in Belgium. Chapter 2, in “Art Journal”, 1865, 17 (NS 4), pp. 253-256. Art-Rambles in Belgium. Chapter 3, in “Art Journal”, 1865, 17 (NS 4), pp. 277-280. Ashton J., Rough notes of a visit to Belgium, Sedan, and Paris. In September 1870-1871, London 1873. Baedeker K., Belgium and Holland. Handbook for Travellers, Leipzig 1881. Baedeker K., Belgium and Holland. Handbook for Travellers. With 6 Maps and 15 Plans, Leipzig 1875. Bateman H., Belgium and up and down the Rhine. Metrical Memorials, London 1858. Batty, Scenery of the Rhine, Belgium and Holland, London 1826. Belgian Insurrection, in “Westminster Review”, 1831, 14, pp. 161-174. Belgium and Holland, in “Dublin Review”, 1838, 5, pp. 463-496. Belgium and Western Germany in 1833, Mrs. Trollope, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1834, 134 (NS 11), pp. 467-477. Belgium and Western Germany, in “Quarterly Review”, 1834, 52, pp. 203-233. Belgium in 1848 and 1870, in “Macmillan’s Magazine”, 1870, 22, pp. 435-440.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
139
Belgium since the Revolution of 1830, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1842, 158 (NS 35), pp. 437-439. Belgium!, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1866, 73, pp. 795-816. Belgium, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1841, 17, pp. 538-548. Belgium, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”,1830, 2, pp. 604-611. Belgium, in “Quarterly Review”, 1862, 112, pp. 379-410. Belgium, Leopold, and the Duke of Brabant in relation to France and Europe, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”,1853, 48, pp. 116-126. Bell C. [pseud. of Brontë C.], The Professor. A Tale, London 1857. Bell R., Wayside Pictures through France, Belgium, and Holland, London 1849. Bernard R. B., A Tour through some parts of France, Switzerland, Savoy, Germany and Belgium, during the Summer and Autumn of 1814, London 1815. Betham-Edwards M., Anglo-French reminiscences, 1875-1899, London 1900. Betham-Edwards M., Half-way. An Anglo-French Romance, London 1886. Betham-Edwards M., Holidays in Eastern France, London 1879. Black C. B., Belgium with part of Holland, North France, the Rhine and the Mosselle. Eight Maps and Thirteen Plans, London - Brussels 1894. Black C. B., Guide to Belgium and Holland. The North-East of France, the Valley of the Rhine to Switzerland and the South-West of Germany to Italy by the Brenner Pass, illustrated with maps and plans, Brussels - London 1874. Black C. B., Guide to France, Belgium, Holland, the valleys of the Rhine and Moselle, the south-west of Germany and the north of Italy, with numerous maps and plans, London 1874. Black C. B., Guide to Holland, the Rhine and the Baths & Mineral Waters in Alsace and the Valley of the Rhine, illustrated with Maps and Plans, London 1874. Book review ‘Family Tour through Holland, up the Rhine, and across the Netherlands to Ostend’, being the 22nd No. of the Family Library, in “Christian Examiner, and Church of Ireland Magazine”, 1831, 11, p. 717. Book review of ‘Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1828 and 1829’, in “Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal”, 1831, 108, pp. 384-407. Boulger D. C., Belgium of the Belgians, London 1911. Bowring J., Free Trade Recollections – Belgium (No. IV), in “Howitt’s Journal of Literature and Popular Progress”, 1847, 1, pp. 174-178. Bradshaw G., Bradshaw’s Illustrated Handbook for Travellers in Belgium, up the Rhine, and through portions of Rhenish Prussia, with Maps and Illustrations, London 1853. Briggs A., Elise Fontaine. A Story of Life in Belgium, London 1889. Brightwell T., Journal of a Tour made by a Party of Friends in the Autumn of 1825, through Belgium, Up the Rhine, to Frankfort and Heidelberg, and across the Eastern Side of France to Paris, Norwich 1828.
140
Pieter François
Brussels Grave and Gray, in “Temple Bar, a London Magazine for Town and Country Readers”, 1866, 16, pp. 358-365. Buckingham J. S., Belgium, the Rhine, Switzerland, and Holland. An autumnal tour, 2 vols., London - Paris 1848. Bumpus T. F., The Cathedrals and Churches of Belgium, London 1909. Burgess R., An Enquiry into the State of the Church of England Congregations in France, Belgium, and Switzerland, made under the authority and with the sanction of the Right Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of London, in August, September, and October, of 1849, London 1850. Burn R. S., Notes of an agricultural tour in Belgium, Holland, & the Rhine. With practical notes on the peculiarities of Flemish Husbandry; the saving, treatment and the use of liquid manure; the cultivation of special crops, as flax, colza, and beet-root; etc., etc., London 1862. Campbell C., The Travellers Complete Guide through Belgium, Holland and Germany: containing full directions for Gentlemen, Lovers of the Fine Arts and Travellers in General, London 1815. Charles O’Malley, the Irish Dragoon. Chapter CXVI: Brussels, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1841, 27, pp. 533-538. Cliffe Leslie T. E., The Peasantry and Farms of Belgium, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1867, 76, pp. 679-699. Cobbett W., Eleven Lectures on the French and Belgian Revolutions, and English Boroughmongering; delivered in the Theatre of the Rotunda, Blackfriars Bridge, London 1830. Coghlan F., Coghlan’s Belgium, Holland, the Rhine and Switzerland; the Fashionable German Watering Places, with the necessary information respecting Passports, Money, Luggage, Railroads, Steam Packets, Hotels, & C., London 1861. Coley J. W., Remarks on the Climate and the Principal Diseases occuring in Belgium, Brussels 1852. Colman H., The Agriculture and rural economy of France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland; from personal observation, London 1848. Commerce and Manufactures of Belgium, in “British and Foreign Review; or European Quarterly Journal”, 1838, 7, pp. 521-569. Commerce of Belgium/Belgium and China, in “British Quarterly Review”, 1860, 31, pp. 375-398. Commercial Regulations. Commercial Regulations of Belgium, in “Merchant’s Magazine and Commercial Review”, 1843, 8, pp. 373-376. Commercial Treaty between the United States and Belgium, in “Merchant’s Magazine and Commercial Review”, 1846, 14, pp. 564-566. Continental countries, no. 1: Belgium, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1842, 20, pp. 403-414. Cook T., Cook’s Tourists’ Handbook for Belgium, including the Ardennes (with Map and Plans), London 1896. Corner J., The History of Holland and Belgium, from the earliest period to the present time. Adapted for youth, schools, and families, London 1842.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
141
Corson J. W., Loiterings in Europe; or, sketches of travel in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, and Ireland; with an appendix, containing observations on European charities and medical institutions, Dublin 1849. Creasy E. S., The Battle of Waterloo, London 1852. Davies G. C., Cruising in the Netherlands. A Handbook to certain of the Rivers and Canals of Holland, Friesland, and the North of Belgium, London 1894. Davies G. C., On Dutch Waterways. The Cruise of the S.S. Atalanta on the rivers & canals of Holland & the North of Belgium, London 1887. De Potter’s Trial, and the Belgian Insurrection, in “Westminster Review”, 1830, 13, pp. 378-395. Deman E. F., The Flax Industry; its Importance and Progress: and its cultivation and management, and instructions in the various Belgian methods of growing and preparing it for market; with extracts from the annual report of the Royal Irish Flax Society, and a word on chevalier Claussen’s invention of cottonizing flax, London 1852. Diary of Occurences on a Journey through a part of Belgium, Holland, and up the Rhine to Mayence, and thence to Paris, in the months of August and September 1828, London 1829. Dunn M., An historical, geological, and descriptive view of the coal trade of the North of England; comprehending its rise, progress, present state, and future prospects. To which are appended a concise notice of the peculiarities of certain coal fields in Great Britain and Ireland; and also a general description of the coal mines of Belgium, drawn up from actual inspection, Newcastle upon Tyne 1844. Dyke T., Travelling Memoires, during a Tour through Belgium, Rhenish Prussia, Germany, Switzerland, and France, in the Summer and Autumn of 1832: including an Excursion up the Rhine, vol. 1., London 1834. [Eaton C. A.], The Days of Battle; or, Quatre Bras and Waterloo, London 1853. Edwards A., Sights and Stories: being Some Account of a Holiday Tour through the North of Belgium, London 1862. Emerson Tennent J., A treatise on the copyright of designs for printed fabrics; with consideration on the necessity of its extension: and copious notices of the state of calico printing in Belgium, Germany, and the states of the Prussian Commercial League, London 1841. Emerson Tennent J., Belgium, two vols., London 1841. Emerson Tennent’s Belgium, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1841, 154 (NS 34), pp. 561570. Erckmann Chatrian M., Waterloo: a Story of the Hundred Days, being a Sequel to ‘the Conscript’, London 1865. Fitzgerald P., A Day’s Tour. A Journey through France and Belgium by Calais, Tournay, Orchies, Douai, Arras, Bethune, Lille, Comines,Ypres, Hazebrouck, Bergues, and St. Omer, with a few sketches, London 1887. Flemish Popular Traditions, in “Eclectic Review”, 1846, 83 (NS 19), pp. 353-362. Four Months in Belgium and Holland, in “Foreign Quarterly Review”, 1829, 5, pp. 222-231. G. H., A traveller’s notes, in Scotland, Belgium, Devonshire, the Channel Islands, the Mediterranean, France, Somersetshire, Cornwall, the Scilly Islands, Wilts and Dorsetshire in 1866, London 1866.
142
Pieter François
Gaze H., Holland and Belgium: How to see them for seven guineas. Containing a daily plan of progress, a reference to the principal routes, towns, public buildings, and noticeable places; the best modes of conveyance; the most recommendable hotels; and a table of proposed expenditure, London 1864. Gleig G. R., Story of the Battle of Waterloo, London 1847. Gordon P. L., Belgium and Holland; with a Sketch of the Revolution in the year 1830, 2 vols., London 1834. Gosselet J., Bonney T. G., Rutot A., Van Den Broeck E., Topley W., The Geology of Belgium and the French Ardennes, Brussels - London 1885. Grant J., Records of a Run through Continental Countries: embracing Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Savoy, and France, 2 vols., London 1853. Gregory A. T., A Practical Rhine Guide, with the leading routes through France, Belgium, Holland. The German Spas, practical maps, and, in the briefest possible space, every necessary advice, hotels, posts, steamers, tarifs, rails, London 1857. Hall R., Agricultural Reform School of Ruysselede, Belgium, in “American Journal of Education”,1857, 3, pp. 621-641. Hall R., Visit to Ruysselede and Beernem, in “American Journal of Education” , 1857, 3, pp. 642-648. Herne the Hunter [pseud.], A Fragment from the Fine Art Follies of Frogmore; or the Secrets of the Belgian Mystery Unveiled (accompanied with a few notes and illustrative references from the pen of Gaius Crito), London 1869. Heugh H., Notices of the State of Religion in Geneva and Belgium, Glasgow 1844. Hickson W. E., Dutch and German Schools. An Account of the Present State of Education in Holland, Belgium, and the German States, with a view to he practical steps which should be taken for improving and extending the means of popular instruction in Great Britain and Ireland, London 1840. Home Colonies in Belgium and France, in “Foreign Quarterly Review”, 1834, 13, pp. 132-152. Hoppus J., Sketches on the Continent, in 1835: in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Savoy, and France: including Historical Notices of those Countries; and Statements relative to the Existing Aspect of the Protestant Religion, vol. 1, London 1836. Humphrey H., Great Britain, France and Belgium: a short tour in 1835, two volumes, New York 1838. Hux J. R., A Mirror of France and Belgium, for the present day: With a Prelude to the Battle of Waterloo: a pocket companion and guide for the youthful tourist, London 1854. Industrial and Moral State of Belgium, in “Foreign Quarterly Review”, 1839, 24, pp. 75-89. Jarman S. G., Notes on a Week in Belgium, Wrexham 1894. Jarman S. G., Two Continental Trips, Saint Ives 1892. Juste T., Memoirs of Leopold I, King of the Belgians. From unpublished documents, 2 vols., London 1868. Kirwan A. V., A Fortnight in Belgium in the June and July of 1863, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1863, 68, pp. 335-352. Lee, M. C. A few days in Belgium and Holland. An idle book for an idle hour, London 1872. Leopold and the Belgians, in “London and Westminster Review”, 1839, 32, pp. 357-405.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
143
Leopold I, King of the Belgians, in “Leisure Hour”, 1866, 15, pp. 151-155. Leopold, King of the Belgians, in “London Quarterly Review”, 1869, 32, pp. 42-64. Léopold-Ferdinand, Duc de Brabant, in “Temple Bar, a London Magazine for Town and Country Readers”, 1868, 25, pp. 462-472. Lundie R. H., Seed-corn in Belgium, being a Visit to the Belgian Churches, London - Liverpool 1880. M. H., Artistic Scraps of a Journey in Belgium and Holland. During the Autumn, 1854, in “Art Journal”, 1854, NS 6, pp. 338-341. Maxwell W. H., Stories of Waterloo, London 1847. Michelsen E. H., Modern Jesuitism; or, the Movements and Vicissitudes of the Jesuits in the Nineteenth Century in Russia, England, Belgium, France, Switzerland, and other parts, London 1855. Mill J., The Visit of the King of the Belgians, being an account of the National Address presented at Buckingham Palace, November 25th, 1869, London 1870. Moens W. J. C., Through France and Belgium. By river and canal in the steam yacht ‘Ytene’, London 1876. Morgan E., Voice from the Continent; or, Interesting Observations on Remarkable Places, Health, and Religion, in Belgium, Germany, and on the Rhine, London 1861. Murray J., Murray’s Handbook for Belgium and the Rhine. With Travelling Map, London 1852. Music in Germany and Belgium: its Progress, Present State, and Prospects, in “Foreign Quarterly Review”, 1845, 34, pp. 400-420. Newton T. W., How We Saw Belgium, the Rhine, the Meuse, and Paris, in fifteen days, London 1860. Noel R., A Fortnight’s Tour, or How to Visit France and Belgium for Ten Guineas, London 1859. Norris J. P., Visit to Agricultural Reform School at Ruysselede, in Belgium, in “American Journal of Education”, 1857, 3, pp. 649-652. O’Conor M., Picturesque and Historical Recollections during a Tour through Belgium, Germany, France, and Switzerland, in the Summer vacation of 1835, London 1837. O’Dwyer C., Belgium in 1828 - Ireland in 1851, London 1851. Opie A., Recollections of Days in Belgium, I, in “Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1840, 7, pp. 177-183. Opie A., Recollections of Days in Belgium, II, in “Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1840, 7, pp. 293-301. Our Cruise in the Undine: The Journal of an English Pair-Oar Expedition through France, Baden, Rhenish Bavaria, Prussia and Belgium, London 1854. Paterfamilias’s Diary of Everybody’s Tour: Belgium and the Rhine, Munich, Switzerland, Milan, Geneva and Paris, London 1856. Quin M. J., Steam Voyages on the Seine, the Moselle, & the Rhine; with Railroad visits to the Principal Cities of Belgium, & c., & c., 2 vols., London 1843. Ramble through Belgium and Holland. Part II, in “Leisure Hour”, 1855, 4, pp. 520-523. Ramsay T., A Glance of Belgium and the Rhine, London 1845. Randolph W., The Churches of Belgium. An Architectural Outline, London 1919.
144
Pieter François
Rawson R. W., On Railways in Belgium, in “Journal of the Statistical Society of London”, 1839, 2, pp. 47-62. Religious and Social Condition of Belgium, in “Dublin Review”,1845, 19, pp. 323-373. Reminiscences of men and things, by one who has a good memory, no. X, Leopold I. King of the Belgians, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1843, 28, pp. 647-665. Ripley H., A Letter from the Bradford Chamber of Commerce to the Honourable the Members of the House of Commons, on the Commercial Relations of England and Belgium, Bradford 1862. Ritchie L., Travelling Sketches on the Rhine, and in Belgium, and Holland. with twenty-six beautifully finished engravings, from drawings by Clarkson Stanfield, London 1833. Roscoe T., Belgium: in a picturesque tour (with sixteen highly-finished engravings, from original drawings, by Thomas Allom), London 1841. S. E., A peep at the Continent: or a six weeks’ tour through parts of Belgium, Rhenish Prussia, Savoy, Switzerland and France, including six days in Paris, in the Summer of 1834, Dublin 1835. Sala G. A., From Waterloo to the Peninsula. Four Month’s Hard Labour in Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Spain, 2 vols., London 1867. Samuelson B., Belgian Competition in the Iron Manufacture, in “Quarterly Journal of Science”, 1867, 4, pp. 197-200. Scudamore C., Belgium and the Belgians, Edinburgh - London 1901. Siborne W., History of the War in France and Belgium, in 1815; containing minute details of the Battles of Quatre-Bras, Ligny, Wavre, and Waterloo, 2 vols., London 1844. Sketches and Studies from Belgium - Bruges from the Belfry Tower, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1857, 55, pp. 94-101. Sketches and Studies from Belgium - Louvain, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1855, 52, pp. 651-661. Sketches and Studies from Belgium - Mechlin, in “Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country”, 1855, 52, pp. 378-390. Smedley E., History of the Reformed Religion in France, 3 vols., London 1834. Smith R. Impressions on Revisiting the Churches of Belgium and Rhenish Prussia, in connection with questions now agitating the religious mind of England, London - Dorchester 1875. Smithers H., Observations made during a tour in 1816 and 1817, through that part of the Netherlands, which comprises Ostend, Bruges, Ghent, Brussels, Malines & Antwerp; with remarks on the works of art, in carving, painting, and sculpture; and enquiries into the present state of agriculture, politial oeconomy, literature, the arts, law, government, and religion. To which is added, from the most authentic information, several original anecdotes relative to the Battle of Waterloo, and the humane conduct of the Inhabitants of the City of Brussels on that occasion. In a series of lettres, Brussels 1818. St. George’s Saunter in Belgium, in “Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal”, 1836, 140 (NS 17), pp. 233-244. State and Prospects of Belgium, in “Westminster Review”, 1834, 20, pp. 433-455.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
145
Stevenson S. W., A tour in France, Savoy, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, in the summer of 1852: including some observations on the scenery of the Neckar and the Rhine, London 1827. Tayler J. J., A few Notes on the Religious Condition of Belgium and Holland; and especially on the Church and Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam, in “Theological Review: a Quarterly Journal of Religious Thought and Life”, 1868, 5, pp. 91-106. Tennent’s Belgium, in “Quarterly Review”, 1841, 68, pp. 1-20. Territorial Dismemberment of Belgium, in “British and Foreign Review; or European Quarterly Journal” , 1839, 9, pp. 555-589. Thackeray W. M., Early and Late Papers. Hitherto Uncollected, Boston 1867. The Belgian Constitution and the Church, in “Dublin Review”, 1865, 56 (NS 4), pp. 171-192. The Belgian Question, in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, 1832, 31, pp. 448-464. The Belgian Revolution, in “Foreign Quarterly Review”, 1830, 6, pp. 497-515. The Belgians – their King and great people, in “Chamber’s Journal of Popular Literature, Science, and Arts”, 1856, 5, pp. 279-280. The Belgic Revolution of 1830 – part second, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1835, 6, pp. 593-611. The Belgic Revolution of 1830, in “Dublin University Magazine, a Literary and Political Journal”, 1835, 6, pp. 570-586. The Late King of the Belgians, in “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” , 1866, 99, pp. 129-134. The late King of the Belgians, in “Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art”, 1866, 66 (NS 3), pp. 546-550. The Political, Social, and Commercial State of Belgium, in “British and Foreign Review; or European Quarterly Journal”, 1836, 3, pp. 1-23. The Progresses of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and His Royal Highness Prince Albert, in France, Belgium, and England. With one hundred engravings, London 1844. The Trade and Manufactures of Belgium, in “Merchant’s Magazine and Commercial Review”, 1842, 6, pp. 409-419. Thompson T. P., Belgium and the Holy Alliance, in “Westminster Review”, 1831, 15, pp. 267-275. Thompson T. P., Change of Ministry in France, in “Westminster Review”, 1829, 11, pp. 494-509. Thompson T. P., Importance of Belgian Independence, in “Westminster Review”, 1834, 20, pp. 125131. Trollope F., Belgium and Western Germany in 1833; including visits to Baden-Baden, Wiesbaden, Cassel, Hanover, the Harz Mountains, &c., &c., London 1834. Trollope F., Travels and travellers. A series of sketches, London 1846. Trotandot J., Roaming Abroad, being Recollections of a Run through parts of France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Vaterland, Crewkerne 1878.
146
Pieter François
Tyghe A., Practical General Continental Guide. France, Belgium, Holland, the Rhine, the Rhenish Spas, parts of Germany, Austria, the Tyrol, and Venice, Switzerland, Savoy, Piedmont, Italy. Red book for the Continent, with every necessary information, to see all that ought to be seen in the shortest period and at the least expense, London 1866. Valpy R., A Review of the Mines and the Mining Industry of Belgium, in “Journal of the Statistical Society of London”,1847, 10, pp. 70-83. Viatores [pseud.], The Cyclists’s Continental Companion. A Road Book of Belgium, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland, Italy. With indications of Distances, lists of Hotels and Pensions, and other useful information, London 1899. Warnkönig L. A., Belgian Literature: its Present and Prospective Conditions, in “American Eclectic: or Selections from the Periodical Literature of All Foreign Countries”, 1842, 3, pp. 146-161. Wayside Pictures through France, Belgium, and Holland. Part IV, in “Bentley’s Miscellany”, 1848, 25, pp. 624-639. Weale W. H. J., Belgium, Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne. An entirely new guide book for travellers, with numerous historical and archaeological notes, London 1859. Webb B., Sketches of Continental Ecclesiology or Church Notes in Belgium, Germany, and Italy, London 1848. White C., Belgium and the Twenty-four Articles, from the French of B. C. Dumortier, Brussels 1838. Wild C., Select Examples of Architectural Grandeur in Belgium, Germany, and France: a series of twenty-four sketches drawn on the spot, but the late Charles Wild, and etched under this direction by John Le Keux, and other artists, London 1843. Wilson D., Letters from an Absent Brother, containing some account of a tour through parts of The Netherlands, Switzerland, Northern Italy, and France, in the Summer of 1823, 2 vols., London 1824. Wilson T., England’s Foreign Policy, or Grey-Whigs and Cotton-Whigs, with Lord Palmerston’s pet Belgian Constitution of Catholics and Liberals, London 1852. Wright G. N., Buckingham L.F.A., Belgium, The Rhine, Italy, Greece, and the shores and islands of the Mediterranean, 2 vols., London 1851.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
147
Secondary sources Adamovsky E., Russia as a Space of Hope: Nineteenth-century French Challenges to the Liberal Image of Russia, in “European History Quarterly”, 2003, 33, pp. 411-449. Alexander M. S. (ed.), French History since Napoleon, London - Sydney - Auckland 1999. Altick R. D., “Punch”. The Lively Youth of a British Institution, 1841-1851, Columbus 1997. Amossy R., Herschberg P. A., Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue, discours, société, Paris 1997. Amossy R., Rosen E., Les Discours du Cliché, Paris 1982. Anderson B., Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London - New York 1991. Arnstein W. A., Queen Victoria’s Speeches from the Throne: A New Look, in O’Day A. (ed.), Government and Institutions in the post-1832 United Kingdom, Lewiston - Queenston - Lampeter 1995, pp. 127-153. Asch R. G., “Obscured in whiskey, mist and misery” The Role of Scotland and Ireland in British History, in Asch R. G. (ed.), Three Nations – a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c. 1600-1920, Bochum 1993, pp. 9-48. Aspinall A., The reporting and publishing of the House of Commons’ Debates, 1771-1834, in Pares R., Taylor A. (eds.), Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, Freeport - New York 1956, pp. 227-257. Assmann J., Hölscher T., Kultur und Gedächtnis, Frankfurt 1988. Balace F., De liberalen, de katholieken en het Unionisme: 1831-1846, in Verhulst A., Hasquin H. (eds.), Het Liberalisme in België. Tweehonderd jaar geschiedenis, Brussels - Gent 1989, pp. 39-54. Ball T., Conceptual History and the History of Political Thought, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 75-86. Barfoot C. C., Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997. Barfoot C. C., Beyond Pug’s Tour: stereotyping our ‘fellow-creatures, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 6-36. Bédarida F., A Social History of England 1851-1990, London - New York 1990. (Translated by A. Forster and J. Hodgkinson). Bendix R., Strukturgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen der nationalen und kulturellen Identität in der Neuzeit, in Giesen B. (ed.), Nationale und kulturelle Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit, 1, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 39-55. Bennett S., Revolutions in thought: serial publication and the mass market for reading, Shattock J., Wolff M. (eds.), The Victorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings, Leicester - Toronto 1982, pp. 225257. Berding H., Mythos und Nation. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 3, Frankfurt 1996. Berding H., Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, Frankfurt 1996.
148
Pieter François
Berger S., Donovan M., Passmore K., Writing National Histories. Western Europe since 1800, London - New York, 1999. Berki R., Parekh B., The History of Political Ideas: A Critique of Q. Skinner’s Methodology, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1973, 34, pp. 163-184. Bevir M., Mind and method in the history of Ideas, in “History and Theory”, 1997, 36, pp. 167-189. Bevir M., The Logic of the History of Ideas, Cambridge 1999. Billig M., Arguing and Thinking. A rhetorical approach to social psychology, Cambridge 1996. Billig M., Condor S., Edwards D., Gane M., Middleton D., Radley A., Ideological Dilemmas. A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking, London 1988. Black J., Maps and History. Constructing Images of the Past, New Haven - London 1997. Black J., Maps and Politics, London 2000. Black J., The British Abroad. The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century, New York – Stroud 1992. Blaicher G. (ed.), Erstarrtes Denken. Studien zu Klishee, Stereotyp und Vorurteil in englishprachiger Literatur, Tübingen 1987. Blockmans W., De dynamiek van de verscheidenheid, in Janssens P., De Kok H., De Maesschalck E., De Schepper H., De Gouden Delta der Lage Landen. Twintig eeuwen beschaving tussen Seine en Rijn, Antwerp 1996, pp. 391-395. Blom J., Lamberts E. (eds.), Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, Rijswijk 1997. Bödeker H., Concept - Meaning - Discourse. Begriffsgeschichte Reconsidered, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 51-64. Boerner P., Concepts of National Identity. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Interdisziplinäre Betrachtungen zur Frage der nationalen Identität, Baden-Baden 1986. Bornewasser J. A., Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1815-1830, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11, Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 223-278. Bornewasser J. A., De zelfstandige eenheidsstaat in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gegrondvest, 1813-1814, Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11, Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 208-222. Boswell D., Evans J. (eds.), Representing the Nation: A Reader. Histories, heritage and museums, London - New York 1999. Brake L., Codell J. (eds.), Encounters in the Victorian Press. Editors, Authors, Readers, Basingstoke 2005. Bromley J. S., Kossmann E. H. (eds.), Britain and the Netherlands. Volume IV. Metropolis, Dominion and Province. Papers delivered to the fourth Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference, The Hague 1971. Brown L., Victorian News and Newspapers, Oxford 1985. Brown R., Social Psychology, London - New York 1986. Brunel P., L’usage de la comparaison en littérature comparée, in Leerssen J., Syndram K. U. (eds.), Europa Provincia Mundi. Essays in Comparative Literature and European Studies offered to Hugo Dyserinck on the occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1992, pp. 3-11.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
149
Burke P., Overture. The New History: Its Past and its Future, in Burke P. (ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Writing, Cambridge 2001, pp. 1-25. Busse D., Hermanns F., Teubert W. (eds.), Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Methodenfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik, Opladen 1994. Cabrera M., Linguistic approach or return to subjectivism? In search of an alternative to social history, in “Social History”, 1999, 24, pp. 74-89. Cannadine D. (ed.), What is history now?, Basingstoke - New York 2002. Cartledge P., What is Social History Now?, in Cannadine D. (ed.), What is history now?, Basingstoke - New York 2002, pp. 19-35. Chard C., Pleasure and Guilt on the Grand Tour. Travel writing and imaginative geography 1600 – 1830, Manchester - New York 1999. Cholvy G., Hilaire Y-M., Histoire religieuse de la France, 1800-1880. Entre raison et révélation un XIXe siècle religieux?, Toulouse 2000. Cholvy G., Hilaire, Y-M., Histoire religieuse de la France, 1880-1914, Toulouse 2000. Church C. H., Europe in 1830. Revolution and Political Change, London 1983. Cinnirella M., Ethnic and national stereotypes: a social identity perspective, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 37-51. Clark J., The language of liberty, 1660-1832. Political discourse and social dynamics in the Anglo-American world, Cambridge 1994. Clyde R., From Rebel to Hero. The Image of the Highlander, 1745-1830, East Linton 1995. Colley L., Britishness and Otherness: an Argument, in Asch R. (ed.), Three Nations - a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c. 1600-1920, Bochum 1993, pp. 273-296. Colley L., Britons forging the nation, 1707-1837, London 1996. Colley L., The Significance of the Frontier in British History, Austin 1995. Collins S., Hoopes J., Anthony Giddens and Charles Sanders Peirce: History, Theory, and an Way Out of the Linguistic Cul-de-Sac, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1995, 56, pp. 625-650. Condor S., ‘Having History’: a social psychological exploration of Anglo-British autostereotypes, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 213-253. Connor W., A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group, is a ..., in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 36-46. Cook C., Stevenson J., The Longman handbook of Modern British History, 1714-2001, Harlow - London 2001. Coolsaet R., België en zijn buitenlandse politiek. 1830-2000, Leuven 2001. Corcoran P., Political language and rhetoric, Austin 1979. Corfield P. (ed.), Language, History and Class, Oxford 1991. Cubitt G. (ed.), Imagining Nations, Manchester - New York 1998.
150
Pieter François
Cubitt G., The Jesuit Myth. Conspiracy Theory and Politics in Nineteenth-Century France, Oxford 1993. Cunningham H., The Challenge of Democracy. Britain 1832-1918, Harlow - London 2001. Dann O., Dinwiddy J. (eds.), Nationalism in the age of the French Revolution, London - Ronceverte 1988. Dann O., Begriffe und Typen des Nationalen in der frühen Neuzeit, in Giesen B. (ed.), Nationale und kulturelle Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit, vol. 1, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 56-73. Dansette A., Religious History of Modern France. Volume 1. From the Revolution to the Third Republic, Freiburg – Edinburgh - London 1961. Dansette A., Religious History of Modern France. Volume II. Under the Third Republic, Freiburg – Edinburgh - London 1961. Dauntin M., Society and economic life, in Matthew C. (ed.), The Nineteenth Century. The British Isles: 1815-1901, Oxford 2003, pp. 41-82. Davis R. (ed.), The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West, Stanford 1995. De Belder J., Adel en burgerij 1840-1914, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 78-98. De Bruin A., Antipapisme bij protestanten in de negentiende eeuw: een proeve, in Righart H., De zachte kant van politiek. Opstellen over politieke cultuur, ’s Gravenhage 1990, pp. 69-87. De Heusch L., Ceci n’est pas la Belgique, in Labio C. (ed.), Belgian Memories, New Haven 2002, pp. 11-23. De Smaele H., Politiek als hanengevecht of cerebraal systeem. Ideeën over politieke representatie en de invoering van de evenredige vertegenwoordiging in België (1899), in “Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden”, 1999, 114, pp. 328-357. Demoor M., The Fields of Flanders. Alles, of bijna alles wat Engelse auteurs ooit schreven over Vlaanderen en België ... en waarom, Roeselare 2002. Demoulin R., De liberale stroming tijdens het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1815-1830) en de Omwenteling in 1830, in Verhulst A., Hasquin H. (eds.), Het Liberalisme in België. Tweehonderd jaar geschiedenis, Brussels - Gent 1989, pp. 29-38. Den Boer P., Frijhof W. (eds.), Lieux de mémoire et identités nationales, Amsterdam 1993. Den Boer P., Naar een geschiedenis van begrippen in het Nederlands, in Dik S., Muller G. (eds.), Het hemd is nader dan de rok. Zes voordrachten over het eigene van de Nederlandse cultuur, Assen - Maastricht 1992, pp. 47-60. Den Boer P., The Historiography of German Begriffsgeschichte and the Dutch Project of Conceptual History, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 13-22. Deprez K., Vos, L., Nationalism in Belgium. Shifting Identities, 1780-1995, London 1998. Deutsch K. W., Nationalism and Social Communication, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 26-29.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
151
Dipper C., Die “Geschichtlichen Grundbegriffe”. Von der Begriffsgeschichte zur Theorie der historischen Zeiten, in “Historische Zeitschrift”, 2000, 270, pp. 281-308. Dodd P., Englishness and the national culture, in Boswell D., Evans J. (eds.), Representing the Nation: A Reader. Histories, heritage and museums, London - New York 1999, pp. 87-108. Dua H., Language Planning and Political Theory. Introduction, in “International Journal of the Sociology of Language”, 1996, 118, pp. 1-7. Dubois J., Wallonia: The Will to Remember, in Labio C. (ed.), Belgian Memories, New Haven 2002, pp. 53-67. Dunn J. (ed.), Democracy. The unfinished journey 508 BC to AD 1993, Oxford 1992. Dunn J., The History of Political Theory and other essays, Cambridge 1996. Dunn J., The Identity of the History of Ideas, in Laslett P., Runciman W., Skinner Q. (eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society, 4th series, Oxford 1972, pp. 158-173. Dunthorne J., British travellers in eighteenth-century Holland: tourism and the appreciation of Dutch culture, in “British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies”, 1982, 5, pp. 77-84. Dyserinck H., Syndram K. U. (eds.), Europa und das nationale Selbsverständnis – Europe and National Consciousness – L’Europe et la Conscience de la Nationalité, Bonn 1988. Dyserinck H., Komparatistische Imagologie. Zur politischen Tragweite einer Europäischen Wissenschaft von der Literatur, in Dyserinck H., Syndram K. U. (eds.), Europa und das nationale Selbsverständnis – Europe and National Consciousness – L’Europe et la Conscience de la Nationalité, Bonn 1988, pp. 13-37. Dyserinck H., Nationale und kulturelle Identitätsprobleme im belgisch-niederländischen Raum aus der Sicht der komparatistischen Imagologie, in Berding H., Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 189-208. Elliott J. H., National and Comparative History. An Inaugural Lecture delivered before The University of Oxford on 10 May 1991, Oxford 1991. Evans R., Pogge Von Strandmann H. (eds.), The Revolutions in Europe, 1848-1849. From Reform to Reaction, Oxford 2000. Fairclough N., Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, London - New York 1995. Falter R., Verkiezingen en kiesstelsels, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politilogie”, 1985, 27, pp. 485507. Falter R., 1830. De scheiding van Nederland, België en Luxemburg, Tielt 2005. Fant L., The Stereotypical Response of Intercultural Interactants, in Barfoot C. C., Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 475494. Farr J., Understanding conceptual change politically, in Ball T., Farr J., Hanson R. (eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change, Cambridge 1989, pp. 24-49. Ferguson N., Empire. The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, New York 2002.
152
Pieter François
Fischer M., Literarische Imagologie am Scheideweg. Die Erforschung des ‘Bildes vom anderen Land’ in der Literatur-Komparatistik, in Blaicher G. (ed.), Erstarrtes Denken. Studien zu Klischee, Stereotyp und Vorurteil in englischprachiger Literatur, Tübingen 1987, pp. 55-71. Fontana B., Benjamin Constant and the Post-Revolutionary Mind, New Haven 1991. Fontana B., Rethinking the politics of commercial society: the Edinburgh Review, 1802-1832, Cambridge 1985. François E., Siergist H., Vogel J., Die Nation. Vorstellungen, Inszenierungen, Emotionen, in François E., Siergist H., Vogel J. (eds.), Nation und Emotion. Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich, 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1995, pp. 13-38. François L. De boerenkrijg: twee eeuwen feiten en fictie, Leuven 1998. François L., Theorievorming als machtsfactor: politieke elites en hun legitimatie 1830-1914, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politologie”, 1985, 27, pp. 567-587. François L., De petitiebeweging in het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: balans van het onderzoek, in Tamse C., Witte E. (eds.), Staats- en Natievorming in Willem I’s Koninkrijk, 1815-1830, Brussels - Baarn 1992, pp. 122-170. François L., Het nationaal Gevoel in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden: Betekenis en Invloed ten tijde van de Vorming van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, in Lenders P., Het politiek personeel tijdens de overgang van het Ancien Regime naar het nieuw regiem in België- Le personnel politique dans la transition de l’Ancien Régime au nouveau régime en Belgique, 1780-1830, Kortijk - Heule 1993, pp. 85-98. François L., Intellectuelen en revolutionaire bedrijvigheid: een elitewijziging?, in “Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis - Revue Belge d’Histoire Contemporaine”, 12, 1981, pp. 535-580. François P., Lived Spatiality, Expectations and Travel Literature. The Construction of a Protestant Sphere in Belgium by British Travellers (1830-70), in P. François, T. Syrjama, H. Terho (eds.), Power and Culture. New Perspectives on Spatiality in European History. Pisa 2008, pp. 125-145. François P., The construction of a Whig interpretation of the Belgian past: British travellers and their attitudes towards the ‘Belgian’ past (1830-1870), in “Dutch Crossing. A journal of Low Countries Studies”, 2007, 31, pp. 39-54. Fulbrook M. (ed.), National histories and European history, London 1993. Gardiner J., The Victorians. An Age in Retrospect, London - New York 2002. Gash N., English reform and French revolution in the general election of 1830, in Pares R., Taylor A. (eds.), Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, Freeport - New York 1956, pp. 258-288. Gaus H., Achter de schermen van het Unionisme, in “Revue Belge d’Histoire Contemporaine - Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis”, 1972, 3, pp. 367-384. Geertz C., Primordial and Civic Ties, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 29-34. Gellner E., Nationalism and High Cultures, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 63-70. Gellner E., Nationalism and Modernization, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 55-63. Gellner E., Nations and Nationalism, Oxford - Cambridge (Mass.) 1983.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
153
Gerard E., Les partis politiques, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politologie”, 1985, 27, pp. 457-484. Gérin P., L’Eglise et la politique en Belgique avant 1914, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politologie”, 1985, 27, pp. 521-541. Gibson R., A Social History of French Catholicism 1789-1914, London - New York 1989. Giddens A., The Nation as Power-Container, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 34-35. Giesen B., Nationale und kulturelle Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit, Frankfurt 1991. Gilbert P., The Philosophy of Nationalism, Boulder - Oxford 1998. Gildea R., 1848 in European Collective Memory, in Evans R., Pogge Von Strandmann H. (eds.), The Revolutions in Europe, 1848-1849. From Reform to Reaction, Oxford 2000, pp. 207-235. Gildea R., Barricades and Borders. Europe 1800-1914, Oxford 1991. Gildea R., The Past in French History, New Haven - London 1994. Gilley S., Sheils W., A History of Religion in Britain. Practice and Belief from Pre-Roman Times to the Present, Cambridge (Mass.) - Oxford 1994. Gillis J. (ed.), Commemorations. The Politics of National Identity, Princeton 1994. Goodwin A., The Friends of Liberty. The English Democratic Movement in the age of the French Revolution, London 1979. Goubert P., The Course of French History, London - New York 1988. Grenville J., Europe Reshaped 1848-1878, Hassocks 1976. Grew R., The Construction of National Identity, in Boerner P. (ed.), Concepts of National Identity. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Interdisziplinäre Betrachtungen zur Frage der nationalen Identität, BadenBaden 1986, pp. 31-43. Grootaers D. (ed.), Histoire de l’enseignement en Belgique, Brusells 1998. Gubin E., Stengers J., Le grand siècle de la nationalité belge: de 1830 à 1914, Brusells 2002. Haag H., Moody J., The Catholic Movement in Belgium, 1789-1950, in Moody J. (ed.), Church and Society. Catholic Social and Political Thought and Movements, 1789-1950, New York 1953, pp. 281317. Haag H., Les droits de la cité. Les catholiques-démocrates et la défense de nos franchises communales 18331836, Brusells 1946. Haag H., Les origines du Catholicisme Libéral en Belgique (1789-1839), Louvain 1950. Hampsher-Monk I., Speech Acts, Languages or Conceptual History?, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 37-50. Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998. Handler R., Is “Identity” a useful cross-cultural concept?, in Gillis J. (ed.), Commemorations. The Politics of National Identity, Princeton 1994, pp. 28-40.
154
Pieter François
Harrison B., Press and pressure groups in modern Britain, in Shattock J., Wolff M., The Victorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings, Leicester - Toronto 1982, pp. 261-295. Hartley L., Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Cambridge 2001. Harvie C., Nineteenth-Century Scotland: Political Unionism and Cultural Nationalism, 1843-1906, in Asch R. (ed.), Three Nations - a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c. 1600-1920, Bochum 1993, pp. 191-228. Hasquin H., Het ontstaan van de liberale gedachte, in Verhulst A., Hasquin H. (eds.), Het Liberalisme in België. Tweehonderd jaar geschiedenis, Brussels - Gent 1989, pp. 15-28. Hayes P., The Nineteenth Century 1814-80, London 1975. Hearder H., Europe in the Nineteenth Century, 1830-1880, London - New York 1988. Heimann M., Catholic Devotion in Victorian England, Oxford 1995. Hermanns F., Linguistische Anthropologie. Skizze eine Gegenstandsbereiches linguistischer Mentalitätsgeschichte, in Busse D., Hermanns F., Teubert W. (eds.), Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Methodenfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik, Opladen 1994, pp. 29-59. Heywood A., Key Concepts in Politics, London 2000. Heywood C., Society and people in the nineteenth century, in Alexander M. (ed.), French History since Napoleon, London – Sydney - Auckland 1999, pp. 80-105. Hobsbawm E. J., Ranger T. (eds.), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge 1994. Hobsbawm E. J., Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge 1992. Hobsbawm E. J., Nations and nationalism since 1870. Programme, myth, reality, Cambridge 1995. Hobsbawm E. J., The Age of Capital, 1848-1875, London (1975) 1999. Hobsbawm E. J., The Age of Revolution, Europe 1789-1848, London (1962) 2001. Hochschild A., King Leopold’s Ghost. A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa, Boston - New York 1998. Hooykaas G. J., De politieke ontwikkeling in Nederland 1830-1840, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 306-314. Houghton W., Periodical literature and the articulate classes, in Shattock J., Wolff M. (eds.), The Victorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings, Leicester - Toronto 1982, pp. 3-27. Hroch M., Historical belles-lettres as a vehicle of the image of national history, in Branch M. (ed.), National History and Identity. Approaches to the Writing of National History in the North-East Baltic Region Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Helsinki 1999, pp. 97-108. Hunt L., Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution, Berkeley -Los Angeles 1984. Hutchinson J., Smith, A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994. Janssens J., De Belgische natie viert. De Belgische nationale feesten 1830-1914, Leuven 2001. Janssens J., De helden van 1830. Feiten & Mythes, Antwerpen 2005. Janssens P., De Kok H., De Maesschalck E., De Schepper H., De Gouden Delta der Lage Landen. Twintig eeuwen beschaving tussen Seine en Rijn, Antwerpen 1996.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
155
Jöhnk C., Die Bedeutung der Physiognomik für die englische Karikatur um 1800. Studien zur lesbaren Physiognomie bei James Gillray, Thomas Rowlandson und George Cruikshank, vol. 1, Göttingen 1998. Joll J., Europe since 1870. An international history, London (1973) 1990. Jones R., The nineteenth-century Foreign Office. An administrative history, London 1971. Kedourie E., Nationalism and Self-Determination, in Hutchinson J., Smith A. D. (eds.), Nationalism, Oxford - New York 1994, pp. 49-55. Keeris H., Geografie van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden 1770 – heden, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 10 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 47-62. Kelly D., Horizons of Intellectual History: Retrospect, Circumspect, Prospect, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1987, 48, pp. 143-169. Kelly D., On the Margins of Begriffsgeschichte, in Lehmann H., Richter M., The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 35-40. Kelly D., What is Happening to the History of Ideas, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1990, 51, pp. 3-25. King P. (ed.), The history of Ideas. An introduction to Method, London 1983. Kippendorf K., Content Analysis. An introduction to its methodology, London 1980. Koselleck R., A Response to Comments on the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, in Lehmann H., Richter M., The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 59-70. Koselleck R., Einleitung, in Brunner O., Conze W., Koselleck R. (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexicon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Band I, A-D, Stuttgart 1972, pp. i-xxv. Koselleck R., Richtlinien für das Lexicon politisch-sozialer Begriffe der Neuzeit, in “Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte”, 1967, 11, pp. 81-99. Koselleck R., Social History and Begriffsgeschichte, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 23-36. Koshar R., ‘What Ought to Be Seen’: Tourists’ Guidebooks and National Identities in Modern Germany and Europe, in “Journal of Contemporary History”,1998, 33, pp. 323-340. Kossmann E., The Low Countries 1780-1940, Oxford 1988. Kossok M., Loch, W., Die Französische Julirevolution von 1830 und Europa, Berlin 1985. Kriger L., The autonomy of Intellectual History, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1973, 34, pp. 499516. Labio C. (ed.), Belgian Memories, New Haven 2002. Lamberts E., De Belgische Katholieken en de Moderne Vrijheden, in “Spiegel Historiael. Maandblad voor geschiedenis en archeologie”, 1968, 3, pp. 361-367. Lamberts E., Kerk en Liberalisme in het Bisdom Gent (1821-1857). Bijdrage tot de studie van het liberaal-katholicisme en het ultramontanisme, Leuven 1972. Le Goff J., History and Memory, New York 1992.
156
Pieter François
Leerssen J., Syndram, K. U., Europa Provincia Mundi. Essays in Comparative Literature and European Studies offered to Hugo Dyserinck on the occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1992. Leerssen J., Image and Reality - and Belgium, in Leerssen J., Syndram K. U. (eds.), Europa Provincia Mundi. Essays in Comparative Literature and European Studies offered to Hugo Dyserinck on the occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1992, pp. 281-291. Leerssen J., Nationaal denken in Europa. Een cultuurhistorische schets, Amsterdam 1999. Leerssen J., Over nationale identiteit, in “Theoretische Geschiedenis”, 1988, 15, pp. 417-430. Leerssen J., The Allochronic Periphery: towards a Grammar of Cross-Cultural Representation, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 285-294. Leggewie C., Ethnizität, Nationalismus und multikulturelle Gesellschaft, in Berding H. (ed.), Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 46-65. Lehmann H., Richter, M. (eds.), The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996. Lerner M., Tocqueville & American Civilization, New Brunswick - London 1994. Liedtke R., Wendehorst, S. (eds.), The emancipation of Catholics, Jews and Protestants. Minorities and the nation-state in nineteenth-century Europe, Manchester - New York 1999. Logie J., 1830. De la régionalisation à l’indépendance, Paris 1980. Lope H-J., Gottfried von Bouillon und die Belgier des 19. Jahrhunderts, in Berding H. (ed.), Mythos und Nation. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 3, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 185-197. Lope H-J., Zur Diskussion um die ‘Identität’ der Belgier im Umfeld der Revolution von 1830, in Giesen B. (ed.), Nationale und kulturelle Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 426-450. Lory J., Libéralisme et instruction primaire, 1842-1879. Introduction à l’étude de la lutte scolaire en Belgique, Louvain 1979. Lough J., Regency France seen by British travellers, in Barber G., Courtney C. (eds.), Enlightenment essays in memory of Robert Shackleton, Oxford 1988, pp. 145-162. Lowe J., Britain and Foreign Affairs, 1815-1885. Europe and Overseas, London - New York 1998. Lüdtke A. (ed.), The History of Everyday Life. Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life, Princeton 1995. Lüdtke A., Eigen-Sinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik vom Kaiserreich bis in den Faschismus, Hamburg 1993. Luhmann N., Inklusion und Exklusion, in Berding H., Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 15-45. Luykx T., Politieke geschiedenis van België, van 1789 tot heden, Amsterdam - Brussel 1973. Mackie D., Hamilton D. (eds.), Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping. Interactive Processes in Group Perception, San Diego - New York 1993.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
157
Magits M., De socio-politieke samenstelling van de Volksraad (10 november 1830 - 21 juli 1831), in “Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis - Revue Belge d’Histoire Contemporaine”, 1981, 12, pp. 581-608. Mandler P., History and National Life, London 2002. Maste E., Vom Staat zum Gemeinwesen. Stationen der Ideengeschichte, Baden-Baden 1993. Matthew C. (ed.), The Nineteenth Century. The British Isles: 1815-1901, Oxford 2003. Mc Leod H., Religion and the People of Western Europe 1789-1989, Oxford - New York 1997. Mc Leod H., Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848-1914, Basingstoke - London 2000. Mills J., Polanowski J., The Ontology of Prejudice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997. Milroy L., Language and Social Networks, Oxford 1980. Moore D., In Search of a New Past 1820-1870, in Schlatter R. (ed.), Recent Views on British History. Essays on Historical Writing since 1966, New Brunswick 1984, pp. 255-297. Moore J. D., Visions of Culture. An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists, Walnut Creek - London - New Delhi 1997. Morgan K., The Birth of Industrial Britain. Economic Change 1750-1850, London - New York 1999, 147 p. Morgan M., National Identities and Travel in Victorian Britain, New York 2001. Morris P., Geschiedenis van Groot-Brittannië, Utrecht 1995. Morse M. A. How the Celts came to Britain. Druids, Ancient Skulls and the Birth of Archeology, Stroud 2005. Motyl A., Revolutions, nations, empires. Conceptual limits and theoretical possibilities, New York 1999. Motzkin G., On Koselleck’s Intuition of Time in History, in Lehmann H., Richter M. (eds.), The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 41-46. Nora P., Das Abenteuer der Lieux de mémoire, in François E., Siergist H., Vogel J. (eds.), Nation und Emotion. Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich, 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1995, pp. 8392. O’Day A. (ed.), Government and Institutions in the post-1832 United Kingdom, Lewiston - Queenston - Lampeter 1995. Oakes P., Haslam A., Turner J., Stereotyping and Social Reality, Oxford -Cambridge (Mass.) 1994. Pagden A., Rethinking the Linguistic Turn: Current Anxieties in Intellectual History, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1988, 49, pp. 519-529. Pageaux D-H., De l’imagologie à la théorie en littérature comparée. Elements de réflexion, in Leerssen J., Syndram K.U., Europa Provincia Mundi. Essays in Comparative Literature and European Studies offered to Hugo Dyserinck on the occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1992, pp. 297-307. Pageaux D-H., Image/Imaginaire, in Dyserinck H., Syndram K. U. (eds.), Europa und das nationale Selbsverständnis – Europe and National Consciousness – L’Europe et la Conscience de la Nationalité, Bonn 1988, pp. 367-379. Parres R., Taylor A. J. P. Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, London 1956.
158
Pieter François
Parry G., Political Elites, London 1977. Parry J., The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, New Haven - London 1993. Peabody D., National characteristics, Cambridge - Paris 1985. Percival M., The Appearance of Character. Physiognomy and Facial Expression in Eighteenth-Century France, London 1999. Perkin H., The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880, London - Toronto 1969. Pilbeam P., Revolutionary movements in western Europe, 1814-30, in Pilbeam P. (ed.), Themes in Modern European History, 1780-1830, London - New York 1995, pp 125-150. Pocock J., Concepts and Discourses: a difference in Culture? Comment on a paper by Melvin Richter, in Lehmann H., Richter M., The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 47-58. Pocock J., Political Ideas as Historical Events: Political Philosophers as Historical Actors, in Richter M. (ed.), Political Theory and Political Education, Princeton 1980, pp. 139-158. Pocock J., The Reconstruction of Discourse: Towards the Historiography of Political Thought, in “Modern Language Notes”, 1981, 46, pp. 959-980. Räthzel N., Gegenbilder. Nationale Identitäten durch Konstruktion des Anderen, Opladen 1997. Read D., Press and People, 1790-1850. Opinion in three English cities, Westport 1961. Reboul O., Langage et idéologie, Paris 1980. Reedy W. Language, Counter-Revolution and the “Two Cultures”, in Struever N. (ed.), Language and the history of thought, Rochester 1995, pp. 185-203. Reichardt R. (ed.), Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte, Stuttgart 1979. Reichardt R., Einleitung, in Reichardt R. (ed.), Handbuch politisch-sozialer Grundbegriffe in Frankreich 1680-1820, 1-2, Munich 1985, pp. 1-47. Reicher S., Hopkins N., Condor S., The Lost Nation of Psychology, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 53-84. Renwick J. (ed.), Language and Rhetoric of the Revolution, Edinburgh 1990. Reynebeau M., Een “zwarte zondag” in Gent in 1854. Morfologie van de politieke strijd in het midden van de 19de eeuw, in Art J., François L., Docendo discimus. Liber amicorum Romain van Eenoo, Gent 1999, pp. 783-796. Reynebeau M., Het klauwen van de leeuw. De Vlaamse identiteit an de 12de tot de 21ste eeuw, Leuven 1995. Richardson R., Ridden G., Freedom and the English Revolution. Essays in history and literature, Manchester 1986. Richter M., Appreciating a Contemporary Classic: The Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe and future scholarship, in Lehmann H., Richter M. (eds.), The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 7-20. Richter M., Begriffsgeschichte and the History of Ideas, in “Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1987, 48, pp. 247-263.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
159
Richter M., The History of Political and Social Concepts. A Critical Introduction, Oxford 1995. Ricoeur P., History and Rhetoric, in Bédarida F. (ed), The Social Responsibility of the Historian, Oxford 1994, pp. 7-24. Righart H., De zachte kant van politiek. Opstellen over politieke cultuur, ’s Gravenhage 1990. Robinson J., 1688 and 1789 from the viewpoint of 1830, in “History of European Ideas”, 1989, 11, pp. 189-196. Rommetveit R., The role of language in the creation and transmission of social representations, in Farr R., Moscovici S. (eds.), Social Representations, Cambridge 1984, pp. 331-359. Rooney J. W., Belgian-American Diplomatic and Consular Relations 1830-1850. A Study in American Foreign Policy in mid-nineteenth century, Louvain 1969. Roper M., The Records of the Foreign Office, 1782-1968, London 2002. Rose J., The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes, New Haven - London 2001. Rossbach U., Documenting Publications Related to the Concept of National Identity, in Boerner P. (ed.), Concepts of National Identity. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Interdisziplinäre Betrachtungen zur Frage der nationalen Identität. Baden-Baden 1986, pp. 187-191. Rubin M., What is Cultural History Now?, in Cannadine D. (ed.), What is history now?, Basingstoke - New York 2002, pp. 80-94. Ryan A., Liberalism, in Goodin R., Pettit P. (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford 1995, pp. 291-311. Samuel R. (ed.), Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity. Volume I, History and Politics, London - New York 1989. Schlatter R. (ed.), Recent Views on British History. Essays on Historical Writing since 1966, New Brunswick 1984. Scholliers P., Van Den Eeckhout P., Social history in Belgium: old habits and new perspectives, in “Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis”, 1997, 23, pp. 147-181. Schulze H., Das Europa der Nationen, in Berding H., Mythos und Nation. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 3, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 65-83. Shattock J., Wolff M., The Victorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings, Leicester - Toronto 1982. Shattock J., Politics and Reviewers: the Edinburgh and the Quarterly. In the early Victorian age, Leicester 1989. Sheehan J., Begriffsgeschichte: Theory and Practice, in “The Journal of Modern History”, 1978, 50, pp. 312-319. Simon A., La Liberté d’enseignement en Belgique. Essai historique, Liége 1951. Six B., Stereotype und Vorurteile im Kontext sozialpsychologischer Forschung, in Blaicher G. (ed.), Erstarrtes Denken. Studien zu Klischee, Stereotyp und Vorurteil in englischprachiger Literatur, Tübingen 1987, pp. 41-54. Skinner Q., Language and political change, in Ball T., Farr J., Hanson R. (eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change, Cambridge 1989, pp. 6-23.
160
Pieter François
Skinner Q., Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas, in Tully J. (ed.), Meaning and context. Quentin Skinner and his critics, Cambridge 1988, pp. 29-67. Skinner Q., Motives, intentions and the interpretation of texts, in Tully J. (ed.), Meaning and context. Quentin Skinner and his critics, Cambridge 1988, pp. 68-78. Slembrouck S., The parliamentary Hansard “verbatim” report: the written construction of spoken discourse, in “Language and Literature”, 1992, 1, pp. 101-119. Smith A. D., National identity, London 1991. Smith A. D., Nationalism. Theory, Ideology, History, Cambridge 2001. Smits A., 1830. Scheuring in de Nederlanden, vols. 3 and 4., Kortrijk - Heule 1998. Soeters J. L., Van Twuyer M., National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Organizations, in Barfoot C. C. (ed.), Beyond Pug’s Tour. National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory and Literary Practice, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1997, pp. 495-510. Stargardt N., Beyond the liberal idea of the nation, in Cubitt G., Imagining Nations, Manchester - New York 1998, pp. 1-20. Stengers J., L’origine de la ‘droite’ et de la ‘gauche’ dans la vie politique belge au XIXe siècle, in Art J., François L., Docendo discimus. Liber amicorum Romain van Eenoo, Gent 1999, pp. 675-696. Stokvis P., Nationale identiteit, beeldvorming, stereotypes en karakteristieken, in “Theoretische Geschiedenis. Beelden, begrippen, ideeën”, 1997, 24, pp. 279-288. Straub J., Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness, New York - Oxford 2005. Struever N. (ed.), Language and the history of thought, Rochester 1995. Stuke H., Sozialgeschichte - Begriffsgeschichte - Ideengeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze herausgegeben von Werner Conze und Heilwig Schomerus, Stuttgart 1979. Stuurman S., Wacht op onze daden. Het liberalisme en de vernieuwing van de Nederlandse staat, Amsterdam 1992. Syndram K. U., ‘Laboratorium Europa’ - zur Kulturwissenschaftlichen Begründung der Komparatistik, in Leerssen J., Syndram K. U., Europa Provincia Mundi. Essays in Comparative Literature and European Studies offered to Hugo Dyserinck on the occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, Amsterdam - Atlanta 1992, pp. 83-96. Szegedy-Maszak, M. The Idea of National Character: A Romantic Heritage, in Boerner P., Concepts of National Identity. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Interdisziplinäre Betrachtungen zur Frage der nationalen Identität, Baden-Baden 1986, pp. 45-61. Taithe B., Thorton T., Citizenship: Conclusion and bibliographical essay, in “European Review of History - Revue européenne d’Histoire”, 2000, 7, pp. 291-292. Tallett F., Atkin N. (eds.), Religion, society and politics in France since 1789, London - Rio Grande 1991. Tallett F., Atkin N., Catholicism in Britain and France since 1789, London - Rio Grande 1996. Tamse C. A., Voorstelligen en beeldvorming als psychologische factor in de Nederlands-Belgische betrekkingen (1840-1870), in: ACTA. Colloquium over de geschiedenis van de Belgisch-Nederlandse betrek-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
161
kingen tussen 1815 en 1945 – Colloque historique sur les relations Belgo-Neerlandaises entre 1815 et 1945, Gent 1982, pp. 297-328. Taylor A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918, Oxford - New York (1954) 1992. Tollebeek J., Historical Representation and the Nation-State in Romantic Belgium (1830-1850), in “The Journal of the History of Ideas”, 1998, 59, pp. 329-353. Townsend G. M., British reactions to the Belgian and Polish Revolutions of 1830: a study of diplomatic, parliament, and press responses, Tulane 1974. Tully J.(ed.), Meaning and context. Quentin Skinner and his critics, Cambridge 1988. Tully J., The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner’s analysis of politics, in Tully J. (ed.), Meaning and context. Quentin Skinner and his critics, Cambridge 1988, pp. 7-25. Van De Craen P., What, If Anything, Is a Belgian?, in Labio C. (ed.), Belgian Memories, New Haven 2002, pp. 24-33. Van Den Braembussche A., The Silence of Belgium: Taboo and Trauma in Belgian Memory, in Labio C. (ed.), Belgian Memories, New Haven 2002, pp. 35-52. Van Den Eeckhout P., Hannes, J., Sociale verhoudingen en structuren in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden 1770-1840, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 10 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 435-475. Van Den Eerenbeemt H. F. J., Hannes, J., Economische en sociale verhoudingen in Noord en Zuid circa 1770 – midden 19de eeuw, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 10 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 141-158. Van Dijk T., Prejudice in discourse. An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 1984. Van Dijk T., Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse, London - New York 1977. Van Eenoo R. Pers 1841-1873, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 184-190. Van Gelderen M., Between Cambridge and Heidelberg. Concepts, Language and Images in Intellectual History, in Hampsher-Monk I., Tilmans K., Van Vree F. (eds.), History of Concepts. Comparative Perspectives, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 227-238. Van Ginkel R., Op zoek naar eigenheid. Denkbeelden en discussies over cultuur en identiteit in Nederland, Den Haag 1999. Van Horn Melton J., Otto Brunner and the Ideological Origins of Begriffsgeschichte, in Lehmann H., Richter M., The meaning of historical terms and concepts. New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 21-34. Van Opbroecke R., België. De geboorte van een staat, Roeselare 2005. Van Praag Ph., Demografische ontwikkeling van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden circa 1800 – circa 1975, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 10 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 94-105. Van Sas N., De Nederlanden en Europa, 1815-1830, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11, Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 279-290.
162
Pieter François
Van Sas N., Het politiek klimaat in Noord-Nederland tijdens de crisis van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, 18281830, in Acta. Colloquium over de geschiedenis van de Belgisch-Nederlandse betrekkingen tussen 1815 en 1945 - Colloque historique sur les relations Belgo-Néerlandaises entre 1815 et 1945, Gent 1982, pp. 103-128. Veraghtert K., Buitenlandse handel, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 49-52. Veraghtert K., De economie in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden 1790-1970, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 10 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 127-139. Vermaut J., Nostalgie en opportunisme. De regimewisseling van 1814 en de erfenis van 1789, in Art J., François L., Docendo discimus. Liber amicorum Romain van Eenoo, Gent 1999, pp. 697-713. Vermeersch A., De historische inhoud van het zogenaamde amalgaam van Noord en Zuid tijdens het bewind van Koning Willem I, in Acta. Colloquium over de geschiedenis van de Belgisch-Nederlandse betrekkingen tussen 1815 en 1945 - Colloque historique sur les relations Belgo-Néerlandaises entre 1815 et 1945, Gent 1982, pp. 1-8. Viaene V., Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX (1831-1859). Catholic revival, society and politics in 19th-century Europe, Brussels – Rome 2001. Von Schöttler P., Wer hat Angst vor dem “linguistic turn”?, in “Geschichte und Gesellschaft”, 1997, 23, pp. 134-151. Wechsler J., A Human Comedy. Physiognomy and Caricature in the 19th Century Paris, London 1982. Wels C. Nederland en Europa 1830-1840, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 291-305. Welz G., Die soziale Organisation kultureller Differenz. Zur Kritik des Ethnosbegriffs in der anglo-amerikanischen Kulturanthropologie, in Berding H. (ed.), Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, Frankfurt 1996, pp. 66-81. Wils L. De ‘nieuwe politiek’ en de schok van 1848, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 276-283. Wils L., De erfenis van de revolutie, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 268-270. Wils L., De radicale stroming 1857-1864, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 290-293. Wils L., De Vlaamse beweging, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politologie”, 1985, 27, pp.543-566. Wils L., Een nieuwe unie van 1830?, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 294-297. Wils L., Het politieke systeem in 1847, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 12 Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1981, pp. 271-275. Wils L., Van Clovis tot Happart. De lange weg van de naties in de Lage Landen, Leuven 1992. Withey L., Grand Tours and Cook’s Tours. A History of Leisure Travel 1750 to 1915, London 1998. Witte E., De voorlopers van het parlementologisch onderzoek in België, in “Res Publica, Tijdschrift voor politologie”, 1985, 27, pp. 429-455.
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
163
Witte E., De ‘Moniteur Belge’, de regering en het parlement tijdens het unionisme (1831-1845), Brussel 1985. Witte E., De politieke ontwikkeling in België, 1831-1846, in Blok P., Prevenier W., Roorda J. (eds.), Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11, Nieuwste Tijd, Haarlem 1983, pp. 315-345. Witte E., Het Belgische ambtenarenparlement (1830-1848), in “Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire”, 1981, 59, pp. 828-882. Witte E., The battle for monastries, cemetries and schools: Belgium, in Clark C., Kaiser W. (eds.), Culture Wars. Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Europe, Cambridge 2003, pp. 102-128. Witte E., Politieke machtsstrijd in en om de voornaamste Belgische steden, 1830-1848, 2 vols., Brussel 1973. Witte E., Craeybeckx J., Meynen A., Politieke geschiedenis van België; van 1830 tot heden, Brussel 1990. Wodak R., Language, power and ideology. Studies in political discourse, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 1989. Wodak R., De Cillia R., Reisigl M., Liebhart K., The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh 1999. Wolffe J., Change and continuity in British Anti-Catholicism, 1829-1982, in Tallett F., Atkin N. (eds.), Catholicism in Britain and France since 1789, London - Rio Grande 1996, pp. 67-83. Wolffe J., The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain 1829-1860, Oxford 1991. Zijderveld A., On the Nature and Functions of Clichés, in Blaicher G. (ed.), Erstarrtes Denken. Studien zu Klischee, Stereotyp und Vorurteil in englischprachiger Literatur, Tübingen 1987, pp. 26-40.
Consulted websites -Website ‘Image Studies’, University of Amsterdam: http://cf.hum.uva.nl/images/
België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’. Britse beeldvorming over België (1830-1870) De analyse van de rijke Britse beeldvorming over België en de Belgen gedurende de periode 1830-1870 vormt het onderwerp van deze studie. De verklaring van de op- en neergang van het positieve beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ staat centraal binnen deze analyse. Dit beeld was veruit het meest populaire Britse beeld over België gedurende de onderzochte periode en het was ook het beeld waartegen de andere Britse België-beelden zich profileerden. Het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ vond zijn oorsprong gedurende de jaren dertig van de negentiende eeuw en bleef bijzonder populair tot in de jaren vijftig van de negentiende eeuw. Deze bloeiperiode werd gevolgd door een periode waarin dit positieve Britse beeld zware klappen kreeg en een negatievere Britse beeldvorming over België en de Belgen aan belang won. Deze groeiende kritische houding ten opzichte van België werd echter overschaduwd door een uiteindelijk veel belangrijker fenomeen, namelijk de teloorgang van de Britse interesse voor België. Het is vooral deze groeiende onverschilligheid ten opzichte van België die zou bijdragen tot de totstandkoming van de laatnegentiende-eeuwse populaire Britse voorstelling van België als ‘Boring Belgium’. De positieve Britse beeldvorming over België vond zijn oorsprong in de context van de machtsovername door de Whigs in 1830. Eén van de eerste taken van de nieuwe regering was de formulering van een antwoord op de Belgische Revolutie van 1830. Haar steun voor een onafhankelijk maar neutraal België leidde tot een grote politieke nood om de nieuwe Belgische natiestaat positief voor te stellen. Opvallend is echter dat deze duidelijk partijpolitieke oorsprong werd overstegen en dat de populariteit van België snel quasi unaniem werd overgenomen door de gehele Britse publieke opinie. Het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ ontwikkelde zich dan ook snel tot een voldragen beeld en de nieuwe sympathie resulteerde onder meer in een koerswijziging inzake de Britse visie op de Belgische nationale en religieuze identiteit en zelfs tot een nieuwe interpretatie van het ‘Belgische’ verleden. Kortom, gedurende de jaren dertig van de negentiende eeuw vonden gaandeweg alle aspecten van de Britse visie op België en de Belgen een plaats binnen de positieve voorstelling van België.
166
Pieter François
Onderzoeksvragen Om de op- en neergang van het positieve België-beeld te verklaren, dienen verschillende onderzoeksvragen te worden beantwoord. De belangrijkste hiervan zijn: Uit welke elementen bestond de positieve beeldvorming? Wanneer werd het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ populair? Wanneer verloor deze positieve interpretatie haar enge partij-politieke geladenheid en werd ze omgetoverd tot een voldragen beeld? Wanneer begon de positieve beeldvorming aan populariteit in te boeten? Door welke groepen werd de positieve beeldvorming uitgedragen? Wat was de precieze relatie tussen het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ en de verschillende alternatieve voorstellingen? Wat is de relatie tussen de op- en neergang van de positieve voorstelling van België en de politieke en sociale gebeurtenissen in België? Welke ontwikkelingen en veranderingen binnen de Belgische maatschappij veroorzaakten serieuze wijzigingen in het Britse België-beeld? Op welke manier hadden de Britse waarnemers van België contact met de Belgische maatschappij en de wijzigingen erbinnen? Hoe verhouden de Britse België-beelden zich ten opzichte van de politieke en sociale gebeurtenissen in Groot-Brittannië? In welke mate weerspiegelden de interpretaties van België en de Belgen de Britse maatschappij, waarden en verwachtingen? Om op deze vragen een antwoord te bieden werden voor deze studie verschillende bronnenreeksen bevraagd. Het omvangrijke corpus aan Britse reisliteratuur over België en de Britse periodieke pers over België vormen de twee belangrijkste bronnenreeksen. Daarnaast is deze studie ook gebaseerd op een analyse van de Britse kranten, gouvernementele publicaties, parlementaire verslagen, het archief van het Britse Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en, tenslotte, de romanliteratuur.
Opbouw Deze studie is opgebouwd uit zes hoofdstukken. In een eerste, eerder methodologisch, hoofdstuk wordt, bij wijze van voorbeeld, één belangrijke groep Britse waarnemers, namelijk de reizigers, in hun sociale en politieke context geplaatst en wordt aangetoond hoe vanuit een veelzijdige verzameling van individuele observaties over België een algemeen patroon kan worden samengesteld dat representatief is voor de reizigers als groep (en bij uitbreiding voor de Britten in het algemeen). De twee volgende hoofdstukken spitsen zich toe op het politieke luik van de Britse beeldvorming over België en de Belgen. Het eerste hoofdstuk analyseert de Britse beeld-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
167
vorming van de Belgische Revolutie van 1830. Het tweede hoofdstuk reconstrueert de Britse beeldvorming van de Belgische politiek gedurende de periode 1830-1870. De drie laatste hoofdstukken focussen op verschillende aspecten van de Britse interpretatie van de identiteit van de Belgen. Het eerste van deze hoofdstukken handelt over de Britse visie op de Belgische nationale identiteit en het tweede over de Britse interpretatie van de Belgische religieuze identiteit. Het laatste hoofdstuk onderzoekt de wijze waarop de Britten omgingen met het Belgische verleden en in welke mate ze eigentijdse elementen op dit verleden projecteerden. Deze zes hoofdstukken worden voorafgegaan door een inleiding waarin deze studie wordt gekaderd in het ruimere historiografische onderzoeksveld. In deze inleiding wordt ook gewezen op de historiografische relevantie van dit onderzoek. Zoals gezegd is het eerste hoofdstuk opgevat als een ‘showcase’ om aan te tonen hoe uit een grote verscheidenheid aan Britse opmerkingen over België en de Belgen een algemeen patroon kan worden gedestilleerd. Die grote verscheidenheid uitte zich niet enkel inzake de appreciatie. Zo bevatte de reisliteratuur inderdaad zowel bijzonder positieve als negatieve waardeoordelen. Even belangrijk is echter de aard van de waarnemingen. Een aantal daarvan is gebaseerd op een grote kennis van België en steunt ofwel op directe ervaring of op eigentijdse Belgische studies. Andere waarnemingen zijn korte oppervlakkige opmerkingen en illustreren vaak bovenal de gebrekkige kennis van de waarnemer. Niettemin kunnen deze heel verscheiden waarnemingen, mits ze voldoende gekaderd worden, dienen als basis voor een algemeen patroon. De situering van de reizigers en hun observaties in hun context gebeurt in drie stappen. Eerst wordt gereconstrueerd hoeveel reizigers er naar België op reis gingen, hoe lang ze in België doorbrachten, wat ze bezochten en hoeveel contact ze hadden met elkaar en met de Belgen. Ten tweede wordt geanalyseerd met welke kennis over België en de Belgen ze op reis vertrokken en waar ze deze kennis vandaan haalden. Centraal in deze analyse staat de wijze waarop deze voorafgaande kennis en verwachtingen een rechtstreekse invloed uitoefenden op de reis enerzijds en hoe de concrete reiservaring resulteerde in het bevestigen of het in vraag stellen van de voorafgaande kennis anderzijds. Ten derde wordt ingegaan op de aard van de waarnemingen van de reizigers, het wijdverspreide gebruik van stereotiepen en op de wijze waarop de waarnemingen werden geplaatst binnen de conventies van het genre van de reisliteratuur. Hoofdstuk twee handelt over de Britse beeldvorming van de Belgische Revolutie van 1830 en toont hoe de Britse interpretatie van deze belangrijke politieke gebeurtenis reeds alle elementen van het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Con-
168
Pieter François
tinent’ bevatte. De Belgische Revolutie van 1830 verraste de meeste Britse waarnemers. De eerste bekommernis van zowel de Tories als de Whigs was het vermijden van een kostelijke oorlog op het Europese vasteland. De opeenvolgende oorlogen gedurende de periode 1789-1815 hadden niet alleen een hoge menselijke kost voor Groot-Brittannië tot gevolg gehad, maar hadden ook geresulteerd in een torenhoge schuldenlast. Deze werd door de Britten als bijzonder traumatisch ervaren. Om een nieuwe oorlog te vermijden, steunden de Tories in 1830 nog op de logica van 1815. Op het Congres van Wenen, waar de Tories de Britten vertegenwoordigden, werd beslist dat de meest aangewezen manier om een toekomstig Frans expansionisme te verhinderen de oprichting was van een reeks middelgrote staten aan de grenzen van Frankrijk. Het nieuwe Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, dat zowel de Noordelijke als Zuidelijke Nederlanden bevatte, was één van deze middelgrote bufferstaten. Na 1815 bleven de Tories dogmatisch aan deze logica vasthouden en de Belgische Revolutie van 1830 werd dan ook gezien als een aanslag op de overeenkomst van 1815. In november 1830, na een bijzonder lange periode van oppositie, kwamen de Whigs echter aan de macht. De drang naar vernieuwing manifesteerde zich onder meer sterk op het vlak van de buitenlandse politiek. Eén van de problemen die de nieuwe Whig regering had overgeërfd van de Tories was het bepalen van een standpunt ten opzichte van de Belgische Revolutie. De Whigs kwamen snel tot de vaststelling dat de afscheuring van België een politiek feit was. Zelfs al zou de Belgische Revolutie ‘manu militari’ ongedaan worden gemaakt, dan nog, zo luidde de Whig redenering, was het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden niet langer de gehoopte stabiele bufferstaat. De Whigs waren dus bereid om de logica van 1815 aan te passen, maar wel op zo’n manier dat België neutraal bleef en niet onder Franse invloed kwam. Er was heel wat wantrouwen binnen de Britse publieke opinie ten opzichte van de levensvatbaarheid van deze oplossing en er was dus een sterke politieke reden om België snel mogelijk als positief en stabiel voor te stellen. Dit hoofdstuk stelt dus dat het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ ontstond binnen deze specifieke politieke context en in grote mate de wens of verwachting weerspiegelde van één politieke groep binnen Groot-Brittannië. Deze positieve voorstelling van België kende een verbluffende opmars en verwierf gedurende de jaren dertig en veertig van de negentiende eeuw een dominante positie. Het hoofdstuk over de Britse beeldvorming over de Belgische politiek verklaart in belangrijke mate deze opmars. In dit hoofdstuk worden een aantal belangrijke aspecten van de Belgische politiek geanalyseerd die de Britse interesse opwekten. Ten eerste stelden vele Britse waarnemers zich de vraag of de Belgische natiestaat
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
169
wel politiek levensvatbaar was. Deze vraag was sterk aanwezig gedurende drie crisismomenten, namelijk tijdens de eerste jaren na de Belgische Revolutie van 1830, gedurende de onderhandelingen over het definitieve vredesverdrag met Nederland in 1839 en tijdens de revolutiegolf van 1848. Over deze drie momenten heen zien we een groeiende Britse appreciatie voor de Belgische stabiliteit en tegen 1848 is het duidelijk dat enkel een heel kleine minderheid van Britse waarnemers de levensvatbaarheid van België als een onafhankelijke natiestaat nog ontkende. Een tweede focus van dit hoofdstuk ligt op de wijze waarop de Britten de verhouding tussen Staat en Kerk binnen België interpreteerden. Deze sectie toont aan hoe de aanhangers van het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ aanvankelijk bereid waren de Katholieke Kerk als betrouwbaar voor te stellen en hoe dit vertrouwen gaandeweg werd opgezegd. Er wordt ook ingegaan op de invloed van deze wijziging op de neergang van het positieve België-beeld. Vervolgens gaat dit hoofdstuk dieper in op de volgens de Britten groeiende Franse invloed op België en hoe dit bijdroeg tot een meer kritische houding ten opzichte van België en de Belgen. Tenslotte analyseert dit hoofdstuk de Britse perceptie van de Belgische monarchie en de rol die Koning Leopold I speelde in de aanvankelijk grote Britse appreciatie voor België. Het bestaan van een Belgische nationale identiteit werd door het leeuwendeel van de Britse waarnemers vlot aangenomen en werd amper in vraag gesteld. De Britse waarnemers waren wel intens bezig met de vraag wat de oorsprong was van deze nationale identiteit. In het algemeen werd aangenomen dat de Belgische nationale identiteit veel dichter aansloot bij de Britse of Engelse, en sterk verschilde van de Franse. Aangezien de Britse waarnemers uitgingen van een direct band tussen nationale identiteit en afkomst, werd er veel energie gestoken in het argument dat de etnische oorsprong van de Belgen Germaans, Teutoons of zelfs Saksisch was. Het was ook niet ongebruikelijk om van hieruit de idee te ontwikkelen dat de Belgen en de Britten ook fysiek op elkaar geleken. Tenslotte wordt in dit hoofdstuk kort ingegaan op de Britse interpretatie van de verhouding tussen de Franstalige en Nederlandstalige delen van België. De Britse beeldvorming van de Belgische religieuze identiteit was nauw verbonden met de Britse visie op de Belgische nationale identiteit en de Britse perceptie van die eerste staat dan ook centraal in het volgende hoofdstuk. Geen enkel ander onderwerp plaatste de Britten in een moeilijker spagaat. De verzoening van een wijdverspreid antikatholicisme met een positieve interpretatie van België gebeurde verre van altijd overtuigend en vergde van heel wat Britse waarnemers veel creativiteit. Aanvankelijk bood de Belgische Revolutie aan de Whigs de opportuniteit om de
170
Pieter François
Belgen voor te stellen als ‘goede’ Katholieken. In het kader van het Britse beleid ten opzichte van Ierland was er een grote nood aan een voorstelling van Katholieken als betrouwbare gesprekspartners en mogelijke bekeerlingen tot het Protestantisme. Het beeld van een betrouwbare Katholieke Kerk kalfde echter snel af en de Britse beeldvorming wijzigde sterk. Om de appreciatie voor België niet in gevaar te brengen, werd de Katholieke Kerk vervolgens voorgesteld als onder de invloed van het buitenland. Vooral de rol van de Jezuïeten en de invloed van het Vaticaan werden zo onder de aandacht gebracht. Bovendien werd gesteld dat de Katholieke Kerk enkel sterk stond op het platteland waar, volgens de Britten, de bewustwording van een eigen Belgische nationale identiteit nog in haar kinderschoenen stond. Eén groep Britse waarnemers ging echter een stap verder en tijdens de periode 1830-1850 stelden deze waarnemers de Belgische identiteit voor als Protestants en de Belgen als verborgen Protestanten. Deze waarnemers stelden dat de Belgen het Protestantisme volmondig hadden omarmd in de zestiende eeuw. Het Katholicisme van de daaropvolgende eeuwen werd voorgesteld als oppervlakkig en als opgelegd door de opeenvolgende ‘buitenlandse’ regimes. Na 1830 kon het volgens deze waarnemers dan ook niet anders of de Belgen zouden teruggrijpen naar hun Protestante identiteit en voor deze groep van waarnemers was het een uitgemaakte zaak dat België in de nabije toekomst opnieuw een Protestante natie zou worden. In het laatste hoofdstuk wordt de Britse omgang met het ‘Belgische’ verleden onderzocht. Deze omgang stond volledig in het teken van de Britse beeldvorming van de Belgische nationale en religieuze identiteit en aangezien deze onderdelen van de Britse beeldvorming over België sterk wijzigden na 1830, stellen we ook een belangrijke koerswijziging vast inzake de Britse omgang met het Belgische verleden. Voor 1830 hadden de Britten een beperkte interesse in het ‘Belgische’ verleden. Deze interesse was echter wel evenwichtig gespreid over alle eeuwen heen. Na 1830 komt echter de zestiende eeuw volop centraal te staan. Niet alleen laat deze focus toe om de ‘Protestante’ Belgen in beeld te brengen, maar ook om het ‘Belgische’ verzet tegen het buitenlandse Katholicisme in de verf te zetten.
Relevantie van het onderzoek De analyse van het Britse België-beeld steunt op een combinatie van twee historiografische tradities. De reconstructie van de precieze samenstelling en betekenis van het beeld van België als een ‘little Britain on the Continent’ en van de alternatieve België-beelden sluit nauw aan bij de historiografische tradities van de ideeëngeschie-
British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870
171
denis en de ‘Begriffsgeschichte’. De analyse van de populariteit en het gebruik van de België-beelden vormt een voorbeeld van sociale geschiedenis en cultuurgeschiedenis. De verklaringen die deze studie aanreikt, liggen dan ook op het vlak van de taal en de ideeën waarvan de België-beelden gebruik maakten enerzijds en de sociale context waarbinnen de België-beelden werden aangewend anderzijds. De studie van het Britse België-beeld is een voorbeeld van een analyse van de wijze waarop één groep een andere observeert, definieert en beoordeelt. Zoals elke analyse van ‘intercultural imagery’ is ook deze studie hierdoor onlosmakelijk verbonden met de studie van ‘identiteit’. De constructie van de ‘Other’ is immers een essentieel onderdeel van de constructie en voortdurende herpositionering van de eigen identiteit en het eigen zelfbeeld. Waarnemingen over de ‘Other’ bevatten altijd informatie over zowel de observator als de geobserveerde. Het Britse België-beeld bevat dus zowel informatie over de Britten als over de Belgen. Binnen de literatuur- en cultuurwetenschap won deze invalshoek van een voortdurende dialoog tussen ‘Self ’ en ‘Other’ aan populariteit vanaf de jaren tachtig van de twintigste eeuw. Vooral binnen de literatuurwetenschap zijn er ambitieuze onderzoeksprogramma’s opgezet en theoretische concepten ontwikkeld. Het onderzoeksprogramma van de Imagologie, of ‘Image Studies’, springt hierbij in het oog. Historici hebben slechts in beperkte mate tot dit onderzoeksprogramma bijgedragen. De sterke focus op de intertekstuele relatie tussen de verschillende bestudeerde teksten, het beperkte geloof in een directe en sterke relatie tussen tekst en context, een soms weinig geëxpliciteerde causaliteit, en de traditie om het onderzoek toe te spitsen op een handvol ‘bekende’ literaire teksten binnen een vaak ruim tijdskader, zijn de belangrijkste oorzaken van de aarzeling van de historici. Toch kunnen historici wel degelijk een belangrijke rol spelen in dit onderzoeksveld. De vertrouwdheid van de historici met een breed gamma aan bronnen en hun aandacht voor de context bieden reeds twee mogelijkheden om de soms beperkte causaliteit binnen de imagologische aanpak open te breken en aan te vullen. Deze studie breekt een lans voor een grotere bijdrage van historici tot de analyse van ‘intercultural imagery’ en is gegrond in de overtuiging dat ‘intercultural imagery’ enkel afdoende kan worden verklaard door zowel oog te hebben voor de linguïstische context waarin de voorstellingen van de ‘Other’ vorm krijgen als voor de sociale context waarbinnen deze voorstellingen worden gebruikt. Een tweede relevantie van deze studie schuilt in het feit dat deze analyse een verdere illustratie aanreikt van de complementariteit van verschillende vormen van identiteit, en vooral van de verwevenheid van nationale en religieuze identiteit gedurende de negentiende eeuw. Onderzoek naar nationale identiteit is sinds de jaren tachtig
172
Pieter François
van de twintigste eeuw bijzonder populair. Nationale identiteit is vooral onderzocht vanuit de relatie tussen nationale identiteit en de natie en nationalisme, en in mindere mate vanuit de relatie tussen nationale identiteit en andere vormen van identiteit. Deze studie vormt echter een goede illustratie van de complexe interactie tussen nationale en religieuze identiteit en van de moeilijkheden waarmee de onderzoeker wordt geconfronteerd wanneer beide vormen van identiteit van elkaar worden los gekoppeld. Een laatste relevantie van deze studie schuilt in de sterke focus op het geconstrueerde en vaak artificiële karakter van de identiteit die wordt toegemeten aan de geobserveerden. Hoewel Belgische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingen wel degelijk een behoorlijke impact hadden op het Britse België-beeld en de Britten een gedegen kennis over België bezaten, toont deze studie toch aan dat het algemene interpretatiekader dat de Britten hanteerden om zin te verlenen aan België en de Belgen in de eerste plaats werd bepaald door Britse drijfveren. Op vele vlakken speelden de Belgen een erg passieve rol. Veel wijzigingen in het België-beeld werden gedreven door veranderingen binnen de Britse politiek en maatschappij, zoals de doorbraak van het liberale gedachtegoed en het geloof in een maakbare maatschappij, en door veranderende Britse verwachtingen.
Note on the Author Pieter François is currently a ‘Research Foundation Flanders – FWO’ postdoctoral research fellow attached at Ghent University (Belgium) and the University of Warwick (UK). In 2006 he completed his PhD dissertation on British attitudes towards Belgium (1830-1870) under the supervision of Prof. Pamela Pilbeam (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Prof. Bruno de Wever (Ghent University). His publications include Gestemd Verleden. Mondelinge Geschiedenis als Praktijk (Brussels, 2003) and ‘The construction of a Whig interpretation of the Belgian past: British travellers and their attitudes towards the ‘Belgian’ past (1830-1870)’, Dutch Crossing. A Journal of Low Countries Studies (2007). His postdoctoral research project focuses on British travellers and expatriates in France and Belgium during the nineteenth century. He is currently preparing a monograph on this topic.
Index Addison, Henry 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 77, 78 Alltagsgeschichte 9 Alva, Duke of 103 Anderson, Benedict 9 Antwerp 21, 22, 25, 28-30, 36, 63, 67, 68, 88 Cathedral 22 Egg Market 29 links with Liverpool and Oxford 36 Ardennes, The 27 “Art Journal” 81, 108 Ashton, John 93, 96 Baedeker’s Handbooks 26-28, 30, 33 Barfoot, C.C. 9 Bartlett, William Henry 29 Begriffsgeschichte 5 Belgian Constitution 51, 61, 62, 100 Belgian Revolution, 1830 1, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 39-49, 65, 67, 106, 109, 113, 119, 131 seen as a Catholic trap 44 Belgium acceptance of neutrality 70 aristocratic travellers to 23 as a typical Catholic state 87, 88 as an ultra-Catholic state 88-90 as the battlefield of Europe 106 as ‘the Ireland of Holland’ 49 British sympathy for 79 comparisons with Ireland 47 danger of annexation by France 68-70, 81 decline in British interest in 14 distinctiveness of 35
growing French influence in 70 image of perfect national unity 62 interpretations of landscape of 84 negative image of in Britain 66 peace treaty with the Netherlands, 1839 40, 56, 70, 119 possible enlargement of 58 praise for political system 52 relations with the Holy See 7 religious divides in 99, 101 seen as boring 64, 65 seen as ‘one big museum’ 22 seen as well-mannered and industrious 91, 92 viability as an independent state 53-59 visit by Queen Victoria 12 Bell, Robert 23, 28, 94 “Bentley’s Miscellany” 21 Bernard, Richard 81 “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” 54, 69, 74 Blom, J.C.H. 7 Borrer, C. 23 Brabantian Revolution, 1789 3, 106 Bradshaw, George 26 Brake, L. 119 Brightwell, Thomas 86 British and Foreign Bible Society 102 “British and Foreign Review” 45, 51, 56, 57, 78, 79 British travellers to Belgium ‘beloved’ by locals 25 ‘bold and impolite’ image 24 business travel 23 growth of middle-class 22 spectacular rise in 19, 21
176
Index
views of Belgium’s past 103-111 Bronte, Charlotte 12, 83, 84, 88, 89 Bruges 21, 28, 36, 85, 95 link with Liverpool 36 St John’s Hospital 21 Brussels 21, 28, 40, 67, 76, 84, 123 comparison with Paris 123 Burgess, Richard 101, 102 Burn, Robert Scott 20, 24, 35 Campbell, Charles 19 Castlereagh, Lord 48 Catholic Emancipation Act, 1829 85 Catholic Relief Act, 1829 4 Charleroi 36 link with Wolverhampton 36 Clarendon, Lord 73 Codell, J. 119 Coleman, Henry 77 Colley, Linda 7 Conrad, Joseph 11 Convent Law, 1857 62-64, 94 Cook, Thomas 20, 26-28 Corner, Julia 83 Courtrai 21 “Cyclist’s Continental Companion, The” 27 “Daily Chronicle” 65 “Daily News” 12, 13, 59, 119 Davies, Christopher 32, 33, 89 De la Ramee, Marie Louise 11 Demoor, Marysa 10 Deprez, K. 7 Digue (Ostend) 21, 30, 34, 35 Disraeli, Benjamin 72 “Dublin Review” 96, 119 “Dublin University Magazine” 47, 48, 54, 56, 61, 119 Dumas, Alexandre 44 Dyke, Thomas 93
Eclectic Review 80 Edinburgh Review 13, 33, 41, 42, 73, 119, 120 Edward, Amelia 108 ‘Eigen-Sinn’ 9 ‘Fat Contributor’ 22 Fitzgerald, Percy 19, 37 Flemish language 24, 83 Flemish people, character of 83 Fleurus 33 Fontana, B. 120 Foreign Office 12, 20, 21, 73, 119 “Foreign Quarterly Review” 33 Franco-Prussian War 71, 119 “Fraser’s Magazine” 13, 44, 55, 67, 68, 75-77, 82 French plans for annexation of Belgium 68-70, 81 French Revolution 3, 40, 44 Gaze, Henry 22, 28 Ghent 21, 28, 36, 55, 63, 91, 110 link with Manchester 36, 110 Gissing, George 11 Gladstone, W.E. 72 Gordon, Pryse 45, 46, 103, 109 Grand Tour 18 Grant, James 99 Grantham (traveller) 90, 95 Gregory, Alexander 26 Gubin, E. 7 Haslam, Alexander 8 Heugh, H. 102, 107, 109 H.G. (anonymous travel writer) 33, 38 Hobsbawm, Eric 9 Hood, Thomas 11 Hoppus, John 33, 90, 91, 101 Hux, John Rodwell 33, 88
Index
intercultural imagery 5-7, 12-14, 17, 114 James, Henry 11 Jemappes 33 Jesuits 98 “Journal of the Statistical Society of London” 13 King George IV of Britain 74 King Leopold I 12, 13, 40, 53, 54, 58, 67, 73-76, 119, 127 death in 1865 12, 13, 76, 119 offer to resign 58 seen as a ‘British’ prince 73, 74, 127 King Leopold II 76, 98, 119 King Louis-Philippe of France 74 King Philip II of Spain 103, 108 highly negative view of 108 King William of the Netherlands 3, 4, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 55-57, 75 ally of Prussia and Russia 4 perceived malicious character of 57 seen as authoritarian 4 King William IV of Britain 74 Kirwan, A. 76, 83 Koshar, Rudy 9 Kossman, E.H. 7 Lamberts, E. 7 Lee, Maria Charlotte 92 Leerssen, Joep 9 liberalism 57 Liege 21, 36, 63 link with Birmingham 36 “London Quarterly Review” 49, 74, 76 Londonderry, Marquis of 54 Ludtke, Alf 9 Lundie, Rev R.H. 92, 95, 100, 102, 110 “Macmillan’s Magazine” 71
177
Malines 21 Malplaquet 33 “Manchester Guardian” 12, 119 Mandler, Peter 105, 108 mass tourism 18 Mediterranean, travel to 23 Michelsen, Edward 90 Mill, John Stuart 59, 81 Mills, Jon 8 Moens, W. 35 Mons 63 Monthly Review 31 Morgan, Rev E. 85, 91, 93 Morgan, Marjorie 10, 20, 26, 86, 92 “Morning Chronicle” 12, 119 “Morning Post” 12, 119 Morris, William 11 Motyl, Alexander 9 Murray’s Handbooks 26-28, 33 Napoleon III 7, 66, 67, 70 defender of Catholicism 70 Napoleonic Wars 2, 3, 75 National Congress 60 national identity 6-8, 36, 37, 40, 67, 7784, 100, 104, 114 Nemours, Duke of 74, 119 Newton, Thomas William 106 Northern Netherlands 3, 39, 40, 42 Oakes, Penelope 8 O’Dwyer, Carew 47, 48 Opie, Amelia 110 Orangist Party 53, 55, 75 Osborne (Liberal MP) 72 Ostend 20, 30, 34-37, 68, 77 link with Brighton 37 sea bathing at 34, 35, 37 Oudenarde 33
178
Index
Palmerston, Lord 20, 25, 41, 54, 55, 73 Parry, Jonathan 8, 114 passport system, use of 20 Pemble, John 20 Pitt, William 54 Pocock, John 6 Polanowski, Janusz 8 Princess Charlotte (first wife of the later King Leopold) 74, 75 Protestantism 42, 86-88, 97-102, 131 as dominant religion in Netherlands 42 as national identity 100 small numbers in Belgium 88 “Punch” (magazine) 22, 25, 27, 30, 64, 119 “Quarterly Review” 13, 68, 79, 119 Queen Elizabeth I 109 Queen Victoria 12, 74, 119, 121 visits to Belgium 12, 119, 121 Radicalism 45, 68 Ramsay, Thomas 92, 93 religious identity 6, 85-102 Richmond, Duke of 30 Risquons-Tout ‘invasion’ 66, 67 Ritchie, Leitch 109 Roman Catholic Church 16, 45, 47-49, 53, 59-64, 70, 74, 85-96, 100, 130 association with landed interests 40 blamed for failure of United Kingdom of Netherlands 47 British criticism of 89 coalition with Liberals 39 increase of Catholic MPs 63 negative views of 85, 86 role in Belgian politics 59-64 role in Belgian society 16, 97, 98, 130 seen as corrupt and hypocritical 94, 95 seen as superficial 100 tolerant attitude of its clergy 60, 61
Rossetti, Dante Gabriel 11 Rubens, Peter Paul 22 Russell, Earl 73 Rylands (Tory MP) 72 Sabbath, lack of respect for in Belgium 89, 90, 93 St John’s Hospital, Bruges 21 Sala, George 24, 32, 33, 38, 65, 87, 99, 100 Scott, Sir Walter 11, 108 Shattock, J. 120 Skinner, Quentin 6, 120 Smith, Anthony 9 Smithers. Henry 30, 77 Southern Netherlands 3, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 81, 85, 105, 109 Southey, Robert 11 Spa 36 link with Tunbridge Wells 36 Sprent, W. 29 “Standard, The” (newspaper) 12, 13, 119 Stengers, J. 7 Stevenson, Robert Louis 11 Stevenson, Seth William 36 “Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine” 14 Tennent, James Emerson 15, 48, 49, 75, 79 Tennyson, Alfred Lord 11 Thackeray, William Makepeace 11, 15, 28, 65 “Times, The” 12, 25, 64, 65, 91, 95 Tollebeek, Johan 105, 106 Tories negative view of Catholic Church 61 support for a united Netherlands 3 view of Belgians as like Irish 82 tourism 18 Townsend, Guy 10
Index
travel guides 9, 11, 14, 18, 25, 26, 30, 36, 86 as historical sources 36 expressing anti-Catholicism 86 huge numbers sold 26 poor quality of 31 sponsored by aristocrats 30 Trollope, Frances 15, 37 Trollope, W. 31 Trotandot, John 64, 82, 99 Turner, John 8 Tyghe, Alexander 27 Union between Britain and Ireland 46 United Kingdom of the Netherlands 3, 39, 42, 44, 47-49, 85 creation of in 1815 39 failure blamed on Catholicism 47 Varouxakis, Georgios 8 Viaene, Vincent 7 Viatores (pen name) 27 Vienna, Treaty of (1815) 2, 4, 41 Vos, L. 7
179
Waes 91 Wallonia 40 Waterloo, Battle of 19, 54 Battlefield, visits to 21, 24, 25, 28, 33 Wellington, Duke of 54, 55 “Westminster Review” 1, 13, 41-43, 52, 55, 58, 60, 79 Whigs fierce attacks on policy 54 interpretation of Belgium 1 positive image of Belgium, 1830 2, 42, 51 rise to power of 113 support for an independent Belgium 41, 43 supporters of the Catholic Relief Act 4 suspicious of the Catholic Church 45 White, Charles 48 Wilde, Oscar 11 Wilson, Thomas 65, 66 Witte, E. 7 Wolffe, John 7, 130, 131 Wordsworth, William 11 Ypres 37
Publications of the CLIOHRES Network of Excellence Thematic Work Group 1, “States, Legislation, Institutions” 1. Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical Transformation, James S. Amelang, Siegfried Beer eds., 2006; 2. Communities in European History: Representations, Jurisdictions, Conflicts, Juan Pan-Montojo, Frederik Pedersen eds., 2007; 3. Making, Using and Resisting the Law in European History, Günther Lottes, Eero Medijainen, Jón Viðar Sigurðsson eds., 2008; 4. Institutional Change and Stability: Conflicts, Transitions, Social Values, Andreas Gémes, Florencia Peyrou, Ioannis Xydopoulos eds., 2009. Thematic Work Group 2, “Power and Culture” 1. Power and Culture: Hegemony, Interaction and Dissent, Ausma Cimdiņa, Jonathan Osmond eds., 2006; 2. Power and Culture. Identity, Ideology, Representation, Jonathan Osmond, Ausma Cimdiņa eds., 2007; 3. Power and Culture: New Perspectives on Spatiality in European History, Pieter François, Taina Syrjämaa, Henri Terho eds., 2008; 4. Rebellion and Resistance, Henrik Jensen ed., 2009. Thematic Work Group 3, “Religion and Philosophy” 1. Religion, Ritual and Mythology. Aspects of Identity Formation in Europe, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2006; 2. Religion and Power in Europe: Conflict and Convergence, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2007; 3. Bridging the Gaps: Sources, Methodology and Approaches to Religion in Europe, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2008; 4. Routines of Existence: Time, Life and Afterlife in Society and Religion, Elena Brambilla, Sabine Deschler-Erb, Jean-Luc Lamboley, Aleksey Klemeshov and Giovanni Moretto eds., 2009. Thematic Work Group 4, “Work, Gender and Society” 1. Professions and Social Identity. New European Historical Research on Work, Gender and Society, Berteke Waaldijk ed., 2006; 2. Reciprocity and Redistribution: Work and Welfare Reconsidered, Gro Hagemann ed., 2007; 3. Rhetorics of Work, Dimitra Lampropoulou, Carla Salvaterra, Yannis Yannitsiotis eds., 2008; 4. The Faces of Death. Visualising History, Andrea Pető, Klaartje Schrijvers eds., 2009. Thematic Work Group 5, “Frontiers and Identities” 1. Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area, Lud’a Klusáková, Steven G. Ellis eds., 2006; 2. Imagining Frontiers. Contesting Identities, Steven G. Ellis, Lud’a Klusáková eds., 2007; 3. Frontiers and Identities: Cities in Regions and Nations, Lud’a Klusáková, Laure Teulières eds., 2008; 4. Frontiers, Regions and Identities in Europe, Steven G. Ellis, Raingard Eßer, with Jean-Franēois Berdah, Miloš Řezník eds., 2009. Thematic Work Group 6, “Europe and the World” 1. Europe and the World in European Historiography, Csaba Lévai ed., 2006; 2. Sights and Insights: Interactive Images of Europe and the Wider World, Mary N. Harris ed., 2007; 3. Europe and its Empires, Mary N. Harris, Csaba Lévai eds., 2008; 4. European Migrants, Diasporas and Ethnic Minorities, Matjaž Klemenčič, Mary N. Harris eds., 2009. Transversal Themes 1. Citizenship in Historical Perspective, Steven G. Ellis, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson, Ann Katherine Isaacs eds., 2006; 2. Immigration and Emigration in Historical Perspective, Ann Katherine Isaacs ed., 2007; 3. Discrimination and Tolerance in Historical Perspective, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson ed., 2008; 4. Paths to gender. European Historical perspectives on Women and Men, Carla Salvaterra, Berteke Waaldijk eds., 2009.
Doctoral Dissertations 1. Florencia Peyrou, La Comunidad de Ciudadanos. El Discurso Democrático-Republicano en España, 1840-1868 (2006); 2. Marta Smagacz, Revitalisation of Urban Space. Social changes in Kraków’s Kazimierz and the Ticinese District of Milan (2007); 3. Andreas Gémes, Austria and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Between Solidarity and Neutrality (2008); 4. Vitaly V. Tichonov, A Historian of the “Old School”. Boris Ivanovich Syromyatnikov’s Scientific Biography (2008); 5. Momir Samardžić, The Railway Issue in Serbian Politics (1878-1881) (2009); 6. Claudia Bertazzo, I Magnati e il Diritto nei Comuni Italiani del XIII Secolo (2009); 7. Michael Refalo, The Maltese Commercial Class 1870-1914: Business, Families, Networks (2010); 8. Neval Berber, Unveiling Bosnia-Herzegovina in British Travel Literature (1844-1912) (2010); 9. Jeannette van der Sanden, Transferring Knowledge about Sex and Gender: Dutch Case Studies (2010); 10. Pieter François ‘A Little Britain on the Continent’: British Perceptions of Belgium, 1830-1870 (2010).
Under the aegis of CLIOHRES.net
www.cliohres.net Printed in July 2010 by Industrie Grafiche Pacini Editore S.p.A. on behalf of Edizioni PLUS - Pisa University Press
