Princess of Belgium Louise

A certain book exists of which only 110 copies have been printed, and these have been carefully distributed among those who were unlikely to mislay them.

This book, of which I deplore the fact that a greater number of copies were not printed, contains all the evidence concerning Niederfullbach, and the various judgments against my claims. Such as it is, and for the sake of what it contains and does not contain, I should be glad to see this book in the colleges and schools of Law throughout the world. It would be both useful and suggestive. Also if it were under the eyes of the general public it would doubtless be consulted with great interest.

What reflections would it not inspire, not only amongst jurists, but still more amongst deep thinkers, historians and writers, to see documents which throw new light on a century, a people and a man.

What would not be found hidden in high-sounding words and enormous figures! What a prodigious part is played in this book by a gifted spirit surrounded by collaborators devoted to his greatness so long as he lived, but who, enriched and satisfied, forgot his work and his name when once he was dead. "Gratitude," said Jules Sandeau, "is like those perfumes of the East which retain their strength when kept in vessels of gold, but lose it when placed in vessels of lead."

There are few golden vessels amongst men. There are vases which seem to glow with this precious metal, but which are really made of the worst kind of lead. Appearances are mostly deceitful.

The book which I should like to see more widely circulated, is a large volume bound in green cardboard, printed at Brussels under the title, "The Account of The Inheritance of His Majesty LeopoldII—Documents published by the Belgian State."

One of the best-known French lawyers wrote to me concerning this work:

"It is a great treasure, an inexhaustible mine. Some day lovers of Right, the young and old of every country, will publish essays and works inspired by the documents concerning the estate of King LeopoldII. They are priceless. Here are to be found a glowing romance of business, of magnificent conceptions, of astonishing forms of contracts, of statutes and entails, and finally a marvellous judicial discussion where morality and immorality are at variance. The whole terminates in a fantastic judgment, preceded and followed by stupefying transactions.

"It was thought that this lawsuit was finished. It will recommence and perhaps continue for a hundred years, under various forms and under certain conditions which cannot be foretold. It is impossible that the menace by Belgian justice against natural rights will be accepted and remain unchallenged."

If, as will be seen presently, it is indisputable that the King freely made over the Congo to Belgium, a possession which originally was secured by his money and under his direct superintendence, Reason must admit that such a gift could not have been accepted without Belgium, on her side, incurring some indebtedness to the family of the Sovereign, principally to his children.

That the donor may have wished to exclude his daughters from his real estate is not to be disputed, but that he could do so in justice is not presumable, and this action will never be admitted. To agree to such an iniquity would mean a conflict with that sacred principle which forms the basis of the continuity of the family.

I will now quote the opinion of a lawyer. His brother lawyers who read these lines will know him. I could quote a thousand opinions. But one will suffice: that of a Belgian lawyer, who was powerful enough to obtain "in the name of the State" what can only be called a sacrilegious judgment.

On the evening before the judgment which settled in my person the defeat of Law and Justice, one of my principal lawyers at Brussels was so sure of success that he telegraphed to one of my counsel, whose advice had been of great value: "Congratulations in anticipation."

How could this be doubted? The public prosecutor, a real lawyer, had summed up in my favour. He was an honest man. He saved the honour of Belgian justice on this eventful day.

My leading Belgian counsel was so convinced of not being beaten that he was opposed to a compromise, which was then perhaps possible, and I agreed. For I (who had appeared so many times before the courts) had a horror of legal proceedings. Here, as elsewhere, I have been seized and crushed in a fatal cogwheel. It would be easy to prove it. But the interest does not lie there; it lies in the extraordinary struggle which I have had to sustain, almost alone, in the lawsuit concerning the King's estate.

My sister ClÉmentine, who perhaps had not read Hippolyte Taine, yielded to dynastic illusions, and unhesitatingly sacrificed her claims. She accepted from the Belgian Government that which the State was pleased to offer her. She did not take into consideration the fact that she ought to join forces with her sisters. The Belgian motto is "Union is strength." This motto is not applicable to all Belgian families!

My sister StÉphanie at first sided with me, then she backed out, then she came in with me, and again she backed out....

I remained firm in my mistake—if it be thought a mistake. I knew at least what I wanted. My younger sister was not so sure. That is her affair. It cannot be counted against me that my cause, being that of the right, was not always hers.

I trust that I may be believed; I only struggled for justice. Nobody can possibly say what I should have done had I won.

As regards the Congo, it was never my intention to pretend that my sisters and I could possibly dispute the wishes of the King and the laws passed in Belgium for taking over the colony. But, between the conflict of certain points at issue and the acceptance of a disinheritance against nature and against legality, a space existed which could have been, and should have been, bridged by an honourable settlement.

The Belgian State had one proposition to make, which it timidly outlined. My leading counsel did not consider this sufficient. The Belgian people, left to themselves, would have known better how to act, and how to honour the memory of LeopoldII, but this duty was delegated to those who, to this day, have wilfully and lamentably failed.

Let us consider Belgium as a human being, endowed with honour and reason, and jealous of the judgment of history and the esteem of the world; mistress of millions of Congolese and of other millions of colonial treasure. As a reasoning being, would she have considered herself free from all obligations towards the unfortunate children of the giver of these gifts? Most assuredly not.

If she thought otherwise she would be without honour, without reason, a cruel cynic, justly mistrusted by all right-minded people. All the decrees in the world would never make her otherwise.

I have reasoned this out, and I still adhere to my view I was not alone in this opinion. My Belgian lawyers had other opinions besides mine, and believed them to be conclusive.

If I have not succeeded in proving my case I have had, at least, the satisfaction of knowing that my lawyers have lost nothing.

My case brought them luck. They eventually became Ministers, men to be envied in every way, who are proud of having defended me.

But let us turn to the written words; they are more eloquent than any of mine. I only wish to be sincere. Here, as elsewhere, I say exactly what I think. I do not gloss over or twist things round. I only restrain myself from being too vehement. You see me as I am.

I express myself as if I were standing in the presence of the King. I wish to reach my father's spirit, commune with his soul, and convince him in the invisible world that my claims were just.

At the commencement of these pages I have placed his name, which has remained dear to my respect as a daughter. I was never able, and I never dared discuss matters with this father who was so deceived and misinformed about me.

*****

On December 18, 1909, the Moniteur published the following statement:

"The Belgian nation has lost its King!

"The son of an illustrious sovereign, whose memory will remain for ever as a venerated symbol of constitutional monarchy, LeopoldII, after a reign of forty-five years, has died in harness, having, up to his last hour, devoted the best of his life and strength to the aggrandizement and prosperity of the country.

"On December 17, 1865, before the reunited Chambers, the King pronounced these memorable words, which since then have often been recalled:

"'If I do not promise Belgium either a great reign like that of the King who founded her independence, or to be a noble King like him whom we now lament, I promise at least that I will prove myself a King whose whole life will be devoted to the service of Belgium.'

"We know with what powerful energy he has kept and even exceeded this solemn promise.

"The creation of the African State which to-day forms the Belgian Colony of the Congo was the personal work of the King, and constitutes a unique achievement in the annals of history.

"Posterity will say that his was a great reign, and that he was a great King.

"The country now mourning his loss must worthily honour one who has died leaving such a splendid record behind him.

"The country places all its hopes in the loyal co-operation, already so happily manifested, of the Prince who has been called to preside over the destiny of Belgium.

"He will be inspired by the illustrious examples of those who became, by the help of Providence, the benefactors of the Belgian people.

"The Council of Ministers:

F. Schollaert, Minister of the Interior and of Agriculture.
Leon de Lantsheere, Minister of Justice.
J. Davignon, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
J. Liebaert, Minister of Finance.
Bon Descamps, Minister of Science and Art.
Arm. Hubert, Minister of Industry and Labour.
M. Delbeke, Minister of Public Works.
G. Hellepute, Minister of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs.
J. Hellepute, Minister of War.
J. Renkin, Colonial Minister."

Of the signatories of this moving proclamation some are dead, others are still living.

To those who are no more, and to those who are still alive, I say:

"You have written and attested that the creation of the African State was the personal work of the King. In his person, then, you have recognized the man, the head of the family—and therefore the family itself; otherwise the word personal is without meaning.... And, as a matter of fact, it has suddenly lost its meaning. The King, now an entity without terrestrial chains, has enriched Belgium to the exclusion of his children, who are declared non-existent.

"And how, with or without you, has he been honoured?

"In continuing the endowment of Niederfullbach and other creations of this gifted benefactor?

"Ah! In no way whatever!

"You have liquidated, realized, destroyed and abandoned all that he conceived and ordered. I do not wish to describe in detail all that has passed, and I have no desire to touch on the sadness connected with the secrets of Niederfullbach and other works of the King, from the day when they ceased to be under his direction. I will take my stand on the ground of the sin against morality which most concerns me.

"Eleven years have passed since the death of the 'Great King.' Where is the monument erected to his memory? "The people of Ostend, who owe to him the prosperity and beauty of their town, have not even dared to show an example of their gratitude. They are afraid of vexing the ungrateful people of Brussels, who prefer silence."

His wishes with respect to the Congo and his heirs are in three documents, which I append below:

First:

(I) An explanatory letter of the King, dated June 3, 1906, in testamentary form.

(Attached to exhibit No. 36 in the collection published by the Belgian Government.)

Having read this, no really right-minded person can deny that the King speaks of the Congo as private property which he surrenders voluntarily to Belgium, which he was quite at liberty to do, and which Belgium was equally at liberty to accept as a Royal gift.

But there is no right without duty.

I ask whether it was right of the Belgian Government to ruin me, an exile and a prisoner, calumniated and mistrusted; to deny me my Belgian nationality, and to sequestrate the little money left me in Belgium? This, I have said before, was, I believe, the fatal result of a general measure, misinterpreted perhaps by an inexpert official.

But let it go!!

I only ask whether the Belgian Government can assert to-day that it has fulfilled the conditions imposed on it by its benefactor, and especially "the obligation to respect the integrity of the revenues of the various institutions" established by the King in favour of the Congo.

I await an answer. I now come to the question of the Will.

A great deal has been written about this Will. The statement "I possess nothing" except the declared fifteen millions caused the ink to flow.

The statement itself was proved untrue on the death of the King, since in the abundance of wealth of all sorts which was found, the Belgian Government was obliged to specify as "litigious" certain shares and moneys which it could not take over, and which it left to my sisters and to myself. These shares and moneys have nearly doubled the fortune bequeathed us by our father.

Let no one say: "The fortune was considerable." As a statement it is true. But it must not be forgotten that everything is comparative, and that if I explain a point of succession which is unique in history it is not because I am avaricious. It is because I must insist, as a question of principle, to defend what I consider right, and to enlighten the public on a hitherto entangled and obscure discussion.

The second Will, reproduced below, merely states precisely the intention of the first:

In this document the King said no more about having "scrupulously" saved the fifteen millions. A great deal has been written about this, because elsewhere the King often declared in his most formal manner that not only had he used his own fortune, but also that of my aunt, the Empress Charlotte, in the Congo enterprise.

He might have lost all. If this had been the case, would Belgium have indemnified his children at his death? Certainly not! Fortunately Belgium has been the gainer.

Is it logical that the King's children should be objects of indifference to him?

To finish with the question of the fifteen millions, one fact remains which I cannot pass over, and which will suffice to invalidate the characteristic declaration of the King, if the discovery had not already been made at his death.

About this well-known fact everyone will guess beforehand what I could say....

It is not wise to enlarge on this subject. Age is excusable in its errors, and the disposal of sixty millions will find many willing helpers.

But, truly, whom does one deceive, and by whom is one deceived? Virtuous airs are strangely a matter of circumstance with certain people who lend themselves to an astonishing favouritism, to the detriment of the natural heirs of the King.

However, let us forget this. Let us only remember the material point, which was that the King wished to disinherit his daughters.

Was it right and moral of Belgium to associate herself with this inhuman error and this illegality?

Ought she not to have assumed another line of conduct on behalf of myself and my sisters? I ask it of the King as if he were alive and in the entire possession of his faculties; I ask this of the King who is now enlightened by death.

I ask it of my brave compatriots.

I ask it of the jurists of the entire world.

I ask it of history.

Let us put aside the millions of future generations and the hundreds of millions of the past.

I have renounced expectations and the promises of fairy tales more easily than most people. I would have liked to have made many people happy, to have helped beautiful works, to have created useful institutions. God knows all my dreams. He has decided that they should not be fulfilled, and I am resigned.

I have only wished to defend a principle and to obtain for myself a minimum of the possibilities of a free and honourable existence in accordance with my rank.

Was my action then unjustifiable?

What do certain documents—which it is easy to consult—establish, but which I cannot reproduce here without giving to these pages a different character from that I wish to give?

These documents prove that the personal fortune of the King had attained a minimum of twenty millions at the time of his last illness.

On the decease of the Sovereign this fortune, or the greater portion of it, had disappeared. My sisters and I had a round figure of twelve millions.

But what of the rest? It has been said to us, and to me especially:

"What? You are complaining? By the terms of your father's will you should only have five millions. You have twelve millions, and you are not satisfied. You argue, you accuse, you incriminate! You are always at war with someone."

I am not at war with any particular person in this affair. I have simply upheld the right, and I believe it to be my duty.

The Government, the judge and the party opponents have told me, in fine-sounding sentences, that I was wrong.

Would they agree to submit their judgments to the final verdict of a tribunal composed of jurists from countries friendly to Belgium?

I renounce in advance the benefit of their decision if it should be in my favour.

Would they agree to accept an inquiry into the subject of the real and personal fortune of the King at the time of his death and what has become of it?

I know beforehand. These indiscreet questions will only meet with profound silence.

What consoles me in my misfortunes is the knowledge that the men in the confidence of the King have become wonderfully enriched. If my father could only leave fifteen millions I am confident that they, at any rate, will be able to leave much more. I am very pleased to think that this is so, as I find it only natural that merit, valour, conscientiousness and fidelity should be recompensed on earth. I only regret one thing, which is common to human nature. Money, alas! does not tend to improve it. Instead it seems to harden the hearts of those who possess it.

How can the King's faithful servants and those of my family be at ease in palaces, where everything breathes comfort and luxury, when I am reduced to living as I am now obliged to live, practically from hand to mouth, uncertain to-day where to look to-morrow for sustenance, although within the grasp of two fortunes: one already mine by right of inheritance, and the other which I have every anticipation of inheriting?

People may say that instead of complaining I could continue to defend my rights, and it avails nothing to abuse the injustice of men. I do not ignore the fact that I have only to attack the SociÉtÉ des Sites, and the French property which the King has given to Belgium, for French justice, which is worthy of the name of justice, to condemn a fictitious society, whose so-called existence is not unwelcome to a Parisian lawyer and the servants of my family who have lent their name as circumstances required.

Law is law for everyone in France, and when the SociÉtÉ des Sites was founded in Paris, it was done with the most flagrant disregard of French legality.

I do not forget that the German law would equally condemn what transpired between Belgium and the administrators of Niederfullbach, if I were to attack these persons before the Justice of Germany, as I could easily do. The two Germans who are included in the list of administrators have sensed danger so strongly, owing to their properties and positions being in Germany, that, in face of possible dangerous retaliations, they have sheltered themselves behind the Belgium State by the "arrangement" which they have accepted, and which has robbed my sisters and myself of considerable sums.

I also know that the Royal Gift of 1901 is open to an attack in Belgium, based on the material error committed over the question of the disposable share of the King's property. But, really, it is too painful for me to think about this and to go into these details. I only give certain of them in order to show that I have resisted, and I shall still resist, assuring myself that if I have not found justice in Belgium I shall find it elsewhere.

To speak with perfect frankness, I have suffered cruelly, and I still suffer on account of the strife in which I have been involved.

When I occasionally re-read the pleadings of the talented lawyers who defended or attacked me over the question of the King's inheritance, a sort of faintness overcomes me. Before so many words, in the face of so many reasons for and against, I feel that all things except equity can be expected of mankind.

It is positively stupefying for me to realize that three of my lawyers are Ministers, or are on the point of becoming Ministers, as I write these pages. I have only to take up their "pleadings" to hear the voice of their conscience proclaiming the justice of my cause, and accusing the State in which they are embodied to-day of collusion and fraud—in one word, of unqualified actions. Do they not remember what they said, wrote and published? I listen in vain for some words from them.... Nothing ... never a word. I am dead, so far as they are concerned.

I am unhappy. They know it, and they keep silence.

Never a thought, a memory for one who confided in them. They are in power—and I am in misery; they are living in their own country—I am an exile. They are Men, and I am a Woman. Oh, pettiness of the human soul!

I think again of all that has been said and written against me in the land of my birth for which I was sacrificed. What errors, what exaggerations, what passions, what ignorance concerning my real self! Nevertheless, taken as individuals, those who attack me and defame me are really good and brave men at heart. But they rend one's soul. Do they not understand what they do?

Has Belgium no conscience? She ranks so high to-day in the opinion of the world, that it seems impossible for her to expose herself to the diminution of her moral glory which will inevitably follow when History goes into the vexed question of the King's Inheritance, and its results in my own case. Can she rightly and peacefully enjoy that which has been unjustly obtained, or more or less greedily seized by her? History will find, as I find, certain ineffaceable words in the address to the SÉnat by M. de Lantsheere, Minister of State, touching the Royal Gift of 1901, which all that was best in the Belgian soul then found inacceptable. I reproduce these words for the contemplation and consideration of all honest men.

M. de Lantsheere spoke as follows in the Belgian SÉnat on December 3, 1901, to contest the acceptance by the Chambre des ReprÉsentants of the King's Gift, and all that had privately enriched the King: