74 



BELGIUM. 



to the Duchesne-Poncelet plot in 1873 against 

 the life of the German Chancellor. That indi- 

 vidual, in a letter addressed on the 9th of Sep- 

 tember, 1873, to the Archhishop of Paris, had 

 offered to assassinate Prince Bismarck for a sum 

 of 60,000 francs. He sent at the same time 

 a cipher alphabet in order that no one might be 

 able to understand the correspondence. A 

 second letter, undated, was sent to the same 

 prelate, the author inclosing a photograph, said 

 to be of himself, and giving his address, "Du- 

 chesne-Poncelot, Rue Leopold, Seraing, Bel- 

 gique." On the 21st of the same month, the 

 writer again sent a communication to Mgr. 

 Guibert, confirming his previous letter, and de- 

 claring himself ready for action. The arch- 

 bishop placed the documents at once in the 

 hands of the French Government, which trans- 

 mitted them to the Belgian administration. 

 Duchesne admitted having written the papers, 

 being at the time drunk, and acting under the 

 dictation of a friend, whose name he persists 

 in concealing, for fear, as he states, of bringing 

 that person into trouble. The third observa- 

 tion touched upon the address of several mem- 

 bers of the so-called Societe des (Enures Pon- 

 tificales to the Bishop of Paderborn. The 

 Prussian note added: " It is scarcely possible 

 that the laws of Belgium cannot enable the 

 Government to stop undertakings which might 

 alter its relations with neighboring states. 

 Neutral states which wish to preserve the ad- 

 vantage of their position should carefully avoid 

 anything which might alter that principle of 

 neutrality which is the basis of their existence. 

 If Belgian laws do not contain the authority 

 necessary to obtain the legitimate 'satisfaction 

 claimed by the German Government, the latter 

 hopes Belgium will supply the deficiency by 

 fresh legislation." 



The answer of the Belgian Government to 

 this note is dated February 26th. It reminds 

 the Berlin Government that the pastoral let- 

 ters were published long ago, that they are for- 

 gotten, and that they were coeval with the 

 commencement of the struggle between Ger- 

 many and the Pope. As to the address to the 

 Bishop of Paderborn, the Comite des (Euvres 

 Pontf/icales has disavowed it. It was the work 

 of individuals, and not of an organized society. 

 With regard to the Duchesne plot, the Belgian 

 Government reminds the German Government 

 that it had thanked the Belgian authorities for 

 what they had done in the matter, and that, 

 moreover, investigations were still being pur- 

 sued with regard to it. The Belgian answer 

 adds that the Belgian laws suffice for the sup- 

 pression of all offenses, but that offenses of in- 

 tention cannot be repressed, and that no law 

 in any country affects them. Protesting against 

 certain attacks in the German note, the Bel- 

 gian Government draws attention to the fact 

 that the liberty which Belgium enjoys is, as it 

 were, drawn from the very vitals of the na- 

 tion, that the attitude of the Belgian people 

 has always excited general admiration, that it 



has given an example of liberty allied to order, 

 and that it has powerfully contributed to the 

 establishment of the juste parlementairisme 

 adopted by nearly all the states in Europe. 

 The good sense of the Belgian people had cor- 

 rectly gauged the theories of the International 

 which had been openly preached to it. "In- 

 dependent and neutral Belgium has never 

 done anything, despite the incessant inter- 

 course between two countries whose frontiers 

 join, which could alter its relation with a na- 

 tion both friendly and which guarantees its in- 

 dependence." The Belgian reply then con- 

 cludes with some friendly formulas. 



The German Government communicated its 

 note to the cabinets of London, Vienna, Paris, 

 St. Petersburg, and the Hague, but received an 

 answer only from Lord Derby, intimating that 

 Belgium would hardly be in condition to com- 

 ply with the wish of Germany for a change of 

 its legislation. An interpellation in the Eng- 

 lish House of Commons did, not elicit a satis- 

 factory reply, as the diplomatic communication 

 was regarded as confidential. 



Prince Bismarck replied to the Belgian note 

 on April 15th. The reply cites no fresh facts. 

 It descants on the principles of international 

 law involved in the discussion, and expresses the 

 hope that Belgium will seize the opportunity to 

 dissipate the impression that Germany intended 

 to attack the liberty of the press in Belgium. 

 The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs an- 

 nounced the receipt of the new note to the 

 House of Deputies on April 16th, and said that 

 in addition to this correspondence, courteous 

 verbal explanations had been exchanged with 

 the German representative ; and, in conclu- 

 sion, he assured the Chamber that the Belgian 

 Government sincerely desired to strengthen 

 good relations with Germany. The answer of 

 Belgium to the German note of April 15th 

 was dispatched on April 30th. It is courteous 

 in tone, merely takes notice of Germany's ac- 

 tion in regard to the revision of the penal laws, 

 and in no way returns to the subjects of the 

 first reply, except to reserve for a future time 

 the adoption of a resolution in accordance with 

 the friendly declarations contained in that re- 

 ply. 



On May 7th and 8th the Chamber of Depu- 

 ties debated the last vote of the Belgian Gov- 

 ernment. M. Frere-Orban, the leader of the 

 Liberal party, was the principal speaker. He 

 approved the terms of the last answer to Ger- 

 many. He considered that all grounds for ap- 

 prehension respecting the independence of the 

 country, the integrity of its institutions, and 

 the liberty of the press, had disappeared. At 

 the same time the neutral position of Belgium 

 did not exonerate her from obligations to her 

 neighbors. It was a question whether the Gov- 

 ernment had done its duty to Germany in the 

 Duchesne affair. The Minister of Justice de- 

 nied that the Government had been inactive 

 in prosecuting the investigation. After a pro- 

 tracted debate, the Chamber adopted a resolu- 



