the intention of Germany to maintain the high level of her armaments; and on the 28th of October there appeared in the Daily Telegraph an extraordinary “interview,” authorized by him, in which he expounded his attitude. The document was a résumé of his table-talk during his stay at Highcliffe Castle, on the Hampshire coast opposite the Isle of Wight, in the autumn of 1907. In it he reiterated that his heart was set on peace; he declared that, so far from being hostile to the English, he had offended large sections of his people by his friendship for England. He instanced his refusal to receive the Boer delegates and his rejection of the proposals of France and Russia for a joint intervention to stop the South African War; he also mentioned the curious fact that at an early stage of the war he had himself drawn up a plan of campaign for the British and sent it to Windsor. It was on this occasion, too, that he made the suggestion of an eventual co-operation of the British and German fleets in the Far East. This pronouncement created a profound sensation, not only in Germany, where the indignation was intense, but in Russia, France and Japan, where it was regarded as a Machiavellian attempt to loosen existing alliances. In the German press and parliament a storm of protest arose. Prince Bülow, as technically responsible, handed in his resignation, which was not accepted, and he was forced to make in the Reichstag the best defence that he could for the imperial indiscretion, declaring that henceforth the emperor would show more reserve. The emperor publicly endorsed the chancellor’s explanations, and for nearly two years maintained in public an almost unbroken silence. But this came to an end in a speech delivered at Königsberg, on the 25th of August 1910. In this the emperor again laid special stress upon the divine right by which alone the kings of Prussia rule, adding: “considering myself as the instrument of the Lord, without heeding the views and opinions of the day, I go my way.” This speech led to a debate, on a Socialist interpellation, in the Reichstag (November 26). In reply to the enquiry what the government intended to do in fulfilment of the pledge given in 1908, the chancellor denied that the emperor had exceeded his constitutional rights, a view supported by the majority of the House.
The emperor married on the 27th of February 1881 Princess Auguste Victoria, daughter of Frederick, duke of Augustenburg, who in 1864 had come forward as claimant to the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein; the marriage had, therefore, some political importance, for it sealed the reconciliation of one of the dynasties that had suffered by the rise of Prussia. They had six sons and one daughter: (1) Wilhelm, born 6th May 1882, Crown Prince, whose coming of age was celebrated with much ceremony on his eighteenth birthday, and who married on the 6th of June 1905 the duchess Cecilia of Mecklenburg, their eldest son, Wilhelm, being born on the 4th of July 1906; (2) Eitel Friedrich, born on the 7th of July 1883; (3) Adalbert, born on the 14th of July 1884; (4) August Wilhelm, born on the 29th of January 1887; (5) Oskar, born on the 27th of July 1888; (6) Joachim, born on the 17th of December 1890; and (7) Viktoria Luise, born on the 13th of September 1892.
For the emperor’s speeches, &c., see Kaiserreden, Reden und Erlasse, Briefe und Telegramme Kaiser Wilhelms II. (Leipzig, 1902); translated by L. Elkind, as The German Emperor’s Speeches (London, 1904).
WILLIAM I. (1772–1844), king of the Netherlands, born at the Hague on the 24th of August 1772, was the son of William V., prince of Orange and hereditary stadtholder of the United Netherlands by Sophia Wilhelmina, princess of Prussia. In 1791 he married Frederica Wilhelmina, daughter of Frederick William II., king of Prussia, thus cementing very closely the relations between the houses of Orange-Nassau and Hohenzollern. After the outbreak of war with the French republic in 1793, he distinguished himself in the struggle against the revolutionary army under Dumouriez by the capture of Landrecies and the relief of Charleroi. By the victories of Pichegru the stadtholder and all his family were, however, compelled to leave Holland and seek refuge in England, where the palace of Hampton Court was set apart for their use. He afterwards made Berlin his residence, and took an active part in the unfortunate campaign under the duke of York for the reconquest of the Netherlands. After the peace of Amiens he had an interview with Napoleon at Paris, and received some territory adjoining the hereditary domains of the house of Nassau in Westphalia as a compensation for the abandonment of the stadtholderate and the domains of his house. William refused, however, in 1806, in which year by the death o£ his father he became prince of Orange, to separate his interests from those of his Prussian relatives, and fought bravely at Jena. He was therefore despoiled by Napoleon of all his possessions. In 1809 he accepted a command in the Austrian army under the archduke Charles and was wounded at the battle of Wagram. When Holland rose in revolt against French domination in 1813, after eighteen years of exile he landed at Scheveningen (on the 19th of November) and was on the 3rd of December, amid universal rejoicing, proclaimed prince sovereign of the Netherlands. His assumption in the following year of the title of king of the Netherlands was recognized by the powers, and by the treaty of Paris his sovereignty was extended over the southern as well as the northern Netherlands, Belgium being added to Holland “as an increase of territory.” After the battle of Waterloo, in which Dutch and Belgian troops fought side by side under his command, the congress of Vienna further aggrandized him by making him sovereign of the territory of Luxemburg with the title of grand duke.
William had many excellent qualities, but his long life of exile and hardship had made him niggardly and narrow. He was unable to rise to the great opportunity which lay before him of creating out of the Dutch and Belgian provinces a strong and united state. Two hundred and fifty years of political separation and widely differing experiences had caused the two kindred populations on this and that side of the Scheldt to grow apart in sentiment and tradition. This difference was still further accentuated by strong divergence in religious creed. Further, one-third of the Belgian provinces was inhabited by a Walloon population divided from the Flemings by racial characteristics and their use of a Romance instead of a Teutonic dialect. All these things William was inclined to ignore. He drew up a constitution, which was accepted unanimously by the Dutch, but was rejected by the Belgians, because it contained provisions for liberty of worship. The king, however, by a subterfuge declared that the fundamental law had been approved. The new constitution, therefore, started badly, and it was soon evident that William intended to make his will prevail, and to carry out his projects for what he conceived the social, industrial and educational welfare of the kingdom regardless of the opposition of Belgian public opinion. The Belgians had many grievances. Their representation in the states general was exactly equal to that of the Dutch, though their population was in the proportion of seven to five. With the help of the official vote of ministers the Dutch were thus able to have a perpetual majority. The whole machinery of government was centralized at the Hague, and Dutchmen filled nearly all the principal posts. The attempt of the king to enforce the official use of the Dutch language, and the foundation of the so-called philosophical college at Louvain helped to exacerbate the growing discontent. The rapid advance of Belgium in industrial and manufacturing prosperity, due largely to the stimulus of William’s personal initiative, did nothing to bring north and south together, but rather increased their rivalry and jealousy, for the Dutch provinces had neither manufactures nor iron- and coal-mines, but were dependent on agriculture and sea-borne commerce for their welfare. Such clashing of interests was sure to produce alienation, but the king remained apparently blind to the signs of the times, and the severe enforcement of a harsh law restricting freedom of the press led suddenly in 1830 to a revolt (see Belgium), which, beginning at Brussels at the end of August, rapidly spread over the whole country. The Dutch were almost without striking a blow expelled from the country, the strongly fortified seaport of Antwerp alone remaining in their hands. Had the king consented at once to the administrative autonomy of Belgium, and appointed the prince of Orange governor of the southern Netherlands, it is probable that the revolt might have been appeased. At the first there was undoubtedly a strong body of public opinion in favour of such a compromise, and the house of Orange had many adherents in the country. William,
