After the American (1776) and French revolution (1789), a Dutch revolution also arose in 1795. The Batavian republic that emerged from this strived for a more democratic and central government. Contrary to popular belief, it was not a copy of the great French or American example. What is striking is the idiosyncratic and radical character of Dutch politics and legislation.
In the Netherlands, the Batavian revolution is a relatively unknown chapter in its history. In 1987 numerous collections were published that paid attention to the era of the patriots (1780-1787), but the Batavian era (1795-1810) was hardly remembered or celebrated. Why is that? Do Dutch historians see the Batavian revolution as no more than an 'incident', as the Groningen historian Ernst Kossmann once put it? Or do they believe that that period was so strongly influenced by France that it is not worth studying?
Both explanations will have played a role. Be that as it may, since Simon Schama's Patriots and Liberators no serious or innovative synthesis about the Batavian period has been published. Pioneering historians such as Niek van Sas, Frans Graynhout, Willem Frijhoff, Wyger Velema, Martijn van der Burg and Joost Rosendaal have brought to light new sources about the patriots in exile, about the republicanism of the time, about certain figures and their ideas and ideas. about the kingdom of Louis Napoleon. Yet political and legal historians still claim that the Batavian institutions were grafted onto those of France. However, the various Batavian declarations of human rights and draft constitutions paint a different picture. When it comes to the legal and cultural institutions, the difference between the so-called mother and sister republics is even greater.
Human rights
The Batavian-French troops had barely invaded the Netherlands in January 1795 when the makeshift representatives of Holland decided to draw up and publish a Declaration of Human Rights. On January 26, 1795, the decision to this effect was taken. The Declaration is ready on January 29 and two days later it is adopted by the Provincial Council of Holland. In three days the Dutch therefore produced a text that, according to the moderate patriot Johan Hendrik Swildens, could have served as an example for the new French declaration of 1795 to be drawn up. It often took American states two to three years to enact their Bill of Rights and their constitutions. In 1789, France managed to have a first 'Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen' ready in three weeks.
The declaration of the province of Holland, which served as a model for the other regions, does not resemble that of France in principle and sequence, nor does it resemble that of America. After the provincial declarations, five more national designs will follow. Thus, between 1796 and 1798, the Hahn design, the Floh design and the De Mist design were presented to the National Assembly. The latter is approved after some corrections and added as a 'social treaty' to the draft Constitution of 1797.
When this constitution is rejected by the Dutch people, the legislators have produced a new constitution and a new declaration. Each time, these designs are seriously discussed, criticized and improved in the National Assembly.
The fact that the Netherlands wanted a reciprocal treaty in 1797 rather than a unilateral declaration from the legislators stems from the idea that a declaration would not be binding, while a treaty is. In 1798, the legislators opted for "general principles and basic civil and political rules", a designation that was again completely unknown in France. The text is tailored to the national character and resembles no other model, as it contains no less than 72 articles, all of which are tailored to the Dutch situation, as evidenced by the articles on exchange banks or on trade in the colonies.
The same goes for the constitution. The radical patriots, who wanted to establish a unitary republic, in January 1798 were guided partly by the Dutch draft of 1797 and partly by their own convictions. In this way the elections are organized in such a way that the people can exert direct influence:the people themselves name the eligible candidates. The elections are indirect, but if the result is unclear, it will be decided by lot. A procedure that Rousseau had recommended, but was unknown to French legislators.
Despite the attempts of Charles Delacroix, the French ambassador in The Hague, to introduce certain French institutions, such as the jury or the justice of the peace, these have not been included in the Batavian constitution. This again shows that the constitution of 1798 was largely Dutch. The only changes introduced at the behest of France concern the legislature, which is not allowed to interfere with the legislative or executive power, and the political societies, which are not allowed to come together just like that. The French legislator Daunou, who corrected the Dutch design, also appreciated Dutch creations:he found the Batavian electoral system better than the French one and introduced it in the Roman Republic founded by him in 1798. In short, these changes meant that politics had to become less popular and that the executive branch had to be able to function without the judges being a stumbling block. Furthermore, the Netherlands could go its own way without worrying too much about what Paris thought of its nouveautés. This is evident from his idiosyncratic division into constituencies and from the original electoral system.
Codes for the Batavian nation
The pursuit of its own course is even more apparent in the discussion surrounding codification. The Dutch lawyers who were part of the codification committee could appeal to an indigenous tradition:that of Hugo de Groot. This lawyer was the source of inspiration for professor H.C. Cras, the chairman of the Commission. The designs made between 1801 and 1804 clearly show that people wanted to draw from their own soil.
For example, with regard to the Civil Code, the committee members believed that adulthood was reached at 23 years of age. Before that age, a young man would not be able to act independently—unlike France, where the limit was set at 21. Would the French grow up sooner? Or did the Dutch use different criteria?
The Dutch certainly had different criteria than the French when it came to women and children. For example, they were much more liberal than their southern neighbors towards illegitimate children, who were allowed to inherit from their mother's side, because, they said, 'a Dutch woman does not make a bastard'. And a few among the jurists would have liked to see women treated equally, since men and women were spiritually equal and the difference in pure physical strength should not be a reason to discriminate against women. Finally, the committee members accepted that there were more grounds for divorce than before so that the woman could be freed from an untrustworthy or abusive husband. Every effort had to be made to encourage the woman to bear children. Children who would bring prosperity to the fatherland, which was considered so necessary at the time. The attention for children and their well-being, and also for the care for population growth, was much stronger in the Netherlands than in revolutionary America or France.
The committee members were much less liberal with regard to criminal law. Here it becomes clear what kind of society they aspire to:an orderly and disciplined society where robbers, vagabonds and beggars would be locked up, far from civilized civil society. Again, they did not look at France at all. The committee members only appealed to national or provincial traditions. It is remarkable that the quality of Dutch criminal law was never doubted, not even by the radicals or democrats of 1798. While torture was quickly abolished in Holland, there was never any mention of the abolition of corporal punishment, for example. People continued to scourge and brand. Corporal punishment had already disappeared in France in 1791, because it was considered inhumane and unworthy. The same was true of America, with the exception of the southern states. But remarkably enough, neither the Batavian legislators nor the committee members spoke about it, notwithstanding Article 30 of the constitution that stated that no one should be treated too harshly. Dutch liberalism was thus limited to civil and political laws. Criminal law, on the other hand, was subject to strict paternalism.
One national culture
The Batavian republic also went its own way with regard to its cultural institutions. For example, it was decided to pay more attention to primary education than to higher education. It was important for the Batavians that all children could read, calculate and write. France and America showed little interest in poor children. Furthermore, the Batavian republic wanted to provide 'prosperity to all its members' and to prevent 'begging'. Not to imitate the Jacobins, as some French historians still claim, but because the new republic would nationalize institutions such as poor management and guilds. In addition, legislators hoped that the new laws would boost prosperity. Among the measures taken to shape the national character, national festivals were also organized, which would cultivate brotherhood among the citizens.
As far as the festivities are concerned, the Dutch were sometimes inclined to look at Paris, but that is precisely why the national festivities were not a success. The people got drunk when there was no one to be seen. The Minister of National Education, Johannes van der Palm, thought that it would be better to spend the little money he still had more wisely, and that money was therefore invested in primary schools and in their organization.
Minister Isaak Gogel, who would reform the finances, also had a dream:a national "art gallery" to educate the people. He opened it in 1800, despite the fact that the most beautiful stadholder's collections had been taken to Paris. This gallery was the predecessor of the Rijksmuseum and contained paintings of naval heroes or from the time of the Revolt. Portraits of revolutionary heroes were completely absent. In France, portraits and statues of French and American revolutionaries had been exhibited as early as 1789-1791, and in London the American artist John Trumbull was busy painting beautiful scenes of the American Revolution. In Paris, the greatest painter of his time, Jacques-Louis David, immortalized the memory of the martyrs of freedom. These works of art were also known in the Netherlands, but did not give rise to imitation. The attempt to erect a national monument after the French example was also unsuccessful. There has been only one design:to commemorate the victory at Castricum against the Anglo-Russian invasion. But even this one has not been implemented.
In short, the 'cultural revolution' in the Netherlands failed. The question, of course, is why. Of course the Batavians had too few resources and time, but perhaps something else is at play here:the disappointment in their revolution, which brought the national discord to light. In the past, the stadholder was seen as the cause of this discord, but with his departure in 1795, the concord was not restored, on the contrary, the party spirit had worsened.
Forgive and forget
The cultural revolution has failed all the more because in 1813 a policy of 'forgive and forget' was adopted. In primary schools, the children received new manuals in which the previous fifteen years were kept silent or given a special interpretation. For example, those booklets showed that the Dutch had not wanted a revolution at all and that they had watched William V's departure with tears. From that time dates the idea that the Batavian revolution was due to the wiles of the French. But with that, what the patriots and the Batavians independently had come up with in terms of the modernization of politics, legislation and cultural nation-building.
It probably would have been very different if Napoleon hadn't annexed the country. As long as the Netherlands was independent, the patriots were proud of their reforms. King Louis Napoleon did not change that. He did manage to calm the national discord. But because the 'dear fatherland' was given the status of a French department in 1810, it became difficult to see the Batavian revolution as a success. That revolution had exposed not only the internal dissension but also the incurable weakness of a country that had lost its rank as a world power for good. A nation is never fondly remembered of such events.