is seven years since the war ended and at this time of day the work of these Activists must be regarded as an exceptional, not a normal, phase in the history of the Flemish movement. There were other Flemish leaders who resisted the Germans. No one would say that the Flemings as a whole took less than their share in the general resistance to the invader. It would be both unfair and inaccurate to say that the movement was pro-German during the war, and it would be absurd to say that it is so now. Germany is not now in a position to give attention to pan-German propaganda in a country where the difficulties are so great as they would be in Belgium. Whatever may have been the influence of Germany in promoting Flemish aspirations in the past, it would be a waste of time to consider the possibility that the hidden hand of Germany is actuating them at present. The former bond with Germany has indeed left its traces. There are still Flemish leaders whose feelings for the German people and State are friendly. But it would be an anachronism to consider that the relation of the Flemish movement to Germany is such as to give general ground for any distrust in England.

It is time to state in the simplest terms what the Flemish movement is. The population of Belgium has two languages. The relation between them is oddly like—and oddly unlike—that between English and Welsh. In the northern part of Belgium the prevailing language is Flemish, a Teutonic language not very different from English. In the southern part French is spoken. Those who speak French are called Walloons, or Waalsch, the same word as our Welsh. But the Walloons, though numerically inferior, have the greater share of wealth and power. A definite geographical line divides the two languages: north of this line the people mainly speak Flemish, south of it they speak French. The position of the line has varied very little for some centuries past. During the last hundred years it has been in its present position, running from Dunkirk through Waterloo to Visé. The one important change has been that Brussels, once a Flemishspeaking town, has become, because it is the capital, a town of mixed speech, in which French holds a strong position. Of the seven million people in Belgium a million more speak Flemish than speak French; but Flemish is not equally the language of all classes in the northern provinces. In the large towns it belongs to the poor and the lower middle classes. Even in the countryside, which is more solidly Flemish, French is to some extent the

language of the most influential people. Besides this social difference, the difference of language corresponds also, as such differences always do, with many other contrasts. The Flemings are one of the most devout Roman Catholic populations in Europe; the Walloons are much affected by the freedom of thought of the Latin countries. The Flemings have their own literature, most of it modern and very deeply Flemish, not only in its language, in the narrow sense of grammar and vocabulary, but in its meaning and its relation to the readers' minds and ways of life.

And there is another kind of difference about which we shall have more to say. The Flemish dialects are akin to the language which we call Dutch—the language of the kingdom of Holland, which immediately adjoins Flanders to the north. Dutch is a literary language, a fully developed and standardised language, which in the sixteenth century took shape, as all the great European languages took shape, by a process of selection and adaptation from a number of dialects. That which contributed most to it was the dialect of the province of Holland. It is the only language which has been formed from the dialects of the Teutonic Netherlands, and for scientific and journalistic use it is the language of the Flemings. But it has not overcome the Flemish dialects. They are much more marked than the dialects of the great modern countries which have fully formed languages. Thus there is a considerable linguistic difference between the Flemings and the Dutch. On the other hand the linguistic difference between the Walloons and the French, who are their southern neighbours, is much less. For our purpose it is negligible. A philologist might indeed lay stress on the peculiarities of the dialects of such regions as Liège and the Ardennes; but these peculiarities have led to no corresponding political consciousness. For political purposes it is true to say that the Walloons speak the same language as the French.

Out of the difference between Flemings and Walloons there has grown up a dispute. The simplest quarrel is the linguistic quarrel. In every country where there are two or more languages, there must be some law about their use. In Wales, for instance, though probably very few people know it, there is a law of Henry VIII which says that the proceedings of the law-courts are to be in English, but there are later laws providing for the use of Welsh by witnesses; also in marriages, in arbitrations between landlord

and tenant, and so forth. In Belgium for more than a century past, the legal positions of the languages have been much discussed and the law has several times been changed. There have been differences about the use of Flemish in courts of law, in government offices, in the army. At present the one serious difference, overshadowing every other, concerns its use in education. For the last ten years the greatest internal problem of Belgium has been the problem of whether the university of Ghent, the old capital of Flanders, shall have its lectures in Flemish or in French. That problem has a most complicated history. It has upset a cabinet. It is still unsolved. We need not go into its details. All we need do at the moment is to notice that it really is a problem of the first magnitude. For anyone who knows the meaning and power of education will see that, if two bodies of people live side by side, there can be no more certain way of keeping one of them in inferiority to the other than to prevent that body from having a system of higher education which shall be truly and wholly its own.

There are some people who say that the Flemish question is a language question and nothing more; that the issue is between two languages and not between two nationalities. That is a matter of words. It must be clear already that nothing outside the matter of languages could very well add to the seriousness of the question. No one who reads the controversial writings of the Flemish parties can doubt that their spirit is in all essentials identical with the spirit of nationality as it showed itself of old in Italy and Germany, or more lately in Ireland. There are differences of time and place, but the spirit is the same. To many, if not most Englishmen, that is not a recommendation. Many Englishmen regard this spirit as out of date and obstructive of the hopeful cosmopolitan tendencies of our time. Others, adopting the attitude of the Austrian governor in a melodrama which used to be popular in Italy not long ago, think the extreme nationalist spirit interesting and in a way attractive, but regard it as romanticismo. But it may be pointed out, to those who dislike nationalist feeling as such, that the Flemish movement has more of a basis of material grievance than many nationalist movements. The cause of the Flemings is necessarily the cause not merely of one geographical district but also of certain social strata. These language grievances are therefore what the modern materialist would consider real.

This has made the political history of the dispute extremely difficult to follow. It cuts across party politics in the most confusing way. The Socialists, for instance, though they cannot oppose the social aspirations of the discontented Flemings, are not unanimous or enthusiastic about it. Socialism nowhere feels much sympathy with nationalism in its more intense expressions; and in Belgium, socialism is, as might be expected, strongest in the most highly industrialised districts, which are Walloon. The Catholic party is the most sympathetic to the Flemings, but the higher clergy, partly because they are and must be in touch with government circles, are hostile. The late Cardinal Mercier was conspicuously so. The Liberals, essentially a middle class party, are the most strongly against the Flemings. But the movement exercises a growing influence on parliamentary politics through its own party formations, of which the strongest is the "Front Party," so-called because it was originally formed by soldiers at the front during the war.

The aim of the Front Party, and of the still more extreme groups which are less numerous and less closely in touch with practical affairs, is political nationalism. There is still a certain ambiguity as to how much nationalism is demanded, just as there was a few years ago among the Sinn Feiners in Ireland a doubt and division whether Dominion status would be enough for them or whether they would stand out for an independent republic. So long as a movement of this kind is still in the stage of agitation, its aims do not crystallize. The Flemings have not yet begun to negotiate or to plan a settlement. They are still only criticizing and casting about for means of action. But, if ultimately they reach a position where they can get what they want, the question of what exactly they demand will become extremely important. If they are to be content with some generous measure of local autonomy, something more or less resembling Dominion status or a federal division of Belgium, then the whole matter will remain purely Belgian and its solution will not directly affect other nations. But no national movement can altogether resist the temptation to compass and imagine a complete separation from the dominant power. There are Flemish separatists, and they show in their writings and action all the fire and the obstinate logic which always characterize the spirit of "ourselves alone." Their importance is the greater because they have the essential fulcrum of the

extremist, an extremism on the other side. Their ideas must be reckoned with.

No one has ever seriously proposed that Belgium should be divided into two halves, each an independent sovereign State. In different periods of history the country has been distributed, politically, in almost every possible way; but this particular way never has been, is not, and never will be possible. In other parts of Europe we are familiar enough with the bad results of a multiplication of frontiers; in Belgium it would be unworkable, intolerable. The two States would be too small, too weak, not self-sufficient enough, not historically real. Together they have stood for nearly a century, and during all that time the maintenance of Belgian independence has been anxious work. If they ceased to stand together the risks both to Flemings and Walloons would become immensely greater. On a solid basis of common-sense there is therefore a Belgian national sentiment, a patriotism of united Belgium. It has its enthusiasts just as much as Flemish nationalism has, and of proved heroes it has more. No doubt it has also its illusions and its extravagances.

Its greatest literary exponent is M. Pirenne, an historian whose reputation is world-wide. No one can question M. Pirenne's learning, his skill as a writer, or his sincerity. He has suffered for his cause. His "Histoire de Belgique "expounds in five volumes the thesis that Belgium is a nation, not a new and artificial creation of convenience, but a unity with its roots deep in the past and in men's needs. His work is not faultless. He goes too far. But the mere fact that such a man can go so far is much more important than the fact that he has made too much of his case. No case is worth stating unless someone will be carried away into overstating it. A case which a Pirenne will overstate must in itself be strong. It is therefore at first sight surprising to find how bitterly the Flemings oppose this "Pirennisme." In thick black letters their ablest newspaper, Vlaanderen, prints its slogan "Flemish nationalism must be anti-Belgian or it will be nothing." The Flemish acting-burgomaster of Aalst was turned out of office last July for hoisting on his town hall the lion flag of Flanders in place of the Belgian tricolour. “Is not Belgium your country?" the governor of West Flanders asked him. "No," replied the burgomaster, "it is Flanders. I have and recognise no other country.'