y pronounced in favor of a
permanent separation, and when, in August, 1831, a Dutch army crossed
the frontier and inflicted upon the Belgians an overwhelming defeat, a
French force compelled the invaders to surrender the fruits of their
victory and to retire from the country. A treaty of separation was
drawn up by the London conference under date of November 25, 1831,
under whose terms there were recognized both the independence and the
neutrality of the new Belgian monarchy. William of Holland protested
and flatly refused to sign the instrument. The British and French
governments compelled him outwardly to acquiesce in the agreement,
although it was not until April 19, 1839, that he gave it his formal
assent. Embittered by his losses and chagrined by the constitutional
amendments to which his own people compelled him to submit, he
abdicated in 1840 in favor of his son.[719]

[Footnote 719: On the constitutional aspects of
Dutch-Belgian history in the period 1815-1840 see
Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap. 16
(bibliography, pp. 848-851); D. C. Boulger, History
of Belgium, 2 vols. (London, 1909), I.; Stern,
Geschichte Europas, IV., Chap. 2. General works of
importance include J. B. Nothomb, Essai historique
et politique sur la revolution belge, 3 vols. (4th
ed., Brussels, 1876); C. White, The Belgian
Revolution, 2 vols. (London, 1835); C. V. de Bavay,
Histoire de la revolution belge de 1830 (Brussels,
1873); L. Hymans, Histoire politique et
parlementaire de la Belgique de 1814 a 1830
(Brussels, 1869); J. J. Thonissen, La Belgique sous
le regne de Leopold Ier, 3 vols. (Louvain, 1861).]

*574. Constitutional Revision in Holland.*--After 1831 the
constitutional development of Holland and that of Belgium move in
separate channels.[720] In Holland the fundamental law of 1815 was
retained, but the modifications which have been introduced in it,
notably in 1840, 1848, and 1887, have so altered its character as to
have made of it an essentially new instrument. The revision of 1840
was forced upon the king by the Liberals, whose position was
strengthened by the fiscal chaos into which the nation had fallen (p. 522)
under the previous autocratic r