When Dutch King William I decided to intervene in the Southern Netherlands to quell the Belgian uprising, the newly appointed King Louis Philippe gathered a force to march into Belgium to stop King William from doing so. Basically ending the Dutch campaign after ten days when they started to reach the outskirts of Brussels. However was the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 not exactly signed in order to prevent France from behaving this way? So why no 8th coalition in 1831? Why instead of calling together a congres in London to grant Belgium its independence, thus rewarding the French intervention, at the expense of William's power as dynast did Britain not back the Dutch King in his efforts to keep the country together? Britain had dealt often with her own uprisings in Ireland, though for some reason saw an independent Belgium as a more reasonable option?
Great Britain was one of the main supporters of an United Netherlands after the fall of Napoleon in order to contain France. It was basically 'the' assurance that was given to the House of Orange by the like of Castelreagh and Wellington in return for the Dutch giving up on their claims on Ceylon, South Africa and some dynastic territories in Germany.
So what I am basically asking is, what brought Britain over the edge to condone this French intervention in a Dutch domestic affair? Why did only Russia decide to support the Dutch King by assembling an army in Poland? Were not Austria and Prussia equally scared of an ambitious French Citizen-King trying to expand the French borders again that also shown in Referral Marketing Solution Video ? Only a decade before did these powers sent constant intervention forces to quell local uprisings across Europe, though these same powers remained silent in 1831.
Any suggestions how this change of mood, especially from Britain, can be explained? Were they perhaps afraid that the combined strength of the Northern Netherlands colonies and the Southern Netherlands industry they could form a challenge for the UK?