Some of the leaders of the revolution wanted to join France but as we know part of the reason Britain created Belgium was so that it would not join France. I'm thinking what if France just bypassed Britain and did a deal directly with the Dutch that way the Dutch would at least keep some of it probably including Bruges and Antwerp. Brussel would be a tough negotiating point. If Prussia want in on the action maybe they could get the German part of Luxembourg. Then everyone is happy, except Britain...
Even though I always say it would have been better for the Dutch, Flemish, French and maybe even all of Europe* for Belgium to be split between France and the Netherlands in the early 19th century, I don't think it could. Basicly king Willem I of the Netherlands would no make a deal with France for only half of Belgium. It took him 9 years to accept he lost it. Since a majority of the Belgians did not want to become part of France (I believe only in Liege a majority of the rebels wanted to join France) and Britain was smart enough to give the belgians a (pro-British) king and besides Britain, also Prussia and Austria didn't want France to gain part of the Southern Netherlands, I don't think there is a way for France to gain (part of) Belgium, except to actualy occupy and conquer it, which would probably mean the the Netherlands would gain support of britain (and Prussia/Russia and Austria) to oppose French agression. France obviously knew this and thus did not do it, hoping the an idependent Belgium would fall (at least partialy) within the French sphere of influence.
* France with the Walloon industry might have ben able to be better prepared against Germany and thus possibly avoiding both world wars.