London, October 1, 1872
Dear Bignami,
From September 2 to 7, the 64 delegates of the International Working Men’s Association held their sittings at The
Hague. Of these delegates 16 represented France; 10, Germany; 7, Belgium; 5, England; 5, America; 4, Holland; 4, Spain;
3, the Romance Federation (Switzerland); 2, the Jura
Federation (Switzerland); 1, Ireland; 1, Austria; 1, Hungary;
1, Poland; 1, Portugal; 1, Australia; and 2, Denmark.
According to nationalities there were: 20 Frenchmen,
16 Germans, 8 Belgians, 6 Englishmen, 1 Pole, 1 Irishman,
1 Corsican, and 1 Dane.
The verification of the mandates took more than two days.
In this form, all the internal questions which had occupied
the International since the last Congress were examined, and
in almost every case it was a question of the General Council’s activity.
Of the three mandates held by Citizen Lafargue, representing Portugal and two Spanish local federations, one, that
of the New Madrid Federation, was contested by the other
Spanish delegates. The New Madrid Federation, formed by
members of the International arbitrarily expelled from
the old federation in violation of the General Rules, had
not been recognised by the Spanish Federal Council; it
had then applied directly to the General Council in London,
which had recognised it.
The Congress unanimously confirmed that decision.

The six delegates whom the General Council had sent,
basing itself on the action of previous congresses, and who, by
the way, with one exception, were also provided with other
mandates, were admitted. The mandate of the delegate sent
by the Section of Propaganda and Revolutionary Action of
Geneva, a section not recognised by the General Council,
was suspended for the whole duration of the Congress, and
the section was not recognised. The four delegates of the
Spanish Federation were not admitted until they had paid the
subscriptions they were owing to the General Council for
the year 1871-1872. And finally, the delegate of Section
No. 12 of New York, which had been suspended by the
General Council, was not admitted to the Congress, despite
a speech which lasted more than an hour. All these decisions,
adopted by a majority of three quarters of the votes, were at
the same time expressions of confidence in the General Council, whose “authoritarian” action (as some are pleased to call
it) was entirely approved by the immense majority of the
Congress.
After these discussions, which smoothed out many differences which had arisen within the International, and which
were therefore by no means without profit, the question of the
General Council was posed. Was it necessary to abolish
it? In the event of its being preserved, was it to retain its
powers, or was it to be reduced to a mere correspondence and
statistics bureau, a botte aux lettres,*  so to speak? The
answer of the Congress left no doubt on this score: Article 2,
Section II of the Administrative Regulations was formulated
as follows:
“The General Council is bound to execute the Congress
resolutions.”
To this the Congress at The Hague added:
“and to take care that in every country the principles and
the General Rules and Regulations of the International are
strictly observed” (40 votes for this addition, 5 against, and
11 abstentions).
Article 6 of the same section, which confers on the General
Council the right to suspend a section, was formulated as
follows:

“Article 6. The General Council has also the right to suspend branches, sections, federal councils or committees,
and federations of the International till the meeting of the
next Congress.
“Nevertheless, in the case of sections belonging to a federation, it must previously consult the respective federal
council....
“In the case of the suspension of a whole federation, the
General Council shall immediately inform there of all
federations. If the majority of the federations demand it,
the General Council shall convoke an extraordinary conference,
composed of one delegate for each nationality, which
shall meet within one month and finally decide on the
disputed questions.
“Nevertheless, it is well understood that the countries
where the International is prohibited shall exercise the same
rights as the regular federations.”
It is clear that this new article of the Regulations defining with great clarity the powers of the General Council,
contains the necessary guarantees against their abuse.
The Congress declared its will that the General Council
should be invested with authority, but responsible. This
paragraph was adopted by a majority of 36 votes to 11 with
9 abstentions.
Then came the question of the new General Council. If
the General Council, whose powers were on the point of
expiring, wished to be re-elected as a whole or partially,
it was sure of an almost unanimous vote, since the Belgians and the Dutch had separated from the minority on
this question and voted for London. A proof that Marx,
Engels, Serraillier, Wroblewski, Dupont, and the other
members of the previous Council had by no means demanded wider and better defined powers of the General Council for themselves personally was their motion that the General Council should be transferred to New York, this being
the only place, besides London, where the principal conditions were ensured, namely safety of the archives and the
international character of the Council’s composition. Of
all the proposals moved by the previous Council, this was
the only one which encountered any difficulty, since all
the delegates, with the exception of the Jura Federation

representatives and the Spaniards, agreed to leave the direction of the International in the same hands as it had
been before. Only after the most active and well-known
members of the previous Council had stated that they declined to be re-elected, was the transfer to New York adopted by a majority vote. The Congress went on to the election of the New Council, which was composed of 2 Irishmen, 1 Swede, 1 Italian, 3 Frenchmen, 1 American, and
4 Germans, with the right to co-opt three other members.
It is known that Resolution IX of the London Conference
(September 1871) on the political action of the working
class was vigorously opposed as being allegedly contrary
to the principles of the International by the Jurassians,
some of the Spaniards and the majority of the Italians.
Nevertheless, that resolution now constitutes Article 8
of the General Rules of the International, which is as'follows:
“Article 7a. In its struggle against the collective power
of the propertied classes, the working class cannot act
as a class except by constituting itself into a political
party distinct from and opposed to all old parties
formed by the propertied classes.
“This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and of its ultimate end,
the abolition of classes.
“The combination of forces which working class has
already effected by its economical struggles ought at
the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against
the political power of the landlords and capitalists.
“The lords of the land and the lords of capital will
always use their political privileges for the defence
and perpetuation of their economical monopolies, and
for the enslavement of labour. The conquest of political power has therefore become the great duty of the
working class.”
This resolution was adopted by 28 votes to 13 (counting
the abstentions), and as the majority exceeded two-thirds,
this resolution has been'included in the General .Rules. To
this majority we must also add the votes of 6 German and
4 French delegates who were obliged to leave The Hague

and had left their vote in writing for the resolution; thus
abstention from politics was condemned by a majority of
three-quarters of the votes to one quarter. There remained
only one important question. The General Council had denounced to the Congress the existence within the International of a secret society directed not against the existing
governments, but against our Association itself. The members of this secret society, headed by its founder, Mikhail
Bakunin, were divided into three categories according to
the degree of their initiation. It set itself the aim of seizing
the central leadership of the International, or, failing that,
to disorganise it in order thus the better to ensure their
own influence. With this objective, slogans on the autonomy
of sections and resistance to the “authoritarian” tendencies of
the General Council were spread. The Congress appointed
a commission to investigate the question of this society,
and its report was read out at the closing sitting. The report
contained proof of the existence of this secret society and
of its hostile character. The report ended with a motion to
expel from the International Bakunin, Guillaume, Schwitzguebel, Malon and two others.
The conclusions of this report concerning the Alliance
were accepted by the Congress; as for the individuals, Bakunin and Guillaume were expelled, Schwitzguebel was
saved by a small minority, and the others were amnestied.
These were the principal decisions of the Hague Congress; they are definite enough, and at the same time extremely moderate. The General Council, supported by a majority of three to one, did its utmost to ensure for the new
Council a clear and well defined position, to establish with
clarity the political programme of the International which
had been placed in doubt by a sectarian minority and to
eliminate a secret society which, instead of conspiring
against the existing governments, conspired against the International itself. Then the General Council refused to have itself re-elected and had to go to great trouble for its resignation to be accepted.
The majority at the Congress was composed mainly of
French, German, Hungarian, Danish, Polish, Portuguese,
Irish, Australian and American delegates and the delegates
of Romance Switzerland; the minority consisted of Bel
gians, Dutchmen, Spaniards, the delegates of the Jura Federation, and one American. The English delegates were
divided in various ways at the voting. Not once did the
minority (including the abstainers) exceed 20 out of 64  delegates; generally it numbered between 12 and 16.
There was one Italian delegate*  present, the chairman
of the federation established at Rimini, but he did not submit his mandate; the Congress would certainly not have
accepted it. He attended the sittings as a spectator.
On my return from The Hague, I found in the Mantua
Favilla an article signed Atheist**  which disputed the correctness of the assertion that out of the 21 sections whose
delegates signed the Rimini resolution, only one (that of
Naples) belonged to the International.
“In saying further that only the Naples section is in order, the
General Council is lying. The Milan workers’ circle, the Girgenti society, that of Ravenna, that of Rome, and the Turin section, which
was the initiator, have long since paid the ten centesimi fixed by the
General Rules.”69
In order to make sure who is lying, the General Council
or Mr. Atheist, it is sufficient to note that neither the Milan
nor that of Girgenti, nor that of Turin appear among the
signatories of the Rimini resolution, and that the Rome
section did not apply to the General Council until after
that conference (and I believe it was not the same section
which was represented at Rimini).
The Italian Internationals may rest assured that as long
as an International, a Congress, a General Council, General
Rules and Regulations exist, no section will be recognised
by the Congress or by the Council so long as it refuses to
recognise the conditions fixed by the General Rules and
Regulations, which are the same for all.
Frederick Engels
October 5, 1872