At our sitting of December 19th, 1872, our attention was called 
to a Manifesto issued by the representatives of the party of 
secession in England.* We at once took the resolution to forward 
to every section a notice calling upon them to suspend their 
judgment thereon until they had our reply before them, which we 
promised to get out at once, and at a special meeting of the British 
Federal Council, held on Monday evening, December 23rd, the 
following was unanimously adopted in reply to the allegations 
made in the above mentioned Manifesto. 

(1). The dead-lock has been caused by the constant introduction 
of Hales’ personal matter; both he and Mottershead have already, 
on the General Council, by their mutual charges of corruption, 
attempted to cause a similar dead-lock there. The dead-lock at the 
meeting alluded to was caused by Mottershead, being drunk, 
rendering the dissolution of the meeting necessary, at half-past 
eleven, by constantly repeating violent personal charges against the 
Chairman; such dissolution being demanded by none more than 
by Hales. The members will long ago have seen in The 
International Herald that the South Lambeth Section withdrew its 
delegate because the majority obstructed all real business. 

(2). The real reason of this circular is an understanding between 
the secessionist minority of the Hague Congress to call all sorts of 

congresses in all countries about Christmas and to get them to 
confirm their secessionist action. Thus similar congresses have 
been called in Belgium and in Spain for the 25th December 
(against which in Spain there is a strong opposition, getting 
stronger every day).”* The English Sections are to be now 
bamboozled into assisting the plot without knowing what is going 
on. 

(3). The circular now before us has not been laid before the 
Federal Council. Nothing shows better how its authors feared 
discussion, than that they concocted it, behind the back of the 
Council, in a hole and corner meeting. Has it ever been seen 
before that a majority, instead of outvoting a minority seceded 
from it? What do the majority want a special Congress for, when a 
simple vote of the Council which they profess to command, will 
decide the question in their favour? 

(4). The signataries of this circular dare not yet go the full 
length of the continental secessionists, who plainly state that they 
repudiate the authority of every Congress except the first held at 
Geneva. In the mean time, they begin by impugning the validity of 
the Congress of the Hague, the most International and indeed the 
first really International Congress of the Association, because it 
was the first where the majority was not national or even merely 
local. If that congress was not fairly constituted, why did Citizen 
Roach who was a member of the Committee for examination of 
credentials, sign the report of that Committee? Yet he now signs 
the circular protesting against the Congress. 

(5). They say they will stand by the General Rules as they 
existed prior to the Congress of the Hague. These Rules say, art. 3. 
“The Congress will have to take the measures required for the 
successful working of the Association and appoint the General 
Council of the Society.” Art. 12. “The present Rules may be 
revised by each Congress provided that two-thirds of the delegates 
present are in favour of such revision.” * The General Rules give 
no right whatever to any Local or Federal Congresses to revise the 
resolutions of any General Congress. Therefore the signataries of 
this circular declare themselves in open revolt not only against the 
Constitution of the International as fixed by the Congress of the 
Hague, but also against those General Rules which they declare 
they will stand by. 

Now which are the resolutions of the Hague Congress which are 
so distasteful to the signataries of the circular? 

The first is the resolution about the political action of the 
Working Class* which, they assert, has been passed after the 
majority of the Delegates had left. This is so far from true, that 
out of the 64 Delegates who took part in the Congress, 48 took 
part in the vote on this resolution, and out of these 35, or more 
than two-thirds, voted for it, amongst whom Citizen Mottershead, 
who has nevertheless signed the present circular. Moreover, most 
of the Delegates who had left, had also left with the chairman a 
written declaration that they were in favour of the resolution. 

The resolution itself is nothing but an extract from the 
resolution No. IX. of the Conference of London, September, 
1871, published, along with the other resolutions, by the General 
Council on the 17th October, 1871,” and to which are appended 
the names of Citizens Bradnick, Mayo, Mottershead, Jung, Roach, 
and Hales, the latter as general Secretary. This resolution of the