united with bonds of true and indissoluble brotherhood and, considering themselves as compatriots on any occasion and in any place, they will provide mutual assistance, help and relief; while considering themselves as fathers of a family towards their subjects and armies, they will guide them with the same spirit of brotherhood, by which they are moved to protect religion, peace and justice.

Article 2. Consequently the only prevailing principle, both among the afore-mentioned governments and among their subjects, will be that of being of service to one another: the principle of manifesting, with unalterable benevolence, that mutual affection which should animate them; the principle of considering everyone as a member of the same Christian nation; the principle of looking upon the allied princes themselves as delegated by divine Providence to rule over the three branches of the same family, namely, Austria, Prussia and Russia. By so doing it will be declared that the Christian nation of which the sovereigns and their people form part, has really no sovereign other than the one to whom alone all power belongs as his own, because it is in him that the treasures of love, knowledge and infinite wisdom can be found, namely God Our Divine Savior, Jesus Christ, the Word of the Most High, the Word of life.”23

A political debate on the alternatives of repression-prevention was held at a European level during the second half of the century, due to the birth of the International Socialist party (London,1864). But at this time the cultural and social conditions were profoundly altered.

Two rather mobile fronts were formed: one had liberal tendencies and prevailed in England, Austria and Italy; the other was more rigid and prevailed in France, Spain, Prussia and Russia.

The Italian foreign minister, Visconti Venosa, was convinced that to fight against the Socialist International party members, “it was sufficient for the government to be vigilant in order to frustrate the maneuvers of the agitators, to ward off their plots and strongly secure the country against such serious dangers. Preventive measures could eventually be used against the spreading of those destructive doctrines which threatened Europe with a new kind of barbarity”. But such measures had “to be compatible with our institutions and customs”. Instead Spain’s minister Praxedes Mateo Sagasta, though a liberal, outlawed the Socialist International party. France followed suit with a law on March 13- 14 1872.

The French Foreign Minister, Francois Remusat, thought that “preventive measures were appropriate; namely, it was appropriate to consider the very fact of belonging to the Socialist International Party a crime”. France’s stand, then, was more repressive than that of the Italian government.

Once again, the Roman government showed, substantially, an inclination towards accepting the English laissez faire approach and not towards necessarily preventive and general measures. First, the Minister for the Interior, Lanza, and later, the Keeper of the Seals, De Falco, let it be known to their colleague the Foreign Minister that it was impossible to agree with the Spanish and French stand… The mindset of the Roman politicians was closer to the attitude of Granville and Gladstone which was clearly profoundly liberal, all imbued with the principle which, in terms of internal politics, was considered the informing principle of English liberalism and the principle of European liberalism as well, namely, the principle of repression and not the principle of prevention. Later on, two representatives of the Left, Cairoli and especially Zanardelli, openly proclaimed the aforementioned principle. This stand contradicted Crespi who was one of the champions of a strong government and who supported the principle of prevention. But, at least in those days, in 1871-1873, the repressive principle was also

23 The highlighting is mine, obviously. Almost all sovereigns adhered to the Holy Alliance. Outside it and opposed to it

were the Pope and England: A. Desideri, Storia e storiografia, .Vol 2 “Dall’Iluminismo all’età dell’Imperialismo”,. 415-

416