NARRATIVE OF FACTS.

I ask a patient perusal of the following facts. After such a perusal, I believe that the conviction of every reader will be, that the legal position of the Salvation Army in Switzerland is absolutely unassailable.

Neither the Federal nor the Cantonal Governments have succeeded—though straining the text of their laws to the uttermost in their endeavour to do so—in proving a single breach of the Law, properly understood, against the Army since it entered Switzerland in December, 1882. I shall comment later on the degree of the responsibility of the Army in the breach of Cantonal Orders acknowledged by Swiss Jurists themselves to be illegal in the sense of their being a violation of the Constitutional Laws of the Country.

It may be well at the outset to mention a few plain facts in order to disabuse the minds of the English public of a number of erroneous ideas which seem to be generally current with reference to the action and methods of the Salvation Army upon the Continent, and in Switzerland in particular.

1. Not a single placard or notice was ever posted in the Canton of Geneva which was not first approved and passed by the Police authorities themselves in conformity with their regulations. It was for the Swiss authorities to say whether any of the placards thus submitted to them were calculated unduly to excite the public mind. 2. Street processions, such as those which take place in England, being prohibited by the Genevese law, the Salvation Army never once even attempted to have such a procession, or any collective manifestation in the public streets. It is therefore needless to observe that no band of music belonging to the Salvation Army ever paraded the streets. Madame de Gasparin’s book, as well as the religious and secular Press, made frequent mention of drums, bands, &c. What is the fact? The only instruments ever used (in part due to the fact that the Salvation Army had not had time to form a band) were a cornet, two violins, and a piano, which were used in the private halls hired by the Salvation Army for its meetings.

From the commencement the leaders of the Salvation Army were very careful to observe the laws of the land; and since the persecutions, they have frequently challenged the authorities to prove them guilty of a single breach of their laws. Through the force of circumstances arising from the strong prohibitory laws created in the Canton of Geneva for the suppression of the Jesuits, the outward manifestations of the Salvation Army work were altogether devoid of some of the external features which characterize it in England.

The uniforms—very plain and inoffensive—and the Army titles, were retained; and women continued to preach the Gospel in meetings large and small.[3] These latter points have been eagerly seized upon by the opponents of the Army to swell the cry against them; but these do not afford any grounds of banishment and interdiction; they are not contraventions of any law.

The “Avant Courriers” of the Salvation Army arrived in Geneva in December, 1882. Mr. Clibborn held some preliminary Conferences in the Hall of the Reformation and in the Casino.

A Citizen of Geneva wrote:—“The rumours which had preceded the advent of the Salvation Army had excited some apprehensions among those who have at heart the interests of religion. But these apprehensions were for the most part allayed by the favourable impressions received at the meetings held by Mr. Clibborn. His object in holding these meetings was to lay before our public a simple account of the principles and aim of the Salvation Army; but the ardour and zeal of that true servant of God urged him from time to time to go further, and to address urgent appeals to the conscience of his hearers.”

The way being thus prepared, Catherine Booth arrived, accompanied by several friends, men and women. Opinions for and against the teaching and methods of the Army began now to be more strongly pronounced. Turbulent spirits in large numbers appeared on the scene, encouraged, as it is now well known, by the inactivity and even collusion of the police, and by the secret approval, well known to the mob of disturbers, of individuals in authority who, having been elevated to positions of power on the shoulders of this very mob, have undoubtedly sought to make capital, in their own interests and in the interests of the most unworthy of their electors, out of the persecution of the Salvation Army. The evening meetings began to be besieged by savages, the deadly enemies of all religion, seconded by a number of insolent youths to whom noise, especially if seasoned with personal insults, seemed to be a congenial amusement. The meetings were frequently broken up, by threats and uproar which endangered the personal safety of their promoters and the quieter part of the audience, who were consequently obliged to retire to smaller halls and less accessible localities. One of the journals of Geneva wrote thus of Miss Booth’s first meeting:—“Miss Booth was listened to with the greatest attention, and by the men present in the audience with respectful emotion. It would have required a heart of stone not to have been touched with the ardent piety, the deep love of souls, the joyful spirit of sacrifice which breathed and throbbed in the words of this noble young lady. One would have said it was a new Joan of Arc preaching against the Prince of this world a holy war of liberation and conquest.” The Geneva Citizen above quoted says:—“The police seemed from the beginning powerless to maintain order. At first it may have been supposed that this powerlessness was real and involuntary; but subsequent events have proved that there was a positive disinclination on the part of the police to suppress the disturbances, and that there was no real incapacity for doing so, if they had been so minded.” This was the moment in which the principle of religious liberty received its first deadly wound in Geneva. A kind of tremor seems to have been felt throughout the better instructed part of the population, when that blow was about to fall. Some endeavoured to throw off their uneasiness by declaring that the foreign visitors alone could be held responsible for any violation of religious liberty, and that they alone would feel the penalty. But far more numerous were the Genevan citizens who complained that they were prevented from receiving the spiritual help and blessing which they desired and had begun to find at the meetings, and more numerous still was the crowd of poor people attracted by simple curiosity to those meetings whose souls might have responded to the call to a better life.

As British subjects provided with passports and permits of residence in the Canton of Geneva, the members of the Army were entitled to all the benefits guaranteed in the “Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Establishment” of September 6, 1855, now in force between Switzerland and England.

The following are extracts from that Treaty:—

“_The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted to reside in each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions and on the same footing as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same manner Swiss citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on the same condition and on the same footing as British subjects._”

“_Consequently the subjects and citizens of either of the two contracting parties shall, providing they conform to the laws of the country, be at liberty, with their families, to enter, establish themselves, reside and remain in any part of the territories of the other._

“_They may hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purpose of residence and commerce, and may exercise, conformably to the laws of the country, any profession, business or occupation._”

In conformity with the provisions of this Treaty, full liberty has always been accorded to British subjects to hold evangelistic meetings in all parts of Switzerland, and the same holds good for the Swiss in England.

The meetings which the Salvationists had held for six weeks before objections were raised, were strictly within the bounds of the law. The placards announcing them were passed by the Municipal authorities before being affixed. There were no processions.[4] Politics were not touched in the meetings, and nothing was said which could provoke the hostility of any right-minded person. From the first, when the disturbances commenced, Colonel Clibborn took frequent occasion to consult with the Director of the Police, having always gone to his office when requested, and given him timely notice of all the meetings, and (as the Director himself admitted), having invariably fallen in with his counsel upon points which would facilitate the task of keeping order.

Several persons can be adduced as witnesses to the fact that the ringleaders in the disturbances _were paid to act this part by several noted traffickers in vice in the city_, and the latter were themselves frequently seen in the meeting inciting part of the audience to riot.

I cannot forbear remarking here on the grotesquely horrible and almost incredible fact that while the Government of Geneva suppresses religious meetings and forbids the poor and ignorant classes of the people to come in contact with a power which has already redeemed and elevated thousands in other lands who had formerly been the pests of society, it continues to grant licenses to the keepers of houses of debauchery, and to shield these diabolical institutions with its own august protection, well knowing them to be strongholds of Satan within whose walls every crime is perpetrated, and whose poisonous influence is extending like a deadly cancer throughout the whole population, and to the very heart of their family life. It is no matter of surprise to us to recognise among the foremost opponents of courageous preachers of repentance and rebukers of sin, our old familiar foe, whom we have fought through Europe, which still holds up its hideous head, albeit beginning to be aware that its time is short. Some faint echoes of the blessed word _Salvation_ had found their way, it appears, even into the darkened chambers where crouch the slaves and victims of State-protected vice, and had resuscitated hopes long dead in some poor hearts. A few of the slaves escaped or succeeded in obtaining release, and once more in the light of day, they listened to the glad tidings of salvation. They joined the ranks of their deliverers. Their desertion of their former life represented so much loss to the keepers. Like the sellers of the shrines of Diana, fearing that the hope of their gains was threatened,—not so much by the escape of a few prisoners as by the falling off of a portion of their _clientèle_,—the officially-recognised traffickers in vice became furious. They have gold in plenty at their disposal, as well as “agents” and “bullies” professionally trained in the service of their abominable traffic, and with these it was easy to win a temporary and dishonorable triumph over God’s messengers of peace and of holiness. Public authorities accustomed to consign women, and girls of tender age, to the officially superintended service of vice, and a police accustomed to see the rights of debauchery recognised and respected by those same authorities as those of an honourable industry, are not likely to prove themselves impartial judges of the value of a revival movement embodying a stern moral and spiritual teaching, nor to show in their conduct any respect for the persons of the teachers or for the sanctity of Law. Such has proved to be the case.

A marked increase in the daring and violence of the bands of roughs was observed, subsequent to a public threat made by the President of the Department of Justice and Police, to withdraw all protection from the meetings, and an expressed desire on his part to expel Salvationists from the Canton, if in his power to do so.

The President of the Department of Justice and Police above-named is M. Marc Héridier, a high functionary and a Councillor of State, elected by the people. As an individual, he is more responsible probably than any other person in Geneva for the violations of the first principles of justice and of law which have been perpetrated there.[5]

“In the sitting of the Grand Council on the 27th January, 1883, in reply to a question asked of the Council of State by the Deputy Odier concerning the tumultuous scenes which had taken place in the public halls, and concerning the duty of the police to suppress these scenes,—

M. Héridier said: “We have been petitioned to call out a company of gendarmerie, sword in hand, to protect these foreigners, and to prevent brawls and rows. _I will never consent to take such a step!_ There are already eight police agents in these places every evening who have a very hard time of it, while these people (the Salvationists) are pleased to amuse themselves by stirring up these scandalous scenes. These agents might be doing more useful work elsewhere, _and I am just about to withdraw them_. * * * * Do you wish that our military department should enter on a campaign to defend the Salvation Army? (Loud laughter.) Gentlemen, I am not the friend of disorder, and if my view of this matter were only shared by others _I would have restored order long ago_. M. Odier says that he would have liked to have seen these people sent off on their journey back to England. That is my own feeling also, and for my part I never would have signed the passports of these foreigners. (Loud cheers.)”[6]

On Thursday, 1st February, the office which the Salvationists had taken, 6, Place Longemalle, was attacked, the windows broken, and other damage caused by efforts to force an entrance when the doors were closed. The proprietor of a house of ill-fame, a notorious character in the city, was active in the crowd which blockaded the building, inciting the lowest fellows to violence. The same day Colonel Clibborn and a French officer of the Armée du Salut were stoned through the main street of the city in broad daylight. The life of another officer, Thonger, was seriously imperilled, the police refusing protection. “Their courage and their patience,” writes M. Audeoud, “testified to the sincerity of their faith.” The Geneva Government now judged that the moment for action had arrived, and in this they were certainly right; only they overlooked the fact that it was the authors of the public disturbances whom it was necessary to rebuke, and not the victims. Instead of taking prompt and energetic measures to check the assailants, they issued their famous decree, of the 2nd February, ordering the meetings to be closed. It is important to notice that this measure was denounced as illegal by the leading journal of Geneva, the _Journal de Genève_, and by a large number of the citizens—jurists, advocates, and authors.

The following is the text of the decree of the Government which was publicly posted on the 2nd February:—“In consequence of representations which have reached the Department of Justice and Police, whence it is understood that religious meetings held by a group of persons calling themselves the Salvation Army and acting under the direction of foreigners not established in the Canton, have been preceded by advertisements of a nature to agitate the population; and seeing that the exercises and operations of the above individuals give rise to energetic protests, and that the public peace is daily troubled in a grave and disquieting manner—Be it decreed: In virtue of Article 9 of the law of 11th March, 1816, on the duties of the administrative police; and under the seal of the Department of Justice and Police, that _the exercises of the Salvation Army be temporarily suspended_.”

A gentleman of Geneva remarks on this:—“We might well criticise the style and the logic of this singular document; but we limit ourselves to its condemnation as manifestly illegal. The Council of State has undoubtedly gone beyond its powers in the matter. Its mandate is to enforce the execution of existing laws, and not to make new ones. It is bound, also, whenever it adopts any administrative measure, to quote the law on whose authority it does so.” Now the only legislative proposition which the Council of State were able to find, after searching through their law books dating as far back as the first years of the present century, was Article 9 of the Law of March 11, 1816. The Article is as follows:—“They (the lieutenant of police and his staff) are charged with the inspection of shows, dancing saloons, cafés, billiard-rooms, cabarets, wine cellars, and all other places of public gatherings, as well as public-houses and inns. The Council of State has the exclusive right to close these different establishments. There are in this same law, clauses which might have seemed a little more applicable to the circumstances of the present case; such, for instance, as Article 2, which directs the same magistrates to protect the persons of the citizens; Article 5, which enjoins them to maintain order, and free circulation for passengers in the streets; and Article 3, which recommends them to see that the peace of worshippers be not disturbed either inside or outside the churches. But in reading these articles, the Council of State seem to have judged them too antique or too characteristic of an epoch of absolutism in Government to be applicable to the present times. They eagerly, however, availed themselves of the authority conferred on them by Article 9 of this antique law for the shutting up of shows, dancing saloons, cafés, &c., and armed with this authority they immediately ordained the closing of meetings which they themselves call “religious,” held in rooms and halls where dancing, drinking and the playing of theatrical pieces were certainly never carried on! On the strength of this article they ultimately forbade all the “exercises” of the Salvation Army in the Hall of the Reformation, in the Chapel Buis, in private houses, in woods or fields, and generally in every place where they could possibly be held. They might indeed have sought in vain in their “Collection of Laws” for any legal utterance authorizing them to apply such an interdiction to the private houses of citizens and to their places of worship. To find such they would have been obliged to carry their researches a few centuries backward, perhaps to the period, for example, of the Inquisition.”

A petition against the measure for closing the meetings was signed by a large number of citizens, from which I extract the following:—“The undersigned Geneva citizens are profoundly grieved in reading this decree. It affords a dangerous precedent in thus endorsing acts of violence which might easily have been put down, and which were chiefly perpetrated by boys and strangers.”

It is a serious breach of the Constitutional rights of the citizens.

It is in opposition to the principles of our Cantonal and Federal laws which guarantee the free exercise of religion, and the personal liberty of the citizens. Those citizens possess the right to attend any and all public meetings, (and still more, private meetings,) without molestation from persons who may happen to dislike the special ideas, beliefs or practices presented at such meetings.

It is a violation of all the ideas of freedom and of religious toleration enshrined not only in our laws but in all our customs, and of which the people of Geneva are justly proud.

“The State Council would have met with the unanimous approval and support of the citizens in adopting energetic measures to preserve order in the streets; but we deem it disastrous to have attempted to attain this end by suppressing the free expression of opinion, and the right to attend meetings which have presented nothing in any way whatever contrary to public order or good behaviour.[7]

“The decree in question professes to be based upon the law of the 11th of March, 1816. Now this law simply confers upon the State Council the right to order the closing of certain public establishments. It cannot be construed to authorise the suppression of a series of meetings. But even supposing it to be susceptible of such an interpretation, that law was virtually abrogated by the Constitution of 1848, which guarantees individual liberty, and liberty of worship.... The decree is a fatal encouragement to violent disturbances and riotous manifestations in the public streets.... It is a dangerous precedent in interfering with the free exercise of the liberty of assembly.

“Wherefore the undersigned earnestly pray that the State Council will at once withdraw this measure, a measure contrary to the liberal principles which form the basis of Republican Government, and to the constitutional rights of the citizens.—February 3, 1883.”

This petition was, in the space of twenty-four hours, signed by nine hundred citizens of Geneva and of Switzerland, representing all classes of society without exception. Among the signatures are found those of thirty Pastors (almost all of the National Church), eight Professors at the University, twenty-one Judges, Advocates, and Doctors of Law, fourteen Doctors of Medicine, several medical and other students, &c.

In the decree closing the meetings the State Council, as we have seen, instead of clearly defining the extent of the prohibition simply inserted the indefinite words:—“Resolved to suspend temporarily the _exercises_ of the Salvation Army.” Although Miss Booth demanded, on the first occasion on which she was summoned to the police-office that she should be distinctly told what was meant by the word _exercises_, in order that she and her friends might know what was permitted and what was not, and although she subsequently repeated this demand, no answer has ever been given.

As the inviolability of the private houses of the citizens is guaranteed by Swiss law,[8] this decree (even supposing it to have been legal) could not with any shadow of justice be construed to render illegal private gatherings in private houses to which the members of the Salvation Army might be invited. This was the positive opinion of all those who were consulted on the question. If the word “exercises” could be construed to mean an acceptance of a private invitation to visit friends in their private houses for prayer and religious interchange of thought, then it might with equal justice, include every movement which could be made, such as walking and conversing in the street, or consultation among two or three, no matter where or how.

In the first week of February appeared the “Letter” of Madame de Gasparin, already sufficiently known in England as well as in Switzerland. M. Sautter de Blonay, it seems to me, has so well represented the influence of that publication on the whole controversy that I cannot do better than again quote his words:—“The Salvation Army,” he says, “comes to Paris, the most police-ridden of cities, among a mocking, jesting people, of lax morality. Criticisms become more sharp, and fears arise. But in spite of all, the Army are able to carry on successfully their work in France for several months. Having so far succeeded in France, they very reasonably imagine they can safely come to Switzerland, the most ancient Republic of modern times, who proudly professes herself to be the initiatrice of Republican principles, and a model of liberty to the world. Is it not in Switzerland that those who propound the necessity of the destruction of the whole existing social order are tolerated and protected in their persons and in the meetings, and justly so, so long as they do not _by their actions_ break the law or violate the rights of others? Is it not in Switzerland that all patriotic orations turn upon the theme, ‘Liberty for all opinions?’ The Salvation Army hear this, and believe it. Trusting our outward professions, they imagine they will find again on our soil the freedom of old England, and respect for the persons of all. They arrive, and immediately fall into a veritable ambuscade, as has been said. Insults and threats are showered upon persons who are seen coming to their private meetings, held in closed rooms; and the assailants are not rebuked. In short, they are persecuted, and crushed, and even those who plead their cause as a question of justice do so in terms of contempt for themselves. And this alas! is the moment, Madam, when you choose to come to the help of the persecutors.

“Your letter was written, it has been said, before the persecutions began. Yes, before the issue of the dictatorial police order, but not before the personal outrages. Now these personal outrages, not having been judicially repressed or reproved, led on naturally to the persecution. I know you too well, Madam, not to be aware that these were unfortunate coincidences for which you are not responsible; but I cannot refrain from asking why you did not write much earlier, some months ago, or why you did not write in a different manner? for you cannot deny, and the fact must be grievous to yourself, that your letter contributed, more than any other thing, to impart to M. Héridier the unfortunate courage to act as he has done. You have thus aided the violation, in your own country, of that which you yourself hold most dear, next to the Gospel—religious liberty. You might have written your protest and announced it as about to appear, adding that it should not however see the light until the Salvation Army was placed in possession of all the rights which our laws confer, and that you declined to attack an adversary already beaten. Better still, you might have written twice; first, in order to defend the civil rights of the members of the Salvation Army, and secondly in order to attack its organization; but this ought to have been _later_, when through your influence, justice would have been done. How noble a part might you have acted! As the defender of justice, you would have been the more powerful in your refutation of error; as the opponent of error, you, more successfully than others, could have insisted on right and justice. It is thus that the Christian _Chevalier_, whose name you bear, the noble Count de Gasparin would have acted. From the first moment, from the first outrage perpetrated, he would have perceived that the peculiarities of the Salvation Army were a secondary question, and that that which is at stake is the cause of religious liberty in Switzerland, that sacred cause to which he had consecrated his life. You well know, Madam, that he never would have lifted his hand against the vanquished, against young girls, foreigners and defenceless, against Christian brethren who had been misled.... I grieve the more for the inopportuneness of your attack, because it has caused you to play into the hands of our enemies, the enemies of religious liberty.”

A gentleman of Geneva, criticising the action of the Department of Justice and Police in the matter of the closing of the meetings, in which the Department, as we have seen, had fallen back on an old law of 1816, says:—“The magistrates of the early part of this century nevertheless understood that it was their duty to maintain the liberty of those who were regarded as the most dangerous sectaries. It was not granted to _them_ to make the discovery of the astonishing proposition which gains ground in our day, namely, that if there were no victims of outrage, outrages would not exist; and that in consequence it is the victims who are the authors of the mischief and the really guilty persons. They obeyed the law under their hand of 1816, without dreaming of the triumphant application which would be made of it against religious liberty by their successors some sixty years later. Order was maintained by them, and the liberties of a contemptible minority were protected. Our ancient magistrates consulting neither their sympathies nor their antipathies, nor even their sincere convictions concerning what they believed to be for the public good, held it to be a matter of honour and of conscience to fulfil the first duties of their position, that of causing the rights of all, including those of the weakest portion of the community, to be respected. A party Government, on the contrary (such as is at present in power), does not scruple, in order to excite and maintain the zeal of its present supporters, to cultivate irritating questions, and even to create them if necessary. It is ready to gratify the passions of the people on any question where there is a chance of making use of them in their own interests, against persons whose insignificant number makes them in no way dangerous. Herein we find the distinction between a Government which is truly National and a Government by a party.”

To return to the legal validity of the decree of the 2nd February;—not only is there no law upon which it could have been substantially based, but it actually violates in the most open manner the Constitutional Guarantees which lie at the foundation of the political life of the country. Article 2 of the Constitutional Law of the 26th August, 1868, pronounces: “Liberty of worship is guaranteed throughout the whole extent of Swiss territory. All forms of worship have an equal right to the protection of the State.” This law, accepted by the people, is binding not only upon the executive, but on the legislative power itself. The duty of the Council of State was to have enforced respect for it at all costs. The Council of State preferred to violate it, and in doing so has by the same blow struck at the principles of the inviolability of domicile, of freedom of speech, and freedom of public meeting.

The following remarks on the subject appeared in the _Journal de Genève_ of February 3, 1883:—

“We published yesterday a proclamation of the Geneva Government closing the meetings of the Salutists; to-day we receive the text of a proclamation of the Government of Neuchâtel on the same subject. These two proclamations present a great contrast the one to the other. That of Neuchâtel is founded on the text of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of public meeting and freedom of worship. It reminds the authors of the disturbances, of the law against such outrages, and threatens punishment if they disobey. The Genevese Government, on the contrary, entirely ignores the Constitution. It does not contain a single word of blame for the individuals who for a fortnight past have been disgracing our town, breaking up meetings held in private houses, attacking inoffensive people in the streets, and perpetrating every kind of violence. It reserves its severity for the victims of these acts of violence, for the foreigners or Genevese citizens alike who have been attacked, insulted, hunted, and maltreated by bands of roughs who have remained, and evidently will remain, unchecked and unpunished. The victory which these bands of roughs have obtained over our laws is decisive and complete. The Government whose duty it is to enforce respect for the laws has lowered its flag in the presence of these rioters, and has made itself the executor of their will. Truly we blush for shame in reading this proclamation and in comparing the language of our Genevan Council of State with that of Neuchâtel. Is it possible that on this question in which are involved freedom of speech, and of meeting, individual liberty, the rights of citizens to go where they please, to listen to whom they please, and to be free from attacks in the streets, our Government has nothing to say? It seeks a miserable excuse for the disturbances in the text of an advertisement of the meetings which was previously submitted to its own judgment and the placarding of which it authorised. This advertisement was a very small affair indeed to justify not only the interference of the mob, but an assault by our Government itself on liberty of opinion.... If it presented the character which they now attribute to it, it was in the power of the police to have interfered, and everyone would have been satisfied with its decision. But six weeks have passed since it appeared, and if it was so dangerous as it is now asserted for the public peace, it is rather late to condemn it only to-day. All that has occurred confirms our suspicions on the more than equivocal part which the police have played since the commencement of these events, and proves almost to a certainty its complicity with the rioters. If from the first the police had seriously and sincerely wished to hinder the disturbances, they had abundant power to do so. They might then have brought into play Article 9 of the law of March 11th, 1816, but instead of this they tolerated and encouraged the rioters with the motive of reaching the end which M. Héridier confessed in the Grand Council he had in view, namely, of driving out of our midst people whose religion does not please him. Doubtless their religion does not please; but what merit would there be in tolerating it if it entirely pleased us? and what motive would there have been for inscribing this guarantee in our Constitution if it were only meant to be applied to cases in which it would be manifestly useless? The game is played! but now we must see that we do not any longer deceive foreigners, who, in the faith of our Constitution, may imagine that Geneva is a country of religious liberty. It will be necessary to change the text of the articles of the Constitution in which this mention of our rights is found. It must in future run thus:—‘Freedom of meeting is guaranteed; nevertheless, persons who know how to persevere in making sufficient noise, coupled with abuse and personal assaults, shall always be able to obtain from the Government the closing by the Police of any meeting whatsoever, even in a private house, which happens to displease them.’ Such is the _régime_ which the manifesto of the Geneva Government has inaugurated. There is not much in it to make one proud of one’s country. It is the true _arbitraire_, and the most wretched form of it, namely, that which is born of weakness and cowardice.”

On the 8th February, after having spent some time quietly at the house of M. Lenoir in the neighbourhood of Geneva, Miss Booth was summoned to the Police Court and subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. Numberless questions were asked of her, and afterward of Miss Charlesworth, which were of a personal and utterly unjustifiable nature, some of them being of a significance better understood perhaps by men of the character of their questioners than they could be by refined Christian ladies. The following day Miss Booth was again called before the Police, and was then suddenly requested to produce the account books of the Salvation Army in Switzerland. Little imagining that this was the point upon which was to be based her illegal expulsion from Geneva, Miss Booth frankly and unsuspectingly replied: “It is impossible for me to do so, as I am not the treasurer, and my secretary who has the books is now absent from Geneva. But,” she added, “you shall have them as soon as she returns.”

It was now that the monstrous charge was made against Miss Booth of having broken a cantonal law _which has no existence_, but which was improvised by the Chief of the Department of Justice and Police in order to afford an excuse for the complete suppression of the Salvation Army in Geneva. It is with shame and grief that the chronicler of these events feels obliged to publish the plain fact that M. Héridier falsified a cantonal law of Geneva, apparently deliberately, since the falsification was repeated at a later date as we shall presently see, in order to get rid of this person whose Christian courage and unflinching attacks on the sins of the day appear to have excited his anger or his fears. In the absence of recorded facts we are left to imagine what may have passed in the minds of some of the authorities of Geneva during those few days between the closing of the meetings and the accusation and expulsion of Miss Booth. Readers of this story will naturally ask—“What had occurred in the interval?” They have an answer from the Federal Council itself, which when citing these circumstances in the month of July following, declares that Miss Booth had during that period gone into retirement, and that she had herself advised other officers of the Army to abstain from any act which might seem like a contravention of the decree forbidding the meetings. Much, however, had evidently occurred in the hearts and consciences of certain persons at Geneva. It is no doubt convenient to throw off the guilt of such miserable transactions as we are now obliged to criticize upon the ignorant and misguided mob. But the act which is now under consideration was not that of the people. It appears to have been conceived in the private chamber of some unhappy being whose own life and character may have been presented to himself in a new light by the severe teaching of the Salvationists, and who, lacking the courage to face the truths announced by them, took the ill-starred resolution to get rid of them by whatever means.

M. Héridier having found it necessary to make diligent search for some charge against Miss Booth, appears to have ransacked the Penal code and the police regulations of the city for this purpose. He finds Article 27 of the police regulations concerning the discipline to be applied to foreigners, which runs thus: “If subsequent to the granting of a permission to reside in the canton, the Department of Justice and Police learns that there has been anything which could have been laid to the charge of the foreigner (to whom the permission was given) in the matter of facts which, had they been previously known, would have caused him to refuse that permission, the said permission may be withdrawn.” M. Héridier recollects to have heard that collections of money had been publicly made at the close of Salvationist meetings, and he lays his hand on the cantonal law of March 4, 1879, concerning collections made “from house to house.” This appears susceptible of being made to serve the purpose in view. The title of the law is perhaps a little embarrassing; it is this: “Règlements de la Police sur les collectes à domicile.” Nevertheless he makes use of it.

M. Héridier then summons Miss Booth to appear at the police office. She is charged with having broken a law which has no existence, and is expelled from the canton. A double charge was now made against her, which was brought up in the replies to her two appeals; not only had she, according to M. Héridier, infringed the regulation concerning the collection of money, but she had refused, they said, to show her accounts when asked to do so. The demand to show her accounts was in itself an illegal one, and therefore had she refused distinctly to comply with it, she would not have been guilty of any illegal act. At the time, Miss Booth, probably not knowing the text of the regulation cited against her, supposed that her questioners were acting legally in demanding to see the account books. She therefore, as we have seen, offered to satisfy them in that respect as soon as she received the books. In order to be doubly sure of these circumstances, I wrote to Miss Booth early in July, and asked her the simple question, “Did you, or did you not refuse to show your accounts?” The circumstances which immediately prompted me thus to write to her was an interview which I had on the 25th of July, with the Chancellor of the Confederation in the Federal Palace at Berne. I had called to ask if he would oblige me by letting me have a copy of the printed reply of the Federal Council to Miss Booth’s appeal, as our Ambassador at Berne informed me that he had sent his copy to the Foreign Office in London. In the course of my conversation with the Chancellor I mentioned the matter of the accounts. He then stated abruptly that Miss Booth had positively refused when legally required to do so, to submit her accounts to the Genevese Department of Justice and Police. Knowing to the contrary, I replied: “Pardon me, sir, she was willing to show them, but time was not given her to do so.” The Chancellor with some indignation then asked: “Have you come here to dispute with me on a matter of fact?” That not being the object of my visit, I retired, and having written to Miss Booth I received the following from her:—“On the 8th and 9th of February I was summoned to the Hotel de Ville to be cross-examined. Among many other questions I was asked to produce on the spot the accounts of all money received and spent in Geneva, or to show them at the house where I was staying. I told them it was impossible for me to show them then and there, as the friend who kept them was absent from Geneva and had the books with her. I added that for myself I had nothing to do with the keeping or the immediate expenditure of the money, neither could I answer their questions as to the amount received by the collectors, as I did not know what it was. My examiner said, ‘Very well, Mdlle., _you refuse then to show your accounts_;’ and he was about to write that down. ‘No,’ I replied, ‘_I do not refuse to show the accounts_, but they are not in my hands; I ask time to recall my secretary, when you can see them.’ It was with the utmost difficulty that I prevented him from writing down that I had definitely refused to show the accounts, which he appears to have done notwithstanding. It is our rule to publish our accounts, audited by some one outside the Army, annually. But in this case of Geneva I made an exception and told my examiner that they would be published at the end of the first three months, and then all the world could see them. On the 12th I was cross-examined again, M. Lenoir being present. Being again asked for the accounts, I told them that the day previously, the 11th, they had expelled Miss Charlesworth, and that my secretary was still absent. Miss Charlesworth had the petty cash-book and had taken it with her. M. Lenoir, banker, M. Pictet, lawyer, who are friends of justice, bitterly lamented this action which their native country had taken. They, together with M. Audeoud, also a lawyer, and M. Naville, all assured me that such a thing had never been done before, that the police authorities had no legal right at all to ask me such a question, and that I was not in any way bound to answer them. That same day, the 12th, I was expelled, and left Geneva before six o’clock that night.

(Signed) “CATHERINE BOOTH.”

In consequence of the publication in the Government organ, the _Genevois_, of a number of anonymous letters, some of which were of a shameful and slanderous character, and one of which contained the statement that the Salvation Army were robbing the country and had already forwarded enormous sums of money to London, the officers had publicly announced that they would publish their balance-sheet of receipts and expenditure at Geneva, at the end of the quarter instead of at the end of the year, as was their usual custom. Every collection had been carefully registered in their books.[9] It was further stated by Miss Booth when she was questioned, that all the accounts of the Army were under the inspection of a well-known firm of public accountants in London, under whose signature they were published. The conduct of the Geneva authorities in demanding to have the account books of the Army submitted to their scrutiny is, besides being illegal as judged by their own laws, a breach of the “Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Establishment of 1855” between Switzerland and England. Article 3 of that Treaty runs thus:—

“The dwellings and warehouses of the citizens or subjects of either of the two contracting parties, in the territories of the other, and all premises appertaining thereto, destined for purposes of residence or commence, shall be respected. No search or examination of such dwellings and premises, and no examination or inspection of the books, papers, or accounts of the respective citizens and subjects shall be arbitrarily made; but such measures shall be executed only in conformity with the legal sentence, warrant, or order in writing of some Tribunal or Magistrate having competent constitutional or legal jurisdiction.”

I could multiply testimonies to the illegality of these proceedings, but will only cite one more, that of a Swiss lawyer, given in reply to a question which I asked him in writing:—“The Geneva Government,” he says, “and subsequently the Federal Government, have cited against Miss Booth a Cantonal regulation of the 4th March, 1879, upon public collections of money. Now no such regulation exists in the Canton of Geneva; for the regulation of the 4th March, 1879, is entitled, ‘A regulation concerning house to house collections of money,’ and contains no article whatsoever on the subject of collections made in either private or public meetings, which are placed on a footing of complete liberty. There is no Genevese regulation which bears the title of ‘Regulation concerning public collections;’ consequently we are driven to the conclusion that this title was invented for the necessity of the case in hand.”

In regard to the collections of money, it is to be noted that the collections in Geneva _had been made for several weeks previously to the 29th January, at which date the Department of Justice and Police had given Miss Booth an official permission to reside in the Canton, and that those collections had been made in public, under the eyes of the police, during all those weeks previous to the illegal order to stop the meetings. No question whatever as to their legality was raised at the moment when Miss Booth received in exchange for her passport the permission to reside in the Canton._

On the 11th of February, Miss Charlesworth was expelled from the Canton. The grounds of her expulsion and the circumstances connected with it will be given later. At half-past twelve on the following day (the 12th) Miss Booth received the warrant of expulsion, commanding her to leave the Canton before 6 o’clock the same day upon pain of imprisonment. The officer who delivered to her the warrant, turned back after having left the door, to impress upon her the fact that if she did not leave before 6 o’clock she would incur the penalty of imprisonment. It is worthy of remark that common felons are allowed twenty-four hours’ notice of expulsion, whereas this lady was only given five and a-half hours’ notice.

I have now passed in review the three illegal or immoral acts of which the authorities at Geneva were guilty since the entrance of the Salvation Army into their city, namely:—1. The closing of the meetings. 2. The falsification of the police regulation concerning collections of money. 3. The expulsion of the officers.

Those who took part in these events, Swiss and English alike, are anxious that the public should, however, clearly understand that these illegal acts were those of a mere handful of men openly at war with all religion, and that such a course of conduct is as repugnant to the minds of all the true Swiss citizens as they can be to our own countrymen. Many indignant protests have been made against these measures both in the Swiss Press and in numerous pamphlets published in Switzerland, of which my space allows only meagre extracts.

I give the account of Miss Charlesworth’s arrest and expulsion in her own words:—

“On Saturday, the 10th February, I was summoned to appear at the Police Court. M. Lenoir, a gentleman of Geneva, accompanied me, and asked permission to go with me before the officials who had instructions to cross-examine me. I wished to have a friend present, being a minor, and not knowing the language perfectly. We waited half-an-hour while Mr. Cuenod[10] tried to induce M. Héridier to allow M. Lenoir to go with me. M. Héridier persisted in refusing, and I was conducted into a little office in the remote part of the building. Here I was kept from 3.30 till 7.30, being questioned sometimes by three, and sometimes by five officials. After asking my age, birthplace, nationality, &c., they began to speak on personal subjects, about which I know they had no right to ask me. They asked me whether, being a minor, I had my father’s permission to be in Geneva with Miss Booth. I answered that I had, and that Miss Booth had letters in her possession to prove it. Nevertheless, the chief charge subsequently adduced for my expulsion was that I produced no authorization from my parents. I was asked how I lived, whether we received much money from the Army for our board, what sort of food we had, &c. I answered that I received nothing from the Army. I was asked if I had a passport and a permission to reside. I answered that my passport was deposited at the Town Hall in exchange for my permit of residence. The inspector, who had been told I had no papers, was enraged at this, and did not try to conceal or restrain his passion. He sent for another official who found my passport and proved my papers to be all right. I was asked many questions about the meeting I had attended at Cologny. They said I had done so contrary to the decree. I answered that I was invited by letter, and I went to the meeting as a guest, and on being asked, I spoke and prayed. Others also spoke who had nothing to do with the Army. The police detectives went to this private meeting; they slipped in after it had begun, and not having been asked at the door whether they were invited guests, they reported it to be a public meeting. I protested that being only guests we could not be responsible for the door-keeping, and that we knew none of those invited. They made a number of charges against us with respect to this meeting, which I contradicted. I was asked how I dared to wear my uniform in a meeting after having been told of the law forbidding religious dresses. I answered that the law only specified that religious costumes were not to be worn in the public highway, and that it could not be applied to private houses or a private gathering in the kitchen of a private house. Moreover, I wore no uniform, but an ordinary dress.... I was at last allowed to leave the office where I had spent four hours. We were told to appear the next morning, but on leaving we recollected it would be Sunday, and we wrote a letter saying we could not conscientiously go on that day.[11] At half-past twelve on Sunday I received an official warrant, which informed me that I must be out of the Canton in five hours.... I was sent away alone; for they had taken care to hurry off the French and German officers without giving them time to communicate with their comrades. The warrant stated that I was expelled for (1) having disobeyed the proclamation of the Cantonal Council suspending temporarily the exercises of the Salvation Army; (2) for having produced no authorisation from my parents giving me leave to reside in Geneva, and (3) for having refused to present myself on the Sunday.”

Let us suppose this case reversed, and imagine a young Swiss lady of seventeen suddenly called up before the police authorities in London, no other lady, no friend, no witness, allowed to be present, taken to Scotland Yard, and into a small room at the remote end of the building, cross-questioned alone by five men in a foreign language (her only crime being that she had accepted an invitation to a prayer meeting in a private house), and expelled on a Sunday within five hours’ notice. It is difficult to imagine such a possibility.

During the first cross-examination, Miss Charlesworth had said that Miss Booth had in her possession letters from her father authorising her to reside in Geneva, but she was not asked to produce these letters then or at any subsequent time. On the Sunday, however, she was suddenly and summarily expelled, one of the grounds of her expulsion being that she had never shown these letters. She was sent off (as has been said) alone, the authorities having taken care a few days previously to expel the officers of the Salvation Army who had been her companions, and in some sort her protectors. She was thus also forcibly separated from Miss Booth, her constituted guardian, and from all her other companions, and this in spite of her own earnest protests. No words of mine surely are required to increase the feeling on the one hand of pity and on the other of indignation which must arise in the minds of English readers on perusing this narrative. One cannot fail, also, to be struck with the cowardice (for it is impossible to give it a gentler name), manifested by the authorities in availing themselves of the moment when Mr. Clibborn, the business head of the Salvation Army work, was absent at Berne, where he had gone to claim the protection of the Federal Council on their behalf, in order to attack these gentle and unoffending girls. When Miss Charlesworth was called up the second time, Miss Booth wrote a letter of remonstrance, saying she did not think she ought to be submitted to a second cross-examination. The officials, however, overcame Miss Booth’s objection by insisting that M. Héridier himself wished to see her personally. She did not see M. Héridier, but only a number of his subordinates.

The following is the letter referred to by Miss Charlesworth when questioned as to whether she had her father’s permission to reside abroad. Miss Booth received it from the Rev. S. Charlesworth in reply to one from herself asking if he would permit his daughter to stay in Geneva during her projected visit to England:—

“January 31, 1883.

“I will leave entirely to your judgment and the convenience of your arrangements whether my child remains in Geneva or at Paris during your absence. Let her be where she will be most helpful to you and most useful in the Lord’s service. If you intend to return to Geneva, her remaining there will save both the fatigue and the expense of a long double journey.

(Signed) “SAMUEL CHARLESWORTH.”

The following letter, written by Mr. Charlesworth, seventeen days later to the British Ambassador at Berne, further confirms the fact that Miss Charlesworth was in Switzerland with her father’s consent. (She never took the character in Switzerland of an officer in the Salvation Army; but, in accordance with her father’s wish, accompanied and aided Miss Booth as a friend.)

“Clapham Common, London, 17th February, 1883.

“SIR,—At the request of Miss Booth and of my daughter, Maud Elizabeth Charlesworth, I write to mention to your Excellency, that my daughter has accompanied Miss Booth to Switzerland with my full concurrence. She will be 18 years of age next September.

“I am anxious to have it understood that my daughter is not officially connected with the Salvation Army, but is only with Miss Booth as a young friend and visitor, taking much interest in the work carried on amongst the poor in England and on the Continent.

“I have the honour to be your Excellency’s very obedient servant,

(Signed) “SAMUEL CHARLESWORTH.”

Even had her father’s authorisation been wanting, neither this nor the fact of her age afforded just grounds for Miss Charlesworth’s expulsion, as the Department of Police had given her the permit of residence with a full knowledge of her age and without asking her to produce her father’s authorisation. It is certain there are many young persons in Switzerland of both sexes who live and travel in the country without ever being asked to produce an authorisation from their parents.

The Geneva correspondent of the _Times_ (February 19, 1883) published a letter from Miss Charlesworth on the subject of her appearance before the police, in a paragraph headed “A Lamb among Wolves.” This letter was written by Miss Charlesworth to a private friend in England, and was never intended by her for publication. She was much surprised to see it in the _Times_. She had handed it to some one who asked her in a friendly manner for some details, saying, “You can gather something from this.” No serious blame, however, in regard to this mistake, need be imputed to the Geneva correspondent of the _Times_, who had generally represented in their true light the injustices committed by the Genevan authorities at that time. This letter, having once become public, may naturally take its place in the present narrative. The _Times_ correspondent prefaces it with the remark:—“Miss Charlesworth’s artless narrative is both interesting in itself and valuable for the vivid light which it throws on the ways of Genevan justice—to foreigners. According to the _Journal de Genève_, M. Héridier, Councillor of State charged with the Department of Justice and Police, was present at Miss Booth’s and Miss Charlesworth’s examinations, but behind a curtain.”

“‘On Saturday afternoon,’ says Miss Charlesworth (who, it may be well to mention, is only seventeen years old), ‘a man came to the house of M. Lenoir, where we were staying, and said that Maud Charlesworth, aide-de-camp to Miss Booth, was to go at once and see the Chief of Police at the Hôtel de Ville. I went at once, taking M. Lenoir with me, as I did not like to go alone. When we arrived, M. Lenoir sent in to ask the Chief of the Police, M. Héridier, if he might be allowed to accompany me. We waited half-an-hour, and then the answer was that I must go alone. So there was nothing else for it, and I had to follow a savage-looking magistrate up stairs into a small and very hot office, where I was asked to sit down. I suppose they thought that this exceedingly cross-looking officer was not enough to question me, for two others, with equally unsaved-looking faces, came in to help him. I had been with Katie (Miss Booth) both the times when she had to appear before the police, so I was quite prepared for the sort of questions they were going to ask me. The last thing Katie said to me was, “Do not sign anything,” and I answered that I would sooner let my right hand be cut off; and when I got into that little room I made up my mind that when they came to the end and asked me to sign I would refuse unless they would allow M. Lenoir to come up and read the paper through.’

“‘Well, they began and asked me about the private meeting at which I had been present. They said it was a public meeting, because three detectives had got in without being asked at the door for their cards of invitation. I denied the false statement, and made them write down my answer plainly. The point on which I laid the most stress was that we, the four Salvationists, had been invited to a private meeting in a private house, to which others (strangers to us) had also been invited; that we spoke, prayed, and sang, as did others who did not belong to the Salvation Army, and that if people who were not invited made their way in it was not our fault; we were only guests. Then they asked me how I dared to wear my uniform at the meeting when I had been told of the law forbidding the wearing of a religious dress. Now, I know this law by heart. It says that no one is to wear a religious dress on the public highway. My answer was that I did not think the words “public highway” could apply to the kitchen of a cottage in which a private meeting was held. I must here tell you that my questioners, or rather persecutors (of whom most of the time there were five) were very unsaved and all possessed very quick tempers. Their object was evidently to frighten me so as to make me answer unwisely, and catch me in my speech. But they were disappointed, for they had never had to do with a Salvationist before, and could not make out why I was so calm and answered so clearly. They were also disappointed to find that I understood their language, and no matter how fast they read I was always ready with an answer. Every now and then one or another went into a passion. But the worst was to come.

“‘Have you got a passport or “leave to stay” in Geneva;’ asked one of the crossest of the examiners (with whom I was now quite alone); and I could see by his manner that he thought that I had not got my papers. I answered that I had my leave to stay; and that my passport was in the hands of the police. You should have seen the rage he got into. He rose, threw down his chair, stamped out of the room, shouted for some under officer, and asked the man what he meant by having said that I was not provided with a passport. This man also lost his temper, went off to look for the passport, and in a few minutes returned and saw I was quite right, that they had my passport and I my ‘leave to stay.’ The inspector then flew into a greater rage than before, and scolded the man who had misled him. When he was more composed he continued. But now he came to personal questions, which I told him he had no right to ask, and I inquired what law authorised him to ask them. He said that was not his affair; he had been told to ask these questions, and I must answer. He asked me if I had my father’s leave to remain at Geneva, and when I said “Yes,” he wanted letters to prove it. I asked him how he dared to doubt my word, and told him to write down that Miss Booth had letters from my father authorising me to stay. A little later he said that I had prayed in a private meeting according to the form of the Salvation Army. I insisted that the Salvation Army had no form of prayer, and asked him in what way their prayers differed from other prayers. He said they differed very much, but he could not tell me how; he repeated that we had a form of prayer, and began to storm and rave so loudly that an inspector ran in from the next room, saying, “Gently, gently, there is somebody outside.” ... At last, after a great deal more questioning my paper was finished. I knew all my answers were true, and that there was no harm in putting my name to it; but then I remembered my promise to Katie, so I refused, unless I might go down and fetch M. Lenoir, and I said I would not sign the paper until he had read it. Of course they raved at me, but it had no effect; so they went for M. Lenoir, but unfortunately he had gone away, as they came back in triumph to tell me. I still refused to sign, and said I would not sign until Captain Bouillat (a member of the Salvation Army) had read it through. They were angry, and tried to frighten me, all talking as fast as they could at the same time. Then they said they would read the paper all through again, which they did three times; but nothing could move me. I said I would go with Zitzer and fetch Bouillat. They answered that I might go, but not with Zitzer (a Salvationist, who was waiting to be examined), but I said I could not think of such a thing—that it would be very improper for a young lady to walk through the streets after dark, especially as I knew there was a plot on foot to do us harm.’ In the end two gendarmes were sent for Bouillat; I and Zitzer waiting meanwhile in the little hot office.

“‘All at once it struck me that we would have a prayer meeting. “Zitzer,” I said, “we will pray. Let us go down on our knees and pray for these people, for if ever we wanted the Lord with us, it is now.” So down we went, and prayed out loud for about ten minutes, and it did us good. The inspector was much surprised; he cleared his throat, grunted, and finally got up and went to the door of the outer office. Then four of the men came back. I said to Zitzer that we would tell the correspondent of the _Times_, and that I wondered what the English would think of the way in which their countrywomen were being treated. This was overheard, and seemed to make an impression, for two men came and said I was quite free to go if I liked, or if they could fetch me anything they would do so. I wanted to fetch Bouillat, but when I found that I should either have to go alone or walk between two policemen I preferred to wait. At length Bouillat came, and on his recommendation I signed the deposition.

“‘The great fun was that all these cross magistrates and inspectors were kept from their dinners. So were we; but, as I told them, that was a very secondary consideration to us. We left that office at half-past seven, singing, “Glory to His Name.” I had been there four hours. The whole town knew it. A Swiss lawyer at once took all that had passed down in French, because he was so indignant.

“‘On Sunday I received a paper which told me that before 6 o’clock I was to be out of the Canton, because, first, I had broken the law by speaking in a public meeting (lie No. 1); secondly, because I had nothing to show that my parents consented to my being with Miss Booth (lie No. 2); thirdly, because that morning I had not appeared when sent for by the police. (We sent a letter to say that we could not go on Sunday.)

“‘Before the man who brought this letter went away I made him tell me who else was expelled, and I found that Bouillat, Zitzer, and Emile (all foreigners) had shared the same fate. We sent for them to come up that we might arrange where to go, but they did not come, and we found that they had been fetched out of their room, put into a cab with a policeman, and driven away without a moment’s notice. So these three are gone, I know not whither, and Miss Booth sent a Swiss lass with me, as, of course, I could not go alone.’”

Some of the Geneva journals stated that on the Sunday on which Miss Charlesworth was expelled, several—probably a majority—of the Genevan Government had gone to the country for the day, or were otherwise absent. There is some ground for believing that there are persons in that Government who from the first have disapproved of the harsh and unlawful measures for which M. Héridier had made them responsible by these expulsions. The _Journal de Genève_, after an ironical notice of the rapid interrogations and sudden expulsion at the same moment of the other officers of the Salvation Army—German and French—and of M. Héridier’s secret attendance at all these examinations “behind a curtain, after the manner of all grand inquisitors,” adds: “The public interest was lately awakened in the matter of a Russian prince who was expelled our country. To-day it is the case of two young foreign girls, of honourable character, whose only crime is that they have held religious services of a rather eccentric nature. They have complied with every police rule, and so far from attempting to break the Cantonal decree, they have requested to be more definitely instructed concerning the actions they were to avoid. No answer is given to them, and they are expelled from our HOSPITABLE Genevese soil at six hours’ notice! The _Genevois_ (the Government organ) congratulates the Council of State on its ‘energy.’ It has ‘saved the country; Vive Dieu!’ And what courage did it not require to accomplish such a _coup_!! We find all this contemptibly ridiculous, shameful, and opposed to all our habits and traditions. For never have foreigners—young girls, almost children one may say—been treated in such a manner among us—in the way in which sharpers and swindlers and women of bad character are treated! By whom are we governed? Into whose hands have we fallen? And what new experiences of madness and folly shall we be called upon to take part in?”

Another journal wrote:—

“When M. Héridier has a motive for attacking our modern liberties he falls back upon a law or regulation of 1816. His political creed goes no further back than that date. Like the ultra-Royalists of the Restoration he ignores all that succeeded the regime of the Constitution of 1814. We do not, however, believe that even in 1816 the Government of our _Seigneurs_, the Syndics, would have dared to proclaim the principle that the violence of the one party is a justification for the suppression of the rights of the other. And we should like to ask whether the majority of the Council of State who follow M. Héridier perfectly understand that in suspending the meetings of the Salvation Army and expelling its leaders they did not attack only a few foreigners who were here without protection in the midst of us, but that they attacked at the same time the right which every citizen has of using his faculties and liberties as he pleases within the limits of the laws. According to the system now inaugurated the employment of this right is absolutely at the mercy of those who may be displeased by the use made of it at any given time.”

The following letter, addressed to citizens of Geneva by a Swiss gentleman residing in London, indicates some of the secret springs of action whence the unjust expulsions and other events just recorded took their rise:—

“In opening the _Times_ of this morning, my attention was directed to the correspondence from Geneva, followed by a telegram, which opened my eyes in a painful manner. For the first time in my life I felt ashamed of being a Swiss. I said to myself, If my people are autonomous, if every man can make his opinion felt, how can such an infamy be perpetrated? Is it possible that two ladies have been banished from your midst? And why? Have they broken any law? I will speak boldly. It is not for this that you have driven them out ignominiously. I can believe many things, but not this. You have driven them out, or permitted them to be driven out, which comes to the same thing, because you felt impelled to get rid of them, and because you dared not burn them, as would have been done in the old times. You have driven them out because you felt that they have had more real power, more noble virility than all of you put together; because you could not drive them away by ridicule and mockery, that weapon which you have hitherto considered all-powerful, nor even by brutal violence. I picture to myself these young girls leaving all—father, mother, family, country—in order to go forth into the wide world. And for what? Was it in order to make a little money? I cannot understand how people calling themselves men dare to insult them by such an insinuation, which would be ridiculous if it were not so basely cruel. Was it their object to make a noise in the world? Was it notoriety, or the desire of praise, or to have some adventures to record when they returned home? No, you know perfectly well it was not so. Your conscience tells you it was not so. These girls’ souls were filled with one single thought, with one immense desire, which communicated to them an unquenchable zeal, a courage which nothing on earth can shake, a dignity which you may endeavour in vain to lower. What they desired with their whole souls was and is _the eternal salvation of their persecutors_. It was for you, citizens of Geneva, when you yourselves were wholly indifferent about it, that they sacrificed themselves from day to day, for you who have heaped upon them ridicule which they have borne without complaint, and calumny and insults of such a nature as it seems it has been the lot of the Genevese only to invent. And it was not in order to gain you for the Salvation Army that they entreated you to have pity on yourselves. You know well that they have fought with the energy of despair, that they are ready even at this moment to give their lives, because the one end of all their efforts and sufferings and prayers is to save you from eternal ruin, you who wish to root them out not only from Geneva, but out of the world of the living. You say you do not believe in eternal ruin. But if it were even proved that there is no such thing as a future punishment, would this be a reason for reversing the Christian rule which you cannot but admire, and for saying, ‘Hate your friends, curse them who bless you, do evil to them who love you, persecute and despitefully use those who pray for you?’ May there not be in this fury which possesses you a sign that you are not quite so sure about your own beliefs, and that this makes you dislike those who come to trouble your mental security, to awaken certain doubts, and to cause some still living chords in your deadened consciences to vibrate? You say you do not believe in a Saviour; but is this any reason why you should furiously persecute those who come to announce to you that perhaps there is still a Saviour ready to receive even you? Is it not true that you feel instinctively that the Saviour of whom you speak wishes to deliver you from the power of sin, and that in your secret hearts you do not wish to give up sin. You would be very glad to escape eternal ruin if there is such a lot in store for you, but none the less do you desire to escape from the dreadful necessity of giving up the enjoyment of vice, and consequently you are furious with those who come to say to you ‘make your choice.’ But perhaps you will reply ‘No, it is not that; what we reject is not the Gospel, it is the Salvation Army and its eccentricities.’ You speak falsely. If certain women had brought to you heaps of gold, of treasures, not invisible, but palpable and tangible, in good ringing metal, would you take offence at the colour or the shape of their dresses? Would you not be ready to listen to their harangues, their prayers, their singing, to excuse their English accent, and to bear with all imaginable eccentricities in order to have your share of that treasure? But here are handmaidens of the Lord who offer you neither silver nor gold, which they neither possess nor wish to give, but who hold out to you that which they have to give, the glad tidings of Salvation. This they offer you gratuitously, with joy, with love, with pity, and what have you done in return? You have endeavoured to crush them; you have expelled them ignominiously. Yet you have succeeded only in bringing shame upon yourselves. You have shown to the world that Switzerland, the cradle of modern freedom, may very soon become its grave.

“But no! a thousand times no! It is not too late. _Post tenebras lux._[12] Citizens of Switzerland, if you have any drop of Swiss blood left in your veins, if you still have in you the hearts of men, wake up and act!”

On Miss Booth’s arrival very late on the 12th February at Lausanne, she went with two other ladies to an hotel, which out of consideration for the proprietors I shall not name. Having in a state of extreme exhaustion mounted the stairs to the fourth story, the porter who was carrying their luggage was called to from below by the proprietor through the communicator, when Miss Booth and her companions heard the following words: “Send those people down at once.” The porter asked why, and remonstrated. The answer was, “They are Salvationists; you must send them down at once, we will not have them here.” Therefore, Miss Booth and her companions, almost fainting from suffering and exhaustion, were expelled the hotel. They were, however, hospitably received at the Hotel des Trois Suisses, whose proprietor has never allowed blind popular prejudice to prevent him from showing kind hospitality all along to the Salvationists.

In a letter to her friends on these events, Miss Booth said: “Everybody considered that the decree forbidding the ‘_exercises_ of the Army’ referred to public meetings, and as every Swiss person’s house is inviolable according to the law, our officers accepted private invitations to take part in private prayer meetings called by Swiss citizens. But here also persecution followed us. Detectives dogged our every step. Spies watched our every movement. On Thursday evening I was suddenly called up by the police. My comrade, Miss Charlesworth, was sent for a day later and questioned for four hours by a number of men—sometimes three and sometimes five taking part in the cross-examination. A gentleman of Geneva who has proved a true friend from the first, protested that it was neither seemly, humane, nor just, that a young lady of seventeen, a subject of another nation, and not possessing a perfect knowledge of the language, should be subjected to such a cross-examination without the presence of a witness or anyone to represent her father.

“Colonel Clibborn had gone to Berne to see the President of the Republic and the British Ambassador, and to claim protection.

“At one o’clock on Sunday an official appeared with a document expelling Miss Charlesworth. Captains Zitzer and Bouillot, and Lieutenant Emile were suddenly taken up by the police and hurried off to the frontier....

“Next day I was expelled. On the way out of the town some fifty of our brave soldiers who had learned the fact met us on the road. Never shall I forget the scene! There were many tears and prayers. But I told them it was but the old story—the devil defeating himself, and that all his efforts and all the power of hell combined could not stop the work; that God had begun to work; that this fire would only purify and strengthen; that justice and right would triumph and we should return. Meanwhile I charged them to carry out the war boldly as true Swiss soldiers. Then all broke out into a ringing hymn, and sang until their faces shone again.”

Miss Charlesworth, who had gone to Coppet, joined her friend again at Lausanne.