But if it were established that this order had been contravened, and that the Appellant herself was responsible for this, that would not suffice to justify her expulsion. The Treaty of Establishment guarantees to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty free residence throughout the extent of the Swiss territory, the only condition being that they shall conform to the laws of the country. Now what is the sense and the exact meaning of this condition? Would the breaking of a law, or of a simple police regulation be sufficient to deprive a Swiss of the right of residing in England, or a subject of Her Britannic Majesty from the right of residing in Switzerland? Evidently not. To justify such a punishment, it is necessary that there should be a certain character of grave and persistent resistance of the law. The decree of the 2nd February does not cite any penal clause whatsoever authorising the execution of its order, so that in the case of any contravention of the decree on the part of a Swiss citizen no ground would exist for a prosecution against such. How, then, can it be admitted that when the offence is committed by a foreigner, that foreigner can be punished by expulsion—a penalty much heavier than a fine or certain days of imprisonment? The Treaty of Establishment lays it down as a principle, in its first Article, that British subjects may be permitted to reside in every Swiss Canton, on the same condition and on the same footing as citizens of other Swiss Cantons. British subjects, then, cannot be expelled from any Canton except under the same circumstances in which a Swiss citizen could be so expelled. These circumstances are all specified by Article 45 of the Federal Constitution; but the Geneva Council of State does not cite any one of them to the charge of those who are expelled by it. The fact then even of a contravention of the _temporary_ police order of the 2nd February, would be for those who have been guilty of it, an insufficient reason for expulsion.