Miss Booth and Capt. Becquet repaired to Neuchâtel on the 15th September, where they presented themselves for interrogation by the _Juge d’instruction_ (Police Magistrate) with reference to the meeting at the Prise-Imer, (in the forest).

Miss Booth stated that she had held the said meeting on Sunday afternoon, the 9th inst., and that she was aware that in so doing she had violated the decree forbidding the meetings of the Army.

The Magistrate: What explanation have you to give?

Miss Booth: The decree is illegal, it is a violation of the Constitution.

The Magistrate’s Secretary demurred to enter this reply, upon which Miss Booth, addressing the Magistrate, asked:

Is it I who am writing this document, or is it you?

The Magistrate: Certainly, Mdlle., it is you.

Miss Booth: Then I request that you will put down what I say textually, or I cannot sign.

Miss Booth here repeated Article 49 of the Federal Constitution, “Liberty of conscience and worship is inviolable,” adding: “This is true or it is _false_. We are also under the protection of Article 11, as our methods had nothing illegal in them. We could not, as a religious association, be legally restricted or forbidden.”

The Magistrate: Do you intend to continue to hold your meetings?

Miss Booth: Yes.

The Magistrate then remarked that he would consult other parties, seeming much perplexed to know what to do with his prisoners.

No further attempt being made to detain them, Miss Booth and Captain Becquet walked out.

On the following day, Sunday, Miss Booth took part in another private meeting near the same spot in the forest of Rochefort, and although two policemen were present no official notice was taken of this meeting. She accepted the hospitality during the two following days of the family of M. Aimé Humbert. The _Val de Ruz_ stated that “the Magistrate sent her to the Public Prosecutor, and that he, unwilling to take upon himself the office of conducting her to prison, sent her in turn to M. Comtesse, President of the Council of State, who accepted the responsibility.”

On the 17th, the Secretary of the _Parquet_ waited upon her therefore at M. Humbert’s and requested her to walk to the prison, as she had freely constituted herself a prisoner, and the bail had been withdrawn.

(The following is related in a letter from a lady of Neuchâtel.) “Miss Booth was a little reluctant to follow this officer, and asked why they did not send gendarmes to fetch her. It was explained to her, however, that it was much better for her to go at once without waiting for the gendarmes, as she would have been obliged to be marched by them through the streets to the Préfecture, there to be questioned and searched (her pockets emptied, &c.), which was too revolting to think of. After a few moments’ hesitation, Miss Booth made up her mind to follow the secretary to the prison, which is in the Rue du Château. My sisters and I accompanied her, and Miss Patrick, who was allowed to share her cell in the prison. The jailer’s wife received us rather kindly, and said she had prepared the best cell for these ladies. The police officer then left us after having delivered his prisoner to the care of the jailers. We ascended silently three stories, following the woman with her great keys. Miss Booth was grave and somewhat impressed, having never seen a prison before. We stopped before a huge door, which the woman unlocked with a great noise; this door led to a little passage, in which was a table. The woman took another large key out of the drawer, and unlocked another door, saying, ‘This is the cell, mesdames.’ It was 14 feet by 7—two little windows high up, doubly barred,—no chance of getting too much air, as they can only be reached by climbing on a chair. By doing this one can get a view of the lake, mountains, and part of the town. It was nearly six o’clock when we entered, almost dark, and the place looked very dismal—the walls quite bare, and dirty. A table, a few wooden chairs, two little beds with straw mattresses and coarse brown blankets, were all the furniture. (We brought her a few cushions and a piece of carpet.) Our little company looked round, not much comforted, and the tears came to our eyes as we thought of the frail being who would have to live in this place for days, perhaps weeks. ‘Let us pray,’ suddenly said Miss Booth. We all kneeled down, and the first words which were uttered in this cell were addressed to the Throne of God, to the Father of all mercies, on behalf of His beloved child who had been called to suffer for His name. As we were concluding our little prayer-meeting, the jailer’s wife entered, and requested the _demoiselles_ to leave the cell. As we went out, sadly saying good-bye to our dear prisoners, we noticed that it was not without emotion that Miss Booth realised that she would be locked up, with no chance of stepping out of her cell. Twelve long days have been spent there by her and her companion. A few friends had the privilege of seeing her sometimes. Whenever I went I always found her perfectly peaceful, even cheerful, happy in the Lord and working for Him all the day. Prayers and hymns have been echoed from these walls, and could tell many a tale. ‘O! how I love these walls,’ said Miss Booth one day, patting them with her hand, ‘I could kiss them, they have been such friends to me. Jesus has been with me here. He fills the place with His presence.’”

Knowing the intense anxiety felt on her account by her parents in England, Miss Booth most carefully abstained from mentioning, or allowing to be mentioned by her friends, certain facts connected with her imprisonment. She represented her position in the brightest possible colours, for their sake. She had nevertheless to endure a good deal, which only came to our knowledge later. She was in very weak health at the time, and suffered extremely from sickness, brought on every day by the unwholesome odours and other discomforts of the prison, so much so, that at one time fears were entertained that she would not have sufficient strength to appear at the trial. When very faint and sick, she could only obtain a little air by standing up on a chair and stretching upward towards the small barred window. The journal, the _Val de Ruz_, had the following remarks on her case:—“Our prisons were made for locking up malefactors, and all in them, is in uniform harmony with this object—discipline, utensils, régime. To throw into such prisons young English ladies accustomed to care that is not given to criminals, and especially accustomed to perfect cleanliness—to make them lie upon a palliasse upon which has lain who knows who, and put their heads upon a sack of straw, eat from a rough platter the ordinary food of malefactors—(Miss Booth has not wished to be given better food than the other prisoners)—certainly that is not all very cheerful for them, nor is it for the honour of the Canton.[33] Regard for England and for these young ladies, who have committed no other fault than to obey their consciences—a new crime which had to be coined in order to imprison them—might have prompted a more gentle treatment of them.”

On the evening of the third day of her imprisonment a few Salvationists, wishing to give her a glad surprise and a sign of their loving remembrance of her, gathered in a group on the terrace of the prison, about 300 feet below her cell, and sang together one of their familiar hymns:—

“Soldats du Christ, le Maître nous appelle! Serrons nos rangs, que chacun soit fidèle! Si de Satan la force est redoutable, Le Dieu des Cieux est puissant, secourable.”

At that moment Miss Booth was on her knees, seeking renewed force, during one of those moments of sadness and darkness which are permitted sometimes to those who labour for souls; permitted indeed to a degree at times which seems momentarily to justify the mocking assertion, “He saved others; himself he cannot save.” The sweet sound of this singing far below, falling and rising on the breeze, was to her at that moment a message of reassurance and joy. She stood upon her chair, and reaching up, waved her white handkerchief[34] from the small barred window, as a sign of recognition. To this sign the singers replied by a fervent _Amen!_ and again they sang: “Jesu, seul refuge de mon âme.” M. Cornaz, whose residence is in the neighbourhood of the prison, hearing the sound, called for the police, who took the names of those who sang. They and the prisoners were accused of having arranged this previously as a kind of challenge to the authorities, which was not the case at all. The next morning the jailor threatened to padlock the windows, which would have prevented the only means of obtaining a little fresh air. Police were placed around the prison on the following night to prevent a repetition of the singing; but they did not prevent the gathering round the walls of a formidable band of roughs, who yelled and hooted, and shouted threats and curses which fell painfully upon the ears of the poor prisoners. At one time the violence of the crowd was so great that a kind of trembling came over Miss Booth; it seemed as if, but for the prison walls, she would have been given up to these people, as to a pack of wolves, to be devoured. There seemed to be no police interference in this case, and the disturbance continued to a very late hour, when their wild songs and cries were heard dying away in the distance.

This incident caused the jailer and his wife a good deal of annoyance, and they allowed their irritation to express itself in rough and uncivil language to Miss Booth who was in no way responsible in the matter. The jailer came with a placard containing the prison rules, which he nailed up, commanding her to note its contents. It related to singing, smoking and other matters. Miss Booth fastened up under this a paper with the words: ‘My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.’ When the jailer next entered, he stood opposite these words, staring at them for some time. But he did not appear to conclude that there was anything in them dangerous to prison discipline, and left them there. The worst undoubtedly of the discomforts Miss Booth had to suffer, and that which seriously affected her health, was the horrible odour which arose at certain hours from the passage. This brought on violent retching every morning, and made eating out of the question.

After a few days, Miss Booth observed, however, a marked change in the conduct of her keepers. This was probably owing in part to external influence. It is said that the visit of Mr. Wilbraham Taylor from England had something to do with this amelioration. Mr. Taylor holds an office in the Queen’s household; he visited Neuchâtel, and asked to see Miss Booth’s cell, taking notes of all he observed. It is stated, also, that the Prefect about this time summoned the jailer and said to him “Are you aware that you have distinguished prisoners in your charge? There is a report in the town that you act as a _veritable demon_ towards them.” Miss Booth speaks gratefully of the jailer’s daughter, who waited on her and Miss Patrick; she ministered to their comfort in such small ways as she was able. Her father’s manner also became respectful, so much so, that it began to be said that “the jailer’s family had been converted through the influence of the Salutiste prisoners.”

It was touching to many of us who were present at the meeting for prayer called at Exeter Hall on the 25th September, to hear the prison song of our friend sung by the vast throng assembled on that occasion. They were simple words, composed by her in her prison, and echoed in London by some thousands of voices from hearts in sympathy with her own.

“First Beloved of my soul, I am here alone with Thee, And my prison, ’tis a heaven Since Thou sharest it with me.”

I venture to give a few sentences from one of her letters to me at this time, reserving what is more confidential.

“In Prison. Neuchâtel. Sept. 19. Your letter reached me by the hands of Mdlle. Humbert, who has permission to enter once a day. I am most thankful for this. It was the Lord Jesus who prompted you to write as you did. It was such a comfort to me.... Yesterday I was in great sadness. Many things pressed on my heart in connection with His business and touching His kingdom. Satan attacked me sorely; thick darkness surrounded me; my body was wearied out, and my spirit was overwhelmed within me.... I cried out of the depths, and He heard me.... All at once I heard singing. It was our people! The singing sounded glorious in the silent night, and the burden fell from my heart as I listened.... Your sympathy and help, above all, your mother’s heart towards me, are a great consolation to me. I see in you an answer to many prayers offered so long. You understand our aims; _your_ work is _our_ work—_one_. It is all to bring home the lost, to save the nations, the world. Jesus has wonderfully upheld me since I left my home and country. I have been led by a way _I knew not_, or ever dreamed of. He has pointed the way, guided me, and given power to endure reproach for His name’s sake. Our one desire is to get at the masses, the lost, the outcast, the rejected, the vile, the chained, the prisoners of sin and misery—to break their chains and proclaim deliverance to them in the name of Jesus. _To speak out the whole truth_, to open their eyes. In doing this, we must expect to meet all the fury of hell and of wicked men, who find their gains lessened and their interests endangered by our warfare.... May I, like Paul, not be ‘disobedient to the heavenly vision,’ but go on. It is heartrending to see how ‘all men seek their own,’ and how frightened they are to risk anything for God!... Pray for me during the Trial. God will teach me what to speak; I will not fear.... Surely God has a great work in these latter times for women to do. We need an army of holy, consecrated, _brave_ women who will dare to obey God. What a shaking the world would have!... I slept last night, and am thankful, so thankful. I thought of you, and of what you said about _her_—your ‘Evangeline,’ and of all your words.... My prison is all brilliant with the presence of Jesus.... My dear mother has been so comforted because you were with me.—Your loving CATHARINE.”

The following, written by Mrs. Booth to her daughter, in prison, I am permitted to publish.

“114, Clapton Common, London, E. “September 19th.

“My Precious Child,—

“Words cannot convey what I have suffered about you during the last twenty-four hours, only hearing that you were in prison and not knowing whether anyone was with you, or how you were being treated. This is a test of one’s consecration certainly; still I can say my soul does not draw back, and I _know yours_ does not. I am now relieved to find that Patty is with you, and that friends are allowed to see you. I do hope you are not so ill as when I heard last, though I fear all this strain will bring a fearful reaction. Oh! how gladly would I change places with you if I could. I feel that I could bear it more easily than you, although I am worse than usual just now. I would come if I could be of any use, but I am so poorly that I should be _compelled_ to take three days for the journey, and by that time I hope you may be at liberty. Be sure to insist on having comfortable food and _bedding_. Give those officials to understand that although we do submit to suffer for the sake of Christ, nevertheless we have influence in this country which will make itself felt if they treat you unreasonably. Even if your imprisonment was legal you have a right to be treated as a State prisoner _before trial_. Take care you insist on your right, and don’t suffer unnecessarily, because of _your health_. Paul said when his persecutors wanted to hide their shame, ‘Nay verily, (Acts, xvi. c., 37 v.) There are times when it is as needful to claim our rights as it is at others to sacrifice them. The Lord wants you to fight another day, and perhaps for other nations besides Switzerland; so take all the care _you can_. It is an unspeakable comfort to me to know that Patty is with you; give her my tender love. You must solace yourself by thinking of the deliverance which God will work out for many of the ignorant and oppressed and _lost_ by your sufferings. The more I see of the world, the more I am sure that the redemption of the people from all forms of oppression and suffering, can only be accomplished by saving them from their _sins_, and they can only be saved from sin by people called and energised by the Holy Spirit; and on such people the Devil and his agents will always set to do them hurt as far as the Lord permits. Saviours must be sufferers, and sufferers just to the extent in which they are given up to be saviours. We must fill up that which is behind of the sufferings of Christ. It is hard work to flesh and blood, especially when our bodies are so weak; but, dearest girl, His grace is sufficient, and it shall be sufficient, both for you in the prison and for me lying awake in the night _imagining_ what you are passing through, which latter I sometimes think is the hardest of the two. Do let me know the particulars. Instruct some one outside to write me daily; I cannot endure suspense if it is possible to avoid it. Be sure we are all praying for you, and doing all we can also. Your darling father is much harassed in many ways, but he talks about you continually when at home. He says he fears nothing but your health; if you can only be calm and confident, he is sure that God means to work out great results from all this. He comforts me continually by showing me that this is only what is involved in full consecration, and, praise the Lord! though my heart bleeds at every pore, I am able to keep it on the altar for Christ and the world. Pray for _me also_ that my faith fail not. Dear Mrs Butler! how remarkable that God should send her to you just then! If she is near you, give her my tenderest love, and tell her that I admit her claim to be mother No. 2.

“Give my love and mother’s gratitude to all the dear friends who have stood by you in this your ‘first answer.’ How much better off after all were you than poor Paul, whom ‘_no_ man’ stood by. The Lord knew your weakness, and so He found you a supporter. May He reward all who helped you for His sake! HE WILL! They also shall be partakers in the reward!

“To Him who hath loved you with more than a mother’s love, and to whom I gave you fully in the first hour of your life, I now commend you in the love that knows no change.

“Your mother, “CATHARINE BOOTH.”

Captain Becquet was absent at Berne on the Tuesday on which Miss Booth went to prison. He was summoned by letter to come, but owing to a delay in the post, he did not arrive until Thursday night a little before midnight. He walked in with the cheerful air of a man returning home after a brief absence, rather than of one going to prison, apologizing gaily and courteously for being so late! The jailer afterwards acknowledged that he never in his life had had to do with prisoners like these—so peaceful, happy and lighthearted; never was a complaint heard from their lips of anything. Becquet’s cell was a small, poor one on the ground floor. A little incident worthy of being recalled occurred in connection with his imprisonment. During the meetings held at Neuchâtel, one of the foremost of the ringleaders of the roughs who broke in and insulted the Salutistes was a young German, about twenty years of age, who understood no language except his own. This poor fellow had behaved shamefully, covering the speakers with mud, and insulting them in his rough and brutal manner. At one of the meetings at which Captain Becquet was speaking in French, he appeared to be in some degree affected, although he did not understand a word. Captain Becquet observed this, and proposed to pray for him. As he did so, the face of the young German began to wear a subdued expression. Towards the close, again prayer was offered for him; and such was the spiritual power present in that place, that, though the poor fellow did not understand a word of French, he was seized with remorse for his sins, and with a strong desire for deliverance from them. He followed Becquet from the door, and addressed him pleadingly with tears in his eyes. Becquet, not being able to speak a word of German, but seeing how the matter stood, took him by the arm in a friendly way, and marched him along the street to a German evangelist, who could speak to him in his own tongue. The youth became quiet and gentle, and afterwards asked the forgiveness of those whom he had treated injuriously. Hearing, in September, that his friend and teacher was in the prison, he came day after day, after his work was over, and stood near the window of his cell, which was on the basement floor, calling to him in the two only words he could say in French, “Hallelujah; Amen!”

Capt. Becquet knew his voice, and responded. In this way alone was the young German able to express his gratitude and sympathy for his friend; but it was eloquent enough to Becquet’s ears—eloquent indeed to the ears of all who could discern the beauty of the transformation through which that poor soul had passed.

Mrs. Booth reminded her daughter that she ought to claim the treatment due to a State prisoner before trial. In connection with this “_prison préventive_,” to which she was subjected, the following facts should be here recorded.

The meeting in the forest was a private gathering of the soldiers and friends of the Army. Being at some distance from the town, and in a secluded place, it would, in all probability, have passed off undiscovered and undisturbed but for an act almost deserving the name of treachery. The meeting had been convened by private interviews and by letters. One of these letters was addressed to a Mr. Touchon, the envelope bearing his full address and his occupation. There was no other person of the same name in his street; notwithstanding this, the letter was delivered by the postal carrier to a member of the Council of State, of the same surname, but having a different business, and living in another part of the town. This Councillor handed it to the President of the Council of State, although perfectly aware for whom the letter was really intended. This fact he subsequently admitted to Mr. Touchon in a reply to his demand made for the surrender of the letter.

The President of the Council of State having thus received information of the meeting, and going altogether out of his province and beyond his authority, issued a warrant ordering the Prefect of the village of Boudry to arrest Miss Booth and Captain Becquet, and have them immediately imprisoned. The _Suisse Libérale_ of the 27th September, contains the following remark:—“According to our laws, imprisonment, prior to trial for _contraventions et délits_, is not inflicted in the case of contraventions. It is an exceptional penalty inflicted when the facts considered as delinquencies present a special and extreme character and gravity, or when the person has not a fixed domicile; then imprisonment before trial MAY be ordered.”

In the latter case, of a person having no fixed domicile, the accused is imprisoned before trial under the law of _vagabondage._ Miss Booth therefore was considered as a vagabond. It was stated in several of the public journals that the _Juge d’Instruction_ and the Public Prosecutor alike, declined to take the responsibility of this act. M. Comtesse therefore took upon himself the whole responsibility, and acted singly.

The _Suisse Libérale_, of Sept. 25, had the following:—

“We have received the following article, and though we do not care to make ourselves the defenders of the proceedings or opinions of the Salvation Army, we give the article below because we consider it our duty to defend the principles which are dear to us as Swiss citizens. ‘Miss Booth is in prison, and will shortly appear before the Tribunal with Mr. Becquet and others. Some persons are glad of it, others are deeply afflicted.... For ourselves that which troubles us and that which ought, we think, to trouble every citizen, whatever his religious or political opinions, is the fact itself, independent of the consequences which may accrue, that at this hour in our country there are persons in prison for conscience sake; persons dragged before the tribunals for having held a religious meeting, not in a town where it might have been said that they disturbed the quiet of the inhabitants, but at a distance, in a forest, without noise, in an entirely private if not secret manner. They tell us, of course, that this is not altogether a question of religious liberty, and that Miss Booth is imprisoned not for religious reasons entirely, but for having contravened the decree of the Government. We wish to emphasize the fact that in no religious persecutions recorded in history has the question been presented in any other manner. Protestants who were imprisoned in Spain and in France in the last century, or who were sent to the galleys, were never thus punished on account simply of their opinions, but for an _infraction proved of certain royal edicts, or decrees of Parliament, or even Constitutional laws of the State forbidding their assemblies_. If persecution could be made lawful, or legitimized by a decree, or even by a law, it may be asserted that with very few exceptions there has never been in this world a religious persecution, and that the word ‘persecution’ should be struck out of history, and if necessary, out of the dictionary. If we still continue to blame the condemnations pronounced against Christians in the time of the Roman Emperors, or of the Reformers of more modern times, we cannot consistently do so in the matter of the punishments inflicted. We might occasionally deplore the severity of those punishments, but we should be obliged, according to this newly-expressed view, to acknowledge them as legal. How often has it been repeated as an incontestible verity that it is a just and wise policy to avoid all appearance of persecution. This verity seems to be forgotten now amongst us. What we are witnessing at present is something more than an appearance of persecution, it is in good sooth the beginning of a real persecution. We should take care not to attenuate the gravity of an injustice of which we ourselves may not be the object. If we do not take alarm at these positive manifestations of religious persecution, we shall probably be obliged to face much greater ones in a short time. ‘That which is _called persecution_,’ said Bossuet, in speaking of the ill-treatment of the French Protestants. Such was then, and such is, alas, now also the power of self-deception, even in noble minds, leading them, instead of looking straight at principles, to allow themselves to be biased in their action by their sympathies or their antipathies. Is it needful to remind Christians of that word of Christ, ‘All that you would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them;’ or to remind the citizens of a free country of the saying of Montesquieu, ‘An injustice done to the meanest citizen is a danger to all.’ Can we continue to contemplate calmly the rising tide of intolerance, and phlegmatically to say, ‘Why should we trouble ourselves about all this? it is only an affair of the Salvationists, and does not hurt us.’”

The following are extracts from a letter, written by Miss Booth while in prison, to the members of the Salvation Army in Switzerland and France:—

“MY DEAR COMRADES,—Within the four walls of my prison I have time to contemplate our present position, and perhaps in my solitude it is easier to do so than when in the midst of the battle. I feel it a duty to communicate to you some of my thoughts. Far from being discouraged by the difficulties which we are now encountering, we ought to be more determined than ever to go forward under the banner of Jesus Christ. But in order to go forward with success, the first thing needful is that we should be ‘Saints according to the will of God’—that is to say, freed from the power of sin. Think well what this means. Never forget that the war in which we are engaged is against sin only, and if you desire to be strong in this war it is absolutely necessary that you should first be pure. Purity and power go hand in hand. Hence we must give no quarter to the enemy, no, nor yield by one hair’s-breadth. Let us have done with all excuses in favour of our defects. Sin is sin, by whatever name it is called, and whether open or concealed in the heart. Dear officers and soldiers, it is necessary that you should be delivered from all the power of sin. Then, and only then, will you be able to accomplish your work as true soldiers. You must have a cleansed heart in which Jesus Christ may himself speak, think, and reign. All must see that you indeed walk with God, that you have the spirit of Christ, that your words, your actions, and your whole life announce him and proclaim him again in the flesh....

“It is not enough, however, to be holy. You must be militant. It is an excellent thing to be a saint, it is very good to enjoy perfect peace in one’s soul, and to look forward to an entrance into the golden city. This is indispensable, but it is not enough. It would be an egotistical religion which stopped there. It is a contemptible thing to try to load oneself with every blessing, while one is doing very little for the outer world. It was not thus with Jesus. He was a saint and a soldier. And if you wish to do your duty to a perishing world you must become like him. Let it be well understood that our army has no place for drones, and that it needs courageous men who are not afraid to fight, to suffer, and to die; men and women who will abstain from weeping over their own sufferings, and who are resolved to hold on to the end, come what may, and to die at their post.

“In the midst of this fiery opposition you should not lose sight for a moment of the fact that these men who are against us—our sworn enemies—are just the men whom it is our duty to gain for Christ Jesus, who lived, suffered and died for those who cried ‘crucify him!’ You also must be ready to suffer and to die for the salvation of these rebels. We must show to the world a reality. We see how little these poor masses of the people are reached by any good influences; that they are without God and without hope in the world, the slaves of sin and Satan. Oh comrades, rush to the rescue! I find no words in which to express my conviction of the greatness of the opportunity now presented to us if we are faithful to God and to our principles. Public attention is directed towards us. Ears are opened. ‘Salvation!’ that is a word of which they do not yet understand the meaning though it is always in their mouths; but they will understand it. In the presence of all difficulties then let us be up and doing, to declare to those that are ignorant of its meaning the great deliverance through Jesus Christ. We must look far beyond and below the external manifestations of this popular anger. This crowd which howls and rages, these men who swear at and curse us, only reveal by their attitude the desolate, troubled and unhappy state of the hearts and consciences underlying this tumult. Look always below this rugged envelope to the starving souls which it clothes. The other evening in contemplating them I could only cry to Jesus through my tears. It seemed to me that in place of their howling and cursing I heard a cry for mercy and pardon at the moment of death. I seemed to see their faces blanching before the tribunal of the Supreme Judge, and my own heart was shaken in realising the anguish of theirs at such an hour.

“Only one word more. Look towards Calvary when you feel yourselves weak. When you are slandered,—when you suffer, look to Calvary. All these things will fall back into their proper dimensions, and into oblivion in the dazzling light of the cross. March straight forward, as our great captain did, faithful to the end. Be deaf, blind, dead to all except the will of our Father.

“This is the message I send you from my prison. The eyes of God are upon you. The great ‘cloud of witnesses’ is regarding you.

“Yours devotedly, “CATHARINE BOOTH.”

Many of the journals had asked the question why it was that only six persons were summoned to the trial (four Swiss had been arrested as well as the two English), when several hundreds of others were equally guilty, and why only two out of the six were selected for imprisonment. A cry of indignation, however, rang through the country when a violent article appeared in M. Cornaz’s paper, _dictating, in despotic and threatening terms to the jury, concerning the verdict he desired them to return_. I quote the following passage:—“Those who are charged with the judgment of these guilty persons must take care that they act in harmony with public opinion, and that they do not attempt to brave that opinion. To do so would be more than impolitic, it would be immoral.” “Is it possible,” remarked the _Suisse Libérale_, “that a jury can thus, in our day, be so intimidated? If, as it is stated, the Director of the Department of Justice and Police (M. Cornaz) is the director of this journal (the _Reveil_), it ought to be thoroughly understood that the tribunals, according to him, exist not to perform public services, but to pronounce decrees at his dictation.”

The _Nouvelle Gazette_, of Zurich, had an ironical article on the same subject. It reported what M. Cornaz deemed a most shocking fact, namely, that certain persons sang before the prison of Miss Booth, and that the prisoners made a sign from their window with their handkerchiefs. “The _Reveil_ adds, with a comic seriousness, that measures have been taken to prevent the repetition _of such a scandal_. We earnestly hope that the trial of Boudry will put an end to the scandal of these prosecutions by a victorious acquittal; for, far above the decision of the Grand Council which has authorised these prosecutions, there stands the Judge, the Constitution itself, and the Supreme Law of our country. It is impossible to reconcile with the guarantees of religious liberty which the Canton of Neuchâtel enjoys, such intolerance as the present, worthy of the dark ages.”

The _Journal de Genève_ wrote:—

“It is well that we should call to mind the words of the oath which the Neuchâtel jury and judge have at this moment taken: ‘I swear before God to respect the rights and liberties of the people and of the citizens, rigidly to observe the Constitution and the _laws which conform to the Constitution_, and to fulfil faithfully and conscientiously the duty of my charge.’ The Legislature which indicted in this manner the expression of the duty of the Justiciary power, had no doubt before its eye the motive of preventing the suspension at the good pleasure of any particular party in any given case or under any pretext whatsoever, the permanent guarantees which are the birthright of the people and each citizen.” (The _Genevois_ itself testified to the fact that a violation of the law in our day is an infinitely graver matter than it was in the time of Louis XIV., and says that the law was formerly the expression of the arbitrary will of the despot, while now it is the expression of the deliberate will of the people.) “This is very well said,” wrote the _Journal de Genève_; “but why then does the _Genevois_ forget that in Geneva as well as in Neuchâtel, and throughout Switzerland, the laws which are the expression of the deliberate will of the people, are precisely those which proclaim and guarantee the right of meeting, the liberty of the press, and the free exercise of public worship. The measures which violate these emanate not from the people but from the Council of State, which is not at all the same thing. This prosecution at Boudry has an immense political significance in the highest sense of that word, and the decision, whatever it may be, will take its place in the history of Republican public rights. Even if that jury at Boudry, yielding to the injunction of a journalist who is none other than the Director of the Department of Justice and Police of Neuchâtel, should consent to render to him the service so odiously demanded, the question could not be thus set aside. There remains an appeal to the Federal Tribunal, and it may be hoped for the honour of Switzerland that such an appeal would not be addressed in vain to that high authority. This prosecution at Boudry also has great importance in the matter of showing to what point official pressure is allowed to influence the administration of justice in quarters where authoritative radicalism rides triumphant.... We see young girls of irreproachable conduct shut up in a common prison for a crime which no penal code in any civilized country has ever punished. But the greatest shock of all (proving that people never stop when once they begin to descend on a wrong path) is the article in the _Reveil_, in which the chief of the Neuchâtel police calls on the jury of Boudry to give a verdict of condemnation in language the cynicism of which has awakened throughout the whole of Switzerland a cry of astonishment and indignation. Surely this fatal succession of arbitrary acts ever becoming more and more unjust will contain a serious warning for those who in the future may be tempted to enter upon such a dangerous course. The first false step was in allowing the police to remain inactive in the presence of violence which it might have stopped. The next was the violation of private houses in order to hunt up suspected persons, and the last is a private order given to a jury to punish offences which are not mentioned in any penal code. From the very beginning of this terrible Governmental campaign we exposed this series of injustices, but truly we never pretended to aspire to prophecy, for the end was only too easy to predict. We learned long ago that liberty and justice avenge themselves on those who violate them, in forcing them, so to speak, to push on to the last extreme of tyranny.”

On Saturday, September 29th, Miss Booth and Captain Becquet, were conveyed from prison to the court-house at Boudry under the charge of a jailer. Miss Patrick was not allowed to accompany them, but managed alone to reach the court-house in time. Many Salvationists filled the entrance an hour before the opening.

A number of persons had begun to arrive at the Neuchâtel railway station very early in the morning, among them being several jurists, advocates, and well-known literary men from different parts of Switzerland. The doors of the court-house were soon surrounded with a dense crowd of persons eagerly awaiting the beginning of the trial. It was said that the English language was heard almost as much as the French in that crowd. According to the Neuchâtel custom, the doors were only opened to the public after the jury, the accused, the witnesses, and the advocates had taken their places. After this there was a great rush, and the gendarmes could only just manage to keep order. The first day was occupied by a revision of the list of jurymen. It was contested that the jury had been irregularly constituted, and that it would be necessary to eliminate from the preliminary list of nineteen men from which the choice was to be made, all those who had signed the famous petition against the Salvationists, because, in doing so, they had expressed an opinion hostile to the accused, and could not be expected to judge with impartiality. Finally, the jury was constituted of persons who had not signed the petition, but had been neutral.

Two able lawyers of the Neuchâtel bar, Messrs. Monnier and Du Pasquier, had been engaged for the defence, and had thrown themselves into the question heart and soul during the week. Two long sittings on Saturday were chiefly occupied with the discussion of the protests of these lawyers, in which they exposed the succession of illegalities and the measures of unnecessary harshness which had marked the arrest and imprisonment. 1st. The arrest had been performed by a functionary of the Government acting entirely beyond his powers and out of his department. 2nd. Though the order to seize and imprison Miss Booth and Captain Becquet had been issued on Sunday, the 9th, it had not received until the 17th the official signatures necessary to make it of any value. 3rd. Even then it was a measure of extreme harshness not required by the law, and not authorised save in cases of the greatest emergency. 4th. The knowledge of the intended meeting in the forest had been betrayed to the authorities by the violation of a letter. It had been given into the hands of a Councillor who hated the Army. The _Juge d’Instruction_ having refused to order the imprisonment, the matter was sent to the _Procureur-Général_. He having also refused, the Councillor beforenamed, breathing out vengeance against these people who dared worship God in a forest contrary to his decree, illegally ordered their imprisonment _himself_.

The lawyers for the defence also declared an appeal to the Federal Council against the decree of the 16th July forbidding the meetings, which was in violation of the Cantonal and Federal constitutions.

During the morning adjournment of the Court, the Salvationists spent a pleasant time in quiet conversation. Mr. Herbert Booth, brother of Miss Booth, arrived from England at this moment, and there was great joy when he appeared amongst them.

At a second adjournment the Hotel de Ville was immediately invaded by the former occupants of the Court, to such an extent that there was scarcely a vacant seat. In the dining-room there was assembled a motley group of literary men, advocates, reporters, witnesses, &c., and, according to the correspondent of one of the local papers, one of the accused Salvationists also figured among this crowd. The remainder of the accused, however, were together apart in a private room, where they sang hymns and were perfectly at their ease.

The Public Prosecutor had shown much unwillingness to perform the duty imposed on him of being the accuser of the Salvationists. It is said that he had even protested that he would resign his post rather than accept that duty. His conduct throughout the trial was that of an honest man endeavouring to make the best of a situation in which he felt embarrassed, and of a cause with which he had no real sympathy. His wife had shown some gentle attentions to Miss Booth, sending her flowers and grapes while she was in prison.

He began his speech for the prosecution by a description of the antipathy felt for the Salvation Army among all classes of the people, chiefly the most cultivated, and those who formed and guided public opinion, and then said:—

“If the common people have been shocked there are also élite spirits who have shared these feelings. We may remember the opinion fulminated by that eminently Christian woman, Mme. de Gasparin, in a passionate pamphlet, but in which, as we might expect from her generous character, she does not go beyond the truth. (I see a smile on the lips of the _Maréchale_.)”

Opening the book of Mme. de Gasparin: “Listen,” said he, “to the passionate words of a lady, a Christian, if there ever was one. Listen to the charges which she fulminates with a quivering pen against these ‘saltimbanques’ (clowns). He then read for about twenty minutes from that book. It was thought that he could not have helped the cause in the eyes of every right-minded man in a better way; all felt how utterly flat fell those furious, passionate phrases and descriptions, and how utterly opposed they were to _truth_.”

He then continued:

“If cultivated and refined persons have expressed so strong an antipathy as this, how can one expect the mass of the people to remain calm? It is too much to ask of them. Our people, however, are not so very intolerant. We remember the crisis of 1873, when there was a division in our church. At that time, however, there was no violence nor great disorder in our streets. From this we may gather that the Army inspires a most special horror. At Paris, they do not care much about it, for on the one hand the people are sceptical, and on the other hand they are Catholics.... But our people have seen in the Salvation Army the caricature of that which they hold dearest in the world, and therefore they have risen against it. The Council of State began by proclaiming the true principle in a manifesto which is recorded to its honour. The people, however, refused to listen to it, and from one end to the other of the country there has been an ever-increasing agitation. Then came the great petition. It is not known how it took its birth. It was first begun by young men not publicly known, and yet it was rapidly filled with signatures. Public opinion is evidently exasperated. What could the Government have done? Call out the troops and fire on the people? Could we consent to have corpses in our streets? What a cry of vengeance there would have been against the authorities responsible for a massacre! Our Government is a Government of public opinion. If it had acted in this manner it would have been swept away. There are necessities of Government, and one of these necessities was to re-establish order in the streets. The Council of State fulfilled that duty as well as it could. It proposed the decree which has been voted by the Grand Council. Miss Booth declares this decree to be unconstitutional, and refuses to obey it. This decree has been examined and resolved upon by competent authorities. The people have not claimed for it the _Referendum_, nor has there been any appeal against it. Even the minority of the Grand Council did not declare it to be contrary to the Constitution, but only asked that article 72 might be examined a little more closely. And this is the moment in which a young English woman chooses to fling this insult in the face of the Grand Council, saying to them, ‘You violate the Constitution.’ It was necessary, they said, to appeal to a superior authority, and they invoked the authority of conscience against a law legally resolved upon. This is the more surprising because the English never rebel against law, however unjust the law may be. Miss Booth and Mr. Becquet have not therefore even the excuse that they would have acted thus in their own country.... Would the Salvationists, I should like to know, themselves make any protest against Governmental interference supposing that the unedifying worship of the Goddess Reason were to be restored amongst us, and that it provoked disturbance? Or would they complain if the Government were to forbid a Congress of atheists whose presence aroused general reprobation? The Salvationists are fanatics, consequently they are intolerant. Their pretended Constitutional zeal is only adopted for self-defence, but it is impossible for them to transform their violation of a law into a Constitutional question. They say that the decree violates the Constitution; but that is not the question. The question is, Miss Booth and her friends have disobeyed a decree—are they aware that they have done so? The reasons for their doing so do not concern us. The religious person cannot supersede the citizen, so as to get rid of an obligation to obey the laws. A religious man must like others pay taxes, go through his military service, and take his place as a witness, or on a jury, &c. (Here the speaker made a considerable digression concerning religious fanaticism.) Fanaticism contributed one-third of the patients to the lunatic asylums. If the Army were not suppressed they would have to enlarge their asylums. Calvin was a fanatic of the worst type. As for himself (prosecutor), he was against all religious associations. Voltaire and Rousseau, and the enlightened nineteenth century had put all these things right.” Concerning public prayer, he said: “I would substitute for it my ideal—solitary and individual adoration. Christ, who was perhaps the most religious man who ever lived (here Capt. Becquet laughed) advised men to retire into their closets in order to pray to God. He who lifts up his soul in this manner is more religious than he who thumps on the pulpit, or shrieks ‘I am saved!’ Miss Booth who thinks she has more science than our Constitutional authorities, places herself above the law. Now, no one is above the law. The President of the Council of State is as much bound to obey the law as the lowest of the people. The Queen of England herself (who is not, however, a Marshall of the Salvation Army), is obliged to submit to Acts of Parliament. The law may be bad, but no human being can rise against it. It never entered the ideas of the conquered minority in the country to adopt such an attitude as that. The jury may possibly resolve in a negative fashion the question of culpable intention, by proving that the Salvationists have acted in good faith in ignoring the decree. But they did not ignore it; they deliberately violated it. They must bear the consequences, and no doubt they will be very happy to receive the baptism of martyrdom.”

The great point, however, made by the speaker was that upon which the decree had been based, _i.e._, that the Army was a “religious corporation,” and, therefore, must have a special authorization for its meetings. But this plea, (previously fully discussed, and its falsity exposed in the press), was utterly annihilated by a telegram received during the trial, addressed by Lord Granville to the British Ambassador at Berne, as follows: “The Salvation Army is not a Corporation.” This message fell like a bomb-shell into the midst of persons assembled at the trial at Boudry. It completely cut from beneath their feet the false ground upon which the persecutors and prosecutors of the Salutistes had stood.[35]

The policy, however, of the opposition seemed to be to endeavour to ignore even that authoritative decision of the English Foreign Office.

Towards six o’clock in the evening the atmosphere of the Court became so suffocating that many persons were almost overcome, and Miss Booth appeared very faint. She and Captain Becquet were set at liberty for the following day (Sunday) on the condition that they should present themselves before the Court on Monday morning, and that no meeting of the Salvation Army should take place in the interval. Col. de Perrot had his carriage in waiting, and took them to his residence in the vicinity.

When this permission was declared there arose in the Court a hoarse cry of “back to prison with her” frequently repeated. It took some considerable time for the gendarmerie to empty the Court, which was crowded to excess. The benches, also, were so battered and damaged by the scrambling of the crowd that it was necessary to replace them by new ones on the following day, by order of the municipality.

During the day one or two incidents had occurred—trifling in themselves, but which seemed to produce a certain impression. In the morning, when the Prosecutor was at the climax of one of his most scathing denunciations of the fanaticism of the Army, the window near him burst open with a sudden gust, sending his papers flying in all directions, and drowning his last words in the general hum of voices. A disorderly voice dared to say—“It was from heaven!”

When the Judge had pronounced the sitting adjourned, a dissipated-looking man, who had mounted upon a sort of shelf in a corner, cried out, “_Au clou!_” “To the lock-up!” He had scarcely uttered the words when the fixture came down with a crash, striking upon the head of an officer of the court, and precipitating the man himself to the floor, where his name was taken by a gendarme.

On Monday, the jury—grave, respectable-looking men—took their places. The Court was again filled to overflowing by a rush of people waiting for the moment when the doors should be opened. The proceedings began by the examination of the accused. Captain Becquet was called:—

Q. Do you acknowledge to having broken the decree of the Grand Conseil of 15th June last?

A. Yes!

Q. You knew that decree?

A. Yes!

M. Monnier (one of the lawyers for the defence): What caused you to feel that decree not binding upon you?

A. I thought it a violation of the Constitution.

The Judge: You therefore took upon yourself to judge the Neuchâtel authorities.

Captain Becquet remained silent.

M. Monnier: Did you not consider that in acting according to your conscience you were not committing a punishable act?

Captain Becquet: I considered that the Constitution gave me this right. I acted according to my convictions _after_ as I did before the decree.

The Judge: The decree was one of police administration, which did not touch the question of conscience.

Captain Becquet: I prayed to God after my fashion. The police forbade me. I continued to do so notwithstanding.

Miss Booth was then called. Complete silence was observed.

The Judge: Do you acknowledge to have broken the decree of 15th June?

Miss Booth (slowly and distinctly, in a calm, clear voice): It is true that we have prayed and spoken in the name of Jesus, notwithstanding the decree of the Conseil d’Etat. We esteemed the Federal and Cantonal Constitutions, which guarantee religious liberty, to be above any decree framed in violation of those Constitutions. The Conseil d’Etat by its decree created, and the Grand Conseil established a state of things in which it was absolutely impossible for us to obey God without disobeying these councils. Our reply is that of the early Christians before the Council of Jerusalem, “WHETHER IT BE RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD TO HEARKEN UNTO YOU MORE THAN UNTO GOD—JUDGE YE!”

Q. Your violation of the decree was therefore wilful?

A. We had not, and we have not, any wish to break a _law_. In obeying this _decree_, we should have been unfaithful to God, to our convictions, and to our consciences.

These answers fell upon the most profound stillness, and evidently made a great impression. Many felt that before such answers, given by one of God’s chosen messengers, with all the calm, penetrating power of the spirit world, they themselves were summoned before the great Tribunal of the King of Kings, and that the accuser had become the accused.

Madame Boillot, a Swiss, and a sergeant in the Salvation Army, was next called. She replied when questioned: I am aware that there is a decree which forbids us to meet to pray. Our Constitutions guarantee liberty of conscience and of meeting, and the decree violates the Constitutions. The dwelling of the citizen is inviolable in Switzerland (alluding to a Salvation Army meeting held in her house). I have a right to ask my friends to meet at my house. As a Swiss I shall never renounce my rights, or obey such a decree.

The Judge: You therefore set yourself up as a judge of the Neuchâtel authorities?

Madame Boillot: It is not for me to enter into that question. All I know is that, keeping the Lord before my eyes, I cannot obey that decree.

The Procureur-Général: Are you a member of The Army?

Madame Boillot: Yes! I have the honour to be one! (Sensation.)

Monsieur Robert Convert was called, and made a spirited statement of some length: “I had knowledge of the decree. It was especially notified to me by a letter from the Prefect. Immediately upon the reception of the order, forbidding me to hold any meetings in my house, I protested, appealing to the Constitution which guarantees the inviolability of the citizen’s dwelling. I received no reply. I took part in the meeting at the Prise-Imer, and prayed to God and sang with the others, and as I am here to-day for serving God, it is to God I shall have to answer for my acts. I glory in being a Swiss and a Neuchâtelois, in belonging to a country which imposes upon its every citizen the duty of respecting the conscience of his neighbour.”

Q. Do you belong to the Salvation Army?

A. No.

M. Monnier: Did your father suffer formerly for his religion?

A. Yes; in 1832 he was condemned by the Quatre Ministraux to three days and three nights of prison for being a Mômier.

M. Monnier: Did you not consult Jurists, who told you you were within your right?

A. Yes.

Sergeant Cost, when questioned, replied that he had attended the meeting, and as Sergeant he had called the Soldiers of his district to it.

Sergeant Hess was next called.

Q. Are you in the Army?

A. Yes; I have that honour, and as was my duty as Sergeant, I called the soldiers of my division.

The Public Prosecutor: “Hess, have you not appeared on that seat before?”

Sergeant Hess: Yes, Sir, I was here once before and for a different cause! As painful as is to me the thought of having been here before for serving the devil, my former master, so happy am I to be here to-day for having served Christ, my new Master. I was then a drunkard, now I am a total abstainer, and by the grace of God I shall be faithful until the end.

This reply, pronounced in a cheerful firm voice, made a great impression in Court.

The Foreman of the Jury wanted to be clear on one point: Did not Mr. Convert declare that he had consulted jurisconsults, who told him he acted within his rights in persevering in spite of the decree?

Mr. Convert: Yes; I consulted three or four. They all told me that a special and exceptional law could not supersede the Constitution.

M. Monnier then spoke in the defence.

The following is an abridgment of his speech:—

“The great question before us to-day is the existence or not of a law which we are alleged to have disobeyed. If a law is unconstitutional it is no law, and ought not to be obeyed. In the present case there are two laws which are in contradiction to each other. The choice had to be made which was to be obeyed; and from the moment the accused persons made the choice they made, they must be considered to have been acting in good faith. We fall back on the Constitution itself, before which every law should bend. The jury, I acknowledge, is not a competent authority to decide a Constitutional question, but it will have to examine it, since it is necessary to know exactly whether we have infringed a legally imposed prohibition. (M. Monnier then read again the decree of the Council of State, followed by the decree of the Grand Council, forbidding the meetings of the Army, down to the words “_seeing that any corporation_.”) The decree and the warrant of arrest are based therefore upon Article 72 of the Constitution which refers to corporations. Now this Article 72 was absolutely abandoned on Saturday by the Public Prosecutor. With a loyalty which is to his credit, he threw overboard this article. From that moment the whole groundwork of the decree is overthrown. Article 72 being suppressed, the restrictions imposed on the rights of the Salvation Army are worthless, and the decree falls to the ground. What follows? Our judges are no longer bound by it, and no citizen can be held guilty for transgressing it.

We come now to the Federal Constitution. This guarantees the right of Association (Article 56), liberty of conscience, and of creed. This latter M. Jeanhenry[36] carefully distinguishes from liberty of public worship, as if the external exercise of worship was something superfluous. But does he not see that liberty of conscience and belief only come into effect when men unite in order to exercise the same form of its outward expression? What meaning would liberty of conscience have without this outward expression? It would only be the power of having one’s own opinion in one’s inmost soul. In this case the Constitutional law would be superfluous, for nothing can touch the inner conscience of any human being. The only thing which the authorities can guarantee is the safe expression externally of a man’s views. Moreover, the fundamental article, is Article 49, concerning freedom of conscience. Article 50, concerning liberty of public worship, is only the practical application and corollary of the former. (On this point M. Monnier cited the authority of Blumer, showing that Articles 49 and 50 are inseparable.) True freedom of public worship can only be exercised within the limits of public order and good morals. I ask has the Salvation Army offended against good morals? On the contrary it would have been much better received in Switzerland if it had less openly attacked _immorality_. And with regard to public order, it is said the Army is an occasion of disturbance. Are we to allow, then, that freedom of public worship is to be at the mercy of rowdies in the street? Our legislation on the subject means that the _forms of public worship themselves_ may not be a contravention of public order. The Salvation Army itself does nothing which disturbs public order! This is in no way interfered with except by those who violently disturb the meetings. If the Cantons had the power of restricting according to their own fancy the free exercise of worship, the Federal Constitution would become the plaything of the caprice of the cantonal authorities. In England they understand perfectly the liberty of meeting and worship. There was formed there, in opposition to the Salvation Army, a ‘Skeleton Army’—(I see Miss Booth smiles)—which has collisions with the processions of its rival in the streets. A magistrate in England had put down the processions of the Salvation Army on one occasion, but the Judge of Assize, on the contrary, condemned the ‘Skeletons’ as the aggressive parties, and gave a verdict for the Salvationists, who had been disturbed in the exercise of their right. Now, in Neuchâtel, who are the disturbers? Is it the Army or the rowdies? The Army is but a sect, a little more eccentric, perhaps, than others. Those persons who do not like its methods need not go to witness them. Certain persons have only gone there in order to make a noise. Are we to give way to the corrupt proverb: ‘The beaten party must pay the fine?’ No; it is the roughs who ought to pay the fine.

“We come now to the Cantonal Constitution. It is clear that this ought to harmonize with the Federal Constitution. The latter gives us a restraining declaration of rights for the whole of Switzerland; the Cantons on the other hand may go further, but without encroaching on the Federal declaration. Well, our Constitution in Article 11 guarantees the right of meetings which present nothing illegal in their object nor in their methods. It moreover guarantees, in Article 13, the freedom of worship; but it goes even further than the Federal Constitution; it assures to forms of worship an unlimited liberty without applying to them the restrictions of the Federal Article 50. And how was it that this Article 13 came into existence?” (Here the Speaker read the debates of the Constituante of 1848, which are full of striking allusions.) “From this it would appear distinctly that our Neuchâtel Constitution tends to prevent all interference of the State in the exterior exercise of forms of worship. The Constitution forbids us also to make any distinction between the different citizens in relation to the worship they may profess. If this were not so the principle of equality and not only of liberty would suffer. Why, then, did you treat the Salvation Army differently from other sects? The decree of the Grand Council has endorsed the most flagrant inequality, not only in its spirit but in its practice on this occasion. For example, why do you prosecute only six of the accused, whereas there were three hundred persons in the forest of Prise-Imer? If you are convinced of your ground and wish to be logical, you should prosecute them all. I know your prisons would not be large enough; well then, knock them down and build new ones. When once you have entered upon the path of religious persecution you will want many more prisons than those you now have. In fact you will require immense barracks for your prisoners. (Sensation and laughter.) I speak thus in order to lay my finger on the inequality of your proceedings. The accused here are simple soldiers of the Army, and Mme. Boillot—”

Mme. Boillot (interrupting with eagerness): “Pardon me, sir, I am a Sergeant.” (Laughter.)

M. Monnier (continuing): “I repeat that you must make your choice. Either strike out all the fine Articles which adorn our Constitution or withdraw your decree. If our Constitution is a real thing and not a simple document which can be claimed or rejected at will, then you must change all its noble texts in conformity to the wishes and the fancies of the people and re-write them in the spirit of your own decree. If you cannot do this, you must punish everybody, and you must even include in your prosecutions the jurists who, we have heard, advise the members of the Salvation Army to resist your decree. I have no doubt you would have on your side that public opinion which you rely upon, but you would continue to sink and fall miserably before the world.”

Some excitement began at this point to prevail in the Court, and M. Cornaz, the Chief of the Department of Justice and Police becoming furious, charged the gendarmerie to suppress the demonstrations, declaring aloud that he would clear the Court. This was an assumption of authority to which he had no claim. Only the President can clear the Court. In the midst of this excitement, M. Monnier continued: “The Council of State had imagined it had a way of escape in the discovery of Article 72. This Article had long ago fallen into oblivion, the oblivion which in fact it deserved; but it has been disinterred in order that it might serve as a left-handed weapon to the Grand Council in place of that which the Constitution refused them. The Grand Council said to itself, ‘now is the moment to apply this Article, the utility of which has been up to the present day almost unknown.’ But alas, since last Saturday this weapon has no longer any existence. For what is a Corporation? The Council of State has adopted the meaning which it looked up in Littré’s Dictionary. An unlucky choice! According to Littré a Corporation is defined as a body having ‘particular and special rights and privileges.’ Splendid things they are, these rights and privileges of the Salvation Army! the privilege of having been interrupted in their worship, and of having had to submit to imprisonment before trial!” (M. Monnier here read again the telegraphic message addressed by Lord Granville to Mr. Adams, the British Ambassador.) “Now, therefore, nothing remains of all your unfounded structure. The whole merit of your argument was based upon your right to deprive us of our liberties until we should be authorized as a Corporation. This was your plea; but Article 72 now falls to the ground. Oh, if the Grand Council had only had the prudence to take another evening for consultation! But they were in such terrible haste to press on this affair. They said to themselves, ‘We have no need to talk any more about it; see how it will succeed!’ Why did not they listen to the advice of their Liberal Deputies, men of good sense, not leaning in their sympathies more to the Army than the Radicals, but who would have advised a little reflection and delay? See how the weapons of our Government fly out of its hands. Public opinion is constantly thrown in our teeth, and the terrible ten thousand! Truly the danger has been greatly exaggerated. If the Council of State and the Grand Council had acted in a legal manner they would still be sitting comfortably in their armchairs. But now public confidence has been withdrawn from them.

“The agitation which they continually spoke of was manufactured. If the police had had permission (I will not even say had had the order) to act, it would have been strong enough to have enforced tranquillity, but there never was any serious desire to see the law enforced. The people have sufficient instinct to know what they may do, and when the police was not there to maintain order, they did not distress themselves about their responsibility. We are quite aware who it is that organized the disturbances. They are people very well known at the Castle (the prison); they are people well experienced in helping on the interests of the Government, above all at election times! (Sensation, applause, and groans.) The mob said to themselves, ‘Here we are with a good comedy to play out;’ and the serious and sensible part of the population was entirely quiescent, understanding nothing about it. For my part I should wish to have seen the Prefect of Police and two or three Councillors of State present themselves in front of the Hotel Mont Blanc. There they should have beaten the roll-call drum, and read the proclamation of the Council of State; made, in a few calm words, an appeal to common sense, and then all would have been at an end. There would then have been no need for the famous petition of the ten thousand, signed outside the city by the rural population, who had never even seen the Salvation Army. At St. Gall, they seem to have understood repressing disturbances on a recent occasion. The magistrates themselves had to confront them in their own persons. At Basle, also, quiet was restored on such an occasion, and the armchairs of the Councillors were not in the least shaken. (Laughter.) Do not let us have any nonsense about public safety. M. Dubs (one of the highest legal authorities) has written: ‘Behind the pretence of public safety there is always found a private interest.’ Let us beware of panics! They tell us the people wished these measures to be taken, and that they claimed them in their petition. It is a most curious thing indeed that in the decree one finds almost the identical terms used as in the petition, and it would seem as if the pens which indicted the two documents must be in near relation. Is it right that the Government should follow the people in this manner in all its caprices? No, the people are themselves bound to obey the Constitution. It is not possible that they can annul it by a petition. They understood this on another occasion, for in 1873, 10,000 petitioners demanded that the Ecclesiastical law should be submitted to the people. On that occasion people were reminded of the respect due to the Constitution, and were told that an imperative mandate could not be proclaimed by them, and the petition was rejected. There was another way in which the case before us might have been dealt with, and that was by revising the Constitution itself, which at present seems to be too liberal in tolerating us, and in doing so they would have only pandered to the imperial will of the mob. You are men of judgment, we have had plenty of proofs of that lately. (Laughter.) Why do not you do this? And then you might have taken into your counsels the authors of the petition themselves, amongst whom there are several advocates. (I regret it for the honour of the Neuchâtel bar.) But no, you do not venture to revise the Constitution, and why? Because you like sometimes to quote these beautiful inalienable rights the existence of which attracts foreigners to our country, and which have been so prominently exhibited, framed and glazed, at the Zurich Exhibition. Yes, it was necessary to hold to these fine rights of the Constitution, and yet to stick to our friends! (Sensation.) Thus they try to find a middle course, and in doing so they fall into a quagmire and everybody, jury, president, lawyers, accused, everybody in fact now plays at hide-and-seek, out and in, amongst the Articles of the Constitution. (Laughter.) We are reminded continually that a law even if it is unjust, ought to be obeyed. This is a convenient doctrine for the Government, who if it could be only sure of our obedience, could, by a sudden decree, suspend the Constitution itself. But in doing so they are guilty of an aberration which debases the Constitution to a lower level than an ordinary law. When two laws are in distinct contradiction to one another, one cannot be held guilty for choosing one in preference to the other. But on the other hand one is certain to be in the right if one has on one’s own side the Constitution, which is above the Cantonal law. Every persecution which has taken place in the past has pleaded legality in its favour. Every past persecution has been based upon texts of law and excellent decrees; such texts and decrees as you have allowed to prevail against the Constitution, which is itself the source of all law and the source of your own authority, you magistrates! In such a case as this, a high authority tells us we have the right of legal resistance. Authors are agreed in saying that under such circumstances a rebellion, such as M. Audeoud of Geneva has raised, is legitimate. Our resistance (that is to say, the resistance of the Salvation Army) is passive, limiting itself to the continuation of the exercise of the right of which it is desired to deprive it. Finally, by the oath which Judges take, they are themselves deprived of the power of making an application of an unconstitutional law. If you find, therefore, that this law is unconstitutional you have no right to apply it.” (The speaker concluded by demanding the acquittal of all the accused.)

To this address, of which no adequate idea is given by the above, the Procureur-Général declined to reply, and the prisoners were each asked in turn whether they had anything to say in their defence.

Captain Becquet, called upon first, pointed out how the disturbances at the commencement had been a “got-up affair” by people who had never seen the Army. As to its _methods_, which the Procureur had talked so much about, though they had never used a drum or cornet at Neuchâtel, yet he thought they had as much a right to use _every_ instrument as David had. He would give them a specimen of old-time religion, and as the Procureur-Général had quoted largely from a pamphlet, he asked to be allowed also to make a quotation. He then opened his bible and read the 150th Psalm! Cries of derision were heard from some in the audience while the Captain read and commented. “The Army had attacked sin and the devil—_that_ was why it was attacked and ill-used, but nothing in earth or hell would stop its progress.”

Miss Booth then made her defence. A defence it could hardly be called. It now seemed as if it was not the Salvationists, but the authorities who were on the defensive.

(The Procureur-Général had himself remarked in his speech: “What do we find before us? People who show the slightest sign of repentance?... No! no! but a handful of people who come here with a coolness, and _aplomb simply superb_, to tell us that they have done nothing wrong, who presume to talk to us about ‘law,’ and to declare they are in their rights and mean to stick to them!” And he was right, for certainly prisoners at the bar never seemed more at ease nor more calmly trustful.)

As she rose, calm and self-possessed, and faced the President, none but her intimate friends understood the wonderful God-given power of spirit and soul required in that moment to enable Miss Booth to triumph over the exhaustion and acute suffering of those two long days following twelve of imprisonment. She said:—

“I have no need to enter upon the legal aspect of this question; that has been ably dealt with by M. Monnier. Yet as M. le Procureur-Général himself went off the ground of law to discuss at great length the doctrines and methods of the Army, I feel I cannot for truth’s sake be silent; although I am fully aware that we are not here to enter upon a disquisition about Christianity.

“Permit me first to say that if the Conseil d’Etat had any doubts or misgivings concerning the methods and end of the Salvation Army, the honourable members should have sought information from competent judges, that is to say, from those who know us, who had both seen and heard us, before accepting the opinions of persons who had done neither one nor the other.

“What is the need for the Salvation Army? Allow me to read an extract from one of your own journals:—‘Cantonal Governments, the Federation, neighbourhoods and families see with alarm the flood of demoralisation rising menacingly higher and higher; and instead of seeking to destroy the causes of this deluge, they only take away the remaining dams.’ Can you deny the existence of the state of things described by this paper?

“It is needless to enlarge upon the necessity for a Salvation Army in the face of these facts.

“The Procureur-Général has said, in speaking of the work, that it moved the entire population, and that there must be a cause for this. He has reason to say so. I agree with him; there is a cause, far deeper than any that has been mentioned here to-day. It is at this cause we strike—which exists _in the heart of man_.

“As to our aim, we are trying to bring these people who outrage your laws, who fight against God, to the feet of Him who alone can change them, to the only hope that exists for them, the Saviour of the world! We work, we live, we suffer to do this. This is our one and only object—to bring the world to the Great Deliverer, Jesus Christ!

“Our only message has been, ‘Repent and turn ye to the Lord that your sins may be blotted out.’ We want to see the drunkards, the thieves, the outcasts washed in the precious blood of Jesus, and changed into peaceful, loyal citizens.

“This being our end, it is to the interest of all Governments to protect us; and in protecting us they protect themselves.

“In our efforts to attain this end we have met with the bitterest opposition in Switzerland, because our motives have been wilfully misrepresented. Lies, as absurd as untrue, have been circulated about us; and we have been bitterly persecuted—first by those who resist the light, and secondly by those who have been misled, and will one day regret their action.

“The great accusation against us is that we disturbed the public peace; in a word, we were the cause of scandal. If to preach the Gospel, to denounce sin, and to pray over the masses is a scandal, then we are guilty of a scandal, even as Christ and Paul were. The Procureur-Général has attempted to describe in detail our proceedings, yet this gentleman has avowed that he has never attended a single meeting, never put his foot inside the Mont Blanc; he cannot, therefore, be considered capable of judging since he has never seen them! (Laughter.)

“M. le Procureur-Général has said we attacked the town with drums, and trumpets, and other extravagant things. I ask M. le Procureur-Général how many drums he has seen in Neuchâtel, or trumpets? Not one. What is the truth? No musical instrument, with the exception of a piano, has been employed. No flag, no processions. The only bill that has been issued I hold in my hand, which simply announces that the Salvation Army will hold meetings at seven, three, and seven.

“M. le Procureur-Général has referred to the language of the Salvationists. He says we teach that all that is necessary for Salvation is for one to jump on the platform and say, ‘_Je suis sauvé_’ (‘I am saved’) after five minutes’ self-examination. No one in Switzerland has ever heard us make such an outrageous statement. It is not true.

“Notwithstanding, there may come a day when M. le Procureur-Général and others would give all the world to be able to say, ‘Je suis sauvé!’ The time will come when he will have to face the great unknown future, appear before another tribunal, to face another Judge! Then he with others will prove the value of those words, ‘Je suis sauvé!’

“But what are our proceedings? (1.) We have sung hymns in the hall that we had hired. Everyone can procure a little book of the hymns we use, and judge for themselves. Here is a specimen:—

‘Seul refuge de mon âme, Je veux m’appuyer sur Toi; La paix que mon cœur réclame Est à Tes pieds, ô mon Roi!’

(2.) We read the Bible. Switzerland has not waited till the Salvation Army came to read the Bible. You know this Book already. (3.) We pray, and (4) we persuade men to leave the road of sin and death—to renounce evil, and give their hearts and lives to the Saviour. And God is our witness that we have _done nothing more_.

“Is that a scandal? To sing, and speak, and pray in the name of Jesus? It is not we that throw stones, that break windows, that howl and hoot after respectable people in the streets. It is not we who violate domiciles. It is against all logic to say that _we_ are the scandal of your country.

“Ah! the question of all questions, the question which every intelligent man ought to face, is—What are we to do with the masses? If they are not reached by the power of the Gospel—if they are not won from sin and the power of Satan—a day will come when they will turn round against you, occasioning terrible trouble and disorder, and awful will be the consequences. Then, Messieurs, you may have reason to regret your action in this matter. If these disturbers are capable of manifesting such hatred, such rage against citizens who pray to God, they will also be capable of manifesting the same rebellious spirit against _any other opinion, or any other law, which may not please them_.

“We have not made your people like this. Bear in mind that we have not created this terrible state of barbarism which was let loose around that Hall, and which has made my heart bleed many times in witnessing. Who is responsible for this? We cannot be, for we have only been in your town a few months.

“There are people also in Switzerland who have followed our meetings and know that we are on the side of law and order, and that our only end is to stop vice, to empty the prisons, and to save souls out of the grasp of the devil. And it is those who are _interested in, and gain by sin, who fight against us_!

“Although we have suffered terribly through misrepresentations that have been wilfully circulated about us, we are not discouraged! we know that truth and justice will soon triumph. I love Switzerland all the more for what we have endured. A little while and Switzerland will love us. We shall win thousands to righteousness, peace, and heaven. (Cries of assent and dissent.)

“Further, we have broken no law since we entered your country. The Prefect admitted to me that Capt. Becquet had all along strictly obeyed his orders and counsels with reference to the Mont Blanc. We have submitted and submitted again and again, until you have taken away from us the right to meet to pray. This lands us on another platform altogether. We have now no more any choice. There is but one course open to us—we must follow that. We must obey God; we must be in harmony with the laws of Heaven. We are not here to plead ‘Not guilty.’ No! Like Daniel and Paul, and the early Christians, we weighed this matter. I weighed it in my room on my knees. We have all told you that we did violate the decree. We have no wish to hide it. I note, however, that the enemy of souls has full liberty. He can do his work without hindrance. He can lead to perdition thousands of victims. He is permitted to drink, and shout, and sing, and dance, and make all the noise he likes without the least interruption on the part of the authorities, while we are _made prisoners for praying in a wood_! I was struck the other night when in my prison by the howling and singing of bands of roughs, which continued till past midnight, without any interruption that I am aware of from the police, while our people were followed home because they had sung a hymn, and strict watch was kept that they should not do it again.

“I fear there is reason to believe that personal feeling and prejudice have somewhat taken the place of justice in this matter. Permit me, Messieurs, to say that on the ground we occupy to-day, where liberty and truth are at stake, all prejudice and personal and vindictive feeling should be banished; that justice, and justice alone, should have full and fair play.

“I ask why the meetings were stopped at the Mont Blanc at the moment when there was no noise? I was in Neuchâtel when the order came from the Prefect to stop the evening meeting after a certain Friday night, at which there had been _no disturbance_. The same thing occurred with reference to the afternoon meeting. Why were the afternoon meetings closed when there _was no noise_? And again with the Sunday morning meetings. Neither is the law in execution to-day on account of noise, since perfect order reigned on the 9th September at the Prise-Imer. The meeting lasted from two to six, and hundreds of people, including policemen and the Prefect of Boudry, witnessed the solemnity of that occasion. And I ask further, is it just to shut up our hall on account of the noise outside? If a _man took a shop for his business_ and people chose to break his windows, _would the Conseil d’Etat shut his shop up to satisfy_ the roughs outside—would they be guilty of such injustice? Then why has it shut up the hall which we had taken, and which was our property? They did not even offer to pay the rent. All we demand is that which is guaranteed by your Constitution—religious liberty.

“M. le Procureur-Général referred to our Queen, saying that even she was subject to the decrees of Parliament, but that I placed myself above her in refusing to become subject to the decrees of the Grand Conseil. There is no parallel between Her Majesty and myself. No Act has been passed to forbid her praying in a wood, or I think her Majesty would have something to say on the subject! (Sensation.)

“M. le Procureur-Général has spoken in a way that has astounded me on public opinion, which, he says, they cannot afford to treat lightly. Let me remind M. le Procureur-Général and all here that it was public opinion that crucified Jesus Christ. The rulers and the people all joined together to put him to death. Do you justify that action? That was _public opinion_.

“The Government in England protects us. The Queen, John Bright, and others of the most intelligent and influential men in our country, have publicly expressed their sympathy. They appreciate and understand the end and aim of the Army.

“One word in conclusion. You can punish us; you can imprison us; you can persecute us (as long as you are permitted); but what you cannot do is to stop this work—to suppress it. I warn you. Beware what you do, for your country’s sake, for Jesus Christ’s sake; and as you value the peace of your soul in a dying hour. Take care that in banishing us you don’t banish the light, that you do not banish Jesus Christ, and in that great day when you are called to give an account you be found guilty of fighting against God.

“You can laugh at me; you can mock me; but you cannot deny what I have said. God is with us!”

M. Convert, being asked if he wished to add anything, said:—

“The Procureur-Général has spoken in unsparing terms of our madness and fanaticism. I shall not reply to this. History will judge between us. The great future will show who is right—the Government accuser or the Salvationist accused.

“When I heard of the coming of the Salvation Army I was extremely anxious to assume the _true_ attitude towards them, and therefore I immediately wrote to friends in London and other places who had opportunity of seeing and studying the work and the workers. I had heard many strange reports; among others that the work was full of irreverence; but I wished to have exact information from people who had seen, and heard, and studied for themselves, and not mere hearsay; and I am glad of the opportunity of stating publicly that all the information I thus received was such as to reflect the highest credit upon the Army and its officers. I have since had the opportunity of seeing them personally, and my experience has more than confirmed the information received. I consider it an honour to be here to stand by them to-day, whilst at the same time protesting as a Swiss and a Neuchâtelois, against a decree which forces me to stand at this bar as an accused. It is a post of honour; but I ask why was I chosen for this honour among two hundred other Salvationists who attended the meeting? The two hundred would have been happy to have been here at this bar to-day.”

The same question was then asked of Mme. Boillot, who said: “The Procureur-Général had accused the Army of being a scourge to the country. I reply, if you want to abolish something, abolish the real scourges. Shut up the houses of ill-fame which are licensed by the State, and the public-houses, and then you will have less need of your prisons and of the Salvation Army!” (Sensation.)

Sergeant Cost then said: “All I have to ask, Mr. President, is that if you punish our dear English Officers, you will give me the same sentence as you give them!”

Sergeant Hess asks the same.

The Jury retire, and while the murmur of conversation rises all around, the word is passed along the line of the accused, and among the Salvationists in the audience, “Let us all pray!” In that moment of crisis, from the midst of the excited throng, many prayers are rising to the Eternal Throne.

During the whole of those two days, unseen and unknown to that earthly tribunal, an appeal had been unceasingly going up to the Supreme Court of Justice above, winged by the prayers of multitudes in other lands—

“And thus the whole round earth Was every way bound by golden chains About the feet of God!”

After a time the President resumed his chair: “Silence! Messieurs! The Jury is about to enter. I call upon this audience now to maintain the attitude of respect due to the dignity of this tribunal. Upon the slightest disturbance I shall have the hall cleared.”

A moment of breathless suspense followed.

The door opens, and the foreman of the jury advances to the table, followed by his six colleagues.

With a manner full of courageous dignity, he reads:

_First Question_: Did the accused take part in a meeting?—Yes.

_Second Question_: Was this meeting in violation of the decree?—Yes.

_Third Question_: Did they act with culpable intention?—No.

The Judge pronounces:

“In consequence of this verdict, _the accused are acquitted_.”

Fervent “Amens;” burst spontaneously from the Salvationists in the audience.

The following remarks on the events of those few days from Mlle. ——, may be interesting.

“On Saturday morning a carriage came to fetch Miss Booth and Mr. Becquet, who, accompanied by the jailer, drove to Boudry, a little country town at five miles distant from Neuchâtel, where the trial was to take place. We ourselves left the station at Neuchâtel at 7 o’clock in the morning; a great many Salutistes were gathered there, and as soon as they were in the train began singing their cheerful hymns of victory, and never ceased till the train arrived at Boudry. A crowd of Neuchâtel people marched in, and found this quiet little place already filled with people. The windows, doors, and streets were filled with faces looking eagerly at the anxious throng who flocked towards the Hôtel de Ville. It did require strength and patience to stand for two hours for the doors to be opened. But the subject was too intensely interesting to consider the fatigue or the inconvenience of being crushed in the crowd. Meanwhile a few friends gathered together in a little upper room in a friendly house opposite, and many fervent prayers were offered concerning this most important day. This little room became quite a sanctuary during the two days of the trial; many a time we saw it filled with earnest Christians, several of the _prévenus_ joining us to gather strength from on high. Luther’s hymn, “_C’est un rempart que notre Dieu_” was a favourite one, and brought comfort to many; we sang, however, also a good many Salvation songs in spite of the judges opposite who might have heard us! The jury assembled at 9.30 a.m.; then the prisoners were called in. Miss Booth entered first; she looked very pale and suffering. Many saw her then for the first time, and no doubt many thought she looked more like an angel than a criminal! Captain Becquet next entered; he, too, bore on his face traces of his hard work, and of the privations of the prison; he looked worn and very pale, but as joyful as ever. His peace is unalterable; loss of comfort, trials, persecution, difficulties, are nothing to him. When I asked him during the day how he was, he answered cheerfully: ‘Very well indeed; there is only one thing which can make me unhappy, that is _sin_.’ Some hearing this said: ‘One must confess these people do not look unhappy.’ It was indeed a very striking sight to observe the faces of the six ‘culprits.’ The perfect calm and peace which shone on their faces was in itself eloquent enough. They seemed quite unconcerned and perfectly at their ease in the midst of the crowd of people glaring at them. No nervousness, no agitation; they knew that the Lord Himself would speak through their lips; yea, that He was in the midst of them—what then could they fear? they were not their own, they had acted in obedience to their Master, and He had called them to be witnesses for Him before this Court, and here they were for His sake. M. Convert sat beside Miss Booth. He is a worthy Christian, of mature age, and a faithful follower of Christ. His father many years ago had also had to appear before the tribunals for his faith, and was sentenced to three days of prison for having held a religious meeting. Mme. Boillot is a young lady only 25 years old. Although a Christian woman before, she had been greatly blessed through the Salvation Army in Neuchâtel, and had been very bold and determined in holding meetings at her own house, and attending as many others as she could, without neglecting her family duties. Cost is a gardener who was converted in one of the meetings at the Mont Blanc Hall. He, too, has been a good faithful soldier, holding meetings every week at his house without fear. Hess, a good-looking young man, carpenter, had been a drunkard for many years, had signed and broken the pledge many a time, but only since the Army came to Neuchâtel did he obtain sufficient strength and blessing to keep it, and to be a new creature. His testimony was very remarkable.

“So much for the criminals. I will not enter into the details of the debates which you will be able to read fully in the papers. A few things were particularly striking. The Procureur-Général is a man who professes to be a Freethinker, far, far above the narrow-minded people who call themselves Christians; yet, in his pleading against the accused, his _strongest_ argument was, that almost all the pastors and ministers of religion had expressed their feelings and opinions, either in the press or pulpit, _against_ the Salvation Army. ‘An eminent _Christian_ lady, also a famous authoress, had written such revelations against this association that there could be left no doubt in the minds of every thoughtful person that this Army was nothing but a lot of _Saltambanques_, who, instead of promoting religion, did only injure and profane it, &c., &c.’ Then the Procureur quoted several pages of Mme. de Gasparin’s brochure. It made everybody shudder, who loved the name of Jesus, to hear that blessed name uttered in such a tone, quoting the disgraceful passages where Mme. de Gasparin represents Jesus as the bitterest judge of the Salvation Army, tearing their banners, crushing their platforms, &c., &c. (Awful language.) I was ashamed for all our pastors to have to have their names quoted in the cause of the unbelievers against the true followers of Christ.

“The powers of darkness were certainly well represented in this tribunal; we could _feel_ the conflict between the two powers very strikingly; but, thank God, our faith never faltered, and we knew that the Lord was the strongest and that the victory would be His.

“A few illustrations come to my memory of this fact. At the end of the first day a few roughs had climbed on the high brick stove at the end of the room, when the President declared that the prisoners would be released until Monday, when the debates would be continued. One of these men shouted at the top of his voice: ‘Au clou,’ which means in slang, ‘To the prison with them.’ At this very moment there was a great crash and the man fell down the stove, breaking off a whole corner of it. He was himself much hurt by his fall, so that he stopped shouting, and the accused could freely leave the hall without molestation.

“Another incident I noticed;—a rough-looking woman in the crowd who seemed all rage and anger against the _Maréchale_, swearing and threatening to kill her with her pitchfork if she was released; she kept following the debates eagerly. To our great surprise we noticed that a considerable change took place in her when the _Maréchale_ spoke; at last her face changed completely—she was quite silent and grave looking—tears rolled down her checks, and it was exactly as if a tiger had been changed into a lamb. To God be all glory.

“I must not forget to tell you that very few persons, in fact nobody expected the acquittal of the accused. The advocate whom I had questioned a few days before said that it would be a _miracle_ if they were acquitted, that everything was against them, the fact even of having to go to Boudry was most unfavourable—all these country people were rough, and opposed to religious questions, and that they were determined to put an end to these manifestations, &c. But God overruled all! Our advocate suddenly recollected that petition of the 10,000, and he remembered that the jury which was to judge the Salutistes could not be composed of men who had signed this petition; this would be enough to make them _unfit_ to judge impartially, having expressed their opinion _against_ them in signing the petition. The accused are allowed to choose their jury, therefore when the members were proposed, the advocate went to the chateau where the petition-lists were examined, and there more than half the names were found of the proposed jurors, as signatories. The debates of the first day bore on these preliminary questions, which ended in the composition of a new jury, none of whose members had signed the petition, and were in fact all _good_ men. This was God’s hand. Still, even on Monday when the question _de fond_ really began to be treated, people did not know what the end would be. It was very interesting to observe the different faces in the crowd. Some anxiously hoping and fearing, others waiting like wild beasts to devour their prey. The crowd was much greater than on Saturday, and the air so bad, so intensely hot, that it was almost impossible to bear it. Of course, the great attraction was to hear the defence of the prisoners, and it was a remarkable thing to hear from these lips the confession of the name of Christ made without fear. I could not stay the whole time, and remained a little outside to get fresh air; a great many big fellows were assembled there drinking and using bad language. One rough-looking man quite drunk, lifted his hand shouting, ‘If you want an executioner, here I am, take me, we don’t want these English; I follow the advice of our pastor, we have our pastors!!’ Some others went to the Temperance Hall, emptied the chocolate cups on the floor, and took out of their pockets bottles of _eau-de-vie_, which they began drinking in that place! They said, ‘In these times of trouble, nobody knows what poison is in this chocolate, we must drink better stuff!!!’ Altogether there was a very uncomfortable presentiment of some outbreak in the evening. The suspense was very great. We kept believing and praying, but I must confess not without fear. When at last, towards 8 o’clock at night, the jury gave the verdict of acquittal, and the words ‘_sans intention coupable_,’ were pronounced, there was a momentary dead silence like the calm before the storm. M. Cornaz, the director of police, then ordered his police to withdraw, so the poor accused were at the mercy of the mob. Miss Booth was protected by her advocate, M. Monnier, and Professor Kœnig, of Berne, and reached her carriage, but the shouts and shrieks were awful, worse than those of wild beasts. ‘A l’eau, à l’eau,’ they shouted, and followed the carriage _en masse_, trying to upset it. But the coachman succeeded in getting out of the crowd; then the roughs attacked the other Salvationists who had to walk, pelted them with mud and stones, howling and blaspheming, so much so that we could only pray and thank God that they were not more hurt. Oh! how we sang in our train coming back! such joyful songs of victory; we did praise the Lord, and made a joyful noise unto the Lord.”

Great assistance was rendered to the accused by M. Professor Kœnig, of Berne, a distinguished Swiss lawyer, and legal adviser to the British Embassy. Dr. Kœnig had had the case before him for some time previously, had studied it thoroughly, and watched the trial on behalf of our Foreign Office.

Much indignation was felt throughout Switzerland, and found its expression also in the English Press, at the conduct of M. Cornaz in ordering the police to leave at the moment the verdict of acquittal was pronounced, the moment in which the disappointed roughs might be expected to break out in vengeance against the acquitted persons.

The _Suisse Libérale_ had the following on the subject:—

“After the conclusion of the trial, the crowd, which disperses slowly, appears tumultuous enough in the neighbourhood of the building, and threats are heard against the acquitted. The Brigadier of Gendarmes approaches M. Cornaz to take his orders for the protection of the persons whom the jury have just acquitted, and receives this answer, made in an exasperated tone by the Director of Justice and Police—an answer with which I remain astounded, but which I give textually:—

“‘_We have nothing more to do; you may retire._’

“The brave gendarme does not understand. He has not even strength to articulate the usual word, ‘Director, you are right,’ and goes silently away with his comrades. I leave without comment this little episode to the reflection of those who still think several things which I do not think any more at all. Miss Booth, jostled and pressed in the most painful way by a hostile crowd, gets into a carriage with her advocate and M. Kœnig. The carriage drives off in the midst of hisses and hooting. The crowd is very discreet on the whole, as it had just been given _carte blanche_.”

M. Cornaz’s face was white with passion when he heard the verdict of acquittal. During Miss Booth’s defence he had stood facing her with “an _evil grin_” on his face, as one of the papers expressed it, and on one occasion rudely interrupted her, saying, “Silence her; Shut her mouth!” He subsequently distinctly and publicly denied having dismissed the police at the moment when most required for the protection of the accused. This led to a correspondence in the press. M. du Pasquier stated that he had distinctly heard the words spoken. M. Kœnig also, and many others, attested the fact. The astonishment of the honest policeman under him when ordered to retire was also witnessed by many persons. Further comment is needless.

In the turbulent rush from the Court-house of Boudry, a fierce-looking man approached Capt. Becquet, and gave him notice, with a clenched fist, that “his flesh and blood would pay for it,” if he persevered in holding meetings.

The other Salutistes were followed by a crowd of roughs along the country road, and those who brought up the rearguard were savagely kicked and pelted.

The not unfriendly feeling of the Public Prosecutor towards those against whom he reluctantly took part may be illustrated by a little incident. At the close of the trial, Capt. Becquet went up to him, and held out his hand, saying, “I have no bitterness against _you_, sir.” The Prosecutor responded heartily; patting Becquet on the back, he said, “Nor have I against you and your comrades.” Miss Booth and her English friends left Neuchâtel the same evening for Paris.

On the 3rd of October, certain persons who had formed themselves into a committee for the organization of a public meeting to demand the expulsion from the Canton of the English Salutistes, issued the following address:—

“FELLOW CITIZENS,—The jury of Boudry has given its verdict. The Salvationists are acquitted. As signatories of the anti-Salvationist petition you demanded that measures should be taken to put a stop to the action of the Salvation Army in your Canton. Your Council of State and your Grand Council have granted the desire of the ten thousand petitioners. A decree was published forbidding the meetings of the Salvation Army upon the whole of the Republican territory of the Canton of Neuchâtel. This decree was violated. The popular will has not been respected. The decision of the jury of Boudry has rendered that decree a dead-letter. Fellow citizens, it is incumbent now on the people to demand of the Council of State a measure of Police and Public Order which would put an end to the whole scandal, namely, the expulsion of the foreign Salutistes. The resolute measure adopted by the Constituted Authority upon the petition of ten thousand citizens must not be allowed to be trampled under foot. We adjure you, therefore, to come together on Sunday, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, on the Place du Gymnase, to discuss publicly the urgent measures which are required. We count upon the presence of all citizens who regard the dignity of the country and respect our laws.

“Signed by the Committee of Organization of the Meeting.”

A novel spectacle presented itself at Neuchâtel on that Sunday, _i.e._, that of a large meeting of people demanding the immediate expulsion of certain foreigners who had already crossed the Jura, and were some hundreds of miles away.

A special cheap train service had been organized to tempt people from la Chaux du Fond and other towns to come. The Committee of organization, followed by about two hundred citizens, with a military banner and music, marched to the station to meet those who were to arrive. On returning, the procession, it is said, numbered about two thousand. At the head of it marched M. Schmidlin, proprietor of the Café of the Trocadero, and a veterinary surgeon of Boudry. Several members of the Grand Council are said to have been present. Having marched round the town, they halted at the Place du Gymnase.

M. Gehrig addressed the meeting, and enjoined the order suitable for a Republican assembly worthy of the name. He thanked the citizens who had replied to the appeal of the committee, for having come together to demand respect for the rights of the Government, and for the will of the majority of the people. They could not, he said, be satisfied with the position in which the verdict of Boudry had left them. They demanded expulsion—(prolonged cheers)—the immediate expulsion—(renewed cheers)—of the foreigners who had brought disturbance amongst them.

M. Max Diacon, advocate, then spoke:—That was the first time, he said, in the history of their country that such an immense concourse of people had assembled to demand that the Government should enforce respect for the law. The meeting had assembled to claim from the Council of State a measure which would restore peace to their country. That day, which would be a marked one in the history of the country, would, he was sure, pass off with that order and dignity from which their people had never swerved. They could do there what could not be done under a monarchy, namely, demand through the voice of the whole people, not violence, but justice. (Cries of “Yes, yes, it is true.”) He could not say all that was on his heart, but he must reply to the accusations which had been brought against the 10,000 petitioners. They had been reproached for giving too much importance to a few English men and women. But the question was not that. The motive which urged them was the sentiment that in a Republic the laws must needs be respected.

M. Cochard then spoke:—The question, he said, was whether the people should continue to be masters or not. The Salvation Army, by planting its flag in their midst, had stirred up the indignation of the people. Those mountebanks—(vociferous cheers)—trampling on all religious principles, had tried to introduce their new religion into their country. But for themselves, they had their own pastors, their beloved and respected pastors. They did not need any comedy-players to teach them, and they repudiated the Salvation Army, whose grand principle was “Pay down money, and you shall be saved.” The decree of the Grand Council had been violated by the decision of the jury. They (the meeting) had a right to expel those who had brought disunion into the families of the people. It could not be allowed that a few English people should violate their laws under the pretext that they had consulted Swiss advocates. They had held a meeting in violation of the decree, and this they did (he blushed for the Canton of Neuchâtel) under the auspices of a Neuchâtel citizen. It was said that these English were already gone; but, he said, they might come back again! (The speaker concluded by reading a resolution as follows:) “The Council of State of Neuchâtel is respectfully requested to satisfy the wish of the people expressed in the popular assembly of the 7th October, and to decree the immediate expulsion from our Canton by a measure of police and public order, of the foreign Salvationists, who have been the cause of scandals among us, and who have permanently troubled the public peace.

“This resolution shall be conveyed to the Council of State at the Castle by a deputation from the meeting. All citizens are invited to accompany the deputation in procession.”

About seven hundred men then ascended the hill to the Chateau, followed by a crowd of spectators. The gate of the Court was closed. The terrace of the College was crowded with spectators. When the procession reached its destination the gate was opened, and then the crowd poured into the narrow passage with a great rush. Women groaned, children screamed, and at last the Court was filled.

A correspondent of the _Suisse Libérale_ wrote:—“When I had at last entered the Court with great difficulty, having just missed the harangue of the speaker who presented the resolution to the Government, M. Comtesse, President of the Council of State had begun to speak, and was complimenting the people. The people of Neuchâtel, he said, were the friends of order. (Cheers.) They did not wish to be troubled in their family life by foreigners who came to embitter them in the name of a religion which they perverted and dishonoured. (Cheers.) They (the Swiss) had always shown hospitality to foreigners who came peaceably to enjoy their institutions; but those who came to speculate on their hospitality and resist their laws they would drive out of their country. The Council of State would show that it knew how to do its duty, and to enforce respect for the popular will. It was well that that dignified demonstration had been organized, in order that they who had calumniated the country by predicting a disorderly meeting that day would have the lie given to them. They were a people jealous of good order, and they did not require any lessons from foreigners, and still less from haughty advocates of their own country. (Prolonged cheers.)”

M. Cornaz, Chief of the Department of Justice and Police, then addressed the people. He complained of having been calumniated in the matter of his having withdrawn police protection from the accused at the trial. His concluding words were, “This day it has been the people who have spoken. The powerful breath of the people has dissipated all these infamies and calumnies. Let us give three cheers for the Neuchâtel Republic.”

M. Diacon said he would propose, in that Castle which their ancestors had re-conquered on two occasions, one more cheer for the Neuchâtel Republic and Government.

The procession then returned to the town, where speeches were again made on the Place du Gymnase.

A Zurich newspaper remarked: “The committee for the formation of this meeting was composed of an obscure post-office official and a couple of young lawyers strongly attached to the chief of the Department of Justice and Police (M. Cornaz). The head of the procession, it is said, was formed by a band of good-for-nothings, such as those who distinguished themselves in Geneva in the persecutions of the Salvation Army. M. Cornaz, surrounded by his friends and brethren, stood upon a balcony, in a position to be well seen by the people. On the two occasions when the procession was obliged to pass along the Rue du Chateau, in front of the house of M. Aimé Humbert, the grossest abuse was showered upon its occupant by the roughs in passing.”

La _Nouvelle Gazette_ said: “This meeting has been pronounced a success. To us it does not appear so. It was an occasion for Sunday excursionists to amuse themselves, and the manifestations were absolutely wanting in everything like seriousness and dignity.”

A correspondent from Switzerland to the _Globe_ (London), wrote as follows of the address made on the occasion of the popular meetings:—

“Especially telling was the hit directed against the Salvationists on the ground that they were mountebanks, who were seeking to get money out of the pockets of the people. To the average Helvetian mind, this charge is quite sufficient to justify their expulsion. Never had the well-worn proverb—‘Point d’argent, point de Suisse’—a fuller illustration. In trying to get hold of some Swiss money, the Booths have committed an unpardonable sin. The ingenuous inhabitants of these valleys and mountains have so long been accustomed to relieve the English traveller of his gold, that they bitterly resent the introduction of the converse process....

“Amid vociferous cries of ‘Au Chateau,’ it was announced that the _cortège_ would be reformed and would proceed to the Castle—the seat of the Cantonal Government—for the presentation of the demand. Hurrying there before the crowd, I secured a place in the inner court, and was presently witness to a scene which, _magna componere parvis_, would be paralleled if Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain came out into Palace Yard on a Sunday evening to address congratulatory speeches to the leaders of a mob-meeting which had marched from Hyde Park to Westminster Palace. When the orators and the bands of music arrived they were warmly received—evidently in accordance with a pre-arrangement—by MM. Comtesse and Cornaz, leading Radical members of the Council of State. These distinguished gentlemen told the crowd that they had done perfectly right in organising a noisy demonstration in order to try to upset the decision of a properly constituted court of justice. There was much said by these responsible administrators about the necessity of making all foreigners as well as Neuchâtelois obey the law, which in this case, be it remembered, is an edict of the Council, which a court of justice has declared to be in opposition to the law of the land.”

The following circular to the Prefects of Police was issued by M. Cornaz on the 10th October.

“GENTLEMEN,—Now that we have expelled Miss Booth and Mr. Edmund Becquet, there is no longer, properly speaking, any Salvation Army in the Canton of Neuchâtel. This corporation has failed to strike any firm roots amongst our people. It was an exotic importation, and seems to me to be fated to disappear, together with those who introduced it. Any foreigner in Switzerland who may attempt to revive its existence will come under the decree of expulsion of the 8th October. This measure must be sternly enforced in regard to such persons. In order then that a religious assembly held by people of Swiss nationality should come within the application of the decree of 15th June, 1883, it must advertise openly and as in defiance, the name and exterior signs of the Salvation Army. Now, therefore, we have re-entered our normal state. The Canton of Neuchâtel is the country of religious liberty, where everyone possesses the right freely to carry out his own form of worship, and to unite with others under the protection of the Constitutional, Cantonal, and Federal guarantees. All that has recently passed in relation to the Salvation Army testifies to the serious interest which our people take in spiritual questions. In demanding its expulsion the Neuchâtel people have not manifested any intolerance toward any religious opinion, seeing that the Salvation Army, in its dogmas, does not essentially differ from the Protestant sects which enjoy among us complete liberty. But public sentiment was shocked by the jugglery and shows which the Salutistes mix up with religion.[37] An irresistible current of opposition arose amongst the population. There is every reason to hope that the spirit of justice, of moderation and liberty which distinguishes our people, and that the most complete liberty will continue to be respected, as it has ever been since 1848. Liberty of conscience is a sacred thing in the Republic, and the opinions of a minority have the same title to respect as those of a majority. The public authorities rely on the good will of all the citizens in carrying out this respect. So far from interfering in any fashion whatever with meetings which are not directly interdicted by the late decree of the Grand Council, our duty is, on the contrary, to defend them against all attacks, as certainly the Grand Council and the Council of State desire should be the case.

“Accept, gentlemen, the assurance of my distinguished consideration, in the name of the Department of Police.

“CORNAZ.”

There appears in this address to his subordinates a rising fear in the mind of M. Cornaz, lest he and his adherents should be on the verge of becoming the minority whose rights he now calls upon the police to respect. Possibly he also fears that his subordinates, (often, probably, men of greater dignity of character than himself), might be too ready to imitate the imprudence (to call it by a very gentle word) of which he himself was guilty at the close of the Boudry trial, and that they might carry out once too often in their official acts the principle of non-interference in scenes of violence which may take place in future.

The _Continental Times_ of the 20th October contained the following observations on M. Cornaz’s circular to the Police:—

“Having exercised the law in an arbitrary manner and expelled two inoffensive English subjects from a country that is remarkable for harbouring insurgents of all nations, the Neuchâtel Government applies a salve to its conscience by publishing the above letter, signed by Councillor of State Cornaz, and addressed to the Prefects of the Canton:—It would be difficult to find a circular more abounding in lame excuses, in unreasonable reasons, in poor attempts to explain away tyranny and hide a cowardly subservience to the compulsion of a party that objects to any religious body which seeks to empty cafés and brasseries, or of one which accustomed to live on the money brought into Switzerland by foreigners, has a quaking in the pockets at the idea of subscriptions being made among the Swiss by foreigners who may carry the proceeds away with them. No! M. Cornaz, your Canton has not returned to its normal state. Such oppressive acts as have been performed in Neuchâtel leave their mark on men’s minds. The attempt to excuse a tyrannical decree while boasting of religious liberty, is a sign of weakness, and the day is not far distant when the same party that urged you to the expulsion of Miss Booth and Mr. Becquet may demand of you acts more difficult to condone than the persecution of a few helpless members of the Salvation Army.”

In the _Courrier de Neuchâtel_, which published this circular of M. Cornaz, there stood, rather strikingly, side by side, in the next column, the following earnest appeal from certain Christian men of the Canton of Neuchâtel, following immediately upon the departure of the acquitted Salvationists:—

“DEAR FELLOW CITIZENS,—Not being able to present ourselves personally to give you this invitation, we do it by means of this advertisement. On Sunday, the 14th October, at eight o’clock in the morning, there will be a meeting to which we invite all persons who love the truth. At this meeting the subject treated will be that of the slavery to sin which is eating into the heart of our dear Helvetia. We shall treat of the youth of our country, which is given up, bound hand and foot, to prostitution, a vice which is practised in our country on such an enormous scale. We shall take into consideration the ways and means which may be employed in order to prevent the hope of our country from being polluted and corrupted throughout, soul and body. Above all will be brought forward the one efficacious remedy, through which, thanks be to God, already many among us have been saved. It is in the name of Jesus that we invite you. Come in great numbers—fathers and young men.”