NARRATIVE OF FACTS.
I ask a patient perusal of the following facts. After such a perusal, I
believe that the conviction of every reader will be, that the legal
position of the Salvation Army in Switzerland is absolutely
unassailable.
Neither the Federal nor the Cantonal Governments have succeeded—though
straining the text of their laws to the uttermost in their endeavour to
do so—in proving a single breach of the Law, properly understood,
against the Army since it entered Switzerland in December, 1882. I shall
comment later on the degree of the responsibility of the Army in the
breach of Cantonal Orders acknowledged by Swiss Jurists themselves to be
illegal in the sense of their being a violation of the Constitutional
Laws of the Country.
It may be well at the outset to mention a few plain facts in order to
disabuse the minds of the English public of a number of erroneous ideas
which seem to be generally current with reference to the action and
methods of the Salvation Army upon the Continent, and in Switzerland in
particular.
1. Not a single placard or notice was ever posted in the Canton of
Geneva which was not first approved and passed by the Police authorities
themselves in conformity with their regulations. It was for the Swiss
authorities to say whether any of the placards thus submitted to them
were calculated unduly to excite the public mind. 2. Street processions,
such as those which take place in England, being prohibited by the
Genevese law, the Salvation Army never once even attempted to have such
a procession, or any collective manifestation in the public streets. It
is therefore needless to observe that no band of music belonging to the
Salvation Army ever paraded the streets. Madame de Gasparin’s book, as
well as the religious and secular Press, made frequent mention of drums,
bands, &c. What is the fact? The only instruments ever used (in part due
to the fact that the Salvation Army had not had time to form a band)
were a cornet, two violins, and a piano, which were used in the private
halls hired by the Salvation Army for its meetings.
From the commencement the leaders of the Salvation Army were very
careful to observe the laws of the land; and since the persecutions,
they have frequently challenged the authorities to prove them guilty of
a single breach of their laws. Through the force of circumstances
arising from the strong prohibitory laws created in the Canton of Geneva
for the suppression of the Jesuits, the outward manifestations of the
Salvation Army work were altogether devoid of some of the external
features which characterize it in England.
The uniforms—very plain and inoffensive—and the Army titles, were
retained; and women continued to preach the Gospel in meetings large and
small.[3] These latter points have been eagerly seized upon by the
opponents of the Army to swell the cry against them; but these do not
afford any grounds of banishment and interdiction; they are not
contraventions of any law.
The “Avant Courriers” of the Salvation Army arrived in Geneva in
December, 1882. Mr. Clibborn held some preliminary Conferences in the
Hall of the Reformation and in the Casino.
A Citizen of Geneva wrote:—“The rumours which had preceded the advent of
the Salvation Army had excited some apprehensions among those who have
at heart the interests of religion. But these apprehensions were for the
most part allayed by the favourable impressions received at the meetings
held by Mr. Clibborn. His object in holding these meetings was to lay
before our public a simple account of the principles and aim of the
Salvation Army; but the ardour and zeal of that true servant of God
urged him from time to time to go further, and to address urgent appeals
to the conscience of his hearers.”
The way being thus prepared, Catherine Booth arrived, accompanied by
several friends, men and women. Opinions for and against the teaching
and methods of the Army began now to be more strongly pronounced.
Turbulent spirits in large numbers appeared on the scene, encouraged, as
it is now well known, by the inactivity and even collusion of the
police, and by the secret approval, well known to the mob of disturbers,
of individuals in authority who, having been elevated to positions of
power on the shoulders of this very mob, have undoubtedly sought to make
capital, in their own interests and in the interests of the most
unworthy of their electors, out of the persecution of the Salvation
Army. The evening meetings began to be besieged by savages, the deadly
enemies of all religion, seconded by a number of insolent youths to whom
noise, especially if seasoned with personal insults, seemed to be a
congenial amusement. The meetings were frequently broken up, by threats
and uproar which endangered the personal safety of their promoters and
the quieter part of the audience, who were consequently obliged to
retire to smaller halls and less accessible localities. One of the
journals of Geneva wrote thus of Miss Booth’s first meeting:—“Miss Booth
was listened to with the greatest attention, and by the men present in
the audience with respectful emotion. It would have required a heart of
stone not to have been touched with the ardent piety, the deep love of
souls, the joyful spirit of sacrifice which breathed and throbbed in the
words of this noble young lady. One would have said it was a new Joan of
Arc preaching against the Prince of this world a holy war of liberation
and conquest.” The Geneva Citizen above quoted says:—“The police seemed
from the beginning powerless to maintain order. At first it may have
been supposed that this powerlessness was real and involuntary; but
subsequent events have proved that there was a positive disinclination
on the part of the police to suppress the disturbances, and that there
was no real incapacity for doing so, if they had been so minded.” This
was the moment in which the principle of religious liberty received its
first deadly wound in Geneva. A kind of tremor seems to have been felt
throughout the better instructed part of the population, when that blow
was about to fall. Some endeavoured to throw off their uneasiness by
declaring that the foreign visitors alone could be held responsible for
any violation of religious liberty, and that they alone would feel the
penalty. But far more numerous were the Genevan citizens who complained
that they were prevented from receiving the spiritual help and blessing
which they desired and had begun to find at the meetings, and more
numerous still was the crowd of poor people attracted by simple
curiosity to those meetings whose souls might have responded to the call
to a better life.
As British subjects provided with passports and permits of residence in
the Canton of Geneva, the members of the Army were entitled to all the
benefits guaranteed in the “Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
Establishment” of September 6, 1855, now in force between Switzerland
and England.
The following are extracts from that Treaty:—
“_The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted to reside in
each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions and on the same footing
as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same manner Swiss
citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the territories of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on the same condition and
on the same footing as British subjects._”
“_Consequently the subjects and citizens of either of the two
contracting parties shall, providing they conform to the laws of the
country, be at liberty, with their families, to enter, establish
themselves, reside and remain in any part of the territories of the
other._
“_They may hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purpose of
residence and commerce, and may exercise, conformably to the laws of the
country, any profession, business or occupation._”
In conformity with the provisions of this Treaty, full liberty has
always been accorded to British subjects to hold evangelistic meetings
in all parts of Switzerland, and the same holds good for the Swiss in
England.
The meetings which the Salvationists had held for six weeks before
objections were raised, were strictly within the bounds of the law. The
placards announcing them were passed by the Municipal authorities before
being affixed. There were no processions.[4] Politics were not touched
in the meetings, and nothing was said which could provoke the hostility
of any right-minded person. From the first, when the disturbances
commenced, Colonel Clibborn took frequent occasion to consult with the
Director of the Police, having always gone to his office when requested,
and given him timely notice of all the meetings, and (as the Director
himself admitted), having invariably fallen in with his counsel upon
points which would facilitate the task of keeping order.
Several persons can be adduced as witnesses to the fact that the
ringleaders in the disturbances _were paid to act this part by several
noted traffickers in vice in the city_, and the latter were themselves
frequently seen in the meeting inciting part of the audience to riot.
I cannot forbear remarking here on the grotesquely horrible and almost
incredible fact that while the Government of Geneva suppresses religious
meetings and forbids the poor and ignorant classes of the people to come
in contact with a power which has already redeemed and elevated
thousands in other lands who had formerly been the pests of society, it
continues to grant licenses to the keepers of houses of debauchery, and
to shield these diabolical institutions with its own august protection,
well knowing them to be strongholds of Satan within whose walls every
crime is perpetrated, and whose poisonous influence is extending like a
deadly cancer throughout the whole population, and to the very heart of
their family life. It is no matter of surprise to us to recognise among
the foremost opponents of courageous preachers of repentance and
rebukers of sin, our old familiar foe, whom we have fought through
Europe, which still holds up its hideous head, albeit beginning to be
aware that its time is short. Some faint echoes of the blessed word
_Salvation_ had found their way, it appears, even into the darkened
chambers where crouch the slaves and victims of State-protected vice,
and had resuscitated hopes long dead in some poor hearts. A few of the
slaves escaped or succeeded in obtaining release, and once more in the
light of day, they listened to the glad tidings of salvation. They
joined the ranks of their deliverers. Their desertion of their former
life represented so much loss to the keepers. Like the sellers of the
shrines of Diana, fearing that the hope of their gains was
threatened,—not so much by the escape of a few prisoners as by the
falling off of a portion of their _clientèle_,—the officially-recognised
traffickers in vice became furious. They have gold in plenty at their
disposal, as well as “agents” and “bullies” professionally trained in
the service of their abominable traffic, and with these it was easy to
win a temporary and dishonorable triumph over God’s messengers of peace
and of holiness. Public authorities accustomed to consign women, and
girls of tender age, to the officially superintended service of vice,
and a police accustomed to see the rights of debauchery recognised and
respected by those same authorities as those of an honourable industry,
are not likely to prove themselves impartial judges of the value of a
revival movement embodying a stern moral and spiritual teaching, nor to
show in their conduct any respect for the persons of the teachers or for
the sanctity of Law. Such has proved to be the case.
A marked increase in the daring and violence of the bands of roughs was
observed, subsequent to a public threat made by the President of the
Department of Justice and Police, to withdraw all protection from the
meetings, and an expressed desire on his part to expel Salvationists
from the Canton, if in his power to do so.
The President of the Department of Justice and Police above-named is M.
Marc Héridier, a high functionary and a Councillor of State, elected by
the people. As an individual, he is more responsible probably than any
other person in Geneva for the violations of the first principles of
justice and of law which have been perpetrated there.[5]
“In the sitting of the Grand Council on the 27th January, 1883, in reply
to a question asked of the Council of State by the Deputy Odier
concerning the tumultuous scenes which had taken place in the public
halls, and concerning the duty of the police to suppress these scenes,—
M. Héridier said: “We have been petitioned to call out a company of
gendarmerie, sword in hand, to protect these foreigners, and to prevent
brawls and rows. _I will never consent to take such a step!_ There are
already eight police agents in these places every evening who have a
very hard time of it, while these people (the Salvationists) are pleased
to amuse themselves by stirring up these scandalous scenes. These agents
might be doing more useful work elsewhere, _and I am just about to
withdraw them_. * * * * Do you wish that our military department should
enter on a campaign to defend the Salvation Army? (Loud laughter.)
Gentlemen, I am not the friend of disorder, and if my view of this
matter were only shared by others _I would have restored order long
ago_. M. Odier says that he would have liked to have seen these people
sent off on their journey back to England. That is my own feeling also,
and for my part I never would have signed the passports of these
foreigners. (Loud cheers.)”[6]
On Thursday, 1st February, the office which the Salvationists had taken,
6, Place Longemalle, was attacked, the windows broken, and other damage
caused by efforts to force an entrance when the doors were closed. The
proprietor of a house of ill-fame, a notorious character in the city,
was active in the crowd which blockaded the building, inciting the
lowest fellows to violence. The same day Colonel Clibborn and a French
officer of the Armée du Salut were stoned through the main street of the
city in broad daylight. The life of another officer, Thonger, was
seriously imperilled, the police refusing protection. “Their courage and
their patience,” writes M. Audeoud, “testified to the sincerity of their
faith.” The Geneva Government now judged that the moment for action had
arrived, and in this they were certainly right; only they overlooked the
fact that it was the authors of the public disturbances whom it was
necessary to rebuke, and not the victims. Instead of taking prompt and
energetic measures to check the assailants, they issued their famous
decree, of the 2nd February, ordering the meetings to be closed. It is
important to notice that this measure was denounced as illegal by the
leading journal of Geneva, the _Journal de Genève_, and by a large
number of the citizens—jurists, advocates, and authors.
The following is the text of the decree of the Government which was
publicly posted on the 2nd February:—“In consequence of representations
which have reached the Department of Justice and Police, whence it is
understood that religious meetings held by a group of persons calling
themselves the Salvation Army and acting under the direction of
foreigners not established in the Canton, have been preceded by
advertisements of a nature to agitate the population; and seeing that
the exercises and operations of the above individuals give rise to
energetic protests, and that the public peace is daily troubled in a
grave and disquieting manner—Be it decreed: In virtue of Article 9 of
the law of 11th March, 1816, on the duties of the administrative police;
and under the seal of the Department of Justice and Police, that _the
exercises of the Salvation Army be temporarily suspended_.”
A gentleman of Geneva remarks on this:—“We might well criticise the
style and the logic of this singular document; but we limit ourselves to
its condemnation as manifestly illegal. The Council of State has
undoubtedly gone beyond its powers in the matter. Its mandate is to
enforce the execution of existing laws, and not to make new ones. It is
bound, also, whenever it adopts any administrative measure, to quote the
law on whose authority it does so.” Now the only legislative proposition
which the Council of State were able to find, after searching through
their law books dating as far back as the first years of the present
century, was Article 9 of the Law of March 11, 1816. The Article is as
follows:—“They (the lieutenant of police and his staff) are charged with
the inspection of shows, dancing saloons, cafés, billiard-rooms,
cabarets, wine cellars, and all other places of public gatherings, as
well as public-houses and inns. The Council of State has the exclusive
right to close these different establishments. There are in this same
law, clauses which might have seemed a little more applicable to the
circumstances of the present case; such, for instance, as Article 2,
which directs the same magistrates to protect the persons of the
citizens; Article 5, which enjoins them to maintain order, and free
circulation for passengers in the streets; and Article 3, which
recommends them to see that the peace of worshippers be not disturbed
either inside or outside the churches. But in reading these articles,
the Council of State seem to have judged them too antique or too
characteristic of an epoch of absolutism in Government to be applicable
to the present times. They eagerly, however, availed themselves of the
authority conferred on them by Article 9 of this antique law for the
shutting up of shows, dancing saloons, cafés, &c., and armed with this
authority they immediately ordained the closing of meetings which they
themselves call “religious,” held in rooms and halls where dancing,
drinking and the playing of theatrical pieces were certainly never
carried on! On the strength of this article they ultimately forbade all
the “exercises” of the Salvation Army in the Hall of the Reformation, in
the Chapel Buis, in private houses, in woods or fields, and generally in
every place where they could possibly be held. They might indeed have
sought in vain in their “Collection of Laws” for any legal utterance
authorizing them to apply such an interdiction to the private houses of
citizens and to their places of worship. To find such they would have
been obliged to carry their researches a few centuries backward, perhaps
to the period, for example, of the Inquisition.”
A petition against the measure for closing the meetings was signed by a
large number of citizens, from which I extract the following:—“The
undersigned Geneva citizens are profoundly grieved in reading this
decree. It affords a dangerous precedent in thus endorsing acts of
violence which might easily have been put down, and which were chiefly
perpetrated by boys and strangers.”
It is a serious breach of the Constitutional rights of the citizens.
It is in opposition to the principles of our Cantonal and Federal laws
which guarantee the free exercise of religion, and the personal liberty
of the citizens. Those citizens possess the right to attend any and all
public meetings, (and still more, private meetings,) without molestation
from persons who may happen to dislike the special ideas, beliefs or
practices presented at such meetings.
It is a violation of all the ideas of freedom and of religious
toleration enshrined not only in our laws but in all our customs, and of
which the people of Geneva are justly proud.
“The State Council would have met with the unanimous approval and
support of the citizens in adopting energetic measures to preserve order
in the streets; but we deem it disastrous to have attempted to attain
this end by suppressing the free expression of opinion, and the right to
attend meetings which have presented nothing in any way whatever
contrary to public order or good behaviour.[7]
“The decree in question professes to be based upon the law of the 11th
of March, 1816. Now this law simply confers upon the State Council the
right to order the closing of certain public establishments. It cannot
be construed to authorise the suppression of a series of meetings. But
even supposing it to be susceptible of such an interpretation, that law
was virtually abrogated by the Constitution of 1848, which guarantees
individual liberty, and liberty of worship.... The decree is a fatal
encouragement to violent disturbances and riotous manifestations in the
public streets.... It is a dangerous precedent in interfering with the
free exercise of the liberty of assembly.
“Wherefore the undersigned earnestly pray that the State Council will at
once withdraw this measure, a measure contrary to the liberal principles
which form the basis of Republican Government, and to the constitutional
rights of the citizens.—February 3, 1883.”
This petition was, in the space of twenty-four hours, signed by nine
hundred citizens of Geneva and of Switzerland, representing all classes
of society without exception. Among the signatures are found those of
thirty Pastors (almost all of the National Church), eight Professors at
the University, twenty-one Judges, Advocates, and Doctors of Law,
fourteen Doctors of Medicine, several medical and other students, &c.
In the decree closing the meetings the State Council, as we have seen,
instead of clearly defining the extent of the prohibition simply
inserted the indefinite words:—“Resolved to suspend temporarily the
_exercises_ of the Salvation Army.” Although Miss Booth demanded, on the
first occasion on which she was summoned to the police-office that she
should be distinctly told what was meant by the word _exercises_, in
order that she and her friends might know what was permitted and what
was not, and although she subsequently repeated this demand, no answer
has ever been given.
As the inviolability of the private houses of the citizens is guaranteed
by Swiss law,[8] this decree (even supposing it to have been legal)
could not with any shadow of justice be construed to render illegal
private gatherings in private houses to which the members of the
Salvation Army might be invited. This was the positive opinion of all
those who were consulted on the question. If the word “exercises” could
be construed to mean an acceptance of a private invitation to visit
friends in their private houses for prayer and religious interchange of
thought, then it might with equal justice, include every movement which
could be made, such as walking and conversing in the street, or
consultation among two or three, no matter where or how.
In the first week of February appeared the “Letter” of Madame de
Gasparin, already sufficiently known in England as well as in
Switzerland. M. Sautter de Blonay, it seems to me, has so well
represented the influence of that publication on the whole controversy
that I cannot do better than again quote his words:—“The Salvation
Army,” he says, “comes to Paris, the most police-ridden of cities, among
a mocking, jesting people, of lax morality. Criticisms become more
sharp, and fears arise. But in spite of all, the Army are able to carry
on successfully their work in France for several months. Having so far
succeeded in France, they very reasonably imagine they can safely come
to Switzerland, the most ancient Republic of modern times, who proudly
professes herself to be the initiatrice of Republican principles, and a
model of liberty to the world. Is it not in Switzerland that those who
propound the necessity of the destruction of the whole existing social
order are tolerated and protected in their persons and in the meetings,
and justly so, so long as they do not _by their actions_ break the law
or violate the rights of others? Is it not in Switzerland that all
patriotic orations turn upon the theme, ‘Liberty for all opinions?’ The
Salvation Army hear this, and believe it. Trusting our outward
professions, they imagine they will find again on our soil the freedom
of old England, and respect for the persons of all. They arrive, and
immediately fall into a veritable ambuscade, as has been said. Insults
and threats are showered upon persons who are seen coming to their
private meetings, held in closed rooms; and the assailants are not
rebuked. In short, they are persecuted, and crushed, and even those who
plead their cause as a question of justice do so in terms of contempt
for themselves. And this alas! is the moment, Madam, when you choose to
come to the help of the persecutors.
“Your letter was written, it has been said, before the persecutions
began. Yes, before the issue of the dictatorial police order, but not
before the personal outrages. Now these personal outrages, not having
been judicially repressed or reproved, led on naturally to the
persecution. I know you too well, Madam, not to be aware that these were
unfortunate coincidences for which you are not responsible; but I cannot
refrain from asking why you did not write much earlier, some months ago,
or why you did not write in a different manner? for you cannot deny, and
the fact must be grievous to yourself, that your letter contributed,
more than any other thing, to impart to M. Héridier the unfortunate
courage to act as he has done. You have thus aided the violation, in
your own country, of that which you yourself hold most dear, next to the
Gospel—religious liberty. You might have written your protest and
announced it as about to appear, adding that it should not however see
the light until the Salvation Army was placed in possession of all the
rights which our laws confer, and that you declined to attack an
adversary already beaten. Better still, you might have written twice;
first, in order to defend the civil rights of the members of the
Salvation Army, and secondly in order to attack its organization; but
this ought to have been _later_, when through your influence, justice
would have been done. How noble a part might you have acted! As the
defender of justice, you would have been the more powerful in your
refutation of error; as the opponent of error, you, more successfully
than others, could have insisted on right and justice. It is thus that
the Christian _Chevalier_, whose name you bear, the noble Count de
Gasparin would have acted. From the first moment, from the first outrage
perpetrated, he would have perceived that the peculiarities of the
Salvation Army were a secondary question, and that that which is at
stake is the cause of religious liberty in Switzerland, that sacred
cause to which he had consecrated his life. You well know, Madam, that
he never would have lifted his hand against the vanquished, against
young girls, foreigners and defenceless, against Christian brethren who
had been misled.... I grieve the more for the inopportuneness of your
attack, because it has caused you to play into the hands of our enemies,
the enemies of religious liberty.”
A gentleman of Geneva, criticising the action of the Department of
Justice and Police in the matter of the closing of the meetings, in
which the Department, as we have seen, had fallen back on an old law of
1816, says:—“The magistrates of the early part of this century
nevertheless understood that it was their duty to maintain the liberty
of those who were regarded as the most dangerous sectaries. It was not
granted to _them_ to make the discovery of the astonishing proposition
which gains ground in our day, namely, that if there were no victims of
outrage, outrages would not exist; and that in consequence it is the
victims who are the authors of the mischief and the really guilty
persons. They obeyed the law under their hand of 1816, without dreaming
of the triumphant application which would be made of it against
religious liberty by their successors some sixty years later. Order was
maintained by them, and the liberties of a contemptible minority were
protected. Our ancient magistrates consulting neither their sympathies
nor their antipathies, nor even their sincere convictions concerning
what they believed to be for the public good, held it to be a matter of
honour and of conscience to fulfil the first duties of their position,
that of causing the rights of all, including those of the weakest
portion of the community, to be respected. A party Government, on the
contrary (such as is at present in power), does not scruple, in order to
excite and maintain the zeal of its present supporters, to cultivate
irritating questions, and even to create them if necessary. It is ready
to gratify the passions of the people on any question where there is a
chance of making use of them in their own interests, against persons
whose insignificant number makes them in no way dangerous. Herein we
find the distinction between a Government which is truly National and a
Government by a party.”
To return to the legal validity of the decree of the 2nd February;—not
only is there no law upon which it could have been substantially based,
but it actually violates in the most open manner the Constitutional
Guarantees which lie at the foundation of the political life of the
country. Article 2 of the Constitutional Law of the 26th August, 1868,
pronounces: “Liberty of worship is guaranteed throughout the whole
extent of Swiss territory. All forms of worship have an equal right to
the protection of the State.” This law, accepted by the people, is
binding not only upon the executive, but on the legislative power
itself. The duty of the Council of State was to have enforced respect
for it at all costs. The Council of State preferred to violate it, and
in doing so has by the same blow struck at the principles of the
inviolability of domicile, of freedom of speech, and freedom of public
meeting.
The following remarks on the subject appeared in the _Journal de Genève_
of February 3, 1883:—
“We published yesterday a proclamation of the Geneva Government
closing the meetings of the Salutists; to-day we receive the text of a
proclamation of the Government of Neuchâtel on the same subject. These
two proclamations present a great contrast the one to the other. That
of Neuchâtel is founded on the text of the Constitution, which
guarantees freedom of public meeting and freedom of worship. It
reminds the authors of the disturbances, of the law against such
outrages, and threatens punishment if they disobey. The Genevese
Government, on the contrary, entirely ignores the Constitution. It
does not contain a single word of blame for the individuals who for a
fortnight past have been disgracing our town, breaking up meetings
held in private houses, attacking inoffensive people in the streets,
and perpetrating every kind of violence. It reserves its severity for
the victims of these acts of violence, for the foreigners or Genevese
citizens alike who have been attacked, insulted, hunted, and
maltreated by bands of roughs who have remained, and evidently will
remain, unchecked and unpunished. The victory which these bands of
roughs have obtained over our laws is decisive and complete. The
Government whose duty it is to enforce respect for the laws has
lowered its flag in the presence of these rioters, and has made itself
the executor of their will. Truly we blush for shame in reading this
proclamation and in comparing the language of our Genevan Council of
State with that of Neuchâtel. Is it possible that on this question in
which are involved freedom of speech, and of meeting, individual
liberty, the rights of citizens to go where they please, to listen to
whom they please, and to be free from attacks in the streets, our
Government has nothing to say? It seeks a miserable excuse for the
disturbances in the text of an advertisement of the meetings which was
previously submitted to its own judgment and the placarding of which
it authorised. This advertisement was a very small affair indeed to
justify not only the interference of the mob, but an assault by our
Government itself on liberty of opinion.... If it presented the
character which they now attribute to it, it was in the power of the
police to have interfered, and everyone would have been satisfied with
its decision. But six weeks have passed since it appeared, and if it
was so dangerous as it is now asserted for the public peace, it is
rather late to condemn it only to-day. All that has occurred confirms
our suspicions on the more than equivocal part which the police have
played since the commencement of these events, and proves almost to a
certainty its complicity with the rioters. If from the first the
police had seriously and sincerely wished to hinder the disturbances,
they had abundant power to do so. They might then have brought into
play Article 9 of the law of March 11th, 1816, but instead of this
they tolerated and encouraged the rioters with the motive of reaching
the end which M. Héridier confessed in the Grand Council he had in
view, namely, of driving out of our midst people whose religion does
not please him. Doubtless their religion does not please; but what
merit would there be in tolerating it if it entirely pleased us? and
what motive would there have been for inscribing this guarantee in our
Constitution if it were only meant to be applied to cases in which it
would be manifestly useless? The game is played! but now we must see
that we do not any longer deceive foreigners, who, in the faith of our
Constitution, may imagine that Geneva is a country of religious
liberty. It will be necessary to change the text of the articles of
the Constitution in which this mention of our rights is found. It must
in future run thus:—‘Freedom of meeting is guaranteed; nevertheless,
persons who know how to persevere in making sufficient noise, coupled
with abuse and personal assaults, shall always be able to obtain from
the Government the closing by the Police of any meeting whatsoever,
even in a private house, which happens to displease them.’ Such is the
_régime_ which the manifesto of the Geneva Government has inaugurated.
There is not much in it to make one proud of one’s country. It is the
true _arbitraire_, and the most wretched form of it, namely, that
which is born of weakness and cowardice.”
On the 8th February, after having spent some time quietly at the house
of M. Lenoir in the neighbourhood of Geneva, Miss Booth was summoned to
the Police Court and subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.
Numberless questions were asked of her, and afterward of Miss
Charlesworth, which were of a personal and utterly unjustifiable nature,
some of them being of a significance better understood perhaps by men of
the character of their questioners than they could be by refined
Christian ladies. The following day Miss Booth was again called before
the Police, and was then suddenly requested to produce the account books
of the Salvation Army in Switzerland. Little imagining that this was the
point upon which was to be based her illegal expulsion from Geneva, Miss
Booth frankly and unsuspectingly replied: “It is impossible for me to do
so, as I am not the treasurer, and my secretary who has the books is now
absent from Geneva. But,” she added, “you shall have them as soon as she
returns.”
It was now that the monstrous charge was made against Miss Booth of
having broken a cantonal law _which has no existence_, but which was
improvised by the Chief of the Department of Justice and Police in order
to afford an excuse for the complete suppression of the Salvation Army
in Geneva. It is with shame and grief that the chronicler of these
events feels obliged to publish the plain fact that M. Héridier
falsified a cantonal law of Geneva, apparently deliberately, since the
falsification was repeated at a later date as we shall presently see, in
order to get rid of this person whose Christian courage and unflinching
attacks on the sins of the day appear to have excited his anger or his
fears. In the absence of recorded facts we are left to imagine what may
have passed in the minds of some of the authorities of Geneva during
those few days between the closing of the meetings and the accusation
and expulsion of Miss Booth. Readers of this story will naturally
ask—“What had occurred in the interval?” They have an answer from the
Federal Council itself, which when citing these circumstances in the
month of July following, declares that Miss Booth had during that period
gone into retirement, and that she had herself advised other officers of
the Army to abstain from any act which might seem like a contravention
of the decree forbidding the meetings. Much, however, had evidently
occurred in the hearts and consciences of certain persons at Geneva. It
is no doubt convenient to throw off the guilt of such miserable
transactions as we are now obliged to criticize upon the ignorant and
misguided mob. But the act which is now under consideration was not that
of the people. It appears to have been conceived in the private chamber
of some unhappy being whose own life and character may have been
presented to himself in a new light by the severe teaching of the
Salvationists, and who, lacking the courage to face the truths announced
by them, took the ill-starred resolution to get rid of them by whatever
means.
M. Héridier having found it necessary to make diligent search for some
charge against Miss Booth, appears to have ransacked the Penal code and
the police regulations of the city for this purpose. He finds Article 27
of the police regulations concerning the discipline to be applied to
foreigners, which runs thus: “If subsequent to the granting of a
permission to reside in the canton, the Department of Justice and Police
learns that there has been anything which could have been laid to the
charge of the foreigner (to whom the permission was given) in the matter
of facts which, had they been previously known, would have caused him to
refuse that permission, the said permission may be withdrawn.” M.
Héridier recollects to have heard that collections of money had been
publicly made at the close of Salvationist meetings, and he lays his
hand on the cantonal law of March 4, 1879, concerning collections made
“from house to house.” This appears susceptible of being made to serve
the purpose in view. The title of the law is perhaps a little
embarrassing; it is this: “Règlements de la Police sur les collectes à
domicile.” Nevertheless he makes use of it.
M. Héridier then summons Miss Booth to appear at the police office. She
is charged with having broken a law which has no existence, and is
expelled from the canton. A double charge was now made against her,
which was brought up in the replies to her two appeals; not only had
she, according to M. Héridier, infringed the regulation concerning the
collection of money, but she had refused, they said, to show her
accounts when asked to do so. The demand to show her accounts was in
itself an illegal one, and therefore had she refused distinctly to
comply with it, she would not have been guilty of any illegal act. At
the time, Miss Booth, probably not knowing the text of the regulation
cited against her, supposed that her questioners were acting legally in
demanding to see the account books. She therefore, as we have seen,
offered to satisfy them in that respect as soon as she received the
books. In order to be doubly sure of these circumstances, I wrote to
Miss Booth early in July, and asked her the simple question, “Did you,
or did you not refuse to show your accounts?” The circumstances which
immediately prompted me thus to write to her was an interview which I
had on the 25th of July, with the Chancellor of the Confederation in the
Federal Palace at Berne. I had called to ask if he would oblige me by
letting me have a copy of the printed reply of the Federal Council to
Miss Booth’s appeal, as our Ambassador at Berne informed me that he had
sent his copy to the Foreign Office in London. In the course of my
conversation with the Chancellor I mentioned the matter of the accounts.
He then stated abruptly that Miss Booth had positively refused when
legally required to do so, to submit her accounts to the Genevese
Department of Justice and Police. Knowing to the contrary, I replied:
“Pardon me, sir, she was willing to show them, but time was not given
her to do so.” The Chancellor with some indignation then asked: “Have
you come here to dispute with me on a matter of fact?” That not being
the object of my visit, I retired, and having written to Miss Booth I
received the following from her:—“On the 8th and 9th of February I was
summoned to the Hotel de Ville to be cross-examined. Among many other
questions I was asked to produce on the spot the accounts of all money
received and spent in Geneva, or to show them at the house where I was
staying. I told them it was impossible for me to show them then and
there, as the friend who kept them was absent from Geneva and had the
books with her. I added that for myself I had nothing to do with the
keeping or the immediate expenditure of the money, neither could I
answer their questions as to the amount received by the collectors, as I
did not know what it was. My examiner said, ‘Very well, Mdlle., _you
refuse then to show your accounts_;’ and he was about to write that
down. ‘No,’ I replied, ‘_I do not refuse to show the accounts_, but they
are not in my hands; I ask time to recall my secretary, when you can see
them.’ It was with the utmost difficulty that I prevented him from
writing down that I had definitely refused to show the accounts, which
he appears to have done notwithstanding. It is our rule to publish our
accounts, audited by some one outside the Army, annually. But in this
case of Geneva I made an exception and told my examiner that they would
be published at the end of the first three months, and then all the
world could see them. On the 12th I was cross-examined again, M. Lenoir
being present. Being again asked for the accounts, I told them that the
day previously, the 11th, they had expelled Miss Charlesworth, and that
my secretary was still absent. Miss Charlesworth had the petty cash-book
and had taken it with her. M. Lenoir, banker, M. Pictet, lawyer, who are
friends of justice, bitterly lamented this action which their native
country had taken. They, together with M. Audeoud, also a lawyer, and M.
Naville, all assured me that such a thing had never been done before,
that the police authorities had no legal right at all to ask me such a
question, and that I was not in any way bound to answer them. That same
day, the 12th, I was expelled, and left Geneva before six o’clock that
night.
(Signed) “CATHERINE BOOTH.”
In consequence of the publication in the Government organ, the
_Genevois_, of a number of anonymous letters, some of which were of a
shameful and slanderous character, and one of which contained the
statement that the Salvation Army were robbing the country and had
already forwarded enormous sums of money to London, the officers had
publicly announced that they would publish their balance-sheet of
receipts and expenditure at Geneva, at the end of the quarter instead of
at the end of the year, as was their usual custom. Every collection had
been carefully registered in their books.[9] It was further stated by
Miss Booth when she was questioned, that all the accounts of the Army
were under the inspection of a well-known firm of public accountants in
London, under whose signature they were published. The conduct of the
Geneva authorities in demanding to have the account books of the Army
submitted to their scrutiny is, besides being illegal as judged by their
own laws, a breach of the “Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
Establishment of 1855” between Switzerland and England. Article 3 of
that Treaty runs thus:—
“The dwellings and warehouses of the citizens or subjects of either of
the two contracting parties, in the territories of the other, and all
premises appertaining thereto, destined for purposes of residence or
commence, shall be respected. No search or examination of such dwellings
and premises, and no examination or inspection of the books, papers, or
accounts of the respective citizens and subjects shall be arbitrarily
made; but such measures shall be executed only in conformity with the
legal sentence, warrant, or order in writing of some Tribunal or
Magistrate having competent constitutional or legal jurisdiction.”
I could multiply testimonies to the illegality of these proceedings, but
will only cite one more, that of a Swiss lawyer, given in reply to a
question which I asked him in writing:—“The Geneva Government,” he says,
“and subsequently the Federal Government, have cited against Miss Booth
a Cantonal regulation of the 4th March, 1879, upon public collections of
money. Now no such regulation exists in the Canton of Geneva; for the
regulation of the 4th March, 1879, is entitled, ‘A regulation concerning
house to house collections of money,’ and contains no article whatsoever
on the subject of collections made in either private or public meetings,
which are placed on a footing of complete liberty. There is no Genevese
regulation which bears the title of ‘Regulation concerning public
collections;’ consequently we are driven to the conclusion that this
title was invented for the necessity of the case in hand.”
In regard to the collections of money, it is to be noted that the
collections in Geneva _had been made for several weeks previously to the
29th January, at which date the Department of Justice and Police had
given Miss Booth an official permission to reside in the Canton, and
that those collections had been made in public, under the eyes of the
police, during all those weeks previous to the illegal order to stop the
meetings. No question whatever as to their legality was raised at the
moment when Miss Booth received in exchange for her passport the
permission to reside in the Canton._
On the 11th of February, Miss Charlesworth was expelled from the Canton.
The grounds of her expulsion and the circumstances connected with it
will be given later. At half-past twelve on the following day (the 12th)
Miss Booth received the warrant of expulsion, commanding her to leave
the Canton before 6 o’clock the same day upon pain of imprisonment. The
officer who delivered to her the warrant, turned back after having left
the door, to impress upon her the fact that if she did not leave before
6 o’clock she would incur the penalty of imprisonment. It is worthy of
remark that common felons are allowed twenty-four hours’ notice of
expulsion, whereas this lady was only given five and a-half hours’
notice.
I have now passed in review the three illegal or immoral acts of which
the authorities at Geneva were guilty since the entrance of the
Salvation Army into their city, namely:—1. The closing of the meetings.
2. The falsification of the police regulation concerning collections of
money. 3. The expulsion of the officers.
Those who took part in these events, Swiss and English alike, are
anxious that the public should, however, clearly understand that these
illegal acts were those of a mere handful of men openly at war with all
religion, and that such a course of conduct is as repugnant to the minds
of all the true Swiss citizens as they can be to our own countrymen.
Many indignant protests have been made against these measures both in
the Swiss Press and in numerous pamphlets published in Switzerland, of
which my space allows only meagre extracts.
I give the account of Miss Charlesworth’s arrest and expulsion in her
own words:—
“On Saturday, the 10th February, I was summoned to appear at the Police
Court. M. Lenoir, a gentleman of Geneva, accompanied me, and asked
permission to go with me before the officials who had instructions to
cross-examine me. I wished to have a friend present, being a minor, and
not knowing the language perfectly. We waited half-an-hour while Mr.
Cuenod[10] tried to induce M. Héridier to allow M. Lenoir to go with me.
M. Héridier persisted in refusing, and I was conducted into a little
office in the remote part of the building. Here I was kept from 3.30
till 7.30, being questioned sometimes by three, and sometimes by five
officials. After asking my age, birthplace, nationality, &c., they began
to speak on personal subjects, about which I know they had no right to
ask me. They asked me whether, being a minor, I had my father’s
permission to be in Geneva with Miss Booth. I answered that I had, and
that Miss Booth had letters in her possession to prove it. Nevertheless,
the chief charge subsequently adduced for my expulsion was that I
produced no authorization from my parents. I was asked how I lived,
whether we received much money from the Army for our board, what sort of
food we had, &c. I answered that I received nothing from the Army. I was
asked if I had a passport and a permission to reside. I answered that my
passport was deposited at the Town Hall in exchange for my permit of
residence. The inspector, who had been told I had no papers, was enraged
at this, and did not try to conceal or restrain his passion. He sent for
another official who found my passport and proved my papers to be all
right. I was asked many questions about the meeting I had attended at
Cologny. They said I had done so contrary to the decree. I answered that
I was invited by letter, and I went to the meeting as a guest, and on
being asked, I spoke and prayed. Others also spoke who had nothing to do
with the Army. The police detectives went to this private meeting; they
slipped in after it had begun, and not having been asked at the door
whether they were invited guests, they reported it to be a public
meeting. I protested that being only guests we could not be responsible
for the door-keeping, and that we knew none of those invited. They made
a number of charges against us with respect to this meeting, which I
contradicted. I was asked how I dared to wear my uniform in a meeting
after having been told of the law forbidding religious dresses. I
answered that the law only specified that religious costumes were not to
be worn in the public highway, and that it could not be applied to
private houses or a private gathering in the kitchen of a private house.
Moreover, I wore no uniform, but an ordinary dress.... I was at last
allowed to leave the office where I had spent four hours. We were told
to appear the next morning, but on leaving we recollected it would be
Sunday, and we wrote a letter saying we could not conscientiously go on
that day.[11] At half-past twelve on Sunday I received an official
warrant, which informed me that I must be out of the Canton in five
hours.... I was sent away alone; for they had taken care to hurry off
the French and German officers without giving them time to communicate
with their comrades. The warrant stated that I was expelled for (1)
having disobeyed the proclamation of the Cantonal Council suspending
temporarily the exercises of the Salvation Army; (2) for having produced
no authorisation from my parents giving me leave to reside in Geneva,
and (3) for having refused to present myself on the Sunday.”
Let us suppose this case reversed, and imagine a young Swiss lady of
seventeen suddenly called up before the police authorities in London, no
other lady, no friend, no witness, allowed to be present, taken to
Scotland Yard, and into a small room at the remote end of the building,
cross-questioned alone by five men in a foreign language (her only crime
being that she had accepted an invitation to a prayer meeting in a
private house), and expelled on a Sunday within five hours’ notice. It
is difficult to imagine such a possibility.
During the first cross-examination, Miss Charlesworth had said that Miss
Booth had in her possession letters from her father authorising her to
reside in Geneva, but she was not asked to produce these letters then or
at any subsequent time. On the Sunday, however, she was suddenly and
summarily expelled, one of the grounds of her expulsion being that she
had never shown these letters. She was sent off (as has been said)
alone, the authorities having taken care a few days previously to expel
the officers of the Salvation Army who had been her companions, and in
some sort her protectors. She was thus also forcibly separated from Miss
Booth, her constituted guardian, and from all her other companions, and
this in spite of her own earnest protests. No words of mine surely are
required to increase the feeling on the one hand of pity and on the
other of indignation which must arise in the minds of English readers on
perusing this narrative. One cannot fail, also, to be struck with the
cowardice (for it is impossible to give it a gentler name), manifested
by the authorities in availing themselves of the moment when Mr.
Clibborn, the business head of the Salvation Army work, was absent at
Berne, where he had gone to claim the protection of the Federal Council
on their behalf, in order to attack these gentle and unoffending girls.
When Miss Charlesworth was called up the second time, Miss Booth wrote a
letter of remonstrance, saying she did not think she ought to be
submitted to a second cross-examination. The officials, however,
overcame Miss Booth’s objection by insisting that M. Héridier himself
wished to see her personally. She did not see M. Héridier, but only a
number of his subordinates.
The following is the letter referred to by Miss Charlesworth when
questioned as to whether she had her father’s permission to reside
abroad. Miss Booth received it from the Rev. S. Charlesworth in reply to
one from herself asking if he would permit his daughter to stay in
Geneva during her projected visit to England:—
“January 31, 1883.
“I will leave entirely to your judgment and the convenience of your
arrangements whether my child remains in Geneva or at Paris during
your absence. Let her be where she will be most helpful to you and
most useful in the Lord’s service. If you intend to return to Geneva,
her remaining there will save both the fatigue and the expense of a
long double journey.
(Signed) “SAMUEL CHARLESWORTH.”
The following letter, written by Mr. Charlesworth, seventeen days later
to the British Ambassador at Berne, further confirms the fact that Miss
Charlesworth was in Switzerland with her father’s consent. (She never
took the character in Switzerland of an officer in the Salvation Army;
but, in accordance with her father’s wish, accompanied and aided Miss
Booth as a friend.)
“Clapham Common, London, 17th February, 1883.
“SIR,—At the request of Miss Booth and of my daughter, Maud Elizabeth
Charlesworth, I write to mention to your Excellency, that my daughter
has accompanied Miss Booth to Switzerland with my full concurrence.
She will be 18 years of age next September.
“I am anxious to have it understood that my daughter is not officially
connected with the Salvation Army, but is only with Miss Booth as a
young friend and visitor, taking much interest in the work carried on
amongst the poor in England and on the Continent.
“I have the honour to be your Excellency’s very obedient servant,
(Signed) “SAMUEL CHARLESWORTH.”
Even had her father’s authorisation been wanting, neither this nor the
fact of her age afforded just grounds for Miss Charlesworth’s expulsion,
as the Department of Police had given her the permit of residence with a
full knowledge of her age and without asking her to produce her father’s
authorisation. It is certain there are many young persons in Switzerland
of both sexes who live and travel in the country without ever being
asked to produce an authorisation from their parents.
The Geneva correspondent of the _Times_ (February 19, 1883) published a
letter from Miss Charlesworth on the subject of her appearance before
the police, in a paragraph headed “A Lamb among Wolves.” This letter was
written by Miss Charlesworth to a private friend in England, and was
never intended by her for publication. She was much surprised to see it
in the _Times_. She had handed it to some one who asked her in a
friendly manner for some details, saying, “You can gather something from
this.” No serious blame, however, in regard to this mistake, need be
imputed to the Geneva correspondent of the _Times_, who had generally
represented in their true light the injustices committed by the Genevan
authorities at that time. This letter, having once become public, may
naturally take its place in the present narrative. The _Times_
correspondent prefaces it with the remark:—“Miss Charlesworth’s artless
narrative is both interesting in itself and valuable for the vivid light
which it throws on the ways of Genevan justice—to foreigners. According
to the _Journal de Genève_, M. Héridier, Councillor of State charged
with the Department of Justice and Police, was present at Miss Booth’s
and Miss Charlesworth’s examinations, but behind a curtain.”
“‘On Saturday afternoon,’ says Miss Charlesworth (who, it may be well
to mention, is only seventeen years old), ‘a man came to the house of
M. Lenoir, where we were staying, and said that Maud Charlesworth,
aide-de-camp to Miss Booth, was to go at once and see the Chief of
Police at the Hôtel de Ville. I went at once, taking M. Lenoir with
me, as I did not like to go alone. When we arrived, M. Lenoir sent in
to ask the Chief of the Police, M. Héridier, if he might be allowed to
accompany me. We waited half-an-hour, and then the answer was that I
must go alone. So there was nothing else for it, and I had to follow a
savage-looking magistrate up stairs into a small and very hot office,
where I was asked to sit down. I suppose they thought that this
exceedingly cross-looking officer was not enough to question me, for
two others, with equally unsaved-looking faces, came in to help him. I
had been with Katie (Miss Booth) both the times when she had to appear
before the police, so I was quite prepared for the sort of questions
they were going to ask me. The last thing Katie said to me was, “Do
not sign anything,” and I answered that I would sooner let my right
hand be cut off; and when I got into that little room I made up my
mind that when they came to the end and asked me to sign I would
refuse unless they would allow M. Lenoir to come up and read the paper
through.’
“‘Well, they began and asked me about the private meeting at which I
had been present. They said it was a public meeting, because three
detectives had got in without being asked at the door for their cards
of invitation. I denied the false statement, and made them write down
my answer plainly. The point on which I laid the most stress was that
we, the four Salvationists, had been invited to a private meeting in a
private house, to which others (strangers to us) had also been
invited; that we spoke, prayed, and sang, as did others who did not
belong to the Salvation Army, and that if people who were not invited
made their way in it was not our fault; we were only guests. Then they
asked me how I dared to wear my uniform at the meeting when I had been
told of the law forbidding the wearing of a religious dress. Now, I
know this law by heart. It says that no one is to wear a religious
dress on the public highway. My answer was that I did not think the
words “public highway” could apply to the kitchen of a cottage in
which a private meeting was held. I must here tell you that my
questioners, or rather persecutors (of whom most of the time there
were five) were very unsaved and all possessed very quick tempers.
Their object was evidently to frighten me so as to make me answer
unwisely, and catch me in my speech. But they were disappointed, for
they had never had to do with a Salvationist before, and could not
make out why I was so calm and answered so clearly. They were also
disappointed to find that I understood their language, and no matter
how fast they read I was always ready with an answer. Every now and
then one or another went into a passion. But the worst was to come.
“‘Have you got a passport or “leave to stay” in Geneva;’ asked one of
the crossest of the examiners (with whom I was now quite alone); and I
could see by his manner that he thought that I had not got my papers.
I answered that I had my leave to stay; and that my passport was in
the hands of the police. You should have seen the rage he got into. He
rose, threw down his chair, stamped out of the room, shouted for some
under officer, and asked the man what he meant by having said that I
was not provided with a passport. This man also lost his temper, went
off to look for the passport, and in a few minutes returned and saw I
was quite right, that they had my passport and I my ‘leave to stay.’
The inspector then flew into a greater rage than before, and scolded
the man who had misled him. When he was more composed he continued.
But now he came to personal questions, which I told him he had no
right to ask, and I inquired what law authorised him to ask them. He
said that was not his affair; he had been told to ask these questions,
and I must answer. He asked me if I had my father’s leave to remain at
Geneva, and when I said “Yes,” he wanted letters to prove it. I asked
him how he dared to doubt my word, and told him to write down that
Miss Booth had letters from my father authorising me to stay. A little
later he said that I had prayed in a private meeting according to the
form of the Salvation Army. I insisted that the Salvation Army had no
form of prayer, and asked him in what way their prayers differed from
other prayers. He said they differed very much, but he could not tell
me how; he repeated that we had a form of prayer, and began to storm
and rave so loudly that an inspector ran in from the next room,
saying, “Gently, gently, there is somebody outside.” ... At last,
after a great deal more questioning my paper was finished. I knew all
my answers were true, and that there was no harm in putting my name to
it; but then I remembered my promise to Katie, so I refused, unless I
might go down and fetch M. Lenoir, and I said I would not sign the
paper until he had read it. Of course they raved at me, but it had no
effect; so they went for M. Lenoir, but unfortunately he had gone
away, as they came back in triumph to tell me. I still refused to
sign, and said I would not sign until Captain Bouillat (a member of
the Salvation Army) had read it through. They were angry, and tried to
frighten me, all talking as fast as they could at the same time. Then
they said they would read the paper all through again, which they did
three times; but nothing could move me. I said I would go with Zitzer
and fetch Bouillat. They answered that I might go, but not with Zitzer
(a Salvationist, who was waiting to be examined), but I said I could
not think of such a thing—that it would be very improper for a young
lady to walk through the streets after dark, especially as I knew
there was a plot on foot to do us harm.’ In the end two gendarmes were
sent for Bouillat; I and Zitzer waiting meanwhile in the little hot
office.
“‘All at once it struck me that we would have a prayer meeting.
“Zitzer,” I said, “we will pray. Let us go down on our knees and pray
for these people, for if ever we wanted the Lord with us, it is now.”
So down we went, and prayed out loud for about ten minutes, and it did
us good. The inspector was much surprised; he cleared his throat,
grunted, and finally got up and went to the door of the outer office.
Then four of the men came back. I said to Zitzer that we would tell
the correspondent of the _Times_, and that I wondered what the English
would think of the way in which their countrywomen were being treated.
This was overheard, and seemed to make an impression, for two men came
and said I was quite free to go if I liked, or if they could fetch me
anything they would do so. I wanted to fetch Bouillat, but when I
found that I should either have to go alone or walk between two
policemen I preferred to wait. At length Bouillat came, and on his
recommendation I signed the deposition.
“‘The great fun was that all these cross magistrates and inspectors
were kept from their dinners. So were we; but, as I told them, that
was a very secondary consideration to us. We left that office at
half-past seven, singing, “Glory to His Name.” I had been there four
hours. The whole town knew it. A Swiss lawyer at once took all that
had passed down in French, because he was so indignant.
“‘On Sunday I received a paper which told me that before 6 o’clock I
was to be out of the Canton, because, first, I had broken the law by
speaking in a public meeting (lie No. 1); secondly, because I had
nothing to show that my parents consented to my being with Miss Booth
(lie No. 2); thirdly, because that morning I had not appeared when
sent for by the police. (We sent a letter to say that we could not go
on Sunday.)
“‘Before the man who brought this letter went away I made him tell me
who else was expelled, and I found that Bouillat, Zitzer, and Emile
(all foreigners) had shared the same fate. We sent for them to come up
that we might arrange where to go, but they did not come, and we found
that they had been fetched out of their room, put into a cab with a
policeman, and driven away without a moment’s notice. So these three
are gone, I know not whither, and Miss Booth sent a Swiss lass with
me, as, of course, I could not go alone.’”
Some of the Geneva journals stated that on the Sunday on which Miss
Charlesworth was expelled, several—probably a majority—of the Genevan
Government had gone to the country for the day, or were otherwise
absent. There is some ground for believing that there are persons in
that Government who from the first have disapproved of the harsh and
unlawful measures for which M. Héridier had made them responsible by
these expulsions. The _Journal de Genève_, after an ironical notice of
the rapid interrogations and sudden expulsion at the same moment of the
other officers of the Salvation Army—German and French—and of M.
Héridier’s secret attendance at all these examinations “behind a
curtain, after the manner of all grand inquisitors,” adds: “The public
interest was lately awakened in the matter of a Russian prince who was
expelled our country. To-day it is the case of two young foreign girls,
of honourable character, whose only crime is that they have held
religious services of a rather eccentric nature. They have complied with
every police rule, and so far from attempting to break the Cantonal
decree, they have requested to be more definitely instructed concerning
the actions they were to avoid. No answer is given to them, and they are
expelled from our HOSPITABLE Genevese soil at six hours’ notice! The
_Genevois_ (the Government organ) congratulates the Council of State on
its ‘energy.’ It has ‘saved the country; Vive Dieu!’ And what courage
did it not require to accomplish such a _coup_!! We find all this
contemptibly ridiculous, shameful, and opposed to all our habits and
traditions. For never have foreigners—young girls, almost children one
may say—been treated in such a manner among us—in the way in which
sharpers and swindlers and women of bad character are treated! By whom
are we governed? Into whose hands have we fallen? And what new
experiences of madness and folly shall we be called upon to take part
in?”
Another journal wrote:—
“When M. Héridier has a motive for attacking our modern liberties he
falls back upon a law or regulation of 1816. His political creed goes no
further back than that date. Like the ultra-Royalists of the Restoration
he ignores all that succeeded the regime of the Constitution of 1814. We
do not, however, believe that even in 1816 the Government of our
_Seigneurs_, the Syndics, would have dared to proclaim the principle
that the violence of the one party is a justification for the
suppression of the rights of the other. And we should like to ask
whether the majority of the Council of State who follow M. Héridier
perfectly understand that in suspending the meetings of the Salvation
Army and expelling its leaders they did not attack only a few foreigners
who were here without protection in the midst of us, but that they
attacked at the same time the right which every citizen has of using his
faculties and liberties as he pleases within the limits of the laws.
According to the system now inaugurated the employment of this right is
absolutely at the mercy of those who may be displeased by the use made
of it at any given time.”
The following letter, addressed to citizens of Geneva by a Swiss
gentleman residing in London, indicates some of the secret springs of
action whence the unjust expulsions and other events just recorded took
their rise:—
“In opening the _Times_ of this morning, my attention was directed to
the correspondence from Geneva, followed by a telegram, which opened
my eyes in a painful manner. For the first time in my life I felt
ashamed of being a Swiss. I said to myself, If my people are
autonomous, if every man can make his opinion felt, how can such an
infamy be perpetrated? Is it possible that two ladies have been
banished from your midst? And why? Have they broken any law? I will
speak boldly. It is not for this that you have driven them out
ignominiously. I can believe many things, but not this. You have
driven them out, or permitted them to be driven out, which comes to
the same thing, because you felt impelled to get rid of them, and
because you dared not burn them, as would have been done in the old
times. You have driven them out because you felt that they have had
more real power, more noble virility than all of you put together;
because you could not drive them away by ridicule and mockery, that
weapon which you have hitherto considered all-powerful, nor even by
brutal violence. I picture to myself these young girls leaving
all—father, mother, family, country—in order to go forth into the wide
world. And for what? Was it in order to make a little money? I cannot
understand how people calling themselves men dare to insult them by
such an insinuation, which would be ridiculous if it were not so
basely cruel. Was it their object to make a noise in the world? Was it
notoriety, or the desire of praise, or to have some adventures to
record when they returned home? No, you know perfectly well it was not
so. Your conscience tells you it was not so. These girls’ souls were
filled with one single thought, with one immense desire, which
communicated to them an unquenchable zeal, a courage which nothing on
earth can shake, a dignity which you may endeavour in vain to lower.
What they desired with their whole souls was and is _the eternal
salvation of their persecutors_. It was for you, citizens of Geneva,
when you yourselves were wholly indifferent about it, that they
sacrificed themselves from day to day, for you who have heaped upon
them ridicule which they have borne without complaint, and calumny and
insults of such a nature as it seems it has been the lot of the
Genevese only to invent. And it was not in order to gain you for the
Salvation Army that they entreated you to have pity on yourselves. You
know well that they have fought with the energy of despair, that they
are ready even at this moment to give their lives, because the one end
of all their efforts and sufferings and prayers is to save you from
eternal ruin, you who wish to root them out not only from Geneva, but
out of the world of the living. You say you do not believe in eternal
ruin. But if it were even proved that there is no such thing as a
future punishment, would this be a reason for reversing the Christian
rule which you cannot but admire, and for saying, ‘Hate your friends,
curse them who bless you, do evil to them who love you, persecute and
despitefully use those who pray for you?’ May there not be in this
fury which possesses you a sign that you are not quite so sure about
your own beliefs, and that this makes you dislike those who come to
trouble your mental security, to awaken certain doubts, and to cause
some still living chords in your deadened consciences to vibrate? You
say you do not believe in a Saviour; but is this any reason why you
should furiously persecute those who come to announce to you that
perhaps there is still a Saviour ready to receive even you? Is it not
true that you feel instinctively that the Saviour of whom you speak
wishes to deliver you from the power of sin, and that in your secret
hearts you do not wish to give up sin. You would be very glad to
escape eternal ruin if there is such a lot in store for you, but none
the less do you desire to escape from the dreadful necessity of giving
up the enjoyment of vice, and consequently you are furious with those
who come to say to you ‘make your choice.’ But perhaps you will reply
‘No, it is not that; what we reject is not the Gospel, it is the
Salvation Army and its eccentricities.’ You speak falsely. If certain
women had brought to you heaps of gold, of treasures, not invisible,
but palpable and tangible, in good ringing metal, would you take
offence at the colour or the shape of their dresses? Would you not be
ready to listen to their harangues, their prayers, their singing, to
excuse their English accent, and to bear with all imaginable
eccentricities in order to have your share of that treasure? But here
are handmaidens of the Lord who offer you neither silver nor gold,
which they neither possess nor wish to give, but who hold out to you
that which they have to give, the glad tidings of Salvation. This they
offer you gratuitously, with joy, with love, with pity, and what have
you done in return? You have endeavoured to crush them; you have
expelled them ignominiously. Yet you have succeeded only in bringing
shame upon yourselves. You have shown to the world that Switzerland,
the cradle of modern freedom, may very soon become its grave.
“But no! a thousand times no! It is not too late. _Post tenebras
lux._[12] Citizens of Switzerland, if you have any drop of Swiss blood
left in your veins, if you still have in you the hearts of men, wake
up and act!”
On Miss Booth’s arrival very late on the 12th February at Lausanne, she
went with two other ladies to an hotel, which out of consideration for
the proprietors I shall not name. Having in a state of extreme
exhaustion mounted the stairs to the fourth story, the porter who was
carrying their luggage was called to from below by the proprietor
through the communicator, when Miss Booth and her companions heard the
following words: “Send those people down at once.” The porter asked why,
and remonstrated. The answer was, “They are Salvationists; you must send
them down at once, we will not have them here.” Therefore, Miss Booth
and her companions, almost fainting from suffering and exhaustion, were
expelled the hotel. They were, however, hospitably received at the Hotel
des Trois Suisses, whose proprietor has never allowed blind popular
prejudice to prevent him from showing kind hospitality all along to the
Salvationists.
In a letter to her friends on these events, Miss Booth said: “Everybody
considered that the decree forbidding the ‘_exercises_ of the Army’
referred to public meetings, and as every Swiss person’s house is
inviolable according to the law, our officers accepted private
invitations to take part in private prayer meetings called by Swiss
citizens. But here also persecution followed us. Detectives dogged our
every step. Spies watched our every movement. On Thursday evening I was
suddenly called up by the police. My comrade, Miss Charlesworth, was
sent for a day later and questioned for four hours by a number of
men—sometimes three and sometimes five taking part in the
cross-examination. A gentleman of Geneva who has proved a true friend
from the first, protested that it was neither seemly, humane, nor just,
that a young lady of seventeen, a subject of another nation, and not
possessing a perfect knowledge of the language, should be subjected to
such a cross-examination without the presence of a witness or anyone to
represent her father.
“Colonel Clibborn had gone to Berne to see the President of the Republic
and the British Ambassador, and to claim protection.
“At one o’clock on Sunday an official appeared with a document expelling
Miss Charlesworth. Captains Zitzer and Bouillot, and Lieutenant Emile
were suddenly taken up by the police and hurried off to the frontier....
“Next day I was expelled. On the way out of the town some fifty of our
brave soldiers who had learned the fact met us on the road. Never shall
I forget the scene! There were many tears and prayers. But I told them
it was but the old story—the devil defeating himself, and that all his
efforts and all the power of hell combined could not stop the work; that
God had begun to work; that this fire would only purify and strengthen;
that justice and right would triumph and we should return. Meanwhile I
charged them to carry out the war boldly as true Swiss soldiers. Then
all broke out into a ringing hymn, and sang until their faces shone
again.”
Miss Charlesworth, who had gone to Coppet, joined her friend again at
Lausanne.