The anarchist Peter Kropotkin in his *Memoirs of a Revolutionist,* (1899) discussing his expulsion from Switzerland shortly after the assassination of Alexander II, wrote:
"I was expelled from Switzerland by order of the federal council a few months after the death of Alexander II. I did not take umbrage at this. Assailed by the monarchical powers on account of the asylum which Switzerland offered to refugees, and menaced by the Russian official press with a wholesale expulsion of all Swiss governesses and ladies' maids, who are numerous in Russia, the rulers of Switzerland, by banishing me, gave some sort of satisfaction to the Russian police. But I very much regret, for the sake of Switzerland itself, that that step was taken. It was a sanction given to the theory of 'conspiracies concocted in Switzerland,' and it was an acknowledgment of weakness, of which Italy and France took advantage at once. *Two years later, when Jules Ferry proposed to Italy and Germany the partition of Switzerland,* [my emphasis--DT] his argument must have been that the Swiss government itself had admitted that Switzerland was 'a hotbed of international conspiracies.' This first concession led to more arrogant demands, and has certainly placed Switzerland in a far less independent position than it might otherwise have occupied."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/memoirs/memoirs6_9.html
This was the first time I had heard of any proposal of Ferry's to partition Switzerland, and I have tried to see if there is any confirmation of such a proposal. There does seem to be one bit of confirmation--from this supposed conversation of "the late Prince Bismarck" with Lothar Bucher (1817-1892), reprinted in the New York Times of January 14, 1899: Bismarck after saying that suppressing anarchism would require "an agreement between all civilized nations" and that he had proposed this at the end of the 1870's but had met with little success, adds that "In Switzerland they would have shown a more friendly spirit if the matter had emanated from France instead of from us. They are too shortsighted, these Swiss. They abuse us, though they have never suffered any harm from us, and they run after the French, although the latter would have long since pocketed Western Switzerland had we not maintained the equilibrium in Europe. It is not so long since the proposition was once again made me, unofficially of course, of a partition of Switzerland among Germany, France, and Italy. Austria was also to have a bit..."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9807E7DE153CE433A25757C1A9679C94689ED7CF
But even assuming that the conversation is genuine and that Bismarck is recollecting things truthfully, note that he is careful to say that France's proposition was "unofficial of course" and it is really hard for me to see the idea being accepted, given that the neutrality of Switzerland was such an established part of the European equilibrium. If the POD is that all the major governments of the Continent are angered by Switzerland's generosity to radical political refugees, Switzerland will presumably meet the threat and preserve itself by expelling the most controversial of the refugees, as it did with Kropotkin.
OTOH...
"In the Fortnightly Review for November a contributor discusses the future of Switzerland in a novel and startling manner. He charges the Swiss with relying for defence almost exclusively upon the guaranty of neutrality they have received; and what is true of them in this respect is, we suppose, still more the case with the rest of the world, which deems the position of Switzerland settled for all time. The writer has no difficulty in showing this assumption to be unwarranted, and he expects that a result of the next war in Western Europe will be the partition of the country among its four great neighbors. The French and Germans, he says, have so fortified their frontier that it will be impossible for either of them to get at the other except by a flank movement—i.e., by passing through either Belgium or Switzerland. Military as well as political reasons would prevent their choosing the former country, while the latter has everything to recommend it as a theatre of war-wealth, railways, natural advantages, and an open frontier. “It is now well known,” our writer asserts, “that in 1870 General Bourbaki had orders, as a last resource, to cross the frontier, and lead his army through Switzerland into Southern Germany.” One would like chapter and verse for this statement, but the further assertion that the French offensive in the next war will begin by this movement is by no means improbable. Owing to the entire absence of fortifications and a trained army, the Swiss would be as little capable of defence as they were in 1798; and after the country had once more become the battlefield of Europe, it would be impossible, the Fortnightly thinks, to give back to its inhabitants the neutrality they are unable to defend. Besides this, the conditions are now much more favorable to partition, and the temptations greater. The only great Powers uninterested would be England and Russia; but England is too far away, and Russia hates Switzerland for its harboring revolutionary propagandists. This dangerously favored region would then no longer excite, by its example, discontent at home; the great railways would fall into the hands of the Governments whose subsidies have built them; and, owing to the differences of language and religion, there would be no dispute about the division of the spoil. Our author does not mention it, but it is interesting also to remember that the nominal and, to a large extent, the real reason for the partition of Poland was its inability to prevent the passage of belligerents."
https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA395&lpg=RA1-PA395&id=YQscAQAAMAAJ&ots=Z7R9aRwSp2
I had always thought that by the late nineteenth century the continued existence and neutrality of Switzerland were too well-established for there to be any plausible way they could be set aside, but evidently at least a few people thought the contrary...