The San Francisco call., 1897-06-27

Would the troops, if called upon to-day
TO ire upon their fellow countrymen,
manifest similar obedience to the behest
OF the Amounted of the Lord" That is
a question which at the present moment
is occupying, to a far greater degree than
people In this country might be inclined
| TO believe, the attention of the crowned
heads OF Europe. and it has within the
last few days been brought before the pub
lie through a resolution submitted to the
Italian Parliament providing for the sub
stitution of the word National" for that
of Royal" in the official description of
the army. The arguments put forward bv
the supporters of the motion, which was
eventually defeated by the Ministerial
party, which possesses majority in the
Legislature, were not only logical, but
also powerful, and cannot fail to appeal
strongly to the people of Italy, as we'll as
every other civilized nation, and must
assuredly have afforded very serious
grounds for reflection to King Hum bert
and to his brother and sister monarchs.
The command and control of the army
has from time immemorial been regard ed
as the principal source of power in civil
lied as we'll as in barbarian states, if not
"de jure." at any rate "de facto." In
France this is understood so we'll that the
people even go to the extent of declining
to permit the creation of the office of gen.
eralissimo, insisting that the command
in chief of the army shall remain vested
in the hands of the Minister OF War for
the time being, who, sometimes a military
man and sometimes a civilian, is subject
to the supervision aud control of Parlia-
ment. and can be removed by the latter
as soon as he proves himself 10 be either
inefficient or uptrustworthy. In England
very much the same thing is the case.
and practical, though perhaps not
theoretical, transfer of the command of
the army from the crown to Parliament
has been gu city effected during the
last two or three years. For whereas,
until the resignation of Prince George of
Great Britain, Duke of Cambridge, the
latter was the real generalissimo of the
military forces of the empire, exercising
in the name of the Queen only his office,
which he considered that he held direct
from his august cousin, to whom alone
moreover he regarded himself RESPONSE
bic, the command-in-chief to-day is exer-
sed not by his nominal successor, Field
Marshal Lord Wolseley, but by the civilian
Marquis of Lansdowne, Secretary of State
for War 10 whose orders Lord Wos seIey
Is obliged TO defer.
Queen Victoria did not consent to this
radical change without a struggle. The
great Duke of Wellington, who from the
time of the Queens accession to the throne
until his death in 1852 was her principal
adviser in all military matters, was never
tired of impressing upon her mind the
necessity of at all costs retaining in the
hands of the royal family the commaa 4
of the army, and his recommendation
were confirmed by her husband, the Prince
| Consort, by Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert
Peel and Lord Beaconsfieid, all of the IN
men In whose counsel she placed the mos
profound con tdence. The point they mad G
was this, that as long as the commander
in-chief was a royal prince he would
be the direct and personal representative
of the sovereign, inde ependent to a great
extent OF Parliament and superior in in.
fiuence and prestige 10 that Legislature
representative, the Secretary of State 70,
| War.
If, on the other hand, the command o
the army passed out of the hands of roy
atty into those of an ordinary general tn,
| latter would necessarily become sort o