itiation of the venture against the Straits,
"the Naval Advisers should have expressed their views in Council,
whether asked or not, if they considered that the project which the
Council was about to adopt was impracticable from a naval point of
view." The Commissioners also gave the decision on this point in other
words, but to the same effect, in another paragraph. Mr. Fisher, who
represented the Commonwealth of Australia on the Commission, while
subscribing to the Report in general, emphatically demurred to the
view taken by his brother Commissioners on this point, and Sir T.
Mackenzie, who represented New Zealand, agreed with Mr. Fisher
although he did not express himself quite so forcibly on the subject.
Mr. Fisher wrote: "I dissent in the strongest terms from any
suggestion that the departmental advisers of a Minister in his company
at a Council meeting should express any views at all other than to the
Minister and through him, unless specifically invited to do so. I am
of opinion it would seal the fate of responsible government if
servants of the State were to share the responsibility of Ministers to
Parliament, and to the people on matters of public policy." Which view
is the right one, that of the seven Commissioners representing the
United Kingdom, or that of the two Commissioners representing the
young nations afar off?

The answer to the question can perhaps best be put in the form of
another. Does the country exist for the Government, or does the
Government exist for the country? Now, if the country merely exists
for the Government, then Mr. Fisher's contention is unanswerable.
Whether it receives the opinion of the expert or not, the Government
is responsible. For a Minister to have an expert, within his own
Department of State and therefore his subordinate, blurting out views
contrary to his own is likely to be a sore trial to that Minister's
dignity, and this is not altered by the fact that the expert is likely
to be infinitely better qualified to express opinions on the subject
than he is. Supposing that the War Council, or the Cabinet, or
whatever the body happens to be, ignores or is unaware of the opinion
of the experts, and that it lands the country in some hideous mess in
consequence, it can always be called to account for the lapse. The
doctrine of responsibility which is regarded as of such paramount
importance will be fully upheld--and what more do you want? Gibbets
can be erected, the Minister