Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
In this report of the Imperial Conference is mention of the legal adviser of the Foreign Office, who was present when the particular matter to which my right hon. friend refers was discussed at a subsidiary conference. His name is Sir C. J. B. Hurst. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point of view which was expressed at that time, by recalling, as best I can at the moment, an answer made by Sir Cecil Hurst to a question that was asked by one of the dominion prime ministers. It was in the nature of a rhetorical reply. In the event of advice being given to His Majesty which might prove to be not proper advice, and the necessity should arise for impeaching the minister or prime minister who had given it, would it, asked Sir Cecil, be the British Prime Minister or the
Prohibition in United States
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, or the minister or prime minister of the dominion concerned against whom impeachment proceedings should be properly started? That question was put in that way to elucidate where the responsibility began and where it ended. I gathered, I think rightly, that the interpretation which the Foreign Office placed upon the matter to which my right hon. friend just referred is this, that the government of the Dominion which was tendering the advice in such a case was the government that was responsible; that it was advising His Majesty direct in regard to matters which were of sole concern to the dominion; that in the transmission of that advice the British government was acting as the channel through which that advice was transmitted, but was not the government which was formally tendering the advice.
Subtopic: CONVENTION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE PRESIDENT