§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the office of Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture is a Ministerial office, held at the pleasure of the Crown, whose tenure depends on the existence of the Government of which the holder is a member; whether he is aware that the statute constituting the office provides that the person appointed thereto will not, if a Member of the House of Commons, vacate his seat, and will not be required to submit himself for re-election under the provisions of the Place Acts; whether, seeing that it is the duty of the Vice-President of the Agricultural Board to explain and expound in Parliament the policy of that Board, and to answer Parliamentary criticism of that policy on behalf of the Government, that since 1900 the Vice-President of this Board has been without a seat in either House of Parliament, and that the Vice-President himself stated shortly after the general election of 1900 that his absence from Parliament for any considerable time was not compatible with the retention of his office, he will say if there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for the holding by a Minister of the Crown for a period of nearly four years of office without a seat in Parliament; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in this matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe first Question is whether the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture would go out if the Ministry went out. The Answer is in the affirmative. Then the hon. Gentleman 179 asks me whether the seat would be vacated in the ordinary way upon taking office. The answer to that is also in the affirmative. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any precedent for any gentleman who holds Parliamentary office under the Crown not having a seat in this House. Yes, there are many precedents. I am informed that in Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Rosebery's Government of 1892–4 the Attorney-General for Ireland was not in this House, and I have no reason to believe that the life of that Government would have been prolonged if he had been in the House. As regards the quotation from the speech of the Vice-President himself, it is true that he thought, and no doubt thinks, that he could perform his duties better if he were able in this House to deal with the questions that arise in connection with his office. I will be quite frank with the House. When the office was first instituted it was undoubtedly the desire of the Government that the Vice-President should be in this House, and I think it would be more convenient that he should be.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWhy do not you give him a seat?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot state too emphatically that in my opinion the special qualifications of Sir Horace Plunkett for the duties which he carries out—duties which, as I am sure every Member of this House will admit, he has undertaken quite apart from ordinary Party politics—and the single-hearted ability which he has thrown into his duties render his case a special one.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether, in view of the Prime Minister's high opinion of the services which Sir Horace Plunkett had rendered, and his opinion that he ought to be in that House, the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to have Sir Horace Plunkett selected as the Conservative candidate for one of the vacant seats.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe there are parts of the country where the Leader of the Party settles who shall represent a constituency. I have no such desire.