Talk:Resignation from the British House of Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I seem to be lost here. Are you saying that, if an MP wants to resign his or her position, they are appointed to this seat instead? What if more than one MP wants to resign? -- Zoe

It's not a seat - it's an "office of the crown". Another example of an office of the crown is a judge - if an MP becomes a judge they are automatically disqualified from being an MP. The Chiltern Hundreds office, unlike that of a judge, is not a real job but just exists to make it possible to MPs to give up their jobs. On the question of more than one MP wanting to resign, it gets even more weird! I've changed the article accordingly. Enchanter

Yes. There is as far as I know no method of resignation, so the only way out is to become ineligible by being appointed to one of two Crown offices by taking the Chiltern Hundreds or a similar position. Once ineligible to be an MP, I presume they resign the post. If more than one wants to resign, there is a second office that can also be used. I don't know if there is a problem with a number of people taking the Chiltern Hundreds simultaneously. I suppose they could take it, at 12 noon, become ineligible for a Commons seat there and then, resign from the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds at 12.01 and the someone else take it at 12.02 etc. JtdIrL 02:40 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

You guessed right - what a bizarre system! It's a weird country I live in... Enchanter

Heh heh. Oh I don't know. I am a bit of a sucker for tradition and all that stuff. Beats some MP jumping up and saying 'I'm off'!!! JtdIrL 03:04 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that the ban on resignations dates from the early 17th century, when serving in Parliament was a slightly onerous task (having to drag yourself down to London in the days before cars and trains), not to mention a dangerous one (risk of disagreements with the King). The Chiltern Hundreds is a loophole that has turned into an institution. --rbrwr

At one time all Ministers had to resign on appointment and then get re-elected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appoints resigning MPs to the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead alternately, and the letter of appointement includes the dismissal of the previous holder. When the laws were changed in 1919 and 1926 (it took two attempts to modernise things) only ministers were exempted, so Chiltern Hundreds & Manor of Northstead were satill offices of profit. The last time an MP "resigned" without dying or becoming a peer was 1981, when someone was made a judge. garryq 19:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyone know what the "salary" of a steward is? garryq 19:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As of 1829 it was one pound [1], but I can't find anything more recent. Marnanel 20:22, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
There is no salary. It is purely notional. Dbiv 21:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I find this article pretty confusing; it presupposes a fair bit of understanding of the UK parlimentary system. I gather that (please check me on this), if one is elected, there are then the following ways to no longer be an MP:

  • die
  • some mechanism involving the peerage; formerly, just acceding to a title would do it, since that made one a member of the house of lords. now, with the house of lords in some sort of intermediate state, I'm unclear.
  • accept some other real job that might involve a conflict of interest. this includes becoming a judge. anything else? it used to include becoming a cabinet minister, but since 1926 no longer does.
  • ask to be appointed to one of the fake jobs (Chiltern or Northstead), whose whole purpose for existing is to provide a way to resign.

Have I got all that right?

Now, what happens if an MP is too ill to continue? Do they use the Chiltern/Northstead or is there some other way that's handled?

Weirder questions: Could the chancellor of the exchequer refuse to appoint someone to the fake posts, forcing them to remain in office? Could someone, once appointed to a fake post, sue to be retained as an MP on the basis that Chiltern and Northstead do not, in fact, pay salaries?

-- Akb4 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Can I enter a formal protest against the use of navboxes for the Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead. They are seriously confusing to anyone who is not familiar with British politics. These posts in their modern usage have no salary, carry no responsibilities, involve no burdens, impose no duties, and to all intents and purposes they do not exist. To quote someone as having held the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds for four years would imply to an outsider that they held a post of honour or a job for this amount of time when the only significance was momentary in enabling them to divest themself of a seat in the House of Commons. It is also difficult to get information on previous appointments which is why there are only 34 of the navboxes in use anyway - of which the earliest relates to 1972.

I think that these navboxes should be removed. If people want information on who was appointed as Steward and when, perhaps List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds and List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead can be written. Anyone with the Blue Book list of Members of Parliament could compile a list going back to the 1750s which might make interesting reading. Dbiv 22:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It actually seems illogical to state that the offices are 'held', other than momentarily. Those who take them are able to stand in the ensuing byelection (Robert McCrea, Enoch Powell and Bruce Douglas-Mann for instance) and nobody seems to have objected that they were disqualified. It would be nice to have a 'see also' wiki link to this page if the navboxes are removed. --Keith Edkins 06:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See above. It is the same as it used to be with Ministers - appointment to the office was the disqualification, but Stewards (just like Ministers) could be re-elected. User:80.229.39.194
But it is not like a Minister. A Minister has to do a job, and gets a salary, and if their performance is not up to scratch they get sacked. The Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds gets no salary and doesn't do anything, and can't get sacked. They are chalk and cheese.Dbiv 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well technically, couldn't someone get sacked from one of the resignation positions? ugen64 00:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose they would have to do that if the member was resigning for a third time (á la Mandelson—OK, that was as a minster) so held both resignation posts. Although if the prohibition doesn't include re-accepting an office one had before the election, they would have to have the first resignation post removed before re-standing the first time following resignation).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beattie?

This entry states

The prohibition was on an MP accepting an office of profit under the Crown, but it did not disqualify someone with such an office being elected to the House of Commons.

So what happened to Charles Beattie in Mid-Ulster in 1955? He was apparently disqualified for holding an office of profit at the time of his election.

So there is some inconsistency with the previous statement which needs clarifying, methinks.... RodCrosby 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Pitt

"The Chiltern Hundreds were first used as a pretext for resignation on January 17, 1751, by John Pitt, who wanted to vacate his seat for Wareham and stand for Dorchester."

That can't be correct. John Pitt wasn't born until 1756!!

[edit] Why

I read in this article:

In 1623 a rule was declared that said that members of Parliament were given a trust to represent their constituencies, and therefore were not at liberty to resign them.

If it since has become possible to resign by being appointed Steward of something, and thus the substance of this 1623 rule was lost, why hasn't the rule been changed?

Why not make a new rule saying that an MP that does not want to be an MP any longer can resign from the seat?

Is that for the love of old traditions or is there some constitutional problem why that rule cannot be changed? Johan Lont 11:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is simply one of the many legal fictions which underpin the British constitution. I take it that this is simply out of a love of tradition as s.4 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1974 explicitly preserved this method of resignation. If you wanted to look into it a little more deeply you could consult the relevant Hansard debates and see if there were any arguments presented for/against a dedicated resignation procedure. To the best of my knowledge though there is no constitutional reason it cannot be changed - Parliament has the power to alter all laws in any way, so any problem that would arise by the establishment of a resignation procedure could be fixed by Parliament.
Xdamrtalk 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. Johan Lont 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)