Talk:Resignation from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom

Resignation from the British House of Commons

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)

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)

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!!

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.

Xdamr^talk 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Johan Lont 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes

An issue has come up regarding the presence of succession boxes for the offices of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead. Some editors have been adding them while others feel they are misleading.

This is an example of the box:

Supporters regard the boxes as harmless, interesting and helpful. Opponents regard them as potentially misleading, because the offices are a legal fiction. The views of a wider group of editors are sought. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My comments from the discussion on this before centralising it:

The key point is that these offices are entirely nominal and are operated purely as a mechanism to allow a sitting MP to resign. That the office is non-existent beyond appointment and often misunderstood is shown by David Davis explicitly resigning the Chiltern Hundreds for his by-election apparently due to uncertainty over whether he would be eligible to stand otherwise when there's no evidence that Enoch Powell, William McCrea, Bruce Douglas-Mann, Dick Taverne or Sir Richard Acland (and other cases before the war) ever resigned the notional office in identical circumstances. (The other 1985 Unionist MPs had no dilemma as their fellows immediately succeeded them.) Certainly the resigning MPs never have anything to do with Scarborough or Stoke, Desborough & Burnham. The box is misleading because for anyone looking at the article it appears the ex MP held a position of any meaning for a period of time when there is no salary, no duties and no fancy title attached. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

i think whilst people 'in the know' understand them, and maybe appreciate them, the vast majority of editors (let alone readers) don't have a clue what the positions mean. given their relative insignificance compared to other positions held, and uncertainty about how long they are even held for, we will be better off without the box. [on a side note: what i remember (SLD won't load at all) from the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 means you would definitely have to resign the office to take up your seat - but i know not when your cited examples were from?] ninety:one 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Acland resigned in 1955 over Labour's policy on nuclear weapons (although the general election overtook his planned by-election), Taverne in 1973 over the left-wing takeover of his Constituency Labour Party (sort of a proto Social Democratic Party movement), Bruce Douglas-Man in 1982 when he moved from Labour to the SDP and Powell & McCrea were the last of the 15 Unionist MPs to be formally appointed to the Chilterns/Northstead in December 1985 when they all opted to put themselves for re-election in a "referendum" on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There is a huge amount of confusion even amongst MPs and candidates themselves about what offices do and don't disqualify a person and when they have to relinquish such offices by (and whether the disqualification is against being a formally nominated candidate, an elected MP or one who has taken the oath) which complicates things further although it's only an issue for three articles (Douglas-Mann, Powell and McCrea) if they ever did get advice on the matter. Certainly historically the appointment to an office of profit from the Crown only affected the existing electoral mandate, as shown by the numerous ministerial by-elections from c1701-1926. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

pre-1955 is quite murky, because the acts before the 1975 are uncertain - i found several references to non-existent acts. as the law stands, there is nothing to prevent a person standing for election save their citizenship. if that person wins, the high court has to overturn the election and it must be re-held. however, i'm not sure how an acting returning officer could stop someone for continuously entering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninetyone (talk • contribs)

A court can rule that a candidate's ineligibility is known about and award the seat to the runner-up. This happened in Bristol South East in 1961, when the sitting MP inherited a peerage but wanted to remain an MP and so contested the by-election, and Fermanagh & South Tyrone in the 1955 general election where a prisoner was elected and unseated on petition to the courts. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My view, for what it's worth, is that succession boxes are there to allow readers to move quickly through the biographies of people who have done the same job, in order to compare and contrast how they did it. For instance, the successive holders of the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer have had different approaches to economic and monetary policy, and being able to go from one to another allows the reader to build up a picture of how things changed and developed. This even applies to more tenuous linkages, for instance there is a succession box for people killed in Formula 1 motor racing which allows comparison of safety changes and where they failed.

Seen from this perspective, succession boxes for the notional 'Crown Stewardships' used to resign seats are otiose. There is no job of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, just a legal fiction title which harks back to history. One cannot therefore compare and contrast how the notional holders of the title performed in office, because there was no office they were in. Nor is it actually a succession box for MPs who have resigned, since the two jobs of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead appear to alternate; the link is to the last-but-one MP to resign.

Providing a succession box makes it look to a listener unfamiliar with this field as though it was a real job, and it can hardly be said that there are many people who are aware exactly what the situation is with MPs resigning. Indeed it isn't really enough to follow the link to the list of Stewards, because the real explanation is on Resignation from the British House of Commons, so readers have to follow two links. I therefore think these succession boxes should go; it's fine to mention in the text of the article that the MP concerned 'resigned by being appointed Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds' etc, if a link to the appointment is wanted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, my main feelings are that succession boxes allows people to see how long people held it, and I think seeing who succeded them is useful. It may only be a legal fiction, but I still believe that it is a harmless, interesting and helpful addition to the succession boxes. I don't think it is misleading in anyway, as the articles (Northstead or Chiltern) makes it clear, and those articles are linked from succession box - I always link to the article on the position, rather than the list of holders, so the person can quickly see the purpose of the title. I don't think it will confuse people, as the article on the MP itself should give a quick explanation, and the link is also there. I believe it's a useful and harmless addition to the article.--UpDown (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we not put "nominally" in the succession boxes (perhaps with a link to legal fiction), to make it clear to those not familiar with the positions that they're not substantive offices. Something like this, perhaps. Proteus (Talk) 08:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that sounds like a very good idea to me, and it looks fine.--UpDown (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

link to this page instead, Legal fiction is quite general. ninety:one 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can see what you mean. I'd be more than happy with this.--UpDown (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking over this again, what really rankles with me is the date span - because it's arbitrary. If instead of the span of dates, the box just had the date of appointment, it wouldn't look half so out of place. Can this be done? Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally one of the things I like most are the dates, I think they are useful and interesting to the reader. If we only to put the appointment date, then this would have to be clearly stated, otherwise we might give the impression the MP held it only for one day. But, I would like to see the dates stay.--UpDown (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The succession boxes seem unnecessary, and undesirable as potentially confusing as they imply it's a real job. All that's needed is a link to Resignation from the British House of Commons and a link to List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Northstead list. But it would be better if the link from the "List of Stewards..." to "Resignation..." was more obvious, rather than just a piped link from the simple word "resignation". PamD (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) They may not be causing any serious harm, but on the whole I think we are better off without them. PatGallacher (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with both of them. They are useful to the reader and put correctly, not misleading.--UpDown (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Steward of the Manor of Poynings

The only Lord Montague dying c1804 I can find is Edward Hussey-Montagu, 1st Earl Beaulieu d. Nov 1802. Is this the right Montagu to link to? Bazj (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

There was no "British" House of Commons until 1707, or was there? Anyway, the reference to 16?? is to the English HoC.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they really "forbidden to resign"?

Members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom are technically forbidden to resign ...

Is this really so? An MP who thinks "Stuff this stupid rigmarole, I'm just going to quit", and then signs a letter of resignation and hands it to the Speaker, would find that their purported "resignation" is of nil effect and they are still very much an MP. In other words, it's simply not possible to unilaterally resign, thus the idea of prohibiting an impossibility is a little silly. It's not like it's technically possible but outlawed, in the way murder is. It's not like an MP can break the rules and resign anyway, and get whatever penalty comes from such a breach. There is no penalty, because there can be no breach, because it's impossible in the first place. This is my understanding. Am I correct? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

They are forbidden under a resolution passed in 1624.[2] I don't know if it is related, but the resolution is from the same year that Lionel Cranfield, 1st Earl of Middlesex was impeached. It was possibly seen as a good idea to block resignation of others with positions in Parliament so that they couldn't avoid impeachment proceedings, though that is pure speculation on my part. Road Wizard (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Road Wizard. I still think my point remains, though. An MP who tried to "resign" would get nowhere, and would have to resort to applying for the Chiltern Hundreds or whatever. Isn't this so? Resignation is not so much "forbidden" as "impossible".

I guess a disgruntled MP could simply announce he's leaving, stop turning up at Westminster, stop dealing with constituents, and go and have a long holiday in Bermuda. As far as he's concerned, he's out of there - but the Parliament could sanction him and ultimately expel him on the grounds that he's a sitting MP who's broken the attendance rules. The outcome is the same in the end - he's no longer an MP, but there's a measure of public disgrace attached to this method. I'm not saying that a sane MP would do this, just shooting the breeze here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is only impossible because it is forbidden. In a similar way to me not being allowed to steal something because it is against the law an MP cannot resign because that too is against the law as set out in 1624. If it wasn't forbidden then there would be nothing to stop the MP from handing in a letter of resignation to the speaker or other parliamentary authorities. It is the prohibition that creates the impossibility.

If resignation wasn't forbidden there would be no need for such arcane practices as appointing people to token offices like the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Your analogy of an MP not turning up doesn't quite work as they are still held to the same rules, laws and standards whether they are in Westminster or not. For example, if an MP doesn't bother to go to Westminster but accepts undeclared gifts from a foreign donor they could still be found guilty of electoral fraud or other corruption charges. Road Wizard (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you probably thought your example was farcical but allow me to introduce Margaret Moran, who jacked it all in in May 2009 following some fairly criminal expense revelations. She didn't turn up for a year but kept her pay, expenses and got a golden goodbye at the last election! ninety:one 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Road Wizard 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC) re Cranfield impeachment:

Maybe, but the 1624 resolution seems to have arisen from a more mundane case, so it was a subtle ploy if so!

This is the text of the official record of the discussion leading to the resolution (emphasis added):

Northumberland Election.

Mr. Glandvile reports from the Committee of Privileges. – Divers Petitions. – Sir Will. Gray, chosen Knight for Northumberland, since made a Baron.

Southwark Election.

Next, the Case of the Borough of Southwarke. – Twenty to Twenty. One of the Committee mis-writ, so had not his Voice.

Agreed –

Three Persons agreed to be put in Election; Mingy, Yarrow, Bromfeild. – Yarrowd one, without Question. Some of the Burgesses. –

Two Indentures returned : Yarrowd in both. Question for other Two. All held this a void Return, for the In-certainty. For the Election, thus: Pretended, Mr. Mingy should use indirect Passages, by keeping out the Burgesses; but this not proved. Again said, the Indenture rased; but this appeared not neither. Mingy brought a Witness or Two, that he the most Voices, upon Oath : One Witness to the contrary; who said, Mingy most Voices at first, but after not, when a Course taken for Discovery, Mingy offered to give them Thanks : They cryed, " for nought;" and cryed, "No Mingy." – One Circumstance more: – Charged Mr. Bromfeild, that his Indenture antedated. – The Sense of the Committee, that, if the Election due, that no Misdemeanor. Bromfeild offered to relinquish to Mingy, but that not enough after he was chosen. – Leaves the Consideration of this to the House.

Agreed also [a], that a Man, after he is duly chosen, cannot relinquish.

Sir Edw. Coke. – Oath on both Sides. – To have a new Writ, and refer it to the Burgesses.

Ordered, That the Election and Return of Mr. Yarrow shall stand good, and that he shall sit in the House; and that a new Writ shall go down, for a new Election of another Burgess.

— Journal of the House of Commons, 2 March 1624

At the time, Southwark returned two MPs. As I understand it, the record shows that:

• Yarrow's election was undisputed;
• there was a dispute as to whether Mingy or Bromfeild had won the other seat because two differing returns were given to the writ of election;
• Bromfeild offered the seat to Mingy;
• the Committee of Privileges ruled Bromfeild's offer invalid because:
  • (implicitly) if Bromfeild had not won, he had no seat to offer, and
  • even if Bromfeild were judged to have won the seat, the Committee (on behalf of the House) did not permit members to relinquish (i.e. to resign);
• the House decided that the second seat was vacant because of the alleged irregularities and so a by-election should be held;
• because Bromfeild was judged not to have held the seat, the Committee's resolution that seats cannot be relinquished became irrelevant to the case, but was allowed to stand as a record of the House's general rule (which was presumably widely assumed at that date though perhaps previously unwritten).

So the prohibition seems to rest on a committee resolution of nearly 400 years ago, although the rule's subsequent observance is the important factor in practice since; many other resolutions have no doubt been forgotten or considered obsolete with the passage of time.

The current legislation does not refer explicitly to resignation, but confirms that members vacate their seats if they are appointed to "the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of Northstead" (section 4).

The offices are formally in the gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so presumably it is only constitutional convention that prevent a Chancellor from disqualifying MPs against their will.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, to return to the underlying issue, since "resignation" is simply not available, we're purporting to have an article on an impossibility. Would it not be better to call this article "Voluntary departure/withdrawal from the British House of Commons" or "Voluntary relinquishing of membership of the British House of Commons", or something like that? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is a resignation in every possible way apart from the technical procedure used. It is always described as "resignation" from the House, and any "technically correct" title would be so artificially contorted to be utterly confusing. ninety:one 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, why do we start out saying they're "... technically forbidden to resign. To circumvent this prohibition, a legal fiction is used."? I see it as quite starkly different from a resignation - that is where the member would (were it possible to do so) write a letter of resignation, hand it the Speaker, and he's out of there, end of story. What they have to do instead is arrange their affairs so that they become ineligible to remain a member. They could do this in a number of ways, including becoming bankrupt or committing an act of treason, but the simplest way is to apply to be appointed to a special office of profit, and await approval for the appointment (it's never refused, but it still requires formal approval, which takes as long as it takes). In principle it's hugely different from the unilateral and instantaneous resignation procedure that applies most everywhere else. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

From what I have read Adams could be expelled without having to go through the usual resignation procedure of applying for the office of the Crown if he actually went to the Commons and took his seat as he has not taken the Oath. Could someone validate this for me? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also believe it would be possible for George Osborne to go ahead and appoint Adams to the Manor of Northstead, even though Adams hasn't formally requested it. Adams has made it clear he wants to resign, and the Member's "request" for such appointment is really just a convention within a convention. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, section 8, specifically gives a Member the right to refuse any appointment that would disqualify him against his wishes. So Osborne should just go ahead. RodCrosby (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sitting without taking the oath automatically disqualifies you, and makes you liable for a £500 fine for every offence. Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The King's Displeasure

As I understand it, back when the king commanded more power than the House of Commons, the House felt that they must all stand together, or they would be helpless. For this reason the rule is that a decision of the House is a decision of the whole House. (The convention in the House of Lords was that every member was a great man in the state, and entitled to have his opinion recorded for posterity.) If the king wanted something (probably money) from the Commons, and they were disobliging, he might harass the indocile members into resigning, and get himself a submissive House. For this reason the Commons refuse to allow a member to resign without permission of the House, which is never granted except to a member who is TERMINALLY ill.

This former weakness of the Commons is responsible for a couple of other strange fossils. As far as I know, it is still illegal to publish the debates and votes in the House of Commons unless the House so orders (now a routine matter). There is a rule against taking notes on the debates for possible tale-bearing to the king, and the speaker, if he sees anyone doing it, must order the offender put out of the chamber. The press box is therefore right behind the speaker, where he can't see them and officially doesn't know what they are doing. J S Ayer (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

McGuinness letter?

A picture purporting to be of McGuinness's actual resignation letter is on the internet here. It says in full:

A chara, I hereby resign as M.P. for the Mid Ulster constituency. In the process of my resignation I will not accept any office of profit under the crown. Martin McGuinness

I don't know if this is a genuine image; if it could be verified as such, I think it would be worth quoting, even though it is a primary source. jnestorius^(talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Office of profit under the Crown"

Section 1(4) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 reads:

Except as provided by this Act, a person shall not be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons by reason of his holding an office or place of profit under the Crown or any other office or place; and a person shall not be disqualified for appointment to or for holding any office or place by reason of his being a member of that House.

So holding an "office of profit under the Crown" is actually no longer an impediment to being an MP. Nonetheless, the Bailiffs of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead are still disqualified, but only specifically by virtue of section 4 of that Act:

For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the vacation of the seat of a member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty’s three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of Northstead, shall be treated as included among the offices described in Part III of Schedule 1 to this Act.

Part III of Schedule 1 is the schedule that lists specific offices that are disqualified by s. 1(1)(f). Hairy Dude (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)