Talk:Chiltern Hundreds

How much are they paid?

How much is the Steward paid? Jackiespeel 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This question is answered in the article: "...the holder ceased to gain any benefits during the 17th century." --Shannonr 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, the linked reference ("The Chiltern Hundreds" (PDF). House of Commons Information Office. 2002-10. Retrieved 2008-07-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) only states that the steward stopped getting any revenue from the Hundreds, does it actually mean that the crown has stopped paying him as well (and how can it be an office of profit if it has)? --Dami (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

chances are it is a peppercorn salary, i might be able to ask next week when i'm down there. ninety:one 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Its quite probable. I would be grateful if you could find out something when you're there. --Dami (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not let them resign?

Why doesn't the Parliament simply pass an act allowing members to resign (upon approval of the Chancellor)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.146.190 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

because that would be boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says the David Davis had to be released from the post in order to stand for the by-election. However, the article "Resignation from the British House of Commons" says existing holders of Crown posts are not ineligible to become MPs. The reference cited does not actually say he had to be released from the post. 85.211.235.63 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

looking into it now. ninety:one 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The law says up to 95 ministers, and only ministers, can hold their crown posts and be MPs. ninety:one 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation please; the nineteenth-century usage was that any appointment triggered a by-election, but you could hold office if your constituency re-elected you. The Chiltern Hundreds was traditionally resigned immediately, as an act of civility, so that the next MP to resign could apply for the vacancy. My understanding was that it was amended so that ministers did not have to resign, not so that duly re-elected MP's could not accept other crown offices. (Can't you be MP and RN any more?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation would be helpful

There is no explanation as to why an MP is forbidden from resigning his or her seat without this device. Context is always useful, especially in cases as seemingly inexplicable as this. fishhead64 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

doesn't this explain it? "This legal anomaly dates back to a 2 March 1623 resolution of the House of Commons, passed at a time when MPs were often elected to serve against their will." ninety:one 16:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant its continued retention, since this doesn't happen anymore. fishhead64 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just an anachronism, no not parliament ... although ... :0)

British government is full of it. Like the state opening with a man called "Black Rod" dressed in knee-britches and stockings or calling the House of Lords "the other place" or having to physically walk through a lobby to register a vote or calling one-another "Right Honorable Member for ...". Tradition! Pbhj (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to read Hansard from 1975 - that might give a reason from when they were debating whether to keep this device during the passage of the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Hansard isn't available online though. (btw, black rod still wears those stupid clothes, though a slightly less formal version.) ninety:one 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact the Hansard Digitisation Project is digitising old copies of Hansard and you can search the ones they've already done at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/. -Paul1337 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all! I should have seen it as simply as that. After all, in Canada Black Rod also calls MPs to the "other place" (as it is also called here) - in this case, the Canadian Senate. fishhead64 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacant?

The article reports the office as currently being vacant. The office is always held until the next MP is appointed to it - see this archived factsheet for example http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p11.pdf "Every new warrant issued revokes the previous holder". Therefore there is always a current holder - the most recent person appointed to the post. In this particular case the current holder died, so the article ought to reflect this as an usual situation perhaps. --Truthmonkey (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The person above says that you are supposed to resign, as a courtesy. This all needs reconciling, a history of what was done, what was needed and what was custom.

G.K. Chesterton

He wrote a whole article on the subject in the early 20th century in his own idiosyncratic style. It is contained in his book 'Alarms and Discursions', available at Gutenberg.org. You will spot it right off, as it is called 'Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds' (g). It is actually a polemic against some people he does not like, but is a useful look a the popular understanding of how the thing worked.

I think there is also a discussion of the subject near the end of the '50's comic novel 'Mrs. 'Arris goes to Paris'.