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)

What legally bars an MP from Parliament is taking a paid sinecure of the Crown - therefore there must be some kind of nominal salary, even if it's virtually nothing! But yes I'm having trouble finding what it is, if anything. Or perhaps just the fact that the role is able to draw a salary, but they don't, is enough? It's a point that needs clarifying.Gymnophoria (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2014 (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)

Nobody has yet explained: In the 17th century Members of Parliament (MPs) were often elected against their will. Valetude (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2019 (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 contains his understanding of how the thing worked.

I think there is also a discussion of the subject near the end of the '60's comic novel 'Mrs. 'Arris goes to Parliament'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.136.11 (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge

I think the Chiltern Hundreds [hereinafter the "AreaArticle"] should be merged back with the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham [hereinafter the "OfficeArticle"] .

Addition: Similarly merge Manor of Northstead and Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead as suggested below by W. P. Uzer; I have added hatnotes to those two articles, pointing to this section for a single discussion. jnestorius^(talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The older article title is Chiltern Hundreds, which previously covered both the area and the office; I have no opinion on what the name of the merged article should be. The OfficeArticle was created on 11 April 2013 with material removed from the older article, leaving the latter reduced to just an AreaArticle. There is so little in the AreaArticle that it is redundant: most of it is a summary of the OfficeArticle, and conversely the little that relates to the area rather than the office is summarised in the "History" section of the OfficeArticle. I say "summarised", but that's misleading: the AreaArticle's information is so scanty that the OfficeArticle "summary" is the same length. Nothing is lost by putting all the information in one place. If and when somebody writes a long piece about the medieval period, the AreaArticle could stand alone. jnestorius^(talk) 12:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there are too many articles here. Simply "Chiltern Hundreds" seems to be the friendliest title for the combined article. The same should be done with Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead and Manor of Northstead. (Note that we already have an article Resignation from the British House of Commons; everything about the offices is effectively covered there anyway.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Largely agree too, and that the retained article should be called Chiltern Hundreds. As provided in the current lead the historical context provides the primary description from which the secondary purpose / modern use of the term, the sinecure purpose, that developed from the 17th century onwards as the government administrative functions of hundreds disappeared. The article Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham which provides the detailed background to the modern use and, as stated above, is largely duplicated by what is in Resignation from the British House of Commons the history and everyday procedures for appointment of stewards. So for me the 'Crown Steward... article' should be merged with the 'Resignation... article' nott reincorporated into the 'Chiltern hundreds' article.Tmol42 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's also List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds and List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead. Maybe the OfficeArticles should redirect to them? jnestorius^(talk) 17:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I think it would be better to rearrange Category:Lists of resignations from the British House of Commons chronologically rather than by the essentially arbitrary question of which sinecure. Which opens up a whole broader discussion... jnestorius^(talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that that category is inaccurate as it is impossible for people to resign from the Commons, hence why these offices of profit under the Crown exist so that seats can be vacated. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In that case the "Resignation..." article should be renamed too. But my feeling is that such changes aren't necessary, since the process of vacating one's seat by applying for one of these sinecures (or apparently in at least one case by saying "I resign" and consequently being granted one of the sinecures) is commonly referred to by everyone, including reliable sources, as "resigning". W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I merged the two Chiltern Hundreds articles. Still to do: tidy up, and do the Northstead ones similarly. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)