Resignation From The British House of Commons - History

History

In 1624 a resolution was passed that Members of Parliament were given a trust to represent their constituencies and therefore were not at liberty to resign them. In those days, Parliament was a far weaker institution. Members had to travel to Westminster over a primitive road system, a real problem for those who represented more distant constituencies. While at Westminster (and while in transit to and from) an MP could not effectively tend to personal business back home, yet for their services MPs received only nominal pay. Therefore service in Parliament was sometimes considered a resented duty rather than a position of power and honour.

However, by a provision in the Act of Settlement 1701 (repealed in 1705 and re-enacted in modified form by the Place Act 1707), an MP who accepted an office of profit under the Crown was obliged to leave his post, it being feared that his independence would be compromised if he were in the King's pay. 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. As a result this meant a by-election when anyone became a government minister, including the Prime Minister. The law was partly changed in 1919, and finally in 1926, so that MPs were no longer disqualified by being appointed to government office.

In consequence the legal fiction was invented that the MP who wished to give up his seat applied to the King for a sinecure post of the Stewardship of an estate which had come into the ownership of the Crown. Such offices were obsolescent, involved negligible duties and scant profit, but were in the King's gift nonetheless.

Read more about this topic:  Resignation From The British House Of Commons

Famous quotes containing the word history:

    “The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “It may be well to remember that the highest level of moral aspiration recorded in history was reached by a few ancient Jews—Micah, Isaiah, and the rest—who took no count whatever of what might not happen to them after death. It is not obvious to me why the same point should not by and by be reached by the Gentiles.”
    —Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–95)

    “No one can understand Paris and its history who does not understand that its fierceness is the balance and justification of its frivolity. It is called a city of pleasure; but it may also very specially be called a city of pain. The crown of roses is also a crown of thorns. Its people are too prone to hurt others, but quite ready also to hurt themselves. They are martyrs for religion, they are martyrs for irreligion; they are even martyrs for immorality.”
    —Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936)