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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beattie? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Steward of the Manor of Poynings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical inaccuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Gerry Adams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The King's Displeasure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  McGuinness letter? 

message: Section 1(4) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 reads:
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:
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)
thread_title:  "Office of profit under the Crown"