Have you just heard that an MP has resigned by ‘taking the Chiltern Hundreds’? Our Senior Research Fellow, Dr Martin Spychal, explains the practice and explores its historical context…

MPs are not allowed to resign from Parliament. However, a parliamentary loophole exists that allows an MP to vacate their seat by asking the chancellor of the exchequer to disqualify them from sitting in the Commons.

An MP can do this by requesting, and accepting, office as either the Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. Both offices (or jobs) are nominal. They exist in name only, have no responsibilities and are unpaid.

MPs have never been able to simply hand in their notice if they no longer want to do their job. This has been accepted practice since MPs were first elected to the House of Commons in the fourteenth century. In 1624 the convention was formalised following discussion of three cases in parliament that confirmed that no MP could ‘refuse’ to sit in the Commons on the basis of ‘unwillingness’ following a ‘lawful election’ by a constituency.

For practical and financial reasons, sitting in the Commons during the medieval and early modern period was often an unattractive prospect. Recognising this, the convention, and subsequent rulings, were put in place to prevent MPs from escaping their obligation to their constituency and the ‘commonwealth’.

In the early eighteenth century MPs discovered a way to get around this convention. The loophole utilised clauses in the 1701 Act of Settlement and 1707 Act of Union. Both Acts disqualified MPs from taking their seats if they were appointed to what was called ‘an Office or Place of Profit’ under the Crown.

The law was intended to provide a check on royal influence over Parliament. Most famously, it led to the practice of ministerial by-elections. These took place between 1707 and 1926, and required MPs appointed to a government post by the monarch (such as the prime minister or the chancellor of the exchequer) to be re-elected to the Commons.

Within a few years, MPs who were unhappy with their inability to resign realised that they could use this new law to their own ends.  They found several defunct offices of profit, which had little or no pay or responsibilities. Resourceful MPs discovered that they could request appointment to these offices, which then disqualified them from sitting in the Commons.

The first known example of this was in 1715 when an MP was appointed as Outranger of Windsor Forest, which disqualified him from his seat. Over the following century or so MPs found at least twenty more of these defunct posts. One of these was the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, which was used to vacate a seat for the first time in 1750. In 1844 the office of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead was used for the same purpose for the first time.

Over the past three centuries most of these defunct offices have been abolished. However, as the convention that MPs cannot resign remains in place, they are still required to request appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead to vacate their seat.

The chancellor of the exchequer, by precedents established since the 1770s, in effect must grant the office to any MP who requests it. Once they appoint someone to the Chiltern Hundreds, the previous holder of the office loses the role, and this can be done multiple times in a day. In December 1985, for instance, 15 Ulster Unionist MPs resigned on the same day (by alternating between appointments to the Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead).

There have been calls to reform the system since 1775. By the late eighteenth century it had becoming increasingly accepted that MPs should be allowed to resign if they needed to. During the past 250 years, proposals for reforming the system have usually suggested that MPs should be able to resign by applying to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Concerns with the system during this time have often centred on the complaint that the practice of vacating a seat via an office of profit is an irrational, and antiquated, constitutional oddity. Those seeking reform have also raised concern that the practice has been used by MPs for corrupt purposes: either to hand a seat to a family member or someone who has paid for their seat, or as part of an election deal between candidates. Others have voiced fears that the government might abuse its power, by refusing to grant applications to either office for political reasons. 

Despite these concerns, attempts to change the system have made little parliamentary progress. A private members’ bill in 1901 remains the last sustained attempt to reform the system. For many parliamentarians, while somewhat bizarre, the system works. Furthermore, reforming it would likely take up a lot of parliamentary time – time that governments usually want to spend on more pressing tasks.

Further Reading

B. Kemp, ‘The Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds’, in R. Pares & A. J. P. Taylor (eds.), Essays Presented to Sir Lewis Namier (1956), 204-26.

P. Seaward, ‘Resignation’, Reformation to Referendum: Writing a New History of Parliament (2018)

‘The Chiltern Hundreds’, Factsheet from the House of Commons Library (2011)

‘Why can MPs not simply resign their seats? Why must they apply for the Chiltern Hundreds?‘, Hansard Society (2026)