Quirks of English Law at Athelhampton House & Gardens
top of page

News from Athelhampton House & Gardens.

Search

Quirks of English Law at Athelhampton House & Gardens

The news this week has been all over the fact that Nigel Farage is wanting to resign as an MP, is resigning as MP, and has resigned as MP, so that he can trigger a by-election. The issue with all of these headlines is that it's not actually permitted for MPs to resign from their posts. And the other obvious question you may have is "What does any of this have to do with Athelhampton House & Gardens?"


A long piece of legal paperwork in 16th century handwriting

Back in the 1620s, being an MP wasn't very desirable. While Parliament wasn't called all that often, it was a fairly thankless job with the added danger that if the King didn't like you or what you were doing, you could fall far and fall fast. Being sent to the Tower or having your head chopped off is less than ideal.


As such, MPs were rather in the habit of resigning if it looked like they were in danger of Parliament appointing them to a position that would get them in trouble with the King. In March 1623, a resolution is passed by the House of Commons that MPs, after they were "duly chosen" would not be able to relinquish their seat. This was justified in part on account of the fact that an MP is appointed by "the people" and so he has a duty to them. To escape from being an MP, they had to either die, or be expelled.


A black and white engraving of the House of Commons in the 17th century. The king is near the centre, and benches of people like in a theatre rise up on both sides. More people (all men) are sat on benches in the centre of the room, while others are stood in a large group in the foreground. Right in the middle, lots of men are sat industriously writing.
House of Commons, Early 17th Century

This resolution was followed in December 1680 by another resolution, disqualifying any MP who received an office or place of profit from the Crown, since such a thing would mean they could easily be bribed by the crown, and were unlikely to have an unbiased view of the King. Now, rather than dying or being expelled as an MP, there was a more honourable way out: being granted an "office of profit" by the Crown.


Combining these two resolutions gives MPs a (slightly circuitous) way out of being an MP. While they can't resign, if they take on an office from the crown, they can escape from their duties. There isn't the same fear of the crown as there used to be in MPs, however, so why don't we just do away with all of this outdated law, and let MPs resign?


Portrait of a man in a tightly curled wig powdered white, a red velvet suit typical of the 1760s, and a black overgown heavily embroidered in gold. He is seated, looking towards the viewer, with his left arm resting on one arm of the chair, and his right hand in his lap holding a letter. He looks quite friendly.
George Grenville MP, Portrait by William Hoare, 1764

It's a question that's been being asked since at least Georgian times. In the 1770s, George Grenville MP introduced a bill allowing MPs to resign. It was rejected, however, because the Prime Minister thought it would make it easier for opposition MPs to resign and then contest by-elections elsewhere. By the 19th century, William Gladstone was one man who thought it very silly. Admittedly this was partly because an MP who had run off to America with thousands of pounds (which weren't his) having to have the "honour" conferred on him of being granted an "office for profit." They got as far as deciding that the post should no longer be described as an "honour," but beyond that, little has changed over the last 300 years.


A black and white photograph of a severe, slightly sad looking man with thinning hair and mutton chops. He's on the older side, with a heavily lined face. He has a high, stiff, white collar and a bow tie with small white polka dots. He has a white waistcoat under a dark coloured coat.
William Gladstone, 1892

From the 20th Century, we've only had two "offices of profit" - the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Burnham, and the Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Manor of Northstead. Originally, the Crown Steward and Bailiff dealt with all the administration of the land run on behalf of the Crown. In the 13th Century, this was a proper job with associate income and duties. By the 17th century, this was no longer the case. Neither of these offices really mean anything any more: there are no duties or tasks associated with either of them, and they provide no salary or income. They simply exist as a part of this strange hangover of English law that prevents MPs from directly resigning. Instead, they apply to the Chancellor for the post of one of these two stewardships.


They get sent a letter (addressed to them without the letters MP after their name) appointing them to the roles, and the fact that they've left their position in Parliament is noted. They then hold that office until another MP is appointed to it, and a by-election is held to decide who should replace them: the writ authorising this is issued when Parliament is next in session.


A portrait of a couple with a child. The man stands on the right hand side, in pink silk breeches and a matching pink silk waistcoat, with a brown coat over the top. He wears tightly curled hair or a wig, powdered white. His wife is on the left, in a loose yellow silk gown - likely inspired by classical antiquity, and not day-to-day wear. It is open over a fitted pale blue dress. Her hair is dark brown, and she looks towards the man, who is looking out at the viewer. I has his right arm around her, with his hand resting on her right shoulder. Her left hand reaches towards his left hand, while her right hand rests on the right shoulder of the child. The child is in a fitted white dress with a wide blue sash around their waist and a white overgown loosely open. They have brown hair in a puddingbowl haircut and are looking straight at the viewer. Between this and the fact that they're holding a whip, they're likely a boy.
John Pitt (1704-1787) by William Hoare, The Holburne Museum

But what does all this have to do with Athelhampton House & Gardens? Well, the first time the office of The Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham was used was in 1751. John Pitt wanted to stand as MP for Dorchester, but couldn't do so while he was still the MP for Wareham. As a Gentleman with an estate in Purbeck, he almost certainly rubbed shoulders with the Longs, who owned Athelhampton at the time. His mother, Lora Grey, lived at Kingston Maurward, after all, which is virtually next door to Athelhampton.


The House of Commons in the mid-late 18th century. A black and white engraving of a room with three large windows at the the back lighting two sides with benches of men arranged as in a theatre. In the centre a table, with three men. One man is standing up from his bench, and is talking.

The whole process, in its roundabout way, was a bit of a faff, as you might have gathered. John wrote to the Prime Minister in 1750, asking for "a new mark of his Majesty's favour [to] enable me to do him these further services". Basically, if he got a Crown office, he'd be able to help the Crown further by being re-elected as MP in a different constituency. The Prime Minister then wrote to William Pitt (the elder), saying that he'd get George II involved, to help. The strategy was successful: John was appointed Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, and was then elected MP for Dorchester without opposition.


Regardless of by-elections and seemingly impossible arguments, Athelhampton House & Gardens are open 7 days a week, all year round, aside from a few days at Christmas. Come and visit us to learn how some quirks of English law affected some of our owners throughout history!

 
 
bottom of page