{"id":17623,"date":"2025-07-10T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-10T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/?p=17623"},"modified":"2025-06-25T15:59:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T14:59:07","slug":"a-new-canterbury-tale-george-smythe-frederick-romilly-and-englands-last-political-duel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/07\/10\/a-new-canterbury-tale-george-smythe-frederick-romilly-and-englands-last-political-duel\/","title":{"rendered":"A \u2018new Canterbury Tale\u2019: George Smythe, Frederick Romilly and England\u2019s \u2018last political duel\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Drawing on her research into Canterbury for the House of Commons, 1832-1868 project, our research fellow Dr Naomi Lloyd-Jones<\/a> looks at the 1852 pre-election duel between the city\u2019s MPs, Frederick Romilly and George Smythe, a notorious would-be duellist, believed to be the last political duel fought in England.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the early hours of 20 May 1852, six weeks before polling in that summer\u2019s general election, two MPs travelled from London to woodland outside Weybridge in a bid to settle a quarrel provoked by the unravelling of electioneering arrangements in the double-member constituency of Canterbury. Frederick Romilly, the borough\u2019s sitting Liberal MP, had issued a challenge to his Canterbury colleague George Smythe, whose political allegiances fluctuated and who had notoriously been embroiled in four previous prospective duels. The pair, accompanied by their seconds, who were also politicians, exchanged shots before departing unscathed. None of the participants faced prosecution but neither Smythe nor Romilly was re-elected. The affair, together with Smythe\u2019s scandalous history, reveals changing attitudes to the practice of duelling and shifting expectations about the character and behaviour of MPs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heir to a viscountcy, Smythe entered Parliament for Canterbury at an 1841 by-election, rising to prominence as a key member of the Young England group of Conservatives and as the inspiration for the title character of Benjamin Disraeli\u2019s Coningsby<\/em>. After a brief stint in Robert Peel\u2019s government, he was re-elected in coalition with a Whig in 1847. Romilly, a former soldier, was connected by marriage to the prime minister Lord John Russell and was dogged throughout his career by accusations of nepotism. He was returned unopposed for Canterbury at an 1850 by-election, a victory Smythe later claimed was due to his endorsement, which had been requested by Romilly\u2019s committee.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Oil<\/a>
George Augustus Frederick Percy Sydney Smythe (1818-1857), 7th Viscount Strangford and 2nd Baron Penshurst. Richard Buckner. Hughenden Manor \u00a9 National Trust via Art UK<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

When Romilly stood alongside another Liberal candidate at the 1852 election, Smythe claimed to be surprised at this \u2018schism\u2019 in their \u2018coalition\u2019 and accused him of \u2018perfidy\u2019. He alleged that Romilly had \u2018caballed\u2019 against him in a \u2018hole and corner deal\u2019 on the \u2018trumped up\u2019 pretext of Smythe\u2019s poor attendance record at Westminster. Refuting the charges, Romilly demanded that Smythe withdraw his \u2018offensive expressions\u2019, which exceeded the \u2018fair license of a political contest\u2019. Smythe refused and Romilly sought the \u2018reparation expected of men of honour\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duelling was rare in Britain by 1852 but survived longer in France and Italy. In Britain a challenge to a duel was a common law misdemeanour and the killing of one\u2019s opponent was murder, although there were few prosecutions for either. In the early nineteenth century, there were several high-profile duels between politicians, including between two cabinet ministers, Lord Castlereagh and George Canning, in 1809, over the conduct of the Napoleonic War, and between the prime minister the Duke of Wellington and Lord Winchilsea in 1829, over Catholic emancipation, and there were also cases of election candidates issuing challenges to their rivals. An increasingly vociferous campaign against the practice peaked in the 1840s. An Association for the Discouragement of Duelling was formed in 1842, with its membership including numerous MPs, and in 1844 revisions to the Articles of War introduced strict penalties for army officers engaging in duels.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/a>
Two gentlemen duelling with pistols. Etching by William Sams (1823). PD via Wellcome Collection<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Such shifts do not, however, appear to have prevented Smythe routinely threatening duels as a means of settling political disputes. He issued his first challenge during the 1841 by-election. The Whig candidate, John Wilson, had claimed that Smythe was unqualified to be an MP because, born in Stockholm to Irish parents, he was \u2018not even an Englishman\u2019. Far from being the \u2018Heaven-born statesman\u2019 trumpeted by the Tory press, he was a \u2018devil-inspired orator\u2019. In response to Smythe\u2019s request to clarify his \u2018offensive\u2019 remarks, Wilson asked a former Canterbury Whig candidate to \u2018act as his friend\u2019. Smythe\u2019s second insisted on an apology or \u2018the alternative\u2019, as Smythe was \u2018entitled\u2019 to \u2018satisfaction\u2019 for the \u2018aspersions thrown on his character\u2019. After much back-and-forth a conflict was averted by the desired apology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smythe attracted further notoriety in 1844 with his second apparent attempt to initiate a duel, this time against the Radical MP John Roebuck, who had himself previously fought a fellow MP in a duel. After Smythe made personal comments in the Commons about Roebuck apparently wasting parliamentary time, Roebuck retaliated that he would only answer accusations \u2018from a more formidable corner\u2019 and implied that Smythe\u2019s habit of voting against the Conservative government was driven by \u2018disappointment\u2019. Roebuck later informed MPs that Smythe had demanded that he retract the suggestion of dishonourable motives or refer the matter to \u2018some friend\u2019 to whom Smythe\u2019s second could \u2018address himself\u2019. When the Speaker asked Smythe to declare that he would not begin \u2018any hostile proceedings\u2019, he eventually promised to take things \u2018no further\u2019 and apologised for contravening any Commons \u2018forms\u2019. He was characterised by one Whig newspaper as a \u2018silly young gentleman \u2026 bent on making a sensation\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smythe\u2019s next challenge to a duel prompted more than a reprimand in the Commons. In 1847, two months before the general election, another MP, Lord Pollington, successfully applied to a London court for a warrant against Smythe, for sending him a letter \u2018with intent to commit a breach of the peace\u2019 by inciting a duel. Having paid a \u00a3500 bail and had two other MPs put up sureties for him, Smythe was bound over to keep the peace for twelve months. While some reports suggested that the dispute was over the chairmanship of a dinner at Eton, there were rumours that it related to Smythe\u2019s \u2018personal history\u2019. In 1846 he caused a scandal when it was rumoured that he made Dorothy Walpole \u2013 daughter of the earl of Orford and sister-in-law to Pollington \u2013 pregnant and refused to marry her and that she had an abortion. Yet just two years after his court appearance, Smythe faced his fourth would-be duel. In 1849 he received rather than issued the challenge, from the MP Richard Monckton Milnes, who he had mocked in a newspaper article and who later labelled Smythe \u2018the most perfectly vicious man he had ever known\u2019. They each engaged seconds but, after months with no resolution, eventually announced the case \u2018terminated with honour to both sides\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Colour<\/a>
The dance of death: the duel. Coloured aquatint after T. Rowlandson (1816). PD via Wellcome Collection<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

When Smythe finally fought an \u2018affair of honour\u2019 it was rather farcical. According to a mocking report by The Times<\/em>, Romilly, Smythe and their respective seconds, the Whig MP John Fortescue and the Liberal former MP John Cranch Walker Vivian, left London for Weybridge at an early hour, on the same train. To \u2018disarm suspicion\u2019, they disguised their pistol cases \u2018into something like sketch-books\u2019, as if to appear on an \u2018artistic excursion\u2019. Finding only one carriage available at Weybridge station and agreeing that men \u2018entertaining deadly intentions\u2019 should not be \u2018cooped up\u2019 together, Romilly sat inside with the seconds and Smythe sat atop the box. Having alighted near Lord Ellesmere\u2019s Hatchford estate, they decided on a secluded spot, marked their 12 paces and prepared to raise their pistols. They momentarily feared detection, when they were surprised by a male pheasant, which \u2018with a loud cry dashed into the adjoining wood\u2019. When the alarm subsided, Smythe and Romilly resumed their positions and \u2018exchanged shots \u2026 without effect\u2019. Romilly declared himself satisfied, and the party returned together to London by carriage and rail, travelling in silence. They afterwards continued to trade claim and counter-claim in missives to electors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scene generated plenty of ridicule. The Times <\/em>mocked the MPs\u2019 \u2018tomfoolery\u2019 and advised anyone whose \u2018valour\u2019 was insufficient for a trip to France not to \u2018play at \u201cduellists\u201d\u2019 in the English countryside, for fear of disturbing any \u2018sacred birds\u2019. It published satirical letters signed by the \u2018Cock Pheasant\u2019 and narrating a tale of four watercolour artists arrested by a policeman who mistook them for combatants. While much of the commentary agreed that the actual proceedings were absurd, the fact of a duel taking place was seen as troubling. The Liberal Daily News<\/em> argued that this \u2018new Canterbury Tale\u2019 demonstrated that, by \u2018substituting pistols for arguments\u2019, Smythe and Romilly held their constituents in contempt, expecting them to take whomever \u2018thrashes his adversary\u2019. It reminded Canterbury\u2019s electors that they had the power to check \u2018this indefensible practice\u2019, with Parliament needing \u2018men of prudence, sagacity, and self-control\u2019. When Smythe described the duel as a \u2018common formality\u2019, the Conservative Kentish Gazette<\/em> condemned him for treating it \u2018so indifferently\u2019. A meeting of Canterbury Dissenters pledged not to support either Smythe or Romilly, deeming duelling \u2018opposed to the spirit of Christianity\u2019 and anyone abetting it unfit to fulfil the \u2018responsible trust of a legislator\u2019. Newspapers also carried advertisements by the Association for the Discouragement of Duelling condemning the practice as \u2018practically sinful, unlawful and irrational\u2019 and warning against the events at Weybridge encouraging a revival.  <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Photo<\/a>
Male pheasant. Charles J. Sharp (2014). CC-BY-SA 4.0<\/a> via Wikimedia Commons<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The duel did have significant political consequences for some of those involved. Although he defended his role as honourable, Vivian, who had been campaigning for Bodmin, recognised that it had shocked his would-be constituents and withdrew from the 1852 contest. Neither Romilly nor Smythe was re-elected for Canterbury. After Romilly polled third, his committee blamed the collapse of his support on the \u2018unfortunate duel\u2019. Smythe retired shortly before the nomination, although this was seemingly part of a behind-the-scenes deal with Disraeli, whereby, having secured his supporters\u2019 promises to vote Conservative, Smythe would exit and leave the field open for two other Conservative candidates. In return, he would receive a diplomatic posting, but this never transpired. The 1852 Canterbury election was voided on petition and an 1853 royal commission revealed decades of bribery and corruption, in which Smythe had been a key participant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Smythe-Romilly duel is believed to have been the last fought between two Englishmen on English soil. Just five months later, in October 1852, two Frenchmen fought what was apparently England\u2019s final fatal duel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NLJ<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further reading<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

M. S. Millar, Disraeli\u2019s Disciple: The scandalous life of George Smythe <\/em>(2006)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M. Masterson, \u2018The political art of duelling\u2019, via https:\/\/historyandpolicy.org\/opinion-articles\/articles\/the-political-art-of-duelling\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

M. Masterson, \u2018Dueling, Conflicting Masculinities, and the Victorian Gentleman\u2019, Journal of British Studies<\/em>, 56 (2017), 605-28<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. T. Andrew, \u2018The Code of Honour and its Critics: The Opposition to Duelling in England, 1700-1850\u2019, Social History<\/em> 5 (1980), 409-34<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S. Banks, \u2018\u201cVery Little Law in the Case\u201d: Contests of Honour and the Subversion of the English Criminal Courts, 1780-1845\u2019, King\u2019s Law Journal<\/em>, 19 (2008), 575-94<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S. Banks, \u2018Killing with Courtesy: The English Duelist, 1785-1845\u2019, Journal of British Studies<\/em>, 47 (2008), 528-58<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V. G. Kiernan, The duel in European history: honour and the reign of aristocracy <\/em>(2016)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

W. D. Brewer, Representing and Interrogating Dueling, Caning and Fencing during the British Romantic Period <\/em>(2025) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

M. Mulholland, \u2018The last duel \u2013 a French affair with an Irish twist\u2019, via https:\/\/www.ox.ac.uk\/news\/arts-blog\/last-duel-%E2%80%93-french-affair-irish-twist<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Drawing on her research into Canterbury for the House of Commons, 1832-1868 project, our research fellow Dr Naomi Lloyd-Jones looks at the 1852 pre-election duel between the city\u2019s MPs, Frederick Romilly and George Smythe, a notorious would-be duellist, believed to be the last political duel fought in England. In the early hours of 20 May 1852, six weeks before polling in that summer\u2019s general election, … Continue reading A \u2018new Canterbury Tale\u2019: George Smythe, Frederick Romilly and England\u2019s \u2018last political duel\u2019<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":255408060,"featured_media":17678,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false},"categories":[124494893,4706867,774276112,34931755,774275561],"tags":[518253,75393,22388,726258,31174,4203127,774276145,774276144],"class_list":["post-17623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-victorian-commons","category-19th-century-history","category-corruption","category-elections-2","category-victorian","tag-benjamin-disraeli","tag-canterbury","tag-corruption","tag-duels","tag-elections","tag-electoral-corruption","tag-frederick-romilly","tag-george-smythe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/default.jpg?fit=1024%2C636&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2QYNW-4Af","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":19349,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2026\/01\/01\/happy-new-year-from-the-victorian-commons-for-2026\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":0},"title":"Happy New Year from the Victorian Commons for 2026!","author":"Philip Salmon","date":"January 1, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Here\u2019s wishing all our readers a very enjoyable New Year! 2025 was a particularly memorable year for our 1832-68 House of Commons project and the History of Parliament. After 20 years based at Bloomsbury Square in the so-called \u2018knowledge quarter\u2019 around the British Museum, we sorted and packed decades of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "19th Century history"","block_context":{"text":"19th Century history","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/centuries\/19th-century-history\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image_20251210_0001.jpg?fit=1200%2C970&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image_20251210_0001.jpg?fit=1200%2C970&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image_20251210_0001.jpg?fit=1200%2C970&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image_20251210_0001.jpg?fit=1200%2C970&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image_20251210_0001.jpg?fit=1200%2C970&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":17000,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/05\/02\/cecil-forester\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Those dark little rooms\u2019: Cecil Forester, the Carlton Club and electoral corruption","author":"Naomi Lloyd-Jones","date":"May 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Drawing on her first biography for the House of Commons, 1832-1868 project, our new research fellow Dr Naomi Lloyd-Jones looks at the behind the scenes involvement of the long-serving Conservative MP Cecil Forester in the electioneering activities of the Carlton Club and the murky world of electoral corruption. George Cecil\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Victorian Commons"","block_context":{"text":"Victorian Commons","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/victorian-commons\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/George-Cecil-Weld-Weld-Forester-3rd-Baron-Forester.jpg?fit=586%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/George-Cecil-Weld-Weld-Forester-3rd-Baron-Forester.jpg?fit=586%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/George-Cecil-Weld-Weld-Forester-3rd-Baron-Forester.jpg?fit=586%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":433,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2013\/08\/21\/thomas-potter-mp\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":2},"title":"Thomas Potter, MP for St Germans, Aylesbury and Okehampton","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"August 21, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr Robin Eagles looks at the colourful life of Thomas Potter, who was first elected to parliament in the summer of 1747\u2026 During the summer of 1747, the ministry of\u00a0Henry Pelham\u00a0responded to a challenge caused by the heir to the throne, Frederick, Prince of Wales, returning to opposition by calling\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/periods\/georgian\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"William Hogarth, An Election Entertainment Plate I (\u00a9 The Trustees of the British Museum)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/hogarth-election-entertainment.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/hogarth-election-entertainment.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/hogarth-election-entertainment.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":5282,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2020\/08\/18\/representation-northumberlands-electoral-politics-nineteenth-century\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":3},"title":"From duelling to sharing the representation: Northumberland\u2019s electoral politics in the nineteenth century","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"August 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Continuing this month\u2019s focus on Northumberland, Dr. Kathryn Rix, Assistant Editor of our House of Commons, 1832-68 project, explores the county\u2019s elections in the nineteenth century. Northumberland poll book (1826) In 1826 Northumberland experienced its first contested election since 1774, with four candidates vying for the county\u2019s two seats. For\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Victorian Commons"","block_context":{"text":"Victorian Commons","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/victorian-commons\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/bamburghlincolncollegeoxford.jpg?fit=944%2C646&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/bamburghlincolncollegeoxford.jpg?fit=944%2C646&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/bamburghlincolncollegeoxford.jpg?fit=944%2C646&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/bamburghlincolncollegeoxford.jpg?fit=944%2C646&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":19087,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/11\/20\/cricket-in-the-commons\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":4},"title":"Cricket in the Commons: a Victorian First Eleven","author":"History of Parliament","date":"November 20, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"With the 2025 Ashes between England and Australia getting underway this week, we have a cricketing themed post from our House of Commons, 1832-1945 project. Historically, cricketing terminology, with its allusions to \u2018fair play\u2019 and playing with a \u2018straight bat\u2019, has been a mainstay of British political discourse. This was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Victorian Commons"","block_context":{"text":"Victorian Commons","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/victorian-commons\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/cu-team-1847.jpg?fit=402%2C249&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1306,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2016\/09\/02\/duncan-frederick-campbell\/","url_meta":{"origin":17623,"position":5},"title":"\u2018The thing is to get on with the War\u2019: Duncan Frederick Campbell (1876-1916)","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"September 2, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Our blog today returns to our series, all written by Dr Kathryn Rix of the Victorian Commons, of short biographies of the MPs who sadly lost their lives fighting in the First World War. It's the first of several in this series during September as the Somme offensive continued to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Modern"","block_context":{"text":"Modern","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/periods\/post-1945-history\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/duncancampbell.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/255408060"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17623"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17679,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623\/revisions\/17679"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}