{"id":18369,"date":"2025-08-25T08:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-25T07:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/?p=18369"},"modified":"2025-08-20T09:54:38","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T08:54:38","slug":"1883-corrupt-practices-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/08\/25\/1883-corrupt-practices-act\/","title":{"rendered":"A ‘revolution’ in electioneering? The impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Concluding her series on the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act, Dr Kathryn Rix<\/a> of our House of Commons, 1832-1945 project looks at the long-term consequences of this major reform.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the wake of the corruption and expense of the 1880 general election, Sir Henry James, attorney general in Gladstone\u2019s Liberal government, oversaw a landmark piece of legislation which aimed to clean up Britain\u2019s elections: the 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act<\/a>. When this measure was first introduced in 1881, The Times <\/em>remarked that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

if passed in its present form, it can scarcely fail to effect something like a revolution in the mode of conducting Parliamentary elections.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Although James accepted several amendments as the bill passed through the Commons, its core principles remained intact. It restricted how much candidates could spend at elections and what they could spend it on; increased the penalties for corrupt practices, including bribery and \u2018treating\u2019 voters with food and drink; and introduced the new category of illegal practices, which including illegal employment and illegal payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first English contest under these new rules, the November 1883 York by-election<\/a>, suggested that the Act would indeed transform the practice of electioneering. In keeping with its limits, York\u2019s candidates spent just over a tenth of what the 1880 contest had cost, and the number of paid election workers and rooms hired for electioneering fell dramatically. However, some small-scale bribery and treating persisted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Third Reform Act of 1884-5 had made major changes to the electoral system by the time the first general election under the 1883 Act\u2019s terms was held in 1885. The extension of the franchise meant that the electorate grew from 3,152,000 in 1883 to 5,708,000 in 1885, while the redistribution of seats into largely single member constituencies completely redrew the electoral map. This major overhaul of the electoral system \u2013 particularly the removal of small boroughs and the increased electorate \u2013 made its own contribution to diminishing corruption. The 1883 Act was, however, crucial in providing the framework within which candidates \u2013 increasingly with the assistance of professional agents overseeing local constituency associations<\/a> \u2013 had to cultivate the votes of this mass electorate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Election expenditure by candidates declined significantly following the 1883 reform. Candidates\u2019 declared expenditure in 1885 was over \u00a3700,000 less than in 1880, despite a longer period of election campaigning and a far larger electorate. The average cost per vote polled fell by three-quarters, from 18s<\/em>. 9d<\/em>. to 4s<\/em>. 5d<\/em>., and never exceeded this in the period before the First World War, as the table below shows. Assisted by the Act\u2019s restrictions, candidates did away with unnecessary expenditure on vast numbers of election workers or decorative items such as flags and banners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Election year<\/td>Total expenditure (\u00a3)<\/td>Average cost per vote polled<\/td><\/tr>
1880<\/td>1,737,300<\/td>18s<\/em>. 9d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1885<\/td>1,026,646<\/td>4s<\/em>. 5d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1886<\/td>624,086<\/td>4s<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1892<\/td>958,532<\/td>4s<\/em>. 1d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1895<\/td>773,333<\/td>3s<\/em>. 8\u00bed<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1900<\/td>777,429<\/td>4s<\/em>. 4d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1906<\/td>1,166,859<\/td>4s<\/em>. 1\u00bcd<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1910 (Jan.)<\/td>1,297,782<\/td>3s<\/em>. 11d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>
1910 (Dec.)<\/td>978,312<\/td>3s<\/em>. 8d<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Kathryn Rix, \u2018\u201cThe elimination of corrupt practices in British elections\u201d? Reassessing the impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act\u2019, English Historical Review<\/em>, cxxxiii (2008), 77<\/sub><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the problems revealed in 1880 had been that the total declared in candidates\u2019 election accounts did not always reflect their true expenditure. The 1883 Act made a false declaration of expenses an illegal practice, which undoubtedly encouraged more accurate accounting. However, it remained the case that these official returns did not always present the full picture. One leading Liberal agent claimed in 1907 that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

every agent has heard of cases where it has been necessary to \u201cfake\u201d the accounts in order to make it appear that no illegal expenditure has been allowed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Such falsification of accounts broke the law, but there were also growing concerns about other expenditure which infringed the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1883 Act. Spending at elections by pressure groups such as the Tariff Reform League or temperance organisations \u2013 who held meetings, hired committee rooms and distributed leaflets and posters \u2013 might benefit particular candidates, but did not have to be included in their accounts.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A
‘Unfair Competition’, a poster produced by the Tariff Reform League (1908-10). Accessed via LSE Digital Library<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

At the 1892 election the Liberals were particularly concerned about the \u00a3100,000 allegedly spent by members of the drink trade in support of Conservative candidates, while in the early years of the twentieth century it was the greater spending power of the pro-Conservative Tariff Reform League in comparison with the pro-Liberal Free Trade Union which sparked most anxiety. The matter was raised in the Commons in February 1908<\/a> when 133 Liberal and Labour MPs (and one Liberal Unionist) backed an amendment regretting \u2018the way in which large sums, derived from the secret funds of the Tariff Reform League and other similar societies, are spent in electoral contests without being returned in the candidates\u2019 expenses\u2019. A few months later the 1883 Act\u2019s author Henry James corresponded with the lord chancellor about possible legislation to restrict such spending.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A
Henry James, 1st Baron James, by Alexander Bassano; \u00a9\u00a0National Portrait Gallery<\/a>, London<\/a>, CC BY-NC-ND 3.0<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

These were not the only ways in which the 1883 Act\u2019s aim of curbing the electoral influence of wealth was apparently being evaded. James raised concerns about spending between elections by local party organisations and associated bodies such as the Primrose League on social activities and entertainments. This would have been classed as treating if undertaken in support of the candidate during the election. Yet James argued that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

the corruption which causes a man to profess a political faith is as injurious as that which induces him to fulfil it by recording his vote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In 1892 Conservative MPs at Hexham and Rochester were unseated by petitions because they had subsidised entertainments provided by the local Conservative association or Primrose League, raising hopes that such social activities might be curtailed. These were dashed by the 1895 Lancaster petition, which saw the Conservative MP retain his seat, despite the local party\u2019s extensive programme of \u2018politics and pleasure\u2019, from dances to potato pie suppers. Crucially though, the MP had not subsidised these events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another continued source of spending to secure political influence was the \u2018nursing\u2019 of constituencies by candidates and MPs, who made charitable donations and subscribed to local clubs and institutions, in the hope of winning favour. The Conservative MP Frederick Milner complained in 1897 that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

no pig, or cow, or horse dies in the constituency without the member being \u2026 asked to contribute towards another. He is expected to assist in the building or repair of each church and chapel \u2026 , to subscribe to all the cricket and football clubs, friendly societies, clubs, agricultural shows, and various worthy charities.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n
\"Caricature
Frederick Milner by Carlo Pellegrini (‘Ape’), published in Vanity Fair<\/em>, 27 June 1885. Accessed via Wikimedia<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Some MPs spent hundreds of pounds annually in this way and the future Liberal prime minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman warned in 1901 that \u2018the spending of money for the purposes of electoral influence\u2019 was \u2018one of the great dangers now affecting our political system\u2019. It raised the spectre of wealthy \u2018carpet-baggers\u2019 effectively buying their way into seats where they had no local connections. It also had implications for the electoral chances of labour candidates, who could not afford such expenditure. However, suggestions that \u2018nursing\u2019 should be prohibited came up against the belief that, as MPs were often prominent local employers or landowners, philanthropy was a natural part of their social duties, irrespective of any political ambitions. Private members\u2019 bills on the question in 1911 and 1912 failed to progress beyond their first reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1883 Act had clearly done much to curb election spending, but had not eradicated the electoral influence of wealth. A similar pattern emerges when assessing its impact on corruption. The number of MPs unseated by election petitions fell dramatically. Eighteen MPs lost their seats because of bribery and other corrupt practices at the 1880 election. In contrast, despite the law\u2019s increased stringency, there was no election after 1885 which saw more than five MPs unseated. In total, 25 MPs were unseated for corrupt or illegal practices between 1885 and 1911. Cases such as the 1906 Worcester election petition, where around 500 individuals were involved in corruption, demonstrated that the 1883 Act had not been entirely successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, as with election accounts, the fall in petitions indicated a relative decline in corruption, but did not tell the full story. The significant costs and uncertain outcome of petitions deterred petitioners. So too did the unpopularity of petitions among voters, which might prove damaging to future election prospects. Petitioners also had to be sure that the election had been pure on their own side, or risk recriminatory charges. Where both parties had been involved with corruption, it might be better to collude to cover matters up, avoiding the potential threat of the constituency being disfranchised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There continued to be rumours of corruption in constituencies which escaped petitions. The Liberal election agent for Thanet published a detailed account of the electoral misdeeds of Harry Marks, who won the seat for the Conservatives in 1906. He alleged that Marks had exceeded the 1883 Act\u2019s limits, falsified his election accounts and funded treating and other forms of corruption. Marks had only narrowly survived an election petition against him in another constituency in 1895 and his involvement in commercial fraud was notorious. Thanet\u2019s Liberals did not, however, petition against him, deterred by the expense and the difficulty of securing reliable witnesses who would not be \u2018got at\u2019 by Marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complicity of both parties in corruption at Penryn and Falmouth, where it was alleged that \u2018every man in the place was bought\u2019, apparently prevented a petition after the 1900 election. Electoral malpractice continued: John Barker, Liberal MP from 1906 until his January 1910 defeat, later admitted to having spent thousands of pounds more than the Corrupt Practices Act\u2019s limits during his two contests.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Caricature
Sir Harry Verney by Leslie Ward (‘Spy’). Published in Vanity Fair, 15 July 1882. Accessed via Wikimedia<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Yet while corrupt practices were not eliminated, The Times<\/em>\u2019s forecast of a revolution in electioneering remained accurate. Electoral contests after the 1883 Act were far purer and less costly than before this landmark reform. Sir Harry Verney, a veteran MP who first entered the Commons in 1832, and sat intermittently until 1885, summarised the transformation in 1892 when he reflected on<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

the great improvements I have lived to see in elections, when I remember the bribery, the drunkenness, and the extravagance of the old political contests.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

C. O\u2019Leary, The elimination of corrupt practices in British elections, 1868-1911 <\/em>(1962)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kathryn Rix, \u2018\u201cThe elimination of corrupt practices in British elections\u201d? Reassessing the impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act\u2019, English Historical Review<\/em>, cxxxiii (2008), 65-97<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C. R. Buxton, Electioneering Up-To-Date, With Some Suggestions for Amending the Corrupt Practices Act <\/em>(1906)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

For the first two articles in this series, see <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Concluding her series on the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act, Dr Kathryn Rix of our House of Commons, 1832-1945 project looks at the long-term consequences of this major reform. In the wake of the corruption and expense of the 1880 general election, Sir Henry James, attorney general in Gladstone\u2019s Liberal government, oversaw a landmark piece of legislation which aimed to clean up Britain\u2019s elections: the 1883 … Continue reading A ‘revolution’ in electioneering? The impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37726181,"featured_media":18383,"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,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false},"categories":[124494893,4706867,4406049,774276112,34931755,774276090,774275546],"tags":[774275949,4203127,774275498,35890,774276179,774276178,774276180],"class_list":["post-18369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-victorian-commons","category-19th-century-history","category-20th-century-history","category-corruption","category-elections-2","category-legislative-history","category-william-ewart-gladstone","tag-1883-corrupt-and-illegal-practices-prevention-act","tag-electoral-corruption","tag-electoral-reform","tag-featured","tag-frederick-milner","tag-henry-james-1st-baron-james","tag-sir-harry-verney"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/TariffReformPosterLSEUnfairCompetition.png?fit=936%2C674&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2QYNW-4Mh","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":13735,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2024\/08\/25\/corrupt-and-illegal-practices-prevention-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":0},"title":"Tackling the problem of electoral corruption: the 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"August 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Marking the anniversary of the passage of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act, Dr Kathryn Rix, assistant editor of the House of Commons, 1832-1945, begins a series of blog posts on this landmark reform by looking at the key changes made by the act and the motivations behind it. On 25\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\/2024\/08\/1883cippa-1.png?fit=553%2C744&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/1883cippa-1.png?fit=553%2C744&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/1883cippa-1.png?fit=553%2C744&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":15419,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2024\/11\/22\/1883-corrupt-practices-act-york-by-election\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":1},"title":"The impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act: the York by-election","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"November 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Continuing her series on the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act, Dr Kathryn Rix looks at its impact on electioneering, focusing on the November 1883 York by-election, which was the first parliamentary election held in England under the Act\u2019s terms. The 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, a landmark reform aimed\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\/2024\/11\/NY_YAG_YORAG_484-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C814&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/NY_YAG_YORAG_484-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C814&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/NY_YAG_YORAG_484-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C814&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/NY_YAG_YORAG_484-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C814&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/NY_YAG_YORAG_484-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C814&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2450,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2018\/07\/31\/tackling-electoral-corruption-how-victorian-britain-reformed-the-trial-of-election-petitions-in-1868\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":2},"title":"Tackling electoral corruption: how Victorian Britain reformed the trial of election petitions in 1868","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"July 31, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Today marks the 150th anniversary of the passing of the\u00a0Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Act, an important part of the electoral reforms which had begun with the Second Reform Act of 1867. Dr. Kathryn Rix of our Victorian Commons project explains why and how Benjamin Disraeli's ministry aimed\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\/2018\/05\/mw113833-e1525771579447.jpg?fit=424%2C577&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":17073,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/05\/15\/1835-and-1865-general-elections\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":3},"title":"The evolving electoral system: the 1835 and 1865 general elections compared","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"May 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"This year marks the 190th anniversary of the 1835 general election and the 160th anniversary of the 1865 general election. Our assistant editor Dr Kathryn Rix looks at some of the ways in which the electoral system had evolved in the thirty years between them. The 1835 and 1865 general\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\/05\/hertfordshire-election-alt.jpg?fit=1200%2C419&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/hertfordshire-election-alt.jpg?fit=1200%2C419&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/hertfordshire-election-alt.jpg?fit=1200%2C419&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/hertfordshire-election-alt.jpg?fit=1200%2C419&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/hertfordshire-election-alt.jpg?fit=1200%2C419&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":422,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2013\/08\/15\/first-secret-ballot-in-britain\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Watched with considerable curiosity\u2019: The first secret ballot in Britain, 15 August 1872","author":"Kathryn Rix","date":"August 15, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr Kathryn Rix, of the Victorian Commons, tells us about the very first election by secret ballot in Britain\u2026 Today marks the anniversary of the first occasion on which the secret ballot was used to\u00a0elect a British MP, under the provisions of the 1872 Ballot Act. The poll, held in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Victorian Commons"","block_context":{"text":"Victorian Commons","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/victorian-commons\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Hugh C.E. Childers (Carlo Pellegrini, Vanity Fair, 1869, CCNY Libraries)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/hugh-c-e-childers-carlo-pellegrini-vanity-fair-1869.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":19349,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2026\/01\/01\/happy-new-year-from-the-victorian-commons-for-2026\/","url_meta":{"origin":18369,"position":5},"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":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18369","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\/37726181"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18369"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18452,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18369\/revisions\/18452"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}