Advertisement · 728 × 90

Posts by The Historical Journal

In 1540, European scholars had no coherent understanding of the content or history of Athenian law. In contrast to Roman law, which had been preserved in the Justinianic Corpus juris civilis, Athenian law survived in fragments scattered across ancient literature. By 1650, European scholars had painstakingly reconstructed the laws of Athens and then put that law to use in debates about theology, natural jurisprudence, politics, and economics. This article tells the unknown story of the European reception of Athenian law in three main phases: foundation, consolidation, and fracture. In the first phase, the works of Philip Melanchthon (1546), Pardoux Duprat (1559), and Carlo Sigonio (1564) established the foundations of Athenian law and procedures. In the second phase, the field consolidated around the quest for a comprehensive overview of Athenian jurisprudence. This phase began around the end of the sixteenth century with an unpublished manuscript by Joseph Scaliger and ended in 1635 with Samuel Petit’s magisterial Leges Atticae. Finally, the field reached its zenith with the dispute between Claudius Salmasius and Desiderius Heraldus in the 1640s, but the acrimony of the feud caused the study of Athenian law to fracture and fade from prominence for the rest of the century.

In 1540, European scholars had no coherent understanding of the content or history of Athenian law. In contrast to Roman law, which had been preserved in the Justinianic Corpus juris civilis, Athenian law survived in fragments scattered across ancient literature. By 1650, European scholars had painstakingly reconstructed the laws of Athens and then put that law to use in debates about theology, natural jurisprudence, politics, and economics. This article tells the unknown story of the European reception of Athenian law in three main phases: foundation, consolidation, and fracture. In the first phase, the works of Philip Melanchthon (1546), Pardoux Duprat (1559), and Carlo Sigonio (1564) established the foundations of Athenian law and procedures. In the second phase, the field consolidated around the quest for a comprehensive overview of Athenian jurisprudence. This phase began around the end of the sixteenth century with an unpublished manuscript by Joseph Scaliger and ended in 1635 with Samuel Petit’s magisterial Leges Atticae. Finally, the field reached its zenith with the dispute between Claudius Salmasius and Desiderius Heraldus in the 1640s, but the acrimony of the feud caused the study of Athenian law to fracture and fade from prominence for the rest of the century.

📣Out now on #firstview

Alexander Batson (University of Texas at Austin) on 'The Renaissance Reconstruction of Ancient Athenian Law, 1546–1650'

#Law #Theology #Jurisprudence #History 16thc 17thc 🗃️⚖️

👉Read online: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

4 days ago 1 0 0 0
When Thomas Ellwood repeatedly flouted his father’s command in 1659 to stay away from the Quakers, his behaviour provoked bitter family quarrels and a beating, until his father eventually found a surprising solution: he confiscated all his son’s hats. Thomas became in effect a prisoner in the house, accepting that it would be unthinkable to go outside without a hat. However strange to us today, this made perfect sense to contemporaries, and such episodes remind us that the multifaceted conventions surrounding dress played an important role in early modern culture. When, where, and how hats were worn, and the gestures in which they featured, conveyed signals about identity and status, could sustain, display, or defy social hierarchies and relationships, and asserted political or religious loyalties.

When Thomas Ellwood repeatedly flouted his father’s command in 1659 to stay away from the Quakers, his behaviour provoked bitter family quarrels and a beating, until his father eventually found a surprising solution: he confiscated all his son’s hats. Thomas became in effect a prisoner in the house, accepting that it would be unthinkable to go outside without a hat. However strange to us today, this made perfect sense to contemporaries, and such episodes remind us that the multifaceted conventions surrounding dress played an important role in early modern culture. When, where, and how hats were worn, and the gestures in which they featured, conveyed signals about identity and status, could sustain, display, or defy social hierarchies and relationships, and asserted political or religious loyalties.

📣Out now on #firstview

Bernard Capp @uni-of-warwick.bsky.social on 'The Cultural, Social, and Ideological Role of the Hat in Early Modern England'

#Hat #Identity #Social #Clothing #Religion #Family #History 17thc 🎩👒🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 week ago 54 22 6 22

Surprisingly there seems to be far less hat-based-history than they should be

1 week ago 11 4 6 0

One for all the #Quaker history folks, as well as #DressHistory and #FashionHistory 👇🗃️

1 week ago 14 8 1 0
When Thomas Ellwood repeatedly flouted his father’s command in 1659 to stay away from the Quakers, his behaviour provoked bitter family quarrels and a beating, until his father eventually found a surprising solution: he confiscated all his son’s hats. Thomas became in effect a prisoner in the house, accepting that it would be unthinkable to go outside without a hat. However strange to us today, this made perfect sense to contemporaries, and such episodes remind us that the multifaceted conventions surrounding dress played an important role in early modern culture. When, where, and how hats were worn, and the gestures in which they featured, conveyed signals about identity and status, could sustain, display, or defy social hierarchies and relationships, and asserted political or religious loyalties.

When Thomas Ellwood repeatedly flouted his father’s command in 1659 to stay away from the Quakers, his behaviour provoked bitter family quarrels and a beating, until his father eventually found a surprising solution: he confiscated all his son’s hats. Thomas became in effect a prisoner in the house, accepting that it would be unthinkable to go outside without a hat. However strange to us today, this made perfect sense to contemporaries, and such episodes remind us that the multifaceted conventions surrounding dress played an important role in early modern culture. When, where, and how hats were worn, and the gestures in which they featured, conveyed signals about identity and status, could sustain, display, or defy social hierarchies and relationships, and asserted political or religious loyalties.

📣Out now on #firstview

Bernard Capp @uni-of-warwick.bsky.social on 'The Cultural, Social, and Ideological Role of the Hat in Early Modern England'

#Hat #Identity #Social #Clothing #Religion #Family #History 17thc 🎩👒🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 week ago 54 22 6 22
This article analyses the political economy of consumption in Poland during the crisis of 1980–1 through economic-policy debates among Communist Party and Solidarity experts. It asks how conflicts over everyday economic needs shaped political confrontation and the decision to impose martial law. The central argument is that the crisis resulted not from a simple failure of socialist production but from the erosion of a paternalistic system of allocating goods. This weakness was exposed both by Solidarity’s challenge to the state’s monopoly over defining scarcity and by the party’s own long-term consumer policies based on austerity as a recurrent instrument of governance whose implementation became politically blocked. The article outlines the systemic logic of socialist consumption, emphasizing accumulation, subsidized prices, and chronic allocation tensions, and examines late 1970s debates on needs and rational consumption. It then analyses the 1980–1 confrontation, showing how Solidarity legitimized consumer grievances yet resisted responsibility for stabilization, producing policy paralysis. Finally, it demonstrates how martial law enabled comprehensive austerity and price reform aimed at restoring financial stability and external creditworthiness. Based on Communist Party and Solidarity documentation, the article shows how struggles over consumption revealed structural limits of paternalistic governance under late socialism.

This article analyses the political economy of consumption in Poland during the crisis of 1980–1 through economic-policy debates among Communist Party and Solidarity experts. It asks how conflicts over everyday economic needs shaped political confrontation and the decision to impose martial law. The central argument is that the crisis resulted not from a simple failure of socialist production but from the erosion of a paternalistic system of allocating goods. This weakness was exposed both by Solidarity’s challenge to the state’s monopoly over defining scarcity and by the party’s own long-term consumer policies based on austerity as a recurrent instrument of governance whose implementation became politically blocked. The article outlines the systemic logic of socialist consumption, emphasizing accumulation, subsidized prices, and chronic allocation tensions, and examines late 1970s debates on needs and rational consumption. It then analyses the 1980–1 confrontation, showing how Solidarity legitimized consumer grievances yet resisted responsibility for stabilization, producing policy paralysis. Finally, it demonstrates how martial law enabled comprehensive austerity and price reform aimed at restoring financial stability and external creditworthiness. Based on Communist Party and Solidarity documentation, the article shows how struggles over consumption revealed structural limits of paternalistic governance under late socialism.

📣Out now on #firstview

Piotr Perkowski (University of Gdańsk) on 'Socialist Consumption Revisited: Paternalistic Policies and Consumer Needs during the Polish Crisis'

#Communism #Consumption #Economy #Crisis #Socialist #Financial 20thc 🗃️

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

2 weeks ago 1 1 0 0
This article analyses the political economy of consumption in Poland during the crisis of 1980–1 through economic-policy debates among Communist Party and Solidarity experts. It asks how conflicts over everyday economic needs shaped political confrontation and the decision to impose martial law. The central argument is that the crisis resulted not from a simple failure of socialist production but from the erosion of a paternalistic system of allocating goods. This weakness was exposed both by Solidarity’s challenge to the state’s monopoly over defining scarcity and by the party’s own long-term consumer policies based on austerity as a recurrent instrument of governance whose implementation became politically blocked. The article outlines the systemic logic of socialist consumption, emphasizing accumulation, subsidized prices, and chronic allocation tensions, and examines late 1970s debates on needs and rational consumption. It then analyses the 1980–1 confrontation, showing how Solidarity legitimized consumer grievances yet resisted responsibility for stabilization, producing policy paralysis. Finally, it demonstrates how martial law enabled comprehensive austerity and price reform aimed at restoring financial stability and external creditworthiness. Based on Communist Party and Solidarity documentation, the article shows how struggles over consumption revealed structural limits of paternalistic governance under late socialism.

This article analyses the political economy of consumption in Poland during the crisis of 1980–1 through economic-policy debates among Communist Party and Solidarity experts. It asks how conflicts over everyday economic needs shaped political confrontation and the decision to impose martial law. The central argument is that the crisis resulted not from a simple failure of socialist production but from the erosion of a paternalistic system of allocating goods. This weakness was exposed both by Solidarity’s challenge to the state’s monopoly over defining scarcity and by the party’s own long-term consumer policies based on austerity as a recurrent instrument of governance whose implementation became politically blocked. The article outlines the systemic logic of socialist consumption, emphasizing accumulation, subsidized prices, and chronic allocation tensions, and examines late 1970s debates on needs and rational consumption. It then analyses the 1980–1 confrontation, showing how Solidarity legitimized consumer grievances yet resisted responsibility for stabilization, producing policy paralysis. Finally, it demonstrates how martial law enabled comprehensive austerity and price reform aimed at restoring financial stability and external creditworthiness. Based on Communist Party and Solidarity documentation, the article shows how struggles over consumption revealed structural limits of paternalistic governance under late socialism.

📣Out now on #firstview

Piotr Perkowski (University of Gdańsk) on 'Socialist Consumption Revisited: Paternalistic Policies and Consumer Needs during the Polish Crisis'

#Communism #Consumption #Economy #Crisis #Socialist #Financial 20thc 🗃️

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

2 weeks ago 1 1 0 0

This looks amazing!

3 weeks ago 2 1 0 0

Cheers to @kabcommons.bsky.social on this stellar article. She is a thoughtful, meticulous scholar. I recommend this to anyone who is interested.

And, on a personal note, I am glad to call Kathleen a valued and trusted colleague in the academy-- worth not just a read, but certainly a follow, too.

3 weeks ago 17 5 1 0
Advertisement

Really pleased to share my (open access!) article on immigration control in early modern England, feat. rights-bearing subjects, rightsless migrants, and experiments in immigration control

3 weeks ago 76 30 1 1
Migration history is a growing field – yet the legal status of migrants in early modern England has not yet been investigated in detail. Reconstructing the legal system that governed migrants in early modern England does not just add significant depth and nuance to histories of migration and migrants, but also provides fresh insight into the status of English subjects. Furthermore, it enables historians to trace longer histories of the exclusion of migrants from rights in England and Britain. This article reconstructs the common law governance of migrants between c. 1540 and c. 1640, showing how common law principles and practices excluded migrants from the rights-bearing status of English subjects. Rather than being governed by the law, migrants were substantively governed under prerogative, a form of governance repeatedly resisted by English subjects. Although some migrants could access (unstable) liberties granted under prerogative, for the most part migrants were also subject to discriminatory local byelaws and licences and commissions granted by the crown for their exploitation. The repeated ‘molestation’ of migrants by informers for working contrary to statute, and petitions against this harassment from migrants suggest this early modern system of immigration control was relatively well understood by both subjects and migrants.

Migration history is a growing field – yet the legal status of migrants in early modern England has not yet been investigated in detail. Reconstructing the legal system that governed migrants in early modern England does not just add significant depth and nuance to histories of migration and migrants, but also provides fresh insight into the status of English subjects. Furthermore, it enables historians to trace longer histories of the exclusion of migrants from rights in England and Britain. This article reconstructs the common law governance of migrants between c. 1540 and c. 1640, showing how common law principles and practices excluded migrants from the rights-bearing status of English subjects. Rather than being governed by the law, migrants were substantively governed under prerogative, a form of governance repeatedly resisted by English subjects. Although some migrants could access (unstable) liberties granted under prerogative, for the most part migrants were also subject to discriminatory local byelaws and licences and commissions granted by the crown for their exploitation. The repeated ‘molestation’ of migrants by informers for working contrary to statute, and petitions against this harassment from migrants suggest this early modern system of immigration control was relatively well understood by both subjects and migrants.

📣Out now on #firstview

Kathleen Commons @kabcommons.bsky.social @sheffielduni.bsky.social on 'Discovering ‘Immigration Control’ in England, c. 1540 – c. 1640'

#Migration #History #EarlyModern #England #Immigration 📜 16thc 17thc

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 19 11 1 3
Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court

Spectacular new #openaccess article by Prof. @ciarab.bsky.social on "Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court" @historicaljnl.bsky.social: vital reading for all in media/medical/legal history or working with digitised print sources🌟

3 weeks ago 14 6 1 0
Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court

Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core - www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 12 6 2 0
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview

Ciara Breathnach @ciarab.bsky.social @ucc.ie on 'Newspapers as Surrogate Archives: A Case Study of the Early Twentieth-Century Dublin City Coroner’s Court'

#Archives #Newspapers #Press #Ireland #Legal #History 20thc📰🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 31 12 4 1
Samuel Pepys had significant professional and social connections to transatlantic slavery in the years covered by his diary and afterwards, mediated by his involvement with two English slave-trading companies – the Royal African Company and the Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa. He also owned and sold at least two enslaved people in London in the 1670s and 1680s. This article uses previously neglected manuscript evidence to reassess Pepys’s involvement in enslavement and his status as an enslaver. It emphasizes three themes: the relationship between Pepys’s official connections to the African companies and his private ownership of enslaved people; the development of his involvement in slavery within his extensive social and professional networks; and Pepys’s own agency in curating his official and personal archives to shape and limit our knowledge of his slave ownership. In doing so, it considers how the consciously expressed professional and ethical priorities of administrators and slave-owners like Pepys shaped the complex archival traces of slavery in England and erased the experiences and voices of enslaved people.

Samuel Pepys had significant professional and social connections to transatlantic slavery in the years covered by his diary and afterwards, mediated by his involvement with two English slave-trading companies – the Royal African Company and the Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa. He also owned and sold at least two enslaved people in London in the 1670s and 1680s. This article uses previously neglected manuscript evidence to reassess Pepys’s involvement in enslavement and his status as an enslaver. It emphasizes three themes: the relationship between Pepys’s official connections to the African companies and his private ownership of enslaved people; the development of his involvement in slavery within his extensive social and professional networks; and Pepys’s own agency in curating his official and personal archives to shape and limit our knowledge of his slave ownership. In doing so, it considers how the consciously expressed professional and ethical priorities of administrators and slave-owners like Pepys shaped the complex archival traces of slavery in England and erased the experiences and voices of enslaved people.

📣Out now on #firstview

Michael Edwards @jesuscollegecam.bsky.social on 'Samuel Pepys, the African Companies, and the Archives of Slavery, 1660–1689'

#Archives #Letters #Diary #History 17thc 🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 72 47 2 5
Samuel Pepys, the African Companies, and the Archives of Slavery, 1660–1689 | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Samuel Pepys, the African Companies, and the Archives of Slavery, 1660–1689

You can read the article by Michael Edwards, 'Samuel Pepys, the African Companies, and the Archives of Slavery, 1660-1689', open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 12 3 0 0
Advertisement
Preview
Pepys ‘curated’ letters to conceal being offered enslaved boy as bribe – research Cambridge University historian uncovers letter to diarist who was a naval official in 1670s

Really interesting read on Pepys & slavery & naval history www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026... & more in Michael Edwards @historicaljnl.bsky.social article 'Samuel Pepys, the African Companies, and the Archives of Slavery, 1660–1689'
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

3 weeks ago 7 3 0 0
Preview
Pepys ‘curated’ letters to conceal being offered enslaved boy as bribe – research Cambridge University historian uncovers letter to diarist who was a naval official in 1670s

A brand new @historicaljnl.bsky.social article makes the news! www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

3 weeks ago 16 9 1 3
Post image

📣First 2026 Issue of the HJ!

Featuring articles from historians including @adambforsyth.bsky.social, @adam-q.bsky.social, @joelherman.bsky.social, @davidandress.bsky.social, @feichen-uol.bsky.social and more!

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

🗃️📜📘

1 month ago 10 6 0 1
Post image

📣First 2026 Issue of the HJ!

Featuring articles from historians including @adambforsyth.bsky.social, @adam-q.bsky.social, @joelherman.bsky.social, @davidandress.bsky.social, @feichen-uol.bsky.social and more!

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

🗃️📜📘

1 month ago 10 6 0 1
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Elad Carmel (@eladcarmel.bsky.social) (@uniofjyvaskyla.bsky.social) on 'George Wallace and Britain’s First Abolitionist Publication (1760)'

#Abolition #Slavery #Law #Scotland 18thc 🗃️

👉Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

2 months ago 9 5 0 1
The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

📢We are delighted to announce that Hardeep Dhillon
(@migrantherstory.bsky.social) has been Highly Commended in The Historical Journal ECR Prize for her article 'Imperial Violence, Law, and Compensation in the Age of Empire, 1919–1922'

👉Read the article open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 19 11 0 2
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Jenni Hyde (@wallyberry.bsky.social) on 'Providence, Editorial, and News in Early Modern Ballads'

#News #Religion #God #Print #Everyday 17thc 📜🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 10 6 0 1
Advertisement
Post image

📣Out now on #firstview!

Jenni Hyde (@wallyberry.bsky.social) on 'Providence, Editorial, and News in Early Modern Ballads'

#News #Religion #God #Print #Everyday 17thc 📜🗃️

👉Read open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 10 6 0 1

Many thanks, dedicated to those who live with and in the afterlives of empire.

1 month ago 11 2 0 0

Thrilled to have been recognised in this lovely award by @historicaljnl.bsky.social!

Huge thanks to @marloavidon.bsky.social for being an excellent camerawoman on a cold and rainy day 💐

1 month ago 20 3 3 0

@zarakesterton’s incredible pie charts are officially award winning! If you haven’t read her article yet, you must go check it out 💐

1 month ago 9 1 1 0
Post image

My @historicaljnl.bsky.social article has been published open access alongside great articles by @adambforsyth.bsky.social, @davidandress.bsky.social, and others I couldn't locate here, in the most recent journal issue.

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 28 11 3 1
The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

The intricacies of modern compensation procedures that value human life, injury, and property are often overlooked, despite growing demands for reparations and justice following state violence. This article historicizes the legal structures of modern compensation, arguing that the advent of imperial rule was characterized not only by the extraction of material resources and labour, but also by the discriminatory construction and implementation of imperial law, which sought to protect European life, wealth, and property. By focusing on one of the most notorious episodes of violence in British imperial and modern South Asian history – the atrocities committed by British officials in Punjab (1919), including the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre – this article underscores how British officials penalized protests and freedom struggles by legalizing indemnities, taxes, and fines to compensate European families. In contrast, colonial officials grossly undervalued the claims and payments of Indian subjects killed or maimed during state violence, if they did at all. Furthermore, this article reveals how imperial state compensation, managed in relative privacy and buried in legal proceduralism, was rooted in legal structures of intersectional racialized inequality, and political concerns that valued the longevity of imperialism, rather than a meaningful gesture of justice and redress.

📢We are delighted to announce that Hardeep Dhillon
(@migrantherstory.bsky.social) has been Highly Commended in The Historical Journal ECR Prize for her article 'Imperial Violence, Law, and Compensation in the Age of Empire, 1919–1922'

👉Read the article open access: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 19 11 0 2
Suffrage and the Secret Ballot in Eighteenth-Century London Parishes | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core Suffrage and the Secret Ballot in Eighteenth-Century London Parishes - Volume 67 Issue 1

Read open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

1 month ago 0 1 0 0