Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield

T.T. Arvind; Christian Burset

doi:10.1093/ojls/gqae007

Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield

T.T. Arvind, Christian Burset

York Law School

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The eighteenth century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of rival ‘Patriot’ and ‘Tory’ legal traditions. Through a detailed study of the jurisprudence of Lords Camden and Mansfield—who were both pillars of the law, as well as political and juristic rivals—we show that they differed systematically in their understanding of the common law. Those differences had a partisan cast: although they were not crude attempts to instrumentalise law to political ends, their political and jurisprudential commitments influenced each other and emerged from the same intellectual roots. We place these differences in the context of the fragmentation of eighteenth-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and use the common-law tradition today.

Original language	English
Number of pages	29
Journal	Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Volume	44
Issue number	2
Early online date	4 Mar 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae007
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2024

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1093/ojls/gqae007Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

gqae007
© The Author(s) 2024
Final published version, 0.98 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{88efecd80d9a44e1ac3c1634ccf833dc,

title = "Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield",

abstract = "The eighteenth century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of rival {\textquoteleft}Patriot{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}Tory{\textquoteright} legal traditions. Through a detailed study of the jurisprudence of Lords Camden and Mansfield—who were both pillars of the law, as well as political and juristic rivals—we show that they differed systematically in their understanding of the common law. Those differences had a partisan cast: although they were not crude attempts to instrumentalise law to political ends, their political and jurisprudential commitments influenced each other and emerged from the same intellectual roots. We place these differences in the context of the fragmentation of eighteenth-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and use the common-law tradition today.",

author = "T.T. Arvind and Christian Burset",

note = "{\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024",

year = "2024",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/ojls/gqae007",

language = "English",

volume = "44",

journal = "Oxford Journal of Legal Studies",

issn = "0143-6503",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield

AU - Arvind, T.T.

AU - Burset, Christian

PY - 2024/6/1

Y1 - 2024/6/1

N2 - The eighteenth century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of rival ‘Patriot’ and ‘Tory’ legal traditions. Through a detailed study of the jurisprudence of Lords Camden and Mansfield—who were both pillars of the law, as well as political and juristic rivals—we show that they differed systematically in their understanding of the common law. Those differences had a partisan cast: although they were not crude attempts to instrumentalise law to political ends, their political and jurisprudential commitments influenced each other and emerged from the same intellectual roots. We place these differences in the context of the fragmentation of eighteenth-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and use the common-law tradition today.

AB - The eighteenth century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of rival ‘Patriot’ and ‘Tory’ legal traditions. Through a detailed study of the jurisprudence of Lords Camden and Mansfield—who were both pillars of the law, as well as political and juristic rivals—we show that they differed systematically in their understanding of the common law. Those differences had a partisan cast: although they were not crude attempts to instrumentalise law to political ends, their political and jurisprudential commitments influenced each other and emerged from the same intellectual roots. We place these differences in the context of the fragmentation of eighteenth-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and use the common-law tradition today.

U2 - 10.1093/ojls/gqae007

DO - 10.1093/ojls/gqae007

M3 - Article

SN - 0143-6503

VL - 44

JO - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

JF - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

IS - 2

ER -