ABSTRACT
The 18th century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late 18th 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, and that 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 18th-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and make use of the common law tradition in present-day scholarship.
