Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield.
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 pi...
| Publicado en: | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 44; no. 2; pp. 376 - 405 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Summer2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=177745787&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 177745787 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01436503 BJ4 jtl: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies issn: 01436503 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Summer2024 vid: 44 iid: 2 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 177745787 10.1093/ojls/gqae007 ppf: 376 ppct: 29 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 278KB tig: atl: Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield. aug: au: Arvind, T T Burset, Christian R affil: Professor of Law and Head of Department, York Law School su: Legal history Copyright Executive power Colonies Eighteenth century sug: subj: Legal history Copyright Executive power Colonies Eighteenth century keyword: British Empire copyright eighteenth century executive power legal history tradition ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Oxford University Press. item: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|