An Empire of Laws

Until the 1750s, most Britons agreed that English law should govern the entire British Empire. The laws of Britain’s colonies were never identical to those of England (or to each other), but some version of English law generally followed the Union Jack. As this book shows, Britain’s commitment to an imperial common law collapsed after the Seven Years’ War (1754–63), when Britain adopted a new policy of legal pluralism. While it continued to impose English law on some colonies, others—including Bengal and Quebec—retained their previous legal regimes. Britain’s selective denial of English law to its colonies reflected a conscious effort to shape their political and economic development. Policymakers thought English law could turn any territory into an anglicized, commercial colony like Britain’s earlier American settlements. Just as English law had transmuted Dutch New Amsterdam into English New York, the common law could work the same alchemy on Britain’s newest conquests. Legal pluralism, in contrast, would keep colonies culturally distinct, politically dependent, and economically subordinate. Thus, by deciding how much English law each colony received, British officials could determine what kind of colony it would become. Britain’s selective turn toward legal pluralism after 1763 reflected the triumph of a particular vision of the British Empire—politically hierarchical, economically extractive, and culturally tolerant—over more assimilationist and egalitarian alternatives.