The Conclusion delves into the strategic and legal legacies of the Seven Years’ War. It ties the Seven Years’ War and the unresolved tensions around maritime neutrality to the outbreak of Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-Spanish hostilities during the American War of Independence. It does so by examining the peace treaty of 1763 wherein no new significant arrangements were made about neutral rights between the Spanish and the British. The argument is made that the ambiguity of existing treaties left both governments room to continue negotiations whilst the Rule of the War of 1756 would provide an understanding of how British prize courts would treat neutral ships in future conflicts. The chapter examines the legacy of the Court of Prize Appeal and the thinking behind the rule. It discusses how the court and the rule were used in subsequent conflicts through the Napoleonic Wars and the role that individual judges took in making the rule a critical or underplayed element of British maritime strategic thinking. The rule loomed large in British maritime law for many wars after Hardwicke created it and it is, perhaps, one of the best illustrations of the link between law, sea power, and strategic thinking.

The American War led to still-greater agitation in Ireland, where a national movement arose seeking self-government and reform of the Irish Parliament. Whereas the British Parliament for centuries had possessed the right to veto Irish legislation, the Volunteer militia movement beginning in 1778 mobilized – at first nominally against the threat of Franco-Spanish invasion but quickly turned its attention to agitating for legislative independence. The measure would be achieved by the war’s end, while the Volunteers also sought religious integration off their forces and the expansion of Irish suffrage.