At first glance the development of Anglo-American prize law may seem like a topic with little practical relevance for modern readers, of use to scholars only. But the topic will continually resurface in the future in relation to the development of the (geo)politics in the maritime world, so long as the United States does not agree to remove it from its catalogue of military strategies. Robert Bayard's life has shown how such a system of law was successfully used to the detriment of independence-supporting seafarers during the Revolutionary War by the Vice-Admiralty Court of New York. It also demonstrated that colonial jurisdiction, though in theory following the same principles as in London, had massively diverged, with major consequences for claimants. The different approaches to judicial procedures and staff made New York's Vice-Admiralty Court a far more liberal and efficient system, governed practically by a different set of rules than its metropolitan counterparts. HCA 49/92 is a great tool for gaining an overview of the court's workings, but more in-depth research must be done here, particularly regarding the court's impact on military operations during the War of Independence and its development throughout the conflict.

Samuel Bayard's experiences on the other hand demonstrate that a generation later, America and Britain would be able to come together and forge a new way forward together, impacting on the development of maritime law worldwide. The transformation from illegitimate rebels and objects of adjudication in the Revolution, to adjudicators and recognised players in the global system by the 1790s is remarkable.

Representation of the Bayard family tree, focusing on the Delaware and New York branches with regard to the male line as relevant for this study. Starting with Samuel Bayard and Anne Stuyvesant, who first immigrated to the United States in the seventeenth century. On branches displaying two marriages, the next generation of Bayard sons sprang from the second marriage. The lifespans of family members were compiled from Hess, Bulloch and the New York Historical Society. The Bayard family was perpetuated by the three brothers – Nicolas, Balthazar and Petrus – upon their arrival in New Netherland in the seventeenth century. Nicolas established the New York branch, one of the foremost politically and economically influential in that area, from the time of its first European settlement. From that branch sprang Robert and William Bayard, proponents of the Crown, supporting the loyalist cause in the American Revolution. Petrus, however, would break with the family, both religiously and geographically, leaving New York and moving to the Delaware region, more specifically, to Cecil County, Maryland, to join a colony of Labadists. While the New York Bayards would be overwhelmingly loyalist in 1776, the Delaware branch embraced independence and became embedded in the new republic's governmental service.

US politicians hoped to enforce the US claim on independence, sovereignty and neutrality in the British prize law system. However, in practice the American experience was one of unavoidable dependence and entanglement.

Prize law, by its very nature, has always been a contested legal field nestled between domestic and international law. The Judge of the High Court of Admiralty was subordinate to and bound by British parliamentary decisions. In this constellation, he could be considered a conflicted judge, much like prize law itself, trapped between municipal interests and international principles. Sir William Scott would become the judge of the High Court of Admiralty in 1798, when Marriott retired. During the first years of the Jay Treaty commission, he was active as the King's Advocate. He was intertwined with the political sphere both on a professional and familial level: in his role as King's Advocate he drafted opinions for the Foreign Office on various matters, including neutral rights.

While Marriott's work was widely received, it is his successor Scott whose judgments were internationally cemented into admiralty law. Scott's predecessors argued that British law and international law were one and the same.

In his original communications to Secretary of State Edmund Randolph on the treaty of amity and commerce, Jay noted: “It appeared to me advisable that our people should have precise and plain instructions relative to the prosecution of appeals and claims, in cases of capture. For that purpose, I applied to Sir William Scott, and requested him, in concert with Dr. Nicholl, to prepare them.”

Next to his responsibility for collecting and organising general claims in prize causes, Bayard was especially entrusted with working on US prize appeals. These appeals did not go to the High Court of Admiralty, but to its superior court, the High Court of Appeals for Prizes, a very different legal body from the first. Whereas the members of the High Court of Admiralty were chosen through a long process of legal training and specialised knowledge (embodied in the Doctors’ Commons microcosm), the members of the appeals court, known as the Lords Commissioners of Appeal (further referred to as the Lords of Appeal), did not require any legal training. Some of the Lords were eminent common law judges, but often, they were simply politicians, for the appeals court consisted of members of the Privy Council. The president of the Privy Council was also president of the Lords of Appeal. Four to six of the Lords of Appeal would meet up about once a week in the winter, generally from 12pm until 3pm, while in the summer they met less frequently and discussed several cases in a single session. Whereas the American Federal Appeals Court would later go on to review its own cases, the final decree of the Lords of Appeal was just that: final. There does not seem to have been a single case in which it reviewed one of its own decisions. The decrees they issued were simple and to the point. Most final judgments remain simple statements without explanation, declaring the what and not the why.