Abstract

David Hume’s constitutional theory is often reduced to his insights regarding the principles that should inform the design of constitutions. This interpretation has extended to his History of England (the ‘History’), in which Hume is typically thought to show how liberty in England emerged as a consequence of establishing the proper constitutional arrangements between the institutions of Parliament and the Crown. I argue that the History is better understood through Hume’s theory of convention. Approaching the History in this way resolves the divergent scholarly interpretations of its constitutional narrative, and reveals that Hume’s conception of constitutionalism depends less on the institutional settings established by a constitutional document, than on the prevailing attitude towards law and political authority among government officials and the population more generally. Specifically, liberty is founded on the understanding that laws apply universally and inflexibly, and that all exercises of political authority must occur according to law.