David Hume’s Court of Competitors

• In Event: Historical Perspectives on the Meanings and Challenges of Pluralism (1355-1752)

Abstract

Hume’s final political essay, an “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth” is uncharacteristically republican. Hume ended his Political Discourses (1752) by sketching a federal and bicameral republic, explicitly modeled after James Harrington’s Commonwealth of Oceana. Scholars often place Hume’s “Perfect Commonwealth” in opposition to Montesquieu’s reflections on republicanism in the Spirit of the Laws (1748). Whereas Montesquieu insisted republics could only represent small territories, Hume claimed his framework was suitable for states as large as contemporary Britain or France. However, Hume’s “Perfect Commonwealth” can also be read as a Montesquieuian answer to Harrington’s Oceana. This paper revisits Hume’s design for political debate and contestation in his “perfect” republic. I pay special attention to Hume’s proposal for a “court of competitors.” Few have focused on the fact that Hume incorporated a tribune-like function into his plan for a senate. Hume’s “competitors” may mitigate Montesquieu’s worry that ephors or state inquisitors evolve into arbitrary magistrates. If a large modern republic was possible, perhaps senatorial tribunes were as well.

Author

• Danielle Charette, University of Virginia