The commonalities between David Hume and Montesquieu are striking when one considers their biographical and intellectual trajectories. They both inherited considerable wealth and belonged to the lower branches of the elite class in their respective societies. Moreover, they shared a distaste for legal scholars in spite of family circumstances which nudged both Hume and Montesquieu towards careers in law. Their shared scepticism concerning the legal profession accords with their deeper philosophical resentment towards contractual reasoning in politics. This is most discernible in their respective understandings of modern liberty, each of which hinges on the interrelationship of institutions that emerged from historical evolution. Yet, their analyses lead them to different understandings. Montesquieu formalises ‘principles’ (honour and virtue) as active springs to explain how liberty and political order arose in aristocracies, democracies and monarchies, whereas Hume interprets these outcomes as fortunate products of historical actors fighting over interests.

Moreover, both thinkers shared a vision of politics that rejected their republican contemporaries’ appeals to emulate ancient polities. They instead emphasised the need to adapt politics to a modern, more humane, commercial world, although on a different basis in the two cases. Whereas Montesquieu frequents the halcyon days of France's feudal past to illustrate the nobility's indispensable role for checking the despotic tendencies of the Bourbon Crown and checking commercial activity, Hume viewed such feudal remnants as hindrances to liberty and social stability. He instead shared Harrington's admiration of the gentry, observing its salutary role in political and economic life. Despite Montesquieu and Hume's disagreements over what they deemed the most viable intermediary bodies for anchoring the political community, both shared the belief that contemporary England led its European neighbours in adapting to the modern commercial order.

Hume's and Montesquieu's respective analyses of Britain's constitution are constitutive of their broader political visions, but in neither of their works should their reflections on the island nation be considered sui generis. Both thinkers were constitutional pluralists. They observed that liberty, order and the impartial administration of law and justice – that is, free, moderate government – emerged in multiple European contexts.