From Hume’s account of the English constitutional revolution of 1640:
By removing the star-chamber, the king’s power of binding the people by his proclamations, was indirectly abolished; and that important branch of prerogative, the strong symbol of arbitrary power, and unintelligible in a limited constitution, being at last removed, left the system of government more consistent and uniform. The star-chamber alone was accustomed to punish infractions of the king’s edicts: But as no courts of judicature now remained, except those in Westminster-hall, which take cognizance only of common and statute law, the king may thenceforth issue proclamations, but no man is bound to obey them.
It must, however, be confessed, that the experiment here made by the parliament, was not a little rash and adventurous. No government, at that time, appeared in the world, nor is perhaps to be found in the records of any history, which subsisted without the mixture of some arbitrary authority, committed to some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful, whether human society could ever reach that state of perfection, as to support itself with no other controul than the general and rigid maxims of law and equity.
But the parliament justly thought, that the king was too eminent a magistrate to be trusted with discretionary power, which he might so easily turn to the destruction of liberty. And in the event it has hitherto been found, that, though some sensible inconveniences arise from the maxim of adhering strictly to law, yet the advantages overbalance them, and should render the English grateful to the memory of their ancestors, who, after repeated contests, at last established that noble, though dangerous, principle.
Andy Sabl’s forthcoming book, which considers the History as a work of political theory, can’t come out soon enough to suit me. And I sense it’s well-timed; we seem to have just elected a deeply Humean President.