To be fair, those democracies were typically oligarchical. But you are quite right, otherwise. (Not to even mention Rousseau's own opinion of democracy: "Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men." Not exactly high praise.) Don't even get me started on Voltaire's trivial dismissal of Leibniz' theodicy.
I'm with you, when it comes to Hume, though. A superior philosopher, indeed -- my favourite, in fact. But let's not just limit ourselves to Hume! Locke is easily one of the most consequential modern philosophers, merely in terms of his staggering impact on modern America, in view of the political and economic powerhouse that it has become in recent years; moreover, I don't think the importance of Russell can be understated either, not least for his utterly fantastic primer, 'A History of Western Philosophy', or his and Alfred North Whitehead's monumental three volume treatise, 'Principia Mathematica', which, although flawed, paved the way for one of the 21st century's most crucial developments in the field of logic (I'm referring, of course, to Gödel's incompleteness theorems). I don't know whether or not we're counting Wittgenstein among British philosophers; that notwithstanding, Russell, again, played a major factor in his development -- so points either way, I say.
I think something negative ought to be said for Anglican philosophy's generally phobic treatment of continental philosophy, though. Just probably not here. Waste of breath, I imagine, and quite beside the point.
Feel free to chime back in.