Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:00:42.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laurence Echard – Whig Historian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Deborah Stephan
Deborah Stephan
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was not an easy task in the early eighteenth century to write a complete history of England, and Laurence Echard courageously attempted to be the first to do so. For even if one could pick a way carefully through the Saxon/Norman period (on which most attention had centred up till this time), there still remained immense problems in the interpretation of the seventeenth century and its relationship back to the chosen version of this earlier time. In the first quarter of the eighteenth century Echard wrote or contributed to six volumes on the subject of English history, all of which contained at least some discussion of the English seventeenth century, but the results were confusing. In the very small amount of modern discussion on Echard's politics and historical works, this confusion is evident in a revealing contradiction.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 843 - 866
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richardson, R. C., The debate on the English Revolution (London, 1977), p. 36Google Scholar; Douglas, David, English scholars 1600–1730 (London, 1951), pp. 134–5Google Scholar, and see also his Norman conquest and British historians (Glasgow, 1946), p. 8Google Scholar, where Douglas refers to ‘the standard Whig histories of Echard and Tyrrell’.

2 The one, which is known as the ‘ancient constitution’ approach, saw English institutions as dating back without interruption to Saxon times and beyond to the immemorial past. For them parliament, which had always contained commoners, existed long before the conquest of 1066, and in order to sustain the continuity of this argument they were then forced to maintain the conquest was not in fact such, and that William I adapted his government, so preserving the continuous thread of free English institutions. This image of continuity within an isolated English past was disputed by the second historical school, which emphasized that modern institutions of government were basically the products of feudalism, which had been imported from the Continent as a result of the Norman conquest. The existence of feudalism in the English context was established by the researches of Sir Henry Spelman and Dr Robert Brady. William I had indeed conquered England, thereby negating all Saxon law and establishing Norman, feudal practices. And the introduction of the commons to parliament definitely for them post dated the conquest. Kramnick, Isaac, ‘Augustan politics and English historiography: the debate on the English past, 1730–35’, Journal of History and Theory, VI (1967), 33 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a brief introduction to this subject. He terms the first approach that of the house of commons and later of the whigs, and the second that of the royalists and tories; and it is he who discusses the reversals occurring in the 1730s. However, the standard work on these two schools of thought is undoubtedly Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law, a study of English historical thought in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1957)Google Scholar, to which the reader is referred for greater depth. To date, most of the research on these two approaches has related to their views of medieval England. However, they were also adapted to explain the troubles of the seventeenth century. For example, those using the ancient constitutional approach would praise Queen Elizabeth for maintaining the balance of that constitution and therefore see the Civil Wars resulting from James I and Charles I in some manner upsetting that balance.

3 More recently Goldie, Mark, ‘Tory political thought 1689–1714’ (unpublished D.Phil, dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1977), p. 188Google Scholar, refers to ‘…Laurence Echard's tory History of England …’ while Gunn, J. A. W., Beyond Liberty and property: the process of self-recognition in eighteenth-century political thought (Kingston and Montreal, 1983), p. 146, appears undecidedGoogle Scholar.

4 While the original research for this paper was undertaken without the benefit of Clark's, J. C. D. stimulating work English society 1688–1832 (Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar, I have since benefited both by way of clarification and reassurance on the place I ascribe to the Anglican clergy in the emerging story of early eighteenth-century historiography.

5 Camden's Britannia, newly translated into English: with large additions and improvements. Publish'd by Gibson, Edmund, of Queen's College in Oxford (London, 1695)Google Scholar, ‘Preface to the Reader’.

6 The sources for the following account of Echard's life are: Goulding, Richard W., Laurence Echard M.A. F.S.A., author and Archdeacon (Worksop, 1927)Google Scholar; Baker, G. F. Russell, ‘Laurence Echard (1670?–1730)’, Dictionary of national biography, XVI, 351–2Google Scholar; Cunningham, , Lives of eminent Englishmen, IV, 416–18Google Scholar; and the Biographical dictionary, V, 267–8

7 British Library, Add. MS 38,729, fos. 110 and 112. In addition to these volumes, in 1711 Echard wrote an introduction to the first English translation of O'rleans', F. J. D.The history of the revolutions in England under the family of the Stuarts, from the year 1603 and 1690, the introduction being entitled, ‘Advertisement concerning This History’ and dated at Louth, 8 05 1711Google Scholar.

8 SirTemple, William, ‘An introduction to the history of England’, in The works of Sir William Temple, bart. (London, 1757), III, 77Google Scholar; Echard, Laurence, The history of England, from the first entrance of Julius Caesar and the Romans, to the end of the reign of King James the First. Containing the space of 1678 years (2nd edn of the first volume, London, 1718), I, 7Google Scholar.

9 Temple, , Introduction, III, 70Google Scholar, wrote: ‘Britain was by the ancients accounted the greatest island of the known world, and for ought is yet certain, may be so still, notwithstanding the later discoveries of Madagascar and Japan, which are by some brought into competition.’ Echard, , History, I, 2Google Scholar, has: ‘This Country, in its utmost Extent, was by the Ancients accounted the largest Island in the World; and notwithstanding the later Discoveries of Madagascar and Japan, which are brought in competition with it, we are not yet certain of the contrary.’ On the civil government of the Britons: Temple, , Introduction, III, 73Google Scholar: ‘Their government was like that of the ancient Gauls, of several small nations under several petty Princes…’; and Echard, , History, I, 6Google Scholar: ‘To come at last to the Civil Government of the Britains, we find that it was like that of the ancient Gauls, of several small Nations under as many petty Princes …’

10 Temple, , Introduction, III, 94–5Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 45Google Scholar.

11 Temple, , Introduction, III, 97Google Scholar: ‘About this time, a mighty swarm of the old northern hive, who had possessed the seats about the Baltic (almost deserted by such numbers of Goths, Vandals, and Saxons, as had issued out of them some centuries before) began, under the names of Danes and Normans, to infest at first the sea, and at length the lands of the Belgic, Gallic, and British shores, filling all where they came with slaughters, spoils, and devastations.’ Echard, , History, I, 64Google Scholar, has: ‘For about these Times a new Swarm of People, from the Northern Parts of Europe, under the Names of Danes and Normans, or Norwegians, began at first to infest the Seas, and at length the Lands of the Belgick, Gallic, and British Shores, filling all Places with Slaughters, Spoils, and Devastations’, and the similarities continue on how the Normans came to settle in Normandy, and the Danes to invade the coasts of England.

12 Temple, , Introduction, III, 101Google Scholar: ‘Thus expired, not only the dominion, but all attempts or invasions of the Danes in England; which though continued and often renewed, with mighty numbers, for above two hundred years, yet left no change of laws, customs, language, or religion, nor other traces of their establishments here, besides the many castles they built, and many families they left behind them, who after the accession of Edward the Confessor to the Crown, wholly submitting to his government, and peaceably inhabiting, came to incorporate, and make a part of the English nation, without any distinction’. Echard, , History, I, 113–14Google Scholar, has: ‘Harde-canute dying without Issue, and Denmark being then embarrass'd with Troubles, with him expir'd, not only the Dominion, but in Effect all Attempts or Invasions of the Danes in England; which tho' they had been continu'd, and often renew'd with mighty Numbers, for two hundred and fifty five Years from their first Invasion, left no considerable Change of Laws, Customs, Language or Religion, nor other Traces of their Establishment besides the many Castles they built, and the many Families they left behind them, who in a few Years came to incorporate and make a Part of the English Nation without Distinction.’

13 Temple, , Introduction, III, 101Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 117Google Scholar.

14 Temple, , Introduction, III, 103–9Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 127–9Google Scholar. For example Temple, III, 106, writes: ‘No Prince ever came so early into the cares and thorns of a crown, nor felt them longer, engaged in difficulties and toils, in hardships and dangers; his life exposed to the arms of enemies, the plots of assassins…’ Echard, I, 128, has: ‘No Prince ever came so early into the Cares and Burdens of a Crown, nor felt them longer; engag'd in Toils and Difficulties, in Hardships and Dangers; his Person expos'd to the Arms of Enemies, and the Plots of Assassins …’

15 Temple, , Introduction, III, 112–13Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 130Google Scholar.

16 Temple, , Introduction, III, 123Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 137Google Scholar.

17 Echard, , History, I, 139, 142, 143, 150Google Scholar. Yet it could also be argued that Echard drew a lot of this more severe evidence also from Temple's Introduction, which is far from uniform in its attitude to William. For example, compare Temple, III, 140–1, with Echard, I, 150; Temple, III, 163, 166, with Echard, I, 149.

18 Temple, , Introduction, III, 130Google Scholar; Echard, , History, I, 148Google Scholar.

19 Echard, , History, I, 135Google Scholar.

20 That is, if when referring to Sir Thomas More's Edward IV, Temple meant Edward V. (Temple, , Introduction, III, 68Google Scholar.)

21 Temple, , Introduction, III, 68–9Google Scholar.

22 A complete history of England: with the lives of all the kings and queens thereof; from the earliest account of time, to the death of his late majesty King William III. Containing a faithful relation of all affairs of stale ecclesiastical and civil (3 vols., London, 1706)Google Scholar.

23 Oldmixon, John, A review of Dr Zachary Grey's defence of our antient and modern historians (London, 1725), p. 57Google Scholar, in which Oldmixon claims ‘he was the sole Editor of the Compleat History of England, wrote all the Notes, several of the Reigns, and the entire Index.’

24 Levine, Joseph M., ‘Ancients, moderns, and history: the continuity of English historical writing in the later seventeenth century’, in Korshin, P. J. (ed.), Studies in change and revolution (London, 1972), pp. 54–7Google Scholar.

25 The distinction made here between the content and the structure of White Kennett's newly writ third volume of the Complete history is a valid one, for Kennett and Echard shared many attitudes and interpretations of seventeenth-century English history which may be described as ‘content’, but while Echard couched these within a conventional narrative/constitutional structure, Kennett adopted a structure which cannot adequately be described in a single footnote. It was a structure based on a very different approach to the sources and their incorporation within the text; and one which can be argued was written backwards from the revolution of 1688 and the concerns of the early eighteenth century, rather than forwards from the new medieval studies. Above all, it was designed to elucidate the continual struggle through the seventeenth century against popery and, in a secondary but related way, against arbitrary power and the power of France, in which Kennett always sided with those whom he considered the evidence showed sought to preserve the Church of England.

26 See footnote 2 above.

27 Echard, , History, I, 787–95Google Scholar.

28 Ibid. I, 903–4.

29 Ibid. I, 911–12.

30 Ibid. I, 913–14.

31 Ibid. I, 949, 941–2, 947.

32 Ibid. I, 980.

33 Echard, , The history of England. From the beginning of the reign of King Charles the First, to the restoration of King Charles the Second (1st edn of the second volume, London, 1718), II, 2Google Scholar. Clarendon, , The history of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, begun in the year 1641… (1st ednfolio, Oxford, 1702). I. 3, 4–5Google Scholar.

34 Echard, , History, II, 2Google Scholar.

35 Ibid. II, 2–3. After an extensive search in the earlier literature, in which there are ample references to the certain limits of the constitution between prince and people (for example, Welwood, James, Memoirs of the most material transactions in England, for the last hundred years, preceding the revolution of 1688, 4th edn, 1702, pp. 1–2Google Scholar) I have found only one reference of similar wording supporting the opposite contention. In the third book of The history of the Rebellion, when discussing the act for the continuance of parliament, Clarendon wrote: ‘After the Act…the House of Commons took much more upon them, in point of their Priviledges, than they had done…though that Act, neither Added anything to, nor Extended their Jurisdiction: which Jurisdiction, the Wisdom of Former times kept from being Limited or Denned; there being Then no danger of Excess; and it being much more agreeable to the nature of the Supream Court to have an Unlimited Jurisdiction’ (Clarendon, , The history, I, 212Google Scholar; Macray edn, I, 355–6). Thus it seems possible that from this casual reference to a jurisdiction which ‘the Wisdom of Former times kept from being Limited or Defined’ (which was not an essential theme in Clarendon's structure), Echard may have developed the thesis which would be central to his own interpretation of the seventeenth century. Apart from this one brief hint, the strength of such a concept before Echard remains uncertain.

36 Welwood, , Memoirs, first appendix, p. 261Google Scholar.

37 Echard, , History, II, 3Google Scholar.

38 Ibid.; Clarendon, , The history of the Rebellion, I, 56 (Macray edn, I, 90)Google Scholar.

39 Echard, , History, II, 6Google Scholar.

40 Ibid. II, 3–4.

41 Ibid. II, 4–5, 7.

42 Ibid. II, 7; Welwood, , Memoirs, p. 42Google Scholar

43 Echard, , History, II, 8Google Scholar.

44 Ibid. II, 7.

45 Douglas, David, English Scholars, p. 135Google Scholar; Kramnick, Isaac, ‘Augustan politics and English historiography’, pp. 48–51Google Scholar.

46 de Thoyras, Rapin, The history of England, Written in French by Mr De Rapin Thoyras. Done into English, with additional notes…by N. Tindal… (15 vols., 1st edn, London, 1725–1731), for example, in, 222; V, 14Google Scholar.

47 Hervey, John Lord, Ancient and modern liberty slated and compar'd (London, 1734), p. 41Google Scholar.

48 Echard, , History, II, 2Google Scholar; Hervey, , Ancient and modern liberty, pp. 34–5, 37Google Scholar; Welwood, , Memoirs, pp. 126–7Google Scholar; Echard, , History, III, 5, 38Google Scholar

49 Hervey, , Ancient and modern liberty, pp. 23, 29, 24–5Google Scholar; Echard, , Histoy, II, 3–4Google Scholar.

50 Hume, David, The history of Great Britain. The reigns of James I and Charles I, introduced by Duncan Forbes (reproduction of the 1st edn, Edinburgh, 1754, in Penguin, 1970), pp. 219, 225–6, 261, 346, 396Google Scholar. In this context Duncan Forbes's excellent work on the ancestry of Hume's History, Hume's philosophical politics (Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar, is unfortunately of little assistance. None of the five references to Echard consider him in this context and he is curiously absent from several critical discussions of this subject-matter; for example, on pages 248–9 and 263.

51 Douglas, , English scholars, p. 19Google Scholar.

52 Echard, , History, II, 10, 14Google Scholar.

53 Ibid. II, 81, 87, 101.

54 Carte, Thomas, A general history of England (4 vols., London, 1747–1755)Google Scholar; for example, III, preface, 762.

55 Echard, , History, II, 213, 254, 310, 326Google Scholar; 14, 87, 637; see 646–9.

56 Kennett, , The complete History, IGoogle Scholar, ‘To the reader’.

57 Echard, , History, II, 254Google Scholar; 650, 677.

58 Ibid. III, 5, 38; 81.

59 Ibid. III, 190, 205; 229–30; 159.

60 Ibid. III, 800, 817; 819; 920.

61 Ibid. III, 908.

62 Burnet, Gilbert, History of my own time. vol. I. from the Restoration of King Charles II. To the settlement of King William and Queen Mary at the Revolution … (London, 1724), pp. 159–60Google Scholar; 424–48; 701, 737, 745.

63 B. L. Add. MS 28,275, fo.31. William Wake to Tonson, 19 Sept. 1717.

64 Reprinted in Lucy Aikin, The life of Joseph Addison (London, 1843), II, 211–12.

65 Hearne, Thomas, Reliquiae Heamianae, ed. Buchanan-Brown, John (London, 1966), p. 194Google Scholar.

66 Calamy, Edmund, A letter to Mr archdeacon Echard, upon occasion of his History of England: wherein the true principles of the Revolution are defended; the whigs and dissenters vindicated; several persons of distinction clear'd from aspersions; and a number of historical mistakes rectify'd (London, 1718), pp. 59–60, 24–5; 13–14Google Scholar.

67 Ibid. pp. 60–2.

68 Ibid. pp. 35–6.

69 An answer to Dr Edmund Calamy's letter to Mr archdeacon Eachard, upon occasion of his History of England. Wherein the truths deliver'd by that author are defended, loyalty and the Church of England vindicated, several persons fairly represented, and a number of wilful mistakes rectified. By a lover of truth and no doctor of divinity (London, 1718), pp. 19Google Scholar; 41 and see 24, 39.

70 Rogers, J. P. W., ‘The whig controversialist as dunce: a study of the literary fortunes and misfortunes of John Oldmixon (1673–1742)’ (unpublished D.Phil, dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1968), pp. 336, 481–2Google Scholar, has established there is no doubt Oldmixon compiled the index to vols. II and III of Echard's History, though not to vol. I; referring to a letter of 9 Nov. 1717 from Oldmixon to Tonson (Edinburgh University Library, MS Lai, II, 423/181) and to Oldmixon, , A review of Dr Zachary Grey's defence… p. 57Google Scholar.

71 Edinburgh University Library, MS Lai. II. 423/182, reprinted in J. P. W. Rogers, ‘The whig controversialist’, appendix V, p. 486.

72 Oldmixon, John, The history of England during the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth including the history of the Reformation of the Churches of England and Scotland… (London, 1739), preface, p. iGoogle Scholar.

73 Oldmixon, John, The history of England, during the reigns of the royal house of Stuart wherein the errors of late histories are discover'd and corrected… (London, 1729/1730), pp. 68, 148, 370Google Scholar; 770; 452, 154.