2nd §. No 3,, Jan. 19. °56.] 
principled adventurer.” Hugh Speke and his 
whole family were venturers, if I may so speak, 
not adventurers. They risked fortune and life, 
and paid the penalty. They were “ unquiet,” 
after the fashion of all enthusiasts — restless as 
“were all the men of that age whom we celebrate 
as the heroes of the Revolution. 
Opposition to the government now appeared 
hopeless. Perhaps the Spekes thought so, though 
Hugh says he hoped for some better chance of 
doing good service, if he could obtain his freedom. 
Application, therefore, was made to the Marquis of 
- Powis, one of the most moderate of the party then 
in the ascendant, to know on what conditions he 
might be released, and received for answer that 
nothing could be done till his father’s and his own 
fines were paid — more than 2,300/., and till 
security was given for good behaviour of 20,0007. 
for the father, and 10,000/. for the son. The 
Spekes were willing to pay the fines, but they 
could not, or would not, find the securities ; for as 
Hugh says,. “ good behaviour, in the style of that 
reign was a blind and absolute compliance with 
the arbitrary designs” of the Court. At last, an 
expedient was proposed — that the Spekes should 
pay 5000/7. into the Exchequer as a security for 
good behaviour, with a royal promise that it 
should be refunded in two years, in case they 
should demean themselves to his Majesty’s satis- 
faction; who thereupon woulé grant a pardon to 
the father and the son, and to Mary Speke the 
mother, John Speke the eldest son, and Mary 
Jennings the sister, a widow, all of whom were 
obnoxious, although they had not all been prose- 
cuted! 
With these hard conditions they complied, 
thinking it better than to risk the ruin of their 
friends, by giving 30,0007. security. This was in 
the year 1686, and Hugh Speke, feeling that 
London was no longer a proper place for him to 
reside in, withdrew into his native country, and 
being a barrister, was soon after appointed City 
Council for Exeter, where he continued to reside 
till a very short time before the arrival of the 
Prince of Orange, when he returned to London, 
thinking that he might there be of more service 
to the good cause. 
Mr. Macaulay says “Speke asserted” that 
when the Dutch invasion had thrown Whitehall 
into consternation, he, Speke, “ offered his services 
to the Court.” The idea of such a contradiction 
to the one devoted purpose of a whole life ought 
surely to have startled Mr. Macaulay into a doubt. 
But it isa mere mistake. Speke says (p. 24.), 
that he was first spoken to by the Marquis of 
Powis, who reminded him of the pardon he and 
his family had received, and hoped they would 
be found grateful and zealous in the king’s cause; 
that the next day he received a letter from Chif- 
finch, ordering him to attend at Chiflinch’s apart- 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
47 
ments, which he did, and was there met by the 
king, who, after much discourse, said that he, 
Speke, could do him more important service than 
any gentleman in England, being well acquainted 
with the more considerable gentlemen in the West 
who were likely to join with, or attend the Prince 
| of Orange; that what he and his family had suf- 
fered, “through misinformation,” would secure 
him favour with the prince, and that if he would 
join the prince so soon as he landed, and send in- 
telligence of his strength and designs, he would 
not only repay him the 50002. which he had paid 
into the Exchequer, but give him 5000/. additional. 
Such a proposition was strictly consistent with 
the character of James, who believed that no man 
had either principles or conscience but himself; 
and Speke’s conduct was equally characteristic, 
for though he took a few hours to deliberate, it 
was only to consider kow he could best “ improve” 
the opportunity which Providence had thus put 
into his hands, to “the interest, honour, and 
security of his religion and country.” Speke 
agreed to hold himself in readiness, but required 
three blank passes, one to be signed by the king, 
the others by Feversham, the general in command, 
without which he might be stopped on the road. 
This was agreed to, the passes were given; and 
so soon as certain intelligence of the prince’s 
landing was received, Speke started, reached the 
prince at Exeter, to whom he explained the whole 
design, and to whom he delivered the passes, which, 
he says, proved of no small use. Speke, how- 
ever, with the approval of the prince, continued 
to act and write as if his intentions were to serve 
the king; but all his letters, he says, were pre- 
viously submitted to, and approved by the prince. 
If this be not true, let it be disproved; if it be, 
Speke acted as many others acted, without Speke’s 
apology, from “ Est-il possible ?” down to Church- 
ill and Kirk. 
Mr. Macaulay further tells us, as we have be- 
fore observed, that it was “after the lapse of 
twenty-seven years” that Speke’s claim as the 
writer of the forged Declaration was first. put 
forward; and that we “may reasonably suspect 
him of having waited for the death of those 
who could confute him.” This reasonable sus- 
picion, I believe, rests on an assertion of Echard’s, 
who, in 1725 says, that no person ever claimed 
the merit of it but Hugh Speke, “of late years, 
when no man perhaps could contradict him” 
(p. 183.). Mr. Macaulay was obviously led by .~ 
these vague words to assume that the merit or 
demerit of this was first claimed by Speke in his 
Secret History, published in 1715. But from that 
Secret History (p. 50.) we learn that the fact was 
charged against Speke by Dyer, whom he calls 
“that noted Jacobite tool and newswriter,” in 
1704; and I have it now before me, reproduced, 
I suppose, from Dyer, in Old Stories, published 
