Personal blog of Mark Thompson. Formerly Managing Director of GCAS Design in Belfast, Northern Ireland (from 1999 - 2006) and Chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency (from June 2005 - June 2009). Thoughts on Ulster-Scots heritage, identity, evangelical Protestant faith, music and other stuff I stumble upon.
Every movement claims to be led by true believers committed to the noble cause. However it often turns out that, despite honourable personal history and the appearance of ideological devotion, many aspiring leaders turn out to be driven by self-interest, and their true ideology is eventually revealed to only ever have been self-advancement all along. Human nature always wins.
Hugh Speke (1656-1724) has been described as "the second son of a well known west country family, and so far misread his own character as to mistake a taste for lying and trouble making for a genius for intrigue".
The family seat was Whitelackington Manor (which you can rent as holiday accommodation). His father, George Speke (Wikipedia here), was a prominent figure in Somerset society. A former Royalist, he had become a Whig. George's wife, Mary Speke, was described in a government document in 1683 as "the most dangerous woman in the west" (there's a chapter about her in this 2013 book).
Two of their sons, JohnSpeke and Hugh Speke – joined the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion against King James II. John Speke is said to have "escaped by some miraculous chance the legal slaughter which followed the defeat at Sedgemoor". However, Hugh, and his younger brother Charles, were both arrested for alleged involvement in the rebellion.
In a "Bloody Assizes" mass trial held at Wells Cathedral, Charles was one of around 500 alleged rebels imprisoned there. 400 were sentenced to be transported as slaves to Caribbean plantations; 94 were sentenced to death by Judge George Jeffreys. Charles hadn't taken part in any battles, his "crime" was that he had shaken hands with the Duke of Monmouth. Jeffreys was told that Charles might be innocent - but Jeffreys' reply was "the family owes a life". So Charles was among the doomed 94. (my pics below from earlier this year).
Charles was offered a pardon - his life would be spared if he would become the false accuser of a much bigger fish, Edmund Prideaux of Forde Abbey.
Charles Speke declared, before his execution, that he was offered his life if he would swear against this gentleman. The great point desired was, that some one should swear that when the Duke’s party went to Ford Abbey, Mr. Prideaux drank Monmouth’s health ... he was told that if he would swear to the sending of men and horses by Mr. Prideaux, the King would be kind to him. This noble fellow denied any knowledge of the sending of anything by Mr. Prideaux.
Refusing to lie, Charles Speke was one of the group of twelve who Jeffreys condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered in the market square of Ilminster, in late September 1685:
The execution of Mr. Charles Speke took place in the market-place, Ilminster, from a large tree. He prayed for nearly an hour, and sung a psalm. The most heartpiercing lamentations were uttered by the inhabitants.
Hugh Speke remained in prison, and he wasn't the man that his young brother was. It was an era of corruption and bribery.
Mr. Hugh Speke continued in prison; but was desirous of obtaining his liberty. He addressed the Marquis of Powis, to know from the King upon what conditions he might be released. The answer returned was, that nothing could be done till his father’s and his own fines were paid, amounting in all to £2327 6s. 8d., and till security was given by his father in the sum of £20,000, and himself in £10,000, for their good behaviour.
Mr. Hugh Speke was well able to pay the fines; but being determined to oppose the King, he would not expose his friends to the risk of being security for him, At last the King himself proposed to Mr. Hugh Speke that he should pay into the Exchequer £5000 as a pledge of his own and family’s good behaviour, with the Royal promise that in case they demeaned themselves to his satisfaction that sum should be returned at the expiration of that time, and a pardon granted to George Speke, Esq. the father, Mary Speke, his wife, to Hugh Speke, the son, and Mary Jennings, his sister, a widow, who (the latter) was obnoxious to the Court, but against whom there never had been a prosecution.
Mr. Hugh Speke acceded to these terms; and in 1686 retired from London, which he judged to be no proper place for his residence, to Exeter, where he was chosen city council.
It all seemed so plausible and convincing. Closing with "Given under our Hand and Seal at our Headquarters at Sherburn Castle, the 28th day of November, 1688" it claimed to have been written by "William Henry, Prince of Orange" and signed off by his secretary "By his Highnesses special command, C. Huygens". It had all the hallmarks of authenticity. But it was a hoax.
Entitled "The Prince of Orange, His Third Declaration" it purported to be the latest in a series which had begun in the Netherlands around six weeks before.
THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLARATIONS: The firstDeclaration of William Henry Prince of Orange had been finished in the Netherlands on 10 October 1688, and was also signed off by "William Henry, Prince of Orange – By his Highnesses special command, C. Huygens". It seems that some had been printed, but politics in England had shifted and King James II had "begun to retract some of the arbitrary and despotick powers". So a second, shorter, AdditionalDeclaration was added, dated 24 October. This Additional Declaration was signed off in exactly the same way.
The Declaration, and the Additional Declaration, were then printed together as a single pamphlet. It was a Europe-wide phenomenon, in at least five languages in various towns, which in total were the biggest print run Europe hd ever known. I have plenty on this blog about it which I'll not repeat here now. The Declaration was pretty conciliatory, and, in places, not at all what people today might expect. It may also have been a template for the American Declaration of Independence almost 100 years later.
WHO DARES TO SPEKE OF '88?: But someone who was not impressed with William's Declaration was Hugh Speke –who decided to create a new, fake, "Third" one. He published it a large quantity in both in English and in Dutch.
"The original plan of Williamsburg was in the form of a cipher, made of the letters W and M, the initials of William and Mary. Its site was known as the Middle Plantation while Jamestown was the capital. Situated upon a ridge nearly equidistant from the York and James Rivers, it was an eligible place for a town, and there Governor Nicholson established the capital in 1698. It was the residence of the royal governors, and the capital of the colony, until the War of the Revolution…”
- from The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution : or, Illustrations by pen and pencil of the history, biography, scenery, relics and traditions, of the War for Independence, by Benson John Lossing (1851); footnote on page 264; online here.
However, I've not (yet) been able to find any corroborating evidence for this (the 1972 book Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland by Professor John William Reps is said to have analysed the tradition) – but even so, it's a great piece of folklore.
The W&M monogram / cipher is well-known and is still in use today by the College of William and Mary (see here), and other heritage brands and product ranges from the town such as brassware, pottery and jewellery.
Sir Francis Barnard (Wikipedia here) was appointed by King George II as the new colonial Governor of Massachussetts in June 1760. It was more than 70 years after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and many of the liberties which had been achieved then had steadily been rowed back by governments on both sides of the Atlantic - yes, the same also happened in Britain, and Ireland (see previous post here).
Even though the Glorious Revolution had ignited Boston in 1689 when the Declaration of William Henry Prince of Orange arrived at the quayside; even though the Governor had a residence on the island in Boston Harbour known as Castle William, and even though the Charter of Massachusetts Bay was known as the Charter of William and Mary, having been granted by them in 1691 – in the generations that followed, the Massachusetts ruling class gradually clawed back power from the people.
Perhaps as a symbol of his new power and increasing Royal domination, Barnard installed two portraits in the chamber of the Old Boston Town House where colonial government met – not of himself, or of the reigning King George II who had given him the job – but of the pre-Glorious Revolution tyrannical "absolute monarchs" King Charles II and King James II. Here are some pics of the chamber today (it was restored to its 1760s appearance, in a major project which was completed in 2014).
It's hard to imagine how shocking this must have been as a statement to the population of Massachusetts. There would have been people alive there in 1760 who could remember their parents' eyewitness accounts of the transatlantic Glorious Revolution's impact upon Britain, Ireland and New England. Popular literature in Boston, such as Rev. Increase Mather's A Narrative of the Miseries of New-England, By Reason of an Arbitrary Government Erected there (1688), and Rev. Daniel Neal's The History of New-England (1720) had carefully documented what had happened.
Back then, King James II's appointed Governor of New England was Edmund Andros. Before going to America, Andros had been part of the bloody rampage that James II inflicted upon south west England in 1685, killing "rebels" who opposed the King's tyrannical rule. In 1686 Andros was elevated to the post of Governor - but when the Glorious Revolution made landfall in Boston in April 1689, and news arrived of James II abdicating the throne and fleeing to France, Andros was seized by the people and imprisoned.
70 years later, the reinstatement of James II in portrait form, in the city's centre of civic power, was a symbol of the return of tyrannical government. Perhaps the authorities in 1760 Massachusetts could sense what was coming.
In October of that year, King George II died. Legally, this meant that laws known as "writs of assistance" had to be reapplied; these laws gave government agents a right to search any private property without a warrant.
Boston went into uproar. It was before these two ominous portraits that, in February 1761, lawyer James Otis Jr. famously confronted the satraps of Massachusetts with his five hour long "flame of fire" speech.
............................
Here's an extract from St. Botolph's Town: an account of Old Boston in Colonial Days by Mary Caroline Crawford (1908)
"Thus there stepped upon the stage of the world's history, for the first time, one of the most brilliant men America has ever produced. The scene of the now-famous trial, in which Otis played so important a part, was the council-chamber of the Old Boston Town House, an imposing and elegant apartment at the east end of the building, ornamented with fine full-length portraits of Charles II and James II.
Hutchinson presided and there were also in attendance four associate judges, wearing great wigs on their heads and rich scarlet robes upon their backs. Thronging the courtroom were the chief citizens and officers of the Crown, all of whom well understood that a matter of enormous importance was to be debated.
Among the young lawyers who were present on that important day was John Adams, a fresh-faced youth who had come up from his home in Braintree to hear what should be said. In his old age he wrote to William Tudor a description of the scene, which brings vividly before us the actors and the parts they took:
"Round a great fire were seated five judges, with Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson at their head as Chief-Justice, all arrayed in their new fresh rich robes of scarlet English broadcloth; in their large cambric bands and immense judicial wigs. At a long table were all the barristers-at-law of Boston and of the neighboring county of Middlesex, in gowns, bands and tie-wigs. They were not seated on ivory chairs, but their dress was more solemn and more pompous than that of the Roman senate, when the Gauls broke in upon them.
Two portraits of more than full length of King Charles the Second and of King James the Second, in splendid golden frames were hung up on the most conspicuous sides of the apartment. If my young eyes or old memory have not deceived me, these were as fine pictures as I ever saw;... they had been sent over without frames in Governor Pownall's time, but he was no admirer of Charles or James. The pictures were stowed away in a garret among rubbish until Governor Bernard came, who had them cleaned, superbly framed and placed in council for the admiration and imitation of all men, no doubt with the advice and concurrence of Hutchinson and all his nebula of stars and satellites."
The case was opened by Jeremiah Gridley, the king's attorney, who defended the validity of the writs on statute law and English practice. To which Oxenbridge Thacher replied in a strong legal argument which showed that the rule in English courts did not apply to America. Then the Advocate of Freedom began to speak, confounding all his opponents by the splendour of his eloquence.
"Otis," says John Adams, "was a flame of fire. With a plenitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eye into futurity, and a torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away everything before him!... Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born!"
............................
In 1765, with the Stamp Act escalating hostilities between London and America, John Adams wrote his magnificent A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law (online here):
Have not some generals, from England, treated us like servants, nay more like slaves than like Britons?... Have we not been trifled with, browbeaten, and trampled on, by former Governors, in a manner which no King of England since James the Second has dared to indulge towards his subjects?... Do you not represent them as forgetting that the Prince of Orange, was created King William by the people, on purpose that their rights might be eternal and inviolable?
In 1768, Governor Barnard oversaw the arrival in Boston of thousand of troops from Britain. As a result, a portrait of him which was hanging in Harvard College was attacked and had the heart cut out.
Just over nine years after Otis Jr's speech, in March 1770, it was outside the same Old Boston Town House that five civilians were killed in the Boston Massacre. Once again, it was before these two portraits that the very same lawyer John Adams represented the 29th Regiment of Foot in their trial.
The portraits were lost, probably destroyed, during the eventual Revolution, from 1775-1783.
Late in his life, in 1817, John Adams proposed that the artist John Trumbull should paint a new scene of the famous 1770 trial, ensuring that both portraits featured –
Since our national legislature have established a national painter,—a wise measure, for which I thank them,—my imagination runs upon the art, and has already painted, I know not how many, historical pictures ... the theatre and the scenery are the same with those at the discussion of writs of assistance. The same glorious portraits of King Charles II and King James II, to which might be added, and should be added, little miserable likenesses of Governor Winthrop, Governor Bradstreet, Governor Endicott, and Governor Belcher, hung up in obscure corners of the room.
.............................
Of course, the history has since been made nationalistic, presented as British v American, re-written through 19th century nationalisms and their hunger for narratives. In our era, it's become fodder for consumer merch ranges.
But in 1760 it wasn't a question of nationality. It was British tyranny v British liberty. The limits of government. The basis of revolution. Just like it had been back in 1688.
.............................
PS: Today, the building is called the Old State House. I was fortunate to visit it very briefly in December 2023.
PPS: Here is John Adams' personal copy of Rev. Daniel Neal's The History of New-England - online here. Adams' personal library is searchable here.
"They've come to take all your rights – Hail to the king, kneel to the crown"...
Another USA250 project I had a small role in are the excellent duo of documentaries made by the team at DoubleBand Films, for BBC Northern Ireland. A superb range of excellent contributors throughout.
4th July 2026, and USA250, has come and gone. Some viewed that day as a deadline, but it has also provided a springboard from which newer, better, projects can be developed for the next (transatlantic and digital) generation. The focus of the 250th anniversary has brought an outpouring of new publications and knowledge, which can be built upon.
One that I helped with was a major, and ambitious, new website built by The Nerve Centre, funded by Northern Ireland Screen. I provided well over 100 pieces of content, which the Nerve Centre team edited to suit the audience, and brought it all to life.
Entitled America's Ulster Story, it has the potential to grow in the years ahead. Just before the 4th July, the first phase, Chapter One: Liberty People went live. It covers the years up to 1776. Hopefully more chapters and eras will be added over time.
Aimed at the younger audience, it uses animation, illustration and creativity to communicate diverse and content-rich stories.
Today's the day. It was 2nd August 1776 when the "engrossed" version of the Declaration of Independence was signed. This interview, with author Michael Auslin (Wikipedia here), is among the very best that I've seen in this semiquincentennial year – as is his truly excellent new book, National Treasure: How the Declaration of Independence Made America.
At 53:45 during the Q&A session, he explains the conceptual inspirations such as the 1689 Bill of Rights and also the Bible, quoting President Calvin Coolidge's 150th anniversary address of 1926 (online here). I recommend you watch the whole interview.
There's certainly an argument that the leaders did not see themselves as revolutionaries. They thought they saw themselves as conservators, conservators of the rights as Englishmen that they had that they had exercised in their colonies on this continent for nigh on 160 years or so, 150 plus years by the time of 1776, that the king and parliament in what they called the "great conspiracy" were trying to take away from them. They were not year zero people, they were "this is our inheritance", what they called their "constitutions", their unwritten constitutions of self-government
For the Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776 gets all the attention because it was the date that was printed in huge font at the top of the first unsigned version. But it was 2 August 1776 when the new calligraphic "engrossed" version was signed, by most of the 56 delegates of the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia.
Here's the page from Charles Thomson's handwritten "Corrected Transcript Journal" for what Congress did that day. No pomp or ceremony, just an efficient reference –
“Friday August 2. 1776.
The declaration of independence being engrossed and compared at the table was signed by the members.”
and then they moved on to regular business.
Image from Fold3.com
........
It would be over 40 years later when the United States began to craft its national narratives - like all nations, a blend of history and mythology, to shape a sense of common identity and patriotism.
The Declaration was then given new life and reverential importance – historian Pauline Maier described it as "American Scripture".
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had fallen out, and they had differing memories of what had happened back on 4 July 1776. So it was one of the signers, Thomas McKean, who put pen to paper to clarify who did what and when.
Jefferson would later say that, had he known what a big deal the Declaration would become, he wouldn't have allowed anyone to edit his first version, and would have kept the fame for himself.
In 1817, artist John Trumbull was commissioned to paint a imagined scene of 2 July 1776, when the committee presented its draft to Thomson.
The painting was unveiled on the 50th anniversary – 4 July 1826. That very same day, their life's work complete, Jefferson and Adams both died.
