VARIOUS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CAUSES OF THE GREAT FIRE.
Whether the fire came casually, or on design, remains still a secret:
though the general opinion might be that it was casual, yet there were
presumptions on the other side of a very odd nature. Great calamities
naturally produce various conjectures; men seldom considering, that
the most stupendous effects often proceed from the most minute causes,
or most remote accidents. People failed not to give a scope to their
imagination, and to form guesses concerning the causes and authors of
this afflicting and astonishing misfortune.
The king in his speech calls it "God's judgment;" the pious and
religious, and at first all other men, generally and naturally
ascribed it to the just vengeance of Heaven, on a city where vice and
immorality reigned so openly and shamefully, and which had not been
sufficiently humbled by the raging pestilence of the foregoing year.
Sir Edward Turner, speaker of the House of Commons, at presenting
bills for the royal assent, says, "We must for ever with humility,
acknowledge the justice of God in punishing this whole nation by the
late dreadful conflagration of London."
The act of common-council for rebuilding, says, "The fire was by all
justly resented as a most sad and dismal judgment of Heaven."
But time soon produced abundance of suspicions and variety of opinions
concerning the means and instruments made use of.
There were some so bold as even to suspect the king. Those reports,
and Oates's and Bedloe's narratives, are suppositions too monstrous,
and the evidence too wretchedly mean to deserve consideration.
The citizens were not well satisfied with the Duke of York's
behaviour: they thought him a little too gay and negligent for such an
occasion; that his look and air discovered the pleasure he took in
that dreadful spectacle; on which account, a jealousy that he was
concerned in it was spread with great industry, but with very little
appearance of truth.
Some suspected it was an insidious way of the Dutch and French making
war upon the English; their two fleets being then nearest to a
conjunction. What increased the suspicion was, that some criminals
that suffered were said to be under the direction of a committee at
London, and received orders from another council in Holland.
Not long before the fire, the French sent the governor of Chousey in a
small boat with a letter to Major-General Lambert, then prisoner in
Guernsey, to offer him terms to contrive the delivery of that island
to them.
Divers strangers, both French and Dutch, were apprehended, upon
suspicion, imprisoned, and strictly examined. It was said, a Dutch boy
of ten years old, confessed, that his father, his uncle, and himself,
had thrown fire-balls into the house where the fire began, through a
window which stood open.
The English fleet had some time before landed on the Vly, an island
near the Texel, and burnt it; upon which some came to De Wit, and
offered, in revenge, if they were but assisted, to set London on fire;
but he rejected the [villanous] proposal; and thought no more on it
till he heard the city was burnt.
The fire which laid so great part of London in ashes, gave a fresh
occasion to the enemies of the republicans to charge them with being
the malicious authors thereof; because the fire happened to break out
the third of September, a day esteemed fortunate to the republicans,
on account of the victories of Dunbar and Worcester, obtained by
Oliver Cromwell, when general of the armies of the commonwealth of
England.
In the April before, some commonwealth men were found in a plot, and
hanged; and at their execution confessed, that they had been
requested, to assist in a design of firing London on the second of
September.
At the trial of the conspirators at the Old Bailey, it appeared, a
design was laid to surprise the town and fire the city; the third of
September was pitched on for the attempt, as being found by Lilly's
almanack, and a scheme erected for that purpose, to be a lucky day.
The third of September was a day auspicious and full of expectation
from one party, but at this time ominous and direful to the nation.
The city was burnt at the time projected and prognosticated, which
gave a strong suspicion, though not a proof, of the authors and
promoters of it.
The Dutch were pressed by the commonwealth men to invade England, and
were assured of powerful assistance, and hopes of a general
insurrection, but they would not venture in so hazardous a design.
Though several persons were imprisoned, it was not possible to
discover, or prove, that the house where this dreadful calamity began,
was fired on purpose. Whether it was wilful or accidental was a long
time a party dispute.
The great talk at that time was, who were the burners of the city?
some said it was contrived and carried on by a conspiracy of the
Papists and Jesuits, which was afterward offered to be made appear in
the popish plot. And there came in so many testimonies to prove that
it was the plotted weapon of the papists, as caused the parliament to
appoint a committee to enquire into it, and receive informations.
By the dreadful fire in 1666, multitudes of people lost their estates,
goods and merchandizes; and many families, once in flourishing
circumstances, were reduced to beggary. From the inscription on the
plinth of the lower pedestal of the Monument, it appears that the
Papists were the authors of this fire; the Parliament being of this
persuasion, addressed the king to issue a proclamation, requiring all
Popish Priests and Jesuits to depart the kingdom within a month; and
appointed a committee, who received evidence of some Papists, who were
seen throwing fire-balls into houses, and of others who had materials
for it in their pockets. This sad disaster produced some kind of
liberty to the Non-conformists.
A sudden and dreadful massacre of the Protestants was feared; and the
suspicion confirmed by particular kinds of knives found after the fire
in barrels.
Several evidences were given to the committee that men were seen in
several parts of the city casting fire-balls into houses; some that
were brought to the guard of soldiers, and to the Duke of York, but
were never heard of afterwards. Some weeks after, Sir Robert Brooks,
chairman of the committee, went to France, and as he was ferried over
a river, was drowned, with a kinsman of his, and the business drowned
with him.[7]
[Footnote 7: Oldmison, i. 547.]
Oates, in his narrative, says: The dreadful fire in 1666 was
principally managed by Strange, the provincial of the Jesuits, in
which the society employed eighty or eighty-six men, and spent seven
hundred fire balls; and over all their vast expense, they were
fourteen thousand pounds gainers by the plunder; among which was a box
of jewels consisting of a thousand carats of diamonds. He farther
learned, that the fire in Southwark, in 1676, was brought about by the
like means; and though in that they were at the expense of a thousand
pounds, they made shift to get two thousand clear into their own
pockets.[8]
[Footnote 8: Rapin, ii. 690.]
Mr. Echard was told by an eminent prelate, that Dr. Grant, a Papist,
was strongly suspected, who having a share in the waterworks,
contrived, as is believed, to stop up the pipes the night before the
fire broke out, so that it was many hours before any water could be
got after the usual manner.
Dr. Lloyd, afterward bishop of Worcester, told Dr. Burnet, that one
Grant, a Papist, had sometime before applied himself to Lloyd, who had
great interest with the Countess of Clarendon, (who had a large estate
in the new river, which is brought from Ware to London) and said he
could raise that estate considerably if she would make him a trustee
for her. His schemes were probable, and he was made one of the board
that governed that matter; and by that he had a right to come as
often as he pleased to view their works at Islington. He went thither
the Saturday before the fire broke out, and called for the key of the
place where the heads of the pipes were, and turned all the cocks,
which were then open, and stopped the water, and went away, and
carried the keys with him. When the fire broke out next morning, they
opened the pipes in the streets to find water, but there was none.
Some hours were lost in sending to Islington, where the doors were to
be broke open, and the cocks turned; and it was long before the water
got from Islington. Grant denied that he turned the cocks; but the
officer of the works affirmed that he had, according to order, set
them all a-running, and that no person had got the keys from him but
Grant; who confessed he had carried away the keys, but did it without
design.
When we consider, several depositions were made after the fire, of its
breaking out in several different places at the same time, and that
one man confessed his setting fire to the houses where it began, when
he was executed for it: when we remember Bishop Lloyd's testimony
concerning Grant, we cannot easily be convinced that it was entirely
accidental.
Bishop Kennet gives the following account: There was but one man tried
at the Old Bailey for being the incendiary, who was convicted by his
own confession, and executed for it. His name was Roger[9] Hubert, a
French Huguenot[10] of Rohan, in Normandy. Some people shammed away
this confession, and said he was _non compos mentis_; and had a mind,
it seems, to assume the glory of being hanged for the greatest
villain. Others say he was sober and penitent; and being, after
conviction, carried through the ruins to shew where he put fire, he
himself directed through the ashes and rubbish, and pointed at the
spot where the first burning house stood.
[Footnote 9: Robert, according to Rapin.]
[Footnote 10: Bishop Burnet and some others say he was a Papist.]
The fire was generally charged on the Papists; one Hubert, a a
Frenchman, who was seized in Essex as he was flying to France,
confessed he had begun the conflagration. He was blindfolded, and
purposely conducted to wrong places, where he told them it was not the
spot where he began the flames; but when he was brought to the right,
he confessed that was the place where he threw the fire-ball into the
baker's house, the place where the fatal fire began, which he
persisted in to the last moments of his execution. He was hanged upon
no other evidence: though his broken account made some believe him
melancholy mad.[11]
[Footnote 11: Burnet, Abr., 120.]
But Oates several years afterwards informed the world the execrable
deed was performed by a knot of eighty jesuits, friars, and priests,
of several nations.[12]
[Footnote 12: Howell, Impartial History of James II., i. 9.]
After all examinations there was but one man tried for being the
incendiary, who confessing the fact, was executed for it: this was
Robert Hubert, a French Hugenot, of Rohan, in Normandy, a person
falsely said to be a Papist, but really a sort of lunatic, who by mere
accident was brought into England just before the breaking out of the
fire, but not landed till two days after, as appeared by the evidence
of Laurence Peterson, the master of the ship who had him on board.[13]
[Footnote 13: Echard, i. 169.]
It was soon after complained of, that Hubert was not sufficiently
examined who set him to work, and who joined with him. And Mr. Hawles,
in his remarks upon Fitzharris's trial is bold to say, that the
Commons resolving to examine Hubert upon that matter next day, Hubert
was hanged before the house sat, so could tell no farther tales.
Lord Russell and Sir Henry Capel observed to the House of Commons
(1680) that those that were taken in carrying on that wicked act, were
generally discharged without trial.
In 1679, the House of Commons were suddenly alarmed with an
information of a fresh design of the Papists to burn London a second
time. The house of one Bird, in Fetter-lane, being set on fire, his
servant Elizabeth Oxly, was suspected of firing it wilfully, and sent
to prison. She confessed the fact, and declared she had been employed
to do it by one Stubbs, a Papist, who had promised her five pounds.
Stubbs being taken up, confessed he persuaded her to do it, and that
Father Giffard, his confessor, put him upon it; telling him it was no
sin to burn all the houses of heretics. He added he had frequent
conferences on this affair with Giffard and two Irishmen. Stubbs and
the maid declared, the Papists were to make an insurrection, and
expected an army of sixty thousand men from France. It was generally
inferred from this incident, that it was not Giffard's fault (nor that
of his party), that the city of London was not burnt, as in the year
1666; and confirmed those in their opinion who thought that general
conflagration was the contrivance and work of the Papists.
The hand of man was made use of in the beginning and carrying on of
this fire. The beginning of the fire at such a time when there had
been so much hot weather which had dried the houses, and made them the
more fit for fuel; the beginning of it in such a place, where there
were so many timber houses, and the shops filled with so much
combustible matter; and the beginning of it just when the wind did
blow so fiercely upon that corner toward the rest of the city, which
then was like tinder to the sparks; this doth smell of a popish
design, hatched in the same nest with the gunpowder plot. The world
sufficiently knows how correspondent this is to popish principles and
practices; they might, without any scruple of their kinds of
conscience, burn an heretical city, as they count it, into ashes: for
beside the dispensations they can have from his holiness (rather his
wickedness) it is not unlikely but they count such an action as this
meritorious.
Lord Chancellor (Earl of Nottingham) in his speech in giving judgment
against Lord Viscount Stafford, said, "Who can doubt any longer that
London was burnt by Papists?" though there was not one word in the
whole trial relating to it.
The inscription on the plinth of the lower pedestal of the Monument
has given an opportunity to the Reverend Mr. Crookshanks to say, it
appears that the Papists were the authors of the fire, and that the
Parliament being of the same persuasion, addressed the king.
The inscription is in English:
"This pillar was set up in perpetual remembrance of the most dreadful
burning of this protestant city, begun and carried on by the treachery
and malice of the popish faction, in the beginning of September, in
the year of our Lord 1666. In order to the carrying on their horrid
plot for extirpating the protestant religion and old English liberty,
and introducing popery and slavery."[14]
[Footnote 14: Old. Hist. of the Church of Scotland, i. 207.
[Transcriber's Note: The marker for this footnote is missing in the
original; its location has been guessed.]]
This inscription was erased by King James upon his succession to the
crown; but reinscribed presently after the revolution, in such deep
characters as are not easily to be blotted out.
The latter part of the inscription on the north side (_Sed furor
papisticus, qui tam dira patravit, nondum restinguitur_) containing an
offensive truth, was erased at King James's accession, and reinscribed
soon after the revolution.
Mr. Pope differs much in his opinion concerning these inscriptions,
when he says--
Where London's column, pointing at the skies,
Like a tall bully, rears its head, and lies.
It seems wonderful (says the author of the Craftsman) that the plague
was not as peremptorily imputed to the Papists as the fire.[15]
[Footnote 15: Seymour, i. 454. [Transcriber's Note: The marker for
this footnote is missing in the original; its location has been
guessed.]]
There was a general suspicion of incendiaries laying combustible stuff
in many places, having observed several houses to be on fire at the
same time: but we are told, God with his great bellows did blow upon
it, and made it spread quickly, and horrible flakes of fire mounted to
the skies.
There was a strange concurrence of several natural causes which
occasioned the fire so vigorously to spread and increase.
There was a great supineness and negligence in the people of the house
where it began: it began between one and two o'clock after midnight,
when all were in a dead sleep: on a Saturday night, when many of the
eminent citizens, merchants, and others, were retired into the
country, and left servants to look to their city houses: it happened
in the long vacation, at a time of year when many wealthy citizens are
wont to be in the country at fairs, or getting in debts, and making up
accounts with their chapmen.
The houses where it began were mostly built of timber, and those very
old: the closeness and narrowness of the streets did much facilitate
the progress of the fire, and prevented the bringing in engines. The
wares and commodities stowed and vended in those parts were most
combustible of any other, as oil, pitch, tar, cordage, hemp, flax,
rosin, wax, butter, cheese, wine, brandy, sugar, and such like.
The warmth of the preceding season had so dried the timber, that it
was never more apt to take fire; and an easterly wind (which is the
driest of all) had blown for several days together before, and at that
time very strongly.
The unexpected failing of the water from the New River; the engine at
London-bridge called the Thames water-tower was out of order, and in a
few hours was itself burnt down, so that the pipes which conveyed the
water from thence through the streets, were soon empty.
Beside, there was an unusual negligence at first, and a confidence of
easily quenching it, and of its stopping at several places afterward;
which at last turned into confusion, consternation, and despair;
people choosing rather by flight to save their goods, than by a
vigorous opposition to save their own houses and the whole city.
Thus a small spark, from an unknown cause, for want of timely care,
increased to such a flame, that nothing could extinguish, which laid
waste the greatest part of the city in three days' time.
The king in his speech to the parliament, says, "God be thanked for
our meeting together in this place: little time hath passed since we
were almost in despair of having this place left to meet in. You see
the dismal ruins the fire hath made: and nothing but a miracle of
God's mercy could have preserved what is left from the same
destruction."
When the presumptions of the city's being burnt by design came to be
laid before a committee of the House of Commons, they were found of no
weight: and the many stories, published at that time with great
assurance, were declared void of credibility.[16]
[Footnote 16: Echard, iii. 168. [Transcriber's Note: The marker for
this footnote is missing in the original; its location has been
guessed.]]
After all, it may perhaps be queried, whether the foregoing rumours
and examinations, though incongruous with each other, may not afford
some colour to a whisper, that the government itself was not without
some ground of suspicion of having been the secret cause of the
conflagration; to afford an opportunity of restoring the capital of
the nation, in a manner more secure from future contagion, more
generally wholesome for the inhabitants, more safe from fires, and
more beautiful on the whole, from the united effect of all these
salutary purposes. Such, however, has been the result of that
temporary disaster, whether accidental or not; and if intended, a more
pardonable instance of doing evil that good may come of it, cannot
perhaps be produced.[17]
[Footnote 17: Burnet, Abr. 121. [Transcriber's Note: The marker for
this footnote is missing in the original; its location has been
guessed.]]