An Historical Narrative of the Great and Terrible Fire of London, Sept. 2nd 1666 Part 3

By Stat. 19 and 20 Car. 2, any three or more of the judges were authorised to hear and determine all differences between landlords and tenants, or occupiers of buildings or other things by the fire demolished. They were, without the formalities of courts of law or equity, upon the inquisition or verdict of jurors, testimonies of witnesses upon oath, examination of persons interested, or otherwise, to determine all differences: they were, in complaints, to issue out notes of time and place for the parties' attendance, and proceed to make orders: their determinations were final, without appeal, writ of error, or reversal. Their orders were to be obeyed by all persons, and binding to representatives for ever. The judgments and determinations were recorded in a book by them signed: which book is placed and intrusted in the custody of the lord mayor and aldermen for the time being, to remain as a perpetual and lasting record. The judges were not to take any fee or reward, directly or indirectly, for any thing they did by virtue of that act. All differences not being determined, the act was continued in force till Sept. 29, 1672.

In grat.i.tude to the memory of these judges, the city caused their pictures, in full proportion in their scarlet robes, to be set up in the Guildhall, with their names underneath, viz.

Sir Heneage Finch, Sir Orlando Bridgman, Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Richard Rainsford, Sir Edward Turner, Sir Thomas Tyrril, Sir John Archer, Sir William Morton, Sir Robert Atkins, Sir Samuel Brown, Sir Edward Atkins, Sir John Vaughan, Sir John North, Sir Thomas Twisden, Sir Christopher Turner, Sir William Wyld, Sir Hugh Windham, Sir William Ellys, Sir Edward Thurland, Sir Timothy Lyttleton, Sir John Kelynge, Sir William Windham.

The city rose out of its ashes after the dreadful fire, as it was first built, not presently, by building continued streets, in any one part, but first here a house and there a house, to which others by degrees were joined; till, at last, single houses were united into whole streets; whole streets into one beautiful city; not merely, as before, a great and magnificent city, for in a short time it not only excelled itself, but any other city in the whole world that comes near it, either in largeness, or number of inhabitants.

The beginning of the year 1670, the city of London was rebuilt, with more s.p.a.ce and splendour than had been before seen in England. The act for rebuilding it was drawn by Sir Matthew Hale, with so true judgment and foresight, that the whole city was raised out of its ashes without any suits of law; which if that bill had not prevented them, would have brought a second charge on the city, not much less than the fire itself had been. And upon that, to the amazement of all Europe, London was, in four years' time, rebuilt with so much beauty and magnificence, that they who saw it in both states, before and after the fire, could not reflect on it, without wondering where the wealth could be found to bear so vast a loss as was made by the fire, and so prodigious an expense as was laid out in the rebuilding. This good and great work was very much forwarded by Sir William Turner, lord mayor, 1669. He was so much honoured and beloved, that at the end of the year they chose him again; but he refused it, as being an unusual thing.

Whatever the unfortunate citizens of London suffered by this dreadful fire, it is manifest, that a greater blessing could not have happened for the good of posterity; for, instead of very narrow, crooked, and incommodious streets, dark, irregular and ill-contrived wooden houses, with their several stories jutting out, or hanging over each other, whereby the circulation of the air was obstructed, noisome vapours harboured, and verminious, pestilential atoms nourished, as is manifest, by the city not being clear of the plague for twenty-five years before, and only free from contagion three years in above seventy; enlarging of the streets, and modern way of building, there is such a free circulation of sweet air through the streets, that offensive vapours are expelled, and the city freed from pestilential symptoms: so that it may now justly be averred that there is no place in the kingdom where the inhabitants enjoy a better state of health, or live to a greater age, than the citizens of London.

SECTION III.

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 astonis.h.i.+ng misfortune.

The king in his speech calls it "G.o.d'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 a.s.sent, says, "We must for ever with humility, acknowledge the justice of G.o.d in punis.h.i.+ng 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-b.a.l.l.s 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 a.s.sisted, 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 a.s.sist 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 a.s.sured of powerful a.s.sistance, 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, mult.i.tudes of people lost their estates, goods and merchandizes; and many families, once in flouris.h.i.+ng circ.u.mstances, 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-b.a.l.l.s 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 ma.s.sacre 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-b.a.l.l.s 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 princ.i.p.ally managed by Strange, the provincial of the Jesuits, in which the society employed eighty or eighty-six men, and spent seven hundred fire b.a.l.l.s; 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 s.h.i.+ft 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 Sat.u.r.day before the fire broke out, and called for the key of the place where the heads of the pipes were, and turned all the c.o.c.ks, 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 c.o.c.ks turned; and it was long before the water got from Islington. Grant denied that he turned the c.o.c.ks; 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 a.s.sume 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 Ess.e.x 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 s.h.i.+p 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.