Who was blamed for the Great Fire of London? Unraveling the Suspects and the Truth
The Great Fire of London, a devastating conflagration that swept through the city in September 1666, left a trail of destruction and a lingering question:
The Official Story: Thomas Farriner, the King's Baker
The fire began in the early morning hours of Sunday, September 2, 1666, at the bakery of Thomas Farriner (sometimes spelled Farynor) on Pudding Lane. Farriner, who was also the King's baker, claimed he had extinguished his ovens the night before. However, it is widely believed that embers from his bakery, likely not fully extinguished, ignited the dry timber and thatch of his building. The strong east wind that night then fanned the flames, allowing the fire to spread with terrifying speed.
Initially, Farriner was arrested and questioned. He was ultimately released, and the official verdict, as determined by a parliamentary inquiry, was accidental. However, the memory of Farriner's bakery as the starting point remained, and he bore a significant burden of responsibility, even if he wasn't solely blamed in the long run.
The Scapegoats: Catholics and Foreigners
In the volatile political and religious climate of 17th-century England, scapegoats were readily sought. England was still reeling from the recent Restoration of the monarchy after the English Civil War, and tensions between Protestants and Catholics were high. Furthermore, England was at war with the Dutch and the French, leading to a deep-seated distrust of foreigners.
The Catholic Conspiracy Theory
Almost immediately after the fire began, rumors began to circulate that it was no accident but a deliberate act of sabotage by Catholics, aiming to destabilize the Protestant monarchy. This theory gained traction due to several factors:
- Anti-Catholic Sentiment: Catholics were a minority and often viewed with suspicion and fear. Many believed they harbored loyalty to the Pope over the King.
- Timing of the Fire: The fire broke out during a period of heightened religious and political tension.
- Eyewitness Accounts (often unreliable): Some witnesses claimed to have seen suspicious individuals, often described as foreigners or Jesuits, setting fires. These accounts were often fueled by panic and prejudice.
One prominent figure who became a target was Robert Hubert, a French watchmaker. Hubert, who was a Catholic, confessed to starting the fire, claiming to have thrown a firebrand into the bakery. However, his confession was inconsistent and appeared to be a desperate attempt to gain attention or confess to something he didn't do. He was ultimately hanged, drawn, and quartered, despite considerable doubt surrounding his guilt. His execution served as a grim symbol of the anti-Catholic fervor of the time.
The Dutch and French Sabotage Claims
Given that England was at war with the Netherlands and France, it was also easy to blame their enemies for the disaster. The idea of foreign powers orchestrating the fire to cripple London was a potent and fear-inducing narrative. This also led to the persecution and mistreatment of Dutch and French residents in London.
The Role of Parliament and Public Opinion
The official parliamentary inquiry, while ultimately concluding the fire was accidental, was conducted in an atmosphere charged with suspicion. While they cleared the King and the Duke of York of any wrongdoing, the pressure to find someone to blame, or at least quell public fear, led to the hasty and questionable execution of Robert Hubert. Public opinion, swayed by fear and prejudice, was a powerful force in shaping who was accused and how they were treated.
The Scientific and Historical Consensus
Modern historical analysis and scientific understanding of the Great Fire of London overwhelmingly support the conclusion that the fire was an accident, originating from Thomas Farriner's bakery.
- Favorable Conditions: London in 1666 was a city built primarily of wood and thatch, with narrow, winding streets. A long, hot summer had left much of the city's material extremely dry and flammable. The strong easterly wind provided ideal conditions for rapid fire spread.
- Lack of Credible Evidence for Arson: While numerous accusations were made, no concrete, verifiable evidence of a deliberate arson plot by Catholics or foreign powers ever emerged. The confessions obtained were often unreliable and extracted under duress.
- Robert Hubert's Testimony: Hubert's confession was riddled with contradictions, and he admitted to not even being in London when the fire started.
Therefore, while many were blamed in the immediate aftermath of the Great Fire of London, the most accurate and widely accepted historical conclusion is that the fire was a tragic accident exacerbated by the city's construction, weather conditions, and a lack of effective firefighting methods at the time. The scapegoating of Catholics and foreigners reflects the anxieties and prejudices of 17th-century society rather than any factual basis for their alleged involvement.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How did the Great Fire of London start?
The Great Fire of London started accidentally in the early morning hours of September 2, 1666, in the bakery of Thomas Farriner on Pudding Lane. It is believed that embers from his ovens, not fully extinguished, ignited surrounding flammable materials.
Why were Catholics blamed for the fire?
Catholics were blamed for the fire due to the prevailing anti-Catholic sentiment in England at the time, coupled with anxieties about foreign influence. Many believed Catholics were loyal to the Pope over the English King and would seek to undermine the Protestant nation.
Was Robert Hubert guilty of starting the fire?
The evidence against Robert Hubert, a French Catholic, is highly suspect. His confession was inconsistent, and he likely confessed under pressure. Modern historians widely believe he was a scapegoat and not guilty of arson.
What were the primary factors that allowed the fire to spread so quickly?
Several factors contributed to the rapid spread of the Great Fire: London was built predominantly of timber and thatch, the city had experienced a long, dry summer making materials highly flammable, and a strong easterly wind fanned the flames, pushing them through the densely packed city.
