Later on in his
examinations, he was asked if he knew where the house had stood
which he set on fire, to which he replied in the affirmative, and
on being taken into the city, pointed out the spot correctly.
In the eyes of many this was regarded as proof of his guilt;
though others stated that, having lived in the city, he must
necessarily become acquainted with the position of the baker's
shop. Opinion was therefore somewhat divided regarding him. The
chief justice told the king "that all his discourse was so
disjointed that he did not believe him guilty." Yet having
voluntarily accused himself of a monstrous deed, and being
determined as it seemed to rid himself of life, he was
condemned to death and speedily executed.
Lord Clarendon says: "Neither the judges nor any present at the
trial did believe him guilty; but that he was a poor distracted
wretch, weary of his life, and chose to part with it in this way.
Certain it is that upon the strictest examination that could be
afterwards made by the king's command, and then by the diligence
of the House, that upon the jealousy and rumour made a committee,
that was very diligent and solicitous to make that discovery,
there was never any probable evidence (that poor creature's only
excepted) that there was any other cause of that woful fire than
the displeasure of God Almighty: the first accident of the
beginning in a baker's house, where there was so great a stock of
faggots, and the neighbourhood of such combustible matter, of
pitch and rosin, and the like, led it in an instant from house to
house, through Thames Street, with the agitation of so terrible a
wind to scatter and disperse it.
Pages:
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270