Did Dutch Jews start the Great Fire of London?

The Great Fire of London in September 1666 is one of the most significant events in the history of the capital of the (former) British Empire. (1) It followed on from a huge plague epidemic in 1665, which killed some 100,000 people (2) and series of very hot and dry summers. (3)

It is usually ascribed to being a terrible accident at the bakery of Thomas Farriner in Pudding Lane near the docks lining the river Thames. However it is difficult to credit the claim made by Ackroyd that it 'just happened' (4) since, as Hanson observes, while we don't (and won't ever) definitely know the cause: we can speculate on the basis of the evidence. (5)

The idea that 'it just happened' is quite frankly absurd for much the same reason as stating that we shouldn't seek to theorize who Jack the Ripper was. We won't ever know who, or whom, committed the Whitechapel murders for sure, but it doesn't stop us proposing suspects and looking for evidence to identify them with the legendary Ripper.

Should we stop looking for the real Jack the Ripper?

No?

Well then we shouldn't accept that the Great Fire of London 'just happened' either.

Now to understand the context to the fire we should note that major fires were then a not infrequent occurrence in towns and cities across the British Isles. Even in London there was a major fire in 1630 (6) and between 1600 and 1665 there were at least seventy substantial fires across towns and cities in England. (7)

However these are dwarfed in scale by the Great Fire of 1666 with some 13,200 homes and business premises being lost and 70,000 to 80,000 inhabitants made homeless. (8) The economic damage was also unprecedented with £330,000 being lost in rent and £9.9 million lost in goods. (9)

In total some eighty percent of London inside the old city walls was burned down, which, as England's capital, was always going to have a very significant impact on both England's capacity to make war (England was at war with the Dutch and French at the time) and also impoverish its people to the point where the population could radicalize and rise up once again against the king.

We need to remember that the Great Fire occurred only six years after the Restoration of the monarchy by Charles II after the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell in 1660. There were still a great many of Cromwell's supporters in the kingdom of England and 'dissenting' (i.e., radical Protestant) ministers were a still a force to be a reckoned with as were their many supporters.

It is also worth saying that, since the Restoration, supporters of Oliver Cromwell and Puritanism in general had been predicting that a great fire would come down from heaven to cleanse the 'New Babylon' (i.e., London) of the filth and moral depravity that had arrived in spades with the advent of Charles II. (10)

The sheer scale of the devastation wrought by the Great Fire of London is what makes it so memorable as an event.

It started by all accounts, as before stated, in the bakery of Thomas Farriner in Pudding lane – named after offal not desserts – (11) who was under contract to the Navy Victualing Office to provide ship's biscuit. (12) He also produced and sold bread and pastries as did every other baker in London at the time. (13) Hence the common, but inaccurate, assertion that Farriner was the 'King's baker'. (14)

Farriner lived in Pudding Lane with his daughter Hanna, a manservant and a maid. He used a 'beehive' type of oven to bake, which involved laying faggots of wood on the floor of the oven and lit. Then they are raked out once the oven is hot enough and the material to bake placed inside the oven. (15)

As usual Farriner raked out and cleaned his oven once he had done baking for the day (he testified that the oven was nearly cold when he did this), which reminder would be the second time that Farriner would have raked out any ashes that day per the above stated process. He then placed the faggots of wood for the next day's baking and some bacon to dry in the oven before retiring to bed between 8 and 9 pm. (16)

He was later to testify that he recovered the same faggots of wood and bacon unburnt from the inside of his oven upon returning to his decimated premises. (17) We have to rely on Farriner's word for this, but there is little reason to doubt him per se and suggesting that 'he would say that' is simply asinine. (18) This is because we have no reason to actually doubt Farriner's testimony per se other than general, but non-evidenced scepticism.

His daughter Hanna also testified that at midnight – when she was going to bed – she did the rounds to make sure that the ovens and all the lights were out. (19) Around an hour later Farriner's manservant woke to masses of smoke pouring out of the ground floor and the Farriners hastily evacuated by leaping down via a drainpipe from the windows. That is all except the maid who refused to jump and accordingly died in all probability from smoke inhalation. (20)

Hanna was also badly burnt in the escape, but Farriner's calls of alarm brought out his neighbours in this small enclosed street where the timber buildings nearly touched. (21) The neighbours managed to hold the fire at bay for an hour or so, but were unable to stop its spread. (22)

This failure is probably due to the presence of a ready source of combustibles in the form of hay and fodder at the Star Inn, which backed onto Pudding lane from Fish street and was a few doors down from Farriner's shop. (23)

The fire spread from there and combined with the series of hot, dry summers and a prevailing wind the scale destruction was almost certain to be on a massive scale. The progress of the fire however is not here of concern, but what is rather what the origin of the fire was.

Now it is very easy to say that 'it was an accident' and this is superficially a very appealing explanation, but it flies directly in the face of testimony of both Thomas and Hanna Farriner as well as their manservant.

You see we know from both Thomas and Hanna Farriner that the baking ovens in their premises were out as these were checked twice three to four hours apart (i.e., Thomas at 8-9 pm and Hanna at around midnight), but yet about an hour later there was fire and smoke engulfing the whole ground floor.

Now while it is possible that this could have been caused by the oven or another source of accidental fire. The question really is: what evidence do we have of this?

The answer is simply: none.

On the contrary we have both Thomas and Hanna's testimony three-four hours apart of the same state of affairs, but yet an hour after Hanna checked it the situation had dramatically changed.

This per force lends some credence to the idea, propounded by both Thomas Farriner and many other Londoners, that the fire was an act of arson and not an accident. (24)

Arson is actually not only feasible but likely. Given the timing of the fire and the presence of numerous people in the city of London with a motive for performing just such an act.

In early August 1666 (in the middle of the second Anglo-Dutch war, which had begun in early 1665); (25) the English fleet sacked and burnt down the Dutch town of West-Terschelling with the resultant loss of a thousand homes. (26) While the English rejoiced they also became more worried about the threat posed by the Dutch and French citizens in their midst (27) as well as retaliatory arson by these same potential fifth columnists. (28)

The reason for this would have been that such an arson attack would have the ability to cripple the English war machine by destroying its economic heart, which provided the money that acted as the sinews of war (which was already happening to a point through crippled trade). (29)

Almost a month after West-Terschelling was burnt to the ground by the English fleet; the city of London caught fire from a bake house providing this same fleet with ship's biscuit. When we note that London had a sizable population of French and Dutch immigrants the likelihood of this being a 'terrible accident' lessens considerably.

In 1638 we know that there were 641 French, 176 Dutch and 303 Walloons in the city with a few hundred others making up a total of 1,668 foreign citizens resident there. (30)

The Walloons we can rule out, because they have no clear motive or means for committing politically motivated arson being Catholic in the main.

The French also seem unlikely candidates since the French monarch Louis IV was surprised by the Great Fire and only viewed it as a fortunate accident. (31)

There is however the case of Robert Hubert, a 24 year old watchmaker's son from Rouen, who testified that he had been part of a gang of twenty four who committed the arson led by a man named Stephen Peidroe. Hubert claimed to have been landed up river from London Bridge in order that he could throw a fireball into the palace of Westminster. (32)

Hubert however later changed his story and said there were twelve men in the conspiracy (not twenty four) and that it had been he who had set fire to Farriner's bakery in Pudding Lane (not attempting to do so to Westminster palace). (33) He also contradicted himself repeatedly about the number of fireballs used to perform either of these tasks. (34) Hubert also claimed to be Catholic when he was in fact Protestant. (35)

This must be set against the fact that Hubert was able to point out exactly – in the burnt rubble - where Farriner's shop had been, (36) but while this is suggestive. The contradictions stand against Hubert being the guilty part as well as the fact that the master of the ship 'Skipper' - Captain Peterson – testified that Hubert hadn't even been ashore at all the day the fire began. (37)

Nobody at the time really believed that Hubert had fired the city even the judge who tried and sentenced him to death. (38) As Hanson observes: all this means that Hubert is the least likely of all the suspects. (39)

When we turn to the Dutch however it is a different matter: they made a lot of political and propaganda currency out of the fire and do not seem to have regarded it as an accident (although stopped short of admitting responsibility). (40)

What is interesting however in relation to this is that while there were some Dutch citizens in London quite of those listed as such were in fact (largely) Sephardic jews. This can be seen from the fact that we know of at least 21 jewish victims of the plague of 1665. (41) In addition to earlier complaints by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the city about the scale of influence being acquired by an ever growing jewish community. (42)

We can therefore see that there was a significant jewish population in London in 1666, but we also need to note three other facts.

The first is that by 1650 over half of the 4,000 members of the stock exchange in Amsterdam were jewish (so much so that it closed on the jewish rather than the Christian Sabbath). (43) This effectively means that over half of the people who primarily funded the Dutch war effort and would know how to cripple England's war effort in revenge for the burning of West-Terschelling were jewish.

The second is that since at least fifteenth century the Marrano community - of which the majority of the Dutch jews were either descended from or knew well - were deeply involved in international espionage operations for every major European power (including England and the Netherlands). (44)

The third is that 1666 is also the year that the huge jewish messianic movement about Shabbatai Tzevi swept through the world and it didn't leave the jews in England untouched in its wave of hysteria. (45) In other words the jews believed that the jewish Messiah, in the person of Tzevi, had arrived and as such their time of Diaspora was at end and soon jews would rule the earth as Yahweh's divine priesthood from Jerusalem.

When you have a people who are in London, believe they are about to rule the world as the Messiah has arrived, have deep material interests in the Dutch war effort and moreover composed the majority of espionage agents for the belligerent parties. As well as the fact that their own synagogue was a long way away from where the fire started and was per force unlikely to be damaged in the conflagration (which would be stopped by the combined efforts of the authorities and citizens at some point). (46)

Then it is almost incredible that the Dutch jews were not responsible for the arson if indeed that is the case. Again it is worth repeating that Farriner himself was absolutely insistent on the point that it had to have been arson and not an accident. (47)

Could it have been an accident?

Certainly, but the testimony and evidence we have suggests it probably wasn't.

Who was responsible?

The likeliest candidates for this are Dutch jews.

No one else had the ability, more than one motive and also were conveniently largely untouched by the fire.

Who else could it have really been, but the Dutch jews resident in London?

References

(1) Stephen Porter, 2009, 'The Great Fire of London', 3rd Edition, The History Press: Stroud, p. 2

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid., p. 25

(4) Peter Ackroyd, 2000, 'London: The Biography', 1st Edition, Chatto Windus: London, p. 221

(5) Neil Hanson, 2002, 'The Dreadful Judgement: The True Story of the Great Fire of London', 1st Edition, Corgi: London, p. 22

(6) Porter, Op.Cit., p. 4

(7) Ibid, p. 3

(8) Adrian Tinniswood, 2003, 'By Permission of Heaven: The Story of the Great Fire of London', 1st Edition, Jonathan Cape: London, p. 127

(9) Ibid., p. 128

(10) Ibid., pp. 21-29; Porter, Op. Cit., pp. 5-7

(11) Jon Lewis, 2008, 'London: The Autobiography', 1st Edition, Constable and Robinson: London, p. 140

(12) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 26; Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 41

(13) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 42

(14) Ackroyd, Op. Cit., p. 221

(15) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 42

(16) Ibid.

(17) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 26

(18) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 166

(19) Ibid., p. 42

(20) Ibid., pp. 42-43

(21) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 27; Tinniswood, Op. Cit, p. 43

(22) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 43

(23) Ibid., p. 28

(24) Ibid., pp. 26, 68; Tinniswood, Op. Cit., pp. 59-63

(25) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 29

(26) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 16

(27) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 29

(28) Ibid., p. 23; Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 29

(29) Porter, Op. Cit., p. 24

(30) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 59

(31) Ibid., p. 144

(32) Ibid., p. 163

(33) Ibid., p. 164

(34) Ibid., p. 165

(35) Ibid., p. 163

(36) Ibid., p. 166

(37) Ibid.

(38) Ibid., p. 167

(39) Hanson, Op. Cit., p. 21

(40) Tinniswood, Op. Cit., p. 146

(41) Gerry Black, 2003, 'Jewish London: An Illustrated History', 1st Edition, Breedon: Derby, p. 24

(42) Tinniswood, Op. Cit, p. 60

(43) Alberto Guenzi, 2006, 'European Expansion in the Seventeenth Century', pp. 73-74 in Antonio Di Vittorio (Ed.), 2006, 'An Economic History of Europe: From Expansion to Development', 1st Edition, Routledge: New York

(44) Cf. Dominic Green, 2003, 'The Double Life of Doctor Lopez: Spies, Shakespeare and the Plot to Poison Elizabeth I', 1st Edition, Century: London

(45) Cecil Roth, 1941, 'A History of the Jews in England', 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 175

(46) Ibid, p. 174; Black, Op. Cit., p. 23

(47) Hanson, Op. Cit., pp. 332-333