se who had been charged with the
outrage and cast into prison during the conflagration.

And in order that the investigation might be conducted with greater
rigour he sent into the country for the lord chief justice, who was
dreaded by all for his unflinching severity. The lord chancellor, in his
account of these transactions, assures us many of the witnesses who gave
evidence against those indicted with firing the capital "were produced
as if their testimony would remove all doubts, but made such senseless
relations of what they had been told, without knowing the condition of
the persons who told them, or where to find them, that it was a hard
matter to forbear smiling at their declarations." Amongst those examined
was one Roger Hubert, who accused himself of having deliberately set
the city on fire. This man, then in his twenty-fifth year, was son of a
watchmaker residing in Rouen. Hubert had practised the same trade both
in that town and in London, and was believed by his fellow workmen to
be demented. When brought before the chief justice and privy council,
Hubert with great coolness stated he had set the first house on fire:
for which act he had been paid a year previously in Paris. When asked
who had hired him to accomplish this evil deed, he replied he did not
know, for he had never seen the man before: and when further questioned
regarding the sum he had received, he declared it was but one pistole,
but he had been promised five pistoles more when he should have done
his work. These ridiculous answers, together with some contradictory
statements he made, inclined many persons, amongst whom was the chief
justice, to doubt his confession. 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 presen