THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON 1666

People all over the world have vivid recollections of the fire that decimated London City in 1666. There have been songs written, television shows produced, and significant adjustments made to firefighting methods all over the globe. Political, social, economic, and religious spheres of life have all altered as a result of the fire. The fire was so destructive that it earned a place in history as the worst fire catastrophe to ever occur. London, at the time, was the beacon of what it meant to be a city and the whole world was shocked when it emerged that they were faced with an accident that was beyond imagination. Questions emerged as to the mysteries on how the fire started, and why it took so long to contain it. Like many other disasters, there were many versions on the fire that clouded accurate reporting of the accident. Significantly, many scholars have attempted to draw lessons from the tragedy and demonstrate the need for predictions and disaster preparedness to avoid such devastating losses from fire in future. Essentially, the fire opened up the need for social, economic and political cohesion in the management of cities.

Apparently, London in the 1660s was the biggest city in England with an estimated population of about half a million residents. The structures were largely made of wood and very congested due to poor planning. The cheap wooden construction materials were allowed in the city by the authorities despite knowledge that they were posing oblivious dangers to the city. Owners of the emerging slum shanties used wooden materials and thatched their roofs with grass. Considerably, the city was fortified with a defensive city wall and outside was a number of slums. Slums kept expanding as population increased with no effort by the administration to regulate their growth. Ideally, the city, enclosed with its walls was the nerve center of the commerce in the city with trading activities and manufacturing. In other words, the city was extremely busy with so many activities owing to the demand from its large inhabitants. There were bakeries and other industries that used fire to produce their merchandize, a matter that put the city at risk of fire accidents. Neither were the city dwellers were never trained on handling fire accidents nor warned on the possibility of accidents. Hence, locals engaged themselves in many activities while forgetting the impending dangers.

Ideally, firefighting during the period was ineffective as it is today. Fire hooks were used to fight fires in England at around 1612. Before the great fire of London, there had been other accidents that were too minor to warrant international attention. When fires broke out, residents used water to put them off and also used the hooks to bring down other structures to break the fires from spreading. There were no fire brigades and thus the response solely depended on the inhabitants and local militia that were referred to as trained bands during the era. The trained bands patrolled the city at night to watch out on any possible fires from erupting. At the same time, communication during the period was not advanced. Therefore, locals used to shout in distress or use ring church bells to raise alarm. Observably, churches, that was so common at the time, had some equipment that was considered relevant during firefighting. Among them included water buckets, axes, fire hooks, and long ladders. The design of firefighting then was based on demolition as axes and fire hooks were so common. It was believed that the best way to stop fire from spreading was to cut off the structures by demolishing its section. In many cases, except the great fire of London, the approach worked.

The Cause of the fire

Research indicates that the fire began September, 2 during a Sunday morning in Pudding Lane. The shop belonged to Thomas Farrinor, a baker who claimed to have forgotten to put out the fire under the oven. As a result, sparks believed to have been from the oven ignited flames on some flour sacks before spreading to other houses and adjacent streets. Arguably, some critics have doubted the narrative claiming that the fire started in the morning long after the bakery owner had gone to sleep. Other versions of how the fire started claimed that flames were seen at around midnight. The description of both versions seemed to raise suspicion especially when one of the bakery assistants died. However, they agree that the fire might have resulted from the accidents at the bakery. During the time when the fire started, it was a windy weather and thus the flames spread so fast. The wooden structures were dry following a hot summer that was on November 1665. Considerably, many houses were made of oak timber and wood that caught fire and further enhanced its spread. Investigations indicated that there were straw and fodder at Star Inn which further worsened the situation. Out of panic, people ran for their lives as others struggled to retrieve some of their belongings before the fire reached their houses. Further, at Thames Street, there were flammables such as lamp oils, coal and tallow that lit and exploded to magnify the fire into uncontrollable flames.

The Course of the Fire

The fires started on Sunday morning at the bakery of Thomas Farriner along Pudding Lane. Family members of the bakery owner were trapped inside their building. However, they managed to escape by climbing the stairs and jumping out through the window. Reports indicated that one servant, who was too shocked by the accident could not manage to escape and was burnt to death. Several neighbors who heard the distress call responded and tried to put out the fire using water but the flames kept increasing. Later, parish constables also arrived at the scene and asked the rescuers to demolish adjoining houses to stop fire from spreading. The request of the official led to protests from the household owners that felt that it was possible to put out the fire without any demolitions. As disagreements ensued, fire continued gutting one house after another. The disagreements led to the summoning of the city mayor Sir Thomas Bloodworth, the only authority who had the powers to decide on the proposed demolition of the neighboring structures. Meanwhile, the fire was spreading to nearby houses and it was on its way to paper warehouses as well as other flammable stores near the river front.

As some experienced firemen pleaded with him to allow demolition, Bloodworth rejected their proposals. Research indicates that the mayor was overcome by the event that he was no longer willing to discuss the matter with those that were better placed to handle the issue. After an argument with the people at the scene, the mayor walked away after refusing to authorize demolition. Instead, he asked the people to use water to put out the flames. The struggle continued amid its futility as fire overpowered the voluntary amateur firefighters. Several structures including many churches were reduced to ashes and many people were rendered homeless. At the time, inhabitants focused on salvaging their goods and running away into safety since there was no hope that the fire was going to stop. Funnily, some scholars explain that the poor waited until fire reached their houses before throwing out their items and seeking refuge elsewhere. They boarded boats and relocated to a safer distance where they watched as the flames consumed their structures. Accordingly, history indicates that the morning of the first day was a test on the administration of the mayor. Even though he had the powers to order the pulling down of some buildings to break the spread of fire, he failed to take action and allowed the misfortune to spread. At the same time, it was a point in time when firefighting was ineffective.

On Sunday afternoon, nearly everyone had given up attempts to put out the fire and instead, they were fleeing. The movement of the people as well as the luggage they carried made it impassable for the firemen seeking entry into the city. There were also loads of items on the way laid by church parish that were threatened by the fire and were trying to take the seats to safety. As the pressure on the mayor to authorize the pulling down of houses intensified, the official was then seeing no possibility of success. The wind was intense and fire was so rapid that it was overtaking all the rescue efforts. Although some houses were later brought down, the fire could not stop. The vacuum created by the pulled down structures seemed to provide oxygen to the fire and hence it razed stronger than before. Accordingly, the fires were so intense and the heat was fierce that people were afraid of getting closer to the flames. Hence, they left the destruction to continue as they pondered on alternative means of stopping further damage.

The following day on Monday, the turbulence was more intense. The fire had even reached houses located on the London Bridge and was almost crossing the bridge. There were some explosive fire embers that hit Southwark and were threatening to cause another fire before it was stopped. Meanwhile, the fire had reached the center of the city with houses at the Lombard Street burning up. Banking halls were also catching fire and the authorities saved stacks of gold coins before it was too late. In no time, the Royal Exchange was up in flames marking the climax of the damage. On Tuesday, destruction was greater. There was an assumption that River Fleet would act as a natural remedy to the fire. However, the river could not deter the flames from spreading westward. To some extent, the further was prevented from rapid spreading but it spread north and destroyed affluent trade center of Cheapside. Remarkably, St. Paul Cathedral church was full of salvaged items because it was assumed that it was safe. Unfortunately, the building also caught fire and everything that was kept in it was destroyed. As a result, there was a growing hopelessness and helplessness among the people as the reality dawned on them that the fire was unstoppable.

Eventually, the fire moved eastwards towards Seething Lane and extended to the Tower of London where gunpowder was stored. Firemen realized that there was a need to violate authority regulations and decided to pull down some houses so that there would be a break to stop further spread. On Wednesday, the flames continued to gut the buildings rendering many homeless. The London Bridge that served as the only link between the city and the outer side of river Thames was burning up and there was no alternative way through. Essentially, the fire came to a natural end after consuming all that was on its way leaving people homeless and hopeless. Studies indicate that after the fire, there were several traumatized victims, homeless persons, and upsurge of criticism on the inability of the city government to handle the situation. The living cost increased tremendously and people could hardly afford a meal after losing their properties. Meanwhile, the authority focused on future plans of avoiding similar situations in the city. In essence, the fire razed down everything including the economic lives of the people. The political setting became untrustworthy to the people and even religious settings were questioned.

Why putting out the Fire Delayed

Researchers have claimed that the delay of the mayor to allow demolition of houses to create a break for the fire is the major reason for the great damage. If the mayor had authorized the demolition of houses, the flames could have been stopped early. Further, the congestion in the city complicated firefighting. The structures were too close to each other and were mostly made of wood and grass thatch. The materials served as catalysts of the fire and thus the destruction was great. Needless to say, the use of water was ineffective due to poor coordination by the fire fighters. The inhabitants were too overwhelmed to think of any constructive way of stopping the blazes and watched helplessly at some point. Some studies indicate that the pressure of water from the pipes was not enough to contain the flames. Several parts of the city were also inaccessible and people were forced to wait for the fires to reach the accessible parts to counter it. However, by the time the fire was at the convenient points, the magnitude overpowered the fight. In essence, a network of factors ensured that fire continued with its damage leading to lots of losses.

Losses Caused by the Fire

The records on the losses that emanated from the tragedy were scarce and conflicting in nature. There are only few recorded deaths, a matter that has raised suspicion that the authorities deliberately kept it secret to avoid questions. At the same time, there was a belief that the lives of the poor were less significant and were rarely mentioned. Hence, many may have died and because of their nonentity, they were ignored from listing. However, studies have indicated that there were many deaths from hunger and exposure to diseases associated with homelessness. Significantly, over 13,500 houses were destroyed alongside 87 churches, 44 company halls as well as the custom house, the royal exchange, St. Paul Cathedral, the General Letter office and Bridewell palace among many other buildings. At the same time, many persons were displaced and rendered homeless from the incident with many of them suffering from trauma. Observably, the loss that London inhabitants encountered became historical because of the magnitude of the accident. Even though the damage could be assessed through an analysis of property and lives lost, there were the invisible damages especially psychological that were concealed in the minds of survivors and victims.

Politics around the Fire

Following the fire tragedy, there were growing fears that there were foreign arsonists who came into the city and set the buildings ablaze. The suspects were French and Dutch who were rivals with Britain at the time. There was a story that the immigrants from the two aforementioned nations started the fire and were raping women and killing other victims. As a result, the locals began xenophobic attacks against immigrants as a way of punishing them for their suspected activities. Additionally, there was fear that terrorism may have caused the menace especially when communication lines were disrupted. The London Gazette had only managed to produce a paper on Monday before the flames ate up their premises. There were also reports that the religious community was involved in the fire and Catholics were targeted as the custodian of the tragedy. Even after the fire, there were political claims that the mayor was reluctant at containing the problem because he had his own agenda. Questions were raised as to why the mayor who should have been coordinating the firefighting was not in the scene after he fled on Monday. The matter became complicated after the documents on investigation failed to enlist him as having refused to order the pulling down of some structures to break the fire.

Surprisingly, after the fire, there was a confession by a French watchmaker, Robert Hubert, who claimed that he was an agent of pope. In his confession, he stated that he had been sent by the clergy to wreak havoc in the city using fire. His first confession indicated that he started the fire at Westminster before later changing it to fit the situation by saying it was actually Pudding Lane. The statement by the man raised suspicion on the Catholic Church as t was perceived as an institution propagating propaganda to destabilize the state. Later, the man was charged and sentenced to death before it after emerged that the same person was not even in the country when the fire erupted. At some point, government critics claimed that the state burnt the city n orders to create a crisis that will warrant them to engage in corrupt deals. The cost of food had doubled after the fire and it was alleged that the state officials were benefitting from the trade. In response, the authorities ended up providing food to the victims as order was being restored. However, as the situation settled, there were many other versions surrounding the tragedy that burred people from getting the facts about the incident.

London after the Fire

Immediately after the fire, there were radical schemes of rebuilding the city with the firefighting measures being considered. Monument paying tribute to the great fire was erected. Inhabitants were instructed to set up structures in the approved locations that were in a design that made all major buildings accessible. There were wider streets as old plans were removed. Fire brigades were set up to address cases of fire accidents in future and many insurance companies were registered as a preparation against any future fire-caused losses. Many countries throughout the world also learnt from the tragedy and devised their ways of ensuring that they do not suffer the same fate. Considerably, the state led by Charles II advised people to set up settlements away from the city to avoid losses on a large scale in future. At the same time, the move by the authority was seen as a counter against London rebellion. On a lighter note, songs were composed to commemorate the fire as well as reminded people of the need to prepare against such adversities. Some television programmes were also introduced as a means of sensitizing people about the dangers of fires and the counter measures in case of such accidents. Needless to say, criticism of the leaders began to increase as people realized that there was a likelihood that incompetent persons can rise to power and fail to enact actions and policies on emergencies.

Conclusion

The fire disaster remains the greatest tragedy of fire that befell London. The incident elicited reactions from across the globe as to how urban settings are prepared in case of accidents. The urban design became a key factor to consider in setting up the city. Considering the lots of losses that London inhabitants incurred, it became necessary to set up insurance companies to assure the locals of help in case of such misfortunes. Firefighting was also improved to meet the changing standards. The hooks and water as the only hope was changed with the use of trained firemen and efficient equipment. Crowding was also discouraged to ensure that there was easy access to all structures in the city. And regarding the building materials, the people were advised and regulated from using wooden materials to construct walls and grass for thatching the roofs. In essence, the fire seemed to be a gateway to the big change that came into London. After the tragedy, beautiful permanent structures came into place and order was restored.

BibliographyTop of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Alagna, Magdalena. The Great Fire of London of 1666. New York: The Rosen Publishing, 2004.

Hanson, Neil, and Neil Hanson. The Great Fire of London: in that Apocalyptic Year, 1666. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Hart, Emma. Building Charleston: Town and Society in the Eighteenth-century British Atlantic World. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010.

Kieffer, Susan W. The Dynamics of Disaster. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2013.

Nellis, Eric Guest. An Empire of Regions: a Brief History of Colonial British America. North York [i.e. Toronto], Ont: University of Toronto Press, 2010.