Introduction
The
biggest fire that the city of London was ever subjected to was the Great Fire
in 1666. Raging from September 2 to September 5, it decimated many acres of the
city. Two of the reasons it burnt so fervently were that it was uncommonly
windy and there had been a severe drought since November of 1665. These two
things combined to result in a terrible fire.
Sunday the
2nd
The
fire started between midnight and two a.m. in a bakery on Pudding Lane. The
baker was Thomas Farriner[1]
who was the king’s baker. Somehow his ovens remained lit that night, and sparks
flying from them landed on straw or flour bags nearby. The blaze was
instantaneous and the house caught fire. The family escaped through an upstairs
window, but the maid was too terrified to follow and became the first casualty
of the Great Fire of London.
By
three a.m., the fire could be easily seen from a quarter mile away. It spread
quickly. The Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Bloodworth [2]
was called to determine whether the nearby houses needed to be demolished in
order to form a fire-block. The firemen already at the scene were in favor of
the demolition. However, the Lord Mayor made condescending remarks and left the
scene, leaving the fire to grow. Had he then ordered the demolition of a few
houses, he could have saved much of the city. But his condescension and
indecisiveness resulted in great losses.
At dawn, the
houses on London Bridge were burning on the Pudding Lane side. Thankfully, the
long stretch of empty bridge in between the two sides prevented the fire from
reaching the other side of the Thames. The firemen who had been called found it
extremely difficult to reach the source of the fire. Many of the houses in London
were built with a small “footprint” but mushroomed overhead. Sometimes they
even touched over the streets below. This made the moving of the tall fire
engines very difficult. Some, which were set up by the Thames, toppled into the
river. By Sunday morning, it was impossible to reach the river for water due to
the fire consuming the shore. It ruined the water wheels in the London Bridge,
thereby making it undoable to pump water through the pipes for the firemen.
Already by Sunday
morning, the conflagration had consumed an estimated 300 houses, according to
one eye-witness. The streets and Thames River were crowded by people attempting
to escape the rapidly approaching flames.
Sunday afternoon
saw the advent of a fire-storm. The fire was so great by that point that it was
creating its own weather. The hot air resulted in a great up-rush of heat,
creating a vacuum at ground-level. The vacuum pulled in gales of wind, which
the average observer might assume would blow the fire out. Rather, it simply
supplied it with more oxygen and it grew quickly. By the evening, it stretched
over half a mile, and one observer thought a mile. It had truly become an
inferno.
Monday the
3rd
As
Monday dawned, the fire continued to spread towards the north and the west, with
a little to the south as well. Strong winds were a great aid to it.
Eye-witnesses from Southwark, which was directly across the Thames, reported
that the other side of the river was all flames. The river was packed with
barges as people worked to remove themselves and their belongings from the
dangerous area.
Cinders
and sparks did manage to cross the Thames, assisted by the wind. They landed
occasionally in the thatch and wood that was so characteristic of London. Small
fires started, but were quickly doused. However, the people of London blamed
the foreigners for starting these fires intentionally, especially the Dutch and
the French. Some violence followed as mobs would gang up on the foreigners.
Others were accused of various treason plots against King Charles II. Catholics
and “odd-looking people” were rounded up by guards who would have made better
use of their time by fighting the flames.
By
night, the light of the fire could be seen for 30 miles. Everyone was moving. A
cart to rent, which had the day before been only a few shillings, now cost £40.[3]
Only the rich could afford such a luxury.
James,
the Duke of York and the brother of King Charles II, was put in charge as the
Lord Mayor had fled the city. James promptly went to work press-ganging able
bodied men into working against the flames. But accomplishing anything was
difficult with the pace and heat of the fire.
Tuesday the
4th
Tuesday
saw the greatest destruction by the fire. It jumped the Fleet River, which at
the time, was basically an open sewer. One source stated that it boiled,
resulting in it being surprisingly sanitized. Many had hoped that the river
would provide a block, but it did not.
That
night, the fire reached the great landmark of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The people
had assumed that the strong thick stone walls would withstand the flames and
anything inside would be safe. So it had been filled with the stocks of nearby
printers and booksellers. Unfortunately, they had not taken into account that the
outside of the Cathedral was currently covered with wooden scaffolding due to
upkeep and remodeling. This scaffolding caught fire, and the fire was so hot
that the lead roof melted and flowed down the streets in the area. Inside, in
the words of one witness, the “books and papers in the crypts caught with a
roar.” Rocks flew, lead flowed, and the Cathedral was quite destroyed.
James,
Duke of York, began having many houses destroyed to create a fire-block before
the fire reached the Tower of London. The Tower was filled not only with
prisoners but also with a great deal of gunpowder, and sparks would have been
deadly.
Wednesday
the 5th and the Numbers of the Catastrophe
Late
on Tuesday night, the wind finally began to drop and the fire began to lose its
zeal. Slowly the fire-blocks did their job. Wednesday saw the slowing of the
fire. By Thursday morning, it was entirely out. However, much had been lost.
Around
13,200 houses were burnt over those four days. Along with that, St. Paul’s
Cathedral and 87 parish churches went up in flames.[4]
The fire found plenty of fuel: wood, fabric, thatch, oil, pitch, coal, tallow,
fats, sugar, alcohol, turpentine, and gunpowder. With this variety of fuels, it
burnt far hotter than an average fire, approximating 2000 to 3000 degrees.
These temperatures were high enough to melt the iron on the gates of the city. It
was estimated that £10,000,000 of damage had been done.[5]
The
fire had burnt somewhere between 373 and 430 acres of ground. The homes of
70,000 to 100,000 people had been destroyed. But the loss of life is impossible
to calculate accurately. It is generally accepted that it was remarkably small,
with only six recorded deaths.[6]
However, some authors have speculated that it was actually far larger than
that. That number neglects to count the poor people or the life costs of the
cold winter spent in inaccurate housing following the fire. The fire was of
such heat that bodies would have been instantaneously cremated. Surely the very
old, the very young, the infirm, the ill would not have been all able to escape
in the crush to leave the city from their over-crowded tenements. Some people
who observed noted that there was a horrible smell from the fire. Perhaps it
was merely pigeons, for they were seen to be burnt. But it is possible to
conjecture that it was the smell of the cost of human lives. Some have
estimated the final death count to be “several hundred and quite possibly
several thousand.” Whatever the case, it is not likely that the actual number
was six.
However,
the fire did have its benefits. It decimated a great deal of bad housing. The
plague had been a major problem in London in previous years, forcing the
inhabitants to leave. However, many plague-carrying rats and fleas were
destroyed in the flames. Perhaps the fire actually saved lives in the long run.
Some sources argue that it was a good thing overall, resulting in the
rebuilding of a shoddily built city and in the saving of lives from the
elimination of the plague. But this is impossible to gauge for sure.
Conclusion
The
Great Fire of London deserves its name. It covered a lot of land, took lives,
ruined lives. Perhaps it was for the best, perhaps it merely destroyed.
However, there is little doubt that the people of London learned a great deal
about the hazards of wood and thatch construction through the turmoil caused by
the fire. The official inquiry ended by saying that fire was due to “the hand
of God, a great wind, and a very dry season.”
[1]
Alternatively “Faynor.”
[2]
Alternatively “Bludworth.”
[3] In
2005 poundage, this would be £4000.
[4]
Some sources say 84 or 89 churches. However, 87 is in the middle and thus the
handiest number to use.
[5] In
2005 poundage, this would equal £1 billion.
[6] A
few sources claimed four, eight, or sixteen deaths.
No comments:
Post a Comment