Museum of London- The Great Fire of 1666

The 1660s had already been difficult for the people living in England. The Great Plague hit hard in 1665, causing thousands of people to suffer. The following year brought no relief in the suffering; in 1666 a devastating fire that lasted five days destroyed much of London and had far reaching effects for rich and poor alike.

The Great Fire originated at Pudding Lane around 1 a.m. on September 2, 1666. It started at the bakery of Thomas Farriner, the king’s baker, most likely because the fire in the oven was not properly put out for the night (Museum of London- London’s Burning). The set up of London made fire a dangerous threat. Most of the houses were made of wood and were crowded next to each other on narrow streets, making it easy for fire to spread. In addition to this problem, there was a strong wind coming from the east, which made the fire spread rapidly through the night. People had to flee their homes, taking what little they could. Many crossed the River Thames and watched as the fire grew bigger and consumed more and more of the city (Museum of London- London’s Burning). John Evelyn, a diarist, described the scene as being “10,000 homes all in one flame” (Museum of London- London’s Burning). The fire grew for days, devouring everything that couldn’t escape. Homes, businesses, and churches were all demolished. St. Paul’s also felt the effects of the fire. The heat was so intense that the stones at the base exploded and the lead on the roof melted (Museum of London- London’s Burning). Still the fire continued.

Although most people concentrated more on escaping the fire than on putting it out, there were many attempts made to control the fire. School boys from Westminster made a valiant effort to put out the fire. Also, the King and his brother, the Duke of York, were among the people who were dousing the fire with buckets of water (Museum of London- London’s Burning). Another method of stopping the fire was put in place by taking down houses near the fire so that it would not have a way to spread more. However, the fire was faster than the workers and it would overtake them before they could take down the houses. After a few days, they decided to use gun powder and blow up some of the houses instead of just trying to take them down manually. Although the explosions scared people, it created a firebreak and it stopped the fire from spreading. These firebreaks were indeed helpful, but the principle reason that the fire died down was mainly because the winds had finally calmed by the fifth day (Museum of London- London’s Burning).

After the fire was over, all the city between the Tower and the Temple was destroyed (Roberts 394). That was about four fifths of the whole city. There were 13,200 homes that were destroyed, leaving thousands of people on the streets with nothing (Museum of London- London’s Burning). Overall, the damage done by the fire cost about ₤10 million to repair (Museum of London- London’s Burning). Because there were so many who were devastated by the fire, the people began looking for someone to blame. The Commons set up a Committee to conduct an investigation to see if it was arson. However, before the investigation was over, a Frenchman by the name of Robert Hubert was tried and hung for the crime. Although he did confess to it, he was most likely innocent, especially since it was discovered later that he arrived in London after the fire began. Nevertheless, Hubert made a convenient scapegoat for the people to blame (Museum of London- London’s Burning). The King said that he felt that the fire was nothing other than the hand of God, the great wind, and the dryness of the season (Museum of London- London’s Burning).

Rebuilding London after the Great Fire turned out to be a long endeavor. Architects and surveyors such as Christopher Wren and were responsible for rebuilding the city. They mapped out the area and established new regulations. Houses were built out of brick, not wood. Some streets were made wider and pavements were added, along with new sewers (Museum of London- London’s Burning). The process of rebuilding lasted a long time, with houses still being staked out in the 1690s. The year 1710 marked the date when the final rebuilding was complete. This final project was St. Paul’s Cathedral, Christopher Wren’s masterpiece (Hibbert 142). The whole rebuilding process lasted for almost fifty years, which proves how destructive the Great Fire truly was.

This is one journal that describes something that I have not been able to see for myself. However, the Museum of London’s exhibit on the Great Fire has helped me gain a better feel for what it would have been like to see the city in flames, knowing that everything was being destroyed. I have a greater sympathy now for the people who lived during that time and I realize just how monumental this event was in English history. The fire was a pivotal event which demanded change for the future, not only in the architecture of the city but also in the lives of the people.

Works Cited

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1992.

Museum of London- London’s Burning. Museum of London. 09 Jun 2008.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History of England. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.