Who set the London fire? Unraveling the Great Fire of 1666

Who set the London fire? Unraveling the Great Fire of 1666

The question "Who set the London fire?" has echoed through history, often accompanied by whispers of arson and conspiracy. However, the most widely accepted and thoroughly investigated answer points to an accidental origin, with a specific starting point and circumstances that led to an inferno of unprecedented destruction. While the idea of a deliberate act might be more dramatic, the reality of the Great Fire of London in 1666 is a cautionary tale of urban vulnerability, dry conditions, and a quickly spreading blaze.

The Origin: A Baker's Oven in Pudding Lane

The Great Fire of London began in the early hours of Sunday, September 2, 1666, in a baker's shop located on Pudding Lane. The baker in question was Thomas Farriner (sometimes spelled Farynor), who was a baker to King Charles II. It is believed that Farriner failed to properly extinguish the embers in his oven after baking for the day.

Here's a breakdown of the circumstances:

• The Location: Pudding Lane was a narrow, densely packed street in the heart of the City of London. Buildings were predominantly made of timber and pitch, materials highly combustible.
• The Time of Day: The fire started around 1 AM, when most of the city's inhabitants were asleep, making early detection and response more difficult.
• The Initial Spark: It's strongly suspected that sparks from the residual heat in Farriner's oven ignited some nearby fuel, likely firewood stored in the bakery.
• Rapid Spread: London at this time was a tightly built medieval city. Overhanging upper stories of buildings almost touched across narrow streets, creating a perfect environment for fire to jump from one structure to the next. The prevalent wooden construction and the presence of flammable materials like tar and pitch only accelerated the inferno.

Did Someone Deliberately Set the Fire?

While the accidental origin is the most accepted explanation, the chaos and devastation of the Great Fire understandably led to widespread fear and suspicion. In the immediate aftermath, and for some time after, accusations and theories about deliberate arson abounded. These theories often pointed fingers at:

• Catholics: During this period, anti-Catholic sentiment was high in England. Many believed the fire was part of a plot by Catholics, possibly supported by France or the Pope, to destabilize England. This fear was amplified by the fact that France and England were often at odds.
• Foreigners: Similar to the Catholic accusations, some blamed foreigners, including Dutch and French individuals, who were seen as potential enemies.

These accusations led to some tragic consequences. For instance, a French watchmaker named Robert Hubert confessed to setting the fire, likely under duress and possibly as a result of mental instability. Despite evidence suggesting he couldn't have physically been at the scene of the fire's origin, he was hanged and his confession became a part of the official narrative for a time, further fueling the idea of deliberate arson.

The Official Investigation and Findings

An official investigation was conducted, and while it acknowledged the widespread fear of arson, the findings ultimately leaned towards an accidental cause. The Lord Mayor at the time, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, was criticized for his initial slow response, reportedly remarking that a woman could piss it out. His inaction, combined with the lack of effective firefighting measures in place, allowed the fire to grow beyond control.

The Royal Society, a leading scientific body, also investigated the fire. Their conclusions supported the idea of an accidental origin, exacerbated by the prevailing dry weather conditions and the combustible nature of the city's construction. Years later, a monument commemorating the Great Fire, known as the Monument, was erected near the site of the fire's origin. Its inscription initially blamed "the treachery and malice of popish villains," reflecting the public's suspicion at the time, but this was later removed.

The Great Fire of London was a catastrophe that reshaped the city. While the immediate blame was sought in malicious hands, the confluence of poor urban planning, flammable materials, and a dry spell created a perfect storm for disaster, originating from a simple oversight in a baker's shop.

FAQ Section

How did the fire spread so quickly?

The fire spread with alarming speed due to several factors: London's buildings were primarily constructed of wood and pitch, which are highly flammable. The city was also densely packed with narrow streets, allowing flames to easily leap from one building to the next. A strong easterly wind also fanned the flames, pushing them westward through the city.

Why was the fire so destructive?

The Great Fire of London was exceptionally destructive because it occurred at a time when firefighting technology was rudimentary. There were no organized fire brigades, and the methods used, such as leather buckets of water and fire hooks to pull down buildings, were largely ineffective against such an inferno. The dry weather preceding the fire also meant that many wooden structures were more susceptible to ignition.

Was anyone held responsible for the fire?

While Thomas Farriner was the baker whose shop was the origin of the fire, he was not formally held responsible or punished. His family escaped from the burning house and he later testified that he had extinguished his oven. The public, however, was eager to find someone to blame, leading to accusations against Catholics and foreigners, and the tragic conviction and execution of Robert Hubert, who falsely confessed to starting the fire.

How long did the Great Fire of London last?

The Great Fire of London raged for four days. It began in the early hours of Sunday, September 2, 1666, and was largely under control by Wednesday, September 5, 1666. The fire consumed a vast area of the medieval City of London.