The fire of London broke out on Sunday morning, September 2, 1666,
O.S., and being impelled by strong winds, raged with irresistible fury
nearly four days and nights; nor was it entirely mastered till the fifth
morning after it began. The conflagration commenced at the house of one
Farryner, a baker, in Pudding-lane, near [New] Fish-street-hill, and
within ten houses of Thames-street, into which it spread within a few
hours; nearly the whole of the contiguous buildings being of timber,
lath, and plaster, and the whole neighbourhood presenting little else
than closely confined passages and narrow alleys. The fire quickly
spread, and was not to be conquered by any human means, "Then, (says
a contemporary writer,) then the city did shake indeed, and the
inhabitants did tremble, and flew away in great amazement from their
houses, lest the flames should devour them: _rattle, rattle, rattle_,
was the noise which the fire struck upon the ear round about, as if
there had been a thousand iron chariots beating upon the stones. You
might see the houses _tumble, tumble, tumble_, from one end of the
street to the other, with a great crash, leaving the foundations open
to the view of the heavens."[5]
The destructive fury of this conflagration was never, perhaps, exceeded
in any part of the world, by any fire originating in accident. _Within
the walls_, it consumed almost five-sixths of the whole city; and
_without_ the walls it cleared a space nearly as extensive as the
one-sixth part left unburnt within. Scarcely a single building that came
within the range of the flames was left standing. Public buildings,
churches, and dwelling-houses, were alike involved in one common fate.
In the summary account of this vast devastation, given in one of the
inscriptions on the Monument, and which was drawn up from the reports of
the surveyors appointed after the fire, it is stated, that "The ruins of
the city were 436 acres, [viz. 333 acres within the walls, and 63 in the
liberties of the city;] that, of the six-and-twenty wards, it utterly
destroyed fifteen, and left eight others shattered and half burnt;
and that it consumed 400 streets, 13,200 dwelling-houses, 89 churches
[besides chapels; 4 of] the city gates, Guildhall, many public
structures, hospitals, schools, libraries, and a vast number of stately
edifices." The immense property destroyed in this dreadful time cannot
be estimated at less than _ten millions_ sterling. Amid all the
confusion and multiplied dangers that arose from the fire, it does not
appear that more than _six_ persons lost their lives. Calamitous as were
the immediate consequences of this dreadful fire, its _remote effects_
have proved an incalculable blessing to subsequent generations. To
this conflagration may be attributed the complete destruction of the
_plague_, which, the year before only, swept off 68,590 persons!! To
this tremendous fire we owe most of our grand public structures--the
regularity and beauty of our streets--and, finally, the great salubrity
and extreme cleanliness of a large part of the city of London.
In relation to this awful calamity we add the following remarks:--Heaven
be praised (says Mr. Malcolm[6]) old London _was burnt_. Good reader,
turn to the ancient prints, in order to see what it has been; observe
those hovels convulsed; imagine the chambers within them, and wonder why
the plague, the leprosy, and the sweating-sickness raged. Turn then to
the prints illustrative of our present dwellings, and be happy. The
misery of 1665 must have operated on the minds of the legislature and
the citizens, when they rebuilt and inhabited their houses. The former
enacted many salutary clauses for the preservation of health, and would
have done more, had not the public rejected that which was for their
benefit; those who preferred high habitations and narrow dark streets
had them. It is only to be lamented that we are compelled to suffer for
their folly. These errors are now frequently partially removed by the
exertion of the Corporation of London; but a complete reformation is
impossible. It is to the improved dwellings composed of brick, the
wainscot or papered walls, the high ceilings, the boarded floors, and
large windows, and cleanliness, that we are indebted for the general
preservation of health since 1666. From that auspicious year the very
existence of the natives of London improved; their bodies moved in a
large space of pure air; and, finding every thing clean and new around
them, they determined to keep them so. Previously-unknown luxuries and
improvements in furniture were suggested; and a man of moderate fortune
saw his house vie with, nay, superior to, the old palaces of his
governors. When he paced his streets, he felt the genial western breeze
pass him, rich with the perfumes of the country, instead of the stench
described by Erasmus; and looking upward, he beheld the beautiful blue
of the air, variegated with fleecy clouds, in place of projecting black
beams and plaster, obscured by vapour and smoke.
The streets of London must have been dangerously dark during the winter
nights before it was burnt; lanterns with candles were very sparingly
scattered, nor was light much better distributed even in the new streets
previously to the 18th century. Globular lamps were introduced by
Michael Cole, who obtained a patent in July, 1708.
We conclude the illustrations of this day with a singular opinion of the
author just quoted. Speaking of the burning of London, he says, "This
subject may be allowed to be familiar to me, and I have perhaps had more
than common means of judging; and I now declare it to be my full and
decided opinion, that London _was burnt by government, to annihilate the
plague_, which was grafted in every crevice of the hateful old houses
composing it."
[5] The progress of the fire might have been stopped, but for the
foolish conduct of the Lord Mayor, who refused to give orders
for pulling down some houses, _without the consent of the
owners_. Buckets and engines were of no use, from the confined
state of the streets.
[6] "Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London in the
Eighteenth Century," vol. ii. p. 378.
* * * * *