Did History Actually Teach Us Anything? – Episode 12 The Great Fire of London

Laura: 
Welcome to "Did History Actually Teach Us Anything?" 
The podcast where we unravel the most well-known tales of calamity, mishap, and unforeseen consequences that have shaped the course of history. 
And consider whether we've actually learned anything from them all these years later... 
In this podcast, we examine the historical events that you may think you know about already and the causes that led to them, be they icebergs or bakers ovens. 
We will consider whether these tragedies could have been avoided, and some of the surprising things we do differently now as a result. 
But this podcast, isn't just about dates and events. It's about learning from the past, drawing insights from hindsight, and gaining a deeper appreciation for the complexities of what really happened in these events we think we know so well. 
So get ready to encounter remarkable individuals, pivotal moments and fascinating insights that will make you appreciate health and safety and environmental management as far more than just red tape. 
In this episode, we delve into one of the most famous events in the City of London's history: the Great Fire of London, 1666.
We're going to explore how a small bakery in Pudding Lane became the unfortunate spark that ignited the city. Flames quickly engulfed buildings and continued their relentless path of destruction for days. 
Surprisingly, the official death toll stood at only six individuals, but the aftermath of the fire left a staggering 85 percent of London's population without homes.
Joining us is our health and safety expert, Kevin, who's going to start with a brief background on what London in the 1660s was like. 


Kevin: 
In 1666, there was a population of around 350,000 people living in London, making it one of the largest cities in Europe at the time.
London had developed gradually over hundreds of years with little thought of urban planning. 
Buildings were irregularly shaped and there were narrow streets and alleyways between them. Upper stories of buildings jutted out, meaning that houses opposite each other were almost touching at that level. 
Many houses had cellars and could be three or four stories high above street level. It was not unusual for them to have commercial premises such as shops and bakeries at street level with the living accommodation above.
People were not aware of the dangers of fire as we are today. Buildings were constructed of timber, covered in pitch, tightly packed together and with thatched rooves. Buildings were heated by open fires which were also used for cooking and lit by candles. 
The coal used for open fires caused thick fog in winter and caused respiratory illnesses in the population.
There was little in the way of sanitation with inefficient system of sewage and refuse collection and the city was full of animal sheds packed with hay and straw.
Fires were a common occurrence at the time, but there was no formal fire brigade. Anyone who has heard our podcast on the Globe theatre fire of 1613 will be aware of this already. 
There was also little public skill or knowledge about the best way to avoid or fight fires. However, there was some understanding that creating a fire break would slow down or even stop a fire if used correctly.
Firefighting equipment was basic, leather buckets, axes and water squirts which had an insignificant effect on the fire and were stored in local churches so would have to be collected in the event of the fire. 
In the previous two years, London had been ravaged by the plague, which had left the reduced population poor and unhealthy.
The summer that year had been long and dry, and water was scarce. This caused the wooden houses to dry out, making them much easier to burn. All these circumstances made the Great Fire of London an inevitability.


Laura: 
How and when did the Great Fire of London start? 


Kevin: 
At around 10pm on Saturday the 1st of September 1666, a fire began at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane in the City of London. A spark from the bread oven had ignited fuel in the kitchen. Thinking he had extinguished the fire, the baker retired to the living quarters above. 
But, by around 1am on the Sunday morning, the shop had become a blazing inferno.
As we mentioned earlier, fires were common in London and many people failed to react to the spreading fire quickly enough because they failed to appreciate how serious the situation was. It is possible, they may even have congregated in the street to watch the fire. 
Unfortunately, the fire quickly spread down Pudding Lane, then Fish Hill, and on towards the River Thames thanks to a strong wind from the east. 
When it reached the Thames, it destroyed warehouses stocked with combustible materials including oil and tallow, which is an animal fat used for making candles. 
It was only thanks to an earlier fire in 1633, that had damaged a large section of London Bridge, that the fire didn't spread south of the river.
Samuel Pepys, a famous diarist of the time who lived in London, observed the fire and wrote detailed accounts of it in his famous diary. He recommended to the king that buildings already alight should be pulled down to stop the spread of the fire, which the mayor arranged. 
However, the fire continued to spread, even after the burning buildings were pulled down.
Pepys then spoke to the Admiral of the Navy, who agreed to blow up the houses in the path of the fire to create a fire break. This was done and slowed the rate of the fire down. The wind dropped on Tuesday night so that the fire was almost under control by Wednesday the 5th of September. 
There were a few remaining small fires after this date and further fires did break out because the ground was hot.
In fact it was too hot to walk on for several days afterwards.
436 acres of London were destroyed amounting to 5/6 of the city within the walls, and an area of 63 acres outside. Property damage included over 13,000 houses; 87 out of the 109 parish churches; the Royal Exchange, which was the trade hub for London; and Guildhall, which was the seat of government at that time.
Prisons and hospitals were also damaged or destroyed. St Paul's Cathedral was gutted by the fire and was demolished because what remained was considered unsafe. 
The cost of the Great Fire of London was estimated to be around £10 million, at a time when the whole city of London's annual income was £12,000. 
The Thames was covered in boats, carrying people with whatever belongings they had managed to salvage from their homes. Some fled into the hills at Hampstead and Highgate, but most fled to Moorfields, Islington and Southwark. 
Almost 85 percent of London's population were made homeless and therefore temporary buildings had to be erected.
These were, however, ill equipped and disease spread easily. Although only six people were reported to have been killed directly by the fire, the final death toll is likely to have been much higher. 
The heat of the fire may well have removed all traces of some of the fatalities and many more died from disease and during the harsh winter that followed.
Many households lost all their belongings and were left financially destitute. In 1666, tenant housing contracts made the tenants responsible for repairs to their houses rather than the landlords. Tenants were also required to continue paying rent whilst their houses were rebuilt. 
As this was both unreasonable and untenable, a fire court was set up to resolve disputes.
Judges had the power to decide who should pay for the rebuilding, based on ability to pay, and could cancel existing tenant contracts, which stopped disputes dragging on, and enabled the rebuilding to take place as quickly as possible. 
In 1666, there was no state run benefits system, so this meant a trip to debtors' prison for anyone who could not pay their debts. So, they became overcrowded. 
However, Londoners rallied around and helped each other as much as they could. King Charles II arranged relief efforts and bread was brought in from surrounding areas, which helped to prevent starvation. 
The King also ordered collections to be taken in churches across the country and the Lord Mayor of London was given the money raised to distribute amongst the homeless and destitute Londoners.
The total raised throughout the country in this way was £16,400 but this would only have covered 0.13 percent of the cost of the damage. 
However, the psychological effects of the fire were even greater. Londoners who fled to fields outside London for safety stayed there for months, even years, after it was safe to return.
Some never returned.


Laura: 
Could the fire have been avoided? 


Kevin: 
If we consider the fire triangle, there are three essential components for a fire to occur: fuel, oxygen and an ignition source. 
The ignition source was the spark in the kitchen of the biker's shop in Pudding Lane. If this had been successfully extinguished on the 1st of September, The Great Fire of London would not have happened.
The construction materials and contents of the buildings in London provided endless supplies of fuel: wood, pitch, thatch, coal, tallow, oil and so on. Oak was the primary building material for houses of that time. 
Although oak is slow to burn and difficult to ignite, the burning pitch on the outside of the building would have heated the oak beams sufficiently to allow them to ignite, and once burning, they would have generated a great deal of smoke and heat.
By comparison, modern building materials generate almost one fifth of the heat released during combustion than buildings in the 1600s.
The dry windy conditions would have assisted the spread of the fire between the buildings. 
The layout and construction style of the buildings in the city ensured that the fire could spread quickly between buildings, initially at roof level and then downwards to street level.
The narrow streets and alleyways would have acted as wind tunnels, directing the strong wind coming from the east ever westward and southward. The long and hot summer had made the already flammable buildings even more so, drying out the wood and making it crack and splinter. 
The resulting drought meant that water was in short supply, and the lack of an organised fire brigade meant that the public were left to fight the fire as best they could, with whatever they had to hand.
It was only the intercession of Samuel Pepys suggesting the use of a fire break that allowed the fire to be eventually brought under control. It was also extremely fortunate that the condition of London Bridge didn't allow the fire to spread further south into Southwark.


Laura: 
Could the outcome of the fire have been different? 


Kevin: 
There are many events during the five days of the Great Fire that could have changed its outcome. 
If the initial bakery fire had been successfully extinguished on the 1st of September, then this would have been the end of the story, not an episode of this podcast. 
If people had reacted more quickly to the flames from the bakery and had been more aware of how to successfully fight the fire, measures could have been taken sooner to limit the amount of damage it caused. 
As modern homeowners, we would take immediate action and expect the fire brigade to arrive within minutes if we called them to a fire at our home. We may even have a small domestic fire extinguisher to initially tackle the fire while it's still small.
If fire breaks had been created sooner, then the spread of the fire would have stopped quickly and it could have been brought under control earlier, reducing the financial losses generated. 
There were also many things that could have been done before the fire to improve the fire safety of the City of London.
One of these is that if more of the buildings had been made of stone, with tile roofs, then the outcome of the fire would have been completely different. 
This would removed many of the highly flammable building materials in place in 1666 that contributed to the size of the devastation caused. 
Also, if proper planning had been used in the layout of the streets and buildings as the city grew, then the streets in 1666 would have been less dense and the buildings further apart. This would have made the spread of the fire more difficult between the buildings. 
And finally, if a formal fire brigade had been in place, at least some of the bigger civic buildings could have been protected. It's important to note, as these were the most expensive to rebuild after the fire.


Laura: 
So how could modern fire safety systems have changed the outcome in 1666? 


Kevin: 
Firstly, there are now rules in place to ensure that buildings are constructed using safer, fire retardant materials and designs that facilitate evacuation in an emergency. 
Building regulations cover all areas of buildings and renovating properties and fire safety is a key concern. 
Secondly, there are now formal fire brigades in all major towns and cities in the UK, who are trained in both safeguarding property and residents.
One telephone call to 999 will ensure the closest brigade responds to the fire and arrives as quickly as possible. 
Thirdly, there are rules around the layout and development of towns and cities carried out by urban planners. They prevent overcrowding and separate residential from commercial areas. 
They deal with traffic and air pollution, keep parks and rivers clean, all to ensure that towns and cities are healthier places to live.


Laura: 
What lessons did we learn from the Great Fire of London? And how did that impact modern London? 


Kevin: 
Sir Christopher Wren, whose name you may recognise as the architect from St Paul's Cathedral, was commissioned to plan the new city. Its rebuilding took over 30 years. 
Before the rebuilding could even start, it was necessary to produce over 400 million bricks to replace the lost housing stock alone and additional labour supply had to be found to carry out the necessary building work.
It wasn't until 1668 that rebuilding really started and in that year some 1450 houses were built. However, it's important to acknowledge that only 9, 000 of the last 13, 000 houses were rebuilt to ensure that the new properties were spaced further apart.
As London was a building site for such a long time, some of the previous residents moved away and settled in other parts of the country or even as far afield as North America or St Helena in the South Atlantic at the invitation of the East India Company. 
It is estimated that 25 percent of the residents who fled the fire never returned to the City of London.
New building regulations were designed to prevent a similar disaster occurring. Houses now had to be faced in brick instead of timber. Several streets were widened and an additional two streets created pavements and new sewers were installed. 
It was decided that no buildings should be constructed within 40 feet of the water side along the entire length of the city walls, and so London's quay sides were improved.
It wasn't until around 1708 that the rebuilding of St Paul's Cathedral was completed, and luckily, Sir Christopher Wren was still around to see it completed. 
The Rebuilding Act stipulated that a monument should be built on the near site where the fire started in Pudding Lane to commemorate the fire and act as a celebration of the rebuilding of the city. By that time, rebuilding of Pudding Lane was already underway. 
So the Great Fire is now marked by a monument a short distance away which was built between 1671 and 1677 and is 202 feet tall. 
Over the following century, six new bridges were built across the Thames starting with Westminster Bridge in 1750; this allowed new areas of London to develop south of the river. 
Because of the fire in 1666, fire insurance was established in 1680. Metal plaques with emblems of insurance companies were installed high up on the buildings of insured properties. 
The plaque would survive any subsequent fire and prove that the property was insured if an insurance claim was made.
Insurance companies also employed their own firefighters to assist in putting out fires. The firefighters were instructed to deal with any fire, regardless of which insurance company the property concerned was covered by, to stop any future large scale losses. 
Firefighting equipment was still basic, including buckets, axes and fire hooks. Although fire engines began to be used from the early 1700s, it wasn't until the 1720s that they were able to dispense a continuous jet of water onto a fire. 
Ladders weren't standard firefighting equipment in the 1700s, as the key consideration at this time was to save property rather than lives. A fire escape society was formed in 1828 to provide man wheeled escape ladders.
These were placed in certain streets each night so that they were readily available in the event of a fire to rescue anyone trapped in the property.
From the 1st of January 1833, ten independent insurance company fire brigades were merged into the London Fire Engine Establishment, joined by further independent brigades in the next few years. 
The London Fire Engine Establishment became the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in 1862, and after the Tooley Street fire, which paved the way for the modern London Fire Brigade.
Many of the far fighting equipment and processes we have the advantage of being able to use today, were invented as a direct result of the Great Fire and mean that a tragedy of this scale could never happen again in London or anywhere in the UK. 
The Great Fire of London is regarded as one of the most defining incidents in London's history and continues to be taught in schools across the country.


Laura: 
Thanks for joining us on this episode of "Did History Actually Teach Us Anything?". 
If you enjoyed this episode, please follow our social media channels, leave us a rating and review, and share our podcast with anyone who wants to learn more about the risky side of history. 
And don't forget to subscribe so you'll get the next episode as soon as it's available. 
Join us next time to learn whether history did actually teach us anything...