How Did The Fire Of London Start? | A Bakery’s Spark

Understanding historical events like the Great Fire of London offers us a profound lesson in urban planning, public safety, and the consequences of oversight. It’s a vivid reminder of how seemingly small incidents can escalate dramatically under specific conditions, shaping the course of a major city’s development and its people’s lives.

The Spark on Pudding Lane

The fire’s origin point was the bakery of Thomas Farriner, a baker to King Charles II, situated in Pudding Lane near London Bridge. The precise moment of ignition occurred around 1:00 AM on Sunday, September 2, 1666.

A forgotten ember or spark from the bakery’s oven is believed to have ignited a pile of faggots (bundles of wood) stored nearby. Farriner’s maid was the first to discover the flames and attempted to extinguish them.

The fire quickly spread within the wooden-framed building. Farriner, his wife, daughter, and a servant managed to escape by climbing from an upstairs window to a neighbor’s house. Sadly, the maid, likely too frightened to make the jump, perished in the blaze, becoming one of its first victims.

London’s Tinderbox Conditions

The early 17th-century City of London was a densely packed urban area, exceptionally vulnerable to fire. Several factors combined to create a dangerous “tinderbox” ready to ignite.

• Building Materials: The vast majority of structures were timber-framed, often constructed with highly combustible materials like pitch and tar. These materials were common for waterproofing and sealing joints.
• Proximity of Buildings: Houses were built incredibly close together, frequently overhanging the narrow streets. This created a continuous canopy of flammable material, allowing fire to jump from one building to the next with ease.
• Narrow Streets: The winding, constricted streets hindered movement for firefighting efforts and acted as wind tunnels, fanning the flames.
• Dry Summer: The months leading up to September 1666 had been exceptionally dry. Timber, thatch, and other building components were thoroughly parched, making them highly susceptible to ignition and rapid burning.
• Stored Goods: Many properties, particularly near the river, contained warehouses filled with highly flammable goods such as oil, spirits, coal, and hay, providing abundant fuel for the spreading fire.

The Role of Wind and River

Two natural elements played a decisive, destructive part in the fire’s rapid expansion: the wind and the River Thames itself. These factors transformed a local incident into a city-wide catastrophe.

A strong, persistent easterly wind blew across London on that fateful Sunday and for the following days. This wind acted like a giant bellows, pushing the flames westward with incredible force. It carried burning embers far distances, igniting new fires ahead of the main front, making containment nearly impossible.

The River Thames, while offering an apparent source of water, also presented a paradox. Its banks were lined with wharves and warehouses packed with highly combustible materials. The fire spread along these riverfront properties, consuming goods and structures. Barges on the river, used by citizens to escape, sometimes caught fire themselves, adding to the chaos.

Factor	Description	Impact on Fire Spread
Timber Construction	Most buildings used wood, pitch, and tar.	Provided abundant, easily ignitable fuel.
Dense Urban Layout	Houses were close, often overhanging streets.	Allowed fire to jump easily between structures.
Narrow Streets	Restricted movement for firefighters.	Created wind tunnels, accelerating flames.
Dry Weather	Months of drought made materials parched.	Increased flammability and burning speed.
Strong Easterly Wind	Pushed flames relentlessly westward.	Carried embers, starting new fires ahead.

Initial Missteps and Delayed Response

The initial response to the fire was slow and ineffective, a critical factor that allowed a small bakery fire to become a devastating conflagration. The city’s leadership and firefighting methods were ill-prepared for a blaze of this magnitude.

The Lord Mayor’s Indecision

Sir Thomas Bloodworth, the Lord Mayor of London, was summoned to Pudding Lane in the early hours. Upon seeing the fire, he famously dismissed it, stating that “a woman might piss it out.” His reluctance to order widespread demolition of properties to create firebreaks proved catastrophic.

The custom of the time required property owners’ consent for demolition, which was impractical in an emergency. The Mayor’s delay in giving a clear, forceful order meant valuable hours were lost as the fire grew beyond control.

Ineffective Firefighting Methods

The firefighting techniques available in 1666 were primitive and wholly inadequate for the scale of the Great Fire.

• Leather Buckets: Citizens formed chains to pass leather buckets of water, a method suitable for small, contained fires, not a rapidly spreading urban inferno.
• Fire Hooks: Long poles with hooks were used to pull down houses, aiming to create gaps. This method was slow, labor-intensive, and often too late once the fire had gained momentum.
• Primitive Fire Engines: A few basic hand-pumped water engines existed, but they had limited range, insufficient pressure, and often struggled to reach the fire through the narrow, crowded streets.

The Spread and Devastation

From its origin on Pudding Lane, the fire spread with terrifying speed and intensity, consuming vast swathes of London. The city’s tightly packed, wooden structures offered little resistance.

Within hours, the fire engulfed the surrounding areas, including Thames Street, where warehouses full of flammable goods fueled its growth. It jumped across streets, consuming churches, public buildings, and thousands of homes.

Major landmarks were destroyed, including St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Guildhall, and the Royal Exchange. Over 87 parish churches and more than 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The fire consumed approximately 436 acres (1.76 square kilometers) of the city.

While the official death toll was remarkably low, estimated at around six to nine people, this figure likely undercounts the true human cost. Many poor citizens, those who could not escape, or those whose remains were completely incinerated, may not have been recorded. The fire displaced hundreds of thousands, creating a massive refugee crisis.

Date/Time	Event	Significance
Sept 2, 1666, ~1 AM	Fire starts at Farriner’s bakery.	Initial ignition point of the Great Fire.
Sept 2, 1666, Morning	Lord Mayor dismisses the fire.	Crucial delay in organized firefighting efforts.
Sept 3, 1666	Fire spreads rapidly west and north.	Consumes much of the City, reaching the Royal Exchange.
Sept 4, 1666	St. Paul’s Cathedral catches fire.	Symbolic loss of a major landmark; fire at its peak.
Sept 5, 1666, Evening	Wind dies down and shifts.	Aids in containing the fire, allowing firebreaks to work.
Sept 6, 1666	Fire largely extinguished.	The main blaze is brought under control.

The Stop: Firebreaks and Shifting Winds

The Great Fire eventually came to an end, not solely through human effort, but with significant assistance from changing weather conditions. The combination of decisive action and natural abatement brought the devastation to a halt.

King Charles II took a more direct role in managing the crisis. He issued orders for widespread demolition to create effective firebreaks, overriding the Lord Mayor’s earlier hesitation. Houses were pulled down and, more effectively, blown up with gunpowder to create wide, open spaces that the fire could not cross.

These aggressive firebreak efforts were particularly successful around the Tower of London and the Temple, saving these critical areas. The most significant factor in stopping the fire, however, was a change in the weather. On Wednesday, September 5, the strong easterly wind that had fanned the flames for days finally died down and shifted direction, significantly reducing the fire’s ability to spread.

Dispelling Myths: The Cause Was Not Intentional

In the immediate aftermath of the Great Fire, fear and suspicion ran high. Londoners, reeling from the destruction, sought explanations beyond mere accident, leading to various conspiracy theories.

Many blamed foreign Catholics, French, or Dutch citizens, reflecting the political and religious tensions of the era. Accusations against dissenters also circulated. These theories were fueled by a desire to find a scapegoat for the widespread destruction.

A tragic example of this was the case of Robert Hubert, a mentally unstable French watchmaker. He falsely confessed to starting the fire, claiming he acted on behalf of the Pope. Despite evidence proving he was in Sweden at the time the fire began, he was executed, representing a grave miscarriage of justice.

Subsequent official inquiries, including that by the Parliament, thoroughly investigated the cause. These inquiries definitively concluded that the fire was accidental, originating from Farriner’s bakery. The Great Fire served as a stark lesson, leading to significant changes in urban planning and building regulations, mandating brick and stone construction and wider streets, shaping the city we know today.