The Great Fire of London 1666: KS3 History Explained

The Great Fire of London broke out in a bakery on Pudding Lane in the early hours of 2 September 1666 and burned for four days, destroying around 13,000 houses, 87 churches, and most of the medieval City of London. Remarkably, the recorded death toll was fewer than ten.

How did the Great Fire of London start?

The fire began in the early hours of Sunday 2 September 1666 at the bakery of Thomas Farriner on Pudding Lane, close to London Bridge. The cause was almost certainly accidental — an unextinguished oven — though Farriner himself denied responsibility. Medieval and early modern London was a fire risk by design: houses were built of timber and thatch, packed closely together in narrow streets, and the summer of 1666 had been exceptionally dry. A strong east wind that night turned a small domestic fire into a catastrophe within hours.

The Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, was famously dismissive when first alerted: he reportedly said "a woman might piss it out" and went back to bed. This failure of early action — pulling down buildings in the fire's path to create a firebreak — allowed the fire to reach a warehouse district stocked with highly flammable goods including oil, tallow, and coal.

How far did the fire spread?

Over four days, the fire consumed approximately 373 acres of the City of London — the historical square mile that formed the old Roman and medieval city. The destruction was concentrated in the wealthiest and most commercially important part of the city.

The fire spread westward along the Thames, pushed by the east wind. It was eventually halted partly by a change in the wind direction on the night of 4–5 September and partly by the deliberate creation of firebreaks — pulling down buildings by hand and using gunpowder to demolish larger structures — at the Tower of London in the east and at Fetter Lane in the west.

Why was the death toll so low?

The fire killed surprisingly few people — the official recorded figure is around six deaths, though historians suspect the real number may have been somewhat higher, particularly among the very poor whose deaths were less likely to be recorded. Several factors helped:

• The fire spread slowly enough in its early stages that most people could escape on foot or by boat on the Thames.
• London's population was concentrated in the fire's path but mobile; thousands fled to Moorfields north of the city and to the Surrey bank of the Thames.
• The fire burned most intensely at night, when people were alert to the danger and evacuating.

The human cost was nonetheless enormous. Around 100,000 people were made homeless and sheltered in the fields around London for weeks. The autumn and winter of 1666–67 were harsh, and many of those displaced suffered from cold, disease, and starvation in improvised camps.

What caused the rebuilding of London?

King Charles II moved quickly to reassure the city and prevent social disorder. He appeared in person at the fire's edge on the first day, helping to direct firefighting. Within days the government established distribution points for food and bread in the areas around London. Parliament passed the Rebuilding of London Act in 1667, which set out requirements for the new city: buildings were to be of brick or stone rather than timber, street widths were specified, and a commission was established to oversee the work.

Sir Christopher Wren submitted an ambitious plan to rebuild London as a planned city with wide boulevards radiating from key landmarks — a design influenced by contemporary Paris. His plan was never adopted: existing property rights were too complex and the need to rebuild commercial life too urgent. London was rebuilt largely on its old street pattern, though in brick rather than timber. Wren was compensated by receiving the commission to design the new St Paul's Cathedral (completed 1710) and 51 other London churches — the most concentrated programme of church building in English history.

How do we know what happened during the fire?

The Great Fire produced an exceptional quantity of first-hand written evidence — making it one of the best-documented disasters in early modern English history. The most famous account is the diary of Samuel Pepys, a senior naval administrator who recorded events day by day with vivid personal detail. He described burying his wine, cheese, and important papers in his garden to protect them; watching the fire from rooftops and river boats; and the eerie spectacle of the city burning at night. John Evelyn, another prolific diarist, wrote a sombre and reflective account of walking through the smouldering ruins after the fire had been extinguished.

These personal accounts are extraordinary sources but need to be evaluated with care. Both Pepys and Evelyn were educated, relatively wealthy men; their diaries tell us almost nothing about how the poor experienced the fire and its aftermath. Both wrote for their own records but were also shaped by literary convention. Pepys in particular was aware that his diary might eventually be read and was not always as candid as he appears.

Was the fire a conspiracy?

In the febrile political atmosphere of the 1660s — the plague had killed approximately 100,000 Londoners only the previous year, and England was at war with the Dutch — many Londoners suspected the fire was started deliberately, either by Catholics or by the Dutch. A French watchmaker named Robert Hubert confessed to starting the fire and was executed, even though the confession was almost certainly false (he had not even arrived in England until after the fire started). The Monument to the Great Fire, designed by Wren and completed in 1677, originally bore an inscription blaming Catholics for starting the fire — the inscription was only removed in 1831.

Frequently asked questions

Why did St Paul's Cathedral burn down?

The medieval St Paul's Cathedral that burned in 1666 was already in poor structural condition and had been undergoing repair for decades. Its roof was made of lead — a material that initially seemed protective but which melted in the intense heat and ran down the walls, causing the stonework to shatter and the roof to collapse. The cathedral's library was also destroyed. Christopher Wren's replacement cathedral, built over the following 44 years, deliberately incorporated the lessons of the fire into its fireproof stone and brick construction.

How did the fire change London's building regulations?

The Rebuilding Acts of 1667 and 1670 were among the most significant pieces of urban planning legislation in English history. They mandated brick or stone construction for all new buildings, set minimum street widths to reduce fire risk and improve circulation, and created a system of fire insurance (the first in the world) following the fire. London's rebuilt streets were not dramatically wider than the old ones, but its buildings were far more durable — explaining why relatively little of the new London burned again.

What did Samuel Pepys write about the Great Fire?

Pepys's diary entries for 2–5 September 1666 are some of the most vivid passages in English literature. He describes being woken in the night, initially going back to sleep thinking the fire unimportant, then rising to watch it spread. He records saving his most important possessions, helping his friends do the same, and watching the fire's reflection in the Thames. His entries capture both the terror of the moment and his own pragmatic concern for his money and valuables — a combination of self-interest and genuine horror that makes him a wonderfully honest witness.

Who was blamed for starting the fire and why?

Within days of the fire, popular rumour blamed French or Dutch agents — England was at war with both — and Catholics, who were widely suspected of conspiring against the Protestant monarchy. A Parliamentary inquiry concluded in October 1666 that the fire was accidental, but the public appetite for a conspiracy explanation was not satisfied. Robert Hubert's false confession, and his subsequent hanging, provided a scapegoat. The political uses of disaster — attributing accidents to enemies — is a recurring pattern in history that this episode illustrates sharply.

Professor Harari can help you evaluate the Pepys and Evelyn diary accounts against each other and develop your source analysis skills for KS3 and GCSE history. Visit aitutors.me.