London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 27

The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."(1277) Pepys's acquaintance with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.(1278) The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.(1279) Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.(1280) The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than 4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least 10,000 was estimated to be required.(1281) Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.(1282)

(M655)

Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."(1283)

(M656)

At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,(1284) to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and a.s.suring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.(1285) Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.(1286)

(M657)

Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy.

As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,(1287) and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."(1288)

(M658)

The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry-the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life-and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.(1289) The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.(1290) The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.(1291) The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please G.o.d to put an end to the sickness.(1292) Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs-always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.(1293) The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189-the highest number recorded perished within the same limited area.(1294) The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.(1295) The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.(1296) When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in a _fosse commune_, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.(1297)

The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.(1298) The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57).

That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."(1299)

The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls-comprising an area of one square mile, more or less-could scarcely have reached 100,000,(1300) the extent of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.

(M659) (M660)

Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch.

Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of 100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.(1301)

(M661)

When the last instalment (1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,(1302) which, breaking out on the night of Sat.u.r.day, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago antic.i.p.ated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood.

More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city(1303) warning them of the danger and recommending a more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the pa.s.sage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,(1304) and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.

The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."(1305) The inhabitants were too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much a.s.sistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,(1306) "hath wonn the hearts of the people wth his continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did a.s.sist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."

(M662)

In spite of every effort to stay its progress the fire continued to rage throughout the whole of Monday and Tuesday. By this time Lombard Street, Cannon Street and Gracechurch Street had been reduced to ashes. The houses on London Bridge were attacked and Southwark threatened with destruction.

On Wednesday the flames devastated Cornhill and the Exchange. The following day they got hold of St. Paul's (at that time undergoing repairs and surrounded with scaffolding), and were carried by the east wind towards the Temple and Hatton Garden. The brick buildings of the Temple offered a more stubborn resistance than the wooden buildings of the city, and prevented the fire spreading further westward.(1307) In the meantime resort was had to gunpowder for the quicker destruction of houses in the city, and by this means much was eventually saved which otherwise would inevitably have been lost. But this was not done without considerable opposition from the owners of houses who objected to their property being blown up if there was a chance of it being saved.(1308) At last the "horrid, malicious, b.l.o.o.d.y flame," described by Pepys as so unlike the flame of an ordinary fire, burnt itself out, and at the close of Thursday, the 6th September, the inhabitants of the city were able for the first time since the outbreak to seek a night's rest without fear of further danger. When they rose the next morning and contemplated the extent of the havoc wrought on their city by the fire, the hearts of many must have fairly sunk within them. At least four-fifths of the whole of the buildings situate within the walls had been reduced to ashes. The official report was that no less than 13,200 houses and eighty-nine parish churches, besides St. Paul's and divers chapels, were destroyed, and that only seventy-five acres out of a total of 373 acres of ground within the walls escaped the conflagration.(1309) These seventy-five acres chiefly lay in the vicinity of Aldgate and Tower Hill, and probably owed their immunity from the fire to the free use of gunpowder, for it was in Tower Street, Pepys tells us, that the practice of blowing up houses began. Most of the livery companies lost their halls. Clothworkers' Hall burned for three days and three nights, the flames being fed with the oil that was stored in its cellars. The Leaden Hall was partly saved. Gresham House also escaped; but the Guildhall suffered severely, its outer walls only being left standing.

(M663)

Much dissatisfaction was displayed against Bludworth for his want of resolution during the crisis,(1310) and when Michaelmas-day arrived, and he was about to go out of office, he was called to account for his conduct. In antic.i.p.ation of lord mayor's day he wrote to Joseph Williamson, afterwards Secretary of State, bespeaking his favour and support. He professed not to live by popular applause (he said), but he needed and desired the support and esteem of government, "having had the misfortune to serve in the severest year that ever man did."(1311)

(M664)

As to the origin of the fire the wildest rumours at the time prevailed, and for years afterwards it was commonly attributed to Papists wishing to destroy the stronghold of the reformed religion, notwithstanding the fact that not a scintilla of evidence was forthcoming in support of such a charge, after a most careful investigation.(1312) The citizens were not satisfied with the first inquiry, and in March, 1668, a pet.i.tion was prepared to lay before parliament to re-open the question and to receive fresh evidence.(1313) Thirteen years later the belief that the Papists had a hand in causing the wholesale destruction of the city was formally promulgated by the House of Commons (10 Jan., 1681),(1314) and the same belief was perpetuated by an inscription on the Monument commemorating the fire, an inscription which met with the approval of the munic.i.p.al authorities of the day.(1315)

(M665)

Sir Patience Ward happened to be mayor at the time, but was probably no more responsible for the inscription than any other member of the Court of Aldermen or Common Council, notwithstanding the severe reflection pa.s.sed upon him by his namesake Thomas Ward,(1316) who, speaking of t.i.tus Oates and his bogus "discoveries," wrote:

"He swore-with flaming f.a.ggot sticks, In sixteen hundred sixty-six, That they through London took their marches, And burnt the city down with torches; Yet all invisible they were, Clad in their coats of Lapland air.

The sniffling Whig-mayor Patience Ward To this d.a.m.n'd lie paid such regard, That he his G.o.dly masons sent, T' engrave it round the Monument: They did so; but let such things pa.s.s- His men were fools, himself an a.s.s."

(M666)

On the accession of James II the obnoxious inscription was removed, but the feeling against Papists had obtained so strong a hold over the popular mind, that it was again set up as soon as William III came to the throne.(1317) There it remained until 1830, when, wisdom having come with years, it was finally removed by order of the Common Council (6 Dec.).(1318) No longer is it true, in the words of Pope, that

"... London's column pointing at the skies Like a tall bully lifts the head and lies."

(M667)

As soon as the fire began to abate measures were taken to provide food for the houseless poor. A detachment of 200 soldiers was ordered to London from Hertfordshire with carts laden with pickaxes, ropes, buckets, etc., to prevent any further outbreak, whilst the justices of the peace and deputy lieutenants were instructed to forward provisions to the city, especially bread and cheese, lest the much suffering inhabitants should perish from starvation.(1319)

(M668)

The City received much sympathy and no little a.s.sistance from other cities, both in England and Ireland. The city of York not only despatched its town clerk to London to express its condolences with the Londoners in their great loss, but the lord mayor of York wrote (17 Sept.) to the lord mayor of London to tell him that a small sum of money-"as much as this poore decayed citty could furnish us with"-was on its way to London for the relief of the most necessitous and distressed.(1320)

(M669)

Ten days later (29 Sept.) Lord Ormond and the Lords of the Council of Ireland wrote to Bludworth expressing their hearty sorrow at the calamity that had befallen the citizens of London, who had shown so much humanity and kindness to the Protestants of Ireland in the late rebellion. They desired to a.s.sist the city in its distress, but money was so scarce in Ireland that they were compelled to ask the city to accept the greater part of such a.s.sistance as that country could offer in cattle, which should be despatched either alive or slaughtered, as his lordship should prefer, to any port in Ireland. But before this could be done the a.s.sent of parliament would have to be obtained.(1321)

(M670)

The inhabitants of Londonderry sent a deeply sympathetic and affectionate letter to their "deare mother citty," and forwarded a sum of 250 to a.s.sist those "who buylt or howses now their oune are in ashes." They could not send more (they said) because of the deep poverty that lay upon their city and the general want of money throughout the country. What they did send they sent as an expression of their love and duty to their "honoured mother."(1322)

(M671)

In the meantime a special Court of Aldermen had met in the afternoon of Thursday, the 6th September, and appointed Gresham House for the meetings of the Court of Aldermen and Common Council, and for transacting the general munic.i.p.al business of the city until further order. The mayor and the sheriffs, whose houses had been destroyed, were also to take up their lodging there during the remainder of their year of office. The Exchange, too, was ordered to be kept in the gardens or walks of Gresham House. The house was to be got ready with all speed, and the governor of the East India Company was to be desired to see that the pepper stored in the walks was removed without delay. Temporary sites were at the same time appointed for the various markets until better accommodation could be found. Those who had been rendered houseless were allowed to erect sheds on the void places of London Bridge. It was further resolved to entreat his majesty to send tents into Finsbury Fields for housing the poor until they could provide themselves with habitations. The other wants of the poor were to be supplied as far as possible by the masters, wardens and a.s.sistants of the several companies of which they happened to be members.(1323) On Friday the court again met at Gresham House, when it gave orders for the ruins of the Guildhall to be cleared of all rubbish. Melted lead, iron, and such other materials as were of value were to be picked out and stored for further use. The pa.s.sages to the Guildhall were to be boarded up. The chamberlain was ordered to remove his office to Gresham House; and thither also were to go the deputy town clerk and the city swordbearer, whose houses had been consumed. They were to take with them the city's records and such books and papers as were in actual use.(1324)

(M672)

The next day (8 Sept.) the court gave permission for any freeman of the city to erect a tent or shed wherein to carry on his trade or craft on any part of the artillery ground, or if he so wished, either outside London wall between the postern near Broad Street and Moorgate, or within the wall between the said postern and Coleman Street. He might also erect his tent or shed in the "Round" at Smithfield. But in every case the ground was to be set out as apportioned by the mayor and sheriffs with the a.s.sistance of "Mr." [Peter] Mills. Those who had formerly kept shop in the upper "p.a.w.ne" of the Royal Exchange were at the same time permitted to erect sheds under certain conditions.(1325)

(M673)

On Monday, the 10th September, the Common Council met. It is the first court since the fire of which any record has come down to us. Its first care was to order every street and lane in each ward to be cleared of all rubbish by the late inhabitants, "every one before his grounds," and by no one else. It next proceeded to nominate a committee of aldermen and commoners to consider the best means of raising the city out of its ruins, and it was agreed that the Common Council should sit every Wednesday at Gresham House.(1326)

(M674)

When the fire was at its height the king had been anxious to send for the Duke of Albemarle, but hesitated to do so fearing lest he would be unwilling to be ordered home whilst engaged in the Dutch war.(1327) Representations of the king's wishes, however, having been made to the duke, he hurried home. On the 12th September a committee was appointed by the Court of Aldermen to wait upon him with a draft proclamation for the discovery and restoration of goods taken either wilfully, ignorantly, or of purpose during the confusion consequent on the late fire.(1328) The quant.i.ty of plate, money, jewels, household stuff, goods and merchandise discovered among the ruins was very great, and much of it had quickly been misappropriated. The proclamation ordered all persons who had so misappropriated property to bring the same within eight days into the armoury in Finsbury Fields; and by order of the Common Council no such property was to be given up to any claimant without permission of the Court of Aldermen or the lord mayor and sheriffs for the time being.(1329)

(M675)

A month later (19 Oct.) a letter was addressed to the mayor signed by the archbishop of Canterbury, the lords Clarendon, Albemarle, Manchester, Arlington and others, complaining that sundry materials of city churches destroyed by the fire had been embezzled and stolen, and also that smiths'

forges and other artificers' shops and even alehouses were kept within the sacred ruins. The mayor was directed, with the a.s.sistance of the Court of Aldermen, to obtain inventories of all communion plate, vestments, records, books and other goods belonging to each church that the fire had destroyed, and of all that remained to each church after the fire, and he was to cause the plate and goods that survived the fire to be preserved for future use in their respective churches. He was further directed to collect and preserve the lead, bells and other appurtenances and materials of the various churches in order to a.s.sist in repairing and re-building them, and to prohibit any trade or selling of ale, beer, tobacco or victuals within their precincts.(1330)