CASE 091 - The great fire of London

The Great Fire of London was a major conflagration that swept through the central parts of the English city of London, from Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666, which all tied up after a long battle with the black plague. The fire gutted the medieval City of London inside the old Roman City Wall. It threatened, but did not reach, the aristocratic district of Westminster (the modern West End), Charles II's Palace of Whitehall, It consumed most of the suburban slums, 13,200 houses, 87 parish churches, St. Paul's Cathedral, and most of the buildings of the City authorities. It is estimated that it destroyed the homes of 70,000 of the City's ca. 80,000 inhabitants. The death toll from the fire is unknown and is traditionally thought to have been small, as only six verified deaths were recorded. This reasoning has recently been challenged on the grounds that the deaths of poor and middle-class people were not recorded anywhere, and that the heat of the fire may have cremated many victims, leaving no recognizable remains. The great fire started at the bakery of Thomas Farriner (or Farynor) on Pudding Lane, shortly after midnight on Sunday, 2 September, and it spread rapidly west across the City of London. The use of the major firefighting technique of the time, the creation of firebreaks by means of demolition, was critically delayed due to the indecisiveness of the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth...Prior to his time as mayor, Bloodworth was a wealthy merchant and a member of the mercantile guild the Company of Vintners, holding the post of Master of the Company for a time. Aside from an apprenticeship, however, he was primarily a timber merchant, as the Company did not require participation in the wine industry for membership.

In the early hours of September 2, 1666, a fire broke out in the house of Thomas Farriner (sometimes spelled Farynor), a baker. The methods of firefighting at the time included the use of long sticks with hooks on the end, which were used to pull down buildings adjacent to those burning. This was meant to contain the fire by not giving it any material to spread to. However, this was also destruction of property and was considered a serious matter, so the mayor was summoned to permit it to take place. When Bloodworth arrived, he refused to allow the demolition to take place. Possibly, this was due to fear of complaints from the owners of the buildings which would be destroyed that such actions were unnecessary. He expressed a lack of concern that the fire would become dangerous, saying that "a woman might piss it out," before returning to his home and going back to sleep. Over the next three days, the fire would destroy more than 75 percent of the city. He would maintain for the rest of his life that the scope of the fire was not his fault. An example of the urge to identify scapegoats for the fire is the acceptance of the confession of a simple-minded French watchmaker, Robert Hubert, who claimed he was an agent of the Pope and had started the Great Fire in Westminster. He later changed his story to say that he had started the fire at the bakery in Pudding Lane. Hubert was convicted, despite some misgivings about his fitness to plead, and hanged at Tyburn on 28 September 1666. After his death, it became apparent that he had not arrived in London until two days after the fire started. These allegations that Catholics had started the fire were exploited as powerful political propaganda by opponents of pro-Catholic Charles II's court, mostly during the Popish Plot and the exclusion crisis later in his reign.

Robert Hubert, a London watchmaker who was born in France, was tried in October 1666 and executed on the 27th of that month. The only evidence against him was his own confession, which he later denied.

The Great Fire of London was such a terrible disaster that many people at the time could not believe it was an accident. A Catholic plot was suspected. People fleeing from London spread the rumour. Catholics were attacked in the streets. One was nearly killed when a crowd thought he was carrying fire-balls. They turned out to be tennis balls. Henry Young, a distiller (beer- or wine-maker) claimed that a Jesuit had told him in 1661 that within seven years all England would be Catholic. Young replied that the City of London 'would never endure it'. The Jesuit answered that within five or six years they would 'break the power and strength of London in pieces'. Many Londoners believed that Catholics had gone in with the French and started the fire. Still the hatred of the Catholics continued. 'Priests and Jesuits' were ordered to leave the kingdom, and when further fires broke out in 1676 they were accused again. Two years after The Monument was opened an inscription was added near the base. It read 'The burning of this Protestant City was begun and carried on by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction…' It was removed in 1685 after King James II came to the throne (he was Catholic). It reappeared in 1689 when Protestant rulers came back to the throne, and was eventually removed for good in 1831.



The Rebuilding Act 1667

Christopher Wren designed a excellent plan that had grand boulevard's and buildings. Those people who had land aimed at retaining it or selling it at a correct price. The 1667 Rebuilding Act was decided by a special commission made by the King and enforced by an act of Parliament. The main roads were widened and the size of the buildings were subject to officially determined dimensions. The thickness of wall, limits on storeys and types of material were all planned. The King and London Corporation finalized three grand structures to exhibit to the world how London had bounced back. The Royal Exchange and a new Customs House had crucial economic functions. The Monument had sixty-two meters of Doric column with a sculpted flaming top. Wren became reputed as the architect who created London as he included fifty-one churches and a new St. Paul's Cathedral. A Fire Court dealt with many cases to consider arguments concerning the fire and smoothened the reconstruction.

Great Fire of London : Emergence of Building Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0AfZgkLIJc&feature=player_embedded



Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. This Act was passed in 1666, same time as the fire of London and the plague (smokescreen)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1666/caep_16660011_en_1
Anyone who doesn't claim to be alive is presumed dead, therefore any tenement/estate (net worth) becomes Ward of the state after seven years. Basicly and it still stands today, the Crown own all the lands and everything within it unless you claim you're soveriegn back.

Please read CASES 031 Empire of the city

http://books.google.com/books?id=DsNKdbFrP7wC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false

The real plan behind the fire of London

28 years after the fire the city of London went from being tired, rundown,poor housing areas, with big warehouses to 1 of the worlds financial capitals. The sovereign state of London which became a sovereign state in 1694 only 28 years later and is not a part of England or the united Kingdom, this state became the worlds financial capitol with buildings like the the Golden Square Mile contains among other things, The Bank of England, London Metal Exchange (LME), Fleet Street, F.T.S.E., the Royal Mint and the Old Bailey. which is now run by the order of garter and the Rothschilds family, who are the rulers of the financial world now and work for the council of 10, which is part of the soveriegn military order of Malta, The jesuits and since the world is a business and everyone in it, So the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is a way of them secretly enslaving a persons fictional entity, if you dont claim that you are not dead then the state shall "look" after everything you own coz you haven't told them that you are not dead.