In the reign of Charles II--the "Merry Monarch," of whom one of his
ministers observed that "he never said a foolish thing and never did a wise
one"--the calamities which happened eclipsed the merriment of his people,
if not that of the sovereign himself.

In 1666 England had not fully recovered from the civil wars of 1642-1651.
She was now at war with the allied Dutch and French, and was suffering from
the terrible effects of the "Great Plague" which ravaged London in 1665.
During September 2-5, 1666, occurred a catastrophe of almost equal horror.
A fire, which broke out in a baker's house near the bridge, spread on
all sides so rapidly that the people were unable to extinguish it until
two-thirds of the city had been destroyed.

Evelyn's account, from his famous _Diary_, is that of an eye-witness who
took a prominent part in dealing with the conflagration, during which
the inhabitants of London--like those of some of our cities in recent
times--"were reduced to be spectators of their own ruin." Besides
suspecting the French and Dutch of having landed and, as Evelyn records, of
"firing the town," people assigned various other possible origins for the
disaster, charging it upon the republicans, the Catholics, etc. It was
obviously due, as Hume thought it worth while to note, to the narrow
streets, the houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a strong
east wind.

"But the fire," says a later writer, "though destroying so much, was most
beneficial in thoroughly eradicating the plague. The fever dens in which it
continually lurked were burned, and the new houses which were erected were
far more healthy and better arranged."