London engulfed by the Great Fire. 1666.

CHAPTER I

THE ORIGINSOF FIREINSURANCE

Although there is evidence tosuggest that fire insurance existedin the period before the 17thcentury in Europe, it was theGreat Fire ofLondon (1666)which forcibly alerted the publicto the value of such protection.The London fire began in theKing'S Bakery on Pudding Lane,a narrow street lined with oakframed houses. Soon after theoutbreak of the fire, neighboursquickly formed a bucket brigadein an attempt to extinguish theblaze. Despite their valiantefforts, the fire quickly spread toan inn with a large supply ofstraw and fodder in its liverystable. Fuelled by the abundanceof dry materials and fanned by astrong breeze, the inferno soonraged out of control.One of the first casualties of thefire was the wooden waterwheelthat lifted water out of the Tha-mes River and into the pipeswhich supplied the city. Therudimentary water system wassoon completely dry and of nouse to the firefighters. The fireraged for four days, consuming436 acres of the city and 13,200houses. The fire was finally haltedwhen the Lord Mayor orderedthat houses in its path be pulieddown to create a fire break.Remarkably, only six peopleperished in a disaster that causedbetween $8 and $12 milliondamage. There is, however, noaccurate estimate of the numberof people who died from exposurethe following winter in shantytowns erected in the ruins of thecity.

Shortly after the reconstruction ofthe city began, Dr. Nicholas Bar-bon, a physician and leadingbuilder, proposed the idea ofdistributing the losses incurredduting a fire among a largergroup of people. Despite ridiculefrom many of his colleagues,Barbon decided to offer personalunderwriting on houses andother buildings. Heeding theharsh lesson imposed on them bythe fire, many customers fiockedto his firm, known as "The FireOffice", to take advantage of hisnew service. Barbon offered ratesat 2.5 percent of the value ofbrick buildings and five percentfor those consttucted ofwood.Barbon's success in the fire insur-ance business encouraged theestablishment of rival companies.In an effort to stifle the competi-tion, Barbon appealed to the

-1-

Privy Council to grant him amonopoly on his service. Hisrequest was denied. Failing tosecure legislative aid, Barbonturned to economic tactics andattempted to undercut his rivals.He also pioneered the idea ofsponsoring his own fire brigade,thus achieving two goals. First,the fire brigade would protect thebuildings he insured, therebyminimizing his losses and, sec-ond, its highly visible presencepromoted his business at fires,which were well attended publlcevents. This represents the firstventure ofa fire insurance com-pany into the firefighting field.During the late 17th century, theinsurance business expanded, asdid company fire brigades. Thedrills for these rudimentary fire-fighting units were often carriedout in public to allow people to

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

assess their respective efficiencyand place their insurance withwhat they judged to be the mostimpressive company.

When the news ofa fire spread,all companies dispatched theirfirefighting units, At the scene,there was an immediate searchfor a fire mark, a leaden plateattached to the facade of a housewhich bore the symbol of theinsuting company. Once theidentity of the insuring companywas established, its fire unit setto work extinguishing the blazewhile the other units idly madejokes at the expense of theircolleagues. This service, providedby the insurance companies, wasvital as the city did not offermunicipal fire protection until1866.The idea of fire insurance whichfound expression through Nicho-las Barbon proved to be a greatsuccess. By 1680, he wrotebusiness OD over 5,500 buildings.At his death in 1698, he headeda large insurance empire thatdominated the early years of fireinsurance in England.

Fire insurance also gained popu-larity throughout Europe and,later, in the United States. In the1670s the German guilds inHamburg were united into a'Generale Feuer casse' or munici-pal insurance company. Thisorganization set standards thatwere subsequently adopted bythe business: classification ofrisks, annual premiums based onthe amounts insured and a maxi-mum insurable. Fire insurance inthe United States, as in England,began as personal or partnershipundelWriting. Most of the earlyoperations wrote both fire andmarine risks, which were crucialto leading merchants of the east-em seaboard. The PhiladelphiaContributorship, founded in 1752with the assistance of BenjaminFranklin, was the first fire insur-ance company in the UnitedStares. Growth of fire insurancewas slow; by 1820 there were 28stock companies, and most ofthese firms were strictly local intheir operations.

The early years ofbusiness inNorth America were difficult forfire insurance companies. Prob-lems confronted by rhese fledg-ling firms included a limiteddemand for fire insurance cover-age which in rum prevented theaccumulation of the large capitalreserves necessary for properprotection against the threat ofserious conflagration. The busi-nesses suffered from a number ofserious fires arising from theprevalence of wooden construc-tion in 18th and 19th cenrutyAmerica. Companies that lackedadequate reserves or overex-tended themselves in insuring asingle area were forced out ofbusiness by major fires. The NewYork fire of 1835 caused over $15million damage and wiped outmost of that city's insurancecompanies. This disaster forcedthe leading companies to define

Fire fighting in England, 1762, as seen by the great caricaturist, WilliamHogarth.

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

more duties to carry out closerinspections ofthe importantriSks. Fire maps carne into use atthis time.

risks more clearly and to recog-nize the necessity of improvingtheir financial stability. Failedcompanies could at best pay onlya fraction of the insured's claimand the credibility of the insur-ance business was being severelyundermined.In an attempt to protect the publicinterests state governmentspassed reserve acts, stipulatingthat companies must maintain anadequate reserve out of which topay claims. But companies per-sisted in a policy of paying outdividends to their stockholders atthe expense of developing asurplus fund and continued tofunction with insufficient capitalto meet emergencies.Following the Civil war in theUnited States, a spirit of coopera-tion replaced the competitiveattitude that had characterizedthe insurance industry and oftendriven premiums below cost. In1866, the leading Americancompanies formed the National

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)portrayed as a fIreman. He foundedtbe first volunteer company atPhiladelpbia in 1736,

Board of Underwriters in an effortto introduce some uniformity intothe industry. The organizationassumed a scientific approachtoward the classification of risksand granted local representatives

Hook and ladder truck built [or thePbiladelpbia Fire Company, 1799.EquIpped with hats, pIcks, ladders,axes, buckets and whale oiltorches.

-3-

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

ChrisHighlight

The bumlng ofCh/cago, 1871, from a CUrrier & [yes engraving.

The Boston fire, 1872, from a CUrrier & [Yes engraving.

This new-found cooperation wasshort-lived. Serious fires in Chi-cago and Boston in 1871 and1872, respectively, destroyednumerous companies and weak-ened many more. It is hardlysurprising that the fire insuranceindustry fell on hard times dUringthe decade. This period wirnessedthe growth ofmany irresponsiblecompanies that sacrificed integ-rity for quick profit. The NationalBoard of Fire Underwriters ceasedto formuiate rates, relinquishingthis task to local boards. Intensecompetition again became theorder of the day, as companiesslashed premiums to dangerouslylow levels in an effort to attractbusiness. These rare wars drovenumerous companies into bank-ruptcy. The surviving firms recog-nized the shortsightedness andimpracticality ofundercutting oneanother, and the spirit ofcoopera-tion was revitalized. At this timelarger regional boards appeared,giving some stability to the Amer-ican fire insurance industry.The deveiopment of fire insurancein Canada foliowed a patternsimilar to that in the UnitedStares. WhIle no fire insurancecompanies are known to haveoperated during the Frenchregime, the Phoenix Company ofLondon began to advertise itsservices in British North Americashortly after the Conquest (1763).A 1782 policy in Sr. John'S, New-foundland was the first riskassumed by the Phoenix Com-pany in North America. Twoyears later, the company issued apolicy in London for $2,000 for aHalifax firm. Within a few years.the Phoenix commissioned fireplans ofSI. John's and QuebecCity in order to issue policies inthese two cities. In 1804, thecompany established an agencyin Montreal. the first in Canada.and the following year a secondin Halifax.

I'.". ,~ M

':r:-~' :el~W

-4-

The first canadian company. theNova Scotia Fire Insurance Asso·ciation, was founded in 1809 bya group of businessmen in Hali·fax. In 1819, it was incorporatedas the Halifax Fire AssuranceCompany. Asecond indigenousoperation, the Quebec Fire Insur·ance Company, was launchedunsuccessfully as a mutual orga·nization in 1816 and later reor·ganized as a joint stock company.Ontario entered the field in 1833with the British Assurance Com·pany. Prior to 1840, at least sixcanadian companies carried onbusiness: the Hallfax, Globe,British America, Central ofFreder·icton, Home District Mutual andthe Gore District Mutual. Colonialcompetition notwithstanding, thelong·established British firmscontinued to control a lion'sshare of the market.Fire insurance companies inCanada shared with Americanfirms the problems oforganiza·tion and standardization. In thesecond half of the 19th century,the Canadian fire insurance indus·try responded to the wild fluctua·

tions in business by initiatingwider associative movements.The first such organization beganin Halifax when representativesof the Halifax, Alliance, Phoenix,American, Liverpool and Londonand The Royal met on January 5,1857. This meeting, designed toesrablish tatiffs for the Ciry ofHalifax, was called after a majorfire alened the companies to theneed for cooperation. During themeeting, it was decided that "inorder to better serve the interestsof the community and the panici·pating companies, a joint body orassociation called the HalifaxInsurance Board be formed". Theboard, composed of representa·tives of the above named com·panies resolved that:...the benefits ofsuch a Board shallbe confined to forming Rules andRegulations for the guidance of themembers of this association. theestablishment ofa Thtilf of Rates forthe City, and generally adopting suchmeasures as may lend to the mutualbenefit of all concemed.

A Sun Company fireman oftheeighteenth century.

The new board faced its firstmajor test on september 9, 1859,follOWing a disastrous fire whichdestroyed two blocks of bUildingson Granville Street in downtownHalifax. The total settlementamounted to£128,075 andresulted in a five shilling increaseto Halifax tariff rates. After acareful investigation, the boardattributed the fire's rapid spreadto "the want of sufficient supplyof water at the commencementand to a general want of manage·ment", and requested the city tolaunch its own investigation intothe causes. The board made anumber of recommendations,including an improved watersupply for the city, the hiring ofmore firemen, and the laying ofpipes not less than 12 inchesalong the entire length ofBarrackStreet with branch lines leadingdown the hill to be used exclu·sively for fires. Failing the imple·mentation of these protectivemeasures, the board faced noalternative bur to increase tariffs.

A number of emergencies aroserequiring acrion by the insuranceboard. In May 1861, the resigna·tion of the Union Fire EngineCompany rendered Halifaxdefenceless against fire. Theboard hastily called a meeting todiscuss the dangerous situationwith the city council which, intum. summoned all availableable·bodied men to form a volun·teer fire brigade.The effoITS of the HalifaxInsurance Board demonstrated toNova Scotian companies thevalue oflarger associations andinspired the formation in 1864 ofthe Nova Scotia Board of FireUnderwriters, the first province·wide association in Canada. Theboard was empowered to settariffs to which all panicipatingcompanies were bound to adhere.Faliure ofcompanies to complyresulted in a vote ofcensure bythe board and an order for theviolating company "to cancel theinsurance so improperly effectedand return the premium" .

One year after the formation ofthe Nova Scotia Board,neighbouring fire insurance com-panies followed suit and formedthe New Brunswick Board of FireUnderwriters.

The high incidence oflarge firesin 19th century canadian citieshad the inevitable consequenceofdriving numerous fire insurancecompanies into bankruptcy. In aneffort to lend some stability to thestruggling industry, the newcanadian government passed theInsurance Company Act in 1868.This act, loosely based on Ameri-can legislation, required that allcompanies operating in morethan one province had to acquirea license from the Minister ofFinance. Under the terms of thelegislation, each company wasrequired to deposit $50,000 withthe government. The influence ofthe Act was immediate as thenumber of fire insurance compan-ies dropped dramatically (In1868: British 26, American 29,canadian 6. In 1869: British 12,American 4, Canadian 5). Thesecompanies were also reqUired tofile a detailed schedule of financial

statements each year. Failure tocomply with the provisions of theInsurance Act resuited in a$1,000 fine for each infraction.

Despite the example provided inthe eastern provinces, movementtoward an association in centralcanada was slowed by the fiercecompetition and petty rivalriesthat existed between fire insur-ance companies. Fire underwrit-ers in Ontario and Quebecsuffered during 1870. That year,the percentage of losses to premi-ums ran at 85 percent, comparedwith 57 percent in 1869. In 1869,the premiums collected amountedto $1,785,539 and the lossespaid to $1,027,720. In 1870,however, many companies suf-fered - the Quebec Company lost$2 for every $1 collected, thePhoenix $1.50 for every $1 andthe Aetna $1 for $1.

The cause most often cited forthe poor showing of fire insurancecompanies was inadequateincome driven dangerously lowby stiff competition:There are radical errors at workwhich must be eradicated - a reck-less cutting arrates is one of these.Closer scrutiny and more vigilantsupervision are reqUired to preventthe operator of [hat ever fruitfulsource ofloss and fraud - over-insurance. A thorough and frequentinspection of the risks by competentmen would be the means ofholdingagents in check, and would take andkeep off companies books many abad risk. Something must be done toprevent the increase ofsuch a generalholocaust as that which will make1870 a remarkable year in the annalsof canadian fire insurance.(Monetary Times, March 31, 1871.)

A typical executive suite of the mid·19ch cencury.

S~muel May's billiard table manufactory, a typicallarge TOronto industrialnsk.

The Chicago fire of 1871 taught avaluable lesson. It revealed thatthe interests of the insured andthe insuring companies werequite similar. In Chicago. fiercecompetition had driven down thepremiums and the dty wasinsured at a cheaper rate thananywhere else in the UnitedStates. With inadequate cashreserves to meet the cost of the1871 conflagration. 53 compan-ies were forced to ciose. Thissituation pointed out the need toestablish fair rates that wouldprovide companies with adequatecapitai to meet ail costs of aserious fire. The formation of anassociation was stiil not viewedas a possibie solution. The Mone-tary Times reponed in 1871 that:"Combinations among the com-panies are generaily regarded asunworkable" .

During this period, some compan-ies or 'Cheap Jacks' as they werecailed, sold insurance at ratesbelow the cost at which adequateprotection could be provided. Theirresponsible practices of thesecompanies drove premiums downlow throughout the industry. Thecompanies offering these 'bar-gain' rates were often forced tosettle with their unfonunate

creditors by paying only a smailpercentage of the claim. Manypeople fai~ed to realize theseinsurance companies operated onthe same principles as otherbusinesses and. like merchantswho sold their goods below cost,could not long continue to func-tion.

One of the chief contribul~rs tolow rates was a ciass of insurancemiddlemen known as 'drummers'or 'runners' , an outgrowth of theAmerican insurance industry thatfound irs way into canada. Thedrummer claimed to represent allinsurance companies and receiveda commission for ail business heplaced. In reality, he hawked thecustomers' insurance from officeto office, placing it at the lowestpremium.The following represents a typicalexchange between a drummerand an agent:"What will you take a line onMr 's drug stock at?'" Agentor officer (behind the counter) -'"Two and one half per cent." Drum-mer - "Nonsense! I can place it atone." Officer (astonished) '"Withwhat Company?'" Drummer - '"Ohat a halfdozen offices.'" This adroitattack is followed by a funher seriesof fibs concocted on the spot to suit

the circumstances, told with unblush-ing usage. asseverated with dauntlesscheek, and reiterated with anassumed air of sincerity. that mightdeceive even the very eleet. until ourweak-kneed officer imagines his onlysafety lies in succumbing to theinevitable, and doing "as othersdo'".(Monetary Times. November 10,1871.)This undercutting of rates pre-sented problems not only toinsurance companies but also toinsureds, as it created needlessdelays, or even worse, non-payment of ciaims.While general conditions in thefire insurance business improvedthe foilowing year, the problemsof inadequate premiums contin-ued to trouble the industry. Thisprompted a cail for insurancereform and gave rise to a circularthat was sent to ail fire insurancecompanies on June 18, 1872.The communique called for jointaction to be underraken by thecompanies "whereby more satis-factory results may be obtained'".In light of the serious conditionswithin the industry, most com-panies expressed interest in theproposed association. Companyrepresentatives met in Montreal

in september to lay the ground-work for an organization thatwould plan the future of theindustry and increase insurancerates to an adequate level. Inter-mittent discussions continuedover the next few months, butdisagreement about the hazardrisk ofcertain businessesemerged, making any attempt toestablish rates difficult. The com-panies eventually agreed on twoscales of minimum rates basedon firefighting ability. The firstclass included rates for Montreal,lbronto, Quebec, Brantford,Kingston, Brockville, Belleville,Guelph, Hamilton, London andNapanee. Other municipalltiesthat lacked proper firefightingequipment would be placed onthe second scale at a higher rate.The joint stock fire insurancecompanies met again in lbronto

The great fire

at St. John,

New Brunswick.

and on December 20, 1872,agreed to form a general associa-tion and signed an agreementthat bound them to adhere torates establlshed by that body.TWo boards, one in lbronto andone in Montreal. were to meetregularly to discuss fire insuranceissues. The power of the fledglingassociation was limited by therefusal of four companies toparticipate - the Phoenix, lanca-shire, Provincial and Citizen's. OnJanuary 1, 1873, the new scale ofrates adopted earlier by the gen-eral association went into effect.General dissatisfaction with theworking of the tariff associationarose in a lamentably shon time.Companies that declined to jointhe association were not boundto its resrtictions and were there-fore at Iibeny to 'cut' rates andwrite risks as they pleased. A

second factor that may havecontributed to the downfall of theassociation was an improvedfinancial climate in the insuranceindustry in 1873. From 1872 to1873, the premiums paid tocompanies rose from $2,628,710to $2,968,416, while the lossespaid dropped from $1,909,975to$I,682,184, With theimproved situation, many com-panies began to question theneed for any form ofassociation.The Western and the BritishAmerican Companies were thefirst of several to withdraw fromthe general association. Thesecompanies apparently didn'trealize that premiums hadincreased because of the associa-tion's influence, nor did they takeinto account the abnormally lownumber of fires in 1873. By June1875, the Monetary Times

London's First

Attempt to Legislate

Against the Fire King

I N THE early days of London as a village, and later as a town, from 1848 to 1850,the village and town councils governed the municipality largely by resolution,and by,law, but seventy'eight years ago it was decided to take advantage of

increased powers granted by the Legislature of Upper Canada, and old resolutionsand by~laws were discarded for newer and more stringent enactments. Thus itwas that in 1850, when Simeon Morrill was mayor, and Murray Anderson, firstMayor of London as a City five years later, was chairman of a committee of theCouncil, by,laws were adopted establishing fire limits, and providing for additionalsafeguards for the municipality against the ravages of fire. Again in 1855, theCity Fathers added to their fire safeguards by passing a by,law which regulatedthe construction of wooden buildings. Extracts from these by... laws follow;

'TVv'HEREAS it is necessary, by a By-Law, to enact certain regulations and lawefor the general government of the Town of London, the several By,Laws now inforce being deemed insufficient and in some respects inapplicable to the wants andconditions of the inhabitants.

:Now be it therefMe enacted by the Town Council of the Town of London,in Council assembled, under and by virtue of the act of the Parliament of this Pro-vince, entitled "An Act to provide by one general law. for the erection of Muni-"cipal Corporations and the establishment of regulations of Police in and for the"several Counties, Cities. Towns, Townships and Villages in Upper Canada."

1. That from and after the passing of this By·law, all and every the By·Lawand By'Laws of the former Mayor and Town Council of the Town of London,and all other By'Law and By'Laws of the said town in the month of January nowlast past, excepting the By·Law regulating the Markets, shall be and the same arehereby repealed.

II. And be it further enacted that for the good government of the said town,and other purposes herein intended, the following enactments, provisions, rutesand regulations shall, from and after the passing of this By·Law, be in force withinthe said Town of London, that is to say-

L That every owner or occupier of any dwelling,house, building or shop,or any owner or occupier of any part of any dwelling-house. building or shop,using therein a stove. or stoves, shall have, place and keep under such stove andstoves a brick or metal hearth; and the bottom of such stove or stoves shall notbe less than eight inches from such hearth, "nd the sides or ends not less thaneighteen inches from any wooden partition; and above such stove or stoves nostove pipe shall be nearer to the ceiling than twelve inches; and when stoves areused to heat other rooms than that in which the stove is placed. by an aperturein any wall or partition, such aperture shall extend at least nine inches round eachstove on the top, and two sides thereof, which aperture shall be filled up withbrick and mortar, or stone, and when any stove'pipe shall be passed through awooden partition. it shall not pass nearer than six inches to such partition, or toany ceiling; and such space shall be filled with brick and mortar, or stone, andevery stove-pipe whatever shall be conducted into a proper brick-built flue orchimney, safely and securely constructed.

2. That no ashes shall be placed or left in any wooden receptacle, in or nearany dwelling-house, nor within twenty-five fe:et of the same. by any person orpersons whatsoever, unless in some safe brick, metal or stone depository therefor.

3, That no stove'pipe shall be carried through the rocf or side of any build,ing, and that all stove'pipes passing through any flocr, ceiling or partition, shallbe so secured as to have no wood or combustible substance within six inches ofsuch stove'pipe; and that the manner of securing such stove-pipes shall also besubject to the approval of the town inspectors. or either of the Fire Wardens ortheir assistants, and that all chimneys shall be carried up at least three feet abovethe rocf.

-9-

reponed that the Montreal Boardhad not met regularly for sometime and was assumed to bedefunct. In Thronto, the boardcontinued to proVide a forum forthe interchange of ideas butpossessed little real power.Smaller boards continued tooperate in Hamilton and London.

After the dissolution of the gen-eral association. fire insurancecompanies slowly drifted back totheir old practices, characterizedby renewed fierce comperitionand falling rates. Following a yearof intensive rate cutting. theindustry was brought to its kneesby a disastrous fire in Saint Johnin 1877. This fire, whichdestroyed two-thirds of the city,prompted the failure of threecompanies and severely hinderedthe operation of many others.The total losses paid in 1877were $8.490,919, while thepremiums collected amounted toonly $3,764,005 (representing aloss ratio of 225 percent). Againthere was discussIon about fonn-ing another association to combatfalling rates. This time it wasacknowledged that in order tosucceed, such an organizationmust involve all fire insurancecompanies operating in Ontarioand Quebec.

The aim of association was notachieved immediately. Althoughthe Manitoba and Nonh \>\estAssociation was formed on Janu-ary 21, 1880, Central Canada didnot follow suit for a few years.Companies continued to complainthat premiums were insufficientto meet costs of carrying a risk,and even rhe stronger finns cutrates to increase business with

By-law ofLondon. Ontario whichenacted stringent fire regulationsand banned wooden construction inthe commerdal core area.

~.:-

S. MORRILL, Mayor.

-10-

IT Is HEREBY ENACTED, by the Town Council of the Town of London, inCouncil assembled, under and by virtue of the Act of the Parliament of this Province,intituled: "An Act to provide, by one general law, for the erection of Municipal"Corporations, and the establishment of regulations of Police in and for the several"counties. cities, towns, townships and villages in Upper Canada:' That it shallnot be lawful for any person or persons to erect, build or remove any wocxlenbuilding, whatever, upon the land in the said Town of London, contained withinthe following limits, that is to say. commencing on the north side of Dundas Street,on the west side of the Western Hotel (now occupied by the Dennis Wire Co.),from thence north to the south side of North Street (Carling Street), from thenceeasterly, along the south side of North Street to the corner of North and ClarenceStreets, from thence southerly along the west side of Clarence Street to the cornerof Clarence and King Streets, from thence westerly, along the north side of KingStreet to the corner of King and Ridout Streets, from thence northerly, along theeast side of Ridout St., to the corner of Ridout and Dundas Streets, and from thencewesterly, along Dundas Street, to the west side of the said Western Hotel, theplace of beginning.

Passed the 10th day of June, 1850.

4. That the town inspectors, or either of them or the Fire Wardens, shallhave authority at any time between the hours of nine and six in the day time, toenter any building or private residence, for the purpose of examining the stove'pipes, chimneys. or 6re'places. in order that they may report thereon to the TownCouncil, and that no person shall refuse to admit either or any of the said officers,for the purpose aforesaid.

5. That every chimney or flue in which fire is commonly made shall, fromthe first day of November to the first day of April in every year, be swept at leastonce in every eight weeks, and when the same is daily used for kitchens and manu'factories, once in every eight weeks throughout the year, in the same manner, bythe tenant or person occupying.

6. That every person residing in said town shall find and provide a good andsufficient ladder, or ladders, to be appended to the houses they shall respectivelyinhabit, and to be of sufficient length to reach the roof, and a ladder or ladders ofsufficient length to reach the chimney.

7. That in the event of the chimney of any house in the said town takingfire, from any cause whatever, unless it shall have been swept by the person ap'pointed by the council within the time specified in section No.5, of this By-Law,the person or persons occupying the house to which such chimney is attachedshall forfeit the sum not less than five shillings, or more than twenty shillings.

8. That each and every tenant or occupant of a dwelling shall providehimself with a good leather bucket, containing not less than two and a half gallons,having the initials of the owner's name thereon, which bucket shall be placed insome conspicuous place near the entrance of such dwelling; and that each mer~chant's shop, public inn, or grocery, shall in like manner be provided with twosuch buckets, to be kept in some conspicuous place within such merchant's shop.public inn or grocery.

9. That no kiln or building for the purpose of seasoning or drying lumberof any description, by the application of 6re, shall be erected within the distanceof two hundred feet of any other building within the limits of the town; nor shallany person or persons burn, or cause to be burned, any shavings or rubbisn in thepublic streets, private yards. or lots, nearer than one hundred feet to any building,nor shall any person leave in his or their yard any heap of hay or straw within onehundred feet of any building.

10. That no gunpowder above ten pounds in quantity shall be kept in anybut a separate building, and such building shall not be nearer than three hundredfeet to any other building, and that all gunpowder under such quantity kept forsale, shall be deposited in a fire-proof box or safe, in or on the roof of such house orshop from which it shall be sold; and that no person shall ascend to such place witha lighted candle, lantern or lamp.

JAMES FARLEY, 'Town Cler~.

little regard for increased liabilityto loss. The Monetary Times ofApril 1882 reported: "The srateof the fire insurance business, weare told upon all sides, is dis-heartening: rates inadequate,competition unreasoning, agentseasy-going and managers weakin the back". Another publicationgrimly described the unsoundand unethical manner in whichinsurance business was practised:Rates have been reduced with arecklessness unequalled in any otherclass ofbusiness, and dsks havebeen completed with a rapaciryhitherto unknown, without regard tothe moral or any other attendanthazard, until the whole business ofFire Underwdting has been com-pleted demol