of view is that fire brigades should not be merely fire extinguishing organizations but should utilize their influence in a much wider sense.
The Congress considered:—
1. That public authorities should encourage fire brigade officers to take an active interest in the preventive aspect of fire protection, inasmuch as the result of the fire brigade officers’ experience in actual fire practice, if suitably applied in conjunction with the work of architects, engineers and public officials, would be most useful for the organization and development of precautionary measures.
2. That fire brigade societies, associations and unions should encourage amongst the brigades affiliated to these bodies the study of questions of fire prevention.
3. That fire brigades should be placed on a sound legal basis, and that it is advisable that their efficiency be supervised by a government department.
4. That an official investigation should be made of all fires. That on the occurrence of every fire an investigation should be immediately made by an official, duly qualified and empowered to ascertain the cause and circumstances connected therewith, reporting the result of such investigation to a public department for tabulation and publication.
5. That the whole or part of the cost of such inquiry should be charged to the occupier of the premises where the fire occurred, as may appear desirable in the circumstances of each case.
6. That the press should from time to time publish technical reports on fires so that the public may benefit from the knowledge and experience gained.
London.—In the early part of the 19th century the methods in vogue for the suppression of outbreaks of fire in the metropolis were of the most crude and disjointed character, in striking contrast with the highly elaborated system now put into practice by the London County Council through its fire brigade; and it was not until the second half of the 19th century was well advanced that anything approaching an adequate and satisfactory organization was brought into existence. Until the passing of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act 1865, the only acts relating to the suppression of outbreaks of fire in London were the Lighting and Watching Act (3 & 4 William IV., c. 90), and “an act (14 Geo. III., c. 78) for the further and better Regulation of Buildings and Party Walls, and for the more effectually preventing Mischiefs by Fire within the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Liberties thereof, and other the Parishes, Precincts and Places within the Weekly Bills of Mortality, the Parishes of Marylebone, Paddington, St Pancras, and St Luke’s at Chelsea, in the County of Middlesex.” The clauses in the latter act relating to protection against fire remained in force till the passing of the act of 1865. They provided that every parish should keep “one large engine and one small, called a hand engine, a leathern pipe, and a certain number of ladders.” The Lighting and Watching Act contained a clause which extended to England and Wales and so covered the area “without the bills of mortality,” enabling the inspectors appointed under that act to provide and keep up two fire-engines; and certain of the parishes in the metropolitan district, without the bills of mortality, availed themselves of this provision.
The select committee of fires in the metropolis, which sat in 1862, reported that it was difficult to ascertain how far the act of George III. was attended to, or when it ceased to be considered practically of importance, but that, at the time of the report, the arrangements generally made by the parishes under the act were not only entirely useless, but in many cases produced injurious results, as the system under the act frequently conferred a reward for the first useless parochial engine, whereas the efficient engine which might be on the spot a few minutes later derived no pecuniary advantages. There were, however, exceptions to the general rule. At Hackney, for example, a “very efficient” fire brigade was maintained at an expense of about £500 a year, or about one halfpenny in the pound on the rating of the parish. The select committee were unable to ascertain with any accuracy the total amount paid by the metropolitan parishes for the maintenance, “however inefficient,” of their fire-engines, but it was estimated to be about £10,000.
For many years previous to 1832, the principal fire insurance offices in London kept fire brigades at their individual expense; to these brigades were attached a considerable number of men usually occupied as Thames watermen, retained in the service of the different Fire Offices, who received payment only on the occurrence of fires, and who wore the livery and badge of the respective companies. These fire brigades were, to quote the report of the select committee of 1862, considered as giving notoriety to the different insurance companies, and a considerable rivalry was maintained, which was productive naturally of good as well as of some considerable evil on occasions of fires.
The large expenses thus incurred by the companies induced an attempt to be made, which was effectually carried out in the year 1832, by R. Bell Forde, a leading director of the Sun Fire Office, to form one brigade for the purpose of promoting economy as well as greater efficiency. Thus the first organized fire brigade for London began its operations under the united sanction of, and from funds contributed by, most of the leading insurance offices in London. The force thus formed was known as the London Fire Engine Establishment. The annual expense was at first £8000, the number of stations 19, the number of men employed 80. By 1862 the annual cost had grown to £25,000, the number of stations had become 20, and the number of men 127.
It is interesting to note that the chief station of the Fire Engine Establishment was the Watling-Street station, in substitution for which the new Cannon-Street station has been built. The following is a list of the other stations of the establishment:—
| School House-lane, Shadwell | Crown Street, Soho |
| Wellclose Square | Wells Street |
| Jeffrey’s Square | Baker Street |
| Whitecross Street | King Street, Golden Square |
| Farringdon Street | Horseferry Road |
| Holborn | Waterloo Road |
| Chandos Street | Southwark Bridge Road |
| Tooley Street | Southwark Bridge (floating) |
| Lucas Street, Rotherhithe | Rotherhithe (floating) |
The work of this force was carried out in an efficient manner as far as its limited equipment and strength would permit, but it was universally admitted that the staff, engines and stations were totally inadequate for the general protection of London from fire. The directors of the insurance offices themselves admitted this, but they considered their brigade sufficient for the protection of that part of London in which the largest amount of insured property was located, and contended that it was not their business to provide fire stations in the more outlying districts where, if a fire occurred, it was not likely to involve their offices in serious loss.
From 1836 the work of the brigade maintained by the fire offices was supplemented by the “Society for the Protection of Life from Fire.” This society was managed by a committee of which the lord mayor was president. It was supported entirely by voluntary contributions, and, at a cost of about £7000 a year, maintained fire-escapes at from 80 to 90 stations in different parts of the most central districts in London. Its most outlying station was only 4 m. from the Royal Exchange, and it maintained no stations in such localities as Greenwich, Peckham, Deptford and New Cross. It did much useful work, though its equipment was quite inadequate to cope with the needs of the metropolis.
In 1834, two years after the institution of the London Fire Engine Establishment, the Houses of Parliament were destroyed by fire, and the attention of the government was consequently directed to the inadequacy of the existing conditions for fire extinction. It was suggested, at the time, that the parochial engines should be placed under the inspection of the commissioners of police, but this proposal was not adopted, and the existing state of matters was allowed to continue for another thirty years. The select committee of 1862 recommended that a fire brigade should be created under the superintendence of the commissioners of police, and should form part of the general establishment of the metropolitan police. In 1865, however, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act was passed, under which the responsibility for the provision and maintenance of an efficient
