Did Insurance Fire Brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

Paul J Sillitoe, December 2022

Introduction

This paper derives from a short, time-bound, review of the literature, which sought to investigate the question “Did Insurance Fire Brigades let uninsured buildings burn?”. The question is set in the context of property fire insurance in London, from 1680. The situation was possibly comparable with other large British urban and industrial centres, but less likely to be so for less-developed rural areas.

Two conflicting views on the question are first outlined, together with a note about the scope and context of the reviewed literature. A chronological approach is then taken to an investigation of the question, so far as the accessible sources allowed.

The directly relevant evidence is limited. The question has therefore been largely considered through interpretation and analysis of a number of factors, cautiously using texts from well-referenced secondary sources. The conclusions that are drawn are therefore somewhat tentative, but firmly grounded in the literature. They are set in the context of London. There is scope for further research, particularly in primary and specialist sources that were not available for the present work.

Conflicting views on the question

The commonly held view

Much literature of the 20^th and 21^st centuries promulgates the belief that insurance fire brigades stood back and let buildings burn, if they were not insured by their particular company. This view has been common to both popular periodical articles and more formal histories.^{[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]} Some of those writers relate the situation to the “earlier days” of fire insurance, within the 18^th century.^{[9], [10], [11]} The basis for their assertions cannot usually be determined, because the accounts have not been referenced back to primary evidence, such as contemporary records and commentaries. They can, though, only be based on sources beyond the writers’ direct memories – presumably either earlier literature, or oral tradition.

The revisionist view

A few suspicions have been voiced against this commonly held view, but they are also unreferenced – there was “no doubt”, for example, that the “concession” that insurance firemen would fight all fires “was begun early in the eighteenth century on both politic and humanitarian grounds,”^[12] while “…the notion that any brigade would stand idly by while premises bearing the fire mark of its competitor burned gaily away was probably always fictional”.^[13]

More recent writers have more firmly rebutted the notion of letting uninsured buildings burn. In 1996, an insurance company history referenced, in 1702, “the first of many recorded examples” of insurance fire brigades working together to fight fires. The insuring fire office recompensated the other offices whose men who had assisted.^[14] The origins of the legend have, though, been placed elsewhere by a later writer’s detailed history of insurance fire brigades.^[15] The “erroneous myth”, is said to have originated only in the 1920s.^[16]  However, the cited evidence relates to only two events, in 1871 and 1895.^[17]

Reviewing the contemporary literature

Scope

The present time-bound review necessarily focussed on published accounts. None-the-less, those texts substantially covered the period of interest, both as historical and contemporary accounts in their own right, and as more recently written histories. The reviewed literature was discovered initially through primary searches under relevant keywords, and then through reference checking. While considerable literature was unearthed, the search could not be exhaustive within the time available.

Limitations

Two particular limitations should be noted. Firstly, it was not possible, in the time, to consult any original insurance company records surviving in archives. Several primary references were, though, gratefully received from the London Fire Brigade Museum, whose changed website text had led to the question being raised.^[18] A few records have also been published; some in several places, enabling cross-checking for veracity. Secondly, publications of the Fire Mark Circle^[19] are an essential resource for this research question; regrettably, their Library was inaccessible.^[20] So, too, was the Library of the Chartered Institute of Insurance, another highly relevant resource, whose holdings include the unpublished notes for Walford’s Cyclopaedia.^[21]

The evidence reviewed

The sources of evidence are scattered. Some bear directly on the question, while others provide only a basis for interpretation and inference. All sources must be placed in context, particularly in relation to their nearness to the events they describe. The evidence is therefore now considered for a range of individual factors, before any conclusions are attempted. Its interpretation and analysis is split into chronological sections, reflecting the different situations that seemed to have obtained as insurance company fire-fighting evolved:

The early period, 1680 – 1720s

The first London fire insurance company – aptly named The Fire Office – was set up in 1680, following the Great Fire of 1666.^{[22], [23]} Two further fire offices were established in the following decade, in 1683^{[24], [25]} and 1696.^{[26], [27]} Each office had its own fire brigade,^{[28], [29]} although in their earliest days, it consisted only of a body of men, recruited from Thames watermen, not necessarily with a fire engine.^[30] Furthermore, only buildings were insured – neither their contents, nor the lives of their occupants, were covered.

The brigade foreman at the scene of the fire was responsible for ascertaining whether a property was insured, and if so, by which company.^[31] For the first century of fire insurance, an insured property had to clearly display a brightly decorated fire mark, identifying the insurance company.^[32]

However, primary evidence shows that in these early years, insurance company fire brigades seemingly made little distinction between insured and uninsured properties. Originally writing in 1692-3, Daniel Defoe noted that the firemen were “very active and diligent” in helping to put out fires, “whether in houses insured or not insured”.^[33] Insurance companies’ instructions to their firemen were clear – they were to attend and help extinguish “all” fires. ^{[34], [35]}

Later authors have argued good reasons why this seemingly counter-productive policy was adopted: ^{[36], [37], [38], [39]}

• In densely developed London, a fire in an uninsured property might easily spread to one that was insured
• Smartly turned-out firemen, rapid attendance, and energetic fire-fighting were all good advertising for an insurance company
• Freely extinguishing fires in uninsured houses of the poor was a charitable and humanitarian act.

The mid C18th, 1720s — 1780s

Eight fire insurance offices had been established in London by 1721.^[40] No more were to be set up there for almost half a century, following the South Sea Bubble crash of the previous year.^[41] Fire insurance was almost entirely a London-based business during this period. A small handful of new Scottish and English provincial concerns provided no competition to the capital.^[42]

Undifferentiated fire-fighting still seems to have been practiced – in 1752, the London Assurance Company’s orders required their brigade to turn out to “All alarms of Fire” … “in order to extinguish the same”.^[43] In 1798, in Bolton, it was noted that the Royal Exchange company gave “equal assistance if the parties are assured or not”.^[44]

Little direct evidence for insurance fire brigades has been found for this part of its history, in comparison with earlier and later dates. What can be discerned, then, from the sources that are available, that might shine a little more light on the question at issue? Some later-dated formal accounts can be reflected back to the 18^th century, with due caution, particularly with respect to undated assertions. Together with such direct evidence as is available, several factors can then be considered in relation to cooperation, competition and conflict during this part of the 18^th century.

Monetary rewards

Brigades’ enthusiasm to attend fires was no doubt markedly boosted, in 1707-8, by the introduction of legislation providing money rewards for the first engines to reach a fire.^[45] Thirty shillings (30s) was to be awarded to the first in attendance, 20s to the second, and 10s to the third.^[46] They were considerable sums of money for their time. While these inducements initially applied only to London, provincial insurance brigades, such as in Bath and Manchester, were offered similar incentives to arrive at a fire scene first. Insurance companies also made additional payments for hard work and bravery at fires, and made compensation awards for injury or death.^{[47], [48], [49], [50], [51]}

Too many fire brigades

Probably, up to half a dozen insurance fire brigades were operating in London, at any one time, during this period.^[52]  There were also parish fire engines, albeit often old and poorly maintained, and some private engines and brigades.^{[53], [54]} Many or most brigades would therefore have had the potential to turn out to a fire, depending on its location. One dramatic illustration depicts three insurance fire engines racing each other along the road to a fire, while the parish pump is bundled along the pavement in the background.^[55]

Too little water

A counter to an over-supply of engines at a fire was often an under-supply of water to feed them. London’s fire-fighters had great trouble finding enough fire-fighting water, or any water at all. Even the waters of the Thames, if at ebb, might be out of reach.^[56], [57] Such situations were aptly described in relation to a later fire, in Scotland’s capital city. It was all very well to reward speed to a fire, but that was only “a small part of the business”. The result was more engines than required, and too little water to feed any of them effectively.^[58] Firemen’s quarrels about water supply in Edinburgh were still being reported in 1830.^[59]

Character and conduct of the firemen

These three logistical factors must be considered alongside the character and conduct of the men involved. London firemen were recruited initially from Thames watermen – strong, tough men, who were not afraid of danger. Nor were they strangers to disrespectful expression and disorderly conduct. They worked in a febrile atmosphere, often fuelled by the free beer which flowed for those operating the fire engine pumps. Drunkenness and brawling could accompany speed and bravery. Their employers enforced the rules for firemen, but seemingly fairly, in frequent disciplinary proceedings. ^{[60], [61], [62], [63]}

Some 19^th century accounts graphically describe the behaviour of insurance firemen in terms that were probably equally appropriate to their 18^th century forebears. The use of separate company fire engines in Edinburgh, for example, “creates a degree of jealousy among the men who work them… [which] seems, for the most part, to increase with the fury of the flames; and at the moment when all success depends upon a union of their efforts, then are they at their most discordant…”.^[64]

Similarly, in London, where “…every fire office … maintained its own separate staff of firemen and engines,” …. “the men quarrelled and fought for such rewards as came to their lot for promptness in attending fires…”^[65] Looking back on the “earlier days”, a Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee reflected on the “notoriety” that insurance fire brigades had given to their employers. The “considerable rivalry” between them occasioned both “good” and “some considerable evil” at fires.^[66]

Such “evil” might well be of the kind related by a popular periodical in 1840. Referring back to earlier times, when “each Insurance Company had its own engines and firemen, ... it too often happened that the latter would decline to exert themselves at the suppression of a fire, unless the building which was a prey to it, was insured with the office to which they belonged”.^[67]

The turn of the C19th, 1780s – 1820s

In the 100 years to 1780, twenty two fire insurance concerns had been set up in the UK, although only nine were still in business at that date. In 1790, there were twelve extant, and in 1800, eighteen. There was a substantial increase in the number of fire offices from that date; an initial doubling in the next decade, and overall further growth subsequently, with both gains and losses.^[68] By 1808, there were more than fifty fire insurance company engines in London.^[69]

Despite their rivalries, insurance companies and their brigades did also cooperate with each other. Indeed, from the 1780s, the degree of general cooperation and collusion between large fire insurance companies has been described as “unique” in the financial services sector, ranging “over an extraordinary number of areas”.^[70] Joint insurance was very common between the larger companies.^[71] In 1795, for example, the Hand in Hand cooperated with the Sun, Royal Exchange and Phoenix offices by jointly insuring the Pantheon theatre in London’s Oxford Street.^[72] A more general co-insurance agreement was made with the Albion Fire Office, in 1826.^[73] This practice would obviously encourage insurance brigades to work together, if such properties caught fire.^[74] 

As briefly noted above, as early as 1707, the Hand in Hand had made payments to fourteen men from the Friendly Society, and nine from the Phoenix, for their assistance at a fire.^{[75], [76]} A much later example, from Birmingham in 1841, illustrates that such reciprocity between offices was part of normal business. The Birmingham Fire Office was breaching such a reciprocity agreement with the Phoenix, by billing for the attendance of their engines at some Phoenix fires. Refusing to pay their supposed partners, the Phoenix reminded the Birmingham that the public would not look favourably on the Phoenix if they started to withhold their own fire engines, in retaliation.^[77]

Such reciprocity eventually led to more formalised united working. In 1791, three London fire offices – the Royal Exchange, Phoenix and the Sun – established a joint nightly Fire Watch, based on their respective fire engine houses.^{[78], [79]}  This cooperation, though, only extended to patrolling. In the event of an alarm, each company would endeavour to reach the fire first, where they would act independently. The joint patrol operated until June 1806, when it disbanded amid worries over cost, and the inability to attract other companies to it.^[80]

In 1808, a further cooperative working proposal, to set up a joint insurance fire engine establishment in London, came to naught.^[81] Around the same time, though, two fire offices in Bath established a joint brigade, while in 1813, a joint fire patrol was established in Reading. The following year, bitter winter weather prompted five London insurance companies to set up another joint night patrol for the duration.^[82] 

In this period, fire insurance companies remained firm in their instructions to firemen to attend “all” fires, and to “render the utmost assistance to all who need it”, upon pain of dismissal for neglect.^{[83], [84], [85]} While such rules do not necessarily survive for every company, taken together with attendance payments records, there is a firm impression that most companies acted in the same way.^[86] Insurance fire brigades had by now become the de facto public fire force, despite their attempts to encourage, resource and ultimately enforce parishes’ legal responsibilities.^[87]

As insurance fire brigades began to fight fires more generally, they no longer needed to rely so much on fire marks as identifiers of insured properties. Besides, after more than century of use, fire marks were no longer reliable. Some remained on buildings long after their insurance had lapsed, while some properties displayed more than one mark.^[88]

In 1809, the Albion company announced that fire marks were no longer to be applied to buildings, because “…the firemen of the company [will] render the utmost assistance to all who need it; the security of persons insured will in no respect be diminished by the disuse of this superfluous appendage.” ^[89] None-the-less, some insurance companies started to issue fire plates, whose sole purpose was to advertise the company.^[90]

1820s onwards

The number of fire insurance companies continued to grow in the 19^th century, both within London and beyond. Thirty-eight were extant by 1820, and more than fifty a decade later. The companies became increasingly concerned by the costs of their fire-fighting provisions, and started to look for economies of scale. From 1^st January 1827, three London-based insurance brigades were brought under the control of a single Superintendent. This allowed the individual companies to rationalize their outlays. A fourth company joined the joint organization in 1831, followed by a fifth.^{[91], [92], [93]}

On 1^st January 1833, ten London fire insurance company brigades amalgamated, to form the London Fire Engine Establishment (LFEE).^{[94], [95]}  Its first major test raised the issue of uninsured properties once more. Following the catastrophic burning of the Houses of Parliament, in October 1834, fire insurance companies emphasised to the Government that they had fought that fire purely as a “favour”. The Parliament buildings were not insured, their fire brigades were still private concerns, and the insurance companies had to necessarily protect their own interests first. If a choice had to be made between attending a fire at a company’s insured property, or an uninsured one, the latter would have to be left to burn. No Government action was taken.^{[96], [97]}

Following a further disastrous fire in 1861, the LFEE advised Government that they could no longer be solely responsible for firefighting in London. Only one third of London property was insured, but policy holders were also bearing the expenses of protecting the majority of London properties, which were uninsured. After an “official inquiry and some vacillation”, the Government agreed to establish a public fire service for the capital. Consequently, on 1^st January 1866, the LFEE handed over its duties, and much of its equipment, to the newly formed Metropolitan Fire Brigade.^{[98], [99], [100]} At its peak, forty fire insurance companies had been associated with their joint brigade, although that number had reduced to twenty-eight by the time of its disbandment.^[101]

Outside London, many places were still reluctant to establish municipal fire brigades, because the additional costs to the rates were thought to be too unpopular. Where local authorities did take on fire-fighting responsibilities, they still looked to the insurance companies for substantial support.^[102],[103] Tensions grew between insurance companies and local authorities during 19^th century. Where the companies faced substantial risks, they remained encumbered with maintaining their own brigades, or risk facing unaffordable losses. Many local authorities were simply content to let them continue with the good job that they had been doing for so many years.

Only two occasions have been reported, though, where insurance companies threatened the authorities that they would cease attending fires in uninsured properties. These instances, in 1871 and 1895, were part of the much larger and long-standing disagreement over the provision and funding of public fire services.^[104]  They post-date much of the evidence that has been accrued for insurance brigades letting uninsured buildings burn. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as the foundation of the legend.

A similar threat of non-attendance was also available in other circumstances. In 1833, regulations for the County Fire Office’s brigades in provincial towns required that engines were not to be sent to uninsured properties, unless an undertaking had been given that all expenses would be paid by the interested parties. If such expenses were not paid, the brigade would not attend future fires at the property.^[105]

The last fire insurance brigade did not disband until 1929.^[106]

Conclusions

In the early years of fire insurance, insurance company fire brigades seemingly made little distinction between insured and uninsured properties. They were instructed to attend and help put out all fires. The grounds for this policy included the risk of fire-spread between uninsured and insured properties, the advertising value of the firemen and their engines, and charitable acts for those who could not afford insurance.

In principle, this policy seems to have remained in force throughout the 18^th century. In practice, though, changing circumstances led to keen rivalry between fire brigades, whether insurance company, parish or private. Firstly, monetary rewards were introduced for the earliest attendees at fires. That innovation led to engines racing each other through the streets. As the number of fire insurance companies grew, so, too, did the number of fire engines. Once at the fire, too many engines were too often competing for very limited water supplies.

When the nature of the firemen is added to this situation, the scene is set for more competition, and chaos. This, in turn, can reasonably be imagined as having led to conflict – both verbal and physical. With no reward, no water, and no insurance interest in a burning building, it is not difficult to envisage firemen standing back on occasion, jeering and generally interfering with rival brigades fighting a fire in which they did have an interest. Or, alternatively, simply packing up and going home. Arguably, therefore, the legend of insurance fire brigades letting uninsured buildings burn originated in the first half of the 18^th century.

Reciprocal fire-fighting arrangements had long been made between insurance companies. They started to develop into more formal working arrangements in the decades around the turn of the 19^th century. At the same time, insurance brigades continued to follow their employers’ directives to attend and extinguish all fires, whether insured or not. They were the de facto established fire service for most localities. Fire marks became redundant.

Despite these more formalized joint arrangements, rivalry and discord are still ascribed to firemen as the 19^th century progressed. They brought “notoriety” to their employers, and sometimes “evil” to the fire-grounds – including declining to put out fires in uninsured properties. Insurance companies themselves, though, were sometimes minded not to send engines to uninsured properties, unless their expenses were guaranteed to be met.

Demands on the insurance brigades, and costs to their employers, grew as the 19^th century progressed. Some brigades, including those for London, eventually handed over to newly established municipal fire forces. Otherwise, they soldiered on, but only on two recorded occasions did they threaten to stop attending fires in uninsured properties. These instances, in 1871 and 1895, cannot be regarded as the foundation of the legend.

Paul J Sillitoe
December 2022

Endnotes