It must in fairness to the builder be stated that to erect houses in strict accordance with the model byelaws would probably mean loss of money to him, as they could not possibly be built with any prospect of a reasonable return upon the outlay. This partly arises from the stringent clauses inserted with respect to the structure of walls and other precautions for the prevention of fires. I cannot help thinking that too much interference is now made by sanitary authorities for the protection of property from fire.[156] It is not a sanitary question, and is certainly one which chiefly affects insurance companies. Every one should be able to pay his small insurance premium and the companies should look after their own interests, and not expect it to be done by others. If the sanitary authority wish to interfere in the question of fire, why should not the protection of _life_ be considered as much as property? Yet no clause can be discovered in the model byelaws rendering it compulsory to make some provision in dwelling-houses or factories for the easy escape of the inmates in case of fire. Indeed, as the Public Health Act does not authorise the enactment of a byelaw for such a purpose, such a clause would most probably be held to be _ultra vires_. Another cause of expense to builders is the necessity imposed on them to provide a comparatively large open space at the back or sides of new dwelling-houses, thus sacrificing land, and sometimes making it almost impossible to build at all. This necessity for open gardens or yards at the back of even small labourers’ dwellings is in some towns pushed to an extreme. If such houses are erected in a thoroughly sanitary manner in all points of detail, it is questionable if this open space is really beneficial. My experience has shown me that the space is often misused, animals, such as rabbits, chickens, pigeons, &c., being kept there, or it is made into a so-called garden, really a refuse heap which is a receptacle for all the garbage and filth of the house, soon becoming a fruitful source of disease to the occupants of the house itself and the neighbours. It is also difficult to ensure that the space thus provided and approved of in the deposited plans shall not be built upon at some future period. It would be better if the streets in front of such dwellings were wide, and a narrow street or “drangway” constructed at the back for the dust-cart service, supply of coals, &c. The houses themselves should have their rooms properly and thoroughly ventilated; underground kitchens or living rooms should be prohibited. The drainage, water-supply, and all the apparatus in connection with them, should be perfect but simple. At the back of the house should be a small yard or court well paved with asphalte or other impervious material, in which should be placed the wash-house, w.c., &c. These and public parks and plenty of fresh air in the streets and in the dwelling-houses themselves