The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

agent and secretary-treasurer, Edward Browne, the Hamilton agent, and Captain Duncan Milloy, the ex-Royal Mail Line officer whose younger brother would become the Toronto agent, amounted to almost an additional third. Except for the Gildersleeve interests this accounted for virtually all the stock held outside Montreal, but only four of the 1862 board of directors.1 8 This board was dominated by a num ber of Montreal investors following Hugh Allan's lead.19 Apart from George Sanderson and two of Allan's co-directors of the Allan Line, none of these men had actively managed ship ping businesses. Instead they were diversifying their in terests by investing in the various joint stock company promotions of the period. Essentially the attraction was a limited risk, minimal commitment of their time, and prospects of a higher rate of return than bank stock. In a trend evident by 1866 the balance of ownership had tipped in favour of the Montreal investors. Most of the captains and agents seemed to be following Harbottle's lead and disposing of their stock. Perhaps their commit m ent had only been to the extent of ensuring the con tinuity of their employment and agencies. Some may have subscribed to more stock than they could afford. On the other hand, much of Alexander Milloy's stock had been acquired through the sale of his M a gnet to the company, shares which had to be divested in order to obtain release from the mortgages on the steamboat.20 Although the precise date of the by-law is uncertain, by 1874 salaried employees were forbidden election as directors. The com position of the board suggests that this rule had been in place since at least the annual meeting in 1868. While it is probable that the withdrawal of the officers was largely voluntary, the very existence of this by-law implies that some coercion may have been used.2 1 It was certainly a clear signal that employees were to remain in their place. This action reflects the increasing dominance of the Montreal investors. Between 1863 and 1874 the percentage of shares owned in Montreal, exclusive of those held by company employees, had grown from 46% to 76%. Con trol of the company was concentrated in the hands of five shareholders: Hugh and Andrew Allan who together held 25% of the stock, William Murray and Robert Anderson, BURNING OF THE KINGSTON Once the pride of the Canadian fleet on Lake Ontario, the K ingston burned on June 11,1872. The next day the Daily News of Kingston published a rumour that the hands had struck for higher wages and had been summarily dismissed. An inexperienced group of replacements was on board when the accident occurred. If true, it was the only reported labour trouble in the history of the company. Rebuilt as the Bavarian, she burned a second time just over a year later. As the Algerian, and later the Cornwall, she survived till 1930. (Archives of Ontario) 6