ance against loss by fire, of such first-class property as is that belonging to the Free Church, is 1s. 6d. per £100 in cities, 2s. in the country; and although extensive losses are understood to have been sustained by many Insurance Companies in recent years, yet as those losses have been generally sustained on what are called hazardous risks, such as mills, factories, commercial warehouses, etc.; the Committee have reason to believe that rates of 1s. 6d. or 2s. per £100 have been found quite sufficient for first-class property, especially the stone churches and houses in Scotland. So far as the Committee see, an insurance or guarantee against loss by fire does not present much difficulty. Greater difficulty is felt as regards guaranteeing the buildings against loss from causes other than fire. Not only is there a want of data to arrive at a trustworthy conclusion as to the rate to be required, but it would be even more difficult to define what sort of losses or injury were to be made good. Every one acquainted with the management of buildings knows that it is necessary to lay out an annual sum in keeping them in good repair, and the Committee would not recommend the guaranteeing of ordinary repairs. The congregations, especially those in the country, are, the Committee fear, much too ready to avoid outlay on their buildings, and any scheme that would relieve them of the duty of keeping them in ordinary repair would be injurious rather than beneficial. Yet it is not easy to draw a line betwixt ordinary and extraordinary repairs. In the case of insurance against loss by fire, the extent of the loss is not an element, all injury from that cause, whether small or extensive, being made good, so that no similar difficulty presents itself. But the great bulk of all injuries, whether trifling or extensive, other than by fire, rendering repairs necessary, are caused by storms of wind and rain; and were a discretionary power given to any Committee for managing such a scheme as is contemplated to decide what was extraordinary damage, it would be brought into constant collision and disputes with congregations, and it would run the risk of either becoming too facile in admitting claims, or of rendering the scheme unpopular by resisting them. If it were possible to draw a line, and to guarantee only extraordinary cases of injury other than by fire, in all probability the lowest fire rate would be sufficient, namely, 1s. 6d., or at most 2s., per £100. It would be provident to begin with 2s. The Sub-Committee have already stated that Mr. J. Hunter was decidedly of opinion that the Government Duty could not be evaded, and they would not venture to express an opposite opinion Indeed, it is a case wherein an opinion even of Counsel is of peculiarly little value, because in so large a matter the Crown would be almost certain to try the question, and it would therefore be necessary to be prepared for an adverse decision. The Sub-Committee therefore arrive at the conclusion, that if such a scheme is gone into, it would be necessary to charge the following rate per £100, namely :: This rate on £1,300,000 would yield £3575, whereof £975 must be set aside to pay to Government, leaving £2600 for use. As such premiums are invariably made payable in advance, the Committee would have this sum to begin with. But it would be so small as not to inspire confidence, and therefore a guarantee for three or four years by some wealthy members of the Church might be necessary. If it were once begun, the Committee think that a fund might be gradually accumulated that would be of great use. The Sub-Committee have already referred to the difficulty that would be experienced in defining the nature of damage other than by fire to be guaranteed, and they must further advert to other difficulties that present themselves in reference to the whole fund. The rate proposed is 2s. per £100, more than those congregations whose property is at present insured against fire are paying. Will they consent to pay this addition for so remote a contingency as it will provide for? Perhaps, with few exceptions, when they consider the great advantage the scheme may be of to the Church they will. Will congregations remit their rates punctually and regularly; or would they occasion much trouble, and consequently expense, before paying? The Sub-Committee are not without fear that the rates might be difficult of collection. Of course all expenses must be paid out of the rate; it is therefore of importance to consider what expense would be necessary. Would one or two officers be required; and what arrangements would be made? The collection of the funds could hardly be placed in the hands of the general treasurer, because the duties would be of a different character. For example, instead of being simply the recipient of what was sent to him, the person intrusted with the ingathering of this fund would have to make application for the rates, to see if they were paid, and to remind those congregations that were remiss. The examination of claims would also be a duty important, yet alien to those of the general treasurer. A collector would therefore be required, and at a higher salary than an ordinary clerk. But would this be enough? Would not an inspector be necessary to report on buildings, especially when damage was sustained, and claims were made? Perhaps, as the duties of such an officer would be easy, the services of an inspector for some insurance company might be obtained. Still the expense could hardly be less than £200 a year, especially if office rent had to be paid. Again, would it be necessary to issue policies; or in what other way would the extent of the rights and interests of the different congregations be fixed? They might be unwilling to join the scheme, unless they had a distinct recognition of their interest. If a document is to be granted, by whom would it be signed, and how would it be expressed? These difficulties the Sub-Committee do not regard as insuperable, but they think it right to mention them, that they may be duly considered. WILLIAM WOOD, Convener. |