I.—B.

National of Ireland with £103,024 (24-33 percent.), and the Union with £94,609 (14-72 per cent.). The large losses shown by the Manchester and Union offices were principally due to the revision and reinsurance of much of their businesses, a process which will probably add considerably to the strength of these companies in the future. The National of Ireland ended the year in a disastrous condition. The fire funds were all exhausted, and there was a debit balance at the fire account of £62,258. There was no reserve for unexpired risks, and the security for the fulfilment of the company's fire contracts must rest principally on the uncalled capital. By far the most successful companies in proportion to their business were the small "home " offices. Among these the Law Fire made a trading profit of £58,118, or 35-8 per cent, of the premiums, the Essex and Suffolk a profit of £10,936 (34-4 per cent.), the Hand-in-Hand one of £24,311 (2011 per cent.) and the County Fire one of £58,731 (19-8 per cent.).

EXHIBIT F. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, Me. Simpson,— 62, Pitt Street, Sydney, 24th July, 1902. I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, enclosing my telegram, and have to thank you for your courtesy in the matter. The clerk was instructed to forward the particulars to Levin and Co. to hand to the selected umpire, but he sent it to you because he said you had sent the message. As to the results—strictly local —we are worse off than we were five years ago by about £2,000. This does not include a single penny for any expenses on this side. I sometimes wish that the Government would take up the business of fire insurance, and relieve the constant strain of fire claims. Hoping that some day I may have the pleasure of seeing-you. I am, &c, E. M. Simpson, Esq., Phoenix Assurance Company, M. A. N. Clabke. Wellington, New Zealand.

EXHIBIT G. SlB >— _ . 4th August, 1902. lour notification duly to hand. Be evidence, I have no evidence which I wish to offer on the State Fire Insurance, What I asked Sir Joseph Ward to introduce was a Mutual Insurance Bill similar to the one in force in Ontario Province, Canada, and also, I believe, in the United States, where farmers have an opportunity of joining together and insuring their buildings amongst each other at a much less cost than the insurance companies do. Sir Joseph Ward did not agree to put such a Bill through, and, such being the case, I do not know whether your Committee would be prepared to consider such an adjunct to this Bill. There is a very strong feeling amongst che members of the Farmers' Union that this right should be given by the House. But, of course, it must rest with your Committee to say whether you will take evidence on the matter which is not included in the Bill before you. I believe the Wesleyan Church insures on something of the same principle. But, as far as I can see, we as fanners could not form a company to insure unless with a capital of £50,000; but what we wish to do is to have the right of forming purely co-operative association companies to insure farm buildings, which are looked upon as the best risk, as they are so isolated. Mr. Leadley, the vice-president of the Farmers' Union, Ashburton, said at our conference, that he had been making inquiries as to how the Wesleyan body made their insurance, and perhaps, if you went into this phase of the question, would give evidence if you wished it. I need not say I should be only too pleased to give evidence if you think I can further the passing of a Mutual Bill. But the union expressed no opinion on the State Fire Insurance Bill and therefore, if confined to this, I could say nothing. Yours, &c, Mr. W. W. Tanner, M.H.8., Jambs "g. Wilson. Chairman, State Fire Insurance Committee.

EXHIBIT H. Exteact FEOM New Zealand Times of the 21st August, 1902. A coebespondent (" W. K.") writes to bring under public notice an instance of the successful working of a system of compulsory State fire insurance. He says that in 1815 the Principality of Hesse, in Germany (now the Province of Hesse-Nassau), passed a law of the kind stated, "its principal provisions (he continues) were as follow: The first step was to provide a substantial reserve fund (whether it was provided immediately or gradually I cannot say). Every owner of buildings was to be compelled to insure them, and to have the option of reinsuring in private companies. The premiums, which were to be paid annually, were'on quite a different basis to those of any insurance company in New Zealand now. At the annual settlement all the payments for fire during the year, including the working-expenses, were to be added together, and a percentage which was to be paid as premium would be struck, and with it the reserve' fund would be brought up to its original amount. When, this State was annexed by Prussia in 1866 this law, on account of having worked so admirably, was not amended or cancelled at all, but left in its entirety, and as a proof of its efficiency is in operation to this very day. I can vouch for the correctness of these statements, since I am a native of the above State, and during a prolonged visit to Germany held property under this law.

52