458 General Cattle Mutual Insurance Fund. 



landlord ; for, as the landlord has no claim to any share in 

 extraordinary profits, he cannot be expected to insure the tenant 

 against extraordinary losses. Much less has the grazier any 

 commercial claim on other owners of property. Many London 

 butchers have realized probably a penny on every pound of meat 

 they have sold since the panic set in, and if the legislature should 

 make butchers — as some other tradespeople do — take out a licence, 

 they would have no just ground of complaint. 



1. Natuke and Difficulties of Cattle Insurance. 



The premium to insure a given sum payable on the death of 

 an animal, if it happen during a given time, varies with the rate 

 of mortality in the class to which the animal belongs. Thus, if 

 5 oxen in 10,000 die in a week, then a premium of oOZ. in the 

 aggregate, or 57. on each 1000 head of oxen — less than five 

 farthings a head — will insure 10/. on each death happening in 

 the week : double the sum, or 100/. — that is, 10/. for each 1000 — 

 will insure 20/. on each death : as 5, by hypothesis, die, there 

 are (5x20=:) 100/. to be divided equally among the owners. 

 For double the time the premium is double. To provide 

 compensation for the value lost, the premium is then fixed so as 

 to be proportional (1) to the value of the animal, (2) to the term 

 of insurance, and (3) to the mortality.* 



The Term of Insurance is arbitrary, and may be one month or 

 more; in the insurance of human life it is never less than 

 a year. 



The Value of Cattle varies with age, breed, condition, and a 

 variety of circumstances. Excluding calves, it ranges say fi'om 

 5/. to 35/. ; and to insure cattle of various values, in proportion 

 to their value, there must be some means of identification. 

 Otherwise the larger sum may be claimed by mistake, or fraud, 

 for the death of an inferior animal. Some of the local Insurance 

 Societies have not been afraid to encounter this difficulty. 



By insuring to the full value the owner may cease to have any 



of the matter, it was not expedient to urge on the State any claim for pecuniary 

 aid. 



. 2. A tax on cattle would have been resorted to, but that the proposal broke 

 down utterly when it was discussed by men of practical experience. 



3. Recourse was had to a county va.ic, heaawse, of all existing machineri/, ih^t 

 appeared most to affect the landed interest, and least the commercial classes. 



4. The money was required not to compensate a farmer for his losses, but to pay 

 him for cattle taken out of his control to be slaughtered for the public good. 



From these premises it would follow that we should not pay for mere losses, 

 and that a farmer would have no claim for payment whose stock are not killed, 

 at least as soon as the Rinderpest manifests itself in them. In this, as in the case 

 of the cotton famine, there was no machinery available which would raise local 

 taxes exclusively from one class. — P. H. Frere. 



* See p. 467. 



