Objection 1. THAT the Sum proposed is not likely to be raised , because there are not so many Houses , as to Number and Value , as in presum'd .

Answer . That it 's impossible to be exactly certain , but the Proposers have taken the best Care they could to be truly and rightly inform'd , and have carefully perus'd the best publick Accompts and Writers , especially Sir William Pettet , whose Calculation will fully answer this Proposal ; and we hope it can't be deny'd , but that the Proposal is very easy , and can't fail to raise a very great Sum .

Objection 2. That take it for granted , as to the Number and Value of the Houses , that it be true ; yet there are so many already Insured , by private Insurances , as amounts to one fifth part of the Houses within the Bills of Mortality ; and so , by consequence , will very much lessen the Sum proposed .

Answer . That by an exact Computation of Houses , and taking the several Numbers of Houses from the four Insurance Offices , not one fifth part of the Houses within the Bills of Mortality are Insured , and not one House in the whole Nation besides ; so that this Objection can but lessen the Sum one fiftieth part , provided all the Houses already Insured be left out . But , with humble Submission , the Parliament is not concerned to take notice of private Agreements , where it stands in Computation with the publick Good . Let them wear out their Pollicies , which are generally but for a little time , and it will be no Injury to those that have Insured by private Pollicies , to Insure again with the publick ; for that , in case of Fire , they have two Hands to go to , and receive a double Recompence , and enhance the Value of their Houses : And besides , Houses Insured were never excused upon that account in any Tax whatsoever .

Objection 3. That if the Insurance be above the Value of their Houses , some People may burn their Houses , to make an Advantage of it .

Answer . That the Goods in Houses are generally of greater Value than the Advantage can be gain'd by Burning their Houses ; and if the Goods are removed before hand , it will be an Argument of the Party's Design ; besides , it 's presum'd , that no Person will set his House on Fire , it being Felony .

Objection 4. That if compulsatory unreasonable , if voluntary , it will raise nothing .

Answer . If advantageous reasonably compulsatory , for since the People must pay so much upon some Tax or other , it 's not unreasonable to compel them to pay upon such account , as is most easy and advantageous to the Payer , as this certainly seems to be , he receiving a Recompence for what he pays .

As to the voluntary , the very Nature of the People is such , that , as Children , they will neither go to School or take Physick , tho' the greatest Good or Evil depend upon it , unless compell'd . 〈◇〉 Thousand 〈…〉 have attested their Approbation of the Rationality of this Proposal , by their own Acts and Subscriptions , to private Insurances .

Objection 5. That it seems to be very hard upon Houses , which in the Land Tax pay at least equally with Land , should now pay Two Shillings in the Pound more , immediate Payment .

Answer . That it does indeed ease the Land ; yet not prejudice the Houses , is manifest , for that , as a yearly Estate , they pay equally with Land ; yet in this Case they pay in a distinct Capacity , and have an immediate Consideration , being advanced to a proportionable Value and Recompence in futuro , in case of Fire . That seeming Hardship will disappear when they shall consider , that by how much the greater is the present Payment , by so much the less is the Annual Payment ; and that in the whole this publik Insurance is not only upon better Security , but is cheaper and easier to the Insurer , as being Annually , and not at once pay'd .

That it 's no more than turning private into publick Insurance , and making that a publick Benefit which was before sunk into private Interest , and by way of Retaliation for the present Ease of Land , the Land is ready in Aid of Houses , in case of great Conflagrations , which the Fund cannot answer . The Hardship will quite vanish when the Owner shall consider , that the Land Tax ( unless very great indeed ) will not excuse them from paying as much as is hereby proposed upon some other Tax ; and then the Question will be , whether it were not better to pay it upon this , where there is a certain Prospect of a future Recompence , in case of Fire , than to pay half the Sum upon any other account whatsoever , where there can be no Hope or Probability of any Return , upon any account whatsoever .