Answers to the Objections AGAINST A General INSURANCE.  
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 presumed.  
Answer. That it's impossible to be exactly certain, but the Proposers have taken the best Care they could to be truly and rightly informed, and have carefully perused the best public accounts and Writers, especially Sir William Pettet, whose Calculation will fully answer this Proposal; and we hope it can't be denied, 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 public Good. Let them wear out their policies, which are generally but for a little time, and it will be no Injury to those that have Insured by private policies, to Insure again with the public; for that, in case of Fire, they have two Hands to go to, and receive a double recompense, 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 gained 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 presumed, 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 recompense 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 physic, tho' the greatest Good or Evil depend upon it, unless compelled. 〈◇〉 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 recompense 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 public Insurance is not only upon better Security, but is cheaper and easier to the Insurer, as being Annually, and not at once paid.  
That it's no more than turning private into public Insurance, and making that a public 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 quiter 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 recompense, 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.   

Answers to the Objections Against A General Insurance.