The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-15 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

tins DA.T.—Morning, lh. 52m.—Afternoon, 2h. 12m.
To-gonnow.-Tdorning, 2h. 30m.—Afternoon, 2h. 50m.

I ~.4 4. ----, -
tl tr Alhei",.., 1/4f,
11n,
.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1863.

We may congratulate the bon. and learned
member for Dudley upon the happy accident of his
success, last night, in carrying by so large a
majority his resolution in respect to the Duty on
Fire Insurances. More than a happy accident we
fear it is not—particularly occurring, as it has done,
towards the very fag end of the session. Neverthe-
less, although nothing practical can possibly come
of it this year, there will remain, upon the records
of the Session of 1863, the formal notification of the
fact that during the sitting of the House of Com-
mons, on Tuesday, the 14th of July, Mr. H.
SHERIDAN not merely succeeded in carrying a reso-
lution to the effect that the Duty on Fire Insurances
is excessive in amount—but that he succeeded in
doing this by a clear majority of 36 in a House of
I'7o-103 voting for and 6'l against it. The
announcement of the numbers, says the reporter,
was received with loud cheers. And, very compre-
hensibly, it was received with cheering. For the
result of the division was very signally in support
of a scheme of reform in regard to fire iosurance, that
those who have thought upon the matter the most
deeply have long looked to it with wistful solicitude.
The circumstance of this favourable division yester-
day in the House of Commons is beyond all ques-
tion the most propitious incident that has occurred,
as yet, to hearten on the advocates of this rational
reduction of daty, since first the proposition for
that particular reduction was mooted within the
precincts of the-Parliament. Come the actual re-
duction of the duty here talked of must—in the
natural course of things. Sooner or later, it is a
thing quite inevitable. As such, it has long come
to be recognised by the more prominent observers,
both in the House and out of it. And now that the
Commons have distinctly declared themselves in
favour of the reduction, the probabilities are that it
will be "sooner" than was anticipated! It will be
found, on reference to the debate, that the proposi-
tion of the honourable member for Dudley amounts
to this, that the existing (exorbitant) rate of
3s. per cent. should be reduced one shilling
per cent. to begin with, and that at the end of five
years it should then be reduced yet another shilling.
His argument being, of course, one that financial
reformers have long come to recognise the wisdom
of, as proved again and yet again by the results of
experience, namely, that the immediate loss to the
revenue will be more than made up by the increase
of insurances! The reduction itself being all the
while a direct advantage to the whole community
As to the vastness of the amount of property that
might by this means be readily brought within
the area of insurance, we ourselves feel perfectly
well persuaded of it, that the estimated proba-
bility submitted to the House yesterday, in the
course of his remarks by the member for
Dudley (in bringing, forward hie somewhat
tardy but still, even thus late in the session,
most opportune resolution), is, in no one
particular, characterised by exaggeration.
On the contrary, we believe it to be rather an ander-
statement than an exaggeration. The success of
Mr. SHEBIDAN's resolution yesterday, was the last,
and not by
any means the least noteable, discom-
fiture her MAJESTY'S Government has experienced
during the course of this do-nothing Session. Again,
too, the Minister whose province it was to speak
on the side of the minority, was that man of sorely
diminished influence in the British House of Coca.
mons, the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer.

The discussion on the Fortifications Bill was re-
sumed on Monday evening, and the consideration
of the various clauses gave rise to the old arguments
for and against it, happily terminating in the old
conclusion of a decisive victory for the Ministry.
Considerable objections were raised to•the vote for
a central arsenal, owing to a misunderstanding on
the part of several members, who thought that it
was intended to erect a fortress at the spot in (pies.
tion. Every voice was raised against such a pro-
posal, but Lord PALMERSTON clearly explained the
mistake, and cited the example of. Woolwich as evi-
dence that an arsenal by no means implied a forti-
fication. The Government, he said had no inten-
tion of erecting a great inland fortress, but it was
desirable to have some position in the interior of
the country, where stores might be deposited, anu

case of need even manufacture. Woolwich, from
its site on the river, is manifestly within reach of
attack, and the, nature of the place is very unN-
- vourable to fortification. It is therefore most ad-
b4o on every ground to have a depot out of renal