The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1865.

The House of Commons has passed an important
resolution, which, whatever its ultimate effect upon
our impracticable Chancellor of the Exchequer,
serves to declare in unmistakable terms its opinion
upon one of the most oppressive and ill-placed of
our taxes. The duty on Fire Insurance is, as has
been often said, a tax on prudence. Those who
have a due regard for the protection of their pro-
perty
have, in fact, to pay on behalf of those who
take no thought for the morrow. All the arguments
on the subject have been brought forward over
and: over again. We have been told that of
£80,000,000 of insurable • property in and around
London only 80 per cent. is insured ; that a very
large proportion of the mercantile property
that is thus protected is insured in Hamburg
owing to the absence of duty there, and conse-
quently so much money annually goes out of
the country, which, by rights, should go into the
coffers of English insurance offices. But, like many
another grievance, the insurance duty has been
borne so long, that our administrative authorities
seemed to think it must be borne for ever, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was virtually Judi&
nant at any murmurs against a respectable old
established imposition. Patience and perseverance,
however, make their way at last, even in legislative
reforms, and those who return constantly to the
charge, in spite of all discouragement, at length
have the satisfaction of seeing their efforts crowned
with success. Such was the case of Mr. VILLIERS
and the repeal of the Corn Laws ; such, we trust,
may yet be the fate of Mr. BERKELEY with the
ballot, and those who thus persevere in the face of
ridicule, and with little prospect of victory, deserve
the.thanirs of the community for fighting the battle
of the public interests against desperate odds. The
reform with which Mr. SHERIDAN'S name is asso-
ciated is, it is true, far less important than either
the ballot or free trade, yet it must not be alto-
gether despised, since it affects a very large number
of the community, and indirectly causes serious loss
and damage. The first question when we hear of
n extensive fire is naturally whether the property
was insured. If the building destroyed has been a
mercantile establishment it is probable that we shall
be answered in the affirmative, but if it is a private
residence it is more than likely that we shall learn
that the loss has been total. In answer to the re-
monstrances sometimes made on their imprudence,
such householders will tell you that they do not ob-
ject to paying a moderate rate to the insurance
office ; but they object to paying to the Government,
from which they will get no return, a stun larger by
one-third than the amount of the insurance. A
man insuring for £3OO has to pay nine shillings
duty for six shillings insurance, and it is not won-
derful, consequently, that so large a proportion of
valuable property in and about London remains
uninsured. M.r. SHEIUDAN, however, did not ad-
dress himself so much to the merits of the question
as to its present position in the House. The reduc-
tion extorted with some difficulty from the Financial
Is/blister last year only concerned stock in trade, thus