¹ Fielding, Henry, The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling (Harmondsworth, U.K., 1966), 402Google Scholar. See also Fielding, Henry, The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and His Friend Mr Abraham Adams (5th ed., reprinted London, 1906), 178–9Google Scholar. The belief that the face provided an “index of the mind” was a common one among contemporary educated and artistic circles. Cf. Uglow, Jenny, Hogarth: A Life and a World (London, 1997), 77, 367, 676Google Scholar. See also note 31 below.

² Hoppit, Julian, “The Use and Abuse of Credit in Eighteenth-Century England,” in McKendrick, N. and Outhwaite, R. B., eds., Business Life and Public Policy (Cambridge, 1986), 64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoppit, Julian, Risk and Failure in English Business, 1700–1800 (Cambridge, 1987), 165–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hume: “Reputation is often as great a fascination upon men as sovereignty, and is equally destructive to the freedom of thought and examination,” Hume, David, “Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences,” in Hume, David, Selected Essays (Oxford, 1996), 64Google Scholar.

³ Pottle, Frederick A., ed., Boswell's London Journal (London, 1982), 65Google Scholar.

⁴ Fukuyama, Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (Harmondsworth, U.K., 1996), 28,152,155–6Google Scholar.

⁵ Fukuyama, Trust, 25–7,36.

⁶ For an example from the nineteenth-century shipping industry, see Boyce, Gordon, “Communication and Contracting: A Link between Business and Social History,” Business and Economic History 24 (1995): 287–95Google Scholar.

⁷ Fukuyama, Trust, 356.

⁸ Bentham, Jeremy, “Essay on Political Tactics,” in Bowring, J., ed., The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1843)Google Scholar, ch. 2; Kemp, John, The Philosophy of Kant (London, 1968), 76–85Google Scholar; Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Oxford, 1992), 100–6Google Scholar; Halevy, Elie, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (London, 1972), 402–3Google Scholar. On the optimism of Priestley and Price, see Spadafora, David, The Idea of Progress in Eighteenth-Century Britain (New Haven, 1990), 245–6Google Scholar.

⁹ Gay, Peter, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation–The Science of Freedom (New York, 1977), 98–108, 188Google Scholar; Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Nidditch, P. H. (2nd ed., Oxford, 1978), 457Google Scholar.

¹⁰ “Bonds, by which men are bound, and obliged…have their strength, not from their own nature, for nothing is so easily broken than a man's word, but from fear of some evil consequence upon the rupture,” Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (Oxford, 1960), 86Google Scholar.

¹¹ Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, 519–25. Cf. also Hume, “Of the Original Contract,” in Hume, Selected Essays, 287.

¹² Sterne, Laurence, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (Ware, 1996), 91–7Google Scholar.

¹³ This outlook had its origins in the rise of a “legalistic culture of credit” during the seventeenth century, which, following an explosion of debt litigation, emphasized the need for legal authority to enforce promises and support the social foundations of trust. See Muldrew, Craig, The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, U.K., 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Fielding, Joseph Andrews, 198; Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (London, 1872), 79Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Halevy, Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, 27–32, 478.

¹⁶ Some 400 “courts of conscience” were established in England between 1660 and 1846 for the recovery of small debts; Hoppit, Risk and Failure in English Business, 18–41. The older courts of chancery and exchequer were, however, becoming less accessible for small creditors during this period. Horwitz, Henry and Polden, Patrick, “Continuity or Change in the Court of Chancery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Journal of British Studies 35 (1996): 24–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On conflicting social attitudes to debt and virtue, see Sainsbury, John, “John Wilkes, Debt, and Patriotism,” Journal of British Studies 34 (1995): 165–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ English actions on the case founded on some fraud, deceit, or injury to property led to careful definitions of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance, distinctions that remained in use until the emergence of the tort of negligence towards the end of the century. Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History (3rd ed., London 1990), 464–70Google Scholar. A Book on Pleading (1730) provides a convenient summary of these definitions; see Baker, J. H. and Milsom, S. F. C., Sources of English Legal History: Private Law to 1750 (London, 1986), 356Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Pawnship was the practice by European traders of holding Africans-often the kin of local merchants-on board ship as collateral for goods advanced against the delivery of slaves. It was an extension of traditional forms of debt bondage occurring in West Africa. My thanks to David Richardson for discussions on this point, and for allowing me to see an early draft of Lovejoy, P. E. and Richardson, D., “Trust, Pawnship and Atlantic History: The Institutional Foundations of the Old Calabar Slave Trade,” American History Review 104 (1999): 333–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁹ Knight, Frank, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston, 1921), 19–20Google Scholar. Knight's distinction between measurable risk and unmeasurable uncertainty, however, has not always been maintained by subsequent authors; cf. Smith, Paul F., Economics of Financial Institutions and Markets (Homewood, Ill., 1971), 29Google Scholar.

²⁰ In Britain, the term “assurance” was usually reserved for life assurance, while “insurance” referred to all branches of non-life business. In practice, however, the terms are increasingly used synonymously.

²¹ Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, 214–50.

²² Mehr, R. I. and Cammack, E., Principles of Insurance (6th ed., Homewood, Ill., 1976), 23Google Scholar, cited by Litton, Roger A., Crime and Crime Prevention for Insurance Practice (Aldershot, U.K., 1990), 94Google Scholar.

²³ I am grateful to a referee for the following point.

²⁴ Paradoxically this view was shared by many critics of the insurance business who regarded insurance as itself a moral hazard that undermined self-reliance, sober industry, prudence, and religious beliefs. Litton, Crime and Crime Prevention, 103; Clark, Geoffrey, Betting on Lives: The Culture of Life Insurance in England, 1695–1775 (Manchester, U.K., 1999), 26–7Google Scholar; Zelizer, Viviana A. Rotman, Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States (New Brunswick, N.J., 1983), 79–89Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf., for example, the discussion between Pauly and Arrow. Pauly, Mark V., “The Economics of Moral Hazard: Comment,” American Economic Review 58 (1968): 531–7Google Scholar; Arrow, Kenneth J., “The Economics of Moral Hazard: Further Comment,” American Economic Review 58 (1968): 537–9Google Scholar. Cf. also the assumptions of rational behavior underlying Shavell's analysis of optimal insurance coverage in Shavell, Steven, “On Moral Hazard and Insurance,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 93 (1979): 541–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Where the social costs of moral hazard were greater than the purely economic losses entailed by the insurer, the marginal benefit of preventive measures would have been higher–that is, the benefit to society at large of preventing the spread of fraudulent activity and the undermining of trust that the latter would involve.

²⁷ Halley, Edmond, “An Estimate of the Degrees of the Mortality of Mankind” (1693), reprinted in Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 18 (1874): 251–65Google Scholar; Moivre, Abraham De, The Doctrine of Chances (3rd ed., London, 1756)Google Scholar; Simpson, Thomas, The Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions (2nd ed., London, 1775)Google Scholar; Price, Richard, Observations on Reversionary Payments (4th ed., London, 1783)Google Scholar. For general histories, see Daston, Lorraine, Classical Probability in the Enlightenment (Princeton, 1988)Google Scholar; Hald, Anders, A History of Probability and Statistics and their Applications before 1750 (New York, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Among many examples of popular manuals, see Dodson, James, Arithmetique Made Easie (London, 1760)Google Scholar; Hoyle, Edmond, An Essay Towards Making the Doctrine of Chances Easy to Those Who Understand Vulgar Arithmetic Only (London, 1761)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Daston, Lorraine J., “The Domestication of Risk: Mathematical Probability and Insurance, 1650–1830,” in Krüger, Lorenz, Daston, Lorraine J., and Heidelberger, Michael, eds., The Probabilistic Revolution, vol. 1: Ideas in History (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 237–60Google Scholar; Clark, Betting on Lives, 124–7.

²⁹ Hald, History of Probability, 139.

³⁰ Drew, Bernard, The London Assurance: A Second Chronicle (London, 1949), 61Google Scholar. The London Assurance also occasionally issued polices for longer terms, up to two or three years.

³¹ There is an interesting parallel here between the standard insurance company view that directors, rather than medical men, could, by mere observation, perceive the state of a person's health (and character), and the contemporary belief in physiognomy, which held, for instance, the idea that portraiture should capture and instruct the viewer about the “frame of mind” of the subject in the painting. Nenadic, Stana, “The Enlightenment in Scotland and the Popular Passion for Portraits,” British Journal for Eighteenth Century Studies 21 (1998): 175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also note 1 above.

³² Raynes, H. E., A History of British Insurance (London, 1948), 121–5.Google Scholar

³³ Supple, Barry, The Royal Exchange Assurance: A History of British Insurance, 1720–1970 (Cambridge, U.K., 1970), 176–7Google Scholar; Drew, London Assurance, 68.

³⁴ Cowdray's Manchester Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 1 May 1824.

³⁵ Cowdray's Manchester Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 18 Dec. 1824; Guildhall Library, London, 16222/2–3, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 1825–6. The Manchester company had only sold twenty-five life assurance polices by the end of 1824.

³⁶ Law Life Assurance, Prospectus (1823). Many offices charged extra for those who had not had the pox or for those who suffered from gout. Cf. Guildhall Lib., London, 16222/4, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 22 Oct. 1828.

³⁷ Thus 10 s percent, or ten shillings premium for every £100 insured, was charged by the Law Life for assurances of less than seven years' duration, 15 s percent for policies to run over seven years, and 20 s percent for whole life policies, while the Pelican charged 10 s percent for one-year term policies, 15 s percent for policies over one year and under seven years, and 20 s percent for whole life assurances. Law Life Assurance, Prospectus (1823); Pelican Life Office, Prospectus (1826).

³⁸ Drew, London Assurance, 656.

³⁹ Guildhall Lib., 21484/1, Law Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 24 May, 13–27 June 1823.

⁴⁰ Law Life Assurance, Prospectus (1828).

⁴¹ Drew, London Assurance, 70–1; Guildhall Lib., London, 16222/3, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 29 Mar. 1827.

⁴² Raynes, History of British Insurance, 126–31.

⁴³ Price, Observations on Reversionary Payments; Morgan, William, The Doctrine of Annuities and Assurances (London, 1779)Google Scholar; Robin Pearson, “William Morgan, 1750–1833,” in New Dictionary of National Biography (forthcoming); Ogborn, M. E., Equitable Assurances: The Story of Life Assurance in the Experience of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, 1762–1962 (London, 1962), 104–25Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ These tables were used in Baily, Francis, The Doctrine of Life-Annuities and Assurances (London, 1810), xiv–xxv, xlGoogle Scholar, and by some of the new life offices founded after 1800. Cf. Supple, Royal Exchange, 130–4.

⁴⁵ Only about £10 million was insured on lives by 1800, over half of this in the Equitable, compared with £206 million insured against fire. Pearson, Robin, “Thrift or Dissipation? The Business of Life Assurance in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review 43 (1990): 236–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robin Pearson, Insuring the Industrial Revolution: Fire Insurance in Great Britain, 1700–1850 (forthcoming), ch. 1; Trebilcock, Clive, Phoenix Assurance and the Development of British Insurance: vol. 1, 1782–1870 (Cambridge, 1985), 578nGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Babbage, Charles, A Comparative View of the Various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives (New York, 1967), 54–6, 125–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 12–13. On Morgan's “statistical inference” that the differential between the mortality in Northampton and the mortality of the Equitable's members was due to the preferential selection of the latter, see Elderton, W. P., “William Morgan, FRS 1750–1833,” Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 64 (1933): 364–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Boot, H. M., “Real Incomes of the British Middle Class, 1760–1850: The Experience of Clerks at the East India Company,” Economic History Review 52 (1999): 638–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lindert, Peter H. and Williamson, Jeffrey G., “English Workers' Living Standards during the Industrial Revolution: A New Look,” in Mokyr, Joel, ed., The Economics of the Industrial Revolution (London, 1985), 177–205Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ There is as yet no comprehensive history of British life assurance for this period, so this statement of trends remains tentative. There were only ten life offices in existence around 1800. That number had doubled by 1815, but by 1853 a further 165 had been founded. For indications of falling income and profit margins, see Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 539; Supple, Royal Exchange, 168–71.

⁵⁰ This preceded, by a few years, the great expansion of statistical science in Britain during the 1830s and the rapid growth of interest in insurance among probability theorists; see Porter, Theodore M., The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900 (Princeton, 1986), 30–6, 71–88Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 579–84.

⁵² Jellicoe, Charles, “On the Rates of Mortality prevailing amongst the Male and Female Lives assured in the Eagle Insurance Company during the 44 Years ending 31 December 1851,” Assurance Magazine 4 (1854): 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There remained a tension between the drive for professionalization and actuaries' resistance to standardization and attempts to reduce their science to mere quantification; see Alborn, Timothy L., “A Calculating Profession: Victorian Actuaries among the Statisticians,” in Power, Michael, ed., Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason (Cambridge, 1994), 81–119Google Scholar; Porter, Theodore M., Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, 1995), 101–13Google Scholar. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for the latter references.

⁵³ The following is based upon an analysis of the records of nearly fifty British fire insurance offices between 1700 and 1850. This represents most of the surviving archives of this industry, and accounts for about 30 percent of the total number of offices founded during this period. See Pearson, Insuring the Industrial Revolution.

⁵⁴ Supple, Royal Exchange, 85.

⁵⁵ Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 368, 387–8.

⁵⁶ Pearson, Robin, “Fire Insurance and the British Textile Industries during the Industrial Revolution,” Business History 34 (1992): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ Centre for Kentish Studies, Maidstone, U2593/B12, B15, Kent Fire Office, Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the Kent Fire Office accounts, 21 Sept. 1814; Financial Summary 1802–14; Victoria Library, Westminster, 343/112/54, Westminster Fire Office, Secretary's Address to the Board, 13 Dec. 1866; Guildhall Lib., London, 14022/3, Union Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 16 Mar., 28 Mar. 1722; Guildhall Lib., 8666/10, Hand-in-Hand, Directors' Minutes, 8 May–4 Aug. 1730.

⁵⁸ New estimations with the limited data available suggest that “economic profits” in fire insurance–net of the opportunity cost of investing in an alternative investment, consols were generally modest, between 1 and 4 percent, but that dividend levels were relatively high compared with other sectors of business. This generosity to shareholders was largely funded by dipping into premium surpluses at the expense of building up premium reserves. See Pearson, Insuring the Industrial Revolution, ch. 9.

⁵⁹ Guildhall Lib., 14022/4, Union Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 25 Sept. 1728.

⁶⁰ For evidence of underinsurance and capacity constraints in insuring industrial property, see Pearson, “Fire Insurance and the British Textile Industries.” Reinsurance was the “laying off” of unwanted portions of risks by insurance offices to other insurers (reinsurers). For its early history in fire insurance, see Pearson, Robin, “The Development of Reinsurance Markets in Europe during the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of European Economic History 24 (1995): 557–72Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Guildhall Lib., 12160A/1, Imperial Insurance, Directors' Minutes, 3 Aug.–28 Sept. 1803.

⁶² Guildhall Lib., 14116, Sun Fire Office, Simplified Profit and Loss Accounts.

⁶³ Guildhall Lib., 8746A, London Assurance, Fire Assurance Annual Accounts. “Apparently” is a necessary qualifier because the random nature and incompleteness of record survival makes such judgments about what contemporaries had at their disposal always uncertain.

⁶⁴ I am grateful to an anonymous referee for this point and for the formulation presented here.

⁶⁵ Most insurance agents, upon appointment, had to provide their offices with sureties for sums roughly equating to the expected annual income of their agency, but these were intended mainly as a guarantee against default or fraud, rather than as a hedge against poor underwriting.

⁶⁶ Guildhall Lib., 16222/4, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 31 Dec. 1828.

⁶⁷ See, for example, the cases of William Chamberlayne, John Lowry, and a Mr. Bowker, Guildhall Lib., 16222/3, 5, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 25 May 1826, 9 May 1827, 1 Nov., 22 Nov. 1832.

⁶⁸ Hoppit, Julian, Risk and Failure in English Business, 1700–1800 (Cambridge, 1987), 135, 171–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Olive, Suicide in Victorian and Edwardian England (Oxford, 1987), 122Google Scholar; Bailey, Victor, “This Rash Act”: Suicide across the Life Cycle in the Victorian City (Stanford, 1998), 171–2, 183, 198–9Google Scholar. The estimate of the growth in bankruptcy is calculated from the figures in Hoppit, Risk and Failure, 46, table 1, and Marriner, Sheila, “English Bankruptcy Records and Statistics before 1850,” Economic History Review 33 (1980): 351–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, table 1, col. 4.

⁶⁹ On the suicide clause, see Anderson; Suicide, 266–9. After long debate, the London Assurance introduced such a clause in 1769; Drew, London Assurance, 67. For a later example with a reference to dueling, see Guildhall Lib., 16222/3, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 15 Mar. 1827.

⁷⁰ Ó'Gráda, Cormac, Ireland: A New Economic History, 1780–1939 (Oxford, 1994), 6, 81, 97Google Scholar; Geary, Frank, “The Act of Union, British-Irish Trade, and pre-Famine Deindustrialization,” Economic History Review 48 (1995): 688CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geary, Frank, “Deindustrialization in Ireland to 1851: Some Evidence from the Census,” Economic History Review 51 (1998): 512–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Harrison, Richard S., Irish Insurance: Historical Perspectives, 1650–1939 (Skibbereen, 1992), 9, 32Google Scholar; “Report of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue on the Duties under their Management,” British Parliamentary Papers 20 (1870): 193Google Scholar.

⁷² Ryan, Roger, “The Early Expansion of the Norwich Union Life Insurance Society, 1808–37,” Business History 27 (1985): 166–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Supple, Royal Exchange, 177–8.

⁷³ Guildhall Lib., 16170/3–4, Atlas Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 12 Dec. 1816, 3 June 1824.

⁷⁴ Cited by Moss, Michael, The Building of Europe's Largest Mutual Life Company: Standard Life, 1825–2000 (Edinburgh, 2000), 43–4Google Scholar. Modern historians have agreed with this and other contemporary opinions about the poor quality and lack of Irish parochial records.

Ó'Gráda, Ireland, 5; S. J. Connolly, “Illegitimacy and Pre-Nuptial Pregnancy in Ireland before 1864: The Evidence of Some Catholic Parish Registers,” Irish Economic and Social History 6 (1979): 5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Guildhall Lib., 16222/7, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 28 Mar. 1839,19 Sept., 26 Sept. 1839.

⁷⁶ The following rests upon the account given by Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 565–9, supplemented by additional research in the archives of the Pelican and other offices.

⁷⁷ Cambridge University Library, Phoenix Assurance Archives, Pelican Life Office, Directors' Public Minutes, 18 July 1820.

⁷⁸ Cambridge University Lib., Phoenix Assurance Archives, Pelican Life Office, Directors' Public Minutes, 15 Feb., 12 May 1825; Guildhall Lib., 12162A/1, Alliance Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 26 Apr., 6 Sept. 1826. Unfortunately the contents of the Alliance report have not survived.

⁷⁹ Cited by Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 566.

⁸⁰ Cambridge University Lib., Phoenix Assurance Archives, Pelican Life Office, Directors' Public Minutes, 12 Dec. 1826; Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 566.

⁸¹ Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 567.

⁸² Cambridge University Lib., Phoenix Assurance Archives, Pelican Life Office, Directors' Public Minutes, 1 Sept. 1829.

⁸³ Guildhall Lib., 16170/4, Atlas Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 1 Jan. 1828, Ansell's report has not survived; Cambridge University Lib., Phoenix Assurance Archives, Pelican Life Office, Directors' Public Minutes, 26 July 1827.

⁸⁴ For example, in 1830 the Imperial Life Office and the Alliance Assurance unsuccessfully challenged in the Dublin courts claims, which they deemed fraudulent, lodged by the widow of a Dublin attorney who had died of a tumor shortly after taking out large polices on his own life. Harrison, Irish Insurance, 26–8.

⁸⁵ There were contemporary parallels in the celebrated case of a fraudulent insurance on the life of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, which involved several English life offices in 1826 and led some of them to abandon German life assurance. Campbell-Kelly, Martin, “Charles Babbage and the Assurance of Lives,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 16 (1994): 5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. My thanks to an anonymous referee for this reference.

⁸⁶ Griffin, Daniel, “An Enquiry into the Mortality occurring among the Poor of the City of Limerick,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London 3 (1840): 305–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ Supple, Royal Exchange, 177–8.

⁸⁸ Pearson, “Thrift or Dissipation?” 247, table 5.

⁸⁹ Guildhall Lib., 14281/2–3, Guardian Assurance, General Court Minutes, 2 Feb. 1827, 4 July, 1 Aug. 1828; Tarn, A. W. and Byles, C. E., A Record of the Guardian Assurance Company Limited, 1821–1921 (privately printed, London, 1921)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Guildhall Lib., 16222/2, 4, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 24 Oct., 17 Nov. 1825, 8 Jan. 1829.

⁹¹ Harrison, Irish Insurance, 22.

⁹² Moss, Standard Life, 43; Pearson, “Thrift or Dissipation?” 247, tab. 5. Even after a thorough review of its Irish business during the Famine, and the dismissal of its Cork agent for fraud, Ireland continued to account for 16 percent of Standard Life's new business in the early 1850s. Treble, J. H., “The Record of the Standard Life Assurance Company in the Life Assurance Market of the United Kingdom, 1850–64,” in Westall, Oliver M., ed., The Historian and the Business of Insurance (Manchester, 1984), 95–113Google Scholar.

⁹³ Guildhall Lib., 16222/8, Manchester Fire & Life Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 24 Mar. 1843.

⁹⁴ For one of many examples, see Guildhall Lib., 14022/16, Union Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 9 Jan. 1782.

⁹⁵ 4 Geo. III c.14.

⁹⁶ Calculated from clerks' reports in Guildhall Lib., 8666/24–28, Hand-in-Hand, Directors' Minutes, 1780–1800, passim.

⁹⁷ Leeds City Archives, acc. 3393, box 41, Leeds & Yorkshire Assurance, Secretary's Letterbook, Jonathan Wilks to Samuel Baines, 24 Mar. 1825.

⁹⁸ Ibid., Jonathan Wilks to George Phipps, 17 Oct. 1825.

⁹⁹ The level of underinsurance maintained by the fire offices was usually in the order of about 25 percent of the replacement value of the property. The “average clause” inserted into policies stated that if the value of goods insured in a policy was greater than the sum insured, and the goods were not totally destroyed by a fire, the insurer would only be liable to pay out that proportion of the loss which the sum insured bore to the whole value of the goods at the time of the fire. For an example of this clause, see Guildhall Lib., 8735/6, London Assurance, Fire Committee Minutes, 14 Dec. 1804.

¹⁰⁰ Dickson, P. G. M., The Sun Insurance Office, 1710–1960 (Oxford, 1960), 80Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ For examples, see Guildhall Lib., 14022/12, Union Assurance, Directors' Minutes, 9. Oct., 11 Dec. 1765; Guildhall Lib., 8735/4, London Assurance, Fire Committee Minutes, 11 July 1783. On loss adjustment, see Carter, E. F. Cato, Order out of Chaos: A History of the Loss Adjusting Profession, Part I: Evolution and Early Development (London, 1984)Google Scholar.

¹⁰² London Magazine 32 (1763): 332Google Scholar; 40 (1771): 618–19; 43 (1774): 300, 475; Annual Register (1771): 153–4Google Scholar, 160–1; (1775): 111; Southey, Robert, Letters from England, ed. Simmons, Jack (London, 1951), 396–7Google Scholar; George, M. D., London Life in the Eighteenth Century (Harmondsworth, U.K., 1965), 131–8Google Scholar; Summerson, John, Georgian London (Harmondsworth, U.K., 1962), 231Google Scholar; Roth, Cecil, A History of the Jews in England (Oxford, 1964), 184–5, 204, 234–7Google Scholar; Pollins, Harold, Economic History of the Jews in England (London, 1982), 62–5Google Scholar. Synagogues were counted from Horwood's map of London, 1792–99.

¹⁰³ Guildhall Lib., 11932/13, Sun Fire Office, Committee of Management Minutes, 12 Oct. 1786; Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 144–5.

¹⁰⁴ There were also two widows and a “gentleman.” Details of claimants and sums paid to them from Guildhall Lib., 11932/13, Sun Fire Office, Committee of Management Minutes, Sept. 1786–Jan. 1787 passim.

¹⁰⁵ Trebilcock, Phoenix Assurance, 145; Guildhall Lib., 11931/8, Sun Fire Office, General Committee Minutes, 4 Mar. 1802.

¹⁰⁶ Some five thousand Jewish households in London c.1800, each insuring a minimum sum of £100 on buildings or goods, would have constituted a sizable market of half a million pounds.

¹⁰⁷ Beck, Ulrich, Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Frankfurt, 1986), 38–42Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Die “Verwissenschaftlichung der Risiken,” Beck, Risikogesellschaft, 73.

¹⁰⁹ Beck, Risikogesellschaft, 77, 259.

¹¹⁰ Blunt, H. P., “The Moral Hazard in Fire Insurance,” Journal of the Insurance Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 10 (1907): 97–126Google Scholar, cited by Litton, Crime and Crime Prevention, 104.

¹¹¹ Litton, Crime and Crime Prevention, 110. For a recent discussion about the rights and wrongs of “moralizing” in underwriting, see the exchange of letters in CII Journal (March 1998): 6–7; (July 1998): 6–7.