We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 August 2016
Before proceeding to describe the mortality experiences made use of in this investigation, I will first of all discuss the various materials that have been used in investigations into the mortality among assured lives, the methods of arranging those materials in order to deduce the rate of mortality, and the method of graduation best adapted for the adjustment of the rate of mortality among recently-selected lives, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each, and stating which I have adopted. This will necessarily partake more or less of the nature of an historical sketch; but I think it will conduce to clearness, and will, I trust, prove interesting as well as instructive. I have also thought it desirable to state somewhat fully the information on which I have based my conclusions, in order that my readers may be in a position to exercise an independent judgment.
page 87 note * Investigation of Mortality in the Indian Army, by Woolhouse, W. S. B., F.R.A.S., &c, London, 1839.Google Scholar
page 105 note * See page 164.
page 113 note * I find this assumption is correct. In Walford's Insurance Cyclopædia it is said that Mr. A. Morgan stated that the number of female lives insured in the Equitable from its commencement “has been so small, that the probability of life “given in Table A of the published experience may be confidently taken to “represent the value of lives of males only.”
page 165 note * This percentage is not the same as that in Table F above mentioned. I observed that the percentages in Table E of the paper were inconsistent with those in Table F; and on examining the figures for the first 10 years, I found that in the former table the percentage for the fifth year of insurance should be 107·3 instead of 108·4, and that in the latter the percentage for the years of insurance 3–5 should be 102·35 instead of 98·64.
