GA Adjustments in Amsterdam: Reinforcing Authority Through Transparency and Accountability (Late Sixteenth–Early Seventeenth Century)

Abstract

This essay analyses GA procedures in Amsterdam in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries by discussing the Statute Book of the ‘Chamber of Insurance and Average’. This manuscript is a unique guide to the handling of Averages in Amsterdam as it contains the regulations, the clarifications of the rules, some of the Chamber’s judgments and their accompanying calculations. The essay thus provides a snapshot of the institutional framework of maritime risk management in a critical period critical for the development of GA procedures in the emerging mercantile centre of Amsterdam.

The research for this essay was conducted thanks to funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and Innovation Programme ERC Grant agreement No. 724544: AveTransRisk—Average—Transaction Costs and Risk Management during the First Globalization (Sixteenth–Eighteenth Centuries). The author would like to thank Maria Fusaro, Gijs Dreijer and Giovanni Ceccarelli for helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay.

Introduction

‘…[B]y various Merchants [it] has long been requested that the disputes of [General] Average same as Insurance by certain Commissioners should be decided, and various [General] Averages by Persons made has by experience failed…’.¹ With this introduction in December 1598, the Amsterdam municipality formalized the expansion of the responsibilities of the Chamber of Insurance by adding General Average (GA) disputes to its jurisdiction.² Apparently, the handling of GA claims had led to disputes and discord, and thus, as of then, the Commissioners of the Chamber of Insurance would also adjudicate GA claims and disputes.³

In this essay, I will focus primarily on GA procedures in Amsterdam in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.⁴ This period was critical for the development of these procedures in the rapidly emerging mercantile centre of Amsterdam. This essay is based on research of a manuscript, the Statute Book of the Chamber of Insurance and Average (henceforth: The Chamber), of which I will discuss the regulations it contains, the clarifications of the rules and the Chamber’s judgements and accompanying calculations. This manuscript is quite unique as it combines regulation and the enforcement of the rules and municipal laws. It was most likely compiled in the early 1620, a few decades after the Chamber’s formal establishment. What was the objective of the Amsterdam authorities when they ordered the compilation of this manuscript? What was the significance of this manuscript for the Chamber and GA adjudications? With this essay, I aim to contribute to our understanding how institutional development took place in the early modern period.

As stressed by Douglass North, institutions and institutional development have proven pivotal for economic growth—some institutions will hamper economic growth whereas others will advance trade, transport and economic development.⁵ However, the process of institutional development is not linear, but erratic and both the pace and direction vary—per country, per city or per industry.⁶ Oscar Gelderblom has shown that institutional development in the pre-modern Low Countries was fostered by competition between commercial centres, like Bruges, Antwerp and Amsterdam. Early modern merchants were known to be highly mobile, they would easily move from one location to another if the commercial possibilities and conditions were favourable. Cities were, as Gelderblom argued, aware of the tendency of merchants to move their business and belongings to greener pastures, and were determined to avoid a pre-modern capital and brain drain. Creating an efficient commercial infrastructure was considered crucial to attract new merchants to cities and to prevent merchants from leaving to set up shop elsewhere.⁷

An important issue of doing business in early modern times was related to the possibility of contract enforcement. Did a city’s infrastructure include legal institutions that were impartial, affordable and easily accessible?⁸ Amsterdam became an important destination during the last quarter of the sixteenth century, especially for many merchants fleeing Antwerp, the commercial centre that quickly lost its dominant position due to political unrest.⁹ The burgomasters of Amsterdam were well aware of the importance of creating the ‘right’ institutions, in particular a legal system that would guarantee impartial, expert and quick justice. One of the city’s initiatives was to establish the Chamber of Insurance, which would adjudicate disputes relating to the quickly expanding, and potentially very profitable, marine insurance market. This was a novelty, as beforehand marine insurance issues were usually handled by consular courts or the city’s principal court, the Eschevin Court (the Schepenbank).¹⁰ Less than a year after its establishment, GA cases were added to the court’s jurisdiction. In spite of this, it seems that even after a few decades the Chamber’s authority had to be reinforced—and this is where the Statute Book comes into play.¹¹

I will argue that the Statute Book of the Chamber of Insurance and Average was part of the city’s commercial strategy, the objective being the reinforcement of the Chamber’s authority and jurisdiction and promoting its reputation by advancing its consistency and expertise in insurance and GA cases. In the following sections, I will first give a short introduction to the Chamber of Insurance, its foundation, authority and procedures, followed by a study of the GA regulations and judgements in the Statute Book. I will then discuss the importance of the Statute Book within a broader setting and conclude with some remarks.

GA and the Amsterdam Chamber of Insurance and Average

Marine insurance and GA are both tools to manage the risks of long-distance trade.¹² Both concepts have advanced maritime trade and transport and, as a result, they were and often still are ‘lumped’ together, even though the concepts are rather different. Marine insurance is the transfer of risk to a third party for a set price (the premium), whereas GA is an instrument providing risk sharing based on mutuality. GA and insurance only interact when a merchant is insured and his underwriters are required to pay for his contribution in the GA damages.¹³ At the end of the sixteenth century in Amsterdam, GA was a generally accepted default rule, a concept acknowledged by ship-owners and merchants. Nonetheless, there were many discussions regarding the limitations of the concept, the method of valuation of the assets, the interpretation of specific regulations and the effects for all those concerned. At the same time, there were also concerns about the quickly expanding insurance industry which had emerged in the mid-sixteenth century.¹⁴ Merchants appealed to the city authorities to regulate the insurance market, which was characterized by the intricate nature of the transactions and was prone to fraud. Until the end of the sixteenth century, the principal court of the city, the Eschevin Court, handled insurance disputes, but apparently the number and complexity of these cases had greatly increased and swamped the Schepenbank.¹⁵ Therefore, when in 1598, the city promulgated the first municipal insurance ordinance (‘Ordonnantie op ‘t Stuk van de Asseurantie’), it also established a specialized court, the Chamber of Insurance, to adjudicate insurance cases.¹⁶ By the end of that same year, again at the specific request of various merchants, the city added the adjudication of General Average disputes to the responsibilities of the Chamber’s Commissioners, as stated in the quote above. GA was considered, as marine insurance, a complex construct, and it was acknowledged that the adjudication of conflicts relating to either of these concepts required specialized knowledge and experience.

The Chamber was located prominently in City Hall and the Chamber’s three Commissioners, who were assisted by a Secretary and a Messenger, held court at the same days as the Eschevins. The Court’s judgements held the same legal authority as those of the Eschevins and could be enforced, if necessary, by the city’s Sheriff.¹⁷ The judgements could be appealed at the Eschevin Court, followed by the Hof van Holland and West-Friesland and finally at the Hooge Raad.¹⁸ It is important to note that even after the establishment of the Chamber, GA could still be settled by ‘good men’—as was common before 1598. However, after 1598, GA adjustments made by anyone other than the Commissioners could be amended or overruled by the Chamber.¹⁹

The Chamber’s Commissioners were often prominent merchants rather than legal experts, a position as Commissioner (Commissaris or Assurantiemeester) was considered honourable. The Assurantiemeesters most probably did not accept the position for financial reasons as they received only a modest compensation for their efforts.²⁰ Various renowned names are among those who have served as Commissioners. Gerrit Bicker, for example, was Eschevin and would go on to become one of the city’s mayors. He was also one of the founders of, and served on the executive board of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Commissioner Frans Oetgens van Waveren, who was known to be extremely wealthy, also served as Eschevin and would also later become mayor. Gilles Jansz Valckenier was part of the executive board of the VOC and he served on the Admiralty.²¹ On average, Commissioners held their position for six (usually consecutive) years and they were never all replaced in the same year, in order to prevent the loss of tacit knowledge and to promote stability.²² It was often presumed that the Chamber did not become active until its formal Charter had been confirmed in 1612 by the Estates of Holland (Staten van Holland); however, the Statute Book is testimony to its activities as of the date of its foundation in 1598.²³ The Chamber existed until the end of the eighteenth century, when the Batavian Period indicated the end of the Republic and its institutional structures.²⁴

Although both insurance and GA cases were dealt with by the same Commissioners and Secretary, in administrative terms the records of the two types of cases were strictly separated. There were separate ledgers and registers for the insurance and GA cases. The archives of the Chamber covering the period between 1598 until 1700 have unfortunately been lost, with the exception of this Statute Book, which was drawn up in the 1620s and covers both the GA and the insurance responsibilities of the court.²⁵

The Statute Book of the Chamber

The Statute Book contains formal regulations, interpretations of these regulations, elucidations, examples, and judgements. The manuscript also contains a wealth of information regarding the variety of goods traded in Amsterdam, their values, the routes travelled, and the names of merchants and underwriters. In addition, it holds information concerning weather patterns, the size and make of ships, the composition of crews, the names of the Commissioners, and the formal texts of the insurance ordinance and the GA regulations (Image 1).

Image 1

(Source Manuscript Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA, BC 277, Archief Commissarissen, folios [ff.] 0v and 1r)

The first insurance ordinance of 1598 of the city of Amsterdam

Although some of the information was already known through other sources, the Statute Book includes information on the handling of GA, especially on the process of adjusting in Amsterdam, which was not yet known. Whereas marine insurance was strictly regulated by the previously mentioned municipal ordinance and various adjustments and alterations, GA was not strictly regulated.²⁶ According to the municipality, GA cases were so varied, so distinctly different, that no general ordinance would be able to regulate it. It was therefore left to the expertise of the Commissioners to assess these disputes.²⁷ Although having GA adjustments handled by the Chamber became an option as of September 1598, and adjustments made by arbitrators could be overruled by the Commissioners, the municipality formally added GA adjustments to the Chamber’s responsibilities only that December when they decreed that the Chamber was to be the court of first instance for GA cases.²⁸

At first, only a few simple principles were laid out, with an emphasis on the authority of the Commissioners and the distinction between ‘normal’ operational expenses and damages that could be attributed to GA. For example, spent ammunition would not be admitted into GA, but was considered as a normal operating expense of mercantile trade.²⁹ Also, when a ‘donation’ was made (a ransom paid in case a ship was detained), it was only admitted into GA if this donation had been made under conditions of extreme distress. Damages due to storms or bad weather were not considered GA, and merchants were obliged to state the ‘right’ value of their assets.³⁰ In the following years, a number of further clarifications were added, including a specific stipulation regarding loading of goods on the orlop deck. Normally, this was not allowed, but for ships travelling on the Baltic, there was an exception: If jettisoned goods had originally been loaded on an intermediate deck (called the Coebrugghe), these too would be accepted in GA as this deck was easily accessible and these goods would often be the first to be jettisoned.³¹

Starting on folio 47 (see Image 2) guidelines regarding GA were given, which consisted of thirteen articles and were meant to guide the master’s conduct when disaster loomed.³² These guidelines were clearly inspired by the Placcaat of 1563, for example, the requirement that masters needed to consult the merchant before jettisoning goods, cutting ropes or anchors or deliberately stranding the ship.³³ If the merchant did not agree with the master’s intended actions, the master could still take action—providing the majority of his crew agreed.³⁴ In case part of the cargo had to be jettisoned to save the ship and the remaining goods, the master should first jettison cargo that was highest in weight and lowest in value.³⁵ Other stipulations declared that in case a master or a member of the crew was killed, wounded or maimed while defending the ship and goods, the related expenses (including that of his burial) would be accepted into GA.³⁶ The regulations end with stipulations regarding pilot’s expenses and the requirement that masters needed to consult with their crew before setting sail.³⁷ Finally, theft of goods by a master or his crew would be punishable by death.³⁸ These thirteen articles were meant to guide the master (and his crew) to make choices that would minimize the total damages of incidents; these were precautionary stipulations, not actual GA regulations.

Image 2

(Source Manuscript Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA, BC 277, Archief Commissarissen, f. 47r)

The first folio of the stipulations to guide the conduct of a ship’s master

These guidelines for masters were followed by a section titled Memorie—explaining the Chamber’s procedures when a case was brought before them. In the space of five folios, a sort of ‘manual’ was provided for those not familiar with GA procedures and requirements (Image 3).³⁹

Image 3

(Source Manuscript Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA, BC 277, f. 52r)

The first folio explaining the procedure of GA adjustments at the Chamber of Insurance and Average

The Memorie first states the basic requirements when a case is brought before the Court: One should provide proper evidence, including the statements of two trustworthy witnesses who will confirm the master’s account of the incident and the surrounding circumstances. A specification of the damages should be given and supported with documents. Merchants were required to state the quantity, quality and value of the goods; the ship was to be valued as it was before the incident took place.⁴⁰ The Commissioners would then assess, based on the account of the incident and the evidence provided, whether this was indeed a case which fell under General Average. If the case met the requirements for GA, the damages suffered by both merchants and master would be assessed. The Commissioners would review every item of damage claimed and would either accept the item and the claimed amount (approberen or passeren), accept the item but for a lower amount (diminueren), or reject the damages as GA (royeren). The changes in value and rejections had to be written down in the margins. In case a substantially large amount was either reduced or totally rejected, the Commissioners were required to give a short explanation of their decision.⁴¹ The ‘manual’ then specified that the Commissioners’ fee and the wages of the Messenger were to be added to the damages to determine the amount that had to be distributed among all parties involved.

The next step was to calculate the total value of the enterprise, which consisted of the value of the ship or that of the freight fees and that of the cargo.⁴² To calculate the so-called omslag (GA factor), the Commissioners would divide the total damages by the total value of the enterprise. Finally, the contribution per merchant and ship-owner was calculated by multiplying the GA factor with the value of the merchant’s or ship-owner’s asset (Image 4).⁴³

Image 4

Process of calculating GA contributions 

After the guidelines and the explanation of the procedures in the Memorie, the creators of the manuscript added the texts of various judgements to exemplify the regulations and procedures. These judgements, the dispaches, had a formal legal status. Although the term, dispaches, is still in use in contemporary GA adjustments, the dispaches from the Chamber were formal judgements, whereas currently the term refers to the final report of the adjustment process.⁴⁴ The texts in the Statute Book, which include the assessment of the damages, the valuation of the enterprise and the calculation of the contribution, are copies of original judgements. References were added to the original registers where the judgements could be found.⁴⁵ All of the cases included in the Statute Book seem to have been chosen to highlight or explain a specific part of the regulation or procedures.

For example, a case from 2 March 1602 was meant to emphasize the voluntary nature of the GA action: a master tried to claim the loss of wine as GA. According to the crew, the master of an enemy ship had forcibly taken the wine. The Commissioners refused to accept this case as GA, as the wine had been taken and this did not constitute a voluntary act. In spite of this, the master was required to pay the Chamber’s fees.⁴⁶ A case from 20 December 1600 has clearly been added due to its complex nature. There were in fact two incidents in which cargo had been jettisoned. The master had been forced to sell part of the remaining cargo in the port of refuge in order to re-equip the ship for the remainder of the journey.⁴⁷

Another case, relating to a ship travelling eastbound, was meant to clarify the valuation of the merchandise: On 27 May 1603, master Heye Hiddesz from the town of Harlingen requested GA adjustment at the Chamber. Hiddesz’s ship got into trouble during a heavy storm en route from Danzig to the Baltic. Not far from its destination of Riga, they had to cut the main mast in order to salvage the ship and the cargo she was carrying. First mate, Andries Hendricxz, and Hendrick Eysbrechts, boatswain, acted as witnesses and confirmed their master’s account of the events which was recorded in the dispach. According to the master, the damages of this deliberate act (and thus GA) were 375 guilders (Image 5).⁴⁸

Image 5

(Source Manuscript Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA BC 277, Archief Commissarissen, f. 58r)

The Adjustment of the incident with the ship commandeered by Hidde Hiddesz

As required, the ship’s master gave a detailed report about the incident and he specified the damages. The calculation of the final contribution per party depended on various factors. As explained in the Memorie, the Commissioners first had to decide whether the damage claimed was indeed GA: was a rope cut deliberately or did it accidentally break during a storm? Of course, all the damages had to be assessed. For example, what was the value of the rope, considering its age and ‘normal wear and tear’? In these cases, the Commissioners referred to a table with standard lengths of rope (based on the size of ship) and the subsequent value of the rope. For incidents that involved different foreign currencies, the Chamber used standard rates to calculate the corresponding value in guilders (Image 6).⁴⁹

Image 6

(Source Manuscript Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA BC 277, Archief Commissarissen, f. 55r)

Table of standardized measure of rope per type of ship

The Commissioners decided this case was indeed GA. However, they adjusted the damages as claimed from 375 guilders to 255 and, as required, they added the lower value in the margin of the text of their judgement.⁵⁰ To determine the total contributory value, the goods that were transported had to be valued. In most North-European ports, goods were valued at the selling price of the products, thus the price of the goods at the port of destination.⁵¹ In Amsterdam, a different valuation was used, based on the location of the incident. If the incident took place during the first half of the journey, the purchase price (i.e. the price of the products at the port of departure) was taken to value the goods.⁵² If the incident happened after the mid-way mark of the journey, the Commissioners would use the price at the market of destination, the selling price. In that case, the freight fees payable to the master were deducted. Of course, this latter value would mean that a profit margin was incorporated in the value.⁵³ The Amsterdam regulations even specifically stated that with incidents on ‘this side of the Sound’, goods were to be valued at the sales price, whereas accidents on the other side of the Sound, the purchase price would be used in the calculations.⁵⁴ This specific stipulation may also be the reason why this relatively simple case was added to the manuscript. This ship was in fact travelling eastward with the cargo. In spite of the incident taking place ‘on the other side of the Sound’, the goods were valued at the selling price, the market price in Riga.

Another case shows how the Commissioners have adjusted the damages as claimed by the plaintiff. In this case from 1601, the Commissioners were presented with a long list of damages: They adjusted the original amount (without stating the reason) from 386 guilders, 18 nickels and 0 pennies to 281 guilders and 40 cents (Image 7).⁵⁵

Image 7

(Source Manuscript of the Chamber of Insurance and Average, NEHA, BC 277, Archief Commissarissen, f. 62r)

Damage assessment and reduction of the final amount

The second part of the numerical handling of GA adjustment was to determine the value of a particular maritime enterprise. Especially for those parties that did not suffer a loss as a result of the incident, it was tempting to downplay the value of their assets as that would result in a lower contribution to the total GA damages. All parties were required to supply the Chamber with documents confirming the quality, quantity and value of the goods. If the Commissioners questioned the given values, they could demand the involved party (usually a merchant) to confirm the value under oath. If a merchant refused or simply did not show up (a so-called default), he would receive a fine. After three defaults, the Commissioners would rule regardless. In a case from the eighteenth century, a merchant refused to appear before the Court to confirm the value of his goods under oath. The Commissioners increased the value of 5,260 guilders (as originally provided by the merchant) to no less than 20,000 guilders. This meant of course that the contribution of this merchant in the total GA adjustment increased considerably.⁵⁶

The GA contribution of the ship-owner was based on the value of either the ship itself or the total freight fee it received as payment for transporting the cargo.⁵⁷ It was up to the merchants to choose from the two values as given by the master. They usually chose the value of the ship as that most commonly exceeded the value of the freight fees. And, as Ivo Schöffer has argued: ‘working with the value of the freight was arithmetically very complex’ and this way the complexity was avoided.⁵⁸

When the amount of damages and the value of the enterprise were determined, the Commissioners would add the expense of the Chamber’s rulings, which consisted of two parts. The fee of the Commissioners and Secretary was based on the value of the GA case: 2 of value were added. The wage of the messenger was based on the number of peoplenickels per 100 guilders he had to visit and inform of the procedure. Often, an additional amount was added ‘for the poor’ to round of the total to an amount that would make the final calculations easier. Then, the damages were divided by the total value of the enterprise and multiplied by f 100.

The dispaches would be concluded with a statement along these lines: ‘Commissioners find that each hundred guilders is to contribute the sum of 9 guilders, 3 nickels, 2 pennies’. The total of the contributions was repeated, to show that the arithmetic was correct and that no party benefited at the expense of another.

Reinforcing the Authority of the Chamber

The Statute Book of the Chamber of Insurance is an important manuscript, an expensive production which was undoubtedly commissioned by the municipal authorities or the Chamber’s Commissioners. Why was this manuscript commissioned? After all, by the time the manuscript was created in the early 1620s, the Chamber had been adjudicating on insurance and GA cases for more than two decades. Moreover, in 1612, it had received its official Charter from the Estates of Holland (Staten van Holland). What then was the objective of the authorities to compile this manuscript in the 1620s?

As mentioned above, the establishment of the Chamber of Insurance was a relative novelty. In the southern Low Countries, marine insurance disputes were adjudicated by consular courts or a city’s principal court.⁵⁹ In Amsterdam, the authorities chose a different structure: they established a subsidiary court, specialized in these specific issues and disputes—a court that was accessible to all, regardless of their background, religion or nationality. The choice for such a court of generalized jurisdiction, that was accessible to all rather than a particularized institution that was only accessible to merchants of a certain background or guild members, meant a new phase of contract enforcement.⁶⁰ With this new subsidiary court, the Amsterdam municipality’s objective was most probably to control the quickly expanding insurance business, to curb possible frauds and to guarantee expedient justice in case of disputes.

The municipality promoted the Chamber by emphasizing the Commissioners’ impartiality, their expertise and the transparency of the procedures. Apparently, the municipal authorities were worried about having overstepped their boundaries by instating the Chamber and they applied for an official Charter from the Estates of Holland in 1612. Even after having received this formal seal of approval, the manuscript was commissioned almost a decade later. Perhaps this move was motivated by developments in other cities, most notably Rotterdam. This port city, which lies south of Amsterdam, had taken Amsterdam’s example and, at the request of local merchants, proclaimed an insurance ordinance and had established a Chamber of Insurance which would adjudicate both insurance and Average disputes.⁶¹ Soon after its establishment, the Rotterdam Chamber was frequently called upon and they quickly had to convene twice per week.⁶² Antwerp, which had suffered from economic decline for decades, showed an increase in its pace of recovery, especially after the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce in 1621.⁶³ Did Amsterdam feel threatened by the rise of a new and the re-emergence of an old competitor and thus feel inclined to emphasize and reinforce its position as commercial centre?

By this time, Amsterdam was benefiting from a strong marine insurance market which had expanded quickly and was now one of the pillars of the city’s commercial infrastructure. Underwriting, and the capital to finance this industry, was an important part of the city’s attractiveness to merchants, both local and foreign. General Average was, although a completely different concept, strongly linked to the insurance industry, increasingly so as merchants would often insure their possible contributions to GA damages.⁶⁴ In addition, GA adjustments were generally commissioned and executed in the port of destination or in the home port of the merchants or ship-owners.⁶⁵ Amsterdam actively promoted so-called forum shopping by creating efficient GA regulation and procedures that would motivate ship-owners and merchants to choose Amsterdam as the final destination of their journeys.⁶⁶ It is here that the manuscript comes into play. The municipality acknowledged the importance of impartial, expert and expedient justice. It was therefore crucial that the Chamber’s judgements were consistent. The Statute Book was most probably meant as a manual, a guidebook for the Chamber’s officers—for the Commissioners primarily, but probably also for the Secretary. How had previous Assurantiemeesters ruled in certain cases? How had they assessed the stated values, when had they declined damages that were entered into GA? By increasing transparency, standardization, and predictability, uncertainty would be reduced and thus transaction costs were reduced. What could one expect when a case would be handled by the Commissioners of the Chamber? The manuscript was meant to educate and guide Commissioners when adjudicating insurance disputes and GA cases.⁶⁷ Rules that may have led to queries were explained with examples. Calculations were elucidated with examples.⁶⁸ Important changes made by the Commissioners to the given values of goods or ships were justified and accounted for.⁶⁹ The judgements that were copied into the manuscript all focused on or emphasized a different issue, regulation or stipulation. Standardized tables for calculating how much rope was carried by which size ship and rules about exchange rate would further advance uniformity and predictability of the Chamber’s adjudications.⁷⁰

As for the timing of the compilation of the manuscript, there may have been a more human factor at play as well: In the early 1620s, Cornelis Jansz Valckenier had been Assurantiemeester for two decades.⁷¹ His fellow Commissioner, Pieter Pietersz Hasselaar, served the Chamber since 1615. The position of the third Commissioner was less stable, in 1620, Pieter Jansz Reael held the position, succeeded by Pieter Matthijsz Schrijver in 1621, who was then succeeded by Reyner Jansz Reael in 1622. Valckenier, who was 60 years old, must have realized that his service was coming to an end. Perhaps he and Hasselaar felt it prudent to record the regulations, procedures that guided their adjudications, to ensure that the Chamber’s judgements would be predictable and consistent, regardless of the Commissioners who would serve at any particular time, and so to safeguard the Chamber’s authority and reputation as crucial part of the city’s commercial infrastructure.⁷²

Concluding Remarks

Institutional development is erratic and varies per region, city, period and even per industry. Amsterdam created an institutional structure that was partly based on its predecessors and partly on innovation. However, the city had to convince all those involved of the value of the newly created Chamber of Insurance and Average. After all, having a dispute adjudicated by this formal subsidiary court meant additional costs (and time). So, the municipal authorities commissioned a manuscript, an early modern legal manual, advancing consistency and predictability of the adjudication of insurance disputes and GA cases. The municipality intended to convince merchants and ship-owners that it was best to bring GA adjustments (and insurance conflicts) before the Chamber. GA cases were dealt with impartially, expertly, and efficiently. The city’s approach seems to have worked, as approximately 9,000 GA cases were adjudicated in the eighteenth century, in spite of the fact that GA cases could also be handled informally, most probably at a lower cost and in shorter time, by arbitrators.⁷³ Perhaps the perception of the Chamber by the merchants has played a role. In a study regarding the contemporary Tuna Court in Tokyo, Eric Feldman has argued that this Court, which has an official status and works according to formal regulations and procedures, is nonetheless considered as an informal method to adjust prices after a transaction.⁷⁴ It may be possible that merchants and ship-owners, accepting GA as default rule with no formal ex-ante contractual commitments, perceived the Chamber as less formal than its judicial status implied. By reinforcing the consistency and predictability of the Chamber’s judgement, the Statute Book may have bolstered this perception, thereby advancing the Court’s accessibility for all merchants and ship-owners and its overall effectiveness.