Slavery, Insurance and the Law

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9349331
AutoresMichael Lobban (0000-0002-9444-2840, autor de correspondencia)
Año2007
Volumen28
Número3
Páginas319-328
Fecha de publicación2007-11-17
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Journal of Legal History (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0144-0365 • E-ISSN: 1744-0564
EditorialRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01440360701698452
OpenAlexW2009755754
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 Somerset v Stewart (1772) Lofft 1. 2Charles Wright and C. Ernest Fayle, A History of Lloyd's, London, 1928, 122. The perils in the policy covering the Zong were expressed in 'the usual form': The National Archives: Public Record Office (PRO) E 112/1528/173. 3John Weskett, A Digest of the Theory, Laws, and Practice of Insurance, London, 1781, 11. 4PRO KB 122/479 78085. For a policy issued at Glasgow, in which the insurers stipulated that the policy 'shall be of as much force and effect, as the surest policy, or writing of assurance made at London', see John Millar, Elements of the Law Relating to Insurances, Edinburgh, 1787, 30–34. 5PRO KB 122/479 78085. 6 Livie v Janson (1810) 12 East 648, and cases cited therein. 7Cf. the text of the policy in Jones v Schmoll (1785) 1 TR 127n: 'the assurers are ... not to pay for mortality by mutiny, unless the same amount to £10 per cent to be computed upon the first cost of the ship, outfit and cargo, valuing negroes so lost at £35 per head'. 8J.A. Park, A System of the Law of Marine Insurances, 4th ed., London, 1800, 101. 9In Gregson v Gilbert, even though the loss was in fact not one from insurrection, it was stressed that the loss amounted to more than the stipulated five per cent, and the whole loss was claimed. 10 Birkley v Presgrave (1801) 1 East 220 at 228. 11Park, System, 101–102. 12Weskett, Digest, 11. 13PRO E 112/1528/173. 14Joseph Arnould, A Treatise on the Law of Marine Insurance, 2 vols., London, 1849, vol.2, 884. 15This was doubted by Lord Kenyon in Birkley v Presgrave (1801) 1 East 220, at 228. 16The declaration of the plaintiffs in Gregson v Gilbert states that on 6 September the ship was 'loaded with divers Negroe slaves to wit Two hundred ... of the value of fifteen Thousand pounds'. While this seemed to overvalue 200 slaves greatly, this sum mentioned does reflect the expected sale value of the 442 slaves on board ship together with the value of the vessel, PRO KB 122/479 78085. 17For the figure of thirteen per cent see J. Webster, 'The Zong in the Context of the Eighteenth-Century Slave Trade', above, this number n.20. 18It cannot be surmised that they aimed to insure all the initial 244 slaves on board the Zong, since the ship had then on board 'goods sufficient for the purchase of near as many more' – which were later purchased. These goods would have increased the value of the ship, rendering £8000 an under-valuation. 19It may be noted in this context that in the rebellion in Jones v Schmoll (1785) 1 TR 127n., that of a cargo of 225 slaves, fifty-five died in a rebellion. 20Stephen D. Behrendt, David Eltis and David Richardson, 'The Costs of Coercion: African Agency in the Pre-Modern World', 54 Economic History Review (2001), 454–476, at 468. 21David Richardson, 'Prices of Slaves in West and West-Central Africa: Toward an Annual Series, 1698–1807', 43 Bulletin of Economic Research (1991), 21–56, at 52. 23Park, System, 103. 22The average price in the 1780s of newly-landed slaves in the West Indies has been estimated at £36, which was indeed the price at which the Zong's surviving slaves were sold, Roger Anstey, The Atlantic Slave Trade and British Abolition, 1760–1810, London, 1975, 41. 24Ibid. 25 Usher v Noble (1810) 12 East 639; Waldron v Coombe (1810) 3 Taunton 162. 26 Lewis v Rucker (1761) 2 Burrow 1167. 27Arnould noted that 'Valued policies are stated by Mr Stevens to have originated in insurances on colonial produce, of which, as no invoice could be had (no purchase having been made), a valuation was necessarily adopted as would indemnify the planter in case of loss', Arnould, Marine Insurance, vol.1, 320. 28In fact, they were worth more still, for, as Klein writes, 'for the Europeans, the price [of a slave in Africa] was the European cost of goods that they needed to purchase and offer in exchange for obtaining a slave'. The 'sale' cost of these goods when traded for slaves could be double their 'prime' cost in Europe: The Atlantic Slave Trade, 107. 29 Shawe v Felton (1801) 2 East 109. 30 Tatham v Hodgson (1796) 6 TR 656. 31B.M. Émérigon, Traité des Assurances et des Contrats à la grosse, Marseilles, 1783, t.1, p.394; René-Josué Valin, Nouveau commentaire sur l'ordonnance de la marine, du mois d'aout 1681, La Rochelle, 1760, t.2, 51–2, 57; R.J. Pothier, Traité du contrat d'assurance in M. Siffrein, ed., Oeuvres de Pothier, Paris, 1821, t.6, 310 (n.66). 32 Lawrence v Aberdein (1821) 5 B. & A. 107. 33 Gabay v Lloyd (1825) 3 B. & C. 793. 34 Taylor v Dunbar (1869) LR 4 CP 206. 35E.g. Woolmer v Muilman (1763) 1 W. Bl. 427. 36Arnould's view was that the proximate cause had to be a peril of the sea (Marine Insurance, vol.1, 675, 686; cf. 3rd ed., 1866, vol.1, 688), though in Parfitt v Thomas (1844) 13 M. & W. 392, Pollock CB indicated that if the ship was deemed seaworthy by the policy, then if it foundered in calm water, the insurer was liable. Foundering therefore related to ships being lost, and the presumption was that a seaworthy ship would only founder in a storm. 37 Cullen v Butler (1816) 5 M. & S. 461. 38 Tractatus de Commerciis et Cambio, Cologne, 1620, s.1 q.1. 39Émérigon, Traité, 272. 40Arnould, Marine Insurance, vol.1, 303–304. 41Park, System, 103. See Shawe v Felton (1801) 2 East 113. 42Émérigon, Traité, 397. 43 Busk v The Royal Exchange Assurance Co. (1818) 2 B. & Ald. 73. 44 Farmer v Legg (1797) 7 TR 186. 4547 Geo. III, c.36, An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. 46 Brown v Stapyleton (1827) 4 Bing. 119 (emphasis added). 47 Naylor v Palmer (1853) 8 Exch. 739

Political science · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · Law