History Article – The Zong Massacre (1781) – An Insurer’s Perspective

By John Lane, Insurance Museum Volunteer

Many historical articles have been published about the crew of the Zong, who murdered 132 enslaved persons in 1781. Today such abhorrent actions are looked on as incomprehensible and met with total disgust. Looking back on the event, it is hard to understand how the murder of so many could become the subject of a valid claim under an insurance policy. However, by delving further into the event, it becomes acutely apparent that the captain and his crew were motivated to commit these heinous actions by the principles of maritime insurance law prevailing at that time.

The Zong was a British sailing ship owned by a consortium of wealthy merchants and slave owners from Liverpool. This consortium was led by William Gregson, who later became the Mayor of Liverpool. A syndicate of underwriters led by Thomas Gilbert provided insurance coverage on the Zong.

Thomas Gilbert was born in Manchester in 1748, his father was a land agent and important canal builder. By 1770, Gilbert had moved to Liverpool, where he became a merchant and owner of several ships, including a whaler. At the time, it was accepted practice for insurance syndicates to be made up of other ship owners, and Gilbert provided cover for the Zong in this capacity.

Gilbert’s syndicate provided cover for the Zong under a marine insurance policy covering the perils of the sea, such as storms. A claim could also be made under the centuries-old established principle of “general average.” Simply put, general average allowed for cargo to be sacrificed to preserve a maritime venture.

In mid-August 1781, the Zong departed Ghana bound for Jamaica (the Middle Passage) carrying 442 enslaved people. This number was around twice that for which the ship was safely designed for and most likely an indication of the owner’s desire to maximise profit at the cost of human suffering.

The Captain of the Zong, Luke Collingwood, a surgeon by training, was inexperienced, and this was the very first time he had commanded a vessel. Due to several mishaps and navigational errors en-route, the journey to Jamaica took far longer than expected. As a consequence of the delay, the supply of water on board had become perilously low. Fearful of insurrection, and with disease spreading through the enslaved people and crew, sometime before the 29^th of November 1781, Collingwood, his officers, and crew decided to throw overboard 122 enslaved people. This was done on three separate days between the 29^th of November and sometime in early December. Preferring suicide over murder a further 10 enslaved people jumped overboard on their own accord. The Zong finally reached Jamaica on the 22^nd of December 1781.

Back in England, the owners of the Zhong claimed that water supplies on the vessel were low (rain had fallen before the third and final jettison of enslaved people) and the actions of the Captain and his crew were necessary for preserving their own lives and those of the enslaved people on board. The consortium of owners, led by William Gregson, made a claim against the underwriters on the grounds of general average. In other words, the owners of the Zhong were claiming the death of 132 human lives by jettisoning them into the sea was made out of necessity to save the venture. It is worth noting that had any lives been lost to disease or other natural causes then a claim would be excluded under the terms of their policy. Outcomes of this nature were considered trading risks and, as such excluded by policy terms and conditions.

Their claim was quantified as £30 per murdered person, a figure based on the average price raised by selling the surviving Africans into slavery in January 1782. This was a good price for each person and again questions the motive behind this atrocity. Was it a matter of disposing of the weaker, older persons who were likely to achieve a lower price when sold to improve the financial outcome of the venture by claiming under their insurance policy?

On being presented with the claim, Gilbert and his syndicate repudiated liability, suspecting the Zong’s loss was a direct result of the incompetence of its Captain and crew and not an insured peril. They had made navigational errors by mistaking Jamaica for the French colony of Saint-Dominique and spending more days at sea than necessary. They also lost several days at sea, becalmed in the doldrums, consequently losing more time.

Gregson was not prepared to accept the underwriter’s decision to repudiate his claim and commenced legal action. The case was brought to trial in 1783, with the outcome that the jury ruled in favour of Gregson and his consortium. But the insurers appealed.

Lord Mansfield, sitting with two other judges, presided over the appeal. In justifying the outcome of the first case, he ruled that the jury had been correct to discount the humanity of the slaves. He stated that the jury, “had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown overboard. The Question was whether there was not an Absolute Necessity for throwing them overboard to save the rest? The Jury were of opinion there was.”

Although statements of this nature have no place in the 21^st century, such language and comparisons of this nature were considered acceptable during the pre-abolition era of the 18^thcentury and earlier. By making this assertion, Mansfield indicated that enslaved people were merely the property of their owners and that treating them as mere goods and chattels, such as horses, was acceptable by the standards of that time.

However, during the appeal, evidence of the crew’s many navigational errors and rain falling before the final murders emerged. In light of this new evidence, Lord Mansfield ordered a new trial. There is no record of this ever taking place, and it is believed that Gregson and his consortium dropped their claim against the underwriters.

During the initial legal proceeding of 1783, the case of the Zong was brought to the attention of prominent abolitionist Granville Sharp. For Sharp, the victims of the Zong were not ‘cargo’ or ‘property’ but ‘human persons,’ and the victims of ‘wilful murder.’ It was indeed Granville Sharp who first described the case of the Zong as a massacre.

Indeed, Sharp attempted to bring criminal charges against the captain, crew, and the owners but was unsuccessful. Great Britain’s Solicitor General, Justice John Lee, refused to instigate criminal charges, stating, “What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honourable men of murder. The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard.” Yet more historical evidence supporting the belief of this time that enslaved persons were considered nothing more than goods and chattels belonging to their owners.

Through the efforts of Sharp and other members of the abolitionist movement, the majority of people throughout Britain became increasingly aware of the inhumane and barbaric practices surrounding the trafficking of human life for the benefit of British colonies. This awareness began to galvanize public opinion against the trade in enslaved people. So much so that the Government of the day responded by enacting the Slave Trade Act of 1788. This Act improved conditions on British slaving ships by legally restricting the number of enslaved persons each could transport. Eventually, Britain’s trade in transatlantic slavery was abolished following the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which made it illegal for any British ship to carry enslaved persons. The underwriting of slaving voyages by any British insurer was also made illegal by the same Act. Slavery throughout most of the British Empire did not cease until 1834 following the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Even then, many plantation owners were reluctant to accept a ruling about their business practices made in the United Kingdom and continued to operate in a similar manner as they had before.

The practice of insurance had allowed the atrocity of the Zhong Masacre, and many others, to happen. There can be no doubt that Gilbert’s decision to repudiate Gregson’s claim against him and his syndicate was a commercial one. However, the unintended consequences reached far beyond the world of insurance. Granville Sharp the anti-slavery campaigner, used the Zhong Massacre and the court case to raise awareness of the atrocities taking place. By doing so, he raised awareness of the barbaric trade in human lives that eventually led to the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire.