Slavery Insurance - The Business of the Slave Trade

England emancipated slaves throughout their empire one generation before the American Civil War. But, English merchants with the protection of the British Navy had provided the backbone of the slave trade the long generations that went before. The following excerpt is from the Universal Daily Register (predecessor of the London Times) 220 years ago, July 1, 1885.

LAW REPORT
Trinity Term, 1785
Jones against Small
This was a case on a policy of insurance, and the action was brought for the loss of a great number of slaves by mutiny, which slaves had been insured at 10% from mortality by mutiny.
Captain Richard Bowen deposed that he was Captain of the Wasp trader; that he shipped 225 negroes, they were prime slaves, sailed from the coast of Africa May 11th, 1783, had then 217 slaves on board the 30th of May. Before he sailed an insurrection was attempted. The women seized him on the quarter-deck, and attempted to throw him overboard. He was rescued by the crew, the women and some men threw themselves down the hatchway, and some were bruised. He sent the ringleader on shore. The men were not active: 12 men and a women died of those bruises and from abstinence. On the 22nd of May, twelve days after sailing, there was a general insurrection. The crew were forced to fire upon the slaves, and attack them with weapons.; the slaves cut the mate desperately, and fractured a boy’s skull, who died. It was a case of eminent necessity. Several slaves took to the ships side and hung down in the water. Three were killed by firing, three were drowned. They hung in the water from chains and ropes, some for about a quarter of an hour. Many of them were desperately bruised, other almost drowned, fifty-five died in consequence of bruises, swallowing salt water, chagrin at disappointment, and abstinence; thirteen died of bruises, several of fluxes and fevers in consequence of swallowing salt water.
Lord Mansfield here stated a question, "Whether some did not die as a consequence of despair, and not in consequence of insurrection?"
Mr. Gorman (a juror) observed that the flux was a common disorder amongst slaves on shipboard. In answer to a question from Mr. Gorman, the witness said the slaves had no fluxes before they swallowed the salt water.
Lord Mansfield said, he would give no charge, but laid it all to the jury, if it had not been for the proviso in the instrument of insurance, which gave ten percent on mortality by mutiny, he thought the case was not within the instrument. This was not like the case of throwing negroes overboard to save the ship. Here was a cargo of desperate negores refusing to go into slavery and dying of despair.
Capt. Richard Bowen. Thirty-one died of natural deaths. The average loss by natural death in a cargo of such a number is twenty-five. They killed each other after they were landed, and when brought to market, sold at a loss of 6l [six pounds] per head.
On cross-examination, his proteit did not state losses by bruises, the reason, because he had not the surgeon’s book.
Lord Mansfield. It appears by the policy, that the underwriters are exempt from losses in boats, mortality of negroes by natural death excepted. This was explained to mean an exception of payment for negroes.
Mr. Mactaggart. Is conversant in the African trade; he has known losses by insurrection. It has been usual to pay for such losses.
Question from Mr. Gorman. "Is it the usage to pay insurance for negroes, who, after an insurrection die of chagrin or abstinence?"
It is; he has known negroes paid for who have died as a consequence of leaping into the sea. He has never heard of an insurer making difficulty in such a case.
Mr. Vaughan. By the usage, where the death has been a consequence of insurrection, the underwriters have paid – but what if the consequences have been disputed? He shewed the case of the Cato slave ship exactly in point, upon which his son recovered.
Lord Mansfield. You cannot recover under this policy for damage done to negroes, but only for mortality.
The policy is absurd – the particular case in the question is not within the penalty of the policy; but there is an exception which takes in mortality by mutiny.
There are three classes of this mortality:
Those who are killed, and those who die of their wounds, these are clearly within the policy.
But on the other class there is a doubt; those who died of abstinence, gnawing at their chains in despair, died not of mutiny, but of disappointment of a mutiny.
The other class is those who receive some hurt in the mutiny, but not mortal, and afterwards die of other causes. This appears to be the principal object; there is no law in the case; the jury must determine.
The jury made the following rules:
That all slaves who were killed or died of their wounds were to be paid for.
That all who died by leaping into the sea were not to be paid for.
That all who died of bruises, accompanied by other causes, by swallowing salt water, should be paid for.

I can add nothing to point out the coldly mercantile tone of the proceedings. There's no whitewashing of the humanity of the slaves, that they were desperate human beings, dying of despair, refusing to eat, and if I understand the line "killed each other after they were landed," even engaged in mutual suicide pacts once they arrived at their destination. But the question at hand was a legal one, which dead slaves the insurance company was required to pay on. Lord Mansfield had a up-and-down judicial career with respect towards slavery, and the situation ramined confused until 1807 when the trade was abolished. Slaves in England were not emancipated until 1833.