Insurance - Revision history

Admin: /* Loss of or Damage to the Ship */

2016-03-18T00:08:43Z

‎Loss of or Damage to the Ship

Admin: /* Pro Forma Insurance Policies */

2016-03-18T00:08:02Z

‎Pro Forma Insurance Policies

Admin: /* Pro Forma Insurance Policies */

2016-03-18T00:06:56Z

‎Pro Forma Insurance Policies

Admin at 00:03, 18 March 2016

2016-03-18T00:03:29Z

Admin at 00:01, 18 March 2016

2016-03-18T00:01:21Z

Admin: /* Insurance in War */

2016-03-18T00:00:41Z

‎Insurance in War

Admin: /* Insurance in War */

2016-03-17T23:59:44Z

‎Insurance in War

Admin: /* Insurance in War */

2016-03-17T23:58:39Z

‎Insurance in War

Admin: /* Insurance in War */

2016-03-17T23:57:52Z

‎Insurance in War

Admin: /* Marine Insurance in the late 18th Century */

2016-03-17T23:56:13Z

‎Marine Insurance in the late 18th Century

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 "It appears very obvious from the tenor of the agreement that the Masters of the said transports never considered Lieutenant Shortland’s certificate (as they have called it in the said agreement) at all binding upon himself or government to pay for the loss. If they had, why does not the owner of the Friendship claim the freight as well as the value of the hull from the time she was abandoned to the Alexander’s arrival at Deptford which he has not however thought fit to do although Walton the Master hath stipulated in the said agreement that in case government should allow her value and freight his owner shall have no claim whatever on the owners of the Alexander.
-"It is also clear that if both the Masters and the crew had persisted in staying by their respective ships and both of them had been lost the insurers and not government must have made good the loss; but the Master of the Friendship now pretends that he was always averse and objected even down to the 28th of October, the day his vessel was scuttled to her being destroyed and that the reason he did not oppose the Lieutenant’s order in this respect being carried into execution was from an apprehension that in case of refusal his owners would have been mulcted by the Navy Board for breach of orders. Whereas he must well know (having the Charter Party on board) that he was not bound to obey the order in question or any other that was not comprehended in the terms of the Charter. He however contends that Lieut. Shortland has by the said order made himself liable to pay the value of the Friendship’s hull to his owners, who, in case the navy Board refuse to make good the loss will immediately commence an action against him to receive the same." (Case Relating to the Friendship Transport, TNA T1/695/245-6)
+"It is also clear that if both the Masters and the crew had persisted in staying by their respective ships and both of them had been lost the insurers and not government must have made good the loss; but the Master of the Friendship now pretends that he was always averse and objected even down to the 28th of October, the day his vessel was scuttled to her being destroyed and that the reason he did not oppose the Lieutenant’s order in this respect being carried into execution was from an apprehension that in case of refusal his owners would have been mulcted by the Navy Board for breach of orders. Whereas he must well know (having the Charter Party on board) that he was not bound to obey the order in question or any other that was not comprehended in the terms of the Charter. He however contends that Lieut. Shortland has by the said order made himself liable to pay the value of the Friendship’s hull to his owners, who, in case the Navy Board refuse to make good the loss will immediately commence an action against him to receive the same." (Case Relating to the Friendship Transport, TNA T1/695/245-6)
 November 1789 – The Case asked the chief law officers whether an action might be maintained against Lieut. Shortland or the Navy Board.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 [‘£400 Jno Newton for A. French. Four hundred pounds. Rec’d 24 September 1785’] (Based on the policy for the 'Commerce', at TNA T70/1553)
-We have no examples of an insurance policy for a convict voyage, but the following is an example of a contract on the 'Recovery', a Camden, Calvert & King ship, which carried convicts to West Africa in 1785. The list of insurers includes one of the Cazalet family:
+We have no examples of an insurance policy for a convict voyage, but the following is an example of a contract on the 'Recovery', a Camden, Calvert & King ship, which carried convicts to West Africa in 1785. (TNA T70/1553) The list of insurers includes one of the Cazalet family:
 [[File:Insurance 1.jpg|thumb|centre]]
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 [[File:Insurance 3.jpg|thumb|centre]]
 =Insuring Convict Voyages=

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 [‘£400 Jno Newton for A. French. Four hundred pounds. Rec’d 24 September 1785’] (Based on the policy for the 'Commerce', at TNA T70/1553)
-We have no examples of an insurance policy for a convict voyage, but the following is an example of a contract on the Recovery, a Camden, Calvert & King ship from 1785, which carried convicts to West Africa. The list of insurers includes one of the Cazalet family:
+We have no examples of an insurance policy for a convict voyage, but the following is an example of a contract on the 'Recovery', a Camden, Calvert & King ship, which carried convicts to West Africa in 1785. The list of insurers includes one of the Cazalet family:
 [[File:Insurance 1.jpg|thumb|centre]]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 We have no examples of an insurance policy for a convict voyage, but the following is an example of a contract on the Recovery, a Camden, Calvert & King ship from 1785, which carried convicts to West Africa. The list of insurers includes one of the Cazalet family:
-PICTURES
+[[File:Insurance 2.jpg|thumb|centre]]
 (TNA T70/1553)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 18 March 2016
Line 439:		Line 439:


−	[[Category: Managing the Ships}}	+	[[Category: Managing the Ships]]

@@ Line 412: / Line 412: @@
   Sailmaker			57	11
-  Cordage			59
+  Cordage				59
   Insurance on ship at

@@ Line 384: / Line 384: @@
   On Cooper’s Bill		10
-  On Cordage Bill	 	 42	18
+  On Cordage Bill			42	18
   On Sailmaker’s Bill		80
@@ Line 397: / Line 397: @@
   August 1795 per Boddingtons	294
 	2	6
@@ Line 422: / Line 422: @@
   is 14 for 28 men 12 months	235	4
 	12  (IOR L/MAR/C/531, Appendices 1801 & 1802, pp.998, 999)
 October 1795 – The Court of Directors read these letters at its meeting this day and referred then to the Committee of Shipping. (IOR L/MAR/C/531, p.915)

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 Consequence of the War
-				£	s	d
+ 				£	s	d
   On dry provisions		61	3	6
@@ Line 384: / Line 384: @@
   On Cooper’s Bill		10
-  On Cordage Bill	 	42	18
+  On Cordage Bill	 	 42	18
   On Sailmaker’s Bill		80
@@ Line 403: / Line 403: @@
   Sugar Cane in consequence of the war
-				£	s	d
+ 				£	s	d
   On dry stores			37	18

@@ Line 384: / Line 384: @@
   On Cooper’s Bill		10
-  On Cordage Bill		42	18
+  On Cordage Bill	 	42	18
   On Sailmaker’s Bill		80
   Insurance on £7,000 instead of
 per cent paid 12 per cent,
-difference of 7/7s per cent	514	10
+ difference of 7/7s per cent	514	10
   Difference wages between 26s
-and 40s 28 men, difference 14s
+ and 40s 28 men, difference 14s
-per month, from May 1794 to
+ per month, from May 1794 to
-August 1795 per Boddingtons	294
+ August 1795 per Boddingtons	294
 	2	6
@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
   Difference of expense and outfit of
-Sugar Cane in consequence of the war
+ Sugar Cane in consequence of the war
 				£	s	d
@@ Line 415: / Line 415: @@
   Insurance on ship at
-£6000 at 7/7			441
+ £6000 at 7/7			441
   Ditto 3,500 freight		275	5
   On wages between 26 and 40
-is 14 for 28 men 12 months	235	4
+ is 14 for 28 men 12 months	235	4
 	12  (IOR L/MAR/C/531, Appendices 1801 & 1802, pp.998, 999)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 • John William Anderson was a former director of the Royal Exchange Assurance and the Russia Company. He had also underwritten both ships to the value of £500.
-• One of the Cazalet family, almost certainly Peter Cazalet who had been a director of the London Assurance, also participated in underwriting the Active (at least). Peter Cazalet was a prominent London merchant. He had been a director of the Bank of England in 1792 and 1793, and in 1798 was a Deputy of the City of London. (Based on a number of sources involving the insurance cases for the Active and the Albemarle)
+• One of the Cazalet family, almost certainly Peter Cazalet who had been a director of the London Assurance, also participated in underwriting the Active (at least). Peter Cazalet was a prominent London merchant. He had been a director of the Bank of England in 1792 and 1793, and in 1798 was a Deputy of the City of London. (Based on a number of sources involving the insurance cases for the 'Active' and the 'Albemarle')
 There appear to have been around 40 different individuals involved in the insurance of these two ships. (Calvert and Co v The Underwriters, Times, 27 January 1796, p.3 & 16 April 1796, p.3) Based on other examples from the time, it was not unusual to see the signatures of some 20-30 individuals attached to an insurance policy, on which see below.
-In 1796, the owner (and master) of the Marquis Cornwallis, Michael Hogan, purchased insurance for the ship through Messrs Hamilton & Touray, also of Mincing Lane, in London. (Michael Hogan Family Papers, Typed MS, Mitchell Library, MLMSS7359, LB-101)
+In 1796, the owner (and master) of the 'Marquis Cornwallis', Michael Hogan, purchased insurance for the ship through Messrs Hamilton & Touray, also of Mincing Lane, in London. (Michael Hogan Family Papers, Typed MS, Mitchell Library, MLMSS7359, LB-101)
 =Pro Forma Insurance Policies=