Examine individual changes

'{{featured article}} {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Zong'' massacre}} {{Infobox civilian attack |image=Slave-ship.jpg |alt=A painting entitled "The Slave Ship" by J. M. W. Turner. In the background, the sun shines through a storm while large waves hit the sides of a sailing ship. In the foreground, slaves are drowning in the water, while others are being eaten by large fish |caption=''[[The Slave Ship]]'' (1840) [[J. M. W. Turner]]'s representation of the mass killing of slaves, inspired by the ''Zong'' killings<ref>Burroughs 2010, p. 106.</ref> |date=29 November 1781 |perpetrators=British slavers |victims=African slaves }} The '''''Zong'' massacre''' was the mass killing of more than 130&nbsp;African [[Slavery|slaves]] by the crew of the British [[slave ship]] ''Zong'' on and in the days following 29 November 1781.{{Efn|The exact number of deaths is unknown but James Kelsall (''Zong''{{'s}} first mate) later said that "the outside number of drowned amounted to 142 in the whole" (quoted in Lewis (2007; p. 364).}} The Gregson slave-trading syndicate, based in [[Liverpool]], owned the ship and sailed her in the [[Atlantic slave trade]]. As was common business practice, they had taken out insurance on the lives of the slaves as cargo. According to the slavers, when the ship ran low on drinking water following navigational mistakes, the crew threw slaves overboard into the sea to drown, in part to ensure the survival of the rest of the ship's passengers, and in part to cash in on the insurance on the slaves, thus not losing money on the slaves who would have died from the lack of water. However, this story may have been concocted for insurance fraud. The enslaved people were likely all ill and would not fetch a good price, if any, at the slave market in Jamaica. After the slave ship reached port at [[Black River, Jamaica]], ''Zong''{{'}}s owners made a claim to their insurers for the loss of the slaves. When the insurers refused to pay, the resulting court cases (''Gregson v Gilbert'' (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232) held that in some circumstances, the deliberate killing of slaves was legal and that insurers could be required to pay for the slaves' deaths. The jury found for the slavers and they were to be remunerated for the murder victims, even though there is no evidence that they collected the money. The judge, [[William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield|Lord Chief Justice, the Earl of Mansfield]], allowed for a hearing for a retrial, given the extreme circumstances of the case. The hearing ended with Mansfield's decision to allow a retrial, but there is no record that it ever occurred. Following the first trial, freed slave [[Olaudah Equiano]] brought news of the massacre to the attention of the anti-slavery campaigner [[Granville Sharp]], who worked unsuccessfully to have the ship's crew prosecuted for murder. Because of the legal dispute, reports of the massacre received increased publicity, stimulating the [[Abolitionism in the United Kingdom|abolitionist]] movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; the ''Zong'' events were increasingly cited as a powerful symbol of the horrors of the [[Middle Passage]] of slaves to the New World.<ref name="usi"/> The non-denominational [[Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade]] was founded in 1787. The next year [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] passed the [[Slave Trade Act 1788]], its first law regulating the slave trade, to limit the number of slaves per ship. Then, in 1791, Parliament prohibited insurance companies from reimbursing ship owners when slaves were thrown overboard. The massacre has also inspired works of art and literature. It was remembered in London in 2007, among events to mark the bicentenary of the British [[Slave Trade Act 1807]], which abolished British participation in the African slave trade, though not slavery itself. A monument to the murdered slaves on ''Zong'' was installed at Black River, Jamaica, their intended port.<ref name="usi">[http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=373&Itemid=236 "The Zong case study"], Understanding Slavery Initiative website, 2011.</ref> ==''Zong''== {{Slavery}} ''Zong'' was originally named ''Zorg'' (meaning "Care" in [[Dutch language|Dutch]]) by its owners, the [[Middelburgsche Commercie Compagnie]]. It operated as a slave ship based in [[Middelburg]], [[Netherlands]], and made a voyage in 1777, delivering slaves to the coast of [[Suriname]], South America.<ref name="Webster 2007, p. 288">Webster 2007, p. 288.</ref> ''Zong'' was a "square stern ship" of 110&nbsp;[[Builder's Old Measurement|tons burthen]].<ref name=Lewis365>Lewis 2007, p. 365.</ref> The [[United Kingdom|British]] 16-gun brig {{HMS|Alert|1779|6}} captured her on 10 February 1781. On 26 February, ''Alert'' and ''Zong'' arrived at [[Cape Coast Castle]], in what is present-day [[Ghana]]. Cape Coast Castle was maintained and staffed, along with other forts and castles, by the [[Royal African Company]] (RAC),<ref>Lewis 2007, p. 359.</ref> which used the Castle as its regional headquarters.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87.</ref> In early March 1781, the master of ''William'' purchased ''Zong'' on behalf of a syndicate of Liverpool merchants.<ref name="Lewis 360">Lewis 2007, p. 360.</ref> The members of the syndicate were: Edward Wilson, George Case, James Aspinall and William, James, and John Gregson.<ref name="Walvin 217">Walvin 2011, p. 217.</ref> William Gregson had an interest in 50&nbsp;slaving voyages between 1747 and 1780; he also served as mayor of Liverpool in 1762.<ref name="Lewis 358">Lewis 2007, p. 358.</ref> By the end of his life, vessels in which Gregson had a financial stake had carried 58,000 Africans to slavery in the Americas.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 57.</ref> ''Zong'' was paid for with [[negotiable instrument|bills of exchange]], and the 244&nbsp;slaves already on board were part of the transaction.<ref name="Lewis 360"/> The ship was not insured until after it started its voyage.<ref name=Lewis361>Lewis 2007, p. 361.</ref> The insurers, a syndicate from Liverpool, underwrote the ship and slaves for up to £8,000, approximately half the slaves' potential market value. The remaining risk was borne by the owners.<ref name=Lewis361 /><ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 70–71.</ref> ===Crew=== ''Zong'' was the first command of Luke Collingwood, formerly the surgeon on the ''William''.<ref>Lewis 2007, pp. 358, 360.</ref> While Collingwood lacked experience in navigation and command, ship's surgeons were typically involved in selecting slaves for purchase in Africa, so their medical expertise supported the determination of "commodity value" for a captive.<ref name="Krikler 2012, p. 409">Krikler 2012, p. 409.</ref> If the surgeon rejected a captive, that individual suffered "commercial death", being of no value, and was liable to be killed by African handlers.<ref name="Krikler 2012, p. 409"/> Sometimes these killings happened in the presence of the surgeon. It is likely that Collingwood had already witnessed the mass-killing of slaves. As the historian Jeremy Krikler commented, this may have prepared him psychologically to condone the massacre that took place on the ''Zong''.<ref name="Krikler 2012, p. 409"/><ref>Krikler 2007, p. 31.</ref><ref>Walvin 2011, p. 52.</ref><!--This seems an odd statement, as Krikler seems to suggest Collingwood did not participate at all, as he was ill, according to statements below.--> ''Zong''{{'s}} first mate was James Kelsall, who had also served on the ''William''.<ref name="Lewis 358"/> The vessel's only passenger, Robert Stubbs, was a former captain of slave ships. In early 1780 he was appointed by the African Committee of the Royal African Company as the governor of [[Fort William, Ghana|Anomabu]], a British fortification near Cape Coast Castle in Ghana.<ref name="Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87">Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87.</ref> This position made him also vice-president of the RAC Council of the Castle.<ref name="Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87"/> Due to his ineptitude and enmity incurred with John Roberts, governor of the Castle, Stubbs was forced out of the governorship of Anomabu by the RAC Council after nine months.<ref name="Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87"/><ref>Lewis 2007, pp. 359–360.</ref> Witness statements gathered by the African Committee of the RAC accused him of being a semi-literate drunkard who mismanaged the slave-trading activities of the fort.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 82–83.</ref> Stubbs was aboard to return to Britain; Collingwood may have thought his earlier experience on slave ships would be useful.<ref name="Walvin 2011, pp. 76–87"/> ''Zong'' had a 17-man crew when it left Africa, which was far too small to maintain adequate sanitary conditions on the ship.<ref name="Krikler 411">Krikler 2012, p. 411.</ref> Mariners willing to risk disease and slave rebellions on slave ships were difficult to recruit within Britain and were harder to find for a vessel captured from the Dutch off the coast of Africa.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 45–48, 69.</ref> ''Zong'' was manned with remnants of the previous Dutch crew, the crew of ''William'', and with unemployed sailors hired from the settlements along the African coast.<ref name=Lewis361/> == The Middle Passage == When ''Zong'' sailed from [[Accra]] with 442&nbsp;slaves on 18 August 1781, it had taken on more than twice the number of people that it could safely transport.<ref name=Lewis361 /> In the 1780s, British-built ships typically carried 1.75&nbsp;slaves per ton of the ship's capacity; on the ''Zong'', the ratio was 4.0 per ton.<ref>Webster 2007, p. 289.</ref> A British slave ship of the period would carry around 193&nbsp;slaves and it was extremely unusual for a ship of ''Zong''{{'s}} relatively small size to carry so many.<ref name="Walvin 27"/> After taking on drinking water at [[São Tomé and Príncipe|São Tomé]], ''Zong'' began its voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to [[Jamaica]] on 6 September. On 18&nbsp;or 19 November, the ship neared [[Tobago]] in the Caribbean but failed to stop there to replenish its water supplies.<ref>Lewis 2007, pp. 362–363.</ref> It is unclear who, if anyone, was in charge of the ship at this point,<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 90.</ref> as Luke Collingwood had been gravely ill for some time.<ref name="Walvin 87">Walvin 2011, p. 87.</ref> The man who would normally have replaced him, first mate James Kelsall, had been previously suspended from duty following an argument on 14 November.<ref name="Walvin 87"/> Robert Stubbs had captained a slave ship several decades earlier and he temporarily commanded ''Zong'' during Collingwood's incapacitation, but he was not a registered member of the vessel's crew.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 77, 88.</ref> According to historian James Walvin, the breakdown of the command structure on the ship might explain the subsequent navigational errors and the absence of checks on supplies of drinking water.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 89–90.</ref> === Massacre === [[File:Zong Massacre map.png|thumb|left|upright=1.3|alt=Map of the Caribbean, showing Tobago, Hispaniola and Jamaica |Map of the Caribbean, showing [[Tobago]], [[Hispaniola]] (red) and [[Jamaica]] (blue)]] On 27&nbsp;or 28 November, the crew sighted Jamaica at a distance of {{convert|27|nmi|km mi}} but misidentified it as the French colony of [[Saint-Domingue]] on the island of [[Hispaniola]].<ref name="Lewis 363">Lewis 2007, p. 363.</ref><ref>Walvin 2011, p. 92.</ref> ''Zong'' continued on its westward course, leaving Jamaica behind. This mistake was recognised only after the ship was {{convert|300|mi|km}} [[leeward]] of the island.<ref name="Lewis 363"/> Overcrowding, malnutrition, accidents and disease had already killed several mariners and approximately 62&nbsp;Africans.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 89, 97.</ref> James Kelsall later claimed that there was only four days' water remaining on the ship, when the navigational error was discovered and Jamaica was still 10–13 sailing days away.<ref>Oldham 2007, p. 299.</ref> [[File:Slaveshipposter.jpg|thumb|upright |alt=A plan of the slave ship Brookes, showing the extreme overcrowding experienced by slaves on the Middle Passage |Plan of the slave ship ''[[Brookes (ship)|Brookes]]'', carrying 454 slaves. Before the [[Slave Trade Act 1788]], ''Brookes'' had transported 609 slaves and was 267&nbsp;tons burden, making 2.3 slaves per ton. ''Zong'' carried 442 slaves and was 110&nbsp;tons burden—4.0 slaves per ton.<ref name="Walvin 27">Walvin 2011, p. 27.</ref>]] If the slaves died onshore, the Liverpool ship-owners would have had no redress from their insurers. Similarly, if the slaves died a "natural death" (as the contemporary term put it) at sea, then insurance could not be claimed. If some slaves were jettisoned in order to save the rest of the "cargo" or the ship, then a claim could be made under "[[general average]]".<ref>Webster 2007, p. 291.</ref> (This principle holds that a captain who jettisons part of his cargo in order to save the rest can claim for the loss from his insurers.) The ship's insurance covered the loss of slaves at £30&nbsp;a head.<ref name=Weisbord562>Weisbord 1969, p. 562.</ref> On 29 November, the crew assembled to consider the proposal that some of the slaves should be thrown overboard.<ref name="Walvin 97">Walvin 2011, p. 97.</ref> James Kelsall later claimed that he had disagreed with the plan at first but it was soon unanimously agreed.<ref name=Weisbord562 /><ref name="Walvin 97"/> On 29 November 54&nbsp;women and children were thrown through cabin windows into the sea.<ref name=Lewis364>Lewis 2007, p. 364.</ref> On 1 December 42&nbsp;male slaves were thrown overboard, and 36&nbsp;more followed in the next few days.<ref name=Lewis364 /> Another ten, in a display of defiance at the inhumanity of the slavers, jumped into the sea.<ref name=Lewis364 /> Having heard the shrieks of the victims as they were thrown into the water, one of the captives requested that the remaining Africans be denied all food and drink rather than be thrown into the sea. The crew ignored this request.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 98, 157–158.</ref> In total, 142 Africans were killed by the time the ship reached Jamaica. The account of the King's Bench trial reports that one slave managed to climb back onto the ship.<ref name="Rupprecht 268"/> The crew claimed that the slaves had been jettisoned because the ship did not have enough water to keep all the slaves alive for the rest of the voyage. This claim was later disputed, as the ship had {{convert|420|impgal|l}} of water left when it arrived in Jamaica on 22 December.<ref name=Weisbord562 /> An affidavit later made by Kelsall stated that on 1 December, when 42 slaves were killed, it rained heavily for more than a day, allowing six casks of water (sufficient for eleven days) to be collected.<ref name=Weisbord562 /><ref>Lewis 2007, p. 366.</ref> === Arrival at Jamaica === On 22 December 1781, ''Zong'' arrived at [[Black River, Jamaica|Black River]], Jamaica with 208&nbsp;slaves on board, less than half the number taken from Africa.<ref name=Lewis364 /> These sold for an average price of £36 each.<ref name=Lewis365 /> The Jamaican Vice-Admiralty court upheld the legality of the British capture of ''Zong'' from the Dutch, and the syndicate renamed the ship ''Richard of Jamaica''.<ref name=Lewis365 /> Luke Collingwood died three days after ''Zong'' reached Jamaica, two years before the 1783 court proceedings about the case.<ref name="Webster 2007, p. 288"/> == Legal proceedings == [[File:William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield by John Singleton Copley.jpg|thumb|left|upright|alt=Portrait of William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, wearing his parliamentary robes|[[William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield]] by [[John Singleton Copley]], in his [[Privilege of peerage#Parliament robes|parliamentary robes]] as an Earl<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw04197 |title=''William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield'', by John Singleton Copley |publisher=[[National Portrait Gallery, London|National Portrait Gallery]] |accessdate=21 May 2013}}</ref>]] When the news of ''Zong''{{'s}} voyage reached Great Britain, the ship's owners claimed compensation from their insurers for the loss of the slaves. The insurers refused to honour the claim and the owners took them to court.<ref name="Walvin 2011 102 3">Walvin 2011, pp. 102–103.</ref> ''Zong''{{'}}s logbook went missing after the ship reached Jamaica, two years before the hearings started. The legal proceedings provide almost all the documentary evidence about the massacre but there is no formal record of the first trial other than what is referred to in the appeals hearing.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 140–141.</ref> The ship's insurers claimed that the log had been deliberately destroyed, which the Gregson syndicate denied.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 85–87, 140–141.</ref> Almost all the surviving source material is of questionable reliability. The two witnesses who gave evidence, Robert Stubbs and James Kelsall, were strongly motivated to exonerate themselves from blame.{{Efn|Stubbs gave evidence in court; Kelsall produced an [[affidavit]] in the [[Exchequer of Pleas|Exchequer]] proceedings initiated by the insurers (Walvin 2011, pp. 85, 155).}} It is possible that the figures concerning the number of slaves killed, the amount of water that remained on the ship, and the distance beyond Jamaica that ''Zong'' had mistakenly sailed are inaccurate.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 95.</ref> === First trial === Legal proceedings began when the insurers refused to compensate the owners of ''Zong''. The dispute was initially tried at the [[Guildhall, London|Guildhall]] in London<ref>[http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/LSS/Map/Enslavement/Places/1.htm "The Guildhall"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716055704/http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/LSS/Map/Enslavement/Places/1.htm |date=16 July 2015 }}, Museum of London.</ref> on 6 March 1783, with the [[Lord Chief Justice]], the [[William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield|Earl of Mansfield]], overseeing the trial before a jury.<ref name="Walvin 2011 102 3"/> Mansfield was previously the judge in [[Somersett's Case]] in 1772, which concerned the legality of keeping slaves in Britain. He had ruled that slavery had never been established by statute in Britain and was not supported by [[common law]].<ref name="Krikler 2007 39">Krikler 2007, p. 39.</ref> Robert Stubbs was the only witness in the first ''Zong'' trial and the jury found in favour of the owners, under an established protocol in maritime insurance that considered slaves as cargo.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 103, 139, 142.</ref> On 19 March 1783, [[Olaudah Equiano]], a freed slave, told the anti-slave-trade activist [[Granville Sharp]] of the events aboard ''Zong'' and a newspaper soon carried a lengthy account, reporting that the captain had ordered the slaves killed in three batches.<ref>Lovejoy 2006, pp. 337, 344.</ref><ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 1, 140.</ref> Sharp sought legal advice the next day, about the possibility of prosecuting the crew for murder.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 164.</ref> === King's Bench appeal === [[File:Granville Sharp (Hoare memoire).jpg|thumb|upright|alt=Portrait of Granville Sharp. The head and shoulders of Sharp are seen from the side, in an oval frame|Granville Sharp, from a drawing by [[George Dance the Younger|George Dance]]]] The insurers applied to the Earl of Mansfield to have the previous verdict set aside and for the case to be tried again.<ref>Lewis 2007, pp. 365–366.</ref> A hearing was held at the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|Court of King's Bench]] in [[Westminster Hall]] on 21–22 May 1783, before Mansfield and two other King's Bench judges, [[Sir Francis Buller, 1st Baronet|Mr Justice Buller]] and [[Edward Willes (1723–1787)|Mr Justice Willes]].<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 138.</ref> The [[Solicitor General for England and Wales|Solicitor General]], [[John Lee (Attorney-General)|John Lee]], appeared on behalf of the ''Zong''{{'s}} owners, as he had done previously in the Guildhall trial.<ref name=Weisbord563>Weisbord 1969, p. 563.</ref> Granville Sharp was also in attendance, together with a secretary he had hired to take a written record of the proceedings.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 139.</ref> Summing up the verdict reached in the first trial, Mansfield said that the jury: <blockquote>had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown over board&nbsp;... The Question was, whether there was not an Absolute Necessity for throwing them over board to save the rest, [and] the Jury were of opinion there was&nbsp;...<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 153.</ref><ref>Krikler 2007, p. 36.</ref></blockquote> Collingwood had died in 1781 and the only witness of the massacre to appear at Westminster Hall was passenger Robert Stubbs, although a written affidavit by first mate James Kelsall was made available to the lawyers.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 144, 155.</ref> Stubbs claimed that there was "an absolute Necessity for throwing over the Negroes", because the crew feared all the slaves would die if they did not throw some into the sea.<ref name="Walvin 144">Walvin 2011, p. 144.</ref> The insurers argued that Collingwood had made "a Blunder and Mistake" in sailing beyond Jamaica and that the slaves had been killed so their owners could claim compensation.<ref name="Walvin 144"/> They alleged that Collingwood did this because he did not want his first voyage as a slave ship captain to be unprofitable.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 144–145.</ref> John Lee responded by saying that the slaves "perished just as a Cargo of Goods perished" and were jettisoned for the greater good of the ship.<ref name="Walvin 146">Walvin 2011, p. 146.</ref> The insurers' legal team replied that Lee's argument could never justify the killing of innocent people; each of the three addressed issues of humanity in the treatment of the slaves and said that the actions of ''Zong''{{'s}} crew were nothing less than murder.<ref name="Walvin 146"/> As historian James Walvin has argued, it is possible that Granville Sharp directly influenced the strategy of the insurers' legal team.<ref name="Walvin 146"/> At the hearing, new evidence was heard, that heavy rain had fallen on the ship on the second day of the killings, but a third batch of slaves was killed after that. This led Mansfield to order another trial, because the rainfall meant that the killing of those slaves, after the water shortage had been eased, could not be justified in terms of the greater necessity of saving the ship and the rest of its human cargo.<ref>Krikler 2007, pp. 36–38.</ref><ref>Walvin 2011, p. 155.</ref> One of the justices in attendance also said that this evidence invalidated the findings of the jury in the first trial, as the jury had heard testimony that the water shortage resulted from the poor condition of the ship, brought on by unforeseen maritime conditions, rather than from errors committed by its captain.<ref>Oldham 2007, pp. 313–314.</ref> Mansfield concluded that the insurers were not liable for losses resulting from errors committed by ''Zong''{{'s}} crew.<ref name=Krikler38/> There is no evidence that another trial was held on this issue.<ref>Krikler 2007, p. 37.</ref><ref>Weisbord 1969, p. 564.</ref> Despite Granville Sharp's efforts, no member of the crew was prosecuted for murder of the slaves.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 167.</ref> Yet, the ''Zong'' case did eventually gain both national and international attention. A summary of the appeal on the ''Zong'' case, was eventually published in the [[nominate reports]] prepared from the contemporaneous manuscript notes of [[Sylvester Douglas, 1st Baron Glenbervie|Sylvester Douglas, Baron Glenbervie]], and others. It was published in 1831 as ''Gregson v Gilbert'' (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232.<ref>{{cite book | title = Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench | volume = 3 | editors = Henry Roscoe | year = 1831 | location = London | pages = 232–235 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=-2kDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false| author1 = Court Of King's Bench | first1 = Great Britain | last2 = Glenbervie | first2 = Sylvester Douglas Baron }}</ref>{{Efn|Reprinted in the ''[[English Reports]]'' in the early 20th century as [1783] EngR 85, 99 E.R. 629 – see [http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1783/ CommonLII], [http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1783/85.pdf PDF].}} === Mansfield's motivations === Jeremy Krikler has argued that Mansfield wanted to ensure that commercial law remained as helpful to Britain's overseas trade as possible and as a consequence was keen to uphold the principle of "general average", even in relation to the killing of humans. For Mansfield to have found in favour of the insurers would have greatly undermined this idea.<ref>Krikler 2007, pp. 32–33, 36–38, 42.</ref> The revelation that rain had fallen during the period of the killings enabled Mansfield to order a retrial, while leaving the notion of "general average" intact. He emphasised that the massacre would have been legally justified and the owners' insurance claim would have been valid, if the water shortage had not arisen from mistakes made by the captain.<ref name=Krikler38>Krikler 2007, p. 38.</ref> Krikler comments that Mansfield's conclusions ignored the ruling precedent of his predecessor, [[Matthew Hale (jurist)|Matthew Hale]], that the killing of innocents in the name of self-preservation was unlawful. This ruling was to prove important a century later in ''[[R v Dudley and Stephens]]'', which also concerned the justifiability of acts of murder at sea.<ref name="Krikler 2007 39"/> Mansfield also failed to acknowledge another important legal principle—that no insurance claim can be legal if it arose from an illegal act.<ref>Krikler 2007, pp. 42–43.</ref> == Effect on the abolitionist movement == [[File:African woman slave trade.jpg|thumb|alt=A cartoon image of the crew of a slave ship lashing a female slave. The ship's captain is standing on the left, holding a whip. Sailors are standing on the right. In the centre, a female slave is hanging from a pulley by her ankle. Other naked slaves are in the background.|Depiction of the torture of a female slave by Captain [[John Kimber]], produced in 1792. Unlike the crew of ''Zong'', Kimber was tried for the murder of two female slaves. The trial generated substantial news coverage in addition to printed images such as this—unlike the limited reporting of the ''Zong'' killings a decade earlier.<ref name="Swaminathan 2010, p. 483">Swaminathan 2010, p. 483.</ref>]] Granville Sharp campaigned to raise awareness of the massacre, writing letters to newspapers, the [[Lords Commissioners of Admiralty]] and the Prime Minister (the [[William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland|Duke of Portland]]).<ref>Weisbord 1969, pp. 565–567.</ref><ref name="Rupprecht 336">Rupprecht, "A Very Uncommon Case" (2007), p. 336.</ref> Neither Portland nor the Admiralty sent him a reply.<ref name="Rupprecht 336"/> Only a single London newspaper reported the first ''Zong'' trial in March 1783, but it provided details of events.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 1.</ref> The newspaper article in March 1783 was the first public report of the massacre, and it was published nearly 18&nbsp;months after the event.<ref name="Swaminathan 2010, p. 485">Swaminathan 2010, p. 485.</ref> Little else about the massacre appeared in print before 1787.<ref name="Swaminathan 2010, p. 483"/><ref name="Drescher 575–6"/> Despite these setbacks, Sharp's efforts did have some success. In April 1783, he sent an account of the massacre to [[William Dillwyn]], a Quaker, who had asked to see evidence that was critical of the slave trade. The [[Britain Yearly Meeting|London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends]] decided shortly after to begin campaigning against slavery, and a petition signed by 273&nbsp;Quakers was submitted to parliament in July 1783.<ref>Rupprecht, "A Very Uncommon Case" (2007), pp. 336–337.</ref> Sharp also sent letters to Anglican bishops and clergy and to those already sympathetic to the abolitionist cause.<ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 170–171.</ref> The immediate effect of the ''Zong'' massacre on public opinion was limited, demonstrating—as the historian of abolitionism [[Seymour Drescher]] has noted—the challenge that the early abolitionists faced.<ref name="Drescher 575–6">Drescher 2012, pp. 575–576.</ref> Following Sharp's efforts, the ''Zong'' massacre became an important topic in abolitionist literature and the massacre was discussed in works by [[Thomas Clarkson (abolitionist)|Thomas Clarkson]], [[Ottobah Cugoano]], [[James Ramsay (abolitionist)|James Ramsay]] and [[John Newton]].<ref>Lovejoy 2006, p. 337.</ref><ref>Swaminathan 2010, pp. 483–484.</ref> These accounts often omitted the names of the ship and its captain, thereby creating, in the words of Srividhya Swaminathan, "a portrait of abuse that could be mapped onto any ship in the Middle Passage".<ref name ="Swaminathan 484">Swaminathan 2010, p. 484.</ref><ref>Rupprecht, "Excessive memories" (2007), p. 14.</ref> The ''Zong'' killings offered a powerful example of the horrors of the slave trade, stimulating the development of the abolitionist movement in Britain, which dramatically expanded in size and influence in the late 1780s.<ref name="Swaminathan 2010, p. 485"/><ref>Walvin 2011, pp. 176–179.</ref><ref>Rupprecht, "A Very Uncommon Case" (2007), pp. 330–331.</ref> In 1787, the [[Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade]] was founded.<ref name="usi"/> Parliament received numerous petitions against the slave trade and examined the issue in 1788. With strong support by [[Sir William Dolben, 3rd Baronet|Sir William Dolben]], who had toured a slave ship, it passed the [[Slave Trade Act 1788]] (Dolben's Act), which was its first legislation to regulate the slave trade. It restricted the number of slaves that could be transported, to reduce problems of overcrowding and poor sanitation. Its renewal in 1794 included an amendment that limited the scope of insurance policies concerning slaves, rendering illegal such generalised phrases that promised to insure against "all other Perils, Losses, and Misfortunes." (The ''Zong'' owners' representatives had highlighted such a phrase in seeking their claim at the King's Bench hearing.)<ref>Oldham 2007, pp. 302, 313.</ref> The act had to be renewed annually and Dolben led these efforts, speaking frequently to parliament in opposition to slavery.<ref>Nigel Aston, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7780 "Dolben, Sir William, third baronet (1727–1814)"], ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', Oxford University Press, 2004.</ref> The Slave Trade Act of 1799 was passed to make these provisions permanent. Abolitionists, notably [[William Wilberforce]], continued their effort to end the slave trade. Britain passed the [[Slave Trade Act 1807]], which prohibited the Atlantic slave trade, and the Royal Navy enforced the [[Blockade of Africa]]. The United States also prohibited the Atlantic slave trade in 1808 and helped intercept illegal slave ships at sea, predominately after 1842. In 1823, the [[Anti-Slavery Society]] was founded in Britain, dedicated to abolishing slavery throughout the [[British Empire]]; the [[Slavery Abolition Act 1833]] represented the achievement of their goal. The ''Zong'' massacre was frequently cited in abolitionist literature in the 19th century; in 1839, Thomas Clarkson published his ''History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade'', which included an account of killings.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 10.</ref><ref name="Boime 36">Boime 1990, p. 36.</ref> Clarkson's book had an important influence on the artist [[J. M. W. Turner]], who displayed a painting at the [[Royal Academy summer exhibition]] in 1840 entitled ''[[The Slave Ship]]''. The painting depicts a vessel from which a number of manacled slaves have been thrown into the sea, to be devoured by sharks. Some of the details in the painting, such as the [[Legcuffs|shackles]] worn by the slaves, appear to have been influenced by the illustrations in Clarkson's book.<ref name="Boime 36"/> The painting was shown at an important time in the movement to abolish slavery worldwide, as the Royal Academy exhibition opened one month before the first [[World Anti-Slavery Convention]] in London.<ref>Walvin 2011, p. 6.</ref><ref>Boime 1990, p. 34.</ref> The painting was admired by its owner, [[John Ruskin]]. It has been described by the 20th-century critic Marcus Wood as one of the few truly great depictions in Western art of the Atlantic slave trade.<ref>Wood 2000, p. 41.</ref> == Representations in modern culture == [[File:Slave ship tower bridge 2007.jpg|thumb|alt=A sailing ship sits moored on the River Thames, with a large bridge in the background|''[[Kaskelot (tall ship)|Kaskelot]]'', appearing as ''Zong'', at [[Tower Bridge]] during commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in 2007]] The ''Zong'' massacre has inspired several works of literature. [[Fred D'Aguiar]]'s novel ''[[Feeding the Ghosts]]'' (1997) tells the story of an African who survives being thrown overboard from the ''Zong''. In the novel, the journal of the slave—Mintah—is lost, unlike that of Granville Sharp. According to the cultural historian Anita Rupprecht, this signifies the silencing of African voices about the massacre.<ref name="Rupprecht 268">Rupprecht 2008, p. 268.</ref> [[M. NourbeSe Philip]]'s 2008 book of poems, ''Zong!'', is based on the events surrounding the massacre and uses the account of the King's Bench hearing as its primary material. Philip's text physically deconstructs the account as a method for undermining the document's authority.<ref name="Rupprecht 268"/> [[Margaret Busby]]'s play ''An African Cargo'', staged by Nitro theatre company at [[Greenwich Theatre]] in 2007, dealt with the massacre and the 1783 trials, making use of the legal transcripts.<ref>Felix Cross, [http://www.nitro.co.uk/news/felixs-blog/belle-an-unexpected-journey/ "Belle: An Unexpected Journey"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150417232523/http://www.nitro.co.uk/news/felixs-blog/belle-an-unexpected-journey/ |date=17 April 2015 }}, Nitro, 13 June 2014.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.blackplaysarchive.org.uk/explore/productions/african-cargo |title=Black Plays Archive |publisher=The National Theatre |accessdate=24 May 2013}}</ref> An episode of the television programme ''[[Garrow's Law]]'' (2010) is loosely based on the legal events arising from the massacre.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w5c5g |title=Garrow's Law |publisher=BBC |accessdate=28 December 2012}}</ref> The historical [[William Garrow]] did not take part in the case, and because the ''Zong''{{'s}} captain died shortly after arriving in Jamaica, his appearance in court for fraud is also fictional.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/nov/12/garrows-law-court-dramas|title= TV & Radio Blog: Law draws from real-life court dramas|author= Mark Pallis|date=12 November 2010 |newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=19 November 2010}}</ref> A new play, ''The Meaning of Zong'', being developed by [[Giles Terera]], also deals with the massacre and the 1783 trials. Jointly commissioned by the [[Royal National Theatre]] and presented and developed with partner theatres in Liverpool, Glasgow and London, a number of workshop performances and discussions will be staged in Autumn 2018, ahead of the play being fully staged in 2019.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://bristololdvic.org.uk/whats-on/the-meaning-of-zong-workshop-performance|title=The Meaning Of Zong Workshop|publisher=The Bristol Old Vic|accessdate=12 October 2018}}</ref> The ''Zong'' legal case is the main theme of the 2013 British period drama film [[Belle_(2013_film)|''Belle'']], directed by [[Amma Asante]]. === 2007 abolition commemorations === In 2007, a memorial stone was erected at [[Black River, Jamaica]], near where ''Zong'' would have landed.<ref name="Walvin 207">Walvin 2011, p. 207.</ref> A sailing ship representing ''Zong'' was sailed to [[Tower Bridge]] in London in March 2007 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the [[Slave Trade Act 1807|Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade]], at a cost of £300,000. The vessel housed depictions of the ''Zong'' massacre and the slave trade.<ref name="Walvin 207"/> It was accompanied by [[HMS Northumberland (F238)|HMS ''Northumberland'']], with an exhibition on board commemorating the role of the [[Royal Navy]] after 1807 in the suppression of the slave trade.<ref>Rupprecht 2008, p. 266.</ref> ==See also== * [[Dido Elizabeth Belle]], born into slavery, but raised as a freewoman by Lord Mansfield, her uncle * ''[[Belle (2013 film)|Belle]]'', 2013 film <!--*Venus in Two Acts--> == Notes and references == === Notes === {{notelist}} === References === {{reflist}} == Bibliography == {{refbegin}} * {{cite journal |last=Boime |first=Albert |title=Turner's ''Slave Ship'': The Victims of Empire |journal=Turner Studies | volume=10 |issue=1 |year=1990 |pages=34–43 |url=http://www.albertboime.com/Articles/77.pdf}} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Burroughs | first1 = R. | doi = 10.1080/01440390903481688 | title = Eyes on the Prize: Journeys in Slave Ships Taken as Prizes by the Royal Navy | journal = Slavery & Abolition | volume = 31 | issue=1| pages = 99–115 | year = 2010 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Drescher | first1 = S. | title = The Shocking Birth of British Abolitionism | doi = 10.1080/0144039X.2011.644070 | journal = Slavery & Abolition | volume = 33 | issue = 4 | pages = 571–593 | year = 2012 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{cite journal |last=Krikler |first=Jeremy |year=2007 |title=The ''Zong'' and the Lord Chief Justice |journal=[[History Workshop Journal]] |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=29–47 |doi=10.1093/hwj/dbm035 }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Krikler | first1 = Jeremy| title = A Chain of Murder in the Slave Trade: A Wider Context of the ''Zong'' Massacre | doi = 10.1017/S0020859012000491 | journal = [[International Review of Social History]] | volume = 57 | issue = 3 | pages = 393–415| year = 2012 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Lewis | first1 = A. | title = Martin Dockray and the ''Zong'': A Tribute in the Form of a Chronology | doi = 10.1080/01440360701698551 | journal = Journal of Legal History | volume = 28 | issue = 3 | pages = 357–370 | year = 2007 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Lovejoy | first1 = P. E. | title = Autobiography and Memory: Gustavus Vassa, alias Olaudah Equiano, the African | doi = 10.1080/01440390601014302| journal = Slavery & Abolition | volume = 27 | issue = 3 | pages = 317–347| year = 2006 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{cite journal |last=Oldham |first=James |year=2007 |title=Insurance Litigation Involving the ''Zong'' and Other British Slave Ships, 1780–1807 |journal=Journal of Legal History |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=299–318 |doi=10.1080/01440360701698437 }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Rupprecht | first1 = A.| title = 'A Very Uncommon Case': Representations of the ''Zong'' and the British Campaign to Abolish the Slave Trade | doi = 10.1080/01440360701698494 | journal = Journal of Legal History | volume = 28 | issue = 3 | pages = 329–346 | year = 2007 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Rupprecht | first1 = A.| doi = 10.1093/hwj/dbm033 | title = Excessive Memories: Slavery, Insurance and Resistance | journal = [[History Workshop Journal]] | volume = 64 | issue=1| pages = 6–28 | year = 2007 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{cite journal |last=Rupprecht |first=Anita |year=2008 |title=A Limited Sort of Property: History, Memory and the Slave Ship ''Zong'' |journal=Slavery & Abolition |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=265–277 |doi=10.1080/01440390802027913 }} * {{Cite journal | last1 = Swaminathan | first1 = S. | title = Reporting Atrocities: A Comparison of the ''Zong'' and the Trial of Captain John Kimber | doi = 10.1080/0144039X.2010.521336 | journal = Slavery & Abolition | volume = 31 | issue = 4 | pages = 483–499 | year = 2010 | pmid = | pmc = }} * {{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=kIp9er6RDyYC |last=Walvin |first=James |title=The Zong: A Massacre, the Law and the End of Slavery |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven & London |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-300-12555-9}} * {{cite journal |last=Webster |first=Jane |year=2007 |title=The ''Zong'' in the Context of the Eighteenth-Century Slave Trade |journal=Journal of Legal History |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=285–298 |doi=10.1080/01440360701698403 }} * {{cite journal |last=Weisbord |first=Robert |title=The case of the slave-ship Zong, 1783 |journal=[[History Today]] |volume=19 |issue=8 |date=August 1969 |pages=561–567}} * {{cite book |last=Wood |first=Marcus |title=Blind Memory: Visual Representations of Slavery in England and America, 1780–1865 |publisher=Manchester University Press |location=Manchester |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-7190-5446-4}} {{refend}} == Further reading == {{refbegin}} * [https://books.google.com/books?id=-2kDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA232&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Account of ''Gregson v. Gilbert''] in {{cite book | title = Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench |volume=3 |editor = Henry Roscoe |year=1831 |location= London |pages=232–235}} * {{cite book |title=Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of History |last=Baucom |first=Ian |authorlink= |year=2005 |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham |isbn=978-0-8223-3558-0}} * {{cite book | last1 = Hoare | first1 = Prince | author-link=Prince Hoare (younger) | title = Memoirs of Granville Sharp, Esq | publisher = Henry Colburn & Co | year = 1820 | location = London | url = https://books.google.com/?id=PrUEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA236#v=onepage&q&f=false}} {{refend}} == External links == * [https://web.archive.org/web/20100228085824/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070701/arts/arts5.html "Abolition Watch: Massacre on the 'Zong' – outrage against humanity"], ''[[Jamaica Gleaner]]'', 1 July 2007. {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} {{Use British English|date=October 2010}} {{Authority control}} [[Category:Maritime incidents involving slave ships]] [[Category:Maritime incidents in 1781]] [[Category:African slave trade]] [[Category:History of Liverpool]] [[Category:1781 in the Caribbean]] [[Category:1783 in Great Britain]] [[Category:1783 in law]] [[Category:Deaths by drowning]]'