A Legacy of Complicity
Lloyd’s of London, a cornerstone of the global insurance market since its inception in 1688, played a pivotal role in the transatlantic slave trade. This brutal system forcibly transported millions of enslaved Africans to the Americas between the 15th and 19th centuries. As the leading provider of marine insurance during the height of the trade, Lloyd’s facilitated the financial infrastructure that underpinned this inhumane enterprise. This article examines Lloyd’s historical ties to the slave trade, the mechanisms by which it profited, and the steps the institution has taken to address its past in the wake of modern calls for accountability.
Lloyd’s Role in Insuring the Slave Trade
The transatlantic slave trade was a complex economic system that relied heavily on financial instruments like insurance to mitigate the risks faced by slave traders. Lloyd’s, originating as a coffee house where merchants and underwriters gathered, became the epicenter of marine insurance in Britain. By the 18th century, it held a dominant market share, estimated at 75-90%, in insuring maritime ventures, including those involved in the slave trade.
Lloyd’s provided insurance for slave ships, their cargo, and, horrifically, the enslaved people themselves, who were dehumanized as “perishable goods” or “cargo” in insurance policies. This commodification is starkly illustrated in the infamous Zong case of 1781, where 132 enslaved Africans were thrown overboard by the ship’s crew, allegedly due to water shortages. The ship’s owners, insured by a Lloyd’s syndicate, filed a claim for the “loss” of their human cargo, leading to a high-profile court case that exposed the brutal economics of slavery. The case was not about murder but an insurance dispute, highlighting how Lloyd’s policies enabled such atrocities by treating enslaved people as insurable property.
Research by scholars Alexandre White and Pyar Seth reveals that in the 1790s, insurance for the slave economy accounted for 41% of the marine insurance industry. Lloyd’s policies often included unique clauses covering losses from insurrections, acknowledging the resistance of enslaved people while further entrenching their status as chattel. Surviving records, such as the risk books of underwriters Horatio Clagett and Solomon D’Aguilar, show how Lloyd’s underwriters insured voyages that transported thousands of enslaved Africans, with policies valuing an enslaved person at approximately £45 (equivalent to £3,454.25 today).
Prominent figures in Lloyd’s history were also directly linked to slavery. John Julius Angerstein, often called the “father of Lloyd’s,” was a key figure in the market during its slave trade involvement and is believed to have been a trustee of Caribbean estates that held enslaved people. Similarly, Joseph Marryat, Lloyd’s chairman from 1811 to 1824, owned enslaved people, and founding subscriber Simon Fraser profited from a sugar plantation in Dominica.
A Broader Financial Network
Lloyd’s was part of a sophisticated financial network that sustained the slave trade. The insurance market worked alongside banks, trading houses, and merchants in ports like Liverpool, London, and Bristol, which dominated the trade. The Bank of England, established in 1694, and early banks like Heywoods (later part of Barclays) also supported the credit systems that financed slave voyages. Lloyd’s insurance products mitigated risks such as piracy, war, and uprisings, making the trade more viable for investors.
The triangular trade—where European goods were exchanged for enslaved Africans, who were then sold in the Americas for slave-grown products like sugar and cotton—relied on Lloyd’s to insure each leg of the journey. Even after Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, Lloyd’s continued to profit from insuring cotton and other goods produced by enslaved labor in the United States and South America until the abolition of slavery in those regions in the 19th century.
Acknowledgment and Response
The global Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death in 2020 prompted Lloyd’s to confront its past. In June 2020, Lloyd’s issued a public apology for its “shameful” role in the slave trade, acknowledging the suffering it helped perpetuate. The institution pledged to fund opportunities for Black and ethnic minority groups and commissioned an independent study by Johns Hopkins University, funded by the Mellon Foundation, to investigate its archives.
In November 2023, Lloyd’s released the findings of this research, which confirmed its “significant role” in enabling the slave trade. The report detailed how Lloyd’s insured at least one-third of British slave voyages in 1807 and highlighted the market’s ties to slave shipowners and plantation economies. In response, Lloyd’s announced a £40 million investment in regions affected by the slave trade, including bonds administered by the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Additionally, £12 million was allocated for diversity initiatives, such as bursaries for Black university students and programs to improve the recruitment of ethnic minorities. Lloyd’s is also committed to displaying artwork, like Sir Frank Bowling’s Empire Day Picture, to reflect on its history and has hired an archivist to further examine its artefacts for slavery links.
Criticism and Calls for Reparations
Despite these efforts, Lloyd’s has faced criticism for falling short of meaningful reparations. Campaign groups, including the Runnymede Trust, have accused Lloyd’s of “reparations washing,” arguing that its diversity programs and investments do not adequately address the scale of harm caused. Critics point to Lloyd’s ethnicity pay gap and the lack of direct financial compensation for descendants of enslaved people as evidence of insufficient action. The Guardian noted that while Lloyd’s acknowledged its role, it stopped short of quantifying the wealth amassed through the slave trade, a step many advocates see as essential for true accountability. The debate over reparations remains heated, with African and Caribbean entities, the United Nations, and some U.S. and European leaders calling for financial redress. Lloyd’s initiatives, while a starting point, are seen by some as symbolic rather than transformative, especially given the institution’s historical profits from slavery.
Lloyd’s of London’s connection to the transatlantic slave trade is a stark reminder of how financial institutions underpinned one of history’s greatest atrocities. By insuring slave ships and treating enslaved people as commodities, Lloyd’s played a central role in sustaining the trade’s economic viability. While recent apologies and investments mark a step toward reckoning with this past, critics argue that more substantial measures, including reparations, are needed to address the enduring legacy of slavery. As Lloyd’s continues to navigate its historical responsibilities, its actions will be closely watched as part of a broader global movement to confront the systemic inequalities rooted in this dark chapter of history.