Annals, Anecdotes and Legends: A Chronicle of Life Assurance

by of the Bank of England John Francis

The first English statute relating to marine assurance was passed in 1601. The earliest mention of it occurs in 1548, in a letter written by the Protector Somerset to his brother the Lord Admiral, and that it was commonly known in 1558 may be gathered from a speech of the Lord Keeper Bacon. In the act alluded to above, “An Act concerning Matters of Assurances among Merchants,” it is stated, that “it hath been time out of mind an usage among merchants, both of this realm and of foreign nations, when they make any great adventure, specially into remote parts, to give some consideration of money to other persons, to have from them assurance made of their goods, merchandises, ships, and things adventured, or some parts thereof, at such rates and in such sort as the parties assurers and the parties assured can agree; which course of dealing is commonly called a policy of assurance, by means of which policies of assurance it cometh to pass, upon the loss or perishing of any ship, there followeth not the loss or undoing of any man, but the loss lighteth rather easily upon many than heavily upon few, and rather upon them that adventure not than on those that do adventure.”

If mercantile or marine assurance were so common, it is difficult to imagine that some approximation to life assurance, however imperfect or normal it might be, was entirely unpractised. It must necessarily have occurred to the captain of a trading vessel, that the storm or the whirlwind, which might send his merchandise to the bottom of the sea, might also send himself with it; and the thought that, if his goods were worth insuring for the benefit of the owners, his own life was worth insuring for the benefit of his family, arose naturally from the risks he ran. And in those days there was not merely a risk of storm or whirlwind. Man was more cruel than the tempest; and the galleys of the Turks were then as much feared, by the masters of trading vessels, as the corsairs of the Algerine were dreaded at a later period. They roved the seas as if they were its masters; they took the vessels, disposed of the cargo in the nearest market, and sold the navigators like cattle. The only way of mitigating this terrible calamity was by some mode of insurance, to procure their rescue if taken; and we find that to attain so desirable a result they paid a certain premium to their merchant freighters, who, in return, bound themselves to pay a sufficient sum to secure the navigators’ freedom within fifteen days after the certificate of their captivity, the ordinary days of grace being lessened on such policies.

In those days, also, when crusades were common, and men undertook pilgrimages from impulse as much as from religion, it was desirable that the palmer should perform his vow with safety, if not with comfort. The chief danger of his journey was captivity. The ballads of the fifteenth century are full of stories which tell of pilgrims taken prisoners, and of emirs’ daughters releasing them; but as the release by Saracen ladies was more in romance than in reality, and could not be calculated on with precision, a personal insurance was entered into, by which, in consideration of a certain payment, the assurer agreed to ransom the traveller, and thus the palmer performed his pilgrimage as secure from a long captivity as money could make him. It is true, that this care for his personal safety may detract somewhat from a high religious feeling; but truth is sadly at variance with sentiment, and the pilgrims of the crusading period were but too glad to lessen the chances against them.

Another mode of assurance was commonly practised, by which any traveller departing on a long or dangerous voyage deposited a specific amount in the hands of a money broker, on condition that if he returned he should receive double or treble the amount he had paid; but, in the event of his not returning, the money broker was to keep the deposit, which was in truth a premium under another name.

In 1643 Captain John Bulmer published, “Propositions in the Office of Assurance, London, for the blowing up of a boat and a man over London Bridge.” Nor was this an unusual mode of conducting an enterprise which was at once ingenious and costly, and which required an union of capital to support it. In the address above alluded to, Bulmer, an unsuccessful engineer, pledged himself to perform his promise within a month after intimating from the office that he was ready; “viz. so soon as the undertakers wagering against him, six for one, should have deposited enough to pay the expenses of boat and engine,” he also subscribing his own proportion. The money was not to be paid until the Captain had performed his contract, when he was to receive it all. If, however, he should fail, it was to be repaid to the subscribers. “And all those that will bring their money into the office shall there be assured of their loss or gain, according to the conditions above named.”

These facts are an evidence that the principle of assurance was making way, and that men endeavoured to provide against the chances or mischances of life, to the best of their ability. Thus, any seafaring person proceeding on a voyage, could insure his life for the benefit of his heirs; and if the information which has come down to us limits the practice to this particular class, it was because seamen were the chief visitors to foreign countries, and for them some such plan was essentially a necessity.

But there was a further and more remarkable fact in operation; as an annuitant enjoying a life-rent or pension could make an insurance on his life, by way of provision for his family. These, however, were only exceptional cases, for which the premiums were probably distressingly heavy; if we may judge from the fact, that a century later the life of a healthy man, of any age, was estimated at only seven years’ purchase. The great merchants of that day were chiefly responsible for such assurances, and many of the corporations engaged in these and similar adventures. The following will show that by 1569 the provident societies of the present day were anticipated. The writer is illustrating his opinion on usury.

“A merchant lendeth to a corporation or company 100l., which corporation hath by statute a grant, ‘that whosoever lendeth such a sum of money, and hath a child of one year, shall have for his child, if the same child do live till he be full 15 years of age, 500l. of money; but if the child die before that time, the father to lose his principal for ever.’ Whether is this merchant an usurer or not? The law says, if I lend purposely for gain, notwithstanding the peril or hazard, I am an usurer.”

Again: “A corporation taketh 100l. of a man, to give him 8l. in the 100l. during his life without restitution of the principal. It is no usury, for that here is no lending, but a sale for ever of so much rent for so much money. Likewise, if a private man have 1000l. lying by him, and demandeth for his life and his wife’s life 100l. by the year, and never to demand the principal, it is a bargain of sale and no usury.”

But though these things are evidences of something closely akin to the principles of life assurance, it is certain that no system existed by which so happy a result could be habitually attained. The state of society was opposed to it. Life was then scarce “worth a pin’s fee.” The noble was at the mercy of his own fierce passions, and, if not engaged in some intestine warfare, was crossing and recrossing seas, was making or unmaking kings. The knight sought dangerous adventures with an avidity which would place his life on the trebly hazardous list of assurance-offices, and pale the roses on the cheeks of directors. The citizen, again, was constantly embroiled in quarrels with which he had no business, and merchants would have looked doubtfully on any proposal to accept a life which was likely enough to end the day after its assurance.