Black History Month: Joseph Knight
This October we’re celebrating Black History Month at Edinburgh Napier. And as part of this, we’d like to take a quick look at the case of Joseph Knight v. John Wedderburn, a historic legal case from the 1770s that saw the Scottish Court of Session officially declare that slavery laws were not applicable under the Scottish legal system. It marked the first official condemnations of slavery to come from a court in Britain.
Joseph Knight
Joseph Knight was a man born in West Africa around 1750. He was sold into slavery as a young boy and sent to the British colonies in Jamacia. As such, a great deal about his early history is unknown to us now, having been erased due to the colonialism of the era. What we do know is that when Knight was 12 or 13 years old he was purchased by a man named John Wedderburn, a plantation owner from Scotland. In a rarity for the era, Knight was taught how to read and write by Wedderburn. He planned to take Knight with him back to Scotland once he returned in 1769. In Scotland, Knight met and married Ann Thompson, another servant of the Wedderburn family. But when he asked to be able to live with her, he was refused by Wedderburn. Wanting to be with his wife, Knight left Wedderburn’s service. Wedderburn responded in a way that is reflective of the paternalistic racism of the era. Feeling that Knight owed him service due to the “gift” of education that he bestowed upon Knight and angered by what he saw as the loss of his property, Wedderburn had Knight arrested. A court in Perth ruled that Knight was to be considered Wedderburn’s property as per his slave contract. However, the Sheriff of Perth, a man named John Swinton, argued that the slavery laws of Jamaica, where Knight was purchased, held no sway over Scots Law. Knight should now be considered a free man in Scotland.
Court Battle
Following the ruling, Wedderburn launched a second appeal to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the highest civil court in Scotland. He argued that Knight’s slave contract was still in effect and that Wedderburn had the right to separate Knight from his family and take him back to Jamaica. The case rested on Scotland’s ties to the British Empire and its slave trade. Wedderburn’s lawyers argued that Scotland had greatly benefitted from the slave trade, with the so-called “Tobacco Lords” of Scotland bringing a great deal of money to the country. As such, Wedderburn felt that it was in Scotland’s financial interests to give preference to the laws of slave colonies.
Knight’s case rested on the argument that the laws of slavery were unnatural and unjust and that Scotland could not be expected to uphold such laws just because they were in place elsewhere. Furthermore, it was argued that Knight should be protected under Scottish laws against unlawful imprisonment. They cited a similar English court case in 1772, Somerset v Stewart, which declared that the institution of slavery was never formally protected under the law, arguing that this meant that slaves brought to Scotland were not beholden to their slave contracts.
Court Decision
After deliberating on the arguments, the twelve judges in the Court of Sessions voted eight to four in favour of Knight. They officially ruled that the slave laws of the colonies were not recognised under Scots Law, and in fact, were incompatible with the principles that Scottish laws were founded upon. One of the judges of the Court of Sessions, Alexander Boswell, was quoted as saying:
“Is a man a slave because he is black? No. He is our brother, and this is a man. Although not our colour, he is in a land of liberty, with his wife and child, let him remain there.”
It was a landmark ruling in the history of the Scottish legal system, resulting in what is one of the first legal rulings against slavery. The case struck a blow to the institution of the British slave trade and is now looked on as a significant case in the cause to abolish slavery.
By Matthew Ferrie
Please visit Black History Month.Org
Library and Black History Month 2024
Photo by Wesley Tingey
