Joseph Knight, a Negro, against John Wedderburn.�January 15, 1778.

The commander of a vessel, in the African trade, having imported a cargo of negroes into Jamaica, sold Joseph Knight, one of them, as a slave, to Mr. Wedderburn. Knight was then a boy, seemingly about twelve or thirteen years of age.

Some time after, Mr. Wedderburn came over to Scotland, and brought this negro along with him, as a personal servant.

The negro continued to serve him for several years, without murmuring, and married in the country. But, afterwards, prompted to assert his freedom, he took the resolution of leaving Mr. Wedderburn's service, who, being informed of it, got him apprehended, on a warrant of the justices of peace. Knight, on his examination, acknowledged his purpose. The justices found "the petitioner entitled to Knight's services, and that he must continue as before."

Knight then applied to the sheriff of the county, (Perthshire), by petition, setting forth, 'That Mr. Wedderburn insisted on his continuing a personal servant with him,' and prayed the sheriff to find, 'That he cannot be continued in a estate of slavery, or compelled to perpetual service; and to discharge Mr. Wedderburn from sending the petitioner 'abroad.'  

Back to top

After some procedure in this process, the sheriff found, 'That the state of slavery is not 'recognized by the laws of this kingdom, and is 'inconsistent with the principles thereof; that 'the regulations of Jamaica, concerning slaves, 'do not extend to this kingdom; and repelled 'the defender's claim to a perpetual service.' Mr. Wedderburn having reclaimed, the sheriff found, 'That perpetual service, without wages, is slavery; and therefore adhered.'  

The defender removed the cause into the court by advocation. The lord ordinary took it to report, upon informations. Being a question of general importance, the Court ordered a hearing in presence, and afterwards informations of new, upon which it was advised.  

Pleaded for the Master: That he had a right either to the perpetual service of the negro in this country, or to send him back to the plantations from which he was brought. His claim over the negro, to this extent, was argued on the following grounds:  

Back to top

The productions of the colonies, ever since they were settled, have been cultivated by the means of negro slaves imported from the coast of Africa. The supplying the colonies with these slaves has become an extensive trade; without which, the valuable objects of commerce, now furnished by the plantations, could not be cultivated. British statutes have given sanction to this trade, and recognized the property of the master in such slaves; 10th W. 3, c. 26; 5th Geo. 2, c. 7; 23d Geo. 2, c. 3.  

"The property which, in Jamaica, was established in the master over the negro, under these statutes, and the municipal law there, cannot be lost by a mere change of place. On principles of equity, rights acquired under the laws of foreign countries are supported and inforced by the courts of law here. A right of property will be sustained in every country where the subject of it may come. The status of persons attend them wherever they go; Huber, lib. 1, t. 3, c.12."  

Back to top

"The law of the colonies is not to be considered as unjust, in authorizing this condition of slavery. The statutes which encourage the African trade show, that the legislature does not look on it in that light. The state of slavery is not contrary to the law of nations. Writers upon that law have enumerated several just and lawful origins of slavery; such as contract, conquest in a just war, and punishment of crimes. In cases where slavery is authorized by the laws of Jamaica, it must be presumed to have proceeded on a lawful origin. The municipal law of no country will be presumed unjust."  

"A state of slavery has been universally received in the practice of nations. It took place in all the ancient nations, and in all the modern European nations, for many ages. In some of them it still remains; and in none of them has it been abolished by positive enactments, declaring it unjust and illegal, but gone into disuse by degrees, in consequence of many different causes. Though, therefore, the municipal law of this country does not now admit of this state of slavery in the persons of citizens, yet, where foreigners, in that state, are brought into the country, the right of their masters over them ought not to be annihilated. "  

Back to top

"In this case, the master is not insisting for the exercise of any rigorous powers. He only demands, that he shall be entitled to the personal services of the negro, in this country, during life. His right to this extent, at least, is not immoral or unjust; nor is it even reprobated by the municipal law of this country. A person may bind himself to a service for life; Ersk. Inst. b. 1, t. 7, � 62.  

But, in the last place, if this is denied, the master must, at least, be permitted to compel the negro to return to the plantations, from whence he was brought; otherwise be is intirely forfeited of his right."  

Back to top

Some cases from the English law-books were adduced to show, that, in England, the master's right of property in his negro remains after he is brought, into that country; Butts contra Penny, 1677; Keble's Rep. p. 3, p. 785. Gilly contra Cleves; 5th William and Mary, lord Raymond, Rep. 5, p. 147; and the opinion of two very eminent lawyers, in the year 1729, sir Philip Yorke, then attorney-general, and Mr. Talbot, solicitor-general, in these words:

"We are of opinion, that a slave, by coming from the West-Indies, either with or without his master, to Great Britain or Ireland doth not become free; and that his master's property or right in him is not thereby determined or varied; and baptism doth not bestow freedom on him, nor make any alteration in his temporal condition in these kingdoms. We are also of opinion, that the master may legally compel him to return to the plantations."

Answered for the Negro: The only title on which any right of dominion is claimed over this African, is the institution of the municipal law of Jamaica, which authorizes the slavery of Africans brought into that island. Under that law, this negro, a child when brought into Jamaica, while he remained there, was subjected to the unjust dominion which it gives over these foreigners, but the municipal law of the colonies has no authority in this country. On grounds of equity, the Court, in some cases, gives effect to the laws of other countries; but the law of Jamaica, in this instance, will not be supported by the Court, because it is repugnant to the first principles of morality and justice.  

Back to top

"Subordination, to a certain extent, is necessary; but there are certain bounds, beyond which, if any institution, subjecting one individual to another, should go, the injustice and immorality of it cannot admit of a doubt. Such is the institution of slavery, depriving men of the most essential rights that attend their existence, and which are of a nature that admit not of any equivalent to be given for them. The most express consent, given in a voluntary contract, cannot authorize the assuming of these rights, or bind the consenting party to submit to the condition of a slave. A stipulation of that kind affords intrinsic evidence of an undue advantage taken, and is therefore sufficient to void the contract."  

But although it were justifiable to admit of a slavery proceeding on a title of contract, of conquest, or of punishment, the law of Jamaica would not be the less unjust. In subjecting the Africans to slavery, that law requires no title under any of these grounds. The circumstance, that the negroes are brought into Jamaica, is all that is requisite to fix on them indiscriminately the condition of slavery. It is, therefore, a slavery established on force and usurpation alone, which no writer on the law of nations has vindicated as a justifiable origin of slavery.

Back to top

If the law of Jamaica had made any distinction, or required any title to the slavery of an African, this negro would never have been reduced by it to that state. Being a child when he was brought into Jamaica, he could enter into no contract, commit no crime, and conquest cannot give a right to kill or enslave children.  

"The means by which those who carried this child from his own country got him into their hands, cannot be known; because the law of Jamaica makes no inquiry into that circumstance. But, whether he was ensnared, or bought from his parents, the iniquity is the same.�That a state of slavery has been admitted of in many nations, does not render it less unjust. Child-murder, and other crimes of a deep dye, have been authorised by the laws of different states. Tyranny, and all sorts of oppression, might be vindicated on the same grounds.�Neither can the advantages procured to this country, by the slavery of the negroes, be hearkened to, as any argument in this question, as to the justice of it. Oppression and iniquity are not palliated by the gain and advantage acquired to the authors of them. But the expediency of the institution, even for the subjects of Great Britain, is much doubted of by those who are best acquainted with the state of the colonies; and some enlightened men of modern times have thought, that sugar and tobacco might be cultivated without the slavery of negroes."  

Back to top

The dominion, therefore, given by the law of Jamaica over the pursuer, a foreigner there, being unjust, can receive no aid from the laws of this country. The modification proposed of this claim of slavery, makes no difference on the merits of the question. It is plain, that, to give the defender any right over the pursuer, the positive law of Jamaica must always be resorted to; consequently, the question recurs, Whether that law ought to be enforced beyond its territory? But a service for life, without wages, is, in fact, slavery. The law of Scotland would not support a voluntary contract in these terms; and, even where wages are stipulated, such a contract has been voided by the Court; Allan and Mearns contra Skene and Burnet, No. 5, p. 9454, voce Pactom lllicitum.  

The answer was given to the other claim, of sending the negro out of this country, without his consent, that it supposes the dominion given over the pursuer by the law of Jamaica to be just. The negro is likewise protected against this by the statute 1701, c. 6, which expressly prohibits the carrying any persons out of the kingdom without their consent. The words are general, and apply to all persons within the realm.  

Back to top

" In support of this argument for the negro, authorities of French writers were adduced, to show, that formerly, by the laws of France, negroes brought into that country from the plantations became free. This was their law, until lately, that, by special edicts, some alterations were made upon it; Denisart, tom. 3, v. Negro. On the law of England, several cases were mentioned, in which different judges had expressed opinions, that a negro coming into England is free there; 1 Salk. 666, Smith contra Brown and Cooper; Shanley contra Nalvey, in Chancery, 1762; Hargrave's Arg. p. 58."  

Four 'Memorials' or 'Informations' in the course of these two litigations were delivered into the Court of Session. They were prepared by men of very high eminence in their profession; two for Knight the negro, by Mr. M'Laurin, afterwards Lord Dreghorn, and Mr. Maconochie, now Lord Meadowbank, and two for Wedderburn (Knight's master), by Mr. Ferguson, afterwards Lord Pitfour, and Mr. Cullen, afterwards Lord Cullen, respectively; they display a copiousness and variety of curious learning, ingenious reasoning and acute argumentation, intimately connected with the case now before us.