Knight v. Wedderburn
While in Scotland, Knight was baptised and married Ann Thompson, a servant of the Wedderburn family, with whom he had at least one child. He sought, and was refused permission by Wedderburn, to live with his wife in family. On Wedderburn refusing, Knight then left his service. Wedderburn appears to have been indignant, feeling that he had bestowed considerable gifts on Knight by educating him and taking care of him, and had him arrested. In 1774, Knight brought a claim before the
justices of the peace court in
Perth, a case that would be known as
Knight v Wedderburn.
Appeal to the sheriff When the justices of the peace found in favour of Wedderburn, Knight appealed to the
Sheriff of
Perth,
John Swinton. He found that "the state of slavery is not recognised by the laws of this kingdom, and is inconsistent with the principles thereof: That the regulations in Jamaica, concerning slaves, do not extend to this kingdom." The defence of Knight in the Court of Session was mounted in general terms as a denunciation of slavery:
Appeal to Court of Session In 1777, Wedderburn appealed to the
Court of Session, Scotland's supreme civil court, in Edinburgh and argued that Knight still owed him perpetual service and might be taken and sent back to Jamaica by force. The case came before the whole court of twelve judges (as was usual at that time) including
Lord Kames, a prominent legal and
social historian. Knight's principal counsel were
Allan Maconochie (later himself a judge as Lord Meadowbank),
John Maclaurin (later himself a judge as Lord Dreghorn), and Andrew Crosbie.
Henry Dundas, then
Lord Advocate, also acted as one of Knight's counsel, in his private capacity as an
advocate. They may have been assisted in their preparation for the case by
James Boswell. "I cannot too highly praise the speech which Mr. Henry Dundas generously contributed to the cause of the sooty stranger", Boswell recalled, "I do declare that upon this memorable question he impressed me." Their argument was that "no man is by nature the property of another" and that, albeit under Jamaican law slavery was recognised, that could not extend to Scotland. Conversely, Wedderburn's counsel argued that commercial interests, which underpinned Scotland's prosperity, should prevail. The Court of Session, by eight votes to four, sustained the sheriff's decision, which had held, "That the state of slavery is not recognised by the laws of this kingdom, and is inconsistent with the principles thereof: and found that the regulations in Jamaica, concerning slaves, do not extend to this kingdom; and repelled the defender's claim to perpetual service". It thus rejected Wedderburn's appeal. Lord Kames stated that "we sit here to enforce right not to enforce wrong". Lord Auchinleck, Boswell's father, said, "Although, in the plantations, they have laid hold of the poor blacks, and made slaves of them, yet I do not think that that is agreeable to humanity, not to say to the Christian religion. Is a man a slave because he is black? No. He is our brother; and he is a man, although not our colour; he is in a land of liberty, with his wife and his child: let him remain there." The Court thus held: the dominion assumed over this Negro, under the law of Jamaica, being unjust, could not be supported in this country to any extent: That, therefore, the defender had no right to the
Negro's service for any space of time, nor to send him out of the country against his consent: That the Negro was likewise protected under
the act 1701, c.6. from being sent out of the country against his consent. ==Later life==