The story of Joseph Knight isn’t simply the story of a man seeking his freedom in an 18th-century court. It is the story of a country—Scotland—that had yet to fully reckon with its role in the global system of slavery and colonialism. It is the story of how, even within Britain, slavery was not a monolith but a deeply contested institution, subject to moral and legal examination. And it is the story of one individual’s legal fight that not only shaped his own destiny but also began to challenge the very foundation of slavery in Scotland.
Joseph Knight’s Struggle for Freedom: A Personal and Legal Battle
Joseph Knight was born around 1753 in West Africa and was sold into slavery, ultimately ending up on a Jamaican plantation owned by John Wedderburn, a Scottish plantation owner. In 1769, Wedderburn brought Knight back to Scotland—a place where slavery was neither legalized nor explicitly outlawed. For Knight, this move presented an opportunity. Scotland was not a colony, and its laws, unlike those in the British Caribbean, were not clear-cut when it came to the status of enslaved people.
Living in Scotland, Knight learned to read and write, and through education, he began to understand that the shackles placed on him were not just physical—they were also legal. But Knight did not merely acknowledge his oppression. He took action. In 1774, Knight sought to leave Wedderburn’s service and live with his wife, Ann Thomson. When Wedderburn attempted to prevent him from leaving, Knight seized an opportunity few enslaved individuals ever had: he brought his former owner to court, demanding his freedom.
This legal action was not just about personal freedom. It was about a confrontation between the system of enslavement and a legal system that had never fully accommodated it. Knight’s case was a challenge to the idea that any person could be owned and controlled, regardless of where they were born or brought up.
The Legal Battle: From the Local Court to a Historic Ruling
Knight’s legal battle unfolded in the courtrooms of Scotland, an arena that had never fully grappled with slavery. Initially, in the Justices of the Peace Court in Perth, the court ruled in favour of Wedderburn, affirming his claim to Knight as property. But Knight’s resistance didn’t end there. He appealed the decision, and in the Sheriff Court of Perth, the tide began to shift. This court ruled that slavery could not be sustained under Scots law, making a powerful statement that slavery was not supported by Scotland’s legal framework.
By 1778, the case had escalated to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland’s highest court. In a decisive 10-to-4 ruling, the court confirmed that slavery was not recognised under Scots law, setting a crucial legal precedent and granting Joseph Knight his freedom. This was not only a victory for Knight but also a momentous step in the rejection of slavery in Scotland—a country that had long remained complicit in the global system of slavery, even as it considered itself a part of the so-called ‘civilized’ world.
Scotland’s Complex Relationship with Slavery
While this ruling was a victory for Knight and for abolitionism, it’s important to understand it in the wider context of Scotland’s role in the slave trade. Scotland was heavily involved in the transatlantic slave trade, both as a participant in the trade itself and as an economic beneficiary of colonial slavery. Scottish merchants, landowners, and intellectuals were deeply entwined in the exploitation of enslaved Africans. Yet, within Scotland, the legal system had to come to terms with the contradictions of this involvement—was slavery truly consistent with the ideals of liberty and law that Scotland prized?
In some ways, Knight v. Wedderburn was not just a case about one man’s freedom, but also about Scotland’s moral and legal self-examination. It was a reflection of the tensions between Scottish law and the moral weight of slavery, tensions that would become more pronounced in the following decades as abolitionist sentiment grew across Britain. By rejecting slavery within Scotland’s borders, the court took the first steps toward dismantling the legal structures that upheld it—structures that would eventually be overturned by broader movements for abolition across the British Empire.
The Legacy of Knight v. Wedderburn: A Step Toward Justice
Joseph Knight’s case did not end slavery in Scotland, nor did it immediately affect the colonies where the institution continued to thrive. However, it marked a pivotal moment in legal history. It highlighted that even in a nation complicit in empire and exploitation, the law could—and sometimes did—serve as a tool for justice. The ruling also suggested that the British legal system was beginning to shift, slowly but steadily, towards an understanding that human beings could not be reduced to property, no matter the color of their skin.
Knight’s victory set a precedent for future legal challenges to slavery in Britain, and it emboldened abolitionists in both the UK and the colonies. It was part of the wider moral and legal awakening that would eventually lead to the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.
Commemorating the Past, Confronting the Present
In December 2022, a plaque was unveiled at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to commemorate Knight’s historic victory. Attended by Sir Geoff Palmer, a leading advocate for confronting Scotland’s colonial legacy, the unveiling of the plaque was a symbolic gesture—a reminder that, even in the face of injustice, resistance is possible, and that history must be remembered.
Joseph Knight’s case is more than a legal victory; it is part of the ongoing struggle for racial justice today. By commemorating his story, we recognize that the fight for human dignity and equality didn’t end with legal reforms in the 19th century. It continues in every movement, every conversation, and every legal challenge that seeks to confront the legacies of slavery and colonialism in the modern world.
Joseph Knight’s courage should remind us that, while we can learn from history, we are also its authors. The fight for justice is not bound by time—it is an ongoing challenge that requires vigilance, reflection, and action.
Further Reading: