Bell (Belinda): From Bengal to Britain's Last Legal Case of Enslavement

A Forgotten Legal Milestone

In 1772, whilst James Somerset was winning his freedom in London's Court of King's Bench, a young Bengali woman named Bell was being sentenced to lifelong enslavement by a Scottish court—making her the last person ever to receive such a legal designation in Britain. Her case represents a crucial turning point in British legal history, occurring at the precise moment when centuries of judicial acceptance of enslavement began to crumble. Yet Bell's story remains largely unknown, overshadowed by the more celebrated Somerset case that occurred in the same transformative year.

From Bengal to Britain

Bell's journey began in Bengal, where she was born around 1750. It is unclear how and when she entered into the service of John Johnstone, a wealthy merchant and tax collector for the British East India Company. In 1767, Johnstone brought Bell and other Indian servants back to London, where they lived for approximately four years before relocating to Balgonie House in Fife, Scotland.

During this period, Bell's legal status remained ambiguous, reflecting the broader uncertainty that characterised 18th-century Britain's approach to enslavement. Court records describe her variously as a "servant," "enslaved person," "woman," "girl" and "property." This linguistic inconsistency reflected the legal confusion about how British courts should treat enslaved people within Britain itself.

The Scottish Courts View of Enslavement

Before 1778, the legal treatment of enslaved people in Scotland was characterised by acceptance without statutory foundation. Despite having no formal laws establishing or regulating enslavement, lower courts -including sheriff courts and the Commissary Court - routinely recognised the enslaved status of people brought from the colonies.

This judicial acceptance rested on several foundations:

Custom and Colonial Influence: Courts relied heavily on colonial practices and customs, essentially importing the legal frameworks of territories with enslavement into Scottish jurisprudence.

Roman Law Arguments: Some legal scholars attempted to justify enslavement by referencing Roman law, which had recognised the institution, though this provided little practical guidance for Scottish legal infrastructure.

The Ius Gentium: Lawyers invoked the "law of nations" to argue that enslavement should be recognised in Scotland as part of international legal custom.

The practical evidence of this acceptance was documented in contemporary sources. Scottish newspapers from the early 18th century through the late 1770s regularly published advertisements offering rewards for runaway enslaved people and advertising enslaved individuals for sale. Courts enforced masters' claims over enslaved people, treating them as property whilst simultaneously addressing fundamental questions: Could an enslaved person testify in court? How should manumission be documented? What rights, if any, did enslaved people possess?

Legal Proceedings and Historical Significance

Bell's case entered the legal system in 1771 when she was charged with infanticide in Perth, Scotland, following the discovery of her newborn's body in the River Leven. Although it was unknown if the baby was stillborn or died shortly after birth, the very fact that Bell concealed the pregnancy and gave birth alone provided sufficient evidence of guilt. It was also likely that Bell conducted a Hindu burial which explains why the body was found in the river.

However, the case did not come to trial as the court accepted Bell's petition for the lesser punishment of banishment. Thus, rather than face execution - the standard punishment for such charges - Bell received the sentence of indentured as "a slave for life" to Scottish merchant, who transported her to Virginia In 1772. The petition that led to this sentence was almost certainly not written or presented by Bell herself. Given her likely limited knowledge of English and Scottish legal procedures, the petition was most probably prepared and submitted by others—possibly representatives of the Johnstone family or their legal agents—though no definitive documentary evidence confirms their involvement.

This sentence would prove historically significant. Bell became the last person to be legally declared enslaved by a British court, her case representing both the height and the end of judicial acceptance of enslavement within Britain.

The Somerset Case: English Law in 1772

Remarkably, the same year that Bell was transported to Virginia, another landmark case took place that was to reshape English law regarding enslavement. In June 1772, Lord Mansfield of the English Court of King's Bench ruled in Somerset v. Stewart that it was unlawful for Charles Stewart to forcibly transport James Somerset, an enslaved African, out of England. Lord Mansfield decided that slavery was "incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law" and was "so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law".

Although Mansfield took care to avoid offering a ruling on the broader legal status of enslaved people in England, the decision was popularly taken to mean that slavery was illegal in England. Somerset himself appears to have adopted this broader interpretation, and wrote to at least one enslaved person encouraging them to desert their master. The case established that slavery could only exist where positive law created it, a principle that would prove influential in subsequent legal challenges.

However, like Bell, Somerset completely disappears from historical records after his legal victory. The last evidence of James Somerset dates to just 18 days after the ruling, and nothing is known of what became of him thereafter.

The Turning Point: Knight v. Wedderburn

Just six years after Bell's transportation, the case of Joseph Knight reached Scotland's highest civil court, the Court of Session. Knight, like Bell, had been brought to Scotland from the colonies, but unlike Bell, he challenged his enslavement directly. Born in Guinea, West Africa, Knight had been captured as a child and sold in Jamaica to John Wedderburn, a Scottish plantation owner. When Wedderburn returned to Scotland in 1769, he brought Knight with him as a household servant.

Knight's legal challenge began in 1774 when he sought permission to live with his wife Ann Thompson, a servant in the Wedderburn household, and their child. When Wedderburn refused and had him arrested, Knight brought a claim before the justices of the peace court in Perth. Having heard about Somerset's case through Scottish newspapers, Knight understood that the 1772 English ruling meant enslaved people could remain in Britain rather than be transported back to colonial territories.

The case progressed through multiple appeals over four years. When the Perth justices found in favour of Wedderburn, Knight appealed to the Sheriff of Perth, who ruled that "the state of slavery is not recognised by the laws of this kingdom, and is inconsistent with the principles thereof." Wedderburn then appealed to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, arguing that Knight owed him "perpetual service" as an indentured servant rather than as an enslaved person.

The Court of Session's ruling was unequivocal and revolutionary: enslavement was "not recognised by the laws of this kingdom, and is inconsistent with the principles thereof." On 15 January 1778, by a vote of ten to four, the Court upheld the sheriff's decision and declared Knight free. This landmark decision, known as Knight v. Wedderburn, established that enslaved people could not be held in bondage in Scotland, effectively ending the practice and overturning decades of lower court precedents.

Like both Bell and Somerset, Knight disappears from historical records after his legal victory. Nothing is known of his fate or that of his family after 1778, despite his historic achievement in securing legal freedom through the Scottish courts.

The timing is notable - had Bell's case occurred just a few years later, the outcome might have been different. Her case became part of the legal precedent that highlighted the need for clarity in Scottish law regarding human bondage.

Historical Context and Documentation

After transportation to Virginia in 1772, Bell disappears from historical records. This absence of documentation was typical for enslaved and trafficked individuals in 18th-century America, whose lives were rarely recorded in official documents. Virginia did not begin systematic statewide recording of births, deaths and residences until 1853, and enslaved people were generally not named in legal or property documents unless involved in specific transactions.

What became of Bell - whether she survived the voyage, where she lived, how long she lived or what became of her - remains unknown. Her case represents one of many lost to inadequate record-keeping that relegated enslaved people to the margins of official documentation.

Analysis and Historical Significance

Bell's case provides a valuable examination of the contradictions and complexities of 18th-century British law and society. Her case demonstrates how legal systems can simultaneously recognise and deny humanity, how individual cases can catalyse broader social change and how the absence of clear legal frameworks can perpetuate injustice.

The legal development from Bell's 1771 sentencing to the 1778 Knight v. Wedderburn decision represents a significant shift in how British law conceived of human freedom and dignity. John Johnstone - who had brought Bell from Bengal and in whose service she lived - later became involved with the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, founded in 1787, though this involvement came after Bell's case and there is no evidence he acted on her behalf during her prosecution.

Bell's case remains relevant for contemporary discussions of justice, legal clarity and human dignity. Her designation as Britain's "last person legally enslaved" serves as an important historical marker and a reminder of the legal and social developments that followed. Her case highlights how individual legal proceedings can contribute to broader institutional change, even when the individuals involved do not benefit from subsequent reforms.

In examining Bell's case, we observe not only her individual circumstances but also the broader legal and social systems that shaped the lives of enslaved people in 18th-century Britain. Her case serves as an important example of how legal precedents develop and how individual cases can influence broader institutional change, while also demonstrating the limitations of historical documentation for marginalised populations. The parallel disappearances of Bell, Somerset and Knight from historical records after their respective legal proceedings highlight the systematic erasure of enslaved people's experiences from official documentation, even in cases that achieved legal recognition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did the Somerset case decide? Did it end slavery in England?
The Somerset case of 1772 made a much narrower ruling than many people realise. Lord Mansfield specifically decided that enslaved people could not be forcibly removed from England against their will and transported to the colonies for sale. He deliberately avoided making a broader ruling about whether slavery itself was legal in England. However, the public widely interpreted the decision as ending slavery entirely, and many enslaved people acted on this understanding.

Why was Bell's case different from Somerset's if they happened in the same year?
Bell's case occurred in Scotland under Scots law, whilst Somerset's case was in England under English common law. These were separate legal jurisdictions with different approaches to slavery. Bell was sentenced to transportation through a criminal case (infanticide), whereas Somerset's was a civil case about unlawful detention. Most importantly, Bell's case resulted in her being legally declared "enslaved for life," making her the last person to receive such a designation in any British court.

What happened to Bell, Somerset and Knight after their cases?
All three disappeared completely from historical records after their legal proceedings. Somerset's last documented appearance was just 18 days after his court victory in 1772. Knight vanished from records after winning his freedom in 1778. Bell disappeared after being transported to Virginia in 1772, where systematic record-keeping for enslaved people did not exist. This pattern reflects the broader historical erasure of enslaved people's experiences from official documentation.

What's the difference between Scottish and English law regarding slavery?
Before 1778, both Scottish and English courts accepted slavery through custom and precedent, despite having no formal statutes establishing it. However, they were separate legal systems. The 1772 Somerset case in England established that forcible removal was illegal but left slavery's broader status unclear. The 1778 Knight case in Scotland went further, with the Court of Session explicitly ruling that "slavery is not recognised by the laws of this kingdom and is inconsistent with the principles thereof."

Why don't we have more records about what happened to Bell, Somerset and Knight?
Enslaved people were systematically excluded from official record-keeping. In 18th-century Virginia, where Bell was transported, there was no systematic recording of births, deaths or residences until 1853. Enslaved people were rarely named in legal documents unless involved in specific transactions. This deliberate exclusion from documentation was part of the broader dehumanisation that characterised slavery.

Was Bell really the "last" person legally enslaved in Britain?
Bell was the last person to be legally declared "enslaved for life" by a British court. Her 1772 sentence came just before the Somerset ruling began to change legal attitudes. Whilst some enslaved people continued to be brought to Britain after 1772, no subsequent British court issued a formal declaration of enslavement. This makes Bell's case a significant legal milestone, marking the end of judicial endorsement of slavery in British courts.

How did these cases influence later abolition movements?
These cases established crucial legal precedents that slavery could only exist where "positive law" (explicit statutes) created it. The Somerset case inspired abolitionists and gave legal grounds for freedom claims. Knight's knowledge of Somerset's case shows how legal victories spread and influenced subsequent challenges. These precedents were later cited in abolition campaigns and helped establish the principle that freedom was the natural state unless specifically overruled by law.

What was "positive law" and why was it important to these cases?
"Positive law" refers to explicit statutes passed by Parliament, as opposed to common law or custom. Lord Mansfield's reasoning in Somerset was that slavery was so "odious" that it could only be supported by positive law - meaning Parliament would have had to explicitly authorise it. Since no such statute existed in England, slavery lacked legal foundation. This principle became central to challenging slavery throughout the British Empire, as it required lawmakers to explicitly defend and authorise the institution rather than simply accepting it through tradition.

Learn More About the East India Company's Role

The British East India Company was directly responsible for transporting people like Bell from Bengal to Britain, fundamentally changing countless lives through its commercial operations. To understand more about how the Company shaped British colonial history and the tragic stories of those caught in its web, visit Hidden Tudors Tours. Discover the untold histories of the people and institutions that connected Britain to its colonies, and explore the human stories behind the East India Company's vast commercial empire.