In 1724, colonial Jamaica crossed a legal line that revealed how fragile justice was once race entered the picture. After a free Black man whooped a white attacker and successfully defended himself in court, Jamaica’s white-controlled Assembly responded not by correcting the injustice, but by changing the law itself. Their decision made it illegal for Black people in Jamaica to strike white people, even in self defence.
Jamaica’s racial legal order began early. In 1664, the colony passed An Act for the better ordering and Governing of Negro Slaves, the island’s first comprehensive slave law. The full text survives today and shows exactly how violence was understood under colonial rule.
That Act made it a serious offence for an enslaved African to strike any “Christian,” meaning white Europeans. Punishments escalated quickly, from whipping to mutilation and worse. The law did allow one narrow exception: an enslaved African could use force only when defending their master.
What the 1664 law did not clearly address was free Black people.
Jamaica’s Racial Order
By the early eighteenth century, Jamaica was one of Britain’s most profitable colonies. Its wealth depended on sugar, and sugar depended on slavery. Enslaved Africans made up the majority of the population, while white planters formed a small but powerful ruling class. Between these groups existed a smaller population of free Black people and free people of mixed ancestry. Their legal position was unstable. They were not enslaved, but they were not equal either.
The Jamaican Assembly, made up entirely of white planters, existed to protect property, order, and white dominance. Any sign that Black people could challenge whites in court, in public, or physically was treated as a threat to the system itself.
The Francis Williams incident
Francis Williams was a free Black man in Jamaica. He was educated, wealthy, and the son of a landowning family. His status already made white planters uncomfortable, because he did not fit the role they had assigned to Black people.
In 1724, Williams had an altercation with a white planter named William Brodrick. Brodrick insulted him, calling him a “black dog.” Williams replied by calling him a “white dog.” Brodrick then struck Williams, leaving his mouth bleeding. Williams struck back in defence. Brodrick’s shirt and neckcloth were torn in the struggle.
Brodrick tried to prosecute Williams for assault. Under the logic of colonial society, this should have ended badly for Williams. But Williams made a careful argument. He insisted that because he was free, and because he had acted in self defence, he could not be treated like an enslaved person. The court accepted this argument, and the case against him failed.
For Jamaica’s Assembly, this was unacceptable.
The Jamaican Assembly, made up entirely of white planters, was alarmed. They complained that Williams’s behaviour was “of great encouragement to the negroes of the island in general.” What troubled them was not the fight, but the message. A Black man had struck a white man and walked away.
Rather than accept the court’s ruling, the Assembly decided to act. They resolved to bring in a bill to “reduce the said Francis Williams to the state of other free negroes in this island.” This was not about one man. It was about preventing the law from ever protecting Black self defence again.
Following the Francis Williams case in 1724, the Jamaican Assembly moved to enact laws that stripped Black people of the right to self defence against whites.
In the years that followed, Black people in Jamaica, including free Black people, could no longer rely on self defence as a legal protection when accused of striking a white person. The defence Williams had successfully used was closed off. Self defence ceased to be recognised when the person defending themselves was Black and the person struck was white.
This change aligned Jamaican practice with the spirit of the earlier slave laws. Where the 1664 Act denied self defence to enslaved people, the later decision extended that denial to free Black people as well.
The same standard did not apply in reverse. A white person who used force against a Black person rarely faced legal consequence, while a Black person who struck back faced punishment.
This legal imbalance was not accidental. It was essential to slavery. If Black people could legally resist white violence, the entire system would weaken.
A Black man attacked by a white man had two options. Submit and survive if possible, or defend himself and face punishment. The law ensured that violence flowed in one direction.
Francis Williams was the trigger, but he was not the target. The real target was the broader Black population. The Assembly feared the example more than the man.
By passing this law, the Assembly sent a message. Education would not protect you. Freedom would not protect you. Wealth would not protect you. Race came first.
For enslaved Africans, the law reinforced what they already knew. Resistance carried deadly consequences. For free Black people, it clarified their position. Freedom did not mean equality. It meant conditional tolerance.
This was not unique to Jamaica. Across the Caribbean and the American colonies, similar rules existed. But Jamaica’s case is especially clear because the law was passed openly, in reaction to a Black man winning.
Sources:
https://blackpast.org/global-african-history/francis-williams-jamaica-1700-1770/
https://slaveryandfreedomlaws.lib.unb.ca/laws/jamaica-1664-0
