Chapter One Notes

1.1. The details of this course of events may be checked by reference to Clinton V. Black, The Story of Jamaica, Collins, pages 214-5 and 222-6.

1.2. See Appendix 1 below.

1.3. i.e. the Jamaican Constitution of 1959. In the Federal period the 1959 Jamaican Constitution was intended to be the final constitution for the Island. It was the subsequent collapse of the Federal structure (which of course was not intended in 1959) that brought to the forefront the need for an Independence Constitution for Jamaica.

1.4. quoted by Elizabeth W. Davies, The Legal System of the Cayman Islands, Law Reports International, p.35. Emphasis added.

Chapter Two Notes

2.1. Colonial Office Correspondence CO 137/192 No. 15, Aug 12th 1834. Underlining appears in the transcript.

2.2. CO 137/193 16 November 1834

2.3. CO 137/193 16 Nov 1834

2.4. CO 137/193 16 Nov 1834

2.5. CO 137/194: Letter of Governor to Colonial Secretary dated December 13th 1834

2.6. The House of Assembly was one of the two Houses of the Jamaican Legislature

2.7. In the Colonial Office correspondence, "the Colony" invariably refers to Jamaica, while "the (that) dependency" refers to Caymanas.

2.8. Lord Aberdeen to the Governor the Marquess of Sligo in a letter dated 27 Jan [1835] at CO137/193

2.9. CO 137/198 Letter of John Drayton, Custos and Robert Thompson, Justice of the Peace for the Island of the Grand Caymanas to the Governor (the Marquis of Sligo), February 6 1835; Letter of the Governor to the Colonial Secretary (the Earl of Aberdeen), March 8 1835; the Colonial Secretary's reply to the Governor, May 1835 in which he comments: "The statement of Messrs. Drayton and Thompson, sufficiently shews that the men had no chance of a fair trial; and I suppose it to be equally clear, that the self constituted tribunal at the Caymanas, had no lawful authority to punish or to try them."

2.10. See Ch. 4 below

2.11. See Ch. 4 p. 45 below

2.12. CO 137/199 ff91-107 Desp. No. 13, 13 June 1835

2.13. CO 137/189 Advice by "J.S." (James Stephen) 17 March 1834, see Ch. 4 p. below; CO 137/198 Letter of the Governor (Marquis of Sligo) to the Earl of Aberdeen March 8th, 1835; CO 137/198 Letter of the Earl of Aberdeen to the Governor May 1835.

2.14. The Governor's Address to the Council and the Assembly.
CO 137/201 ff 107-128 Despatch No. 79, 7 August 1835

2.15. See Ch.4 below

2.16. CO 137/210 ff392-393, Drayton to Sligo, Letter of 25 March 1836.

2.17. CO 137/198 ff393 - 5. Draft of letter from the Colonial Secretary to the Marquess of Sligo, dated 15th July, 1835. See below p. 49.

2.18. CO 137/201 The response of the Assembly to the Governor's Address, passed by the Assembly on the 7 Aug 1835.

2.19. CO 137/201 Issue Number 958 Wednesday Morning August 12, 1835, Jamaica Despatch and New Courant.

2.20. CO 137/201 A comment dated 20th Sept 1835 made by an adviser, accompanying a draft of a reply from the Colonial Secretary to the Governor.

2.21. "Local Laws of Grand Cayman" (included in CO 137/367) p. 51 "Clergyman's Salary", 14 Jan 1836)

2.22. Act for the Government of the Cayman Islands, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict., c.31). See Appendix 1 below. A copy of the original printing (by Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1863) of this law is included in CO 137/372 ff 282-3. The Duke of Newcastle (the Colonial Secretary) transmitted it to Lieut - Governor Eyre with the following explanation:- "The object of the Act is to enable the Legislature of Jamaica to legislate for the Islands, and at the same time, in the event of their being unwilling to assume the responsibility, to provide for the establishment of Local Self Government." (CO 137/372 f 281)

2.23. CO 137/365 Governor Darling's despatch of the 24 March 1862

2.24. CO 137/367 Colonial Office's Law Officer's letter to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and others, 18th November 1862.

2.25. But cf. the view expressed by the Custos, Magistrates and other inhabitants in the Petition to the House of Commons received in Britain in early 1838 (CO 137/226) "That this Island not being connected with Jamaica by legal enactments was never influenced or regulated by their laws but the inhabitants being unnoticed and left entirely to their own resources became a law unto themselves ..." The Colonial Attorney General's view was probably formed by the statement made by Edward Corbet in his report to Governor Nugent in June 1802 after his tour of the Caymanas. Corbet wrote:- "The only Laws or regulations in force they consider to be those of Jamaica as far as they are acquainted with them. ... The Magistrates are understood to have the same power as those in this island, but when any new measure is to be adopted it is generally submitted by them to the consideration of the inhabitants at large." - Our Islands' Past Volume 1, pub. Cayman Islands National Archive/Cayman Free Press, page 7. In Long's "History of Jamaica" (1774) in a section on "The Caymanas" Long writes, "Although the island is an appendage of Jamaica ... the people upon it have never been an object of the legislature of [Jamaica]; they have a Chief or Governor of their own choosing; and regulations of their own framing; they have some Justices of the Peace among them, appointed by commission from the Governor of Jamaica; and live very happily with scarcely any form of civil government." George S.S. Hirst, Notes on the History of the Cayman Islands, p. 395.

2.26 Until the last few years this meeting (the 5th December 1831 meeting at St. James's) was publicly stated to have been in Jamaica, with the assumption usually that "St. James's" was the Jamaican parish of St. James, though I even heard it being taught at a JP's meeting that "St. James's" referred to the Spanish Town Cathedral of St. Jago de la Vega. Unfortunately Davies too erroneously states that "The Assembly [of Justices and Vestry of the Cayman islands] was established pursuant to a meeting held in the Parish of St. James, Jamaica in December 1831" (Davies p. 52). The insuperable logistical problem of holding a landmark public meeting in Jamaica followed by a consequential election five days later in Grand Cayman was not considered. I believe I am among the first to have corrected this publicly (in a television interview on the 29th June 1993), stating that the meeting was held in what is believed to be the oldest surviving building in the Cayman Islands, St. James', Pedro Point (popularly known as Pedro Castle).

2.27. This is questionable. The copy of the Cayman Rules and Ordinances that had been sent to Jamaica may have been made by the Clerk after a hiatus in 1840 to prepare for the resumption of subsequent activity. The words "Since 1840 no Laws or Resolutions have been passed" might therefore reasonably occur in the document in spite of subsequent meetings. Since the Laws assented to by the Governor in 1865 include some deemed to be retroactive from 1837, 1847 and 1850 respectively (see Appendix 2, below), some legislative actions seem to have continued.

2.28. See Appendix 2. Law I of these Laws, prepared to be passed retroactively from the 16th June 1863, was "An Act authorising a Revisal of former Acts & to Consolidate the Government", providing inter alia "That all the local enactments, made at the Island of Grand Cayman from time to time, with their various amendments, irregularly dispersed in manuscript, be revised, in order to repeal the obsolete, and to amend and arrange the others ...". Details of most of the Laws resulting from this revision can be obtained from the Laws of the Cayman Islands up to No. 12 of 1889, published in 1889 in Jamaica, an original copy of which is kept in the Cayman National Archive. Most of the Laws set out in this publication include the date from which they were deemed to be effective.

2.29. Davies, p.118

2.30. The Cayman Islands Government Law, 1893 (Laws of Jamaica, 1953, Cap. 423) s.3
2.31. See Ch.4 p.45 below

2.32. For example, what is implied in the communication of Custos Drayton to Lord Sligo of 25 March 1836, CO137/210 ff392-393. Cf also the previous Governor Lord Mulgrave's "recommendation" to the Magistrates and Vestry to "proceed as heretofore in the regulation of their concerns", noted by Lord Mulgrave in his despatch of the 13th December 1833, CO 137/189, a recommendation which the Caymanas authorities elevated to a mandate at their meeting on the 14th December 1833, described in the "Local Laws of Grand Cayman", submitted in the 1862 despatch CO137/367.

2.33. p. 25 above.


Chapter Three Notes

3.1. Hirst, p. 212

3.2. Hirst, p. 212

3.3. Hirst, p. 212

3.4. Quoted from Hirst, pp. 17 - 18

3.5. Davies, pp. 27 - 29

3.6. Vide also the Attorney-General of Jamaica's advice to the Governor on the 21st Aug 1862 (CO 137/367) in which he writes:- "I have failed as yet to obtain precise information as to the original settlement of the English in these [the Cayman] Islands; but from all I can learn they do not seem ever to have been under Spanish sovereignty." His advice appears to be formed mainly from the report of Edward Corbet to Governor Nugent (June 1802) - see Our Islands' Past Volume 1, (pub. Cayman Islands National Archive/Cayman Free Press) page 7.

3.7. e.g. Hirst, p. 23 section 7.

3.8. Hirst, pp.19-20. Governor Modyford did not himself refer to Captain Ary as "Governor", but included in his transmission affidavits that referred to the burning of the Governor's house at Caimanos.

3.9. Hirst, p. 20

3.10. Davies, pp. 13 - 27

3.11. Hirst, p. 37

3.12. Hirst, pp. 37 - 65

3.13 Cf. at CO137/367 in the letter of 18th November 1862 from the Colonial Office law officer to the Attorney General & the Solicitor General: "The Commissions granted by the Crown to the Governors of Jamaica extend to that Island and its dependencies, but do not specify of what those dependencies consist". See above p. 28.

3.14. e.g. Hirst, p. 38 and elsewhere.



Chapter Four Notes

4.1. Black, p. 138

4.2. B. W. Higman, Slave Populations of the British Caribbean 1807 - 1834 pub. Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 7 - 8.

4.3. e.g. the 1751 enactment of the Assembly. It is quoted in Mavis C. Campbell, The Maroons of Jamaica 1655 - 1796, p. 200.

4.4. CO 137/193 ff 244-45 No. 58 dated 3 Nov 1834, Marquess of Sligo to the Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.

4.5. Cf. the title of the Abolition of Slavery Act (known also as the Emancipation Act), p. 46 below.

4.6. Vide Letter from Lord Aberdeen to Lord Sligo dated the 16th Feb 1835 (CO 137/193).

4.7. CO 137/189 Despatch of the Governor dated the 13th December 1833.


4.8. CO 137/189 Letter of James Lewis to J. Lefevre Esq. from 25 Great George Street dated 14 March 1834.


4.9. CO 137/189 Notes made by Mr. Lefevre and Mr. Stanley on the 17 March 1834.


4.10. Ch. 2, p. 23 above.


4.11. Brian L. Kieran, The Lawless Caymanas, p.136


4.12. At this point the Petitioners recognise that even the authorisation given to the Magistrates by means of Governors' commissions - virtually the only enduring formal mark of a dependant connection apart from the appointments of Chief Magistrates (Custodes) - was based on custom.

4.13. Petition "To the Honourable, The commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland In Parliament assembled", enclosed in CO 137/226.

4.14. i.e. the supplementary Return of the 2nd April 1834

4.15. Dr. Hulme had already been sent to the Caymanas by Lord Sligo to function as a Stipendiary Magistrate to try apprenticeship cases, as well as a subaltern and 20 men of the West India regiment "in order to support the Magistrate in the execution of the law" - CO 137/192 Despatch No. 15 dated August 12th 1834 from Lord Sligo to the Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.

4.16. CO 137/193 ff 244-45 No. 58, found as No. 386 of the printed "Papers relative to the abolition of slavery in the British Colonies", inserted at CO 137/198 in the Cayman Islands archive folder.

4.17. No. 386 of the printed "Papers relative to the abolition of Slavery in the British Colonies", from Lord Aberdeen's despatch to Lord Sligo, dated 16th Feb 1835.

4.18. See above, p. 42.

4.19. Vide in CO 137/198 ff393-5 a crossed out portion of Lord Glenelg's intended response dated 15th July 1835 to despatches from Lord Sligo of May 1835 describing the arrangements that were successfully concluded in the Caymanas and the preparations he was making to free the Maroon apprentices.

4.20. Proclamation of 2nd May 1835, CO 137/198 reproduced in Kieran (op. cit.) as the Frontispiece.

4.21. 1837/38 Petition to the House of Commons in CO 137/226.

4.22. See, for instance, Kieran, pp. 65-70.

4.23. Black, pp. 151-153.



Chapter Five Notes

5.1 Edward Corbet's report (21 June 1802) and the letter of Willam Bodden (28 August 1805) to Governor Nugent, reproduced in the Cayman Islands National Archive's Our Islands' Past Volume 1, pp. 7 and 43 respectively.

5.2 They were provided for legally by an Order in Council by King Charles I made in 1634 (before the settlement of Caymanas), whereby all British Subjects in foreign parts were declared to be under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London (see Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law Second Edition 1895 Vol. II at page 1770).

5.3 Letters Patent of King George IV dated 24th July, 1824 . Quoted from Evans, E.L., A History of the Diocese of Jamaica Appendix A, p. 141 (see also Phillimore Vol. II at page 1790).

5.4 Thus in the case of In Re the Bishop of Natal the Privy Council stated:- "When in 1824 a Bishop was appointed in Jamaica by Letters Patent containing clauses similar to the present appellant it was thought necessary that the legal status and authority of the Bishop should be confirmed and established by an Act of the Colonial Legislature. The consent of the Crown was given to this Colonial Act, which would have been an improper thing, as an injury to the Crown's prerogative, unless the law advisers of Government had been satisfied that the Colonial Statute was necessary to give full effect to the establishment of the Bishopric..." Reported in 3 Moore's P.C. Cases New Series 115.

5.5 Evans, p. 141.

5.6 Successive Acts passed by the Jamaican Legislature each of 11 years' duration "to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the clergy of this Island, and to invest the Bishop of Jamaica with ecclesiastical jurisdiction", the first of which was 6 George IV Cap 17 passed in 1825.

5.7 Transcript of correspondence cited as taken from "Bishop's Books. Church Archives, Spanish Town [Jamaica]. Unindexed, folio 70." A copy was provided for the C.I. Archive.

5.8 According to Neville Williams, A History of the Cayman Islands, in a list of the "Chief Officers of the Cayman Islands" in his Appendix I.

5.9 James Coe's letter is enclosed with Lord Belmore's despatch to the Colonial Office dated 19th March 1832 in CO 137/181.

5.10 Hirst's observation that "Religion formed no part of the History of the Cayman Islands until the year 1831" (Hirst, p. 238) is seen therefore to be erroneous.

5.11 Evans, p. 19.

5.12 Despatch of Lord Belmore to the Colonial Office dated 19th March 1832 in CO 137/181. I have not succeeded in finding any correspondence relating to Sharpe prior to his appointment.

5.13 The embarrassment occasioned by this lack of information is clearly apparent in Viscount Goderick's despatch to the Governor dated 3 Jan 1832 in CO 137/179 and in Lord Belmore's reply dated 19th March 1832 in CO 137/181.

5.14 Despatch of Lord Sligo to the Colonial Secretary John Lefevre dated July 20th 1834 in CO 137/192

5.15 The Marquess of Sligo had not reached a clear position on the matter until he received Lord Aberdeen's despatch of the 16th Feb 1835 - see Ch. 4 p. 48 above.

5.16 CO 137/194

5.17 Bishop Lipscomb is reported to have visited Grand Caymanas in 1834 (see Evans, p.24). While there, he consecrated the new church in George Town (St. George's) and is reported to have appointed a Mr. T.S. Watler to be schoolmaster for the `Spots and Sound Head district of Grand Caymanas'. The church in George Town was the first of the two churches the Inhabitants built after 1831 (see note 5.41).

5.18 The word "anomalous" is derived from the Greek words meaning no-lawed (a- is the negative prefix and nomos is law).

5.19 See note 4.9.

5.20 See below, p. 75.

5.21 Letter of Lord Sligo to Mr. Lefevre dated July 20th 1834 in despatch CO 137/192.

5.22 Letter from Lord Sligo to the Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice (Colonial Secretary) dated August 12th 1834 in CO 137/192

5.23 S.O. "Bertie" Ebanks, Cayman Emerges, pub. Northwester Co. Ltd.

5.24 If we assume there is at least a core of historical truth in this narrative, placing it in August 1834 rather than in May 1835 solves Mr. Kieran's difficulty (Kieran, p. 64) that the event was not mentioned at that time by Capt. Pack or Dr. Thompson. It seems clear that neither Mr. Sharpe nor his successor were in the Island in May 1835.

5.25 "Local Laws of Grand Cayman" (page 42) Meeting of the Magistrates and Representatives held at George Town on Wednesday the 4th Feb 1835.

5.26 "Local Laws" (page 53). Meeting held on 20th June 1836.

5.27 Recorded in the "Local Laws" (page 55), in the Meeting (the first of the so-named "Justices and Vestry") held on the 6th November 1837.

5.28 CO 137/198 ff382 - 386. From the Governor's Despatch to Lord Glenelg written from Highgate Jamaica on the 14th May 1835, i.e. the day after his return to Jamaica from Cayman.

5.29 See note 5.17

5.30 Letter dated 19 Oct 1995 to the author from Mrs. Catherine Wakeling, USPG Archivist.

5.31 The USPG Archivist refers for this information to one of the society's histories, C.F. Pascoe, Two Hundred Years of the SPG, SPG, 1901.

5.32 "Local Laws" (page 51). Meeting held on 14th January 1836

5.33 See Lord Sligo's letter of the 13th Dec 1834, pp. 59 - 60 above (CO 137/194).

5.34 See Ch 2 p. 24 - 26 above.

5.35 According to Mrs. Wakeling, the USPG Archivist, David Wilson is listed in the SPG Annual Report (printed probably in the Spring) of 1836; he is listed as being on the Grand Caymanas in the Annual Reports for 1837 to 1839; and he is listed as being in Westmoreland (Jamaica) in the Annual Reports for 1840 to 1843. In Pascoe's missionary roll (see above p.65) Wilson's entry reads "Served Grand Caymanas 1836 - 1839 and Westmoreland (Jamaica) 1840 - 1843."

5.36 According to the USPG Archivist. See also Evans, p. 26.

5.37 Evans, p. 30.

5.38 Author's copy, obtained from the Rhodes House Library, Oxford, England: a copy of this was provided to the Cayman Islands National Archive.

5.39 Williams, p. 48 and Ebanks p. 36. Hirst (see p. 238) was unable to find out Wilson's Christian name or any written record of him.

5.40 See p. 72 below: document entitled "A Wesleyan Missionary in Grand Cayman, 1837" Archive Pack.

5.41 The Memorial drawn up in late 1837 by the Custos, Magistrates and other Inhabitants to the House of Commons (forwarded by the Governor in 1838) states:-

That your Petitioners here cannot avoid giving as a proof of their unnoticed and neglected state that they never had the advantage of the service of a Christian Minister until the year 1831 when the Lord Bishop of Jamaica sent a clergyman of the Established Church among them

That your Petitioners have since that period caused to be erected two Churches and a house for the residence of their Minister

5.42 As assumed by Williams, p.48.

5.43 Cf. the Bishop's letter of May 4th 1838 in CO 137/228 pp. 79 below.

5.44 The link between the church and the schoolroom was already longstanding, even if not continuous. In the early years of the Caymanas Church, as "Governor" Bodden advised in 1805, "... there is not, nor has been, Resident in this Island, any person that has taken Holy Orders - Schoolmasters have performed divine service for the benefit of the Rising Generation - and of setting forth its doctrine of Christ ..." (Evans, p.134, Note 13 to Chapter 4, citing Jamaican Historical Review, Vol 1, No.2, pp. 157/8)

5.45 E.g. in Hirst, pp. 238-9. Based on what we now know to be the case with the Rev'd David Wilson, it is indeed possible that Thomas Sharpe spent at least a part of his time as the Clergyman in the Caymanas (December 1831 - 1834) in Deacon's orders. However, Hirst reports also (Hirst, p. 241) that he was curate in three successive areas in Jamaica after he returned there (confirmed in respect of one area by a detail in the 1838 SPG Annual Report, see below, pp. 74 - 75), and it is clear that to have been there as an Island Curate he would have been priested.

5.46 See Williams, p.48.

5.47 Evans pp. 26, 28.

5.48 Extracts from James Atkins' letter to Rev. John Buckam dated August 24th 1837 entitled in the Archive Pack "A Wesleyan Missionary in Grand Cayman, 1837" Atkins does not seem to be quite accurate either in his description of the residence locally of the curate for "a few months in the year" or that there was "no school", even if we accept his general picture of great need.

5.49 Hirst, p. 241

5.50 Letter of 19 Oct 1995 from the USPG Archivist.

5.51 "Local Laws" (p. 60) Special Vestry convened at George Town the 29th December 1837.

5.52 From Wilson's report, Atkins' report and the previous attitude of the Bodden Towners, this "other" church could not have been in Bodden Town - unless the large building Atkins preached in was being referred to as a church. However, Atkins is also silent about any church in Prospect.

5.53 Petition to the Commons enclosed by the Governor in despatch CO 137/226.

5.54 CO 137/226 f117-118 Lord Glenelg to Sir Lionel Smith, Despatch of 14 March 1838. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was the Church of England's Missionary Society which was giving support to the work of the Bishop of Jamaica in the Caymanas.

5.55 See note 5.54.

5.56 CO 137/256 ff 178-183, Despatch No. 243 from the Right Hon Sir C.T. Metcalfe, Bart, G.C.B. to Lord John Russell dated 10 September 1841.

5.57 CO 137/228

5.58 "Local Laws" (p. 66)

5.59 "Local Laws" (p. 86) - Proceedings of a Vestry held at George Town on Thursday the 6th April 1840 and continued at Prospect on Monday and Tuesday the 20th and 21st April following.

5.60 See note 5.35.


`
Chapter Six Notes.

6.1. See note 5.2

6.2. See note 5.3

6.3. See Ch. 5 pp. 54 - 56 above.

6.4. See note 5.6

6.5. The various laws and resolutions involving the parsonage and the salary of the clergyman in the "Local Laws" (referred to in Chapter 5 above) suggest that if any island legislation could have established the Church in Caymanas it would have been these rather than the Clergy Acts of Jamaica. It is notable that this phase of the Church's work began in the Caymanas in December 1831, the very month in which the legislation started. All of these ordinances were "revised out" and never formed part of the authorised legislation signed into retroactive effect by the Governor in 1865. See Appendix 2.

6.6. See Ch. 5 pp. 81 - 83 above.

6.7. The Colonial Church Atlas, arranged in Dioceses: with Geographical and Statistical Tables, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1845. The Notice to the second edition states that "the design of this Work is to show the exact position of the Church of England in the various Colonies and Dependencies of the British Crown".

6.8 It has been argued in the past that since the 1863 Cayman Islands Act of the Westminster Parliament provided that the Legislature of Jamaica could make laws for the Cayman Islands, the Church of England in Jamaica Disestablishment Law 1870 of the Jamaican Legislature as well as previous Jamaican ecclesiastical legislation could (subsequently to the 1863 Act) be applied to the Cayman Islands as well as Jamaica. The argument wholly fails, however, because the Jamaican Legislature's Cayman Islands Government Law of 1893, enacted pursuant to the 1863 Act, specified which of the Jamaican statutes "shall be, and be deemed to have been" in force in the Cayman Islands; and neither the Church of England in Jamaica Disestablishment Law 1870 nor any of the previous Jamaican ecclesiastical legislation (including any that limited the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London) is included.

6.9. The Jamaica Church finally renounced its historic identity as a part of the Church of England in a "Declaration of Principles" adopted on the 20th February, 1964 by the Synod of (what was called for the last time) the Church of England in Jamaica.

6.10. Included in the terms of a resolution passed in the 1970 Synod of the Church in Jamaica in the Province of the West Indies. This resolution involves (1) the assumption that the Cayman Islands are subject to the authority either of the Jamaica Church or of the Provincial Synod of the West Indies; this would only seem to be possible if they were already within the Diocese of Jamaica, and as a result brought into the Church of the Province of the West Indies, but at the same time (2) the explicit presumption that the Cayman Islands are not within the Diocese of Jamaica (otherwise there would be no need seen to re-arrange the boundaries of the Diocese). Having determined that the Cayman Islands were not within the Diocese of Jamaica, the logical next step for the Synod should have been to determine to what ecclesiastical jurisdiction the Islands actually belonged. I suppose it was assumed at the time, though erroneously (as I believe has been proved), that the Cayman Islands possessed no ecclesiastical identity and might therefore acquire that of the Jamaica Church by the settling of its mission in the Islands. One lasting effect of this innocent faux pas has been to contradict "the rights of Her Majesty the Queen [and of] bodies politic and corporate" within the Cayman Islands jurisdiction (see section 5 of this chapter).

6.11. Cayman Islands Law 29 of 1979

6.12. A signed and sealed resolution of the Ecclesiastical Corporation dated the 21st October 1993 noted that "the Church of England in the Cayman Islands notwithstanding the best and strenuous efforts of its Rector Nicholas Sykes and all its members has been for many years denied the Episcopal supervision and care of those whom Her Majesty under Divine authority has commanded to be the Bishops of Her Church of England" and reaffirmed the belief "that the Church of England in the Cayman Islands is and will remain part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of England". See Illustration at p. 88.
Chapter Seven Notes.

7.1 E. g. by Canon Michael Harper in his book Equal and Different, Hodder and Stoughton. Traditionalists claim (a claim completely vindicated by events in North America and Britain) that the breach of the historic order, wrong in itself, brings in its train slippages and disruptions along the whole range of the doctrinal and moral moorings of the church.

7.2 Cf. Canon A1 of the Church of England.