THE MAROONS: A SPECIAL RIGHT TO LAND?

Posted on March 26, 2009
Filed Under Articles |



1.         “The young warrior” by Vic Reid was a staple in the 3rd Form literature syllabus.  Thanks to my own children I know that the book is still used widely in schools.  This fictional account of a young boy passing into manhood captures vividly the strength, resilience and ingenuity of the maroons.        The true maroon account of resistance and triumph is all the more amazing as it occurred at a time when Britannia ruled the waves.  Great Britain eventually acquired colonies from the Far East, to the Far West from Canada in the north to the Falklands in the south.  

 

2.         In 1655 that emerging empire sent an invading force to conquer Hispaniola.  Admiral Penn and General Venables fail in that endeavour and so as not to return empty handed  settle for the lesser prize of Jamaica.  The conquest of Jamaica took five (5) years to achieve because the Spanish leader, Don Cristobal Arnaldo de Isasi fought a guerilla type warfare against the English.

 

3.         In this endeavour Isasi was ably assisted by Africans whom the Spanish had brought to Jamaica during their 150 year occupation of the island.  The fighting prowess of these Africans was noted by the English Major General Robert Sedgwick who in 1656 wrote,

“The Spaniard is not considerable, but of the Blacks there are many, who are like to prove as thorns and pricks in our side………….in two (2) days more than forty (40) of our soldiers were cut off by the Negroes.”[1] 

 

4.         The Spaniards retreated from Jamaica in 1660 but their departure did not end British woe because Isasi left behind the Africans who with the Spanish defeat, saw an opportunity for freedom.  A freedom which nowadays many take for granted, a freedom which many of us now abuse, a freedom which if we don’t  all safeguard  we may yet lose.

 

5.         The Africans most of whom had fought alongside Isasi against the English invader, decided that they would not become British subjects.  In the course of time they became known as the maroons of Jamaica (a word which some sources say is derived from the Spanish word for wild boar).  The maroons’  determination not to subject themselves to British rule strengthened as they observed the British importation of other Africans.  The rise of  king sugar mandated a large work force resistant to tropical weather and resulted in the forced transportation of thousands of Africans to the Americas.

 

6.         Many of these newly imported Africans also refused to accept their lot and chose instead freedom.  They preferred the free air enjoyed by the maroon even if it meant the absence of  guaranteed food,  security, housing and accommodation

offered by the Plantation.  Many therefore escaped to join the maroons, sometimes quite violently as in 1673 when two hundred (200) slaves kill their master and thirteen (13) whites on Selby’s estate in St. Ann before joining the maroons.  There were many documented slave revolts in the period.

7.         These independent black men and women lived for the most part in the hills of Portland, Trelawny and St. Elizabeth.  Their existence was rather worrying to the slave master because the maroons presented to those enslaved on the plantation a viable alternative.  The British found it impossible to subdue them.

 

8.         In the period 1660 to 1739 the maroons waged a successful war against the militia and soldiers of the British Empire.  Documented accounts of the maroon wars are obviously one-sided and written by Englishmen of the time often participants who seek to diminish the significance of their losses.  However, even from them we can discern a grudging respect for their opponents.  In 1733, for example, a planter wrote,

“We are in terrible circumstances in respect to the rebellious negroes, they got the better of all our party, our men are quite dispirited and dare not look them in the face in the open ground or in equal numbers.”[2]  

 

                        In 1738 Governor Edward Trelawny reported:

 “I have had several complaints from different quarters of insults committed by the rebellious negroes: they have long infested this country and still continue to endanger the lives and damage the future of many inhabitants: the attempts to reduce them have been very burthensome to the public in general and to several persons in particular; but I hope your house may suggest some effectual measures to put a stop or even an end, to the intestine enemy.” [3]

                       

9.         The “effectual measure” would prove to be the Maroon Treaty of 1739.  It was a direct result of military losses and was entered into because the planters hoped to put an end to costly conflict and to secure the maroons as allies not enemies.  The maroons for their part clearly wished to enjoy their freedom in peace.  They ought not to be blamed for negotiating a treaty which guaranteed peace and freedom.  Particularly as the British, who had always been adept at the policy of dividing to rule, used blacks and mulattos in their militia when making attacks on the maroons.  Traitors (slaves sent to join the maroons) had on occasion betrayed the location of maroon towns.  Though sharing the same skin colour, the interests of maroon on the one hand and the slave on the other may have been quite different.

 

10.       After an exchange of hats a treaty known as Cudjoes Maroon Treaty of 1739 was reduced to writing.  It began as follows:

“Whereas Captain Cudjoe, Captain Accompong, Captain Johnny, Captain Cuffe, Captain Quaco, and several other negroes, their descendants and adherents, have been in a state of war and hostility, for several years past against our sovereign Lord, the king and the inhabitants of this Island, and whereas peace and friendship among mankind and preventing the effusion of blood, is agreeable to God, consonant to reason, and desired by every good man; and whereas His Majesty George the Second, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, and of Jamaica Lord Ec. has, by his letters patent, dated February the 24th, 1738, in the twelfth year of his reign, granted full power and authority to John Guthrie and Francis Saddler, Esq. to negotiate and finally conclude a treaty of peace and friendship with the aforesaid Captain Cudjoe, the rest of his Captains adherents, and others of his men they mutually, sincerely and amicably have agreed to the following articles”:

 

11.       Its salient terms were a promise to cease hostility forever, a grant of land to the maroons, a grant of freedom and the right to punish themselves for crimes except those punishable by death,  a promise by the maroons to aid in the capture of escaped slaves and the Defence of Jamaica if called upon to do so and a right in the Governor to have two (2) white men (superintendents) to live among the maroons to “maintain a friendly correspondence”.  [The detailed terms are attached as Schedule I].                                                                                                                                                                    

           

12.       The Jamaican House of Assembly passed the terms into a law entitled:

 “An Act for confirming the Articles executed by Colonel John Guthrie,  Lieutenant Francis Sadler and Cudjoe the Commander of the Rebels; for paying rewards for taking up and restoring runaway slaves, and making  provision for four (4) white persons, residing or to reside at Trelawny Town; and for granting Freedom to five (5) Negroes who were guides to parties.”             

 

The maroons, Carey notes[4] contend to this day that certain terms were altered.  This could have occurred because apart from the fact that Cudjoe could not read or write English, each side had different motivations.  On the English side they wished to create the impression that the treaty was a surrender document.  Manumission being the reward for surrender.  The English preferred to see the maroons as escaped slaves or rebels and not as independent souls defending their freedom.  The maroon of course did not see it quite that way.  Another Treaty was entered into in the following year with the maroons from the Windward parts of the island.  The terms were similar and this too was legislated.

 

13.       It is convenient to note here that in 1795 some fifty-six (56) years later a Second Maroon war occurred.  The Accompong Maroons were not however directly involved.  That conflict ended with another treaty which to their everlasting discredit the British shamelessly dishonoured, forcefully  transporting  five hundred (500) Trelawny Maroons into exile.  So gross was the breach that General Walpole, the British Commander who had negotiated that treaty, resigned his commission in protest and attempted to have the matter enquired into by the Imperial Parliament.  This to no avail.

 

14.       The Accompong Town Maroons and the Maroons in the Eastern end of the island in large measure honoured the treaty of 1739.  Historians tell us therefore that the maroons caught the bandit 3 finger jack and also were instrumental in the capture of Paul Bogle who led the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865.     The British were however not as faithful to their treaty commitments.  There were several laws passed by the planter dominated House of Assembly which by enlarge served to erode the terms of the treaty of 1739. 

 

15.       In the course of time the Plantation System and the slave economy were dismantled.  Slavery was abolished in 1834 and in 1962 the British quit the island granting full Independence to Jamaicans.  Today, Jamaica is an Independent State and a Constitutional Democracy.  The Written Constitution of 1962 makes no express reference to the maroons nor to the Maroon Treaty of 1739.  What then is the status of the Maroon Treaty today and consequently what is the status of  maroon land, is there such a concept recognized by law?

 

16.       In order to answer this question we need to review briefly several of the maroon related laws passed subsequent to 1739.   The following laws are examples:-

(a)        Act 133 of  1741 “An Act to encourage Colonel Cudjoe and Captain Quaw and the several negroes under their command in Trelawny and Crawford Towns and all other Towns of rebellious negroes who submitted to Terms, to pursue and take up runaway slaves and such negroes as continue in rebellion and for remedying some inconveniences in the laws already made for that purpose”.

(b)        Law 28 Geo 111 Cap. 16 (1788) “An Act for the better order and government of negroes belonging to the several negro towns and for preventing them from purchasing slaves.”

(c )       32 Geo 111 Cap. 4 (1791) - This Act established special courts to try the maroon “it being necessary that an exact discipline be observed.”  The courts constituted  the governor in the town and four (4) negro officers from each town.  Serious offences, felonies, burglary, robbery, conspiracies were preferable by complaint to a Justice of the Peace and tried at Quarter sessions before a jury.

(d)        2 WM IV Cap. 34 (1832) – Provided that all privileges, immunities and franchises enjoyed by “the free subjects of your Majesty’s Island” were to be enjoyed by the maroons.  The Statute also made maroons subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the Island.

(e)        5 Vic Cap 49 (1842)  This Act declared the maroons entitled to all rights and privileges of British subjects and provided that the several tracts of land allotted to the several maroon towns and enjoyed by the maroons should be revested in Her Majesty for the purpose of being allotted to individuals among them.  Each maroon was entitled to two (2) acres of land.

(f)         The Maroon Townships Land Allottment Law [1856] 19 Vic c.25.  This           Act extended the time to make allotments to the maroon and provided for the resolution of disputes between rival claimants.

 

These laws cumulatively allowed individual maroons to lay claim to maroon land and thereby obtain individual common law titles.  They also reduced/removed the maroon right to try fellow maroons for offences other than those which attracted capital punishment.

 

17.       The effect of these laws were such that in 1956 Chief Justice McGregor delivering judgment in the case of R v Man O. Rowe [1956] 7 JLR 45 was moved to state,

 “There is today no difference or distinction whatever in the rights and obligations as defined by the law of this Island between the persons residing in the former maroon settlements and those of any other British subject in Jamaica.”            

        

18.       The case before Chief Justice McGregor involved Man O. Rowe a maroon who was arrested by the police on maroon lands (Accompong) and charged with possession of cannabis (ganja).  He relied in his Defence on the Maroon Treaty arguing that he had a right by virtue of the treaty to be tried by maroons under maroon law.  The Chief Justice rejected the defence and decided that there was no legal distinction between the maroon and any other British subject in Jamaica.  Was the Chief Justice correct?  Is this pre-independence decision still applicable  in Independent Jamaica? 

 

19.       As someone trained in the common law tradition, I looked to precedent that is previous decisions by other courts, to find an answer.  Fortunately, the Jamaican maroons were not the only indigenous people to negotiate a treaty with the British Government.  The Indians of Canada did so, as well as the Maori of New Zealand.  In Australia the native land question has also been considered by courts from time to time.  Treaties have been considered by pre and post independence courts in those countries and although the contexts differ  certain general principles emerge.

 

20.       In the first place those courts have determined that when considering such matters one cannot go behind the legislation to see what the Treaty said or meant.  This is because the treaty only attracts the force of law when enacted.  The court is only empowered to enforce the law as enacted.  Hoani Te Heuhou Tukinoi v. Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] 2 ALLER 93.  In that case the Privy Council considered Maori land and the lawfulness of taxes imposed by statute.

“It is not open to the court to go behind what has been enacted by the legislature and to enquire how the enactment came to be made, and whether it arose out of incorrect information or indeed out of actual description by someone on whom it placed reliance.  The court must accept the enactment as the law unless and until the legislature itself alters such enactment on being persuaded of its error.”

 

Australian courts have given effect to native claims to land but in doing so also made it clear that treaty rights are subject to or may be revised or suspended by laws enacted by the legislature.  The Wik Peoples v Queensland [1997] 3 LRC 513.

 

21.       The 2nd principle to be discerned is that when interpreting such legislation (or the treaty which the legislation has given effect to) the circumstances surrounding the signing of the treaty may be used as an aid to its interpretation.  See R v Sundown and A-G of Quebec [2000] 3 LRC 258.   This case concerned the Cree Indians of Canada who had signed a treaty in 1876 guaranteeing them rights to pursue their vocations of hunting and fishing.  These treaty rights were expressly preserved by the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982.  A Cree Indian had cut down some trees and made a log cabin.  The Canadian authorities prosecuted him for breaching Park regulations.  The issue which arose in the year 2000 was whether the regulations overrode the treaty provisions.  His conviction was quashed.  The court decided that because,

“Treaty rights like aboriginal rights were not to be interpreted as if they were contracts or common law property rights………..The interpretation of each treaty had to take into account the First Nation signatory and the circumstances that surrounded the signing of the Treaty.”

 

22.       Similarly, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand decided that when construing the Treaty of  Waitangi made between the Maori and the British in 1840 the Treaty was to be regarded as a living instrument to be applied in the light of developing national circumstances.    The issue in the case concerned fishing rights and the attempt by New Zealand’s post colonial government to control those rights.  In delivering Judgment the President of the New Zealand Court stated:-

“The position resulting from 150 years of history cannot be done away with overnight.  The Treaty obligations are ongoing.  They will evolve from generation to generation as conditions change.”  Te Runnunga o Muriluhenua Inc. v A-G [1991] LRC1 @ p. 19 Per Cooke P.

 

23.       The third major principle to emerge from decided cases is that treaty obligations entered into by the Crown did not remain the obligations of Her Majesty’s government in England but devolved to the newly independent State. New Zealand Maori Council v A-G of New Zealand [1994] 1 ALL ER 633 @ 629 in which it was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the Crown’s Treaty obligations as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act were obligations of the government of New Zealand not the government of England.[5]                

24.       The rationale for this principle is that at independence the obligations of her Majesty passed to the new state, R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Indian Association of Alberga [1982] 2 ALL ER 118.  That case concerned a claim by the Indian Association of Alberta for a declaration that Her Majesty the Queen of England and the British government were liable under various treaty obligations notwithstanding the independence of Canada and the “repatriation” of its Constitution.  The court decided that:-

“Such obligations under the royal proclamation of 1763 and under the Indian treaties as had the force of law were owed by the Crown in right of Canada and not in right of the United Kingdom and accordingly the matters raised were justiciable in the courts of Canada and not in the courts of the United Kingdom”.

 

25.       A fourth principle but one not yet universally adopted is that conquest or annexation of land from indigenous people did not automatically extinguish the indigenous people’s right to the land.  This principle emerged in 1992 when the Australian courts considered the claims of the Meriam people that the Crown’s sovereignty over the Murray Islands was subject to the land rights of the Meriam people based on local custom and traditional native title.  The High Court of Australia in a landmark decision declared:

 “The common law of Australia rejects the notion that when the Crown acquired sovereignty over territory which is now part of Australia it thereby acquired the absolute beneficial ownership of the land therein and accepts that the antecedent rights and interests in land possessed by the indigenous inhabitants of the territory survived the change in sovereignty the preferable rule was that a mere change in sovereignty did not extinguish native title to land…………..In the past the view was taken that sovereignty of an inhabited territory could also be acquired as a settled colony under an enlarged notion of terra nullius if there were no settled inhabitants or laws in that territory or if its inhabitants had no proprietary interest in the land by virtue of their alleged barbarian nature and low position in the scale of social organization.  These theories depended on a discriminatory denigration of indigenous inhabitants their social organization and customs and were predicated on a basis that was false and unacceptable.  To maintain the authority of those theories would destroy the  equality of all Australian citizens before the law and  perpetuate injustice nor would it be consistent with modern international law which rejected the application of the concept of terra nullius to inhabited lands……..Because the facts as we know today did not fit the ‘absence of law’ or ‘barbarian’ theory underpinning the colonial reception of the common law of England, there was no warrant for now applying rules of the English common law which were the product of that theory.  Land which was in regular occupation was not terra nullius.” Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) [1993] 1 LRC 194.

26.       The Australian courts have given effect to native claims to land but in doing so made it clear (as we have seen) that treaty rights are subject to or may be revised or suspended by laws enacted by the legislature, see The Wik Peoples v Queensland [1997] 3 LRC 513.

 

27.       This brief review of decided cases demonstrates firstly that the issues are to be determined by the courts of Jamaica not the courts of England.  Any existing treaty obligations are the obligations of the government of Jamaica not the government of England.

                        Also, it is to the legislation giving effect to the treaty to which the courts will have regard.  In doing so due regard is paid to the circumstances existing when the treaty was enacted.  We have noted that the Post Independence court at least in Australia, was prepared to advance the common law in order to do away with theories and presumptions which were race based and demonstrated to be without any factual basis. 

 

28.       In this regard it is to be noted that Chief Justice McGregor premised his decision on an acceptance of the planter’s view that the Maroon Treaty of 1739 was not a treaty at all but a conditional grant of manumission to escaped slaves, Per McGregor CJ:

“It must be pointed out that although the arrangement between the Government of Jamaica and the maroons took the form of a treaty, that document was in reality “the articles of agreement” in which were set out, inter alia the conditions under which His Majesty granted his pardon to rebels…………”

29.       There is as we have seen a body of historical evidence to suggest that this factual assumption was incorrect.  The maroons had been carrying on a defensive war against an invading power.  By the time of the treaty the maroons were in established communities “Maroon lands” and had their own systems of law and order.  Their numbers had however been swollen over time by escaped slaves and rebels.

 

30.       We now know that the maroons kept their own identity.  They subscribe to the concept of maroon land and today still regard themselves as a people.  Indeed, it is my understanding that notwithstanding the several statues allowing for individual ownership of maroon land by maroons, the group has continued to treat with the land as maroon land, so that for example maroon land is not sold to non-maroons and if it is to be leased to a non-maroon, permission of the maroon council is required.  It may be very relevant to discover the extent to which the Maroon took advantage of the legislation of 1842 and 1856 to obtain individual English Title to land.

                        If credible evidence of these historical facts and current practices can be produced there will be scope for an argument that the maroon treaty is more akin to a treaty with aboriginees and should be dealt with as such, than with an agreement for manumission as found by Chief Justice McGregor.  Accurate historical evidence as well as evidence of current maroon practice in relation to maroon land would have to be obtained in an effort to persuade a court to give effect to the concept of maroon land.

31.       Will new evidence of that nature persuade a post independence court to overturn Chief Justice McGregor’s judgment?  Perhaps not, treaty rights as we have seen are subject to the legislative provisions implementing and/or changing them.  Chief Justice McGregor’s judgment carefully reviewed the several legislative changes which over time equated the rights of the maroon to the rights of the Jamaican citizen.  The maroon today is a Jamaican in the eyes of the Law.  A Jamaican court is unlikely to recognize any special right to land for the maroon. 

 

32.       It is submitted that the way forward for the Maroon is not redress in post independence courts.  The key to a solution may be the Constitution of Jamaica which guarantees to each individual the right to freedom of association.  There is therefore nothing to prevent Maroons as a community from continuing to exist and associate for their mutual benefit.  It is not unknown for homogenous groups to exist within national borders.  Other societies have recognized and benefitted from such diversity.  The maroon community could in this way protect its heritage and way of life.  A Co-operative could be formed and registered and perhaps the Government of Jamaica could be persuaded to give it  statutory recognition.  Such a law could declare maroon land to be under the exclusive authority of the Maroon Council which would have sole authority to regulate its transfer, development and/or utilization with appropriate provisions for compensation to individuals who now held title.  The aim being to protect the Maroon Heritage and way of life while achieving sustainable development and attracting the ecotourist dollar.   In this way and by this new “Treaty” the maroon as a citizen of Jamaica will be able to continue his social organization and way of life.

 

33.       When one considers the rich history and folklore of the maroon; the guerilla warfare and tactics which defeated British armies and forced generals to the negotiating table as well as the maroons sense of national identity, I  believe there is much that can be shared with the world.  I can imagine an historical centre for the study of maroon history, their war time tactics and strategy.  This could include a maroon theme park with re-enactments of the ambush, the original  jerked (boucan) pork, and educational tours.  The possibilities are endless and Jamaica stands to gain from such development.  However, the development will only be sustainable, if it emerges from the breast of the people, if it is fostered by the maroon for the maroon and if it is done in the Maroon Way.

 

                       

                                                                                                                       

DAVID G. BATTS

MARCH 2008

 

Footnotes:

 

1.             “The Story of the Jamaican People”Philip Sherlock & Hansal Barnett, p. 80

 

2.             “The Story of the Jamaican People” Philip Sherlock & Hansal Barnett, p. 139

 

3.             “The Maroon Story” by Bev Carey p. 315.

 

4.             “The Maroon Story” by Bev Carey p. 337 et seq.

 

5.             See also Tainui Maori Trust Board v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [1998] 1 LRC 487.

 

 

 

 

SCHEDULE I

First

                        That all hostility shall cease forever.

 

Second

 

            That the said Captain Cudjoe, the rest of his Captains, adherents, and men, shall be forever, hereafter in a perfect state of freedom and liberty, excepting those who have been taken by them within two years last past, if such are willing to return to their said masters and owners, with full pardon and indemnity from their said masters or owners for what is past, provided always, that, if they are not willing to return, they shall remain in subjection to Captain Cudjoe and in friendship with us, according to the form and tenor of this Treaty.

 

            Third

 

            That they shall enjoy and possess, and their posterity for ever, all the lands situate and lying between Trelawny Town and the Cockpits, to the amount of fifteen hundred acres, bearing north-west from the said Trelawny Town.

           

Fourth

 

            That they shall have liberty to plant the said lands with coffee, cocoa, ginger, tobacco and cotton, and to breed cattle, hogs, goats, or any other flock, and dispose of the produce or increase of the said commodities to the inhabitants of the Island; provided always that when they bring the said commodities to market, they shall apply first to the custas, or any other magistrate of the respective parishes where they expose their goods to sale, for a licence to vend the same.

           

Fifth

 

            That Captain Cudjoe, and all the Captains, adherents and people now in subjection to him, shall all live together within the bounds of Trelawny Town, and that they have liberty to hunt where they shall think fit, except within three miles of any settlement, crawl or pen; provided always, that in case the hunters of Captain Cudjoe, and those of other settlements meets them the hogs to be equally divided between both parties.                                                                                    

           

 

 

 

Sixth

 

            That the said CAPTAIN CUDJOE, and his successors, do use their best endeavour to take, kill suppress or destroy, either by themselves or jointly with any other number of men, commanded on that service by his Excellency the governor, or commander-in-chief for the time being, all rebels whatsoever they be, throughout this island, unless they submit to the same terms of accommodation granted to Captain Cudjoe and his successors.

           

Seventh

 

            That in case this Island be invaded by any foreign enemy, the said Captain Cudjoe and his successors hereinafter named or to be appointed, shall then, upon notice given immediately repair to any place the Governor for the time being shall appoint, in order to repel the said with his or their utmost force, or to submit to the order of the commander-in-chief on this occasion.

           

Eighth

 

            That if any white man shall do any manner of injury to Captain Cudjoe, his successors or any of his or their people they shall apply to any commanding officer or magistrate in the neighbourhood for justice, and in case Captain Cudjoe or any of his people, shall do any injury to any white person, he shall submit himself or deliver up such offender to justice.

 

            Ninth

 

            That if any negroes shall hereafter run away from their masters or owners and fall into Captain Cudjoe’s hands, he shall immediately be sent back to the chief magistrate of the next parish where they are taken; and those that bring them are to be satisfied for their trouble and the legislature shall appoint.

           

Tenth

 

            That all negroes taken since the raising of this party by Cudjoe’s people shall immediately be returned.

 

            Eleventh

 

            That Captain Cudjoe and his successors shall wait on his Excellency or the commander-in-chief for the time being, once every year if there upon required.

 

 

Twelfth

 

            That Captain Cudjoe, during his life, and the captain succeeding him shall have full power to inflict any punishment they think proper for crimes committed by their men among themselves, death only excepted; in which case if the captain thinks they deserve death, he shall be obliged to bring them before any justice of the peace who shall order proceedings on their trial equal to those of other free negroes.

           

Thirteenth

 

            That Captain Cudjoe with his people, shall cut, clear and keep open, large and convenient roads from Trelawny Town to Westmoreland and St. James and if possible to St. Elizabeth.

           

Fourteenth

 

            That two white men, to be nominated by His Excellence, or the commander-in-chief for the time being, shall constantly live and reside with Captain Cudjoe and his successors, in order to maintain a friendly correspondence with the inhabitants of this island.

           

Fifteenth

 

            That Captain Cudjoe shall, during his life, be chief commander in Trelawny Town; after his decease, the command be devolve to his brother Captain Accompong, and in case of his decease, on his next brother, Captain Johnny; and failing him, Captain Cuffee shall succeed; who is to be succeeded by Captain Quace; and after all their demise the Governor or commander-in-chief for the time being, shall appoint from time to time, whom he thinks fit for the command.

 

            In testimony of the above presents, we have herewith set our hands and seal the day and date above written.


 

[1] “The Story of the Jamaican People”- Philip Sherlock & Hansal Barnett, p. 80

 

[2] “The Story of the Jamaican People”- Philip Sherlock & Hansal Barnett, p. 139

 

[3] “The Maroon Story” by Bev Carey p. 315

 

[4] “The Maroon Story” by Bev Carey p. 337 et seq.

 

[5] See also Tainui Maori Trust Board v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [1998] 1 LRC 487

Comments

3 Responses to “THE MAROONS: A SPECIAL RIGHT TO LAND?”

  1. Topics about Peace » Archive » THE MAROONS: A SPECIAL RIGHT TO LAND? : Caribbean Rights, an IJCHR … on March 26th, 2009 2:12 pm

    An interesting blog post on THE MAROONS: A SPECIAL RIGHT TO LAND? : Caribbean Rights, an IJCHR Review;Here’s a brief overview - Serious offences, felonies, burglary, robbery. Conspiracies were preferable by complaint to a Justice of the Peace and tried at Quarter sessions before a jury. 2 WM IV Cap. 34 (1832) – Provided that all privileges, immunities and franchises enjoyed by “the free subjects of your Majesty’s Island” were to be enjoyed by the maroons. The Statute also made maroons subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the Island.

  2. Ras Messenger on April 5th, 2009 6:00 am

    Greetings of Perect Peace and Love
    May these few words find you and family in good health.

    Thank you for sharing the information which you have presented on some of most important peoples in Jamaica; The Maroons. without whom there would be no liberty as practiced by the current occupants of that land mass.

    You are right to indicate to us that without the struggles of these Great Ancestors, the island would not have known freedom, that its citizens take for granted( by whom?)now.

    For the current population not to consider affording The Maroons land of their own is Treason against themselves and others..
    This is the amnesia which seem to a significant majority of our brothers and sisters in the West; to even look at what i staking place in Afrika is to see the shackles of the minds are hard at work.. in truth, Afrikans have been fed complete falseness, through religious, traditional, tribalism, sexism practices against self, that is why today is is easier for Afrikans to kill each other even for stepping on his brothers new shoe..or even if you come from the wrong post code!.

    You already know that 90% of Jamaican people are living in fantasy, and illusions, so it becomes impossible for them to come to RA-ality to create change for self and community, even much less to their Great ancestors, without whom; they might not be living here and NOW. its a crime in my opinion.

    Organise and Apprecilove

    Tehuti Raa

  3. Ras Messenger on April 5th, 2009 6:01 am

    Love and more love

Leave a Reply