The Cornish Stannary Parliament
Why did the CSP confiscate English Heritage signs?
find out here

csp flag

Cornwall is next to England just like Wales
It's not that hard to understand!

Access the CSP
Archives here.


please get in touch


Join the CSP mail list. Enter your email in the box above

Tintagnel Castle

The Duke of Cornwall
took Tintagel Castle
and leased it to
English Heritage.

It is now known as
an English monument....

Latest news on the Single Written Form of Cornish.

An agenda for a police state with Crown immunity?
CSP response to Nationalist Journalism.

Restormel Castle

THE BIAS IN ENGLISH LAW.. begins with the education system. The history curriculum starts with 'Roman and Anglo -Saxons', and thereby, deletes the Celts from history. There is a complete denial of the fact that, on the first Christmas day, over 2000 years ago, the whole of Britain was populated by the indigenous Celts speaking their own Celtic language. England did not exist.

Read more..


Ever since Henry VIII ripped up Magna Carta to impose his state religion, the English national majority has attempted, as a right of conquest, to eliminate the Cornish as an indigenous Celtic national minority.  However, recent advances in international human rights law now give Cornish people the right to expect, "equality of cultural development". 

Read more..


Over a period of years the Cornish Stannary Parliament has been asking many questions. These were mostly directed towards government departments and the main satellite office in Cornwall the County Council.

Read more..


In May 2000 the Lord Warden of the Stannaries, the Chief Officer of the Duchy of Cornwall, was sent an invoice by the Cornish Stannary Parliament in the sum of £20 billion. It is intended as the means of reclaiming a double-charge levied by the Dukes of Cornwall on Cornish tin production compared to the rate levied on tin produced in Devon over a period of five centuries. These taxes were known as "coinage".

Read more..

On the Road to Justice for the Cornish.

During 2000 - the Bailiff of the Cornish Stannary Parliament with the authority of the Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508, confiscated 18 English Heritage signs at archaeological sites in Cornwall - each removal was notified to English Heritage by fax and details were placed on the Cornish Heritage web site.

Read more..

Cornwall Excluded from the FCPNM

Following the governments move to specifically exclude Cornwall from it's draft second report convention for the protection of national minorities, the public was given a limited time to respond. Read the CSP letter's of reply here.

Race against the Cornish!
Letter to Eurostat

The Secret Powers of the Heir to the Throne.

The Role of the Duchy of Cornwall Estates under the supervision of the Duke of Cornwall, is to provide an income to the Heir to the throne, as the English have never wanted to support him through additional taxation.

It is claimed that; "The Duchy of Cornwall was once of constitutional significance, but is now essentially a commercial organisation".

This 'commercial organisation' is claiming the inherited land/resources of the Cornish people to be it's own, acting in a private capacity above the law and beyond the powers of the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more..

England rejects "Equality"

Submission to:- The Council of Europe, Strasbourg dated 10th December 2003 in support of the eligibility of the Cornish people, as an indigenous British national minority, to the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, by The Cornish Stannary Parliament.

Read more..

Duchy Land for Affordable Homes in Cornwall

The Deputy Prime Minister has made an arrangement with the Crown Estate for it to provide low rents and affordable housing. ( This does not apply to Cornwall.   Although the Crown Estate has no holdings in Cornwall, no corresponding arrangement has been made by the Deputy Prime Minister with the Duchy of Cornwall the Crown Estate counterpart for Cornwall.

Read more..

Other Documents


The Cornish Stannary Parliament is the original governing body of Cornwall's historic Tin mining community. Today it plays a key role in ensuring that the people, land and heritage of Cornwall is treated fairly in the eyes of a UK legal system that appears to be failing in it's capacity to recognise Cornwall's distinct and lawful position.



For the attention of Constitutional, Legal and Human Rights experts.

The JUSTICE proposals for “A British Bill of Rights” recognises at para. 39, page 29, that: “Over the past decade there has been increasing recognition that access to equality and protection from discrimination under UK law is piecemeal and, at times, ineffective”. An ineffective remedy against the abuse of power can be attributed to the failure to secure a statutory guarantee for Sir Hersch Lauterpacht’s internationally recognised basic constitutional right to equality before the law. It is contended that the legacy of an authoritarian ‘rule of law’ continues to facilitate grace and favour government with the freedom to impose arbitrary decisions of bias and discrimination, in particular, to the prejudice of national minorities, such as the Cornish. More..

NEW! - The press exploiting the freedom of the press


01 - The absolute owner of all land 1066 to 2008
02 - The denial of the right to a national minority political opinion
03 - All U.K. persons are not equal before the law
04 - The United Nations against cultural aggression
05 - England in denial of equality before the law
06 - Restoration of old honours - Charter of 16th March 1337
07 - Cornwall separate from England - Charter of 17th March 1337
08 - The government of the Dukedom - Charter 18th March 1337
09 - The Cornish veto - The Charter of Pardon 12th July 1508
10 - Territorial possessions - The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858
11 - Rights, property and profits - The Crown Proceedings Act 1947
12 - For charitable purposes - The Crown Estate Act 1961
13 - Reputed property - Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982
14 - An effective remedy denied - The Human Rights Act 1998
15 - Duchy exemption - Freedom of Information Act 2000.
16 - Duchy exemption - The Land Registration Act 2002
17 - Duchy inclusion - Standing Orders - Westminster Parliament 2008
18 - The Cornish Agenda – Equality before the law.


Copy of Charter of Pardon - Accepted as evidence at a Trial at Bar ROWE v BRENTON 1829

1. The absolute ownership of all land 1066 to 2008

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The term ‘unwritten constitution’ is a euphemism for a disjointed scattered constitution. It is not intended to be a one-stop reference point for the individual with a problem. ‘Unwritten’ is said to permit “the flexibility to develop and adapt in accordance with society’s needs” (The Lord Chancellor, 22nd July 2002). This response reveals that while persons in power consider themselves to be in a position to determine society’s needs, the citizen has no central point of reference for the determination of his/her rights. The multiplicity of acts, statutory instruments, orders in council, prerogatives, privileges, codes of conduct, ministerial circulars etc., etc., would appear to ignore society’s need to expect concrete evidence of transparency and honesty from those in power.

With the top down ‘flexibility’ decision taken that British society does not need a guarantee of equality before the law while Crown immunity prevails for persons in power, the suspicion is aroused of two sets of laws with no ‘flexibility’ for society in general. Despite the deceptive appearance of progress, an unwritten disunited constitution has meant a widening gap between rulers and the ruled. A normal constitution in the Western World lays down the law to prevent the abuse of power by politicians. It was the English philosopher John Stuart Mill who noted, ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

It is contended that state secrets would be highlighted by a written British Constitution. It would begin with William the Conqueror’s claim in 1066, that:

“The Crown is the absolute owner of land”. (Land Registration Act 2002)

This assertion of royal rights has been resurrected in the Land Registration Act 2002, intro. 4.). Although the Act does not specifically state: except Cornwall, where, the Duke of Cornwall (an unelected position) is Lord Paramount, it actually affirms that the Duke is exempt from the registration of land. (section 84, note 135).

The European Convention of Human Rights provides at Protocol 1, included in the Human Rights Act 1998, “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”. The threat of an absolute owner would appear to compromise ‘peaceful possession’ especially where it is accompanied by the absolute power associated with inalienable land rights and Crown immunity.

It might reasonably be assumed that to qualify as a democracy no one should be above the law. It addition it might be reasoned that Magna Charta had dispensed with Crown immunity as well as William the Conqueror’s claim to all land (Article 29 of 1297, a freeman’s right to freehold). The much vaunted attributes of Magna Charta have been tarnished by the fact that today the Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, is the beneficiary of a multiplicity of rights including inalienable property ownership and Crown immunity from prosecution. Government support is provided to hide the facts through the Duchy being given the ‘impossible’ title of a ‘private’ estate exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 37. Censorship nurtures a culture of concealment arousing the suspicion that there is something incompatible with world public opinion, perhaps, even the suspicion of a secret constitution is aroused.

A decisive change in the 20th century towards secrecy is revealed by the position prevailing at the time of Sir Charles Dilke, the constitutionalist, who, on 18th March 1872, stated in Parliament, “There is not likely to be made today any attempt to contend that the Duchy of Cornwall is the private property of the Prince of Wales”. The current unacceptable level secrecy, it is contended, represents a retreat from transparency and an arbitrary denial of effective accountability.

The concepts ‘absolute owner’ ‘inalienable property’ and ‘crown immunity’ encourages the closed mind of awe and subservience to the feudal system. It is noted that Commonwealth countries have not been advised by the British government to opt for an unwritten fragmented constitution, crown immunity and the establishment of a look-a-like House of Lords.

2. The denial of the right to a national minority political opinion.

There is of course the Human Rights Act 1998. Leaving aside the inexplicable exclusion of Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) from the Act (an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity), and Protocol 12 (the prohibition of discrimination by official bodies), Article 14 states:-

“Prohibition of discrimination, The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.

Of immediate interest is: “the prohibition of discrimination on any ground such as,
(a) race, (b) language, (c) political or other opinion, (d) national origin, (e) association with a national minority, (f) property, (g) birth or (h) other status.”

(a) ‘Race’ , as an official legal concept, applies in respect of ‘English’ but not‘Cornish’.

The Cornish are informed by an ever increasing number of official bodies that they are ‘English’. The U.N. right to self-identify is blatantly ignored. In effect, there is in progress a modern attempt to repeat the enforced conversion by order of the state as under the tyranny of Henry the Eighth. The freedom of choice is selectively denied to ensure that the Cornish are not legally recognised as a national minority. A case of the abuse of power to promote English nationalism.

(b) Only recently has the Cornish ‘language’ been awarded limited official financial support. However, a language predicates a group, but the Cornish do not officially qualify by English standards. This eliminates competition.

(c) ‘Political or other opinion’ exposing unpalatable aspects of English history is treated as a threat by the representatives of the English national majority.

(d) ‘National origin’ of the English is Germanic while the Cornish are British Celtic. By the Act of Union with Scotland 1706, England and Scotland ceased to exist. The resurgent English nationalism is the separatism that could fragment the United Kingdom, if, respect for equality and diversity continues to be brushed aside as if by royal command.

(e) ‘Association with a national minority’ association with the Cornish national minority is not recognised as a legal right by the English national majority. At the present time the Cornish have been arbitrarily excluded from the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities without consultation. Official recognition of ‘English , Scottish and Welsh’ as three individual groups or sub-divisions of ‘British’ is not extended to the Cornish by the permanent English national majority at Westminster.

(f) Crown ‘property’ rights are applied for the promotion of the culture and welfare of the English national majority by the Crown Estate which exercises no function in Cornwall, where, the Duchy of Cornwall Estate provides no comparable public service for the Cornish national minority. The Duchy claims an inalienable right to ‘property’, in land and minerals in Cornwall.

(g) Automatic rights of ‘birth’ for the Duke of Cornwall as heir to the throne lie in the right to inherit, from an English national majority perspective, the ‘property’ of the Cornish national minority. There is no legal recognition of the pre-England ‘national origin’ or ’birth rights’ of the Cornish people.

(h) The ‘other status’ in respect of the Cornish concerns the right enshrined in the Charter of Pardon 1508 to veto statutes etc., emanating from the Crown, Duke of Cornwall or Westminster Parliament deemed to be prejudicial to the ‘minority’ cultural and ‘property’ interests of the Cornish people, a provision currently officially ignored.

“Prohibition of the abuse of rights” – Article 17 ECHR – “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention”.

We believe that many of the acts and provisions of the British government fall into the category of “the abuse of rights”, through adverse direct and indirect impact on the Cornish people.

The present unsatisfactory relationship between the English majority and the Cornish as a national minority can be traced to the centuries of institutionalised discrimination against the Celts hidden beneath England’s ongoing imperial ambitions. The break-up of the United Kingdom is often given as the reason for doing nothing for the Cornish. The acclaimed ‘flexibility’ of an unwritten or dispersed constitution is allowing matters to slip out of control.

The solution clearly lies in the transparency and security provided by a written one-stop constitution, an updated Magna Charta, with rights and duties specified for Crown, Ministers groups and individuals on the foundation of a guarantee of equality before the law, even if constitutional experts may have reservations.

The alleged secret constitution would appear to harbour a resistance to change.

3. All U.K. persons are not equal before the law

Constitutional templates have been made available by the United Nations in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provides at Article 26, “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to the equal protection of the law” and Article 27, “ethnic minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture or to use their own language”.

By United Nations standards the Cornish qualify as an ethnic minority. This is not the case in Britain. The Cornish ethnic minority are not equal before the law. It has been decided, by those exercising Crown immunity, for and on behalf of British society, that it does not need to incorporate United Nations Conventions into our legal system. Perhaps, it is not our, that is, not the people’s, legal system.

All impartial sources accept that the basic principle of democracy is equality before the law. The position in the United Kingdom is:- “The UK has no statutory guarantee of equality before the law. Protocol 12, which the government has refused to ratify, gives a general right not to be discriminated against on any ground not just in relation to ECHR rights”. Professor Francesca Klug, London School of Economics, Centre for the Study of Human Rights, confirmed on 6th July 2006. “The rule of law”, undisciplined by an enforceable “equality before the law”, leads to the erroneous belief that all law is just. The application of an unqualified rule of law permitted the development of Apartheid in South Africa and in the United Kingdom, it is contended, permits racial discrimination against the Cornish. It is suspected that this may be on account of Cornwall being a Duchy. Consequently, the history of the Duchy and that of the Duke’s, as Heirs to the Throne, demands investigation.

Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are state funded by ‘party political agreement’ not by Act of Parliament. The cross party English national majority in the Westminster Parliament have, therefore, agreed to be paid by the state to perpetuate self-preservation. Subsidies of £1.75 billion over four years has not secured success. The 2008 local elections produced an average turnout of only 35%, just over one third of the registered electorate. State subsidies for English political parties, in addition to the state subsidies, through legislative privileges, for the Duchy of Cornwall, should, in terms of return on capital invested, long since have assured the conversion of all Cornish people to English. State funded political and royal discrimination against the Cornish indigenous minority is pursued without rhyme or reason. Political privileges are given automatically to the Duke of Cornwall, including, an opt out from commercial competition and exemption from prosecution, repossession and bankruptcy.
This aggressive policy to promote English nationalism is evidently at the heart of the refusal to guarantee equality before the law for all persons as is the case in the Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden. To consolidate secrecy, M.P.s are required to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. There is no Oath of Allegiance to the United Nations International Covenants on human rights. Nor does this seem likely while the Heir to the Throne, the Duke of Cornwall continues his opposition to human rights law. (The Independent on Sunday, 29th September 2002 and The Times of 2nd March 2006).

Clearly, against this background, the English nationalism of the majority is hailed as normal, though detached from reality to achieve a self-deceptive racial superiority, while, on the other hand, Cornish nationalism is treated as if it were a threat to the state.

The real threat to the state, and the identity of all Britons, is likely to come from hedge funds gambling on profiting from ever increasing food and petrol prices and the Sovereign Wealth Funds of Russia and China buying up strategic mineral resources and global companies, a process which is eating away at the fabric of competitive capitalism.

A guarantee of equality before the law would expose a secret constitution as fraud.


4. The United Nations against cultural aggression

The Cornish identity and culture is being throttled to death by Duchy ‘property’ interests which even includes such Celtic icons as Tintagel Castle ‘leased’ or ‘given’ to English Heritage without regard to the basic principle of authenticity.

The UNESCO NARA document on cultural authenticity gives the following warning eminently applicable to the majority and minorities of the United Kingdom.

“The world is increasingly subject to the forces of globalisation and homogenization, and in a world in which the search for cultural identity is sometimes pursued through aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the cultures of minorities, the essential
consideration of authenticity in conservation practice is to classify and illuminate the collective memory of humanity” (Article 4).

It is contended that an independent and impartial interpretation of the NARA Document on Authenticity would exclude English Heritage from Cornwall. This has not been accepted by any state funded English political party who have clearly been attracting Cornish votes by suppressing the history, culture, language, identity and achievements of the Cornish.

Cornwall and the Cornish national minority of Britain are placed in the invidious position of having their national identity suppressed and ridiculed by the elected and unelected party political propaganda machine of the English national majority in a manner comparable with the treatment meted out to minorities by a dictatorship. Although a dictatorship is usually recognised by its unelected head of state.
Unfortunately, in the United Kingdom, there has not yet been a public inquiry into the dogmatism which encourages ‘aggressive nationalism’ and leads to ‘the suppression of the cultures of minorities’, e..g., the Cornish.

Areas of investigation might include the Council of Europe’s human rights provision: “The European Charter of Local Self-Government”, in which article 5 prohibits unwarranted changes to local boundaries. Current proposals for change to meet a deadline for elections to a new one tier authority in place of six District councils in April 2009 raises concern of a hidden agenda to destroy local community cohesion in Cornwall through large planning decisions made in the interim period.

A false sense of urgency to complete the transfer is being engendered which arouses the suspicion of an attempt to avoid effective public consultation on changes to traditional boundaries.

The unpublished reasons for the exercise of prerogative rights provides strong grounds for suspecting the existence of a Secret Constitution.


5. England in denial of equality before the law

It is contended that for an organisation once claiming to exercise the powers of the government of Cornwall, as a territorial possession, (Three Duchy Charters and the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858), the Duchy of Cornwall, managed by Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, has failed to come to terms with the modern world. It is time for the English legal and political system to accept that all is not perfect within the Duchy of Cornwall. There are ambiguities and discrepancies such as the ‘absurd’ verdict in Lord Coke’s Case of the Stannaries (the Cornish tin mining organisation) concerning the validity in English law of Duchy of Cornwall claims to the ownership of Cornwall’s minerals, a claim which was also denied by the still in force Royal Mines Act 1688. In addition, there is no answer to the “impossible” ruling (Lord Coke, The Prince’s Case 1606) concerning claims to ‘property’ in general as listed in the Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337.

There are also defunct sections within the charters. The passage of time leaves the Duke no longer in a position to exercise an inalienable right in perpetuity to collect taxes or court fines and profits. These have been replaced by valuable privileges and exemptions from Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, the Charter of Pardon of 1508, providing rights for the indigenous Cornish minority, lies in a state of limbo. It is not legally repealed but the veto is not officially accepted. The case for the precedence of prescriptive rights, of pre-England origin, is on the agenda.

A second (and confirmation third) Duchy of Cornwall charter gave the Duke preference over English law in Cornwall. Through this second charter Duchy powers embraced: “the King’s writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments” . The ‘King’s writ’ is self-evidently a written royal command, a commitment to paper not associated with the fragmented British Constitution, which, being unwritten and defended by all political persuasions, must be deliberate, and therefore, harbour some secret objective such as the desire to avoid accepting specific royal, political and governmental obligations or fiduciary duties to the public and minorities.
‘Summons of Exchequer’ is a tax collectors charter and ‘attachments’ are defined as “the legal seizure of foreigner’s goods” which enabled the Duke to impose the standard English double-tax for ‘foreigners’ on Cornish tin production compared to that applicable to Devon.

Such absolute authority over ‘indigenous foreigners’ satisfied the English ego, and enabled the Duke in Cornwall to consolidate claims to ‘property’ in Cornwall on the strength of an assumed royal infallibility. Apparently, the exercise of absolute one man government over the Cornish people to expand a state aided estate for ‘private’ profit under Stannary law required a secret constitution supported by state funded politicians.

By the Cornwall Foreshore Dispute between Crown and Duchy 1854-58 the Duchy claimed that it held the authority of the government of Cornwall. Clearly, such separate absolute non-democratic government was considered appropriate and normal in respect of ‘foreigners’ by the standards of early xenophobic England.

The English speaking Duchy of Lancaster was never in such a ‘foreign’ relationship with the Crown as in the case of Cornwall which clearly led to differences or inequalities in treatment. Lancaster rose to prominence through the civil war of the roses (1455-1485) by which the red rose of Lancaster became the present emblem of England, i.e., the English group - the only group symbol legally permitted in the England part of Britain. (An ‘abuse of rights’ (Article 17 ECHR) of the Cornish).

Coming to terms with the modern world has witnessed vain attempts to convert the racially superior policies of feudalism into modern legislation. The first Duchy Charter, published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law in 1978, (but not charters two and three) has been substituted and augmented by legislative, executive and judicial Acts which raise questions as to the necessity for such duplication of Duchy Charters if validly claimed to be Acts of Parliament. (The Prince’s Case). If elevation to an Act of Parliament was deemed necessary at all costs to secure the validity of the Duchy Charters, then either other charters, including the Cornish Veto Charter are also Acts of Parliament, or, they were an ‘Act of Deception’ on the part of the Crown.. Alternatively, if an Act of Parliament is absolutely necessary, then all charters are unnecessary. At least the Cornish Veto Charter rests on confirmed prescriptive rights. A sovereign Parliament could, at any time, act with political vengeance, bias or racial and social discrimination. Such petulant legislation is challengeable elsewhere in the Western World through the medium of a Constitutional Court.

The failure to publish Duchy Charters two and three in 1978, at the same time as number one, and the downgrading of the Cornish Veto Charter can only represent an integral feature of : ‘The Secret Constitution’.

Rights for the public are generally not regarded as inalienable, but there are inalienable rights claimed for the Duchy of Cornwall Estates, now promoted as ‘private’. This stratagem removes from official records the history of Duchy policies towards the indigenous Cornish ‘foreigners’ and the interest claimed by the Duchy, indirectly, by the British state, in respect of Cornish assets or prescriptive ‘property’ rights and mineral wealth.
The secret British Constitution, if written as a one-stop document, would reveal unpalatable facts for the English investigator. Behind the exploitation of Cornwall and the Cornish national minority lies the authority of the permanent English national majority in the Westminster Parliament, acting to avoid imposing taxation on the English national minority to provide an inalienable, permanent income for the Heir to the Throne. The solution, the imposition of the customary English double tax for foreigners applied to Cornish tin production compared with the standard rate for Devon until repealed in 1838. (G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, Harvard, 1908).

Rather than find a solution to the problems created by the arbitrary decisions of the past the authorities have opted for secrecy. Secrecy concentrates power in the hands of the few, thus creating an oligarchy of absolute power.

In the legal vacuum of a disjointed constitution, the people of Britain remain without a statutory guarantee of, what should be, the inalienable right to equality before the law. The absence of this fundamental democratic principle of absolute equality whas historically assisted persons acting in an official capacity to exercise bias and racial discrimination against the Celtic speaking peoples of British heritage as manifested in the pre-England concepts Kernow, (Cornish, Cornwall), Celtic and Stannaries.

The Duke of Cornwall, as Prince of Wales, operates under the motto ‘Ich dien’ (I serve, in German). The Duke’s operations are beyond the reach of English law with voluntary duties, privileges and exempt taxes now the ambition of Members of Parliament. The Crown Prosecution Service (Prosecution in the Service of the Crown) serves by introducing a public interest immunity certificate into legal proceedings of constitutional significance so as to avoid having on record, for example, the reasons for the removal of English Heritage signs ostentatiously displayed around Cornish heritage monuments some of which are claimed as the property of the Heir to the Throne. Information regarding the relevant deal and the date of transfer or lease of Tintagel Castle (of Celtic Arthurian fame) by the Duchy to the state funded English Heritage (or predecessor) is a state secret. (Relevant Duchy letter claiming exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, dated 22nd February 2005). There is no state funding for Cornish culture. Individually, funding is available for those prepared to declare themselves to be English. It looks as though a secret constitution would exist to perpetuate English cultural supremacy through the clandestine and selective distribution of state funds.

The present system is awash with ambiguities the flexibility of which encourages “aggressive English nationalism”. If it were all ‘written’ the deception would be exposed to the world. Cornish archaeological monuments, including the Cornish Mining World Heritage sites should be entirely transferred to a Cornish management body to ensure preservation of all sites from building speculators and being misrepresented as English through the generous application of English Heritage signs.

The classification of fraud as a state secret to avoid legal challenge is not just a feudal phenomenon. Building contractors are now under investigation for bid-rigging by the Office of Fair Trading. Local Authorities have been advised to exclude certain companies from tender lists.(The Sunday Times, 20th April 2008).
It is to be hoped that the South West Regional Development Agency has received a similar note. Suppression of information indicating the suspicion of state approval of fraud was attempted when the government ordered the closure of the Fraud Office inquiry into BAE export policies, which, on a challenge by Corner House, the courts declared that this sort of state intervention into the legal process was illegal. Still, there has been no inquiry into government contacts with Enron, the bankrupt American energy company, nor its gift of £750,000.00 to the Heir to the Throne. (The Sunday Times, 3rd February 2002).

‘Ich dien’ , I serve, would appear to be interpreted politically as the right to intervene in, or opt out of, the management of affairs of state and private enterprise wherever and whenever in the manner of an unregistered, or ‘private’, political party.

The public should have easy access to the courts to demand honesty in the administration of state policies. At least the American regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, has no constitutional problem with applying equality before the law in order to instigate the investigation of a private estate no matter how or where it may hide its secrets.

Transparency, and modernisation through decisions made in conformity with the principle of equality before the law guaranteed by the right of the public to enforce such principles written into a one-stop British Constitution, urgently needs to be at the centre of the political agenda.

A Secret Constitution appears to prevent a guarantee of equality before the law.


6. The restoration of old honours – Charter of 16th March 1337

The Royal Charter of 16th March 1337 , one day before the first Duchy Charter, declares: “the restoration of old honours”, and “Cornwall, over which awhile ago Dukes for a long time presided as chief rulers”. This royal declaration recognises an independent non-English dynasty and a separate Cornish national identity.

In the same mould the first Duchy of Cornwall Charter proclaims: “To establish the royal sceptre as well as by the addition of new honours as by the restoration of old ones …….to support the burthens incumbent”. The “burthen” or burdens were those of the government of Cornwall. A dynasty or two later, a separate authority is confirmed in: “The Prince may have become the victim of his own successes, believing he could govern the realm as he had the Duchy”. (of Cornwall). (The Estates of the English Crown 1558-1640, Edited R.W.Hoyle, Chapter 10, Graham Haslam, 1992).

Cornwall was clearly governed as a separate entity by Charles the First when Duke.

To guarantee uninterrupted exploitation of Cornwall’s mineral wealth for the English Crown, Cornwall and the Cornish were, allegedly by the authority of the Sovereign Westminster Parliament, subjected, in 1337, to a separate absolute one man government beyond English law excluded form the discipline of Magna Charta. This alleged ‘restoration’ of Cornish speaking Cornwall’s right to self-government involved the imposition of an English and French speaking Duke of Cornwall.
This ‘restoration’ charter provides early official acknowledgement of a functional Stannary legal system (also Stannary Charter of 1305) as a mark of Cornish independence and in English law the prescriptive and customary rights of the Cornish.

No attempt is being made to inform the English national majority that it is their responsibility to provide for the heir to the throne. Under the title Duke of Cornwall, in return for inalienable ‘property’ rights in Cornwall, he promotes, not British, but primarily English interests in culture, language and economic development. To date, the Duke has failed in his governmental duties to the Cornish people. Apparently, the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown includes an oath of silence in respect of the Cornish national minority and their historical connection with the Heir to the Throne.

The Secret Constitution would be protected by the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown.


7. Cornwall separate from England - Charter of 17th March 1337

It is contended that the creation of Duchy of Cornwall under the declared ‘restoration’ plan (Charter 16th March 1337) was intended to exploit the de facto independence of Cornwall beyond English law to permit the Duke to exercise absolute power to secure the maximisation of profits from Cornish tin.

They began with the county of Cornwall. The rich estates of the earldom of Cornwall were made part of his (the heir to the throne’s) permanent endowment in 1337”.
(The Royal Demesne in English History, B.P. Wolffe, Geo. Allen & Unwin, London, 1971, pages 52-4). Use of ‘county’ ignores the ‘restoration’ charter in order to arouse aggressive English nationalism towards those who have another opinion.

The first, the only officially recognised, Duchy Charter of 17th March 1337, was published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) in 1978 as Statutes in Force Constitutional law 10, (11 Edw 3). Normally this parliamentary act reference includes a ‘c‘ chapter reference followed by a number, (e.g., ‘c.49’, for the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, - (26 & 27 Vict. c.49). Other legal sources give the Duchy Charter an Act of Parliament reference (11 Edw III, c.0). This is the only case of a blank chapter or a ‘0’ chapter reference. Such gaps in the legislative process reveal attempts to ‘pass off’ or ‘back date’ the Duchy Charter as an Act of Parliament rather than honestly face up to, and own up to, the problems created in the past.

The Duchy Charters were deemed to be Acts of Parliament by Lord Coke in The Prince’s Case 1606,. However, it is noted that Frome reveals:- “There are no parliament rolls for any of the parliaments held between September 1334 and February 1339”. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office publication ‘Chronological Table of the Statutes’ London 1990, has no Duchy Acts entered between 1334 and 1339 which would indicate that there were no rolls because there was no parliament convened during that period as indicated by the ‘0’ chapter reference.

The Duchy of Cornwall was created to provide an income for the heir apparent from Cornish tin and land. Duchy of Cornwall Charters two and three, unpublished by HMSO, form the basis of an alleged Secret Constitution.

The profits from the grant of the Stannaries, (the pre-England Cornish tin mining ‘property’ organisation), contributed towards financing government and royal policies. Although Cornwall was separated for royal economic advantage, the title Duchy of Cornwall has now been artificially restricted in meaning to a ‘private’ estate, obviously, to prevent investigation into the ‘pedigree’ of the Duchy of Cornwall, although, the ‘pedigree’ of the Duke of Cornwall, as Heir to the Throne, is widely researched and promulgated.

The Duchy Estate claims secrecy for its operations despite a ruling by the Lord Chief Justice in 1829 that matters concerning the Duchy are ‘of public interest’. (Trial at Bar, Rowe v. Brenton 1829, Concanen Ed., p.110). There is no explanation as to why the Courts are ignored. The claim to possess the Cornish Stannaries, even as a territorial possession, relieved the English Parliament at Westminster of collecting taxes from constituents for the upkeep of the Duke of Cornwall, the Heir to the Throne. Income from ‘property’ in Cornwall also contributed towards the expansion of the Duchy Estate into England, and a great deal squandered in attempts to convince the Cornish they were English.

In the end, Cornwall was subjected to European Objective One funding administered by total absolute government and the suspicion of Duchy interference with local authority powers right down to parish level with consultation by public bodies merely a sham and pretence to conceal housing construction and property contracts on ‘reputed’ Duchy land, (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863) and ‘unregistered’ Duchy land. (Land Registration Act 2002). Deception prevails while the Crown Estate Commissioners provide affordable housing except in Cornwall.

To ask a question about the Duchy of Cornwall is to engage in unwarranted interference with matters of state. “I have noted the concerns that you raise about the Duchy of Cornwall and about being denied equality before the law. However, this is not an area of policy in which the Constitution Directorate can intervene”. (Constitution Director, Department for Constitutional Affairs, 22nd December 2005).

A Secret Constitution would not be an area of policy open to public scrutiny.


8. The government of the Dukedom - Charter of 18th March 1337

This second Duchy Charter forms the cornerstone of ‘The Secret Constitution’.

The definition of a Dukedom is a: “Territory ruled by a Duke”. The powers of the ‘Duchy’ reveal that it is a Dukedom ruled by the Heir to the English Throne in secret as if it were a private estate. At the present time, there is no official acceptance of the official creation of a Dukedom of Cornwall.

The first charter states: “and desiring that remarkable places of our Kingdom may be distinguished by their pristine honours”. An acknowledgement of Cornwall’s former independence, a belief encouraged by legend, language the laws of the Stannaries.

Nevertheless, changes were introduced with no intention of consulting the people involved. Cornwall became a pioneer minerals exploitation project later extended to the Empire.
Cornwall as a ‘ territorial dominion’. “It is submitted that the three Duchy Charters are sufficient in themselves to vest in the Dukes of Cornwall, not only the government of Cornwall, but the entire territorial dominion in and over the county which had previously been vested in the Crown”. (The Cornwall Foreshore Agreement between the Crown and the Duchy 1854-58 – Duchy Preliminary Statement).

Cornwall is a ‘territorial possession’ by virtue of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 , by which, the foreshore of Cornwall “is vested in his royal Highness as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall”. (The 1858 Act is based on a Charter of Edward III - Halsbury’s Laws, Vol 12 (1) Crown Property, para.268).

‘Vested’ is defined as “a fixed right, subject to no contingency”. There are no ‘vested’ rights for the public as would be the case with a normal one-stop constitution. Cornwall is not officially defined as a Dukedom. ‘Territorial’ is not the province of a ‘private’ estate.

There is no escaping the fact that this second Duchy charter of 18th March 1337 purported to grant the Duke the absolute government of Cornwall with the provision: “the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments throughout Cornwall”.
The King’s writ takes precedence over English law. In England, under English law, (Lord Coke 8 Co.Rep.22 & Plowden, 334) this provision could not be exercised legally in England by the Heir to the Throne, therefore, it is contended, Cornwall was being treated separately from England even though there were encroachments made by English authorities with the consent of the Duke. ‘Attachments’ were clearly intended to permit the arbitrary acquisition of ‘foreign property’ and, being proclaimed within the Charters they were also intended to be authorised by an Act of Westminster according to Lord Coke in The Prince’s Case. The concept of a sovereign parliament appears to have been copied from feudal Crown sovereignty, and applied as Crown immunity to prevent the investigation that might apply to a charter.

The right to ‘attachments’ is a right to a dictatorship. ‘Attachments’ were intended as the legal authority for the complete take-over of the government of Cornwall and its ‘property’, essentially, the prescriptive rights of the Cornish people of pre-England ethnic British origins. These were the subject of a political act of “territorial attachments” currently disguised by being transformed into a ‘private’ estate. Secrecy prevails, as attested by the fact that the constitution is unwritten, dispersed and not amenable to serious debate.

There has been only nominal recognition of the fact that the Cornish Stannary Parliament, under intermittent and disputed control by the Duchy, was, and seeks to secure recognition as, the original and legitimate government of Cornwall. In modern terms, parity with Scotland and Wales is desirable and achievable.

It is contended that a policy of a disconnected, unwritten constitution has made it easy to hide the history of royal dictatorial powers in Cornwall over a non-English ‘race’ of people and their ‘property’. Just twenty four hours after the first Charter, Cornwall was separated from England by a rarely published Charter, to be governed exclusively as a Dukedom of economic convenience beyond the English legal system.
Success was based on the assumption that King Edward III had a right to place the lucrative Stannaries, the pre-England Cornish tin mining industry, at the disposal of his son, the Duke.

The Stannaries, a prescriptive right even in English law, is accepted as covering the whole of Cornwall. (Sir George Harrison, Laws and Jurisdiction of the Stannaries, Longman Green, 1835). Also, English law accepts, “Domesday Book is itself evidence of what land belonged to the Crown and what to its subjects”. (Halsbury’s Laws, Ed.4, Vol8, Constitutional Law, para. 1418, note 2). The evidence exposes the ambiguity of “its all Crown land” since William the Conqueror 1066 and a basic principle of the Land Registration Act 2002. However, there is no record of the Stannaries in the Domesday Book.

The evidence leads to the conclusion that the Stannaries, and, therefore, the whole of Cornwall, could not, as pre-English, be legitimately claimed as English Crown ‘property’ as is attempted first, absolutely by means of the 1066 edict, and then, by inalienable claims made under the Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337/8.

Recovery of Cornish rights is intended to be impossible by virtue of the claims of parliamentary infallibility or sovereignty adopted from the feudal attributes of the Monarch. Hence, the current state of official non-recognition. However, the Royal Cornish Veto Charter of 1508 represents the basis for the recovery or Cornish rights.. The denial of Cornish minority rights, is, in effect, a collective punishment programme visible in the cover-up of Duchy of Cornwall history reinforced by the denial of the Celtic pre-England ethnicity of the Cornish and the denial of a guarantee of equality before the law.

Limitation Act 1980, section 37, which affirms:- “Nothing in this Act shall affect the prerogative right of Her Majesty or the Duke of Cornwall to any gold or silver mine”. (Doc.44). A prerogative exercised by the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall and “Extensions or exceptions in favour of the Crown”, includes the Duke. Also extended to base minerals such as tin. The Treasure Act 1996, and S.I. No.2666 of 2002, Discoveries would appear to be intended for the ‘private’ use of the Duke, a further partisan decision.

The extent of ‘extensions and exceptions’ is not given, although clearly not applicable to entities falling under the generally understood meaning of ‘private’ estate.

“Since the Crown (includes the Duke of Cornwall) is not subject to planning permission, any use of land which it institutes is a lawful use” (Circular 18/84. Crown Land and Crown Development). Updated by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s.84 no act or omission by the Crown (includes Duchy) constitutes an offence. Part 9, s.111, and Part 8, exemption from compulsory purchase.

In defence of its position, and to be consistent in the application of equality before the law in the decision making process, the government and parliament would be obliged to rule the ‘impossible’ that any use of land by a private estate ‘is a lawful use’.
The result has been, by whatever combination of laws old and new, that the powers of the Dukedom, if unchecked, could be misapplied by Duchy sponsored building contractors and arouse the suspicion of “undue influence” and “unjust enrichment” in respect of planning projects and the ‘property’ rights of the Duke in Cornwall within the Dukedom of Cornwall.

The Charter of 1337 provided for the Duke to collect ‘coinage’ a tax on tin production which continued until abolished in 1838 in return for an annual compensation sum of c.£16,000.00 in place till 1983. The calculation was based solely on Cornish tin production since that of Devon was only 5% of the combined total. (G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, Harvard, 1908).

Although ethnically British, the Cornish were once treated as ‘foreign’ that is, non-English by the application to Cornish tin production of the English custom of levying a double tax, compared to Devon, on the produce of ‘foreigners’. (The Stannaries, G.R. Lewis, Harvard, 1908, plus Lord Coke 4th Inst 33, and Henry VII, A.R. Pollard, Longmans Green, 1913, Introduction, xlvii). There is now a attempted mass conversion of the Cornish to English to cover up England’s unpalatable past.

Today, it is politically correct to claim that the Cornish are English in order to keep ‘The Secret Constitution’ under wraps.


9. The Cornish veto - The Charter of Pardon –- 12th July 1508

The Charter of Pardon of 1508 confirms Cornish rights.

“Whether Edward the First (1272-1307) or Henry the Seventh (1485-1509) had a right to grant the powers which these purport to grant, or not, is wholly immaterial to the question of the legality or validity of the system. The system had, probably for centuries, been established on the firm basis of prescriptive usage” . (‘The Laws and Jurisdiction of the Stannaries of Cornwall’, Sir George Harrison, K.C.H., Keeper of the Records of the Duchy of Cornwall, 1829, Longman Green, 1835, page 67)

“At their most humble suite forgiven and pardoned unto them the same paying unto us our Heirs and Executors one thousand pounds sterling for the forfeiture of the whole Duchy of Cornwall the which was them and their Warden agreed”. (British Museum Manuscript, The Stannaries, No. 6713, folio 136).

Whatever the interpretation of “the forfeiture of the whole Duchy of Cornwall” it must include the Stannaries of Cornwall. Consequently, there is at least an implied acceptance by Henry VII that there would be no viable Duchy of Cornwall without the Stannaries. Government sources may claim there is no ‘legitimate’ Stannaries, but this would mean, there is no legitimate Duchy of Cornwall.

The Charter of Pardon 1508 recognises the Cornish Stannary Parliament as the original government of Cornwall. The English sham “restoration” for the Cornish under the Charter of 16th March 1337 appeared to take on a Cornish dimension at last with the charter of 1508 containing the right to veto all English law prejudicial to the cultural and ‘property’ interests of the Cornish people centring upon the control of Cornish mineral wealth.
There is at present no official acceptance of the existence of the Royal Charter of Pardon of 12th July 1508, but, it is contended, the Monarch and Duke are committed to the same fiduciary duty towards the indigenous Cornish people of Cornwall as they show themselves committed to the preservation of the English identity and culture.

By including the veto in the 1508 Charter, the monarchy, in returning thereby, effective control of Cornish affairs to the Cornish, was actually rejecting previous claims to be the ‘absolute owner’ of all ‘property’ in land as Terra Regis (Crown land) introduced by William the Conqueror in 1066.

It also recognised, and rectified the fact that Magna Charta (Article 29, a freeman’s freehold) had been denied to Cornwall by the Duke’s exercise of the ‘King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments’ since 1337.

“Nothing in this Act shall make void the charters of the Stannaries”. (Royal Mines Act 1693, Published by HMSO 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional law). This Act would embrace the Cornish Veto Charter of 1508.

A Cornish Stannary Community, as the electoral college, has replaced the emergency provision for convening a Stannary Parliament by the Duke and Mayors of a limited number of Stannary towns. “General customs may be extended to new things which are within the reason of those customs”. (Snellings Case {1595} 5 Co. Rep. 82 at 83).

Just as Magna Charta intended to place restrictions on royal abuse of power, Henry the Seventh, in 1508, accepted that the Duchy of Cornwall was in effect a Dukedom and a dictatorship requiring restrictions. The Cornish obtained the power to protect their ‘property’ and prescriptive and customary interests placed on a legal foundation.

The Charter of Pardon exposes the deception inherent in ‘The Secret Constitution’.


10. Territorial possessions - The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858

“Whereas by Articles of Agreement on behalf of HM the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall, it is decided that the right to all mines and minerals lying under the seashore within the said county of Cornwall is vested in His Royal Highness, Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858)

The ‘Articles of Agreement’ between the Crown and the Duchy following lengthy exchanges between their respective legal advisors, (Published 1858, by Shaw & Sons, as ‘Tidal Estuaries and Foreshore of Cornwall’) contains no reference to any consultation with the people of Cornwall.

“Part of the territorial possessions” would indicate that all Dukedom possessions in Cornwall are ‘territorial’ and, therefore, Cornwall is Cornish soil.
The Act of 1858 exposes an ‘agreement’ between one Head of State and another, i.e., between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall to maintain the income for the Duke of Cornwall from Cornwall without regard to the wishes of the Cornish people. Cornwall is the ‘territory’ claimed by the United Kingdom for unpublished reasons and treated as a separate entity. Whitehall and Westminster fortified the Duke with Crown immunity and inalienable rights so as to avoid any legal challenge in the English courts. In addition the government was relieved of the burden of supporting the Heir to the Throne.

In his ‘Case of the Stannaries, 1606’, (12 Co.Rep.9), Lord Coke states, in relation to the Royal claim to the Stannaries “now a reason cannot easily be rendered of things
done before time of memory. “Before the time of memory” could not be before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Cornwall in 936AD and the expulsion of the Cornish from Devon. (Anglo Saxon England, F.M. Stenton, Oxford University Press, 1947, page 337).

At this time the Stannaries of Cornwall were indisputably Cornish. The Stannary Case is also a revelation in respect of the royal/duke’s claim to the ownership of the Stannaries (the tin producers organisation) in relation to the royal claim to the pre-emption (right to buy) of tin.

“It shall be absurd that the King shall reserve the emption of his own tin”. Pre-emption, as a claim to the ownership of tin under the Stannary Charter of 1305, indicates that the claim to ‘our Stannaries’, in the first Duchy Charter of 1337, that is, the ownership of the Stannaries as the whole of Cornwall, was not possible unless the Conqueror’s solution of 1066 was applied arbitrarily to Cornwall while being effectively abolished elsewhere through a Crown Estate form of management from 1760. Queen Anne (1704-1714) exercised the prerogative of the pre-emption of tin. (British Museum Stannary records, Vol.6713).

It is strange that Lord Coke, frequently quoted in austere constitutional volumes, is not quoted in full to encourage insight into the meaning of ‘impossible ‘ and ‘absurd’ in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall claims. Automatic knee jerk defence of the Duchy appears to me mandatory in a general denial of the principles of Magna Charta. Such submissive thinking is also evident in the avoidance of the accurate description ‘duchy rotten boroughs’ in respect of the forty four Westminster parliamentary constituencies created in Cornwall up to 1832, when Scotland had but forty five. These are normally referred to as ‘Cornish rotten boroughs’ as if the Cornish had the power or desire to create their own quota for Westminster. The Cornish have probably suffered collective punishment for this misrepresentation of the facts in academic and school history books merely to hide and defend the Duke of Cornwall ‘s secret use of ‘the Kings Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments’.

The Charters granted the Dukes “our stannaries and the coinage” (coinage, a tax on tin production). In his book, ‘The Duchy of Cornwall’, Crispin Gill , David & Charles, Vermont, USA, 1987, (at page 211) asserts that: “the Stannary duties were consistently the most valuable”. Records assembled by G.R.Lewis, ‘The Stannaries’, Harvard University, 1908, reveal that this Duchy income was chiefly coinage.

However, a Duchy of Cornwall letter of 15th December 1976 asserts, in denial of all the facts, including even its Duchy Charter, that “the Duchy received no coinage dues”. ‘Received no coinage’ would mean that the Duchy of Cornwall need not have been paid compensation for loss of coinage from 1838 to 1983 at £16,216.00 per annum (Crispin Gill p.51). No private estate has ever had such generous state aid.

The official silence and misrepresentation in respect of the history of the Duke of Cornwall arouses the suspicion of an active old fashioned state control of information and political interference in the school history curriculum which might otherwise lead to questions regarding the suspected secret constitution.

The right to all mines and minerals, Articles of Agreement, territorial possessions, pre-emption, the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments in Cornwall reveal some of the tools of state given to the Heir to the Throne to act under the diverse laws and ‘flexible’ assumptions of an unwritten ‘Secret Constitution’.

11. Rights, property and profits - The Crown Proceedings Act 1947

“Her Majesty in Her private capacity shall be construed as including reference to the Duke of Cornwall”. And, “ Nothing in this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against, or authorise proceedings in tort to be brought against His Majesty in His private capacity”. (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s. 38 (3); s.40 (1).

The Duke, as part of Her Majesty in her private capacity, also has: “the right to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting its (his) rights,’ property’ and profits”, Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40(2g)

The management of a private estates do not ‘control’ legal proceedings.

Also, Supreme Court Act 1981, section 120, – re Duchy administration of the ‘property’ of bankrupt estates in Cornwall.

The management of a private estate does not ‘administer’ bankrupt private estates.

Also, Competition Act 1998, section 73, “crown not criminally liable” – “nothing in this Act affects Her Majesty in her private capacity”. (Extends to planning).

The management of private estates are ‘criminally liable’ for their actions

The 1947 Act permits continuation of centuries of English acts of direct and indirect racial discrimination or ‘aggressive nationalism’ in dealings with the Cornish national minority. This is especially true when a case for the defence of minority interests can be silenced in proceedings before a court by a spurious claim to ‘national interest’ by means of a ‘Public Interest Immunity Certificate’ (PII) introduced by the Crown Prosecution Service as in the case of the removal of English Heritage signs, or, in cases of arrest under a spurious charge of guilt only to be dropped at a later date.

A presumption of guilt is left suspended and exploited by the English media for racial advantage. Politicians are silent with regard to the accused being denied the right to present a defence in court through the spurious application of political manoeuvres.
The Police as a tool for the political purpose of English racial advantage appears to be central to ‘The Secret Constitution’.


12. For Charitable purposes – The Crown Estate Act 1961

Crown ‘property’ rights are applied for the promotion of the culture and welfare of the English national majority by the Crown Estate which exercises no function in Cornwall, where, the Duchy of Cornwall Estate provides no comparable public service for the Cornish national minority.

“The Crown Estate has not holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. Foreshore and other property that would in most counties be the property of The Crown Estate
are, in Cornwall, not owned by The Crown Estate. The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall . We have no information about the extent and details of the Duchy’s holdings”. (Tim Riley, Librarian, The Crown Estate, London, 7th January 2005).

Unlike the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982, the Crown Estate Act 1961, specifically lays down at section 4 the requirement to provide: “Grants for public or charitable purposes in connection with the land of the Crown Estate”.

Section 4 of the Crown Estate Act also requires and permits, “the construction or improvement of any road, dock, sea-wall, embankment, drain, water-course or reservoir”. Such largesse is not available from the Duchy of Cornwall and did not occur at St.Austell, Crinnis Beach, Carlyon Bay, in connection with planning the construction of a block of 500 flats on foreshore (in which the Duchy was almost sure to have at least a mineral interest) with a protective ‘sea-wall’. We await events for similar plans proposed for Hayle harbour, a Cornish Mining World Heritage site.

The Duchy claims an inalienable right to ‘property’, in land and minerals in Cornwall. Whereas, restrictions are imposed on the Crown Estate by the 1961 Act at section 3, requiring the management of land to be undertaken by “excluding any element of monopoly value”.

The comparison of the ‘public’ Crown Estate Act 1961 for the UK except Cornwall with the ‘private’ Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982 applicable to Cornwall is conclusive evidence of institutionalised racial and social discrimination against the Cornish.

There are then, in English law, ‘public’ Crown Estate rules for the Monarch (including the Duchy of Lancaster) and ‘private’ commercial estate rules for the Duchy Estate of the Heir to the Throne. (The Duchy of Cornwall being the only exception listed in the Civil List Act 1760 which led to the creation of the Crown Estate to manage Crown lands).

Westminster confirmed the precedent of justifying a royal estate by declaring c.1500 its: “reluctance to supplement the hereditary revenues from taxation”, (Report of the Committee on Crown Lands 1955, CMD 9483).
If all land was Crown land according to William the Conqueror in 1066, then Cornwall was arbitrarily separated from Crown land for the profit of the state on behalf of the Heir to the Throne. With the Cornish subjected to collective punishment as ‘foreign’ (though indigenous) the whole process was made respectable and effectively censored, under the ‘private’ flag of convenience to prevent public scrutiny in the age of human rights.

“Unless Parliament calls a halt to what amounts to state purchases for a private endowment, the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall, which are already the largest related land holdings in the country and which between them constitute the largest two agricultural conglomerates in the UK, will achieve neo-monopolistic status in the real estate market. All further expansion by either corporation needs to be halted immediately, and the whole situation made the subject of a special commission”. (Who Owns Britain”, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2002, page 74).

‘The Secret Constitution’ is likely to be of assistance to a monopoly.


13. Reputed property - The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982

Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, section 8, asserts: “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”.

Although described as “the analogous landowner in Cornwall” by the Crown Estate, the state controlled constitutional Duchy of Cornwall retained Crown Estate land or ‘property’ is “run on commercial lines”. “The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall was once of Constitutional significance, but is now essentially a commercial organisation”. (The Cornish Question, Mark Sandford, the Constitution Unit, Universsity College London 2002, page 38).

Under the ‘commercial and private’ flag of convenience the Duke has abandoned any statutory obligation to the public of Cornwall, and any cultural or corporate responsibility in Cornwall as is the practice of the Crown Estate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. (Crown Estate Act 1961). The Constitution Unit offers no reference to an Act of Parliament to substantiate its claim.

The renowned ‘flexibility’ serves to hide ‘The Secret Constitution’. The assets i.e. the ‘property’. “do not belong to the Queen or the Prince of Wales (the Duke of Cornwall) and are not theirs to dispose of”. (The Paymaster General, House of Commons, 9th July 2002, Hansard, Col. 223WH).

“They are entitled only to the income”. (The Prime Minister, The House of Commons 25/27 March 1996). Disposals of land are nevertheless made with the authority of the Treasury under the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, sections 8 and 9. A case of land, trust and Dukedom without an owner.

Royal property ownership is apparently a mystery to the House of Commons. This subservience appears to be at odds with the position a few years ago. “The Prince of Wales has no right but by Act of Parliament”. (Hansard, 26th March 1850, Vol.CIX, p.1378).
The Westminster Parliament is in denial of the fact that Cornwall was separated, if ever formally attached, to permit the maximisation of profits by and for the Duke of Cornwall from the Stannaries by whatsoever unparliamentary means. The added bonus, for them, was to avoid further taxation to maintain the Duke. The selection of income from Cornish tin production to be designated as ‘private’ while similar operations elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom are classified as of ‘public’ benefit under the Crown Estate. Such sovereign policies expose a serious case of institutional racial discrimination against the Cornish.

Swathes of land in England and Wales known as Crown land came under the Management of the Crown Estate Commissioners for public benefit comprising the vast majority of William the Conqueror’s land claim of 1066, as at the Civil List Act 1760. Cornwall then, is treated under separate rules and designated a ‘private’ inalienable Duchy estate but no longer part of the Conqueror’s original Crown land.

The evidence would appear to indicate that Cornwall’s ‘foreign’ (language) status was arbitrarily chosen for exploitation by the Crown and the English authorities under separate rules for the maximisation of Duchy profits. This is the substance of the suspicion of the existence of , The Secret Constitution.

The current Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, (26&27 Vict. Cap.49) section 37 includes, as belonging to the Duchy, whatever the Duchy considers is “reputed” to be Duchy ‘property’.

The provision of “reputed” is a clear repudiation of the Nullum Tempus Acts in 1796 (designed to prevent royal claims to the ‘property’ of the subject). This Act also calls into question the Conqueror’s claim to all land as Crown property.

The Act of 1796 did not apply to Cornwall until the Act of 23&24 Vict. Cap.53 of 1860, “to quiet claims against the Duchy in Cornwall”. The limitation or clampdown on Duchy claims to property in Cornwall was therefore in force only from 1860 to 1863 when “reputed” in the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act became law.

From an English perspective, the rule of law is subject to ‘flexibility’ a convenience not intended for members of the British public. It can be traced to the perennial desire of imperial powers to own and control property in the form of natural resources, preferably separately, outside their own borders, to reduce constitutional and legal complications.

According to Plowden’s Commentaries, 1760, page 334 the legal precedent of the “King’s writ and summons of exchequer and attachments”, granted to the Duke of Cornwall by the Dukedom Charter of 18th March 1337, by including the “Summons of Exchequer”, etc., could not be legally exercised anywhere within the United Kingdom by the Heir to the Throne, the Duke of Cornwall. The facts indicate that to be legal, Cornwall had to be treated separately from England.

Since, the Duke’s exercise of the “Summons of Exchequer” is applicable only to Cornwall, it would appear that Cornwall was constitutionally intended to be legally separate from the remainder of the United Kingdom for reasons which today would be censored by claiming reasons of ‘national security’.
In reality, the exploitation of a separate people, was state authorised for the rights, property and profit of one person in place of taxation. It is contended that this could only be achieved by creating a dictatorship operating under a separate set of laws.

‘Attachment’ and annexation activities under the wing of “Summons of Exchequer” would only escape early English standards of justice if applied, as with the Empire, in a non-English territory. Cornwall was surely made to fit these requirements.

Imperial attitudes may motivate the philosophy of ‘The Secret Constitution’.

14. An effective remedy denied - The Human Rights Act 1998

Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been omitted from the Act. “Article 13 – Rights to an effective remedy – Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”.

The exclusion permits unchecked English racism in conjunction with Article 14 under section 5 above.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Sweden has overcome feudalism to provide at Chapter 1, Article 9.“Courts, public authorities and others performing functions within the public administration shall observe in their work the equality of all persons before the law and shall maintain objectivity and impartiality”.

There is no statutory guarantee of an enforceable equality before the law in English law available to secure compliance in the administration of public affairs.

The Race Directive 2000/43/EU, covering both ‘private and public sectors’ (Article 3) requires all governments to “ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished” (Article 14).
Most of the laws concerning the ‘private’ Duchy of Cornwall estate would appear to be “contrary to the principle of equal treatment” certainly, contrary to the stated preamble principle (3) of : “The right to equality before the law and protection against discrimination for all persons constitutes a universal right”. Lord Denning has ruled that: “These (preambles) show the purpose and intent of the Regulations and Directives”. (Bulmer v. Bollinger [1974]). The ‘purpose and intent’ of equality before the law, should be, but is not, being applied by neither the government of the U.K. nor The Duchy of Cornwall in their respective decision making processes.

The unintended unofficial recognition of the Cornish is manifest through the official anti-Cornish national minority policies.

Degrading and humiliating treatment includes:-

1. Without consultation in response to copious written submissions, the Cornish have been excluded from the Council of Europe’s human rights provision, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities for the past ten years by the Home office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
2. A rejection of requests for a dedicated Cornish Census 2011 form as applicable for Scotland and Wales by the Office for National Statistics.

3. The replacement of an existing Cornish bus pass (showing a St. Piran’s flag) for pensioners with a so called “National Concession Bus pass” showing a red rose presumable indicating ‘England’ issued by the British government and the Cornwall County Council.

4. The England part of the United Kingdom has adopted the status ‘nation’ (which ceased to exist with the Act of Union with Scotland of 1706) but the Cornish who claim ‘nation’ for Cornwall are dismissed as ‘nationalists’.

5. The downgrading of the Cornish Mining World Heritage Sites by Culture South West.

6. A refusal to answer a CSP letter dated 10th August 2008 by Culture South West.

7. The Audit Commission instructions to the Cornwall County Council not to collect data on the Cornish.

8. The Devon and Cornwall Police failure to comply with their central Chief Constables’ Ethnicity Code for suspects to self-identify because the Home Office standard 16+1 categories for ethnicity do not provide for Cornish.

9. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been sent copious information about the Cornish but takes no action.

It would appear that elected politicians and government Ministers, officials and bureaucrats have responded to the clarion call of a higher power and authority: ‘Who will rid me of these turbulent Cornish questions?’

Such implied ultra vires ‘requests’ would see a revival of the infamously inferred command made by Henry II, 1133-1189, in his solution by other means regarding the turbulence of conscience engendered by the sermons of Thomas Becket, “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest”.

The fear of questions points in the direction of ‘The Secret Constitution’.


15. Duchy of Cornwall exemption - The Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(1) “Information is exempt information if it relates to:- (a) communications with her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household,

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1).

Since the mere mention of a subject matter to a member of the royal family by a Minister of the Crown, or vice versa, is exempt information, this provision effectively admits to the existence of ‘The Secret Constitution’.
The evidence supports the contention that there is; ‘The Secret Constitution’. It appears to engender the exercise of power by other means. undue influence, unjust enrichment, the abuse of power and racism.

Crucially, the British public is deprived of access to the information necessary to establish who exactly is in control, the Crown, or the Duke of Cornwall, or the executive or the legislature.

No information can be obtained regarding the meaning of section 41 of the Tamar Bridge Act 1998. Except that “it is an ordinary saving provision not intended to change the law”. (Department of Justice 31st August 2007).

“Nothing in this act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including the Duchy of Cornwall, and in particular nothing in this Act authorises the authorities to take, use, enter upon or in any manner interfere with any land or hereditaments or any rights of whatsoever description, (a) belonging to the crown or Crown commissioners (b) belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall (c) belonging to a government department”. A very similar statement is to be found at section 50 of the Cornwall County Council Act 1984.

There is no indication as to the circumstances in which the Duke of Cornwall or the Duchy can exercise, what must be taken to mean, state ‘power’ or ‘authority,’ used to exploit Cornish assets, for use elsewhere, but presented to the public as a normal requirement for ‘private commercial’ purposes.

It would appear that nothing should prejudicially affect ; ‘The Secret Constitution’.


16. Duchy of Cornwall exemption - The Land Registration Act 2002

Title to Land. “The Crown is the absolute owner of all land”, Applicable to England and Wales, not Scotland. (The Land Registration Act 2002 Explanatory intro. 4) claimed as a principle established by William the Conqueror in 1066. For the England part of Britain, this claim was effectively repealed by the provision of Magna Charta 1297, Article 29 which affirms “no freeman should be disseised of his freehold or liberties or free customs”. This important provision offered no protection for the Cornish under the dictatorial provisions of “the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments” at the disposal of the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall.

In Cornwall, the separate and separated part of Britain, the Duchy of Cornwall charters were designed to deprive the Cornish, if freemen, of their freehold, liberties and free customs.

“Disapplication of requirements” at section 84, and Note 135 of the Act relating to exemption in respect of the registration of Duchy of Cornwall land. The Secretary to the Duchy of Cornwall has refused to give the House of Commons a list of Duchy properties. (Public Accounts Committee 7th February 2005).

These state authorised conditions, put the state aided Duchy of Cornwall estate in a position to secretly sell ‘impossible’ (The Prince’s Case) land holdings in Cornwall for capital to invest where deeds can be obtained on purchase.
This arrangement is open to the possibility of a very refined form of final solution in respect of historical land fraud. Such conclusions might be drawn from a complete one-stop written constitution, if available.

The Land Registration Act 2002 s.79, asserts: “Her Majesty may grant an estate in fee simple absolute in possession out of the demesne land to Herself”.

The prevention of the transfer of Crown land, or ‘property’ from ‘public’ monarch to ‘private’ monarch should have been settled by Magna Charter 1215, Article 52, and 1297, Article 29. If this was not the case then Magna Charta has been grossly over-rated. This transfer of ‘property’ provision would also be available to the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall as part of Her Majesty in her private capacity as confirmed by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3c).

The Duke of Cornwall is regarded as the appropriate authority with regard to the control of ‘property’ as understood by the foreshore surrounding Cornwall, (The Land Registration Act 2002 section 31).

These provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002, are indicative of the selectivity in the absolute control over land and ‘property’ which, in the absence of a one-stop written constitution and equality before the law, permit legislative bias and racial discrimination.

The uninterrupted possession of one central prescriptive right of the Cornish in respect of Cornish ‘property’ is acknowledged under sections 11, 12 and 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002. It is confirmed by the Land Registry, 5th October 2004, that: “bounding is a customary right”. (The right to stake a claim for the recovery of tin). It was made clear that customary rights are “overriding interests”. “These prescriptive stannary interests to which you refer, are customary rights under customary law”.

Currently, possession can revert to the Duchy of Cornwall in the event of intestacy or bona vacantia. (Supreme Court Act 1981, s.120, Treasury form BVC 3 and Inland Revenue form RE 2152). If these unclaimed properties were classified as ‘waste land’ they could be available for public benefit. (Hampshire County Council v. Milburn & Others, House of Lords, 10th May 1990). Duchy waste land, if reclaimed in the same manner as it was acquired, would be ideal for affordable homes in Cornwall. Legislation along the lines of the Scottish Land Reclamation Act 2003, would be most appropriate.

‘The Secret Constitution’ denies access to the information necessary for the formulation of an informed opinion.


17. Duchy inclusion - Standing Orders of the Westminster Parliament 2008.

In matters of legislation, the Duke of Cornwall shall be consulted by Parliament as provided in its Standing Orders in respect of proposals likely to affect his interests. UK Parliamentary Standing Order No. 7.178 and Scotland No.9.11. (Interests includes ‘property’ per Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s. 40 (2g).

Also, The Cabinet Office publication of October 2004, “Guide to Legislative Procedures”, reveals at para. 14.6, that the Westminster Parliament may not be entirely independent in that it is required to give consideration to:- “the nature of the legislation and the potential impact it may have on Duchy (of Cornwall) operations and/or privileges”. The search for the meaning, number and extent of the ‘operations and privileges’ available for one person appears to indicate their support through state aid by various legislative and executive types of assistance. .

A manager of a private estate does not have legislative powers.

There is an ‘injunction’ in the House of Commons regarding questions concerning the Duchy of Cornwall. (Letter to Andrew George M.P, 16.06.1997)

The evidence reveals that the Duke exercises ‘King’s Writ’ control over aspects of English legislation for the transference of wealth from Cornwall to England, even though, in England “The use of the King’s writ by the heir to the throne out of possession is void”. (Halsbury’s, Constitutional Law, Ed.4, Vol.8, para.902).

A manager of a private estate does not have ‘the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments’ for profit.

The Paymaster General has revealed in the House of Commons 9th July 2002, (Doc.76), “The basis of the memorandum of understanding is the long standing rule of statutory construction that statutes do not bind the Crown, including the Queen in her private capacity (includes the Duke of Cornwall), unless they are expressly enabled to do so by necessary implications”.

A manager of a private estate is not exempt from legislation neither is he the beneficiary of a parliamentary ‘memorandum of understanding’.

The Magna Charta concept of constitutional control of the Monarchy has been completely eroded. The obedient subject aspiring to become a participating citizen urgently needs a one-stop constitution containing a guarantee of equality before the law and a list of the rights and enforceable duties required of those in power.

It is contended that ‘The Secret Constitution’ has been used to justify the abuse of power as having the implied authority of the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown.

18. The Cornish Agenda

To promote the introduction of a written one-stop British Constitution to provide all British peoples and individuals with a central reference point on information regarding their rights and the means to control people in power.

To re-instate Cornish rights under the Charter of Pardon 1508.

To work for the transposition of United Nations Declarations, Conventions and Covenants into British law, including:- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1969; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976; Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, No. 47/135/1992.

To ensure that the public has the right to expect that all persons acting in an official capacity apply the principle of equality before the law in all their decisions and provide a guarantee to the right of equality before the law for everyone.

To secure inclusion of the Cornish within all the human rights provisions of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

To achieve parity with the administration provisions of Scotland and Wales.

To expose and confront the abuse of power behind a secret constitution.

To establish an official British definition of :- constitution, national minority, race, diversity, ethnicity, property, impartiality, culture, remedy and freedom.

To expose the fraud of state subsidised English political parties using taxpayers money to promote English nationalism in Cornwall as a disgrace to the principles of democracy sponsored by the United Nations.

To obtain financial and legal support for High Court action against the incumbent Government of the United Kingdom to end institutionalised discrimination against the Cornish. “The courts will not assume without the clearest language that Parliament intended to destroy common law rights of the Crown’s subjects by placing them at the mercy of an irresponsible tribunal or irresponsible department of state”. (Rendall v. Blair [1890] 45 Ch.D. 139, at p.155, per Bowen L.J.).

Cornish Stannary Parliament, Camborne, May 2008

The unwritten British Constitution is a refusal by people in power to communicate to those subject to that power the extent of that power and the rights available to prevent and/or effectively remedy the abuse of that power. Consequently, it is contended, that the unwritten British constitution constitutes a conspiracy against the British public.

Contact the Stannary Information Office Email:- Stannary Parliament – Charter Quincentennial Year 2008.