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.
Copy of Charter of Pardon - Accepted as evidence at a Trial at Bar ROWE v BRENTON 1829
1. The reason for the Cornish Stannary Veto The reason behind the outstandingly unique Cornish Stannary veto in the Charter of Pardon of 1508 is that Cornwall was recognised as a nation by England. The ownership of the Stannaries was claimed by the Crown for the heir to the throne, the Duke of Cornwall, by the first Charter of creation of the Duchy of Cornwall of 1337 which confirmed the Stannary laws accepted in the Stannary Charter of 1305. This Duchy Charter of 1337 was published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) in 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional law 10. The second Duchy Charter, issued one day after the first, which gave the Duke the power to act as the government of Cornwall without the impediment of elections, was not published by HMSO in 1978. The Charter of Pardon 1508 to the Stannaries of Cornwall was also not published by HMSO in 1978, although all three Duchy charters and the Stannary Charter of Pardon 1508 had been accepted at a Trial at Bar held under the Lord Chief Justice in 1829 as “records and documents as given in evidence”. The Royal Mines Act 1693, listed by HMSO in 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional law 7, provides: “nothing in this Act shall alter or make void the Charters of the Stannaries”. Stannary law encouraged free enterprise by administering the right for any registered tinner to bound any land (i.e. stake a claim) to work the land to recover tin. We believe that the Charter of Pardon 1508 reveals royal recognition of the indigenous national minority and cultural rights of the Cornish people.
2. A secret British constitution
The actual British constitution, if written down as it stands today, with all its secrets revealed, would provide a serious shock for most thinking people. It should occasion an investigation into the Duchy of Cornwall and uncover the reasons why the Cornish Stannary Parliament was in a position to secure, in 1508, the Charter right to refuse consent or, in effect, exercise the veto of any Act, Statute or provision made by the Duke of Cornwall, the Crown or Parliament that might be considered prejudicial to the interests of the Cornish people. By Charter of 1337, deemed to be an Act of Parliament by Lord Coke in 1606, the Duke was awarded the Stannaries. The Duke now claims private status for the Duchy apparently to avoid any likelihood of scrutiny, censure or veto. A ‘private’ Duchy was rejected by the House of Commons assertion:- “The grant of Edward III (1337) which constituted the Duchy of Cornwall was an Act of Parliament, and could only stand as an Act of Parliament. But not only had the property been created by Act of Parliament, but it has been constantly dealt with by Act of Parliament”. “The Prince of Wales has no right but by Act of Parliament”. (Hansard, 26th March 1850, Vol.CIX, p.1378). It is no longer possible for Members of the Westminster Parliament to indulge in investigative debates on the Duchy of Cornwall. An injunction has been imposed. (House of Commons Library letter to Andrew George M.P., 16th June 1997). Perhaps the injunction is part of the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown made by all M.Ps. This suppression of Westminster Parliamentary freedom of expression indicates the possible existence of a parallel secret British constitution warranting investigation.
3. The denial of Minority rights
The Charter Veto has become important as a focal point for everyone determined to ensure the survival of the Cornish people and their Celtic language and culture, since, for the past ten years the Cornish Stannary Parliament, and other Cornish organisations, have presented to the government the case for the Cornish to be included within the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Clearly reflecting its concern to protect its undeclared and unlimited state aid for the Duchy of Cornwall Estate, the government, in October 2007, for the third occasion, refused to include the Cornish within the provisions of the Council of Europe’s human rights Framework Convention. It is of serious concern that the government of the United Kingdom has also, over the same period, excluded Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) from the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 13 provides ‘an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity’. In addition, the United Nations Universal Declaration on the Rights of Peoples was blocked by the government of the United Kingdom on 15th November 2004. The rest of the World has agreed, in effect, to recognise the ‘Cornish people’ in the following terms:-Article 1 – Any group of persons who have a common reference to a culture and their own historical tradition, developed within a determinate geographical territory or other environments, constitute a people.
Articles 2/3 – Any people has the right to identify itself and set itself up as a nation.
Article 5 - Any people has the right to exist freely whatever its demographic size.
Article 9.1 – Any people has the right to express and develop its culture, its language and its organisational forms, and in order to do so, to provide for its own political, educational, communications and public administration structures within the framework of its sovereignty.
Article 10 – Any people has the right to dispose of the natural resources in its own territory. Article 12 – Any people has the right to be fully recognised by the international community.The denial of minority rights extends to the important area of culture. However, having accepted UNESCO World Heritage status for 27 sites, the government of the United Kingdom is obliged to accept the accompanying rules as determined by UNESCO who affirm: “cultural pluralism is conducive to cultural exchange and the flowering of the creative potential that sustains life in society”. In ‘The NARA Document on Authenticity’ of 1994, UNESCO warns: “the search for cultural identity is sometimes pursued through aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the cultures of minorities”. In England, a political manifesto all too often ignores cultural pluralism and cultural authenticity.
4. The denial of Human Rights
The denied and excluded Article 13 ECHR (3) confirms Article 2 (3a) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (CCPR), which is also excluded from UK law. In addition, the government has obtained an opt out from the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Treaty of the European Union and continues to deny a constitutional guarantee of equality before the law as provided at Article 7 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The main United Nations rights of the individual, have been ratified but not incorporated into the laws of the United Kingdom. They are:- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”, (CERD); “The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, (CESC); “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, (CCPR); “The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities”, (UN Minorities Declaration), and, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, (UDHR). By failing to incorporate United Nations Conventions into UK laws British citizens are not properly protected against any official abuse of crown immunity. Constitutional experts should now accept the British constitution as being completely naked without the clothing of equality before the law.
5. Officially sponsored bias
Although there is no law to deny the ‘Cornish people’ the right to exist as a national minority, there is no proportionate per-capita state funding for the indigenous Cornish culture and Celtic language. In denial of authenticity, there is, only constitutional funding for English culture and language. The privileges provided by the British state for the Duchy of Cornwall appear to require its assistance in the suppression of Cornish culture and represents solid grounds for the suspicion of officially sponsored racial discrimination and bias against the pre-England indigenous ‘Cornish people’, known for the production of tin and a civilised society 300BC. From ‘The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek’, Professor Barry Cunliffe, Oxford University, 2002, but ignored in the English schools history curriculum.
6. The English double tax on the Cornish ‘foreigners’
“They began with the county of Cornwall” (Royal Demesne in English History, by B.P. Wolffe, Allen & Unwin, 1971. p.53) reveals a constitutional struggle to determine whether or not the Crown’s income should be dependent on the Westminster Parliament. Westminster established an early precedent of : “reluctance to supplement the hereditary revenues from taxation”, (Report of the Committee on Crown Lands 1955, CMD 9483), i.e., a reluctance to impose a royal tax on the English national majority to pay for the public duties of the Duke of Cornwall as heir to the throne. The fame of the wealth of Cornish tin in 1337 offered an attractive ‘foreign’ solution to this struggle of Crown v. Parliament, especially, where a customary English double tax for foreigners could be collected on Cornish tin production. The constitutional double tax on the tin production of Cornish ‘foreigners’ prevailed until 1838. (The Stannaries, G.R. Lewis, Harvard, 1908, Apx, J+K; Lord Coke 4th Inst 33; Henry VII, A.F. Pollard, Longmans Green, 1913, Vol.1, Int.47). However, since history has been revised by academics expected to assert English racial supremacy over the Cornish, the fact remains that in relation to the Celts, it is the English who are foreign to Britain.
7. Modern Duchy rights and privileges
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 number and extent of the ‘operations and privileges’ for a ‘private’ commercial estate is not listed. It is presumably a state secret. The extent of Duke and Duchy control over Acts of the Westminster Parliament is to be found in Parliamentary Standing Order No. 7.178. This indicates that the Duchy history of crown supremacy and crown immunity are supported by English feudal policies still in force today. (2) A constitution shrouded in state secrecy prevents an accurate determination of the extent to which the Duke and his Duchy of Cornwall officials actually exercise executive, legislative, constitutional and political functions behind the scenes.
8. Duchy – secret, constitutional and commercial
Under section 37 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, the Duchy can claim land ‘reputed’ to be its property, while its Management Act of 1982, at section 8 provides: “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. This would appear to indicate that ‘The Treasury’ is in a statutory position to give priority to the planning and property interests of the ‘private’ Duchy Estate against all others. “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 Constitutional Unit, University College London, 2002). The reader is not informed of the position of crown immunity; the reason for the alleged transformation nor at what point in history such a significant constitutional change is said to have taken place.
9. The Duchy government of Cornwall
A Duchy government was imposed on Cornwall by the separate second Duchy charter granting the Duke “the King’s Writ and summons of exchequer and attachments “ in Cornwall the day after the original Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 17th March 1337. A confirmation third charter was made one year later. These additional Duchy Charters are not referenced in official documents, (though referenced as legal documents by Lord Coke 1606 and the Rowe v. Brenton, Trial at Bar, 1829). Duchy of Cornwall properties including minerals and foreshore are recorded as “territorial possessions” in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. The second and third Duchy of Cornwall Charters conferred dictatorial government in Cornwall upon the Duke through the right to exercise ‘the King’s Writ’, etc,. although this would be null and void if exercised within the Kingdom of England. The fact that the exercise of the King’s writ by the heir to the throne is not legal “by the rightful heir out of possession” (1 Bl com 14th Ed. 249, & Lord Coke 3 Co.Inst 7 and Halsbury’s Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., Vol.8, para 902, Butterworths 1974) indicates that Cornwall was being officially treated as a separate country, i.e. not part of England. The power of “the King’s writ and Summons of Exchequer and attachments” in Cornwall provided Duchy immunity and placed the Duke and the officials of the Duchy Estate above English law and the Cornish population beyond Magna Charta. The modern privilege of the non-enforceability of laws against the Duchy appears to indicate acknowledgement or compensation for the loss of some of the powers of the government of Cornwall. These were considerable before the Reform Act 1832, when ‘the King’s Writ’ etc., enabled the Duke of Cornwall to create 44 constituencies in Cornwall, for his nominees to the Westminster Parliament, while other power structures, presumably not claiming to be private, within the constitution allocated 45 constituencies to Scotland. To allay English sensitivities, and display loyally to the Crown, English historians have euphemistically described these apparently constitutional Duchy rotten boroughs as Cornish rotten boroughs. The same constitutional or unconstitutional powers of the Duchy were also applied to the selection of members of the Cornish Stannary Parliament. Objectively, the Reform Act of 1832 can be seen as a delayed and minimal reaction to the principle of equality nurtured by the French Revolution. It was not until 1800 that the English monarchy finally abandoned its centuries old claim to the title of King of France.
10. A reason cannot be found
The Duchy Charter of 1337, published as in force in 1978, still claims ‘The Stannaries’ as its own. The Stannaries represented the cornerstone of state aid for the accumulation of Duchy wealth. Although the Royal Mines Act 1688, affirms “there shall be no royal mine of tin”, the fact that the Act was officially exceptionally ignored for the benefit of Duchy operations in Cornwall indicates the importance attached to the Stannaries by successive English governments. The Duke has royal mines of gold and silver in Cornwall. The Treasure Act 1996, and S.I. No.2666 of 2002, provides the Duke of Cornwall with treasure trove of gold and silver and base minerals such as tin. Discoveries would appear to be intended for the private use of the Duke. Lord Coke, in his ‘Case of the Stannaries, 1606’, 12 Co.Rep.9, states, in relation to the Royal claim to the Stannaries “now a reason cannot easily be rendered of things done before time of memory”. It is contended that, the Duke of Cornwall, having acquired the Stannaries “before the time of memory”, is busy persuading politicians to protect him from democratic exposure by erecting “private” and “crown immunity” barriers. There is also no reason but the habit of centuries of racial discrimination against the ‘Cornish people’ for the English denial of the indigenous national credentials of the ‘Cornish people’ . Why register the Cornish as ethnically ‘British’ or, ‘White’? Consistency would demand the renaming of English Heritage as British or White Heritage. Such nationalist policies prevent the quest for ‘authenticity’ within the English schools history curriculum. The suggestion of a conspiracy behind the exclusion of equality before the law throughout British constitutional history is dismissed as subversive and anti-royal. The system demands abject deference to protect the Stannary interests of the Duchy of Cornwall and to avoid dialogue and research.
11. State Aid by intestate estates and bona vacantia
“Territorial possessions” (9) and “a reason cannot easily be rendered” (10) may explain why modern English legislation provides for the prevention of investigation by giving exemption to the Duchy of Cornwall from the registration of its land, acquired as the government of Cornwall, under the Land Registration Act 2002, sections 79; 84; 85. Explanatory Notes:- 4*; 135; 136. Why there is an exemption for the Duchy is not officially explained. As Lord Paramount of Cornwall the Duke’s alleged ‘private’ estate should be registered to avoid any suspicion of unjustifiable acquisitions through recourse to the ancient English mythology that all land belongs to the Crown* or, in the case of Cornwall, to the Duke of Cornwall. Special rights exist for the Duchy under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which give the Duke “the right to intervene in proceedings affecting” (his) “rights, property and profits” and the Companies Act 1984, section 654 and section 120 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 covers the administration of bankrupt companies for the Duchy to acquire, through bona vacantia, all such assets in Cornwall. (Treasury Form BVC3). The Treasury takes care of the liabilities. The Inland Revenue and Customs (Form No. RE2152) administers the transfer of intestate estate assets in Cornwall to the Duke. Such secret constitutional state aid puts any challenger, of alleged government racial discrimination on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate, at a serious disadvantage in any legal dispute. The suspicion is aroused that while the public pays no tax for the Duke, and the Duke has an ‘independent’ income, everyone is happy, as long as the Celtic history of Cornwall and the identity of the Cornish is suppressed.
12. Duchy specials
For the mutual benefit of the Crown and the permanent English racial majority in the Westminster Parliament, handing control of the land and minerals of the indigenous Cornish minority to the Duke of Cornwall as a source of non-taxable income for the private use and public duties of the Duke as heir to the throne, was officially welcomed in place of the transparency of an income from the problematic imposition of a royal tax on the general public. The Duchy of Cornwall Estate is, therefore, an emanation of the state and the beneficiary of undeclared constitutional state aid through dedicated supportive legislation under the protection of crown immunity for any ‘Duchy specials’ commercial operation.
13. The official denial of Magna Charta
Magna Charta was intended to bring an avaricious King under control. Article 29 of Magna Charta 1297, still in force, proclaims: “no freeman shall be desseised (dispossessed) of his freehold”. In asserting a freeman’s right to freehold property, Magna Charta was clearly intended to ensure that the Crown would have no right to claim all land, or to arbitrarily select certain areas at will, such as the claim to the Stannaries in the Duchy Charters of 1337. Alternatively, there are no freemen, or, only English men qualify as freemen. The claim to all land as Crown land (11) is clearly in conflict with Magna Charta. Where the Crown or Parliament exercises the right to take and dispose of land, without consultation or compensation, then that absolute crown immunity right may appeal to the racial majority but offers no protection against a decision to take and retain the land of the Cornish people on racially motivated grounds. Magna Charta may have inspired the world but it has failed to inspire a written British constitution with a guarantee of equality before the law. It is contended that, the constraints imposed on the Westminster Parliament; (2) & (7); the censored Article 13 (4) and Protocol 12 (ECHR) (no discrimination by public authority); the opt out from EU fundamental rights; the royal and ministerial exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 37 and the denial of UN individual rights, has created a legal vacuum within which crown immunity is exploited to achieve the virtually unchallengeable freedom to maintain and develop a refined insular structure which unchecked, threatens to develop into a totalitarian British state based on the example of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate.
14. Abolish laws contrary to equality
The legal means for cleaning up the mal-administration of the insular English system is catered for under ‘The Race Directive’ 2000/43/EU Article 14 which stipulates:- “Compliance - Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that: (a) any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished”. This should provide the means to achieve an open and transparent development of the constitution through the repeal of all those ancient and modern English laws of privilege and crown immunity for the profit of a ‘private’ constitutional and commercial estate. The legal obligation to repeal unequal laws was transposed into European Community law in 2003 from Article 2 (c) of the U N Race Discrimination Convention. (CERD). No action has as yet been taken by the government of the United Kingdom.
15. Constitutional authority for collective punishment
The suppression of the national identity of Cornwall and the ‘Cornish people’ is apparently considered officially necessary to maintain the continuing misrepresentation and no-go areas of British history covering the Duchy of Cornwall Estate and suppressing the reasons for its creation by Charter for the heir to the throne. The Duchy of Cornwall Estate is now deemed to be ‘private’ simply, it is contended, to prevent an investigation of government policies of special commercial “operations and privileges” (7) and protection by crown immunity for the estates of the heir to the throne. These policies indicate that the British Constitution has harboured, since 1337, when the ‘Cornish people’ were monoglot Cornish speakers, direct and indirect racial discrimination, and in effect, collective punishment, against the Cornish people. Punished for being Cornish and being the source of a royal fortune the exposure of which is considered detrimental to royal and English national interests. Centuries after the turbulence of the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, English politicians and academics betray a national fear of anticipated official censure regarding constitutional questions centring on the taboo of silence surrounding the principle of equality before the law.
16. Return Cornish cultural assets taken for ‘private’ Duchy income
Unfortunately, English people are in denial of their European and Germanic roots, an emotional reaction which has led to the erroneous conclusion that there are no roots and therefore, the Celtic roots of the ‘Cornish people’ are also denied. The self-denial of one’s own roots has found its psychological justification in the perverse denial of the roots of others. The result is that the denial of the right of the ‘Cornish people’ to exist eliminates cultural competition to achieve English racial supremacy. We, nevertheless, as a declaration of our national identity as ‘a people’ in international law, intend to continue our well established policy of legal action as necessary to give effect to the veto of current laws sustaining Duchy of Cornwall in its acquisition of property, including Tintagel castle, based on the powers of crown immunity and “the King’s Writ” etc., (9). Much of Duchy property in Cornwall, gratuitously acquired, should now be returned, some for affordable housing. (13).
17. State ownership for private gain
The Crown Estate provides affordable housing, promotes public causes and cultural support covering the United Kingdom with the exception of Cornwall. (Civil List Act 1760 and Crown Estate Act 1961 requiring the avoidance of monopoly decisions). The Crown Estate has no holdings in Cornwall and makes no investments in Cornwall. Since 1337, the income from, or sale of, Cornish land and minerals by the Duchy of Cornwall Estate has provided an income for private affairs and public duties for the Duke of Cornwall, as heir to the throne, and also provides funding for investment outside Cornwall. Without a detailed rebuttal, such grounds for the suspicion of bias raises questions as to the meaning of state ownership for private gain in the British Constitution.
18. No law is good law for those in power
It is suspected that the Duchy exemption from the Freedom of Information Act avoids the publication of an honest reason for the retention of an insular system designed for minority exploitation. National and political pride has taken precedence over constitutional principles. Without legislation which would guarantee equality before the law as of right for everyone, effective minority rights in the United Kingdom are not possible where they appear to challenge alleged racially motivated constitutional rights of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate. The unconstitutional dogma of crown immunity and the modern legal cover-up facility of the public interest immunity certificate, constitutes a plot against the public designed to render an effective remedy virtually impossible. This is especially the case with regard to Duchy policies concerning the wealth and identity of the Cornish national minority. With no written constitution, English political parties appear to agree that; ‘No law is good law for those in power’. Without a detailed rebuttal, such grounds for the suspicion of bias call into question the private property claims by, for, and on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate and raises doubts as to the efficacy of the apparent exemption of the Duchy of Cornwall from the constitutional discipline of enforceable human rights.
19. Intimidation by public bodies
We, furthermore, deplore the English ‘administrative provisions’ which display indifference to diversity by denying the international right of the ‘Cornish people’ to exist as a national minority with no reason given. This policy is assisted by failing to adopt international laws designed to prevent the abuse of power. The abuse of power is particularly manifest in such instances as the arrest of members of the Cornish Stannary Parliament and the removal of their history books, human rights and Public Inquiry material, etc, in denial of Freedom of Expression and in a futile attempt to intimidate the messenger. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights (ECHR) provides:- “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority…….” It is contended that crown immunity permits permanent interference by public authority with access to information, and therefore, constitutes an official denial of freedom of expression.
20. The Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch
It is apparently not being considered that such specific accusations of overt official bias and discriminatory policies offends the good faith displayed by the Monarchy when it was pleased to accept the inclusion of the principle of a veto in the Charter of Pardon of 1508 in order to protect the interests of the indigenous ‘Cornish people’, a national minority with their own traditions and language. Legal protection for the ‘Cornish people’ is still necessary to deter the abuse of political power by those who have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. As to whether or not the Oath bestows absolute or conditional crown immunity has not been clearly defined by official or constitutional sources. On the other hand, the Oath of Allegiance has been defined by Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police in the Sunday Times of 28th October 2007, as comprising: “four guiding principles, - fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality”. These principles are not apparent in the exercise of the ‘administrative provisions’ which are having a prejudicial impact upon Cornwall and the Cornish people. There is no indication that the Oath of Allegiance is enforceable, and therefore, it is only of curiosity value to the individual citizen. It must be assumed that the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown by persons acting in an official capacity, excludes the taking of any other oath. Clearly, the Official Oath’s requirement of “integrity and impartiality” would be seriously called into question if persons acting in an official capacity were permitted to take any other oath. If the Monarch is the constitutional guarantor of “rights” then, why is there no right for the ‘Cornish people’ to exist as a national minority?
21. Fulfil obligations in good faith
Under modern laws, such as the United Nations Charter, it is contended, that the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the European Union’s “fundamental rights”, as part of a regional international agreement, places it in conflict with the UN Charter, and under such circumstances, the European Union agreement is considered eligible for deletion as null and void because United Nations obligations shall prevail The opt out “understanding” with the EU is considered inconsistent in particular, with regard to Article 103 of the UN Charter (“UN obligations shall prevail”) and Article 2 (2):- “All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, (of the United Nations) shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter”. ‘Good faith’ would appear to indicate that the United Kingdom, as a Member State of the UN, has accepted that UN obligations shall prevail. This is, however, not the case where world acclaim for ratification at the international level is sought, while, silence and inaction at the domestic level is the order of the day to avoid the incorporation of those ratified UN provisions into the laws of the United Kingdom. It is actually possible for a Monarchy to guarantee equality before the law and accept the concomitant obligations. The constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden provides 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”.
22. Living up to authenticity
Riding on the reputation of Magna Charta gives no substance to the British Constitution. (13). The integrity of the Parliament at Westminster and the stability of the system would require the lifting of unjustified restrictions on Parliamentary debates. (2 & 7). Injunction free debates could inspire a statutory guarantee of equality before the law (18) obligatory even for the Duchy of Cornwall. (9). If the transposition of UNESCO ‘authenticity’ (3) and United Nations Conventions (4) into the laws and legal principles of the United Kingdom, were made “in good faith” as agreed, (21), an effective remedy would be available against official bias and racial discrimination, (14 & 19). Democracy is intended to include the protection of every British citizen against the abuse of power. (11 & 12). An abuse is possible when secret decisions are made between the Crown and Ministers (17) under an exception from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.37, (13). If the principle of open debate on a constitution for everyone were accepted in the British national interest, (15) the question would arise as to whether the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown (20) should exclude all other oaths for persons acting in an official capacity and also call other taboos (8) into question such as the totalitarian concept of crown immunity. (10). If the acclaimed “integrity and impartiality” of the Oath of Allegiance (20) were transposed into a practical British constitutional public benefit, it would demonstrate ‘authenticity’; and tolerance for cultural pluralism and provide the basis for guaranteeing recognition of the ‘Cornish people’ (4) by extending the principle of automatic funding for the English heritage and language to the culture and language of the Cornish nation (1 & 16) of pre-England British origins.(5 & 6).
23. Is a Constitution for everyone necessary?
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:- email@example.com.Cornish Stannary Parliament – Charter Quincentennial Year 2008.