The bias in English law.

Thursday, October 26 2006 @ 12:17 AM BST

Contributed by: Admin

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.




Compared to official condemnation of abuses of democracy abroad, the law which bans the flying of the popular Cornish flag, but not the English flag, betrays contempt for the British cultural heritage of the Cornish minority. The response in each case seems designed to promote English national supremacy in Britain and around the globe and conceal the unresolved psychological conflict of being in self-denial of actual Germanic roots. The Cornish Stannary Parliament successfully resisted a similar law inspired ban on the Cornish flag in 1995.

The historical residue of official intolerance displayed towards the Celtic contribution to British history, such as the Stannaries, calls into question English sincerity in matters of cultural diversity and democracy.

Is this system strong enough to reject its own aggressive history and provide a statutory guarantee of equality before the law to ensure the survival of the cultural heritage of the indigenous Celts of Cornwall?

By law of a Charter of 17th March 1337, the first born son of the Monarch is always the Duke of Cornwall and heir to the throne. He becomes the largest institutional land owner in Cornwall and is usually created the Prince of Wales. By law of a charter of 16th March 1337, (II EdIII 55) King Edward III recognised Cornwall as a place, "over which awhile ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers".

This acknowledgement was made one day before the royal charter described as 'creating the Duchy of Cornwall'. If the 'chief rulers' of Cornwall had been English there would have been no need to create a Duchy, since, there can be no doubt that an independent 'Dukedom' (similar to Luxembourg) had previously been in existence.

Clearly, Edward III recognised Cornwall (Kernow) as the land of the Cornish people and he respected the fact that they had not taken it away from anyone else.

Edward the Third's recorded desire to link England with pre-England British wealth and history, documents his confession to foreign land acquisition. If the terms of Magna Charta are applicable to Cornwall, then, Article 52 would apply:- "To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties or rights without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these". Church leaders witnessed both Magna Charta 1215, and the Duchy charter 1337, as 'for ever' or, with 'inalienable' rights. Unless the words in Magna Charta have no meaning in the English language, the most reasonable interpretation of Article 52 is that the Cornish have been illegally deprived of their land and minerals.

In Cornwall, special laws provide the Duke of Cornwall with land; mines; minerals; intestate estates; bona vacantia; treasure trove, (gold and silver plus base metals); wreck; and 'regalities' or royal powers. Duchy of Cornwall rights are officially classified as 'inalienable'. (Inalienable:- that which cannot be taken away and, in the case of land, not subject to compulsory purchase).

The untold story of England's failed conquest of Cornwall centres upon the law as made in the second Duchy charter of 18th March 1337 which provided Dukes with governmental powers, in Cornwall only, in the form of, "the King's writ and summons' of exchequer". These absolutist powers, tried and tested in Cornwall, were in later years found suitable to control the Empire.

Imperial laws exercised by the Dukes became a disaster when King Charles the First endeavoured to apply, throughout the Kingdom as a whole, his experience gained as Duke of Cornwall, which created, 'the divine right of Dukes' and inevitably led to the equally notorious 'divine right of Kings'. For Cornwall, the Duchy charters have not been repealed.







It would appear that King Edward III, who did not refer to Cornwall as a county, intended to re-create an independent Duchy with the Duke as Viceroy governing Cornwall as an apprenticeship for Kingship. The English Duchy of Cornwall (the first in Britain) was created by a charter of 17th March 1337, (Published by HMSO 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law 10). Recognising the special position of Cornwall, the charter declares, "and desiring that remarkable places of our Kingdom may be distinguished by their pristine honours". (Pristine:- ancient; original; pure; uncorrupted).

In former times "the King was the law", but has Britain yet arrived in the democratic age of "the law is King", or, in constitutional terms, the provision of protection against the abuse of power with a statutory guarantee of equality before the law?

Exceptionally in the U.K., the Duke appoints the Sheriff of Cornwall. Under the 'Articles of Agreement' between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall made law in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858, the Duchy was awarded the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall as "part of the territorial possessions of the Duchy". A 'territorial possession' is property held by a state, often, another state. By the law as determined in 'The Princes Case' of 1606 the whole of Cornwall was adjudged to be the Duchy of Cornwall.

Both 'inalienable' possessions and 'territorial' possessions are indicative of state ownership of property, a nationalised utility or institutional possessions.

That the government acts as the guarantor of the Duchy of Cornwall estate is to be evinced from the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863-1982. To avoid the possibility of a profligate Duke squandering the assets, and thereby obliging Westminster to resort to general taxation for the upkeep of the heir to the throne, the Treasury has been appointed to authorise most of the commercial activities of the Duchy estate with a remit to maximise profits.

'Regalities', currently made applicable to the Duke in the Management Acts, are in fact the 'attributes of Kingly power' normally attached to the Crown in feudal society and formerly known as 'the divine right of Kings'.

'Mines and minerals' not 'stannaries' is given in the text of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863-1982 whereas, the Duchy Charter of 1337 gives 'stannaries' not 'mines and minerals'. This misquote may be a futile attempt to disassociate the Duchy from the 'Stannaries' in order to facilitate a claim to private ownership of 'mines and minerals' (or mineral rights) in Cornwall.

'Stannaries' is the Cornish organisation for the administration of tin production and attendant social welfare developed before the Christian era. ('Stannary' from Celtic Cornish 'sten', tin; accepted into late Latin as 'stannum'- Classical Latin rendered 'tin' as 'plumbum album' - white lead).

The Cornish were recognised by Greeks and Romans as being exporters of tin and civilised from at least 300BC. (Tin in Antiquity, R.D. Penhallurick, Institute of Metals, London 1986)

At the present time the Duke considers his 'territorial possessions' to be a private estate, with extensive mineral rights throughout Cornwall. Duchy rights are in conflict with the Royal Mines Act 1688 by which, "no tin or copper mine shall be adjudged to be a royal mine". By comparison with this disregard of English law in Cornwall, the law in Anglo-Saxon England imposes restrictions on the management of Crown land. "The Crown Estate comprises the lands and other rights including minerals which the monarch enjoys in her political capacity". (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol.12(1) Crown Estate, para. 278 - Crown Estate Act 1961). The bias is strikingly apparent.

'In a political capacity' is also synonymous with state ownership and, 'in a political capacity' would apply equally to the mineral rights of the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall and negate claims to private ownership.







The claims made to 'inalienable' ownership of, " 'our' Stannaries and 'our' Stannary Court of Cornwall", rest on the stipulation of "for ever" in the text of the Duchy Charter of 1337 creating Cornwall as an English Duchy. At that time, Magna Charta was also considered to be 'inalienable'. The concept "Stannaries" was, therefore, also accepted as "inalienable" for the Cornish as being a formerly independent people under their own 'chief rulers'. The inclusion as 'our stannaries and our stannary courts' in the Duchy charters is acknowledgement, by the King as government, of a politically acquired possession by the state. All three Duchy charters were confirmed by Lord Coke in 'The Princes Case' of 1606 as being, equivalent to an Act of Parliament.

'Our' was used in 1337 in the sense of 'our' Kingdom or 'our' courts and is indicative of being taken from one state by another or acquired by the King in his political capacity as ruler rather than personal ownership. Confirmation of the concept of being held in trust by the state is to be found in; 'The Case of Mines 1568', where it was ruled that "the King (Duke) had no interest in the thing (tin) itself". (Plowden Commentaries 1761, page 330).

The documented royal exercise of the right to the pre-emption of tin (a royal prerogative right to buy) is further proof of the impossibility of current royal claims to justifiable ownership of land and minerals in Cornwall. Lord Coke states categorically; "It shall be absurd that the King shall reserve the emption of his own tin". In his 'Case of the Stannaries' (12 Co. Rep. 9 to 12) Lord Coke also affirms; "these mines are of great antiquity" which, translated into common sense English, means, of pre-England origin.

It follows that the intellectual, property and mineral rights of the Stannaries belongs to the Cornish and not to either the Crown or the English people.

Even within the context of the world wide principle of equality before the law, 'inalienability' for the Duke must apply equally to the Cornish, since, the presumption of King Edward III was that the pre-England 'stannaries', and associated mineral rights, would continue into the future for the benefit of future heirs to the throne.

The constitutional arrangement that was established between the Crown and the Stannaries was necessary to legitimise the position but was arbitrarily ended by the Duke in 1752. From that time the Crown/Duchy avoided convening a Stannary parliament that had set a precedent in challenging royal and Duchy claims.

The dictionary gives the meaning of 'equality' as:- "Having the same privileges, status or rights in political, economic and social affairs.

If the Duchy were indeed private, no other common private estate is considered to be equally 'inalienable' when required by the state under compulsory purchase laws to satisfy a genuine public interest. By what legitimate reason could the English majority claim the mineral rights and land of the Cornish national minority so as to avoid contributing towards an income for the heir to the throne?

Would this policy of the majority arranging for majority exemption from a national liability satisfy an independent and impartial court as being legitimate?

Essentially, the motivation for deeming the Duchy charter to be an Act of Parliament, was clearly, to secure for the monarchy a permanent income free from the constitutional requirement of Parliamentary scrutiny, and for Members of Parliament, freedom from the burden of imposing additional taxation on their constituents for the upkeep of the heir to the throne. In recent times, to avoid this truth and the historical facts, the 'our' of the charter has been unofficially 'deemed' to mean a 'private' possession.

This manipulation of English language legal terms betrays the vain hope that a mere assertion is of sufficient authority to change the facts and assume a change in the law provided that the effort will engender the approval and satisfaction of the English national majority.







The 'stannaries', documented as an "inalienable" right, gives the formerly independent Cornish people the right to claim as 'inalienable' all the necessarily indispensable historic British attributes associated with the concept 'stannaries'. That is to say, it includes an 'inalienable' intellectual property right to the ownership of their own cultural heritage, language and control over Cornish archaeological monuments along with a legitimate expectation of a meaningful investment of profits from the Duke's estates in Cornwall into Cornwall's Celtic cultural heritage and language by the British government.

Some suggest that the Cornish should fund their own language, but, there is no suggestion that the state should discontinue pouring millions of pounds annually into teaching English people, and foreigners around the world, to speak English.

However, the Westminster Parliament claims sovereignty. (Sovereign:- The power to give and to take away at will any thing at any time). For what reason, then, can the provisions of the Charters of Edward the Third in recognition of the Cornish and their cultural traditions be denied and suppressed, while, on the other hand, those provisions of the Duchy Charters for the profit of the Duke of Cornwall are accepted and actively protected and promoted by the English national majority at Westminster?

If English people believe that the upkeep of the heir to the throne is a legitimate public expense then, should they not, in all honesty, expect to make a contribution?
If the Duchy estate is alleged to be private then why did Lord Coke rule in 1606 that the Duchy Charters of 1337 were equivalent to an Act of Parliament? Are the Duchy Charters now to be interpreted according to the rules applicable to statutes? If so, the omission of the Isles of Scilly from the Charters renders the Duchy claim to ownership null and void. The Charters include 'Stannaries' without qualification, which means, the acceptance of the integral 'Cornish Stannary Parliament' and 'bounding' as law.

The Land Registry has accepted that under the Land Registration Act 2004 'bounding' is a legal custom in Cornwall, and that "customary rights are overriding interests".

In continually voting for the exploitation of the 'territorial' land, foreshore and mineral assets of the formerly independent Cornish national minority, the English national majority at Westminster is subjecting the Cornish national minority to the abuse of majority power.

Would the English majority in the British Parliament accept a duty to impose extra taxation on their constituents to support the heir to the throne, the Duke of Cornwall, if Cornish assets were returned to the Cornish people as a basis upon which to develop their own, currently unfunded, traditions, culture and language?

State funding is available for schools to teach any foreign language in the world, including Latin, but not the language of the indigenous Celtic Cornish. Does this academic approach conceal the politics of envy towards the Cornish because they were here in Britain long before the arrival of the English?

The evidence available suggests that there is institutionalised discrimination being practiced against the Cornish. Persons acting in an official capacity appear anxious to preserve English traditions without regard to the often longer traditions of the pre-England British people. Consequently, independent contemporary research outside Cornwall is required for an objective approach to substantiate the Cornish case.

"What is invidious about the position of the Duchy of Cornwall is its compromising of the original principle of English constitutional law, that the Monarch should be dependant on Parliament for finance". ('Who Owns Britain', Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2002, page 91).

This departure from constitutional principle appears to have been initiated by the Parliamentary resolution of 1460AD (38HenryVI) since this represents a political agreement between Parliament and the Crown to exploit Cornwall. "By the authority of this present Parliament in consideration that the King has made livery (officially transferred) to the Prince the Duchy of Cornwall, the King is discharged of providing for the Prince and the said Prince be at his own charge, without prejudice to certain office holders within the Duchy of Cornwall". (Rowe v. Brenton, Manning Edition 1830, Appendix D at page 491).









It was not only the King who was 'discharged' from providing for the Prince but the clear intent of Parliament was that Parliament itself, and thereby the English public, would be 'discharged' from providing for the upkeep of the heir to the throne, since, as declared in 1460, "the said Prince (would) be at his own charge". (Left to his own devices)

This is a Parliamentary decision in respect of public or 'foreign' property and clearly not a private decision in respect of private property.

Parliament and the Crown agreed to exploit Cornwall (chiefly its minerals industry and mineral rights) instead of imposing a general tax for the upkeep of the heir to the throne.

The Duchy charter provides that the estate reverts to the Crown in the event of there being no heir. This is further evidence of the "territorial", or state institution, or political nature of the Duchy estate in Cornwall.

The main source of income was secured through a tax imposed by the Duke (called 'coinage') on tin production, which, was raised in Cornwall until 1838 at twice the rate levied in Devon under an English custom of double taxing 'foreigners'. The 'coinage' tax has unofficially been replaced with claims to unregistered 'mineral rights'.

(Duke of Cornwall coinage tax:- 'Tin in Social and Economic History', page 13, E.S.Hedges, Director International Tin Council, Publ.Ed.Arnold, London,1964; 'The Stannaries', pages 85 & 234/5, G.R.Lewis, Harvard University,1908; Foreigners double tax:- Coke 4th Inst.33; c.1609; Constitutional History of England', Vol.2, 1200-1400; pages 554/5, Stubbs, Clarendon Press, 1906; The Reign of Henry VII', page xlvii; Vol.1, A.R.Pollard, Longmans Green, London 1913. Parliament and Crown agreement of 1460, Rowe v. Brenton, Trial at Bar, 1830, Manning Edition, Appendix D).

Henry the Seventh 1548-1509 must have known about the double charge. Apart from being known as a money manager, he had, from his exile in Brittany, an understanding of the Cornish language. It must also be assumed that he was aware of the Stannary Charter of 1305 - royal pre-emption of tin; Edward the Third's Charter of 16th March 1337 - the indigenous 'chief rulers' of Cornwall; the three Duchy Charters of 1337/8 - the 'stannaries' and 'the Kings writ and summons of Exchequer', as well as the Crown/Parliament agreement of 1460 to avoid taxation for the upkeep of the heir to the throne.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, based on this evidence, Henry the Seventh was moved to rectify the imbalance against Cornish interests by providing them with his Charter of 1508 by which the Cornish Stannary Parliament was granted the right to veto Acts of Parliament considered prejudicial to the interests of the Cornish people.

The Stannary Charter of 1508 amounted to an agreement between the Crown and the Cornish similar to the agreement between the Crown and Parliament of 1460 and similar to the Charters of agreement between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall in 1337 and similar to the Article of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858.

Why are only those agreements involving the Cornish people being ignored? Is it a case of bias made easy as a result of the absence of a statutory provision of equality before the law?

If justice were to prevail, it would be recognised that the legitimate expectations and inalienable intellectual, mineral and property rights of the Cornish people have already been well and truly paid for.

What do past agreements mean in modern terms?

From the evidence of funding available to English Heritage etc., and power, privileges, immunities and inalienable rights still being made available to the Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall estate, the Crown/Parliament agreement of 1460 is still very much in place. It appears that every effort is made by all Ministries (i.e. the Executive) to promote the profits of the Duchy estates in Cornwall. In modern times, it has suited Parliament and the Crown to classify Cornwall as an 'English' county in order to facilitate a denial of past economic and cultural exploitation.









Is it in the national interest to suppress the Celtic history and identity of the Cornish national minority and pass laws to confiscate, without consultation, Cornish heritage intellectual property rights and then presenting it to the world as English?

This clearly exposes the bias in English law.

Regardless of government and regardless of political party, the complete English establishment shows all the signs of 'going along' with the deal of 1460. Ignoring the British dimension, no English political party has even attempted to recognise the right of the Cornish to exist as a national minority. In effect, successive permanent English governments agree to treat the deal as inalienable even though justification is unmitigated feudal racism.

Is each new batch of M.P.s sworn to secrecy?

No penetrating questions are asked.

Why are the financial affairs of an American President strictly controlled and scrutinised by Congress? Where is all the royal wealth and money? Does the 'Crown' make donations to any or all established English political parties?

It would appear that Parliament has been obliged to accept a royal injunction by which the House of Commons is prevented from raising questions regarding the origin of the 'territorial' nature of the land and 'mineral rights' claimed by the Duke of Cornwall's estate in Cornwall. (Letter of the House of Commons Library of 16th June 1997).

Other provisions have been made to place beyond public investigation 'the divine right of the Dukes of Cornwall', a rank and organisation created to avoid the taxation of the English nation for the upkeep of the heir to the throne.

"Her Majesty in Her private capacity includes the Duke of Cornwall". (Crown Proceedings Act 1947 section 38 (3)).

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against His/Her Majesty in His/Her private capacity". (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (1)).

"Nothing in this Act shall affect any right of the Crown to demand a trial at bar or to control or to otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting its rights, property or profits". (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g))

By the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the Duke of Cornwall is placed above the law but, should the Duke's personal immunity from enforcement proceedings be extended to the Duchy estate through the politicians, Ministers and officials working to achieve the maximisation of the profits of the Duchy estate in Cornwall for the heir to the throne?
Classification of Prerogatives 1. Pre-eminence of the Sovereign". 2. The Sovereign as supreme executive officer of the state. 3. Those concerned with special privileges enjoyed by the sovereign in relation to rights of property, which have been allowed to her for the support of the royal dignity and the increase of the royal revenues". (Halsbury's Constitutional Law, 4 Ed; Vol.8 para 893).

The Tamar Bridge Act 1998 section 42, provides:- "Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including the Duke of Cornwall".

"A right, power, privilege, authority and exemption" is clearly the 1998 dictionary definition of royal 'prerogative'. Why would Parliament not want to use the one word 'prerogative'? Is it because euphemisms are preferred to avoid questions? Why have royal prerogatives and associated rights not already been abolished? Why are these prerogatives and feudal rights considered necessary in Cornwall for the Duke of Cornwall? Has the monarchy gained in terms of the power to accumulate wealth without restriction or responsibility?

Some English historians have courageously admitted that English people have traditionally had little inclination to pay taxes "for the support of the royal dignity".









Against the flexible constitutional background of "private capacity", "political capacity", "Crown immunity", "prerogatives", 'mineral rights' and unique "inalienable rights" the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Cornwall's 'territorial possessions' are well protected from the rigours of English law. Recently, many land and water related Acts of Parliament classify the Duke as "the appropriate authority", a role which legal opinion considers to mean, exemption from the law in question for Duchy possessions.

Duchy estates in Anglo-Saxon England may well be private if not financed from Cornish profits.

Have the methods used by Ministers and other servants of the Crown to maximise the profits of the 'territorial' part of the Duke of Cornwall's estate situated in Cornwall been effectively placed beyond legal challenge in the English Crown courts by claiming and exploiting Crown immunity?

Successive Dukes, as the largest institutional land and 'mineral rights' owner in Cornwall, appear to have been able to retain feudal rights, powers and privileges and, in addition, obtain from Parliament and Ministers 'inalienable' protection and monopoly laws to place the public Duchy estate off the public agenda and beyond the reach of the restrictive competition and planning laws made applicable by Parliament for local businesses.

With no provision to sanction royal immunity in Magna Charta, the question arises as to whether the monarchy has meanwhile become even more powerful and beyond democratic control?

Freedom from English neo-feudalism has, however, recently been accepted as necessary in the Anglo-Saxon English part of Britain. The Duchy of Lancaster Act 1988 section 1 (2) requires that, "no lease shall be granted unless for public or charitable purposes". In addition, the Crown Estate Act 1961 section 3 provides that, "any sale or lease should exclude any element of monopoly value". From 1625, Cornwall was also excluded from the provisions of the Nullum Tempus Acts designed to curb royal claims to the property of the subject.

There are no legal restrictions on royal land use for the Cornish part of the United Kingdom. Everything is written into the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts to promote the profits of the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall.

Apparently, this present state of undeclared neo-feudalism requires hiding the truth about Cornwall and denying the non-English identity of the Cornish people of Britain.

To achieve this objective, the institutionalised English Crown/Parliament Agreement of 1460 remains in force to exploit the 'foreign' Cornish people with every means of redress censored and dismissed as an insult to the Crown.

It is noted that Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been omitted from, that is, not written into, the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 13 provides for; "an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity".

There is no written constitution or 'British Club Rule Book' for members as British citizens or as Her Majesty's subjects. For the independent and impartial observer the blank pages of the constitution can only mean that the omissions are a deliberate part of a scheme, by, of and for the exclusive economic and cultural interests, of the English national majority who can always win a vote.

Who else stands to gain from the blank pages of a 'British Club Rule Book' or an unwritten constitution reinforced by the omission of a statutory guarantee of equality before the law and other important aspects of international human rights law?

Are the blank pages of the British Club's Rule Book being filled with the invisible ink of legal deception?

The evidence suggests that the Crown/Parliament agreement of 1460 is considered to be 'inalienable' by Parliament, the Crown and Ministers.





Set against the refusal to accept the spirit of reconciliation inherent in the Stannary Charter of 1508, retention of the 1460 agreement provides a clear case of bias and discrimination against the Cornish people.

The Planning and Compensation Act 2004 passed by Westminster presents support for the 'inalienability' of 'The Anti-Cornish 1460 Rule'.

"The Secretary of State must not authorise the acquisition of any interest in Crown land (includes the Duchy) unless; the 'appropriate authority' (includes the Duchy) consents". {Schedule 3 (3)} (Crown land in the U.K. except Cornwall is covered by the restrictions on abuses of power given in the Crown Estates Act 1961).

"The Secretary of State may by regulations modify or exclude any statutory provision relating to the making and determination of applications for planning permission by the Crown (or the Duchy)". {Schedule 3 (10)}.

A law to change the law at will was also made available to Henry VIII.

"A local authority must not take any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crown land (includes Duchy) unless it has the consent of 'the appropriate authority' (includes the Duchy)". (Section 84)

A Cornish local authority is powerless to control Duchy abuses of power.

It is internationally recognised that;

"Equality before the law means; in the making of a law every person is to be treated equally".

Equality, as a rule of law making, is not being applied by the Crown, legislature or executive in matters concerning the land and home owners of Cornwall. It is by their Acts that they are known. Persons acting in an official capacity reveal obedience to the unwritten policy of giving monopoly powers to the largest institutional land owner in Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall, regardless of the consequent legal bias against Cornish interests.

Even the reviled Communist dictatorships gave legal protection to the culture and heritage of the national minorities within their borders. (Refer the 'Copenhagen Criteria' by which former Soviet satellites were required to retain these laws on admission to the European Union).

Has it become an act of treason to demand that Parliament assert its authority by reclaiming the lost constitutional and democratic principle of Crown dependence on Parliament for finance? The fairly obvious reason, as with Magna Charta, is, to prevent a resumption of the abuse of power by the Monarchy.

Can a government be democratic while it retains a system that would prevent a Public Inquiry into, or a Cornish legal challenge to, the extensive privileges of the Duke of Cornwall's estate in Cornwall and the role of the Duke of Cornwall in his private, or political, or constitutional, or public capacity?

Legal immunity and privileges for a private commercial estate would not be valid under the international principle of equality before the law which does not extend immunity to commercial operations (jure gestionis) and accepts immunity only for acts of state, (jure imperii).

Consequently, if the Duke of Cornwall's estate were a 'private commercial organisation' it could not claim 'immunity' and, since it does claim immunity, its operations are in fact an act of state by a public body, and therefore, it is legitimate to make inquiries about, and investigate, the process by which the property concerned came into the possession of the state.

With the Duke of Cornwall as both a Member of the House of Lords and "the appropriate authority" his position as legislator, executive and beneficiary may well be contrary to human rights law. ( Breach of Acticle 6 (1) "independent and impartial tribunal" - McGonnell v. United Kingdom, 1997; includes:- "doubt vitiates the impartiality of the Royal Court").









The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 was ushered through Parliament by The Prince Consort, Prince Albert, in his capacity as Lord Warden of the Stannaries. There is no Act of Parliament to prevent Crown involvement with the passage of Acts through the legislative process.

Any investigation into the wealth of the Duke of Cornwall would require reference to the Cornwall Foreshore dispute of 1854-1858 between the Crown and the Duke which resulted in the Articles of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 by which the foreshore of Cornwall was no longer deemed to be part of the Territorial possessions of the Crown. The foreshore of Cornwall, along with the rivers of Cornwall, was awarded to the Duke of Cornwall as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy. Duchy evidence reveals its claim to be "the government of Cornwall" and "Lord of the soil inferentially from the stannaries".

The Act of 1858 confirms the 'territorial' nature of Duke of Cornwall's possessions as accepted by the Charter of Edward III of 16th March 1337, which recognises a Cornwall; "over which awhile ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers". The legal definition remains "territorial" for Cornish property administered by Treasury/Duchy officials.

A 'territorial' possession is usually land owned by a state. In the case of Cornish land, recognised by Edward III as being formerly in the possession of Cornish 'Dukes', it means that those territorial possessions are held by the British state in acceptance of an 'inalienable' Cornish right to traditional Cornish property both intellectual and real.

In the case of the 'chief rulers' of Cornwall it can safely be affirmed that the property of the Cornish people was, at that time, held in trust by rulers who justified their position by being in sympathy with the promotion of the interests, culture and language of the Cornish people.

In respect of a legitimate expectation of loyalty and a fiduciary duty to the people of Cornwall, the Duke has manifestly failed to accept his responsibilities.

The latest example is revealed in a local newspaper. 'The Cornishman' of 25th November 2004 reports that, in respect of a Public Inquiry into the Isles of Scilly Local Plan; "The Duchy of Cornwall objected to the local council's wish that housing provision be confined solely to local needs and key workers and supported the provision of a new top-class hotel".

(Officials of the Duke of Cornwall's estate are collectively referred to as "The Duchy" although legally the whole of Cornwall is the Duchy with many acres claimed by the Duke of Cornwall's Duchy estate). In a report on Islanders challenging Duchy housing policy, especially for young people, the Cornishman of 19th August 2004 reported the Duchy Secretary as stating; "The Duchy is not a housing association and is required to receive an appropriate return on its investments".

The Crown Estate is specifically forbidden by statute from profiteering in the administration of Crown property in the non-Cornish part of the United Kingdom.

The Duchy charters of 1337/8 do not mention the Isles of Scilly, and therefore, the Duchy claim to ownership should be seriously investigated.

The paper offered no comment or a value judgement. Certainly there was no attempt to pillory the Duke or the Duchy estate officials for their lack of democratic responsibility as is often attempted in respect of the volunteers seeking to promote the right of the Cornish people to exist as a British national minority.

Despite the omission of Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights from the Human Rights Act 1998, case law should provide a salutary warning for persons acting in an official capacity.

"It is the duty of the Crown and every branch of the Executive to obey the law. If there is any difficulty in ascertaining it the Courts are open to the Crown to sue, and it is the duty of the Executive in cases of doubt to ascertain the law, in order to obey it, not to disregard it". (Eastern Trust Co. v. McKenzie Mann & Co. House of Lords and Privy Council [1915] - J.C. 750 at 759).









The agencies of the British state are permitted to exercise neo-feudal powers in Cornwall to maintain 'the divine right of the Duke of Cornwall' to operate outside internationally accepted constitutional and democratic norms on behalf of the English national majority. There is a deliberate policy of withholding legal equality and recognition of 'inalienability' in respect of the culture, language, traditions, identity and property of the Cornish national minority while providing these basic rights to the English national majority.

The reality for Cornwall is far removed from the definition of 'democracy' in an English Dictionary which, even so, fails to inform the reader as to which country its definition might be applicable:- "A state having government of all the people-direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinction and tolerating minority views. A social state in which all have equal rights".



So what is the solution?


1. Government acceptance of legal equality for the Cornish Celtic identity and cultural heritage under the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Cornish people should be in a position to enjoy their Cornish and Celtic cultural heritage in a manner equal to that available to English people who are privileged to enjoy their English and Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage through state funding.


2. The Cornish should be consulted by those in power to resolve matters concerning intellectual property rights and the control of Cornish cultural assets and heritage. Alternatively, a referendum should be held in Cornwall to decide whether or not the 'possessions' given to the Duke of Cornwall and the archaeological sites given to English Heritage should be returned to the Cornish national minority.


3. A judicial review, to secure fiat justitia by waiver of immunity, in respect of the Duke of Cornwall's policy leading to his decision not to accept the democratic principle of equality before the law and his denial of the right of the Cornish to exist as a Celtic national minority as accepted by the provisions of the Stannary Charter of 1508.

4. A Public Inquiry into feudal land and mineral rights with attention to recent Acts by the Scottish Parliament to abolish its feudal land system.

5. The failure to provide a statutory guarantee of equality before the law is in violation of the Treaty on European Union and the Copenhagen Criteria for national minorities. A provisional ruling should be obtained from the Court of Justice under Article 234 (was 177) with reference to discrimination under Directive 2000/43/EU.




Editors:- Dr Nigel Hicks and Colin F. Murley

E-mail


See the December issue of "Cornish World" for another article on Cornwall's legal, constitutional and historical position in Britain under the title "Equality for Cornwall".


0 comments



http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//article.php?story=2006102600172857