|
R - v - HICKS NUTE & ROWE 1 Sanctioning by the Stannary Parliament of the removal of the signs including:- a) A brief history of the Stannary Parliament and its legitimacy b) The decision making process that led to the decision to remove the signs c) Any documentary evidence of the decision making process.
1. Not their land as provided in the Duchy of Cornwall Charters 1337-8 adjudged to be an Act of Parliament by “The Princes Case 1606”. a) Stannary laws supported by the Royal Mines Act 1693 b) Stannary ownership supported by the Foreshore of Cornwall Dispute 1858 between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown. 2. False description on the signs, i.e., “destruction of context” per European Heritage on the Archaeological Heritage 1992. Specific examples, English Heritage. We are Cornish and British, NOT English. Refer The British Nationality Act 1981 and the Act of Union Between Scotland and England of 1706. 3 a) A brief introduction to the 1508 Charter and a short history lesson of how and why the Charter was granted. b) Why do we say the Charter is still valid today (consider any counter-arguments that there may be and answer them). c) What is the distinction that requires some Acts of Parliament e.g. the National Heritage Act 1983 to be approved by the Stannary Parliament before they apply to Cornwall. (a) Charter of Pardon of 1508 granted by Tudor King Henry VII wishing to legitimise the transfer of the benefits of the Plantagenet Duchy of Cornwall Charter to the Tudors. Cornish objections to decrees by Henry’s son Arthur. Cessation of tin production and uprising in 1497 leading to the battle of Blackheath. Cornish ringleaders executed. Cornish plans to install Perkin Warbeck as Richard VI. Negotiations with Henry VII led to Charter and provision to veto any English Acts prejudicial to the interests of the Cornish people. Tin production recommenced in 1509. (b) Valid because the Duchy of Cornwall Charter was adjudged to be an Act of Parliament by “The Prince’s Case 1606”. The Duchy Charter as an Act of Parliament therefore intended by the description “the stannaries” to incorporate all facets and meanings associated with “the stannaries” including the Charter of Pardon of 1508. This principle of interpretation is based on stricter criterion than otherwise widely employed to elicit benefits for the Duchy of Cornwall. Note:- Items not recorded in the Duchy Charter but nevertheless claimed or ‘awarded’, later include; The Isles of Scilly; intestate estates; gold and silver; treasure trove, and the Foreshore of Cornwall. Note:- Nullum Tempus Acts did not apply to Cornwall and under the Duchy of Cornwall management Act 1863-1982, sections 31, 32, 33 land claims can be made “nunc pro tunc” and Duchy produced documents legal while land claimed by Duchy thereby becomes Duchy per section 37. (c) According to the “assent and consent” requirements laid down in the Charter of Pardon of 1508 the misrepresentation of Cornish history by the presence of English Heritage and its attendant signs is prejudicial to the interests, heritage and identity of the Cornish people and the Cornish Stannary Parliament is therefore entitled to veto the application of the National Heritage Act 1983 to Cornwall. 4 Our view of the ownership of the individual sites. Why do we say that they are owned by the Cornish people as opposed to English Heritage or the Duchy of Cornwall? Do we include Craig’s “Cornish Heritage sites claimed by English Heritage” document here if so do you have electronic version that can be included?? Yes Reference is made to the Foreshore dispute between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown culminating in the Articles of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. “Before tracing further the history of the Earldom, it is proper to draw attention to one species of property in this county almost peculiar to it, and essentially connected with its soil, namely the stannaries or tin mines there, and from a few particulars of their history, some light will be thrown on the main question in this case, namely, to whom the ownership of the county belonged in early times”. (Cornwall Foreshore:- Exchange - Crown, No.27 - Revised page 95m) There is no reference to “the stannaries” or tin mined of Cornwall in Domesday Book, “not of course from their not having been then discovered as it is generally admitted that they were worked long before the Christian era”. (Foreshore p.95m) “The argument on the part of the Duchy that because the Stannaries throughout the county of Cornwall belonged to the Earls therefore the land did also, is groundless; the right of the profits of the stannaries was an incorporeal one (see case of the Stannaries 12 Rep.9b) extending as well into the lands of the subject as into the King’s own demesnes; consequently when it is shown that the Earls of Cornwall had the issues of the stannaries throughout the county, no legitimate inference can be drawn from this as to their ownership of the land of the county, as the right to the profits of the stannaries, was one independent of the ownership of the soil”. (Cornwall Foreshore:- Crown reply page 3 - revised page 72b) “Then it is said by the Duchy, ‘we make the minerals ours by the act of extending the county by mining. That one man should be able to change his neighbour’s property into his own by committing a trespass upon the former, is hardly consistent with the English, or any other law”. (Cornwall Foreshore:- Crown – reply page 7, - Revised:- page 76b) 5 A brief account of why we believe that there is no legal validity in the current ownership/management of the sites. This needs to be specifically directed at English Heritage issues. OR do we include Craig’s “Cornish Heritage sites claimed by English Heritage” document here if so do you have electronic version that can be included?? No electronic version Include here the five pages on the Duchy of Cornwall Charter of creation 1337 which includes “the stannaries”. Sent by e-mail by Colin to Ian Wednesday 19 th December 2001 Summary of above:- Nute, Hicks and Rowe. Truro Crown Court 14 th January 2002 I removed English Heritage signs because they were situated on land which belongs to the Cornish people. This action is supported by the Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 1337 which became an Act of Parliament in 1606. This Act states:- (a) “and desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honours”, and, as part and parcel of those pristine (or ancient) honours; (b) “and also our stannary in the same county of Cornwall, together with the coinage of the same stannary, and with all the issues and profits therefrom arising, and also with the explees, profits and prequisites of the court of Stannary and Mines. Being the first Duchy created in Britain and embracing within the text a dedication to the “pristine honours of places of note” is clearly of significance. It puts on record recognition of the distinct Celtic identity, pristine or ancient institutions and independent past of the Cornish. The stannaries are widely recognised as a Cornish organisation of pre-Christian origin. In 1858, in a dispute between the Attorney Generals of the Duchy and the Crown over the ownership of the Foreshore of Cornwall, it was repeatedly affirmed by the Crown that the ownership of the soil of Cornwall belonged “in early times” to the stannaries; for example; “Before tracing further the history of the Earldom, it is proper to draw attention to one species of property in this county almost peculiar to it, and essentially connected with its soil, namely the stannaries or tin mines there, and from a few particulars of their history, some light will be thrown on the main question in this case, namely, to whom the ownership of the county belonged in early times”. (Cornwall Foreshore:- Exchange - Crown, No.27 - Revised page 95m) The Royal Mines Act 1693 confirms “the charters, laws, customs and constitutions of the Stannaries” which includes the Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508. The Stannary Charter of Pardon 1508 provides for the right of the “heirs and successors” of past generations of Cornish tinners to take action “for their best profit and greatest advantage as to them seem best to be done”. The presence of English Heritage in Cornwall and its signs at Cornish Heritage sites is considered to be racially motivated and in violation of the “European Convention on the Archaeological Heritage”, in that, such indifference to the facts of history constitutes (as provided in the Convention) a “destruction of context” meaning, English Heritage signs are totally out of place in a Celtic context. I believe, that neither Parliament nor the Duchy of Cornwall intended or intend to deny the principle of equality before the law or to alter the Celtic identity, history, monuments or institutions of the Cornish to Anglo-Saxon English. Therefore, after a great deal of fruitless correspondence with English Heritage and many government departments, it seemed best to me to exercise the ancient rights of the Cornish stannaries by taking the necessary action of removing a number of the offending English Heritage signs in a careful and reasonable manner. 6 In relation to each of the sites we need bullet points of why it was necessary to remove the signs to protect the property. This should include:- a) Why was it in need of immediate protection? b) Why was the removal of the signs reasonable in relation to the need for immediate protection in the circumstances? This will need to include the steps that have been taken previously directly with English Heritage. (a) The sites were being popularised and commercialised as of English origin on an increasing scale by English Heritage in conjunction with a policy of treating the Celts as a thing of the past and failing to treat important Cornish monuments with the care that would be provided if held in the hands of the owners, the indigenous Cornish people. (b) After of series of letters to government departments and English Heritage over a period of at least two years (refer list) before action was taken it was decided that English cultural aggression in Cornwall was regarded as normal and acceptable to English institutions and therefore it was necessary to oblige them to stop and think of the error of their ways. In particular their departure from the principles of international law for the protection of national minorities and their infringements of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4 (a), “States Parties shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof”. (c) Action by English Heritage considered to be in violation of the provisions of the “European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage” which came into force in the United Kingdom on 20 th March 2001. Should we include the document “The Record of English Heritage in Cornwall” ?? Possibly in abbreviated amended form
See Nigel’s document and The Grim Reality
7 Why is the placing of the English Heritage signs to be perceived as an act of racial discrimination? Racial discrimination is defined in Race Relations Act s 1(1), which provides as follows:
Racial group is defined in s 3(1) of that Act, which provides:
Lord Fraser in Mandla –v- Dowell Lee [1983] 1 All ER 1062 at 1066
“For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics are essential; others are not essential but one or more of them will commonly be found and will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;(2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant: (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;(4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;(5) a common literature peculiar to the group;(6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;(7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.
Still need to say why placing of these signs is racial discrimination against CornishBecause the presence and actions of English Heritage in Cornwall is in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination Article 4 (a) quoted above in 6, and the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities of 1992, Article 4.2. “States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards”. And Article 4.4; “States should take measures in the field of education to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory”. And Article 2..1. “Persons belonging to national minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture…….freely and without interference or any form of discrimination”. |
|---|