Exemptions from Democracy

Lord Berkeley, in a speech in the House of Lords on 15th May 2012, quoting a representative of the Duchy of Cornwall, stated that:-

“the Duchy is not democratically accountable in any meaningful sense”.

Lord Berkeley’s speech covered the Duke of Cornwall’s right to bona vacantia; escheat; ownerless property; foreshore; gold and silver mined or treasure and crown immunity in Cornwall and posed the question; why is this different in Cornwall?

Suggestions for modernisation were made for the Heir to the Throne’s Duchy of Cornwall, and, “Most important, the Duchy should not have Crown immunity”.

Who is responsible?  Is the avoidance of democratic accountability a criminal offence?   Why have generations of politicians condoned and ignored instances of the failure of democratic accountability?  Politicians have also failed to produce a one-stop British constitution document containing details of the enforceable responsibilities for persons elected or employed to exercise power in a manner we were taught to believe would mean democratic accountability.

The Duchy of Cornwall has never been democratically accountable to the pre-England indigenous British and Celtic Cornish people of Cornwall.

When encountering information about the Duchy of Cornwall, English people would be advised to take note of the Complete Oxford English Dictionary definition of: “Democracy”, which is:  “From the Greek, People rule”  and, “A social state in which all have equal rights without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege”.  “Society characterised by tolerance towards minorities”.  This wording should be included in the British constitution and applied without fear or favour.

People rule is not the prerogative of political parties.  Following the election of Francois Hollande as the new President of France, the leader of the government party in the German Parliament is reported by the Sunday Times of 13th May 2012 as affirming that: “Germany is not here to finance”, i.e., is not democratically accountable for; “French election pledges”.

In the UK it is time for a constitutional debate on the proposition: “Cornwall is not here to finance English election pledges claiming the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate so that Parliament can be exempt from the constitutional duty of imposing taxation on its electorate to provide an income for the heir to the throne”.  This ‘Cornwall’ plan has helped to make the Monarchy popular with English people.    For Cornwall, “not democratically accountable” began with the assumption of the hereditary title of Duke of Cornwall for the heir to the throne on the authority of two still unrepealed Charters of the 17th and 18th March 1337 which transferred extensive Celtic properties in Cornish speaking Cornwall to the very first English Duke.   

Although legally recognised as constitutional, on account of providing an income for the heir apparent, questions concerning established Duchy of Cornwall policies  relevant to the economic history of Cornwall are treated as a state secret exempt from democratic accountability and Freedom of Information Acts.

Even in the fourteenth century, when Hereford Cathedral displayed the famous Mappa Mundi showing Cornwall as a nation, it was considered unchristian to rob your neighbour and confiscate his land. 

Hence, the preparation of a third secret Duchy of Cornwall Charter on 3rd January 1338, also unrepealed, which specifically grants to the Duke the right to exercise absolute power in Cornwall with The King’s Writ and, to do any other official act {officium} there.   In effect, the Duke of Cornwall was made exempt from democratic accountability by politicians and employed by the state to finance his private and public life outside Cornwall in Anglo-Saxon England from the wealth of Celtic Cornwall. 

Unlike the English language, Cornish is not compulsory in Cornish schools.

Cornish history may be ex-curriculum in Cornish schools because, it would appear that the Duchy of Cornwall became the prototype for the subsequent development of the multi-national British Empire with each subjugated land administered by a Vice-Roy exercising the absolute power of The King’s writ.  Fortunately, H.M. The Queen has supported the drive towards responsibility for one’s own destiny which has led to independent nations in control of their own language, culture and history.

Legal authorities claim that the Duchy of Cornwall is: “an institution without separate legal personality”.  (Halsbury’s laws, Crown Property, Vol. 12 (1) para.320).   It is strange that on the strength of its third Charter, Duchy laws were enforced to collect income from Cornish land and cultural sites.   A double tax on mineral production to 1838 was replaced by an award of the mineral rights to all the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall under the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858.  The avoidance of a legal challenge would appear to be the reason why the Duke and the Duchy of Cornwall are given, without public participation, exemption from criminal liability as in the case of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 54 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sections 111, 145, 185 and 295. 

As to what particular criminal offence might be authorised to qualify for automatic activation of the hereditary right or privilege to exemption from the law and exemption from democratic accountability for the Duke of Cornwall is not revealed.

Such exemptions from the law should be highlighted in a detailed single document constitution.  The British constitution remains an unwritten state secret offering no guarantee against the abuse of power.   This is another form of exemption from democracy.

Anyone might well feel that they should be made exempt from certain laws, especially those concerned with taxation, but one exemption or voluntary payment of tax always presents a bad example for the rest.  By the standards of natural justice however, concessions and exemptions for the Duke of Cornwall remain in open conflict with the spirit of the United Nations principle of equality before the law.

Official secrecy of exemption from democracy appears intended to ensure that the Duchy government of Cornwall has all the powers it needs to exploit Cornwall.  Consequently, there are restrictions on access to information which ultimately over time has lost sight of the English definition of democracy and evolved into an official policy of restricting access to information and access to justice. 

It is contended that secrecy and exemptions from democracy can only have been found necessary in order to conceal the economic history of Cornwall.

In response to a request for information concerning the Duchy of Cornwall, the Library of the House of Commons, by letter of 16th June 1997 to Andrew George M.P., declared: “there are restrictions on any questions which cast reflections upon the Sovereign or the royal family”.   This is clearly one form of exemption from democracy.

Questions might well include: “Did the Duchy of Cornwall promote identity theft by handing over to English Heritage the Celtic icon of Tintagel the Intellectual Property of the Cornish people.   Tintagel was claimed as Duchy of Cornwall property in its first Charter of 1337.

The Duchy of Cornwall claimed exemption from democracy in the form of exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to deny a request for an answer to a question regarding the date on which the transfer of Tintagel took place. (Duchy of Cornwall letter dated 22nd February 2005).

A state policy of exemption from democracy even in respect of revealing the innocuous transfer date of the ownership of Tintagel exposes a policy of preserving the feudal system for the chosen few with all its racial prejudices.  It raises the question, is the Duke of Cornwall being guaranteed exemption from democracy and authorised by successive governments of the United Kingdom to play the royal card in areas where politicians acting in public could not avoid democratic accountability?

Exemption from democracy leaves the door open for unofficial Duchy continuation of the documented history of racial discrimination against the Cornish people.   Attempts might be made to justify such policies on the grounds that the Charters of 1337/8 were intended “for ever” but then, so was Magna Charta, now all but totally repealed. Fear of the truth about the Duchy of Cornwall is preventing an open debate on the economic history of Cornwall, the policies of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Cornish as a minority nation.

Who is responsible for exempting from English law a guarantee of the basic international democratic principle of “equality before the law”?   Although equality before the law is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Article 7, it has, obviously as a deliberate policy, not been incorporated into English law.   

Equality before the law is intended to act as protection against discrimination by being applied with integrity by the legislature, judiciary and executive branches of government in the decision making process.  In particular, the principle of equality before the law is intended to avoid racial discrimination on the part of majority nations, such as England, towards minority nations, such as Cornwall. 

Equality before the law has been excluded from the UK Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 possibly for the benefit of Duke of Cornwall’s interests in Cornwall.  This exemption from democracy has totally ignored the Collins English Dictionary which defines “Democracy” as including:   “A social condition of classlessness and equality”.

It is generally asserted that the victor writes the history, though fortunately not the dictionaries, but, does the victor of the Conquest of “1066 and all that” also write the law?    Whether English democracy was designed to recognise the Cornish as a national minority may depend on whether the authors of the Bill of Rights of 1688 intended that their declaration of; “asserting their ancient rights and liberties” included democracy.   If the Bill of Rights includes democracy, then, democracy would include the “ancient rights and liberties” of the indigenous Cornish as a Celtic people of Britain since the time of Christ centuries before England came into being.

There is a hint of English political policy towards the Cornish in the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution of 1973, The Kilbrandon Report,  which concluded at para 329, that: “ The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the fourteenth century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship”.  Overlordship?    Just another form of exemption from democracy.

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Schedule 7 amends the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 37 (1) to include exemption specifically

for  “the heir to the Throne”. This constitutional change in governance means that the heir to the Throne, in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall, is also exempt and that therefore, Duchy of Cornwall history and the Duke’s policies regarding Cornwall are a state secret as: “not subject to a public interest test”.   

For example.   The Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund (Reg.No. 1026752) has as its object the distribution as ‘benefit’ the income from intestate estates etc., within the area from which it is acquired.  Whereas, “the public interest test” has not been applied in the case of The Duke of Cornwall’s Benevolent Fund (Reg.No. 269183). The distribution of ‘benefit’ from similar sources in Cornwall goes to: “United Kingdom and elsewhere”.  The Duke of Cornwall’s policy is not in the interests of the Cornish public and would appear to reflect a policy that has been in place for over six hundred and fifty years, designed to exploit Cornwall for the benefit of “elsewhere”.  Consequently, Duchy of Cornwall rights in Cornwall represent a policy of retained feudal racism.    

 

Politicians have apparently confirmed Duchy of Cornwall rights in the belief that allegiance to the Crown means giving absolute priority to the Crown.  This has involved politicians in exempting themselves from every English dictionary definition of democracy to facilitate the maximisation of the Duke of Cornwall’s feudal privileges and income. 

The right of the Duchy of Cornwall to claim property in Cornwall for the benefit of a mythological “elsewhere”, with Crown immunity, is a relic of the Conquest and should be replaced by providing for the heir to the Throne through general taxation to ensure transparent democratic accountability of royal ambitions.

There has been no public debate on the relationship between the English national majority and Cornish national minority rights caught in a Duchy time warp. 

It would appear that the mind-set of the 1% appears to endorse:  state secrecy;  overlordship;  no democratic accountability; Crown immunity; exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; exemption from criminal liability while harbouring objections to questions which cast reflections and are in denial of Freedom of Expression.

Exemptions from the law are so obviously in direct contravention of equality before the law.  That equality before the law is compatible with any English language definition of democracy should be recognised by the English political, legal and academic professions as justification to promote the adoption of equality before the law across the board.  To consolidate this legitimate expectation the 99%  should recognise that, in relation to world population, every member of the global society is a member of a minority and therefore, very much dependant upon the principle of equality before the law in order to prevent exemptions from democracy.

After over 650 years of  ‘not democratically accountable’, the impact of the Duchy of Cornwall on the economic history of Cornwall and the exploits of the heir to the throne as Duke of Cornwall calls for a public debate and a public inquiry with the widest possible terms of reference.  

© Save Cornwall – 1st June 2012.

Posted in Save Cornwall | 1 Comment

The Cornish Rich List

Not only are the Cornish recognised internationally by UNESCO as leaders in the ancient and modern world of mining and minerals the fundamental ingredient of any rich list.  The Cornish are also widely recognised for their contribution towards the recovery of minerals in the building of nations such as America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.   Cornish miners and their families have extended the horizon of ‘Cornish’ by hard work and an independent spirit.

With all its faults, the Cornish are, and will remain, an integral part of the British-American world.

There is still a lot to be done.  A revision to manage the debt ridden financial system to the level of an integral part of a rich and prosperous democracy, of the people by the people and for the people is generally accepted as a priority.  We are all learning to consider the unintended consequences of our actions and inactions.  We need more transparency with an absolute right to guaranteed equality before the law and a greater effort to establish world peace without imperial motives.  We are not looking for enemies.  A nuclear conflict anywhere is sure to have an adverse impact on the environment everywhere.

With genuine progress, future generations may consider our debts a price worth paying for our legacy to them of an advanced hi-tech civilisation with effective democracy just as we now pay for, and benefit from, the inventions of the industrial revolution handed down to us by the creative efforts of Cornish and many other British/American pioneers through peace and war in the past.

In 1337, Cornish minerals attracted the attention of the English Monarchy.   They created the Duchy of Cornwall with the constitutional function of providing an income for the heir to the throne and recognised the national identity of the Cornish by providing the Duke with the powers of the government of Cornwall.   As top of the Cornish Rich List, the Duke of Cornwall has strangely been excluded from the Sunday Times Rich List published 29th April 2012.    English law is also ambiguous.   The original English constitutional Duchy of Cornwall Charters remain in force but, the Duchy is now officially presented as if it were private and British while the original Cornish inhabitants of Britain are presented as if they were English.

Consequently, our homeland nation looks to the example of the American system of devolved democracy of elected leaders in its internal states.   The individual united states are not equal in size.  They are areas of local self-government established on the basis of historical developments as in the case of the smaller original thirteen states (the stripes on the union flag) compared with the much larger states such as California and Texas.  The English national majority of Britain should swallow its pride, stop hiding Cornish economic history, and recognise the history and language of the original indigenous Cornish British.   In the case of Cornwall, generations of Cornish people have provided an historic and inestimable financial service to the Crown and are, by international standards, deserving a similar democratic arrangement to that prevailing in the United States of America.

© Save Cornwall  – 1st May 2012

Posted in Save Cornwall | Leave a comment

MAGNA CHARTA AND THE HEIR TO THE THRONE

Cornwall was not administered as part of England in 1215 when Magna Charta was accepted by the King.  This separation was in place in 1305 when two almost  identical Charters for the Stannaries were made the one covering Celtic Cornwall and the other Anglo-Saxon Devon.  (“The Stannaries”, G.R.Lewis, Harvard, 1908, page 85).

Did Magna Charter apply to Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall?

The Duchy of Cornwall is on record as claiming royal prerogative rights in Cornwall in reliance on its third Charter of 3rd January 1338 which provided the Duke with “the king’s Writ, summons of exchequer or to do any other office there”, (in Cornwall).

“It is moreover, 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, with all such royal prerogatives as would naturally accompany, and the enjoyment of which would only be consistent with a grant of so high a character, including most, if not all, of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the owner of a county Palatine, – for, on inspecting these charters, it will be found that not only all the territorial possessions of the Crown in Cornwall, but every prerogative right and source of revenue (except royal jurisdiction, and, it may be ecclesiastical patronage)  were granted or confirmed to the Duchy by one or other of these charters”.  (Preliminary Statement by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall in their dispute with the Crown over the ownership of the Foreshore of Cornwall which was decided in 1858 in favour of the Duchy of Cornwall.   Source documents: “ The Acts of the Council of the Black Prince”, (the first Duke of Cornwall), from 25 Ed. III [1352]; Cornwall Foreshore Appendix N, pp.76-79, & Supplementary Appendix II, The three Duchy Charters 1337/8, pp. 102-109, at National Archives reference W.54/1865).

The Parliament at Westminster confirmed Magna Charter in 1297 in the form of an Act of Parliament.    Magna Charta does not mention the Heir to the Throne, while  Parliamentary convention provides that unless specifically stated an Act does not apply to the Heir to the Throne, i.e., the Duke of Cornwall.

In her presentation to the House of Commons for a Magna Charta Bank Holiday Act, Mrs Eleanor Laing, M.P., Epping Forest, affirmed:  “Magna Charta established the very idea of the rule of law.  It was the first formal document to insist that no one is above the law”.  The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights  promotes: “Equality before the law” as the basic human right for which there is no explanation for the absence of a supportive formal document in English law.

The unique powers and prerogatives of the third Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 1338 for the Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall reveal incompatibility with Magna Charta.  Duchy feudal powers and rights are hidden behind the claim that the Duchy is a private estate with exemption from the Freedom of Information Act as amended.   Duchy interests, in line with the third charter, include exemptions from Acts affecting land and the Prince of Wales as Duke of Cornwall enjoys exemption from criminal liability in various contemporary Acts of Parliament.

There are, consequently, important constitutional questions for which answers are urgently needed in a democratic society.

Is the Heir to the Throne, as Duke of Cornwall, subject to the still existing Chapter 29 of the 1297 Magna Charta?

Magna Charta, Chapter 29, affirms:- “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor [condemn him] but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”.  (Listed in Halsbury’s Laws as Chapter 29).  (Translated from the original Latin).

Will the government, in its proposed Act to legalise official digital monitoring of all e-mails, etc., authorise the Duke of Cornwall to monitor all Cornish e-mails under the powers of the third Duchy of Cornwall Charter provision of: “to do any other office there”?

© Save Cornwall – 3rd April 2012

Posted in Save Cornwall | Leave a comment

THE CONQUEST

1. The Conquest for land.

For Cornwall it all began with the Norman Conquest of 1066.

The wave of  “northmen” who had invaded Britain in about 450 AD had hardly penetrated into Cornwall as attested by the fact that in 936 AD the Cornish still living in Devon were expelled, their lands and mines confiscated and the Tamar river set as the border between Cornish speaking Cornwall and England.

“The Anglo-Saxon race war against the Celts preserved virtually no trace of the Celtic languages in English”.   (“The Story of English” by Robert McCran, BBC Books, 1992, page 65).

Why are we told that the 1066 Conquest for land is a thing of the past?

2. Duchy exemption from land registration

William the Conqueror 1066, acting in his capacity as “The State” claimed all the land held by the Anglo-Saxon Kings which did not include Cornwall.  “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales”  is confirmed as a central feature of the British Constitution through this statement at paragraph number 4 of the official introduction to the Land Registration Act 2002.   Section 85, of the Act, exempts the Duchy of Cornwall from the requirement to register its land.    This would appear to indicate an on-going secret Conquest for land by attempting to keep the public out of constitutional affairs.

3. Who controls Cornwall?

William the Conqueror created his half brother, Robert, Earl of Mortain, Lord of the county of Cornwall from 1066 to 1104.  (County a back dated English put down which ignores the famous Mappa Mundi showing Cornwall, (Cornubia) as a country c. 1300AD).   In the year 1225 Cornwall was created an Earldom which was held until 1272 by Richard, brother of King Henry III.

According to “The Sunday Times” Rich List of 26th March 2000,  Richard was worth, in today’s values, £11.7 billion, and the report further reveals: “He controlled Cornwall and its lucrative tin mines”. The Black Prince as Duke of Cornwall from 1337 to 1376 was, the Sunday Times report continues, worth £28.2 billion.

The Conquest of Cornwall has taken many forms.  The first Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 17th March 1337 claimed royal ownership of the tin mines of Cornwall as “Our stannaries” (legally covering the whole of Cornwall  – Privy Council 1632, Sir George Harrrison, Keeper of the Records of the Duchy of Cornwall, “Laws of the Stannaries of Cornwall”, Longman, 1835, page 159).  The tax on tin production called ‘coinage’ from 1197 and the claim to pre-emption of tin by the Earldom of 1305 were retained.   The Dukes controlled Cornwall as a separate country.

4. Is Duchy of Cornwall rule for ever?

The three Duchy of Cornwall Charters have remained in force for the King’s son and his son although with the intention of maintaining the Plantagenet Dynasty in the words of the Charters, “for ever”.  Parliament has since created many other dynasties but Conquest by the Duchy appears, so far, to be only constitutional for ever, to be “for ever”.    Even if the Duchy of Cornwall estates were officially claimed as private, they are now part of the same political Conquest as the Crown Estate which is: “held by the Monarch in her political capacity”. (Halsbury’s Laws, Vol.12 (1) para.278)

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 amends the Freedom of Information Act 2000, at Schedule 7 with  “exemptions not subject to public interest test” which covers “communications with the Sovereign and the Heir to the Throne”.

Clearly, constitutional law is not considered to be of public interest.  This Act appears to be the “Gagging law to protect Charles” predicted by “The Sunday Times” 21st March 2010.     The public has never been consulted about state controlled land.

A third Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 3rd January 1338 gave the Duke literally, in fact if not in name, the powers of Conquest reinforced with the exercise of “the King’s writ” and “official acts there” etc., or absolute rule and the powers of judge and jury by the Duke in Cornwall only.  This is strong evidence that Magna Charta, although including a written commitment of  “for ever”, was not being applied to Cornwall unlike the “for ever” of the Duchy of Cornwall charters.  Was the 1497 Cornish rebellion a demand for the rights of Magna Charta for Cornwall?

5. Should the English majority pay for the Heir to the Throne?

Yes. Because, to create the Duchy of Cornwall, Magna Charta was ignored.  In particular, Article 53 (1215AD):-  “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”.  (Revised in 1297AD as Article 29)

The Duchy of Cornwall is political because Parliament decided to continue the Conquest by giving Cornwall to the heir to the throne to rule and manage in order to provide himself with an income principally from Cornwall.    The State has thus avoided its constitutional responsibility of imposing a general tax on the English national majority to secure the future King’s income.

6. The Conquest of Cornwall

The Conquest of Cornwall continued with the expansion of the Duchy of Cornwall into England proper with acquisitions funded with investments from the profits of the racially discriminating double tax for Cornwall (compared to Devon) levied from 1197 on tin production.    (The Stannaries, G.R.Lewis, Harvard, USA, 1908, page 85).    In addition, from 1550 both within and outside Cornwall lands and estates were attached to the Duchy of Cornwall as a result of the abolition of the monasteries.

This double tax clearly recognised the separate identity of Cornwall up to 1838 when on its repeal the Dukes of Cornwall received an annual compensation in lieu, of £16,217.00 paid up to 1983 in addition to claiming mineral rights in Cornwall.

(‘The Duchy of Cornwall’, Crispin Gill, David & Charles, London, 1987).

By 1600 the Duchy of Cornwall had created 42 extra Parliamentary constituencies (total 44) for Cornwall with senior Duchy employees invariably being nominated and elected to Westminster.  (Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall 1980, page 226).

A similar control policy was adopted for membership of the Stannary Parliament.

7. Mineral rights for all landowners

Currently,  in the continuing Conquest of land, the Duchy of Cornwall is claiming mining rights at Talskiddy, Restormel, Cornwall.   This ignores the Royal Mines Act 1688 which provides for minerals to be the property of the land owner, using the phrase: “no tin or copper mines are to be taken as royal mines”.  (“Talskiddy people ‘shocked’ at Duchy of Cornwall mining rights”, BBC News, 9th February 2012).

In 1863 the Conquest of Cornwall by other means continued with the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act providing the Duke with the power of “regalities”  as a possession (section 37) and the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 claiming ownership of the foreshore of Cornwall and its minerals as a territorial possession with the additional award to the Duchy of Cornwall of the rivers of Cornwall and their minerals in 1869 by the Attorney General.  (Halsburys Laws, Vol.12 (1) para.268).

This Conquest of mining rights must be taken as being an act of State, a policy designed to deprive the individual landowners of Cornwall of their mineral rights in order to enhance Duchy of Cornwall income.  Furthermore, it is contended that this process does infringe the principles of the Bill of Rights 1688.

8.  Cornwall, the training ground

Since about 1850 the Duchy has claimed a private estate status apparently to avoid public scrutiny.   However, in the Bruton v. Duchy of Cornwall case  the Information Commissioner Decision of November 2011 para 109 was:  “The Duchy is carrying out the public function or service of providing an income for the undertaking of an extremely important constitutional role for the UK”.   In a separate Information Commission Office (ICO) Decision of 8th February 2012 ref: FER 0380352/2012 para 16, the Duchy of Cornwall is described as having a “constitution role” after a protracted and delayed FOI request to DEFRA to open a document over fifty years old.  The request involved a final appeal after eighteen months to the ICO by John Kirkhope, a Notary Public who secured a favourable verdict from the ICO but is still awaiting the unlikely rejection of a Duchy appeal (applies also to Mr Bruton’s case) before being able to take possession of the requested documents.    (The Guardian report, Robert Booth, 17th February 2012 “Prince Charles’s secret veto documents limited release”).   This is the slow process of breaking the chains of state secrecy.

The Information Commissioner’s case of 8th February 2012, reveals at para. 19:  “In the Commissioner’s view the purpose of the principle or convention referred to by Defra is to prepare the Heir to the Throne for the time when he or she will become Sovereign; to educate him/herself in the business of government”.   Cornwall has clearly been set up by the State as a training ground for a medieval Monarchy to run the economy of the United Kingdom under the title of Duchy of Cornwall.

An extension to the training programme is predicted in an article in: “The Independent” of 8th April 2000; “Royal reforms to develop Charles as shadow King”.

Strangely, ‘the constitutional business of government’ appears to be a big secret.  With regard to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is noted that the House of Commons Library stated in response to a question by Andrew George MP, on 16th June 1997, that “there are restrictions on any question which casts reflections upon the Sovereign or the royal family, there is a similar injunction in relation to speeches”.

The question is:  Does the state secret status of the Duchy of  Cornwall and the exclusion of the Cornish from the human rights Framework Convention for National Minorities reveal a scheme to wipe the Cornish off the map in order to cover up the exclusion of Cornwall from Magna Charta?  (See para.5).

Additional reasons for state secrecy for the Heir to the Throne as manager of Duchy of Cornwall commercial interests is, to protect the English public from discovering: the laws of England for Cornwall, the training ground for English Kings and that the Arthurian legend of Tintagel is a symbol of resistance to: The English Conquest.

9. Nationalised land

Parliament controls some State land under the title of Crown property or Crown Estate property or Duchy property.  The State exercises the freedom to provide the Duchy of Cornwall with Cornish property exclusively for the Duke and Heir.   The bounty includes: the original 17 manors plus additions; regalities; treasure trove of royal and base metal objects; gold and silver mines, the stannaries, mineral rights (54,000 acres); intestate estates; bona vacantia; foreshore (160 miles); the rivers (fundus 11,300 acres), etc.  This is Parliament adopting and exercising “The Divine right of Kings” by taking Cornish property as state property, or nationalised property and passing it off as a private estate.  Ambiguity prevails with the admission of the Prime Minister that: “neither the Monarch nor the Duchy owns any land they are only entitled to the income”.   (Hansard 27th March 1996 [22811]).

Is the state denying responsibility for state controlled land?

The Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41 reveals state support for a Crown Estate and an alleged private estate: “Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall”?    A Lord Chief Justice would have ordered the unconditional release of all information relating to Duchy land into the public domain, as was the case in 1828.  “The public has an interest in everything that is done in the Duchy of Cornwall”.   Lord Chief Justice Tenterden, Rowe v. Brenton, [1828] 8B & C737, Trial at Bar, Concanen Edition, page 110).

10. Democracy compromised with exceptions to the rule

Should the business of preparing the Heir apparent for the role of Sovereign involve the Duke of Cornwall, who, as Managing Director of the Duchy of Cornwall estate, is being consulted in advance to obtain his consent for Acts of Parliament covering his Duchy interests?   (Cabinet Office – guide to Making Legislation December 2010).

The Duchy of Cornwall is described as “an institution without separate legal personality”.  (Halsbury’s laws, Crown Property, Vol. 12 (1) para.320).  So, why so many Acts of Parliament which provide the Duke and the Duchy with exemption from criminal liability, such as the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 54 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sections 111, 145, 185 and 295.   There is also exemption from certain taxes as awarded in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Crown and the Government.   What is expected of the Duchy of Cornwall in return for such favours?

In effect, in the training of a Sovereign for a political role, the Duke of Cornwall can be consulted in order to give his consent as to whether or not his state sponsored established business interests should be exempt from criminal liability, which unmistakeably, grants the Duke of Cornwall the freedom to continue the Conquest against the Cornish national minority on behalf of the English national majority.

“Strong arguments based on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law”.   (Pretty v. UK – European Court of Human Rights – ECHR 2364/02)

11. No written constitution.

Where there is no written constitution then all law by a Sovereign Parliament must be taken as constitutional law.   Therefore, all nationalised land, foreshore and rivers in Cornwall, Wales and England is of constitutional significance.  Some of the land under the direct control of Government and Parliament is administered on behalf of the state by the Duke of Cornwall for Cornwall and the Crown Estate elsewhere in the UK, both with Crown immunity as government agents for what is, in effect, nationalised land just as it was in 1066AD.    The 1086 Domesday Book has no record of Cornish tin although historical records of Cornish tin mines date back to 300BC and archaeological evidence for millennia.

If, like the Duke of Cornwall, the President of the United States were to prepare or consent to legislation or a constitutional amendment to provide for himself a private estate of mineral rich land and personal exemption from criminal liability, exemption from property taxes and planning laws along with exemption from questions which cast reflections, there would be no delay in condemnation by fearless constitutional experts, investigative journalists and aspiring politicians.

12. The Duchy of Cornwall monopoly

No explanation can be found or obtained as to why Parliament permits the Crown Estate managed by a Commission and designated a public institution with a prohibition on monopolistic policies and an obligation to give financial support to charitable organisations in the UK except Cornwall, whereas, the law for the Duchy of Cornwall, managed by the Heir to the Throne, and an alleged private estate, is not required to provide such publicly beneficial statutory provisions in Cornwall.

This constitutional difference of treatment has created a socially indifferent Duchy of Cornwall monopoly in Cornwall that would be excluded from a written constitution.

A Land Registry report entitled “Land Registration for the 21st century” is quoted in Parliament (Hansard 3rd February 2004, 206WH) as recommending: “There should be a clear and comprehensive framework to govern both the holding of the land by the Crown and the royal duchies, and the circumstances in which ownerless land passes to them”.  The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs noted: “The present state of the law can be described rather charitably as nonsensical”.

The modern Britons of Cornwall, after over six centuries, are still on the receiving end of the Duchy of Cornwall Conquest in the form of: “nonsensical” monopoly laws for “ownerless” and “unregistered” pre-England land in Cornwall.  The Cornish are  being treated as the subjects of the ‘Divine right of Kings’ to achieve their Conquest of land.  The English national majority have not yet been permitted to discover the constitutional role of the Cornish in the provision of the Heir’s income on their behalf, and neither have they recognised the Cornish as a British national minority of pre-Christian origins with a Celtic language and culture.

13. Who can do no wrong?

Down through the ages the primary aim and objective of Magna Charta 1215 and 1297 was to control the monarch and protect the people from the abuse of power.  This democratic principle has been rejected with the introduction of the concept: “The Sovereign can do no wrong”. (Halsbury’s Laws, 4.Ed; Vol.8; para.896), and, in addition, the possibility for the abuse of power is made visible by the prerogative now defined by the House of Commons as having “no limit”.  (PASC 19, 2003).

If the Monarch now has no power as a symbolic Head of State, has the all powerful badges of “unlimited prerogative” and “can do no wrong” been acquired by people in power acting as agents, ministers and political advisers to the Crown?   Are they now exercising unlimited prerogative powers with exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and exemption from criminal liability in exchange for surrendering control over the land of the Crown Estate non-monopoly and the land the Duchy of Cornwall monopoly?   This is a disturbing advance for the Conquest of land project in reinstating the 1066 status quo with no 21st Century Domesday Book or Magna Charta or Bill of Rights on the constitutional agenda.

14. Where is the people’s constitution?

Power is being placed beyond legal challenge.  Therefore, it is contended that there is no one-stop written British constitutional document because:   ‘The Conquest’ is being used by the state to deny responsibility for state controlled land. People in power have failed to provide the public with a written one-stop British constitution which should clearly define the limits of power for all persons exercising power in order to guarantee equality before the law.

What does the public think?  Should constitutional law and conventions covering past, present and future heads of state be treated as a state secret?  What is preventing the organisers of public opinion polls from arranging a poll on the role of people power in Constitutional law?  Britain needs a people’s Conquest for a people’s constitution.

© Save Cornwall –  St. Piran’s Day 2012

Posted in Save Cornwall | Leave a comment

THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENCE

The United Nations guarantees the right to self-determination.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were both ratified by the United Kingdom 20th August 1976.

Article 1 of both Covenants reads:-

Para.1. All peoples have the right to self-determination.  By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Para.2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.  In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Para.3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-self-governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realisation of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Discrimination on the grounds of property and birth etc., is prohibited at:- Article 26 – of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.   In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Ethnic minorities not to be denied their own culture at:-  Article 27 – of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion and to use their own language.

Duty of the State to ensure an effective remedy at:- Article 2 – of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3a  Each Party to the present Covenant undertakes:-  To ensure that any person whose rights and freedoms as herein recognised are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violations have been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

The Official website of the British Monarchy reveals:-  “Duchy of Cornwall – Portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Prince of Wales, as Heir to the Throne”.   No reference is made to the indigenous people of Cornwall or the Duke’s claims in Cornwall to intestate estates, bona vacantia, mineral rights, the Stannaries, gold and silver deposits, treasure trove and Cornish cultural and economic assets. All secured by the unchallengeable “regalities” granted in the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, section 37 and “English overlordship” as recognised by the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969-73, paragraph 329.

In 1338 the Cornish spoke their own Celtic language which was apparently sufficient reason to grant absolute power to the Duke under the Duchy of Cornwall’s third Charter.     By royal prerogative King Edward III proclaimed:  “for ever to have the returns of all writs of us and our heirs, and of summons of the Exchequer of us and our heirs, and attachments, in the same county of Cornwall so that no bailiff or minister of ours do any other official act there except in default of the said Duke”.

The third Duchy of Cornwall Charter designated Cornwall as the primary source of income for the heir to the throne which avoided imposing additional taxation on the English national majority to provide that income as a constitutional duty.    This Charter has not been ratified by the British Parliament and is not included in the HMSO Chronological Table of Statutes, 1990.   By the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall were awarded to the Duke of Cornwall as “part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall.”

We believe that Cornwall, though not intended to be included, meets the criteria of the United Nations for a non-self governing trust territory, since, the Duke of Cornwall

exercises power in Cornwall in the form of:  “the King’s writ”, “English overlordship” “regalities”,  “summons of the Exchequer “ and  “territorial possessions” and where “official acts” may be exercised by a Duke who is “not criminally liable” under the Competition Act 1998, section 73 (3), and for whom “no act or omission constitutes an offence” under the Planning Act 2008, section 228.

Consequently, it is contended that United Nations principles are applicable to Cornwall, in particular, Chapter 11 (XI) Article 73, of the United Nations Charter.   That is the:-  “Declaration regarding non-self-governing territories.  This declaration affirms:-   “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:  (a) to ensure due respect for the culture of the people concerned, and their protection against abuses;  and (b) to develop self-government”.

You can help save Cornwall by supporting Save Cornwall  info@savecornwall.org in its campaign for action by the government of the United Kingdom to include the Cornish its commitment to uphold United Nations international law for the promotion of self-government for national minorities.

© Save Cornwall              Camborne TR14 0JG                            February 2012

Posted in Save Cornwall | 1 Comment

CORNWALL – THE DIFFERENCE

FROM:- Colin Murley, Save Cornwall, Camborne, Cornwall, TR14 0JG

17th November 2011

TO:-

The Boundary Commission for England,

Parliamentary Boundaries, (South West),

35, Great Smith Street,

London,  SW1P 3BQ                       (Reference Number received 9th December 2011)

Dear Sirs,

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

Objection to any Tamar cross border Parliamentary Constituency

Please accept this my objection to any cross border Devon/Cornwall Tamar river constituency as is possible under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, on the grounds that such a solution is based on the false assumption that there is currently no difference between the East side and the West side of the iconic natural traditional border of the river Tamar.

The Tamar river has evolved into a multi-purpose border.   It is:-

1. A Cornish border                                      2. A Duchy of Cornwall border

3. An Economic border                                 4. An Environmental border

5. A Crown border                                         6. A Constitutional border

1. A Cornish border

The Tamar became the traditional and cultural border between the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons  in 936AD when the Cornish in Devon were expelled by King Athelstan.  “In the end the Britons of Cornwall were compelled to accept the river Tamar as their boundary”.  (Anglo-Saxon England,  2nd.Ed., F.M.Stenton, Clarendon Press 1947,  p.337).

“Nag usi par, A’n barth ma dhe bons Tamar”.  From a Cornish language poem written c.1340.  (Translated as: There is no equal on this side of the Tamar bridge).  Published by Henry Jenner 1877.

The Tamar river was awarded to, and accepted by, the Duchy of Cornwall in 1869 at a time when it had long been recognised as a Cornish river and the natural Cornish border.   After nearly seven centuries of association with Cornwall and its Tamar border there is an expectation that the Duchy of Cornwall would recognise the gift by supporting the status quo.

The distinctive Cornish flag of St. Piran has been generally recognised since c.1800, and is prominently displayed within the traditional borders of Cornwall, both privately and officially.

The Duke of Cornwall’s Benevolent Fund” (Reg.No.269183) collects income from intestate estates within the traditional borders of Cornwall but distributes it in “The United Kingdom and elsewhere” while the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund (Reg.No.1026752) restricts the distribution of its similar income to the same area, that is, within the same border area from which the income is acquired and collected.

2. A Duchy of Cornwall border

The third Duchy of Cornwall charter of 3rd January 1338 granted rights for the Duke, comprising; “the exercise the powers of the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer in Cornwall and any other official act there”. (Rowe v. Brenton, 8B & C737, 1828, Manning edition).  This charter confines the validity of its powers to the area within the traditional borders of Cornwall and is now the basis for adding extra feudal powers and privileges not awarded in the original charter of 17th March 1337.

Additions include Duchy  “possessions” extended to include “regalities”.  (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, section 37).    The definition of the word  “regalities” includes:   (a) jurisdiction conferred by the sovereign on a powerful subject” and (b) “a territory under such jurisdiction”.   (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged – from FARLEX – free online dictionary).   ‘Regalities’ would be incompatible with the non-Monopoly duty imposed by legislation on the Crown Estate elsewhere in the UK East of the river Tamar. (Refer para.5 below).

The Tamar was one of the rivers of Cornwall awarded to the Duke of Cornwall in October 1869 by Sir John Taylor Coleridge “within the purview of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858” which had awarded the foreshore of Cornwall to the Duke as a territorial possession.   (Halsbury’s Laws Vol. 12(1) para. 268).  The Act  in turn, was based on the third Duchy of Cornwall Charter.

The Tamar river has since attracted the interest of the Duke of Cornwall in the form of the Tamar Bridge Act 1998, which provides:

“Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially and estate, right power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including the Duchy of Cornwall, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, 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 whatsoever description , belonging to:-  (a)  Her Majesty in right of her Crown. (b)  The Duchy of Cornwall, subject to the consent of the Duke of Cornwall. (c)  A government department”.  (Tamar Bridge Act 1998, s. 41).

Unless the law has been changed, this law reveals a principle in plain English that:- “nothing authorises the Authorities to interfere with” the Tamar border.

3. An Economic border

Duchy of Cornwall economic rights within the borders of Cornwall includes the right to invest outside Cornwall.  The Cornwall income includes, intestacies, bona vacantia (the assets of bankrupt companies), under the Supreme Court Act 1981, section, 120, as well as a prerogative right to gold and silver mines by the Limitation Act 1980, section 37 (6), Treasure trove, mineral rights, manors, the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall and other undisclosed interests given priority under a statutory duty of the Treasury by virtue of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, s. 8, and supports exemptions from planning and compulsory purchase laws.

“No formal title to the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in the Prince of Wales, he cannot dispose of the estates capital and is entitled only to the annual income”, as affirmed by the Prime Minister, Hansard, [22811] 25th March 1996.

The dedicated Duchy of Cornwall annual income from Cornwall was intended, and remains, to relieve the English population of being taxed to provide an income for the Heir to the Throne.  A royal fortune was accumulated from the Cornish mining industry over a period of five centuries based on the English double tax for foreigners applied to Cornish tin production compared to that levied across the Tamar border in Devon.  (The Stannaries, G.R.Lewis, Harvard, 1908)

The original principle of the conventions of English constitutional law was , apparently, that Parliament would raise the necessary taxes to provide an income for present and future Monarchs.

“The legal background to the Duchy (of Cornwall) makes it clear that it belongs to the Crown.   What is invidious about the position of the Duchy is its compromising of the original principle of English constitutional law, that the Monarch should be dependent on Parliament for finance”. (Who Owns Britain, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2002, page 91).

Before the creation of the English state in 1066, the Cornish border was created in 936 AD and should now, it is contended, be accepted and respected as an established right of the Cornish national minority by the English national majority inheritors of the Conquest.

4. An Environmental border

The Tamar is a natural border and an environmental symbol of the limits of Cornish

territory and represents a symbol of security to Cornwall and its people.  The Tamar

border also stands for the protection of our “culture” and “the conditions of human

life” under the Aarhus Convention, Article 3(c)) and an indicator of policies adopted

under the Environmental Information Regulations (S.I. 2004/ 3391 and Directive

2004/4/EC) within the borders of both Celtic Cornwall and the constitutional public

authority of the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Tamar border also highlights the historic unexplained connection and divisions between Cornwall, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estate.

These connections and divisions require public participation (per Aarhus)  to ensure that the Environmental Information Regulations for Cornwall’s border do not become another exemption award for the Duchy of Cornwall whether private or public.

By claiming the status of a private estate the Duchy extended that claim to include exemption from the Environmental Information Regulations (S.I. 2004/ 3391 and Directive 2004/4/EC) reflecting the all embracing UN Aarhus Convention.  (Refer para. 6 below).  In an UNECE Implementation Guide to the Aarhus Convention, 2000, Article 1 (2), it is noted: “Privatised solutions cannot take public services or activities out of the realm of public involvement, information and participation”.

It is contended that the cultural and environmental assets of Cornwall, including the Tamar border are under threat while the Duke of Cornwall enjoys the rights of exemption from the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, sections 54 and 102 and is exempted from the registration of its land under the Land Registration Act 2002, section 84, note 135, plus exemptions from the provisions of the Competition Act 1998, section 73, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 37 and the Planning Acts.

These exemptions have induced planning permission to accommodate Duchy of Cornwall  “regalities” in land.  A huge block of holiday flats on a World Heritage site at Hayle, a similar block on the foreshore of Carlyon Bay, St.Austell and green fields developments on the outskirts of Truro and another Poundbury in the pipeline near Newquay, all within the Tamar border area.

The Crown Estate web site includes its commitment to community involvement, a principle which is not encouraged on the West side of the Tamar border.

Awaiting to be applied are environmental regulations that state:-  “Any enactment or rule of law that would prevent the disclosure of information in accordance with these regulations shall not apply”. (S.I. 2004/3391, section 5 (6)).

5. A Crown border

The Crown Estate, a recognised public body, is confined to the East of the Tamar border.  The Crown Estate is required, under the Crown Estate Act 1961 sections 3 & 4, to implement:  “Grants for public purposes” and “excluding any element of

Monopoly”.   However, these public spirited provisions do not apply to Cornwall in

any Act of Parliament. This has been confirmed.

The Crown Estate, in its response to a Freedom of Information request in a letter to

the undersigned of 7th January 2005, gave this information: “The Crown Estate has

no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. The analogous landowner in

Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”.

With no similar Crown Estate provisions in the Duchy of Cornwall Management

Acts 1863 and 1982, or elsewhere, the evidence suggests that the Tamar border

defines Cornwall as being an area reserved by the government as a Duchy

monopoly separate from the remainder of the United Kingdom.

6. A Constitutional border

The territorial integrity of the Cornish Tamar border was obviously recognised by the

Royal  Commission on the Constitution of 1973, in its para.329, which noted:

“The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the fourteenth century may have been in

some respects a mark of English overlordship.  Use of the designation (Duchy) on all

appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both the special relationship and the

territorial integrity of Cornwall”.

An innocent observer might well expect constitutional support for ‘the territorial

integrity of Cornwall’ to embrace the integrity of the Tamar border itself.

The Tamar border was not called into question by a former high ranking official of

the Duchy who observed, in respect of Charles the First as Duke of Cornwall:-   “The

Prince may have become the victim of his own success, believing that he could

govern the realm as he had the Duchy”. (The Estates of the English Crown 1558 –

1640, (Ed. R.W.Hoyle), Graham Haslam, Cambridge University 1992, p.296).

In the Port Navas oysters case an Information Tribunal of 4th November 2011, (Case No: EA/2010/0182) ruled that the Duchy of Cornwall is to be classified as a public body on the grounds that: “the provision of an income for the Duke is a function of public administration”  (para.110), and, “an extremely important constitutional role for the UK”. (para.109).

There has been no public consultation on the differing environmental and economic

policies of the constitutional Crown Estate to the East of the Tamar and those of the

‘analogous’ constitutional Duchy of Cornwall to the West of the Tamar river.

With no constitutional provision for the protection of indigenous minorities and no written constitution to control people in power,  the innocent observer might reasonably conclude that the English language has serious limitations when it comes to a debate on, or an explanation of, the official UK title of  ‘Constitutional Monarchy’.  There is certainly a Monarchy but, does the constitutional bit belong to the Monarchy?

7. Conclusion:-

In a “split” or “Cross Tamar” constituency the awareness of the “conditions of human

life” as an environmental condition applied by the Crown Estate to the East of the

river Tamar and protected under the Aarhus Convention Article 2 (3c),  will

undoubtedly encourage the electorate in any Eastern part to adopt an attitude of racial

superiority, secure in their freedom from any “Crown Estate Monopoly” and their

enjoyment of  “grants for public purposes”. (Refer para.5 above).

On the other side, in the Western part of any such constituency, with Duchy

exceptions, differences of treatment, and the legacy of possible cases of bias and

racial discrimination, the people will undoubtedly recall the humiliation of  the

“English overlordship” identified by the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1973.

(Para.6 above).

‘Overlordship’, is indicative of policies of conquest and collective punishment retained to hide the unpalatable facts, and points to a possible reason as to why the Cornish have been excluded from the Human Rights Framework Convention for National Minorities for the past ten years without offering a reason in plain English.

For Cornwall, the Boundary Commission can hardly describe itself as being involved

in the democratic process while the Duchy of Cornwall charters remain in force with

their ever expanding tributaries flowing through the system and muddying the

democratic waters.

We ought to be able to learn from the Constitutions of our European neighbours such

as Switzerland, where: “All humans are equal before the law”. (Article 8).   There

appears to be no reason, therefore, for the Boundary Commission to confine itself

exclusively to the constitutional consideration of maintaining the integrity of

Welsh and Scottish borders.

Should this objection not fall within the remit of the Boundary Commission to decide

its merits, may I respectfully request the establishment of a Public Inquiry with a

remit to at last publicly and transparently define the meaning given to the principle of

the rule of law by the English national majority and made applicable for Cornwall,

home of the Cornish Celtic national minority, to the West of the Tamar boundary.

Yours faithfully,

Colin Murley,

© Save Cornwall 01.01.2012

Posted in Save Cornwall | 2 Comments

Conflicts of Interest

“The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well being.   They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them”.

On the grounds of national economic interest, the UK has vetoed the EU Treaty renegotiations proposed by the Euro economic alliance.   As a member of NATO, the UK has clearly failed to observe the above NATO Article 2 which requires a membership commitment to “economic collaboration”.  In fact, that is a NATO commitment to “economic collaboration”  involving a majority who are joint EU/NATO member states being signed up members of both the Treaty of Rome and the North Atlantic Treaty.

As with the economically orientated EU, the UK is also committed to surrender sovereignty to NATO by its decision to “encourage economic collaboration” under the NATO Treaty.  In the case of NATO, it is a commitment to any future conflict in defence of any member, which may involve a threat to life and/or economic stability following the inevitable breakdown of collaboration involving either territorial or economic conflicts of interest.

At the present time, there is an urgent need to resolve the apparent on-going economic conflict of interest between various members of the EU and NATO organisations.

On the basis of the arguments put forward by the detractors of the EURO who ignore the UK’s commitment to NATO to “encourage economic collaboration” between members, it follows that peripheral joint members such as Greece and Portugal can be classified as a bankrupt burden for NATO as well as for the EURO group.

In order to be consistent in their campaign against “economic collaboration”, those who would exclude Greece and Portugal from the EURO alliance, must also exclude them from the NATO alliance.  Alternatively, with the UK boycott of the IMF Euro scheme, steps would be taken to renegotiate or to veto the NATO Treaty on account of its inclusion of “economic collaboration” or, as a matter of principle, to withdraw from the NATO Treaty altogether.

Consequently, democracy demands that it would be in the national interest of the UK to end war without Parliamentary approval by giving priority to a referendum on our NATO membership, or at the very least, arrange to run it concurrently with a referendum on membership of the European Union and, for Cornwall, the long overdue referendum on the right to veto the Duchy of Cornwall as incompatible with the Bill of Rights 1688.

© Save Cornwall, Christmas 2011

Posted in Save Cornwall | Leave a comment

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION INCOMPATIBLE WITH EQUALITY

1. On 22nd June 2011, George Eustice M.P., passed our request for information to his Parliamentary Researcher who replied on 14th September 2011.

The question was:-  “Should the second and third Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337/8 be recognised as “directly contrary to the known laws, statutes and freedoms of this realm” and declared incompatible with the Bill of Rights 1688?    (This was followed with notes on Crown Estate exclusion from Cornwall, etc., para.8 above).

The Parliamentary Researcher concludes:-   “Ultimately, it seems that there is no need for any action to be taken.  Cornwall is and always has been unique, but in terms of the legal position of Duchy estates in comparison to those of the Crown there would seem to be no basis for quite substantial legal and constitutional reform”.

There is no reference to the Bill of Rights.   Silence may indicate a confession that Duchy of Cornwall charters are incompatible with the Bill of Rights.

2. Magna Charta   (Article 29, 1297), (25 Ed.1). (For England only)

“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs……..We will not condemn him but by lawful judgement of his peers. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”.

Note:- The Mappa Mundi c.1300 shows Cornwall as a separate country.

3. The Bill of Rights 1688.     (For England only).

“Suspending power  –  That the pretending power of suspending of laws or the exercise of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal”.

“Levying money –  That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parliament………is illegal”.

“That all and singular rights and liberties shall be strictly observed”.

4. The Royal Prerogative 2003 –  House of Commons. (PASC, Report 19, 2003).

(Public Administration Select Committee).

“It remains impossible to define the exact limits of the prerogative”. (para.17)

“The conduct of foreign affairs remains very reliant on the exercise of prerogative powers” . (para.5).

Note:- House of Lords, re; Chagos Islands, 2008, Order in Council, legal.

Note:- The unlimited prerogative was granted to the Duke in 1338 to rule Cornwall because Cornwall (Kernow) was accepted as a separate country.

5. The third Duchy of Cornwall Charter 1338.  (For the land of the Cornish only)

“…………dukes of the same place and heirs apparent to the said kingdom of England, do for ever have the returns of all writs of Us and Our heirs, and of summonses of the Exchequer of Us and Our heirs, and attachments, as well in pleas of the Crown as in all others, as well in the same fees, as also in other fees which are held of the same in the said county of Cornwall; so that no sheriff, or other bailiff or minister of Us or Our heirs enter those fees to execute the said writs and summonses or to make attachments, as well in pleas of the Crown as in the others aforesaid, or do any other official act (officium) there, except in default of the said Duke and other Dukes of the said place, and his and their bailiff and minister……..”

“Given by Our hand at the Tower of London, in the 11th year of Our reign”.

(From the appendix to Rowe v Brenton 1828, (8B @ C737) Manning edition, 1830).

Note:- These special provisions for a country claimed as an English county or an English Duchy are incompatible with Magna Charta.   The suppression of the Cornish Celtic identity and culture has to be considered as a motive.

Note:- “Do any other official act there”.   (Charter No.3 above).   In 1337 it was historically considered an achievement by the English to exploit another country with a foreign language like Cornwall, where Duchy privileges could be authorised by the unlimited royal prerogative unrestrained by Magna Charta.   Today, there appears to be a denial of international democratic principles to avoid modernisation.

5. Statement by the Duchy of Cornwall, 1855.

“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 with all such royal prerogatives”.    (The Foreshore of Cornwall dispute, Crown v. Duchy,  Statement by the Duchy, page 9, Duchy of Cornwall,  London 1855).

Note:-  First charter granted 17th March 1337 and second charter of 18th March 1337 were deemed to be Acts of Parliament by  “The Prince’s Case” 1606 (8 Co.Rep.14b), but not so for the third charter, authorised almost one year later by the unlimited royal prerogative, 3rd January 1338.   By agreement, the royal prerogative could obviously be brought into action where the government could disclaim responsibility.

Note:- In English law Duchy of Cornwall powers have been exercised on the strength of an unlimited royal prerogative by the Duke or when no Duke, by the Crown.  It is contended that the object of the third Duchy of Cornwall charter grants of Summons of Exchequer etc., was effectively extending the powers of Duchy charters one and two without requiring the authority of Parliament.   At a time when the indigenous Cornish were actually classified as “foreign”, i.e., Celtic not Anglo-Saxon, by the English authorities, who considered the ‘levying money” by royal prerogative valid authority for non-English Cornwall just as the royal prerogative was centuries later considered valid authority for the dismissal of an Australian Prime Minister in 1975.

7. Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863.

Possessions of the Duke of Cornwall shall include “regalities”, section 37.

(With the authority of the powers granted by the third Duchy of Cornwall Charter).

Note:- Regalities = “Attribute of kingly power”  per Oxford English Dictionary.

Note:- Regalities as a prerogative enabled the income from the double tax on Cornish tin, plus bona vacantia and intestate estates, etc., to be invested outside Cornwall.

8. Crown Estate Act 1961

The Crown Estate is required, under the Crown Estate Act 1961 sections 3 & 4, to implement:  “Grants for public purposes” and “excluding any element of

Monopoly”.   The Crown Estate, in its response to a Freedom of Information

request in a letter to the undersigned of 7th January 2005, gave this information: “The

Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. The analogous

landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”.   Since the public spirited

provisions of the Crown Estate do not apply to Cornwall in any Act of Parliament

they are, therefore, incompatible with Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights.

Note:- The end result is that the English Crown Estate does not invest in

Cornwall while the English Duchy of Cornwall invests outside Cornwall.

9.  The failure of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights

Royal Land  –  “The seeds sown by Victoria (1837 – 1901) in seeking to break free of the shackles imposed on British monarchs since the Glorious Revolution in 1688 have grown into seriously big plants.     If the aristocratic fathers of British freedom from the barons of Runnymede 1215 through to the signatories of the Bill of Rights 1688 were trying to design a powerless, nominal monarchy, then they have failed.   The richest family in Britain may lack formal or coercive powers, but they more than make up for this in influence, which, practically speaking is how power functions in a democracy in the intervals between elections”. (Who Owns Britain, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2001, page 59).

10. English constitutional law

It would appear that in terms of English law the “regalities” in the 1863-1982 Duchy of Cornwall Management Act is undemocratic.   This form of the prerogative appears intended to free the Duke from the law and effective public control of the ‘legally detached’ English Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall, home of the indigenous Cornish Celtic national minority.  The historical facts suggest a continuation of the collective punishment plan of English feudalism in order to hide the extent of the methods still being employed to secure an income for the heir to the throne from the Duchy, an income, that is, which also serves to relieve the English national majority of their constitutional duty to provide that income through taxation.

In the Port Navas oysters case an Information Tribunal of 4th November 2011, (Case No: EA/2010/0182) ruled that the Duchy of Cornwall is to be classified as a public body on the grounds that: “the provision of an income for the Duke is a function of public administration”. (para.110), and: “an extremely important constitutional role for the UK”. (para.109).

“The legal background to the Duchy (of Cornwall) makes it clear that it belongs to the Crown.   What is invidious about the position of the Duchy is its compromising of the original principle of English constitutional law, that the Monarch should be dependent on Parliament for finance”. (Who Owns Britain, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2002, page 91).

These statements expose the otherwise unrecognised exploitation of Cornwall.

11. Conclusion

Consequently, if English people believe in justice and their constitution, they will accept their constitutional duty and start providing an income for the heir to the throne through general taxation with no exemptions.  They would also repeal all three of the dictatorial English Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337/8 as well as the “regalities” etc., of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982.    This would, at last, be in recognition of the fact that these policies are so obviously incompatible with the English Magna Charta 1297, (We will not deny any man justice),  the Bill of Rights 1688 (Pretence of prerogative illegal) and the international  basic democratic principle of justice that: “All humans are equal before the law”.

Note:- Equality before the law is not part of the British constitution.   It is intended to be a guaranteed individual right and the basic principle to be applied in the legislative process.  It is included in the constitutions of all the other forty-six members states of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg.  (para.6 above).

At the centre of the unlimited inequalities before the law is the unlimited prerogative powers and exemptions for the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall, as well as the protection given for its: “rights property and profits” under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s.40g.  Across the Tamar it is quite different.  There are legal limitations imposed on the Crown Estate to: “Exclude monopoly” and guarantee: “Grants for public purposes” (para.8 above) in the remainder of the UK.   This comparison reveals a secret policy to impose a state monopoly on the Cornish national minority in order to maximise income for the Duke of Cornwall, heir to the throne.

“Compliance – Member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that: (a) any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished”. (Article 14, Directive 2000/43/EC, The Race Directive).

Colin Murley

©Save Cornwall – 7th December 2011

Posted in Save Cornwall | Leave a comment

The UK Bias against Equality

A comparison of the

47 Members of the Council of Europe for Human Rights

Essential explanatory notes:-

Symbol: * 17   Nations ratifying Protocol 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights.   Article 1 (2)  “No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1”. (Paragraph 1, includes:-  “association with a national minority”). (Not ratified by the United Kingdom).

Symbol: #  27   Members of the European Union. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 20 provides: “Everyone is equal before the law”. (Opt-outs by Ireland, Poland and the United Kingdom).

Symbol:  €  17  Members of the Eurozone plus 4 adoptions of the Euro currency. (Andorra; Montenegro: Monaco; San Marino) (Does not include the United Kingdom).

Symbol: + 44   Members of the United Nations who have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:-   “Individuals who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated may, after exhausting domestic remedies, submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration”.   Article 26, “All persons are equal before the law………….”.    Article 27, includes, “right of a minority to enjoy their own culture”. (Ratifications at 30.10.2011). (Not ratified by Switzerland; Monaco or the United Kingdom).

Council of Europe Member State

Constitutional provision for equality before the law

Albania* + Article 18   All are equal before the law.

Andorra*€ + Article 5   The United Nations Universal Declaration of  Human Rights is binding.  (UNUD includes: “Equality before the Law” at Article 7 as important for minorities).

Armenia* + Article 16  All are equal before the law.

Austria# € + Article 2   All citizens are equal before the law.

Azerbaijan + Article 25  All people are equal with respect to the law & law court.

Belgium# € + Article 10   Equality before the law.

Bosnia Herzegovina* + Article 2  Directly applicable European Convention of Human Rights and Protocols.

Bulgaria# + Art. 6 (2)  All citizens shall be equal before the law.

Czech Republic# + Article 3  All people are free and equal in their rights.

Croatia* + Article 14   All shall be equal before the law.

Cyprus*# € + Article 28   All people are equal before the law.

Denmark# + Article 83   All privileges by legislation attached to nobility title and rank shall be abolished.

Estonia# € + Para. 12  Everyone is equal before the law.

Finland*# € + Section 6   Everyone is equal before the law.

France# € + Maxim of the Republic “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”.

Article 71  “Referral may be made to the Defender of Right by every person who considers his rights to have been  infringed by the operation of a public  service or of a body carrying out a public service mission”.

Georgia* + Article 7  Universal Human Rights as directly acting law.

Germany# € + Article 3   All persons are equal before the law.

Greece# € + Pt.2.Art.1   All Greeks are equal before the law.

Hungary# + Art.XIV.1  Everyone is equal before the law.

Iceland + Article 65   Everyone shall be equal before the law.

Ireland# € + Article 40  All citizens shall be held equal before the law.

Italy# € + Article 3   All citizens are equal before the law.

Latvia# + Article 91  All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts.

Lichtenstein + Article 31 (1)   All citizens shall be equal before the law.

Lithuania# + Article 29   All persons shall be equal before the law.

Luxembourg*# € + Art.11 (2)   Luxembourgers are equal before the law.

Malta# € + Sect.45   No law shall make any provision that is discriminatory.

Macedonia* + Art.9 (2)   All citizens are equal before the constitution and the law.

Moldova + Art.16. (2)   All citizens of the Republic are equal before the law.

Monaco Article 17    All Monegasques are equal before the law.

Montenegro* € +          See Serbia.

Netherlands*# € + Article 1   All persons shall be treated equally.

Norway + Article 95    Equality before the law.

Poland# + Article 32   All persons are equal before the law.

Portugal# € + Article 13 All citizens are equal before the law.

& Art. 8 “The rules or principles of general or ordinary

international law are an integral part of Portuguese law”.

Romania + Article 16  Citizens are equal before the law. No one is above the law.

Russia + Article 19   All people shall be equal before the law and court.

San Marino* € + Article 4   All are equal before the law. (Citizens Rights Act 1974).

Serbia* + Article 21  All are equal before the constitution and law.

Slovakia# € + Article 12   People are free and equal in dignity and their rights.

Slovenia# € + Article 14    All are equal before the law.

Spain*# € + Article 14   Spaniards are equal before the law.

Sweden # + Art. 9 (1)   The Constitution of the European Monarchy of Sweden

“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”.

Switzerland Article 8   All humans are equal before the law.

Ukraine* + Article 24  Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law.

Turkey + Art.10 (2)  All individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law. (3) No privilege may be granted to any individual, family, group or class.

United Kingdom# “The UK has not yet signed or ratified Protocol 12 to the ECHR which recognises a freestanding right to equal treatment”. (RAXEN – Report 4, UK – Comparative constitutional law – 2004), (not by 2011). The Duke of Cornwall’s constitutional rights include:- “Where a bill (draft legislation) affects the hereditary revenues, personal property or other interests of the Duchy of Cornwall (mostly in Cornwall), then, the consent of the Prince of Wales (the Duke of Cornwall) must be signified in both Houses of Parliament before the bill is passed (becomes law). Cabinet Office guidance states”.  (The Guardian, 30th October 2011).

By a Freedom of Information Tribunal of 3rd November 2011 (Case No:- EA/2010/0182) Judge Angel ruled:-  “In a modern context the Duchy is carrying out the public function or service of providing an income for the undertaking of an extremely important constitutional role in the UK”. (para.109). “The provision of an income for the Duke is a function of public administration”, (para.110). (Quote from:- Preserve Port Navas Quay; Information Tribunal Ruling).

© Save Cornwall –  5th November 2011


Posted in Save Cornwall | 1 Comment

CROWN IMMUNITY BY THE STATE SINCE 1066

Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights 1688 were designed to control the abuse of power through guaranteeing the “rights and liberties of the subject”.   The evidence is mounting that this established constitutional balance in under threat.

One year after the first Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 1337, a third of 1338, gave the Dukes of Cornwall the power to govern Cornwall.  The first was held to be an Act of Parliament in 1606 but not the third.   Serious doubts on the validity of this third charter eventually prompted the support of Acts of Parliament.   This led to:  The Limitation Act 1980 section 37 (4):-  “Reference to the Crown shall apply to lands and advowsons forming part of the possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall as if for the references to the Crown there were substituted references to the Duke of Cornwall as defined in the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863”.     This Act of 1863 had also attempted to legalise parts of the third Duchy Charter by including “regalities” as a ‘Possession of the Duchy’. In this case, the regalities of the Duchy of Cornwall apply as if regalities of “the state” were intended.    The assumption of the powers, prerogatives and immunities of the Crown by the state have been exercised by the Crown or the Duchy on behalf of, and authorised by the state, in the sure knowledge that criticism of the Crown or Duchy would be condemned as an act of disloyalty to the state.    Thus can political debate be curtailed by the state.

Some of the property and privileges of the third Duchy Charter of 1338 were at last made law by The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 for the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall.  The Limitation Act 1980 {s.37(6)} for gold and silver deposits in Cornwall and the Treasure Act 1996 for gold and silver and base metal treasure in Cornwall. Otherwise, it is noted that: “If the King grants to a man return of all manner of writs, yet he shall not have Return of Summons of Exchequer, for this touches the King himself and is not between party and party”.  (Plowden, Commentaries 1761, p.334).

There is a problem.  The state has granted by the third Duchy charter:  “Summons of Exchequer for ever” for the Duke to exercise absolute power in Cornwall.   There is no Act of Parliament to re-create “Summons of Exchequer” for the Duke in Cornwall, unless, “regalities, prerogative powers and jurisdictions” of the Bill of Rights assumes the government of Cornwall by the Duke, the heir to the throne.   The powers and jurisdictions of the Duchy under the third Charter of 1338 to control Cornish speaking Cornwall as if it were a separate country, have, after many centuries in force, been given state support with legislation to guarantee an income for the heir to the throne, principally from Cornwall, in place of the state collecting additional taxation from all British citizens to obtain that income.   This course was taken rather than repeal “prerogatives” and “summons of Exchequer” which are equivalent to “the pretext of prerogative” subsequently condemned by the Bill of Rights in 1688.

“The primary function of the Duchy of Cornwall created 1337 is to provide an income for present and future Dukes of Cornwall”.  (Annual Duchy of Cornwall Financial Statement, 1993).   This was done to avoid taxing the English public.   By this imposition, the state had accepted the established custom that: “The English people could continue to indulge their natural dislike of paying taxes and their predilection of starving government of the means to govern”.  (England under the Tudors, G.R.Elton, p.47, Metheun, London, 1967).

“The invidious position of the Duchy is that it compromises the original principle of English constitutional law that the Monarch should be dependent on Parliament for finance”.   (Who Owns Britain, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, 2002).

Since 1066 the claim has been made that: “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales all others own an estate in land”.  (Land Registration Act 2002, Intro. para 4 ‘Title to land’).   The Crown Estate comprises lands, other rights and minerals which the Monarch enjoys in her political capacity”.  (Halsbury’s Laws, Vol. 12(1), para.278).  So, in reality, the state has permitted the Crown to be the only absolute political owner of all land.

The heir to the throne also acts as an arm of the state (by helping to avoid taxation of the English public by the state) when making political decisions relevant to the land of the Duchy of Cornwall which a Duke occupies but “has no formal title and cannot dispose of the lands”.  (The Prime Minister, Hansard, 25th March 1996).

The English state secret concerns the implementation of an alternative tax on Cornwall without breaking the law. There were restrictions. “The exercise of the prerogative by the rightful heir out of possession is void and of no legal effect”. (3 Co. Inst 7)”.     (From Halsbury’s Laws; 4th Ed; Vol.8;  Constitutional Law; para. 902; Exercise of the Prerogative; Butterworths 1974).   This convention, designed to prevent further acts of usurpation of the English throne by the heir apparent, could be ignored by the third Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 1338 by granting the Duke the right to exercise absolute power legally in Cornwall only if restricted to Celtic Cornwall as being separate from England.   The objective was to give the Duke the power to collect his income without disturbing the English power structure while, at the same time permitting the state to avoid levelling a constitutional tax on the English national majority.    The Duchy tax, called ‘coinage’, secured mostly from Cornish tin production (95% of all produced), was levied on Cornish tin production at twice the rate per hundredweight for the indigenous Celtic people as that levied on tin production in Anglo-Saxon Devon. (The Stannarties, G.R.Lewis, Harvard, 1908).

If the Duke of Cornwall, as heir to the throne, is considered to be “an occupier” of Cornwall as state property, then, he would apparently be eligible for “Crown immunity”.    Duchy land, as with departments of state, also has immunity from compulsory purchase under Part 8 & 9 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.   This is in addition to the Duke already being well covered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3), which declares:-  “Any reference in this Act to His (now Her) Majesty in His (Her) private capacity shall be construed as including a reference to the Duke of Cornwall”.  The state controlled Duchy is not mentioned.

On 26th July 2006 HM Treasury stated in a letter: “ It (the Duchy of Cornwall) remains private because it has never been taken into public ownership by purchase, under statute or otherwise”.  There is official silence as to why 1066 state land for the Crown Estate is political and 1066 state land for the Duchy of Cornwall is private.   Ultimately the state is responsible for the actions and omissions of the Duchy of Cornwall. The use of “private” to describe the Duchy is a denial of the aims and principles of the Bill of Rights 1688 which make no reference to any private estates.

In 2006 ‘HM Treasury’ failed to mention its own legal position.  The obscure Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982 at section 8 declares:-  “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”.   This high level of priority is for state land classified as Duchy land.  It would appear that HM Treasury is required to ensure that the Cornish national minority are, in compliance with this Act, never consulted and treated as second class citizens.

The  “rights, property and profits” (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, sections 38 (3) & 40.2g) of the heir to the throne continue to be applicable to Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall based on the feudal powers and immunities of the state in Duchy Charter No.3 which establishes a precedent eligible to be used as the basis for the abuse of state power elsewhere in the UK.  Unlike, for example, in Australia, in particular Queensland, land is subject to a land tax but there is no land tax in the UK.

From the grave Magna Charta finally made a token challenge to: “The state as absolute owner of land”.    By the Crown Estate Act 1961, sections 3 & 4, this arm of the state shall implement:  “Grants for public purposes” and “excluding any element of Monopoly”. However, these public spirited provisions do not apply to Cornwall in any Act of Parliament. The Duchy of Cornwall has immunity from the Freedom of Information Act which indicates immunity for the state to conceal aspects of Cornish history.   This has been indirectly confirmed by the state’s Crown Estate.   The Crown Estate, in its response to a Freedom of Information request in a letter to the undersigned of 7th January 2005, gave this information: “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall.  The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”.   What was the point of this separation by the state of Cornwall from the remainder of the UK?

If only Magna Charta of 1215 was still in force. The abolished Magna Charta required the Monarch to: “return deprived lands, castles, and liberties”. (Article 52). The shall be “for ever” of Magna Charta has been lost but retained in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall Charters. It would appear that the inspiration of “the return of lands” in Magna Charta of 1215 and “the liberties of the people” in Bill of Rights of 1688 is merely a Magna English myth celebrated to hide subsequent extensions to the monopoly of British state power over Cornish land called Duchy land or English Heritage to avoid questions by hiding behind a royal title.

With a contested: Duchy of Cornwall third charter summons of Exchequer of 1338 to a private occupier of state land with jurisdiction and unlimited regalities confirmed in 1863, to impose a separate taxation system on the Cornish, its profits invested wherever it chooses confirmed in 1947, the right to claim gold and silver deposits and treasure and bona vacantia in Cornwall on behalf of the state but, by a Prime Ministerial statement, “has no formal title and cannot dispose of the lands” in 1996 plus, HM Treasury “never taken into public ownership” of 2006 and absolute owner with state immunity called Crown immunity since 1066,  Her public capacity and His private capacity and Duchy immunity from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, then, at the very least after all the historic and deceptive abuses of names and titles, Charters or Acts, the property of the Duchy of Cornwall belongs to the original owners, the indigenous Cornish people, urgently required for affordable housing and to promote the Cornish language and culture.

Hence, it is feared, the centuries of racially discriminating policies by the state are being suppressed as a state secret rather than being corrected.   The solution to this incontestable history appears to be to throw the Cornish into the dustbin of history by convincing them that they are English.  The final insult is the ten year long exclusion of the Cornish from the Framework Convention for National Minorities, clearly in an attempt to hide the Celtic history of Cornwall and the feudal function of the Duchy of Cornwall retained to facilitate converting the nationality of the Cornish minority to that of the English majority.

Cornwall then, has been separated by the state from “all land”, taken at the Conquest of 1066, and isolate it from Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, to create Cornwall as the only absolute ‘private’ state monopoly.    The evidence reveals that the state exploits its political monopoly of prerogative and immunity powers through the medium of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall.  The Duchy of Cornwall is described as “a mark of English overlordship” by Lord Kilbarandon in the report of The Royal Commission on the Constitution of  1972.

Secrecy is enforced .  “There are restrictions on any questions which casts reflections on the royal family”.  (House of Commons Library, June 1997 to Andrew George M.P.)    It is contended that the various arms of the state have come together in the Freedom of Information Act (s.37) to exclude the public from the constitutional debate by the immunity from disclosure of exchanges between a member of the royal family and a Minister of the Crown.  This arrangement conceals monopoly power.

The American system of “legal indeterminacy” accepts that “law is nothing more that politics by another name”. However, the imbedded compensating principle of this Anglo-Saxon system is its emphasis on equality before the law and the importance of controlling the abuse of power.  Unfortunately, justice is compromised in Cornwall by state immunities under the name of  “Crown or Duchy” which can hide the abuse of state power under another political name.

International standards are ignored and the resulting legal vacuum removes the means of effectively controlling the abuse of power by all arms of the state.  The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, has not been incorporated into UK law. Of special importance for minorities is Article 7, the right to “equality before the law”.    Protocol 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights has also not been ratified by the UK.   Protocol 12 affirms:  “No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any grounds”.    Human Rights provisions must be recognised as absolutely necessary to protect all the people from the abuse of power through state immunity, of, by and for the state.

Finally, the situation demands a demonstration of official integrity which can be achieved by including the Cornish within the provisions of the Framework Convention for National Minorities and making all United Nations human rights covenants and conventions part of British constitutional law which shall then be guaranteed “for ever”.

© Save Cornwall

Posted in Save Cornwall | 1 Comment