5 February 2000

Dear Mr Korkeakivi

I write to express my desire to be recognised as a Cornishman in my own country of Cornwall in spite of HM Government’s consistent and total disregard for the Cornish and our unique Celtic culture and identity. Instead, we are continually being reminded, through official literature and institutions, of our English nationality. Our ancient Cornish sites are administered by "English Heritage", even though most of them pre-date the Anglo-Saxon, or English, invasion of Britain by several hundred years. The administration extends to the world famous Court of the Celtic King Arthur, the sworn enemy of the Saxons, at Tintagel, where even King Arthur himself is portrayed wrapped in the English flag of St George, in a gross distortion of Cornish history. This, to me, is offensive but it is entirely consistent with the official English view that Cornwall is just another shire county of England and the Cornish people are simply English themselves.

Cornwall, or to be more correct, Kernow, is one of the five Celtic Nations of Britain whose indigenous inhabitants are more closely related to the people of Brittany (who were, incidentally, originally of Cornish stock), Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. It has a distinct culture, heritage, language (Kernewek) and a very strong sense of national identity and pride, which is particularly evident at every rugby match involving the Cornish side. Recently, and in spite of the venue being nearly 300 miles from home territory, over 40,000 (nearly 10% of the Cornish population) people travelled to Twickenham in support of the Cornish side, in the finals of the R.U. county championship. The supporters of our opponents are numbered only in 3 or 4,000, though the total attendance may be augmented by the number of neutral supporters, who are attracted by the distinctive atmosphere, which bears comparison with that which obtains when an international match takes place. At finals, where the Cornish side is absent, attendance figures are much more modest and crowds of, perhaps, 5,000 are the norm.

A common argument in British Government circles is that it is impossible to have harmonisation of taxation throughout the European Union because of the huge disparities of wealth between the poorest members, such as Portugal and Greece, and the more affluent members such as Germany or Britain itself. Yet, at the same time, the British Government has no difficulty with the applicability of the concept of tax harmonisation to a disparate Britain, where there are great differences in economic and social well-being between Cornwall, the poorest region of Britain, and the South East of Britain which not only is the richest part of Britain but probably of Europe. To Cornwall’s detriment, national interest rates are naturally determined according to the economic conditions appertaining in Britain’s decisively affluent region, the South East. Of course, quite reasonably, the counter to this disparity is the quid pro quo in the form of Regional Aid, which has been made available in the post-war period. This has been dispensed with varying degrees of parsimony by successive administrations and, finally, under Margaret Thatcher, the low point was reached when aid to a problem region simply was not reconcilable with the philosophy of market forces. Such has been the overall result of post-war government assistance that, still finding ourselves with major structural imbalances in our economy and a lamentable infrastructure, particularly in view of our geographical location, we have a GDP which, being less than 70% of the E.U. average, has qualified us for Objective 1 status.

Cornwall has also suffered, along with other areas of Britain, but especially so in view of the severity of our economic problems, from the emasculation of local government. This has been associated largely with the policy of centralisation pursued by the same Margaret Thatcher and it has been a policy, which has been little short of catastrophic for Cornwall. Whole swathes of activity, which were once the concern of the elected representatives of local people, is now under the control of some 50,000 quangocrats, elected by no-one and accountable only to the central government. Once Britain, with its vibrant local democracy viewed as a powerful check on a powerful executive at Westminster, had been a source of world wide admiration and indeed our system was regarded almost universally as the template for those embarking on the route to democratisation. The distinguished Frenchman historian, de Tocqueville, when eulogising the virtues of British local democracy, attributed the British success in North America during the Seven Years War to the tradition of making decisions on the spot without the colonists being required to consult the central authority in London, unlike their French counterparts, who operated in a much more centralised milieu. (La Democratie en Amerique by Alexis Charles de Tocqueville, 1835) How ironic, then, that today roles have been reversed, and that it is to the constituent units of the E.U. that we now have to look for a model of excellence in local democracy! Unfortunately, our problems in Britain stem largely from the lack of a written constitution, which should be the bulwark against the infringement of our democratic freedom. With the possible exception of New Zealand and Israel, Britain, alone among the major democracies, lacks a constitutional text, which should be the overarching and supreme power since it alone can ordain democracy.

Cornwall’s history, from an Englishman’s point of view, is being completely rewritten and all reference to Cornwall’s distinct identity and culture, i.e. not being English, appear to have been removed. This always seems to be the case unless, of course, a feature is well known, or has popular appeal, as in the instance of King Arthur, where he is being increasingly depicted as having been Anglo-Saxon, rather than Celtic, in the first place. There are many examples whereby historians, sympathetic to the English cause, have either been completely false, or have been economical with the truth. A good example is shown by Thomas Pearce, writing in 1725, in his Laws and Customs of the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon, when he writes:

This is a completely erroneous statement since it is widely acknowledged that the Cornish nation are indeed a Celtic nation who are descended from the original Britons and were definitely not Saxons. In fact, such eminent English authorities as Sir John Doddridge, a foremost English judge and Solicitor-General of the 17th century, completely contradicts this claim when he states in his Historical Account of the Ancient and Modern State of the Principality of Wales, Dutchy of Cornwall and Earldom of Chester (1st edition, 1630, 2nd edition, 1714) that:

It is not entirely clear why Thomas Pearce could have made this mistake in the face of such an eminent opinion. However, a possible explanation might possibly lie in his connection and relationship with the Duchy of Cornwall. In his effusing and obsequious dedication to the then Duke of Cornwall at the commencement of his work, Pearce claims:

Again, in typical Pearce fashion, he makes a very serious error. This error must have been deliberate since a crucial tenet of one of the Duchy of Cornwall Charters, that of King Edward 111, (a Plantagenet), in 1337, is that the Duchy of Cornwall is required to be handed down, by law, successively to the King’s eldest son to ensure that the holder of the Dukedom was of the Plantagenet line. However, when King Henry V11 (a Tudor), widely held to have usurped the throne, during the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet succession was broken. This fact has profound implications for past and present holders of the Duchy of Cornwall and could be why Thomas Pearce took such great pains to paint an erroneous tradition of Anglo-Saxonism in Cornwall and to portray the completely false impression that the Duke was the direct descendant of Edward Plantagenet. (See Duchy Charters and the Charter of Pardon ({1508}). A compounding factor to the issue of the Stannary and Duchy Charters is that the then authorities could not interpret them since many of them could only speak Norman French.

Another illuminating example of Cornwall’s unique position within an English framework can be gleaned from William Stubbs’ "Constitutional History of England", Clarendon Press, Oxford 1875, 1st edition. The conclusion from this work must be that, since there is no mention at all of the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duke of Cornwall, other than in reference to their military campaigns elsewhere, the Duchy of Cornwall neither has no constitutional position in England, nor England a constitutional governing influence in Cornwall and therefore, by implication, it cannot form part of that country. Inevitably, and taking into account the evidence of the Duchy of Cornwall Charters, an additional inference must be that the Duchy plays a constitutional role in Cornwall itself, despite Government denials.

One further example which serves to illustrate that Cornwall was once regarded as a separate entity can be seen from the reference in C S Gilbert’s "Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall", 1st Edition, 1817, to Egbert, King of the Saxons, who, after his victory at Hingston Down in 835, commanded:

Cornish people are consistently denied opportunities to learn their own Cornish history, having instead to accept sanitised English versions of events in the state education system. These, of course, are always written in a way that glorifies the Anglo-Saxons, the English and the Monarchy, whereas the Cornish are normally described as ignorant, unruly or rebellious in any historical instance where they have taken the opposite view to the ruling English majority. This is common in all states that wish to create an emotional patriotism and, in Cornwall’s case, this has been imposed, in some part, through the state education system.

I have yet to find, in a school text book, reference to the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion, the consequences of which were disastrous for the Cornish people. The disturbance occurred as a direct result of King Henry V111’s reformation of the monasteries. At this time, the Cornish were monoglot speakers of the Cornish language. The result of Henry’s edicts, which were imposed by King Edward V1, was that the Cornish were denied their Latin Mass, i.e. the one with which they were familiar, even though they might not have been fully conversant with the language itself, in favour of the English version which was totally foreign to them. Furthermore, Edward V1 forbade the publication of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in the Cornish language whereas the Welsh suffered much less punishment. This single action, it is claimed, led to the late 18th century demise of the Cornish language whose modern revival is seriously undermined primarily through the Government’s indifference to a formally recognised minority language today. The Cornish, who were God-fearing people and who were denied their right to conduct their religious ceremonies in the way that they had done for several centuries, elected to challenge this directive. This challenge, one of a number in Cornish history, to a denial of human rights, has ever since been termed by the English as a "rebellion". After the "rebellion" was brutally quashed by Lord Russell at Exeter, retribution was swiftly sought in the country of Cornwall where it is now recognised that roughly 50% of the adult male population was slaughtered in yet another brutal display of English butchery. (See Notes on the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 by Ann Trevenen Jenkin, 1999, ISBN 0 9524601 4 and Cornwall’s Secret War, Pol Hodge, ISBN 1 899342 39 7) Not surprisingly, there is little mention of these bloody facts in any official histories of England.

Insight into this oppressive episode of Cornish history can be gained in Rev. Whitaker’s Cathedral of Cornwall, 1809 in the following terms:

NB The expression "this Wales in a corner" clearly refers to Cornuwalleas, or Cornwall and it must be concluded that the Cornish were much more intimately related to the Welsh than the English.

Despite it being a recognised minority language deserving of protection, Kernewek does not receive any central government financial assistance to support it. It does, however, receive a small sum from local government. In British Government circles it is considered to be a "dead" language in spite of the fact that there are at least 3000 people who can either speak it, or who are learning it. In the region of 80% of our place names are either in the Cornish language or are derived from it. How long this situation will continue remains to be seen since there are now enormous pressures being applied to local authorities, in Cornwall, to refrain from the use of the Cornish language for street naming, in new housing developments, for fear of causing confusion to controllers of emergency services, most of whom, in the interest of "cost saving", are now based some considerable distance away in England. This is in complete contrast to the fact that authorities elsewhere in the Southeast of Britain don’t seem to be under the same planning pressures where, in the district of Southall in London, signs are even permitted in Sanskrit at the local railway station, in deference to the local ETHNIC Indian minority!

It is my strongly held opinion that Cornish people are discriminated against when it comes to employment opportunities. Very few people of Cornish birth hold jobs in the professions, local government, support services or in positions of influence unless those jobs are of a relatively menial nature. I am one of the lucky ones! I am a retired dental surgeon who was one of the 5 or 6 dentists out of a total in Cornwall of roughly 140 who were of Cornish origin. This, perhaps, might be explained by the fact that Cornish people, in the main, are forced to seek educational and employment opportunities outside of Cornwall with the result that those employment opportunities existing in Cornwall are taken by more affluent in-comers.

Cornish people do not enjoy the right of an unbiased or free press. Both television and newspapers are controlled by bodies in England and, in the case of the papers, they consistently seem refuse to publish any significant contributions from the Cornish public unless they are either anti-European in nature or concern triviality. Matters which would normally be of great interest to indigenous Cornish readers go largely unreported. It is very evident that the local BBC radio station, Radio Cornwall, do not employ individuals with Cornish accents in programmes of substance and it is also apparent that there has been no fair coverage whatsoever of fundamentally important issues such as the current approaches to the Council of Europe in regard to human rights abuses in Cornwall. Those scant reports that have been broadcast on Radio Cornwall simply mention the approach to Europe but fail to mention the alleged abuse of human rights.

Cornwall has a world-wide reputation for hard-rock mining and it was Cornish miners, in their exploitation of Cornwall’s tin and copper deposits, who were largely responsible for the creation of Britain’s wealth during the Industrial Revolution. Bearing in mind the truly staggering value of the minerals produced at the behest of the Duchy of Cornwall, one has to ask why, in view of centuries of wealth creation, the Cornish people are shortly to be the grateful recipients of European Objective One funding?

Cornwall, through its distinction as Britain’s one time prime producer of wealth, has been linked to the Duchy of Cornwall whose present incumbent, Prince Charles, reaps benefit in the form of revenue from Duchy lands and property. He also owns substantial mineral rights, foreshores and, in the case of people who die intestate, has the right to their estates on their decease. In this way, neither the British Government nor the tax-payer at large is obliged to provide an income to the heir of the throne and today, the Duchy is perceived by the British Government as little more than a private business enterprise. How many other private landlords enjoy this privileged and essentially monarchical status which has been the recipient of funds from many funding bodies and which is backed up with no less than 100 Acts of Parliament and re-inforced by the benefit of exemption from taxation? It is perfectly clear that, under the Duchy Charters, the Duke can exercise the Royal Privilege in Cornwall and theoretically would be able to seize any property and land at will and with total impunity. This is wholly unacceptable in a modern "democracy" where a fundamental human right is the principle of equality before the law, irrespective of status or wealth.

Interestingly, HM Government does not recognise the ancient Stannary Laws and the Cornish Stannary Parliament, both of which respected academics admit to have been established in "time out of mind" (The Laws and Customs of the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon, Thomas Pearce 1725) and whose status have been re-affirmed many times in a number of ancient Charters, some of which were granted under the Royal Privilege. These Charters, in addition to the rights and benefits bestowed on the Duke, grant tinners and their heirs and successors, the inalienable right of their own Stannary Parliament, which, because they were granted under the Royal Privilege, cannot be taken away, even by Act of Westminster Parliament. Unfortunately, successive Dukes of Cornwall have actively gerrymandered away the authority and status of the Cornish Stannary Parliament and its associated Institutions with the tragic consequence that today’s heirs and successors of the original tinners (which in today’s terms means all Cornishmen) are denied their ancient rights, originally guaranteed under the various Charter arrangements, whilst His Majesty, the Duke, has ensured that his benefits and rights have been re-inforced!

One thing is certain. Cornish people must be given the opportunity of determining the legality of both the ancient Stannary Laws and Charters and the Duchy of Cornwall Charters. As outlined earlier, serious doubts must arise when one considers the status of the present Duchy of Cornwall and the present Duke particularly in regard to my earlier comments on the Plantagenet line of succession. Many eminent lawyers already take the opinion that these ancient Laws, Customs and Charters, since they have never been formally repealed, should be recognised as such by the English legal system. The implications for the unwritten Constitution of Britain and the Monarchy itself could well be very serious indeed if the legality of the above mentioned charters etc. were ever formally established This, perhaps might explain the Westminster Government’s reluctance to clarify this matter. Due to the huge costs involved in such a legal process and the fact that any such judgement would inevitably be determined in an English court where an unbiased opinion could not be guaranteed, an action has, so far, not been taken. Nevertheless, individuals claiming tinner’s rights have sought for their hearings to be held in the local Stannary Court in Truro. Interestingly, the official County Court now fulfils this function which begs the question:

If the Stannary Laws have been repealed, why does the English legal system sanction this function of the County Court?

Furthermore, there is strong evidence to suggest that issues of a Stannary nature cause the most serious difficulties when arising in English courts. (See Judge Paul Laity’s synopsis and comments which may be viewed by selecting this link button.   Use Back/Return facility to return here.)

Because of the extreme complexity of the problem and the fact that we are still "subjects" of the Crown, rather than citizens protected by a written constitution, the oppression and discrimination against a national minority by a national majority will continue - unless, of course, the Council of Europe can successfully intervene. Since the Council of Europe has so clearly and ably set forth clear principles in its Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Cornish people may, at long last, have some hope of enjoying the full protection and recognition which it rightly deserves.

One thing is certain and that is that the unique culture and history of Cornwall, as well as the distinct identity of the Cornish themselves, are seriously at risk of being lost due to the ever increasing flood of relatively affluent in-comers into this region. Such a rapidly expanding population naturally causes severe social problems for the Cornish themselves who, subject to low wages, cannot hope to keep pace with rapidly rising house price inflation, and are forced to live in the more socially deprived areas of Cornwall. Through no fault of their own but through government inspired ignorance, selective amnesia and somnambulism, the in-comers will continue to inadvertently, in most cases, add to the state sponsored elimination of a proud national minority people. This is a flagrant breach of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to which the British Government is a signatory. The continuing influx of people from other parts of Britain, the vast majority of whom come from England, will no doubt aid the Government’s statistical view that Cornwall is simply another shire county of England. Unfortunately, it will be impossible for Cornish people to have any influence in the present systems of government for the simple reason that they will always be out-voted. From being a national minority in their own country of Cornwall, how can they possibly hope to improve their lot by the ballot-box in the context of a British Parliamentary election?

Only today (8 February 2000), I read reports in the local press that the authorities responsible for establishing a much needed University for Cornwall have taken a decision on a suitable location which, in many people’s opinion, is wholly unsatisfactory. In stead of locating this facility, which might very well attract Objective 1 funding, in the largest and most economically depressed area of Cornwall, which also happens to be the largest conurbation of around 50,000 people, where the European investment would have the maximum desired impact, the authorities have chosen a site near Falmouth in one of the most affluent areas of Cornwall in which there is, not surprisingly, a very high concentration of non-Cornish residents. It should be noted that, in this case, a decision, which will have enormous implications for the Cornish people, has been taken by those who are far removed from the realities of Cornwall and who are based in the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. The culture of arrogance, and the "we know best" attitude of English authorities and institutions has been rapidly expanding in Cornwall. Cornish people now have little say in how their utility services, their emergency services or their magistrate courts are run since they are all administered far away in the English counties of Devon and Somerset. (See Western Morning News, 8 February 2000, pages 1 and 5.)

As mentioned earlier, Cornwall is now recognised as the soon to be recipient of European Objective 1 funding. Serious concerns must be raised in this regard since, the British Government has the responsibility of administering the funding. In stead of organising structures within Cornwall itself, HM Government has set up various "quangos" all of which are located out of the region. Naturally, the administrative costs will be top-sliced from the Objective 1 grants and end up in the National Exchequer, the net result being a devaluation of the award available to Cornwall by over 50 million pounds stirling. This cannot either be fair or in the spirit of the European Objective award since this act in itself will not only diminish the value of the total award but will also take many employment opportunities away from the area which should be the beneficiary. Yet again, the Cornish will be seen to have been unfairly discriminated against. A further devaluation of the award will occur since the grants will be initially paid into the bank account of the administering quango and, in stead of earning interest for the area which has been awarded the grant, it will earn interest for the British National Exchequer. Furthermore, the policy of offering grants under the existing arrangements, has inevitably led to great difficulties. In stead of offering grants to well established local manufacturing companies with good track records of economic success and employment, the Authorities have attempted to attract new businesses to the area with these grants. Generally, these firms do not offer employment opportunities to local people because they prefer to recruit from areas elsewhere (i.e. England) where the necessary "skills" are available. Ultimately, when the grants terminate, most of the new firms have relocated back to their origin or to other locations offering similar incentives and the workers that were attracted to Cornwall, having purchased homes etc, then find themselves being impossibly linked to the depressing statistics of Cornwall. This is hardly a good demonstration of an ability to effectively manage money and, since the Objective One structures are essentially administered in the same fashion, one must have serious concerns for the future. This unsatisfactory situation is yet another illustration of the endemic culture of arrogance, which diminishes the power of the Cornish people to effect their own decisions, to which reference was made when dealing with the development of the centrist state by Margaret Thatcher and the choice of the site for a proposed Cornish University .

In conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that Cornwall and the Cornish have been historically denied fair treatment and that they continue to be treated similarly today. This denial stems, in essence, from the unwillingness of the British Government to portray Cornish history in an accurate way which has, in turn, led to today’s very real and continuing denial of human rights and oppression. I hope I have managed to convey the impression that the roots of the problems of Cornwall are not simply phenomena of the past couple of decades but are, in fact, very firmly seated in a sequence of historical events with origins centuries ago. It is my strongly held belief that, if there is to be an effective and satisfactory solution to these enormous problems, the ancient Charters, to which I have referred, must be fully researched and investigated. The result may well turn out to be very unpalatable to the British Government but that is not sufficient reason to deny the Cornish people their human rights.

I hope that this submission may be directed to the appropriate committee for its consideration.

Yours sincerely

Dr Nigel J C Hicks (BDS Lond)