The Reason Why?

Cornwall's Status in Constitutional and International Law

The latest information, to date, [December 2004] concerning a publication date for the proposed definitive book on Cornish Law and Constitution is given as 2006.


      Go direct to TGG Review?
      Go direct to Pictorial representations embedded links?

At the opening of the 1988 Public Inquiry into Cornish objections to continuing imposition of a shared European Parliamentary Constituency with the English city of Plymouth, Cornish Barrister, Paul Smales - acting for the people of Cornwall - pointed out to G D Flather QC, the independent and sole presiding officer, that the Boundary Commission had acted illegally in establishing the proposed constituencies.   This was understood and acknowledged by Flather who gave his assurance that he well understood the law and he would ensure that the Inquiry would reflect this.   What constituted the illegality was never stated in lay terms and this aspect of the discussion was neither included within the written record of the Inquiry nor within Flather's subsequent Report.

That the State and its agencies acts illegally with regard to Cornwall and Cornish Rights has been obvious to many of us for a long time.   The phrase "The Reason Why" - taken, as it is, from the Cornish patriotic song "Trelawny" is a rallying question - almost a vision statement! - which will resound loud and long until the Cornish truth is acknowledged and reconciled.   It is not surprising, therefore, that a recently received publication on 'Cornwall's Status in Constitutional and International Law' has been entitled "The Reason Why".   Given the subject matter of this website, this 33 page A5 publication is a dream come true and should be required reading - perhaps Cornwall Council could be encouraged to arrange for the districts to distribute copies within their Community Charge demand notices?

The publication is an essay written by the late great Paul Laity (Judge and Solicitor, Barrister, Expert in Cornish Constitutional Law) in collaboration with Tim Saunders (poet and historian) and Dr. Alan M Kent (writer and scholar) q.v. This section index panel.   It is, IMHO, grossly under priced at £2-00 plus 50p P & P {UK}.

What the Producers of the book have to say about it:

What are the Stannaries?
Why was Cornwall never annexed to England?
What are the special rights and privileges of the Cornish?

These are only a few of the questions that people ask about Cornwall's legal position.   Members of the public will find many answers in this essay.

Members of the House of Stannators (the Upper Chamber of the Cornish Parliament) asked Cornwall's most eminent legal thinker, Paul Laity, and the poet and historian Tim Saunders to prepare a brief report for the benefit of the general public. With the help of the writer and scholar Alan M Kent they produced The Reason Why.

This report is completely independent.   It is not an official Stannary document, yet it shows that not only are the Stannary claims true, but that most statements about the Duchy of Cornwall are false.   Cornish Sovereignty has never been legally extinguished, and it would be a simple matter to restore Cornish Rights in full.

This is a book that no Cornish person, no lover of freedom, and no person of principle can afford not to read

and inside, in a note 'to our readers':

In this essay we aim to address the general public on a highly specialised subject.   That is why we have kept specialist terms to a minimum.   However, if you write about Rugby, you cannot avoid words like 'try' or 'foul'.   Again in an article on mining you would need to employ terms like 'headgear' and 'adit'.

One problem with writing on the law is that many of the specialised terms look and sound like ordinary everyday words.   Typical examples would be 'consideration', 'servitude', or 'remainder'.   Sometimes the words can have more than one meaning.   (A good example, in a Cornish context is the word 'Duchy '.)   That is why we have included a glossary at the end of the essay.

It is a problem in writing about Cornwall that many basic facts are not common knowledge.   Our schools and colleges have taught us more about neighbouring countries than our own.   Very often, generally dependable books and other sources make statements that mislead, are inaccurate or just plain lies.   That is why we refer in the following pages to several events of which even many specialists are unaware.   Of course you may disagree with some of the things that we say.   Whatever your opinion, we should like to hear from you

Although we talk a great deal of the person often called the Duke of Cornwall, our essay is not addressed to him.   Our audience is composed of the Tinners and Commoners of Cornwall, whose rights are presently denied.   In this essay, we outline what those rights are, and give a sketch of the legal requirements for restoring them.   It would not be for us to lay down a timetable or issue directions, and we have not presumed to do either.   We do intend to keep track of the exciting events now unfolding in the Cornish political life.   We look forward to publishing, in due course, a concise account of how the rights and sovereignty of the Cornish and their land were restored

Alan M Kent
Tim Saunders

As an initial gesture it was necessary to promote the publication at the earliest opportunity and so the above notice of the publication was immediately posted to this site.   I have now included a complete review following the two press release notices immediately below.   The price is easy on the pocket, so why not buy several copies and distribute to family & friends?   It is imperative that such information is rapidly disseminated into the public arena and not left to chance - as is the norm with all forms of Cornish education.   The significance of this publication to the Cornish Constitutional Convention is immense.

What follows below has just been received [14th Jan 2002] and included on this particular page because it has some relevance to the whole thrust of proving the existence of our Cornish Law and Constitution and the way that Cornish Rights are wilfully being repressed.   Please feel free to copy this to anyone that you feel should/would be interested.

PRESS RELEASE
CORNWALL 2000:CIVIL LIBERTIES HUMAN RIGHTS
13 Jan 2002
SECRECY ORDER GRANTED IN TRIAL OF CORNISH ACTIVISTS

There has been a devious twist in the case of three Cornishmen charged with confiscating `English Heritage` signs which falsely attributed archaeological sites in Cornwall as being of English origin.

In the States struggle to secure the conviction of Rodney Nute, Hugh Rowe and Nigel Hicks [THE CAMBORNE THREE] the Crown Prosecution Service has been successful in obtaining a belated Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

This is but the latest expression of how ad-hoc English laws quell Cornish dissent.

The Pre Trial Hearing of August 9th 2001 had already witnessed resident judge HHJ Rucker launch a quite unprovoked racially motivated attack on the defendants as they stood passively in the dock.   Without ever hearing any defence related material Rucker, face contorted with anger, shouted that the defendants activities were mere `shenanigans` and that the trial was `a grotesque waste of public money`.   His Hon went on to say that they had `no defence`, and that he would not allow `his court` to be used by `publicity seekers for political ends`.   He then went on to say out loud `Make sure this case comes to me, I want to try this case!`.

Counsel for the defendants immediately launched a complaint about `The content of the remarks and the manner in which they were delivered`, referring to the question of bias, and the possibility of appeal if convicted.

On 11 Sept 2001 solicitors Russel Jones and Walker [Bristol] acting for the defendants received notification from the CPS that `His Hon Judge Rucker had directed that the case be tried by a circuit judge other than himself`.

Then, on 3rd January 2002, the State made an emergency application to the Crown Prosecution Service for a Public Immunity Interest Certificate.   Such measures are taken to avoid public disclosure of `sensitive material` and the applications are only granted when there is an `immediate threat to national security`.   Cases that could compromise the identity of children, Police Surveilance Towers, Informants and the `operational efficiency of the security and intelligence services` are sometimes subjected to this procedure. [1996 Gov. Paper on Public Interest Immunity] .

In the case of The Camborne Three none of the latter apply, so the Certificate must have been granted to protect the operations of the security and inteligence services.   Although the CPS had already stated that the Police Intelligence Services were not involved in contributing prosecution material, they declined to state whether prosecution material included documents procured from `other security and intelligence gathering agencies`.

In Britain today it is probable that many Cornish people, including myself, [and now you because of this E Mail] are subject to MI5 surveillance.

Such behaviour is indicative of the paranoia the British government has over expressions of dissent by Celtic nationalists angered by decades of abuse of their political freedoms and cultural rights.

The British government have a record of abusing immunity certificates, most notably in the Matrix Churchill case when, as later discovered, evidence had been corrupted in order to secure a conviction.

The maximum sentence for conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage is 10 years imprisonment.   All those concerned about potential abuses of human rights need to watch the proceedings closely.

The trial begins on Monday 14 Jan 2002. [Now Friday 18th ????]

John Angarrack
Director
Cornwall 2000:Civil Liberties/Human Rights
tel 01208 76336 Email: angarrack@badlandz.freeserve.co.uk

Visit the English Heritage' sub-page to see the amazing conclusion to this case against the Camborne Three. [14th Jan 2002]

The Reason Why? - TGG Review

The essay is divided into three sections:

a)
'Community and People'
b)
'Our Legal Heritage'
c)
'Discontents and Misunderstandings'

Whilst I must admit to being full of admiration for the highly focussed commitment of all those who over the years have taken on the burdens of The Cornish Stannary Parliament, I have always had a number of niggling unresolved concerns.   I do not doubt the legitimacy of the Stannary arguments nor the need to confront the imperial bulldozer head-on but most of the arguments, and language, are clearly way over the heads of ordinary people.   There is also a perceived discrepancy between where the common people might fit into the Stannary structure and an apparent conflict between the Cornish Parliament and that of the Westminster Parliament.   There is, of course, also the thorny problem of the Duchy of Cornwall which this organisation considers to be the legitimate - albeit repressed - constitutional Guardian over our Nation and its Territory.

I am pleased to say that this essay clears away a lot of the fog from my concerns, in that it is a study of Cornwall's legal history from the earliest times up to the present day and which addresses these wider issues of Cornish Law.   When we read of the prejudiced approach of judge HHJ Rucker at the 'English Heritage Signs' pre-trial hearing, referred to above, we should be thankful that there are people like former judge, the late Paul Laity, out there who are able and willing to offer the chance of enlightenment to those with, seemingly, closed minds.   This essay is no more than a summary of the intensive research into our Cornish Law and which heralds the publication of what will undoubtedly be the 'most authoritative publication ever on our laws and constitution'.   It has been written by someone well-versed in the practical application of Law and sets Cornwall's rightful legal and constitutional status within a European and world-wide context.

a)
'Community and People'

This first section identifies the origins of communities and nations with Cornwall as the principal focus.   Within this section we are introduced to such terms as 'a people' (where a human group have so much in common) and 'nation' (a people with a territory and distinct form of language) and 'commonwealth' (having its own institution and laws).   There is then a review of Cornish historical development which begins:

"Nobody knows when Cornish history began. However, Cornish sovereignty was never merged (like that of Scotland) or extinguished (like that of Wales).   References to the Cornovii go some two thousand years…   …Many scholars believe that people in Cornwall were extracting tin and copper well over three thousand years."

This development takes us through the significant milestones prior to AD 936 when Cornwall became 'a protectorate' of Wessex with the ongoing development of England, Britain - and eventually Europe? - as the 'Protecting Power'.   On the way we see "…that in 1337, the Protecting Power bound itself to consolidate Cornwall's special position for ever…" with the Monarch surrendering his rights over Cornwall and making the Heir Apparent responsible for securing the rights of the Cornish, under the title of Duke.   Rights which the Cornish were forced to defend during The Constitutional Crisis of 1485-1508 and "The Cornish were to play a complex part in the upheavals and transformations of the next six or seven generations".   These included the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, the War of the Five Peoples (1642-1646) and, of course, the Trelawny episode of 1688.

The next phase sees Cornwall, during the 18th century, becoming "one of the most industrialised countries in the world"; the continuing decline of the Cornish language and a period when very little of Cornwall's wealth stayed in the hands of those producing it - going instead, for the most part, to provide an income for the Heir Apparent of the Protecting Power.   The essay identifies the Jurisdiction Crisis of 1835-1860 (which forced the Head of State to assert Cornish sovereignty) for "the basic problems still besetting us" but also lists the failure of the Duchy of Cornwall institutions to intervene on behalf of the struggling mining history and accuses the Protecting Power of not only NOT defending the rights and institutions of the Cornish but also for deliberately preventing them from operating properly.   This was, of course, also the period of the Cornish Diaspora.

The warning included here is all to obvious:

"…although many of the causes of our troubles lie outside our control, we must ourselves accept most of the blame.   Despair, not any other nation or people is our worst enemy.   If we decide that we can do nothing, then we let others take control of our lives.   And in so far as we permit our own authorities, the Protecting Power, and others, to act unlawfully, or oppressively, then it is our fault".

Whilst I accept that we are the victims of our own apathy and it is for us to do something - positively anything positive! - the blame rests solely, IMHO, on the shoulders of the Head of State and the Protecting Power which the essay states has, "…ignored its obligations and trampled on our rights." and, I would add deliberately steered us away from construing the existence of such rights.   This section concludes with a positive look at the growing awareness and promotion of our Cornish distinctiveness and acknowledges that:

"We are learning to honour the courage of our forebears and to respect their vision.   It is time for us to apply our own courage to the insights that we have".

b)
'Our Legal Heritage'

Elsewhere within this website we see a quote where the Officers of the Duchy contend that the Crown has no prima facie rights over the Duchy of Cornwall.   This second section provides an insight into the origins of such a claim.

Starting with a denouncement of the most commonly held misconceptions of Cornwall's legal identity (in England, Duchy not Cornwall, only Cornish can be Tinners, Tinners rights derived from kingly Charters etc), this section outlines the basis of the Cornish political system and Cornish Law with the underlying tenet that:

"Cornish sovereignty derives from the people, not any monarch.   Cornwall has never been annexed.   Provisions of any law other than our own can have no force here unless properly ratified." [and] "Like many lands, Cornwall has traditions of legal organisation going back centuries.   This sometimes confuses people with no sense of history."

The description of the Cornish political system seems to be very extensive and too complex to do justice to within such a brief review but with scope, in due course, to represent this pictorially.   However, it is an easy and extremely interesting read and covers the elements of population of Cornish society from the individual (whether Tinner or Commoner) to the Head of State and the various levels of Location.   Location is expressed as "territorial collectives" which range from the commonwealth to a neighbourhood.   In between there are the shires (alias hundreds), parishes, boroughs and stannaries - each with their attendant offices, and officers, of Government.

Of particular interest is the discussion on Cornish Law which it divides into three levels.   Primary Law, the highest, incorporates our rights in legal form;   Secondary Law, identifies how this right could be infringed and suggested remedies, and,   Tertiary Law, setting out the procedures for the remedies.

"And the same tripartite division applies in the Law of Parliament.   Primary Law states that sovereignty lies with the people - the two estates of Tinners and Commoners.   Secondary Law provides that the representatives of Stannaries and Shires shall work through formal gatherings known variously as Convocation, Great Session or Parliament."

Fortunately there exists a principle of Equity, with an example given to illustrate it, which:

"will not allow the use of lower levels of Law in order to frustrate the exercise of rights or duties at the higher levels...   ...Nor will Equity permit the use of constitutional procedures in order to frustrate the exercise of the People's rights".

It seems that there are, within this context, two kinds of constitution, namely, Ordinances and Enactments.   The former may be used within existing powers to improve Secondary Law but it cannot alter Primary Law.   Similarly it can improve Tertiary Law as long as it does not infringe Primary and Secondary rules.   Enactments can only be constituted by the Estates of Tinners and Commoners together - normally by Parliament - whereas each may bind only itself by an Ordinance.

References to Parliament should be construed as our Cornish Parliament, unless otherwise qualified, which comprises "two Houses, the House of Stannators and the House of Assistants". The next revelation comes when we reflect upon:

"Historically, since representatives of the Commoners attended meetings of the Protecting Power's Parliament (often termed the Imperial Parliament), they have constituted many enactments there.   However, no legislation of the Imperial Parliament can have any force in Cornish Law unless it meets some very strict criteria."

This criteria became stricter with the dramatic unilateral reduction of representatives of Cornish commoners to the Imperial Parliament since the 1820s and even more so with the reconvening of the House of Stannators in 1973.   The upshot of all this is that it :

"...reduced its capacity to act as a vehicle for the legislative needs of Commoners.   In these circumstances, no legislation from the Imperial Parliament could have any force higher than that of an Ordinance."

Now we come to a very interesting bit:   The creation of Cornwall "county" Council, at the end of the 1880s, unwittingly convened "by unambiguously Cornish processes" the representatives of the Commoners.   This means that, together with the Stannators, they have the power to constitute Enactments.   Since there are more Cornish representatives convened at Truro rather than Westminster, legislation by the latter, if repugnant to that of Truro, would, upon the principles of Equity, be without force.   Basic rights and national sovereignty are matters of Primary Law and Equity would enable the Estates of 'Tinners' and 'Commoners', "...to convoke Parliament afresh without delay." were anyone to attempt to abolish Parliament.

The bottom line, then, given the existence of both the Estate of Tinners (meeting at Lostwithiel and elsewhere) and the Estate of Commoners (meeting at Truro) is the existence of our Cornish Parliament and this section concludes:

"In these circumstances, the persons attending the Imperial Parliament can have no mandate unless the Estates have explicitly directed them to do some specific thing.   No document purporting to be legislation or any other rule-making or enforcing text, and emanating from the Imperial Parliament, or bodies, or persons, associated with it can have any force except in so far as it is consistent with and expresses subsisting rules of our Law."

c)
'Discontents and Misunderstandings'

Initially I simply quoted the opening paragraphs of this section but have now followed this up with a more detailed review.   This section looks at the failings of the Protecting Power, recognises the existence of the Cornish Constitutional Convention and highlights the ways forward for protecting Cornish rights.

"The Protecting Power is in breach of its obligations towards Cornwall.   It has been infringing our rights for centuries. The Head of State assists in this, as have his predecessors.   In the relationship existing between Cornwall and the Protecting Power, Cornwall has ceded the conduct of defence and external affairs.   As the ceding party, it is for Cornwall to determine whether or not the other party is fulfilling its obligations.   In the Cornish constitutional system, the Head of State is not sovereign.   He receives an income, together with certain privileges, in exchange for protecting the rights of Tinners and Commoners, and ensuring that the laws are enforced.   It is for Tinners and Commoners to determine whether or not the Head of State, as their servant, is fulfilling his obligations."

"Although both the Protecting Power and the Head of State constantly breach their obligations towards us, they naturally enough refuse to admit this.   In fact, they propagate a number of lies to try to conceal the breach of their obligations.   However, a lie in such circumstances as these can be a two-edged sword.   By denying their obligations to us, they by implication, deny our obligations towards them.   How is this contradiction to be resolved?"

There is much to be learned from this final section but I hope, on the strength of the above, that everyone will immediately order their copy - or copies? - from the address given above.   Every copy purchased and distributed will exert its own pressure on the Protecting Power to treat the Cornish people equitably as is our right.

The essay suggests that to respond to 'this contradiction' it is necessary to examine the rare occasion when the system functioned properly with its three Estates of Tinners, Commoners and Head of State.   The former comprising six Stannators for each of the four Stannary divisions of Foymore, Blackmore, Tywarnhaile and Penwith and Kerrier making 24 members for the House of Stannators.   The situation regarding Tinners has been the subject of "...consistent neglect of his duties by the Head of State.   This deliberate neglect has been coupled with the propagation of some breath-taking lies".

The Commoners have not enjoyed such a consistent method of determining representatives for the nine shires: Stratton, Trigg, Lesneweth, East Wivel, West Wivel, Powder, Pydar, Penwith and Kerrier but attended the Parliament of the Protecting Power and, following the time of the creation of the United Kingdom in 1707, had 44 representatives - only one less representatives than Scotland.   This was systematically and subtly undermined after the 1820s.   This erosion of Cornish representation within the Parliament of the Protecting Power might be construed by some as being somehow redressed by the creation of an 'administrative county council' for Cornwall, circa 1890 but the essay advises us the Commoners representatives at Truro - and of our modern shires? - "are deprived of almost all the powers they need in order to carry out their duties to the Commoners"..

In fact, there seems, IMHO, to be no will at all within that august body, in Truro, to even recognise that they have such a duty.   I would go further and state categorically that its own Cornish constitutional incompetence is the reason that the Cornish Nation is in such a parlous state.   It was offered the chance in the 1980s, as part of the structure planning debate to restrict planning permissions for the numbers of houses to be built, to challenge the Governments proposals but the full council rejected the committee proposal for reasons which, quite frankly, were pathetic.

The Head of State has held many titles, "over the centuries", of which the current form of 'Duke' makes it,

"...appropriate to refer to Cornwall as a Duchy, in the same way that Norway is referred to as a Kingdom, since its Head of State bears the title of King.   The expression 'Duchy of Cornwall' then, refers in the first place, to our land and its islands and territorial waters."

Duchy is also used as a synonym for 'Dukedom.   A comparison with Dukedoms in England reveals how they die out once the male line is broken whereas our Cornish Duchy exists for the benefit of the Duchy.   If the male line is broken, the Duchy is held by the monarch of the Protecting Power until a son is born therefore the essay states, "The Duchy is not, and cannot be, merged in the Crown any more than the Crown of New Zealand can be merged in the Crown of Canada."

The essay identifies a third use of the word 'Duchy' as the "patrimony of land and other resources" provided to enable the Duke to carry out his duties and which, "Certain people have been falsely claiming that this is the only sense in which the expression 'Duchy of Cornwall' may be used".   The writer of the essay, in considering how such a claim is argued is of the opinion that, "It is astounding that grown men and women can put forward such a claim and still expect to be taken seriously", and presents some examples to prove the point including a particular case which occurred during the current Duke's divorce.

This section then looks at the forms of neglect by the Head of State with regard to his duties to the Stannary, Cornish Rights and our Parliament and comes to the conclusion that "Our grievances are so great and so numerous that we could not possibly list them all here"   Three common elements are mentioned, "the constant plundering of our resources... ...the dereliction of duty by persons holding positions of power within our jurisdiction... ...the unlawful exercise of power by persons and bodies with no standing within our jurisdiction."   Whilst our apparent acquiescence is, I am sure, construed within English Law as 'support' - and this certainly shakes down to condoning such abuses - the essay continues with the rallying cry, "Fortunately, our Laws provide remedies."   By the principle of 'Equity' and a process referred to as 'confederation' we can restore, through Parliament, "...the totality of our rights"

There are, quite naturally, strict rules concerning this procedure and the essay identifies six 'musts' in order to comply.   The most fundamental being that of an issue of rights since this is "the practical essence of Law" (see comment above re 'Primary Law').   The process is clearly set out and is as good an action plan as anyone can hope to formulate and, with the continuing intransigence of the Protecting Power over Cornish Rights is worthy of very serious consideration by the Cornish Constitutional Convention which the essay considers to be, in effect, a 'confederation' with "a potential to achieve a great deal of good".   As ever, however, there are a number of cautionary comments which must be fully understood and which would require good legal advice.   One interesting observation relates to identifying who, precisely, is the Protecting Power because, "As we assert our rights and sovereignty, we need to know in respect of whom exactly we are asserting them."

This essay is very enlightening and identifies a daunting journey ahead.   It is, however, a journey that the Cornish have been on for the past hundred years and this provides the vehicle to take us beyond the arrogant bigotry and indifference of the Imperial English mentality.   It is a subject that we all need to be very much aware of and to actively, or even passively, support.   With the sad loss of Paul Laity will come, hopefully, an even greater emphasis on producing the full findings of this extremely valuable research project in order to commemorate his life.   For me, the most amazing thing is that this has been achieved without access to the Duchy of Cornwall archive - but then, we know who we are!

I shall, over the next few weeks, attempt to add to the pictorial representations of the administrative and judicial structures of the Commonwealth of Cornwall.   These representations are purely a personal rendition for clarification and should not, in the absence of any detail, be construed as definitive.

01)   'Elements of Population'
02)   'Judicial Structure'
03)   'Levels of Government'
04)   'Universal Levels of Law'
05)   'Existing and New Cornish Laws'
06)   'Equity and Confederation'
07)   'Ceded Powers'
08)   'The Imperial Parliament'
09)   'Right to Citizenship'
10)
! 
 'Consciousness & Conscience'

Return to the HomePage welcome and introduction to the site  Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page