From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The constitutional status of Cornwall, in the south west of Great Britain, is the subject of ongoing debate.

The Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as well as Cornwall County Council, treat Cornwall as an administrative and ceremonial county of England. Laws passed for England and Wales take effect (and are enforced) in Cornwall as they are in any other part of England. Cornwall pays taxes to the British Exchequer and elects MPs to the UK Parliament.

Cornish nationalists and others maintain that Cornwall is legally entitled to greater autonomy. They note that the United Kingdom is not a homogeneous nation-state, but is instead composed of several Home Nations, most of which are also described by some but not all people as Celtic nations; many people think that England is not a Celtic nation, but others say that it has as strong a claim on the label as any other. Cornish nationalists who assert that Cornwall is, or ought to be, separate from England, do not necessarily mean to advocate separation from the United Kingdom, but merely Cornwall's recognition as a fifth 'home nation'. They also cite laws and constitutional peculiarities related to the Duchy of Cornwall that seem to indicate that the territory of Cornwall is not simply an English county.

Contents 1 Myth of origin 2 Early relationship between Cornwall and England 3 Cornish "shires" 4 Status quo: the County of Cornwall 4.1 Current constitution status 4.2 The argument for English county status 4.3 The argument for non-English status 5 Moves for recognition of legal autonomy 5.1 The Duchy of Cornwall 5.2 The Stannaries and their revival 6 Moves for a change of constitutional status 6.1 Campaigns for fuller regional autonomy 6.2 Cornish cultural, civic and ethnic nationalism 7 Truro "English city" event protest 8 See also 9 External links 10 References

An ancient tale, the legend of Brutus, recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, makes explicit reference to a distinct origin of the Cornish people. The legend tells how Albion was colonised by refugees from Troy under Brutus, who renamed his new kingdom Britain, and how the island was subsequently divided up between his three sons, the eldest inheriting England, the other two Scotland and Wales. In addition, according to the legend, a second and smaller group of Trojans arrived in Britain, led by a warrior named Corineus, to whom Brutus granted extensive estates. Just as Brutus had ‘called the island Britain…and his companions Britons’, so Corineus called ‘the region of the kingdom which had fallen to his share Cornwall, after the manner of his own name, and the people who lived there…Cornishmen’. This indicates that, at least as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed an identity distinct from the other nations of Britain.

Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period.

Cornwall was first invaded by the Saxon kingdom of Wessex in the 9th century, the era in which England was being created, but it took until the 11th century before the united Kingdom of England managed to retain a military hold on it and settle the area.

Cornwall was included in the survey, initiated by the first Norman king of England, which became known as the Domesday Book, where it is included as a county of the Kingdom of England. However, some would draw a distinction between the Kingdom of England (which has included not only Cornwall, but also Wales, Calais, and other continental possessions) and the country of England.

The phrase "England and Cornwall" (or the Latin equivalent Anglia et Cornubia) remained in use after the Norman Conquest. Before the Tudor period, laws were typically designated as taking effect in Anglia et Cornubia. A similar situation exists today with the Isles of Scilly within Cornwall (i.e Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly).

Henry VIII listed England and Cornwall separately, in the list of his realms given in his Coronation address. Other notable examples (the recognition in the Tudor period, certainly, was common) include:

The Italian scholar Polydore Vergil in his famous 'Anglica Historia', published in 1535 wrote that:

"the whole Countrie of Britain ...is divided into iiii partes; whereof the one is inhabited of Englishmen, the other of Scottes, the third of Wallshemen, [and] the fowerthe of Cornishe people, which all differ emonge them selves, either in tongue, ...in manners, or ells in lawes and ordinaunces."

Writing in 1616, Arthur Hopton stated:

"England is ...divided into 3 great Provinces, or Countries ...every of them speaking a several and different language, as English, Welsh and Cornish."

During the Tudor period many travellers were clear that the Cornish were commonly regarded as a separate cultural group, from which some modern observers conclude that they were a separate ethnic group. For example Lodovico Falier, an Italian diplomat at the Court of Henry VIII said, "The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other." He went on to give the alleged 'national charecteristics' of the three peoples, saying for example "the Cornishman is poor, rough and boorish".

Another notable example is Gaspard de Coligny Chatillon – the French Ambassador in London who wrote saying that England was not a united whole as it "contains Wales and Cornwall, natural enemies of the rest of England, and speaking a different language."

It seems these views remained the same through the 16th century, after the death of Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, in 1603, the Venetian ambassador wrote that the late queen had ruled over five different 'peoples': "English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish ...and Irish".

Wales was effectively annexed to the Kingdom of England in the 16th century, but references to 'England' in law were not presumed to include Wales (or indeed Berwick-upon-Tweed) until the Wales and Berwick Act 1746. Certainly by this time the use of "England and Cornwall" had ceased. The reason that this distinction was abandoned is not clear as there is no, later, recorded annexation of Cornwall or act of union with England.

Extracted from a commission of the first Duke of Cornwall:

"25 Edw. III to "John Dabernoun, our Steward and Sheriff of Cornwall greeting. On account of certain escheats we command you that you inquire by all the means in your power how much land and rents, goods and chattels, whom and in whom, and of what value they which those persons of Cornwall and England have, whose names we send in a schedule enclosed......"

Many maps of the isles prior to the 17th century showed Cornwall (Cornubia / Cornwallia) as a nation on a par with Wales: example include the maps of Gerardus Mercator (1564),[2] Sebastian Munster (1515),[3][4] Abraham Ortelius,[5] and Girolamo Ruscelli.[6] Maps that depict Cornwall as a county of the Kingdom of England and Wales include a 1579 map authorised by Queen Elizabeth I.[7]

Some would point to the lack of any formal union between England and Cornwall as evidence that Cornwall was already recognized as de facto a part of England; others would regard this as illustrating the suppression of Cornish identity and culture by the English.^{[citation needed]}

In 1769 The Antiquarian, William Borlase wrote that,

"Of this time we are to understand what Edward I. says (Sheringham. p. 129.) that Britain, Wales, and Cornwall, were the portion of Belinus, elder son of Dunwallo, and that that part of the Island, afterwards called England, was divided in three shares, viz. Britain, which reached from the Tweed, Westward, as far as the river Ex; Wales inclosed by the rivers Severn, and Dee; and Cornwall from the river Ex to the Land's-End".

The 18th century writer, Richard Gough, noted this Cornish paradox by writing "Cornwall seems to be another Kingdom", in his Brittania (4 vols; London, 1806).

Additionally, Cornwall was also divided into "Hundreds", which often bore the name of "shire" in English. In Cornish, they were cantrevs, which is akin to the Welsh language cantref.

Although the name "shire", today implies some kind of county status, hundreds in some English counties often bore the suffix 'shire' as well (e.g. Salfordshire), but where English shires were split into hundreds each having their own constable, Cornish cantrevs had constables at parish level.^[1] The Cornish cantrev replicated England's shire system on a smaller scale. Although by the 15th century the shires of Cornwall had reverted to being called hundreds, the administrative differences remained in place long after.^[2]

Regardless of the question of whether Cornwall constitutes one of the historic counties of England, an administrative county of Cornwall was set up by the Local Government Act 1888, which came into effect on April 1, 1889. This was replaced by a non-metropolitan county of Cornwall in 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972, which includes it under the heading of "England". The Duke of Cornwall is still granted many unique statutory "privileges, exemptions, powers, rights and authority" in the Cornwall (Tamar Bridge) Act 1998, s.41, and other Acts.

Most people reject all claims that Cornwall is, or ought to be, distinct from England^{[citation needed]}. While recognising that there are local peculiarisms, they point out that Yorkshire, Kent, and Cheshire (for example) also have local customs and identities that do not seem to undermine their essential Englishness. The legal claims concerning the Duchy, they argue, are without merit except as relics of mediaeval feudalism, and they contend that Stannary law applied not to Cornwall as a 'nation', but merely to the guild of tin miners. Rather, they argue that Cornwall has been not only in English possession, but part of England itself, either since Athelstan conquered it in 936, since the administrative centralisation of the Tudor dynasty, or since the creation of Cornwall County Council in 1888. Finally, they agree with representatives of the Duchy itself that the Duchy is, in essence, a real estate company that serves to raise income for the Prince of Wales. They compare the situation of the Duchy of Cornwall with that of the Duchy of Lancaster, which has similar rights in Lancashire, which is indisputably part of England. The proponents of such perspectives include not only Unionists, but most branches and agencies of government.

Below are some indications that Cornwall for more than the last thousand years has been governed as an integral part of England and in a way indistinguishable from other parts of England:

• Several English charters dating from before 1066 show the king of England exercising effective power in Cornwall as in any other part of England. For example, in 960 king Eadgar gave land in “Tiwaernhel” to one of his thanes (Sawyer charters, number 684). In 1050 king Eadward subsumed the diocese of Cornwall under that of Exeter (Sawyer 1021).
• The Domesday survey of manors in 1086.
• The records of the medieval eyres, the court sessions of the king’s itinerant judges. Maitland FW (1888) Select pleas of the crown prints examples from Cornwall.The eyre records show Cornwall and England with common judicial arrangements from the police duties of tithings at the lowest level of administration to the highest itinerant courts.
• The Patent Rolls which inter alia record the King and his council governing Cornwall after the creation of the Dukedom in 1337. Examples are the King granting licences to trade to people in Cornwall in 1364, the Duke of Cornwall complaining in 1371 to the King's Council about offences by some local men in Cornwall, and in 1380 the King's Council ordering the Sheriff of Cornwall to arrest and imprison an offender.
• Cornwall sent members to the Parliament of England from the late thirteenth century when parliament originated.
• Medieval taxes such as the Papal 1291 taxation and the 1377 poll tax.
• The Tudor subsidies (taxes) and musters.
• The grants of fairs and markets in Cornwall by the king; for example, Penzance in 1406.

It is clear that Cornwall came under the dominion of the English Crown in the time of Athelstan, and in the absence of any specific documentation to record this event, there is a common modern presumption, by those who argue for an English status, that this made Cornwall a part of England. Yet, in a charter of Edmund of AD 944, that king refers to himself as "King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons". This province was a territorial possession, which has always had a special relationship to the Crown.

When the Domesday Survey was initiated, by William, in 1086, men were sent to "each shire" in his new Kingdom. This has to be seen within the context of matters of land, property and taxation and not as a means of misrepresenting what is understood, at that time, as a county. A shire, coming under the jurisdiction of the sheriff, is known alternatively as sheriffdom, shrievalty, or vicecomitatus and equates to the modern meaning of the word county.

Whether it was held by the Crown or granted to family or favourites, the Earldom (or County) of Cornwall (Comitatus Cornubiǽ) included all territorial revenues, rights and property which were held "as of the Honor" . When held by the Crown, it was held not jure coronǽ but jure Comitatus - or jure Ducatus, when augmented to a Duchy - as of the Honor in manu Regis existente, and did not merge into the Crown.

When Earl Edmund died, circa AD 1300, the Earldom of Cornwall passed to King Edward I - his next heir and cousin - and not as some helpless escheat. In 1337, Edward III augmented the Earldom to a Duchy. Commonly perceived to have been created by a charter dated the 17th of March 1337, although that charter refers to something that has already taken place, it can be shown that there was an Act of Parliament at a date prior to the 16th March 1337. This Act of Parliament is recited during the time that Henry V annexed substituted manors (see Rolls of Parliament 9 Henry V) to the Duchy following that King's disannexing the Manor of Isleworth from the Duchy and re-granting to St Savior's Abbey two years previously.

“That at the Parliament held at Westminster the Monday next after the Feast of St. Matthias the Apostle in the 11th year of the reign of King Edw. III., amongst other things it was agreed that the eldest sons of the Kings of England, scilicet those who should be next heirs to the Realm of England, should be Dukes of Cornwall, and that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England, who should be next heirs to the said Realm without being given elsewhere."

A following charter, of 17th March 1337, enumerated what comprised the Duchy of Cornwall. The principal items enumerated were the vicecomitatus and the customary right to make and appoint the sheriff. This formally represented that entity which is today referred to as "the county" and conclusively shows that this properly exists within the Duchy of Cornwall. Also indicative is the observation by John Norden within his "Topographical and Historical Survey of Cornwall" (1650, a narrative addressed to the King), namely:

"Before Cornwall was made a Dukedome, and vnited vnder the Principallitye of Wales, which was in the time of kinge Edw. the 3..."

When the first Duke of Cornwall came of age in 1351, one of his first official acts was to carry out his own form of Domesday survey (Commission 25 Edward III). This has already been referred to above and confirms that Cornwall was not in England, when the Duke refers to his tenants and property as being in Cornwall and England. This implies Cornwall was at that time a distinct non-English territory, a province of the Britons, with people and rights. To dismiss this as a "relic of mediaeval feudalism", as stated above, may be construed^{[citation needed]} as seriously misrepresenting the rights of Cornwall and her people to be seen as one of the constituent British nations.

Detailed article: Duchy of Cornwall

The Earldom of Cornwall was made a Duchy in 1337, the Duke obtaining greater rights over Cornwall than the Earls had previously exercised. These increased powers over Cornwall included the right to appoint Sheriffs, bona vacantia, treasure trove, a separate exchequer, and such forth. Most of these rights are still exercised by the Duchy. The Kilbrandon Report (1969–1971) into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall, official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.

In 1780 Edmund Burke sought to curtail further the power of the Crown by removing the various principalities which existed.

… the five several distinct principalities besides the supreme …. If you travel beyond Mount Edgcumbe, you find him [the king] in his incognito, and he is duke of Cornwall …. Thus every one of these principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom …. Cornwall is the best of them….

Many Cornish people, including Cornish Solidarity and the group claiming to be the Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament, argue that Cornwall has a de jure status apart as a sovereign Duchy extraterritorial to England. A commonly cited basis for this argument is an 1856 court case in which Sir George Harrison successfully argued that the Duchy enjoyed many of the rights and prerogatives of a County palatine but that it was denied the title because the duke was not granted Royal Juristiction.

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission.

1. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
2. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.
3. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.
4. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to its creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.
5. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.

However, the term 'county palatine' appears not to have been used historically of Cornwall, and the duchy did not have as much autonomy as the County Palatine of Durham, which was ruled by the Prince-Bishop of Durham. However, whilst not specifically called a county palatine, the Officers of the Duchy made the observation (Duchy Preliminary Statement - Cornish Foreshore Dispute 1856):

"The Dukes also had their own escheators in Cornwall, and it is deserving of notice that in the saving clause of the Act of Escheators, 1 Henry VIII., c. 8, s. 5 (as is the case in numerous other acts of Parliament), the Duchy of Cornwall is classed with counties undoubtedly palatinate."

It should be noted that the Duke's lesser title was that of Earl of Chester, which Earldom was, in fact, classed as a county palatine. A further area for analysis to clarify this apparent anomalous palatine status for Cornwall, would be to consider the effect of Cornwall being extra-territorial to England. Therefore a foreign Dominion territory of the Crown that does not merge into the Crown in the absence of a Duke, or formerly, an Earl.

Cornish activists point out the use of the Duchy name, and its expansion to provide an income for the Heir Apparent, does not affect the ancient rights of Cornwall (which may on occasion be ignored in the interests of the Duchy).^{[citation needed]}

Detailed article: Stannary Courts and Parliaments and Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament

Since 1974, a group has claimed to be a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament and have the ancient right of Cornish tin-miners' assemblies to veto legislation from Westminster. In 1977 the Plaid Cymru MP Dafydd Wigley in Parliament asked the Attorney General for England and Wales if he would provide the date upon which enactments of the Charter of Pardon of 1508 were rescinded. The reply, received on 14 May 1977 and now held at the National Library of Wales, stated that a Stannator's right to veto Westminster legislation had never been formally withdrawn.^[3][4]

In contrast to the arguments that Cornwall is already de jure autonomous, thanks to the Duchy and Stannary parliament, various ongoing political movements are seeking to change Cornwall's constitutional status. Mebyon Kernow, for example, has for many years sought for Cornwall the position of a first-order (NUTS 1) EU region, which would put Cornwall on the same statistical level as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Regions of England.

In the same vein, the Cornish Constitutional Convention — composed of many political groups in Cornwall (including Mebyon Kernow) — gathered about 50,000 signatures in 2000 on a petition to create a Cornish Assembly resembling the National Assembly for Wales. The petition was undertaken in the context of an ongoing debate on whether to devolve power to the English regions, of which Cornwall is currently part of the South West. Cornwall Council's Feb 2003 MORI poll showed 55% in favour of an elected, fully-devolved regional assembly for Cornwall and 13% against. (Previous result :46% in favour in 2002).^[5] The campaign has the support of all five Cornish Lib Dem MPs, Mebyon Kernow, and Cornwall Council. Lord Whitty, as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, in the House of Lords, recognised that Cornwall has a "special case" for devolution.^[6] and on a visit to Cornwall deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said "Cornwall has the strongest regional identity in the UK."

For further information on these topics, see Cornish people, Culture of Cornwall, Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, Cornish language, etc.

Many Cornish people will, in addition to making the legal or constitutional arguments mentioned above, stress that the Cornish are a distinct ethnic group, that people in Cornwall typically refer to 'England' as beginning east of the Tamar, and that there is a Cornish language. For the first time in a UK Census, those wishing to describe their ethnicity as Cornish were given their own code number (06) on the 2001 UK Census form, alongside those for people wishing to describe themselves as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. About 34,000 people in Cornwall and 3,500 people in the rest of the UK wrote on their census forms in 2001 that they considered their ethnic group to be Cornish. This represented nearly 7% of the population of Cornwall and is therefore a significant phenomenon.^[7] Although happy with this development, campaigners expressed reservations about the lack of publicity surrounding the issue, the lack of a clear tick-box for the Cornish option on the census and the need to deny being British in order to write "Cornish" in the field provided. There have been calls for the tick box option to be extended to the Cornish^[8] for the 2011 Census,^[9] as a Welsh and English tick box option was recently agreed by the government.^[10]

In 2007 there was some controversy when the mayor of Truro, Peter Lang, accepted an invitation for a visit from the "St George's Day Loving Cup" event, organised by the political party the English Democrats. The event is described as "A Tour of English Cities" to celebrate St George's day in each "English" city. Many Cornish organisations, including the Cornish Stannary Parliament and the Celtic League have complained that this is an insult to the Cornish people as they say that Truro is not an "English" city, but a Cornish city. They have stressed that the event is not visiting any other Celtic cities in Wales or Scotland so therefore it is unacceptable that the event should be held in Cornwall."^[11][12]

• List of topics related to Cornwall

• The Cornish Stannary Parliament
• Maps of Cornwall on the BBC
• What makes Cornwall unique? an article from Cornish World, many interesting legal facts
• Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border
• The Cornish Stannary Parliament
• Mebyon Kernow
• The Cornish Assembly - Senedh Kernow
• The Simpsons & Cornwall episode
• Tyr Gwyr Gweryn - A radical look at factors affecting perceptions of Cornwall
• The Cornwall Tapes
• Celtic League
• The Federal Union of European Nationalities
• This is not Cornwall
• The Cornish National Minority
• Map of Cornwall (Kernow)
• The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?
• 44% Claim to be Cornish by Morgan Stanley survey

1. ^ John Norden - "A Topographical and Historical Survey of Cornwall" (1650) page 23
2. ^ see History of the Cornish Constabulary - written at the time of its being subsumed into an English 'Devon & Cornwall' Force in 1967 (proper details being located!)
3. ^ 1977 - The Stannators right to veto Westminster legislation is confirmed by Parliament
4. ^ Dafydd Wigley's question (on behalf of Mebyon Kernow) is contained in Hansard vol 931 No. 97 p.115 3rd May 1977 (parliamentary question no. 125). The written reply on 14th May 1977 from the Lord Chancellor ref. 3039/39 was deposited at the National Library of Wales by Dafydd Wigley.
5. ^ Give Cornwall what it wants. [1]
6. ^ House of Lords debates, Wednesday, 21 March 2001, "Devolution: England" transcript of speech
7. ^ Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census
8. ^ Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box option
9. ^ FIGHT GOES ON TO INCLUDE CORNISH ETHNICITY AND LANGUAGE IN CENSUS OPTIONS
10. ^ Mebyon Kernow support the campaign for a Cornish tick-box on 2011 census
11. ^ Celtic League - St George celebrations inappropriate in Kernow
12. ^ Kernow Protest as Truro labelled "English" city