Constitutional status of Cornwall

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

At present, the Parliament and Government of the UK, as well as Cornwall County Council, treat Cornwall as an administrative and ceremonial county of England. Laws passed for England and Wales are presumed to take effect (and are enforced) in Cornwall. 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, a private estate belonging to the Prince of Wales, that seem to indicate that the territory of Cornwall is not simply an English county.

Myth of Origin

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.

Early relationship between Cornwall and England

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 by the Norman kings of England which resulted in 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 Domesday Book omits large chunks of Cumberland and Westmorland which are now undisputably English, but were intermittently under Scottish control at the time and so not part of the then Kingdom 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.

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, ^* 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 alledged '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) Sebastian Munster ^*(1515)," target="_blank" >Abraham Ortelius Girolamo Ruscelli ^*." target="_blank" >Maps that depict Cornwall as a county of the Kingdom of England and Wales include a 1579 map authorised by Queen Elizabeth I [http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/june2002.html.

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; other would regard this as illustrating the suppression of Cornish identity and culture by the English.

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).

The Status Quo: the County of Cornwall

De facto status

Regardless of the question of whether Cornwall constitutes one of the traditional 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 Duchy of Cornwall, one of his private estates (Tamar Bridge Act 1998, s.41, and other Acts) (ECHR Article 14). In the rest of the United Kingdom, former Crown lands are managed by a public body for public benefit. They comprise the Duchy of Lancaster (Duchy of Lancaster Act 1988) and The Crown Estate "^* has no holdings in Cornwall" (letter of 5th January 2005). These public bodies are, significantly, unlike the Duchy of Cornwall, statutorily obliged to be involved in the provision of public services and are not under the direct control of the Monarch as the beneficiary of a portion of the proceeds.

The argument for English county status

Most people reject all claims that Cornwall is, or ought to be, distinct from England. 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. On the other hand, however, it remains an undisputed fact that Cornwall, once a separate country, has never formally been integrated into England, which is why some even today still believe that Cornwall and England are technically still two distinct countries - they maintain that it takes a specific Act of Parliament to merge the two countries, as opposed to merging them by stealth.

Moves for recognition of legal autonomy

The Duchy of Cornwall as county palatine

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 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 nationalists, including Cornish Solidarity and the group claiming to be the revived 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 the rights and prerogatives of a County palatine and that the Duke has rights over the whole territory of Cornwall befitting a King.

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.
That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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).

The Stannaries and their revival

Detailed article: Stannary Courts and Parliaments

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, stated that a Stannator's right to veto Westminster legislation had never been formally withdrawn .

Moves for a change of constitutional status

Campaigns for fuller regional autonomy

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.

Cornish cultural and ethnic nationalism

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

Many Cornish nationalists 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. This is complicated by the fact that according to some estimates, the Cornish people are a slight minority (about 40%–50%) of the population of Cornwall.

External links

Cornish politics

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Constitutional status of Cornwall