Jump to content

Talk:Stannary law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The sentence 'unlike its predecessors it claims no special relationship with the mining industry' i think should be reworded or deleted since it plainly states its a basis in the mining industry compared to any otheer parliment, although it has always tried to use its maximum juristriction, perhaps something along these lines?

This article begins with an etymology that is not even a complete sentence. This is not supposed to be a dictionary. Then it continues in a way that presupposes that the reader is already aware of the existence and nature of the Stannary Parliament and Stannary Courts, rather that explaining. Michael Hardy 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attention Notice[edit]

I've rewriten the article. I will take down the attention notice in 24 hours unless someone objects. Diderot 16:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bold text

POV edits by anonymous IP[edit]

User: has made substantial changes to this article, turning it into a propaganda piece for modern pressure group that uses the title "Cornish stannary parliament".

A lack of neutrality is clear: it describes a member iof the group as "Lord Protector of the Stannaries" without noting that this is a self-assumed title, also the unqualified use of the titles "Keeper of the seal" and "Clerk to the Stannary".

Note also the change of this paragraph:

On 20 May 1974 a pressure group claiming to be a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament
assembled in Lostwithiel. The group interpreted the 1508 charter as applying to all
descendents of Cornish tin-miners, and claimed that they had the power to veto all laws
made in Westminster, not only those relating to the tin and mineral industries.


On 20 May, 1974 a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament assembled in Lostwithiel in Cornwall
to promote the interests of Cornish culture and heritage. Supporters of the stannaries claimed
that although the stannary courts and parliament were embodied in the activities of the
tin miners, they were in fact the incarnation of ancient Celtic traditions of the Cornish people.

Material relating to Daffydd Wigley receiving a reply on the charter of pardon has been reinserted. It was removed as it was unverifiable: there appears to be no record of it in parliamentary records of the time. It only appears in old wiki derived sites and those of advocates of the modern group.

There is also a large amount of uncited material added under Operation Chough: information on a meeting in a solicitor's office? This is hardly in the public domain or verifiable.

There is also a new section about an invoice sent to the Duchy of Cornwall in 2001. Again no sources. But detailed inside information.

The sum total of the above: a member of the group or one of their supporters has made the alterations. This changes appear to be in conflict with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:V.

Lozleader 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: it was User: who did the changes. The other simply reverted. Lozleader 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text[edit]

The Modern Cornish Stannary Parliament 

On 20 May, 1974 a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament assembled in Lostwithiel in Cornwall to promote the interests of Cornish culture and heritage. Supporters of the stannaries claimed that although the stannary courts and parliament were embodied in the activities of the tin miners, they were in fact the incarnation of ancient Celtic traditions of the Cornish people.

The Cornish Stannary Parliament quote the Charter of Pardon of 1508 as applying to all descendents of Cornish tin-miners, and claimed that they had the power to veto all laws made in Westminster, not only those relating to the tin and mineral industries. (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 the Stannators' right to veto Westminster legislation had never been formally withdrawn).

The 1974 meeting was primarily called in response to a crisis in the china clay industry. Employers in the industry had been forbidden by the pay board from paying their 9,000 workers the higher wages agreed under a productivity deal. The Warden of the Stannaries, Geoffrey Waldegrave, 12th Earl Waldegrave refused an invitation to open the parliament.[1]

On June 24 1974 at a meeting at which the stannators wore Cornish tartan kilts, and at which the Cornish national anthem was played, the Cornish Stannary Parliament proclaimed 18 articles or acts, including the claim to retain all taxes gathered in the Duchy, the declaration of St Piran's flag to be the national flag, a claim on all mineral rights including oil and natural gas, and sought to reverse recent local government reorganisation. A petition was sent to the queen declaring that if she did not recognise the parliament they would seize crown lands and properties. They also sought recognition from the United Nations.[2]

On 12 December 1974 the Home Office replied to the petition, saying that the Home Office could only accept elections by the stannary towns as constitutive of a valid Stannary Parliament. On 15 December, Brian Hambley, (Lord Protector of the Stannaries), said they had decided to postpone the seizure of property in St Austell to give the four town councils an opportunity to appoint stannators. Hambley claimed there was a constitutional crisis and this should be done "immediately to avoid political anarchy".

Cornish Stannary Banknotes On 15 December it was announced that Frederick Trull, "clerk to the stannary", was to issue banknotes in four denominations.[3]

The first issue of notes considered to be by the Cornish Stannary Parliament was made in 1974. Issued by the ‘Cornish National Fund’. The Cornish National Fund was established with the objective of raising revenue to aid it in a campaign for the restitution of Cornwall’s legal right to partially govern itself and to raise appreciation within Cornwall of the aims of the Stannary Parliament.

The banknotes of the 1974 issue consisted of the denominations 5 shillings, 10 shillings, 1 pound and 5 pounds. The 5-shilling note has two shields on the front of the note, one of which carries the colours of the flag of St. Piran, who is the patron saint of tin miners. St. Piran was an Irish monk who ministered the Cornish people around the fifth century. His banner is a white cross on a black background. The colours of this banner have been adopted as the flag of Cornwall for many years, and a flag of this colour was purportedly carried in the battle of Agincourt by the Cornish contingent. The Cornish text on the front of the 5-shilling note can be translated as: ‘The National Fund of Cornwall promises to pay the bearer one day after sight the amount of five shillings.’

The use of the ‘sight’ clause circumvents a legal restriction for issuers of banknotes in England and Wales. Under the Bank Notes Act of 1826, it is illegal to issue a ‘demand’ note for an amount less than 5 pounds, so the 5-shilling, 10-shilling and 1-pound notes issued by the Fund are ‘sight notes’.

The 10-shilling note carries a drawing of the cross of St. Piran on the front of the note and the 1-pound note bears the seal of the Stannary Parliament. Both notes have Cornish text that is the same as the 5-shilling note, except that the value stated is altered for each denomination.

The 5-pound note has a picture of a building found on St Michael’s Mount . The Cornish text on this denomination is distinctive in that it states: ‘The National Fund of Cornwall promises to pay the bearer the amount of five pounds on demand.’ As the note is for 5 pounds, under the Bank Notes Act of 1826 it can be payable on demand.

The back of each note is virtually the same. Each note carries the same illustration of Restormel Castle in the stannary town of Lostwithiel. In the top left are the initials ‘AKK’ for ‘Arghow Kenethlek Kernow’, which translates as ‘Cornish National Fund’. The initials of the English name, ‘CNF’, appear the lower right. At the bottom left of the note is the promissory clause in English. The change in wording of this clause for each value is the only difference for the back of each denomination.

Dated 1974, the notes are designed by Brian Hambley, who was the Lord Protector of the Parliament at that time. It is not known if they were sold at a premium, nor how many of the notes were issued. The issued notes were presumably numbered by hand on their front.

In 1985 the Cornish Stannary Parliament issued notes of two denominations of 50 pence and 1 pound. The notes are once again ‘sight notes’, in that they are payable at one day’s notice. In what appears to have been a fund-raising exercise, the Cornish Stannary Parliament printed and sold their notes at a premium, with the notes being sold as a matched pair.

The front of each note bears a seal of the Parliament at the left, below which is the denomination of the note. The 1-pound note displays ‘£1’ but the half pound note has ‘50 dynar’. Most of the note is dominated by text in the Cornish language. A translation of the text on the front of the notes reads (for the 50-dynar note): ‘The Stannary Parliament of Cornwall promises to the bearer one day after sight the amount of half a pound.’ To the lower centre-left is ‘Cambron 1985’. ‘Cambron’ translates as ‘Camborne’ and Camborne Hill is relevant to the subject on the back of the notes. The notes are signed by the ‘Arghanser’ or ‘Treasurer’.

The back of each note carries images of Richard Trevithick and an early railway steam locomotive. Above the locomotive is a banner, which names and dates the steam engine as ‘Pen-y-darren Locomotive 1804’. A card, which accompanied the issue, explains the significance of Tevithick and his engine.

Other Actions Following an incident on February 26 1975 when Frederick Trull, (clerk to the stannary) attempted to arrest the clerk and magistrate while being tried for a motoring offence at St Austell Magistrate's Court, he was found guilty of using threatening words and behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace on June 2, 1975. He produced twenty-five pages of documents in an attempt to prove that the court had no jurisdiction, but was fined, ordered to pay costs and bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.[4] He was subsequently dismissed from his post as clerk and expelled from the organisation. The banknotes, which bore Trull's signature, were burnt.[5]

The CSP next hit the headlines in 1978, again at St Austell Magistrate's Court. Brian Hambley (Lord Protector of the Stannaries) had been charged with having failed to pay motor tax, and displaying the stannary seal in place of a tax disc. His defence was that he was exempt from the court's jurisdiction as he was a "privileged tinner", having staked out several acres of moorland with a view to working them for tin on land belonging to the lord-lieutenant of Cornwall. After two and a half hours consultation the magistrates agrred they had no jurisdiction.[6].

The following day a court in Bodmin adjourned a similar case sine die against Frederick Trull.[7] On July 11, a specially convened stannary court, under the county court, declared that the lands Hambley claimed to have staked were already bounded, and ordered him to pay the landowners' costs.[8] By the end of July over a hundred people were refusing to pay road tax in Cornwall, but a decision of the High Court gave the Home Office leave to quash the original magistrate's decision.[9]

The group's next large campaign was in 1989, and related to the introduction of the unpopular community charge or poll tax. They claimed that as the law imposing the charge had not been approved by the Stannary Parliament "all tin-miners and former tin-miners, all descendants of tin-miners, all shareholders in tin-mines and anyone who supplied equipment for tin-mining" were exempt from the tax. Shares were made available for sale in the Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Company at one pound each, the claim being that shareholders would not be liable for the charge. The company was owned by Frederick Trull, who had rejoined the group as its clerk.[10] By March 1990 up to one and a quarter million applications for shares had been made. On March 22 the Department of Trade and Industry was granted an injunction in the High Court freezing the company's assets on the grounds that the company was not registered under the Companies Act 1985 and that Mr Trull was not authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986 to conduct investment business.[11] On June 27 the company was placed in receivership, with shareholders potentially facing the payment of costs.[12]

On September 5 the receiver announced that Trull had vanished and that there was no trace of the estimated 1 million pounds paid by members of the public. [13] On October 12 Trull was found guilty of contempt by breaching High Court orders to stop issuing shares and for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the money. He was sentenced in his absence to six months imprisonment. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Harman, said "The matter may be based on a genuine belief by Mr Trull in the privileges of Cornish tin miners but has all the appearance of being a con trick." [14] On[February 22 1991, Trull appeared before the High Court, and his sentence was reduced to three months and suspended for two years, on the condition that he undertook to help the Department of Trade and Industry recover the money invested by the public. Mr Trull's counsel, told the court that the money had gone to "the sharks of this world" and that Mr Trull was "fired not by dishonesty, but by obsessive belief in the Stannary laws". [15][16] Mr Trull remained clerk of the parliament and in November was again before the courts claiming the Bodmin magistrates had no jurisdiction to make orders for payment against him on behalf of Restormel Borough Council as a privileged tinner within the Stannaries of Cornwall. The case was finally settled against Mr Trull in 1994[17]

Operation Chough Following rejection of a separate "Cornish Heritage" organisation for Cornwall by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in August 1998 and the refusal of the Home Office to extend the provisions of the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" to the Cornish in February 1999, the Cornish Stannary Parliament commenced a new direct action campaign they termed "Operation Chough". The organisation wrote to English Heritage ordering them to remove all signs bearing that title from sites in Cornwall by July 31 1999.[18] During 2000 - the Bailiff of the Cornish Stannary Parliament with the authority of the Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508, confiscated 18 English Heritage signs at archaeological sites in Cornwall - each removal notified to English Heritage by fax and details placed on Cornish Heritage web site and the police notified in September. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed from sites in Cornwall including Carn Euny, Chysauster, Pendennis Castle and Tintagel.

The "Keeper of the Seal of the Stannary Parliament" wrote to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". ""Pre-English archaeological sites of Celtic Cornwall are falsely described as the heritage of the English people for English racial advantage. De facto political power insufficient authorisation in international law for the denial of the right for Cornish cultural heritage to exist as an official and separate expression of humanity. A denial of the "pristine honours" provision for Cornish culture in Duchy of Cornwall Charter 1337.""

12th December 2000 - Camborne Magistrates Court - Case transferred to Crown Court.

9th August 2001 - Truro Crown Court - Postponement agreed. Judge Rucker expresses the opinion "these people are here for publicity" "this is political" etc. "I want this case listed for me".

The legal team were presented by Stannator Colin Murley with hard copies of Foreshore Dispute and Articles of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 between Crown and Duchy of Cornwall as the government of Cornwall per Duchy Charters of 1337/8 and "the general law concerning Duchy rights, powers and privileges" referred to in the Tamar Bridge Act 1998. Also papers and floppy discs on "Stannary Ownership of the Soil" validity of 1508 Charter of Pardon through constitutional law as enshrined in the Statute in Force, Royal Mines Act 1693 in contrast to Duchy 'rights' to back date its claims to property in Cornwall. In addition reference documents on International Human Rights for national minorities and relevant case law. Barristers accept presenting Court with Skeleton Argument on challenge to jurisdiction of court in relation to 1508 Charter plus requiring from Crown Prosecution Service proof of ownership of archaeological sites by English Heritage and disclosure to the Defence of documents and information obtained that may be result of official surveillance and/or the subject of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

Barrister Mike Fitton agreed with Stannary protests and sent a letter to Truro Crown Court asking Judge Rucker to withdraw from the case on account of his bias. On 11th September 2001Judge Rucker declared that he has directed that a judge other than himself will try the case.

26th October 2001 - Truro Crown Court - Barristers fail to obtain adjournment of Case from the date fixed 14th January 2002. All resign from case owing to other commitments.

28th November 2001 - Conference at Solicitor's Office at Bristol. Present Rodney, Hugh, Nigel and Colin. Introduced to new Barristers. Michael Shrimpton rejects validity of 1508 Charter. Wants to concentrate on National Heritage Act 1983 by which the "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" is not authorised to name itself "English Heritage", under section 32, or extend its activities to Cornwall, under section 42. Stannary wants emphasis on "the stannaries" as legal and constitutional through being a "territorial possession" in Duchy of Cornwall Charter/Act of Parliament 1337. This negates Duchy claims to be a private estate. The Duchy of Cornwall is legally classified as "a mode of descent unknown to the common law".

14th December 2001 - Stannators Rodney Nute, Hugh Rowe, Nigel Hicks and Colin Murley hold a conference with their solicitors at Bristol. Summary presented on all aspects considered relevant by Cornish Stannary Parliament -including, Stannary ownership of Cornish archaeological sites preserved for centuries under the provisions of Stannary law.

3rd January 2002 - Crown Prosecution Service is granted a "Public Interest Immunity Certificate" by Judge Cottle at Exeter Crown Court to block certain disclosures to the Defence.

Monday 14th January 2002 - Truro Crown Court - Judge Cottle presiding. Crown Prosecution Service requests an out of Court Settlement. Defence agree to pay £4,500.00 towards expense of new Cornish designs for signs at Cornish Archaeological sites and return old illegal "English Heritage" signs confiscated.

Friday 18th January 2002 - Judge enters a verdict of "not guilty" concerning actions of Cornish Stannators Rodney Nute, Hugh Rowe, Nigel Hicks.

The conclusion was that English Heritage could not justify its policies to win the case against the Cornish Stannary Parliament and the Crown Prosecution Service retreated from the prospect of the Cornish Stannary Parliament presenting evidence exposing the illegality of acts by various government departments. The enforced withdrawal of a Judge, the resignation of the first three Barristers, the change of the charge from "theft" to "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" and the introduction at a late stage of a "Public Interest Immunity Certificate", together offer compelling evidence of political interference with the course of justice.

19th January 2002 - Report in the London "Guardian" entitled:- "How 3 Cornishmen and a raid on King Arthur's castle rocked English Heritage". The Western Morning News published an in depth report and reports a "politically correct' mud slinging attempt by 'Cornwall Colonial Council' spokesperson Mike Gillbard", without asking him why none of the English political parties represented at 'Colonial Hall' have never passed a motion accepting the right of the Cornish Celts and their culture to exist officially.

On 20th January 2002 BBC1 Television Service invites stannators Rodney Nute and Nigel Hicks to participate in an evening discussion programme regarding the case, which was accepted, but later the BBC mysteriously withdrew the offer.

Recovery of Unauthorised Overcharge on Tin Production by the Duchy of Cornwall On 15 May 2000 an invoice from the Cornish Stannary Parliament was sent to the Duchy of Cornwall with regards to the recovery of unauthorised overcharges on tin production by the Duchy of Cornwall. It claimed that the excessive taxation was contrary to the provisions of Magna Carta, the Stannary Charters of 1305 & 1508, Duchy Charters of 1337/8, the Case of Mines 1568 & the Royal Mines Act 1693 AD and without parliamentary authority. It claimed that the Duchy of Cornwall has failed to address the underlying cause of the dispute why Cornwall was charged at over twice the coinage, or tax on tin production, as that levied upon Devon. This policy was applied over a period of centuries to the detriment of generations of Cornish stannars or "tinners at large" and their "heirs" as defined by Stannary charter, (1508). The Cornish Stannary claimed that research by G.R.Lewis of Harvard University, in his book "The Stannaries", indicated a racial motive for overcharging Celtic Cornwall. Cornwall clearly came within the definition given in the Duchy of Cornwall charters (1337/8), (an inheritance for the "heirs" of the original Duke), as, "other lands subjected to our dominion", in other words, not England.

The bit about the banknotes is in breach of copyright, being lifted from [1] Lozleader 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Cornishmen show teeth in reviving a parliament, Trevor Fishlock, The Times, May 21, 1974
  2. ^ Why Cornishmen are nailing their colours to Magna Carta, Susanne Puddefoot, The Times October 26, 1974
  3. ^ Tinner's parliament plans coinage, The Times, December 16, 1974
  4. ^ Stannary Parliament man fined, the Times, June 3, 1975
  5. ^ Stannary clerk expelled and cash burnt, The Times, August 18, 1975
  6. ^ Ancient tin miners' parliament wins its challenge in a 1978 magistrate's court, The Times, June 16, 1978
  7. ^ Victories for Stannary Parliament seen as a giant leap for Cornwall, The Times, June 17, 1978
  8. ^ Cornishman may appeal over tin mining ruling, the Times, July 12, 1978
  9. ^ Court move to stop revolt over road tax, The Times, August 1, 1978
  10. ^ Charter of 1508 is cited; Poll tax challenge, The Times, August 29, 1989
  11. ^ Cornish poll tax rebel barred, The Times, March 23, 1990
  12. ^ Tin mine investors face costs; Royal Cornish Consols United Tin Mines Cost Book Company, The Times, June 28, 1990
  13. ^ 'Founder of firm that offered poll-tax immunity is missing', The Times, Sept 5, 1990
  14. ^ 'Tin mining "conman" is jailed for six months', The Times, October 13, 1990
  15. ^ Jail term suspended, The Times, February 23, 1991
  16. ^ Cornish tin men's reluctant farewell. The Times, February 27, 1991
  17. ^ No stannary rates exemption, The Times, June 20, 1994
  18. ^ Cornwall heritage warning, The Times, April 26, 1999

Moved Revived Stannary to its own page[edit]

Because the "Revived Stannary" is substantially different from the old one, and because material about the Revived Stannary fits poorly into the page and was beginning to dominate it by volume, I have moved all the material related to it to a new page, leaving (hopefully) a neutral introduction to the subject on this page. --Diderot 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing the same thing for the same reasons. Lozleader 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stannary Districts: suitable source?[edit]

I came across this [2] (it's a whopping 11 MB PDF file). It's an undergraduate thesis from a student at Harvard, privately published in 1908. It contains some useful/interesting information: in particular it describes the stanary districts on page 89, information we don't have but ought to. My question: is a student's thesis like this good enough to cite and use as a source? Lozleader 11:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK we can always look for better but this strikes me as worthwhile. If it was a good students work it's probably great and the date of it makes it interesting at the very least - good find --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only active veto of legislation ?[edit]

The 1508 Charter states, "No [Westminster] Act or Statute shall have effect in the Stannaries without the assent and consent of the twenty-four stannators." Acting in its capacity as appeal court for the colonies, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has declared that any reference to The Stannaries means the whole of Cornwall. I think this means that no act made after the last meeting of the Stannery parliament can have any effect in Cornwall. The right to "veto the legislation", as stated in the article sounds like the parliament had to make a dicision to stop the acts. Does anybody know which laws before the last meeting were not assented? And what sense does the sentence "The 1508 Charter states, "No [Westminster] Act or Statute shall have effect in the Stannaries without the assent and consent of the twenty-four stannators." Acting in its capacity as appeal court for the colonies, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has declared that any reference to The Stannaries means the whole of Cornwall." make? I didn't know Cornwall was a colony.--Son sonson 12:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs and Successors[edit]

This Wiki article is lame. It seems to be determined to give credence to the UK government's claim that "there are no valid stannary organisations", but fails to mention that the Charter of Pardon recognises "the heirs and successors of tinners" (ie. the whole population of the Cornwall). If one wants to mention the views of Westminster politicians then you should also mention contrary views. Not providing balance is simply POV / bias. This article needs a complete rewrite by someone with a good working knowledge of the charters (particularly the Charter of Pardon) and who won't simply leave out valuable information because they are trying to disprove Cornwall's constitutional position (or indeed prove it)!! Artowalos (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)artowalos[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stannary Courts and Parliaments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]