follow us on

   

 

Cornish Links

Legends and Myths


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Address to Stannary Parliament by the Speaker & Lord Protector of the Stannaries
 


Members of the Stannary,

16th September , 1974

The first report which has to be made to you all, refers to the protracted negotiations with the Duchy of Cornwall, in the matter of the Lord Warden.

In the interests of amicable settlement, a Professor of Law generously agreed to speak with the Attorney-General on Our behalf, and as a result, the latter has agreed, that whilst the Duchy are willing to accept this Parliament, they cannot willingly confer the right for Us to impede the Legislation of Westminster. They have agreed, that the volume of case law is such, that at application fore writ of Mandamus must almost inevitably succeed, but they will not voluntarily involve Prince Charles in the political arena, only a Court Order will be acceptable to them.

As a result of this, further investigations have been found necessary, and an abhorrent state of affairs have been disclosed as a consequence. They amount to an indictment of the whole political scene in these islands; illegality, fraud, and the existence of a totalitarian democracy, a masquerade of massive proportions, against which, the matter of the Lord Warden pales into insignificant irrelevancy.

There can now be shown a deliberate and calculated suppression of constitutional rights and the Common Law, contrary to the Act of Settlement of 1700, and in defiance of the Bill of Rights of 1694. Further, that the basis of that Common Law, Magna Carta, 39 hint ratified as that basis, has been prostituted, the Great Charter of Lancaster made into a mockery for political gain, and the Queens Writ deliberately foisted onto those over whom it does not run, giving rise to unlawful elections, and the committing of criminally indictable offences, known as exploiting of Acts of Parliament.

There are those who believe, that Parliament is supreme, and I shall repeat the gist of the famous speech by the Earl of Chatham, before the House of Lords in 1770, on this very subject: He said,


"I am a plain man, and I have been brought up in a religious reverence for the original simplicity of the Laws of England. By what sophistry they have been perverted, by what artifices have they been involved in obscurity is not for me to explain.

We have been assured by our noble Lord, that he knows not in what code the Law of Parliament may be found. That the House of Commons, when they act as judges, have no law to direct them but their own wisdom, that their decision is the law, and if they determine wrong, the Subject has no Appeal but to Heaven.

What then, My Lords, are all the generous efforts of our ancestors, are all these glorious contentions, by which they meant to secure to themselves and transmit to their posterity, a known law, a certain Rule of Living, reduced to this conclusion: that instead of the arbitrary Power of a King, we must submit to the arbitrary Power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what benefit dose derive from the exchange. Tyranny my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as when it is assumed and exercised by a NUMBER of tyrants.

But this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a Law of Parliament, we have a Code in which any Honest man may find it: We have Magna Carta. We have the Statute Book and the Bill of Rights."

To those words I will add, Gentlemen, we have the Great Charter of Lancaster, which of itself totally replaces the Charter of Pardon in it's requirements. For those under the Red Rose of Lancaster, the Queen's Writ does not apply, thy' Her Majesty is the Duke of Lancaster. And where Her Writ does not run, there her Ministers may not trespass.

By whose warrant then, did Edward Heath claim to represent Britain, when he signed the Treaty of Accession? He did not, nor could not, represent the 29 Counties of the Royal Duchy of Lancaster. For the Parliaments have no jurisdiction over the Royal Kingdom, Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster, nor can they have in various other privileged places. And who did Heath pretend to represent in this affair? It was certainly a pretence as far as Cornwall is concerned, for She is superior to the Parliaments, as shown in Habeas Corpus. It was also a pretence as far as Southampton and Wiltshire and Somerset and Dorset and Devon were concerned. And Berkshire, Oxford, Hereford, Worcestershire, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, Chester and Stafford were concerned.

Yet not only are the Parliaments practicing this subterfuge, for they have the effrontery to use the Party Whip, to suborn the elected representatives of the constituencies, to force support for the conspiracies of the Party machines. Even this is not enough; for no secure their unlawful elections, they deliberately offer bribes and inducements to the electorate, in defiance of the requirements of the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1949.
 

       

Information

 

About Us

Contact Us