MALTESE QUESTION,

The conduct of his Majesty's ministers, with respect to foreign powers, since the negotiation of the Preliminary Treaty, that negotiation inclusive, exhibits a series of acts, amongst which it is difficult to point out the meanest, the most dishonourable in itself, or the most injurious to their country; but, if, in this picture of political iniquity, any one part assumes a dye peculiarly dark, and, by aiming at the scandalous pre-eminence, breaks through the odious and detestable uniformity, it is their conduct relative to the Island and the people of Malta,

In order to obtain a full and correct view of this their conduct, the reader will find it necessary first to go back to the terms of the Preliminary Treaty with France, Article IV. (1) Where it is stipulated, that, "the "Island of Malta, with its dependencies, "shall be evacuated by the troops of his "Britannic Majesty, and restored to the "Order of St John of Jerusalem;" and that," for the purpose of reudering this "Island completely independent of either "of the two contracting parties, it shall be "placed under the guarantee and protec❝tion of a third power, to be agreed upon "in the Definitive Treaty."- For opinions as to the wisdom of this stipulation, considered with regard to ourselves, we refer the reader to the speech of Mr. Pitt; (2) and, for opinions as to its folly, we refer him to the speech of Mr. Windham (3), to which references we beg leave to add another, to Mr. Cobbett's Letters on the Preliminary Treaty, published in the very same month of October which witnessed the signature of that most silly, destructive, and disgraceful compact (4). It was here stated, in less than twenty days after the Preliminary Treaty was promulgated, that the stipulations rela

1770

tive to Malta were absolutely impracticable, and that, whenever the Island should be evacuated by the English, it would most assuredly be taken possession of by the French. But, it is not the question between the nation and the ministers, so much as that between the ministers and the people of Malta, into which we are now to examine

No sooner was the treaty of Downing Street. the disgraceful Preliminary Treaty, made known to the Maltese, than they remonstrated against the injustice and cruelty of the stipulations relative to their country, of which they alleged that they themselves had the sole right, both of possession and of sovereignty, which rights they were willing to transfer to his Britannic Majesty, but by no means to the Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. This remonstrance (which we beg the reader to re-peruse in page 674 et seq. of the present volume), was drawn up at Malta, and sanctioned by the people, in the most lawful manner, on the 22d of October, 1801; a copy of it was immediately forwarded to his Majesty's secretary of state for the war department, Lord Hobart; and, lest that mode of application should fail of success, a deputation consisting of six persons was chosen, and dispatched to London, with orders to present the remonstrance in person, and to enforce its demands. Early in February, 1802, while the negotiation of the Definitive Treaty was going on, these deputies arrived in London, and, on the 4th of that month, they wrote an official letter to Lord Hobart, stating their quality and their business, also soliciting an interview (5). In answer to this letter, they received, from Lord Hobart, a verbal message, through Sir Alexander Ball, in which they were told, "they would do well "to procure their departure from London as

66

soon as possible, aducing for reasons, that "their remaining would give jealousy to France, "and thereby impede the conclusion of the "Definitive Treaty; and that he could not "for reasons of state, receive and hear "them at bis office, but would permit them

(5) See this Volume, p. 679. Cc

-

"to come to his private house."-On the 8th of February they went to his private house, where they repeated, amplified, and enforced, every statement in their original remonstrance (which we again beg our readers to re-peruse); and, on the 1st of March, they sent in, to Lord Hobart's office, the memorial which will be found in the present Vol. p. 680 et seq. and in which memorial, are recapitulated all the statements, reasonings, and determinations, contained in the remonstrance. The day after this memorial was delivered in, the deputies wrote to their constituents at Malta, a letter, giving them an account of the unworthy treatment they had met with in London, an extract from which letter we shall by-and-by insert. After, however, the interview with Lord Hobart, at which one of the deputies had freely expressed the indignant feelings of bis countrymen, the deputation was better treated. They were shown about London, a sum of money was given to each of them, and having desired to be introduced to his Majesty, they were taken to Windsor, where a meeting which should, in case of complaint on the part of France, be capable of being construed into mere accident, was contrived.After the Definitive Treaty was signed, a frigate was prepared for their reception, at Portsmouth, on board of which frigate they embarked for Malta, having, on the 2d of April, been prevailed on to write a letter to Lord Hobart, containing such expressions as might be regarded as amounting to an approbation of the stipulations in the Definitive Treaty, relative to the Island and the people of Malta, which letter was, on Friday, the 19th inst. read in the House of Commons by Lord Hawkesbury, as a sort of reply to the charges, which we have, on this head, heretofore preferred against him and his colleagues; but, so far were the people of Malta, the constituents of the deputies, from being satisfied with these stipulations, that, upon the promulgation of them in their Island, they tore down the posting bills (containing a translation of the 10th article of the treaty), from every place where they had been stuck up; and, as we have before stated, they carried their resentment against this country to such a length, that they resolved to yield up their country to France, rather than submit to the arrangement we had imposed on them, a measure the accomplishment of which could have been prevented only by the war, which has now taken place.

Such is the history of this shameful transaction, relative to which there are four points that present themselves for particular inquiry, or rather comment, for, as to the

66

facts charged against ministers very little doubt can exist: 1. The right, on which the ministers proceeded in making the arrangement agreed on in the 10th article of the Treaty of Amiens, or rather, to use the expression of the Maltese, "in selling them as slaves for a political consideration:" 2. The deception, which ministers practised on the parliament, by stating, as they did in the debates on the Definitive Treaty, that the people of Malta, were satisfied with and grateful for, that arrangement: 3. The shameful pusillanimity, towards France, and the more shameful injustice, cruelty, and insolence, which they discovered with respect to the Maltese, in their refusal to give the deputies an official reception and hearing: 4. The deception, which the ministers practised on the parliament, by refusing, as they did upon the motion of Lord Temple, to produce the information which they possessed relative to the rights and claims of the Maltese, alleging, on the ground of such refusal, that they were in possession of no official papers on the subject.

1. The right, on which ministers proceeded to make the arrangement contained in the tenth article of the Treaty of Amiens, was, as stated by Lord Hobart himself, the right of conquest." As we won the Island by force of arms, we had an indisputable

66

right to arrange its government." This was the justification set up by Lord Hobart (6), under whose department the consideration of this part of the treaty more immediately fell. And, very glad indeed, should we be to be able to maintain his Lordship's position; for, much as we dislike the ministers, great as is the anger and resentment which we feel against them for the disgrace they have brought upon their country, that country must be answerable for their acts, and, therefore, we cannot but regret that those acts admit of no palliation.

Our right" to arrange the government” of Malta rests then, it seems, on the pre-existent right of conquest, which is, in fact, the least equivocal of all possible rights. But, this right of conquest is denied, flatly denied, not by our enemies, not by the unprincipled and malignant Buonaparté, nor by his worthy brother in apostacy, Talleyrand, but by our friends, the people of Malta themselves, who, though they will not be sold "as slaves for a political consideration," desire nothing better, nothing more happy. or houourable, than to become the fellowsubjects of Englishmen.-The conquest, says Lord Hobart, we effected "by force of

(6) See his Speech on the Definitive Treaty, Re gister, Vol. 11. p. 1241.

tarily obey such an invitation! None, none, but traitors, or vile time-servers: such we do not desire in our ranks. That infallible voice which shall distinguish with the title of hero, every man who exposes himself for his country, will equally imprint on the names of those traitors indelible ictamy Abandon then for a few weeks, the exexcise of your accustomed industry. Put yourscives under the immediate direction of your n epicers, and under their guidance; their skill and experience in their profession, will conduct you, with the utmost advantage, to the great and important object of the final conquest of your enemies.

A weak and dispirited garrison, disproportioned to the detenec of such extensive works, cannot resist your ellorts: success will recompense your Jabeck, and you will return instantly into the bos of your families, proud, justly proud, of havin saved your country.

T

As the co-quarters at GUDIA, the 19th June, 1800.

TROS. GRAHAM, B. General, commanding the allied troops at the blockade of Valetta.

Now, from all the occurrences here truly related, from the dates of those occurrences, as well as from the form, the manner, the language, and every other circumstance appertaining to the Address of General Graham, it is evident, that the Maltese were, to all intents and purposes, the principals in the war carried on for the conquest of Malta from the French. The English general evidently regarded himself as acting in the capacity of an auxiliary, bringing, indeed, succour and protection to the peop e of Malta, but not dreaming of commanding them, of entering their country as a conqueror. According to his own statement, he brought with him but a "handful of men.' The garrison of Valetta, he acknowledges, was no longer in a state to hold out against the Maltese, who had of themselves blockaded the place. All he does is, to urge the Maltese to an assault. He claims no share of the honour of having reduced the French to distress, much less does he affect to regard the island as a conquest, which was the ground, on which the ministry justified their having disposed of it by the treaty of Amiens. What will the world think, what must the world think, of a government, which, after this address of General Graham to the "brave Maltese," could give up those brave Maltese to the insufferable oppression and sa

crilege of their tyrants!" The fact is, that Buonaparté was well acquainted with the hatred, which the people of Malia entertained towards the French, and he also well knew that the knights were creatures perfectly at his disposal; from the former he never could hope to obtain the island, while from the latter he was sure to obtain it at a very cheap rate. For these reasons he chose the arrangement made by the tenth article of the treaty of Amiens, to which article the ministers consented, because, without that

consent, they could not have had peace, and without peace they could not have kept their places during the twelve months, which, to their own profit, and to the ruin and infamy of their county, they have kept them. -But, to return to the point at issue; the garrison capitulated, not with the Maltese, who had subdued them, but with the English General PIGOT, who had, previous to the month of September, 1800, taken the command of the allied troops serving at the blockade. On the subject of this capitulation, however, we must now hear the Maltese, who, it is very evident, disapproved of the capitulation, and only submitted to it upon the condition, clearly understood between them and our commanders, that they were then become the subjects of our gracious Sovereign." Reduced," say they, "to the utmost extremity, from scarcity of "provisions, the French garrison offered to "capitulate, and to leave hostages for the vast sums which they had taken from the public Treasury, from the University, "from the Monte di Pietà; from the Churches, and, lastly, from individuals, "under the name of forced loans "British General, as well as the Maltese,

66

The

were acquainted with the situation of "the French garrison; they knew that in "two days it must surrender at discretion. "And in the city there were actually found

"and the pay of the Maltese battalions, were defrayed by the Maltese; and, in order to enable them to do this, they mortgaged the lands of several villages. "The Maltese, therefore, demand, that "their Island may be restored to them; or "that all the expenses incurred by them, "for their share of the war, may be paid "them, and that they may be indemnified "for the losses occasioned by the war, and "for the plunder which the French were permitted to carry away. We affirm, "that being the principals in the war, we "were the lawful captors; that every spe"cies of public property is ours; and that "if, by a superior force it should be wrest"ed from our hands, the mortgages on "them ought, at least, to be paid. The "Maltese demand the possession of their "Island by right of conquest from the "French, who conquered it from the Or"der of Saint John of Jerusalem "Deferring, for the present the questions which we should have a right to ask, relative to an inquiry into the conduct of General PiGOT, we now ask if there be any man of honour, or of common honesty, who will attempt to maintain, that the mere act of making, under such circumstances, this capitulation with the French, changed, all at once, our quality of auxiliaries into that of principals in the war, and rendered the brave Maltese, who had begun and continued that war, who obtained the object of it, and who had therein lost twenty thousand men, while we lost not one man, merely auxiliaries? Besides, if we were principals in the war, we formed only a part of the principals. Our allies were engaged with us in the enterprize, and, therefore, if, agreeably to the assertion of Lord Hobart, we "the Island by force of arms," those allies were entitled to their share of the prize; and, thus is our right of conquest considerably impaired, whereas, by acknowledging the truth, that the Maltese were the princi. pals, we acquired the Island by their choice of our King as their Sovereign.---It being, then, an indisputable fact, that the people of Malta were the principals in the war, the right of conquest belongs to them of course; for it is a maxim, in which all the writers on public law agree, and which has been thus briefly and clearly stated by Martens, that, "the auxiliary has no right to

won

any share in the booty or conquests." (7) Thus is the right, thus are the claims, of the people of Malta established; thus is their Remonstrance justified, and thus do

(7) Martens' Law of Nations, Cobbett's transation, p. 317.

the ministers stand charged with attempting an act the most unjust, cruel, and perfidious, that it ever entered into the mind of man to commit, and that failed in its consummation only because even this and other similar acts of disgrace were all found insufficient for the preservation of that peace, on which the political existence of the ministers depended.

2. The deception, which the ministers practised on the parliament, with respect to the sentiments entertained by the people of Malta, in consequence of the arrangement of the 10th article of the Treaty of Amiens, ought never to be forgotten, and, in a political point of view, never forgiven. till foll atonement has been made for it. The language of the whole of them evidently tended to create a belief, that this arrangement was quite agreeable to the Maltese, and that their approbation of it had been unequivocally expressed; but, the minister, the candid, well meaning, Richmond Park minister, made an unreserved declaration on the subject. Others were shy; they wished to blink the question; to reserve a way of escape from detection; but he, honest soul, feeling no qualms either of honour or of con. science, flatly asserted, that "the Maltese "themselves did not partake in the senti"men's of the Right Honourable Gentle"man" Ir. Windham]" that theirs were "sentiments of satisfaction, and gratitude to "Great Britain, for the terms procured them! !' He said this, too, after he had read, after he must have read, their remonstrance, that remonstrance in which they formally protest against any and every arrangement that shall again place them under the government of the Knights, "under the oppression and sacrilege of their tyrants, which was become

insufferable." But, in answer to this charge, the well-meaning man now pleads the letter, read by Lord Hawkesbury in the House of Commons, on the 19th instant. This letter was written by the deputies, after the conclusion of the Definitive Treaty, and also after they had received many soothing favours, including a sum of money to each; but before they had had an opportunity of consuling their constituents. The remonstrance was an official document, speaking the sentiments of the people of Malta; the letter could not possibly express more than the sentiments of the deputies, who, under such circumstances, with a frigate promised, but on board of which they were not yet safely embarked, must be supposed to mix a good deal of personal feeling. These deputies. were sent to declare the resolution of the people of Malta, never, on any account, to re-admit the Knights: they did not, and