Final judgment on Ball

I assure John Mizzi (October 30) that I have no grudge against Alexander Ball but I have strong reservations about incomplete descriptions being accepted at face value as an incontrovertible fact, as unfortunately happens too often in Malta.

The facts we should be in agreement with are as follows: (a) the French surrendered to the British in 1800, meaning that whatever Ball and the contadini did in 1799 was regarded as meaningless, without any legal or constitutional value, at least insofar as the British were concerned without regard for the enormous losses suffered by the Maltese; (b) from 1798 till 1800, Malta and Gozo were legally divided into 10 municipalities by the French. This was acted upon by the Maltese themselves because appointments were made and accepted, schools were founded and attended, some extremely large loans were made to the French etc. The fact that some areas were affected by the insurgency as early as September 1798 should not detract from the other fact that for all intents the French held the Civil Government of Malta by right of the 1798 conquest and that the value of any appointment in favour of Ball during that period remains debatable.

Ball, as representative of the King of Naples, may have had the support of some of the insurgents but he did not have the support of them all (see for example Count Manduca's attempts to have the Order restored).

Matters are clarified by considering that the French surrendered not to the supposed Governor appointed by the King of Naples but to General Pigot. Pigot, not Ball, was in charge. (By the way, until Vaubois's ignominous departure, he (Vaubois) was Pigot's guest at Balzan!). Fast track to the Treaty of Paris, the implication there is that as far as everyone was concerned Malta remained French until 1800 and could not have had a Governor, British or Neapolitan, appointed in 1799.

Ball's 1799 appointment was at best a hollow title, and although he may have assumed the title of Governor, we now know better not to consider him to have been the Governor of Malta in 1799, which probably explains why his memorial remains abandoned as originally lamented by Mr Mizzi.

The proof is in the eating.

With hindsight Mr Mizzi should agree that although Ball did claim loyalty to the King of Naples, he is best remembered for having harped on the aspirations of the Maltese, the Neapolitans and the remnants of the Order, only to pave the way for rendering Malta a British Colony. Perhaps somebody else will be kind enough to teach us what Ball really was about so we can then pass final judgment.

I note that another contributor (October 28) described Mr Mizzi's original full-page contribution as "confusing", so I need not respond to his personalised attack.