The Maltese Cross

John Dacoutros (The Sunday Times of Malta, May 19, 2013), questions the basis of the Maltese nation’s claim to the Maltese Cross. He argues that cross does not belong to us but to the (putative) successor of the Order that once dominated our nation.

I disagree with your contributor because of two different arguments which have the same result. Moreover, I fear the doubts cast by your contributor may indirectly upset our country’s claim for the restitution of certain objects which were taken, not by right of conquest, but by abuse of trust.

As far as Malta is concerned all chattels of the old Order were duly signed away to France by a Convention dated June 1798. At this point, the authentic Order was dissolved and we Maltese carried on with our lives but this was interrupted some two months later when the Maltese peasants rose against the new government.

The end result appears chagrined, because it was to Britain, not Malta, to whom the French surrendered in 1800.

As we all know, we only formally became a colony almost a generation later. During the interim, Britain disavowed the Treaty of Amiens of 1802. It follows we, as colonials, must ignore that treaty.

At more or less the same time, the Maltese, breaking away from their lawful overlord the monarch of Sicily, entrusted their nation to British protection.

This state of affairs was eventually validated by the Vienna Congress (which in the relative document does not state who was assigning Malta to Britain).

Following the same logic applied to the French rights derived from the Convention of 1798, it was Britain that succeeded to inter alia the cross.

In fact, British Malta made it a point to display the cross on anything official. Perhaps this was a result of the policy asserting the authentic Order was dead and buried, but whatever the reason this practice continues till this very day, and we have even struck coins which are legal tender in all EU countries, many of which also have claims of sort under the Vienna Congress.

When we became independent in 1964, it appears the right to the Maltese Cross was actually one of those things that were implicitly devolved to us.

Therefore to answer your contributor’s question, that cross rightfully belongs to us Maltese not by direct transmission from the authentic Order, but either as 1964 successors of Britain who in turn received the French surrender of 1800 or, as in consequence of the view our independence may be regarded as an act of restitution by the Protector to the Maltese, of their own country and chattels which were still here after the uprising of 1798.

Your contributor may take his pick, but the second view appears to give us a stronger argument for the return of certain artifacts which are still displayed in the Protector’s country.