I refer to the editorial/leader regarding the ‘Valette sword and dagger’ ownership question (March 4). I am fascinated by your paper’s apparent misrepresentations.
The Order of St John’s tenancy ended in June 1798 by means of a formal act of capitulation. That instrument – signed without prejudice to the superior rights of the Sicilian monarch – specifically contemplates the transfer to France of all property of the Order (that of the Maltese people being excluded). The “document” (as this newspaper terms it) was acted upon and, as we all know, the sword and dagger were transported to France.
Soon afterwards, relations with the new Franco-Maltese governance deteriorated into a full-scale war involving improvised Maltese armies led by equally-improvised Maltese generalissimi. The calamity finally ended in 1800 with the French losers signing off to Britain rather than the Maltese victors.
In the second “document” (this newspaper’s term) it was specifically agreed that all transfers already effected by the French government were to be maintained inviolable as far as justice and law permitted.
It follows that both sword and dagger rightfully belong to France.There is nothing “murky” about the ownership but the Times of Malta chose to suggest another possible owner, namely the knights. I am afraid such suggestion jars with both our nation’s constitutional genealogy and the ownership of many properties our State today holds as its own.
In a sequel to the 1800 eviction, our forebears – blatantly ignoring the standard consequences of the French capitulation of 1800 and of the 1798 safeguard of the higher, Sicilian dominion, and for the stated purpose of shutting out the knights forever – asked George of Britain to become our own king. By doing so, they entrusted Britain to hold on our behalf our nation’s possessions including all the artefacts of the erstwhile Order still remaining here.
When we finally became independent, and then a republic, we took full possession of the leftovers but, alas, it has been discovered some things went astray and this concern has clearly gone over this newspaper’s head.
Instead of chasing for swords and daggers that clearly do not belong to us but to France, this newspaper should instead focus on how to get back from Britain all our cannon, armour, arms, paintings, furniture and pottery (among many others) that were appropriated after 1800 without any legal justification.