The centenary of the Sette Giugno riots which is being marked today was a milestone in Malta's political history, giving the island its Legislative Assembly, which later became the modern-day parliament.

Simmering political and economic troubles at the turn of the century had eased somewhat during the first world war but then returned with a vengeance and reached a boiling point on June 7, 1919.

An increasing number of Maltese found that their pay simply could not keep up with rampant inflation. The situation was made worse as many lost their jobs in a wave of post-war discharges, particularly from the dockyard.

It was a situation which fuelled calls by the Maltese to be granted a constitution and hence, self-government. 

Malta at the time was, first and foremost, a fortress and naval base.   

“The Duke of Wellington once said: can you give a Constitution to a battleship? The same way, you cannot give it to Malta,” professor Godfrey Pirotta, author of a book on Malta’s parliamentary history, said.

In the late 1820s, Britain started sending commissions to enquire about the demand of the Maltese for autonomy in internal affairs. However, it seemed quite an impossible feat from the very start. According to British statesman Sir George Cornewall Lewis (1806-1863), it was contradictory for a colony to have its own leadership.

Yet, in 1849, Malta was given its first official document or Constitution that included a minority of elected members of the national assembly, with the rest being made up of heads of departments.

“The head of departments did the work today’s ministers do and the elected members basically did the work of what we now call the Opposition, although the idea was for them to cooperate together,” Prof. Pirotta noted. 

Since the government officials always outnumbered the elected members, it was ultimately what the Governor or the British government wanted that was enacted.

This was never considered as satisfactory for the Maltese: they wanted change, remarked Prof. Pirotta. 

Over the years, the British government tried to come to some sort of compromise without giving full authority to the Maltese. At one point, both elected members and government officials had equal representation but conflicts were unavoidable.

In the meantime, there was also the language issue, which according to Prof. Pirotta, was more of an economic rather than social concern.

“There was the fear that if English was used in Malta, the English would come and take their jobs,” he pointed out.

“This had already happened in the past, so there was reason for the Maltese to worry. When the British arrived and occupied the country, they removed the Maltese from the top positions and gave them to the English, such as at the law courts,” he added.

Before the English arrived, Italian – which was considered a European language − was the administration language.

In the 1880s, another issue emerged: government expenditure and taxes in Malta. The biggest source of income was tax on grain imports. The government wanted to remove this tax because it affected the staple food of the Maltese but it faced strong opposition because, otherwise, it had to introduce other indirect taxes, such as on luxurious objects, which Malta’s elite did not want. The nobility and merchants particularly did not want tax on inheritance, known as succession tax.

In the early 20th century, Malta experienced an economic boom as thousands of locals found employment on a large number of infrastructural projects, like the island’s drainage system and the building of the breakwater. But the boom brought with it a steep rise in prices and rentals.

The riots indeed led to a new, more modern Constitution

“Despite this, life was generally good, people started marrying at a young age and the Maltese population increased by some 14 per cent,” Dr Pirotta said. 

However, this prosperity came to a sudden end in 1906 when the works finished.

“People started fleeing the country because there were not enough jobs… Many Maltese ended up in a dire situation and reached almost starvation point, as the Acting Governor himself admitted,” he continued. 

To add to the difficulties, taxes rose sharply and the situation became unbearable. The Maltese started to protest and strike, even groups of workers who had no union such as coal-heavers in the harbours. 

Then came World War I and while it brought more jobs to Malta, there was another steep rise in the cost of living, a scarcity of resources and, consequentially, more strikes. 

After the war, there were mass redundancies, including thousands of workers at the dockyard, and prices did not go down quickly.

There were appeals for the Maltese to unite and a National Assembly to formulate a new Constitution for Malta was called.  

While workers increasingly protested about their conditions, University students started holding protests over changes to their courses. People started gathering in the streets of Valletta to voice their concerns and protest.

“All these protests were directed towards those who had power, because they were the only ones who could change the scenario,” Prof. Pirotta said.

Events came to a head on June 7, 1919, when British soldiers fired at the rioting crowd which attacked the home of leading grain importer Anthony Cassar Torreggiani in Strada Forni (Old Bakery Street) and the offices of The Daily Malta Chronicle in Strada Teatro (Old Theatre Street).

Three people died that day: Manwel Attard, Giuseppe Bajada and Lorenzo Dyer. The following day, when demonstrations continued in the capital city, Carmelo Abela was stabbed at Colonel John Louis Francia’s Palazzo Ferreria in Strada Reale (Republic Street). He succumbed to his injuries a few days later.

At the time, Malta had an Acting  Governor, Hunter Blair, who wrote to the Secretary of State for the Colonies saying that although it would seem like a sign of weakness to give concessions to Malta, there was no alternative after what had happened. 

“So the riots indeed led to a new, more modern Constitution, enabling Malta to have not just a representative government but a ‘responsible’ government, meaning a government made up of a party that was elected and accountable to Parliament,” Prof. Pirotta pointed out.

Malta inherited the British Westminster model, at first adopting the bicameral system consisting of a Senate as well as a Legislative Assembly. This led to many clashes and the British government had to intervene, changing the Constitution to give power to the Legislative Assembly.

The term ‘Legislative Assembly’ was used instead of Parliament in countries which did not have dominion status like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They were even not allowed to use the word ‘prime minister’ but ‘head of ministry’. But Malta still managed to join the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which had the dominions as its members.

“Our Parliament mirrors the British Parliament in everything… as regards  procedure, most standing orders and terms,” Prof. Pirotta said. 

The layout is also the same: the government sits on one side of the House and the Opposition on the other, facing each other.

What differed between Malta and Britain was the electoral system. 

“The establishment of Parliament was a big step forward that gave the responsibility of leadership to Maltese political parties that had the people’s mandate and which had a programme to enact,” he concluded.

An exhibition related to the Sette Giugno events titled Culhat al Belt is currently being held at Parliament in Valletta.