One of the memorable stories in the land of our forefathers was the coming of the French at the end of the eighteenth century, who took the islands from the Knights of St John at the time of GrandMaster Hompesch.
However surely the straw the broke the Maltese camel’s back was the taking of silver and gold from churches and the Order’s auberges. Perhaps the most famous treasure is the sword of GrandMaster La Valette that ended up, and still is at, the Louvre Museum in Paris, and I still remember this being mentioned clearly in a childhood history lesson.
It wasn’t clear what had become of the treasures taken by the French. Some thought these had been loaded on the Orient galley which from Malta went with Napoleon’s fleet to attack Egypt. The Orient ended up at the bottom of Aboukir bay so it was thought that the Maltese treasure was there also, although this begs the question why would a treasure of such high value be loaded onto a ship going to war.
Recently there was an article by Dr J.F. Grima that concluded that the treasure was not on the Orient, but had been taken to the army’s treasury, parts of which were sold in Malta and Egypt, others melted into ingots or coins etc. There were some other items of value in another vessel called Sensible which from Malta sailed towards France but was intercepted by the English, and the valuable objects thereon went hither and thither.
Nevertheless, the comment that struck me most from this article was that the rights to all property snatched by the French had been lost as the Order had surrendered. In other words, La Valette’s sword in France now belongs to the French, as the Order had lost its confrontation with the French.
What?
Just imagine someone breaking into your house, in the dark of night. You wake up in the middle of the night and find a stranger pointing a knife in your direction, threatening you and you family if you even attempt to stop him sweeping your adobe for any items of value you might have. You decide not to risk your life and those of your loved ones, and do not resist the implementation of his plans.
Since you offered no resistance and let him leave, then you’ve lost every right to the items he’s pilfered.
Does this really make sense?
In criminal law, stealing exists, amongst others, when the taking of objects is done without the consent of the owner, and in the case of the example given above, this consent was not there, clearly.
In the case of Malta’s treasures taken by the French, one can point to the capitulation signed by the GrandMaster on 12th June 798, as the day when all rights on property held by the Order were ceded. However is this truly the end of the story? Is capitulation at knife point valid?
In the second World War, the Nazis also stole a vast amount of treasure, in precious metals, arti, cultural objects etc, which after their final defeat there was widespread action for the identification as far as possible of what had been stolen in order to return same to the original private or state owners from whom it was taken.
I don’t understand why this principle does not also apply to the French Republic, when Napoleon’s era ended with the battle of Waterloo in 1815 against the allies of Great Britain, Holland, Prussia and others. It is in Malta’s interest to keep insisting that what has been taken be returned.
1L-Ilsiera fi żmien L-ordni f’Malta (5); L-Orizzont; 18/5/2017; p.20
2Ġrajjet Malta - it-tielet ktieb; p185
No comments:
Post a Comment