The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft’ interned with their bones. So preached Shakespeare’s Mark Antony at the funeral oration of Julius Caesar. Has Malta followed Mark Antony’s dicta in evaluating and balancing British colonialism in Malta?
By contrasting the historical achievements of 164 years of British colonialism in Malta and 55 years of Maltese Independence, the period of greater progress puts colonialism to shame.
Being an octogenarian I am burdened with age but graced with experience. I recall the 1930s, times of peace and poverty, and the 1940s, times of war and starvation.
In 1931, Lord Passfield, Sir John Du Cane (1927-31), and Sir David Campbell (1931-36) were sharing their comments on Malta. They all agreed that the situation in Malta was not rosy at all. Derogatory comments about dirt and prolific breeding were true.
It was also true that education had been so neglected that 40 per cent of the electorate were illiterate, that infantile mortality was 50 per cent, that agriculture was far backward because of Biblical methods of farming.
These high echelons of British power houses were not apportioning any blame to 131 years of British Rule.
By this time the opening of the Teachers College of Education (promised by Patrick Keenan in 1856) had to wait till 1947, the year when a Maltese self-government was in power. Other procrastinations and irresponsible deficiencies are superfluous.
Yet, British military and naval commitments in Malta necessitated the building of hospitals at Bighi and Mtarfa. They also embarked on a building programme of fortifications and military barracks in Floriana, and elsewhere. All these encroachments on virgin and arable lands brought them into conflict with Maltese farmers.
It was ironic that Malta had to pay £5,000 pounds annually for its protection. This was only erased at the beginning of the 20th century.
On the credit side were the extension of previous docks of the Order and the construction of the Admiralty docks that serviced the Mediterranean fleets. Naturally, the British staffed these establishments with Maltese employees. The British provided a living.
True, but the whole operation of employment was reciprocal. Its success rested on Maltese labour. The principle of economics of demand and supply benefitted both Britain and Malta. Yet, the scheme did not spring from Britain’s social benevolence to eliminate poverty. In fact, at the end of the two world wars the Admiralty ‘rewarded’ the Maltese wartime efforts with discharges.
Unemployment in Malta led to mass emigration. It helped to reduce unemployment but also drained Malta of its best technical brains. It had its repercussions. Emigration was preferential and selective. Selection depended on knowledge of English, on skin pigmentation, on certified health, age and artisan skill. The selected numbers plugged the needs of Britain in sparsely populated white Australia.
The naval supremacy in the Mediterranean entailed that Malta was essential in servicing the fleet. Malta was a means to an end. However, the British almost bartered Malta for peace with Mussolini. Colonialism followed Satan’s dictum (in Milton’s Paradise Lost): “Evil be thou my Good?”
Italian culture was an obstacle to Britain’s progress of Anglicisation. The English language was not merely a process of teaching and of learning how to read and write English. It struck richer depths. English language instilled in malleable minds how to think British and to give wholehearted support of what Britain stood for.
Britain never visualised the wealth that it would leave behind
This relentless obsession created a dichotomy of conflict between Maltese political parties. Divide et imperat was no less important. Of course, neither Malta nor Britain visualised then that English would become a universal language and of benefit to both nations.
The British usurped the trust the Maltese had placed in them when they asked for British protection in 1800. ‘The Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Malta and Gozo’ (June 15, 1802) explained the Maltese aspirations and beliefs in British justice. But the British turned a genuine and moral demand into a deliberate and unrelenting colonialism. The Paris Convention (1814) sealed British aspirations.
Maltese critics reacted to what the British in Malta did illegally. They exiled or deported many Maltese to Uganda. The governor had no legal power when such law did not even exist in Britain.
Purposely, the British undervalued and underestimated Maltese qualities of leadership. It paid them well to adopt such behaviour. The ‘natives’ were illiterate. They were unable to govern. Instead they gave Malta the semblance of an administration, the ‘Council of Government’.
It was completely dominated by autocratic governors who played ‘snakes and ladders’ withdrawing a ‘concession’ at will on every imaginable excuse supported by the sacred idol of ‘reserved matters’. The granting and withdrawing of constitutions was the weapon that warranted obedience from belligerent Maltese politicians.
Hence British political intransigence and political chicanery instigated conflict. Their eclectic mistakes of an endemic colonialism ended with the massacre of the Sette Giugno.
Such reflections spring to mind not from any phobia. As historical critic of British Malta I was averse to the hidden ‘brains’ of the Colonial Office and all the armchair decision makers who, though they never set foot on Malta, continued to dictate in order to complete their objective of colonial subjection. The Maltese were retained as British subjects, unlike the French citizens.
Britain never visualised the wealth that it would leave behind: a democratic system of government, a disciplined and smart army, a system of education, the venues of their sports activities, robust football, social cricket and hectic hockey games; their military and naval installations, their relaxing clubs including the Marsa Sports Complex, the elite Union Club and the Vernon. Of course, they included the duty-free gargantuan premises of the N.A.A.F.I. canteens that competed for custom with small Maltese enterprises.
Nevertheless the British are still excellent ambassadors for Malta with their reminiscences of the “beautiful gem in the Mediterranean”. The British also managed to perpetuate an image of paternal benevolence. Their unobtrusive propaganda kept reminding them of their vast empire on which the sun never sets.
The Mediterranean fleet, an impressive sight in sheltered harbours, was a visual reminder of British power and might: dressed overall, brass bands playing Rule Britannia, the smartly uniformed sailors lining the decks. These were a spectacle for sore eyes.
The parades down Kingsway to the Main Guard every Saturday to perform the changing of the guard were constant attractions. On the Rediffusion, in theatres, cinemas and concert halls echoed the intermittent playing of the British national anthem, God save the King, but certainly not our national anthem. All these and more stuck indelibly in the subconscious mind that stored the spectacular.
All Malta was mesmerised by the continual visits of eminent British personalities, King George VI, Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth, other royalties, lords and ladies as well as admirals and members of British Parliament. The schoolchildren greeted them with glee, cheering wildly on the Floriana Granaries and parade ground; they thronged the pavements waving little banners of union jacks and persistently shouting words of praise as they were taught in school textbooks, “Viva r-Re, Viva r-Re”.
Joe Bugeja is a senior lecturer at the University of Malta.