The maritime flag of Malta

The Merchants’ Shipping Act of 1973 enshrines the maritime flag of Malta. However, a previous act of the Maltese parliament, namely Act XLIII of 1965 titled ‘The Maltese Ships (National Colours) Act’, had already prescribed the national colours to be worn by Maltese ships, the same as those eventually adopted by the act of 1973.

Act XLIII/1965 became law on November 11, 1965, hence 60 years ago. Malta had just become independent in September 1964. The first few months after independence saw parliament engaged in the enactment of several laws that were of fundamental importance for the country.

Indeed, even before independence, a memo was presented by Prime Minister Giorgio Borg Olivier to cabinet, dated July 30, 1964, in which he pointed out the “necessity to prescribe the national colours to be worn by ships and boats belonging to Malta”.

Until independence, Maltese ships flew the English red ensign, a situation that could not be maintained in such a public forum as the seas. Bill 23 was presented to parliament on February 1, 1965, by Dr Giovanni Felice, then minister of industrial development and tourism, and was given a first reading a day later. The bill referred to sections 73 and 74 of the English Merchants Shipping Act of 1894. This was one other case where the Maltese parliament was enacting a local bill into Maltese law under the authority of an English Act, until it was basically re-enacted as a Maltese statute as it did in 1973.

No design was attached with the bill but the text read as follows: “A flag consisting of a red field with a white Maltese Cross in the centre.” It further stated that the flag “is hereby declared to be the proper national colours for all ships registered in Malta and for all vessels which are not registered anywhere but are owned exclusively by persons domiciled in Malta or by partnerships or companies constituted in Malta”.

Some expressed themselves unhappy with the association of the flag with the times of the Knights of the Order of Malta, considering that by the end of their stay in Malta, the flag was associated more with piracy than bravery

However, the text of Act XLIII/1965, while refraining from giving a description of the flag, shows a design of it, with, however, a major difference, a red field bordered in white with a white Maltese cross in the centre.

It might be of historic interest to explain what had happened between the publication of the bill and the enactment of the Act.

The Sovereign Order of Malta had until then not established diplomatic relations with Malta. This was only done on June 27, 1966, when Dino Marrajeni presented his credentials to the governor general, Sir Maurice Dorman, as the first ambassador of the Order to Malta.

One of the persons of trust that the Order had in Malta was Sir Hannibal P. Scicluna, then already 85 years of age. In a letter dated February 25, 1965, he wrote to Dr Filippo Spada, secretary general of the Order, in which he informed him that as soon as he took notice of the bill meant to prescribe the national colours to be worn by Maltese ships, he realised that the suggested flag was the personal standard of the prince and grand master of the Order. He immediately took the initiative to get in touch with the secretary for foreign affairs at the Office of the Prime Minister, at the time Frederick Amato-Gauci, and alerted him of this situation.

Following a meeting between Scicluna and Amato-Gauci, the latter wrote to him to thank him, also on behalf of the prime minister, for alerting them to the situation, and asked him to use his good offices with the grand master to enquire whether there was any objection from the Order for the government to go ahead and enact the maritime flag as published in the bill.

Sir Hannibal, in reporting back to Rome, assured the Order that the government had no idea that the suggested ensign was the personal standard of the grand master. The intention of Malta was to continue with the historic connection to the navy of the Order.

Scicluna urged Rome to give a quick response to his letter since the bill had already been presented to parliament and the process of debate in committee was to start soon.

The pro grand chancellor, Carlo Loveradi Castiglione dei Marchesi di Maria, replied to Sir Hannibal on March 2. He informed him that the Order, in the absence of diplomatic representation in Malta, had already asked the Italian government to intervene with Malta through its ambassador. He pointed out that the suggested ensign had been the personal standard of the grand master of the Order for hundreds of years.

International law made it clear that one country could not adopt a flag that was like that of another country − the Order being considered at international law as a state. It was also in the interest of the Italian government, hosting the seat of the Order, to avoid future confusion between the maritime flag of Malta and that of the Order.

Having stated all this, the pro chancellor informed Scicluna that the magistracy understood well and appreciated the fact that the government of Malta wanted to make use of symbols on its maritime flag to link it to the glorious traditions of the Navy of the Order, and therefore Rome was happy to work towards a compromise position so long as the flag would carry visible differences from that of the grand master. Various suggestions were given in the letter on how best to reconfigure the flag.

The second reading of Bill 23 took place on June 9, 1965. The minister piloting the bill, Dr Giovanni Felice, informed the House that the government would be moving an amendment to the bill once the second reading in committee took place.

The debate on the bill, in committee, started on June 16 with Dr Alfred Bonnici in the chair. Felice moved an amendment to the original bill to replace the words “consisting of a red field with a white Cross in the centre”, with the words “as set out in the schedule thereto”. The schedule showed the flag as consisting of a red field bordered in white with a white Maltese cross in the centre.

Various members took part in the debate. Some were against both the suggested flag and the amended one, and insisted that the Maltese flag should be the one chosen.

In the debate that continued on October 29, the government − through Dr Tommaso Caruana Demajo, minister for justice − insisted that the national flag of Malta could not be used as the maritime flag according to technical advice given to them.

Some other members questioned the optics of the flag as seen from a certain distance. Some expressed themselves unhappy with the association of the flag with the times of the Knights of the Order of Malta, considering that by the end of their stay in Malta, the flag was associated more with piracy than bravery.

When the question was put by the chair for the house to approve the amendment tabled by the government, a call for a division took place, at the end of which the amendment was carried with 28 votes in favour and 15 against.

The assent of Sir Anthony Mamo, as acting governor general, was given on November 11, 1965.

It was to be expected that, nowhere in the debate was information ever given by the government as to why the maritime flag changed from that published in the bill to the one that was eventually enacted by Act XLIII of 1965.

Noel Buttigieg Scicluna is a lawyer, a former member of parliament and ambassador of Malta.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to Eric Frendo, assistant manager (Records) of the House of Representatives for his assistance, and Max Ganado for his suggestions.