Seized or looted?

In reply to my letter, Brian Tarpey (December 21) tried to give the impression that looting was the order of that time and by his arguments it was legal to do such things when the might of the big empires had the power to do what they described as "might is right".

I would like to thank Mr Tarpey for the additional information he gave us about other cannon, which came from our island and are now in British museums, while I am also sure there are many more treasures.

In my letter I was referring to the 19-foot cannon. To add insult to injury, as the English saying goes, the rear end of the cannon is resting on a dog, which is also of Maltese race. The description on the said cannon reads "brought from Malta". So how can Mr Tarpey justify himself when he says that various items were looted by Napoleon and the British captain on HMS Sea Horse seized these items from the French frigate La Sensible? Is there any difference between looting and seizing?

In my opinion, if I am not mistaken, when Napoleon invaded Malta, the ruling Knights of St John and the Maltese asked for help from the British empire and since then (the end of the 17th century) till 1979 Malta was a British colony. Does that mean that all our treasures during that period belong to the British Empire?

Incidentally, when I was once visiting London, at Hyde's Park speaker's corner, a gentleman was telling his story about how he had just completed a prison sentence because he had pinched some items from a nearby Oxford Street shop. His question was: "How many members of the British Foreign Office served any prison sentence for all the items presently in British Museums which were brought over from the various countries, mostly colonies?"

Finally, I would like to ask the ministry responsible for our culture as well as Malta Heritage to see what can be done to recover these and any other items which, as Mr Tarpey says, were either looted or seized.