As was mentioned last week, during the deliberations of the 1836 Royal Commission, the Catholic Church in Malta was not against freedom of the press as such. However, the Church feared the consequences that a completely free press, such as that then existing in England, would have on the Catholic religion in Malta. What the Church did not want was a freedom extending also to religious matters.

Sir John Stoddart, Chief Justice of Malta: his draft laws about printing and censorship in Malta were held in abeyance pending the deliberations of the 1836 Royal Commission.

Local clergymen were of three different opinions with regard to the proposed abolition of press censorship. The majority was pleased with it; some were too timid or bigoted to take a decision, with the rest being against the proposition because they feared that their defects would be exposed and made public.

The majority, who favoured a free press, differed in opinion as to the extent of the new law. Some wanted a law that would protect the Catholic Church from invective and insults, while others wanted the Church to be protected even from argumentative attacks.

However, the commissioners pointed out that the law of libel, included in their draft ordinances, prohibited “every attack in way of vituperation, ridicule or other insult, either on the doctrines common to all Christians, or on the peculiar doctrines of any of the Christian Churches” both in writings printed in Malta or imported from abroad, while as things stood at that time, the Catholic Church could “be attacked in imported writings, without impediment and with perfect impunity, either by argument or by vituperation or ridicule”.

George Cornewall Lewis, one of the two members of the 1836 Royal Commission.

At the time of the arrival of the commissioners in Malta, the local clergy had elected a committee of eight members “to consider the affairs of their order”. The committee “approved the introduction of printing and publishing”, but qualified their approbation by the following resolution: “That every printed attack, direct or indirect, upon the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Religion, as determined by the sacred canons of the Church, ought to be prohibited under the severest penalties”.

The commissioners, however, explained to the clergy that protection from argumentative attacks could not be given and that, since spiritual and temporal censorships were in no way connected, the abolition of the latter did not involve the abolition of the former. The result was a declaration, signed by 314 clergymen, stating the following resolution:

“We, the undersigned, are perfectly unanimous in the opinion that since the English have been in Malta there was no hindrance to the introduction of books containing attacks, insults, ridicule and indecent offences against the Catholic religion; that their sale and circulation have not been prohibited; and that the introducers, sellers and circulators have never been punished.

The fears of the Catholic Church were proved to have been well-founded

“We are moreover unanimous in declaring that several presses in Malta have been employed in the printing of books of this nature; and that those who printed, sold and circulated them were not punished.

Front page of the first edition of the newspaper Gazzetta del Governo di Malta, dated October 27, 1813.

“In consequence of which, we also agree in the opinion that if, in Malta, the liberty of the press were granted by the government, or, to express ourselves more clearly, if the existing prohibition maintained by the local government were abolished, and this grant were accompanied by law, that whoever indecently offended or insulted our dominant religion with books or writings should be punished, this last system would be far preferable to the first, and much more useful and advantageous to the Roman Catholic religion.

“At the same time, it is also our unanimous opinion, that Catholic Christians will not, by the abolition of the civil censorship by His Majesty’s government, be dispensed from the spiritual censorship imposed upon them by canon laws; and in this sense must be understood any opinion heretofore expressed by us, or any of us. November 17, 1836.”

Front page of the first edition of the newspaper Giornale di Malta dated January 7, 1812.

The report of the commissioners was sent to Lord Glenelg, together with draft ordinances, in a despatch dated March 10, 1837. In a despatch sent to the Governor of Malta, Major-General Sir Henry F. Bouverie, dated November 27, 1837, Lord Glenelg communicated to the commissioners that their report had been accepted in principle. The way was now open for the introduction of freedom of the press in Malta.

However, over a year had to pass before the new law was proclaimed, one of the reasons being the protracted illness of one of the commissioners, John Austin, which compelled him to return to England in June 1838 before he could finish revising the two ordinances on printing and publishing. Austin took them with him to conclude his revision in England but the process of bringing the law into effect in the shortest possible time was thus delayed.

Although the new law was not proclaimed till March 1839, permits for the setting up of private presses were granted over a year before then. The first was set up in January 1838 by Ph. Izzo, followed in March 1838 by another by Luigi Tonna.

Bishop Francesco Saverio Caruana: he was afraid of adverse results if freedom of the press was granted in the same measure as then existing in England.

The year 1838 witnessed the publication of Malta’s first independent periodical newspaper called Lo Spettatore Imparziale. This newspaper was followed by Il Portafoglio Maltese, The Harlequin, Il Mediterraneo and Il Kaulata Maltia.

In 1838, the Florence Gazette remarked that “the protests of the Italian governments against the introduction of the liberty of the press at Malta have had no effect on London. The law establishing this freedom has been proclaimed in the island, and a prospectus of a new journal to be published at Malta is in circulation at Rome.” This report was unfounded but it afforded the local government in Malta the opportunity to state that it was only a matter of time before the new law would be proclaimed, since work on its details were still going on.

     On March 15, 1839, the law abolishing press censorship and including the law of libel was proclaimed. Offenders were to be tried by a court composed of three judges, without a jury. 15 years later, in 1854, all offences against the press law were to be tried in court by a judge and a jury.

Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, responsible for sending the 1836 Royal Commission to Malta.

What now remained to be tested was whether the law of libel was effective enough to check abuses, especially in religious questions. Within less than a week, just six days actually, the fears of the Catholic Church were proved to have been well-founded.

On March 21, 1839, in the Protestant newspaper The Harlequin (first published on July 14, 1838), the editor James Richardson wrote that the Catholic religion was “a system of religion the most detestable the world ever saw! – a system which leaves the mind at a loss to determine whether it be better than any religion at all”.

Richardson was prosecuted, found guilty and condemned to either a fine of 250 scudi or six months’ imprisonment. Richardson’s guilt was based on Chapter III, Section VI of the ‘press law’, which prohibited the publication of any writing reviling, ridiculing or insulting the fundamental tenets of any religion. It is worth noting that Section VII extended this prohibition to the publication of obscene writings.

Giorgio Mitrovich in his old age.

In the House of Lords in London, there was a movement to obtain a pardon for Richardson but it came to nothing, since a pardon would have made a mockery of the commissioners’ assurances and promises.

Moreover, it must also be borne in mind that a few years earlier, in 1829, the Catholic religion had been legally emancipated in England through the Roman Catholic Relief Act that received the king’s assent on April 13, 1839, through which Catholics could henceforth become Members of Parliament.

Richardson went to prison and was set free after a month but only after he had paid a fine proportional to the remaining five months he was to serve.

The Catholic Church’s fears had indeed proved to be genuine but the new law had shown itself to be an effective instrument in the checking of abuses.

Joseph F. Grima is retired casual lecturer of history and assistant director of education