‘All rights, privileges, and immunities in Church and State are confirmed to the Maltese people. The Bishop of Malta is the head of the Maltese Church. No inquisitorial powers emanating from the See of Rome can be admitted, and no ecclesiastical authority of any other sovereign can be acknowledged.’  (1)

The instructions by Abercromby to Pigot quoted above outline the general policy of the British authorities towards the Catholic Church in Malta. Though the future of the Maltese Islands was still uncertain in 1800, the British realised the important role played by the Church in the daily lives of the Maltese. They were also aware of the Church’s role in the uprising of the Maltese against the French a few months before.

As early as 15th June 1802, the Maltese had made their feelings about their religion clear with The Declaration of Rights. Articles 6, 7, and 8 of this Declaration related to religious matters, particularly the protection of the Church and of worship. These stated:

6^th. That His Majesty the King is the protector of our holy religion, and is bound to uphold and protect it as heretofore; and without any diminution of what has been practiced since these Islands have acknowledged His Majesty as their sovereign to this day; and that His Majesty’s representatives have a right to claim such church honours as have always been shown to the regents of these Islands.

7^th. The interference in matters spiritual or temporal of no other temporal sovereign shall be permitted in these Islands; and reference to spiritual matters shall only be had to the Pope, and to the respective Generals of the Monastic Orders.

8^th. That freemen have a right to choose their own religion. Toleration of other religions is therefore established as a right; but no sect is permitted to molest, insult or disrupt those of other religious professions. (2)

The British authorities were not too happy with this Declaration but realised that cooperation with the Catholic Church in Malta was their only option. Though the Church maintained several privileges contrary to the British policies of emancipation, the Royal Commission of 1812 suggested that any abolition or modification of these privileges would lead to ‘an angry priesthood and, through their means, create a considerable degree of discontent among the people.’ (3)

The instructions provided to Sir Thomas Maitland (Malta’s first Governor) in 1813, therefore, included the following instruction: ‘The free exercise of religious worship to all persons who inhabit and frequent the island is to be secured.’ (4)

‘The British appreciated the strategic significance of Malta and Gozo in imperial defence and succeeded in winning over the confidence of the people largely by securing every respect to their religion.' (5)

Indeed, the British authorities in Malta did their very best to keep the Maltese Church happy. They adopted a policy of religious neutrality and gave the Church liberty, protection and cooperation.

Proselytisation (6) of the Maltese was one of the important issues in the suspicious attitude of the Maltese Church towards the British rulers: what the Maltese Church feared most was an attempt on the part of the Church of England and other Protestant Churches to convert the Maltese to Protestantism.

When, in 1814, the Biblical Society (of Malta) was formed by the (Anglican) Church Missionary Society, it was forbidden to describe itself ‘of Malta’ and was restricted in its activities. It could only translate parts of the Bible into Maltese. Two other protestant organisations – the American Missionary Society and the Society of English Independents – were allowed to own a printing press (at a time when no such privately owned presses existed in Malta) but were limited to printing material for distribution abroad and could not print anything in Maltese.

Indeed, the Anglicans were not allowed any grants by the British government to build their own church and it was only in 1844 that the first Protestant church was opened in Malta. This came about through Queen Adelaide, widow of King William IV and Queen Victoria’s aunt, who had visited Malta in 1838. She wrote to her niece asking her to intervene in the matter of building a Protestant place of worship but Victoria felt that she could not interfere in such a delicate issue. Adelaide, therefore, funded the construction of St. Paul’s Anglican Pro-Cathedral in Valletta. 

The British government wanted to introduce several reforms – legal, economic and military – that would help Malta become more integrated within the British Empire. However, it was quite clear that the local Catholic Church would oppose many of these changes. London, therefore, sought to hold direct (and indirect) talks with Rome. Since the Congress of Vienna (1815), relations between Protestant England and the Vatican had improved considerably when Lord Castlereagh (British Foreign Secretary) and Cardinal Consalvi (Papal Secretary of State) had held direct talks. The British, therefore, decided to hold talks with the Pope on matters relating to Malta rather than with the Maltese Ecclesiastical authorities.

This tactic was used in 1822 by Governor Thomas Maitland with the introduction of the Mortmain Law. This forced the Church in Malta to sell any property it acquired within one year following the acquisition; failure to do so would lead to the property falling into government hands. Maitland had travelled to Rome in 1820. The Pope had approved the draft law and the Maltese Church could do very little to oppose it.

The British dealt directly with the Vatican once again in 1828 when they gained the Pope’s approval to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts and abolish the Right of Sanctuary. Sir Frederick Hankey, Governor Ponsonby’s assistant, was sent to Rome in 1827 to gain the Pope Leo XII’s backing on these issues. By 10^th February 1828, the Bishop of Malta had received instructions (an Indulto) not to oppose the reforms agreed upon between London and Rome on the matters of the courts and sanctuary. Through these reforms, the Church’s courts were limited to religious and spiritual matters only, and only to Roman Catholics; ecclesiastics – with the exception of the Bishop – could be arrested and tried by the civil authorities.

The removal of these ancient rights of the Church led, however, to a situation that was unpleasant to the Maltese. The restriction of the authority of the Ecclesiastical Courts led to the question of an increase in clandestine (illegal) marriages. The number of people marrying illegally rose so much that on 7^th September 1831 the Governor Frederick Cavendish Ponsonby introduced a Clandestine Marriages Act which prohibited any form of marriage without the proper legal procedures.

A very important and delicate issue that arose after the death of Malta’s Bishop, Mgr. Vincenzo Labini (the last foreign bishop and the last bishop of Malta to be appointed during the time of the Order of St. John) in 1807. Since the time of the Order of St. John in Malta (as granted by Charles V in 1530), the bishops of Malta were chosen by the Grand Master of the Order and confirmed by the Pope. The Grand Master, therefore, had the Right of Presentation to the Maltese Bishopric.

When Labini died, the new bishop was nominated by the King of the Two Sicilies, Ferdinand III, and presented to the Pope. This happened because at the time Malta was still not a British colony. The British Civil Commissioner at the time, Sir Alexander Ball, was not too happy about this but decided to accept the situation. The approved candidate, Mgr. Ferdinando Mattei, was thus elected Bishop of Malta on 18^th September 1807. Mattei was the first Maltese born bishop of the Islands.

The Royal Commission of 1812 examined the issue of Right of Presentation. The Commissioners argued that should Malta become a British colony, the Right of Presentation would have to pass on to the King of England.  Britain could not allow a foreign country to choose a candidate to such an important posting in one of its colonies.

The question of who would nominate the next bishop arose again in 1829 when Mgr. Mattei died on 14^th July. On that same day, Governor Ponsonby claimed the Right of Presentation with the Vatican immediately. Sir Frederick Hankey went to Rome and proposed Ponsonby’s candidate: Mgr. Francesco Saverio Caruana. Rome agreed only after some consideration but the King of the Two Sicilies protested (it wanted to maintain a form of authority in Malta (7). The debate lasted for nineteen months and Caruana was finally installed as Bishop of Malta on the 28^th February 1831. Caruana’s installation did not settle the Right of Presentation question definitely as the issue would re-emerge later on.

Sir Frederick Hankey’s talks with Pope Gregory XVI led to an important development which was aimed at removing any links Malta still had with the King of Sicily. It was agreed that the Diocese of Malta should be separated from the Metropolitan See of Palermo. Pope Gregory XVI issued such instruction on 20^th June 1831. From then on, the Archbishop of Malta and his Diocese would no longer hold any links with any other foreign power except for the Vatican.

Further attempts to remove the Church of Malta and religious institutions in Malta from foreign control continued after 1831. Traditionally, when a Canonry (8) became vacant it was the government in Malta who nominated a person for such a position. In 1836 the Canonry of Sta. Venera became vacant. Governor Bouverie selected a candidate to fill in the post but the Pope ignored this and appointed another person. The Governor protested but Pope Gregory XVI disregarded this.   The Governor therefore issued Ordinance I of 1838 in which it was declared that all appointments to any ecclesiastical offices or benefices in Malta by any foreign power were considered to be invalid unless the Governor of Malta approval was gain beforehand.

Both the Archbishop of Malta and the Vatican protested and the Pope instructed Archbishop Caruana to suspend the Bull (9) of Canonry, hoping that the Governor would, in return, remove his Ordinance. In effect, this ordinance meant that a number of parish-priests could not be installed in their new parishes. Talks between the British and the Pope were held and eventually the problem was solved when it was agreed that the persons receiving a Bull of appointment from the Pope or any foreign Catholic authority had to petition the Governor to gain his approval.

The Oath Question in Malta proved to be a very controversial issue. In Britain, a Catholic Emancipation Act had been introduced by Sir Robert Peel in April 1829. This law granted full civil and political liberties to British Catholics. Prior to this Act, British Catholics were restricted in many ways and could not hold public offices. (10) This act was never published in Malta by Governor Ponsonby as he considered it to be irrelevant to the Maltese situation: no Catholic in Malta was excluded from public office since the absolute majority of the people in Malta were Catholics. Indeed, in only the highest posts, reserved for the British anyway (such as the governorship) were Catholics excluded.

 In the 1830s the British Parliament considered introducing an addition to the Catholic Emancipation Act. It took the form of an oath to be taken by all Catholics holding public office in which they were to swear not to disturb or weaken in any way the Protestant faith. Governor Bouverie informed the Archbishop of Malta that this practice would be introduced in Malta on 2^nd January 1839. The Archbishop opposed the taking of such an oath and the question and was backed by Rome. The issue widened and talks were held between London and the Vatican. Agreement could not be reached. It was only on 13^th January 1848 that a solution was agreed upon. Richard More O’Ferrall, Malta’s first civil and Catholic Governor, played an important role in adapting the Oath formula to the Maltese situation.

Freedom of the Press was officially granted to the Maltese by Ordinance IV of 14^th March 1839. The recommendation to remove censorship in Malta had been made by the Royal Commission of 1836. The Commissioners – John Austin and George Lewis – could find no reason for denying the Maltese the right to freely publish newspapers and other printed matters. Archbishop Caruana, however, was against the removal of censorship since he feared attacks on the Catholic faith and the Church by Protestants and anti-clerics. Indeed, a memorandum outlining the reasons why a free press should not be granted to Malta was signed by hundreds of clergymen. Despite this opposition, Governor Bouverie allowed free newspapers to be printed as early as 1838.

Ordinance IV of 1839 was followed by a Law of Libel which gave a measure of protection to the Church. In fact, the first case of libel concerned the editor of a protestant newspaper (The Harlequin), John Richardson, who had described the Roman Catholic Church as ‘a system of religion the most detestable the world has ever seen' (11) Richardson was tried and sentenced to six months imprisonment or a fine of 100 dollars.

In 1844 Archbishop Caruana was in bad health. The Church wanted to appoint a Coadjutor (assistant) but an agreement could not be reached on a candidate. The problem would have dragged for years on had it not been for a change in government in Britain and the election of a new Pope at the Vatican.  In Britain, Lord Russell became Prime Minister on 30^th June 1846; Russell nominated Earl Gray as Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the Vatican, Pope Pius IX was elected on 16^th June 1846. Both parties were willing to reach an agreement on the ‘Coadjutor problem’ and with the intervention of Richard More O’Ferrall (who was then a Member of the House of Commons; later to become Governor of Malta), an agreement was concluded. On 21^st April 1847, Mgr. Publius Maria dei Conti Sant became Coadjutor Bishop.

Perhaps, the most important development to issue from this situation was the agreement that a system of unofficial talks between the Vatican and London would be introduced before any final appointment to the Bishopric of Malta would be made.

This system of unofficial talks prior to the election of a Bishop was put into practice in 1856 when Archbishop Gaetano Pace Forno was installed as the head of the Maltese See. However, on this occasion the Vatican once again refused to acknowledge the right of presentation to the British sovereign and asserted its refusal to accept the right of veto by the King of England in matters relating to the election of ecclesiastics to religious positions.

1845 was a mixed year for Church-State relations in Malta. On the one hand, the Jesuit Order –expelled from Sicily – was allowed to open a boarding school, St. Paul’s, and a seminary in Gozo. On the other hand, however, Governor Patrick Stuart issued an ordinance to regulate pious foundations and hold the right to examine their financial situation. This ordinance was proclaimed without any consultation with the British Government or the Archbishop and led to an outcry. The Colonial Office considered that Stuart had exceeded his powers but despite issuing warnings, the governor refused to withdraw or revise this ordinance. In order to avoid a head-on confrontation with the Governor, the Archbishop of Malta decided to appoint a mixed commission of laymen and clergymen to run such pious foundations and other Church-run institutions. This meant that the accounts of these institutions were made public and could be examined by anyone asking to do so. Through this measure Stuart’s ordinance became ineffective.

In 1849, when Sir Richard More O’Ferrall was Governor of Malta, a new Constitution was granted to the Maltese allowing for the establishment of a Council of Government with elected members. The number of councillors would be 18, ten of which would be nominated (12) and eight (13) elected through democratic exercise for a three year term.

The first election, held in August 1849, returned three ecclesiastics to the Council. (14) Up to that point in time, the constitutions {those of 1812 (15) and 1835} of Malta had reserved a place for the Bishop of Malta as a member of the Council of Government, a position the Bishops never took up on the advice of the Vatican. The presence of ecclesiastics on the Council brought about a potentially dangerous situation in which matters concerning religion would be brought out in the open rather than held confidential. Indeed,

“As a result, Church-State issues, previously arranged confidentially between the ecclesiastical and colonial authorities, could now become public with the consequence that relations could be put in greater jeopardy. (16) "

This situation arose in 1850.

The first session of the Council of Government was held on 8^th January 1850. One of the first matters on the agenda was the revision of the Criminal Code.  The Code was discussed without any major problems. Then, in March, the article entitled Offences against the Respect due to Religion came up for review. The draft law had made no distinction between religions in matters concerning criminal offences: all offences were to be treated equally. However, one of the ecclesiastics on the Council moved to amend the article concerned by introducing the idea that the Roman Catholic faith was dominant in Malta and all other religions were tolerated; the penalties against those who offended the Roman Catholic religion were also raised significantly higher than those relating to other religions.

This situation led to protests from the Anglicans in Malta, including the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar and Malta. The argument widened to include the House of Commons, the Archbishop of Malta and the British Government. No solution could be found to this problem and the new Criminal Code was placed on hold. By 1854, however, it became apparent to the British authorities that the enactment of the Code could no longer be delayed. It was decided, therefore, that the Criminal Code be enacted by an Order in Council. (17) The new Code was introduced on 30^th January 1854 but with the chapter relating to religious offences omitted.

One consequence of the debate on the new criminal code came in 1857. On 30^th July, the Governor issued Letters Patent excluding all ecclesiastics from taking part in political elections for the Council of Government and from forming part of the Council. The clergy protested emphatically but this ban remained up to 1870 when a referendum was held to decide whether the 1857 decision should be reversed. On 29^th April, the majority of those who voted in this referendum decided in favour of such a reversal.

A major triumph for British-Vatican diplomacy came in 1864 with the establishment of a separate diocese for Gozo. The Gozitans had first requested their own diocese in 1798 (after having liberated Gozo from the French); this proved, however, unsuccessful. Again, in 1836, another attempt was made but the Bishop of Malta, Archbishop Caruana and his successors were against such a move. The main argument against Gozo having its own diocese was based upon the small size of the population of that island.

In the 1850s a Gozitan priest, Rev. Pietro Pace (later Bishop of Gozo and Archbishop of Malta), and Sir Adrian Dingli (Crown Advocate) forced the issue once again. Their attempts met with favour within the Vatican, which move to hold discussion with the British. The latter found no objection to such an idea and on 16^th September 1864 Pope Pius IX established the Diocese of Gozo with Mgr. Michele Buttigieg as its first Bishop.

As part of a move to improve sanitation in Malta, on 3^rd May 1869, burials were prohibited from taking place in towns (Valletta, Floriana and Cottonera). Up to that time it had been customary to bury any person owning a grave (or a member of a religious society owning graves) in the churches of the Three Cities, Valletta, Mdina and Floriana to be buried in that grave. This situation was unhygienic and inconvenient. During the 1890s, the government attempted to extend the prohibition of burials within villages and other towns but discussions met with greater resistance than in 1869 and were shelved. (18)

In the 1880s the Right of Presentation question arose once again. Upon the death of the head of the Maltese church, the Vatican determined that its candidate was to be Mgr. Antonio Buhagiar. The Governor of Malta (Sir Lintorn Simmons), on the other hand, favoured Mgr. Pietro Pace (Bishop of Gozo). Mgr. Pace had proved to be a highly capable leader and was pro-British. Mgr. Buhagiar, also an able leader, was tainted with the accusation that he was a Francophile. (19) After many arguments and discussions, the opinion of Simmons prevailed and Rome granted Britain’s wish. Mgr. Pietro Pace became Archbishop of Malta on 11^th February 1889.

The unresolved problems between Church and State in Malta which had been gathering throughout the years needed to be cleared in order to avoid further confrontations. The question of Mgr. Buhagiar and Mgr. Pace led the government of Britain to form a mission to travel to Rome. The person selected to lead this mission was Malta’s previous governor, Sir Lintorn Simmons (20).  He was accompanied by Malta’s Crown Advocate, Dr. (later Sir) Joseph Carbone.

Simmons’ instructions were to hold talks with the Pope “with reference to questions of jurisdiction under the Royal Proclamation providing for the existing establishment of religion in the island of Malta.”. (21) He was directed from London to resolve to the best of his abilities the following issues:

The system to be used when a vacancy arose in the Bishoprics of Malta and Gozo, and other high offices within the Church in Malta:

a) The definite agreement on the issue of the validity of marriages in Malta;

b)      The need to teach English to the local clergy;

c)     The problem of Italian or other non-British ecclesiastics sent to Malta;

d)     The question of burials in country churches; and,

e)        The issue of ownership and use of St. John’s Co-Cathedral and other churches.

Upon reaching Rome, Simmons was met by Mariano Cardinal Rampolla, the Vatican’s Secretary of State and set to work immediately.

Regarding the first problem, Simmons proposed that when a vacancy occurred, the British authorities were to inform Rome whereupon the Pope would confidentially announce his nominee; the British government would then inform the Pope as to whether it was satisfied or not with the nominee. Simmons made it clear that any nominee would have to be Maltese. Rampolla told Simmons that the Pope was not willing to give up his right to make any final decisions but would willingly collaborate with the government of Malta to find the right person to fill in any ecclesiastical vacancies in Malta. The Pope was not against the idea that any vacancy would be filled by Maltese ecclesiastics.

As to the issue of teaching English to the Maltese clergy, Rampolla announced that the Pope had found no objections but insisted that the British government would need to provide financial assistance to the Seminary. Moreover, stated Rampolla, the Pope had decided that the Rector of the Seminary would henceforth be Maltese.

The question of foreign ecclesiastics in Malta was harder to deal with. Simmons pointed out that a number of foreign ecclesiastics were being sent to Malta and that these were completely independent from the Bishops of the Maltese Islands. He particularly brought up the question of Sicilian Jesuits who had been sent to Malta to open noviciate-houses populated by Italians. What the British wanted, said Simmons, was for Malta to be transferred from the Sicilian to the English province of the Jesuit Order. Agreement on this point could not be reached.

The other major problem Simmons and Rampolla had to tackle was the question of Malta’s Marriage Laws. In Malta, in issues of marriage, Civil (State) Law followed Canon (Church) Law. Marriages, therefore, could only be considered valid only if Canon Law was followed to the letter. This did not cause difficulties when two Roman Catholics entered into marriage. Questions did arise, however, on the issue of mixed marriages (i.e. marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic) and between two non-Catholics. This led to doubts as to whether mixed marriages or non-Catholic marriages in Malta were legally and morally valid.

The Pope reviewed the situation and pronounced that (a) marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (i.e. mixed marriages) would only be valid if the norms of Canon Law were followed, and, (b) that marriages between non-Catholics were held to be valid even if Canon Law was not followed. Rampolla added that the Pope had also decided that

"Legislation which Her Britannic Majesty's Government may enact for Malta, with the view to regulating the civil effects of mar­riages celebrated heretofore or which will in future be celebrated in accordance with these declarations, will not meet with any opposition on the part of the Holy See." (22)

Simmons’ mission to Rome was successful in many ways and ended with an audience with the Pope.

Before leaving Rome on the termination of the Mission, Simmons was received by His Holiness who expressed his great satisfaction to receive the Mission and added that, from information he had received, he was gratified that, so far as they had been published, the conclusions arrived at had produced a favourable impression in Malta. He also said that such arrangements were in progress with reference to the education of the clergy as would, he believed, fully accord with the views of Her Majesty's Government. He went on to say that negotiations conducted in this way between the Holy See and Her Majesty's Government would be beneficial as regards the people of Malta but might also be usefully extended to other parts of the Empire, where Catholic interests were of great importance. (23)

The Simmons-Rampolla Agreement brought about difficulties in Malta. The Agreement was embroiled in the political climate in Malta at a time when the Language Question was still beginning but rivalries between pro-English and pro-Italian factions were gearing up for confrontation. In London too, the Agreement was met with mixed reactions. Anglicans were suspicious of Papal interference in matters of British law; Catholics, on the other hand, felt threatened by what they considered to be an encroachment on their ancient customs and rights.

The debate in Malta was fermented by Sigismondo Savona (leader of the Reformists), Fortunato Mizzi (leader of the Anti-Reformists) and Gerald Strickland (the pro-British Secretary to the Governor). Insults against the Pope increased in some Maltese newspapers, leading Pope Leo XIII to write to the Archbishop of Malta, with the result that Mizzi’s newspaper Malta was banned. The Pope, to make his intentions clear about the issue of Mixed Marriage, issued (on 12^th January 1890) a declaration in which he reinstated his decision that all marriages celebrated before 1889 between non-Catholics in Malta were deemed valid. To the British authorities the only solution to the question of Mixed Marriages was to present it to the Privy Council. (24)

This question could not be solved easily. The matter was moved before the Privy Council. Three items were submitted to the Queen:

1.      Whether the unmixed marriages which had been celebrated in Malta (a) by English Clergy, (b) by Presbyterian Ministers, and (c) by Wesleyan Ministers, were valid.

2.      Whether the mixed marriages which had been celebrated in Malta by Ministers other than those of the Roman Catholic Church were valid.

3.              Whether it were expedient that there should be legislation, validating retrospectively all mar­riages celebrated up to then in Malta by non-Catholic Ministers and also regulating the mode in which marriages, whether unmixed or mixed, were to be contracted or celebrated in future, and, if so, whether such legislation were to be enacted by the Imperial Parliament or by the Government Council of Malta. (25)

Matters worsened in 1892 when the Colonial Office issued (on 27^th June) a Foreign Marriage Act to be enforced in all British colonies. This Act stated that all mixed marriages contracted under certain conditions in all colonies were to be considered valid. The result in Malta was disastrous. The Church considered this law a defiance of papal authority and a setback on the agreement reached by Simmons-Rampolla.

The Privy Council took its time to decide upon the three points (above) put forward to it. It was in July 1895 that a decision was made public. The Privy Council had found no problems with declaring that the first two items (1 &2 above) were valid under any point of law. Regarding the third point, however, matters became complicated. They decided that when couples entered into marriage in good faith and if the Governor considered the marriage to be valid it was deemed to be legally and morally binding. If any opposition was brought forward regarding any particular marriage then it was up to the Courts of Law to decide whether the marriage was effectively legal.

This decision was published on 13^th August 1895. The Governor of Malta, Sir Arthur Fremantle, placed the matter in the hands of the Council of Government, as protests by the clergy and meetings were held throughout March 1896. Sigismondo Savona pressed for an ordinance which ignored the Privy Council report and instead centred on the Papal declaration of 1890. The ordinance was passed by the elected majority on 18^th March 1896, but not agreed to by the whole Council. A flutter of correspondence between London and Rome sought to solve this problem but eventually it became quite evident that a solution would never be found and the whole question was left to peter out (26).

FOOTNOTES:

(1)  A.V. Laferla, British Malta, v.1, p. 9

(2)  ibid., p. 33n

(3)  Joseph Bezzina, “Church and State in an Island Colony”, in V. Mallia-Milanes (ed.), The British Colonial Experience 1800-1964: The Impact on Maltese Society, p. 48.

(4)  Ibid.

(5)  Ibid, p. 49.

(6)  Proselytise = to try to convert to another religion

(7)  The Diocese of Malta fell under the authority of the Archbishop of Palermo, the capital city of Sicily.

(8)  The office of a Canon. Canon: a clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

(9)  Bull: a solemn papal letter sealed with a bulla or with a red-ink imprint of the device on the bulla

(10) http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569679/Catholic_Emancipation_Act.html

(11)  Laferla, op.cit., p. 167

(12)  Five of the ten nominated members were to be Maltese and the other five English. This gave the Maltese a majority on the council.

(13)  That is, seven for Malta and one for Gozo.

(14) These were: Rev. Filippo Amato, Titular Bishop Annetto Casolani, and, Mgr. Leopoldo Fiteni.

(15) This ‘constitution’ was never adopted. Malta’s first written constitution was that of 1835

(16) J. Bezzina, op.cit., p. 62.

(17)  That is by the government in London and not by the Council of Government in Malta.

(18) Burials in all towns and villages in Malta and Gozo were effectively prohibited on 18^th October 1974.

(19) Francophile = supporter of the French.

(20) Simmons had been replaced by Sir Henry Torrens in 1888.

(21)  Laferla, op.cit, v.2, p.100.

(22)  Ibid., p.106.

(23) Ibid., p.107.

(24) Privy Council: a number of high ranking politicians who advise the king or queen on important matters.

(25) Laferla, op.cit, pp125-126.

(26) Civil Marriage was introduced in Malta on 12^th August 1975.