The Church And State In Malta.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19108, 28 June 1930, Page 8

The Church And State In Malta.

A Weekly Review.

By

Bystander.

J?OR MORE THAN A YEAR a conflict. continually growing in bitterness and intensity, has been going on in Malta between the political authorities and the Roman Catholic Church. To understand the situation it is necessary to remember that Malta is a British dependency and has a system of government established by Britain. Originally colonised and held by Phoenicians—either from Tyre and Sidon or from their colony Carthage—Malta from the Seventeenth to the Sixteenth Century was a portion of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In 1530 it was handed over to the Knights of St John, the Crusading Order that, in a sense, laid the foundations of the modern ambulance and “first aid” systems throughout the world. Napoleon seized Malta, as he seized everything else within reach, during the revolutionary wars. But the Maltese rebelled against France, the British Navy seized the island in 1800, and in 1814, at the request of the Maltese, the island was annexed to Britain. It remained a colony till 1921, when it received a Constitution giving it an elective legislature consisting of a Senate (partly nominated) and a Legislative Assembly elected by proportional representation.

Like all other British dependencies, it has a Governor, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues are responsible to the local Parliament. The system ought to work quite as well in Malta as in any of the British Dominions, but unfortunately the intervention of the Church in political affairs has caused serious trouble during the past twelve months. Church and State.

It is difficult to disentangle all the threads of this complicated story, and still harder to form a correct estimate of the motives actuating the different parties to the dispute. However, the trouble came to a head a few months back when Father Carta, Italian Superior of the Franciscans, ordered a priest named Micallef to leave the island. It happened that Micallef was a strong supporter of the British ascendancy, which is represented not only by the Governor, Sir John du Cane, but by th 6 Prime Minister, Lord Strickland. Now Lord Strickland, who was born in Malta, and has held official positions there for the greater part of his life, happens to be a staunch Roman Catholic. But while on religious questions he recognises the absolute authority of the Pope, in political affairs he maintains unswerving loyalty to Britain. In this case he supported the large section of the people who protested against the action of a foreign priest in claiming the right to expel a British subject. * At the request of the British Government the Pope sent an Apostolic Delegate to inquire into Father Carta’s conduct. But in the meantime Cardinal Gasparri, who was then Papal Secretary, wrote to the British envoy to the Holy See stating that Lord Strickland was “persona non grata” —in other words, “objectionable”— to the Papacy, and alleging against him misconduct in the management of Maltese affairs. These charges meant that the case was prejudged while the investigation was in progress; but in the interests of peace Lord Strickland offered to undertake that his supporters would not adopt an aggressive or provocative attitude during the coming elections.

But the Bishop of Malta then issued a pastoral letter warning his flock that anyone supporting Lord Strickland or his candidates would be guilty of “grave sin,” and it is said that many penitents were on this score refused absolution.

Italy Pulls the Strings. According to a White Paper recently laid before the House of Commons, the British Government considers that the Papacy is thus chiefly responsible for the abnormal conditions of political life in Malta. Lord Strickland has been in London for some little time endeavouring to explain the position, and he was followed there by M. Bartolo, one of his chief Ministers, who largely shares his views. It was rumoured that the Cabinet has resigned; it is now announced that the Constitution has been suspended, and it is even believed that very shortly Malta will be restored to its old rank as a Crown Colony. This much is certain, that the Papacy has made a vigorous attempt to render constitutional government on British lines impossible in the island, and many well-informed observers see in all these controversies and complications the influence of Fascism and the hand of Mussolini. Several Italian Nationalist societies have recently attempted to work up a crusade in favour of the absorption or annexation of Malta as an outlying fragment of “unredeemed Italy.” This claim. is wholly delusive. Neither racially, historically nor geographically can Italy claim Malta. Biit Mussolini has always encouraged his people to look forward to the great revival of Roman Imperialism throughout the Mediterranean, and now that the Papacy has made its peace with the Throne, it is not unnatural that critically-minded people should see the shadow of Fascism behind these repeated and determined attempts at Papal intervention in the internal affairs of Malta.

A King in Exile. The unexpected success of Carol’s Rumanian adventure has encouraged the supporters of another royal claimant to make a bid for a vacant throne. The Archduke Otto is the son of Karl of Habsburg, the last Emperor of Austria, who succeeded his great-uncle, the aged Francis Joseph, daring the Great War in 1916. As is well known, the Allies at Versailles resolved that no Habsburg prince should hold the Austrian or the Hungarian throne, and Karl was thus automatically deposed. But urged on in part by his ambitious wife, Princess Zita, who herself sprung from the royal Bourbon stock, he made two attempts in 1921 to establish himself in Hungary. That unfortunate family has just passed through the horrors of a Bolshevik despotism, and Admiral Hortz, who bad seized power and wiped out the Communists, and saved his country, was not disposed to withdraw or to embroil Hungary with the Entente again. Karl’s “push” therefore failed; he went again into exile and soon died; but his title and his ambitions have descended to his son, Otto, now eighteen years old. By the Dethronisation Act of 1921 the Hungarian National Assembly prohibited any Habsburg from holding the throne, and Karl was then compelled to renounce his claim. But it was then decided that the right of choosing a successor had reverted to the Hungarian people; and the Austrian Habsburgs are not popular in Hungary. There i 3 an Archduke Joseph who flatters himself that his claim is as good as Otto’s, and he has called himself a Prince of Lorraine (being descended from the husband of Maria. Theresa to escape the Habsbr.ighan). But this palpable trick will not deceive the Great Powers who do not want to see royalty restored at Buda Pest.