Chapter 10

THE FALL

1789-1798.

A wealthy Order of Knights drawn exclusively from the ranks of the nobility was sure to attract the attention of the French revolutionaries. Its international character was a cause of offence to the strong French nationalism engendered during the Revolution, while its traces of monastic organisation helped to identify the Knights with the Church.

When Necker, in the financial distress of the autumn of 1789, appealed for a voluntary contribution from all landowners, the Order gave him a third of the revenue of its French commanderies, and later it pledged its credit for 500,000 francs to the destitute Louis XVI., to help him in the flight that ended so disastrously at Varennes. This last act put it in definite opposition to the Revolution.

The Constituent Assembly declared the Order of St. John to be a foreign Power possessing property in France, and, as such, liable to all taxes to be levied on natives, and immediately afterwards a decree was passed declaring that any Frenchman belonging to an Order of Knighthood which demanded proofs of nobility from entrants could not be considered a French citizen. This was followed by the main attack on September 19, 1792, when all the property in France was declared confiscate and annexed to the French national domains. There was some mention of indemnification to the despoiled Knights, but as the necessary condition to a pension was residence in France--a dangerous course for a noble in 1793 and 1794--the scheme came to naught. The decree of September, 1792, was the death-blow to the Order, and its extinction was simply a matter of time. The course of the war and the constant French successes made their position even more perilous. Half the revenues had gone with the confiscation in France; but this was not all, for Bonaparte's Italian campaigns meant the loss of the Order's estates in Northern Italy, and the conquests of the French on the Rhine diminished the German possessions. With decreasing resources and dwindling numbers, the fortress of Malta could not long hold out if attacked, and the position of the Order was becoming desperate. De Rohan, the Grand Master, temporised and refused to declare war on France, but he seems to have helped the Spanish and English fleets by allowing them to recruit at Malta, a privilege hitherto granted very sparingly by the Knights. But whatever the Grand Master's policy, no words or pretences could disguise the fact that the French Republic by its confiscation had assaulted the Order. It was only too probable that France would seize the first opportunity of attacking the Order in its own home and by this means increasing its power in the Mediterranean.

One gleam of light came to cheer the gloom at Malta. The third dismemberment of Poland had brought the Polish Priory into the hands of the Tsar Paul I. Among other eccentricities of that monarch was a passionate admiration for chivalry, which he displayed by changing the Polish into a Russian Priory, increasing its revenues to 300,000 florins, and incorporating it in the Anglo-Bavarian langue; he also assumed the title of "Protector of the Order of Malta."

In 1797, at Ancona, Napoleon had intercepted a message from the Tsar to the Grand Master containing this news. Plans for the capture of Malta took shape in Bonaparte's mind, and he sent a cousin of the French consul at Malta, Poussièlgue by name, to spy out the condition of the island, at the same time ordering Admiral Brueys, on his journey from Corfu to Toulon, to examine the situation of Malta. When the expedition to Egypt was decided upon, the capture of Malta formed part of the instructions to Napoleon.

Bonaparte, relying on the demoralisation of the island, intended the capture to be a swift piece of work, and Poussièlgue had helped him by winning over some natives and French Knights to his side. The Grand Master, Von Hompesch, seems to have been utterly unnerved by the bewildering problems before him, and the cowardice and irresolution he displayed were a disgrace to the traditions of the Order. Speed was essential to the French army, as discovery by Nelson would be fatal to Bonaparte's plans, but had Von Hompesch been an utter traitor the capitulation could not have been more sudden and disgraceful and beneficial to the enemy.

On June 6 the vanguard of the French appeared off the island, and on the 9th it was joined by the main fleet, the whole now numbering about 450 sail, of which 14 were ships of the line and 30 were frigates; the Grand Master had about 300 Knights and 6,000 men, chiefly Maltese, under arms. Had this garrison been resolute and united, the fortifications of Valetta could have held the French for a considerable time. But the natives were divided, many regarding the French, despite their doubtful career of the last few years, as liberators from a detestable tyranny. Two-thirds of the Knights were French, and many of them had become infected with republican principles, though the French langues also contained the fiercest opponents to the invaders.

Bonaparte sent for permission for his fleet to enter the harbour for water and for his soldiers to land--a request which was tantamount to a demand for surrender. Von Hompesch sent back a conciliatory letter, saying that treaty obligations forbade the entrance of more than four vessels at a time. Napoleon thereupon threw off the mask, and during the night landed troops at seven different parts of the island. A slight resistance was encountered from a few detached forts, but by the evening of the 10th Valetta was closely invested. The mob was encouraged by hired emissaries to attack as traitors the Knights, who were really the most bitter enemies of the invaders. While Napoleon's agents were busy throughout the town, Von Hompesch sat motionless in his palace, and no subordinate commander would take the responsibility of firing on the besiegers. Finally, a party of citizens interviewed Von Hompesch and threatened to surrender the town if he refused to capitulate.

At this point a mutiny broke out in the garrison, and the Grand Master and his Council, seeing the hopelessness of the situation, sent for an armistice preliminary to surrender. The armistice was concluded on the 11th, and on the 12th Napoleon entered Valetta, full of amazement at the might of the fortress he had so easily captured. On the 12th the capitulation was drawn up, of which the main clauses were:

1. The Knights surrendered Malta and its sovereignty to the French army.

2. The French Republic would try to secure to the Grand Master an equivalent principality and would meanwhile pay him an annual pension of 300,000 livres.

3. The French would use their influence with the different Powers assembled at Rastadt to allow the Knights who were their subjects to control the property of their respective langues.

4. French Knights were allowed to return to France.

5. French Knights in Malta were to receive a pension from the French Government of 700 livres per annum; if over sixty years old, 1,000 livres.

Such was the end of the Order at Malta. Napoleon treated the Knights and the Grand Master with extreme harshness. Most of them were required to leave within three days, and some even within twenty-four hours.

On June 18, Von Hompesch, taking with him the three most venerable relics of the Order--all that the conqueror allowed him from the treasures at Valetta--left for Trieste, whence he withdrew to Montpellier, dying there in obscurity in 1805. Most of the homeless Knights proceeded to Russia, where, on October 27, 1798, Paul I. was elected Grand Master, though Von Hompesch still held the post.

But on the Tsar's death in 1801 the Order lost the one man who might have been powerful enough to bring about a restoration, and the survival of some scattered relics could not conceal the fact that vanished for ever was the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem.

APPENDIX I

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE ORDER

There can be no doubt whatever that, after 1530, the Order was no longer independent and sovereign, and that L'Isle Adam, despite all his efforts, had become a feudatory, though the service demanded was very slight. The Act of Donation of Malta put them definitely into the position of feudal vassals of Charles V. as King of the two Sicilies. This is plain to everyone who examines the Charter itself (Vertot, III., p. 494, or Codice Diplomatico, II., p. 194). The tenure on which the Knights held the island from the King of the Sicilies may be classed as a form of serjeanty--the annual payment of a falcon being the only feudal service demanded. There were other conditions in the Charter concerning the Bishop of Malta and the Grand Admiral of the Order, but they were not strictly feudal. The chroniclers of the Order were naturally reluctant to admit this, and as the feudal tie was very weak, they glossed it over. But the Sovereign of the island, strictly speaking, was the King of the two Sicilies, and the Knights were never more than tenants. When the Order had been expelled by Napoleon we can see this universally admitted. While the fate of the island was in doubt--that is, before the preliminary peace between England and France in 1801--both natives and English regarded the King of Naples as lord of the island (Hardman, 111, 142. Foreign Office Records, Sicily, 11). When the Maltese wanted to be put under the protection of England, either temporarily or, later, permanently (Hardman, 185, 193, 204), they applied to the King of the Sicilies, as their lawful Sovereign, to grant their request. Events soon made Malta a question of great importance in the relations between France and England, and the renewal of war, in 1803, left Great Britain in _de facto_ possession of the island, until the treaty of May 30, 1814, gave England full right and sovereignty over Malta.

APPENDIX II

CONNECTION BETWEEN KNIGHTS OF MALTA AND THE MODERN ORDER OF ST. JOHN

During the Napoleonic wars the surviving Knights were too scattered and too helpless to be able to improve their condition. But from 1815 onwards we find various attempts of the Order to obtain from Europe another _chef-lieu_, and representatives of the Knights at the Congress of Vienna (1815) and at the Congress of Verona (1822) tried in vain to persuade the Allies to grant them an island. The French Knights were by far the largest and most powerful section of the Order, and in 1814 they had established a capitular commission in which they vested plenary powers to treat on their behalf. During the various negotiations for a _chef-lieu_ the question of reviving the English langue was started, and the French Commission entered into communication with the Rev. Sir Robert Peat, Chaplain to King George IV., and other distinguished Englishmen. The outcome was the reconstitution of the English langue on January 24, 1831, with Sir Robert Peat as Grand Prior.

The English branch of the Order of St. John has devoted itself for the last ninety years to the succour of the sick and wounded, setting up cottage and convalescent hospitals, aiding the sick in other hospitals, and establishing ambulance litters in dangerous industrial centres, such as coal-mines and railway-stations, which at last developed into the St. John Ambulance Association, which rendered such magnificent service during the Great War. The German branch of the Order was the first to start ambulance work in the field in the Seven Weeks' War of 1866, work which was continued in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Since that date the mitigation of the sufferings of war has been a conspicuous part of the work of the Order of St. John, and nowhere has the Order's magnificent spirit of international comradeship been more fully displayed.

BOOKS CONSULTED

PRIMARY AUTHORITIES

Statuta Ordinis Domus Hospitalis Hierusalem. Edited by Fr. Didacus Rodriguez. Rome. 1556.

Statuti della religione de Cavalieri Gierosolimitani. Florence. 1567.

Statuta Hospitalis Hierusalem. Rome. 1588.

Collection of Statutes in Volume IV. of Vertot's Histoire de Chevaliers de Malte. Paris. 1726.

[As there was no Chapter-General between 1631 and 1776, all the above collections are practically complete, Vertot's containing little more than the others.]

Codice Diplomatico del sacro militare ordine Gierosolimitano oggi di Malta. Fr. Sebastiano Pauli. Lucca. 1737.

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic. 1523-1547.

Calendar of State Papers. (Foreign.) 1547-1585.

Calendar of State Papers. (Venetian.)

Calendar of State Papers. (Spanish.)

Les Archives de S. Jean de Jerusalem à Malte. Delaville Le Roulx. Paris. 1883.

Report of Philip de Thame. Grand Prior of England. 1338. Camden Society. Volume LXV. 1857.

Armoury of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem at Malta. Edited by G.F. Laking. London. 1903.

Carta y verdadera relacion escrita por il eminentissimo Señor Gran Maestre al Commendador Fr. Don Joseph Vidal. 1669.

E Tanner. Notitia Monastica. Ed. James Nasmith. Cambridge. 1787.

Malte. Par un Voyageur français. Anonymous. 1791.

Le Monete e Medaglie del S. Ordine Gierosolimitano. C. Taggiasco. Camerino. 1883.

Relation du Voyage et Description exacte de Malte. Paris. 1779.

Malta illustrata. Giovanni Abela. Malta. 1772-1780. 2 Volumes.

Liste de Chevaliers des Langues de Provence, Auvergne et France. Malta. 1772.

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES

GIACOMO BOSIO: Dell' Istoria della sacra religione et ill'ma Militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano. Rome. 1594. 2 volumes.

ABBÉ DE VERTOT: Histoire des Chevaliers de Malte. Paris. 1726. 4 volumes.

CHEVALIER DE BOISGELIN: Malta Ancient and Modern. English edition. 2 volumes. 1804.

PRESCOTT: Life of Philip II. Volume II.

MAJOR-GENERAL PORTER: History of the Knights of Malta. Revised edition. 1 volume. London. 1883.

DE GOUSSANCOURT: Le Martyrologe des Chevaliers de S. Jean de Hierusalem. Paris. 1643.

ANONYMOUS: Memoire de' Gran Maestri del sacro militare ordine Gierosolimitano. Parma. 1780.

L. HÉRITTE: Essai sur l'Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem. Paris. 1912.

HARDMAN: History of Malta, 1798-1815. Edited by J. Holland Rose. London. 1909.

REV. W.K.R. BEDFORD: Malta and the Knights Hospitallers. London. 1894.

REV. W.K.R. BEDFORD: The Hospital at Malta. Edinburgh. 1882.

J. TAAFE: History of the Order of S. John. 4 volumes. London. 1852.

A.T. DRANE: History of the Order of St. John. London. 1881.

MIÈGE: Histoire de Malte. 3 volumes. Paris. 1846.

M.M. BALLOU: Story of Malta. Boston and New York. 1893.

REV. W.K.R. BEDFORD AND R. HOLBECHE: Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. London. 1902.

ADMIRAL JURIEN DE LA GRAVIERE: (1) Les Chevaliers de Malte et la Marine de Philippe II. Paris. 1887. (2) Les Corsaires barbaresques et la Marine de Solyman le Grand. Paris. 1884. (3) Les Marins du XV'e et XVI'e siècles. Paris. 1879. (4) Les derniers Jours de la Marine à Rames. Paris. 1885.

COMMANDER E.H. CURREY: Sea Wolves of the Mediterranean. London. 1913.

SIR JULIAN CORBETT: England in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713. 2 volumes. London. 1904.

S. LANE-POOLE: Barbary Corsairs. (Stories of the Nations.) 1886.

E. DRIAULT: La Question d'Orient. Paris. 1898.

J.A.R. MARRIOT: The Eastern Question. Oxford. 1917.

G. VIULLIER: Le Tour du Monde. Malte et les Maltais.

P.J.O. DOUBLET: L'lnvasion et I'Occupation de Malte. Paris. 1883.

C.T.E. DE TOULGOET: Les Responsabilités de la Capitulation de Malte en 1798. (Revue des Questions Historiques. 1900.)

DE LA JONQUIÈRE: L'Expedition d'Égypte. Paris. 1901.

NOTE ON THE AUTHORITIES

For the Statutes of the Order we possess the Italian edition of 1567, two Latin editions of 1556 and 1588, and the collection at the end of Vertot's fourth volume, which is later and more complete. The Codice Diplomatico of Fr. Pauli is the only collection of Charters to my knowledge which covers practically the whole history of the Order: the magnificent Cartulaire of Delaville Le Roulx only covers the Syrian period in the Knights' history. Many valuable hints can be found in the Calendars of State Papers issued by the Record Office, but they fail us at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Of the various historians above mentioned, Bosio, for the period he covers, is by far the best and completest. Vertot only goes down to 1565: after the siege he treats the subject in a bare annalistic form. Boisgelin, who was a Knight himself and wrote his history after his expulsion from Malta, is valuable for his elaborate excursus on the financial system of the Order. All three--who are our completest authorities--wrote from the point of view of the Order, and consequently are very unreliable in some matters. The treatment that the Maltese received from the Order is very inadequately dealt with, and none of them can seriously estimate the Mediterranean background to the history of the Knights, and especially their relations with the Barbary pirates. General Porter, whose history is the only English one at all worthy of mention, possesses the same faults. Though his knowledge of the island is thorough, his ignorance of European history makes him neglect the importance of the external activities of the Knights, and he follows the Order's chroniclers too slavishly to claim authority as an independent investigator. Miège, who was a French Consul at Malta, is interesting as a bitter opponent of the Order and all its work; and he practically confines himself to the treatment of the Maltese at the hands of the Knights.

The best authority on sixteenth-century sea power in the Mediterranean is Admiral Jurien de la Gravière, while Commander Currey's book is very sound and interesting.