virtually removed by the admitted fact of their unanimity? And have
they not a bishop, and a dignified clergy, their judges and municipal
magistrates, who were at all times sharers in the power of the
government, and now, supported by the unanimous suffrage of the
inhabitants, have a rightful claim to be considered as its
representatives? Will it not be oftener said than answered, that the
main difference between French and English injustice rests in this
point alone, that the French seized on the Maltese without any
previous pretences of friendship, while the English procured
possession of the island by means of their friendly promises, and by
the co-operation of the natives afforded in confident reliance on
these promises? The impolicy of refusing the signature on the part
of the Maltese was equally evident; since such refusal could answer
no one purpose but that of alienating their affections by a wanton
insult to their feelings. For the Maltese were not only ready but
desirous and eager to place themselves at the same time under British
protection, to take the oaths of loyalty as subjects of the British
Crown, and to acknowledge their island to belong to it. These
representations, however, were overruled; and I dare affirm from my
own experience in the Mediterranean, that our conduct in this
instance, added to the impression which had been made at Corsica,
Minorca, and elsewhere, and was often referred to by men of
reflection in Sicily, who have more than once said to me, "A
connection with Great Britain, with the consequent extension and
security of our commerce, are indeed great blessings: but who can
rely on their permanence? or that we shall not be made to pay
bitterly for our zeal as partisans of England, whenever it shall suit
its plans to deliver us back to our old oppressors?"