Great Britain and Malta During the Napoleonic Wars with Special Reference to the Role of Sir Alexander Ball, 1798-1809

Britain had little interest in the Mediterranean and almost none in Malta until Napoleon Bonaparte seized the island in 1798 and forced her to take heed. Thereafter, the question of who should control Malta became one of the most contentious issues affecting the diplomacy of the period, particularly during the peace negotiations at Amiens in 1801-2. The inability to settle this issue led to a resumption of hostilities the following year. Some Englishmen wondered whether allowing peace or war to hang on Malta gave the island an importance it did not merit. Britain would control Malta for thirteen years before the other powers acknowledged her legal rights to it. During this period her resolve to keep it steadily increased, as did her appreciation of its value, and the person most responsible for promoting this appreciation was Britain's Civil Commissioner at Malta, Sir Alexander Ball. Of the two themes to be developed here, the first explains the reasons for Britain's decision to keep Malta in the face of formidable international opposition, while the second examines the island's possible value to a great power, and asks whether it was intrinsically important, or merely symbolically so. Malta's most serious drawback was its distance from the French naval base a t Toulon. However, this became less important as Britain's strategic priorities shifted further east. Even so the commonly held belief that Malta acted as a barrier protecting Egypt was highly questionable because this would have required a large fleet to be stationed at Malta, and Britain was loath to bear such an expense. She eventually came to see that her very possession of the island was a cheaper alternative. By keeping Malta in defiance of international opinion, Britain in effect declared the island to be the symbol of her determination to prevent other powers from dominating the eastern Mediterranean. Thus, Malta's value to Britain shifted, in conjunction with the international situation, between substantive and symbolic posed that were not mutually exclusive.