Testaferrata 
Petitions the King

ON Sunday, June 26, 1707, while Mass was being said at the church of St Paul Shipwrecked,1 Mario Testaferrata, the senior Valletta Giurato, followed by the three other Jurats, entered the church. Immediately behind them was the chief gaoler, the bargello, accompanied by a number of constables (or 'sbirri'), carrying a sack containing green damask. They marched up the central aisle intent on nailing the cloth to the Jurats' bench. Bishop Cocco Palmeri had expressly forbidden the Valletta Jurats from draping their church bench with green damask. The surprised congregation included the Bishop's public prosecutor, profiscale, who warned Testaferrata not to disturb the service, and snatched the sack from the sbirri. Immediately, the profiscale was manhandled, thrown to the ground and beaten up by Mario's faithful sbirri.2 Following this scandalous incident, 'un successo cosi scandaloso', Testaferrata was removed from the office of Jurat,3 and publicly excommunicated by the Bishop together with his associates.4 Moreover, Mario was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the castle by the Judges of the High Court,5 although it appears however that jail was only imposed for a few hours a day. 

Testaferrata obtained his release in January 1708, but resolved to apply to the Sicilian Monarchy for the revocation of his excommunication. Technically such an appeal was known as per saltum, an extremely sensitive procedure. The whole issue was one of jurisdiction and affected mainly ecclesiastical authority. It was advocated that the Bishop of Malta was subordinate to his Sicilian counterpart and consequently such cases were subject to the King's Tribunal in Palermo. In addition, the selection process of the Bishop gave further weight to this subservience. In fact the Maltese diocese was considered de jure patronatus of the Sicilian Monarchy. Such audacious actions were few and far between, but they were almost always prompted by the Testaferrata family. Grand Master Perellos did his utmost to dissuade Mario from this course of action, but realising his determination, signed the necessary permits for him to leave Malta. On April 14, 1708, Testaferrata boarded a galley setting sail for Genoa but he had to be put ashore when the crew almost mutinied; they refused to sail with an excommunicated person.6 

A week later Mario boarded a Sicilian schooner,7 and news of his arrival in Palermo reached Malta at the beginning of June.8 The Monarchia di Sicilia arbitrarily revoked the excommunication,9 and granted Testaferrata a patent which placed him beyond ecclesiastical jurisdiction.10 Testaferrata's influence in Sicily was such that when the Augustinian prior there tried to intervene on behalf of the Bishop of Malta he found him- self arrested and jailed!.

 On July 18 Cardinal Paulucci, the Papal Secretary of State, ordered both the Inquisitor and the Bishop to immediately arrest Mario Testaferrata should he ever return to Malta.11 Paulucci was assured that his instructions would be carried out to the letter.12 Testaferrata had no intention of returning to Malta. Since this frustrated Cardinal Paulucci's plan, the Inquisitor of Malta then suggested that, if Mario's properties were to be seized, he would be obliged either to return to the island or to prostrate himself "at the Pope's feet" in Rome. 

Paulucci agreed and confiscated the properties.13 However, even this plan misfired. In September the Sicilian Monarchy denounced the confiscation and decreed that Testaferrata be compensated. It annulled all acts taken against him and ordered that he be reimbursed for all expenses incurred, with interests. To enforce this decision, the Sicilian estates of the Bishop of Malta were requisitioned and Testaferrata was allowed to enjoy the revenue from these properties, including lucrative lands at Lentini.14 

When the Bishop found himself in financial difficulties, he asked Perellos to pay him 3,000 scudi out of the Order's coffers in compensation for loss of revenue from his Sicilian properties. Mario's estate in Malta was not proving to be very profitable, since their previous owner had been in debt with various legatees.15 Although the Grand Master tried to give the impression that he was a mere 'spectator' in this whole affair, according to the Inquisitor he had deviously planned the whole charade and even 'applauded' the way it was being conducted. When the Bishop's request was not complied with, he commented "that at all cost the Grand Master intended to impoverish him".16 The Bishop had obviously challenged the wrong man. 

Mario Testaferrata epitomised his family name, 'head of iron'. At the time of the green damask debacle he was at the peak of a remarkable career. He had served as Alfiere, standard-bearer of the cavalry of Notabile and later occupied the post of Giurato of that city from 1678 to 1681. A frequent visitor to Sicily, he was appointed Captain of Arms of the city of Licata.17 Back in Malta Grand Master Caraffa, in 1690, nominated him Capitano della Verga, an honour repeated on two successive occasions. At the end of the century he was selected to fill the prestigious and responsible office of Ambassador to Licata, the Grain Embassy. King Philip V remunerated Testaferrata with an annual pension and put at his disposal the saltpans at Alicante which to this day are called Saline Testaferrata. The reason for these bequests is not known. In 1705 he returned to Malta and was nominated principal Giurato, this time of the Università of Valletta.18 He was then 51. His strong personality can be detected in a contemporary portrait in which he is wearing a dark wig and a suit-of-armour (picture at top) while his hand rests on a plumed helmet. His fixed gaze and proud grimace complement his stature. What the Bishop had underestimated was not only Mario's determination but that such acts were contagious. 

Giacinto, another member of the Testaferrata family, filed a similar application to the King of Sicily. The case related to a Benedictine nun. Despite influence, nobility, or prominence of family, it was very difficult for nuns to abandon their nunnery. In July 1700 Suor Ferriolo wanted to leave the Benedictines after ten years,19 but her attempts proved unsuccessful and she remained a cloistered nun against her wishes. It appears that this nunnery was becoming quite notorious as an unnamed nun reported her Father confessor for having whispered "words of love and sex".20 By 1707, Suor Ferriolo became desperate and begged her brother-in- law, Giacinto Testaferrata, to intervene. Testaferrata was ruthless and like Mario before him, he bypassed his Bishop and directly petitioned the King of Sicily.21 In May the Viceroy and the Chief Justice of Sicily ordered Bishop Cocco Palmeri to release Suor Ferriolo from her vows, and to finalise her application within 15 days. The Bishop was also told that unless he complied, the Sicilian Monarchy would requisition his Sicilian fief of Lentini which was then yielding 3,000 scudi a year.22 The Bishop knew that these were not idle words, since this was about a third of his gross income. Both the Bishop and the Inquisitor were reminded that "in Sicily vows were annulled with the greatest of ease".23 

On May 7 Cocco Palmeri and Caracciolo decided that Testaferrata should be 'exiled' to Gozo, where the 'instigator' could be curbed. In the meantime his sister-in-law, Suor Ferriolo, could always be persuaded "with the help of God to remain a nun."24 That same day the Inquisitor approached the Grand Master pointing out that the lawyer conducting Testaferrata's case was the son of the Grand Master's consultant Balsano, and it would therefore be most convenient if this lawyer could be persuaded to abandon his client.25 The Inquisitor also advised Perellos that he should never tolerate such an overt and scandalous act in his domains as this would cause irreparable damage to the principality and at the same time would give space to the Sicilian Monarchy to achieve a foothold in Malta. The Grand Master reluctantly agreed to use his influence and, the following day, Balsano dropped the case.26 In the meantime Testaferrata was summoned to the Inquisitor's Palace and ordered to go to Gozo; he agreed, but as soon as he had left the palace, Giacinto dispatched another petition to Palermo and immediately rushed into the nearest church invoking ecclesiastical immunity.27 It appears that he remained in his place of sanctuary until June 4,28 when he was finally persuaded to leave for Gozo until the whole matter could be amicably settled. After only five days he was recalled and allowed to remain in Malta on condition that he would renounce all appeals to the Sicilian Monarchy. 

He accepted, pro- vided that the case of Suor Ferriolo would be favourably reviewed.29 It was in everyone's interest to accept this compromise. Through bitter experience, the Bishop was well aware of the consequences of confrontation, the episode of the green damask being as yet unresolved. Mario Testaferrata had refused to come to terms with the Bishop. His persistence proved worthwhile. On November 1, 1711 King Philip IV signed a rescript which decided the whole issue in Testaferrata's favour.30 His efforts were recognised and in time his endeavours rewarded with two titles of nobility. He was the first Maltese to be created a Marquis with the title of San Vincenzo Ferreri in the Kingdom of Naples by Philip V, King of Spain and the Two Sicilies, "in consideration of what he had to endure for the defence of my royal prerogatives". The grant was made by letters-patent dated November 10, 1716 and duly registered in a book of "Privileges of the Kingdom of Naples".31 

On July 13, 1717 Testaferrata received yet another Marquisate, this time from Victor Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy, "not only for the exceptional zeal which he had always shown in our service, but also because of his noble birth". Mario registered his patent in the Registro Privilegiorum Regni Siciliae.32 The Marquis declined to register either title in the Chancellery or the High Court in Malta. However, to prevent any misconceptions regarding either patent, he later notarised the title of Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri in Palermo and his second title in the acts of a Maltese notary.33 Notwithstanding these achievements, it does not appear that Mario was inclined to settle in Malta. In 1718, while still in Sicily, he wanted to publish "some privileges granted to the Maltese", including a particular patent dated 1427 by virtue of which "the people of the Island of Malta were reintegrated in the Royal Domains". The Order's representative in Palermo became concerned and in formed Perellos of Testaferrata' intentions; however the Grand Master was not perturbed, "the said Marquis must have very little to do as his endeavours are of no relevance what so ever as any references to the said privileges have already been published by Abela in Malta Illustrata ."34 

By 1720 the Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri was in Madrid After the death of Grand Master Perellos and his succession by Zondadari he wanted to restore relations with the Order. He complimented the new Grand Master on his election, and Zondadari wrote back, saying "we are persuaded that your congratulations for our election as Grand Master are a genuine expression of your good heart".35 On January 21, 1721, in another letter the Grand Master once again thanked the Marquis for sending Christmas greet ings.36 Zondadari's rule was short-lived on August 15, 1722, the Marquis writing once again from Madrid expressed his satisfaction on the election of the new Grand Master Antonio Manoel de Vilhena. The lat ter responded: "We are grateful that you are delighted with our election to the Grand Mastership".37 

These letters must have paved the way for the eventual return of the Marquis to Malta. Besides, Testaferrata and his descendants were given a special incentive. The Grand Master, on July 9, 1725 had issued an ordinance, known as Prammatica, forbidding notaries and advocates from adding the title of illustrious or noble to any name in contracts, acts or private deeds. Vilhena however 'ordered' an exemption in favour of the Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri, Mario Testaferrata, and his descendants.38 Mario had two sons and a daughter from two marriages. His relationship with his sons was turbulent. Originally, he was very close to Enrico who was nominated as his heir and successor in title, but something must have gone terribly wrong as he subsequently disinherited and substituted him with Gilberto. As they were half-brothers, one may assume the influence of Mario's second wife in favour of her natural son. On the other hand, the Marquis Mario Testaferrata was especially fond of his youngest child and only daughter.39 Pulcra, who in official correspondence was called Pulcheria, was involved in a brawl inside the Franciscan church in Valletta. She who was married to Fabritio, another member of the Testaferrata family, and was Baroness of Castel Cicciano in her own right. The incident, which happened in the beginning of 1738, arose as a result of an outstanding feud with Francesca Portughes, the sister of the Bishop's Secretary of State. Harsh words were exchanged and Pulcra slapped Francesca several times. A worse incident was averted as the two women were physically restrained by other worshippers.40 A formal report was made to the Bishop. The latter dispatched his officials to the respective residences of Testaferrata and Portughes. The Bishop's men however were given different orders. Francesca was warned, Pulcra arrested and taken to the public prisons. The next day, as a result of her parents' persistence and the Grand Master's acquiescence, she was transferred to Fort St Elmo. She was detained for several weeks but was released provided she did not venture out of Birgu. In the meantime, Marquis Mario Testaferrata, on behalf of his daughter petitioned the relative Sicilian tribunal. The reaction from Palermo was not only immediate but also favourable. 

The Marquis must have relished the personal presentation of the preliminary decree to the Bishop, who wisely decided to defuse the situation by allowing its registration in the Ecclesiastical Chancellery. In addition the Bishop did not intervene when the Marquis took the law into his own hands and openly accompanied his daughter from Birgu to Valletta. All the documents of the case were forwarded to Palermo. The Inquisitor, in his report to the Papal Secretary of State, remarks: "This man on other occasions had tried to file such applications to the Sicilian Monarchy in Sicily."41 By June 1738 the Inquisitor had informed Rome that in the past such petitions had been made directly to the Sicilian Monarchy because "at the time the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal were excessive".42 However since Pope Benedict XIII had issued a Bull stipulating the procedure to be adopted in such matters this was the first time that an application had been filed. According to the new rules one had to first exhaust the remedy before the Metropolitan Tribunal, which the Marquis had failed to do. Despite this procedural fault, the Inquisitor still advised caution and declared that he could not imagine either the Bishop or Francesca Portughes "making another step".43 Apparently prudence prevailed and the issue was allowed to die down. In 1739 Marquis Testaferrata was again in Madrid, from where he wrote that "in this realm the title of Marquis precedes not only the title of Baron but also takes precedence over that of Count". He also emphasised that "the first grade is that of Prince, the second Duke, the third Marquis, the fourth Count, and fifth and last the title of Baron whether of Bucana, of Harescem or of Kmieri or Cicciano."44 The latter four were references to existing titles of prominent families in Malta. Mario once again returned to Malta in 1745, two years before he died aged 93. However the strategy of petitioning the King continued to live after him. The incident which, in the Inquisitor's own words, again caused universal astonishment, and demonstrated the vulnerability of the Holy Office, related once more to Pulcra. After the Baroness had become a widow she subsequently married the noble Pietro Cassar. 

He was one of the Inquisitor's favourite patentees and "pertained to a conspicuous family which was considered one of the oldest and most noble". In January 1751 Pulcra was served with a summons in a civil lawsuit by a constable, sbirro, of the Grand Master, Emanuel Pinto de Fonseca. The Baroness politely informed the officer that the writ should be served on her lawyer, or her procurator. The sbirro insisted on presenting the summons to the Baroness and would not accept her suggestion that on this occasion she would allow her page to receive the summons. The sbirro became more imprudent, tempers flared and he jostled her page. Throwing the writ on the ground he immediately left the scene. The sbirro got a worse reception when he came again to present a second writ. Pulcra ordered him out of her house and warned him that if he wanted to present the writ she had already indicated her nominees. The sbirro was apparently enjoying himself and provoked the situation with a wide smile - riso dentorio. A slave who was accompanying the Baroness offered, but to no avail, to receive the writ. Enough was enough. Such impertinent manners were resented by a screaming Baroness who suddenly confronted the sbirro with a swinging broom. After receiving two or three blows, he was thrown down- stairs and was lucky enough 'with the grace of God' to escape through the front door. On hearing of this humiliating incident, the Grand Master imprisoned his chief gaoler , bargello, who was directly responsible for sending the sbirro to the residence of a patentee of the Inquisition. Pinto then ordered his public prosecutor to request the Inquisition officials to accompany him to arrest Pulcra. The Inquisitor was lost. There was no precedent of such actions. While delaying the public prosecutor, the Inquisitor secretly sent a warning to his patent holder to take sanctuary so as not to expose her to further violence. He then dispatched his captain to accompany the public prosecutor to Pulcra's residence. On arrival, they found the house of the Baroness completely surrounded by a squadron of soldiers and con- stables as if Pulcra was some "escaped galley rower, a vile slave, or a public woman". The only reason for such actions was to give maximum publicity to the whole incident. The house was searched but to no avail. The Baroness had already taken sanctuary in the collegiate church of St Paul in Valletta.45 The Grand Master, having failed to achieve his initial aim, sent one of his knights to the Baroness, promising her immediate release if she agreed to give herself up. Convinced of Pinto's goodwill, Pulcra complied and she came out of church. She was abducted and imprisoned in Fort St Elmo. As soon as Pinto was assured of Pulcra's detention he ordered all his trumpeters to summon the people of Valletta while a proclamation was read: "Whoever is a true and faithful subject of our prince is in duty bound to capture Pulcra Testaferrata wherever she may be and conduct her to the High Court". The Pulcra incident suited Pinto's purposes admirably, for it enabled him not only to expose the vulnerability of the Tribunal's patent- holders, but also to ridicule the privileges and prerogatives of the Holy Office. The Inquisitor was furious. By stage-managing the whole affair the Grand Master had achieved his objective of devaluing the patronage and protection offered by the Holy Office. The Inquisitor himself later pointed out that "if the most distinguished and noble dependants of the Holy Office are ill treated with double severity without any regard to their condition precisely because they enjoy a patent and status as familiari and once they are obliged to see their wives treated in a worse manner than the lowest of the low then they will most certainly renounce their patents". The Inquisitor remarked that 'apparently it was not the ordinary patent-holders who were affected for these enjoy immunity not only for themselves but also for their property, wives, and children, but those patent-holders who are from the prime and most select nobility of the country. Even the slaves of these patentees enjoy the patronage of their principals but it apparently results that the wives of these prominent familiari are, in these Islands, in an inferior position to their very own slaves".46 If the Inquisitor was shocked by the episode, Pulcra's family had no intention of remaining idle in the face of such overt actions. Her hus- band Pietro Cassar was well aware of the strategy which her late father, Marquis Testaferrata, had adopted in the past. He went to the Inquisitor and informed him that unless Pulcra was released he was going to appeal to the Kingdom of Sicily "notwithstanding the consequences". He was made aware that the issue did not involve ecclesiastical author- ity and consequently there was no legal basis for the petition. Despite this, he asserted his determination "to petition a King". The message must have reached the Grand Mas- ter. Reluctantly, Pinto released Pulcra so as to avert any possible interference from the Sicilian Monarchy in the state of affairs of his principality. 

Dr Attard Montalto, apart from being a commercial and criminal lawyer, former minister and Labour MP, read History at the University of Malta. This article is an excerpt from material to be published in a book in the coming months. Dr Attard Montalto is serving as an European Parliament Labour Minister.

References 
1. AIM 98, ff. 10v-11r. 
2. AIM 98, f. 34v. 
3. AIM 98, f. 35v. 
4. AIM 98, f. 28. 
5. Univ. 351, p. 93. 
6. AIM 98, f. 35v. 
7. AIM 98, f. 39r. 
8. AIM ff. 39v-40r. 
9. AIM 98, f. 40r. 
10. AIM 91, f. 34v. 
11. AIM 98, ff. 43v, 44v. 
12. AIM 98, f. 45r. "Se li tolgo il modo di poter più altro sussistere in detta città, 
dovendo necessariamente produrre l'effetto o di portarsi in questa isola o ai piedi di V.S. in Roma." 
13. AIM 91, ff. 37v.-38r. 
14. AIM 98, ff. 46v.-47v. 
15. AIM 98, ff. 49v, 52v, 54r. 
16. 'Che a tutto potere cercava il Signor G. M. farlo povero' cf. AIM 98, f. 55r.
17. L.A. Cassar Desain, Genealogia della famiglia Testaferrata di Malta, pp. 34-37.
18. Ibid., pp. 37-48.
19. AIM 94, f. 126r.
20. AIM 94, f. 78r.
21. AIM 94, f. 126r.
22. AIM 94, f. 126v; A. Zammit Gabarretta, The presentation,
examination, and nomination of the Bishops of Malta in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, p. 31.
23. AIM 94, f. 126v.
24. AIM 94, f. 127r.
25. AIM 94, f. 127.
26. AIM 94, f. 127v.
27. AIM 94, f. 126r.
28. AIM 94, f. 129v.
29. AIM 94, ff. 131v.-132r; AIM 98, f. 9v.v.
30. L.A. Cassar Desain, op. cit., p. 48.
31. Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the claims of the Maltese Nobility, para. 115.
32. L.A. Cassar Desain, op. cit., p. 44 fn.a.
33. See fn. 323.
34. B.P. 301 (a).
35. L.A. Cassar Desain, op. cit., p. 44 fn.a.
36. G.T. (M.) Lettera (copia) dal Zondadari 15 Gennaio 1721.
37. G.T. (M.) Lettera (copia) da Manoel, 7 settembre 1722.
38. Report of the Commission, para. 114.
39. G.T. (M.) Albero Genealogico Testaferrata.
40. AIM 99 f. 266v.
41. AIM 99 f. 267r.
42. AIM 99 f. 270r.
43. AIM 99 f. 270v.
44. L.A. Cassar Desain, op. cit., p. 47 fn.b.
45. AIM 95, f. 203.
46. AIM 95, f. 204.