Special
Maltese Events
REFERENCE
VALUE OF 19TH CENTURY REPORTS ON CIRCUMSTANCES AND GRANT
All
Corrections/additions are welcome, Looking
for more data here.
No part of this article could be copied or used without the
owners permission.
Please read copyright and disclaimer.
Notice: All
links lead you to a site outside Maltesenobility.org and are not
part of this site. The owner of this article has given his
consent to reproduce this page here (with special permission).
No part of the article is to be reproduced without the
permission of the owner.
Should the links not work, kindly inform the webmaster of this
error. Thank you.
The
Correspondence and
Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims
and grievances of the Maltese Nobility, May 1878, presented to
both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.)
is a veritable repository of information relative to the various
titles of nobility. Many published sources indicate that the
titles described therein are those recognized by the British
Monarch. However, and in fact, the purpose of that report (as
the report reads) was to identify those titles which were
recognized by the Maltese authorities before the
annexation of
Malta
to the
British Dominions. Any title obtained after 1800 was not
considered by the Report.
The
Report consists of 4 basic sections: a list of claimants, the
main report, a supplemental report and a summing up by the
British Secretary of State for the Colonies.
In
all, the Report considered various claims to 45 titles of
nobility and hereditary distinctions. The findings of the Report
are detailed in the parts relative to each title/distinction.
The
Report also describes the historic development of regulation of
Maltese Nobility as a body during the 18th century as well as
the progressively different terms and remainders of nobiliary
grants. That century is significant as the first legal
instrument dealing with the Maltese nobility as a body was only
promulgated by 'Despuig'
as late as 1739, (n.b: That is to say many
centuries after 1090 which is the much vaunted date when Roger
the
Norman
is
supposed to have organised Maltese society into nobles, burghers
and rustics).
The only other legislation enacted by the Grand Masters was that
by Rohan in 1795. (See Report, para.
104). (n.b.
That is to say prior to 1739,
Malta
had noble
families, but not an organised
nobility: These local families acted as a nobility but had no
corporate existence or jurisdiction, and lived independently of
the (Sicilian) feudal overlords to whom the whole of the
Maltese
Islands
were,
from time to time, bestowed in fief as a County or a
Marquisate.)
The
aforesaid rules first promulgated by Grand Master Despuig
in 1739 as subsequently amended by Grand Master Rohan
in 1795, are reproduced hereunder. These enactments which are
referred to throughout the Report are not cited verbatim in the
Report:
Hosplis
Mgr et Hierlem
Sti. Sepulchri.
- Per todifferenzeprecedenzetrapersonechesarannopromosseallagiurazieUniversitadellaNotabiledellavogliamoordiniamocomandiamochetuttesianopreceduedagliinfrascrittichefraquetisiregoliprecedenaordineseguentecioe
CapitanodellaVergadellaSudettaCittaNotabileIsola; Titolatochetitolofondatosoprafeudorealtaesistentebenchepossegga;
titolatochetitolofondatosoprafondorealmenteesistentenelnostroDominioregistratochesiailtitolonellaCancellerianellaReligionenellaGrandellaCastellaniapagatoirispettiviregistramentiildirittoscudisediciquestamonetadadividersitraCancelleriaCastellaniasudetta;
discendentelineamascolinadaCapitanodellaVergacolleproprierenditeiluiascendenteintermedievisserocolleproprierendite;
discendentelineamascolinadatitolotitolofondatosoprafeudorealmenteesistentecolleproprierenditeisuoiascendentiintermediecosivissero; GiuratodellaNotabile; Giuratodella; piuanzianiGiuraziaquellaUniversitadellaqualesaracreatogiurato;
Giudiced’AppelloCriminaleCiviledellaGrandellaCastellaniadellaCapitanaleGovernatoriale; DottoreLeggiilDottoreMedicina:
- chefrapersonestessogradosideveattenderel’anzianitatitoloprimordialechechiunqueGiuratosarafattofraiqualis’attenderal’anzianitad’ufficio. Dat.
In Palatio, die xvi.
Septembris 1739
(f. Despuig)
Hosplis
Magr. Hierlem.
Sti. Sepulchri,
et Ordinis Sti
Antonii, Viennensis
Essendo una
massima universalmente
ricevuto, che
il maggior lustro
della Nobilta’
principalmente dipende
dalla sua maggiore antichita’,
niente che
il piu’ giusto e ragionevole
che il piu’ antico
Nobile preceda il piu’ moderno.
Siamo pertanto
venuti nella
determinazione di Ordinare
che nel regolarsi
la precedenza tra
le persone Nobile di questo
nostro Dominio,
cosi’ primogeniti
che cadetti
indistintamente, si abbioa
ad avere unicamente
riguardo alla maggiore
o minore antichita’ del
titolo che
nobilito le loro
famiglie, e cio
tanto se il titolo
sara’ stato
concesso da Noi
o Nostri predecessori,
che se lo
avessero ottenuto
da Principi esteri,
purche’ pero
sara’ stato
questo debitamente
registrato nella
Nostra Cancelleria
e Gran Corte della
Castellania; nel
consorso pero’
di ugual data quello
nella di cui
persona concorreranno piu’ titoli
dovra’ essere
preferito, all’ altro
che ne avesse
meno, secondo
la graduazione stabilita
nel Chirografo
Magisteriale del
Nostro Predecessore
Gran Maestro Despuig
di Gl. Em.
Del 16 Sept 1739, quale in quelle
parti che non contradicono
la questa nostra
disposizione intendiamo
di pienamente confermare.
Datum
in Palatio
die xvii Martii
1795 (f.)
Rohan
The
Report (paras. 83-95) described how previous to the 18th
century, Malta had its fair share of much older families which
at that time were the established and historic noble families or
barones, albeit not even in
receipt of an actual patent of nobility. The Commissioners,
however observed that these older families enjoyed successive,
generational appointments to key posts particularly the Universita’
and the Capitano della
Verga under the government of the Order, on which occasions
they were sometimes styled barons, and constantly designated as
nobles. The Report (ibid.) describes how by the 18th century,
the only two surviving feudatory families (as known to the
Commissioners) had by custom achieved the status of baroni
by the end of the 17th century.
In
regard to the “new” families, that is the 18th century
nobility described in the first and third parts of the main
report (Paras. 24-82 and (106-226), some of these were already
extinct by the time of the 1877-8 Commission, as the very same
Commission observed. The fourth part of the report shows a
number of other distinctions received by Maltese during the 16th
to the 18th Century (Paras. 227-239).
The
Report emphasised that creation of titles of nobility was
certainly an indisputable right of the twenty eight Grand
Masters who governed
Malta
as
Sovereign Princes, separate and distinct from the
Kingdom
of
Sicily
. The
Grand Masters exercised all the power inherent in a real and
full sovereignty on the territory subject to their jurisdiction.
However, it appears that the Commissioners identified only six
Grand Masters who actually made use of the prerogative to create
a title, the others preferring to merely renew titles which had
previously become extinct. The grantor Grand Masters so
identified by the Report, were: Lascaris
(1 grant), Perellos (2), Manoel
de Vilhena (4), Despuig
(2), Pinto de Foncesca (2) and Rohan
(11). (The Commissioners omitted Grand Master Ximenes
who granted a title of Barone di Frigenuini
in 1773). In their findings, the Commissioners reported a number
of Magistral titles which were
extinct as well as a number of titles which were amended by
applications of the party concerned. The Report
specifically considers 19 grants by the Grand Masters, of which
3 were found to be extinct.
The
remaining noble fiefs (2), foreign titles (14) and distinctions
(10) considered by the Commissioners, have their own origins and
are likewise amply described in the report. All were subjected
to an investigation whether such noble fiefs, foreign titles and
distinctions were duly registered, or at least directly
recognized by the Grand Masters. – Not all were found to
satisfy this criterion. Whilst both noble fiefs were allowed, 1
foreign title was declared extinct whilst 4 foreign titles and 8
distinctions were found to be ineligible; the remaining 2
distinctions were dismissed altogether by the Secretary of State
for the colonies. Of the remaining 9 foreign titles, 1 was
decided directly by the Secretary of State and 1 remained yet to
be substantiated.
Thus
by the time the final Report was published the list of approved
claimable titles approved by the Commissioners and the Secretary
of State numbered 16 Magistral
titles + 2 fiefs + 8 foreign titles + 1 to be substantiated, or
a maximum of 27 eligible titles.
The
Report also emphasized the requirement of due registration and
recognition of titles emanating from foreign authorities as yet
another aspect of the Grand Masters’ Sovereignty over the
islands. This applied even to those titles that were granted
from time to time by the
Kingdom
of
Sicily
, of
which
Malta
formed
part prior to 1530. - The Commissioners considered this aspect
with particular attention and concluded that even when Emperor
Charles V, as King of Sicily, ceded the Maltese islands on the
24 March 1530 to the Knights, there was no condition reserved in
the King’s favour that provided
that the privileges granted by him should be recognized and
enforced in the territory he had granted to the Grand Masters
and the Order of St. John: Moreover the Commissioners also
observed that any possible doubt was done away with by Philip II
ulterior grant of 27 June 1559.
Interestingly,
the Report does not detail the French period (1798-1800) when
titles of nobility were formally abolished. (General Bonaparte
issued two orders dated 13 and 16 June 1798 prohibiting the use
of any title “Ordre
(1) Quartier General de malte, le 25
Prairal, an VI (13 Juin
1798): Le General en Chef ordonne……(Article
2.)… Toutes
les armoires seront abbatues dans l’
espace de 24 heures. Il est defendu
de porter dest livrees,
ni aucune marque et titre distinctif de noblesse. Ordre
(2) Au Quartier General de malte, le
28 Prairal, an VI (16 Juin 1798): Bonaparte
Membre de l’Istitut National, General-en-Chef
ordonne…(Article
Cinquieme)….Dix jours apres
la publication du present ordre, il
est defendu d’avoir des armoires
soit dans l’interieur, soit a l’exterieur
des maisons, de cacheter des lettres avec des armoires, ou de
prendre des titres feodaux. ……(Article
Douzieme)….Tous les
contrevenants aux articles cidessous,
seront condamnes pour la premier fois, a une amende du tiers de
leurs revenus; pour la seconde fois, a trois mois de prison;
pour la troisieme fois a un an de
prison; pour la quatrieme fois, a la
deportation de l’ile
de Malte, et a la confiscation de la moitie de leurs biens. Il
devra toujours y avoir 10 jours d’intervalle entre la recidive.”)
The
only reference (of the Commissioners see Paras.
144 and 173) to the French Period is to another Order issued by Bosredon
Ransijat, President of the
Commission du Gouvernement
dated 18 Messidor Year 6 (6 July
1798), where it was enacted that all honorary titles should be
burnt on the 14th of that month and that every holder of a title
should carry his patent at the Arbre
de la Liberté.
The
Report implies that after the French capitulation, the use of nobiliary
titles was resumed. The Report describes at length how after
Malta came to form part of the British Empire, the unregulated
and improper use of titles of nobility and other honours was
tolerated by the local authorities who were themselves found to
be at fault for encouraging such improper use, up to the time of
the Commission. The following paras.
165-166 neatly describe the muddled state of affairs of the
time: We
also found in several lists of the electors of the members of
council for Malta and Gozo,
published under the Government authority, the said Gio
Paolo Testaferrata referred to as ‘Marchese”
in the list of electors for Gozo,
and as ‘dei Marchesi”
in the list of those of Malta. In some notices the late
Francesco Gauci Bonici, who was for
several years member of the Council of Government, is designated
as Barone, which title had
originally been granted to one of his ancestors, for the term of
his natural life only. (Sua
naturali
vita perdurante).
The above stated circumstances lead us to conclude that no great
importance was formerly attached by the Local Government to a
proper use of the titles of nobility. In confirmation of this
statement, we may mention that in several Government notices,
the late Baldassare Sant was styled
Count, to which title he had no right. His son and heir, Lazzaro
Sant, does not claim but the titles of Conte and Barone
Fournier de Pausier, which he
inherited from his mother Luigia,
wife of the said Baldassare, to whom
they were not certainly communicable. It must, however, be
remarked that since 1870 the said Gio
Paolo Testaferrata and Lorenzo Cassar Desain
have been styled Marchesi in several Government Notices
concerning the Agrarian Society, and the Society of Arts,
Manufactures, and Commerce.
The
need for a proper study being so necessary, the British
Secretary of State for the Colonies commissioned a report in
1876, on those titles alleged to have been conferred to Maltese
families before the annexation of
Malta
to the
British Dominions, namely 1800. In order to ascertain who are
the gentlemen thus entitled to precedence, Governor Straubenzee
was by the same Despatch instructed
to call upon a committee of nobles, already formed on a previous
visit of the Prince of Wales, to furnish him with a list of the
“Titolati”, and the dates of
their respective creations. On
the 24th
February 1877
, the
Governor received from the said committee a letter accompanied
by a list of 31 “Titolati”
claiming various titles.
This
list was in turn forwarded to Judges Naudi and Pullicino
together with the terms of reference contained in the
Governor’s letter dated
8th March
1877
appointing
them Commissioners to conduct an inquiry.
No
pre-set formality being required, the Commissioners thought it
advisable to request the attendance of 28 claimants (3 claimants
not being called for reasons explained in the report) to supply
the Commissioners with supporting documentation. Two claimants
declined to comply with the Commissioners’ invitation, without
giving any explanation for their refusal. In addition, seven
other claimants, not included in the Committee’s list,
appeared in the course of the inquiry. Two persons in whose favour
two titles were successfully confirmed are neither in the
Committee’s list, nor did they appear before the Commission.
In one instance a third party called into question a
claimant’s claim. The Commissioners did not make any written
queries to any of the applicants, all communications being oral.
A
later correspondence of 1883 (Report
of the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility on the
claims of certain members of that body with the Secretary of
State’s reply (C 3812) ), between a new Committee and
the Secretary of State, found sufficient grounds to reverse the
Commission’s decision about the extinction of two of the
aforesaid four titles, as well as the Commission’s decision to
disallow two claims alleging a direct recognition from the Grand
Master. Moreover, the same 1883 correspondence implies that a
title which the Secretary of State left unimpaired,
had in fact been settled in the interim period, resulting in the
acceptance of another title.
The
holders of these titles were thereafter regarded as the official
nobility of
Malta
.
The
conclusions reached by the reports of 1878 and 1883 were as
follows (in the order as considered by the original Report):
(1)
Joint title of Barone
di Gomerino (granted jointly
to Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata on the
24
December 1710
by Grand
Master Perellos). In their report
the Commissioners stated that this title was disputed by Pietro
Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni and Augusto Testaferrata Abela,
the former claiming that the title had been annexed in 1734 to a
Primogenitura erected in 1714, the latter claming a
nomination. The Commissioners decided not to ask either
claimants to appear before them to furnish the necessary
information and did not decide on the claims. (From a detailed
analysis, it appears that the claimants were in fact talking
about two different titles, one granted in 1710, another which
was approved by Grand Master Despuig
in 1737).
(2)
Title of Barone
di Budack (granted to Gio
Pio De Piro
on the 23 April 1716 by Grand Master Perellos);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata
but his claim was disputed by Giuseppe Depiro,
the former claiming he was nominated, the latter claiming that
the title was extinct and that he was in possession of a Primogenitura.
The Commissioners decided not to take notice
of the documents produced by Giuseppe Depiro
nor to ask for information from Monsignor Grech Delicata.
(From a detailed analysis, the title was found to be valid but
invalidly nominated to Monsignor Grech Delicata).
(3)
Title of Barone
di San Marciano (granted to
Diego Antonio Galea Ferriol on the
14 June 1726 by Grand Master Manoel
de Vilhena); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Pietro Paolo Galea who
proved his descent from Barone Diego
Antonio Galea Feriol and the regular
transmission of the title through first-born male descendants
successively down to his person.
(4)
Title of Barone
della Tabria
(granted to Isidoro Viani on the
11 December 1728); In their report the Commissioners stated that
this title had been successfully claimed by Giuseppe
Testaferrata Viani who although he descends from the grantee in
the primogenial line through a
female line, is entitled to enjoy the present barony; The
Commissioners also noted that the claimant’s real name is
Testaferrata not Viani.
(5)
Title of Barone
della Culeja
(granted to Ignazio Bonnici on the 2
June 1737 by Grand Master Raimondo Despuig);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Vincenza
Bonnici, wife of said Pietro Paolo
Galea, who inherited the title from her father Barone
Ignazio Bonnici, junior, who left no
issue.
(6)
Title of Barone
di Benuarrat (granted to Saverio
Gatto on the 18 August 1737 by Grand
Master Raimondo Despuig);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Angiolino
Attard Montalto, who descends from the first title person,
although through a female line, as appears from documents
produced by him; and he is the first-born descendant in the primogenial
line of the grantee.
(7)
Title of Conte
della Bahria
(granted to Ignazio Muscati
Falsone Navarra
on the 16 May 1743 by Grand Master Emmanuel Pinto de Fonceca);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Antonio Stagno-Navarra-Muscati-Falsoni,
the holder of the lands of Bahria,
his pedigree through a female line is fully proved, and no one
has appeared to dispute his right to the exclusive right of conte,
which unquestionably belongs to him as the possessor of the feud
to which it is annexed.
(8)
Title of Conte
delle Catene
or delli Mori
(granted to Pietro Gaetano
Perdicomati Bologna on the 20
January 1745 by Grand Master Emmanuel Pinto de Fonceca);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
disputed by Felicissimo Apap
and Luisa Strickland in her own name and on behalf of her son
Gerardo, to the exclusion of each other. The Commissioners noted
that the last holder of the Primogenitura and of the title of
Conte was Sir Nicolo’ Sceberras
Bologna KCMG and that one of the two suitors, Luisa, widown
of Captain Strickland, is the daughter of Maria Teresa Bonici
nee Sceberras, eldest married sister of the last possessor, and
that the other suitor, Marchese Felicissimo
Apap, is the son of the Maria Apap
nee Sceberras, youngest sister of the said Sir Nicolo’.
(From a detailed analysis, it was Gerardo who was to be
preferred as the primogenial
descendant).
(9)
Title of Barone
della Marsa (granted to Gio
Francesco Dorell Falzon on the 10
March 1775 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Maria Francesca widow of Filippo
Apap because that title was extinct
upon the death of Barone Dorell.
The Commissioners also noted that another title of Barone
della Marsa
(and earlier grant oto Ferdinando
Castelletto by Grand Master Vilhena
of the
12 June
1725
) was
also unsuccessfully claimed by Alessandro
Sceberras-Testaferrata-Damico-Inguanez
because that earlier grant had become extinct with the death of Ferdinando
Castelletti.
(10)
Title of Barone
di Buleben (granted to Gaetano
Azzopardi on the 23 July 1777 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan,
as extended in favour of Calcedonio,
his son, by Rescript of the same
Grand Master, on the 25 April 1778); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully claimed
by Calcedonio Azopardi-Zamitt
junior because that title became extinct with the death of Barone
Calcedonio Azzopardi senior on the
20 February 1799. By means of a later decision dated 1883 of the
British Secretary of State, authorization was given through the
grace and favour of the Crown to Calcedonio
Azopardi junior, his sons and
descendants, to hold the said title of Barone
di Buleben as it was held previously
and possessed by the “Primogeniti”
Azopardi possessors of a
“Primogenitura” erected in favour
of Barone Gaetano’s
children.
(11)
Title of Marchese
di San Giorgio (granted to Carlo Antonio
Barbaro on the 6 September 1778 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan,
as extended in favour of Gioacchino
Ermolao, his son, by Rescript
of the same Grand Master, on the 2 January 1779, and further
extended in favour of the latter’s
descendants in perpetuity, by Rescript
of the same Grand Master on the 5 June 1792); In their report
the Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully
claimed by Giorgio Crispo Barbaro
because his father Gustavo the first-born male descendant in the
primogenial line of the first titled
person, was still alive at the time. The Commissioners also
noted that the extension was to all of Gioacchino
Ermolao Barbaro’s
descendants in perpetuum.
(12)
Title of Conte
di Beberrua (granted to
Luigi Gatt on the 23 October 1783 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Nicolo’
Gatt because that title became extinct with the with the death
of the orginal grantee Luigi Gatt.
By means of a later decision dated 1883 of the British Secretary
of State, authorization was given through the grace and favour
of the Crown to Nicolo’ Gatt and
that it should continue to descend, “de primogenito
in primogenitum in infinitum”,
to the male descendants of the grantee.
(13)
Title of Marchese
del Fiddien (granted to Salvatore Mallia
Tabone on the 15 October 1785 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan,
as extended by Rescript of the same
Grand Master on the 15 June 1793); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Salvatore Mallia-Tabone, grandson of the first titled
person, as appears from the documents he has produced, and he is
the first-born descendant in the primogenial
line of the grantee.
(14)
Title of Marchese
della Taflia
(granted to Saverio Alessi
on the 13 November 1790 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Bernardo Alessi,
the grandson of the person first ennobled, and the first-born
male child in the family. The Commissioners also noted that
there is nothing in the patent whether the title should be
enjoyed by al the grantee’s descendants simultaneously, or by
one of them under the rule of primiogeniture.
(15)
Title of Conte
di Ghain Toffieha
(granted not by patent, but by Rescript,
to Ferdinando Teuma
Castelletti on the 7 January 1792 by
Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been
successfully claimed by Pietro Paolo
Teuma Castelletti,
as he proves by the documents produced before the Commission, to
be the grandson of the original grantee. The Commissioners also
noted that the grant was in the family always taken to be
limited to the first-born descendant only.
(16)
Title of Marchese
di Gnien Is-sultan (granted
to Filippo Apap
on the 1 December 1792 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Felicissimo
Apap-Pace-Bologna, who is the great
grandson of the person first ennobled. The Commissioners also
noted that this title was always held to be inheritable by the
first-born descendant only.
(17)
Title of Barone
della Grua
(granted to Saverio Carbott
Testaferrata on the 30 December 1794 by Grand Master Emmanuel de
Rohan); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title was claimed by Nicola Maria
Delicata-Carbott-Asciack, who
descends lineally from the grantee. The Commissioners noted that
the male descending line of the said Saverio
is extinct, for Saverio Carbott
left Giuseppe Carbott, of whom Saverio
Carbott Montalto was born; Saverio
Carbott junior, had no male issue,
but only a daughter, Giovanna Carbott
Montalto, the claimant’s mother. The question having been
reserved to the Secretary of State, the Commissioners did not
include the claimant’s name in the list. In their Supplemental
Report, the Commissioners opined that Nicola Maria Delicata
Carbott Asciak
established his claim because the order of succession settled in
the charter granting the title in question includes generally
the grantee’s male descendants, and therefore taking the law
relative to the transmission of lands (primogeniture) to be
applicable to the transmission of titles, that charter
comprehends the claimant who is descended from the grantee
through a female line.
(18)
Title of Conte
della Senia
(granted to Vincenzo Fontani
on the 6 June 1795 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Luigi Fontani,
the first-born and only surviving son of the said Conte
Vincenzo Fonato,
original grantee. The Commissioners also noted that there was no
reason for inquiring, at present, who will have the right to
bear the title after the present holder’s death, whether his
first-born son alone or simultaneously his daughters also.
(19)
Title of Marchese
di Ghain Kajet (granted to Gerolamo
Delicata on the
4 June
1796
by Grand
Master Emmanuel de Rohan). In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been
successfully claimed by Gaetano Delicata,
the first-born grandson in the primogenial
line of the original grantee
(20)
Fief of Ghariescem
and Tabia (granted to
Giacinto Cassia by deed of
compromise on the
14 April
1638
and
assented by Grand Master Lascaris
and his Council on the
16 April
1638
). In
their report the Commissioners stated that in view of explicit
declarations of the Grand Masters from 1659 to 1797, on the
occasions of the investiture of the fiefs, on which occasions
the persons invested were styled barons, the Commissioners did
not think themselves justified in refusing to Gio
Francesco Sant (who proves his descent from Giacinto
Cassia through a female line, and who is the possessor of the
fief “ta ghariescem”
and “Tabia”) the title of barone,
notwithstanding the non-existence of the original and authentic
grant of that title. The Commissioners also noted that for the
foregoing reasons the date of creation of the title is stated to
be
the 16th
of April 1638
.
(21)
Fiefs of Djar
el Bniet and Buqana
(the first granted to Francesco Gatto
by Louis King of Sicily on the 4 January 1350, the second
granted to Guglielmo Murina
by King Frederick on the 4 November 1372). In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully claimed
by Alessandro Sceberras-Testaferrata-Damico-Inguanez
(who proved his decent) because he was not the possessor of the
two fiefs in question, the same being actually held by Maria
Teresa Damico. In their report the Commissioners stated that
although no title of barone appears
to have been granted in the diplomas of 1350 and 1372, that
there are sufficient grounds for holding that at a later period
that title was conferred or recognized on
the 30th
April 1725
. The
Commissioners also noted that for the foregoing reasons the date
of creation of the title is stated to be the
4 January
1350
.
(22)
Title of Barone
di Cicciano in the
Kingdom
of
Naples
, (exact
date of creation unknown but held by Fabrizio
Testaferrata by Royal Assent on the
11 July
1695
). In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been
successfully claimed by Alessandro
Sceberras-Testaferrata-Damico-Inguanez,
the first-born son descending from the only surviving line of
the said Fabrizio Testaferrata. The
Commissioners also noted that the claimant’s lawful patronymic
is Sceberras, the other surnames affixed to his name being taken
from his maternal ancestors.
(23)
Title of Marchese
di San Vincenzo Ferreri in the
Kingdom
of
Naples
,
(conferred upon Mario Testaferrata on the
10
November 1716
by Philip
V, King of
Spain
and
Naples
). In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
claimed by Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici
Ghaxaq, first born son of Daniele
Testaferrata, junior, who was the eldest son of Gregorio
Augusto, first-born son of Daniele Testaferrata, senior, the
latter being the first-born son of Enrico
Testaferrata, who in a chirografo
dated 1 August 1718 is referred to as the first-born son of the Marchese
Mario by the late Anna De Noto. This
claim was opposed by Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, one of the
descendants of Gilberto Testaferrata, second-born son of the
original grantee who explained that Enrico
Testaferrata was disinherited in 1758 by the original grantee.
In addition, another claimant Gio
Paolo Testaferrata Olivier who subjected his claim to the
“hereditary quality” of the title claimed the title as one
of the heirs of the Enrico
Testaferrata. The Commissioners did not give any decision. (From
a detailed analysis, it appears that the claimants were in fact
talking about three different titles, one granted in 1716, another
in 1745 and another in 1749). By means of a later decision dated
1883 of the British Secretary of State, authorization was
given through the grace and favour
of the Crown to Gio. Paolo
Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain
and those of their respective eldest sons be successively
entered into the official list of Titolati,
with the honorary title of “Marchese”
as already enjoyed by their respective lineal ancestors.
(24)
Title of Marchese,
(conferred upon Mario Testaferrata on the
13 July
1717
by Victor
Amadeus, King of
Sicily
and Duke
of
Savoy
. In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Emmanuele
Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack, Lorenzo
Antonio Testaferrata, Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, Gio.
Paolo Testaferrata-Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain,
ne’ Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici, Enrico
Testaferrata, and Luigi Testaferrata because this title was not
duly registered and no documents had been exhibited to the
Commission except by Gio Paolo
Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain
to prove that the title had in fact been recognized by the Grand
Masters. However the documents so produced were deemed
insufficient by the Commissioners.
(25)
Title of Conte
(granted to Giuseppe Preziosi on the
19
October 1718
by Victor
Amadeus, King of
Sicily
, Duke
of
Savoy
). In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
claimed by Amadeo Preziosi,
Antonio Preziosi, Camillo
Preziosi, Alessandro Preziosi,
and Vincenzo Camilleri. Whilst the
Commissioners acknowledged Amadeo Preziosi
was the first-born son in the primogenial
line of the original grantee, the Commissioners did not give any
decision on the claims of Antonio Preziosi,
Camillo Preziosi,
Alessandro Preziosi, and Vincenzo
Camilleri who were all lineal descendants of the original
grantee. In their Supplemental Report, the Commissioners opined
that these other gentlemen were unsuccessful in their claim
because the this title must be deemed Sicilian and therefore
descendible to the firstborn son only, according to the order of
succession prescribed by the ius
feudale francorum
(26)
Title of Conte
di Mont’ Alto (conferred at the request of Bernardo
Piscopo on the
8
July 1720
by
Francis
I.
,
Duke of
Parma
and
amended on the
19
September 1724
).
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Monsignor Manduca-Piscopo-Macedonia
because it had become extinct upon the exhaustion of the line of
Bernardo’s nephew Felice Manduca
in whose favour the amendment was
contemplated.
(27)
Title of Conte
enjoyed by the Wizzini family,
(exact date of creation unknown but held by Ignazio
Wzzini in the year 1722). In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been
successfully claimed by Giorgio Serafino
Duca Comninoe
Lascaris Ciantar-Paleologo,
the first-born descendant of Ignazio
Wzzini. The Commissioners also noted
that the claimant has not shown that his family was in
possession of the title of ‘Conte” prior to the year 1722.
(28)
Title of Marquis
in the Kingdom of Castille (granted
to Gio Pio
de Piro on the 6 November 1745 by
Philip V, King of Spain, the title of Marquis being revived on
the 28 September 1870 by the Kingdom of Spain in favour
of Saverio De Piro);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Saverio
De Piro, in whose favour
the title was revived.
(29)
Title of Barone
(granted on the 31 March 1768 by Empress Maria Theresa,
Empress of Austria, upon Giorgio Fournier de Pausier);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Lazzaro
Sant-Fournier-de-Pausier because no
proof was made of the recognition of this title by the Grand
Masters, which might have supplied the want of registration.
(30)
Title of Count
in the kingdoms and provinces of the Austrian Empress (granted
to Giorgio Fournier de Pausier on
the 29 January 1770 by Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria); No
decision was reached by the Commissioners in either their report
or their supplemental report on the claim of Lazzaro
Sant-Fournier-de-Pausier, who
descends from the grantee’s granddaughter. The British
Secretary of State then permitted the claim of Lazzaro
Sant Fournier and his successors, for the purpose of precedence,
to take the place to which they would be entitled under the
principles of legal interpretation applicable to the grant if it
had emanated in 1770 from the Sicilian or Maltese Sovereign
authority.
(31)
Title of Count
in the Italian Provinces of the Austrian Empress (granted to Baldassare
Salvatore Sant on the 22 December 1770 by Maria Theresa, Empress
of Austria); In their report the Commissioners stated that this
title had been successfully claimed by Gio
Francesco Sant Cassia, who is the first born son of the Conte
Luigi Maria, eldest son of the Conte Gio
Francesco, who was the eldest son of the first titled person..
(32)
Title of Conte
(presumed to have been granted to Salvatore Manduca on the 28
December 1776 by one of the Dukes of Parma (probably Don
Ferdinand)); In their report the Commissioners stated that this
title was claimed by Monsignor Salvatore
Manduca-Piscopo-Macedonia, but did not give any decision as the
claimant had yet to produce evidence of the existence and
recognition of the title. It appears that by 1883, such proof
had been produced.
(33)
Title of Barone
di San Giovanni conferred upon Serafino
Ciantar on the 16 July 1777 by Ferdinand I, King of the Two Sicilies;
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Giorgio Serafino
Duca Comninoe
Lascaris Ciantar-Paleologo,
who is the first-born surviving descendant of the original
grantee.
(34)
Title of Barone
di San Paolino granted to Matteo
de Ribera on the
16 July
1638
, by the
President and Captain-General of
Sicily
by
authority of Philip IV, King of
Spain
and
Sicily
. In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Angiolino
Attard Montalto because the title was never registered and no
evidence was produced of its recognition on the part of the
sovereign authorities during the Government of the Knights of
Saint
John
.
(35)
Title of Conte
di Casandola (presumed to
have been granted by Charles II, King of
Spain
and
Sicily
, on
the 6th
January 1685
). In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Antonio Stagno
Navarra Muscati
because no proof was made of the existence of this title
(36)
Distinction of Knight
of the Order of Noble Tornearii and
Armigers of the Holy Roman Empire (granted motu
proprio at Vienna to Giacomo
Testaferrata de Robertis on the 6
November 1637 by Ferdinand 3rd Emperor Elect of the Romans and
of Germany); In their Report, the Commissioners stated that this
dignity received direct recognition from the Grandmasters but
were unsure whether this title, although recognised, was in any
way affected by the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in
1806. The dignity was claimed by various persons including Emmanuele
Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack, Lorenzo
Antonio Testaferrata, Guseppe
Testaferrata Viani, Gio. Paolo
Testaferrata-Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain,
ne’
Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici,
Enrico
Testaferrata, and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata. The
Commissioners also noted that a similar claim might be asserted
by all other male and female descendants of the aforesaid Don
Mario, who did not appear before them, the number of such descendants
amounts to no less than 157. The British Secretary of State
decided that there was no proof that the dignity ever received
recognition.
(37)
Distinction of Knight
of the Order of Noble Tornearii and
Armigers of the Holy Roman Empire (granted motu
proprio at Vienna to Massimiliano
Balzano on the 19 November 1698 by
Leopold I Emperor Elect of the Romans and of Germany); In their
Report, the Commissioners stated that this dignity received
direct recognition from the Grandmasters but were unsure whether
this title, although recognised, was in any way affected by the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The dignity was
claimed by Luisa, widow of Captain Walter Strickland, in her own
name and on behalf of her sons, who are all minors. The
Commissioners also noted that upon the same grounds this dignity
might be claimed by other descendants of Balzano,
who all bear family names different from that of the grantee,
the male line of Balzano having
become extinct, and the female descendants having married into
different families. The British Secretary of State decided that
there was no proof that the dignity ever received recognition.
(38)
Dignity of Patrician
of Messina (granted to Mariano Testaferrata on
the 20th
December 1553
by the Jurats
of the city or
municipality
of
Messina
). In
their Report, the Commissioners stated that this dignity was
unsuccessfully claimed by Pietro
Paolo Testaferrata-Abela-Moroni, Augusto Testaferrata Abela,
Monsignor Salvatore Grech-Delicata-Testaferrata
Cassia-De Piro, Emmanuele
Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack, Lorenzo
Antonio Testaferrata, Gio. Paolo
Testaferrata-Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain,
ne’ Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici, Enrico
Testaferrata, and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata because
independently of the circumstance that the dignity is a
municipal concession, the said instrument was never registered
nor have the claimants produced any proof of its ever been
recognized by the local sovereign.
(39)
Dignity of Patrician
of Messina (granted to Marchese
Don Mario Testaferrata Castelletti,
Don Daniele and Don Pandolfo
Testaferrata De Noto, and the Barone
P.P. Testaferrata Abela on the 28 August 1792 by the Senate of
Messina); In their Report, the Commissioners stated that this
dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Pietro
Paolo Testaferrata-Abela-Moroni, Augusto Testaferrata Abela,
Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, Gio.
Paolo Testaferrata-Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain,
ne’ Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici, Enrico
Testaferrata, and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata because
independently of the circumstance that the dignity is a
municipal concession, the said instrument was never registered
nor have the claimants produced any proof of its ever been
recognized by the local sovereign.
(40)
Dignity of Roman
Patrician (conferred upon Monsignor Don Leonardo Abela,
Bishop of Sidonia, Placido
and Alessandro Abela his brothers, and upon his three nephews ex
sorore Pietro
di Ferro, Ascanio Surdo
and Paolo Testaferrata on the 11th day of the calends of June of
the year 1590 by the Roman Senate); In their Report, the
Commissioners stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully
claimed by Pietro Paolo
Testaferrata-Abela-Moroni, Augusto Testaferrata Abela, Monsignor
Salvatore Grech-Delicata-Testaferrata
Cassia-De Piro, Lorenzo Antonio
Cassar-Desain, ne’
Testaferrata, Saverio De Piro
and (f) Felicissimo Apap-Pace-Bologna
because independently of the circumstance that the dignity is a
municipal concession, the said instrument was never registered
nor have the claimants produced any proof of its ever been
recognized by the local sovereign.
(41)
Dignity of Roman
Patrician (reputed to date 6 July 1674, origins
unknown); In their Report, the Commissioners stated that this
dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Emmanuele
Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack, and
Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain, ne’
Testaferrata, because no proof or document whatever have been
produced.
(42)
Dignity of Roman
Patrician (reputed to date
4 July
1744
, origins
unknown); In their Report, the
Commissioners stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully
claimed by Giorgio Serafino Duca
Comninoe Lascaris
Ciantar-Paleologo because no proof
or document whatever have been produced.
(43)
Dignity of Venetian
Patrician, (origins unknown); In
their Report, the Commissioners stated that this dignity was
unsuccessfully claimed by Giorgio Crispo
Barbaro because no proof or document whatever have been
produced.
(44)
Distinction of Knight
of the 1st class of Charles III.,
King of Spain,
(origins unknown). In their Report, the Commissioners stated
that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Luigi Fontani
because no proof or document whatever have been produced.
Moreover the Commissioners noted that this distinction cannot according
to the law then in force (1872) be borne in
Malta
without
Her Majesty’s permission.
(45)
Dignity of Messinese
Patrician, (origins unknown). In their Report, the
Commissioners stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully
claimed by Antonio Stagno-Navarra-Muscati-Falsoni
because no proof was made of the existence of this title
In
answering the Governor’s query on the use of two or more
surnames, the Commissioners noted that assumed surnames are
added after the lawful surname (patronymic), the lawful surname
being that coming from his father, grandfather, and other male
ancestors. The Commissioners reported that the practice adopted
by the “titolati” was to prefix
their respective titles to their name without any mention of
lands or other designation. The Commissioners observed that
those titolati who added maternal
surnames, did so for either of three reasons (i)
to show connection to the ennobled family (ii) to show
connection to a family from whom a primogenitura
derived, and (iii) for the simple expedient of
distinguishing the different branches of the family. In
preparing their list of allowed claims, the Commissioners stated
that they were disregarding the assumed surnames and refering
to the titolati merely by their
respective patronymics, thus Antonio Stagno
Navarra Muscati
was referred to as Antonio Stagno, Gio
Francesco Sant Cassia as Gio
Francesco Sant, and Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani as Giuseppe
Testaferrata. It is interesting to note however that the
Commissioners did not do so in regard to the claimants Mallia
Tabone and Teuma Castelletti.
As
a rule, the titles described above were merely honorific, that
is to say without property tenure. The requisite of wealth and
security of status which is implied in the Despuig
and Rohan rules, appears to have
prompted some of the grantees/their descendants to set up or
modify separate, individual entails known as fideicommissae
or “Primogenituri” so that such
entails, usually consisting of valuable buildings and large
tracts of lucrative land, work in tandem with the succession of
these otherwise, merely-honorific titles. In the Report,
references to such entails is found in the descriptions of Gomerino
(a Primogenitura described as having been formed in 1714),
Budaq (details whereof are not
specified in the Report), delle Catene
(an entail described as the Primogenitura Bologna), Bulebel
(a Primogenitura described as being existing in 1778), Mont’
Alto (a Primogenitura and Maggiorato
described as existing in 1725), and Manduca (referring to
the same Primogenitura in Mont’ Alto).
The
possession of a primogenitura
did not necessarily imply any right to nobility (Para. 155);
however it did prompt some successors to add the surnames of the
founders of the primogeniture to their own (para.
243). The Commissioners also identified one instance where a primogenitura
could continue to subsist even though the title associated
with the family that enjoyed it would have fallen into
extinction (Para. 187). In another instance, the remainder of a
title was granted specifically to follow the succession of an
entail set up by a third party (Para. 38), whilst in another
case (Para. 25) a question arose whether the grant of a title
was in fact somehow amended following the erection of an entail.
(N.B. The holding by entail was
eventually abolished in
Malta
in 1950).
(n.b.
Although the Commissioners do not state it, the apparent wealth
and lifestyle of the contemporary claimants appears to have been
of some concern to them. This is alluded to in their commentary
(Para. 235) on the very wide remainder of two hereditary
knighthoods which were granted motu
proprio by a foreign sovereign:- Among
such descendents there are people of all classes, and whilst
some live on income from their own property, others pursue mean
occupations and have slender means of support.
(n.b.
This apparent prejudice against claimants living in less
fortunate circumstances may perhaps explain why other titles
granted by the Grand Masters were not presented by the
respective descendents. The titles which were granted by Grand
Masters but not considered by the Report include: (1) Barone
di Frigenuini (to Alessandro Mompalao
on the 17 September 1737 by Grand Master Despuig;
regranted to Gaetano
Pisani on the 17 June 1773 by Grand
Master Ximenes) (2) Marchese
di Sciorp il-Hagin
(to Claudio Muscati Xiberras
on the 8 March 1776 by Grand Master Rohan),
(3) Barone (to Francesco
Gauci on the 6 September 1778 by Grand Master Rohan)
(4) Barone di San Cosmo
(to Ugolino Calleja
on the 27 November 1792 by Grand Master Rohan),
(5) Conte di Santi (to Romualdo
Barbaro on the 1 December 1792 by Grand Master Rohan),
(6) Conte di Meimun (to Saverio
Marchesi on the 8 March 1794 by
Grand Master Rohan). It appears that
no descendant of these grantees made any claim to the
Commissioners.)
Notwithstanding
their efforts to ensure a comprehensive study of these titles,
the Commissioners made a caveat that their report being
based on a list of titles prepared by an ad hoc Committee
of nobles formed on the occasion of a visit by the Prince of
Wales, cannot be assured to “correspond
to all the existing titles of nobility, and still less that the
thirty one gentlemen …(mentioned in the list)… represent all
those who, under certain conditions, would have the right of
claiming a title by virtue of the same grant. On the contrary,
as it will be hereafter remarked, many gentlemen not comprised
in that list are exactly in the same condition as others therein
mentioned. As no notice has appeared in the Government Gazette,
informing the public of the existence of our Commission, and
inviting all those who might have a right to a title of nobility
to lay their claims before us, our inquiry must necessarily be
incomplete, and limited to those titles which are included in
the list, or which after its presentation have been claimed. On
the other hand, we could not ascertain how far the committee are
invested with a representative character, with regards to the
interests of the Maltese nobility.” This
caveat was later regarded as unnecessary by Governor van Straubenzee
who stated that he had no reason to suspect that anyone having
any pretension to be a “Titolato”
was ignorant either of the existence of the Committee of Nobles,
or of the appointment of the Commission. He also commented that
the publication of a notice to the effect above stated would
hardly be consistent with the instructions contained by the
Despatch of the Secretary of State. At all events, he added, if
there were more “Titolati”
they were at liberty at any time to prove their claims, and take
the precedence to which they are entitled.
Whatever
criticism may be leveled at the 1878 report, to date it remains
the only impartial description and interpretation of those
titles - of which the Commissioners had cognizance - which were
related to the period when the Grand Masters ruled
Malta
. The
1878 report is a veritable repository of the grants,
circumstances and legal principles and it is the first-ever
careful enquiry into the origin, nature, and extent of Maltese
titles of nobility on an “as is” basis. Whilst conceding
that a later correspondence dated 1883 (in which the
Commissioners did not participate), allowed the revival of two
of the extinct titles and by delved deeper into certain
sub-formations approved by the Grand Masters, the 1878 report
remains the principal point of reference for a study on the
titles forming part of the Maltese Nobility.
In
terms of the Gieh ir-Repubblika
Act of 1975, titles of Nobility are not recognized in Malta
whilst although today one witnesses in Malta the use of the very
same nobiliary titles described in the aforesaid reports, such
use is neither legal, nor regulated, nor protected. The
implication of the ACT is that these titles, which are
undoubtedly part of
Malta’s
heritage, are now subjected to private interests which may, or
may not, allow correct transmission or even revive a title which
has become extinct. A more complete frustration of
Malta’s
heritage can hardly be conceived.
The
Report of 1878 can be criticised from various angles,
particularly in view of the Commissioner’s admission that its
own findings could not be looked upon as a complete
representation of all potential claims. Despite all this valid
and compelling criticism, it is submitted nonetheless that the
report should be the basis of formulating any argument for the
purposes of reconciling Maltese historic titles with our
National Heritage.