Maltese nobility

Maltese nobility From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [edit] The Maltese Nobility

According to the Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims of the Maltese Nobility (published 1878), there are three categories of titles of nobility which enjoy precedence in Malta, the first being those created by the Grand Masters of the Order of Saint John during its Government of Malta (1530-1798), the second are those created by previous sovereigns of the islands but were accepted by the government of the Order, and the third are those which were bestowed upon Maltese in foreign jurisdictions but were accepted by the government of the Order. The three categories are described below. The Commission also concluded that the Grand Masters assigned no place to Titolati who had obtained titles from foreign sovereigns, but whose patents were not duly registered or at least directly recognised by the Grand Masters during their government of the Maltese Islands.

Background – Early Period

In the year 991, a census of the Maltese Islands, taken by order of the Fatimid Emir, officially counted 14,972 Muslims and 6,339 Christians. The Muslims refortified the old Roman capital and renamed it Mdina (or in Arabic, “Medina”). They constructed some coastal fortifications on the peninsula of Birgu where what the Grand Castello a mare (or today’s Fort St. Angelo) would later be built.

Meanwhile, at one point in time in history some Norman soldiers based in Messina decided to push southward, first into Sicily and eventually into Malta. In 1091, the Normans wrested control of Malta from the benign Arab domination. The Norman lunge had little to do with religion. In fact, a large part of the Norman military consisted of Muslims and Count Roger consistently resisted ecclesiastic pressure to convert them to Christianity. The Normans, moreover, did not restore the bishopric of Malta. Though the restoration of a line of Catholic bishops in Malta has often been alleged to have resulted from the arrival of the Normans, documentary evidence for this is lacking. There is documentation that a policy of religious tolerance existed under the Normans who are also on record for even allowing an emir to remain power with the understanding that he would pay an annual tribute to the new overlords in mules, horses and armaments.

Although the Knights that were to rule Malta some centuries later (1530-1798) did not permit Maltese – including even members of the local nobility – to become Knights, some Maltese served within their clergy. Gian Francesco Abela, a local patrician who eventually became the Order’s vice-Chancellor, is regarded as the father of Maltese historiography with his publication (1647) “Descrizione di Malta”. Unfortunately, Abela was quite willing to distort Malta’s history in the interest of deemphasizing her historic links with Africa and Islam. Abela’s determination that Malta be portrayed innately European and Christian at all cost, eventually incorporated into popular thinking about Maltese history a number of false traditions. Other prominent Maltese subsequently contributed to popular folklore and legends which held that Muslims of African origin had never inhabited Malta in large numbers. These distortions prevailed until the 20th century when they were steadily disproved by cogent and forceful documentary evidence. However in the interim period one comes across various politico-legal arguments which were strongly influenced by Abela’s conclusions. Parts of the 1878 report are based on Abela’s Descrizione..

In any event, in his book Abela lists a number of notable, or “noble” families, and gives various descriptions of varying lengths about each one. Whatever reservation one can have about Abela’s treatise, it must be accepted that at least as at 1647 there were in fact a number of prominent Maltese families who claimed a degree of antiquity and prominence. In this regard, many of these claims can be corroborated by earlier land grants and municipal appointments but it remains unclear whether the 14th century leading, local families were in fact of the European stock as described by the 17th century Abela.

Following the Royal Commissioners’ Report, it does not appear that any titles of Nobility claimed in 1878, actually existed in Malta as titles created by grant or patent before the advent of the Knights: Undoubtedly there were possessors of land in Malta who held by military tenure, under the Kings of Sicily. But mere military tenure even by tenants in capite whether in England or Sicily, did not and does not constitute a privilege of honour (“peerage”). The Grand Masters upheld this view by practically creating a new title as a recognition of established custom, in a case where a holder of land by military service had vulgarly come to be known as a Baron, and the Sovereign had been induced to acquiesce. Large landowners in Sicily were often called “Barons” without any justification, and obsequious lawyers and officials habitually called their clients as they desired to be addressed; Malta was no exception..

Thus, although according to strict law, no titles are traceable in Malta created by an existing title of Nobility previous to the rule of the Grand Masters, the effect of the Royal Commission was that certain titles having their legal foundation in a recognition by the Grand Masters were ante-dated, for purposes of precedency only, to coincide with the date of grants of land under a military tenure which is inferior to a baronial tenure.

Background – Local Institutions

The Consiglio Popolare (People’s Council) was established before the advent of the Knights in Malta. No records are extant of the initial period of this institution and although it was certainly in existence since the 13th century, the first mention of the Consiglio occurred when King Alphonsus of Aragon mortgaged the Maltese islands to Antonio Cardona in 1420. Originally its authority extended to matters of considerable importance and public interest including the prerogative to accept, or reject, any decrees or proclamations which were made by the Government of Sicily in connection with the Maltese Islands. Other known functions of the Consiglio were to ask for redress of grievances and local legislation and to send envoys (referred to as Ambassadors) empowered to address the throne. Under the Knights’ rule the Consiglio Popolare lost most of its importance since many of its functions were steadily curtailed or abolished outright. During this period the People’s council was made up of the Capitano della Verga (or Hakem), the Secreto, members (jurati) of the Universita’ in the legal, medical, fiscal, military and administrative spheres; representatives and both the trade guilds and local casals also formed part of the Council . Apart from these officially appointed members, in terms of Despuig’s 1739 legislation all local title holders whether enfeoffed or otherwise, and all their male to male descendants, and certain foreign title holders were eligible for appointment according to the precedence set by Grand Master Despuig. In this way the cadet lines enjoyed a right of representation. The Hakem had 3 important functions, he was the Governor of the city of Notabile (Mdina and Rabat), the Colonel of the Militia and he was the High judge with jurisdiction in all local courts with the exception of those of the harbour cities. The appointment was annual and under the Knights’ rule it was the Grand Master’s prerogative to approve the appointment of the elected person who was invariably a member of that class to which the principal citizens belonged. The original Universita’ was that of Notabile, governed by a magistracy of four Jurati. They assisted the Hakem who was not supposed to act without their concurrence. Their appointment was annual and they were chosen from among the nobles, eminent citizens, priests, merchants and craftsman. Prominent amongst the Notabile appointees was the Inguanez family who held a number of fiefs. There is historic record of all jurats being listed during their appointment as “Nobile” which may be taken to indicate a wider nobility. However, it appears that this was in fact an abusive practice, and was eventually outlawed by Grand Master Vilhena with his 1725 legislation which restricted the use of the titles of “Most Illustrious” and “Noble” in favour of some families only. Another Universita’ was established by Grand Master Homedes first at Birgu, later transferred to Valletta. Its purpose was to curtail the authority of the Notabile Jurats. The family background of the Valletta Jurats was somewhat different to that of Notabile. Prominent amongst the Valletta appointees was the Testaferrata family who held a number of honours which were not dependant on property tenure. Background –Legislation In 1523 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, granted Malta and its dependencies, to the Knights of St John who were responsible for the government of the island from 1530. The terms of the grant included a clause under which the island would revert to the Sicilian Crown if it were abandoned by the Order. Suzerainty over Malta was retained by the King of Sicily in the sense that the annual payment of a falcon was made as a feudal due, but, in reality Malta, under the Knights, had the principal attributes of a sovereign state. By 1798 the Sicilian Crown came to be succeeded by the King of Naples. The Grand Masters legislated on matters relating to the Maltese Nobility as a general body on 16 September 1739 (Despuig) and the 17 March 1795 (Rohan). The legislation of the 30 April 1725 (Vilhena) is regarded as specific to the individual beneficiaries mentioned further below. These legislations are all mentioned in the Commissioners’ Report. The 1739 legislation reads as follows: “The Master of the Hospital at Jerusalem and of the Holy Sepulchre – To remove differences about precedency among the persons who will be appointed to the Juratships of the Universities of Notabile and Valletta, it is our will and pleasure, and we ordain and command, that they shall all be preceded by the undermentioned and that among the latter the precedency be regulated in the following order, namely: First: Any person who was Capitano della Verga of the said City Notabile and of our Island of Malta. Second: the Titolato having a title founded on a fief really existing here, though he may not be in possession of it. Third: The Titolato who has not a title founded upon a fief really existing in our dominions, on the registration of the title in the Chancery of our Religion, and in the High Court of the Castellania, and the payment, for the respective registrations, of 116 scudi of our money, to be divided in equal shares between the said Chancery and Castellania. Fourth: A descendant in the male line from any person who was Capitano della Verga, if he lives on rents of his own property, and if his intermediate ancestors lived also on the rents of their own property. Fifth: A descendant in the male line from a Titolato, with title founded on a fief really existing here, if he lives on rent of his own property, and if his intermediate ancestors lived also on such rent. Sixth: Any person who was First Jurat of Notabile. Seventh: Any person who was First Jurat of Valletta. Eighth: The most senior Jurat of the University to which he belongs. Ninth: Any person who was Judge of Appeal, Criminal Judge, or Civil Judge of the Court of the Castellania, or the Courts Capitanale and Governatoriale. Tenth: A Doctor of Law, or a Doctor of Medicine. We declare that, among persons of equal rank, the antiquity of the original title must be attended to, and that a person who was a Jurat, if he be appointed Console di Mare, shall have precedence over other Consoli, and amongst the latter the precedency shall be regulated by the antiquity of the appointment. Given at the Palace, 16th September 1739 (Signed) Despuig”

The 1795 legislation reads as follows: “The Master of the Hospital at Jerusalem, of the Holy Sepulchre and of the Order of St. Anthony of Vienna – It being a principle universally acknowledged that the lustre of Nobility principally depends on its greater antiquity, nothing is more just and reasonable than that the older Nobles should have precedence over the more recent. We have therefore determined to ordain that, in regulating the precedency among the Nobles of this our dominion, whether first-born or cadets indiscriminately, regard shall be had only to the greater or lesser antiquity of the title by which their family was ennobled, whether that title had been granted by ourselves or by our predecessors, or by foreign princes, provided however, it was registered in our Chancery, and in the High Court of the Castellania. In cases, however, of grants bearing the same date, the person possessing two or more titles, shall have precedence over another who has less titles, according to the rule established by the magisterial decree of our lamented predecessor, Grand Master Despuig of the 16th September 1739, which in any part not inconsistent with our present enactment, we confirm in its entirety. Given at the Palace, 17th March 1795 (signed) Rohan.” The 1725 legislation reads as follows: “Of Titles – Prammatica – His Most Serene Highness in virtue of the present enactment, about to be of perpetual value, wishing to remedy the abuses and inconveniences for time introduced in the matter of title, - orders and commands that from today henceforth, no Advocate, Notary, or Registrar of this our Dominion, shall dare to give the title of “Most Illustrious” or “Noble” in writings, contracts, or public documents to any of our vassals, with the exception of the “Capitano della Verga”, pro tempore, and the two Jurats of our city of Notabile and Valletta, and the Milite Barone Marco Antonio Inguanez, our Feudatory, with the Baroness Inguanez, his wife, and their descendants, under pain in case of contravention, as regards advocates of suspension, and as regards Notaries and Registrar, of privation of office, and other penalties at pleasure of His Most Serene Highness, 30th day of the month of April 1725. The present enactment was read and published in the usual and customary public places in the cities of Valletta, Vittoriosa, Senglea and Burmula with sound of trumpet, the people in part assembled, listening and understanding the Registrar himself M.C. Castelle reading, and Joseph Vella, crying in a loud and intelligible voice.” Titles of Nobility in Malta - First Category

With little exception, each title created by the Grand Masters is regulated by its own grant. Some grants were made in perpetuity, others on a personal basis, some allow females to hold them and some limit succession to males only. Most of the hereditary ones are subject to investitures. However Montalto reports that although some successors failed to get invested, this did not always bring about a forfeiture.

Of those grants which provided for a remainder , the earlier ones allow only singular succession whilst some of the later ones (notably creations by Grand Master Rohan) had wider remainders.

The remainder of some grants was made subject to private foundations already held by the grantees, e.g. In their Report the Royal Commissioners identified the title of Conte della Catena as one which was to follow the order of succession stated in a masculine primogeniture established by the Canon Alessandro Perdicomati Bologna.

The Royal Commission remarked that very few titles of this category require the tenure of the property, explaining that in most cases the titles were merely honorific, the property/fief remaining in possesion of the Government or of its allodial owner, e.g. although the title of Barone di Budac was created in 1716 in favour of Gio Pio De Piro, the property by that name – the fief of Budac - which had previously been enfeoffed in favour of Nicolo Cilia in 1644 was not granted to the Depiro family.

Even if possession of the property coincided in the person of the posessor of the title of nobility of the same name, the later transfer of that property did not affect the tenure of the title of nobility, e.g. when Beatrice Testaferrata transferred the allodial fief of Gomerino unto her son in 1713, she remainded officially in possession of the title of Barone di Gomerino as results from the acts of 1725 and 1737. TABLE 1. List of titles and investitures made by the Grand Masters (N.b. there are variances of 1 year in regard to some titles: This is because in the libri bullarum and libri conciliorum of the Archives of the Order, the reckoning of time differs from other dating. The years begin on the 25 March for the new year, and therefore between Christmas (25 December) and Lady Day (25 March), the reckoning of time just proceeds with the current year, adding the term ab Incarnatione. Thus 1 January 1501 would be reckoned as 1 January 1500 ab Incarnatione and so on until 24 March next day will bw 25 March 1501.) 1. Barone Testaferrata di Gomerino created by Grand Master Perellos in favour of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata (jointly), on the 24 December 1710 (Reference A.O.M. 514, ff. 129v-134v.). They were invested on the 10 January 1711. 2. Barone De Piro di Budac created by Grand Master Perellos in favour of Gio Pio De Piro on the 23 April 1716 (A.O.M. 520, ff. 151r, 161r-161v.). He was invested on 25 April 1716. 3. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Milite Barone Marc' Antonio Inguanez and his wife Baroness Inguanez on the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation) 4. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Barone di Cicciano Fabritio Testaferrata and his mother the Baroness of Gomerino Beatrice Cassia Testaferrata on the 11 May 1725, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 5. Barone Castelletti della Marsa created by Grand Master Antonio Manoel de Vilhena in favour of Ferdinando Castelletti on the 12 June 1725 (A.O.M. 529 ff. 140r-140v). He was invested on 19 June 1725. 6. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri Mario Testaferrata on the 9 July 1725, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 7. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Carlo Falzon and Eleonora Testaferrata on the 13 June 1726, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 8. Barone Galea Feriolo di San Marciano created by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena in favour of Diego Antonio Galea Feriol on the 14 June 1726 (A.O.M. 530, ff. 135r-135v) . He was invested on the 17 August 1726. 9. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Barone di San Marciano Diego Galea Feriolo on the 2 September 1726, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 10. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Barone Gio Pio de Piro on the 19 March 1727 11. Barone Viani della Tabria created by Grand Master Vilhena in favour of Isidoro Viani on the 11 December 1728 (A.O.M. 532, ff. 139v-140r). He was invested on the 21 December 1728. 12. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Canon Giuseppe di Costanzo and Donna Rosa widow of Gio Battista di Costanzo on the 24 May 1729, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 13. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Barone Isidoro Viani on the 27 June 1730, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 14. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Baldassare Bonnici on the 13 January 1732, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 15. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on Calcerano Mompalao, Giuseppe and Caterina Cuschieri on the 6 March 1732, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 16. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena on D. Vincenzo Platamone and Antonio Bonnici (??) sometime between 27 June 1730 and 13 January 1732, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). (implied: see Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In Continuation of C-3812) presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty, May 1886, sub-Enclosure in Enclosure No. 3 in the letter from Governor Simmons to The Earl of Derby dated 28 October 1884) 17. Investiture of the title of Barone di Gomerino by Grand Master Ramon Despuig in favour of the Noble Ercole Martino Testaferrata on the 1 May 1737 (A.O.M. 541, ff. 184r) 18. Barone Bonnici della Culeja created by Grand Master Ramon Despuig in favour of Ignazio Bonnici on the 2 June 1737 (A.O.M. 541, ff. 188r-188v.) . 19. Barone Gatto di Benuarrat created by Grand Master Ramon Despuig in favour of Saverio Gatto on the 18 August 1737 (A.O.M. 541, ff, 191r-191v.) He was invested on the same day. 20. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred by Grand Master Ramon Despuig on Barone Saverio Gatt on the 23 August 1737, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 21. Barone Mompalao di Frigenuini (First Creation) created by Grand Master Ramon Despuig in favour of Alessandro Mompalao on the 17 September 1737 (A.O.M. 541, ff. 197r-197v). He was invested on the same day. 22. The right to be styled Illustrissimo was conferred by Grand Master Pinto Manuel Pinto de Fonseca on Signor Ludovico Bianchi on the 25 October 1741, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 23. Conte Muscati Falsone Navarra della Bahria created by Grand Master Pinto Manuel Pinto de Fonseca in favour of Ignazio Muscati Falsone Navarra on the 16 May 1743 (A.O.M. 547, ff. 165r-166r). He was invested on the 23 May 1743 24. Conte Perdicomati Bologna della Catena created by Grand Master Pinto Manuel Pinto de Fonseca in favour of Pietro Gaetano Perdicomati Bologna on the 20 January 1745. The grant subjected the title to a private agnatic entail established by Canon Don Alessandro Perdicomati Bologna (A.O.M. 549, ff. 174r-174v). He was invested on the 20 January 1745 25. Investiture of the title of Barone di San Marciano by Grand Master Pinto Manuel Pinto de Fonseca in favour of the Noble Lorenzo Galea Feriol on the 9 June 1749 (A.O.M. 553, ff. 133v). 26. Barone Azzopardi Casteletti della Marsa (Second creation) created by Grand Master Pinto Manuel Pinto de Fonseca in favour of Giovanni Antonio Azzopardi Castelletti on the 4 December 1753 (A.O.M. 557, ff. 175r-176v.). He was invested on the 13 January 1754 27. Barone Pisani di Frigenuini (Second Creation) created by Grand Master Francisco Ximenes de Texada in favour of Gaetano Pisani on the 17 June 1773 (A.O.M. 577, ff. 195v-196r). He was invested on the 21 June 1773 28. Marchese Muscati Xiberras di Sciorp il-Hagin created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Claudio Muscati Xiberras on the 8 March 1776 (A.O.M. 579, ff 344r-344v). He was invested on the 14 March 1776. 29. Barone Dorell Falzon della Marsa (Third creation) created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Gio Francesco Dorell Falzon on the 10 March 1776 (A.O.M. 579, ff. 345r-346v). He was invested on the 14 March 1776. 30. Barone Azzopardi di Buleben created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Gaetano Azzopardi on the 23 July 1777 (A.O.M. 581, ff. 246v-247r). He was invested on the 27 July 1777. 31. The title of Barone di Buleben was extended on the 25 April 1778 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc 32. Marchese Barbaro di San Giorgio created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Carlo Antonio Barbaro on the 6 September 1778 (A.O.M. 582, ff. 282v-283v). He was invested on the 23 September 1778. 33. The title of Marchese di San Giorgio was extended by a rescript of Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc on the 2 February 1779. 34. Barone Gauci created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Francesco Gauci on the 23 December 1781 (A.O.M. 585, ff. 107r.) 35. Investiture of the title of Barone di Benuarrat by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of of Emmanuele Muscati on behalf of his wife Paola on the 20 February 1783 (A.O.M. 1194, ff. 49r-50r, 52r-57r). 36. Conte Gatt di Beberrua created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Luigi (Ludovico) Gatt on the 23 October 1783 (A.O.M. 587, ff. 294r-299r). He was invested on the 14 December 1783 37. Marchese Mompalao della Taflia created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Gio Battista Mompalao on the 25 October 1783 (A.O.M. 587, ff, 294v, 299r). He was invested on the 24 December 1783 38. Investiture of the title of Barone della Tabria by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani on the 22 October 1784 (A.O.M. 589, ff, 323r). 39. Marchese Mallia Tabone del Fiddien created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Salvatore Mallia Tabone on the 15 October 1785 (A.O.M. 591, ff. 263r-264r) . He was invested on 3 November 1785 40. Investiture of the title of Barone di Buleben by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Calcedonio Azopardi on the 10 August 1788. (A.O.M. 582, ff. 264r) 41. Marchese Alessi della Taflia (second creation) created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Saverio Alessi (A.O.M. 609, ff, 183v-184r). He was invested on 17 November 1790 42. Investiture of the title of Barone di San Marciano by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of the Noble Giovanni Galea Feriol on the 24 November 1791 (A.O.M. 627, unpag.). 43. Conte di Ghain Toffieha created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc, by rescript, in favour of Ferdinando Teuma Castelletti on the 7 January 1792 (A.O.M. 612, f. 198r). He was invested on the 19 December 1792 44. The title of Marchese di San Giorgio was extended again by a rescript of Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc on the 5 June 1792. 45. Barone Calleja di San Cosmo created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Ugolino Calleja on the 27 November 1792 (A.O.M. 613, f, 187v). He was invested on the 19 December 1792. 46. Marchese Apap di Gnien Is-Sultan created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Filippo Apap on the 1 December 1792 (A.O.M. 613, ff. 188r.) He was invested on the 19 December 1792. 47. The title of Marchese del Fiddien was extended in part by a rescript of Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc on the 15 June 1793. 48. Conte Barbaro di Santi created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Romualdo Barbaro on the 14 January 1794 (A.O.M. 615, ff, 127v-127v). He was invested on 12 February 1794. 49. Conte Marchesi di Meimun created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Saverio Marchesi on the 8 March 1794 (A.O.M. 615, ff, 134v-135r). He was invested on the 2 April 1794. 50. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred on Dr. Ugolino Bonnici on the 5 September 1794, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). 51. Barone Carbott Testaferrata della Grua created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Saverio Carbott Testaferrata on the 30 December 1794 (A.O.M. 617, ff. 135r). He was invested on the 4 February 1795 52. Conte Fontani della Senia created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Vincenzo Fontani on the 6 June 1795 (A.O.M. 619, ff. 87v-88r). 53. Marchese Delicata di Ghain Kajet created by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in favour of Geronimo Delicata on the 4 June 1796. (A.O.M. 621, f. 75-75v). He was invested on the 13 June 1796 54. The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile was conferred on Dr. Saverio Crispo (??) sometime between 5 September 1794 and 11 June 1798, by decree amending the legislation of the 30 April 1725. (See 1725 legislation). (implied: see Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In Continuation of C-3812) presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty, May 1886, sub-Enclosure in Enclosure)

To this list one adds the fief of Ghariescem et Tabia (see Second Category, below).

Titles of Nobility in Malta – Second Category

In their Report the Royal Commissioners made a distinction between a noble fief and a simple fief. The latter is granted without entitlement of any honour whatsoever, whilst the holder of the former is by Custom held to be a Baron. In addition to this, a money grant was made in lieu of a fief. In return for the fief or money grant the recipient was to render services to the crown, usually by way of military service or supplies of horses and weapons.

The honours implied in noble fiefs are succeeded by qualified descent, not necessarily by Primogeniture: to succeed the honour, one must be in possession of the same fief originally granted to the ancestor who first received it. Fiefs could not be owned but held: they could at times be forfeited, confiscated or extinguished. If the property is lost then the honours are extinguished. The table at the end of this article shows how many fiefs in Malta were held by different families at short time intervals.

The Commissioners identified only one extant fief which devolved directly from the Aragonese sovereigns of Malta, namely the fief of Djar el-Bniet et Bucana. A 19th century claim maintained that the fief of Ghariescem et Tabia was also granted by the Aragonese kings. However, it was proven that the original fief had been extinguished and that the claimant could only make a claim on the basis of a later grant in fief made by the Grand Masters. The Commissioners did not consider any of the other fiefs which had been made by the Kings of Sicily and the Grand Masters. Moreover the Commission did not consider any money grants granted in lieu of a property tenure. In the report we find reference to the fief of Budack as one being of a very old erection granted out to the Proto Medico Nicolo Cilia, by whose death it had reverted to the Crown, and was on the 22 December 1646 reconferred by Grand Master Juan de Lascaris-Castellar upon Silvestro Fiteni (on behalf of his wife Generosa daughter of Cesara Passalacqua, see also A.O.M. 471, ff. 273r-273v). Fiteni was invested on the 22 December 1646. Similar reference is made to the fief of Gomerino described as granted out by Frederick King of Sicily to Guglielmo Surdo, and after having been purchased by Grand Master Giovanni La Valette, they were conferred not as a fief but as allodial property by Grand Master Wignacourt to Gio Maria Cassia, from whom they were conveyed to Beatrice Cassia who together with her husband Paolo Testaferrata were jointly granted a title (Baron) by the name of that property.

Modern historians note that the oldest known fief in Malta was that of Tabria held by the Barba family in 1316. However, data (see Table 7) is incomplete and there may be even older fiefs.

The investitures of the seventeenth century were not only made the Grand Masters but also by the Council of the Order, as show below:-

TABLE 2. List of grants and investitures of fiefs by the Council of the Order (N.b. For explanations of variances of 1 year, see above): 1. By virtue of a grant dated 14 April 1638, the land ta ghariescem was ceded in fief to Giacinto Cassia. He was invested by the Council of the Order (Grand Master Juan de Lascaris-Castellar) on the 16 April 1638 (A.O.M. 467, ff. 265r) 2. Investiture by the Council of the Order (Grand Master Juan de Lascaris-Castellar) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia in favour of Magnificus Gio. Antonio Cassia on the 11 January 1655 (A.O.M. 475, ff. 283r) 3. Investiture by the Council of the Order (Grand Master Martin de Redin y Cruzat) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia in favour of Magnificus Pietro Cassia on the 13 August 1658 (A.O.M. 476, ff. 208r) 4. Investiture by the Council of the Order (Grand Master Gregorio Carafa) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia in favour of Domenica Cassia, wife of Stanislao Xara, filia vero quondam Magnifici Petri Cassia J.U.D. olim Baronis de Ghariescem et Tabia on the 21 August 1689; 5. Investiture by Council of the Order (Grand Master Marcantonio Zondadari) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia: quod quidem Pheudum ad eum uti dicta quondam Nobilis Baronissae Domonicae Cassia et Xara filium primogenitum pervenit, ad quod supradictum Nobilem Petrum Paulum Xara on the 28 August 1721 (A.O.M. 525, ff. 119v) 6. Investiture by Council of the Order (Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia in favour of Nobilis Stanislaus Xara quondam Nobilis Petri Pauli Xara Pheudi de Ghariescem et Tabia Baronis filius primogenitus on the 8 April 1749. (A.O.M. 553, ff. 132r) 7. Investiture by Council of the Order (Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim) of the fief Ghariescem et Tabia in favour of Felicita Chiara Sant filia vero primogenita quondam Magnificae Antoniae Bonnici sororis secundogenita quondam Magnifici Stanislai Xara olim Baronis De Ghariescem et Tabia on the 20 August 1797 (A.O.M. 627)

Titles of Nobility in Malta – Third Category

In terms of the 1739 legislation, as confirmed in 1795, for any foreign title to enjoy precedence it had to be registered in Malta against payment of a fee. TABLE 3. List of foreign titles registered at the Cancelleria of the Grand Masters (N.b. For explanations of variances of 1 year, see above): 1. Conte Preziosi created by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily, Duke of Savoy &c, and Perpetual Vicar of the Empire, by a patent given at Rivoli on the 19th October 1718 in favour of Giuseppe Preziosi and registered in Malta on the 20 June 1720. (Reference A.O.M. 524, f. 139r) 2. Conte Piscopo di Mont' Alto in the Duchy of Parma , together with the fief of Monte Alto, created by Francuis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma at Piacenza on the 8 July 1720 at the request of Bernardo Piscopo and registered in Malta on the 2 September 1721. (A.O.M. 525, f. 111r-112r). 3. Marchese De Piro in the Kingdom of Castile created by Philip V, King of Spain, by a patent of the 6 November 1742, in favour of the Barone Gio Pio De Piro and registered in Malta on the 8 October 1743. (A.O.M. 627, unpaginated). 4. Documents (including proof of descent from the “most august Paleologo family of Comneno Angelo Lascaris and Duca, of the Emperors of the East”) concerning to the reception of The Patrician of Rome Don Salvatore Wzzini Paleologo, a professed knight of the Military Order of Saint James in Portugal, and the Count Ignazio Francesco Wzzini Paleologo into the Military Order of Saint James and the Order of the House of Avis in the Kingdom of Portugal were registered in Malta on the 4th July 1744, exempted of payment of the fee. (A.O.M. 548) 5. An amendment to the title of Conte di Mont’ Alto is assented by the Duke of Parma on the 19 September 1724, and registration was effected in Malta on the 14 July 1744 (A.O.M. 548, f. 161v.) 6. Conte Fenech Bonnici granted by Pope Benedict XIV in favour of Baldassare Fenech Bonnici on the 12th June 1748 and registered in Malta on the 27 April 1750. (A.O.M. 554, ff. 173r-173v) 7. Conte Fournier in the Kingdom and Provinces of Germany, conferred by Empress Maria Theresa by a patent given at Vienna on the 29 January 1770 to Giorgio Fournier de Pausier and registered in Malta on the 2 December 1775. (A.O.M. 579, f. 349v) 8. Conte Sant in the Italian Provinces annexed to the German Empire, conferred by Empress Maria Theresa by a patent given at Vienna on the 22 December 1770 to Salvatore Baldassare Sant and registered in Malta on the 12 December 1775. (A.O.M. 579, f. 351v). 9. Barone Ciantar di San Giovanni created by Ferdinand I. King of the Two Sicilies, by a patent given at Palermo on the 16 July 1777, in favour of Serafino Ciantar and registered in Malta on the 17 January 1778. A.O.M. 581, ff. 278v-279r

Abolition of the People’s Council, Decline and Capitulation of the Order

On 17 May 1777 Grand Master Rohan made the unpopular decision to suspend indefinitely the Consiglio Popolare.

The Rohanite period saw a fast decline in the Order’s decorum and influence. Grand Master Rohan witnessed a deterioration of morality within his Order’s ranks. In 1792 the Order suffered a calamitous loss of property in revolutionary France at the behest of the new government of that country. The majority of the members by this time were French, who had suffered personal losses during the French Revolution. The last Grand Master to rule Malta, von Hompesch, was elected in 1797.

On 10 June, 1798 Napoleon Bonaparte the troops made four landings, one on Gozo and three on Malta at St. Paul’s Bay, St. Julian’s Bay and Marsaxlokk. The islands defenses were rapidly over-run. The old capital Mdina surrendered without a shot having been fired. Meanwhile Hompesch dithered and shut himself up inside his palace at Valletta. He was pressed to surrender, first by a deputation of Maltese nobles led by the Marchese Mario Testaferrata Castelletti and leading citizens of Malta who implored him to spare them the horrors of a siege. A secret document was dispatched to Citizen Bonaparte to request an immediate cease-fire. It was signed by 137 persons, of whom 39 were Maltese nobles.

Mario Testaferrata Castelletti was indisputably perceived by the Grand Master as the head of the Maltese nobility. His credentials as a titled nobleman rested on a claim to a title of marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri created in 1716, another marchional grant dated 1717 and a hereditary knighthood of the Holy Roman Empire created in 1637. He was only descended in a junior line but a family disinheritance had favoured the line of which he was head. That issue was settled in Malta by public deed dated 1772. In 1792 he was further ennobled with the title of Patrician of Messina. His son Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani was invested with the Maltese title of Baron of Tabria in 1784.

The act of capitulation was co-signed on the 11 June by Mario Testaferrata and 6 others including Dr. Benedetto Schembri (the chief legal advisor to the Order), thereby ending the Order’s tenure of the Maltese Islands. In terms of the act of capitulation, the rights to free exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion and the property and privileges of the Maltese were preserved.

Grand Master von Hompesch was exiled to Trieste, while the other knights were ordered to abandon the island shortly after. Some turned to Russia and the Russian Tsar Paul I who had on the 10 December 1797 become “Protector of the Order of Malta” was quick to welcome them.

The French period, and Maltese Insurrection.

General Vaubois was left in command of the island as Military Governor when the French force departed for Egypt several days later. A Commission of Government was appointed consisting of the Military Governor of the Islands, the Commissioner, the President of the Civil Commission, the Private Secretary to the Commissioner ad seven members (one of whom was a nobleman, Baron Jean-Francois Dorell and another was the aforesaid Dr. Benedetto Schembri) . In addition the Maltese islands were divided into ten municipalitites, 8 for Malta 2 for Gozo.

The new Government went on to criminalize the use of any mark or title of nobility and make many progressive reforms in law and education. However the French caused local outrage particularly by plundering many churches of their precious metals and stones, and also from the secular institutions of the treasury and public bank, by taxation, and by military conscription

Meanwhile the King of Naples to whom a right of High Dominion was competent in accordance with the 1530 grant to the Order, asserted his position by stopping all trade with Malta. Further away in Russia, the Tsar had set his sights on an opportunity to enhance his influence.

Vaubois’s encountered serious provisions shortages which were compounded by Naples’ actions and the Maltese, already outraged, rose on September 2nd 1798 against the French. This organised insurrection was led by prominent Maltese and supported by commanders from the villages which caused the French to retire to the city of Valletta where they were besieged.

There are conflicting versions of the local nobility’s role against the French. On the one hand it is reported that when the people rose against the French, three of the elected four leaders were members of the native nobility, and others who maintain that the nobility was so Francophile that during the same insurrection the French commanding officer had as his personal bodyguard the sons of the leading nobility. There were various motives influencing the leaders of the Maltese in their stand against the French. There was at first a strong pro-Order party, which included among its supporters, such prominent figures as Teuma-Castelletti, Depiro and Manduca who favoured the return of the Order to Malta. On several occasions they wrote to the exiled Hompesch inviting him to return, but they demanded the creation of a Langue of Malta. Such a creation would have enhanced the status and prestige of the Hakem who together with three of the four jurats had only been first-ennobled a short while before the Order’s capitulation. There was also the pro-Russian party headed by Captain Lorenzi and supported by Dun Mikiel Xerri. However after an unsuccessful plot within Valletta it became more or less identified in the minds of the Maltese with the pro-Order party. This state of affairs provided ample scope for the furtherance of the aims of the pro-British party, with Canon F.S. Caruana, Antonio Parnis and Ċensu Borg, Braret, at its head. Pro-British feeling was fanned by Captain Ball, culminating in the hoisting of the British flag by Braret. On the 26 January 1799, the leaders of the insurgents (half of whom were titled) wrote a letter to Nelson asking him to persuade the King of Naples to supply grain on credit against the ‘hypothecation of their estates’, An Act was drawn up for this purpose, and signed by all the property-owners of Malta. Two weeks later a ‘Congress in the Countryside’ was called. Under the chairmanship of a British Captain, Alexander John Ball, a Committee, consisting of 22 deputies (none of them being nobles) were formed to govern the island. However, during the following March various nobles were appointed.

As Commander in Chief of the Islands, Ball decided to reconstitute the Universita’ of Notabile. On the 25 April 1799, he appointed Baron Francesco Gauci as Capitano della Verga and as jurats he appointed Marchese Depiro and the Conti Manduca, Theuma and Barbaro.

Meanwhile, the siege continued and British influence increased with the active approval of a significant proportion of Maltese leaders. To break the stalemate the Maltese needed assistance. The effective assistance came from the British navy, commanded by Nelson who, first using Portuguese forces under his command and later elements of the Royal Navy, provided arms and a blockade of the island.

By September 1799 Sir Alexander Ball, was appointed by Nelson as ‘chief director of the island’ with final responsibility for civil government. Ball’s authority at this time was that of the Neapolitan, not the British, Crown. In July 1800, Major General Pigot disembarked with his battalion. On 5 September 1800, Vaubois eventually surrendered the islands on the 5th of September 1800, but did so solely to the British military commander, Sir Thomas Pigot. The Maltese representatives and Ball, the official representative of the Neapolitan Crown, were excluded. The claim made by some that that capitulation was signed on behalf of His Britannic Majesty ‘and his allies’, is not supported by the text. The exclusion of the Neapolitan and Maltese presence seems to have been at the insistence of the French commander, General Vaubois, who was reluctant to recognise either as a legitimate power. Major-General Pigot was content to accede to this refusal. Clause 10 of the Treaty of Amiens and The 1802 Maltese Declaration of Rights

Ball was recalled in February 1801.

Fears of a solely military government by Britain were allayed in May 1801 when Charles Cameron, described in the Instructions he received from the British Crown, as ‘civil commissioner’, was appointed. Ball was to return succeeding Cameron in July 1802 but not as civil commissioner, but as ‘minister plenipotentiary to the Order of St John’.

The context for this was that in March 1801 peace negotiations had commenced beteen Britain and France and a significant term of the resulting Treaty of Amiens (27 March 1802) was the restoration of the Knights of St John to Malta.

In fact, Article 10 provided that the Maltese islands were to be returned to the Order of Saint John; that a new Grand Master be elected; that the English and French langues be abolished; that a Maltese langue be created immediately without the necessity of proofs of nobility; that the islands’ independence be guaranteed by the major powers; that the Maltese Islands be non-aligned in perpetuity; that the Maltese ports be opened to all the powers (with the exception of the Barbary states) and that the Neapolitan King provides a temporary garrison until such time as the Order raised its own defensive force. Ball’s instructions were to implement the Treaty by arranging for the evacuation of the British forces and their replacement by Neapolitans. But with the Neapolitans arriving and despite Manduca’s earlier aspirations, the restoration of the Order was deeply opposed by many if not all significant opinion in Malta. When the treaty’s tenth article was made known, its contents were greeted with a mixture of anger and sad funereal silence. A contemporary dispatch by William Eton reports that the country people did not want a Maltese langue, and the nobles thought it an unwise measure likely to divide the island. Membership in the Order of Saint John once seen as a high honour was now held in utter contempt.

On the 15 June a Solemn declaration of Rights of the Maltese was signed by all the representatives of the islands towns and villages under the authority of the Congress of the Islands of Malta and Gozo declaring that the ‘King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is our Sovereign Lord, and his lawful successors shall, in all times to come, be acknowledged as our lawful sovereign’. This declaration was qualified subject to a number of conditions: that the King had no right to cede the islands to another power but in the event that he chose to withdraw his protection then the Maltese reserved a right of self-determination; the King was bound to respect a constitution drawn up by the islands’ own representatives, that the islands people had the right to make representations directly to the sovereign in the event of a perceived infringement of rights; that taxation and legislation be vested in the local Consiglio Popolare with the consent of the King’s representative; that the British King would protect Roman Catholicism subject to the instructions of the Pope and the Generals of the Monastic Orders in matters purely spiritual. That document was not formally acknowledged by the British Authorities.

A delegation of six prominent Maltese citizens was dispatched to England with the stated purpose of meeting the English King George III. This legation was led by the same Mario Testaferrata described as “a Marquis and member of a wealthy family, very popular and a man of sound judgment” even though he had actively participated in Malta’s surrender to Napoleon. Sir Alexander Ball made arrangements so that they were able to meet the King as he came out of St. George’s Chapel at Windsor where the King is said to have engaged them in conversation and treated them with kindness and consideration. The deputies were not ungrateful because they wrote their hosts a letter of thanks – later to be read out in the House of Commons.

Change in British policy

Despite the recognition, in his title, of Neapolitan sovereignty, Ball clearly took his instructions from London and exercised his powers on that basis. Secret instructions were sent to Ball in October 1802 ordering him to suspend the evacuation of British forces altogether, and Ball refused to admit the Grand Master when he insisted on travelling to Malta to take possession of the government in accordance with the Treaty. The British based their resistance on the grounds that although the new Grand Master (Principe Ruspoli) was nominated by the Pope, the British were appealing to the Order’s General Chapter on grounds that it did not recognize the Russian Grand Priory as legitimate. It was only in February 1803 that Napoleon, Britain and Naples agreed to a further nomination by the Pope – Giovanni Battista Tommasi – as new Grand Master of the Order. By then, the evidence that Britain was not complying with the Treaty in respect of Malta was the principal reason for the renewal of hostilities in May 1803. Ball was appointed Civil Commissioner in May 1803 and immediately instructed the removal of Neapolitan forces from the Island ostensibly because the domination of the Kingdom of Naples by Napoleon meant that accepting Neapolitan rights over Malta would have been tantamount to handing control to the French. Ball continued as civil commissioner in this, his second administration, until his death in October 1809. His successor was the military commander, Major-General Hildebrand-Oakes who was himself replaced in 1813 by Sir Thomas Maitland, the first to be described by the British as ‘Governor’.

By then, the Maltese had become disgruntled with the state of affairs of local Government. Amongst the principal complaints that of Ball’s broken promise to restore the Consiglio Popolare was at the fore, even though no such (formal) promise had ever been made.

Another Maltese delegation headed by another Testaferrata, the young Marchese Nicolo’ who attempted to seek redress in London. This plan was thwarted by the perception that he was not properly authorized to represent the wishes of the Maltese Nation. Nevertheless he was received by the Prince Regent much to the disgust of Commissioner Hildebrand-Oakes, and it was established to send a Commission of Enquiry to make examinations and appropriate recommendations.

Whilst Niccolo’ Testaferrata Denoto was still in London the Maltese cause was represented by the high ranking Maltese cleric Monsignor Honorato Bres who implored the Commission of Enquiry to establish a Popular Council that would be free to make enactments and subject only to Royal veto. Bres’s representations were met by accusations leveled at him by the Commission itself of being a French spy. Testaferrata (a.k.a. Capodiferro) wrote to the British Secretary of State to advising him not to act on the Commission’s deliberations. However, the Marchese was too late because the Commissioners had already submitted a report making clear that most Maltese were not only happy but thriving. According to the Commission of Enquiry Malta’s population had grown in wealth and in numbers to a degree almost unprecedented. The Commission continued saying that the upper class was jealous of the wealth it did not share and a small number were no discontented as to need careful watching. These people, the Report continued, would be “annihilated” once Malta became a British possession.

Colonial Malta – Development of Political Sentiments

A decision of the Privy Council in 1938 in Sammut v Strickland made it a settled proposition of U.K. law that the sovereignty of Malta had passed to the British Crown by right of conquest at least by October 1813. This was the date of the first appointment of a British official with the title of ‘Governor’ (Sir Thomas Maitland) and his publication, in Malta, of a Proclamation in the name and on behalf of George III to the effect that the King had determined ‘henceforth to recognise the people of Malta and Gozo as subjects of the British Crown and as entitled to its fullest protection’. British sovereignty was confirmed unambiguously in international law by the Treaty of Paris of 1814 and the subsequent Congress of Vienna of 1815. However, the decision of the Privy Council did not resolve the vexed question of the source of British authority between 1800 and 1813, which continues to be a subject of speculation. Modern commentators accept that there is no confident consensus on the issue of both the moment and the cause of British legal authority. On the other hand the memorials in Malta maintain that the Britain took Malta not by conquest, but by request of the Maltese. In any case, by article 7 of the Treaty of Paris (May 30, 1814), the Island of Malta and its Dependencies unambiguously came to belong in full right and Sovereignty to His Britannic Majesty, hence the inscription at Valletta “Magnae et Invictae Brittanie, Melitensium Amor et Europae vox, has insulas confirmant. AD MDCCCXIV”. Sir Thomas Maitland, described as a man of strong will and uncouth manners, was appointed the first Governor and Commander in Chief. Before long, he stifled all opposition and abolished many of the traditional offices which originally had been held by the nobility. Eventually, however he linked the Maltese nobles to the new Government in two ways: by appointing some Lords Lieutenant, and granting other members entry into the newly formed Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. In effect, the administration of the Islands was the sole prerogative of the British Civil Commissioners and now the Governors. During the Governorship of Sir Frederick Ponsonby, Malta was granted a Constitution in 1835 providing for a Council of Government of seven members of whom three were to be nominated Maltese representatives. The three unofficial members of the nominated Council, (the anglophile Baron de Piro representing the landed proprietors of the Island; Agostino Portelli representing the Maltese merchants; and Nicholas Aspinall chosen to represent the British born merchants in Malta) were to hold office only “during pleasure.” By August 1835, Giorgio Mitrovich, was representing the Maltese liberals to represent their cause personally at the Colonial Office. He penned a number of pamphlets which proved successful, particularly the two published in London in July and November 1835, “The Claims of the Maltese founded on the principles of justice,” and “Indirizzo ai Maltesi.” In these pamphlets, Mitrovich developed in some detail the historical basis for the regranting of a Consiglio Popolare to Malta. According to his argument, a Consiglio Popolare had been established in 1090 by Count Roger of Normandy and had been composed of representatives of the clergy, the nobility and the people; and Mitrovich claimed for it the sovereign right of legislation. Mitrovich further maintained that Ball’s Countryside Congresso of 1798 was a revival of the Consiglio Popolare. He went on to argue that like its predecessor the Countryside Congresso possessed legislative power, and that in suppressing the Congresso Britain had broken all her solemn pledges to the Maltese. Mitrovich’s argument, although clearly ahistorical, gathered popularity and in 1849 through the initiative of Governor Sir Richard O'Ferrall, another Constitution was granted to the Maltese Islands. This Constitution made provision for a Council of Government consisting of 10 nominated members and eight elected members.

Colonial Malta – Regulation of the Maltese Nobility

Meanwhile 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. Throughout this period, a group known as the Assembly of Maltese Nobles is known to have functioned at this time but it did not enjoy any official role. Although it had no legislative powers it claimed the rights of addressing the Throne separately (the same right enjoyed by the old Consiglio Popolare). In 1876, an incident arose in connection with a visit by the Prince of Wales. Having felt slighted by the welcoming party, some members of the Assembly of Maltese Nobles led by the secretary the Marchese Cassar Desain retaliated by boycotting the reception.

After this incident a formal enquiry (Royal Commission) was appointed to identify those Maltese who claimed a title of nobility which was granted, registered or otherwise recognised by the Grand Masters during their government of the Order. The Report was to be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The Commission was composed of two Maltese judges (Pullicino and Naudi) who received most of the claims through the Secretary of the Assembly of Nobles but ostensibly as the “Secretary of the Committee of Nobles originally formed on the occasion of the late visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales”. Claims to 3 other titles were received separately. The report and supplemental Report of the Royal Commission were completed by May 1878 and these were together with correspondences, formally presented to the British House of Commons.

The Commission’s Report specifically considers various titles of nobility. The titles claimed included some which were not formally registered in the Registry during the government of the Order. Some titles created by the Grand Masters were not claimed. All the titles claimed were subjected to an investigation whether such titles were created by the Grand Masters or whether they were noble fiefs or foreign titles which were duly registered, or at least directly recognized by the Grand Masters. Not all were found to satisfy this criterion.

TABLE 4. Analysis of the titles listed by “a Committee of Nobles, originally formed on the occasion of the late visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales”:

1. the aforesaid title of Barone di Gomerino claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 24th December 1710. 2. The same title of Barone di Gomerino claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Augusto Testaferrata Abela, invoking a grant by Frederick II of Sicily and Aragon dated 13th November 1317 as well as the aforesaid grant dated 24th December 1710, as well as the will of his father Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela and that of his brother Francesco. 3. the aforesaid title of Barone di Budac, claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata Testaferrata Cassia, Domestic Prelate to H.H. the Pope and Hon. Canon of the Gozo Cathedral, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 23rd April 1716. 4. the aforesaid title of Barone della Marsa (First creation) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez, invoking the aforesaid grant of 12 June 1725, 5. the aforesaid title of Barone di San Marciano claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Galea, whose father was appointed C.M.G on the 9th February 1833, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 14th June 1726; 6. the aforesaid title of Barone della Tabria claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 11th December 1728. 7. the aforesaid title of Barone della Culeja claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Vincenza Bonici, wife of Baron Galea, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 2nd June 1737. 8. the aforesaid title of Conte della Bahria claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Antonio Stagna Navarra Muscati Falsoni invoking the aforesaid grant dated 16th May 1473 (recte: 1743). 9. the aforesaid title of Conte della Catena claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Felicissimo Apap Pace Bologna, whose grandfather was a C.M.G., invoking the aforesaid grant dated 20th January 1745 but the Committee noted that claim was “Sub judice”. 10. the aforesaid title of Barone di Buleben claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Calcedonio Azopardi Zamitt, whose father was appointed C.M.G. on the 28th March 1842, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 23rd July 1777 and the aforesaid act dated 25th April 1778. 11. the aforesaid title of Marchese di San Giorgio claimed by the Committee of Nobles by its English translation Marquis of St. George on behalf of George Crispo Barbaro, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 2nd September 1778 and the aforesaid rescripts dated 2nd January 1779 and 5th June 1791. 12. the aforesaid title of Conte di Beberrua claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Nicolo’ Gatto, LL.D. invoking the aforesaid grant dated 23rd October 1783. Another date 14th December 1783 was also invoked. 13. the aforesaid title of Marchese del Fiddien claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Salvatore Mallia Tabone, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 15th October 1785. 14. the aforesaid title of Marchese della Taflia (second creation, 1790 grant) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Bernardo Alessi, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 13th November 1790. 15. the aforesaid title of Conte di Ghain Toffieha claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Theuma Castelletti, invoking the aforesaid rescript dated 7th January 1792. 16. the aforesaid title of Marchese di Gnien Is-Sultan claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Felicissimo Apap Pace Bologna, whose grandfather was a C.M.G., invoking the aforesaid grant dated 20th January 1792. 17. the aforesaid title of Barone della Grua claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Nicola Maria Delicata Carbott Asciack, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 30th December 1794. 18. the aforesaid title of Conte della Senia claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Luigi Fontani, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 6th June 1795. 19. the aforesaid title of Marchese di Ghain Kajet claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Gaetano Delicata, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 4th June 1796. 20. the aforesaid Fief of Ghariescem and Tabia claimed by the Committee of Nobles as a barony n behalf of Gio Francesco Sant Cassia, invoking a grant by Frederick of Aragon and Sicily dated 12 November 1372 and the aforesaid grant of 14 April 1638; 21. the aforesaid Fief of Djar il-bniet and Bucana claimed by the Committee of Nobles as a barony on behalf of Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez, invoking a grant dated 13th November 1372 by King Frederick of Aragon and Sicily; 22. the unregistered foreign 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), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez, invoking a grant dated 11th June 1695; 23. the unregistered foreign 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) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack, invoking the said grant dated 10th November 1716; This title, invoking the same grant dated 10th November 1716, was also claimed on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, 24. the unregistered foreign title of Marchese Testaferrata, (conferred upon Mario Testaferrata on the 13 July 1717 by Victor Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack, invoking the said grant dated 13th July 1717; This title, invoking the same grant dated 13th July 1717, was also claimed on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, and on behalf of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, and on behalf of Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata), and on behalf of Ignazio Testaferrata Bonici. 25. the aforesaid registered foreign title of Conte Preziosi claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Amedeo Preziosi, invoking the said registered grant dated 19th October 1718; This title, invoking the same grant dated 19th October 1718, was also claimed on behalf of Antonio Preziosi M.D. and on behalf of Camillo Preziosi LL.D.. 26. the aforesaid registered title of Conte di Mont’ Alto claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, Domestic Prelate to H.H. the Pope Apostolic Pronotary and Canon of the Cathedral whose predecessor is described as K.C.M.G., invoking the said registered grants dated 10th July 1720 and 19th September 1724. 27. the foreign title of Conte enjoyed by the Wzzini family, (exact date of creation unknown to the Commission but held by Ignazio Wzzini in the year 1722), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Giorgio Serafino Duca Comninoe Lascaris, invoking the aforesaid registered entry dated 4th July 1744; 28. the aforesaid registered foreign title of Marquis De Piro claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Saverio De Piro, Captain in the Royal Malta Fencible Artillery, together with the titles of Count De Piro and Viscount de Cartely invoking the aforesaid registered grant of 6th November 1742; 29. the unregistered foreign title of Barone Fournier de Pausier (granted on the 31 March 1768 by Empress Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria, upon Giorgio Fournier de Pausier), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Lazzaro Sant Fournier de Pausier, invoking the aforesaid grant of 31 March 1768; 30. the aforesaid registered foreign title of Conte Fournier , claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Lazzaro Sant Fournier de Pausier, invoking the aforesaid registered grant of 29th January 1770; 31. the aforesaid registered title of Conte Sant claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Gio Francesco Sant Cassia, invoking the aforesaid registered grant of 22 December 1770; 32. the unregistered foreign title of Conte presumed (by the Commission) to have been granted to Salvatore Manduca on the 28 December 1776 by one of the Dukes of Parma (probably Don Ferdinand) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, Domestic Prelate to H.H. the Pope Apostolic Pronotary and Canon of the Cathedral whose predecessor is described as K.C.M.G., invoking a grant dated 28 December 1776. 33. the aforesaid registered foreign title of Barone di San Giovanni conferred upon Serafino Ciantar on the 16 July 1777 by Ferdinand I, King of the Two Sicilies, claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Giorgio Serafino Duca Comninoe Lascaris, invoking a grant dated 20th August 1657 and the aforesaid registered grant dated 6th July 1777; 34. the unregistered foreign title of Conte di Casandola (presumed, by the Commission, to have been granted by Charles II, King of Spain and Sicily, on the 6th January 1685), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Antonio Stagna Navarra Muscati Falsoni invoking the aforesaid grant dated 6th January 1685. 35. the unregistered foreign 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) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack, invoking the said grant dated 6th November 1637; This title, invoking the same grant dated 6th November 1637, was also claimed on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, and on behalf of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, and on behalf of Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata), and on behalf of Ignazio Testaferrata Bonici. 36. the unregistered foreign 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); 37. the unregistered foreign dignity of Patrician of Messina (granted to Mariano Testaferrata on the 20th December 1553 by the Jurats of the city or municipality of Messina), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 20th December 1553; This title, invoking the same grant dated 20th December 1553, was also claimed on behalf of Augusto Testaferrata Abela, on behalf of Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata Testaferrata Cassia, Domestic Prelate to H.H. the Pope and Hon. Canon of the Gozo Cathedral, on behalf of Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, and on behalf of Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata), and on behalf of Ignazio Testaferrata Bonici. 38. another unregistered foreign 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), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 28th August 1792; This title, invoking the same grant dated 28th August 1792, was also claimed on behalf of Augusto Testaferrata Abela, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, and on behalf of Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata), and on behalf of Ignazio Testaferrata Bonici. 39. the unregistered foreign title of Patrician of Messina, (confirmed together with the title of Marquis by the Senate of Messina to Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier’s father Giuseppe Enrico on the 12th July 1791), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, invoking the same act dated 12th July 1791 as well as the aforesaid grant dated 28th August 1792. 40. the unregistered foreign 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), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, invoking the aforesaid grant dated 11th June 1590; This title, invoking the same grant dated 11th June 1590, was also claimed on behalf of Augusto Testaferrata Abela and on behalf of Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata Testaferrata Cassia, Domestic Prelate to H.H. the Pope and Hon. Canon of the Gozo Cathedral, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata) and on behalf of Saverio De Piro, and on behalf of Felicissimo Apap Pace Bologna, whose grandfather was a C.M.G. 41. another unregistered foreign dignity of Roman Patrician (reputed to date 6 July 1674, origins unknown to the Commission), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack. This title, apparently invoking the same dated 6th July 1674 was also claimed on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, and on behalf of Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain (ne’ Testaferrata) 42. a foreign dignities of Noble, Roman Patrician and Roman Senator (reputed to date 4 July 1744, origins unknown to the Commission), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Giorgio Serafino Duca Comninoe Lascaris, invoking the aforesaid registered entry dated 4th July 1744; 43. the unregistered foreign dignity of Venetian Patrician, (origins unknown to the Commission), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of George Crispo Barbaro. 44. the unregistered foreign distinction of Knight of the 1st class of Charles III, King of Spain (origins unknown to the Commission) claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Luigi Fontani. 45. the unregistered foreign dignity of Messinese Patrician (origins unknown to the Commission), claimed by the Committee of Nobles on behalf of Antonio Stagna Navarra Muscati Falsoni.

Over and above these 45 titles, another 3 titles were claimed by individuals without the assistance of the Committee of Nobles:

TABLE 5. Analysis of private representations to the Royal Commissioners:

46. the aforesaid title of Barone della Marsa (Third creation) claimed by Maria Apap for herself, invoking the aforesaid grant of the 10th March 1775. 47. the aforesaid title of Barone di Benuarrat claimed by Angiolino Attard for himself, invoking the aforesaid grant of the 18th August 1737. 48. the unregistered foreign 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, claimed by Angiolino Attard for himself, invoking the aforesaid grant of the 16th July 1638.

Colonial Malta – Changes within the Maltese Nobility

The right to be styled Illustrissimo e Nobile conferred at various times between 1725 and 1798 by the Grand Masters on some families was not claimed as a title before the Commission. However, it served as the basis for ascertaining direct recognitions of the fief (Barone) of Djar il-Bniet and Buqana and the unregistered foreign titles of Barone di Castel Cicciano, and Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri. A direct recognition of the title of Conte enjoyed by the family Wzzini Paleologo was based on correspondence dated 1722.

Of the claims to the titles created by the Grand Masters, three titles were found to be extinct, namely both 1725 and 1776 creations of the title of Barone della Marsa, the personal title of Conte di Beberrua and the originally personal title Barone di Buleben. Of the remaining another three titles with singular remainder were found to be claimed by more than one person for different reasons namely the titles of Barone di Gomerino, Barone di Budac and Conte della Catena. The title of Barone di Gomerino was claimed by Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni on the basis that he contended that that title was made subject to a private entail dated 7 March 1714 now possessed by him, whilst Augusto Testaferrata Abela contended that it was he who held the allodial property; the title of Barone di Budac was claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata Testaferrata Cassia who explained that he had been nominated to succeed by the last holder of it. However, Giuseppe De Piro called the Monsignor’s claim into question by contending that the title had been extinct for a long time and the estate annexed to that title had devolved upon him (De Piro) by title of a Primogenitura. The primogenitura to which the title of Conte della Catena was annexed was already indicated by the Committee of Nobles as “sub judice”. The primogenitura was being claimed by Felicissimo Apap Pace Bologna and Luisa/Gerald Strickland. Because of these contestations, the Commissioners decided not to hear the competing claimants.

Of the claims to the only two Maltese fiefs considered by the Commissioners, it resulted that neither was originally granted as a noble fief. However the Commission concluded that over time both the tenure of the fief of Djar il-Bniet and Bucana and the tenure of the fief of Ghariescem and Tabia had come to be regarded by the Grand Masters as noble fiefs. The Commission accorded both fiefs a date of precedence which predates the date it was first acknowledged as a noble fief.

Of the claims to the registered foreign titles, the claim to the title of Conte di Mont’ Alto was disallowed by the Commission because it resulted that it had become extinct. All the other registered foreign titles were allowed by the Royal Commission with the exception of Conte Fournier and decision was referred to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The following foreign titles were disallowed by the Commission because no proof was provided of their registration or direct recognition by the Grand Masters: Marchese Testaferrata (which was the basis of the title enjoyed by Mario Testaferrata who successfully encouraged Hompesch to surrender), Barone Fournier de Pausier, Barone di San Paolino, Conte di Casandola, Knight of the Order of Noble Tornearii and Armigers of the Holy Roman Empire (Testaferrata); Knight of the Order of Noble Tornearii and Armigers of the Holy Roman Empire (Balzano), Patrician of Messina (Testaferrata, 1553), Patrician of Messina (Testaferrata 1792), Patrician of Messina, (Testaferrata 1791), Roman Patrician (Abela, di Ferro, Surdo and Testaferrata, 1590), Roman Patrician (1674(?)), Roman Patrician (1744(?)),Venetian Patrician (?),Knight of the 1st class of Charles III, King of Spain (?) and Messinese Patrician (?).

No decision was reached by the Commission on the unregistered foreign titles of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri and that of Conte presumed to have been granted to Salvatore Manduca. This was so because the first was found to have been claimed by more than one claimant whilst the documentation for the second had not arrived in time.

The Colonial Office could not reconsider the rejected claims as the Commissioners, who were judges, having already expressed their views, could not be asked to reconsider the same claims which they had already dismissed.

By a Despatch dated 16 August 1882, issued by the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, through the intervention of Sir George Bowyer, a Special Committee was set up namely a Committee “with functions analogous to those of the Committee of Privileges in the House of Lords (of the United Kingdom)”. The first Committee was composed of the Conte Ciantar Paleologo, the Marchese Apap Bologna di Gnien is-Sultan, the Marchese de Piro, the Marchese Delicata di Ghajn Qajjet and the Monsignor Count Manduca di Mont’ Alto. The stated purpose of the committee was to take into consideration the cases of those Titolati who were not included by the Commissioners Judges Naudi and Pullicino, in the list of Titolati prepared by them for the local government. In addition the Committee was allowed to report from time to time to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on any matter affecting the Maltese Nobility or their rights, claims or privileges, or to bring such matter to the foot of throne by petition to the British Sovereign.

The Special Committee revisited the respective claims of Calcedonio Azopardi to the title of Barone di Buleben (erstwhile erroneously declared extinct by the Commissioners), that of Nicolo’ Gatto to the title of Conte di Beberrua, that of Giovanni Paolo Testaferrata Olivier to the title of Marchese dating it to 1745, and that of Lorenzo Cassar Desain (a cadet of the line from Mario Testaferrata Castelletti) to a similar title of Marchese dated to 1749 and recommended that these four claims be approved. Special grace and favour from the Queen was received in 1883.

As a result of a debate held in the House of Lords on the 20th April 1885 the Colonial Secretary was urged to ‘do all he could to recognize the nobility still further, as it would smooth the intercourse …between English and Maltese societies and to strengthen British rule in the Island’. Following this intervention, there was a complete reversal of attitude towards the Nobles of Malta, some of whom were even received in the private Drawing-room of Queen Victoria. By then whatever memory of the troublesome Mario and Nicolo’ Testaferrata had been annihilated.

The British Colonial Administration issued a recognition to the following titles according to the perceived date taken for precedence:

TABLE 6. Analysis of titles approved by British Colonial office 1. Baron of Djar il-Bniet and Buqana (4th January, 1350). 2. Baron of Gheriexem and Tabia (16th April, 1638) 3. Baron of Gomerino; (24th December, 1710). 4. Baron of Budach (23rd April, 1716). 5. Count Preziosi (20 June 1720) 6. Count W.Paleologo (1722). 7. Baron of Cicciano (11 May 1725) 8. Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri (9 July 1725); 9. Baron of San Marciano (14th June, 1726) 10. Baron of Tabria (11th December, 1728) 11. Baron of Culeja (2nd June, 1737). 12. Baron of Benwarrad (18th August, 1737) 13. Marquis Depiro (6th November, 1742) 14. Count of Bahria (16th May, 1743); 15. Count of Catena (20th January, 1745) 16. Marquis Testaferrata Olivier (1745) 17. Marquis Cassar Desain (1749); 18. Count Fournier (2 December 1775) 19. Count Sant (12 December 1775) 20. Count of Mont’Alto (Manduca) (28th December, 1776); 21. Baron of Buleben (23rd July, 1777). 22. Baron of San Giovanni (17 January 1778) 23. Marquis of San Giorgio (St. George) (6th September, 1778). 24. Count of Beberrua (23rd October, 1783). 25. Marquis of Fiddien (15th October, 1785) 26. Marquis of Taflia (13th November, 1790) 27. Count of Ghajn Tuffieha (7th January,1792) 28. Marquis of Gnien is-Sultan (1st December, 1792) 29. Baron of Grua (30th December,1794) 30. Count of Senia (6th June, 1795) 31. Marquis of Ghajn Qajjed (4th June, 1796) Historians criticize the final list approved by the British Colonial Administration for various reasons including anachronisms, perpetuation of some extinct titles, and inaccurate and/or incomplete data, e.g. although it results (see table 7 below) that the fief of Djar il-Bniet was held by the Gacto family in 1350/51, that same fief appears to have been held by the Osa family in 1376.

The Committee as a recognized official body continued to elect its members once a year. The Colonial Government’s position was not to issue any provisional recognition by the Government of any of the aforesaid titles unless the Committee of Privileges has reported.

All recognitions by the Government were issued provisionally as the decisions of the Committee were made subject to any subsequent decision of a Court of law. In his dispatch of the 30 April 1878 the Secretary of State laid down “It is only necessary to point out to you that no public officer, not even a Secretary of State, has the power of conferring titles of honour, for which the personal sanction of Her Majesty is each case is necessary; and even assuming such acts to have been done by British officials with full knowledge that the titles were non-existent, their want of power would prevent these acts of supposed recognition from having the slightest effect.”

The effect of the 1739 and 1795 legislation meant that the Maltese nobility would rank amongst itself according to the date of creation of title and not according to the degree/rank of the title. No changes to this system was made by either the Commission or the Special Committee. However, an attempt to change the rule of precedence first established by Grand Master Despuig in 1739, was made by the Maltese Committee of Privileges in 1886. However this was strongly resisted by the Assembly of Nobles as soon as the Governor (John Simmons) made these intentions known justifying his disclosure on his view that the cadets had an interest equal to that of the Titolati. A secondary issue arose on who of the two enjoyed the representation of the Maltese Nobility. Lord Granville ended the dispute on 19 May 1886 when he communicated his decision that in view of the considerable opposition and the small support which the proposal received, that he was “not prepared to reconsider the decision of Grand Master Rohan”. Granville did not commit on the secondary issue but it appears that after this incident the Assembly of Maltese Nobility lost its political significance with the result that the Committee of Privileges took up all representation of the Maltese “Titolati” whilst the cadetti were unrepresented.

The effect of the 1725 legislation meant that only some families, not necessarily titled-families, are entitled to the titles of “Most Illustrious” and “Noble”. However, in 1886 the Committee of Privileges was successful to obtain for each of the British-acknowledged titolati the right to the style “The Most Noble”.

As at 1910, the pedigrees and the right to bear two of the titles (Barone di Cicciano and Conte della Catena) approved by the Royal Commission had been investigated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was then anticipated that similar investigations would follow, including questions of precedence inter se, and of dates of legal “creation”, on some Special Reference, or directly in England on a Petition of Right. This expectation was short-lived as the Privy Council did not make any other decision directly on a title of nobility. However, the Privy Council did make some decisions on succession of property entailments which were established during the Magistral period.

Although politically the nobles declined, nevertheless the two Constitutions of 1887 and 1921 provide for representatives from the nobility. In the earlier constitution, four members in the Council of members were to represent the clergy, the nobility and landed proprietors, university graduates and the merchants. By classifying the nobility with landed proprietors, the Constitution effectively restored a position of status to the cadet lines who albeit untitled lost their historic nobility under the 1878 Royal Commission.

The later constitution which provided for a bicameral legislature allowed for ten special members in the senate to represent the above-mentioned groups, and also the Trade Unions. Some nobles were elected to the Lower House or Legislative Assembly and one prominent nobleman, Count Sir Gerald Strickland was Prime Minister of Malta.

No provision was made for the nobility in the later Constitutions.

The last vestiges of the nobility under the Grand Masters, were steadily done away with. In 1950, succession by entail was abolished in Malta under the Premiership of Paul Boffa by Act 12 of 1950 dated 5 May 1950. This was followed in 1969, under the Premiership of Giorgio Borg Olivier by an abolition of succession by fief by Act 30 of 1969 dated 21 November, 1969. Provision is made in the later law that nothing shall affect any title of nobility, and the laws in force concerning any such titles shall continue to have effect.

Finally, in 1975 the Maltese Government under the Premiership of Dom Mintoff brought in a Bill for the purpose of abolishing titles of nobility. On the 25 June 1975, the President of the Republic of Malta. Sir Anthony Mamo, gave his assent to Act No. XXIX. Although titles of nobility were not abolished ‘for historical reasons’, a general duty was imposed to no longer recognize them.

Montalto reports that although the nobles still exist, their numbers have certainly dwindled, and some titles have fallen into abeyance – for instance the Counts of Bahria and Senia and Marquises of Taflia and Ghajn Qajjet. He continues, saying that it is usual for Petitions to be presented to the Committee of Privileges by claimants, but it is unusual for decisions to be taken. He reports that the Committee still meets, but its function is now a little obscure.

A revival of interest in the subject was noted in the early 1980s with a feted publication by John Montalto and a series of articles and books by Charles A. Gauci, and since then it appears that that Committee has revived a number of titles. Moreover, the Gauci publications reports how that Committee has revisited the criteria of recognition of other titles which did not form part of the list approved by the British Colonial Authorities. Two related lawsuits decided in the early 21st century, one “Ramsay vs Bugeja” the other “Bugeja Viani vs Attorney General” regarding claims to the title of Barone della Tabria highlights the obligation not to recognize any title of nobility.

[edit] References 1. 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.) For full text see http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/Maltese%20Nobility%201878%20Correspondence%20Commissioners%20report%20and%20Supplemental%20Page%201%20to%2014.pdf http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/Maltese%20Nobility%201878%20Correspondence%20Commissioners%20report%20and%20Supplemental%20Page%2015%20to%2032.pdf http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/Maltese%20Nobility%201878%20Correspondence%20Commissioners%20report%20and%20Supplemental%20Page%2033%20to%2046.pdf http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/Maltese%20Nobility%201878%20Correspondence%20Commissioners%20report%20and%20Supplemental%20Page%2047%20to%2060.pdf 2. 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, August 1883, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C-3812) For full text see http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/Maltese%20Nobility%201883%20Report%20of%20Special%20Committee%20and%20Correspondence.pdf 3. Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In continuation of C3812, August 1883), presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty May 1886 (C-4628a) For full text see http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/1886%20report%20no%204628a.pdf 4. Montalto, John, The nobles of Malta, 1530-1800 / John Mantalto Midsea Books, Valletta, Malta : 1979 ASIN: B0000EE028 5. Charles Gauci "The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta" (Gulf Publishing, Malta, 1981)" ASIN: B0000EDUI4 6. Charles Gauci A Guide to the Maltese Nobility" (PEG Publications, Malta, 1986) ISBN-10: 999900122X 7. Charles Gauci "The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta VOLUME TWO " (PEG Publications, Malta, 1992) ASIN: B0018V7SUA 8. Charles Gauci "The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta VOLUME ONE " (PEG Publications, Malta, 2002) ASIN: B0018W7TVM 9. Anon “The Family of Inguanez” (Malta, 1888) - reprinted in 1979 to form part of Marcel DINGLI ATTARD, “The Family of Inguanez”(Interprint Malta, 1979) ASIN: B0000EEAZL 10. Cassar Desain, Marchese L.A., " Genealogia della famiglia Testaferrata di Malta." Malta, 1880 11. Abela Della Descrittione di Malta del Commendatore Abela, 1647 ASIN: B000VDOSF4 12. Abela & Ciantar, Malta Illustrata, Malta 1780 ASIN: B000VDMIRY 13. Farrugia Randon, Marquis Nicolo Testaferrata de Noto, 1993 ISBN-10: 9990941092 14. Farrugia Randon, Cardinal Fabrizio Sceberras Testaferrata, 1988 ASIN: B0006EVTVO 15. Frendo, Maltese Political Development 1798-1964, 1993 ASIN: B000Q5P9RI 16. Galea, Malta's Timeline, Malta. 17. Goodwin, Stefan MALTA MEDITERRANEAN BRIDGE, 2002 ISBN 0-89789-820-6 18. Marquis de Ruvbigny, “The Nobilities of Europe” 1910 (reprint 2005) ISBN 1-4021-8561-8 19. The British claim to rule Malta 1800-1813 by Howard Davis and Barry Hough in Melita Historica (new series), 14(2007)4(387-407) 20. Desmond Gregory Malta, Britain, and the European powers, 1793-1815 ISBN-13: 978-0838635902 21. Melita Historica: http://www.geocities.com/melitahistoricab/19579.html; 22. Melita Historica: http://www.geocities.com/melitahistoricab/19597.html 23. Melita Historica:http://www.geocities.com/melitahistoricab/195213.html 24. Strickland v. Apap Bologna [1883], Privy Council A.C. 106 25. Sceberras D’Amico v. Sceberras Trigona [1888], Privy Council A.C. 806 26. Cassar Desain v. Testaferrata Moroni Viani [1925] Privy Council A.C. 416 27. Sammut v Strickland [1938] Privy Council A.C. 678, 701. 28. George Cassar Desain v. James Cassar Desain Viani [1948] Privy Council A.C. 18 29. Chesney Sceberras D’Amico vs Cuschieri Malta Court of Appeal [1957] 10 June 1957 30. Ramsay v Bugeja [2004] Malta Civil Court 1722/2001/1 31. Bugeja Viani v Attorney General Malta Constitutional Court [2007] 57/2006, [2007] 57/2006/1 32. Maltagenealogy.com http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/SME1.htm http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/maltesenobility/biograghyofmaltesetitles.htm http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/SME2.htm 33. A.O.M. refers to Archives of the Order found at the National Library, Malta.

TABLE 7. LIST OF KNOWN FIEFS GRANTED PRE-1530 (source: Montalto ‘Nobles of Malta’):-

1. the Alagona family held the fiefs of: Bungemi (1408), Davaracia (1408) and Benuarrat (date of grant unknown); 2. the Amodeo family held the fief of: Petra Lunga (1371); 3. the Arescula family held the fiefs of: Hayntufegha (1399) and the money grants of 12 unc. (1402) and 15 unc (1407). 4. the Armenia family held the fiefs of Benuarrat (unknown) and Tal-Baccar; 5. The Astis family held the fief of Maccalibim (140?) 6. the Attardo family held the fiefs of Ginelfar (1361), Misulup (1361) and Saqqajja (1361); 7. The Augnica/Stugnica/Scimica family held the fiefs of Saqqaja (1506) and Friginuini (1513); 8. The Aulesa/Olesia family held the fief of Budac 9. The Bagna family held the fief of Chabelville (1372); 10. The Bandino family held the money grants of 7 unc. (1398) and 2 unc (1400). 11. The Barba family held the fiefs of Tabria (1316), Fontana (1347), Vilaliamitu (1399), Budacco (unknown) and the money grants of 8 unc. (1399), 8unc. (1402) and 8 unc. (1413). 12. The Bava family held the fiefs of Bucana (unknown), Djar il-Bniet (unknown) and Hemsija (unknown); 13. The Bellera/Bontempo family held the money grant of 6 unc. 14. The Bernardo family held the fiefs of Barberi (1398) and Mejmuni (1398); 15. The Blundo/Blundus family held the fief of Tabia/Gariexem (1416); 16. The Bochio family held the fief of Grua (1372); 17. The Bordino family held the fief of La Chalca di Ayn Cuffutu (1399) and the money grant of 12 unc. (1485); 18. The Buginac/Unginat family held the fief of Nigret/Mojdu (1372) 19. The Buscheri/Cuskeri family held the fiefs of Frigenuini (1375) and Barberi (unknown) 20. The Busco/Bosco family held the fiefs of Gnien il-Firen (1399), Qattara (1439), Hayntufegha (1440) and Marsa ((1441); 21. The Cadumi family held the fiefs of Canfudi (1398) and San Marciano (1398); 22. The Calafato family held the money grant of 6 unc. (1398); 23. The Cardona family held th fief of La Guardia (1437) 24. The Carraffa family held the fief of Marsa (1450); 25. The Carretto family held the fief of Rayava (1408), Salamuni (1408) and Tabria (1408); 26. The Castelli family held the fief of Buqana (unknown) 27. The Catalanu family held the fief of San Cosmo (unknown) 28. The Caxaro family held the money grant of 4 unc. (1409) 29. The Desguanes/Inguanez family held the fiefs of Budacco (1408), Tabia/Gariexem (1416), Bucana (1432), Djar il-Bniet (1432), Hemsija (1432), Tabria (1441), Marsa (1441), Saqqajja (1442), Gnien il-Firen (14?), Hayntufegha (14?), Hayntufegha (14?), Qattara (14?), Irdum Sancto Georgio et Mizel Xiri (1447); 30. The Falsone family held the fief of Jurihando (1399) and the money grant of 12 unc. (1493); 31. The Fanato/Favato family held the fief of Musebi (1372); 32. The Forregioni family held the fiefs of Gnien il-Firen (1465), Hayntufegha (1465) and Qattara (1465) 33. The Franco/Auri family held the money grant of 4 unc. (1399) 34. The Gatto/Gactu familheld the fiefs of Djar il-Bniet (1351), Buqana (1397), Budach (1398) Hemsija (1398) and Tabria (1407); 35. The Girbinus family held the money grant of 4 unc (1398) 36. The Gomez family held the fiefs of Il-Scardo (1374) and Scajscach (1374) 37. The Grayera family held the fief of Marsa (1452); 38. The Gruno/Grugno family held the fiefs of Jardum Grandi (1510) and Petra Longa (1513); 39. The Guantis family held the fief of Tabia/Gariexem (unknown); 40. The Gueraldi family held the fief of Tabria (1398) 41. The Guevara/Guara/Grayera family held the fiefs of Gnien il-Firen (1446), Hayntufegha (1446), Qattara (1446) and Marsa (1446) 42. The Habela/Abela family held the fief of Petra Lunga (unknown); 43. The Imbroglio family held the fiefs of Chabuch/Chalkia (1372) and Charmine/Chalmira (1372) 44. The Impax/Pax family held the fiefs of Bucelli (1372), Culeja (1472) and 6 unc. (1372); 45. The Landolina family held the fief of Tabria (1453); 46. The Lavagna family held the money grant of 2 unc (1373). 47. The Lemmo family held the money grant of 6 unc. (1416) 48. The Malta/Pullichino family held the fief of La Guardia (unknown) 49. The Mileto family held the fief of Ajnastasi (1372) 50. The Monbron family held the money grant of 12 unc (1514). 51. The Mundellus family held the money grants of 8 florins (1373) and 6 unc. (1374); 52. The Murina family held the fief of Bucana (1372); 53. The Nava family held the fief of Marsa (1465) and Benuarrat (1472/75); 54. The Navarro family held the money grant of 4 unc (1413); 55. The Osa family held the fief of San Cosmo (164), Tabia/Gariexem (1372), Bucana (1376), Djar il-Bniet (1376) and the money grant of 4 unc. (1373) 56. The Parera family held the fief of La Guardia (1448) and the money grant of 6 unc. (1448); 57. The Perollo family held the fiefs of Biebirua (1465), Buleben (1465), Buonchale (1465), San Martino (1466) and Gomerino (1481); 58. The Perregrino family held the fiefs of Baccuni (1347), Aynalcayd (1361), Benuarrat (1361), Cabelville/Suletti (1361), Jardino de lo Re (1361), Lachase (1361), Viridarium Magnum (1361) and Lu Zacuni (1372). 59. The Plusasco family held the fief of Maccalibim (1408); 60. The Ragusa family held the fief of Gomerino (1328); 61. The Sancheta family held a number of fiefs (15?); 62. The Sancto Philippo family held the fiefs of Antulinu (1372) and Galca (1372); 63. The Santa Sophia family held the fiefs of Dechandum (1361), Hayntufiegha (1361), Bajjada (1372), Cabelsulla (1372), Mechalcadetrin (1372), Rifutu (1372), Sintina (1372), Gomerino (1398) and Mayaliel (1408); 64. The Sardo family held the fief of Petra Lunga (1417); 65. The Solimella family held the fief of Gomerino (unknown); 66. The Spetere/Speteri family held the fief of Sancta Maria Magdalena (1439); 67. The Surdo family held the fief of Gomerino (1317); 68. The Tarento family held the fief of Petra Lunga (1408); 69. The Tarsia family held the money grant of 40 unc (1418) 70. The Torres family held the fief of Fiddien (unknown) 71. The Vaccaro family held the fiefs of Benuarrat (1398) and Culeja (1400) and the money grants of 24 unc. (1399) and 12 unc. (1409); 72. The Xiberras family held the money grant of 12 unc. (1520) 73. The Zavallos/Bavallos family held the fief of Milecha del Zoncol (1509).