Beberrua

The Counts of Beberrua.

• According to the letters patent: Extinct, unless there is descendants of Emmanuele Caruana Gatto in the male line.

Though if the title was limited to male descendants, then I would suggest the title should be in the hands of Paul Deguara Caruana Gatto. His brother Henry as his heir.

• Heir: male descendants of Emmanuele Caruana Gatto if any.

Initially created in 1465 to the Perollo Family and regranted in 1783 to Dr. Luigi Maria Gatto,LL.D, a Major of Cavalry under the Knights of St John, a Jurat, Lt-Coloniel of Malta Provincial Battery, Royal Malta Fencible Regiment and Colonel commanding 1st division. A private secretary to Sir Alexander Ball, the first British Governor of Malta.

Saverio Gatt was Uditore held Office under three Grand Masters-Pinto, Ximenes and de Rohan. Gatt, who was one of the leading lawyers, is especially remembered for his great contribution towards the compilation of the code de Rohan. In 1783, his son Luigi was created the first Count of Beberrua, just one year after the publication of the code.

The title of Count of Beberrua was created by Grand Master de Rohan-Polduc . The title was granted without any reference as to succession for this reason it was at first disallowed by the Royal Commission, who regarded the grant as having been made ad personam, without the right of succession.

The committee of Privileges however, in 1883 presented a petition to the British Govt. in which it was argued that by the grant a real proper and noble fief had been erected. The petition goes on to say “All feuds are of their own nature perpetual and heritable to the male descendants of the grantee, the fact that no words in the patent direct the inheritance, does not make the grant endure for the life time of the grantee only.

But it lawfully endures for all the male issue de Primogenito in primogenitum in finitum according to the recognised feudal custom, admitted also by local jurisprudence.

These recognised principles of the law, we have had occasion to submit in the first part of their report, wherein it was stated that whenever there are no limitation restrictive clauses or words to direct the inheritance in the deed of grant . These principles obtain ex providentio regis, that we are not able to find reason why the title of Conte di Beberrua should have been considered as intended to endure only for the grantee’s lifetime.

Our opinion is that the title at the death of the grantee rested in Conte Nicolo Gatt LL.D, the surviving son of the person first ennobled, and that it should continue to descend de primogenito in primogenitum in finitum to the male descendants of the grantee. Under these circumstances we consider this title fully deserving the grant and favour of recognition from the Crown, that the bearer may have his name duly extended in the Official list if Titolate.

This title was granted to Dr. Luigi Maria Gatt by Grandmaster Emanuel de Rohan on October 23, 1783. It was granted ad personam i.e. without the right of succession. It was never extended to the Count’s successors. The title therefore became legally extinct with the Count’s death in 1825; however, as is often the case with the Maltese Nobility and its Committee of Privileges, things did not quite work out the way that the Grandmaster had envisaged!

As a matter of interest, the title was granted to Dr. Luigi Maria GATT not GATTO! His descendants changed the surname, no doubt to give the impression that they belonged to the ancient Gatto family, Barons of Djar-il-Bniet! At least they did not have the affrontary also to assume the ancient GATTO arms of Upon a Field azure, ten Bezants!

1878 Royal Commission Report

The 1878 Royal Commissioners, in their report, while commenting upon another case, stated in Section X, page 13 paras 47, 48 (the bold print, enumerations, paragraphing and underlining are mine)………

“…the numerous grants of titles made by Grand Master Rohan may be classed under three different heads; (1st) some patents expressly providing for the perpetuity of the title specifically include the children and descendants in infinitum of the person first ennobled. … Luigi’s son Dr Nicolo Gatto LL.D 2nd count died unmarried and the title passed thru to his sisters son, Dr Antonio Caruana-Gatto M.D, who became the 3rd Count and also married the daughter of the Count of Santa Sofia, They sired several children, and died in 1919.

The Grandmasters of the Order of St. John, ruling over the Maltese islands granted many titles of nobility; whilst a large number of these were hereditary, some were not. The latter titles were ‘life-titles’, granted ad personam i.e. limited to the lifetime of the grantee alone. This was similar to the British system of Life Peerages.

In some cases, the grant was initially made ad personam, but upon receipt of a petition from the grantee, the Grandmaster would extend the grant. The nature of the extension varied from title to title. Thus, in the case of the title of Marquis of San Giorgio, the title was initially granted ad personam to Dr. Carlo Antonio Barbaro on September 6, 1778; it was later extended to the Marquis’s eldest son on January 2, 1779 and then, on June 5, 1792 it was again extended but this time to all the Marquis’s descendants in perpetuity.

On the other hand, the title of Marquis of Fiddien was also granted ad personam to Salvatore Mallia-Tabone on October 15, 1785. The Marquis later entered a petition pleading for the title to be extended to his legitimate and natural male descendants successively and in default of male issue to his female descendants. In this case, the Grandmaster only allowed extension to the Marquis’s first-born male descendants.

Several titles were never granted an extension amongst these were included Lord of Ghajn Qajjed (Calavà), Lord of La Recona (Montagnes), Baron Gauci (Gauci), Marquis of Taflia (Mompalao), Count of Santi (Barbaro), Count of Meimun (Marchesi) and COUNT OF BEBERRUA (Gatt)-the subject of this work.

Count of Beberrua

This title was granted to Dr. Luigi Maria Gatt by Grandmaster Emanuel de Rohan on October 23, 1783.

It was granted ad personam i.e. without the right of succession. It was never extended to the Count’s successors. The title therefore became legally extinct with the Count’s death in 1825; however, as is often the case with the Maltese Nobility and its Committee of Privileges, things did not quite work out the way that the Grandmaster had envisaged!

As a matter of interest, the title was granted to Dr. Luigi Maria GATT not GATTO! His descendants changed the surname, no doubt to give the impression that they belonged to the ancient Gatto family, Barons of Djar-il-Bniet! At least they did not have the affrontary also to assume the ancient GATTO arms of Upon a Field azure, ten Bezants!

1878 Royal Commission Report

The 1878 Royal Commissioners, in their report, while commenting upon another case, stated in Section X, page 13 paras 47, 48 (the bold print, enumerations, paragraphing and underlining are mine)………

“…the numerous grants of titles made by Grand Master Rohan may be classed under three different heads; (1st) some patents expressly providing for the perpetuity of the title specifically include the children and descendants in infinitum of the person first ennobled. … (2nd) Other grants, like that we are now examining into, only designate the grantees’ names without proceeding further. The patents of the Marchese Barbaro, of the Conte Gatt, of the Marchese Mallia Tabone and that which conferred on the 23rd. October 1783, the title (now extinct) of Barone (sic) to Signor Mompalao, fall under this class. (3rd.) Other diplomas, lastly, besides the designation of the titled person exclusively, contain a restrictive clause; such as that granted to Conte Romualdo Barbaro, on the 14th. January 1793 and worded thus:- “Tibi Magnifico ac Nobili Romualdo Barbaro tantum;” that conferred upon Marchese Saverio Marchesi on the 8th. March 1793 in the following terms;- “Tibi Magnifico ac Nobili Xaverio Marchesi tantum” and the other given to Barone Francesco Gauci, on the 23rd. December 1781 and which runs thus:- “Tibi tantum, tua naturali vita perdurante”.

“The grants of the second and third description, differently from those of the first provide only for the investiture of the person therein mentioned, but do not proceed further to direct that the said investiture should be obtained by all the successors on any future vacancy, as laid down in the patents of the first class.

Hence it follows that from this point of view we see no difference between the patents granted with or without any restrictive clause, and comprised in the second and third classes, all such patents having been issued in the same terms and under the same conditions…”

In other words, the Royal Commissioners recognised two sets of titles, viz. those granted with full right of succession and those not granted with full right of succession i.e. ‘life-titles’; note that the title of Conte Gatt (Count of Beberrua) is specifically mentioned as falling into the second category.

In para 51, the Royal Commissioners also point out that certain titles granted by de Rohan were not really feudal titles at all “…but merely honorary titles since the dominium utile of the feud was not transferred to the person ennobled, but the feud remained, as it was and is still, the full property of the Government”

Again, the title of Conte Gatt falls into this category; thus his was a life-time non-feudal honorary title; these legal points are important in light of the later somewhat bizarre events.

Let us now turn specifically to the comments made by the Royal Commissioners on the title of Count of Beberrua. Thus, the title of Count of Beberrua, was, not surprisingly, disallowed by the Royal Commissioners.

The Royal Commissioners quite properly and sensibly applied the legal maxim of ubi voluit dixit ubi noluit tacuit. In other words, when the Grandmaster wanted something specified, he unequivocally did so.

In the case of Dr. Luigi Maria Gatt’s title, the Grandmaster did not specify succession and thus the title was, quite obviously, non-hereditary i.e. a ‘life-title’. However, the Members of the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility refused to accept this ruling and they presented a petition to the British Government on behalf of Dr. Nicola Gatt, the original grantee’s son and a prominent member of the local legal profession.

The British Secretary of State accepted this recommendation from the Committee of Privileges, “without prejudice to any decision of a competent court of law “ and on May 11, 1883, directed that Dr. Nicola Gatt be accepted as Count of Beberrua.

One has to understand the background to this acceptance; the British Government had become totally exasperated with the local nobility, which they considered to be a veritable nuisance! The Committee perpetually bombarded the British Government with lengthy communications about the most trivial items. One has only to read the heated correspondence exchanged between Malta and London to appreciate this.

In order to get the Committee of its back-you can just feel the exasperation of the British Civil Servants screaming at you from the official correspondence - the British Government decided to re-instate a number of titles, which its own Royal Commissioners had disallowed. This resulted in some very strange titles getting through.

But now, let us analyse the Committee of Privileges’ petition in a bit more detail

• 1. The Committee in their petition (para 34) state “ The patent of this grant is another feudal concession like the one of the July 23, 1777 already examined, whereby the title of Conte annexed to the fief of Beberrua was granted directly by Grandmaster de Rohan, the Sovereign for the time being of these islands to Luigi Gatt, by a deed ‘’inter vivos” under an onerous title and issued under the Sovereign’s seal in a writ “Bulla” therefore the concession is a real, proper and noble feud"

Comment The Committee failed to draw attention to the fact that the charter of creation contained this all-important sentence:

“… Reservato tam utili, quam directo Dominio predicti Pheudi de Beberrua, et omnium ab eodem dependentium sub annua recognitione tribuendi…” This loosely translates as “…we reserve (to ourselves) the direct dominion of the aforesaid fief of Beberrua and of all depending from it, under the yearly tribute…”

The Royal Commissioners had of course picked this qualifying clause straight away, which is why they denied this (and certain other titles) the status of a fief (feud) personally held by the grantee and his descendants. The British Government, however, in order to rid itself of the endless complaints from the Committee of Privileges, went against the advice of its own Commissioners and bestowed hereditary status on an obvious ‘life-title’.

The Royal Commissioners had stated (see above) that this title fell into the category of certain titles granted by de Rohan which were not really feudal titles at all “…but merely honorary titles since the dominium utile of the feud was not transferred to the person ennobled, but the feud remained, as it was and is still, the full property of the Government”

This was the true legal position, which rendered both the Committee’s petition and the subsequent British Government’s acquiescence totally inexplicable and patently absurd.

• 2. The Committee in their petition also stated

(para. 35) “All feuds are of their own nature perpetual and heritable to the male descendants of the grantee…”.And again, “..it (the title) lawfully endures for all the male issue “de primogenito in primogenitum in infinitum…”

(para. 36) “…it (the title) should continue to descend “de primogenitum in primogenitum in infinitum” to the male descendants of the grantee…”

Comment The Committee of Privileges was stating categorically that, since this title was a feudal title held by the First grantee (which, as we have seen, was total nonsense) this title should henceforth descend only in the primogenial male to male line;

Now this really is fascinating when one sees what that very same body came up with less than forty years later!-see below

• 3. Also in para 36, The Committee of Privileges considered this title “…fully deserving the grace and favour of recognition from the Crown…”

Comment In other words the members of the Committee of Privileges asked the British Government to turn a blind eye to the letter of the law despite the learned advice of its Royal Commissioners!

Would the British Government even consider turning a blind eye to the letter of the law in the case of an British Peerage?!

Therefore, We have a title, which should have expired upon the death of the First Grantee being recognised as an hereditary feudal title despite

• a. the fact that the Grandmaster who had created the said title had not directed that the title be hereditary (when he had done so in other cases) and

• b. that the title was not really feudal but honorary.

Again, one must ask, would the British Government have allowed a British Life Peerage to be inherited despite the specific terms contained in its charter of creation? I think not! The British took their own titles considerably more seriously than those of their colonies!

It is worth pointing out that the territorial designations upon which British Life peerages are based are also purely honorary-just like the de Rohan titles. They are not fiefs (feuds).

Whereas the ‘de Rohan title-holders’ had to present an annual tribute as a mark of allegiance, the British Life peers took/take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Now, just for the record, this title was given a new lease of life as an hereditary title on condition that it descended through a strict(primogenial) male line.

Well, that’s fairly clear isn’t it? Let us now go forward in time to 1941.

The Rev. Mgr. Roberto Caruana-Gatt(o), 6th. Count of Beberrua had died. There were no more male members of the family.

The terms of the Committee of Privileges’ petition (see above) which was instrumental in persuading the British Government to bend the rules and to convert the manifestly honorary life-title of Count of Beberrua into an hereditary feudal title were very specific.

The title had to go to the male issue “de primogenito in primogenitum in infinitum” (from first born to first born forever) descending from Dr. Luigi Maria Gatt.

Thus, the title should now have become extinct. Instead of which, the Count’s sister, Maria Gandolfo was, in 1945, recognised as the Countess by that very same Committee! This decision was bizarre in the extreme and totally inexplicable.

The family connections existing at the time of the Committee’s decision and its acceptance by the Colonial Government provide ample food for thought.

Maria Gandolfo’s brother in law just happened to be Marquis Paolo Nicola Apap-Bologna.

This gentleman was a very powerful figure in Maltese Society, in both the Maltese Colonial Government and on the Committee of Privileges. He was at one stage Vice-President of the Senate of Malta and the representative of the Nobility on that body; he was also for many years, President of the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility. So, this noble gentleman straddled the Government and the Committee of Privileges like a Colossus.

Now, of course, one would not dream of suggesting that a Committee over which the Marquis presided for so many years would blatantly bend the rules, despite existing law and precedent, in his sister-in-law’s favour.

We can therefore all rest assured that this decision, most favourable to the Marquis’s sister-in-law was a total coincidence!

We can also equally rest assured that the subsequent automatic recognition granted by the Maltese Colonial Government to the sister-in-law of one of its prominent erstwhile members was also a pure coincidence.

This decision, however, was pretty handy for Marquis Paolo Apap Bologna, since the female succession it permitted, immediately set a precedent which paved the way for his own daughter, Maria Teresa, to succeed her aunt in due course.

When ‘Countess’ Maria Gandolfo (Caruana Gatt(o)) died without issue in 1952, Marquis Paolo Nicola’s daughter, Maria Teresa Apap Bologna Caruana Gatt(o), (married name, Deguara), eventually succeeded after a few years of wrangling!

The main stumbling block now was the unsuccessful campaign of Dr. Joseph Borg Olivier de Puget Paleologo LLD to be recognised as Count of Beberrua. This gentleman (the Prince of Selimbria) was related to the First (and de jure Last) Count through a collateral line.

I’m sure that yet again, Marquis Paolo Nicola Apap Bologna had absolutely nothing to do with yet another female succeeding to a title inheritable (if it was inheritable at all) to the male issue “de primogenito in primogenitum in infinitum”.

It must be yet another pure coincidence that this time the female concerned just happened to be his own daughter. Ah well, just another of those strange coincidences which make the study of the Maltese Nobility so fascinating!

So, folks, we have a ‘life-title’ converted by questionable means into a hereditary title; a title, granted as a purely honorary title based on a fief firmly in the possession of the Government becomes converted into a full feudal title held by the First grantee and his descendants; the descent being on the express condition that it be inherited strictly ‘Male to Male’ (in the primogenial line of course). Less than 62 years later, Hey Presto! the title passes from a male to a female and then, yet again, to another female! Primogenial male-to-male line?!!

Maltese titles, it seems, never become extinct! Unlike British Dukedoms, they seem to be virtually indestructible!! Don’t they just remind you of those old Hammer movies where Count Dracula is repeatedly restored to life despite stakes being driven through his heart, silver bullets, running water, fire etc?

And Finally! ‘Countess’ Maria Teresa (Apap Bologna) Deguara Caruana Gatt(o) has, for many years been a member of the Committee of Privileges, sitting in judgement on matters of nobility. But one has to ask whether Maria Teresa (Apap Bologna) Deguara Caruana Gatt(o), the so-called present ‘Countess’ of Beberrua has any the right to this (strictly male) title? Did she therefore have any right to pass judgement on anybody at all? Should this (strictly male) title not have become extinct in 1941? In fact, should the original life-title of Count of Beberrua not have become extinct in 1825?

Each child succeeded the title of Count, apart from the youngest daughter, Guiseppina, who married the 5th Marquis di Gnien-is-Sultan and produced a daughter, who is the present Countess of Beberrua. Present Countess Maria Teresa Apap Bologna-Caruana-Gatto, Countess of Beberrua., married in 1956 to Joseph Deguara and have three children: Contino Paul Caruana Gatto is the eldest son and heir

References:

1. Said Vassallo, C.M.,Charles Said-Vassallo's Research site and Maltese Nobility web site.

This was researched by Charles Said-Vassallo

(Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.)