Maltagenealogy.com presents
Looking for More Data Here.
Footnote: The title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the
Duchy of Parma, was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720 at the request of the
grantee, the Maltese Citizen Bernardo Piscopo, by
Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma.
This title did not originate in
Malta but in Parma. At Maltese Law it is only a foreign title and, as such, it
can be considered for the purposes of precedence only if registration or
Magistral recognition has been achieved in accordance with the rules of 1739
and 1795 as enacted by Grand Masters Despuig and Rohan. In this case, the said title is clearly older than
the aforesaid rules. However from a diligent reading of the Commissioners
Report there is no reference to either a recognition
by the Grand Masters nor to any registration of this title. In any event, this
grant is detailed in the Commissioners Report. (See:- “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.) (See Report Paras. 176-191)).
It is to be remarked that in the general part of the Report that (like most of
the titles granted by the Grand Masters), the foreign titles considered by the
Commissioners were observed to be purely nominal, not feudal, and that the mere
attachment of peculiar designations such as “di
San Vincenzo Ferreri”
and “di San Paolino”
did not render such titles feudal. The Commissioners did however point out that
this was not the case in regard to the title under discussion (Mont’Alto) and that discussed elsewhere
(Castel Cicciano) (See:- “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.) (See Report Para. 241)).
The Commissioners carried out a very
detailed analysis of this title, the fief and the remainder and concluded that
the title of Conte di Mont’Alto
as granted in 1720 became extinct in 1775 and accordingly dismissed the claim
of the then claimant Monsignor Manduca Piscopo Macedonia .
However, the Monsignor was at the
same time claiming another title of “Conte” namely one presumed to
have been granted in 1776 to Salvatore Manduca by
Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma. This second title was likewise not registered nor was there any proof
of recognition by the Grand Masters. The Commissioners did not pronounce
themselves on the latter title, because, as explained by them, the Monsignor had
yet to present some more documents to substantiate his (second) claim both
in so far as its existence as also insofar far of proof of recognition by the
Grand Master.
Some published sources indicate both
titles as being one and the same, which of course they are not. However, it is
worth noting that this confusion is probably due to the mistake of the British
Secretary of State for the Colonies who in assessing the Report (which clearly
states that the title of Mont’Alto is extinct)
that “If
Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo
Macedonia succeeds in substantiating his claim to be Conte di
Mont’Alto, the title should of course be added
to the list”. (See:- “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.) (See Report Paras. 176-191; 218-222 and letter dated 30 April
1878 to Governor van Straubanzee, the Secretary of
State for the Colonies Hicks-Beach (Report page 59-60))
The full texts relative to both titles
reads as follows:
The title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the
Duchy of Parma, which is claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca
Piscopo Macedonia, was, together with the fief of
Monte Alto, conferred at the grantee’s request, by Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo,
by a Rescript given at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720.
Subsequently to the grant, the said
Bernardo having no issue, in a petition addressed to the Duke of Parma,
represented (translated from the Italian): that he was desirous of obtaining
the power of disposing of the fief in favour of Felice
Manduca Piscopo, his
grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice,
and so in favour of such of them as the petitioner (Bernardo) might designate
his heir, and of his legitimate and natural male children and descendants from
a real and lawful wedlock issuing in infinitum, according to the order of
primogeniture, or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to
dispose thereof, so that in case he should die without issue as aforesaid, the
above-mentioned fief, with the title of Count, with its jurisdictions, power of
the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium..should be vested in the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as the petitioner might
nominate to be his heir, in the same manner and form as if the latter were
expressly included and designated in the said grant and investiture, and this (he
requested) in order that in the family of his said grand-nephews, that is of
such of them as might be his heir, the glorious token of a perpetual vassalage
to the Most Serene dynasty of your Highness might always be preserved in its
lustre. He consequently requested that H.S. Highness, should grant him the
power of disposing of the said fief, in the way hereinafter stated, and that
pursuant to such a disposition, his highness should “nunc pro tunc”
invest the abovementioned Manduca Piscopo,
his grand-nephew, or another brother of his, as aforesaid, for himself and his
legitimate and natural sons and male descendants, from a real and lawful
wedlock, issuing in infinitum, and declare that, in such case, he should be
considered as invested with the said fief of Monte Alto and with a title of
Conte, as if the said Felice or such of his brothers
as might be the petitioner’s heir, as aforesaid, had been expressly
included and designated in the grant and in the investiture. He also prayed
that H.S. Highness might be pleased to grant him licence to create on that fief
a rgular and lineal Primogenitura, in favour of the legitimate and
natural first-born descendants in infinitum of the sad Felice
or another of his brothers, as petitioner might prefer”.
On the foregoing petition, the Duke
issued the following rescript: Concedimus investimus, mandamus, declaramus,
approbamus, et derogamus in omnibus et per omnia ut
petit. Et non obstantibus (Dat. Comitii, die 19
Mensis 7 bris anni 1724, Franciscus Dux
From the tenor of that petition it
appears: 1st That Bernardo applied for the extension of the grant in favour of Felice Manduca his grand-nephew
and his descendants or of another brother of the said Felice
and his descendants exclusively, that is, in favour of such of them as he
should have nominated his heir, according to the law of primogeniture; 2ndly
that he did not in his application, contemplate the case of the extinction of
the descending line of Felice, or of another of his
grand-nephews, whom he would have designated as his heir; 3rdly That he did not
apply for, and consequently, by the rescript juxta preces,
did not obtain the grant, that the title should be enjoyed by all those
who, according to his testamentary dispositions, would have possessed the Primogenitura, but he only obtained thereby
the power of transmitting the title to one of his grandnephews who would be his
heir, and to his descendants, under the rule of primogeniture.
Thence, it follows, that the dispositions
contained in Bernardo’s testament, to which we shall hereafter refer, and
according to which the devolution of the Primogenitura
was to be regulated, cannot be attended to in interpreting the grant which, in
substance, does not contain but an alternative power.
We do not think that it may be legally
assumed that the expression “according to the order of primogeniture”
have, in the present instance, the strength of establishing that the title we
are considering is inheritable by all the holders of the Primogenitura,
even though they do not descend from Felice or
from one of his brothers whom the grantee would have nominated to be his heir.
That expression implies merely that the descent of the title to the lineal
successors of such heir must take place according to the rule of primogeniture;
and certainly Bernardo in making use of that expression did not contemplate the
removal of the title, under th law of primogeniture,
to a line different from that which had been preferred, and which subsequently
became extinct.
The words (which immediately precede
the expression “according to the order of primogeniture”) in favour
of Felice Piscopo his
grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice,
that is, of such of them as petitioner might designate his heir, and his
legitimate and natural male children and descendants, form a real and lawful
wedlock issuing”, leave no doubt on the subject. It is true that after
the words “according to the order of primogeniture” Bernardo
proceeds to say “or in such any other manner as petitioner might
prefer to dispose thereof” but the applicant in order to explain what
he meant by those expressions “or in such any other manner as
petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof” immediately adds, “that
in case he should die without issue, as aforesaid, the abovementioned fief,
with the title of Count”.should be vested in
the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as
the petitioner might nominate to be his heir.”
Bernardo in a subsequent part of his
petition says “and this (he requested) in order that in the family of
his said grand-nephews, that is of such of them as might be his heir, the
glorious token”..might be preserved in its
lustre. By these expressions, Bernardo evidently did not allude to the
family of all his grand-nephews that is of Felice and
of all the brothers of Felice, and their respective
descendants, but to the family of that alone of his grand-nephews whom he
should have nominated to be his heir. If, therefore, Bernardo in his testament
designated Felice as his heir, no one of the brothers
of Felice and no descendant of any of the brothers of
Felice can have a reasonable claim in virtue of the
Rescript of the 19th September 1724, to the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto.”
Now, Bernardo in his solemn
testament received in the acts of Notary Tommaso Vella, on the 9th March 1725, nominated his heir in the
following terms (translated from the Italian original):- “I further
nominate”..Felice Manduca
my grand-nephew, son of Signor Francesco Manduca, to
be heir to all and singular my property”.. “The
testator proceeds to say, “But whereas, being destitute of issue, it was
always my particular intention to preserve my property, that it may be in perpetuum enjoyed by the descendants of Maria, my late
paternal half-sister, my will and direction is that all my said property shall
be erected”.into a perpetual majoratus , under a very close fidei commissum prohibiting”.for
it is my will that the said property be perpetually preserved and enjoyed by
the first-born or eldest son, and by his male children and descendants for
ever, and on failue of male issue by the first-born
daughter, nominating as I do nominate the aforesaid Signor Felice my grand-nephew, son of Signor Francesco Manduca, to be the stock of the said Primogenitura
and Maggiorato, provided, however,
that he as well as all his descendants who shall enjoy the Maggiorato,
shall bear the family name Piscopo Macedonia and my
own armorial ensigns..”and
not otherwise.”
The testator moreover directed that
in the succession to the Primogenitura the following order
should be observed, that is, that after having been enjoyed pleno jure by the aforesaid Signor Felice my grand-nephew, for the term of his life, it shall
after his death descend to his first-born son, if he shall happen to be alive,
and if he shall not, to his first-born son, from whom it shall be transmitted
to the first-born grandson or other descendants, the one after the other, from
one first-born descendant to another, the degree of primogeniture being
observed, in perpetuum, even beyond the tenth and
twentieth degree in infinitum , during the existence of the line of the
said Felice, provided such descendants be lawfully
and naturally born, so that he shall succeed who shall be the first-born
surviving son, and his line, and the male or other surviving descendants
issuing from such line, and after their decease quando cumque
the succession shall devolve upon the second-born son of the said person
first nominated, and his son, grandson, or great grandson, according to the
order of primogeniture in perpetuum and in
infinitum, and in the failure of the second-born son as aforesaid, it shall
devolve upon the legitimate and natural third-born son, and on the first-born
son among his legitimate and natural male descendants.
By the foregoing testamentary
dispositions Bernardo Piscopo contemplating only his
grand-nephew Felice, designated him alone as he heir,
he created a Primogenitura of which he
nominated the said Felice to be the stock and stirps.
In regulating the succession to that Primogenitura, moreover,
he ordered that it should descend to the first-born son of Felice
and his issue according to the order of primogeniture; and foreseeing the
possibility of the extinction of the descending line of Felice’s
first-born son, he specified the manner in which he intended that in such case
the Primogenitura should pass to the
other descendants of the said Felice. It is
therefore, obvious that Bernardo by his testament exhausted the powers granted
him by the Duke of Parma, who had authorized him to dispose of the title in
favour of Felice, or of one of the brothers of Felice,
Bernardo’s testament contains
no disposition as to the devolution of the Primogenitura,
in case the line of Felice should be
extinguished, and no substitution is in such case, ordered in favour of any of Felice’s brothers. It is only therein provided that “if
the said Felice shall infringe the conditions
herein-before expressed, he shall forfeit the succession to, and the enjoyment
of, that property, and the whole of shall go to, and be vested in, Bernardo,
his brother, or his sons, and in case both shall violate what has been as
herein-before ordered, the whole shall fall to the benefit of their other
brothers and sisters and their sons, after each other, the order of
primogeniture, as aforesaid, being always observed.
Nor can it be inferred from the
foregoing disposition, that the line of Felice having
become extinct, we are to extend to the case of death the disposition which
appears to have been made for the case of contravention; and even if this were
assumed, it would not follow that Bernardo, after having designated Felice as his heir, had in virtue of the Rescript of 1724,
the power of disposing either directly or by way of substitution, of the
dignity with which he had been ennobled by the Duke of Parma, in favour also of
another of Felice’s brothers. If therefore, we
hold that Bernardo substituted in the Primogenitura
other lines to that of Felice, (which it was
certainly in his power to do) this assumption does not lead to the conclusion
that he had the power of transferring the title to any of the persons belonging
to the line he had substituted).
Now, looking to the facts, it
appears that the line of Felice, who left no issue,
was determined by the death of his two daughters, the Contessa,
Maria Manduca, wife of Barone
Pietro Paolo Testaferrata
and of the Contessa Felicita
Manduca, wife of Barone Ignazio Bonici, both of whom had
no offspring. After the decease of Contessa Felicita, the Primogenitura
was inherited by Bernardo Manduca, brother of Felice, who died also without issue, and then it fell to
Sir Vincenzo Manduca, who
was born of Salvatore, another deceased brother of Felice,
and who was also issueless. After the death of Sir Vincenzo
Manduca, the Primogenitura
was inherited by Monsignor Manduca, who is the present
claimant of the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”. He is the son of Paolo Manduca and grandson of the aforesaid Salvatore Manduca, and there is no doubt that, but for the
circumstance of the title having become extinct, his claim would rest on good
legal grounds. The possession of the Primogenitura was awarded to Monsignor Manduca
by a decision of the Civil Courts of these Islands, based on certain arguments
deduced from Bernardos testament.
After a careful consideration of all
the foregoing circumstances, we are necessarily led to the conclusion that
the title of Conte di Mont Alto, was
determined on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice
Manduca, who had no male issue (see Chap. 11, #218 et
seq).
We have no legal grounds for
adopting a different conclusion, and with regard to any recognition of the present title which might be
presumed to have been effected under the British Government, we beg
respectfully to refer His Excellency to the observations already stated with
regard to the claim to the Barony of Buleben.
The title of Mont Alto as
granted in 1720 having been declared extinct, the Commissioners later proceeded
to discuss the other title claimed by Monsgnor Manduca as follows:
As we have already stated, the title
of “Conte di Mont’Alto”,
in the Duchy of Parma, granted in 1720 to Bernardo Piscopo,
and extended in 1724 in favour of one of the grantees male grand-nephews, was
determined by the death without issue of “Conte Felice
Manduca”, which occurred on the 14th May 1775
(#188). Monsignor Salvarore Manduca
Piscopo Macedonia, however, asserts that the said
grant was, by a rescript of the 28th December 1776, renewed in favour of
Salvatore Manduca, his grand-father, and of the grantees
male issue. In support of such claim, Francesco Manduca
on the claimant’s behalf produced on the 29th September last several
papers which are stated to be true copies of certain documents existing at
Parma, but which bear no attestation, and consequently afford no evidence of
the authenticity of their contents.
One of these documents is stated to
be a copy of a petition addressed to the Duke of Parma by the said Salvatore Manduca, who therein represented (the extract is translated
from the Italian): “That having gratuitously obtained the grant of the
fief of Monte Alto situated at Parma, for himself and his legitimate and
natural sons and male descendants, in the same manner as it was originally
granted to Bernardo Piscopo, on the 1st July 1720,
and subsequently renewed in the person of Felice Manduca, late brother of the said Salvatore, he
(petitioner) requested that H.S.H. should give the necessary directions for the
execution of the deed relative to the grant”. The foregoing request was
complied with, by the rescript of the 28th December 1776.
It may not be improper to remark, in
this place that in 1776, the Primogenitura erected
by Bernardo Piscopo in 1725 (#183) was possessed by Contessa Anna Manduca, eldest
daughter of the said Count Felice. It follows that
Salvatore Manduca in requesting the renewal of the
title in favour of himself and his male descendants,
acknowledged that the original grant of 1720 had been extinguished by the death
of Felice, and that the rules laid down in Bernardo’s
testament for the devolution of the Primogenitura
were not applicable to the succession of the original title.
We beg to submit that among the
unauthenticated documents produced by the claimant, there is the form of an
oath of fidelity which is stated to have been taken by the said Salvatore Manduca, when invested with the fief of Monte Alto. It is
conceived in the following terms:- (Translation form
the Italian) “I, Salvatore Manduca Piscopo, feudatory of Mont’Alto
situated in the Duchy of Parma, do swear unto God Almighty that from this time
forward until the last day of my life I will always and at all times be a
faithful and obedient subject, feudatory, and vassal of H.R.H. the Most Serene
and Royal Infante of Spain, Don Ferdinando of the
House of Bourbon, as Duke of Parma, Piacenza and Guastella”.. And that I will not acknowledge as my
lord any other person, whatever may be his capacity, rank, condition, and
pre-eminence, but H.R.H. the said Most Serene Infante Ferdinando
as Duke of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla,
his heirs and successors as aforesaid.
The present title (if taken to have
ever existed) was never registered in Malta, nor has the claimant produced any
proof of its having ever been recognized by the Grand Masters of the Order of
St. John. We must
not, however, omit to state that on inspecting the Minute Book in which the
appointment of the jurats was entered during the Government of the Order, we
noticed that Salvatore Manduca was in the year
1797-1798 appointed jurat for Notabile and styled “Conte”.
We can, however, give no importance to this circumstance in the absence of an
authentic copy of the patent of creation of this title; and we beg to add that
although the above-named Francesco Manduca had
declared himself ready to bring over from Parma some authentic documents, we
did not think it advisable to delay further the presentation of our Report.”
As matters now stand, we cannot
include Monsignor Manduca in our list of “Titolati”. It is, however, to be understood
that the claimant is by no means precluded from producing at any future time
further evidence of the existence and recognition of this title, in which
case his claim, must in our opinion, be reconsidered.’
The Report was then presented to the
authorities. In his letter dated 30 April 1878 to Governor van Straubanzee, the Secretary of State for the Colonies
Hicks-Beach (See Report page 59-60) wrote:
“If Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia
succeeds in substantiating his claim to be Conte di Mont’Alto, the title should of course be added to the
list”.
It is clear that the Secretary of
State was here referring to the title of “Conte” presumed to have
been granted to Salvatore Manduca and not to the
title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”,
described elsewhere in the report under paras. 176-191, which the Commissioners
found to have been determined on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice Manduca, who had no male
issue.
In any event, it appears Monsignor Manduca managed to substantiate his claim sometime between
1878 and 1883 because his name appears as one of the five titolati who were appointed to form a
Committee in 1883 as results from the document “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)”.
However, given the fact that the
second grant (or extension of the first?) is not