Azzopardi

Footnote: On the 23rd July 1777, the same Grand Master Rohan granted by patent the title of barone di Buleben to the nobleman Gaetano Azzopardi, in the following terms: – “Tibi nobili Cajetano Azzopardi tribuimus, concedimus et donamus hujusmodi titulo insignimus ac Baronem dicti feudi ‘ta Buleben” constituimus, et ita nominari posse et debere atque uti, frui ac gaudere omnibus et singulis…”  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.)

The foregoing patent differs from most of the other titles granted by the Grand Masters, inasmuch as it only designates the person ennobled, without providing for the descent of the title to his heirs and successors, and without specifically settling the course by which the dignity was to be conveyed to such heirs and successors. In this way, in terms of the 1777 grant, the said Gaetano Azzopardi was the first and last Barone di Buleben. However, this was subsequently changed  see footnote below. 

The 1777 grant like the title of Marchese di San Giorgio only to be enjoyed by the original grantee. The first Barone Gaetano who was clearly aware of the limited terms of the 1777 grant later presented a petition (in Italian) to the Grand Master, representing that “Whereas in the deed of grant of the title of ‘Barone di Buleben’ most benignly made to him, your Most Serene Highness had been pleased to order that on that occurrence the diploma should be issued from the cancelleria in favour of himself alone….And whereas in his family there existed a primogenitura erected in favour such among his children as he would name, and in default of nomination, in favour of his eldest son, and descendible to the first born males by the law of primogeniture (di primogenito in altro) until the total extinction of his male line, with power to each holder of it to name his successor; and wheareas the income of that Primogenitura was more than sufficient for the decent suport of its possessor, he (petitioner) begged that the grant of the title of ‘Barone di Buleben’ should be extended to such of his sons and male descendents as might for the time being be the holder of the Primogenitura“. On this application the Grand Master endorsed the following rescript: “Magister Hospitalis Hyerusalem Gratiam petitam Oratori concedimus pro ejus filio successore in Primogenitura de qua in precibus, tantum. Datum in Palatio, die 25 Aprilis 1778“. 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.)

The first born son of Gaetano, Calcedonio Azopardi, senior, after his father’s death presented a petition to the Grand Master, requesting the investiture of the baronial title, submitting that the title had been granted to such of the grantee’s sons as might be in possession of the Primogenitura, and producing an extract from an instrument from which it appeared that he had been named by his father to succeed to that Primogenitura. On this petition a decree was made on the 5th July 1788, and the formula of the oath for the investiture had already been partly drawn up, but it was afterwards, together with the petition, the decree, and the document, therein inserted, cancelled, as appears from the original records in the Cancelleria. The investiture was subsequently given to Barone Calcedonio, as may be seen from another authentic document in the Government Archives, bearing date the 10th August 1788; it begins thus: – ‘Notum sit quod cum alias titulum Baronis feudi de Buleben, sub die 28 mensis Julii 1777, nobilis Cajetano Azzopardi pro ejus persona tantum concesserimus, quodque pariter, vigore nostri Magistralis Rescripti sub die 25 Aprilis 1778, editi, titulum hujusmodi etiam ad ejus filium Primogenituram habentem ampliaverimus, prout in hujusmodi concessionis diplomate et Rescripto, ad quae habeatur ratio plenius continetur…..“

It is to be remarked that this investiture is similar to circumstances of the investiture of Ercole Martino Testaferrata of the 1 May 1737 who was invested in the barony of Gomerino after succeeding the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogenitura. (only that in the latter case, there is no sign of cancellation and that in the case of Gomerino, that title was originally granted in 1710 with remainder to future descendants;  The 1778 investiture is also similar to the 1745 grant of Conte della Catena which contemplates a relationship between that title and a private entail.

In regard to Calcedonio Azopardi’s investiture and the documentation presented to the 1878 Commissioners, a query was raised which appears to have prompted the Commissioners to comment thus: “We must remark that, in this document, there are some corrections, and for the word filios, in the plural number, the word filium in the singular appears to have been substituted. On examining the said document, we observed that the corrections in it are in the same handwriting as the original, and we have no ground for suspecting that the abrasions in the original incomplete formula, and the corrections in the one subsequently drawn up, were made after the above-mentioned investiture had taken place.” 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.)

The Commissioners held that the 1777 grant as amended in 1778 did not indicate sufficiently that the title was to be succeeded by Calcedonios ulterior descendants. The 1878 Commission therefore declared the title of Barone di Buleben to have become extinct on the 20 February 1799 upon the death of the barone Calcedonio Azopardi. (See footnote below). For more detailed reasons of the 1878 Commissioners’ decision.

Footnote: Calcedonio Azzopardi, junior pursued his claim to the title which was granted to his great-grand-father. In the same year, 1883, a Committee of five Titolati (namely Ciantar, Apap Bologna, De Piro, Manduca and Delicata) recommended to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies as follows Baron Vincenzo died in 1857, after a personal, peaceful possession of nearly 60 year. Calcedonio Azopardi, the junior, succeeded to the paternal rights, in whose person both titles of primogenitor and that of possessor of the Primogenitura are united; he peacefully held the dignity of Barone di Buleben for the long period of more than 20 years, until unfortunately the Executive Government, without any solid reason, and not in pursuance of a legal action brought before by people that had an interest to sustain the determination of the title of Barone di Buleben, gave him to understand that this title had been for a long time extinct, and what is more remarkable and strange, that it had determined before Baron Vincenzo his father had succeeded to this dignity. Owing to the abovestated reasons it is hoped that the decision, emanated not under the authority of a court of justice, nor delivered on the suit of persons legally interested in the matter, be over-ruled, that ample justice may be done o Baron Calcedonio Azopardi the junior, his sons and descendants by authorizing them, through the grace and favour of the Crown, to hold the said title of Barone di Buleben as it was held previously and possessed by the Primogeni Azopardi possessors of the Primogenitura and the memorialist Baron Calcedonio to have his name duly entered in the official list of Titolati.

This recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies without prejudice to any decision of a competent court of law. See:- Report of the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility on the claims of certain members of that body with the Secretary of States Reply, August 1883, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C-3812).. (See Doc. 1. Report Paras. 2-32; and Doc. 2 ply).

Footnote: This lady, Giuseppina Azopardi, is recorded as having succeeded the title as 7th Baroness. In doing so, it must be assumed either (a) that another adjustment must have been effected to the remainder of the 1777 grant, which adjustment is not reported in the aforesaid 1878 Report, or (b) that the 1883 decision does not contemplate ‘daughters’ but only ‘sons’. To date, published sources are not helpful in this regard. It is also unclear how this lady bypassed her elder sister Angolina Azopardi (born 1862).

Footnotes: