Footnote: This title is purely nominal and does not have any property attached to it. In their general observations, the Royal Commissioners observed that most of the titles granted by the Grandmasters were merely honorary and had no relevance on property tenure “although it appears that those titles (granted by the Grand Masters) have derived their different denominations from several feudal lands existing in these islands, this annexation, however, is in most cases purely nominal, for those lands were never in reality conveyed to the grantees, but they remained as they are still Government Property.” The Commissioners also identified the only three exceptions to this purely nominal phenomenon, where tenure of property was a prerequisite namely Bahria, delle Catene, and Senia, the last being a divisible property. 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. 82).

Published sources show the title of “Conte di Beberrua” as being inheritable. This is incorrect because the title was only granted “ad personam”.

It is noteworthy that the Royal Commissioners found that the grant did not provide for any remainder and therefore concluded that the title became extinct upon the death of the original grantee Luigi, sive Ludovico, Gatt. 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. 62-66).

The actual report says the following:

“On the 23rd October 1783, the same Grand Master Rohan issued a patent of “Conte di Beberrua”, in favour of Luigi or Ludovico Gatt, in the following terms: - “Tibi tribuimus, concedimus, et fidelitate nostra donamus, ac te Comitis hujusmodi titulo decoramus et insignimus nec non ita nominari posse et debere.” The terms of the grant are similar to those of the preceding patents granted to Barone Azzopardi and to Marchese Barbaro, containing no provision for the descent of the title to sons, heirs, descendents, and successors of the grantee. The two preceding grants, as we have already remarked, were by the same Grand Master taken to be personal, and as such, they were extended on an application of the grantees themselves, either to their first-born son exclusively, or as in the instance of Marchese Barbaro, to all their descendents for ever.

Dr. Nicolo’ Gatt, one of the co-heirs and only surviving son of the said Conte Luigi, claims the right of enjoying also the title, notwithstanding that in the diploma of 1783 only Conte Luigi, his father is designated.

In a statement of his claim illustrated by several doctrines and authorities which he has produced before the Commission, and which is appended to their report, brings forward in his support several arguments which are substantially the following:-“That the title granted by the patent of 1783 contains all the elements of a real and proper feud, investiture, oath of fidelity, homage: that it must be consequently regulated by the feudal laws; that these laws hold feuds to be, of their own nature, perpetual and descendible to the sons, descendents, heirs and successors of the feudatory, according to the different cases, without the necessity of any designation of such heirs and successors in the patent of grant; that the designation of such heirs and successors in intended not to extend the grant, but to specify the nature of the feud: that the same Grand Master Rohan previously and subsequently to 1783 issued other patents of titles of nobility with the clause "tibi tantum", or "tua naturali vita perdurante", which restrictive clauses specify the personal nature of the title, and are not expressed in the patent granted to his father: and that in several Acts of the Local Government, under the British rule, and during the period of 52 years, his title has been constantly recognized.

Cogent and forcible as these arguments drawn from the general principles of the feudal laws may appear, their value depends wholly on the construction given by the same sovereign who conferred the present title, to other grants worded in an identical form. As we have already remarked, Grand Master Rohan himself had always considered such grants as exclusively personal to the grantee and not inheritable by their heirs and successors, and these titles were also acknowledged as such by the same grantees. This circumstance added to the fact that such construction was, by Grand Master Rohan, given prior to the present grant, as appears from the rescript isued on the 25th April 1778, in favour of Barone Azzopardi, and that issued on the 2nd January 1779, in favour of Marchese Barbaro, renders it unnecessary for the Commissioners to inquire further into the present claim, as there can be no sounder interpretation than that given by the sovereign grantor in other similar cases. The Commissioners can only refer, for further information, to the arguments which were advanced in regard to the title of "Barone di Buleben" and which for the most part are applicable to the present case.

With regard to the recognition of the title which the claimant presumes to have been effected in his person by the local administration under the British rule, we think that such inquiry would exceed the scope of our Commission, and we only advert to our remarks on the subject of the claim to the title of “Barone di Buleben”. After an impartial examination of the present claim to the title of ‘Conte di Beberrua”, we think that the claimant has failed to establish his right to that title.”

The claimant Dr. Nicolo’ Gatt pursued his claim to the title which was granted to his father, and in 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 that “Our opinion is that the title at the death of the grantee vested in Conte Nicolo Gatt LL.D., the only surviving son of the person first ennobled, and that it should continue to descend, “de primogenito in primogenitum in infinitum”, to the male descendants of the grantee. Under these circumstances we consider this title fully deserving the grace and favour of recognition form the Crown, that the bearer may have his name duly entered in the official list of Titolati.”

This recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. See:- “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). (See Doc. 1. “Report” Paras. 33-36; and Doc. 2 “Reply”)

It remains debatable – purely on the basis of the latter recommendation – whether this title can lawfully be inherited through the female line, and/or whether the title can be held by a female.

In any event, it is clear that no one can validly claim this title solely on the basis of the grant of 1783.