The Express.
London, England, 1858-04-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Apin. 20.

rill SZRZWiItiIY PZBRAGE.

Their lordships sat as • committee for privileges; Lead
Redesdale in the chair. The hearing of the claim of Earl
Talbot to the earktom of Shrewsbury, which occupied so
much of their lordships' time last session, wee resumed. On
that occasion the claimant wu represented by Sir F.
Thrive, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. T. F. Ellis, and Mr. Pounce-
foot.. Mr. Serjeant Bytes, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr.
Bowyer, and Mr. Badcleley sneered for the Duke of
Norfolk, as next friend of Lord Edward Howard, devisee of
the Shrewsbury estate miter the will of the late earl, to
oppose the claim. Mr. Flesslag and Mr. Peter Burke ap-
for Major Talbot, of Castle Talbot, county Wexford,
farereld, and also for the Princess Doris Pamplia, of Rome,
daughter of John, sixteenth asi. The then Attoraey-
General, Sir R. Bethell, and Mr. P. Roche appeared for
the crown. The elevauon of Sir F. Theatre to the wool-
sack, and of Mr. Serjeant Bytes to the beach, as well as the
retirement of Sir R. Bothell from office, have nosed • change
In the relative positions of the counsel, and they now stand
thus :—The Attorney-General (Sir F. Kelly), Mr. T. F.
Ellis, end Mr. Harmer, for the claimant ; Sir R. Bothell,
Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Flemisg, Mr. Baddeley„ end Mr.
Bowyer for Lord Edward Howard ; Mr. P. Burke for
Major Talbot ; the Solicitor-General (Sir H. M. Cairn.), end
Mr. H. P. Roche, fur the mown. The following la a short
statement of the cess :—lt is a claim made by the Right
Hon. Henry John Chetwynd, Earl Talbot, to the earldom of
Shrewsbury ; which, he contended, bad accrued to him on
the death of Bertram Arthur, the seventeenth earl, who died
without issue male in August, 1856. The dignity of
earldom of Shrewsbury commenced in the time of Henry the
Sixth, in the twentieth year of whose reign, 1442, Sir John
Talbot, afterwards Earl Talbot, who was well known in
history as the distinguished leader of the English armies
in France in the time of Henry the Sixth, was created Earl
of Shrewsbury by letters patent. He was succeeded by his
son, second earl, and the earldom was enjoyed noon-
steely by John, third earl, son and heir of the second earl,
end his Mire male, until 1617-18, when the elder line of the
first earl became extinct on the death, without male haus, of
Edward, ninth earl. The pedigree thus had become broken
into three distinct branches- The first branch descended
from John, the third sal, who had • brother, Sir Gilbert
Talbot of
Graftoe, second son of John second earl. Sir
Gilbert Talbot of Grafton had • son, Sir John Talbot of All-
bri4ten, who was twice married, end by his drat
with Margaret Troutbeck he had issue, from whom
second branch was descended. The earldom of Shrewsbury
desceaded through various earla until it reached Bertram
Arthur, the late earl, who died without lame. The third
branch was derived from the second marriage of Sir John,
of Allbrighton, with Elizabeth Wrottecley, through whom
Earl Talbot now claimed the title, by showing that
the other breatha were extinguished. With regard to
the first branch, there was a regular succession down
to Gilbert, seventh earl, who died without issue male, and
wee succeeded by hie brother Edward, eighth earl, who died
without issue male, and thus the first branch became ex-
tinct. George, ninth earl, who succeeded, and who wee
the heir male of Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton, being de-
scended from Sir John of Allbrlghtos, through hie son by
his first marriage with Margaret Troutbeck, could not have
succeeded but for the failure of the first branch. In 1831,
John, sixteenth Earl of Shrewsbury, claimed to vote for the
election of representative peers for Ireland as Earl of Water-
ford, which latter title was created at the wee time and with
the same limitations as the first earldom of Shrewsbury, and
his pedigree was admitted by the house without proof. It
wag stated to be unneceessq, therefore, to go into proof
of the first branch, but that it would be to
prove that the second branch was dunned. It wasderived
from Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton, emend son of John, '
second earl, who was a Knight of the Gates, and his
garter plate was in existence, on which was a cresoent, the
mark of • second son, and it was borne by all bis deseuidanta.
Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton had • son Gilbert, who died
without issue, and Sir John of Allbrighten, before alluded
to, became heir male to Sir Gilbert of Orifton. He had
one ern by his first wife, and two sons by hie second wife.
The rinds= of his eon by his first wife became, as stated
above, ninth Earl of Shrewsbury, and died without issue
male in 1630, and was succeeded by his nephew John, the
eldest son of his deceased brother John. The tends earl, John,
woe twioe married, and of his three soca, the second eras
eleventh eml. The son of the third son, by Mare of the issue
of Francis, eleventh earl, became thirteenth earl, and through
him descended the title to Bertram Arthur Bertram, who
died without issue male. John, the tenth earl, by his second
marriage had three eons, two of whom died without issue
male, and the other had • son, John of Longford, who died
without none male. Thus the WWI of the first marriage of
Sir John of Allbrighton had become extinct. Then came the
third branch, which was derived from the second marriage of
Sir John of Allbrighton with Elizabeth Wrottesley. By that
marriage
as
h two song, of whom the elder died early,
while
line was continued by the younger moo, John of
Selene'', who married Olive Sherrington, and whose ace,
Sherrington Talbot, left by his second marriage with Mary,
daughter of John Waahbourne, three sons, of whom the two
elder died without leaving issue, and the line of descent was
continued by the third sou, William, successively Bishop of
Oxbed, Salisbury, end Durham. He was the father of
Charles Talbot, Lord Chancellor of England, who was raised
to the pserage in 1733 as Lord Talbot, and whose son, created
Earl Talbot of legatee in 1714, was grandfather to the pee-
-1 sent claimant.

At the close of the proceedings last session the case for the
claimant had been at one time supposed to be closed ; but,
in consequence of certain objections taken to the evidence
by the then AttorneyMeneral (Skit. Bothell) on behalf of the
mown, the matter was adjourned until this union, for the
purpose of enabling the claimant to produce new evidence to
meet thaw objections.
The Attorney-General (Sir F. Kelly) to-day opened the
new evidence which it is proposed to adduce ; end the can
was proossding when their lordships rose.
There was a very numerous attendance of peers, sad the
proceedings still seem to excite ommiderable interest.

EQUITY COURTS.—APRIL 20.
(Bofors Vico-Choaaßar Sir W. P. Wood.)
THE 11110 OP OODE O. MOVLTEI NOSE= 000 DUN LEAN

Mr. Rolt and Mr. C. Rail wired ex parte for an in-
junction to restrain the defendant from dealing with
a sum of 7,1661. 6s. under the following cir-
cumstances .—The plaintiff, he said, was the King of
Oade and his eldest eon, Mina Mohammad Rudd
Allis the latter of whom sued by his next friend. The bill
stated that after the assumption of the administration of the
territories of Oade by the British government the Kizif
Onde had sent to this country the Queen Mother, his brother,
end the plaintiff, and they were accompanied by the defendant
as the King's agent, the object of their coming to England
being to appeal to the government of this country
end parliament with a view to the restoration to
the Kg of Onde of his kingdom and property.
They were furnished by the King with money, but as
their stay was protracted ft became necessary that their
funds should be replenished. They applied to the King
through the East India Company for assistance, end on the
22nd of January last the King's brother received a letter
from the secretary of the East India Company, stating that
the Court of Directors had received a communication from
the government of India, requesting that the equivalent of
68,700 rupee' might be paid to him in England for the family
of the King of Ode, end that • warrant had been
for the equivalent thereof (7,1661. de.), which would pissed
to him on application at the India-house. Upon the
receipt of that letter the defendant, by the direction of the'
King's brother, proceeded to the India-house, obtained the
warrant, and received the money, and he_prooeeded to ideas
it, or a portion of it, in the London and Westminster Bank
in his own name. The Queen Mother and the King's
brother died about a month afterwards, and the plaintiff
considering that the 7,1661. belonged to him, applied to the
defendant for it through his solicitors, Messrs. Gregory and
Co. The defendant refused to pay it to him, and withdrew
it from the London end Westminster bank. It wee believed,
however, that he had paid it into another bank, and the in-
junction that was now sought was to prevent him dealing
with it.

. _
The Vice-Clutnoellor made an ad interim order until Satur-
day, with leave to give notice of motion for to •morrow.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.-APRIL 20.

(SlWisp in Bence.—Before Lord Campbell and Justices
Wight:roan, Erie, and Crompton.)
(Continued from yesterday's Ispress.)

THE QUEEN V. HUMPHREY DROWN AND OTIIEIL.HE
ROYAL IRITIEH HAIL

Mr. Edwin James said he was instructed to make *similar
motion on behalf of Henry Dunning Macleod, another of the
defendants. His actual imprisonment, which was now fast
expiring, was of little consequence to Mr. Macleod ; but be
was a young man 30 years of age, and a member of the
English bar, and while the record of this conviction for con-
spiracy and fraud remained tutreversed it would
be an impediment to him, not only as regarded his
professional advancement, but in his interouruve with
others in the society in which he had aspired to move. He
(Mr. James) believed be should satisfy their lordship, that
there ws• no evidence at all against him from the beginning
of his connexion with the bank until its stoppage to justify
the verdict of the jury that be was • conspirator with &guilty
knowledge and intention to defraud the shareholders or any
other person having an interest in the bank. He appealed
to their lordships from that prejudice which from the com-
mencement to the end of the trial was manifested in a way
which all who saw it could never forget—when Lord Camp-
bell, late on a Saturday night, immediately alter the verdict,
sentenced those unhappy men to imprisonment, without
allowing them to take leave of their wives and families,
although they were upon hail, loud shouts followed the sen-
tence, thus showing, he thought, that the case did not re-
ceive from the jury that fair, calm, and deliberate considera-
tion which such a trial imoierionsly demanded. His lordship
left the case against Mr. Macleod in a very fair and impartial
manner. He said there was no positive evidence to incul-
pate him, and that it seemed to him that there was a very
alight case made out against him. He kept hie shares to the
very last, borrowed no money from the Walt, and invested
him whole fortune in it.

Lord Campbell aid, unfortunately there was the letter
whirls he wrote to Mr. Cameron, his father-In-law, on the
god of October, 1855.

Mr. Jame* observed that when that letter was written Mr.
Cameron was in Scotland, and the expressioas used la it my.
easily explained, and did not in the ■tightest degree prove the
galley knowledge of Mr. Macleod. It was written when

there was a run on the bank, chiefly caused by attacks made
upon It in the Joint. Stock 00Pripassisi Journal, which was
conducted by a person who was convicted foe publishing a
libel upon the Bank of London, and made an urgent appeal
to Mr. Cameron to return again to the helm. The learned
counsel then explained that the expression, "we must go in
again," which bad been strongly commented on at the trial,
really meant that the directors would have to do what was
repeatedly done by other joint-stock banks in times of pecu-
niary femurs, viz., go to the Bank of Buglead and get their
bills discounted. Mr. bons here read the affidavit of Mr.
Macleod, who gave an exploitation of the object which
he had in view in w Ming the latter, whicheaculpated himself
from any guilty i-lowledge as to the falsehood of the state-
ments contained 'w the lolance-sheet. He knew there were
greet impediments in the way of a new trial in a cue of this
nature ; but if the crown had chosen to include a large num-
ber of persona in this prosecution without any good reason
for supposing that guilt could be brought home to all of
them, and utterly regardless of the consequences, he trusted
that the court would draw a broad distinction between the
innocent and the guilty, end my that there was no evidence
which would justify them in destroying for life the prospects
of a young man whose fault, if any, was hie inexperience in
banking business, and his over-confidence in those who took
a more active part in the management of the bank.
Lord Campbell—Yen was, counsel for Mr. &bile ; do you
now move for a new trial on hie behalf ?

Mr. James Jll;w7i&afildavit of Mr. Esdaile, but do not
disguise from myself that there is a stronger case spinet him
than some of the other gentlemen.
Lord Campbell—Does he say in tho affidavit that be is
ignorant of all.
Mr. James—Your lordship may assume what he says ,• but
Mr. Eadaile has suffered quite enough already, and I trope
your. lordship will not saticipate his use with any degree of
harshness.

Lord Campbell—Do you make a motion on the part of Mr.
Br wile P

Mr.lames-1 have directed your lordship's attention to
the cue of Mr. Macleod, and I hope anT motion I may make
on behalf of Mr. Eedaile will not prejudice the cue.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—l am furnished with an affidavit setting
out four letter of two of the j rnm who tried the case
against the different defendants, and I will ask your lordship
whether I may be allowed to hand it to the court f
Lord Campbell—Certainly not.
Mr. Kennedy—There have been instances in which the
letters of jurymen have been received by the court.
Mr. Justice Erie—We know that; but we do not think
these letters should be put in.
Lord Campbell—Are we, Mr. Jamee, to understand that
Ton have y
of
made a motion fora new trial on the part of Mr.

Mr. James—Certainly.
Mr. Kennedy, who was next heard on the part of Mr.
Humphrey Brown, said his client was a man who had raised
from very humble circumstances to a very
position in society, and who formerly represented the
of Tewkesbury in parliament. Though he had been found
guilty upon this prosecution, and sentenced to punishment,
he, in common with the other defendants. still indulged in
the hope that he would be able to clear himself from the
Imputation which had thus been cast upon his character.
Mr. Brown complained of that part of the learned judge's
summing up, in which he had been placed in the second
worst position in the descending scale of criminality, as
applicable to the several cases of the defendants ; for although
tls cam against Mr. Brown appeared to be one of the most
serious, yet, on examining the evidence, it would be seen that it
was positively lighter than any of the others. The learned gen-
tleman, in support of that allegation, adverted at great length
to the evidence, showing that Mr. Brown's securities were
in value far beyond the accommodation he had obtained from
the bank, and that he took no share in the concoction of the
belsace-sheet, which he only saw for the first time on the
morning of the day when the general meeting of the share-
holders was held, in February, 1866.
Mr. Slade made a similar motion on the pert of Mr.
William Daniel Owen, who, he said, was in a very different
position of life from some of the other defendants. He was
not a man of fortune, nor of high character or connexion.
He was not a professional man, but simply a haberdasher,
and having succeeded in raising a little money, he became
naturally ambitious to associate with men of fortune and
station, but ho never obtained a single farthing from the
bank, and at the time of its failure he had a balance there to
Ids account. Now be was an utterly ruined and broken-
hearted man. The learned counsel then referred to several
points in the evidence, for the purpose of showing that Mr.
Owen bad no guilty knowledge- of the false balance-sheet,
and concluded by expressing a hope that the court would am
sufficient grounds to grant a rule for a new trial.
Lord Campbell said the court would hear Mr. Digby Sey-
mour for Mr. Cameron, the other defendant, to-morrow
morning.

TEE QUEEN V. 81110 N BERNARD.

About helf-psat three o'clock, while the arguments in the
British Bank ease were rooeeding,
_ _

Mr. James indurated to the court that he understood Simon
Bernard was now present.
Mr. Bodkin—l am desired by the Attorney-General to
apologise for his absence. He is at this moment addressing
the Hones of Lords.

Lord Campbell—l do not think his presence is at all ne-
ossmuy.

Mr. Bodkin—l understand your lordships have decided
that the defendant should be admitted to bail.

Lord Campbell—We have only declared what the law de-
clares he is entitled to.

Mr. Bodkin—Your lordships, I also understand, have fixed
the amount of bail. I can only state on the part of the pro-
mention that the persons proposed as bail are responsible. I
think the defendant should plead to the indictment—he Ilse
not yet done so.
Lord Campbell—He is not bound to plead before he is ad-
mitted to bail.

Mr. Justice Brie—He appears by attorney, who can put In
his plea in the usual course.

Lied Campbell—There will be no difficulty about that.

The prisoner wee then brought into the body of the court
which, owing to the fact that there had not been time
enough for the decision of the judges in the morning to get
abroad, was not inconveniently crowded. He was attired in
a suit of black, as at his trial.
The gentlemen who had consented to become bail were
then called, but they did not answer to their names, owing,
it was said, to their having been informed that their atten-
dance would not be required until 4 o'clock.
The court then proceeded to hear the arguments of Mr.
Kennedy, in the British Bank case, the prisoner being
. . .

accommodated with a seat immediately beneath Ins couneel,
who explained to him the cause of delay.
At a few minutes to four o'clock the two gentlemen in
question arrived, and the formalities of taking ball were then
gone through.

_
The priaosner described himself as of Park-place, Bays-
water, and his two sureties were Mr. John Epps, M.D., of
Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, and Mr. Peter Stewart, of
Dutton Lodge, near Warrington, Lancashire.
They each entered into their recognisance, in the sums
already mentioned for the appearance of the prisoner to take
his trial on the indictment for misdemeanour.

The proceedings only occupied a few minutes, and passed
off without the slightest demonstration of feeling, so far as
the interior of the court was concerned, Mr. Kennedy im-
mediately resuming the thread of his argument, in the Bei-
Bah Bank PIN on the part of Mr. H. Brown.