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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-Apil 20.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-APRIL 20.
TEE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE.
. _ _

Their lordships sat as a committee for privileges. ;
Lord Redesdale in the chair. The hearing of the
claim of Earl Talbot to the earldom of Shrewsbury,
which occupied so much of their lordships' time last
session, was resumed. On that occasion the
claimant was represented by Sir F. Thesiger, Sir
Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. T. F. Ellis, and Mr.
Pouncefoote. Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr. Roundell
Palmer, Mr. Bowyer, and Mr. Baddeley appeared
for the Duke of Norfolk, as next friend of Lord
Edward Howard, devisee of the Shrewsbury estate
under the will of the late earl, to oppose the alaim.
Mr. Fleming and Mr. Peter Burke appeared for
Major Talbot, of Castle Talbot, county Wexford,
Ireland, and also for the Princess Doria Pampliti,
of Rome, daughter of John, sixteenth earl. The
then Attorney-General, Sir R. Bethell, and Mr.
H. P. Roche appeared for the crown. The eleva-
tion of Sir F. Thesiger to the woolsack, and of
Mr. Sergeant Byles to the bench, as well as the
retirement of Sir R. Bethell from office, have
caused a change in the relative positions of the
counsel, and they now stand thus :—The Attorney-
General (Sir F. Kelly), Mr. T. F. Ellis, and Mr.
Helmer for the claimant ; Sir R. Bethell,
Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Baddeley, and
Mr. Bowyer, for Lord Edward Howard ; Mr. P.
Burke for Major Talbot ; the Solicitor-General (Sir
H. M. Cairns), and Mr. H. P. Roche, for the
Crown. The following is a short statement of the
case :—lt is a claim made by the Right Hon. Henry
John Chetwynd, Earl Talbot, to the Earldom of
Shrewsbury ; which, he contended, had accrued to
him on the death of Bertram Arthur, the seven-
teenth earl, who died without issue male in Aug.,
18a6. The dignity of earldom of Shrewsbury com-
menced in the time of Henry the Sixth, in the 20th
year of whose reign, 1442, Sir John Talbot, after-
wards 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 suc-
ceeded by his son, second earl, and the earldom
was enjoyed successively by John, third earl, son
and heir of the second earl, and his heirs male,
until 1617-18, when the elder line of the first earl
became extinct on the death, without male issue,
of Edward, ninth earl. The pedigree thus had be-
come broken into three distinct branches. The
first branch descended from John, the third earl,
who had a brother, Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton,
second son of John, second earl. Sir Gilbert Talbot
of Grafton had a son, Sir John Talbot of Allbrighton,
who was twice married, and by his first marriage
with Margaret Troutbeck he had issue, from whom
the second branch was descended. The earldom of
Shrewsbury descended through various earls until
it reached Bertram Arthur, the late earl, who died
without issue. The third branch was derived from
the second marriage of Sir John, of Allbrighton,
with Elizabeth Wrottesley, through whom E tri
Talbot now claimed the title, by showing that the
other branches were extinguished. With regard to
the first branch, there was a regular succession down
to Gilbert, seventh earl, who died without issue
male , and was succeeded by his brother Edward,
eighth earl, who died without issue male, and thus
the first branch became extinct. George, ninth earl,
who succeeded, and who was the heir male of Sir
Gilbert Talbot of Grafton, king descended from
Sir John of Allbrighton, through his 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 Shrews
bury, claimed to vote for the election of represen-
tative peers for Ireland as Earl of Waterford, which
latter title was created at the same time and
the same limitations as the first earldom of Shrews-
bury, and his pedigree was admitted by the house
without proof. It was stated to be unnecessary,
therefore, to go into proof of the first branch, but
that it would be necessary to prove that the second
branch was exhausted. It was derived from Sir
Gilbert Talbot of Grafton, second son of John,
second earl, who was a Knight of the Garter, and
his garter plate was in existence, on which was a
crescent, the mark of a second son, and it was
borne by all his descendants. Sir Gilbert Talbot
of Grafton had a son Gilbert, who died without
issue, and Sir John of Allbrighton, before alluded
to, became heir male to Sir Gilbert of Grafton. He
had one son by his first wife, and two sons by his
second wife. The grandson of his son by his first
wife became, as stated above, ninth Earl of Shrews-
bury, and died without issue male in 1630, and was
succeeded by his nephew, John, the eldest son of
his deceased brother John. The tenth earl, John,
was twice married, and, of his three sons, the
second was eleventh earl. The son of the third son,
by failure of the issue of Francis, eleventh earl,
became thirteenth earl, and through him descended
the title to Bertram Arthur Bertram, who died
without isasue male. John, the tenth earl, by his
second marriage had three sons, two of wheni died
without issue male, and the other had a son, John
of Longford, who died without issue male. Thus
the issue of the first marriage of Sir John of All-
brighton had become extinct. Then came the third
branch, which was derived from the second mar-
rine of Sir John of Allbrighton with Elizabeth
Wrottesley. By that marriage he had two sons,
of whom the elder died early, while the line was
continued by the younger son, John of Sulwarp,
who married Olive Sherrington, and whose son,
Sherrington Talbot, left by his second marriage
with Mary, daughter of John Washbourne, three
sons,' of whom the two elder died without leaving
issue, and the line of descent was continued
by the third son, William, successively Bishop of
Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham. He was 'the
father of Charles Talbot, Lord Chancellor of Exit-
land, who was raised to the peerage in 1733 as Lord
Talbot, and whose son, created Earl Talbot of In-
gestre in 1714, was grandfather to_ the present
claimant.

At the close of the proceedings last session the
case for the claimant had been at one time sup-
posed to be closed ; but, in consequence of certain
objections taken to the evidence by the then Attor-
ney-General (Sir R. Bethel') on behalf of the
Crown, the matter was adjourned until this session
for the purpose of enabling the claimant to pro-
duce new evidence to meet those objections.
The Attorney-General (Sir F. Kelly) to-day
opened the new evidence which it is proposed to
adduce ; and the case was proceeding when their
lordships rose.
There was a very numerous attendance of peers,
and the proceedings still seem to excite consider-
able interest.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)

THE ICING OF OFDB V. MOULVEE 31USEEH OOD DEEN