The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-15 00:00:00

4pi:4 V% - r'cl
_ , .• !...,.,,,, .r.t. A: --_,...,. ',i.• 7.4
.'-<=.'-';',A • '''&ll,:' ,: -.
;V. - A-4,4 -'' ?:'?"•;
- -..- .4N JA
- -
THE GREAT SHREWSBU • No-5-: --'; ,F::::.-;Y',/
....
Their lordships sat shortly after I'clo thbi ''-
morning for the purp':se of hearing the c aim of the -cu.
Right Hon. Henry John Chetwynd E rl Talbot to ;
the Earldom of Shrewsbury. His claim was op- .
posed by Lord Edward Howard, the Princess
Doria Pamphili and the Duchess of Sora, ani by
_, ,
Major William Talbot.
A great number of peers were preient, and SOTO* .
ral peeresses were in the gallery. -. •
Sir F. Thesiger,.Sir, F. Kelly, and Mr. Ellis sp•
peared for the claimant ; Mr. Sergeant. Kyles, Mr.
R. Palmer, and Mr. Badeley for Lord Ediard
Howard ; Mr. Yeining and Mr. Bowyer for the
Princess Doria Pamphili and tt.e Duchess of S .ra;
and Mr. Peter Burke; of the Irish bar,
_tel. Major ,
William Tall". The Attorney-General appeared
to watch the case on the part of the Crown.
Sir F. Thestger, in addressing their lordships On
behalf of the claimant., said that before he pro- ' '
ceeded to open the case he must ask whether the
parties who had pre ented petitions in-opposition.:
to the claim of Lnrd Talbot would be heard at the .
bar of the house ? - ,

The Lord Chancellor said the case of the claimant '
had better be, proceeded with, and at its conclusion
their lordships could judge whe.her it wa-1 necee- .
saty to hear the counsel who appeared on behalf of •
the parties opposing, who would be heard, if at all,
only with re-pect to the privileges of the house, and
no': in resprct of any claim of their own.
Sir F. Thesiger then proceeded to open the case-
of the claimant, and said he hai the honour of ap-
pearing before their lordships on behalf of Earl
Talbot, who claimed the dignity of the Earldom of
Shrewsbury, which, as he contended, accrued to
him upo❑ the death of Bertram Arthur Talbot, the
late Earl, at iu August, 1856, without issue
male. Their lordships would be satisfied by dis-
tinct evidtnce that upon the death of that noble-
man the claimant b?carne the next heir male of the

body of the body of the first Earl of Shrewsbury.
The evidence, although extending over a long period
of time, would be clear and distinct, and he believed
he should be able to sa'isfy their lordships that the
claim to the title was complete, and that there was
no single link wanting. The dignity was created
in the reign of Henry VI., and commenced in the
person of Sir John Talbot, afterwards Lord Talbot
who was well known in history, but perhaps much
more so from the historical plays of our great dra-
matist, as the di-tinguished leader of the armies of
England in France in that reign. Ho was created
Earl of Shrewsbury to himself and the heirs male
of his body. He was succeeded by his son John, the
second earl, who was succeeded by his son John,
the third earl. Here the pedigree became divided
into three distinct bran Che The first branch de •
scended from John, the third earl ; he had an only
brother, Sfr Gilbert of Grafton. The title descended
through tie first line directly from father to son
down to Gilbert, the 7th earl, when he was succeeded -
by his bro her Edward, the Bth earl, at whose
death the first branch became extinct. Sir Gilbert
had two so. s—Sir Gilbert, who dial wit'iout i-sue,
and Sir John of Albrighton. Sir John of Albrigh-
ton was twice married. By his first wife, Margaret
Troutbeck, he had one son, Sir John of Grafton,
whose grandson George became the ninth earl on
the extinction of the first branch. George died
without issue, and the title descended through his
brother John to his nephew John, the 10th earl.
who was twice married. By his first wife be hail'
three sons—George, who died without issue during
his father's lifetime; Francis, the 11th earl; anti -
Gilbert of Batchcoate. Francis left two sons—
Charles, the 12th earl, who was created Duke of
Shrewsbury, but be dying without issue that title
became extinct ; and John, who also died without
issue. The earldom then went to Gilbert, the 13tlt
earl, the eldest son of Gilbert of Batchcoate who
had three sons—Gilbert, the 13th earl, and died.
without issue. Thomas died without issue, and
George's eldest son George succeeded to the earl-
dom as 14th earl. This branch finally became ex-
tinct on the death of Bertram Arthur, the 17th
and late earl. The evidence which would be offered. ,
in support of this pedigree would consist of inqui;.
sitions, &c., if their lordships required it to be •
proved, but he submitted that the fact of George,
the ninth earl, and the first of the second branch,
succeeding to the'title, was sufficient evidence of
the extinction of the first branch. John, the 16th
earl, and the last but one of the second branch-,-
claimed in 1831,, as Earl of Waterford, to vote
for representative Peers •in Ireland. This
he considered was proof of the pedigree
down to th period, as the title of Earl of
Waterford was created in the person of the first
Earl of Shrewsbury, and he would therefore.
have to prove exactly the same facts as if he had
been compelled to prove his right to the earldom
of Shrewsbury. He should prove the death of
Arthur Bertram, the late Earl, at Lisbon, in Aug.
last, and thus the extinction of the second branch.
would be satisfactorily proved. He then came to
the third branch, under which Lord Talbot claimed.
The issue of Sir John of Albrighton by his first-
marriage having thus become extinct, he would
proceed to trace the issue of his second mar-
riage with Elizabeth Wrottesley down to the
present claimant. By that second marriage there
were two sons—Gilbert, who died without issue,
and John of Salford, who married Olive, daughter
of Sir Henry Sherrington. There would bo ad
attack made upon this portion of the pedigree,
because it was said that it was unlikely Sir John of
Albrighton would have named two sons alike, but
it would be most satisfactorily proved by inquisi-
tions that such had been the case, the son of the
first mart iage being called Sir John of Grafton, and
the son of the second marriage John of Salwarp.
John of Salwarp married Olive, as above stated; -
by whom he had issue one son, Sherrington: of
Rudge. The latter married twice. By the first
marriage he had six sons, all of whomdied without
issue except ore, Sherrington. The latter had also
six sons, of whom the eldest and the 3d, 4th, sth,
and 6th died without issue. His 2d son, Sir John
of Lacock, also married twice. By the first mar-
riage he had one son, Sherrington, who died with-
out issue. By his second marriage he had two
sons, both of whom died without issue. That
having exhausted the issue of Sherrington of
Rudge by his first marriage, he (Sir F. Thesi-
ger) proceeded to trace the issue of the
second marriage, through William, the only son
who had issue, to William, Bishop of Durham.
The latter married Catherine King, and had issue
one son. There was no certificate of this marriage
to be found, but the proceedings in a Chancery suit
scou'd be produced which would prove that there
had been such a marriage. The present claimant
Was the eldest male issue of the body of William,
Bishop of Durham. The whole of this third pedi-
gree would be proved down to 1666 by inquisitions,
but subsequently to that perio l by the books of the
Heralds' College, which, together with various
wills and other documents, would be produced
before their lordships. He would now mention
the fact that a private Act of Parliament had been
obtained at the united application of Charles, the
12th Earl, Sir John of Lacock, William, Bishop of
Durham, and his son Charles, by which it was
enacted that certain estates should be attached to
the earldom. Those estates had been left by will
by the late earl to Edward Howard, the youngest
son of the Duke of Norfolk. They were also
claimed by the Princess Doria Pamphili as heir-at-
law of the 16th earl. Under the. Act of Parlia-
ment the estates in question would follow the title.
Major Talbot claimed through Humphrey, 'alleged
to be a younger son of Sir John Talbot of Grafton,
but not mentioned in the claimant's pedigree. If
he can make out his claim as descending from the
son of the first marriage of John of Grafton then lie
would be the nearest male heir of the first earl, and
entitled to the title.
At the conclusion of the opening,
Sir F. Thesiger proceeded to call a witness, who
produced the original letters patent creating the
title.
Mr. Sergeant Byles, on behalf of Lord Edward
Howard, claimed to be all ivied to cross-gamine
the witnesses called by the claimant. If the pre-
sent claimant was summoned to sit is their lord-
ships' house as Earl of Shrewsbury, the estates
would follow the title under the act. This was the
only place where the possession of the estates could
he disputed. He also submitted that their lord-
ships could hear all parties, even although not di-
rectly concerned, if they thought necessary.
In reply to Lord Brougham, the learned coupe
sel said, they had no printed case, but if allowed a
reasonable time they would lodge one.
Mr. Fleming appeared on behalf of the Ppncei.a:
Doria Pamphili and the Duchess of Sora, and inad
a similar application.
He was directed to join his case with Lord
Howard.
caseM Mr. Bs Burker
oaslss
_oe x
areinceiinveedopeewralitireisosens. t!o ):0, lodge his
Their lordshi
s then adjourned the further hear-
ing uniilto-morrow row morning
at half-past 10 o'clock.
p
THE NEWBURGH PEERAGE.
Some further evidence having been adduced in
this case, thefurther hearig was adjourned sine die.
TUESDAY, n
JULY 14.
THE GREAT SHREWSBURY CABE.
The evidence on behalf of the petitioner adduced
to-day was entirely documentary, with the exoep-
.tion of that of Mrs. Hibbuid, the mother of the.
late Earl of Shrewsbury. Her evidence went to
show that Earl Talbot was always considered the
next heir to the title -in the event of Bertram
Arthur, the 17th Earl, dying without issue,
The cue will be proceeded with on Th-ursday
morning.