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

..).....-COMMITTEE FOR PRIVIWWPAPER
(
--, • HOUSE-OF LORD-7-J /.---7:•'') 24*
''
c-i•'
THE GREAT SHREWSBURY 14. W f,f + . -6 0 -
.( m•-,4,-,',/.,
Their lordships sat shortly after 4 • '.. ti"
ili, ,.i
% • . ••;., -.,,,,_44
morning for the purpose of hearing A :ZS
Right Hen. Henry John Chetwynd ,* .
./
the Earldom of Shrewsbury. His cla Arc's oggTT^
S
posed by Lord Edward doward, the inc a$
Doria Pamphili and the Duchess of Sora, and by.
Major William Talbot. ,
A great number of peers.vrereyresent; and seve-
ral peifesses were in the gallery.
Sir F. Thesiger, Sir F. Kelly, and Mr. Ellis ap-
peared f.r the claimant ; Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr.
R. Palmer, and Mr. Badeley for Lord Ediverck
Howard ; Mr. Fleming arid Mr. Bowytr for the
Princess Doria Par:uphill and the Duchess of,S,ra ;
and Mr. Peter Burke, of the Irish bar, for Major
William Talbot. ' The Attorney-General appeared
to watch the case on the part of the Crown.
Sir F. Thesiger, in addressing theJ• for /ships on
behalf of the claimant, sail 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 Lord Talbot would be heard at the
bar of the house ?

The Lard Chancellor said the case of the claimant
had better be proceeded %lilt], and at it conclusion
their lordships c iuld juds.;e whe her it wee neces-
sary to hear the counsel who appea, ed. on behalf of
the parties opposing, who v ould be heard, if at all,
only with re- pect tea the privileges of the house,. and
no:. in respect of any claim of their own.
Sir F. Thesiger then proceeded to open the. case
of the cleimant, and said he had the honour of ap-
pearing before their lordships on behalf of Ea'l
Talbot, who claimed the dignity of the Earldom of
Shrewsbury, which, as ho contended, accrued to
him upon the death of Bertram Arthur Talsof, the
late Earl, at Lisbon iu August, 1856, witheut issue
mate. Their lordships would be satisfied by dis-
tinct evidence that upon the death of that noble-
man the claimant b came 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 satisfy 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 distinguished leader of the armies of
England in France in that reign. He was created
Earl of Shrewsbury to himself and the heirs male
of his body. He was succeeded byhis son Jelin, the
second earl, who was succeeded by his son John,
the third earl. Here the pedigree became divided
into three distinct braricher. The first branch de
scended from John, the third earl ; he had an only
brother, Sr Gilbert of Grafton. The title descended
through the first line directly from father to son
down to Gilbert, the '7th earl, when he was succeeded
by his brother Edward, the Bth earl, at whose
death the first branch became extinct.. Sir Gilbert
had two so-s—Sir Gilbert, who died without ieiue,
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 he had
three sons—George, who died without issue during
his father's lifetime; Francis, the 11th earl ; and
Gilbert of Batchcoate. Francis left two sons—
Charles, the 12th earl, who was created Duke of
Shrewsbury, but he dying without issue that title"
became extinct ; and John, who also died without
issue. The earldom then went to Gilbert, the 13th
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 that 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 Johu 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, d aighter
of Sir Henry Sherrington. There would be an
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 marriage 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
nudge. The latter married twice. By the first
marriage he bad six sons, all of whom died without
issue except one, 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 hed issue
one son. There was no certificate of this marriage
to be found, but the proceedings in a Chancery suit
wou!d be prcduced 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 period 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 a'so
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 he
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 allowed to cross-examine
the witnesses called by the claimant. If the pre-
sent claimant was summoned to sit in 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 esta4 es could
be 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 learnA. coun-
sel said, they had no printed case, but if allowed a
reasonable time they would lodge one.
Mr. Fleming appeared on behalf of the Princess
Doria Pamphili and the Duchess of Sora, and made
a similar application.
He was directed to join his case with Lord
Howard.
Mr. Burke also received permission to lodge his
case and to cross-examine tie witnesses.
Their lordships then adjourned the further hear-
ing until to-morrow morning at half-past 10 o'clock.
TIIE NEWBURGII PURA= •
Some further evidence having been adduced in
this case, thefurtherhearing was adjourned sine die.
TUESDAY, JULY 14.
-THE GREAT SHREWSBURY CASE.
The evidence on behalf of the petitioner adduced
to-day was entirely documentary, with the camp-
, tion of that of Mrs. Hibburd, the mother. of the
late Rai of Shrewsbury. Her evidenoe went to
show that Earl Talbot was always considt.red the
next heir to the title in the event of Bertram
Arthur, the 17th Earl, dying without issue.
The case will be proceeded with on Thursday
morning.