New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-06-21

b,an,b, il was Incumbent on him to show not only
that be vas descended from SIR John Talbot Of
Aibrahton, through his marri,ge with Elizabeth
Wrot.esley, but that there were no descendants Of
the earlier marriage whose clai ns would be prior
10 his. In this point Of view, g,est use was made
By the opponents Of he claim Of monumental IN
scripton over TIE tomb of Sir John Talbot Of
Albriehton, who lies buried in BloomsgrOve
Church. The chief part Of this inscription is now
illegible but an old manuscript from the library of
Lord Lyttleton was rendered in evidence to show
what that inscription once was and that It stated
that Sir John of AlbrghtOn had several sons BY bis
first wife-sUns Of whom 70 mention WAS mide,
and who were not accounted for, 10 the pedigree
furnished BY Earl Talbot. This manuscript, under
tie strict rules of evidence was rejected BY the
House of Lords, though no doubt was entertained
that i truly represented the words OF the IbscuP'
ton, which in fact were subsequently decipbered
from the monument itself 1t was suggested that
Msor Talbot Of Wexford, who came forward as
claimant of the title, was descended from one OF
these children; but there was no proof OF this,
and a. no other trace Of those children could be dis
covered beyond the mere mention oil them
in the inscription, it VAS concluded that they must
have died young and without issue. The only other
person suggested as a descendant of those children
was Lord Talbot Of Malahde, but he expressly dis
claimed any title. There were, however, good
mary Of the Wrottesley Talbots to be accounted
for before Earl Talbot could come in as heir Shr-
ripp.on grandson of that marriage, had by frat
wife six soDs ard by a second wife four sons. Ii
was through the third son Of the second marriage
that Earl Talbot traced his descent, and the great
est difficulty which he had to encounter was In
accounting satisfactorily for the failure OF the issue
of the eight elder brothers of his ancestor, whose
claims, had there been any such surviving issue
would have been prior to his. What added to this
difficulty was that pedigree produc Sd ffom the
books of the Ieralds' College, where it had been
entered by one of these brothers, and which other
wise might have been entitled to the highest credit
was proved to be wrltully false in emitting all men
ton Of one of the brothers, an omission
prompted, as was supposed, by low
marriage which he had made. Another
difficulty growing out of the deficiency or ds,rep-
ancy of records, Was in proving the legitimacy Of
the first Earl Talbot-though his father was
Bishop-and the legitimacy or even the paternity OF
the Bishop himself since the first mention of his
name in any register produced described him as the
son Of William Talbot of Ditchfeld, though to make
out the case it was necessary to show that he was
in fact the con of William Talbot of Wilmington,
ninth son of the Shirripgton Talbot, spoken of
above. 1t further appeared that, though the Duke
of Shrewsbury in his will spoke of the Bishop as
his kinsman, he did not recognize him, according
to the claim LOW set up, as standing next in the
line of succession to the persons mentioned
in the settlement. But all these difficulties were
overcome, and Earl Talbot, the fifth peer OF that
family, has been recognized by the House of Lords
as the eighteenth Earl Shrewsbury. The question,
however of the possession of the estates remains
to be decided by a lawsuit the trustees under the
will of the late Earl still maintaining his right,
under the Catholic Relief bill, to dock the entail
and dispose of the property.