THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. [ 26 ] case of Willoughby of Parham, in 1767; but though that case was quoted in the subsequent case of Zouch in 1804 (1), the book was then rejected. The principle was stated in the L'Isle case: "The House made a distinction in receiving as evidence books from the Heralds' College. When those books contained. the substance of the information obtained in consequence of inquiries which were made under judicial authority, when the heralds were in the habit of travelling round the country and examining the witnesses, they were held to be evidence, and had been produced in Committees for Privileges; but that when that ceased, and the books were mere entries of that which the parties had chosen to have entered on these registries, without any due authority being shown for the entry, they had not been received in evidence." The witness (to Mr. Serjeant Byles): These books were kept by the heralds, but probably more as a part of their pleasure than their duty. Book withdrawn. The will of William, Lord Hastings, dated 1481, was tendered in evidence, to show the then state of the family. George, the fourth Earl, who died in 1538, married a daughter of this Lord Hastings, and this will was tendered as a statement made by a member of the family. Sir F. Thesiger objected that Lord Hastings, being only related by affinity, did not fall within the rule which made. the statements of members of the family admissible in evidence. as to the state of the family. The rule went no farther as to a person not actually a member of the family by birth than the husband or the wife (2): Davies v. Lowndes (3). Lord WENSLEYDALE did not know that it had been precisely determined that the statements of a wife were admissible. It was not necessary to be decided the other day, for there the wife was by birth a member of the family. Lord BROUGHAM was of opinion that it had been so decided. There could be no doubt whatever that the wife's declarations as to the state of her husband's family were admissible in evidence, as his with respect to the state of her family certainly were. There was not the slightest distinction in principle. between the two cases. Lord ST. LEONARDS Concurred. Cruise Dig. 239. (3) 64 R. R. 783 (6 Man. & G. 471). Mr. R. Palmer submitted that this will was admissible in another way: It was an act done with reference to George, Earl of Shrewsbury, whose wardship the will showed to have been granted to the testator (1), and the will disposed of the ward. Sir F. Thesiger: If the testator's declaration is not in itself admissible, an act accompanying it will not make it admissible. LORD WENSLEYDALE: If the wardship is relied on, it must be proved in some other way. Mr. Serjeant Byles: The will contains more than a mere recital; it is an act; it is a devise of the ward; it is an act of wardship. LORD ST. LEONARDS: A devise of a married woman? The will was withdrawn for the present. (On the 30th of July the grant of wardship was produced, and the will again tendered in evidence. Sir F. Thesiger did not consider that this grant of wardship made the will admissible, but thought the evidence immaterial; and rather than discuss the point, would withdraw his opposition. The will was then received.) Evidence was given as to the state of a tomb in the church at Bromsgrove; that it was impossible to make out more than detached portions of words and letters. The stone had been injured in the course of years, and the inscription was rendered the more illegible from having been coated over with a very strong paint, some efforts to remove which had been made, but they were not completely successful. Mr. R. Palmer having thus shown the state of the tomb, proposed to put in an ancient copy of the inscription, as found in a manuscript collection of monumental inscriptions in parish churches in that part of the country, which had been drawn up by an antiquary named Habington, and was preserved in the library of Lord Lyttleton. of (1) The words of the will were: "Also whereas George, Erle Shrewesbury, whos warde and marriage to me ys granted by the Kinge's IFs patents, hath married Anne my daughter, I will that, yef the same Erle dye, as God defende, before any THE SHREWS BURY PEERAGE. [27] THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. [28] July 30. Aug. 6. Aug. 7. Aug. 10. Sir F. Thesiger objected, that this book was not admissible: In The Leigh Peerage case, Dugdale's History was refused when tendered in evidence. Mr. Serjeant Byles did not press for its reception. He hoped that chemical means might be found entirely to remove the paint from the tomb, and thus obtain a perfect view of the inscription. A visitation for the year 1623 of the county of Salop was tendered. Sir F. Thesiger objected, that it was inadmissible without proof of the commission under which it was taken. The commission had not been brought down, but Mr. Serjeant Byles undertook to produce it. The visitation was, on that undertaking, admitted de bene esse. After some evidence had been given by the opponents of the claim, Mr. Serjeant Byles applied for an extension of the time, on the ground that there had not been sufficient time to obtain all the evidence, which, he believed, he should be able to procure on this subject. Mr. Peter Burke, on behalf of Mr. William Talbot, made. similar observations; and added, that if allowed time till the commencement of the next session, he should then be fully prepared to lay his case before the Committee. Sir F. Thesiger objected to farther delay. The Attorney-General said that he must have time to examine the evidence before he should be in a situation to give his advice to the Committee upon it. Sir F. Thesiger could not object to that. The Committee adjourned for one week. Some farther evidence was given in opposition to the claim. Mr. Roundell Palmer then begun to sum up the case on the part of Lord Edmund Howard. Mr. Palmer continued and concluded his summing up. Sir F. Kelly resumed and concluded his summing up. Some farther evidence was produced, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Serjeant Byles were respectively allowed to address the House upon it. The Attorney-General was heard to observe upon the whole case on the part of the Crown, and remarking that it is left doubtful whether Sir John of Albrighton had not more than one son by his marriage with Margaret Troutbeck, and that the inscription on the tomb in Bromsgrove *church ought to be more fully examined with a view of clearing up this point, proposed that time should be taken for further inquiry. The Committee adopted this proposal, and adjourned the case sine die. The Committee reassembled; Lord Redesdale in the chair. Sir F. Kelly referred to the fact that since this case was last before their Lordships he had been appointed to the office of Attorney-General, but he suggested that he ought still to be allowed to appear as the claimant's counsel. The Solicitor-General (Sir H. Cairns) stated that he had been instructed to appear for the Crown. The Chairman said that the Committee, considering the special circumstances of this case, consented to dispense with the services of the Attorney-General as counsel watching the case on the part of the Crown, and allowed him to continue to appear as counsel for the claimant (1). The Attorney-General (Sir F. Kelly), Mr. T. F. Ellis, and Mr. Hannen were henceforward the counsel for the claimant. Sir Richard Bethell (2), Mr. Roundell Palmer, and Mr. *Badeley were counsel for Lord Edmund Bernard Fitzalan Howard in opposition; Mr. Fleming and Mr. Bowyer appeared for the Prince and Princess Doria Pamphili and the Duchess of Sora in opposition. Mr. Burke appeared for (1) In The Tracy Peerage case in 1839, Sir F. Pollock was the leading counsel for the claimant. When that case came on again to be heard in 1843, he, being then Attorney-General, appeared for the Crown, 59 R. R. 64, n. (10 Cl. & Fin. 160, n). The Solicitor-General appeared for the claimant. In The Wharton Peerage case in 1844, the Solicitor-General (Sir W. Follett) opened the case for the claimant, and the Attorney-General (Sir F. Pollock) attended for the Crown. W. Talbot, Esq. Between the opening and the second (2) In January, 1858, Mr. Serjeant THE SHREWS BURY PEERAGE. Aug. 11. Aug. 14. [ *29 ] 1858. April 20. [ 30 ] THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. April 22. [ *31 ] The Solicitor-General (Sir H. Cairns) and Mr. Roche appeared for the Crown. The Attorney-General was then heard to open the evidence which he was prepared to give in order to clear up the matters which at the close of last session had been deemed to require further investigation. He also stated that he should give some additional evidence to strengthen that which he had already laid before the Committee. The Attorney-General submitted that, as Major Talbot had not laid any case on his own behalf upon the table of the House, he had not complied with the direction of the Committee, given at the close of the last session, and must therefore be considered as no longer entitled to appear at the Bar of the House. Mr. Burke asked for farther indulgence, suggesting that at the close of Lord Edmund Howard's fresh evidence, if any should be given, he should be prepared to state the exact position of Major Talbot. The Chairman said that the Committee could not grant farther indulgence. The condition on which Major Talbot, who said he was a claimant in opposition, had been allowed to appear at the Bar, and take any part in the inquiry, had not been complied with. He had not laid any case on the table of the House: if he could do so, he might make a fresh application to the Committee to be allowed to be heard. The burial certificate of "Frances, the wife of Samuel Jewkes, Esq., and daughter of William Talbot, of Storton *Castle, in the county of Stafford, Esq.," dated 8th May, 1723, was put in, and read. The Attorney-General then called Dr. Samuel Jewkes Wambey, in order to produce certain letters which were now in his possession, and had been in his father's 30 years ago, and especially a letter signed "W. Sarum," and addressed, "Mrs. Jewkes, Wolverley, near Kidderminster, Worcestershire." Sir R. Bethell objected: There was no proof that this letter came from the custody of any person representing the individual to whom it was addressed. Dr. Wambey stated, in answer to questions by the AttorneyGeneral, that his grandfather married the widow of Samuel Jewkes, she being the first cousin of her first husband, who was a son of Talbot Jewkes, who was himself the son of the |