The Attorney-General was directed to report on this petition. Her Majesty was afterwards pleased to refer the petition, together with the Attorney-General's report, to the House of Peers, and on the 11th May, 1857, the House resolved that it be referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report thereon. This From the petition and the statements of counsel, the following appeared to be the substance of the case. The Earldom of Shrewsbury was created by letters patent, dated 20th May, 20 Hen. VI. (1442), in the person of John, Baron Talbot, to hold to him and the heirs male of his body. The first Earl died in 1453, leaving John, who became the second Earl, his eldest son and heir. John, the second Earl, died in 1460, leaving two sons, John, who became third Earl, and Sir Gilbert Talbot, of Grafton. The male descendants of the third Earl failed in Edward, the eighth Earl, who died 1617-18. The peerage then went to the descendants of Sir Gilbert of Grafton. gentleman, who was a Knight of the Garter, and died in 1517, had been twice married, first to Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Graystock, and secondly to Ann Cotton. By his first wife he had one son, Sir Gilbert Talbot, who died without male issue In 1542. By his second wife he had a son known as Sir John of Albrighton and Grafton, who died in 1549. This Sir John of Albrighton was twice married, first to Margaret Troutbeck, and secondly to Elizabeth Wrottesley. From his first marriage descended all the Earls down to and inclusive of Bertram Arthur, the 17th Earl, who died on 10th of August, 1856, without male issue, and on whose death, the petitioner alleged that the peerage vested in him, being the eldest male lineal descendant from Sir John of Albrighton by the marriage with Elizabeth Wrottesley. Among the persons who formed part of this line of descent from Margaret Troutbeck was Charles, the 12th *Earl, who in 1668 succeeded his father Francis, the 11th Earl, and was created Duke of Shrewsbury, and died in 1717 without male issue. He made a settlement of the estate in which Sir John Talbot, of Lacock, was made the object of a remainder, a circumstance which was much relied on by the petitioner's counsel as showing a formal acknowledgment, by the then head of the family, of a family connexion with Sir John of Lacock, who was a descendant from Sir John of Albrighton by his second marriage. Besides this settlement, there was in the will of the Duke a gift of legacies to the son of William Talbot, then Bishop of Oxford (and who was also successively Bishop of Salisbury and of Durham), who was a cousin of Sir John of THE SHREWS BURY PEERAGE. [5] THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. [€] Lacock, and likewise a descendant of Sir John of Albrighton by his second marriage, and who was described by the Duke in his will as his "kinsman." The Bishop married Katherine King, and his eldest son Charles became Lord Chancellor, and was created Baron Talbot, and from him the petitioner was the fourth in direct descent. Large estates were enjoyed with the title, and were alleged to be united with it. The late Earl, treating the title as extinct, and himself as entitled in fee under a reversionary clause under the Duke's settlement, devised these estates to Lord Edmund Howard, a younger son of the Duke of Norfolk. Petitions were presented by Edmund Bernard Fitzalan Howard, Esq., commonly called Lord Edmund Howard (appearing by the Duke of Norfolk, his father and guardian), by William Talbot, of the county of Wexford, Esq., by the Prince and Princess Doria Pamphili (in right of the latter, a cousin of the last Earl), and by the Duke and Duchess of Sora (in right of the latter, another cousin of the last Earl), praying to be heard by counsel in opposition to the claim of Earl Talbot. On the 13th July, 1857, the Committee for Privileges assembled, Lord Redesdale in the chair. Sir F. Thesiger, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. T. F. Ellis, and Mr. Pauncefote appeared as counsel for the petitioner. The Attorney-General (Sir R. Bethell) appeared for the Crown. In a subsequent part of the case he was assisted by Mr. Roche, who continued throughout to appear as an assistant to the counsel for the Crown. Mr. Serjeant Byles, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Fleming and Mr. Badeley appeared for Lord Edmund Howard. Mr. Fleming also appeared for the Prince and Princess Doria Pamphili and the Duke and Duchess of Sora. Mr. Peter Burke (and subsequently Mr. Serjeant Atkinson) appeared on behalf of William Talbot, Esq. Sir F. Thesiger opened the case for the claimant. Mr. Serjeant Byles submitted that, as the right to the Shrewsbury estates, of which the claimant was now in possession, but of which Lord Edmund was the devisee, and which were annexed to the peerage, would be conclusively and irrevocably decided by the decision upon the claim of the peerage, he was entitled to cross-examine the witnesses for the claimant, and if the Committee so directed he was prepared to lay a case on the table of the House. THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD CRANWORTH): If the petitioners in opposition can show that they should suffer any injustice by a resolution in favour of the claim, they may be allowed to appear and be heard. That was allowed in the Montrose case (1). The Earl of Crawford claimed the Dukedom of Montrose and the existing Duke of Montrose petitioned to be heard against the claim on the ground that *his precedency in the peerage would be affected, and he was allowed to print a case, and the Committee reserved the question whether he should be heard. In the end it turned out to be unnecesary to hear him. But I should advise your Lordships that we cannot hear a person who does not claim the peerage in opposition, or who merely says that the proof and establishing of it will collaterally affect his interests. Mr. Serjeant Byles: It will have not merely a collateral but a direct effect upon. us, for we are in possession of the estates under the will, and by the Act of 1719 they are united to the title. The last Earl, under the advice of counsel, executed a disentailing deed which is valid against all the world except the true Earl of Shrewsbury. We claim the reversion which was left in the Duke of Shrewsbury, and never disposed of by him. The fee simple was in him, and we claim through and under him. LORD ST. LEONARDS: How is your title derived through the Duke? Mr. Serjeant Byles: The estates descended through his settlement to John, the last Earl but one. He made a will by which he gave the right of pre-emption to Bertram, the last Earl, who exercised that right, and so acquired the reversion. All this is stated in Lord Edmund Howard's petition. If there is not If there is not any Earl of Shrewsbury we are the owners of the estates in fee simple. If there is an Earl of Shrewsbury, we have no title to them. In the Leigh case (2), and in the Marchmount case (3), opposing parties were heard. The Attorney-General (Sir R. Bethell) thought it important to allow the parties in opposition to be heard, as they might be aware of facts unknown to the Crown, and which yet ought to be laid before the Committee. THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. ך 7* ] THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. [8] [9] Mr. Fleming likewise applied to be heard on behalf of the Princess Doria Pamphili, and the Duchess of Sora, against the claim of Earl Talbot, whose admission to the Earldom of Shrewsbury would destroy the claims of these ladies, who were the daughter and granddaughter of John, Earl of Shrewsbury. LORD BROUGHAM: These two parties are clearly in the same interest in opposition. If we hear them, it must be remembered that we can only hear one counsel on a side. Here the Attorney-General has told us that we ought to allow these parties to appear. Sir F. Thesiger feared delay, and therefore hoped that they would not be allowed to do more than lay a case before the House. That was all that was done in the Leigh and Marchmount cases. In the Montrose case, Lord CAMPBELL, remarking that the opponent did not allege that he had any peculiar means of information, went on to say that "the case was likely to be better heard without a contradictor, leaving it in the hands of the Attorney-General and the noble candidate; that it would be laid before the House in a more satisfactory manner by the Attorney-General, and those who assisted him, than by admitting the interposition of an amicus curia" (1). Mr. P. Burke, on behalf of Mr. W. Talbot, claimed to cross-examine the witnesses, although his client did not claim the peerage. He was, however, prepared to lay a case on the table, showing that he was descended from a younger brother of Sir J. Talbot, of Grafton, who, being a younger son of Sir John of Albrighton by his first marriage, would of course take precedence in descent over any of the descendants of Sir John of Albrighton by his second marriage. The Committee resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the petitioners Edmund Bernard Fitzalan Howard, by the Duke of Norfolk, his father and guardian, and the Prince and Princess Doria Pamphili, and the Duke and Duchess of Sora, be allowed to lodge one case in common, in opposition to the claim of Earl Talbot; and that William Talbot be allowed to lodge a separate case in opposition to the said claim; the said cases to state fully the grounds upon which the petitioners rely in opposition to the said claim, and to be laid upon the table of the House on or before Monday the 20th instant, and that, in the meantime, the claimant consenting by his counsel, the said petitioners be allowed to appear at the Bar by (1) Report published by Lord Lindsey, Appendix, 373*. counsel, and to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the claim. Sir F. Kelly referred to the proceedings of the Committee on September 26th, 1831, and February 17th, and March 9th, 1832, to show that the then possessor of the title, John, Earl of Shrewsbury, had established his claim to be Earl of Waterford, in Ireland, in descent from the first Earl, to whom both these titles were granted (2). The visitation of the county of York for the year 1584, containing the Talbot pedigree, and taken by virtue of a Royal commission, dated in the 6 Eliz., and directed to Norroy King of Arms, to make a visitation in the east, west, and north parts of England, was tendered in evidence. Mr. T. W. King, the York Herald, produced this visitation. The Attorney-General examined the witness to satisfy himself that the return came from the Heralds' College, *where it had been kept like all other visitations, having been there received as a return made under the commission. The visitation was received. Mr. T. W. King produced a copy of a plate of the arms of the Knights of the Garter from the Chapel Royal at Windsor. He had himself made the copy. The plate was put on by screws, and was removable. Mr. Serjeant Byles objected, that as it was removable, it ought to have been produced. The Witness: It cannot be removed without the Queen's warrant. The plates have remained there from the time of Henry V. when they were first put up. Sir F. Kelly was heard in answer to the objection. The Committee was of opinion that the copy was admissible. The other side might, if they could, impeach it, and then it would be for the Committee to take such means as might be deemed fit for the purpose of removing any doubt as to its authenticity. Copy of the plate admitted. Mr. Sharpe, assistant keeper of the records at the Record Office in London, produced an inquisition of the 34 Hen. VIII., to prove that Sir Gilbert of Grafton had only two sons, Gilbert, (1) At this sitting of the Committee, Mr. Bowyer appeared with Mr. Fleming for the Prince and Princess Pamphili, and the Duke and Duchess of Sora, and so continued to do till the end of (2) 49 R. R. 55 (6 Cl. & Fin. 133). THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE. July 14 (1) [ *10] |