of St. Mary, Lambeth, on the 3rd of March, 1833, and was baptized at the Church of St. Mary, Lambeth, on the 30th of June, 1840. The petition prayed the Court to pronounce that Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive his wife, were, on the 4th of March, 1767, lawfully married, and that the mother of the first-named petitioner, the said Olive, afterwards Olive Serres, was their legitimate child, and that she was born on the 3rd of April, 1772, and that the first-named petitioner was lawfully married to Anthony Thomas Ryves, and that the second petitioner is their legitimate son and heir, and a natural-born subject of Her Majesty. The Attorney-General had been cited in pursuance of the Act, and had filed an answer denying that the first-named petitioner's mother was the legitimate daughter of Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive Wilmot, and that the said petitioner's alleged mother was born as set forth in the petition, and that Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, was lawfully married to Olive Wilmot, as set forth in the petition, and that the other allegations in the petition were true. The answer concluded with a prayer for the rejection of the petition. Issue was joined upon this answer.

Mr. J. Walter Smith and Mr. D. M. Thomas appeared for the petitioners; the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. R. Bourke, for the Attorney-General.

Before the case was opened a long discussion took place upon the preliminary question whether the petitioners had any locus standi to ask for the decree for which they now prayed. In 1859 Mrs. Ryves had filed a petition praying that the marriage between her mother and Mr. Serres might be declared valid, and that she might be declared the legitimate issue of that marriage. The petition was heard in January, 1861, and Mrs. Ryves, who then conducted her case in person, having produced evidence in support of the allegations in her petition, the Court pronounced the decree for which she prayed. It was now suggested by the Court that if the petitioner succeeded in proving the allegation in her present petition-namely, that Olive Wilmot was lawfully married to the Duke of Cumberland, it would follow that the marriage of their daughter with Mr. Serres was invalid under the Royal Marriage Act, 12th George III., cap. 11-not having been sanctioned by the reigning Sovereign in the manner prescribed by that Act, and that thus there might be two decrees of the Court inconsistent with each other, the one affirming that Mrs. Serres was a legitimate daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, and therefore within the Royal Marriage Act, being a "descendant of the body of His late Majesty King George II.," and the other affirming that her marriage with Mr. Serres was valid, although she was not competent to contract it under that Act.

The result of the discussion was, that the consideration of the question as to the effect of the decree in the former suit was postponed until evidence should be tendered of the first allegation in the petition-namely, that Mrs. Ryves was the legitimate daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Serres, and the Court intimated that this was the first step in the cause.

Mr. J. W. Smith then proceeded to open the case to the jury. Having explained to them the provisions of the Legitimacy Declaration Act, he said that the main question for them to try was whether the Duke of Cumberland, the youngest brother of George III., was lawfully married to Olive Wilmot, and whether Mrs. Serres, the mother of Mrs. Ryves, was the lawful issue of that marriage. They were also asked to find that William Henry Ryves was the lawful son of Mr. and Mrs. Ryves; but there would be no difficulty as to that

part of the case, and it would be proved that on the 22nd of November, 1822, the elder petitioner, then Miss de Serres, married Anthony Thomas Ryves; that the younger petitioner, her son, was born on the 3rd of March, 1833, and that she was separated from Mr. Ryves on account of his misconduct in 1841. Mr. Smith then gave a history of the family of Olive Wilmot. She was the daughter of Dr. James Wilmot, who was a descendant of the family of Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, of Charles II.'s time; he was born in 1726, he went to Oxford at the age of sixteen, and took his M.A. degree in 1748, and his D.D. degree in 1766. At Oxford he made the acquaintance of Count Poniatowski, who afterwards became King of Poland, and through him made the acquaintance of the Princess Poniatowski, his sister, whom he subsequently married. Olive, the daughter of Dr. Wilmot and the Princess Poniatowski, was born on the 17th of June, 1750. Dr. Wilmot was the auditor to Lord Archer, and in 1767 Olive Wilmot met the Duke of Cumberland, the younger brother of George III., at the house of Lord Archer, in Grosvenor-square. After a short courtship the Duke married her, the marriage being celebrated on the 4th of March, 1767, at nine o'clock in the evening, at Lord Archer's house, by Dr. Wilmot, who had been hurriedly summoned for the purpose. A formal certificate of the marriage was drawn up and signed by Dr. Wilmot and by Lord Brooke (afterwards Lord Warwick) and J. Addez, who were present at it, and this certificate was verified by the signatures of Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton) and of Lord Chatham. It was as follows:

66

The marriage of the underwritten parties was duly solemnized, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, at Thomas Lord Archer's house, London, March the 4th, 1767, by myself. "J. WILMOT.

Another certificate to the same effect was drawn up and signed by the same persons:

"I solemnly certify that I married Henry Frederick Duke of Cumberland to Olive Wilmot, March the fourth, 1767, and that such marriage was lawfully solemnized at Thomas Lord Archer's house (at nine in the evening), in Grosvenorsquare, London. "J. WILMOT.

The Duke of Cumberland and his wife lived together for four years, and in October, 1771, she being then pregnant, he deserted her, and committed bigamy by going through a ceremony of marriage with Lady Anne Horton, sister of the well-known Colonel Luttrell. The King was aware of the Duke's marriage with

P

Olive Wilmot, although it was not known to the public; and when he heard of his second marriage he was very angry and would not allow him and his second wife to come to Court. It was in consequence of this marriage of the Duke of Cumberland and of the secret marriage of the Duke of Gloucester, which came to his knowledge about the same time, that His Majesty determined on having the Royal Marriage Act passed; and by unconstitutional pressure he obtained the consent of Parliament to that Act. The learned counsel proposed to read extracts from the "Annual Register," from Lord Mahon's "History," and from other works for the purpose of showing what was thought of the Duke of Cumberland's marriage with Lady Anne Horton, but he was not allowed to do so. He went on to state that Olive, Princess of Cumberland, was born on the 3rd of April, 1772, and was privately baptized on the same day by Dr. Wilmot, at the house of his mother, in the parish of St. Mary, Warwick, and he read three certificates, purporting to be signed by Dr. Wilmot, and by his brother Robert Wilmot, to that effect. The King was anxious to save his brother from the consequences of the bigamy which he had committed, and for that purpose he gave directions to Lord Chatham, Lord Warwick, and Dr. Wilmot, that the child should be re-baptized as the daughter of Robert Wilmot, Dr. Wilmot's brother, whose wife had just been confined. The order was in writing as follows:

"G. R.

' April four, 1772. "Whereas it is our Royal will that Olive our Niece be baptized Olive Wilmot, to operate during our Royal pleasure.

"To Lord Chatham."

A declaration to the same effect was signed by Lord Warwick. Dr. Wilmot consented to re-baptize the child, and to conceal the secret of her birth, in obedience to the King's command; but he required all the proceedings to be solemnly certified by the King and other persons as witnesses, in order that at a future time the child should be replaced in her proper position. He was able to insist upon this, for he was already in possession of a secret of the King. In 1762 the King was publicly married to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, but he had previously, in 1759, been privately married by this very Dr. Wilmot to a lady named Hannah Lightfoot. It would be necessary to prove this fact in order to make the declarations of Hannah Lightfoot evidence (as the declarations of the wife of the head of the family) of the legitimacy of Mrs. Serres.

The Lord Chief Baron.-We are bound to take notice that George III. was publicly married to Queen Charlotte, and that they were publicly crowned. If there was a prior marriage, and the first wife was living at the time of the second marriage, George IV. may have had no right to the throne.

The Attorney-General.-Nor her present Majesty. I do not disguise from myself that this is nothing less than a claim to the throne.

The Lord Chief Baron.-In my opinion it is indecent to go on with an inquiry into such matters unless it is absolutely necessary for the purposes of justice.

The Attorney-General. Of course, if this could be seriously called an inquiry, it would be a very important one. In my view, the more my learned friend states, the easier it will be to arrive at a conclusion as to the truth or falsehood of his case. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I shall treat it as a case of fraud, fabrication, and imposture from beginning to end. It is comfortable to

believe that the guilt of the fraud may be excused or palliated by the insanity of one of the persons principally concerned.

The Judge-Ordinary.-The inquiry will not begin until the evidence is produced.

Mr. W. Smith then continued his statement, and referred to three sets of certificates which Dr. Wilmot required to be drawn up upon re-baptizing the child and which were deposited respectively with him, with Lord Warwick, and with Lord Chatham. These certificates were intended to prove the marriage of Dr. Wilmot and the Princess of Poland, the birth of their daughter, and her marriage to the Duke of Cumberland. At the back of the two certificates of the marriage between the Duke and Olive Wilmot (above printed), the following certificates were endorsed :

:

"This is to solemnly certify, that I married George Prince of Wales to Princess Hannah, his first consort, April 17th, 1759, and that two princes and a princess were the issue of such marriage.

"London, April 2nd, 176—.

"J. WILMOT."

"This is to certify to all it may concern, that I lawfully married George Prince of Wales to Hannah Lightfoot, April 17th, 1759, and that two sons and a daughter are their issue by such marriage.

"J WILMOT. "CHATHAM. "J. DUNNING."

The Lord Chief Justice.-You say that the King as well as his brother committed bigamy.

Mr. W. Smith said that was so; and no one could look at the numerous documents that would be produced to prove these facts without being convinced of their genuineness. They were verified by the signatures of well-known persons, the authenticity of which would be proved. The child was brought up in the family of Robert Wilmot until 1782, an allowance of 500l. a year being paid for her maintenance by Lord Chatham in accordance with the terms of the following document:

"This is to declare that Lord Chatham binds himself to pay to Olive, the Duke of Cumberland's infant daughter, the yearly sum of 500l. during the said Olive's life, until a more suitable provision is made for her. Acting by command of His Majesty, in witness and confirmation of the same, his Lordship places his signature, the first day of May, 1773. "J. WILMOT.. "CHATHAM.

"Witness-ROBT. WILMOT.

"GEORGE R."

Soon afterwards His Majesty created her Duchess of Lancaster by this instrument:

"GEORGE R.

"We hereby are pleased to create Olive of Cumberland Duchess of Lancaster, and to grant our Royal authority for Olive, our said niece, to bear and use the title and arms of Lancaster, should she be in existence at the period of our Royal demise.

"Given at our palace of St. James's, May 17th, 1773.

"CHATHAM. "J. DUNNING."

The Court pointed out that such grants were always conferred by a patent under the Great Seal, and that it would be a strong argument against the authenticity of a document which was not good in law, that it bore the signature of J. Dunning.

Mr. W. Smith submitted that the King could make the grant to one of his own blood by word of mouth. He then referred to a testamentary instrument bearing the Royal sign manual, the body of which was in Lord Warwick's handwriting, as follows:-

"GEORGE R.

"St. James's.

"In case of our Royal demise, we give and bequeath to Olive, our brother of Cumberland's daughter, the sum of 15,000l., commanding our heir and successor to pay the same privately to our said niece, for her use, as a recompense for the misfortunes she may have known through her father.-June 2, 1774.

"Witness-J. DUNNING."

"CHATHAM. 66 'WARWICK.

After the King's death probate of this document was sought in the Prerogative Court, but it was held that the Court had no power to grant probate of the will of the Sovereign. An unsuccessful attempt was subsequently made in the Court of Chancery to enforce the claim for 15,000l. against the Duke of Wellington as George IV.'s executor. The two following certificates were then read in support of the statement as to the marriage between George III. and Hannah Lightfoot:

April 17, 1759. "The marriage of these parties was this day duly solemnized at Kew Chapel, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, by myself.

"Witness to this marriage,

"J. WILMOT.

"GEORGE P.
"HANNAH.

"W. PITT.

"ANNE TAYLER."

May 27, 1759. "This is to certify that the marriage of these parties (George, Prince of Wales, to Hannah Lightfoot) was duly solemnized this day, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, at their residence at Peckham, by myself. "J. WILMOT.

"GEORGE GUELPH.
"HANNAH LIGHTFOOT.

"Witness to the marriage of these parties,

"WILLIAM PITT.
"ANNE TAYLER."

He further referred to a will in favour of Olive Wilmot, dated the 7th of July, 1762, and signed “Hannah Regina," and witnessed by "J. Dunning and W. Pitt."

The Lord Chief Justice.-That was after the King's marriage to Queen Charlotte, and yet it is signed "Hannah Regina," and attested by "W. Pitt.” Mr. W. Smith said that in 1782 Dr. Wilmot was presented to the living of