“We are hereby pleased to recommend Olive, our niece, to our
faithful Lords and Commons for protection and support,
should she be in existence at the period of our royal
demise; such being Olive Wilmot, the supposed daughter of
Robert Wilmot of Warwick. 
J. DUNNING. 
ROBT.  WILMOT. January 7th, 1780.”

Mrs. Ryves, the petitioner, was the principal witness called.  She gave her evidence very clearly and firmly, and when offered a seat in the witness-box declined it, saying that she was not tired, and could stand for ever to protect the honour of her family.  She said she recollected coming from Liverpool to London with her father and mother when she was only two years and a half old, and narrated how she lived with them conjointly up to the date of the separation, and with her mother afterwards.  It was then proposed to ask her some questions as to declarations made by Hannah Lightfoot, the reputed wife of George III., but the Lord Chief-Justice interposed with the remark that there was no evidence before the court as to the marriage of the king with this woman.  The petitioner’s counsel referred to the two following documents:—­

“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,
J. WILMOT. 
GEORGE P.
HANNAH.”

“Witness to this marriage,
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.”

Upon this, the Lord Chief-Justice again interposed, saying, “The Court is, as I understand, asked solemnly to declare, on the strength of two certificates, coming I know not whence, written on two scraps of paper, that the marriage—­the only marriage of George III. which the world believes to have taken place—­between his Majesty and Queen Charlotte, was an invalid marriage, and consequently that all the sovereigns who have sat on the throne since his death, including her present Majesty, were not entitled to sit on the throne.  That is the conclusion to which the court is asked to come upon these two rubbishy pieces of paper—­one signed ‘George P,’ and the other ‘George Guelph.’  I believe them to be gross and rank forgeries.  The court has no difficulty in coming to the conclusion—­even assuming that the signatures had that character of genuineness which they have not—­that what is asserted in these documents has not the slightest foundation in fact.”