THE PRINCE OF WALES SCANDAL.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 107, 28 October 1863, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE PRINCE OF WALES SCANDAL.

The silly scandal^which has been ( circulated with reference to a former marriage of the Prince of -Wales with a young woman, of the Catholic persuasion is summed up itt the following report of proceedings at Hammersmith Police Court, and which we take from the Times of 24th August : — The Rev. James Roe, of the Oratory, Brompton, attended before Mr Dayman to answer a -summons charging him with detaining, without just cause, a gold ring and marriage certificate, the property of Margaret Agnes Guelph. Mr Dickie, instructed by Mr Weekes, of Chancery-lane, appeared for the complainant; and Mr Few for the defendant. The plea to the charge in the. summons was that the defendant never had them. The complainant, a respectable-look-ing woman, about thirty-five years of age, stated that in September, 1861, she was married to Albert Edward Guelph, ; at No. 4, Talet's Place, Brompton, by ' Cardinal Wiseman, according to the rites of the Romah Catholic Church. Many persons were present. In the evening, after the celebration of the marriage, Father Roe, who remained with her, wished her to enter a convent. She refused, and because she refused he said that she should not have" the certificate of her marriage to show the public. He forced it from her by violence and ill used her in a cruel manner. He took her certificate from her pocket, and drew her ring off by bis teeth. She could not tell exactly the date of the marriage. Her poverty prevented her from taking proceedings before. Sbe had never seen her husband since. He promised to come the next morning. Her marriage was entirely forced upon her. She had a copy of a letter she had addressed to her -Majesty. She never received any answer. The complainant was then cross- ' examined, and she gave several addresses at which she had lived during the present year, the last one being at No. 18, Clifton street, Regent's Park. She did not wish lo say what her name was before she 'was married. The gen-, tleman who married her told her that her name was always Guelph. She held the name of Guelph by right of her marriage and her maiden name. It was her business whether she ever went by the name of Stack. She did not wish to answer any question as to where she first met Albert Edward Guelph. She went abroad with him three years aero. He did not return with her. Those persons in whose charge she was placed returned" with her. Father Roe knew them. At the marriage Father Roe, Father Boden, and many others were present. She had no friends with her. The marriage took place in her room. He was in the house three weeks refore it took place. He demanded her as his cousin and wife. Father Roe signed the register, also Cardinal Wiseman. After the marriage Albert Edward left the house, after remaining tvvo hours. He left her in charge of Father • Roe, ancl to try and get her into a convent. She left a week afterwards. She went to No. 12, Queen's Gardens. She had written to Father Roe, demanding her ring and certificate, and he never answered her : letters. One letter was produced and read by Mr Few. It was an application for the certificate of her marriage. Mr Few questioned her as to the title of the gentleman who she alleged had mairied her. The complainant then said his title was his Royal Highness the Prince ol Wales, and he was well known to Father Roe. The defendant was sworn, and said that he had seen the complainant several times. He had always known her in the name of Mrs Stack. He never knew her in the name of Guelph until he received the summons, and he then recognised her as a person who applied to Mr Paynter, at the Westminster Police Court. She told Mr Paynter that he had administered chloroform to her, and that while under its inflence he took the certificate from her. Her statement about the marriage was utterly false, as far as he was concerned. By Mr Dickie — He knew "that she was a Roman Catholic by seeing her in the church at the oratory. She told him that she was in great destitution, and at her request he got her boy into an orphanage. The complainant here called out that she received £1000 a year from Hi* Royal Highness for her boy. She also said that the witness had known her for 12 years. The defendant said that he was not aware that she now belonged to the Protestant Church. The first time she came to him was between five and six years ago. It was in the Church at the Oratory. He had seen her six or eight times He could not account for her making this charge against him unless she was mad. Mr Dickie applied for an adjournment to enable him to produce some corroborative proof of the marriage. Mr Dayman refused, on the ground that the complainant had had the opportunity of summoning witnesses. He said that, after hearing both sides, he came to the conclusion that she was laboring under a delusion, and he therefore dismissed the case.