The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-02
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
DISCOVERY OF IMPORTANT PAPERS RELATING TO
HER MARRIAGE.
[Trom our own correspondent

LONDON, March 15-The defenders Of the
memory and character Of Mary Queen of
Scots will now have occasion to again grid on
their armor. Under the tile Of "a Lost
Chapter in the History OF Mary Queen OF
SEQ 8 Recovered" Dr.. John S uart. Of Z lin
ourgh, has related new story OF the events
connected with the marriage Of Rothwe!l VITA
L,dy Jane Gordon; his divorce from that
lady and his marriage With the Queen, and
the subsequent life OF his divorced wife down
to her d 4ath II 1929.
After her divorce, to which she was con-
sentirg party, she married the + .rl Of Suth-
erlsnd, who had himself been divorced; aud
l. was among the family papers CT the present
Earl o! Sutherland that DIR. Stuart discovered,
after it had been missing tor three centuries,
the most impcr ant Of the papers on which
his story is based that is, the Papal dispen-
sation for the marriage Of Boutwell, and the
Lady Jane Gordon, WHO were COUSINS. This
dispensafiou WAS granted on the 17lh of Feb
ruary, 1866, by the Archbishop Of st. An
dreW's, AID sets forth that although the par
ties We're connecte in the double fourh de-
grees Of consequently, liberty was granted
to them to marry.
Boutwell,, however. was at this time claimed
as husband by two other women-one a
Danish lady, the other J met Betoun, who was
atterw wards the Lady OF Buccleugh. However,
the marriage was soleMnized on the 22d OF
February. 1866, at the Court, but not by a
Roman Catholic priest The lady was O
Ca.holir, Boutwell, was a Protestant. and the
dspen, ion was needed only to satisfy the
scruples Of the lady. II the Queen knew OF
the existence OF the dispens.Iiou, then she
knew that the marriage was a lawful one in
tie eye OF the Church, and that her own sub
sequeut marriage with Boutwell, was illegal
A~;,,
proofs to show that she must have had this
knowledge.
The proofs are strong. but they are per-
haps not conclusive. However, in three
weeks after occurred the murder Of Il zzlo:
then Darniey wa, killed. and then Boutwell,
wished to marry the One. II. To q, this it
was Necessary for him TO get rid Of his wife,
and she was qIite willing, and it was ar
ran ged between them that each should get n
divorce from the other. But trickery and
conc, alnent nov cane into play; for the
Catholic wife went before Protestant court.
proved the adultery Of her hush nd
obtained her divorce while the Pro
tts'an. husband applied to Catholic
tribunal. aud. concealng the fact tina. the
marriage had been solemniz.d by virtue Of
dispe ,saton, Oh alned u decree dssolving it
on the groand Of relationship within the pro-
hibited d.gre 3 A;f.lr were in such conf,,-
sion III Scotland at this time tina. no record
Sc, ms to have been kept by the Catholic
authorities. and everything Went on ut hap
hazard. The st n;ence declaring the mar
riage null was pronouncei on May 7. 1867
oniy a little more than Il year after it had hes n
celebrated and the marriage bet xeen Both-
we'll and Mary Immediately followed. The ils-
por:an, point, as g,,ds Mary. Is whether she
knew OF the di.pensat'on. and Dr.. Stuart
gives it rs his opinion that she WAS aware of it
But it is clear. a. least. that Lady Jane Gordon
did KIN w Of it. as il VS. obtained at her re-
quest She WAS devort Catholic, and re-
manned so unil h.r death; but she not oaly
herself obtained a divorce from her hush and
on the ground Of his adultery, but married
again during his life. The truth seems to be
that the Catholics in Scotland at that time
were very much ut sea-deprived, to a great
extent of their religious guides-and tempted
in a Thousand ways to make compromises ard
of their ta.th.-N. T. Herald,
Mfrch oS