RECEPTION OF THE FIRST EDITIONS.
I have now reached the close of what appeared in my first editions.
Some of my readers may feel a wish to know what has been said of me and
my book, by those whose characters or connexions it exposes. Different
persons have expressed to me their fears that I should be kidnapped,
stabbed or poisoned; but of this I have had but little apprehension.
Others may suppose that the priests of Montreal, and some of those in
New York, against whom I have made different charges, may have appeared
against me in ways of which they are ignorant, and have published
facts, or used arguments of serious import, if not of decided force.
For the information of my readers, I have determined, though at some
inconvenience, to lay before them a fair view of what they have done.
I was well convinced before the publication of my first book, that the
priests would do or say very little against me or my work; and several
persons can testify, that I made declarations of this kind, with
distinctness, in their presence. The reasons I gave for this opinion
were these,—that they feared an investigation, and that they feared
further disclosures. They must desire to keep the public mind calm, and
diverted with other matters; and to avoid increasing my will.
There were individuals, I was well aware, both in and out of the
nunnery, and Seminary, who, from the first notice of the appearance of
my book, would be extremely disquieted, until they had ascertained the
extent to which my developments reached. When they had read for
themselves, I well knew, they would enjoy a temporary relief, finding
that my "Disclosures" were not the most "awful" which they had reason
to expect.
I also felt, that they would apprehend something further from me; and
that a dread of this would probably keep them quiet, or confine them to
general denials of my story. And this has been the case, even to so
great a degree, that the remark has been often repeated—how feeble is
their defence! Why did they not rather remain silent than do so
little—that which is for them worse than nothing? The causes of this I
could assign. The world does not understand them all.
Three principal grounds of opposition have been taken against me by my
enemies—1st, That I had never been in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery: 2d, That
my character entitled me to no confidence; 3d, That my book was copied,
"word for word, and letter for letter," from an old European work,
called "The Gates of Hell opened." Besides these grounds, several
others have been attempted, but less seriously supported—such as that
I was deranged, or subject to occasional alienation of mind; and that I
was not Maria Monk, but a counterfeit of a person by that name, still
in Canada, and, as some said, in the Black Nunnery.
With regard to the first of these grounds, I will here simply say, that
it has been, beyond controversy, the principal one, but has recently
been abandoned. The great object of the six affidavits, published in
Montreal in November, 1835, and republished here soon after the
publication of my book, was to prove that I had never been a nun—not
even a novice. The reader may judge for himself, for those affidavits
are published in full in this volume, and they are the only ones which
have been published against me. The reader will also see in an extract
from the New York Catholic Diary of March last that that fact is
admitted; and by a later extract from it, that a Canadian priest who
takes the trouble to write from Sherbrooke, has no new testimony to
refer to.
As to my character, I never claimed the confidence of the American
people, (as the Roman priests do,) on a pretence of a peculiar holiness
of life. That would have been unreasonable in a stranger, and
especially one who had been in a nunnery. My first editions, as well as
the present, bear witness that I appealed to the evidence of facts
which no one could controvert if once produced—an examination of the
interior of my late prison. Not a lisp has yet been heard of assent to
my proposition. The Protestant Association have published a challenge,
for several weeks, which is on another page among the extracts—but no
one has accepted it, and I will venture to say, no one will.
My publishers, on seeing the assertion made by the editor of the Boston
(Roman Catholic) Pilot, that my book was a mere copy from an old
European work, called "The Gates of Hell opened," published an offer of
$100 for any book so resembling it—without success. If there be any
volume on earth which contains the developments of any fugitive nun,
whose case resembled my own, I should expect to merit such a title as
the above; and I should know how to excuse the author for using so
strong an expression, after struggling, as I have had to do, in giving
my own narrative, with those feelings which are so apt to arise in my
heart at the recollection of scenes I have passed through. The opening
of the Gates of Hell, whether in a European or a Canadian Convent, may
probably disclose scenes very like to each other; but if there be any
resemblance between my book and any other in the world, I solemnly
declare that it can be owing only to a resemblance between the things
described in both, as not a sentence has been copied from any book
whatever, and I defy the editor of the Boston Pilot—(not to perjure
himself, as he gratuitously proposed—but to do what would be at once
much more difficult and satisfactory)—produce his book, or a single
page of it.
I have been charged with occasional alienation of mind—a very strong
evidence, I should think, of my being a nun; for what eloped nun ever
escaped that charge? Like converted Roman Catholics, run-away nuns are
commonly pronounced to be out of their wits, or under the influence of
evil spirits, of course, on the ground that it is proved by the fact
itself.
As to my being the real Maria Monk or not, I presume the testimony of
some of my old school-mates, now in New York, will pass. To these,
however, it cannot be necessary to resort, otherwise the Montreal
affidavits will be good for nothing.
I will now proceed to give the whole of the testimony which has been
brought out against me. A few remarks, necessary to acquaint the reader
with the progress of things, will be given in their place. Next to
these will appear the testimony of several persons, who have
voluntarily presented themselves, since the publication of my first
edition, claimed acquaintance with me, and volunteered their testimony.
I need not say how gratifying I have found such spontaneous marks of
kindness, from friends, whose reedy and unsolicited appearance is a
real favour to me, although chiefly due, as they declare, to their love
of truth and justice.
Almost immediately after the appearance of my "Awful Disclosures," the
following anonymous handbill was distributed through the city of New
York. It was also published in the Catholic Diary, and other papers,
with violent denunciations.
"Maria Monk! Villany Exposed.
"L'Amidu Peuple, a Montreal paper, gives us the denouement of the
tale of scandal which the Protestant Vindicator, Christian Herald,
et id genus omne, put forward a few months since, and which the
Protestant Editors of three political journals in Montreal, at once
indignantly repelled without knowing its origin. Instead of an eloped
Nun, recounting the horrors of the Convent, the heroine of the tale is
a Protestant young girl, who has been for four years past under
protection of a Mr. Hoyte, once styled a Reverend Methodist Preacher,
and connected with Canadian Sunday Schools. The paper quoted above,
gives, at full length, the affidavits of the mother of the girl, who is
also a Protestant, and of several other individuals, who had no motive
to favour Catholic Institutions. The disconsolate mother testifies on
oath that she had been solicited by the seducer of her child to swear
that she was a Nun, and that the father of the infant was a Catholic
Clergyman—that a promise had been made her of a comfortable provision
for herself, and for her unfortunate child and offspring—if she would
only do that. The poor woman had virtue enough to reject the base
proposal; and thus, the Rev. Mr. Hoyte, who had returned from New York
for this purpose, accompanied, it is stated, by the Rev. Mr. Brewster
and Judge Turner, failed in the object of his visit.
"A Methodist Preacher of the place immediately disclaimed all
connection of the society with Mr. Hoyte, and in a letter, published in
the papers, expressed his regret that any credit had been given to a
foul charge, emanating from a source so polluted."—Catholic Herald.
The affidavits will be published as soon as they shall be received from
Canada. Maria Monk's Book, far from injuring the Catholic religion,
will promote it; for the publication is a real disclosure of the
wickedness and hypocrisy of its enemies, who dare to go as far as to
conceal their own crimes, by calumniating those who never did any thing
against them, and have never interfered with them. Probably the author
of this pious book is a minister; and, what is more remarkable, not a
single one of the ministers has opposed it, or cautioned the people
against it, as it is their duty to do, the calumniators being of their
own congregation. However, by holding a prayer-meeting, making a few
faces, and giving a few affecting turns to their voices, they
certainly have already washed out the awful crime of these calumnies,
because faith alone will save them, and they certainly have the true
faith, which shows itself by these true fruits of charity. They are the
elect, and consequently, they are not like the Catholic Priests, who
are all wicked. The reader may recollect the parable of the pharisee
and the publican.
* * * * *
"Granting the truth of Maria Monk's story, will it not reveal the
weakness of Protestant origin? Where would Protestantism be, were it
not engendered and nursed by profligate Monks and Nuns? Yes, gentlemen,
profligate Monks and Nuns have been your nursing Fathers and Mothers!
The chaste spouse of the Redeemer could hold no fellowship with such
characters. She has flung them over the fences of the 'fold,' happy to
have a sink into which to throw her filth."
As soon as my first edition appeared, several of the newspapers of New
York referred to the publication in terms of unqualified condemnation.
Not content with giving my motives in producing it, without having seen
me, they hesitated not to pronounce it utterly false, with as much
boldness as if they had really known something more of the matter than
the public at large. A poor and injured female had disclosed to their
countrymen facts of deep interest to all; and they, without
examination, perhaps without leaving their offices to make a single
inquiry, did their utmost to decry me, and used terms which they cannot
but regret sooner or later.
Requests were immediately made to some of them to listen to evidence,
which were not accepted. The editors of the Courier and Enquirer were
requested, in a note from the publishers, to mention in their paper
what parts of my book they intended to pronounce false, and what was
their evidence. But they took no notice of it, although desired to
publish the note. Many other editors were invited to publish
communications or extracts, but most of them refused from the first,
and all the papers were soon closed against my cause.
In the country, the newspapers generally, I believe, followed the
example set in this city, though in Albany, Boston, and one or two
other places, a solitary one or two appeared disposed to examine the
subject.
At length appeared the long-threatened Montreal affidavits, which are
here inserted. They were published in several Roman Catholic, and one
or two Protestant papers in New York, with this introduction—
"Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures.' Villany exposed!!
"Of all the curious pranks and fanatical schemes which the foes of
Catholicity have been playing for some years past, there is not one
that fills the mind with greater disgust than the scandalous tale given
to the public by Maria Monk and her wicked associate.
"By the evidence which covers the following pages, the reader will see
the man himself clearly convinced of being a base calumniator, and
arch-hypocrite. He, and his associate prostitute, will be seen, with
brazen impudence, attempting to fix on the virtuous Catholic Ladies and
Catholic Priests of Montreal, the shameless character which belongs
only to themselves."
From the Montreal Courier, Nov. 16, 1835.
"The New York Protestant Vindicator of the 4th November, reiterates
its calumnies concerning the Roman Catholic Clergy and Nuns of this
city. We cherished the hope that, after the simultaneous and unanimous
expressions of disbelief and reprehension with which its extravagant
assertions had been met by the Canadian press, both Protestant and
Catholic, the conductors of that journal would have been slow to
repeat, without better evidence of their truth, the same disgraceful
charges. We have been deceived in our calculation. The fanatical print
demands counter evidence before it will withdraw, or acknowledge the
falsehood of its previous statements. We believe that counter
evidence has already been adduced, of a nature far surpassing, in
weight, the claims to credibility which the accusations themselves
could offer. The impure fabrication trumped up by a woman of immoral
character and insane mind, in conjunction with a man of equally
depraved habits, can never be weighed in the balance with the testimony
of Protestants, living in the same community as the accused, and,
therefore, possessing the means of judging of the truth or falsehood of
what was advanced. By any persons of less interested credulity, and of
more discriminating and moral honesty, than what the conductors of the
Protestant Vindicator appear to possess, counter evidence of the
above nature would have been deemed sufficient.
"There are two reasons which have mainly weighed with us, to revert to
the subject of the Protestant Vindicator's charges, and to publish
the subjoined lengthy documents. We consider, in the first place, our
endeavours to expose falsehood as a solemn duty we owe to the defamed;
and, in the second, we should regard ourselves to be degraded in the
eyes of the world, did we live in a community where such abominations,
as are alleged, existed, and not dare, openly and loudly, to denounce
the perpetrators.
"Under these impressions, we proceed, at a considerable sacrifice of
the space of our journal, to lay before our readers the following
affidavits, which will sufficiently disclose the nature of the
Protestant Vindicator's calumnies, their origin, and the degree of
credit which can be attached to them."
(AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROBERTSON.)
"William Robertson, of Montreal, Doctor in Medicine, being duly sworn
on the Holy Evangelists, deposeth and saith as follows:—On the 9th of
November, 1834, three men came up to my house, having a young female in
company with them, who, they said, was observed that forenoon, on the
bank of the Canal, near the extremity of the St. Joseph Suburbs, acting
in a manner which induced some people who saw her to think that she
intended to drown herself. They took her into a house in the
neighbourhood, where, after being there some hours, and interrogated as
to who she was, &c., she said she was the daughter of Dr. Robertson. On
receiving this information, they brought her to my house. Being from
home when they came to the door, and learning from Mrs. Robertson that
she had denied them, they conveyed her to the watch-house. Upon hearing
this story, in company with G. Auldjo, Esq., of this city. I went to
the watch-house to inquire into the affair. We found the young female,
whom I have since ascertained to be Maria Monk, daughter of W. Monk, of
this city, in custody. She said, that although she was not my daughter,
she was the child of respectable parents, in or very near Montreal, who
from some light conduct of hers, (arising from temporary insanity, to
which she was at times subject from her infancy.) had kept her confined
and chained in a cellar for the last four years. Upon examination, no
mark or appearance indicated the wearing of manacles, or any other mode
of restraint. She said, on my observing this, that her mother always
took care to cover the irons with soft cloths to prevent them injuring
the skin. From the appearance of her hands, [Footnote: Compare this
with the last sentence but one in the affidavit. Why does Dr. R. not
give names of persons and their affidavits? It has not yet been
done—April, 1836.] she evidently had not been used to work. To remove
her from the watch-house, where she was confined with some of the most
profligate women of the town, taken up for inebriety and disorderly
conduct in the streets, as she could not give a satisfactory account of
herself, I as a Justice of the Peace, sent her to jail as a vagrant.
The following morning, I went to the jail for the purpose of
ascertaining, if possible, who she was. After considerable persuasion,
she promised to divulge her story to the Rev. H. Esson, one of the
clergymen of the Church of Scotland, to whose congregation she said her
parents belonged. That gentleman did call at the jail, and ascertained
who she was. In the course of a few days she was released, and I did
not see her again until the month of August last, when Mr. Johnston, of
Griffintown, Joiner, and Mr. Cooley, of the St. Ann Suburbs, Merchant,
called upon me, about ten o'clock at night, and, after some prefatory
remarks, mentioned that the object of their visit was, to ask me, as a
magistrate, to institute an inquiry into some very serious charges
which had been made against some of the Roman Catholic Priests of that
place, and the Nuns of the General Hospital, by a female, who had been
a Nun in that Institution for four years, and who had divulged the
horrible secrets of that establishment, such as the illicit and
criminal intercourse between the Nuns and the Priests, stating
particulars of such depravacy of conduct, on the part of these people,
in this respect, and their murdering the offspring of these criminal
connexions, as soon as they were born, to the number of from thirty to
forty every year. I instantly stated, that I did not believe a word of
what they told me, and that they must have been imposed upon by some
evil-disposed and designing person. Upon inquiry who this Nun, their
informant, was, I discovered that she answered exactly the description
of Maria Monk, whom I had so much trouble about last year, and
mentioned to these individuals my suspicion, and what I knew of that
unfortunate girl. Mr. Cooley said to Mr. Johnston, let us go home, we
are hoaxed. They told me that she was then at Mr. Johnston's house, and
requested me to call there, and hear her own story. The next day, or
the day following, I did call, and saw Maria Monk, at Mr. Johnston's
house. She repeated in my presence the substance of what was mentioned
to me before, relating to her having been in the Nunnery for four
years; having taken the black veil; the crimes committed there; and a
variety of other circumstances concerning the Priests and Nuns. A Mr.
Hoyte was introduced to me, and was present during the whole of the
time that I was in the house. He was represented as one of the persons
who had come from New York with this young woman, for the purpose of
investigating into this mysterious affair. I was asked to take her
deposition, on her oath, as to the truth of what she had stated. I
declined doing so, giving as reason, that, from my knowledge of her
character, I considered her assertions upon oath were not entitled to
more credit than her bare assertion, and that I did not believe either:
intimating, at the same time, my willingness to take the necessary
steps for a full investigation, if they could get any other person to
corroborate any part of her solemn testimony, or if a direct charge
were to be made against any particular individual of a criminal nature.
During the first interview with Messrs. Johnston and Cooley, they
mentioned, that Maria Monk had been found in New York in a very
destitute situation by some charitable individuals, who administered to
her necessities, being very sick. She expressed a wish to see a
clergyman, as she had a dreadful secret which she wished to divulge
before she died; a clergyman visiting her, she related to him the
alleged crimes of the Priests and Nuns of the General Hospital at
Montreal. After her recovery, she was visited and examined by the Mayor
and some lawyers at New York, afterward at Troy, in the State of New
York, on the subject; and I understood them to say, that Mr. Hoyte and
two other gentlemen, one of them a lawyer, were sent to Montreal, for
the purpose of examining into the truth of the accusations thus made.
Although incredulous as to the truth of Maria Monk's story, I thought
it incumbent upon me to make some inquiry concerning it, and have
ascertained where she had been residing a great part of the time she
states having been an inmate of the Nunnery. During the summer of 1832
she was at service in William Henry's; the winters of 1823-3, she
passed in this neighborhood, at St. Ours and St. Denis. The accounts
given of her conduct that season corroborate the opinions I had before
entertained of her character.
"W. ROBERTSON.
"Sworn before me, Montreal, this 14th day of November, 1835.
"BENJ. HOLMES, J. P."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF MY MOTHER.)
"On this day, the twenty-fourth day of October, one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-five, before me, William Robertson, one of his
Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the district of Montreal, came and
appeared Isabella Mills, [Footnote: My mother's maiden name was Mills]
of the city of Montreal, widow of the late William Monk, who declared,
that wishing to guard the public against the deception which has lately
been practised in Montreal by designing men, who have taken advantage
of the occasional derangement of her daughter, to make scandalous
accusations against the Priests and the Nuns in Montreal, and afterward
to make her pass herself for a nun, who had left the Convent. And after
having made oath on the holy evangelists, (to say the truth) the said
Isabella Mills declares and says, a man decently dressed (whom
afterward I knew to be W. R. Hoyte, stating himself to be a minister of
New York,) came to my house on or about the middle of August last, and
inquired for one Mr. Mills; that Mr. Esson, a minister here, had told
him I could give him some information about that man; I replied that I
knew no one of that name in Montreal, but that I had a brother of that
name five miles out of town. He then told me that he had lately come to
Montreal, with a young woman and child of five weeks old; that the
woman had absconded from him at Goodenough's tavern, where they were
lodging, and left him with the child; he gave me a description of the
woman: I unfortunately discovered that the description answered my
daughter, and the reflection that this stranger had called upon Mr.
Esson, our pastor, and inquiring for my brother, I suspected that this
was planned: I asked for the child, and said that I would place it in a
nunnery: to that Mr. Hoyte started every objection, in abusive language
against the nuns. At last he consented to give me the child, provided I
would give my writing that it should be presented when demanded. We
left the house together, Mr. Hoyte requested me to walk at a distance
from him, as he was a gentleman. I followed him to Mr. Goodenough's
Hotel, and he directed me to room No. 17, and to demand the child; a
servant maid gave it to me; Mr. Hoyte came up, and gave me the
clothing. I came home with the child, and sent Mrs. Tarbert, an old
acquaintance, in search of my daughter; her disposition will be seen.
The next day, Mr. Hoyte came in with an elderly man, Dr. Judge Turner,
decently dressed, whom he introduced to me as a Mr. Turner, of St.
Alban's. They demanded to see the child, which I produced. Mr. Hoyte
demanded if I had discovered the mother; I said not. She must be found,
said he; she has taken away a shawl and a bonnet belonging to a servant
girl at Goodenough's; he would not pay for them; she had cost him too
much already; that, his things were kept at the hotel on that account.
Being afraid that this might more deeply involve my daughter, I offered
my own shawl to replace the one taken; Mr. Hoyte first took it but
afterward returned it to me on my promise that I would pay for the
shawl and bonnet. In the course of the day, Mrs. Tarbert found my
daughter, but she would not come to my house; she sent the bonnet and
shawl, which were returned to their owner, who had lent them to my
daughter, to assist her in procuring her escape from Mr. Hoyte at the
hotel. Early on the afternoon of the same day, Mr. Hoyte came to my
house with the same old man, wishing me to make all my efforts to find
the girl, in the meantime speaking very bitterly against the Catholics,
the Priests, and the Nuns; mentioning that my daughter had been in the
nunnery, where she had been ill treated. I denied that my daughter had
ever been in a nunnery; that when she was about eight years of age, she
went to a day-school. At that time came in two other persons, whom Mr.
Hoyte introduced; one was Rev. Mr. Brewster, I do not recollect the
other reverence's name. They all requested me, in the most pressing
terms, to try to make it out; my daughter had been in the nunnery; and
that she had some connection with the Priests of the seminary, of which
nunneries and Priests she spoke in the most outrageous terms; said,
that should I make that out, myself, my daughter, and child, would be
protected for life. I expected to get rid of their importunities, in
relating the melancholy circumstances by which my daughter was
frequently deranged in her head, and told them, that when at the age of
about seven years, she broke a slate pencil in her head; that since
that time her mental faculties were deranged, and by times much more
than at other times, but that she was far from being an idiot; that she
could make the most ridiculous, but most plausible stories; and that as
to the history that she had been in a nunnery, it was a fabrication,
for she never was in a nunnery; that at one time I wished to obtain a
place in a nunnery for her; that I had employed the influence of Mrs.
De Montenach, of Dr. Nelson, and of our pastor, the Rev. Mr. Esson, but
without success. I told them notwithstanding I was a Protestant and did
not like the Catholic religion—like all other respectable Protestants,
I held the priests of the seminary and the nuns of Montreal in
veneration, as the most pious and charitable persons I ever knew. After
many more solicitations to the same effect, three of them retired, but
Mr. Hoyte remained, adding to the other solicitations; he was stopped,
a person having rapped at the door; it was then candlelight. I opened
the door, and found Doctor McDonald, who told me that my daughter Maria
was at his house, in the most distressing situation; that she wished
him to come and make her peace with me; I went with the Doctor to his
house in M'Gill-street; she came with me to near my house, but would
not come in, notwithstanding I assured her that she would be kindly
treated, and that I would give her her child; she crossed the parade
ground, and I went into the house, and returned for her.—Mr. Hoyte
followed me. She was leaning on the west railing of the parade; we went
to her: Mr. Hoyte told her, my dear Mary, I am sorry you have treated
yourself and me in this manner; I hope you have not exposed what has
passed between us, nevertheless; I will treat you the same as ever, and
spoke to her in the most affectionate terms; took her in his arms; she
at first spoke to him very cross, and refused to go with him, but at
last consented and went with him, absolutely refusing to come to my
house. Soon after, Mr. Hoyte came and demanded the child; I gave it to
him. Next morning Mr. Hoyte returned, and was more pressing than in his
former solicitation, and requested me to say that my daughter had been
in the nunnery: that should I say so, it would be better than one
hundred pounds to me; that I would be protected for life, and that I
should leave Montreal, and that I would be better provided for
elsewhere; I answered, that thousands of pounds would not induce me to
perjure myself; then he got saucy and abusive to the utmost; he said he
came to Montreal to detect the infamy of the Priests and the Nuns; that
he could not leave my daughter destitute in the wide world as I had
done: afterward said, No! she is not your daughter, she is too sensible
for that, and went away—He was gone but a few minutes, when Mr.
Doucet, an ancient Magistrate in Montreal, entered. That gentleman told
me that Mr. Goodenough had just now called upon him, and requested him
to let me know that I had a daughter in Montreal; that she had come in
with a Mr. Hoyte and a child, and that she had left Mr. Hoyte and the
child, but that she was still in Montreal, so as to enable me to look
for her, and that I might prevent some mischief that was going on. Then
I related to him partly what I have above said. When he was going, two
other gentlemen came. I refused to give them any information at first,
expecting that they were of the party that had so much agitated me for
a few days; but being informed by Mr. Doucet, that he knew one of them,
particularly Mr. Perkins, for a respectable citizen for a long time in
Montreal, and the other Mr. Curry, two ministers from the United
States, that if they came to obtain some information about the
distressing events she related to have occurred in her family, he
thought it would do no harm, and I related it to them: they appeared to
be afflicted with such a circumstance; I have not seen them any more. I
asked Mr. Doucet if the man Hoyte could not be put in jail; he replied
that he thought not, for what he knew of the business. Then I asked if
the Priests were informed of what was going on; he replied, yes, but
they never take up these things; they allow their character to defend
itself. A few days after, I heard that my daughter was at one Mr.
Johnson's, a joiner, at Griffintown, with Mr. Hoyte; that he passed her
for a nun that had escaped from the Hotel Dieu Nunnery. I went there
two days successively with Mrs. Tarbert; the first day, Mrs. Johnson
denied her, and said that she was gone to New York with Mr. Hoyte. As I
was returning, I met Mr. Hoyte on the wharf, and I reproached him for
his conduct. I told him that my daughter had been denied me at
Johnson's, but that I would have a search-warrant to have her; when I
returned, he had really gone with my unfortunate daughter; and I
received from Mr. Johnson, his wife and a number of persons in their
house, the grossest abuse, mixed with texts of the Gospel, Mr. Johnson
bringing a Bible for me to swear on. I retired more deeply afflicted
than ever, and further sayeth not.
"Sworn before me, this 24th of October, 1835."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF NANCY M'GAN.)
"Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.
"Before me, William Robertson, one of His Majesty's Justices of the
Peace, for the District of Montreal, came and appeared Nancy M'Gan, of
Montreal, wife of James Tarbert, who has requested me to receive this
affidavit, and declared that she had been intimately acquainted with
Mrs. (widow) Monk, of Montreal, a Protestant woman. I know the said
Maria Monk; last spring she told me that the father of the child she
then was carrying, was burned in Mr. Owsten's house. She often went
away in the country, and at the request of her mother I accompanied her
across the river. Last summer she came back to my lodgings, and told me
that she had made out the father of the child; and that very night left
me and went away. The next morning I found that she was in a house of
bad fame, where I went for her, and told the woman keeping that house,
that she ought not to allow that girl to remain there, for she was a
girl of good and honest family. Maria Monk then told me that she would
not go to him (alluding, as I understood, to the father of the child),
for that he wanted her to swear an oath that would lose her soul for
ever, but jestingly said, should make her a lady for ever. I then told
her (Maria), do not lose your soul for money. She told me she had
swapped her silk gown in the house where I had found her, for a calico
one, and got some money to boot; having previously told me if she had
some money she would go away, and would not go near him any more. Soon
after, Mr. Hoyte and another gentleman came. Mr. Hoyte asked me where
she had slept the night previous, and that he would go for the silk
gown; the woman showed the gown, and told him that if he would pay
three dollars he should have the gown; he went away, and came back with
Maria Monk, paid the three dollars and got the gown; I was then present.
"Being at Mrs. Monk's, I saw a child which she mentioned to be her
daughter Maria's child. Some time after, Mrs. Monk requested me to
accompany her to Griffintown, to look for her daughter. We went, to Mr.
Johnson's house, a joiner in that suburb: we met Mr. Hoyte and he spoke
to Mrs. Monk; when at Mr. Johnson's, Mrs. Manly asked for her daughter;
Mrs. Johnson said she was not there. I saw Mr. Hoyte at Mrs. Monk's; he
was in company with three other persons, apparently Americans,
earnestly engaged in conversation, but so much confused I could not
make out what was said; and farther sayeth not."
"Her
"NANCY + M'GAN.
"mark.
"Sworn before me, on this 24th October, 1835.
"W. ROBERTSON, J. P."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF ASA GOODENOUGH.)
"Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.
"Before me, William Robertson, one of his Majesty's Justices of the
Peace, for the District of Montreal, appeared Asa Goodenough, of
Montreal, holder of the Exchange Coffee House, who, after having made
oath upon the Holy Evangelists, declareth and sayeth, that on or about
the nineteenth of August last, two gentlemen and a young female with a
child, put up at the Exchange Coffee House, of which I am the owner;
they were entered in the book, one under the name of Judge Turner, the
other as Mr. Hoyte, a Methodist preacher, and agent or superintendent
for the establishment of Sunday-schools, &c.
"Being informed by Catherine Conners, a confidential servant, that
something mysterious was passing amongst the above-named, which led me
to call on them for an explanation, they answered in a very
unsatisfactory manner. I afterward learned that the name of the young
woman was Maria Monk, that her mother lived in town, that she was not
married to Mr. Hoyte, and they came to Montreal with the view, as Mr.
Hoyte said, to disclose the infamy of the Priests, whilst she was at
the Nunnery. I thought it prudent to give information of this to a
magistrate. Seeing Mr. Doucet's name on the list, I went to him, and
requested him to give information to the mother of the young woman, of
the circumstances in which her daughter was. He did so, and the
disclosure of the design of Mr. Hoyte was the consequence.
"Montreal.
"ASA GOODENOUGH."
* * * * *
"The following affidavits have been translated from the L'Ami du
Peuple, Montreal, Nov. 7, 1835."
(AFFIDAVIT OF CATHARINE CONNERS.)
"Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.
"Before me, W. Robertson, one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace
for the District of Montreal, appeared Catherine Conners of Montreal, a
servant in the hotel of Mr. Goodenough, in the city of Montreal; she
having made oath on the Holy Evangelists, to say the truth and nothing
but the truth, declared and said what follows:
"Towards the 19th of August last, two men and a woman came to the
Exchange Coffee House; their names were written in the book, one by
the name of Judge Turner, and the other as Mr. Hoyte; the name of the
woman was not written in the book, in which the names of travellers are
written, because I was informed that they were taking a single room
with two beds. Some time after another room was given to them for their
accommodation; the woman passed for the wife of Mr. Hoyte.
"The day following, when I was making the bed, I found the woman in
tears; having made the remark to her that her child was a very young
traveller, she replied that she had not the power to dispense with the
journey, for they travelled on business of importance; she also said
that she had never had a day of happiness since she had left Montreal,
which was four years, with Mr. Hoyte; she expressed a wish to go and
see her father. She entreated me to try and procure secretly clothes
for her, for Mr. Hoyte wished to dine with her in his own room, in
which he was then taking care of the child. I gave her my shawl and
bonnet, and conducted her secretly out by the street St Pierre; she
never returned, and left the child in the hands of Mr. Hoyte. She said
that her husband was a Methodist preacher, and agent of the Sunday
School for Montreal, in which he had resided four months last winter;
but she had not then been with him. When I returned to the room, Mr.
Hoyte was still taking care of the child; he asked me if I had seen
his lady; I said no. Upon this question he told me that the father of
his lady was dead, that her mother yet lived in the suburbs of
Quebec, and he asked me for all the clothes which I had given to wash
for him, his lady and child; clothes the lady had taken from the
only portmanteau which they had. Beyond that, I perceived nothing
remarkable, except that Mr. Hoyte wished to conceal this woman, and to
prevent her from going out. I heard the judge say to him, 'now she is
yours.' Sworn before me the 2d November, 1835.
(Signed) "W. ROBERTSON."
Mary McCaffrey, also a chambermaid in the hotel of Mr. Goodenough,
corroborates the preceding deposition.
(Signed) "W. ROBERTSON."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF HENRY M'DONALD.)
"Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.
"Before me, W. Robertson, one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace,
for the District of Montreal, appeared Henry M'Donald, physician, who,
after taking an oath on the Holy Evangelists to say the truth,
declared, that in the month of August last, at seven o'clock in the
evening, a young woman called at his house with all the symptoms of an
extraordinary agitation, and in great distress. She asked his
professional advice, complaining of great pains in the breast. On
questioning her, he learned that she had a young child, which she said
was at Mr. Goodenough's, and that this child was taken away from her.
She said that the father of the child was a Methodist Minister, and
general agent of the Sunday-Schools. She told me his name, but I cannot
recollect it. She told me that now and then her intellectual faculties
were weakened in such a manner that she could not support herself. She
told me that she would be under great obligation to me, if I would go
to her mother's house, and get her child, and procure lodgings for her;
that she was without means, and did not know where to go. She could not
remain with her mother, because she felt that her conduct had disgraced
her family. I went in quest of Mrs. Monk, her mother; she had just come
in quest of her daughter, and they went away together from my house.
(Signed) "HENRY M'DONALD."
"Sworn before me the 2d November, 1835.
(Signed) "W. ROBERTSON."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW RICHEY.)
To the Editor of the Montreal Morning Courier.
Sir,—Among the affidavits published in your paper of to-day, relating
to Mr. Hoyte and Maria Monk, I observe a deposition by Mr. Goodenough,
that when Mr. Hoyte, in the month of August last, put up at the
Exchange Coffee-house, he was entered on the book as a Methodist
Preacher, and Agent or Superintendant of Sunday Schools, &c. It has,
however, been ascertained, from an examination of the book referred
too, that no official designation is appended in it to Mr. Hoyte's
name. This discrepancy, Mr. Goodenough states, took place entirely
through mistake, and he did not know that Mr. Hoyte was thus
characterized in his affidavit till he saw it in print. But as a
similar mistake has found its way into several of the depositions which
have been elicited by this unhappy affair, I deem it incumbent upon me,
as a regularly appointed Methodist Minister of this city, to declare
that Mr. Hoyte has never had any connexion with the Methodist Society,
either as a preacher or as an agent for Sunday Schools; and I would, at
the same time, express my surprise and regret, that the New York
Protestant Vindicator should have taken up, and industriously
circulated, charges of so grave a nature against the Priests and Nuns
of this city, derived from so polluted a source. From such a species of
vindication, no cause can receive either honour or credit. By giving
this publicity, you will confer a favour on yours, respectfully,
"MATTHEW RICHEY, Wesleyan Minister."
"Montreal, Nov. 16, 1835.
* * * * *
"Although we could produce several other affidavits, of an equally
unimpeachable character as the above, yet we deem the evidence advanced
more than enough to show the entire, falsehood and extravagance of the
fabrications in the Protestant Vindicator."
* * * * *
Here closes all the testimony that has been published or brought
against me. It requires the suppression of my feelings to repeat to the
world charges against myself and my companions, so unfounded, and
painful to every virtuous reader. But I [illegible] to the truth to
substantiate my narrative, and prefer that everything should be fairly
laid before the world. That my opponents had nothing further to produce
against me at that time, is proved by the following remark by the
Editor of the New York Catholic Diary, to be found in very paper in
which he published the preceding affidavits:—
"Here, then, is the whole!"
In a N. Y. Catholic Diary of March last, is a letter from Father
McMahon, a Missionary, dated at Sherbrooke, in Canada, in which, as
will be seen by the extracts given beyond, he does not even allude to
any other testimony than this. Of course my readers will allow that I
have reason to say—"Here, then, is the whole!"
The following extracts are given for several reasons. 1st. To prove, by
the admission of my adversaries themselves, that no new testimony has
been produced since the publication of the Montreal affidavits. 2d.
That no disposition is shown to bring the truth to the only fair
test—the opening of the Nunnery. 3d. That they are inconsistent in
several respects, as, while they pretend to leave the characters of the
priests and nuns to defend themselves, they labour with great zeal and
acrimony to quiet public suspicion, and to discredit my testimony. 4th.
Another object in giving these extracts is, to show a specimen of the
style of most of the Roman Catholic writers against me. In respect to
argument, temper, and scarcity of facts, Father McMahon is on a level
with the editors of the Diary and Green Banner, judging from such of
their papers as I have seen.
* * * * *
From Father McMahon's Letter to the editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary
of March, 1836.
"The silence by which you indulge the latent springs of a mal-propense,
so far from being an argument for culpability, is based upon the
charitableness of a conscious innocence, and is, therefore, highly
commendable. I say it is highly commendable, inasmuch as these worthy
and respectable characters do not deign to answer falsehood, or turn
their attention from their sacred avocations by effectually repelling
allegations which all men, women, and children, able to articulate a
syllable, in the city of Montreal, have repeatedly pronounced to be
utterly false, detestably false, and abominably scandalous.
* * * * *
"May I now call upon you, honest Americans, who, though you may differ
from me in doctrinal points of religion, have, I trust, the due regard
for truth and charity towards all mankind; and into whose hand that
instrument of Satan's emissaries may fall, before you believe one
syllable [illegible] attentively to peruse the following facts, which
are [illegible] men of learning, of every persuasion, and in every
country, and which you will find, by mature investigation, to serve as
a sufficient key to discover the wicked falsehoods, circulated by the
enemies of truth, in the work called, 'The Disclosures of Maria Monk,'
but which, in consequence of the total absence of truth from the things
therein contained, I have termed (and I think justly on that account),
the devil's prayer-book. I beseech you to give my statements a fair,
but impartial trial, weigh correctly the arguments opposed to them,
according to your judgment—do not allow yourselves to be gulled by the
empty or unmeaning phraseology of some of your bloated, though
temperate, preachers. All I ask for the test of the following
statement, is simply and solely the exercise of your common sense,
without equivocation. 1st. I distinctly and unequivocally state, that
the impugners of the Catholic religion and its doctrines, never dared
to meet us in the fair field of argument. Never yet have they entered
the lists in an eristical encounter, but to their cost. Why so? because
we have reason, religion, and the impenetrable shield of true
syllogistic argumentation in our favour. Witness, in support of the
assertion, the stupid and besotted crew (pardon me for this expression,
and find a proper term yourselves, for the politico-Theological
Charlatans of England), who, not daring to encounter the Catholic
Hierarchy of Ireland, in an honorable religious disputation, are forced
to drag to their assistance those very apostates from Catholicity who
were considered by their superiors unworthy of the situation they
attempted to hold in that Church; for the purpose of propping up the
staggering and debauched harlot, whose grave they are now preparing.
Only remark how they are obliged to have recourse to the exploded
scholastic opinion of Peter Dens, by way of showing the intolerance of
the Catholics, who repudiate the doctrine of religious intolerance.
Maryland, Bavaria, and the Cantons of Switzerland, prove the contrary
by their universal religious toleration. Now I could mention, if I
thought I had space enough on this sheet, numbers of Protestant
divines, who, in their writings, have strongly inculcated the absurd
doctrines of ruling our consciences by the authority of the Civil
Magistrates. See then, how strange it is that they seek to condemn us
for doctrines which we abhor, and which they practice, even to this
day. Mark that for an argument against our doctrines.
"2dly. I assert, that notwithstanding all the persecutions, all the
falsehood and defamation daily exercised against the Catholics and
their religion, they are at this moment the only people on the face of
the earth, who maintain amongst them the unity of the true faith, and
the regular succession in the Ministry, from Christ and his Apostles.
"3dly. I assert, that the late scandalous production against the
Catholic Clergy of Montreal and the Catholic institutions there, is a
tissue of false, foul, designing, and scandalous misrepresentation.
1st. Because upon strict examination into all its bearings, it has been
so proved upon the solemn oaths of a magistrate and others concerned.
2dly. Because it is no way consonant to reason or common sense to say
that those living at a considerable distance, and avowedly hostile to
the Catholics and their religion, should feel so interested in the
matter? as the Catholics themselves, who are vitally concerned, and who
had every facility of discovering any impropriety; who are zealous of
the purity of their religion and its Ministers. 3dly. Because the loud
cry of all the inhabitants of every denomination, from the well-known
integrity, the extraordinary piety, the singular charity and
devotedness of the Catholic Clergy, came in peals of just wrath and
well-merited indignation on the heads of the degenerate monsters who
basely, but ineffectually, attempted to murder the unsullied fame of
those whom they deservedly held, and will hold, in the highest
estimation.
"T. B. McMahon, Missionary."
Now this letter alludes to testimony legally given, as substantiating
the charges against me. What testimony is intended? Any new testimony?
If so, where, and what is it? I never heard of any, of any description,
except what I have inserted on the preceding pages, unless I except the
violent, unsupported, and inconsistent assertion in newspapers, before
alluded to. Has any testimony, legally given, been produced, which
neither the Catholic Diary, nor any other Catholic paper, has either
inserted or alluded to? No. The Missionary, McMahon, must refer to the
Montreal affidavits; and since he has expressed his opinion in relation
to their credibility and weight, I request my readers to form their own
opinions, as I have put the means in their power.
It may, perhaps, appear to some, an act displaying uncommon "concern"
in my affairs, or those of the Convent, for Father McMahon to take the
pains to write on the subject from Canada. I know more of him and his
concerns than the public do; and I am glad that my book has reached
him. Happy would it have been for him, if he could prove that he did
not leave Sherbrooke from the day when I took the Black veil, until the
day when I cast it off. There are many able to bear witness against him
in that institution (if they have not been removed), and one out of it,
who could easily silence him, by disclosures that he has too much
reason to apprehend.
But to return—I assure my readers, then, that this book contains all
the testimony that has been brought against me, so far as I can
ascertain.
The extensive publication of the Montreal affidavits (for they appeared
in the Roman Catholic papers, and were circulated, it is believed, very
generally through New York), for a time, almost entirely closed the
newspapers against me. My publishers addressed the following letter to
the editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary, and waited on him with a third
person, to request its publication in his next paper, but he declined.
He expressed doubts of my being in the city, and intimated a wish to
see me; but when they acceded, he refused to meet me anywhere but at
his own residence!
The same letter was then offered to other editors in New York, and even
sent to Philadelphia for publication, but refused. It appeared on the
29th of February, in the Brooklyn Star, thus introduced:—
Extracts from the Long Island Star of Feb. 29th.
"Since the publication of our last paper, we have received a
communication from Messrs. Howe and Bates, of New York, the publishers
of Miss Monk's 'Awful Disclosures.' It appears that some influences
have been at work in that city, adverse to the free examination of the
case between her and the priests of Canada; for thus far the news
papers have been almost entirely closed against every thing in her
defence, while most of them have published false charges against the
book, some of a preposterous nature, the contradiction of which is
plain and palpable.
"Returning to New York, she then first resolved to publish her story,
which she has recently done, after several intelligent and
disinterested persons had satisfied themselves by much examination that
it was true.
"When it became known in Canada that this was her intention, six
affidavits were published in some of the newspapers, intended to
destroy confidence in her character; but these were found very
contradictory in several important points, and others to afford
undersigned confirmation of statements before made by her.
"On the publication of her book, the New York Catholic Diary, the Truth
Teller, the Green Banner, and other papers, made virulent attacks upon
it, and one of them proposed that the publishers should be 'Lynched.'
An anonymous handbill was also circulated in New York, declaring the
work a malignant libel, got up by Protestant clergymen, and promising
an ample refutation of it in a few days. This was re-published in the
Catholic Diary, &c. with the old Montreal affidavits which latter were
also distributed through New York and Brooklyn; and on the authority of
these, several Protestant newspapers denounced the work as false and
malicious.
"Another charge, quite inconsistent with the rest, was also made, not
only by the leading Roman Catholic papers, but by several others at
second hand—viz. that it was a mere copy of an old European work. This
has been promptly denied by the publishers, with the offer of $100
reward for any book at all resembling it.
"Yet, such is the resolution of some and the unbelief of others, that
it is impossible for the publishers to obtain insertion for their
replies in the New York papers generally, and they have been
unsuccessful in an attempt in Philadelphia.
"This is the ground on which the following article has been offered to
us for publication in the Star. It was offered to Mr. Schneller, a
Roman priest, and editor of the Catholic Diary, for insertion in his
paper of Saturday before last, but refused, although written expressly
as an answer to the affidavits and charges his previous number had
contained. This article has also been refused insertion in a
Philadelphia daily paper, after it had been satisfactorily ascertained
that there was no hope of gaining admission for it into any of the New
York papers.
"It should be stated, in addition, that the authoress of the book,
Maria Monk, is in New York, and stands ready to answer any questions,
and submit to any inquiries, put in a proper manner, and desires
nothing so strongly as an opportunity to prove before a court the truth
of her story. She has already found several persons of respectability
who have confirmed some of the facts, important and likely to be
attested by concurrent evidence; and much testimony in her favour may
be soon expected by the public.
"With these facts before them, intelligent readers will judge for
themselves. She asks for investigation, while her opponents deny her
every opportunity to meet the charges made against her. Mr. Schneller,
after expressing a wish to see her, to the publishers, refused to meet
her anywhere, unless in his own house; while Mr. Quarter, another
Roman Catholic priest, called to see her, at ten o'clock, one night,
accompanied by another man, without giving their names, and under the
false pretence of being bearers of a letter from her brother in
Montreal."
* * * * *
Reply to the Montreal Affidavits, refused publication by the Catholic
Diary &c.
"To the Editor of the Catholic Diary.
"SIR—In your paper of last Saturday, you published six affidavits from
Montreal, which are calculated, so far as they are believed, to
discredit the truth of the 'Awful Disclosures' of Maria Monk, a book of
which we are the publishers. We address the following remarks to you,
with a request that you will publish them in the Catholic Diary, that
your readers may have the means of judging for themselves. If the case
be so plain a one as you seem to suppose, they will doubtless perceive
more plainly the bearing and force of the evidence you present, when
they see it brought into collision with that which it is designed to
overthrow.
"First, We have to remark, that the affidavits which you publish might
have been furnished you in this city, without the trouble or delay of
sending to Montreal. They have been here two or three months, and were
carefully examined about that period by persons who are acquainted with
Maria Monk's story, and were desirous of ascertaining the truth. After
obtaining further evidence from Canada these affidavits were decided to
contain strong confirmation of various points in her story, then
already written down, only part of which has yet been published.
"Second. It is remarkable that of these six affidavits, the first is
that of Dr. Robinson, and all the rest are signed by him as Justice of
the Peace; and a Justice, too, who had previously refused to take the
affidavit of Maria Monk. Yet, unknown to himself, this same Dr. R., by
incidents of his own stating, corroborates some very important parts of
Miss Monk's statements. He says, indeed, that he has ascertained where
she was part of the time when she professed to have been in the
Nunnery. But his evidence on this point is merely hearsay, and he
does not even favour us with that.
"Third, One of the affidavits is that of Miss Monk's mother, who claims
to be a Protestant, and yet declares, that she proposed to send her
infant grandchild to a Nunnery! She says her daughter has long been
subject to fits of insanity, (of which, however, we can say no traces
are discoverable in New York,) and has never been in a Nunnery since
she was at school in one, while quite a child. She however does not
mention where her daughter has spent any part of the most important
years of her life. A large part of her affidavit, as well as several
others, is taken up with matter relating to one of the persons who
accompanied Miss M. to Montreal last summer, and has no claim to be
regarded as direct evidence for or against the authenticity of her book.
"Fourth, The affidavit of Nancy McGan is signed with a cross, as by one
ignorant of writing; and she states that she visited a house of ill
fame, (to all appearance alone,) although, as she asserts, to bring
away Miss M. Her testimony, therefore, does not present the strongest
claims to our confidence. Besides, it is known that she has shown great
hostility, to Miss Monk, in the streets of Montreal: and she would not,
it is believed, have had much influence on an intelligent court or
jury, against Miss M., in that city, if the latter had been fortunate
enough to obtain the legal investigation into her charges, which as Dr.
R. mentions, she declared to be the express object of her visit to that
city, in the last summer, and in which she failed, after nearly a
month's exertion.
"Fifth, The affidavit of Mr. Goodenough is contradicted in one point by
the letter of Mr. Richey, a Wesleyan minister, which you insert, and
contains little else of any importance to this or any other case. * * *
*
"Sixth, You copied in a conspicuous manner, from a Catholic paper in
Boston, a charge against the book, the groundlessness of which has been
exposed in some of the New York papers, viz. that large parts of it
were, 'word for word and letter for letter.' (names only altered,)
copied from a book published some years ago in Europe, under the title
of 'The Gates of Hell opened.' We have not seen in your paper any
correction of this aspersion, although the assertion of it has placed
you in a dilemma; for, if such were the fact, as you asserted, the
Montreal affidavits would have little application to the case. Besides,
that book, having proceeded from Catholics, and relating, as was
intimated, to scenes in European Convents, divulged by witnesses not
chargeable with prejudices against them, is to be taken for true with
other names; and therefore the charge of extravagance or improbability,
which is so much urged against our book, is entirely nullified, without
appealing to other sources of information which cannot be objected to.
"But before closing, allow us to remark, that you, who claim so
strongly the confidence of your readers in the testimony of witnesses
in Montreal, who speak only of things collateral to the main subject in
question, must be prepared to lay extraordinary weight on evidence of a
higher nature, and must realize something of the anxiety with which we,
and the American public generally, we believe, stand ready to receive
the evidence to be displayed to the eye and to the touch, either for or
against the solemn declaration of Miss Monk, whenever the great test
shall be applied to which she appeals, viz. the opening of the Hotel
Dieu Nunnery at Montreal. Then, sir, and not till then, will the great
question be settled,—Is our book true or false? Affidavits may
possibly be multiplied, although you say, 'Here, then, is the whole!'
Dr. Robertson may be called again to testify, or receive testimony as
Justice of the Peace,—but the question is not, what do people
believe or think outside of the Convent? but, 'what has been done
in it?'
"By the issue of this investigation, Miss Monk declares she is ready to
stand or fall.
"You speak, sir, of the 'backwardness' of persons to appear in defence
of Miss Monk's book. We promise to appear as often on the subject as
you are willing to publish our communications. In one of the paragraphs
you publish, our book is spoken of as one of the evils arising from a
'free press.' We think, sir, that 'a free press' is exposed to less
condemnation through the 'Awful Disclosures,' than the 'close
Nunneries' which it is designed to expose.
"Respectfully, &c
"New York, Feb. 22d, 1836."
* * * * *
The above was afterward copied in other papers. The following
certificate appeared in the Protestant Vindicator, and other papers, in
March, 1836, introducing the two first witnesses.
"The truth of Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures' amply certified.
"We the subscribers, having an acquaintance with Miss Maria Monk, and
having considered the evidence of different kinds which has been
collected in relation to her case, have no hesitation in declaring our
belief in the truth of the statements she makes in her book recently
published in New York, entitled 'Awful Disclosures,' &c. We at that
same time declare that the assertion, originally made in the Roman
Catholic newspapers of Boston, that the book was copied from a work
entitled 'The Gates of Hell opened,' is wholly destitute of foundation;
it being entirely new, and not copied from any thing whatsoever.
"And we further declare, that no evidence has yet been produced which
discredits the statements of Miss Monk; while, on the contrary, her
story has received, and continues to receive, confirmation from various
sources.
"During the last week, two important witnesses spontaneously appeared,
and offered to give public testimony in her favour. From them the
following declarations have been received. The first is an affidavit
given by Mr. William Miller, now a resident of this city. The second is
a statement received from a young married woman, who, with her husband,
also resides here. In the clear and repeated statements made by these
two witnesses, we place entire reliance; who are ready to furnish
satisfaction to any persons making reasonable inquiries on the subject.
"W. C. BROWNLEE.
"JOHN J. SLOCUM.
"ANDREW BRUCE.
"D. FANSHAW.
"AMOS BELDEN.
"DAVID WESSON.
"THOMAS HOGAN."
* * * * *
(AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM MILLER.)
"City and County of New York, ss.
"William Miller being duly sworn, doth say—I knew Maria Monk when she
was quite a child, and was acquainted with all her father's family. My
father, Mr. Adam Miller, kept the government school at St. John's,
Lower Canada, for some years. Captain Wm. Monk, Maria's father, lived
in the garrison, a short distance from the village, and she attended
the school with me for some months, probably as much as a year. Her
four brothers also attended with us. Our families were on terms of
intimacy, as my father had a high regard for Captain Monk; but the
temper of his wife was such, even at that time, as to cause much
trouble. Captain Monk died very suddenly, as was reported, in
consequence of being poisoned. Mrs. Monk was then keeper of the
Government House in Montreal, and received a pension, which privilege
she has since enjoyed. In the summer of 1832, I left Canada, and came
to this city. In about a year afterward I visited Montreal, and on the
day when the Governor reviewed the troops, I believe about the end of
August, I called at the Government House, where I saw Mrs. Monk and
several of the family. I inquired where Maria was, and she told me that
she was in the nunnery. This fact I well remember, because the
information gave me great pain, as I had unfavorable opinions of the
nunneries. On reading the 'Awful Disclosures,' I at once knew she was
the eloped nun, but was unable to find her until a few days since, when
we recognized each other immediately. I give with pleasure my testimony
in her favour, as she is among strangers, and exertions have been made
against her. I declare my personal knowledge of many facts stated in
her book, and my full belief in the truth of her story, which, shocking
as it is, cannot appear incredible to those persons acquainted with
Canada.
"WILLIAM MILLER.
"Sworn before me, this 3d day of March, 1836.
"BENJAMIN D. K. CRAIG,
"Commissioner of Deeds, &c."
* * * * *
From the Protestant Vindicator of March 9.
"The following statement has been furnished by the female witness
above-mentioned; the name being reserved only from delicacy to a lady's
feelings."
(TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER OLD SCHOOLMATE.)
"I was born at Montreal, and resided there until within a few months,
and where my friends still remain. I was educated among the Catholics,
and have never separated myself from them.
"I knew Maria Monk when quite a child. We went to school together for
about a year, as near as I can remember, to Mr. Workman,
Sacrament-street, in Montreal. She is about one month younger than
myself. We left that school at the same time, and entered the
Congregational Nunnery nearly together. I could mention many things
which I witnessed there, calculated to confirm some of her accounts.
"I knew of the elopement of a priest named Leclerc, who was a
confessor, with a nun sent from the Congregational Nunnery to teach in
a village. They were brought back, after which she gave birth to an
infant, and was again employed as a teacher.
"Children were often punished in the Congregational Nunnery, by being
made to stand with arms extended, to imitate Christ's posture on the
cross; and when we found vermin in our soup, as was often the case, we
were exhorted to overcome our repugnance to it, because Christ died for
us. I have seen such belts as are mentioned in the 'Awful Disclosures,'
as well as gags; but never saw them applied.
"Maria Monk left the Congregational Nunnery before I did, and became a
Novice in the Hotel Dieu. I remember her entrance into the latter very
well, for we had a 'jour de congé,' holiday, on that occasion.
"Some short time subsequently, after school hours one afternoon, while
in the school-room in the second story of the Congregational Nunnery,
several of the girls standing near a window exclaimed, 'There is Maria
Monk.' I sprang to the window to look, and saw her with several other
novices, in the yard of the Hotel Dieu, among the plants which grew
there. She did not appear to notice us, but I perfectly recognised her.
"I have frequently visited the public hospital of the Hotel Dieu. It is
the custom there for some of the nuns and novices to enter at three
o'clock, P.M., in procession with food and delicacies for the sick. I
recollect some of my visits there by circumstances attending them. For
instance, I was much struck, on several occasions, by the beauty of a
young novice, whose slender, graceful form, and interesting appearance,
distinguished her from the rest. On inquiry, I learnt that her name was
Dubois, or something like it, and the daughter of an old man who had
removed from the country, and lived near the Place d'Armes. She was so
generally admired for her beauty, that she was called 'la belle St.
François'—St. Francis being the saint's name she had assumed in the
Convent.
"I frequently went to the hospital to see two of my particular friends
who were novices: and subsequently to visit one who had a sore throat,
and was sick for some weeks. I saw Maria Monk there many times, in the
dress of a novice, employed in different ways but we were never allowed
to speak to each other.
"Towards the close of the winter of 1833-4, I visited the hospital of
the Hotel Dieu very frequently, to see Miss Bourke, a friend of mine,
although I was not permitted to speak with her. While there one day, at
the hour of 'congé' or 'collation' which, as I before stated, was
at three P.M., a procession of nuns and novices entered, and among the
former I saw Maria Monk, with a black veil, &c. She perceived and
recognized me; but put her finger on her lips in token of silence; and
knowing how rigidly the rules were enforced, I did not speak.
"A short time afterward, I saw her again in the same place, and under
similar circumstances.
"I can fix the year when this occurred, because I recollect that the
nuns in the hospital stared at a red dress I wore that season; and I am
certain about that time of year, because I left my galoshes at the door
before I went in.
"The improper conduct of a priest was the cause of my leaving the
Congregational Nunnery: for my brother saw him kissing a [illegible]
one day while he was on a visit to me, and exclaimed—'O mon Dieu! what
a place you are in!—If father does not take you out of it I will, if I
have to tear you away.'
"After the last sight I had of Maria Monk in the hospital, I never saw
nor heard of her, until after I had been for some time an inhabitant of
New York. I then saw an extract from 'Awful Disclosures,' published in
a newspaper, when I was perfectly satisfied that she was the authoress,
and again at liberty. I was unable for several weeks to find her
residence, but at length visited the house when she was absent. Seeing
an infant among a number of persons who were strangers to me, as those
present will testify, I declared that it must be the child mentioned in
her book, from the striking resemblance it bears to Father Phelan, whom
I well know. This declaration has also been made by others.
"When Maria Monk entered, she passed across the room, without turning
towards me; but I recognised her by her gait, and when she saw me she
knew me at once. I have since spent many hours with her, and am
entirely convinced of the truth of her story, especially as I knew many
things before which tend to confirm the statements which she makes."
["It is superfluous to add any thing to the above testimony. Let the
Roman priests of Montreal open the Hotel Dieu Nunnery for our
inspection, and thus confute Maria Monk: or, Mr. Conroy is again
challenged to institute a criminal process against her, or a civil suit
against the publishers of her volume—They dare not place the eloped
nun or her booksellers in that 'Inquisition;' because they know that it
would only be 'putting themselves to the torture!'"—Ed. Prot. Vind.]
* * * * *
From The Protestant Vindicator of March 16th.
"We recommend the following communications to all persons who doubt the
wickedness of Nunneries. The young gentleman who sent us the letter is
now in this city, and we have heard the same statements from other
witnesses. That subterraneous passages from the Seminary to the
Nunneries, we ourselves have seen, and close by the spot designated by
our correspondent:—
(STATEMENT OF J. M.)
"Underground passage from the Jesuit Seminary to the Hotel Dieu
Nunnery, Montreal.
"I have been informed that you are endeavoring to obtain facts and
other incidental circumstances relative to the Black Nunnery, in
Montreal, and the disclosures concerning it, made by Maria Monk, in
which are many hard things, but hard as they are, they are not
indigestible by us Canadians; we believe that she has told but a small
part of what she must know, if she was but half the time there which
she says she was. Maria Monk has mentioned in her book something about
the underground passage which leads from the Black Nunnery to other
places in Montreal. That fact I know by ocular demonstration, and which
nine tenths of the Canadians also will not deny, for it has been opened
several times by the labourers, who have been digging for the purpose
of laying pipes to conduct gas and water. While preparing a place for
the latter I saw one of those passages; the earth being removed by the
labourers, they struck upon the top of the passage, and curiosity led
them to see what was beneath, for it sounded as though there was a
hollow. They accordingly removed the large flat stones which formed the
top of the passage. Many persons were looking on at the time, and
several of them went down into it; when they returned after a few
minutes, they stated that they went but a short distance, before they
came to an intersection of passages, and were afraid to proceed
further. Shortly after, several priests were on the spot, and prevented
the people from further examining it; and had the place shut up
immediately, while they stood by and guarded it until it was all done.
The appearance of that part of the passage was the same as I saw while
they were laying the water pipes. The floor of it in both [illegible]
where I saw it was clean to appearance, with the exception of a little
dirt that fell in on opening them, and of stone flagging. I have heard
much about these underground passages in Montreal, in which place I
have spent the most of my days. I give you my name and residence: and
if you should be called upon from any quarter for the truth of this
statement. I am ready to attest it upon oath; and there are others in
this city who have witnessed the same things. The places where those
openings were made in the underground passages were in St. Joseph
street for the water pipes; and for the gas pipes in Notre-Dame street,
near Sacrament street, at a short distance from the Seminary.
"W. M."
* * * * *
About the close of February last, a note was sent me from a person
signing himself the man who took me to the Almshouse. Soon after I had
an interview with Mr. Hilliker, whom I recognised as my first protector
in New York, and to whom I owe much—indeed, as I think, my life. He
kindly offered to give me his testimony, which follows:—
From the New York Journal of Commerce.
(AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN HILLIKER,)
"City and County of New York, ss.
"John Hilliker, being duly sworn, doth depose and say—that one day
early in the month of May, 1835, while shooting near the Third Avenue,
opposite the three milestone, in company with three friends, I saw a
woman sitting in a field at a short distance, who attracted our
attention. On reaching her, we found her sitting with her head down,
and could not make her return any answer to our questions. On raising
her hat, we saw that she was weeping. She was dressed in an old calico
frock, (I think of a greenish colour,) with a checked apron, and an old
black bonnet. After much delay and weeping, she began to answer my
questions, but not until I had got my companions to leave us, and
assured her that I was a married man, and disposed to befriend her.
"She then told me that her name was Maria, that she had been a nun in a
nunnery in Montreal, from which she had made her escape, on account of
the treatment she had received from priests in that institution, whose
licentious conduct she strongly intimated to me. She mentioned some
particulars concerning the Convent and her escape. She spoke
particularly of a small room where she used to attend, until the
physician entered to see the sick, when she accompanied him to write
down his prescriptions; and said that she escaped through a door which
he sometimes entered. She added, that she exchanged her dress after
leaving the nunnery, and that she came to New York in company with a
man, who left her as soon as the steamboat arrived. She farther stated,
that she expected soon to give birth to a child, having become pregnant
in the Convent; that she had no friend, and knew not where to find one;
that she thought of destroying her life; and wished me to leave
her—saying, that if I should hear of a woman being found drowned in
the East River, she earnestly desired me never to speak of her.
"I asked her if she had had any food that day, to which she answered,
no; and I gave her money to get some at the grocery of Mr. Cox, in the
neighbourhood. She left me, but I afterwards saw her in the fields,
going towards the river; and after much urgency, prevailed upon her to
go to a house where I thought she might be accommodated, offering to
pay her expenses. Failing in this attempt, I persuaded her, with much
difficulty, to go the Almshouse; and there we got her received, after I
had promised to call and see her, as she said she had something of
great consequence which she wished to communicate to me, and wished me
to write a letter to Montreal.
"She had every appearance of telling the truth; so much so, that I have
never for a moment doubted the truth of her story, but told it to many
persons of my acquaintance, with entire confidence in its truth. She
seemed overwhelmed with grief, and in a very desperate state of mind. I
saw her weep for two hours or more without ceasing; and appeared very
feeble when attempting to walk, so that two of us supported her by the
arms. We observed also, that she always folded her hands under her
apron when she walked, as she has described the nuns as doing in her
'Awful Disclosures.'
"I called at the Almshouse gate several times and inquired for her; but
having forgotten half her name, I could not make it understood whom I
wished to see, and did not see her until the last week. When I saw some
of the first extracts from her book in a newspaper, I was confident
that they were parts of her story, and when I read the conclusion of
the work, I had not a doubt of it. Indeed, many things in the course of
the book I was prepared for from what she had told me.
"When I saw her, I recognised her immediately, although she did not
know me at first, being in a very different dress. As soon as she was
informed where she had seen me, she recognised me. I have not found in
the book any thing inconsistent with what she had stated to me when I
first saw her.
"When I first found her in May, 1835, she had evidently sought
concealment. She had a letter in her hand, which she refused to let me
see; and when she found I was determined to remove her, she tore it in
small pieces, and threw them down. Several days after I visited the
spot again and picked them up, to learn something of the contents but
could find nothing intelligible, except the first part of the
Signature, 'Maria.'
"Of the truth of her story I have not the slightest doubt, and I think
I never can until the Nunnery is opened and examined.
"JOHN HILLIKER.
"Sworn before me, this 14th of March, 1835.
"PETER JENKINS,
"Commissioner of Deeds."
The following challenge was published in the N. Y. Protestant
Vindicator for six or seven weeks, in March and April, without a reply.
"CHALLENGE—The Roman Prelate and Priests of Montreal—Messrs. Conroy,
Quarter, and Schneller, of New York—Messrs. Fenwick and Byrne of
Boston—Mr. Hughes of Philadelphia—the Arch-Prelate of Baltimore, and
his subordinate Priests—and Cardinal England of Charleston, with all
other Roman Priests, and every Nun from Baffin's bay to the Gulf of
Mexico, are hereby challenged to meet an investigation of the truth of
Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures,' before an impartial assembly, over
which shall preside seven gentlemen; three to be selected by the
Roman Priests, three by the Executive Committee of the New York
Protestant Association, and the Seventh as Chairman, to be chosen by
the six.
"An eligible place in New York shall be appointed and the regulations
for the decorum and order of the meetings, with all the other
arrangements, shall be made by the above gentlemen.
"All communications upon this subject from any of the Roman Priests or
Nuns, either individually, or as delegates for their superiors,
addressed to the Corresponding Secretary of the New York Protestant
Association, No. 142 Nassau-street, New York, will be promptly
answered."
* * * * *
From the N. Y. Protestant Vindicator of April 6, 1836.
"THE CHALLENGE.—We have been waiting with no small degree of
impatience to hear from some of the Roman priests. But neither they,
nor their sisters, the nuns, nor one of their nephews or nieces, have
yet ventured to come out. Our longings meet only with disappointment.
Did ever any person hear of similar conduct on the part of men accused
of the highest crimes, in their deepest dye? Here is a number of Roman
priests, as actors, or accessories, openly denounced before the world
as guilty, of the most outrageous sins against the sixth and seventh
commandments. They are charged before the world with adultery,
fornication, and murder! The allegations are distinctly made, the place
is mentioned, the parties are named, and the time is designated; for it
is lasting as the annual revolutions of the seasons. And what is most
extraordinary,—the highest official authorities in Canada know that
all those statements are true, and they sanction and connive at the
iniquity!—The priests and nuns have been offered, for several months
past, the most easy and certain mode to disprove the felonies imputed
to them, and they are still as the dungeons of the Inquisition, silent
as the death-like quietude of the convent cell; and as retired as if
they were in the subterraneous passages between the Nunnery and
Lartigue's habitation. Now, we contend, that scarcely a similar
instance of disregard for the opinions of mankind, can be found since
the Reformation, at least, in a Protestant country. Whatever disregard
for the judgment of others, the Romish priests may have felt, where the
Inquisition at their command, and the civil power was their Jackal and
their Hyena: they have been obliged to pay some little regard to the
opinion of protestants, and to the dread of exposure. We therefore
repeat the solemn indubitable truth—that the facts which are stated by
Maria Monk, respecting the Hotel Dieu Nunnery at Montreal, are true as
the existence of the priests and nuns,—that the character, principles,
and practices of the Jesuits and Nuns in Canada are most accurately
delineated—that popish priests, and sisters of charity in the United
States, are their faithful and exact counterparts—that many female
schools in the United States, kept by the papist teachers, are nothing
more than places of decoy through which young women, at the most
delicate age, are ensnared into the power of the Roman priests—and
that the toleration of the monastic system in the United States and
Britain, the only two countries in the world, in which that unnatural
abomination is now extending its withering influence, is high treason
against God and mankind. If American citizens and British Christians,
after the appalling developments which have been made, permit the
continuance of that prodigious wickedness which is inseparable from
nunneries and the celibacy of popish priests, they will ere long
experience that divine castigation which is justly due to
transgressors, who wilfully trample upon all the appointments of God,
and who subvert the foundation of national concord, and extinguish the
comforts of domestic society. Listen to the challenge again! All the
papers with which the Protestant Vindicator exchanges, are requested to
give the challenge one or two insertions." (Here it was repeated.)
* * * * *
Testimony of a friend in the hospital
Statement made by a respectable woman, who had the charge of me
during a part of my stay in the Bellevue Hospital, in New York. She is
ready to substantiate it. It is now first published.
"I was employed as an occasional assistant in the Bellevue Hospital, in
New York, in the spring of the year 1835. My department was in the
Middle House and the pantry. I was present one day in the room of Mrs.
Johnston, the Matron, when a man came in with a young woman, and gave a
note to Mrs. J., (which I understood was from Col. Fish.) the
Superintendent, Mr. Stevens, being out. The female was dressed in a
light blue calico frock, a salmon-coloured shawl, and a black bonnet,
under which was a plain cap, something like a night-cap, which I
afterward understood was a nun's cap. Being occupied at that time, I
paid no attention to the conversation which took place between her and
the Matron; but I soon heard that she was a nun who had escaped from a
convent in Canada, who had been found in a destitute condition, by some
persons shooting in the fields, and that she was in such a situation as
to demand comforts and careful treatment.
"She was placed in room No. 33, where most of the inmates were aged
American women; but as she appeared depressed and melancholy, the next
day Mr. Stevens brought her into No. 26, and put her under my
particular charge, as he said the women in that room were younger. They
were, however, almost all Roman Catholics as there are many in the
institution generally.
"I told her she might confide in me, as I felt for her friendless and
unhappy situation; and finding her ignorant of the Bible, and
entertaining some superstitious views, I gave her one, and advised her
to read the scriptures, and judge for herself. We had very little
opportunity to converse in private; and although she several times said
she wished she could tell me something, no opportunity offered, as I
was with her only now and then, when I could step into the room for a
few minutes. I discouraged her from talking, because those around
appeared to be constantly listening, and some told her not to mind
'that heretic.'
"Seeing her unhappy state of mind, it was several times proposed to her
to see Mr. Tappan; and, after a week or two, as I should judge, he
visited her, advised her to read the Bible, and judge for herself of
her duty.
"One Sabbath I invited her to attend service, and we went to hear Mr.
Tappan preach; but after her return, some of the Irish women told her
to go no more, but mind her own religion. This produced an impression
upon her, for she seemed like a child of tender feeling, gentle, and
disposed to yield. She bound herself round my heart a good deal, she
was of so affectionate a turn. The rudeness with which she was treated
by several of the women, when they dared, would sometimes overcome her.
A large and rather old woman, named Welsh, one of the inmates, entered
the room one day, very abruptly, saying, 'I want to see this virtuous
nun;' and abused her with most shameful language, so that I had to
return to her, and complain of her to the Superintendent, who was
shocked at such impudence in a foreign pauper, so that she was put into
another room. Maria was washing her hands at the time Mrs. Welsh came
in, and was so much agitated, that she did not raise her head, and
almost fainted, so that I had to lift her upon a bed.
"Before this occurrence, the women would often speak to Maria while I
was away and, as I had every reason to believe, endeavoured to persuade
her to go to the priests. I told them that they ought rather to protect
her, as she had come to the same country where they had sought
protection.
"Mr. Conroy, a Roman priest, used to be regularly at the institution
two or three times a week, from about 10 till 1 o'clock, both before
and after Maria Monk became an inmate of it. No. 10 was his
confession-room. He baptised children in the square-ward, and sometimes
visited the sick Catholics in other rooms. Sometimes he went up in the
afternoon also.
"I heard it said, that Mr. Conroy had asked to speak with Maria: and
that an offer was made to him that he might see her before others, but
not otherwise, to which Mr. Conroy did not consent.
"Sometimes Maria was much disturbed in her sleep, starting suddenly,
with every appearance of terror. Some nights she did not sleep at all,
and often told me, what I had no doubt was the fact, that she was too
much agitated by the recollection of what she had seen in the Nunnery.
She would sometimes say in the morning, 'O, if I could tell you! You
think you have had trouble, but I have had more than ever you did.'
"Her distressing state of mind, with the trials caused by those around
her, kept me constantly thinking of Maria, so that when employed at a
distance from her, I would often run to her room, to see how she was
for a moment, and back again. Fortunately, the women around held me
somewhat in fear, because they found my reports of the interference of
some were attended to; and this kept them more at a distance; yet they
would take advantage of my absence sometimes. One day, on coming to No.
23. I found Maria all in a tremour, and she told me that Mrs. ——, one
of the Roman Catholic nurses, had informed her that Mr. Conroy was in
the institution, and wished to see her. 'And what shall I do?' she
inquired of me, in great distress.
"I told her not to be afraid, and that she should be protected, as she
was among friends, and endeavoured to quiet her fears all I could; but
it was very difficult to do so. One of the women in the house, I know,
told Maria, in my presence, one day, that Mr. Conroy was waiting in the
passage to see her. The present Superintendent (another Mr. Stevens)
succeeded the former while Maria and I were in the Hospital. Abby Welsh
(not the Mrs. Welsh mentioned before) got very angry with me one day,
because, as usual on the days when Mr. Conroy came, I was watchful to
prevent his having an interview with Maria. Another person, for a time,
used to employ her in sewing in her room on those days, for she also
protected her, as well in this way, as by reproving those who troubled
her. Abby Welsh, finding me closely watching Maria on the day I was
speaking of, told me, in a passion, that I might watch her as closely
as I pleased—Mr. Conroy would have her. Not long after this, I saw
Abby Welsh talking earnestly with Mr. Conroy, in the yard, under one of
the windows of the Middle House, and heard her say, 'the nun,' and
afterward, 'she's hid.'
"A Roman Catholic woman, who supposed that Maria had been seen in St.
Mary's Church, expressed a wish that she could have caught her there;
and said, she would never again have made her appearance. I inquired
whether there was any place where she could have been confined. She
replied, in a reserved, but significant manner, 'There is at least one
cell there for her.'
"New York, March 23d, 1836."
It would be a natural question, if my readers should ask, "What said
the Roman Catholics to such testimonials? They laid great stress on
affidavits sent for to Montreal; what do they think of affidavits
spontaneously given in New York?"
So far as I know, they have republished but one, and that is Mr.
Miller's!
The New York Catholic Diary of March 19th, said—
"We take the following overwhelming testimony from the Brooklyn
American Citizen of the 11th instant:
"The following affidavits, &c., are copied from the last No. of the
'Protestant Vindicator,' and prove, it seems to us, taken with other
corroborating circumstances, the falsehood and irrelevancy of the
testimony against Miss Monk, and therefore establish the truth of her
narrative:"
(Here it inserted Mr. Miller's affidavit, and then added:)
"What is the weight of the affidavit? Of ponderous import? I inquired
where Maria was, and she told me she was in the Nunnery? Therefore she
is an eloped Nun. Marvellous logical affidavit! We may say, that when
an inquiry is made after the editor of this paper, and the answer is,
that he was in Protestant Church, therefore he is a Protestant
minister."
The Rev. Mr. Schneller, (for a Catholic priest is the editor of that
paper,) thus tries to slide over the important testimony of Mr. Miller,
and in doing it, admits that I was in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in the
summer of 1832. Of course, he admits then, that Dr. Robertson's
testimony to the contrary it false, and gives up the great point which
the Montreal affidavits were intended to settle, viz. that I had not
been in any Nunnery—at least, not since I was a child.
But another thing is worthy of remark. The Diary says, "We take the
following overwhelming testimony from the Brooklyn American Citizen,"
yet he really leaves out the greater part of the testimony which that
paper contained, viz. the certificate beginning on page 251. Let any
one turn to that, and ask whether the editor had not some reason to
wish to keep it from his readers? Did he not get rid of it very
ingeniously, when he inserted the following remarks instead of it?
"The following statement has been furnished by the female witness above
mentioned; the name being reserved only from delicacy to a lady's
feelings."
"Excellent! 'delicacy to a lady's feelings!!' we are absorbed in an
exclamation of wonder; the delicate name, in a matter of such vast
importance, as that which affects the truth of the slanderous tale,
cannot be mentioned!
"Therefore, 'we, the subscribers,' 'Brownlee, Slocum, Brace, Fanshaw,
Belden, Wesson, and Hogan,' rest the weight of their authority upon the
'delicacy' of a nameless 'lady's feelings.'"
Now here Mr. Shellner pretends that the witness was not accessible, and
leaves it in doubt, whether the subscribers, (men of known character
and unimpeachable veracity.) knew any thing of her. Yet it was
expressly stated by them that she was known, and that any reasonable
inquiries would be readily answered. (See p. 249.)
I have no intention of attempting to enforce the evidence presented in
the testimonials just given. I shall leave every reader to form his own
conclusions independently and dispassionately. I could easily say
things likely to excite the feelings of every one who peruses these
pages—but I prefer to persist in the course I have thus far pursued,
and abstain from all exciting expressions. The things I declare are
sober realities, and nothing is necessary to have them so received, but
that the evidence be calmly laid before the public.
I will make one or two suggestions here, for the purpose of directing
attention to points of importance, though one or two of them have been
already touched upon.
1st. One of the six affidavits was given by Dr. Robertson, and the
remaining five were sworn to before him.
2d. The witnesses speak of interviews with me, on two of the most
distressing days of my life. Now let the reader refer to those
affidavits and then say, whether any expressions which they may have
misunderstood, or any which may have been fabricated for me, (as I
strongly suspect must have been the fact with some,) ought to destroy
my character for credibility; especially when I appeal to evidence so
incontestible as an inspection of the nunnery, and my opponents shrink
from it. Let the reader observe also, that in the interviews spoken of
in the affidavits, no third person is commonly spoken of as present;
while those who are named are most of them inimical to me.
3d. All the testimony in the affidavits is aimed to destroy my
character, and to prevent me from receiving any credit as a witness.
Not a bit of it meets the charges I make against the priests and nuns.
If they had proved that I never was in the nunnery, that, indeed would
set aside my testimony: but failing to do [illegible], the attempt goes
far to set their own aside.
Having now fairly shown my readers what reception my first edition met
with, both from enemies and friends, I proceed to the "Sequel" of my
narrative.
THE END.