But, it is retorted, that will not be granted; then we repeat another

proposal: let the Priest Conroy come forth girded in all the panoply of

the Roman court, and appear as the champion of the Canadian Jesuits;

let him institute an action, civil or criminal, or both, against the

publishers of such atrocious crimes, which, as they pretend, are

falsely alleged against the Roman Priests. If Lartigue and his Montreal

inferior priests are implicated in the most nefarious felonies, Maria

Monk has published him as a virtuous accomplice. Why does he not put

her truth to the test, by subjecting her to a criminal process? Why

does he not commence a suit against the Booksellers who published her

"Awful Disclosures?"--Ah! if Lartigue, Bonin, Dufresne, and Richards,

with their brethren, Conroy, Phelan, Kelly and Quarter, were coerced to

keep Lent, and live only upon _soup-maigre_, until that day arrives,

they would not much longer portray in their exterior, that they live

upon the fat of the land; but they would vociferously whine out--"Mea

culpa! O mea grandis culpa! O mea grandissima culpa! Peccava! Peccavi!

Peccavi!"

APPENDIX.

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.