Chapter XXXIV: Appendix: Reception of the First Editions (1)

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._