But he also states—"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 has 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 at William Henry; the winters of 1832-3, she passed in this neighborhood at St. Ours and St. Denis."
That is most remarkable testimony, because, although Papists may justly be admitted to know nothing of times and dates, unless by their Carnivals, their Festivals, their Lent, or their Penance—yet Protestant Magistrates might be more precise. Especially, as it is a certain fact, that no person at Sorel can be discovered, who is at all acquainted with such a young woman in service in the summer of 1832. It is true, she did reside at St. Denis or St. Ours, as theRoman Priests can testify; but not at the period specified by Dr. Robertson.
For the testimony of a decisive witness in favour of Maria Monk, see the statement of an old schoolmate in Appendix.
8.Summary view of the evidence.—Let us sum up this contradictory evidence respecting the simple fact, whether Maria Monk was a resident of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery or not?
Her mother says—"I denied that my daughter had ever been in a Nunnery." Dr. Robertson informed us—"I have ascertained where she has been residing a great part of the time she states having been an inmate of the Nunnery." That is all which can be adduced to contradict Maria Monk's statement.
This is a most extraordinary affair, that a young woman's place of abode cannot be accurately discovered during several years, when all the controversy depends upon the fact of that residence. Why did not Dr. Robertson specify minutely with whom Maria Monk lived at service at William Henry, in the summer of 1832?—Why did not Dr. Robertson exactly designate where, and with whom, she resided at St. Denis and St. Ours, in the winters of 1832 and 1833? The only answer to these questions is this—Dr. Robertson cannot. He obtained his contradictory information most probably from her mother, or from the Priest Kelly, and then embodied it in his affidavit to regain that favour and popularity with the Montreal Papists which he has so long lost. We are convinced that neither the evidence of Mrs. Monk, nor Dr. Robertson, would be of a feather's weight in a court of justice against the other witnesses, Mrs. ——, and Mr. William Miller.
Maria Monk asserts, that she was a resident of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery during the period designated by Dr. Robertson, which is familiarly denominated the Cholera summer. In her narrative she develops a variety of minute and characteristic details of proceedings in that Institution, connected with things which all persons in Montreal know to have actually occurred, and of events which it is equally certain did happen, and which did not transpire anywhere else; and which is impossible could have taken place at Sorel or William Henry; because there is no Nunnery there; and consequently her descriptions would be purely fabricated and fictitious.
But the things asserted are not inventions of imagination. No person could thus delineate scenes which he had not beheld; and therefore Maria Monk witnessed them; consequently, she was a member of that family community; for the circumstances which she narrates nowhere else occurred. At all events, it seems more reasonable to suppose that an individual can more certainly tell what had been his own course of life, than persons who, by their own admission, know nothing of the subject; and especially when her statements are confirmed by such unexceptionable witnesses. There are, however, two collateral points of evidence which strongly confirm Maria Monk's direct statements. One is derived from the very character of the acknowledgments which she made, and the period when they were first disclosed. "A death-bed," says the Poet, "is a detector of the heart." Now it is certain, that the appalling facts which she states, were not primarily made in a season of hilarity, or with any design to "make money" by them, or with any expectation that they would be known to any other person than Mr. Hilliker, Mr. Tappan, and a few others at Bellevue; but when there was no anticipation that her life would be prolonged, and when agonized with the most dreadful retrospection and prospects.
It is not possible to believe, that any woman would confess those facts which are divulged by Maria Monk, unless from dread of death and the judgment to come, or from the effect of profound Christian penitence. Feminine repugnance would be invincible. Thus, the alarm of eternity, her entrance upon which appeared to be so immediate, was the only cause of those communications; which incontestably prove, that Nunneries are the very nurseries of the most nefarious crimes, and the most abandoned transgressors.
The other consideration is this—that admitting the statements to be true, Maria Monk could not be unconscious of the malignity of Roman Priests, and of her own danger; and if her statements were fictitious, she was doubly involving herself in irreparable disgrace and ruin. In either case, as long as she was in New York she was personally safe; and as her disclosures had been restricted to very few persons, she might have withdrawn from the public institution, and in privacy have passed away her life, "alike unknowing and unknown." Lunacy itself could only have instigated a woman situated as she was, to visit Montreal, and there defy the power, and malice, and fury of the Roman Priests, and their myrmidons; by accumulating upon them charges of rape, infanticide, the affliction of the tortures of the Inquisition, and murders of cold-blooded ferocity in the highest degree, with all the atrocious concomitant iniquities which those prolific sins include.
Now it is certain, that she was not deranged; and she was not forced. She went deliberately, and of her own accord, to meet the Popish Priests upon the spot where their crimes are perpetrated, and the stronghold of their power. Whether that measure was the most prudent and politic for herself, and the most wise and efficient for the acquisition of the avowed object, may be disputed; but the exemplary openness and the magnanimous daring of that act cannot be controverted.
The narrative, pages 116 to l27, respecting the cholera and the election riots at Montreal, both which scenes happened at the period when Dr. Robertson says Maria Monk was at William Henry, or St. Denis, or St. Ours; could not have been described, at least that part of it respecting the wax candles, and the preparation for defence, except by a resident of the Nunnery.
It is a public, notorious fact, that "blessed candles" were made, and sold by the Nuns, and used at Montreal under the pretext to preserve the houses from the Cholera, and to drive it away; that those candles were directed so to be kept burning by the pretended injunction of the Pope; and that large quantities of the Nunnery candles were dispersed about Montreal and its vicinity, which were fixed at a high price; and whoever suffered by the Cholera, the Nuns and their Masters, the Priests, could truly say—"By this craft we have our wealth." Acts 19:25. It is obvious, that a young Papist woman at service at William Henry, could know no more of those matters, than if she had been at Labrador; for the incidental remark with which that part of the narrative commences, is one of those apparently superfluous intimations, which it is evident a person who was writing a fiction would not introduce; and yet it is so profoundly characteristic of a Canadian Convent, that its very simple artlessness at once obliterates Dr. Robertson's affidavit. "There were a few instances, and only a few, in which we knew any thing that was happening in the world; and even then our knowledge did not extend out of the city." We cannot be infallibly certain of Maria Monk's description of the interior of the Nunnery; but that unpremeditated remark, so minutely descriptive of the predominating ignorance among the Nuns of all terrestrial concerns exterior of the Convent, is satisfactory proof that the narrator was not sketching from fancy, but depicting from actual life.
From those testimonies, direct and unintentional, it is fully evident, that Maria Monk was a long resident, and is profoundly acquainted with the doings in the Hotel Dieu Convent at Montreal.
II. What collateral evidence can be adduced of the truth of the "AwfulDisclosures" by Maria Monk?
1. One corroborative testimony is derived from thesilence of the Roman Priests and their avowed partisans. Months have passed away since the first statements of those matters were made, and also the defence of the Priests, with the affidavits and other connected circumstances, were presented to the public in the Protestant Vindicator. One of the persons in Montreal, who was in favour of the Jesuits, Mr. Doucet, stated that "the Priests never take up such things; they allow their character to defend itself." There was a time when that contemptuous course would have sufficed, or rather, when to have spoken the truth of the Roman Priests would have cost a man his life, and overwhelmed his family in penury, disgrace, and anguish. The Canadian Jesuits may be assured that time has passed away, never more to return. They must take up this thing; for their characters cannot defend themselves; and every enlightened man in Canada knows, that in a moral aspect, they cannot be defended.
Argument, denial, affidavits, if they could reach from Montreal to New York, and the oaths of every Papist and Infidel in Canada,—from Joseph Signay, the Popish Prelate of Quebec and Jean Jacques Lartigue, the Suffragan of Montreal, down to the most profligate of the half-pay military officers, among whom are to be found some of the dregs of the British army, all of them will avail nothing. They are not worth a puff of wind against the internal evidence of Maria Monk's book, in connexion with the rejection of the proposal of the New York Protestant Association, that the Nunnery shall undergo a strict and impartial examination. It is one of the remarkable evidences of the extraordinary delusion which blinds, or the infatuation which enchains the public mind, that men will not credit the corruptions and barbarities of Romanism. To account for this stupefaction among persons who are wide awake to every other system of deadly evil, is almost impossible. Popery necessarily extirpates the rights of man. It ever has destroyed the well-being of society. By it, all municipal law and domestic obligations are abrogated: It always subverts national prosperity and stability; and it is the invincible extinguisher of all true morality and genuine religion. Notwithstanding, men will give credence neither to its own avowed principles, character, and spirit; nor to the unavoidable effects which constantly have flowed from its operations and predominance.
In any other case but one exposing the abominations of Popery, such a volume as Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures" would have been received without cavil; and immediate judicial measures would have been adopted, to ascertain the certainty of the alleged facts, and the extent and aggravation of their criminality. But now persons are calling for more evidence, when, if they reflected but for a moment, they would perceive, that the only additional evidence possible, is under the entire control of the very persons who are criminated; and to whom the admission of further testimony would be the accumulation of indelible ignominy.
The pretence, that it is contrary to their rules to allow strangers to explore the interior of a nunnery, only adds insult to crime. Why should a Convent be exempt from search, more than any other edifice? Why should Roman Priests be at liberty to perpetrate every deed of darkness in impenetrable recesses called nunneries? Why should one body of females, shut up in a certain species of mansion, to whom only one class of men have unrestricted access, be excluded from all public and legal supervision, more than any other habitation of lewd women, into which all men may enter? As citizens of the United States, we do not pretend to have any authoritative claim to explore a convent within the dominion of a foreign potentate. The Roman Priests of Canada, exercise a vast influence, and are completely intertwined with the Jesuits, in this republic. Therefore, when they remember the extinction of the nunneries at Monroe, Michigan, Charlestown, and Pittsburg; and when they recollect, that the delineations of Maria Monk, if they produce no effect in Canada, will assuredly render female convents in the United States very suspicious and insecure; if they have any solicitude for their confederates, they will intrepidly defy research, and dauntlessly accept the offer of the New York Protestant Association: that a joint committee of disinterested, enlightened and honorable judges, should fully investigate, and equitably decide upon the truth or falsehood of Maria Monk's averments. Their ominous silence, their affected contempt, and their audacious refusal, are calculated only to convince every impartial person, of even the smallest discernment, of the real state of things in that edifice; that the chambers of pollution are above, and that the dungeon of torture and death are below; and that they dread the exposure of the theatre on which their horrible tragedies are performed.
It is also a fact publicly avowed by certain Montreal Papists themselves, and extensively told in taunt and triumph, that they have been employed as masons and carpenters by the Roman Priests, since Maria Monk's visit to Montreal in August, 1835, expressly to alter various parts of the Hotel Dieu Convent, and to close up some of the subterraneous passages and cells in that nunnery. This circumstance is not pretended even to be disputed or doubted; for when the dungeons under ground are spoken of before the Papists, their remark is this: "Eh bien! mais vous ne les trouverez pas, à present; on les a caché hors de vue. Very well, you will not find them there now; they are closed up, and out of sight." Why was the manoeuvre completed? Manifestly, that in urgent extremity, a casual explorer might be deceived, by the apparent proof that the avenues, and places of imprisonment and torture which Maria Monk describes are not discoverable. Now that circumstance might not even been suspected, if the Papist workmen themselves had not openly boasted of the chicanery by which the Priests, who employed them, expected to blind and deceive the Protestants. For in reference to the Romanists, a Popish Priest well knows that nothing more is necessary than for him to assert any absurdity, however gross or impossible, and attest it by the five crosses on his vestments, and his own superstitious vassal believes it with more assurance than his own personal identity. But the filling up and the concealment of the old apertures in the nunnery, by the order of the Roman Priests are scarcely less powerful corroborative proof of Maria Monk's delineations, than ocular and palpable demonstration.
2. Some of the circumstances attending Maria Monk's visit to Montreal, in August, 1835, add great weight in favour of the truth, which no cavils, skepticism, scorn, nor menaces, can counterbalance.
We will however state one very recent occurrence, because it seems to us, that it alone is almost decisive of the controversy. A counsellor of Quebec—his name is omitted merely from delicacy and prudential considerations—has been in New York since the publication of the "Awful Disclosures" His mind was so much influenced by the perusal of that volume, that he sought out the Authoress, and most closely searched into the credibility of her statements. Before the termination of the interview, that gentleman became so convinced of the truth of the picture which Maria Monk drew of the interior of the Canadian Nunneries, that he expressed himself to the following effect:—"My daughter, about 15 years of age, is in the Ursuline Convent at Quebec. I will return home immediately; and if I cannot remove her any other way, I will drag her out by the hair of her head, and raise a noise about their ears that shall not soon be quieted."
That gentleman did so return to Quebec, since which he has again visited New York; and he stated, that upon his arrival in Quebec, he went to the Convent, and instantly removed his daughter from the Ursuline Nunnery; from whom he ascertained, as far as she had been initiated into the mysteries, that Maria Monk's descriptions of Canadian Nunneries, are most minutely and undeniably accurate.
We have already remarked, that Mrs. ——, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Smith, who was a Papist Priest, with scores of other persons who formerly resided in Montreal, all express their unqualified belief of the statements made by Maria Monk. Mr. Ogden's acquaintance with the facts, as Attorney General, and that of other officers of the Provincial Government, have also been noticed. The ensuing additional circumstances are of primary importance to a correct estimate of the value which should be attached to the crafty silence of the Roman Priests and the impudent denials of infidel profligates.
Mr. Bouthillier, one of the Montreal Magistrates, called at Mr. Johnson's house where Maria Monk stayed, in the month of August, 1835, when visiting Montreal.
He addressed her and said:—"There is some mystery about Novices—What is it? and asked how long a woman must be a novice before she can take the veil?" Having been answered, Mr. Bouthillier then desired Maria Monk to describe the Superior of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery. As soon as it was done, he became enraged, and said—"Vous dites un mensonge, vous en savez. You lie, you know you do?"—Mr. Bouthillier next inquired—"Was Mr. Tabeau in the Holy Retreat when you left the Convent?" She answered "Yes." To which he replied in French—"Anybody might have answered that question." Something having been said about the Hotel Dieu Nuns being confined to their convent, Mr. Bouthillier declared, that they were allowed to go about the streets. He was told that could not be the case, for it was a direct violation of the rules for Nuns to depart from the Hotel Dieu Nunnery. He replied—"Ce n'est pas vrai. That is not true," Mr. Bonthillier then became very angry, and applied to Maria Monk some very abusive epithets, for which a gentleman in the room reproved him. It was evident, that he lost his temper because he had lost his argument, and his hopes of controverting her statements.
On the Lord's day after Maria Monk's arrival in Montreal, and when the matter had become well known and much talked about, Phelan, the Priest, at the end of mass, addressed the Papists, who were assembled to hear mass, to this effect: "There is a certain nun in this city who has left our faith, and joined the Protestants. She has a child of which she is ready to swear I am the father. She wishes in this way to take my gown from me. If I knew where to find her, I would put her in prison. I mention this to guard you against being deceived by what she may say. The Devil now has such hold upon people that there is danger lest some might believe her story." He then pretended to weep, and appeared to be overcome with feeling. A number of the people gathered around him, and he said: "That nun is Antichrist. She is not a human being, but an evil spirit, who got among the Catholics, andwas admitted into the nunnery, where she learned the rules." He also stated, that "in that nun, the prophecy respecting the coming of Antichrist is fulfilled, to break down the Catholic religion." Such was Phelan's address to the people. He declared that Maria Monk had been a nun. Now he knew her, for he saw her in Montreal, where she could not know him. It would have saved all further inquiry and research, if, instead of denouncing her after mass, he had merely assented to Maria Monk's proposition, to be confronted with those Roman Priests and nuns before impartial witnesses in the Hotel Dieu Convent.
One of the most impressively characteristic circumstances which occurred during Maria Monk's visit to Montreal in Aug. 1835, was an interview at Mr. Johnson's house with a carpenter who had heard Phelan's denunciation of Maria Monk after mass.
The heinous destruction of all domestic confidence and of all female purity, is known to be the constant and general practice, not only in Canada, but in all other Popish countries, and among Papists in every part of the world. For in truth it is only fulfilling the authentic dogmas of their own system. The following authoritative principles are divulged in the Corpus Juris Canonici, which contains the Decretals, Canons, &c. of the Popes and Councils; and other participants of the pretended Papal infallibility. "If the Pope fall into homicide or adultery, he cannot be accused, but is excused by the murders of Samson, and the adultery of David." Hugo, Glossa, distinc. 40 Chapter, Non vos.—"Likewise if any Priest is found embracing a woman, it must be presupposed and expounded that he doth it to bless her!"—Glossa, Caus. 12. Quest. 3. Chapter Absis. According to the Pope's bull he who does not believe those doctrines is accursed.
As that carpenter was completely overcome by the recollection of the Priest's information and caution about his marriage, he desisted from any further questions; but upon Maria Monk's declaration, that she was desirous to go into the convent, and prove all her accusations against the Priests and Nuns, he withdrew. Soon after he returned, and stated, that he had been to the Convent, to inquire respecting her; and that he had been informed, that she had once belonged to the Nunnery; but that they would not any longer own or recognise her. Afterwards he exhibited the most contradictory emotions, and first cursed Maria Monk; then reviled the Priests, applying to them all the loathsome epithets in the Canadian vocabulary. Subsequently, he went to make inquiries at the Seminary; and after his return to Mr. Johnson's house he declared, that the persons there had informed him, that Maria Monk had lived in the Nunnery, but not as a Nun; then he offered to assist her in her endeavours to expose the Priests; and finally disappeared, swearing aloud as he was retiring from the house; and apparently thinking over the conduct of the Priest to his wife before their marriage. "Oh, sacre!"—he repeated to himself—"c'est trop mechant!"
Similar facts to the above occurred frequently during the time of Maria Monk's visit to Montreal—in which strangers who called upon her, cursed and reviled her; then believed her statements and assented to them—and displayed all the natural excitement which was necessarily comprised in the working of their own belief and convictions of the iniquity of the Priests, and the dread resulting from their own superstitious vassalage, and the certainty of a heavy penance.
But in connexion with the preceding collateral evidence is another remarkable circumstance, which is this: the extensive knowledge which Maria Monk has obtained of the Canadian Jesuits. Those with whom she has been acquainted, she affirms that she could instantly identify. For that object, she has given a catalogue of those Priests whose names and persons are in some degree familiarly known to her. As the Priests are often changing their abodes, and many of them residents in Montreal until a vacancy occurs for them in the country parishes, in those particulars there may be a trifling mistake; but Maria Monk solemnly avers, that the Priests, whether dead or living, who are enumerated in the subsequent catalogue, either have dwelt or do yet reside in the places specified. When unexpectedly and closely examined in reference to the Priests of the same name, she particularly distinguished them, and pointed out the difference between them in their persons, gait, &c.; thus precluding all objection from the fact of there being more than one Priest with a similar appellative. This circumstance particularly is illustrated by the Priests named Marcoux, of whom she says there are three brothers or first cousins—two called Dufresne, &c.: each of whom she graphically depicts. It is also certain, because she has done it in a great variety of instances, and in the presence of many different persons, all of whom are well acquainted with them, that she describes Lartigue; Dufresne; Richard; Phelan; Bonin; Comte; Bourget; McMahon; Kelly; Demers; Roux; Roque; Sauvage; Tabeau; Marcoux; Morin; Durocher; and all the Roman Priests around Montreal, with the utmost minuteness of accuracy; while the Chaplain of the Ursuline Nunnery at Quebec, Father Daulè, is as exactly depicted by her, as if her whole life had been passed under hissurveillance. Some of the appellatives in the ensuing catalogue may not be correctly spelt. Scarcely any thing is more difficult than to acquire proper names in a foreign language; and especially where the pronunciation itself is provincial, as is the case with Canadian French; and when also those titles have to be transcribed from the mouth of a person who knows no more of orthoepy and orthography than a Canadian Nun. However, Maria Monk attests, that the Priests to whom she refers did reside at those places which she has designated, and that she has seen them all in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery—some of them very often, and others on a variety of occasions.
Nothing is more improbable, if not impossible, than that any Papistgirl should have such an extensive acquaintance among Roman Priests. InCanada especially, where the large majority of females have little morecorrect knowledge of that which occurs out of their own district thanof Herschel's astronomical discoveries, young women cannot bepersonally familiar with any Priests, in ordinary cases, except thosewho may have been "Curés" of the parish in which they reside, or of theimmediate vicinity, or an occasional visitor during the absence, orsickness, or death of the resident Curate or Missionary.Notwithstanding, Maria Monk delineates to the life, the prominentfeatures, the exact figure, and the obvious characteristic exteriorhabits and personal appearance of more than one hundred and fifty ofthose Priests, scattered about in all parts of Canada; Among others sheparticularly specifies the following men: but some of whom she notes asdead. Others she has named, but as her recollections of them are lessdistinct, they are not enumerated. Jean Jacques Lartigue, Bishop ofTelmese, Montreal. The Irish Priest McMahon, who has resided both inMontreal and Quebec. M. Dufrense, St. Nicholas. L. Cadieux, VicarGeneral, Three Rivers. F. F. Marcoux, Maskinonge. S. N. Dumoulin,Yamachiche. A. Leclerc, Yomaska. V. Fournier, Baie du Febre. J. Demers,St. Gregoire. C. B. Courtain, Gentilly. T. Pepin, St. Jean. IgnaceBourget, Montreal. The Priest Moor, Missionary. J. C. Prince, Montreal.J. M. Sauvage, Montreal. J. Comte, Montreal. J. H. A. Roux, VicarGeneral, Montreal. J. Roque, Montreal. A. Malard, Montreal. A. L.Hubart, Montreal. A. Satin, Montreal. J. B. Roupe, Montreal. Nic.Dufresne, Montreal. J. Richard, Montreal. C. Fay, Montreal. J. B. St.Pierre, Montreal. F. Bonin, P. Phelan, Montreal. T. B. M'Mahon, Perce.J. Marcoux, Caghuawaga. C. De Bellefeuille, Lake of two Mountains.Claude Leonard, Montreal. F. Durocher, Lake of two Mountains. G.Belmont, St. Francis. F. Demers, Vicar General, St. Denis. J. O.Giroux, St. Benoit. J. B. St. Germain, St. Laurent. J. D. Delisle, St.Cesaire. J. M. Lefebvre, St. Genevieve. F. Pigeon, St. Philippe. A.Duransau, Lachine. O. Chevrefils, St. Constant. Joseph Quiblier,Montreal. Francis Humbert, Montreal. J. Arraud, Montreal. O.Archambault, Montreal. J. Larkin, Montreal. F. Sery, Montreal. R.Larre, Montreal. A. Macdonald, Montreal. F. Larkin, Montreal. J.Beauregard, Montreal. R. Robert, Montreal. J. Fitz Patrick, Montreal.J. Toupin, Montreal. W. Baun, Montreal. T. Filiatreault. Montreal. J.Brady, Montreal. P. Trudel, St. Hyacinth. John Grant, St. Hyacinth. J.Delaire, Chambly. J. Desautels, Chambly. P. D. Ricard, St. Joachim.Jan. Leclaire, Isle Jesus. F. M. Turcot, St. Rose. C. Larocque,Berthier, T. Brassard, St. Elizabeth. J. B. Keller, St. Elizabeth. J.Ravienne, Lanorate. J. T. Gagno, Valtrie. Gasford Guingner, St.Melanie. L. Nicholas Jacques, St. Sulpice. J. Renucalde, St. Jaques. T.Can, St. Esprit. C. J. Ducharme, St. Therese. J. Valliée, St.Scholastique. J. J. Vinet, Arganteuil. M. Power, Beauharnois. J. B.Labelle, Chateauguay. E. Bietz, St. Constant. P. Bedard, St. Remi. C.Aubry, St. Athanase. L. Vinet, Noyon. J. Roque, Noyon. J. Zeph, Carren.F. Berauld, St. Valentia. A. Maresseau, Longueuil. P. Brunet, ——. J.Odelin, Rounilli. J. B. Dupuis, ——. L. Nau, Rouville. A. O. Giroux,St. Marc. G. Marchesseau, ——. J. B. Belanger, St. Ours. H. Marcotte,Isle du Pads. E. Crevier, Yamaska. G. Arsonault, ——. Eusebe Durocher,——. D. Denis, St. Rosalie. F. X. Brunet, St. Damase. J.A. Boisond,St. Pie. M. Quintal, St. Damase. L. Aubry, Points Calire. P. Tetro,Beauharnois. B. Ricard, St. Constant. M. Morin, Maskonche. J. Crevier,Blairfindie. P. Grenier, Charteaguay. A. Darocher, Pointe aux Trembles.P. Murcure, La Presentation. R. Gaulin, Dorchester. H. L. Girouard, St.Hyacinthe. J. Paquin, Blairfinde. E. Brassard, St. Polycarpe. J.Boissonnault, Riviere des Prairies. F. N. Blanchet, Soulanges. E.Lavoie, Blairfindie. J. B. Kelly, Sorel. E. Morriset, St. Cyprian. H.Hudon, Argenteuil. M. Brudet, St. Martin. P. P. Archambault, Vaudreuil.J. B. Boucher, La Prairie. J. Quevillion, St. Ours. A. Chaboillez,Longueuil. P. J. Delamothe, St. Scholastique. T. Lagard, St. Vincent.J. Durocher, St. Benoit. Antoine Tabeau, Vicar General, Montreal. J. F.Hebard, St. Ours. F. A. Trudeau, Montreal. M. J. Felix, St. Benoit. L.Lamothe, Bethier. J. Moirier, St. Anne. F. J. Deguise, Vicar General,Varennes. J. B. Bedard, St. Denis. R. O. Brunsau, Vercheres. F.Portier, Terrebonne. P. D. Ricard, Berthier. L. Gague, Lachenaie.Joseph Belanger, Chambly. M. Blanchet, St. Charles. P. M. Mignault,Chambly. F. Labelle, L'Assumption. F. Marcoux, St. Barthelemi. N. L.Amiot, Repentigny. J. B. Boucher, Chambly. P. Lafranc, St. JeanBaptiste. P. Robitaille, Monnie. F. De Bellefeullie, St. Vincent. M.Brassard, St. Elizabeth. P. Cousigny, St. Mathias. J. D. Daule, Quebec.
It is readily admitted, that any person could take one of the Ecclesiastical Registers of Lower Canada, and at his option mark any number of the Roman Priests in the catalogue, and impute to them any crime which he pleased. But if the accuser were closely examined, and among such a multitude of Priests, who in all their clothing are dressed alike, were called upon minutely to delineate them, it is morally impossible, that he could depict more than a hundred Priests dispersed from the borders of Upper Canada to Quebec, in as many different parishes, with the most perfect accuracy, unless he was personally and well acquainted with them.
Maria Monk, however, does most accurately describe all the Priests in the preceding catalogue, and repeats them at the expiration of weeks and months; and the question is this: how is it possible that she could have become acquainted with so many of that body, and by what means can she so precisely depict their external appearance?—The startling, but the only plausible answer which can be given to that question is this:—that she has seen them in the Nunnery, whither, as she maintains, most of them constantly resorted for licentious intercourse with the Nuns.
One other connected fact may here be introduced. Maria Monk well knows the Lady Superior of the Charlestown Nunnery. That acquaintance could not have been made in the United States, because Saint Mary St. George as she called herself, or Sarah Burroughs, daughter of the notorious Stephen Burroughs, as is her real name, removed to Canada at the latter end of May, 1835; nor could it have been prior to the establishment of the Charlestown Nunnery, for at that period Maria Monk was a child, and was not in any Convent except merely as a scholar; and Mary St. George was at Quebec. How then did she become so familiar with that far-famed lady as to be able to describe her so exactly? The only answer is, that she derived her knowledge of the Charlestown Convent and of its Superior, from the intimations given, and from intercourse with that Nun in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery.
Young females often have been sent to the Nunneries in Canada under the fallacious hope of obtaining for them, a superior education; and very frequently, they are suddenly removed after being there but a short period; because the persons to whose partial guardianship they are committed perceive that they are in danger of being ensnared by the Chaplain and his female Syrens.
But there are two other particulars in American Nunneries, the toleration of which almost surpasses credibility.
In reference to girls, they are permitted to visit their friends, even when they reside in the vicinity of the Convent, only for an hour or two monthly—if their relatives are at a distance, they see them only during the annual vacation, and often remain in the Nunnery during that term. No correspondence is permitted between the mother, the guardian, the sister, or the friends of the young female in the Nunnery School, on either side, without the inspection of the argus-eyed agent of the Institution. Parental advice, filial complaints, and confidential communications are equally arrested; and only furnish to the Superiors of the establishment, artifices to thwart the Seniors, to entangle the Juniors, and effectually to cajole both parties. Consequently, it generally happens, that from one term to another, little or no intercourse exists between the youth and her relatives; and it is indubitable, that where any letters do nominally pass between them, they are forgeries; the real letters being surreptitiously detained. Those felonious regulations furnish ample scope for the initiation of girls just entering upon womanhood, into all the wickedness of the Nunnery; while the girls themselves are unconscious of the design, and the Nuns, those nefarious artificers of the iniquity, in subserviency to the Priests, in case of necessity, can exculpate themselves apparently from all participation in the treachery and crimes.
In the nunneries and conventual schools in the United States there is a sort of fairy land, talked about by the nuns to the elder girls. It is called the "Nuns' Island." That country is always described as an earthly paradise; and to girls who are manifestly fascinated by the witcheries of the nuns, and in whom moral sensibility has become blunted by the unmeaning superstitions which they witness, and which they mechanically perform, a visit to the "Nuns' Island," is always proposed as the greatest privilege, and the most costly reward, which can be given for constant obsequiousness to the nuns, and unreserved compliance with their requirements. The term "Nuns' Island," is thus used to express the nunneries in Canada, and probably some similar institutions in the United States, where they are not too difficult of access. At all events, girls just entering upon the character of women, after proper training, are finally gratified with a visit to the "Nuns' Island." They are taken to Montreal, and in the nunneries there are at once taught "the mystery of iniquity;" in all the living reality which Maria Monk describes. Those girls from the United States, who are represented as novices; in Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures," were young ladies from the United States, who had been decoyed to visit the "Nuns' Island," and who, not being Papists, often were found very intractable; but posterior circumstances enforce the belief, that having found resistance vain, they had not returned to their school where they were duly qualified to continue the course into which they had been coerced, so as fully to elude all possibility of discovery and exposure. That mother who intrusts her daughter to a nunnery school, is chargeable with the high crime of openly conducting her into the chambers of pollution, and the path to irreligion, and the bottomless pit.
These combined circumstances satisfactorily prove that, the narrative of Maria Monk should be believed by all impartial persons; at least, until other evidence can be adduced, and the offer of exploring the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, by the New York Protestant Association, has been accepted and decided.
3. Additional evidence of the truth of Maria Monk's narrative is deduced fromthe exact conformity of the facts which she states concerning the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, when compared with the authoritative principles of the Jesuit Priesthood as recorded in their own duly sanctioned volumes. It is essential to remark, that of those books she knows nothing; that she has never seen one of them, and if she could grasp them, that they would impart no illumination to her mind, being in Latin; and yet in many momentous particulars, neither Lartigue nor any one of the Jesuit Priests now in Montreal, who was educated in France, could more minutely and accurately furnish an exposition or practical illustration of the atrocious themes, than Maria Monk has unconsciously done.
Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures," are reducible to three classes: intolerable sensuality; diversified murder; and most scandalous mendacity: comprehending flagrant, and obdurate, and unceasing violations of the sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments.
The ninth commandment:FALSEHOOD. Of this baseness, five specimens only shall suffice.
Sanchez, a very renowned author, in his work on "Morality and the Precepts of the Decalogue," part 2, book 3, chap. 6, no. 13, thus decides: "A person may take an oath that he has not done any certain thing, though in fact he has. This is extremely convenient, and is alsovery just, when necessary to your health, honour, and prosperity!"Charli, in his Propositions, no. 6, affirms that, "He who is not bound to state the truth before swearing, is not bound by his oath."Tabernain his vol. 2, part 2, tract 2, chap. 31, p. 288, asks: "Is a witness bound to declare the truth before a lawful judge?" To which he replies: "No, if his deposition will injure himself or his posterity."Laymann, in his works, book 4, tract 2, chap. 2, p. 73, proclaims: "It is not sufficient for an oath, that we use the formal words, if we had not the intention and will to swear, and do notsincerelyinvoke God as a witness." All those principles are sanctioned bySuarezin his "Precepts of Law," book 3, chap. 9, assertion 2, p. 473, where he says, "If any one has promised or contracted without intention to promise, and is called upon oath to answer, may simply answer, NO; and may swear to that denial."
The idea of obtaining truth, therefore, from a thorough-going Papist, upon any subject in which his "honour" is concerned—and every Papist's honour is indissolubly conjoined with "the Church"—is an absurdity so great, that it cannot be listened to with patience, while the above decisions are the authorised dogmas which the Roman Priests inculcate among their followers. How well the nuns of Montreal have imbibed those Jesuitical instructions, Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures" amply reveal.
The Sixth Commandment:MURDER. The following miscellaneous decisions are extracted from the works of the regularly sanctioned Roman authors, of the very highest character and rank in that community.
In his famous volume called "Aphorisms," p. 178,Emmanuel Sawrites—"You may kill any person who may be able to put you to death—judge and witnesses—because it is self-defence."
Henriquez, in his "Sum of Moral Theology," vol. 1, book 14, chap. 10, p. 859, decides that "a Priest is not criminal, if he kill the husband of a woman with whom he is caught in adultery."
Airaultpublished a number of propositions. One of them says, that "a person may secretly kill another who attempts to destroy his reputation, although the facts are true which he published." The following must be cited in Latin. "An lieitium sit mulieri procurare abortum? Posset ilium excutere, ne honorem suum amittat, qui illi multo pretiosior est ipsa vita." "An liceat mulieri conjugatæ sumere pharmacum sterilitatis? Ita satius est ut hoc faciat, quam ut marito debitium conjugale recuset." Censures 319, 322, 327.
In his Moral Theology, vol. 4, book 32, sec. 2, problem 5,Escobardetermines, that "it is lawful to kill an accuser whose testimony may jeopard your life and honour."
Guimeniuspromulged his seventh Proposition in these words: "You may charge your opponent with false crimes to destroy his credit; and you may also kill him."
Marinwrote a book called "Speculative and Moral Theology." In vol. 3, tract 23, disputation 8, sec. 5, no. 63, p. 448, are found the following sentences: "Licet procurare abortum, ne puella infametur." That doctrine is admitted, "to evade personal disgrace, andto conceal the infamy of Monks and Nuns." no. 67, p. 429. In no. 75, p. 430, of the same work,Marinwrites: "Navarrus, Arragon, Bannez, Henriquez,, Sa, Sanchez, Palao, and others, all say, that a woman may use not only missione sanguinis, sed aliis medicamentis, etsi inde pereat foetus." With that doctrine also agreesEgidius, in his "Explication of the Decalogue," vol. 5, book 5, chap. 1, doubt 4; andDianain his work upon Morality, part 6, tract 8, resolution 27, fully ratifies his sanction.
Gobatuspublished a work which he entitled, "Morality," and in vol. 2, part 2, tract 5, chap. 9, sec. 8, p. 318, is the followingedifyingspecimen of Popish morals: "Persons may innocently desire to be drunk, if any great good will arise from it. A son who inherits wealth by his father's death, may rejoice that when he is intoxicated, he murdered his father." According to which combined propositions, a man may make himself drunk expressly to kill his parent, and yet be guiltless.
Busenbaumwrote a work denominated "Moral Theology." which was enlarged and explained byLacroix. In vol. 1, p. 295, is the following position: "In all the cases where a man has a right to kill any person, another may do it for him." But we have already heard byEscobarthat any "Roman Priest has a right to kill Maria Monk; and therefore any Papist may murder her for them."
Alagona, in his "Compend of the Sum of Theology," by Thomas Aquinas, question 94, p. 230, "Sums" up all the Romish system in this comprehensively blasphemous oracular adage. "By the command of God, it is lawful to murder the innocent, to rob, and to commit lewdness; and thus to fulfil his mandate, is our duty."
The seventh commandment.—In his Aphorisms, p. 80, and p. 259,Sathus decides—"Copulari ante benedictionem, aut nullam aut leve peceatum est; quin etiam expedit, si multum isla differatur."—"Potest et femina quaeque et mas, pro turpi corporis usu, pretium, accipere et petere."
Hurtadoissued a volume of "Disputations and Difficulties." At p. 476 is the following genuine Popish rule of life—"Carnal intercourse before marriage is not unlawful." So teaches that Jesuit oracle.
Dicastillo, in his work upon "Righteousness and other cardinal Virtues," p. 87, thus asks—"An puella, quae per vin opprimitur teneatur clamare et opem implorare ne violetur?" The answer is this—"Non videtur teneri impedire peccatum alterius—sed mere passive se habere."
Escobar, in his "Moral Theology," p. 326, 327, 328, of vol. 4, determines that "a man who abducts a woman from affection expressly to marry her, is guilty of mortal sin, but a Priest who forcibly violates her through lust, incurs no censure."
Tamburinunfolds the character of Romanism in his "Moral Theology," p. 186, in a lengthened discussion of the following characteristic inquiry—"Quantum pro usu corporis sui juste exigat mulier?"—The reply is, "de meretrice et de femina honesta sive conjugata, ant non."
Fegeliwrote a book of "Practical Questions;" and on p. 397, is the following—"Under what obligation is he who defiles a virgin?"—The answer is this—"Besides the obligation of penance, he incurs none; quia puella habet jus usum sui corporis concedendi."
Trachalapublished a volume which he facetiously entitled the "Laver of Conscience;" and at p. 96, he presents us with this astounding recipe to purify the conscience—"An Concubinarius sit absolvendus antequam concubinam dimittat?" To which he replies—"Si ilia concubina sit valde bona et utilis economa, et sic nullam aliam possit habere, esset absolvendus."
From the prior decisions, combined with numberless others which might be extracted from the works of the Romish authors, it is obvious, that the violations of the seventh commandment, are scarcely enumerated by the Papal priesthood among venial sins. Especially if we consider the definition of a prostitute by the highest Popish authority: for in the Decretals, Distinction 34, in the Gloss, is found this savory adage—"Meretrix est quae, admiserit plures quam viginti tria hominum millia!" That is the infallible attestation to the truth of Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures."
4. The antecedent narrative of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, is confirmed by the universal and constant practice of Roman Priests in all Convents. Among the works of William Huntington, is a correspondence between himself and a young lady who was converted by his ministry. The seventh letter from Miss M. contains the following passage:—
"It is a shame for women to approach those confessionals.If they were never wise in scenes of iniquity before, the priest will instruct them, by asking the most filthy questions. I was confined to my bed three days from my first confession; and thought I would never go again, being so abashed by the abominations he had put in my head. I would just as soon recommend scalding water to cure Anthony's-fire, or a wet bed in an ice-house to cure an ague, as recommend a sinner to those accursed lies, Roman penance, and Auricular Confession."—The mental purity of Nuns consists in a life totally "contrary to the laws of God, of modesty, of decency. They are constantly exposed to the obscene interrogations, and the lewd actions of the Priests. Notwithstanding God has fixed a bar on every female mind, it is broken through by the Priests putting questions to them upon those subjects, as the scripture declares, which ought not to be named? The uncommon attractions of the young women in Convents generally indicate the greatest unchastity among them. I have known girls, sent for education to the Convent where I was, who regularly stripped themselves of every thing they could obtain from their friends; which, by the artful insinuations of the Nuns, was given to them and the Priests. The Roman priesthood may well be called a sorceress, and their doctrine 'the wine of fornication,' for nothing but the powers of darkness could work up the young female mind to receive it; unless by the subtlety of the devil, and the vile artifices of the Nuns. I shudder at the idea of young ladies going into a Convent; and also at parents who send their children to be educated in a Nunnery; where their daughters are entrapped by the Nuns into the snare of the Priests, with whom they are accomplices, and for whom the most subtle of them are decoys, whose feigned sanctity is only a cover for the satanic arts of which they are complete mistresses, and by which, through the delusions of the mother of harlots, being buried alive within the walls of a Convent, they 'drink of the wine of her fornication,' until their souls pass into the pit of destruction."—The above extract is from the seventh letter of "Correspondence between Miss M. and Mr. H." in Huntington's Works; and exposes the Nunneries in France.
George D. Emeline, who had been a Popish Priest, in his "Eight Letters," giving an account of his "Journey into Italy," thus details the nature of the intimacy which then existed between the Priests and Nuns on the European Continent. "A young Monk at Milan, Preacher to the Benedictine Nuns, when he addressed them, added to almost every sentence in his discourse, 'my most dear and lovely sisters, whom I love from the deepest bottom of my heart.' When a monk becomes Preacher or Chaplain to a Nunnery, his days are passed in constant voluptuousness; for the Nuns will gratify their Confessor in every thing, that he may be equally indulgent to them." Emeline's Letters, p. 313.
"A regular Abbot of a Monastery in Italy, talking with me said—'Melius est habere nullam quam aliquem—It is better to have none than any woman.' I asked him what he meant; he replied, 'Because, when a person is not tied to one, he may make use of many;' and his practice was conformable to his doctrine; for he slept in the same bed with three young women every night. He was a most insatiable Exactor and Oppressor of the people who rented the lands of the Abbey, in consequence of which the Farmers complained of him to the Archbishop of the District. The Archbishop sent the Provost, the Farmers, and sixty of the serjeants at night, to seize him and his female companions. They took the Abbot in bed, and having put on him a morning-gown; and having tied his three concubines and himself back to back, placed them in a cart, and conducted them to the Archbishop's residence, in Bonnonia: who then refused to judge him; but sent him and his females to the Monastery ofSaintMichael; into which, with some difficulty, he was admitted after midnight, in consequence of the Provost assuring the Friars, that if they would not receive the Abbot, they would procure his prelatical dress, and escort him and the young women in procession through the city, and back to his own Monastery the same day at noon. The females were ordered away, and the Abbot was appointed to remain in his monastery for fifteen days for penance, until the story had ceased to circulate. I was an eyewitness of that myself, when I was in the Monastery of St. Michael in the wood."—Emeline's Letters, pp. 387, 388, 389.
That the Nunneries in Portugal, as well as among those people in India who are subject to the Romish priesthood, are of the same character precisely, as Maria Monk describes the Priests and Nuns in Canada, is proved by Victorin de Faria, who had been a Brahman in India; and who afterward resided as a regular Roman Priest in the Paulist Monastery at Lisbon.
"The regular Priests in India," says Faria, "have become what the bonzes where in Japan. The Nuns were the disciples of Diana, and the nunneries seraglios for the monks; as I have proved to be the case in Lisbon, by facts concerning those nuns who were more often in the family way than common women. The Jesuits in the Indies made themselves Brahmans in order to enjoy the privileges of that caste, whose idolatrous rites and superstitious practices they also externally adopted."—Among other privileges which they possessed, Faria enumerates the following, as detailed from his own prior experience as a Brahman. "Never to be put to death for any crime whatever; and to enjoy the favours of every woman who pleased them, for a Priest sanctifies the woman upon whom he bestows his attentions." That is the true Papist doctrine, as shown by Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures;" confirmed by the Canadian carpenter in Mr. Johnson's house at Montreal; and ratified by Pope Gregory XIII. in the Decretals and Canons, in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Secrets of Nunneries disclosed by Scipio de Ricci. p. 217.
The Nunneries in Italy during the present generation are of the same description. Maria Catharine Barni, Maria Magdalen Sicini, and Victoire Benedetti, of the Nunnery called Santa Croce: all acknowledged, that they had been seduced at confession, and that they had habitually maintained criminal intercourse with a Priest called Pacchiani, who absolved his guilty companions after the commission of their crimes. Secrets of Nunneries disclosed by Scipio de Ricci. pp. 60, 61.
Six Nuns of the Convent of Catharine at Pistoia declared that the Priests who visited the Convent committed a "thousand indecorous acts. They utter the worst expressions, saying that we should look upon it as a great happiness, that we have the power of satisfying our appetites without the annoyance of children; and that we should not hesitate to take our pleasures. Men, who have contrived to get the keys, come into the Convent during the night, which they have spent in the most dissipated manner." That is the precise delineation of the Canadian Nunneries; into which other men besides Priests are admitted, if the parties are willing to pay the entrance bribe to the Chaplain.—Secrets of Nunneries, by Scipio de Ricci. pp. 80, 81.
Flavia Perraccini, Prioress of the Nunnery of Catharine of Pistoia, revealed what she knew of that and other Nunneries. All the Priests "are of the same character. They all have the same maxims and the same conduct. They are on more intimate terms with the nuns than if they were married to them. It is the same at Lucia, at Pisa, at Prato, and at Perugia. The Superiors do not know even the smallest part of the enormous wickedness that goes on between the Monks and the Nuns."—Secrets of Nunneries, by Scipio de Ricci. p. 93. That statement is so exactly conformed to Maria Monk's "Awful Disclosures," that were it not a fact that she had never seen Scipio de Ricci's work it might almost be supposed that some part of her narrative had been transcribed from it.
Foggini of Rome, also wrote to Scipio de Ricci and informed him—"I know a monastery in which a Jesuit used to make the Nuns lift up their clothes, assuring them that they thereby performed an act of virtue, because they overcame a natural repugnance."—Secrets of Nunneries, p. 101. That is a very extraordinary illustration of the turpitude of the Roman Priesthood; because that doctrine is a principle which they constantly inculcate; and such is the invariable practice in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, that the Nuns were obliged to fulfil, for the beastly gratification of the Roman Priests who visited that house, which is "the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death." Proverbs 7:27.
It is superfluous to multiply similar extracts. Scipio de Ricci was a Popish prelate, regularly commissioned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany to explore the Nunneries; and in consequence of his authentic developments, the Jesuits and Dominicans, and the dignified Papal ecclesiastics, with the two Popes, Pius VI. and Pius VII. all opposed, reviled, condemned and worried him almost to death.
One quotation more shall close this survey. Pope Paul III. maintained at Rome, forty-five thousand courtesans. Pope Sixtus IV. ordered a number of edifices to be erected expressly for the accommodation of the semi-Nuns of Rome, from whose impurity he derived a large annual revenue, under the form of a license; besides which, the prices of absolution for the different violations of the seventh commandment are as regularly fixed as the value of beads, soul-masses, blessed water, and every other article of Popish manufacture. Paolo, Hist. Council de Trent. Book I. Anno 1637.
The preceding observations, it is believed, will remove the doubts from the mind of every impartial inquirer, respecting the credibility of Maria Monk's narrative: nevertheless, a few additional remarks may not be irrelevant: especially as there is a marvellous skepticism in reference to the admission of valid testimony concerning the Roman priesthood, their system and practice. We are deafened with clamour for proof to substantiate Maria Monk's history: but that demand is tantamount to the declaration—"I will not believe."
In anticipation of speedy death, and an immediate appearance at the dread tribunal of Jehovah, Maria Monk communicated to Mr. Tappan, the Chaplain at Bellevue, one of the benevolent institutions belonging to the city of New York, the principal facts in her "Awful Disclosures." After her unexpected recovery, she personally appeared at Montreal, expressly and openly, to promulge her allegations of atrocious crimes against the chief Roman Ecclesiastics in that city, who were armed with power, and having nearly all the population her infuriated enemies. There she remained almost four weeks, constantly daring the Roman Priests and Nuns in vain. It is true, Dr. Robertson in his affidavit says, that he was willing "to take the necessary steps for a full investigation, if a direct charge were made against any particular individual of a criminal nature." Now if Maria Monk's charges are not direct, OF A CRIMINAL NATURE, and against PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS—what charges can be so characterized? The fact is this:—Dr. Robertson would no more dare to issue a warrant for the apprehension of Lartigue, or any of the inferior Roman Priests in Montreal, than he would dare publicly to strike the Commander of the Garrison, or the Governor of Canada upon military parade. If any Papist had stated to him the same facts concerning a Protestant, or Protestant Minister, and offered to confirm them by his worthless oath, he would have issued his process at once; but Dr. Robertson knows, that in the present state of Canadian society, Roman Priests can do what they please; and no man dares to reprove, much less to "take any necessary steps for a full investigation" for their crimes. If the Jesuits and Nuns at Montreal are anxious for a full and impartial scrutiny of the Hotel Dieu Convent, Maria Monk is ready to oblige them with some facilities for that object; provided she may carry them out to all their extent and application. Mr. Ogden has one affidavit, and knows the whole matter; as can incontestably be proved by Mr. A. P. Hart, an Attorney of Montreal; and we recommend Dr. Robertson to issue his warrant for the apprehension of Lartigue, Bonin, Dufresne, and Richards, they are enough to begin with; and if Mr. Ogden will carry the facts with which he is acquainted to the Grand Jury, one witness in New York is ready to appear; and Dr. Robertson will find his hands full of employment, if he will only "take the necessary steps" to procure two or three persons who shall be pointed out to him in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery. Therefore, until Dr. Robertson commences some incipient measures as a Magistrate towards "the necessary steps for a full investigation," as he says, we shall be forced to believe, that the printer made a mistake in his affidavit, and put willing forunwilling.
The cavilling call, however, for additional evidence to be adduced by Maria Monk, is manifestly futile. That testimony is within the jurisdiction of the Priests alone who are criminated. Maria Monk reiterates her charge against the Romish Ecclesiastics of Canada and their Nuns; and she has solemnly sworn that they are true. What more can she do? Nothing, but tosearch the premises, to see whether the statements which she has made are correct. A Committee of the New York Protestant Association are willing to accompany her to Montreal; to walk through the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in company with any Gentlemen of Montreal, and investigate the truth without favour or partiality, Maria Monk is willing to submit the whole affair to that short, and easy, and sensible test; in which there is no possibility of deception. It does not depend upon credibility of witnesses, conflicting evidence, personal friendship, or religions prejudices; it is reduced at once to that unerring criterion;the sight and the touch!
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 uponsoup-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!"
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 andoutof 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 givethe wholeof 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 thedenouementof the tale of scandal which theProtestant 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 realdisclosureof 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 thispious bookis 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, makinga few faces, and giving a few affectingturnsto 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.
"TheNew York Protestant Vindicatorof 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 demandscounter evidencebefore it will withdraw, or acknowledge the falsehood of its previous statements. We believe thatcounterevidence 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 theProtestant Vindicatorappear to possess, counter evidence of the above nature would have been deemed sufficient.