* * * * *

From Father McMahon's Letter to the editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary of March, 1836.

"The silence by which you indulge the latent springs of a mal-propense, so far from being an argument for culpability, is based upon the charitableness of a conscious innocence, and is, therefore, highly commendable. I say it is highly commendable, inasmuch as these worthy and respectable characters do not deign to answer falsehood, or turn their attention from their sacred avocations by effectually repelling allegations which all men, women, and children, able to articulate a syllable, in the city of Montreal, have repeatedly pronounced to be utterly false, detestably false, and abominably scandalous.

* * * * *

"May I now call upon you, honest Americans, who, though you may differ from me in doctrinal points of religion, have, I trust, the due regard for truth and charity towards all mankind; and into whose hand that instrument of Satan's emissaries may fall, before you believe one syllable [illegible] attentively to peruse the following facts, which are [illegible] men of learning, of every persuasion, and in every country, and which you will find, by mature investigation, to serve as a sufficient key to discover the wicked falsehoods, circulated by the enemies of truth, in the work called, 'The Disclosures of Maria Monk,' but which, in consequence of the total absence of truth from the things therein contained, I have termed (and I think justly on that account), the devil's prayer-book. I beseech you to give my statements a fair, but impartial trial, weigh correctly the arguments opposed to them, according to your judgment—do not allow yourselves to be gulled by the empty or unmeaning phraseology of some of your bloated, though temperate, preachers. All I ask for the test of the following statement, is simply and solely the exercise of your common sense, without equivocation. 1st. I distinctly and unequivocally state, that the impugners of the Catholic religion and its doctrines, never dared to meet us in the fair field of argument. Never yet have they entered the lists in an eristical encounter, but to their cost. Why so? because we have reason, religion, and the impenetrable shield of true syllogistic argumentation in our favour. Witness, in support of the assertion, the stupid and besotted crew (pardon me for this expression, and find a proper term yourselves, for the politico-Theological Charlatans of England), who, not daring to encounter the Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland, in an honorable religious disputation, are forced to drag to their assistance those very apostates from Catholicity who were considered by their superiors unworthy of the situation they attempted to hold in that Church; for the purpose of propping up the staggering and debauched harlot, whose grave they are now preparing. Only remark how they are obliged to have recourse to the exploded scholastic opinion of Peter Dens, by way of showing the intolerance of the Catholics, who repudiate the doctrine of religious intolerance. Maryland, Bavaria, and the Cantons of Switzerland, prove the contrary by their universal religious toleration. Now I could mention, if I thought I had space enough on this sheet, numbers of Protestant divines, who, in their writings, have strongly inculcated the absurd doctrines of ruling our consciences by the authority of the Civil Magistrates. See then, how strange it is that they seek to condemn us for doctrines which we abhor, and which they practice, even to this day. Mark that for an argument against our doctrines.

"2dly. I assert, that notwithstanding all the persecutions, all the falsehood and defamation daily exercised against the Catholics and their religion, they are at this moment the only people on the face of the earth, who maintain amongst them the unity of the true faith, and the regular succession in the Ministry, from Christ and his Apostles.

"3dly. I assert, that the late scandalous production against the Catholic Clergy of Montreal and the Catholic institutions there, is a tissue of false, foul, designing, and scandalous misrepresentation. 1st. Because upon strict examination into all its bearings, it has been so proved upon the solemn oaths of a magistrate and others concerned. 2dly. Because it is no way consonant to reason or common sense to say that those living at a considerable distance, and avowedly hostile to the Catholics and their religion, should feel so interested in the matter? as the Catholics themselves, who are vitally concerned, and who had every facility of discovering any impropriety; who are zealous of the purity of their religion and its Ministers. 3dly. Because the loud cry of all the inhabitants of every denomination, from the well-known integrity, the extraordinary piety, the singular charity and devotedness of the Catholic Clergy, came in peals of just wrath and well-merited indignation on the heads of the degenerate monsters who basely, but ineffectually, attempted to murder the unsullied fame of those whom they deservedly held, and will hold, in the highest estimation.

"T. B. McMahon, Missionary."

Now this letter alludes to testimony legally given, as substantiating the charges against me. What testimony is intended? Any new testimony? If so, where, and what is it? I never heard of any, of any description, except what I have inserted on the preceding pages, unless I except the violent, unsupported, and inconsistent assertion in newspapers, before alluded to. Has any testimony, legally given, been produced, which neither the Catholic Diary, nor any other Catholic paper, has either inserted or alluded to? No. The Missionary, McMahon, must refer to the Montreal affidavits; and since he has expressed his opinion in relation to their credibility and weight, I request my readers to form their own opinions, as I have put the means in their power.

It may, perhaps, appear to some, an act displaying uncommon "concern" in my affairs, or those of the Convent, for Father McMahon to take the pains to write on the subject from Canada. I know more of him and his concerns than the public do; and I am glad that my book has reached him. Happy would it have been for him, if he could prove that he did not leave Sherbrooke from the day when I took the Black veil, until the day when I cast it off. There are many able to bear witness against him in that institution (if they have not been removed), and one out of it, who could easily silence him, by disclosures that he has too much reason to apprehend.

But to return—I assure my readers, then, that this book contains all the testimony that has been brought against me, so far as I can ascertain.

The extensive publication of the Montreal affidavits (for they appeared in the Roman Catholic papers, and were circulated, it is believed, very generally through New York), for a time, almost entirely closed the newspapers against me. My publishers addressed the following letter to the, editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary, and waited on him with a third person, to request its publication in his next paper, but he declined. He expressed doubts of my being in the city, and intimated a wish to see me; but when they acceded, he refused to meet me anywhere but at his own residence!

The same letter was then offered to other editors in New York, and even sent to Philadelphia for publication, but refused. It appeared on the 29th of February, in the Brooklyn Star, thus introduced:—

Extracts from the Long Island Star of Feb. 29th.

"Since the publication of our last paper, we have received a communication from Messrs. Howe and Bates, of New York, the publishers of Miss Monk's 'Awful Disclosures.' It appears that some influences have been at work in that city, adverse to the free examination of the case between her and the priests of Canada; for thus far the news papers have been almost entirely closed against every thing in her defence, while most of them have published false charges against the book, some of a preposterous nature, the contradiction of which is plain and palpable.

"Returning to New York, she then first resolved to publish her story, which she has recently done, after several intelligent and disinterested persons had satisfied themselves by much examination that it was true.

"When it became known in Canada that this was her intention, six affidavits were published in some of the newspapers, intended to destroy confidence in her character; but these were found very contradictory in several important points, and others to afford undersigned confirmation of statements before made by her.

"On the publication of her book, the New York Catholic Diary, the Truth Teller, the Green Banner, and other papers, made virulent attacks upon it, and one of them proposed that the publishers should be 'Lynched.' An anonymous handbill was also circulated in New York, declaring the work a malignant libel, got up by Protestant clergymen, and promising an ample refutation of it in a few days. This was re-published in the Catholic Diary, &c. with the old Montreal affidavits which latter were also distributed through New York and Brooklyn; and on the authority of these, several Protestant newspapers denounced the work as false and malicious.

"Another charge, quite inconsistent with the rest, was also made, not only by the leading Roman Catholic papers, but by several others at second hand—viz. that it was a mere copy of an old European work. This has been promptly denied by the publishers, with the offer of $100 reward for any book at all resembling it.

"Yet, such is the resolution of some and the unbelief of others, that it is impossible for the publishers to obtain insertion for their replies in the New York papers generally, and they have been unsuccessful in an attempt in Philadelphia.

"This is the ground on which the following article has been offered to us for publication in the Star. It was offered to Mr. Schneller, a Roman priest, and editor of the Catholic Diary, for insertion in his paper of Saturday before last, but refused, although written expressly as an answer to the affidavits and charges his previous number had contained. This article has also been refused insertion in a Philadelphia daily paper, after it had been satisfactorily ascertained that there was no hope of gaining admission for it into any of the New York papers.

"It should be stated, in addition, that the authoress of the book, Maria Monk, is in New York, and stands ready to answer any questions, and submit to any inquiries, put in a proper manner, and desires nothing so strongly as an opportunity to prove before a court the truth of her story. She has already found several persons of respectability who have confirmed some of the facts, important and likely to be attested by concurrent evidence; and much testimony in her favour may be soon expected by the public.

"With these facts before them, intelligent readers will judge for themselves. She asks for investigation, while her opponents deny her every opportunity to meet the charges made against her. Mr. Schneller, after expressing a wish to see her, to the publishers, refused to meet her anywhere, unless in his own house; while Mr. Quarter, another Roman Catholic priest, called to see her, at ten o'clock, one night, accompanied by another man, without giving their names, and under the false pretence of being bearers of a letter from her brother in Montreal."

* * * * *

Reply to the Montreal Affidavits, refused publication by the Catholic Diary &c.

"To the Editor of the Catholic Diary.

"SIR—In your paper of last Saturday, you published six affidavits from Montreal, which are calculated, so far as they are believed, to discredit the truth of the 'Awful Disclosures' of Maria Monk, a book of which we are the publishers. We address the following remarks to you, with a request that you will publish them in the Catholic Diary, that your readers may have the means of judging for themselves. If the case be so plain a one as you seem to suppose, they will doubtless perceive more plainly the bearing and force of the evidence you present, when they see it brought into collision with that which it is designed to overthrow.

"First, We have to remark, that the affidavits which you publish might have been furnished you in this city, without the trouble or delay of sending to Montreal. They have been here two or three months, and were carefully examined about that period by persons who are acquainted with Maria Monk's story, and were desirous of ascertaining the truth. After obtaining further evidence from Canada these affidavits were decided to contain strong confirmation of various points in her story, then already written down, only part of which has yet been published.

"Second. It is remarkable that of these six affidavits, the first is that of Dr. Robinson, and all the rest are signed by him as Justice of the Peace; and a Justice, too, who had previously refused to take the affidavit of Maria Monk. Yet, unknown to himself, this same Dr. R., by incidents of his own stating, corroborates some very important parts of Miss Monk's statements. He says, indeed, that he has ascertained where she was part of the time when she professed to have been in the Nunnery. But his evidence on this point is merely hearsay, and he does not even favour us with that.

"Third, One of the affidavits is that of Miss Monk's mother, who claims to be a Protestant, and yet declares, that she proposed to send her infant grandchild to a Nunnery! She says her daughter has long been subject to fits of insanity, (of which, however, we can say no traces are discoverable in New York,) and has never been in a Nunnery since she was at school in one, while quite a child. She however does not mention where her daughter has spent any part of the most important years of her life. A large part of her affidavit, as well as several others, is taken up with matter relating to one of the persons who accompanied Miss M. to Montreal last summer, and has no claim to be regarded as direct evidence for or against the authenticity of her book.

"Fourth, The affidavit of Nancy McGan is signed with a cross, as by one ignorant of writing; and she states that she visited a house of ill fame, (to all appearance alone,) although, as she asserts, to bring away Miss M. Her testimony, therefore, does not present the strongest claims to our confidence. Besides, it is known that she has shown great hostility, to Miss Monk, in the streets of Montreal: and she would not, it is believed, have had much influence on an intelligent court or jury, against Miss M., in that city, if the latter had been fortunate enough to obtain the legal investigation into her charges, which as Dr. R. mentions, she declared to be the express object of her visit to that city, in the last summer, and in which she failed, after nearly a month's exertion.

"Fifth, The affidavit of Mr. Goodenough is contradicted in one point by the letter of Mr. Richey, a Wesleyan minister, which you insert, and contains little else of any importance to this or any other case. * * * *

"Sixth, You copied in a conspicuous manner, from a Catholic paper in Boston, a charge against the book, the groundlessness of which has been exposed in some of the New York papers, viz. that large parts of it were, 'word for word and letter for letter.' (names only altered,) copied from a book published some years ago in Europe, under the title of 'The Gates of Hell opened.' We have not seen in your paper any correction of this aspersion, although the assertion of it has placed you in a dilemma; for, if such were the fact, as you asserted, the Montreal affidavits would have little application to the case. Besides, that book, having proceeded from Catholics, and relating, as was intimated, to scenes in European Convents, divulged by witnesses not chargeable with prejudices against them, is to be taken for true with other names; and therefore the charge of extravagance or improbability, which is so much urged against our book, is entirely nullified, without appealing to other sources of information which cannot be objected to.

"But before closing, allow us to remark, that you, who claim so strongly the confidence of your readers in the testimony of witnesses in Montreal, who speak only of things collateral to the main subject in question, must be prepared to lay extraordinary weight on evidence of a higher nature, and must realize something of the anxiety with which we, and the American public generally, we believe, stand ready to receive the evidence to be displayed to the eye and to the touch, either for or against the solemn declaration of Miss Monk, whenever the great test shall be applied to which she appeals, viz. the opening of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery at Montreal. Then, sir, and not till then, will the great question be settled,—Is our book true or false? Affidavits may possibly be multiplied, although you say, 'Here, then, is the whole!' Dr. Robertson may be called again to testify, or receive testimony as Justice of the Peace,—but the question is not, what do people believe or think outside of the Convent? but, 'what has been done in it?'

"By the issue of this investigation, Miss Monk declares she is ready to stand or fall.

"You speak, sir, of the 'backwardness' of persons to appear in defence of Miss Monk's book. We promise to appear as often on the subject as you are willing to publish our communications. In one of the paragraphs you publish, our book is spoken of as one of the evils arising from a 'free press.' We think, sir, that 'a free press' is exposed to less condemnation through the 'Awful Disclosures,' than the 'close Nunneries' which it is designed to expose.

"Respectfully, &c

"New York, Feb. 22d, 1836."

* * * * *

The above was afterward copied in other papers. The following certificate appeared in the Protestant Vindicator, and other papers, in March, 1836, introducing the two first witnesses.

"The truth of Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures' amply certified.

"We the subscribers, having an acquaintance with Miss Maria Monk, and having considered the evidence of different kinds which has been collected in relation to her case, have no hesitation in declaring our belief in the truth of the statements she makes in her book recently published in New York, entitled 'Awful Disclosures,' &c. We at that same time declare that the assertion, originally made in the Roman Catholic newspapers of Boston, that the book was copied from a work entitled 'The Gates of Hell opened,' is wholly destitute of foundation; it being entirely new, and not copied from any thing whatsoever.

"And we further declare, that no evidence has yet been produced which discredits the statements of Miss Monk; while, on the contrary, her story has received, and continues to receive, confirmation from various sources.

"During the last week, two important witnesses spontaneously appeared, and offered to give public testimony in her favour. From them the following declarations have been received. The first is an affidavit given by Mr. William Miller, now a resident of this city. The second is a statement received from a young married woman, who, with her husband, also resides here. In the clear and repeated statements made by these two witnesses, we place entire reliance; who are ready to furnish satisfaction to any persons making reasonable inquiries on the subject.

"W. C. BROWNLEE.

"JOHN J. SLOCUM.

"ANDREW BRUCE.

"D. FANSHAW.

"AMOS BELDEN.

"DAVID WESSON.

"THOMAS HOGAN."

* * * * *

(AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM MILLER.)

"City and County of New York, ss.

"William Miller being duly sworn, doth say—I knew Maria Monk when she was quite a child, and was acquainted with all her father's family. My father, Mr. Adam Miller, kept the government school at St. John's, Lower Canada, for some years. Captain Wm. Monk, Maria's father, lived in the garrison, a short distance from the village, and she attended the school with me for some months, probably as much as a year. Her four brothers also attended with us. Our families were on terms of intimacy, as my father had a high regard for Captain Monk; but the temper of his wife was such, even at that time, as to cause much trouble. Captain Monk died very suddenly, as was reported, in consequence of being poisoned. Mrs. Monk was then keeper of the Government House in Montreal, and received a pension, which privilege she has since enjoyed. In the summer of 1832, I left Canada, and came to this city. In about a year afterward I visited Montreal, and on the day when the Governor reviewed the troops, I believe about the end of August, I called at the Government House, where I saw Mrs. Monk and several of the family. I inquired where Maria was, and she told me that she was in the nunnery. This fact I well remember, because the information gave me great pain, as I had unfavorable opinions of the nunneries. On reading the 'Awful Disclosures,' I at once knew she was the eloped nun, but was unable to find her until a few days since, when we recognized each other immediately. I give with pleasure my testimony in her favour, as she is among strangers, and exertions have been made against her. I declare my personal knowledge of many facts stated in her book, and my full belief in the truth of her story, which, shocking as it is, cannot appear incredible to those persons acquainted with Canada.

"WILLIAM MILLER.

"Sworn before me, this 3d day of March, 1836.

"BENJAMIN D. K. CRAIG,

"Commissioner of Deeds, &c."

* * * * *

From the Protestant Vindicator of March 9.

"The following statement has been furnished by the female witness above- mentioned; the name being reserved only from delicacy to a lady's feelings."

(TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER OLD SCHOOLMATE.)

"I was born at Montreal, and resided there until within a few months, and where my friends still remain. I was educated among the Catholics, and have never separated myself from them.

"I knew Maria Monk when quite a child. We went to school together for about a year, as near as I can remember, to Mr. Workman, Sacrament- street, in Montreal. She is about one month younger than myself. We left that school at the same time, and entered the Congregational Nunnery nearly together. I could mention many things which I witnessed there, calculated to confirm some of her accounts.

"I knew of the elopement of a priest named Leclerc, who was a confessor, with a nun sent from the Congregational Nunnery to teach in a village. They were brought back, after which she gave birth to an infant, and was again employed as a teacher.

"Children were often punished in the Congregational Nunnery, by being made to stand with arms extended, to imitate Christ's posture on the cross; and when we found vermin in our soup, as was often the case, we were exhorted to overcome our repugnance to it, because Christ died for us. I have seen such belts as are mentioned in the 'Awful Disclosures,' as well as gags; but never saw them applied.

"Maria Monk left the Congregational Nunnery before I did, and became a Novice in the Hotel Dieu. I remember her entrance into the latter very well, for we had a 'jour de conge,' holiday, on that occasion.

"Some short time subsequently, after school hours one afternoon, while in the school-room in the second story of the Congregational Nunnery, several of the girls standing near a window exclaimed, 'There is Maria Monk.' I sprang to the window to look, and saw her with several other novices, in the yard of the Hotel Dieu, among the plants which grew there. She did not appear to notice us, but I perfectly recognised her.

"I have frequently visited the public hospital of the Hotel Dieu. It is the custom there for some of the nuns and novices to enter at three o'clock, P.M., in procession with food and delicacies for the sick. I recollect some of my visits there by circumstances attending them. For instance, I was much struck, on several occasions, by the beauty of a young novice, whose slender, graceful form, and interesting appearance, distinguished her from the rest. On inquiry, I learnt that her name was Dubois, or something like it, and the daughter of an old man who had removed from the country, and lived near the Place d'Armes. She was so generally admired for her beauty, that she was called 'la belle St. Francois'—St. Francis being the saint's name she had assumed in the Convent.

"I frequently went to the hospital to see two of my particular friends who were novices: and subsequently to visit one who had a sore throat, and was sick for some weeks. I saw Maria Monk there many times, in the dress of a novice, employed in different ways but we were never allowed to speak to each other.

"Towards the close of the winter of 1833-4, I visited the hospital of the Hotel Dieu very frequently, to see Miss Bourke, a friend of mine, although I was not permitted to speak with her. While there one day, at the hour of 'conge' or 'collation' which, as I before stated, was at three P.M., a procession of nuns and novices entered, and among the former I saw Maria Monk, with a black veil, &c. She perceived and recognized me; but put her finger on her lips in token of silence; and knowing how rigidly the rules were enforced, I did not speak.

"A short time afterward, I saw her again in the same place, and under similar circumstances.

"I can fix the year when this occurred, because I recollect that the nuns in the hospital stared at a red dress I wore that season; and I am certain about that time of year, because I left my galoshes at the door before I went in.

"The improper conduct of a priest was the cause of my leaving the Congregational Nunnery: for my brother saw him kissing a [illegible] one day while he was on a visit to me, and exclaimed—'O mon Dieu! what a place you are in!—If father does not take you out of it I will, if I have to tear you away.'

"After the last sight I had of Maria Monk in the hospital, I never saw nor heard of her, until after I had been for some time an inhabitant of New York. I then saw an extract from 'Awful Disclosures,' published in a newspaper, when I was perfectly satisfied that she was the authoress, and again at liberty. I was unable for several weeks to find her residence, but at length visited the house when she was absent. Seeing an infant among a number of persons who were strangers to me, as those present will testify, I declared that it must be the child mentioned in her book, from the striking resemblance it bears to Father Phelan, whom I well know. This declaration has also been made by others.

"When Maria Monk entered, she passed across the room, without turning towards me; but I recognised her by her gait, and when she saw me she knew me at once. I have since spent many hours with her, and am entirely convinced of the truth of her story, especially as I knew many things before which tend to confirm the statements which she makes."

["It is superfluous to add any thing to the above testimony. Let the Roman priests of Montreal open the Hotel Dieu Nunnery for our inspection, and thus confute Maria Monk: or, Mr. Conroy is again challenged to institute a criminal process against her, or a civil suit against the publishers of her volume—They dare not place the eloped nun or her booksellers in that 'Inquisition;' because they know that it would only be 'putting themselves to the torture!'"—Ed. Prot. Vind.]

* * * * *

From The Protestant Vindicator of March 16th.

"We recommend the following communications to all persons who doubt the wickedness of Nunneries. The young gentleman who sent us the letter is now in this city, and we have heard the same statements from other witnesses. That subterraneous passages from the Seminary to the Nunneries, we ourselves have seen, and close by the spot designated by our correspondent:—

(STATEMENT OF J. M.)

"Underground passage from the Jesuit Seminary to the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, Montreal.

"I have been informed that you are endeavoring to obtain facts and other incidental circumstances relative to the Black Nunnery, in Montreal, and the disclosures concerning it, made by Maria Monk, in which are many hard things, but hard as they are, they are not indigestible by us Canadians; we believe that she has told but a small part of what she must know, if she was but half the time there which she says she was. Maria Monk has mentioned in her book something about the underground passage which leads from the Black Nunnery to other places in Montreal. That fact I know by ocular demonstration, and which nine tenths of the Canadians also will not deny, for it has been opened several times by the labourers, who have been digging for the purpose of laying pipes to conduct gas and water. While preparing a place for the latter I saw one of those passages; the earth being removed by the labourers, they struck upon the top of the passage, and curiosity led them to see what was beneath, for it sounded as though there was a hollow. They accordingly removed the large flat stones which formed the top of the passage. Many persons were looking on at the time, and several of them went down into it; when they returned after a few minutes, they stated that they went but a short distance, before they came to an intersection of passages, and were afraid to proceed further. Shortly after, several priests were on the spot, and prevented the people from further examining it; and had the place shut up immediately, while they stood by and guarded it until it was all done. The appearance of that part of the passage was the same as I saw while they were laying the water pipes. The floor of it in both [illegible] where I saw it was clean to appearance, with the exception of a little dirt that fell in on opening them, and of stone flagging. I have heard much about these underground passages in Montreal, in which place I have spent the most of my days. I give you my name and residence: and if you should be called upon from any quarter for the truth of this statement. I am ready to attest it upon oath; and there are others in this city who have witnessed the same things. The places where those openings were made in the underground passages were in St. Joseph street for the water pipes; and for the gas pipes in Notre-Dame street, near Sacrament street, at a short distance from the Seminary.

"W. M."

* * * * *

About the close of February last, a note was sent me from a person signing himself the man who took me to the Almshouse. Soon after I had an interview with Mr. Hilliker, whom I recognised as my first protector in New York, and to whom I owe much—indeed, as I think, my life. He kindly offered to give me his testimony, which follows:—

From the New York Journal of Commerce.

(AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN HILLIKER,)

"City and County of New York, ss.

"John Hilliker, being duly sworn, doth depose and say—that one day early in the month of May, 1835, while shooting near the Third Avenue, opposite the three milestone, in company with three friends, I saw a woman sitting in a field at a short distance, who attracted our attention. On reaching her, we found her sitting with her head down, and could not make her return any answer to our questions. On raising her hat, we saw that she was weeping. She was dressed in an old calico frock, (I think of a greenish colour,) with a checked apron, and an old black bonnet. After much delay and weeping, she began to answer my questions, but not until I had got my companions to leave us, and assured her that I was a married man, and disposed to befriend her.

"She then told me that her name was Maria, that she had been a nun in a nunnery in Montreal, from which she had made her escape, on account of the treatment she had received from priests in that institution, whose licentious conduct she strongly intimated to me. She mentioned some particulars concerning the Convent and her escape. She spoke particularly of a small room where she used to attend, until the physician entered to see the sick, when she accompanied him to write down his prescriptions; and said that she escaped through a door which he sometimes entered. She added, that she exchanged her dress after leaving the nunnery, and that she came to New York in company with a man, who left her as soon as the steamboat arrived. She farther stated, that she expected soon to give birth to a child, having become pregnant in the Convent; that she had no friend, and knew not where to find one; that she thought of destroying her life; and wished me to leave her— saying, that if I should hear of a woman being found drowned in the East River, she earnestly desired me never to speak of her.

"I asked her if she had had any food that day, to which she answered, no; and I gave her money to get some at the grocery of Mr. Cox, in the neighbourhood. She left me, but I afterwards saw her in the fields, going towards the river; and after much urgency, prevailed upon her to go to a house where I thought she might be accommodated, offering to pay her expenses. Failing in this attempt, I persuaded her, with much difficulty, to go the Almshouse; and there we got her received, after I had promised to call and see her, as she said she had something of great consequence which she wished to communicate to me, and wished me to write a letter to Montreal.

"She had every appearance of telling the truth; so much so, that I have never for a moment doubted the truth of her story, but told it to many persons of my acquaintance, with entire confidence in its truth. She seemed overwhelmed with grief, and in a very desperate state of mind. I saw her weep for two hours or more without ceasing; and appeared very feeble when attempting to walk, so that two of us supported her by the arms. We observed also, that she always folded her hands under her apron when she walked, as she has described the nuns as doing in her 'Awful Disclosures.'

"I called at the Almshouse gate several times and inquired for her; but having forgotten half her name, I could not make it understood whom I wished to see, and did not see her until the last week. When I saw some of the first extracts from her book in a newspaper, I was confident that they were parts of her story, and when I read the conclusion of the work, I had not a doubt of it. Indeed, many things in the course of the book I was prepared for from what she had told me.

"When I saw her, I recognised her immediately, although she did not know me at first, being in a very different dress. As soon as she was informed where she had seen me, she recognised me. I have not found in the book any thing inconsistent with what she had stated to me when I first saw her.

"When I first found her in May, 1835, she had evidently sought concealment. She had a letter in her hand, which she refused to let me see; and when she found I was determined to remove her, she tore it in small pieces, and threw them down. Several days after I visited the spot again and picked them up, to learn something of the contents but could find nothing intelligible, except the first part of the Signature, 'Maria.'

"Of the truth of her story I have not the slightest doubt, and I think I never can until the Nunnery is opened and examined.

"JOHN HILLIKER.

"Sworn before me, this 14th of March, 1835.

"PETER JENKINS,

"Commissioner of Deeds."

The following challenge was published in the N. Y. Protestant Vindicator for six or seven weeks, in March and April, without a reply.

"CHALLENGE—The Roman Prelate and Priests of Montreal—Messrs. Conroy, Quarter, and Schneller, of New York—Messrs. Fenwick and Byrne of Boston—Mr. Hughes of Philadelphia—the Arch-Prelate of Baltimore, and his subordinate Priests—and Cardinal England of Charleston, with all other Roman Priests, and every Nun from Baffin's bay to the Gulf of Mexico, are hereby challenged to meet an investigation of the truth of Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures,' before an impartial assembly, over which shall preside seven gentlemen; three to be selected by the Roman Priests, three by the Executive Committee of the New York Protestant Association, and the Seventh as Chairman, to be chosen by the six.

"An eligible place in New York shall be appointed and the regulations for the decorum and order of the meetings, with all the other arrangements, shall be made by the above gentlemen.

"All communications upon this subject from any of the Roman Priests or Nuns, either individually, or as delegates for their superiors, addressed to the Corresponding Secretary of the New York Protestant Association, No. 142 Nassau-street, New York, will be promptly answered."

* * * * *

From the N. Y. Protestant Vindicator of April 6, 1836.

"THE CHALLENGE.—We have been waiting with no small degree of impatience to hear from some of the Roman priests. But neither they, nor their sisters, the nuns, nor one of their nephews or nieces, have yet ventured to come out. Our longings meet only with disappointment. Did ever any person hear of similar conduct on the part of men accused of the highest crimes, in their deepest dye? Here is a number of Roman priests, as actors, or accessories, openly denounced before the world as guilty, of the most outrageous sins against the sixth and seventh commandments. They are charged before the world with adultery, fornication, and murder! The allegations are distinctly made, the place is mentioned, the parties are named, and the time is designated; for it is lasting as the annual revolutions of the seasons. And what is most extraordinary,—the highest official authorities in Canada know that all those statements are true, and they sanction and connive at the iniquity!—The priests and nuns have been offered, for several months past, the most easy and certain mode to disprove the felonies imputed to them, and they are still as the dungeons of the Inquisition, silent as the death-like quietude of the convent cell; and as retired as if they were in the subterraneous passages between the Nunnery and Lartigue's habitation. Now, we contend, that scarcely a similar instance of disregard for the opinions of mankind, can be found since the Reformation, at least, in a Protestant country. Whatever disregard for the judgment of others, the Romish priests may have felt, where the Inquisition at their command, and the civil power was their Jackal and their Hyena: they have been obliged to pay some little regard to the opinion of protestants, and to the dread of exposure. We therefore repeat the solemn indubitable truth—that the facts which are stated by Maria Monk, respecting the Hotel Dieu Nunnery at Montreal, are true as the existence of the priests and nuns,—that the character, principles, and practices of the Jesuits and Nuns in Canada are most accurately delineated—that popish priests, and sisters of charity in the United States, are their faithful and exact counterparts—that many female schools in the United States, kept by the papist teachers, are nothing more than places of decoy through which young women, at the most delicate age, are ensnared into the power of the Roman priests—and that the toleration of the monastic system in the United States and Britain, the only two countries in the world, in which that unnatural abomination is now extending its withering influence, is high treason against God and mankind. If American citizens and British Christians, after the appalling developments which have been made, permit the continuance of that prodigious wickedness which is inseparable from nunneries and the celibacy of popish priests, they will ere long experience that divine castigation which is justly due to transgressors, who wilfully trample upon all the appointments of God, and who subvert the foundation of national concord, and extinguish the comforts of domestic society. Listen to the challenge again! All the papers with which the Protestant Vindicator exchanges, are requested to give the challenge one or two insertions." (Here it was repeated.)

* * * * *

Testimony of a friend in the hospital

Statement made by a respectable woman, who had the charge of me during a part of my stay in the Bellevue Hospital, in New York. She is ready to substantiate it. It is now first published.

"I was employed as an occasional assistant in the Bellevue Hospital, in New York, in the spring of the year 1835. My department was in the Middle House and the pantry. I was present one day in the room of Mrs. Johnston, the Matron, when a man came in with a young woman, and gave a note to Mrs. J., (which I understood was from Col. Fish.) the Superintendent, Mr. Stevens, being out. The female was dressed in a light blue calico frock, a salmon-coloured shawl, and a black bonnet, under which was a plain cap, something like a night-cap, which I afterward understood was a nun's cap. Being occupied at that time, I paid no attention to the conversation which took place between her and the Matron; but I soon heard that she was a nun who had escaped from a convent in Canada, who had been found in a destitute condition, by some persons shooting in the fields, and that she was in such a situation as to demand comforts and careful treatment.

"She was placed in room No. 33, where most of the inmates were aged American women; but as she appeared depressed and melancholy, the next day Mr. Stevens brought her into No. 26, and put her under my particular charge, as he said the women in that room were younger. They were, however, almost all Roman Catholics as there are many in the institution generally.

"I told her she might confide in me, as I felt for her friendless and unhappy situation; and finding her ignorant of the Bible, and entertaining some superstitious views, I gave her one, and advised her to read the scriptures, and judge for herself. We had very little opportunity to converse in private; and although she several times said she wished she could tell me something, no opportunity offered, as I was with her only now and then, when I could step into the room for a few minutes. I discouraged her from talking, because those around appeared to be constantly listening, and some told her not to mind 'that heretic.'

"Seeing her unhappy state of mind, it was several times proposed to her to see Mr. Tappan; and, after a week or two, as I should judge, he visited her, advised her to read the Bible, and judge for herself of her duty.

"One Sabbath I invited her to attend service, and we went to hear Mr. Tappan preach; but after her return, some of the Irish women told her to go no more, but mind her own religion. This produced an impression upon her, for she seemed like a child of tender feeling, gentle, and disposed to yield. She bound herself round my heart a good deal, she was of so affectionate a turn. The rudeness with which she was treated by several of the women, when they dared, would sometimes overcome her. A large and rather old woman, named Welsh, one of the inmates, entered the room one day, very abruptly, saying, 'I want to see this virtuous nun;' and abused her with most shameful language, so that I had to return to her, and complain of her to the Superintendent, who was shocked at such impudence in a foreign pauper, so that she was put into another room. Maria was washing her hands at the time Mrs. Welsh came in, and was so much agitated, that she did not raise her head, and almost fainted, so that I had to lift her upon a bed.

"Before this occurrence, the women would often speak to Maria while I was away and, as I had every reason to believe, endeavoured to persuade her to go to the priests. I told them that they ought rather to protect her, as she had come to the same country where they had sought protection.

"Mr. Conroy, a Roman priest, used to be regularly at the institution two or three times a week, from about 10 till 1 o'clock, both before and after Maria Monk became an inmate of it. No. 10 was his confession-room. He baptised children in the square-ward, and sometimes visited the sick Catholics in other rooms. Sometimes he went up in the afternoon also.

"I heard it said, that Mr. Conroy had asked to speak with Maria: and that an offer was made to him that he might see her before others, but not otherwise, to which Mr. Conroy did not consent.

"Sometimes Maria was much disturbed in her sleep, starting suddenly, with every appearance of terror. Some nights she did not sleep at all, and often told me, what I had no doubt was the fact, that she was too much agitated by the recollection of what she had seen in the Nunnery. She would sometimes say in the morning, 'O, if I could tell you! You think you have had trouble, but I have had more than ever you did.'

"Her distressing state of mind, with the trials caused by those around her, kept me constantly thinking of Maria, so that when employed at a distance from her, I would often run to her room, to see how she was for a moment, and back again. Fortunately, the women around held me somewhat in fear, because they found my reports of the interference of some were attended to; and this kept them more at a distance; yet they would take advantage of my absence sometimes. One day, on coming to No. 23. I found Maria all in a tremour, and she told me that Mrs. ——, one of the Roman Catholic nurses, had informed her that Mr. Conroy was in the institution, and wished to see her. 'And what shall I do?' she inquired of me, in great distress.

"I told her not to be afraid, and that she should be protected, as she was among friends, and endeavoured to quiet her fears all I could; but it was very difficult to do so. One of the women in the house, I know, told Maria, in my presence, one day, that Mr. Conroy was waiting in the passage to see her. The present Superintendent (another Mr. Stevens) succeeded the former while Maria and I were in the Hospital. Abby Welsh (not the Mrs. Welsh mentioned before) got very angry with me one day, because, as usual on the days when Mr. Conroy came, I was watchful to prevent his having an interview with Maria. Another person, for a time, used to employ her in sewing in her room on those days, for she also protected her, as well in this way, as by reproving those who troubled her. Abby Welsh, finding me closely watching Maria on the day I was speaking of, told me, in a passion, that I might watch her as closely as I pleased—Mr. Conroy would have her. Not long after this, I saw Abby Welsh talking earnestly with Mr. Conroy, in the yard, under one of the windows of the Middle House, and heard her say, 'the nun,' and afterward, 'she's hid.'

"A Roman Catholic woman, who supposed that Maria had been seen in St. Mary's Church, expressed a wish that she could have caught her there; and said, she would never again have made her appearance. I inquired whether there was any place where she could have been confined. She replied, in a reserved, but significant manner, 'There is at least one cell there for her.'

"New York, March 23d, 1836."

It would be a natural question, if my readers should ask, "What said the Roman Catholics to such testimonials? They laid great stress on affidavits sent for to Montreal; what do they think of affidavits spontaneously given in New York?"

So far as I know, they have republished but one, and that is Mr. Miller's!

The New York Catholic Diary of March 19th, said—

"We take the following overwhelming testimony from the Brooklyn American Citizen of the 11th instant:

"The following affidavits, &c., are copied from the last No. of the 'Protestant Vindicator,' and prove, it seems to us, taken with other corroborating circumstances, the falsehood and irrelevancy of the testimony against Miss Monk, and therefore establish the truth of her narrative:"

(Here it inserted Mr. Miller's affidavit, and then added:)

"What is the weight of the affidavit? Of ponderous import? I inquired where Maria was, and she told me she was in the Nunnery? Therefore she is an eloped Nun. Marvellous logical affidavit! We may say, that when an inquiry is made after the editor of this paper, and the answer is, that he was in Protestant Church, therefore he is a Protestant minister."

The Rev. Mr. Schneller, (for a Catholic priest is the editor of that paper,) thus tries to slide over the important testimony of Mr. Miller, and in doing it, admits that I was in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in the summer of 1832. Of course, he admits then, that Dr. Robertson's testimony to the contrary it false, and gives up the great point which the Montreal affidavits were intended to settle, viz. that I had not been in any Nunnery—at least, not since I was a child.

But another thing is worthy of remark. The Diary says, "We take the following overwhelming testimony from the Brooklyn American Citizen," yet he really leaves out the greater part of the testimony which that paper contained, viz. the certificate beginning on page 251. Let any one turn to that, and ask whether the editor had not some reason to wish to keep it from his readers? Did he not get rid of it very ingeniously, when he inserted the following remarks instead of it?

"The following statement has been furnished by the female witness above mentioned; the name being reserved only from delicacy to a lady's feelings."

"Excellent! 'delicacy to a lady's feelings!!' we are absorbed in an exclamation of wonder; the delicate name, in a matter of such vast importance, as that which affects the truth of the slanderous tale, cannot be mentioned!

"Therefore, 'we, the subscribers,' 'Brownlee, Slocum, Brace, Fanshaw, Belden, Wesson, and Hogan,' rest the weight of their authority upon the 'delicacy' of a nameless 'lady's feelings.'"

Now here Mr. Shellner pretends that the witness was not accessible, and leaves it in doubt, whether the subscribers, (men of known character and unimpeachable veracity.) knew any thing of her. Yet it was expressly stated by them that she was known, and that any reasonable inquiries would be readily answered. (See p. 249.)

I have no intention of attempting to enforce the evidence presented in the testimonials just given. I shall leave every reader to form his own conclusions independently and dispassionately. I could easily say things likely to excite the feelings of every one who peruses these pages—but I prefer to persist in the course I have thus far pursued, and abstain from all exciting expressions. The things I declare are sober realities, and nothing is necessary to have them so received, but that the evidence be calmly laid before the public.

I will make one or two suggestions here, for the purpose of directing attention to points of importance, though one or two of them have been already touched upon.

1st. One of the six affidavits was given by Dr. Robertson, and the remaining five were sworn to before him.

2d. The witnesses speak of interviews with me, on two of the most distressing days of my life. Now let the reader refer to those affidavits and then say, whether any expressions which they may have misunderstood, or any which may have been fabricated for me, (as I strongly suspect must have been the fact with some,) ought to destroy my character for credibility; especially when I appeal to evidence so incontestible as an inspection of the nunnery, and my opponents shrink from it. Let the reader observe also, that in the interviews spoken of in the affidavits, no third person is commonly spoken of as present; while those who are named are most of them inimical to me.

3d. All the testimony in the affidavits is aimed to destroy my character, and to prevent me from receiving any credit as a witness. Not a bit of it meets the charges I make against the priests and nuns. If they had proved that I never was in the nunnery, that, indeed would set aside my testimony: but failing to do [illegible], the attempt goes far to set their own aside.

Having now fairly shown my readers what reception my first edition met with, both from enemies and friends, I proceed to the "Sequel" of my narrative.

THE END.