Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk (the rosie project txt) 📖

summer she came back to my lodgings, and told me that she had made out the father of the child; and that very night left me and went away. The next morning I found that she was in a house of bad fame, where I went for her, and told the woman keeping that house, that she ought not to allow that girl to remain there, for she was a girl of good and honest family. Maria Monk then told me that she would not go to him (alluding, as I understood, to the father of the child), for that he wanted her to swear an oath that would lose her soul for ever, but jestingly said, should make her a lady for ever. I then told her (Maria), do not lose your soul for money. She told me she had swapped her silk gown in the house where I had found her, for a calico one, and got some money to boot; having previously told me if she had some money she would go away, and would not go near him any more. Soon after, Mr. Hoyte and another gentleman came. Mr. Hoyte asked me where she had slept the night previous, and that he would go for the silk gown; the woman showed the gown, and told him that if he would pay three dollars he should have the gown; he went away, and came back with Maria Monk, paid the three dollars and got the gown; I was then present.

“Being at Mrs. Monk’s, I saw a child which she mentioned to be her daughter Maria’s child. Some time after, Mrs. Monk requested me to accompany her to Griffintown, to look for her daughter. We went, to Mr.

Johnson’s house, a joiner in that suburb: we met Mr. Hoyte and he spoke to Mrs. Monk; when at Mr. Johnson’s, Mrs. Manly asked for her daughter; Mrs. Johnson said she was not there. I saw Mr. Hoyte at Mrs. Monk’s; he was in company with three other persons, apparently Americans, earnestly engaged in conversation, but so much confused I could not make out what was said; and farther sayeth not.”

“Her

“NANCY + M’GAN.

“mark.

“Sworn before me, on this 24th October, 1835.

“W. ROBERTSON, J. P.”

*

(AFFIDAVIT OF ASA GOODENOUGH.)

“Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.

“Before me, William Robertson, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, for the District of Montreal, appeared Asa Goodenough, of Montreal, holder of the Exchange Coffee House, who, after having made oath upon the Holy Evangelists, declareth and sayeth, that on or about the nineteenth of August last, two gentlemen and a young female with a child, put up at the Exchange Coffee House, of which I am the owner; they were entered in the book, one under the name of Judge Turner, the other as Mr. Hoyte, a Methodist preacher, and agent or superintendent for the establishment of Sunday-schools, &c.

“Being informed by Catherine Conners, a confidential servant, that something mysterious was passing amongst the above-named, which led me to call on them for an explanation, they answered in a very unsatisfactory manner. I afterward learned that the name of the young woman was Maria Monk, that her mother lived in town, that she was not married to Mr. Hoyte, and they came to Montreal with the view, as Mr.

Hoyte said, to disclose the infamy of the Priests, whilst she was at the Nunnery. I thought it prudent to give information of this to a magistrate. Seeing Mr. Doucet’s name on the list, I went to him, and requested him to give information to the mother of the young woman, of the circumstances in which her daughter was. He did so, and the disclosure of the design of Mr. Hoyte was the consequence.

“Montreal.

“ASA GOODENOUGH.”

*

“The following affidavits have been translated from the L’Ami du Peuple, Montreal, Nov. 7, 1835.”

(AFFIDAVIT OF CATHARINE CONNERS.)

“Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.

“Before me, W. Robertson, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the District of Montreal, appeared Catherine Conners of Montreal, a servant in the hotel of Mr. Goodenough, in the city of Montreal; she having made oath on the Holy Evangelists, to say the truth and nothing but the truth, declared and said what follows: “Towards the 19th of August last, two men and a woman came to the Exchange Coffee House; their names were written in the book, one by the name of Judge Turner, and the other as Mr. Hoyte; the name of the woman was not written in the book, in which the names of travellers are written, because I was informed that they were taking a single room with two beds. Some time after another room was given to them for their accommodation; the woman passed for the wife of Mr. Hoyte.

“The day following, when I was making the bed, I found the woman in tears; having made the remark to her that her child was a very young traveller, she replied that she had not the power to dispense with the journey, for they travelled on business of importance; she also said that she had never had a day of happiness since she had left Montreal, which was four years, with Mr. Hoyte; she expressed a wish to go and see her father. She entreated me to try and procure secretly clothes for her, for Mr. Hoyte wished to dine with her in his own room, in which he was then taking care of the child. I gave her my shawl and bonnet, and conducted her secretly out by the street St Pierre; she never returned, and left the child in the hands of Mr. Hoyte. She said that her husband was a Methodist preacher, and agent of the Sunday School for Montreal, in which he had resided four months last winter; but she had not then been with him. When I returned to the room, Mr. Hoyte was still taking care of the child; be asked me if I had seen his lady; I said no. Upon this question he told me that the father of his lady was dead, that her mother yet lived in the suburbs of Quebec, and he asked me for all the clothes which I had given to wash for him, his lady and child; clothes the lady had taken from the only portmanteau which they had. Beyond that, I perceived nothing remarkable, except that Mr. Hoyte wished to conceal this woman, and to prevent her from going out. I heard the judge say to him, ‘now she is yours.’ Sworn before me the 2d November, 1835.

(Signed) “W. ROBERTSON.”

Mary McCaffrey, also a chambermaid in the hotel of Mr. Goodenough, corroborates the preceding deposition.

(Signed) “W. ROBERTSON.”

*

(AFFIDAVIT OF HENRY M’DONALD.)

“Province of Lower Canada, District of Montreal.

“Before me, W. Robertson, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, for the District of Montreal, appeared Henry M’Donald, physician, who, after taking an oath on the Holy Evangelists to say the truth, declared, that in the month of August last, at seven o’clock in the evening, a young woman called at his house with all the symptoms of an extraordinary agitation, and in great distress. She asked his professional advice, complaining of great pains in the breast. On questioning her, he learned that she had a young child, which she said was at Mr. Goodenough’s, and that this child was taken away from her.

She said that the father of the child was a Methodist Minister, and general agent of the Sunday-Schools. She told me his name, but I cannot recollect it. She told me that now and then her intellectual faculties were weakened in such a manner that she could not support herself. She told me that she would be under great obligation to me, if I would go to her mother’s house, and get her child, and procure lodgings for her; that she was without means, and did not know where to go. She could not remain with her mother, because she felt that her conduct had disgraced her family. I went in quest of Mrs. Monk, her mother; she had just come in quest of her daughter, and they went away together from my house.

(Signed) “HENRY M’DONALD.”

“Sworn before me the 2d November, 1835.

(Signed) “W. ROBERTSON.”

*

(AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW RICHEY.)

To the Editor of the Montreal Morning Courier.

Sir,—Among the affidavits published in your paper of to-day, relating to Mr. Hoyte and Maria Monk, I observe a deposition by Mr. Goodenough, that when Mr. Hoyte, in the month of August last, put up at the Exchange Coffee-house, he was entered on the book as a Methodist Preacher, and Agent or Superintendant of Sunday Schools, &c. It has, however, been ascertained, from an examination of the book referred too, that no official designation is appended in it to Mr. Hoyte’s name. This discrepancy, Mr. Goodenough states, took place entirely through mistake, and he did not know that Mr. Hoyte was thus characterized in his affidavit till he saw it in print. But as a similar mistake has found its way into several of the depositions which have been elicited by this unhappy affair, I deem it incumbent upon me, as a regularly appointed Methodist Minister of this city, to declare that Mr. Hoyte has never had any connexion with the Methodist Society, either as a preacher or as an agent for Sunday Schools; and I would, at the same time, express my surprise and regret, that the New York Protestant Vindicator

should have taken up, and industriously circulated, charges of so grave a nature against the Priests and Nuns of this city, derived from so polluted a source. From such a species of vindication, no cause can receive either honour or credit. By giving this publicity, you will confer a favour on yours, respectfully, “MATTHEW RICHEY, Wesleyan Minister.”

“Montreal, Nov. 16, 1835.

*

“Although we could produce several other affidavits, of an equally unimpeachable character as the above, yet we deem the evidence advanced more than enough to show the entire, falsehood and extravagance of the fabrications in the Protestant Vindicator.”

*

Here closes all the testimony that has been published or brought against me. It requires the suppression of my feelings to repeat to the world charges against myself and my companions, so unfounded, and painful to every virtuous reader. But I [illegible] to the truth to substantiate my narrative, and prefer that everything should be fairly laid before the world. That my opponents had nothing further to produce against me at that time, is proved by the following remark by the Editor of the New York Catholic Diary, to be found in very paper in which he published the preceding affidavits:—

“Here, then, is the whole!”

In a N. Y. Catholic Diary of March last, is a letter from Father McMahon, a Missionary, dated at Sherbrooke, in Canada, in which, as will be seen by the extracts given beyond, he does not even allude to any other testimony than this. Of course my readers will allow that I have reason to say—“Here, then, is the whole!”

The following extracts are given for several reasons. 1st. To prove, by the admission of my adversaries themselves, that no new testimony has been produced since the publication of the Montreal affidavits. 2d. That no disposition is shown to bring the truth to the only fair test—the opening of the Nunnery. 3d. That they are inconsistent in several respects, as, while they pretend to leave the characters of the priests and