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

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