I Mlarla 5tlonk 
 
 I 
 
 1 And Her Revelations of 
 
 I 
 
 I (Tonvent (Lrimes 
 
 2nd EDITION 
 
 i l-^o^N^ 
 
 By THOS. E. WATSON 
 
 Author of "The Story of France," "Napolean," "Life and 
 
 Times of Andrew Jackson," "Life and Times of 
 
 Thomas Jefferson," "The Rowan Catholic 
 
 Hierarchy," Etc. 
 
 Published by 
 
 The Tom Watson Book Company 
 
 Thomson, Ga. 
 
 1927 
 
MARIA MONK 
 
 AND HER REVELATIONS OF 
 
 CONVENT CRIMES 
 
 2nd EDITION 
 
 By THOS. E. WATSON 
 
 Author of "The Story of France/' "Napoleon/' "Life and Times 
 
 of Andrew Jackson/' "Life and Times of Thomas 
 
 Jefferson/' "The Roman Catholic Hierarchy/' Etc. 
 
 Copyrighted by 
 Georgia Watson Lee Brown 
 1927 
 
 Published by 
 
 The Tom Watson Book Company 
 
 Thomson, Ga. 
 
 1927 
 
RECENT EXCAVATIONS IN MONTREAL, CANADA, HAVE BROUGHT TO LIGHT UNDER- 
 GROUND CONVENT PASSAGES AS MENTIONED IN MARIA MONK's BOOK 
 
 Southern Pamphlets 
 Rare Book Collection 
 
ITldrid ITlonk, and Her Reueldlions 
 of Conuenl Crimes 
 
 HUMAN nature will never be understood by any human 
 being:. it baffles us, even when we try to understand our- 
 selves. Those we know best are continually surprising us 
 by some act of which we thought them incapable, or by some 
 assertion which demolishes our belief in their intelligence. 
 
 Who would have supposed that a new religion could spring 
 up. in Western New York, base itself upon an absurd fable about 
 golden plates and a new Bible, and then grow to vast power, in 
 spite of contempt, ridicule, and persecution? 
 
 Besides the 19th century miracle of Mormonism, the manmade 
 creed of Mohomet is an easy-going achievement, for the Arab 
 merchant imposed upon ignorant nomads, while Joseph Smith 
 and Sidney Rigdon humbugged shrewd, hard-headed, educated 
 Americans. 
 
 Who could have supposed that Roman Catholicism would 
 survive the Reformation, reconquer Germany, regain the mastery 
 in Great Britain, and hold the balance of power in the United 
 States, while clinging to the ludicrous dogmas which were almost 
 laughed out of court, at the Renaissance? 
 
 Who could have imagined that the proudest intellects _ of 
 modern Europe could have been submerged by the impudent im- 
 postures of fake miracles, fake relics, fake purgatory, fake tran- 
 substantiation. fake indulgences, and fake personation of Jesus 
 Christ ? 
 
 A colossal fraud, a huge anachronism, a standing insult to 
 common sense, is popery, is the worship of Mary, is the purga- 
 torial gold-mine, is the fiction of saints, is the shameless market 
 in which Rome sells everything, from a nun's hair to a golden 
 crucifix and a pewter Madonna. 
 
 But of all the successful impositions forced upon human 
 credulity by the most arrogant of churches, is that of a virgin 
 priesthood. Unmarried, fuU-sexed, ruddy and robust with fat 
 living, red of lip and thick of cheek, and dew-lapped of neck, 
 these portly bachelors — thousands of them! — strut up and down 
 the earth, bold-eyed, pretending to sexual purity ! And it goes ! 
 The brazen fraud is taken for a verity. Not one Catholic 
 
 (3) 
 
 589144 
 
layman in a thousand doubts that the priest is a man of like 
 passions as himself, but he accepts the fraud, takes the living 
 lie as a necessary evil, considers it bad form to notice anything, 
 and never opens his mouth, unless the priest is so unlucky as to 
 get caught and to cause "scandal." 
 
 As to men who are not Catholics, you won't find one in a 
 
 FRANCIS DOYLE, FLORIDA PRIEST 
 
 million who doubts the real office of the priest's "housekeeper," 
 and the uses to which the jailed women of the nunneries are put, 
 willingly or unwillingly. 
 
 But when some individual case challenges the world's atten- 
 tion, when some nun breaks jail and cries piteously for help 
 and protection, tJicn, indeed, all the Roman cohorts get into in- 
 stant action, and the non-Catholics are but too apt to aid the 
 
priests in capturing the fugitive and taking her back to the papal 
 Bastille. 
 
 In the olden days, there was no such thing as "the escaped 
 nun" — why not ? Because, the civil power was wielded by staunch 
 Catholics, and these were compelled by the law of the Roman 
 church to return all such run-aways to the Convent. The penalty 
 for failure to do this, was excommunication, which at that time 
 was well nigh the same as death. 
 
 But what were the real conditions of nunneries from the 
 very beginning? As everybody knows, the apostles were mostly 
 married men^ the primitive elders and presbyters had wives: 
 and bishops of Rome were married men. during the earlier 
 centuries after Christ. It was not until nearly 1100 years had 
 passed away, that Pope Gregory VII. energetically attempted 
 to enforce celibacy upon the priesthood; and at least 300 years 
 more went by, before its general adoption in the Catholic world. 
 As late as the year 1320, the Irish priests continued to take wives; 
 and the Spanish priests were in full practice, on the same line, 
 in 1335. 
 
 Consequently, the thick-lipped, red-faced, rotund and lusty 
 Roman male-Virgin, is a comparatively modern impostor. 
 
 (See Lea: Historv Sacerdotal Celibacy, Vol. 1, pages 365 
 and 383.) 
 
 Let us briefly examine the mode of life which resulted from 
 the unnatural system of confining nuns, in the custody of un- 
 married priests. 
 
 A Catholic author writes, "Alas, also, how many priests in 
 their convents have established a sort of infamous gymnasium, 
 where they exercise the most abominable debaucheries." De 
 Planctus Ecclesire, Vol. 11. 2. 
 
 Tertullian wrote that the reputation of priests for virginity, 
 covered secret sins "the effect of which were concealed by resort 
 to infanticide." 
 
 (Tertull. de Virgin. Veland. C. XV.) 
 
 Cyprian's testimony against the male "virgins" was equally 
 sctrong. 
 
 Says Dr. Lea. Vol. 1, pages 423 and 244: 
 
 "When the desires of man are once tempted to seek, through 
 unlawful means, the relief denied to them by artificial rules, it 
 is not easy to control the unbridled passions which irritated by the 
 fruitless attempts at repression, are no longer restrained by a law 
 which has been broken. 
 
 The records of the Middle Ages are accordingly full of the 
 evidences that indiscriminate license of the zvorst kind, prevailed 
 throughout every rank of the hierarchy. 
 
 Scarcely had the efforts of Nicholas and Gregory put an end 
 
to sacerdotal marriage in Rome when the morals of the Roman 
 clergy became a disgrace to Christendom." 
 
 In 1130, Cardinal Pier-Leone was elected pope, although he 
 had children by his sister, Tropea, and carried a concubine with 
 him when travelling, as Cardinal Vanutelli is said to have done 
 when he attended the Canadian Council, several years ago. 
 
 Pope Innocent VIII. had sixteen illegitimate children, and 
 Pope Alexander VI. nearly as many; and although Pope Bene- 
 dict IX. was only ten years old when made Pontiff by his dis- 
 solute mother, he lost no time before sinking into the most 
 swinish debauchery. 
 
 Canon Burchard, the private Chamberlain to Pope Alexander 
 VI., wrote : 
 
 "The women (of the convents) were persecuted and im- 
 prisoned if they had any relation with laymen ; but when they 
 yielded themselves to the monks, masses were sung and feasts 
 given. The nuns, thus coupled give birth to gentle and pretty 
 little monks, or else they cause abortions to be performed. If 
 any one were tempted to uphold that this is not true, he need only 
 search the privy vaults of the convents, and he will find there 
 nearly as many children's bones as were in Bethlehem in the time 
 of Herod." 
 
 (See Human Sexuality, p. 258.) 
 
 In describing the morals of the Pope and the priests, the poet 
 Petrarch used language which cannot be printed. 
 
 Babylon itself never sunk lower in bestial vice ; and Petrarch's 
 feelings were intensified by the brutal assault which the Pope 
 made upon the poet's young and beautiful sister. 
 
 Pope Gregorv XII. in a letter to an Abbot wrote, in the year 
 1408: 
 
 "Many of the nuns commit fornication with the monks and 
 the lay brothers : and in the same monasteries bring forth sons 
 and daughters * * * and not a few of the nuns destroy the foetus, 
 and kill the children who see the light." 
 
 (Cited, and the full Latin text given in "Xuns and Xun- 
 neries," p. 184, See Api)endix A to this article.) 
 
 The Council of Mayence. under Pope Stephen \'., absolutely 
 forbade priests to allow "any description of women to live in 
 the house" with them, and declared that "very many crimes have 
 been committed so that some jtriests liave had chiklren born to 
 them by their own sisters," 
 
 (See Appendix B for the Latin decree of the Council.) 
 
 Xicholas dc Clamengcs was a famous Catholic scholar, rector 
 of the University of Paris, in 1393, and later Archdeacon of 
 Haieux. When he died at the College of Navarre, he was 
 buried in the Chapel, under the lamp before the great altar. He 
 
published a book on the subject of the corruption in his church. 
 He attributed this evil condition to the vicious lives of the priests, 
 and to the fact that when they committed murder, rape, or any 
 other enormous crime, they can pay themselves out of prison 
 
 with money. 
 
 (The Popes had a price-list, and the fine or tax for crimes 
 ranged all the way from theft and gambling up to perjury, incest, 
 sacrilege, assassination, and rape.) 
 
 Alluding to other causes of depravity, the Catholic scholar 
 says : 
 
 "Touching the Monks and Monasteries, there is abundance 
 of matter to speak of — were it not that it would oppress me 
 to dwell long on the enumeration of so great and so many 
 abominations." 
 
 Speaking of the nuns, Clamenges says : 
 
 "Modesty forbids me to say much concerning them that might 
 be said." Then he compares the convents to "brothels" and the 
 nuns to "harlots," lewd and incestuous. 
 
 In 1774, Duke Leopold of Tuscany investigated the nun- 
 neries of his dominions. He was a Catholic, of course, and his 
 main assistant in overhauling the convents was the Catholic Bishop 
 Ricci. 
 
 I regret that space cannot be given to all the testimony se- 
 cured by Duke Leopold and presented in substance to the Pope, 
 but the following passage which occurs in a letter from Bishop 
 Ricci to Cardinal Corsini, sufficiently indicates the conditions un- 
 covered : 
 
 "In writing to the Pope, I would not enter into infamous de- 
 tails which would horrify you. 
 
 Yet what have not these wretched Dominican Monks been 
 guilty of ! 
 
 The stories of the wife of the Provincial and the mistress of 
 the Confessor, and other follies of like kind, are revolting to 
 every one. 
 
 That which I have learned, makes me shudder." 
 
 Duke Leopold having become Emperor of Austria, the good 
 Bishop Ricci was left helpless against the monks whom he had 
 exposed and infuriated. The Pope turned against him, he lost 
 his bishopric, and he was compelled to humble himself by signing 
 a recantation of the charges he had made against the licentious 
 monks — charges based upon the sworn evidence of the nuns, 
 and of a number of workmen who had witnessed many of the 
 carousals in the convents. 
 
 The immortal Florentine monk, Savonarola, said "The women 
 in the convents are worse than the courtesans" ; and the most 
 illustrious literateur the Catholic Church ever produced, told 
 
the Pope practically the same thing. Erasmus, in his wonderful 
 book, "The Praise of Folly," lashes the monks and the priests 
 with unsparing severity, nor does he spare the Popes themselves. 
 In his letter to the Prothonotary of Leo X., he enters into fright- 
 ful details, which, however, were not likely to shock a pontiflf 
 who was a chronic sufferer from syphilis. 
 
 HANS SCHMIDT, THE PRIEST WHO MURDERED HIS 
 MISTRESS IN NEW YORK 
 
 "There are monasteries where there is no discipline and which 
 are worse than brothels. 
 
 There are others again, where the brethren are so sick of the 
 imposture, that they keep it up only to deceive the vulgar. 
 
 The convent at best is but a miserable bondage, and if there 
 be outward decency, a knot which cannot be loosed may still be 
 fatal to soul and body. ^ 
 
 "Young men are fooled and cheated into joining these \x- 
 ders. Once in the toils, thev are broken in and trained into 
 
Pharisees. They may repent, but the Superiors will not let them 
 go, lest they should betray the orgies zvhich they have witnessed, 
 They crush them down with scourge and penance, the secular 
 arm, chanceries and dungeons. Nor is this the worst. Cardinal 
 mateo said at a public dinner, before a large audience, naming 
 place and persons, that the Dominicans had buried a young man 
 alive whose father demanded his son's release. A Polish noble 
 who had fallen asleep in a church, saw two Franciscans buried 
 alive; yet these wretches call themselves the representatives of 
 Benedict and Basil and Jerome. 
 
 A monk may be drunk every day. He may go zvith loose 
 zi'omen secretly or openly. He may waste the Church's money 
 on vicious pleasures. He may be a quack or a charlatan, and 
 all the while be an excellent brother and fit to be made an 
 abbot ; while one who. for the best of reasons lays aside his 
 frock, is howled at as an apostate. Surely the true apostate 
 is he who gives into sensuality, pomp, vanity, the lusts of the 
 flesh, the sins which he renounced at his baptism. All of us 
 would think him a worse man than the other, if the common- 
 ness of such characters did not hide their deformity. Monks of 
 abandoned lives notoriously swarm over Christendom." 
 
 (Life and Letters of Erasmus, 175.) 
 
 In the "Familiar Colloquies" of Erasmus, there are two 
 which give a racy, vivid outline of the lives of the monks and 
 the priests — the dialogue entitled "The Franciscans," and that 
 between the "Abbot and the Learned Woman." 
 
 Chapter VH. of Dr. John W. Draper's "Intellectual Prog- 
 ress of Europe" should be read carefully by those who wish to 
 know what English history reveals, of the natural consequences 
 of trying to compel priests and nuns to live unnatural lives. 
 Nature zvill assert itself. 
 
 When Pope Innocent III. authorized Morton, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, to investigate the condition of the English convents 
 and monasteries, in 1489, it was found that they were hotbeds of 
 sensuality, vices and crimes. 
 
 (See Lea: Sacerdotal Celibacy, Vol. II., p. 16.) 
 
 In fact, the Popes so thoroughly understood the necessities 
 of nature, in the case of the lusty priest, that a very moderate 
 fine was levied upon the delinquent in the Taxes of the Peni- 
 tentiary. For the sum of four gros tournois, or less than half 
 a florin, the adulterous or concubinary priest could purchase for- 
 giveness of his venial sin. 
 
 Perhaps the most infamous book ever printed is that in which 
 the Popes — Vicars of Christ! — jotted down the prices to be paid 
 by criminals of all degrees for the papal pardon of all sorts of 
 crime. 
 
 (A copy of this book is in the British Museum.) 
 
10 
 
 Are the nuns free to leave the convents? Are these most 
 pitiable women the slaves of the priests, walled up in a living 
 tomb, utterly without means of resistance and of escape? Are 
 they completely in the power of the priests, and have they any 
 chance whatever to appeal to the State? 
 
 Read the decree of the Council of Trent, enjoining all bishops 
 to enforce the close confinement of nuns, by every means, and 
 even to engage the assistance of the secular arm for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 All Princes are commanded to protect the convent enclosure, 
 and all civil magistrates are threatened with excommunication, if 
 they fail to aid the bishop in throwing the escaped nun back into 
 the living tomb. 
 
 God in Heaven ! These ravening wolves of Rome have 58,- 
 000 American women now imprisoned, under lock and key, and 
 the State does not dare to exercise the sovereign right to inves- 
 tigate the condition of those cesspools of priestly vice. On the 
 contrary, when some poor, half-maddened girl or woman does 
 elude the vigilance of the papal guards, and escape over the 
 dungeon wall, policemen, sheriffs, constables and baiHffs are 
 swift to seize her and drag her back to life-long captivity. 
 
 No Catholic woman, it would seem, can reach the pinnacle of 
 religious bliss, until she walks into a papal Bastille, and lets the 
 unmarried priest turn the key on her. 
 
 "Spouse of Christ!" — the most loathsome phrase that ever was 
 invented to cover a secret system of hideous pollution. 
 
 In a letter to Bishop Ricci, a Paulist monk describes the Por- 
 tuguese convents as follows : 
 
 "The regular priests have become the bonzes of Japan, and 
 the nuns the disciples of Venus. Their convents zvere seraglios 
 for the monks." 
 
 In 1851, Dr. Theodore Dwight, of New York, published a 
 book entitled "The Roman Republic of 1849, with Accounts of the 
 Inquisition, and the Seige of Rome." 
 
 On page 210, the author says: 
 
 "The Republican government having been made acquainted 
 with all the infamous practices among the monks of La Mad- 
 dalena. and certain Jesuit nuns, who had charge of educating the 
 female foundlings, turned them both out. The Pope (Pius IX.) 
 ordered the monks to be restored, that they might again tyrannize 
 over those unhappy women. 
 
 On hearing of this order, the nuns (three or four hundred) 
 exclaimed with one voice, 'We will not AGAIN be the priests' 
 concubines!' " 
 
11 
 
 The author then relates how the desperate women attempted 
 to save themselves from their former fate by barricading the 
 doors, arming themselves with such poor weapons as the kitchen 
 afforded,— knives, forks, spits, etc.— displayed the Republican 
 flag, and fought off their assailants for two days. 
 
 Who were the asailants of these Italian Catholic women that 
 were resisting the Pope's order, which meant renewed sexual sub- 
 mission to the bestial priests? 
 
 Those asasilants were French Catholic soldiers, commanded 
 by the old Napoleonic marshal, Oudinot ; and these foreign bayo- 
 nets had been sent into Italy, at the urgent instance of Pius IX., 
 by Napoleon III., whose bigoted Spanish wife was the tool of 
 the Jesuits, and the Evil Genius of France. 
 
 The distracted nuns were of course subdued, some of them 
 thrown into lunatics' cells, and the others put under lock and 
 key— the monks being the goalers. What happened then, to those 
 women, behind those locked doors and thick walls? God knows. 
 
 Blanco White says in his "Evidences Against Roman Cath- 
 olicnsm," that during the brief existence of the Hberal govern- 
 ment in Spain, in 1822, the nuns were offered their freedom, 
 and that in Madrid more than two hundred immediately fled the 
 convents. 
 
 Against the monks, in their horrible abuse of the nuns, no 
 witness bore weightier testimony than the ex-monk, Blanco White ; 
 and Cardinal Newman himself admitted that the word of White 
 could not be doubted : his character was too lofty and spotless for 
 even the vituperous tongues of mendacious priests. 
 
 On page 144 of the work already named, Blanco White says 
 of female convents — "I cannot find tints sufficiently dark and 
 gloomy to portray the miseries which / have witnessed in their 
 inmates. 
 
 Crime, indeed, makes its way into those recesses, in spite of 
 the spiked walls and prison gates. 
 
 This I know with all the certainty which the self -accusation 
 of the guilty can give. In vain does the law of the land stretch 
 a friendly hand to the repentant victim : the unhappy slave may be 
 dying to break her fetters !" 
 
 But suppose some poor Maria Monk does elude her jailers 
 and escape into the world? 
 
 White paints the picture of the sickening consequences : 
 "Her own parents would disown her; friends would shrink 
 from her; she would be haunted by priests and their zealous 
 emissaries, and, like her sister victims of superstition in India, 
 
12 
 
 be made to die of a broken heart, if she refused to return to the 
 burning pile from which she had fled in frantic fear." 
 
 Of course, Blanco White here refers to the Hindoo suttee 
 which required the widow of a Brahman to be burned on the 
 same funeral pyre which consumed the corpse of her husband. 
 Long ago, the English prohibited the suttee, and it is now a thing 
 of the past; but what must be the cynical reflections of the 
 learned Brahman when he sees how the English — in the Old 
 World and the New — have allowed the Roman superstition to 
 expand and perpetuate a hideous system of man's inhumanity to 
 women, in the lifelong, hopeless and helpless incarceration of 
 duped "Spouses of Christ?" 
 
 Blanco White testified to what he saw! Cardinal Newman 
 asserts that Blanco White is to be implicitly believed whenever 
 he states things which he claimed to know. Could evidence be 
 more convincing? 
 
 Not a soul ever undertook to overthrow the evidence of this 
 ex-monk of Spain, the tutor in the home of Archbishop Whate- 
 ley, the Oxford scholar, and the honored friend of the most 
 eminent Englishmen of his day. 
 
 So much, then, by way of historic background for the "Awful 
 Disclosures of Maria Monk." We have seen what Popes and 
 Councils alleged against the unnatural life of convents and monas- 
 teries; we have seen how the Council of Trent virtually decreed 
 that the nuns were prisoners who must be flung back into their 
 dungeons, if they should escape; we have seen how the roof 
 was lifted off the system by official investigation, in Italy and 
 England; we have seen how the Catholic authors — Erasmus, 
 Savonarola, Ricci, and Clamenges — corroborated Luther, Calvin 
 and Knox; we have seen how, in the most modern developments 
 as in the most ancient, the fruits of the system are absolutely 
 the same; and we have brought the evidence down to 1849, a 
 date later than those involved in the narrative of Maria Monk. 
 
 CELIBACY FORBIDDEN BY THE BIBLE. 
 
 Not only were the priests of ancient Jewry free to marry, 
 but they were required to do so — for the same decently prudential 
 reasons which demand that a Greek Catholic pastor shall have 
 a wife. 
 
 Naturally, therefore, the first Christian ministers were mar- 
 ried men, since they were Jews who based their faith in part 
 upon the Old Testament. 
 
 Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, states that Paul, the 
 Apostle to the Gentiles, ivas a married man! 
 
13 
 
 Of course every one is aware of the fact that Eusebius is 
 "the Father of Church History," and that he flourished in the 
 time of the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. My copy 
 of his work was published in London, in the year 1636. 
 
 On page 51. chapter 27, we read— . 
 
 "Clemens whose words lately we alleged, afterwards reciteth 
 the Apostles which lived in wedlock, against them zvhtch rejected 
 
 marriage, saving — -, . r^ . n; -I'-u 
 
 What^ do they condemn the Apostles? for Peter and Flitltp 
 
 employed their industry to the bringing up of their chddren. 
 
 Philip also gave his daughter to marriage. 
 
 And Paul in a certain Epistle sticked not to salute his ivife, 
 
 which therefore he led not about, that he might be the readier 
 
 unto ministration." 
 
 The faces of ancient anchorites, as shown in historical pic- 
 tures reallv look like those of ascetics : they are thin, careworn, 
 devotional' introspective. Apparently, they lived hard and mis- 
 anthroped a great deal. Their daily diet was bred and water. 
 Thev wore hair-cloth garments, whipped themselves severely, 
 slept on the bare stones, and ran foot-races with the Devil when- 
 ever thev felt him heating up their carnalities. 
 
 They avoided women, and were afraid to have a piece ot 
 calico about. When their thoughts wandered into forbidden paths 
 they crossed themselves vigorously, and yelled, "Get thee behind 
 
 me. Lucifer!" , , j r ir 
 
 Wine they dared not drink, lest it loosen the bands ot selt- 
 
 restraint. , , , , , , , 
 
 Meat they dared not eat, lest it create red blood of a rebel- 
 lious nature. , ... 
 
 Warm bed clothing they dared not use, lest it mvite sensuous 
 
 dreams to the midnight couch. , -, t • *• 
 
 Thus thev lived abstemiously, mortifying the tlesh, rejecting 
 all the good diings of nature, and glorifying God, by scornfully 
 refusing to live in accordance with the innate promptings of the 
 
 sex 
 
 Before a human being of sound mind can be educated into 
 that sort of a monstrosity, he has to be caught early in youth, and 
 carefully trained for the unnatural part. 
 
 These olden saints have long since disappeared from earth. 
 The modern Virgins of the Roman Church are built on different 
 lines, and live in a wholly different way. They believe in all 
 the good things that bountiful Nature has provided. They glority 
 God by having a joyous time. 
 
 They find that the allotted span of life is entirely too short 
 to be spent on parched corn and well-water. The whipcord 
 and the hair-shirt, are unknown to their philosophy. 
 
14 
 
 In all of their religious papers, you will find the advertise- 
 ments of the very best wines, made specially for the use of the 
 Virgins, and sold especially to them. 
 
 In all of their religious papers, you will find these male Vir- 
 
 •%?A r'--'' 
 
 CARDINAL BILLY O CONNELL, A MODKRN \"IKt;i.\. PICTrRF. TAKF.N 
 
 JUST AFTER HE HAD FED SPARINGLY OX DRY 
 
 HERBS AND STALE WATER. 
 
 gins advertising for feminine "housekeepers," and you will find 
 where the women who wish to keep house for the bachelor priests, 
 advertise their willingness. 
 
 At middle age, these modern male Virgins of Rome are 
 
15 
 
 almost invariably corpulent, sensual, gross ; with thick, red lips, 
 with dew-lap necks, with bulging eyes, and with swelling ab- 
 domens. 
 
 As a class, the Roman Catholic priests of today are the most 
 libertine-looking men on earth, and thenar looks tell a true tale. 
 
 As a class, they are epicures and libertines. 
 
 Dr. Justin D. Fulton's dynamic book, "Why Priests Should 
 Wed." reveals the fact that this same Pope Pius IX. authorized, 
 in 1866, a secret order within the priesthood, as a substitute for 
 marriage. 
 
 That secret order, within the secret orders, licenses the priests 
 of approved sfanddng to cohabit sexually zvith nuns zvho can be 
 relied on to hide the sin. 
 
 Dr. Justin D. Fulton was a responsible and fearless man. 
 He made his damning accusation in a book which Rome has never 
 dared to challenge. 
 
 The book was submitted to Anthony Comstock, Post-Office 
 Inspector, before it was given to the printers. 
 
 That terrible arraignment of the bachelor priests and their 
 concubines — the cloistered nuns — far surpasses in detail and direct 
 description anything that I ever wrote. 
 
 Yet the men whom Dr. Fulton accused never dared to hale 
 ///;;; to court. 
 
 Nor have they ever in any of their papers, pamphlets, books, 
 or sermons denied, THAT POPE PIUS IX. IN 1866, AU- 
 THORIZED PRIESTS AND NUNS TO COHABIT, AS 
 MAN AND WIFE! 
 
 Under the administration of the bloated brute. Cardinal 
 William ( )"Connell. a priest of the name of Pertrachi, notori- 
 ous for his crimes against Catholic women, was put in charge 
 of the Roman parish at Milford. Mass. He had been several 
 times removed from former appointments because of his un- 
 bridled lusts. At Milford, he seized a Catholic woman while 
 she knelt at the altar-rail, alone, feeling secure in the sanctity 
 of the Cathedral. The priest crept upon her from his "sacristy," 
 seized her, dragged her into his private room, and raped her! 
 
 What was done abt)ut it? Nothing. He was never even 
 arrested. He "disappeared," just as John Holtgreve, the Lou- 
 isiana priest, disappeared from Iberville, after he was indicted 
 for sodomy, committed on the little choir-boys of his church. 
 
 The woman whom Petrarchi outraged, in the Catholic Ca- 
 thedral, sued Bishop Beaven for damages, alleging that he knezv 
 
16 
 
 the bad character of the priest, at the time the pastorate of Mil- 
 ford was bestowed upon him. 
 
 The case went to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, where 
 the woman lost, because the Court held that, although Bishop 
 Beaven knew beforehand that the priest would commit the sexual 
 crime with the Catholic women in his charge, the Bishop could 
 not foresee that the priest would rape any of them ! 
 
 (That decision appears in the South-Eastern Reporter, under 
 the case-name of Beaven v Carini.) 
 
 TWO MORE AMERICAN VESTALS THEY NEVER TOUCH MEAT, OR 
 
 WINE. 
 
17 
 
 Part 2. 
 
 "In the year 1835, Maria Monk was found alone and in a wretched 
 and feeble condition, on the outskirts of New York City, by a humane 
 man, who got her admitted into the hospital at Bellevue. She then 
 told the story in outline, which she afterwards and uniformly repeated 
 in detail, and which was carefully written down and published in the 
 following form: She said she was a fugitive nun from the Hotel Dieu 
 of Montreal, whence she had effected her escape, in consequence of 
 cruelty which she had suffered, and crimes which were there com- 
 mitted by the Romish priests, who had the control of the institution, 
 and to which they had access, by private as well as public entrances. 
 Having expressed a willingness to go to that city, make public ac- 
 cusations, and point out evidences of their truth in the convent itself, 
 she was taken thither by a resolute man, who afterwards suffered for 
 an act of great merit; but she was unable to obtain a fair hearing, ap- 
 parently through the secret opposition of the priests. She reurned to 
 New York, where her story was thought worthy of publication, and 
 it was proposed to have it carefully written down from her lips, and 
 published in a small pamphlet. Everything she communicated was, 
 therefore, accurately written down, and, when copied out, read to her 
 for correction." 
 
 The above extract is taken from the Preface to the original 
 edition of "Maria Monk." 
 
 It is not my purpose to repeat the story of this unfortunate 
 victim of the Roman system. It is practically the same as that 
 of the Italian nuns of 1849; of the Spanish nuns whose fate 
 was indicated by the unimpeachable Blanco White ; of the Tuscan 
 nuns who testified before the Commission of Duke Leopold; 
 and of the French nuns who escaped about the same time that 
 Maria Monk did, and whose cases came before the French courts. 
 
 (See History Auricular Confession, by Count C. P. DeLastey- 
 rie. Also, "Nunneries," by Seeley.) 
 
 In short, Maria Monk, a Canadian girl, entered the Mon- 
 treal convent in good faith, and soon discovered that she was 
 a prisoner, a slave, a sexual victim of the priests : that if the 
 nuns rebelled, they were barbarously punished, and even killed; 
 that the virginal nuns who resisted the priests were ravished; 
 that infants born in the convent were first baptized and then 
 smothered — just as Pope Gregory XII. charged in his official 
 letter, whose original Latin you will find in the appendix to this 
 article. 
 
 Maria Monk gave the following account of herself : 
 
 My parents were both from Scotland, but had been resident in 
 Lower Canada some time before their marriage, which took place in 
 Montreal; and in that city I spent most of my life. I was born at 
 St. John's, where they lived for a short time. My father was an 
 
18 
 
 officer under the British Government, and my mother has enjoyed 
 a pension on that account ever since his death. 
 
 According to my earliest recollections, he was attentive to his 
 family; and a particular passage from the Bible, which often oc- 
 curred to my mind in after life, I may very probably have been 
 taught by him, as after his death, I do not recollect to have received 
 any religious instruction at home; and was not even brought up to 
 read the scriptures; my mother, although nominally a Protestant, 
 not being accustomed to pay attention to her children in this respect. 
 She was rather inclined to think well of the Catholics, and often at- 
 ended their churches. To my want of religious instruction at home 
 and the ignorance of my Creator, and my duty, which was its natural 
 effect, I think I can trace my introduction to convents, and the scenes 
 which I am to describe in this narrative. 
 
 When about six or seven years of age, I went to school to a 
 Mr. Workman, a Protestant, who taught in Sacrament street, and re- 
 mained several months. There I learned to read and write, and arith- 
 metic as far as division. All the progress I ever made in those 
 branches was gained in that school, as I have never improved in any of 
 them since. 
 
 A number of girls of my acquaintance went to school to the nuns 
 of the Congregational Nunnery, or Sisters of Charity, as they are 
 sometimes called. The schools taught by them are perhaps more 
 numerous than some of my readers may imagine. Nuns are sent 
 out from that convent to many of the towns and villages of Canada 
 to teach small schools; and some of them are established as instruc- 
 tresses in different parts of the United States. When I was about 
 ten years old, my mother asked me one day if I should not like to 
 learn to read and write French; and I then began to think seriously 
 of attending the school in the Congregational Nunnery. I had al- 
 ready some acquaintance with that language, sufficient to speak it a 
 little, as I heard it every day, and my mother knew something 
 of it. 
 
 I have a distinct recollection of my first entrance into the Nun- 
 nery; and the day was an important one in my life, as on it com- 
 menced my acquaintance was a Convent. I was conducted by some 
 of my young friends along Notre Dame street till we reached the gate. 
 Entering that, we walked some distance along the side of a building 
 towards the chapel, until we reached a door, stopped, and rung a 
 bell. This was soon opened, and entering, we proceeded through a 
 long covered passage till we took a short turn to the left, soon after 
 which we reached the door of the schoolroom. On iny entrance, the 
 Superior met me, and told me first of all that I must always dip my 
 fingers into the holy water at her door, cross myself, and say a short 
 prayer; and this she told me was always required of Protestants as 
 well as Catholic children. 
 
 There were about fifty girls in the school, and the nuns pro- 
 fessed to teach something of reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography. 
 The methods, however, were very imperfect, and little attention was 
 devoted to them, the time being in a great degree engrossed with 
 lessons in needlework, which was performed with much skill. The 
 nuns had no very regular parts assigned them in the management of 
 the schools. They were rather rough and unpolished in their manners, 
 often exclaiming, "c'est un menti" (that's a lie), and "mon Dieu" 
 (My God), on the most trivial occasions. Their writing was quite 
 poor, and it was not uncommon for them to put a capital letter in the 
 
19 
 
 middle of a word. The only book on geography which we studied, 
 was a catechism of geography, from which we learnt by heart a few 
 questions and answers. We were sometimes referred to a map,_ but 
 it was only to point out Montreal or Quebec, or some other promment 
 name, while we had no instruction beyond. 
 
 It may be necessary for the information of some of my readers 
 to mention that there are three distinct Convents in Montreal, all of 
 different kinds; that is, founded on different plans, and governed 
 by different rules. Their names are as follows: 
 1st. The Congregational Nunnery. 
 
 2nd. The Black Nunnery, or Convent of Sister Bouigeoise. 
 3d. The Grey Nunnery. 
 
 The first of these professes to be devoted entirely to the educa- 
 tion of girls. It would require, however, only a proper examination 
 to prove that, with the exception of needlework, hardly anything is 
 taught excepting prayers and the catechism; the instruction in reading, 
 writing, etc., in fact, amounting to very little, and often to nothing. 
 This Convent is adjacent to that next to be spoken of, being separated 
 from it only by a wall. The second professes to be a charitable m- 
 stitution for the care of the sick, and the supply of bread and medicines 
 for the poor; and something is done in these departments of charity, 
 although but an insignificant amount, compared with the size of the 
 buildings and the number of the inmates. 
 
 The Gray Nunnery, which is situated in a distant part of the 
 city, is also a large edifice, containing departments for the care of 
 insane persons and foundlings. With this, however, I have less per- 
 sonal acquaintance than with either of the others. I have often seen 
 two of the Grey nuns, and know that their rules as well as the Con- 
 gregational Nunnery, do not confine them always within their walls, 
 like those of the Black Nunnery. These two Convents have their 
 common names (Black and Grey) from the colors of the dresses worn 
 by their inmates. 
 
 In all these three Convents, there are certain apartments into 
 which strangers can gain admittance, but others from which they are 
 always excluded. In all, large quantities of various ornaments are made 
 by the nuns, which are exposed for sale in the Ornament rooms, and 
 afford large pecuniary receipts every year, which contribute rnuch 
 to their incomes. In these rooms visitors often purchase such thmgs 
 as please them from some of the old and confidential nuns who have 
 the charge of them. 
 
 From all that appeals to the public eye, the nuns of these Con- 
 vents are devoted to the charitable objects appropriate to each, the 
 labor of making different articles, known to be manufactured by 
 them, and the religious observances, which occupy a large portion 
 of their time. 1 hey are regarded with much respect by the people 
 at large; and now and then when a novice takes the veil she is 
 supposed to retire from the temptations and troubles of this world 
 into a state of holy seclusion, where by prayer, self-mortification, 
 and good deeds, she prepares herself for heaven. Sometimes the 
 Superior of a Convent obtains the character of working miracles; and 
 when such a one dies, it is published throughout the country, and 
 crowds throng the Convent, who think indulgences are to be de- 
 rived from bits of her clothes or other things she has possessed; and 
 many have sent articles to be touched to her bed or chair, in which 
 a degree of virtue is thought to remain. I used to participate in 
 
20 
 
 such ideas and feelings, and began by degrees to look upon a nun 
 as the happiest of women, and a Convent as the most peaceful, holy, 
 and delightful place of abode. It is true, some pains were taken to 
 impress such views upon me. Some of the priests of the Seminary 
 often visited the Congregational Nunnery and both catechised and 
 talked with us on religion. The Superior of the Black Nunnery, 
 adjoining, also, occasionally came into the school, enlarged on the 
 advantages we enjoyed in having such teachers, and dropped some- 
 thing now and then relating to her own Convent, calculated to make 
 us entertain the highest ideas of it, and to make us sometimes think 
 of the possibility of getting into it. 
 
 Among the instructions given us by the priests some of the most 
 pointed were those directed against the Protestant Bible. They often 
 enlarged upon the evil tendency of that book, and told us that but for it 
 many a soul now condmned to hell, and suffering eternal punishment, 
 might have been in happiness. They could not say anything in its 
 favor; for that would be speaking against religion and against God. 
 They warned us against it, and represented it as a thing very dan- 
 gerous to our souls. In confirmation of this, they would repeat some 
 of the answers taught us at catechism, a few of which I will here 
 give. We had little catechisms ("Le Petit Catechism") put into our 
 hands to study; but the priests soon began to teach us a new set of 
 answers, which were not to be found in our books, and from some of 
 M'hich I received new ideas, and got, as I thought, important light 
 on religious subjects, which confirmed me more and more in my 
 belief in the Roman Catholic doctrines. These questions and answers 
 I can still recall with tolerable accuracy, and some of them I will 
 add here. I never have read them, as we were taught them only by 
 word of mouth. 
 
 Q. Why did not God make all the commandments? 
 
 A. Because man is not strong enough to keep them. 
 
 Q. Why are men not to read the New Testament? 
 
 A. Because the mind of man is too limited to understand what 
 God has written. 
 
 There was a little girl thirteen years old whom I knew in the 
 school, who resided in the neighborhood of my mother, and with 
 whom I had been familiar. She told me one day at school of the 
 conduct of a priest with her at confession, at which I was astonished. 
 It was of so criminal and shameful a nature, I could hardly believe it, 
 and yet I had so much confidence that she spoke the truth, that I 
 could not discredit it. 
 
 She was partly persuaded by the priest to believe that he could 
 not sin, because he was a priest, and that anything he did to her 
 would sanctify her; and yet she seemed doubtful how she should 
 act. A priest, she had been told by him, is a holy man, and ap- 
 pointed to a holy office, and therefore what would be wicked in other 
 men, could not be so in him. She told me that she had informed 
 her mother of it, who expressed no anger, nor disapprobation, but 
 only enjoined it upon her not to speak of it; and remarked to her, 
 that as priests were not like other men, but holy, and sent to instruct 
 and save us, whatever they did was right. 
 
 I afterwards confessed to the priest that I had heard the story, 
 and had a penance to perform for indulging a sinful curiosity in making 
 inquiries; and the girl had another for communicating it. I afterward 
 learned that other children had been treated in the same manner, and 
 also of similar proceedings in other places. 
 
 Indeed, it was not long before such language was used to me, 
 
21 
 
 and I well remember how my views of right and wrong were shaken 
 by it. Another girl at the school, from a place above Montreal, called 
 the Lac, told me the following story of what had occurred recently 
 in that vicinity. A young squaw, called La Belle Marie (pretty 
 Mary), had been seen going to confession at the house of the priest, 
 who lived a little out of the village. La Belle Marie was afterwards 
 missed, and her murdered body was found in the river. A knife was 
 also found, covered with blood, bearing the priest's name. Great 
 indignation was excited among the Indians, and the priest immediately 
 absconded, and was never heard from again. A note was found on 
 his table addressed to him, telling him to fly if he was guilty. 
 
 It was supposed that the priest was fearful that his conduct might 
 be betrayed by this young female; and he undertook to clear himself 
 by killing her. 
 
 These stories struck me with surprise at first, but I gradually 
 began to feel differently, even supposing them true, and to look upon 
 the priests as men incapable of sin; besides, when I first went to 
 confession, which I did to Father Richards, in the old French church 
 ((since taken down), I heard nothing improper; and it was not until 
 I had been several times, that the priests became more and more 
 bold, and were at length indecent in their questions and even in their 
 conduct when I confessed to them in the Sacristie. This subject 
 I believe is not understood nor suspected among Protestants; and 
 it is not my intention to speak of it very particularly, because it is 
 impossible to do so wthout saying things both shameful and de- 
 moralizing. 
 
 I will only say here, that when quite a child, I had from the 
 mouths of the priests at confession what I cannot repeat, with treat- 
 ment corresponding; and several females in Canada have recently 
 assured me that they have repeatedly, and indeed regularly, been 
 required to answer the same and other like questions, many of which 
 present to the mind deeds which the most iniquitous and corrupt heart 
 could hardly invent. 
 
 At length I determined to become a Black nun, and called upon 
 one of the oldest priests in the Seminary, to whom I made known my 
 intention. 
 
 The old priest to whom I applied was Father Rocque. He is still 
 alive. He was at that time the oldest priest in the Seminary, and 
 carried the Bon Dieu (Good God), as the sacramental water is called. 
 When going with a man before him, who rang a bell as a signal 
 to administer it in any country place, he used to ride. When the 
 Canadians, whose habitations he passed, heard it, they would come 
 and prostrate themselves to the earth, worshipping it as God. He 
 was a man of great age, and wore large curls, so that he somewhat 
 resembled his predecessor, Father Roue. He was at that time at 
 the head of the Seminary. This institution is a large edifice situated 
 near the Congregational and Black Nunneries, being on the east side 
 of Notre Dame street. It is the general rendezvous and centre of 
 ' all the priests in the District of Montreal, and, I have been told, 
 supplies all the country with priests as far down as Three Rivers, 
 which place, I believe, is under the charge of the Seminary of Quebec. 
 About one hundred and fifty priests are connected with that of Mon- 
 treal, as every small place has one priest, and a number of larger ones 
 have two. 
 
 Father Rocque promised to converse with the Superior of the 
 Convent, and proposed my calling again, at the end of two weeks. 
 
22 
 
 at which time I visited the Seminary again, and was introduced by 
 him to the Superior of the Black Nunnery. She told me she must 
 make some inquiries, before she could give me a decided answer; 
 and proposed to me to take up my abode a few days at the house 
 of a French family in St. Lawrence suburbs, a distant part of the 
 city. Here I remained about a fortnight; during which time I formed 
 some acquaintance with the family, particularly with the mistress of 
 the house, who was a devoted Papist, and had a b'gh respect for the 
 Superior, with whom she stood on good terms. 
 
 At length, on Saturday morning about 10 o'clock, I called and 
 was admitted into the Black Nunnery, as a novice, much to my satis- 
 faction, for I had a high idea of a life in a Convent, secluded, as I 
 supposed the inmates to be, from the world and all its evil influences, 
 and assured of everlasting happiness in heaven. The Superior re- 
 ceived me, and conducted me into a large room, where the novices 
 (who are called in French Protulantes), were assembled, and engaged 
 in their customary occupation of sewing. 
 
 Here were about forty of them, and they were collected in groups 
 in different parts of the room, chiefly near the windows; but in each 
 group was found one of the veiled nuns of the Convent, whose abode 
 was in the interior apartments, to which no novice was to be admitted. 
 As we entered, the Superior informed the assembly that a new novice 
 had come, and she desired any present who might have known me 
 in the world to signify it. 
 
 Two Miss Fougnees, and a Miss Howard, from Vermont, who 
 had been my fellow-pupils in the Congregational Nunnery, immediately 
 recognized me." 
 
 This much of Maria Monk's narrative is given in order 
 that it may be seen how definitely she mentions places, names, 
 and events, and how fearlessly she opens the widest door to 
 denial and refutation. She does not talk like the maker of a 
 myth, but with the plain straight-forwardness of one telling a 
 true tale. 
 
 When her dynamic book came from the press of Harper 
 Brothers, it was almost as eagerly read as was the New Testa- 
 ment of Erasmus, and the German Bilile of Luther. A pro- 
 found, national sensation was felt. Even in England, the 
 Romanists quaked at the consequences of these fearful revela- 
 tions. 
 
 The priests denied that Maria Monk had ever been a nun ; 
 then they alleged that she had been one. but had been expelled 
 because she was bad; then they said that she had merely copied 
 a Portuguese book, a hundred years old ; then they said that 
 the Nunnery was not constructed as Maria had described it. and , 
 that it had no underground passage. 
 
 Finally, the priests said that Maria Monk had always been 
 a woman of bad character, a prostitute and a drunkard, and 
 that she had died wretchedly in the insane asylum on Black well's 
 Island. 
 
 The Romanists allege that Bloody Queen Marv and her 
 
23 
 
 bilious spouse, Philip II. of Spain, were virtuously amiable 
 persons and that Queen Elizabeth and Martin Luther were 
 tools of' the Deivl. The Romanists see may thmgs to admire in 
 the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and many a good word is 
 being said for the Inquisition. The Romanists are confident 
 that Torquemada and the Duke of Alva had kmd hearts and 
 are certain that the Jesuits did right to murder Henry IV. and the 
 Prince of Orange. 
 
 When the Romanist mind takes colors of that kind, truth 
 liecomes a negligible matter. 
 
 What is the truth about Maria Monk? A Romanist and 
 ^ Jesuit— one M. J. Walsh, of Augusta, Georgia— roundly as- 
 serted in a recent issue of The Sunday Visitor, a leading Catholic 
 paper, that "There never was a Maria Monk case!" 
 
 Let us examine the record: let us weigh the evidence: let 
 us see whether there ever was a Maria Monk case— a fact which 
 we might easily believe, after we learn that even the Romanists 
 admit that there zvas a Maria Monk. 
 
 Too astute and too cowardly to prosecute the Harper Brothers 
 and Maria Monk, the priests took up the weapons of Jesuitism. 
 
 \ bulky book called "Maria Monk's Daughter," was pub- 
 lished in New York by the U. S. Publishing Co.— whatever that 
 concern may have been. It was probably a nice, patriotic name 
 to cover a Roman Catholic publisher. In this volume, a Mrs. 
 L. St. John Eckel," strives to show up her own mother, as an 
 imposter and a bawd ! 
 
 The loyal daughter says in her story that she wrote her book 
 at the command of a priest. This admission, of course, puts the 
 royal o. k. on the work. 
 
 The Eckel woman asesrts that Maria Monk was Mrs. St. 
 John, and says of her. "She was my mother, and I hated her." 
 
 The narrative of Mrs. Eckel is so confused, and so very 
 much in contrast to the simple clearness of Maria Monk's, that 
 it is difficult to follow and untangle her statements. 
 
 Mrs Eckel apparently means to be understood as saying 
 that her father and mother were always fussing ; that her father 
 ijerjured himself in the lame effort to steal some property; 
 that his neighbors detested him, and that her mother and he 
 separated because her mother was so much worse than her father 
 But vet Mrs Eckel declared that her father was a descendant of 
 Lord Bolingbroke, and had the best blood of Old England in 
 his veins. We must assume then, that Mrs. Eckel "took after 
 her mother. 
 
 Of the pitiable end of Maria Monk, this extraordinay 
 
24 
 
 daughter says, with a pathos of which she appeared to be un- 
 conscious : 
 
 "At last when my mother was sent to Blackwell's Island, 
 my sister would often prevail upon the boatmen to let her go over 
 with the convicts; and, when she got there, our mother would al- 
 ways be waiting for her; and her first words would be : 'Have 
 you heard front the children? When shall I see them again?" 
 
 No word about yourself, poor Maria Monk ! No complaint 
 of your own base treatment and your living death ! No : nothing 
 but the mother's wail, heard all round the world, since the day 
 Eve caught the cold form of Abel to her maternal bosom. The old, 
 old cry of Ramah — Rachel weeping for her children ! 
 
 "When did you hear from my children ? When shall I ever 
 see them again?" 
 
 The malignant old Jesuit. Cardinal Gibbons, says in his shame- 
 lessly lying book : 
 
 "God avenged the crime of two and forty boys who mocked 
 the prophet Eliseus by sending wild beasts to tear them to pieces. 
 The frightful death of Maria Monk, the caluminator of conse- 
 crated Priests and Virgins, who ended her life a drunken maniac 
 on Blackwell's Island, proves that our religious institutions are 
 not to me mocked with impunity." 
 
 Of course, if Gibbons wants to believe, literally, that two 
 little Jewish she-bears ate 42 Jew boys, at one bait, because the 
 boys had reminded Eliseus that he was bald-headed, it is Gibbons' 
 privilege to do it, there being no law against the literal construction 
 of any Biblical allegory, parable, or folk lore. But when the 
 artful Cardinal argues that the Almighty will not permit people 
 to tell the truth on "consecrated Priests and Virgins," I must 
 remind him that no bears, and no drunken mania destroyed 
 Erasmus, Blanco White, Pope Gregory XII., Joseph McCabe, 
 William Crowley, Rev. Justin D. Fulton, Charles Chiniquy, 
 Bishop Manuel Ferrando, ex-Priest P. A. Seguin, Rev. William 
 Hogan, or the inipuitous men who publish The Menace and 
 The Jeffersonian. 
 
 There are many omissions in the "Maria Monk's Daughter" 
 which cannot be explained. It is not stated when, where and of 
 what parentage, "mother" was born ; it is not stated when, where, 
 and under what circumstances, "mother" was married to St. John ; 
 it is not stated when, where, and how "mother" misbehaved 
 herself ; it is not stated when, by whom, and what evidence, 
 "mother" was sentenced to Blackwell's Island. It is not stated 
 that the "Daughter" was present when "mother" was tried, nor 
 that the Daughter ever visited the imprisoned motb.er ; nor tbat 
 
25 
 
 the daughter knew when her mother died, how she died, and 
 where she was buried. 
 
 It is not stated where, when, and in what circumstances 
 "father" died, although the Daughter was ravenously fond of 
 "father." It is not stated who were the neighbors and the bar- 
 keepers who knew of "mother's" dissolute habits. 
 
 Great pains are taken to embellish Daughter's book with a 
 picture of her own lovable self, and of several hard-faced, nut- 
 cracker aunts of hers; but no picture of father or mother is 
 presented. In fact, there is the strangest avoidance of names, 
 dates, and corroborating incidents, the very things so necessary 
 to be a book of this character. 
 
 The mother's narrative was published in 1836; the Daughter's 
 attack, in 1874: the prudent priests and the dutiful Daughter 
 patiently waited 38 years before assailing the dead. 
 
 A good many witnesses can die, disappear, or be silenced in 
 38 years. Against the dead woman, were the organizations of 
 the most powerful and criminal church that ever cursed the 
 world : in favor of the dead, there was nothing, save the intrinsic 
 evidences of truth borne in her plain, connected, circumstantial 
 narrative, supplemented by the affidavits of a few persons who 
 knew Maria Monk, but who could not possibh- know what had 
 been done to her in the Nunnery. 
 
 There is at least one redeeming feature about "Daughter": 
 she paints herself almost as black as she paints "mother." She 
 seems to exult in the fact that she was a hell-cat, that her uncle 
 declared she was possessed of the Devil, that her aunt said she 
 v/ould come to some bad end, and that she separated from her 
 husband, Eckel, who appears to have died in consequence of 
 writing a few stanzas of extremely sad. and deplorablv bad 
 poetry. 
 
 "Daughter's" uncle and aunt were both right : Daughter 
 zvas possessed of a Devil, else she would never have desecrated 
 the grave of her mother ; and she did come to a bad end, for she 
 flopped to the Roman Catholic Church, and exhibited her asinine 
 qualities by giving her name to one of the falsest books that 
 Rome ever caused to be published. 
 
 As I have indicated, there is not a single shred of evidence 
 produced in this vile book to support its statements. No letter 
 of corroboration, no affidavit, no document, no transcript from 
 any record. 
 
 It will occur to every intelligent reader, that the very first 
 requisites to such a work as that of "Maria Monk's Daughter," 
 would have been a transcript of the court sentence ivhich con- 
 demned Maria Monk to BlackwelVs Island, and a transcript from 
 the books kept there, to show what became of her. No such 
 
26 
 
 documentary evidence has yet been forthcoming. Nor has 
 anyone ever produced an affidavit, from neighbor, bar-keeper, 
 brothel-keeper, or others, to substantiate the charge that Maria 
 Monk was a drunkard and a prostitute. 
 
 It must be clear to you that the Harper Brothers did not 
 assume the risks and responsibilities of such a book as the "Awful 
 Disclosures," without having made careful inquiries into her 
 antecedents. If the book had been a tissue of falsehoods, the 
 Harper Brothers could have been ruined by libel suits and pro- 
 secutions. 
 
 It must be equally clear to you that if Maria Monk after- 
 wards became a drunkard and a prostitute, her persecutors would 
 have gathered up affidavits by the dozen, and published them at 
 that time. 
 
 How did they get her into the asylum for the insane? God 
 knows. Read "Hard Cash," and learn how easily it can be 
 done. Probably no day passes that does not see some victim of 
 greed, or of lust, or of revenge put out of sight, to be seen no 
 more of men forever. Some are buried alive in convents, some 
 in brothels, some in lunatic asylums. 
 
 Why should an\- woman, in a book issued in her life-time, 
 falsely confess that she had been raped, held in vile relations 
 to priests, and forced to bear the children of fornication? What 
 possible benefit could she hope to obtain by such a relation of 
 her own shame, and such a libellous publication against living 
 persons whose names she gave? Why did the Mother Superior 
 of the Black Nunnery never dare to prosecute Maria Monk and 
 the Harper Brothers? 
 
 The Romanists are swift enogh to prosecute people who 
 reveal the truth about Roman Catholic thelogy ; and they do not 
 deny that what these defendants published is the truth : but they 
 did not dare to prosecute Maria Monk, nor the New York pub- 
 lishers of her book. Why not? 
 
 THEY WERE AFRAID TO FACE HER IN COURT! 
 
 They hounded her, with the cowardice and savagery of wolves ; 
 they slandered her and isolated her ; they terrorized the poor 
 creature so ruthlessly and persistently that her reason gave way, 
 and she did die a raving maniac. 
 
 For no greater cause, the mind of the Empress Carlotta 
 failed her, when the benevolent Pope Pius IX. coldly, pitilessly, 
 refused to lift a finger to save Maximilian, the Hapsburgh arch- 
 duke whom the Jesuits and Pope Pius had sent to despotize over 
 the Mexicans. 
 
 One night, in 1905, I lay very sick in the Victoria Hotel, 
 New York; and my physician. Dr. John H. Girdner, relieved 
 
27 
 
 the dreariness of the hours by telHng me of the fate of a young 
 German who had followed Frankie Folsome to this country. 
 The unfortunate youth called himself Bauer, and claimed to be- 
 long to the lesser nobility of a small Germanic state. He may 
 liae been the son of Caroline Bauer, the known mistress of a 
 German prince who lived with her a while in England. 
 
 Young Bauer, a fine, intelligent, manly fellow, — had become 
 acquainted with Frankie Folsome in Europe — so he said. 
 
 Anyway, he followed her to this country, and became very 
 annoying and obnoxious to Grover Cleveland. The German 
 labored under the delusion that Miss Folsome was his betrothed, 
 and that Mr. Cleveland had unfairly cut him out. He was quite 
 frantic about it, and very importunate in his demands for an 
 interview with his lost lady. 
 
 What did Mr. Cleveland do to rid himself of the nuisance? 
 He secured the affidavits of several doctors — three, as I remember 
 — who deposed and swore that the young German was crazy. 
 Immediately, without further proceedings, he was confined at one 
 of the New York institutions for the insane — possibly Blackwell's 
 Island. 
 
 Was the man insane ? Who knows ? But if it is so easy as 
 all that, to bury a stalwart young man alive, when he has annoyed 
 one Protestant family, how much easier is it for the powerful 
 Roman organizations to make way with one troublesome and 
 friendless old woman ! 
 
 In Ireland and in England the "Awful Disclosures of Maria 
 Monk" created a panic among the papists. They, too, got in 
 motion, and published "the facts" against the "imposter." I have 
 a copy of "The True History of Maria Mork," sponsored by 
 The Catholic Truth Society, of London ; and. according to the 
 fly-leaf. 102,000 have been distributed. 
 
 The Catholic Truth Society presents an affidavit alleged to 
 have been made by Dr. William Robertson, a Justice of the Peace. 
 This medical jurist deposes and says that three men- — ^names 
 not given — brought "a young female" to his house on November 
 9, 1834, and that the three men said that the young female called 
 herself Maria Monk, and asserted that Dr. Robertson was her 
 father! 
 
 The three men had seized upon the young female, "on the 
 banks of the canal, near the extremity of the St. Joseph's suburbs, 
 acting in a manner which induced some people zvho saw her to 
 think that she intended to drown herself." 
 
 According to the medical J. P., the three mysterious men 
 brought the young female directly to his house from the canal. 
 Further on in his affidavit he makes this statement : 
 
28 
 
 "To remove her from the watch-house, where she was con- 
 fined with some of the most profligate women of the town, taken 
 up for inbriety and disorderly conduct on the streets, as she could 
 not give a satisfactory account of herself, I, as a Justice of the 
 Peace, sent her to gaol as a vagrant." 
 
 Yet he knew that her father had lived in the city and was 
 named W. Monk. 
 
 "In the course of a few days she was released from the gaol." 
 Why? If she was in truth a vagabond and her commitment to 
 jail, legal, what caused her release in a few days without any 
 trial ? 
 
 The medical jurist further deposes that he felt it incumbent 
 on himself to investigate the whereabouts of Maria Monk during 
 the years she claimed to have lived in the Nunnery. This most 
 diligent of Medico-Justices discovered that the summer of 1832 
 was passed by Maria at William Henry, ivhere she zvas in service : 
 the winter of 1832-3 "she passed in this neighborhood of St. 
 Ours and St. Denis. The accounts given of her conduct that 
 season, corroborate the opinions I had before entertained of her 
 character." 
 
 Any affidavits of the employers in whose service she passed 
 the summer? Nokc. Any letter, or signed statement about "her 
 conduct that season" ? None. Any names of employer or ac- 
 quaintances of Maria mentioned? None. 
 
 That Robertson may have had some woman sent to jail is 
 probable enough, but he took abundant precautions against im- 
 peacliment as to Maria Monk, for he does not name the three 
 men who seized the young female on the canal, he does not fur- 
 nish a copy of the gaol-book entry, he does not say in whose 
 service the woman was employed, nor does he name a single 
 person that told him of her bad conduct. Indeed, he does not 
 specify what her "conduct" consisted of, but shuns specification 
 by saying it corroborated his prejudgment. 
 
 Dr. Robertson's testimony — vague as it is and never sub- 
 jected to cross-examination — cannot be reconciled with that of 
 Maria Monk's Daughter. If the one is true, the other is false; 
 and the most charitable view which can be taken of Dr. Robertson's 
 affidavit is, that the "young female" of whom he speaks was not 
 Maria Monk. 
 
 Following Dr. Robertson, comes the mother of Maria Monk, 
 and her evidence, as published by the Catholic Truth Society, 
 is an amazing contradiction of both Robertson and the "Daugh- 
 ter." The mother's affidavit was taken by Dr. Robertson him- 
 self, and is dated nearly a month aJiead of his. Yet, in his own 
 evidence, the Doctor does not mention Maria's mother, nor any 
 of the alleged facts disclosed by her. 
 
 The mother states that in August, 1835, a man named Hoyte 
 
29 
 
 brought her daughter Maria Monk to Montreal, and that Maria 
 then had a child five weeks old. Hoyte and Maria had come 
 from New York and put up at the Goodenough Tavern. Hoyte 
 was a preacher, and he and two other preachers — one named 
 Brewster — endeavored to bribe Maria's mother to swear that 
 Maria had been a nun. 
 
 There was a Mrs. Tarbert who testified as follows : 
 
 "I knew the said Maria Monk: last spring, she told me that 
 the father of the child she was then carrying was burned in Mr. 
 Owsten's house. Last summer she came back to my lodgings 
 and told me that she had made out the father of her child. The 
 next morning I found that she was in a house of bad fame, where 
 I went for her. 
 
 Maria Monk then told me that the father of her child wanted 
 her to swear an oath that would lose her soul forever. 
 
 I then told Maria, 'Do not lose your soul for money.' " 
 
 Now let us sum up these three affidavits : 
 
 In November, 1834, three unnamed men prevent Maria Monk 
 from jumping into the canal, and Dr. Robertson flings her into 
 the calaboose with lewd women, "as a vagrant." Nothing against 
 her can be proved, and she is released in a few days. 
 
 In August, 1835, Maria comes to Montreal from New York, 
 with a baby, and a man named Hoyte; and Hoyte, at the insti- 
 gation of the Devil and his own wicked mind, repeatedly tempts 
 old Mrs. Monk, proposing to protect her for life, if she will 
 swear that Maria had been a nun. St. Bridget fortifies the 
 virtue of old Mrs. Monk, and she says to Hoyte, in effect, "Get 
 behind me, Satan." 
 
 Whereupon, the repulsed Hoyte takes Maria, and retires into 
 a suburb of Montreal, where the two (and the baby) dwell to- 
 gether in sinful satisfaction. 
 
 In the Spring of 1834, three months before the Hoyte epi- 
 sode, Maria Monk told Mrs. Tarbert that the father of her child 
 (Maria's) got burned in Mr. Owsten's house; and we must as- 
 sume that he was killed by it. But "last Summer" — which would 
 be June, July or August. Mrs. Tarbert finds Maria in a house of 
 ill fame. 
 
 The priests who got up this absurdly jumbled booklet had 
 no skill in the management of evidence, and no gift of critical 
 analysis. 
 
 If Mrs. Tarbert meant the Spring and Summer of 1835, she 
 smashes the affidavit of old Mrs. Monk. But if Mrs. Tarbert 
 meant the Spring and Summer of 1834, she smashes that of Dr. 
 Robertson. 
 
 In October, 1835. Mrs. Tarbert testified to where Maria 
 
30 
 
 Monk was "last Spring" and "last Summer" ; and she puts Maria 
 in a bawdy house in Montreal, where the Monk family lived. 
 
 When one of us, in October, says "last Spring," or "last 
 Summer," the meaning is generally understood to be, those sea- 
 sons of the same year. In that case, Mrs. Monk is flatly contra- 
 dicted by Mrs. Tarbert, for if Maria was the inmate of a brothel 
 in Montreal, the Summer of 1835, her mother could not have 
 truthfully sworn that she came from New York, with Hoyte, 
 the same Summer! 
 
 Besides, a respectable hotel, like Goodenough's, would not 
 have entertained a Montreal courtesan as one of its respectable 
 guests. 
 
 There is one fact which proves that Mrs. Tarbert meant the 
 Spring and Summer of 1835 : it is the age of the baby! 
 
 Old Mrs. Monk swears that "in August, 1835," the child of 
 Maria was five weeks old; and Mrs. Tarbert swears that she knew 
 Maria was with child in the Spring and Summer. Then, neces- 
 sarily, it was the Spring and Summer of 1835. 
 
 But what was Maria doing in a brothel when so near con- 
 finement? and how did she go from Montreal to New York, 
 strike up with Hoyte, and reappear at Montreal with a five-weeks 
 baby in August? 
 
 In the war of affidavits which followed the publication of 
 the "Awful Disclosures," the defenders of the ruined nun, were 
 neither few nor timid. I present the more important testimonials 
 in her behalf : 
 
 First, there was a statement signed by seven men certify- 
 ing that they were acquainted with Maria Monk, and that they 
 believed her revelations as to the Black Nunnery to be true. The 
 signers were W. C. Brownler, John J. Slocum. Andrew Bruce, 
 D. Fanshaw, David Wesson, and Thomas Hogan. 
 
 Second, there was the affidavit of William Miller, which 
 follows : 
 
 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 her father's 
 family. My father, Mr. Adam Miller, kept the government school 
 at St. John's, Lower Canada, for some years. Captain William 
 Monk, Maria's father, lived in the garrison a short distance from the 
 village, and she attended the school with me for some months, proba- 
 bly 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. 
 
31 
 
 Monk was then keeper of the Government House in Montreal, and 
 received a pension which privilege she has since njoyed. 
 
 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 his 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 an 
 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 favor, 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 in those persons acquainted with Canada. 
 
 WILLIAM MILLER. 
 
 Sworn before me, this 3d day of March, 1836. 
 
 BENJ. p. K. CRAIG, 
 Commissioner of Deeds. 
 
 No attempt was ever made to impeach William Miller. In 
 the book of the "Daughter," he is not mentioned, nor is Cap- 
 tain William Monk named at all. The vi^idovir, Mrs. William 
 Monk, never returned to contradict Miller; and, yet, he had 
 mentioned the time and place of inquiry concerning the where- 
 abouts of Maria. If the girl had not gone to school with Miller 
 as he testified, there would have been no difficulty in proving him 
 a liar, by some of the scholars, or by some member of the 
 garrison. 
 
 Third : 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN HILLIKER. 
 (From the New York Journal of Commerce.) 
 "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-mile stone, 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 color), 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 our com- 
 panions 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, 
 
32 
 
 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 further 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 drowned in the East River, she earnestly desired me never to 
 speak of her. 
 
 "I asked if she had had any food that day, to which she an- 
 swered no; and I gave her money to get some at the grocery of Mr. 
 Cox, in the neighborhood. She left me; but I afterwards saw her 
 in the fields, going towards the river; and after much urgency pre- 
 vailed upon her to go to a house where I thought she might be ac- 
 commodated, offering to pay her expenses. Failing in this attempt, 
 I persuaded her, with much difficulty, to go to the alms-house; and 
 there we got her received, after I had promised to call to 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 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 of her name, I could not make it 
 understood whom I wished to see, and did not see her until 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 recognized 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 recognizd me. I have 
 not found in the book anything 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 day of March, 1835. 
 
 "PETER JENKINS, 
 "Commissioner of Deeds." 
 
33 
 
 The Protestant I'hidicator, of New York, took up the cause 
 of the persecuted woman, and pubhshed a challenge to the very 
 priests whose names had been mentioned by Maria Monk. That 
 dare to the Romanists appeared on April 6, 1836. 
 
 It was addressed to the Roman Prelate and Priests of Mon- 
 treal — Messrs. Conroy, Quarter and Schneller, of New York — 
 Messrs. Fenwick and Byrne, of Boston — Mr. Hughes, of Phila- 
 delphia—the Arch-Prelate of Baltimore, and his subordinate 
 priests, and also to Bishop England, of Charleston, South Carolina. 
 The terms of the challenge were : 
 
 "To meet an investigation of the truth of Maria Monk's 'Awful 
 Disclosures,' before an impartial assembly, over vi^hich 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 regu- 
 lations 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 superi- 
 ors, addressed to the Corresponding Secretary of the New York 
 Protestant Association, No. 142 Nassau street. New York, will be 
 promptly answered." 
 
 This challenge was published for several weeks, and nobody 
 ventured to accept it. Afraid of a show-down, afraid to meet 
 the woman they had so foully wronged, the Romanists slunk 
 back in guilty silence, preferring to trust to their favorite weapons, 
 slanders, abuse, falsehoods, denials, and defamation of character. 
 
 What hope of fair treatment could Maria Monk cherish, 
 when her traducers are the same that seek to defile the purity 
 of Martin Luther and his wife? 
 
 The challenge of the Protestant Vindicator was accompanied 
 by the following editorial : 
 
 "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 alle- 
 gations are distinctly made, the place is mentioned, the parties are 
 named, and the time is designated; for it is lasting as the annual re- 
 volutions of the seasons. And what is most extraordinary — the highest 
 official authorities in Canada know that all these statements are true. 
 
34 
 
 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 deah-like quietude of the 
 Convent cell; and as retired as if they w^ere in the subterraneous pas- 
 sages betwreen the Nunnery and Lartique'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 Pro- 
 testant country. Whatever disregard for the judgment of others, 
 the Romish priests may have felt, where the inquisition was 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 Pro- 
 testants, 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 de- 
 lineated — 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 — that 
 the toleration of the monastic system in the United States and Britain, 
 the only two countries in the world, in which that unnatural abomina- 
 tion 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 con- 
 tinuance of that prodigious wickedness which is inseparable from 
 Nunneries and the celibacy of popish priests, they will ere long ex- 
 perience 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 com- 
 forts 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 more than one insertion." (Here it was 
 repeated.) 
 
 (Jther testimonials purporting to come from schoolmates and 
 acquaintances of Maria Mank were published, and vouched for 
 by the Protestant Vindicator, which was in possession of the 
 names of the witnesses ; but, as there is no way for me to learn 
 these names. I exclude that part of the record. 
 
 As already stated, the Catholic paper. Sunday Visitor, which 
 has the largest general circulation claimed by any papal organ, 
 published an extremely bold article by the Jesuit, M. J. Walsh, 
 roundly denying the Maria Monk story, and affirming that there 
 never had been sucii a case. In other words, no woman had ever 
 been wronged in a convent in the manner described by Maria 
 Monk. 
 
 As nunneries have existed for a thousand years, confining 
 millions of women in a forlorn state of helplessness, and giv- 
 ing millions of bachelor priests imlimited power over these im- 
 
35 
 
 prisoned women, you will at once realize how comprehensive 
 is the statement of Walsh. If not a single one of those Maria 
 Monks was ever wronged by the unmarried men who had access 
 to them, much false evidence has been given by Popes, Councils, 
 Bishops, priests, monks. Sisters, and Romanist writers. 
 
 The Jesuit Walsh cited Appleton's Encyclopedia, wherein 
 Maria Monk, he said, was rated as an impostor. I happened 
 to have a copy of the original edition of that work, issued in the 
 year^ 1856, and Maria Monk's name is not mentioned. It had 
 no right to a place there, for the reason that she is not a historic 
 character. A poor, ruined, flung-adrift nun, hounded by the 
 relentless wolves of Rome— what business had her name in a 
 Cyclopedia of illustrious men and women? None of the bio- 
 graphical dictionaries or encyclopedias mentioned Maria Monk — 
 until zvhenf Not until recent years when Rome systematically 
 set to work to re-write history, re-write encyclopedias, re-write 
 school-books, and to even emasculate Protestant literature. 
 
 Thus it happens that in 1888. the Appleton Encyclopedia 
 of Biography does mention Maria Monk as an impostor. A 
 Romanist writer compiled that libel, and Romanist money no 
 ('oubt paid for the space it occupies. Even the Encyclopedia 
 Brittanica has knelt to Rome, a)id the Jesuits have written thirty 
 of the articles for the 11th edition of that deteriorating work. 
 
 Probably Maria Monk will now figure in the Brittanica, and 
 of course she will appear as an impostor. 
 
 In making a reply to W^ilsh in The Jeffersonian, I stated that 
 the Romanists waited for the death of all the. witnesses, before 
 they began to doctor the books, and to deny that there ever was 
 a Maria Monk case. My statement brought forth two letters 
 which show how nearly correct the Romanists were in presuming 
 that Time had mowed down all of those who personally knew the 
 unfortunate victim of the Black Nunnery. 
 
 The first is from G. Major Taber, of Los Angeles, Cali- 
 fornia : 
 
 My Dear PIditor: In your issue of March 9th, I notice that a 
 Jesuit by the name of Walsh claims "There never was a Maria Monk 
 case. ' 
 
 Now, Mr. Editor, if you will courteously allow me to have a friendly 
 chat with the readers of The Jeffersonian, as I desire to present a few 
 tacts relatmg to the above, and being from a personal knowledge and 
 observation, ought to settle the question as to the facts in the above 
 case. 
 
 When a young mail of eighteen, I travelled through nearly every 
 city and village from Quebec to Ottawa as a Daguerrian artist for 
 
36 
 
 over three years, and have taken pictures of dead nuns in their con- 
 vents. 
 
 In 1850 I resided for six months in a village opposite Montreal, 
 where Maria Monk was born, and where her family lived, and I made 
 special inquiry of an old Catholic who had known her from childhood, 
 if Maria Monk had told the truth in her book. His answer was: 
 "There is no doubt about it." 
 
 I learned also that when the sewers of the "Hotel Dieu" nunnery 
 were cleaned out, that scores of infant skulls and bones were dis- 
 covered. 
 
 Not only that, but I learned that there was a change made in 
 
 A WELL-KNOWN PRIEST. 
 
 all of the rooms of the nunnery, in the attempt to disprove the descrip- 
 tion she had given in her book. 
 
 Now, gentle reader, I have no licsitation in claiming that, if this 
 Jesuit Walsh asserts that the "Maria Monk case was a fabrication," 
 he is either an ignoramus or a liar, as I know from personal knowledge 
 from Catholics not long after, and during the year 1850, that she did 
 not misrepresent the facts claimed in her book. 
 
 Allow me to state further that when in Montreal at one time I 
 winessed a long string of "Pietists" marching through the street, and 
 because I failed to doff my hat, and bow my head when they passed, 
 a Catholic police scoundrel rapped me on my head with his billy. That's 
 Catholicism. How would you have liked such treatment? 
 
 In order for the readers of The Jeffersonian to learn what re- 
 
Z7 
 
 liance they may have as to my reHabihty, allow me to state, with 
 usual modesty, that, although a Northern man, I spent over three 
 years in the employ of Uncle Sam, and five years as a resident of 
 Decatur, Alabama. I purchased the first plantation sold to a North- 
 ern man after the war, in 1865, and raised cotton for three years. I 
 know the Southern people well, and they were among my best 
 friends. 
 
 While there I wrote articles for the Georgia Cultivator on the 
 history and management of the honey bee. And, more than that, 
 in November, 1777, my grandfather, Thomas Taber, married Hanna 
 Davis, who resided in Vermont with her brother, Timothy Davis, 
 and their cousin, Jefferson Davis, often visited them when a young 
 man. I know to be true, as my oldest brother knew them well. 
 
 Pardon me, Mr. Editor, for my long article, for I realize that 
 the efforts, in many respects, of the last three Presidents for political 
 purposes, have catered to a class who are tools to an old "Petticoat" 
 who dares not show himself outside a walled and well-guarded prison. 
 
 Los Angeles, Calif. G. MAJOR TABER. 
 
 The second is froin Captain W. M. Somerville, an old sailor 
 who is now at the Snug Harbor, and whose name was furnished 
 me by Dr. A. P. English, of Jacksonville, Florida: 
 
 Sailors' Snug Harbor, New Brighton, 
 Staten Island, N. Y., March 16, 1916. 
 Hon. Thomas E. Watson, Thomson, Ga. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your communication of the 13th inst. duly received 
 yesterday with enclosure, which I had already read. Dr. English, of 
 Jacksonville, having sent it to me. I am afraid that the Doctor has 
 led you to expect rather too much of me, and rather than dicate 
 what I know of Maria Monk to a stenographer. I will just write it, 
 and if you find anything in it that will be of use to you in this con- 
 troversy you can have it typewritten and return it to me for attes- 
 tation. 
 
 I married a lady in Montreal in 1862 who was born and brought 
 up beside Maria Monk and her parents in LaPrairie, opposite Montreal, 
 on the south side of the St. Lawrence. She never doubted the truth 
 and correctness of Maria Monk's book. I have it in my home in 
 Florida, and have had it for fifty years, but was always under the 
 impression that it was written by Maria Monk herself. My wife died 
 of yellow fever in Florida in 1888 or I would have consulted her and 
 obtained more definite information of the Monk family. But as far 
 as I recollect, she told me that they were English and Episcopalians, 
 and were in connection with a regiment of British soldiers stationed 
 at that time in LaPrairie. 
 
 I knew John Monk, a relative of Maria Monk, who had his office 
 in Little St. James, North Montreal, and was the lawyer for my 
 brother-in-law, C. McAdam, a bookseller of whom I purchased Maria 
 Monk's book. I did not know anything of her daughter, Mrs. Eckel, 
 nor of the last days of Maria Monk, nor of her death. Neither do I 
 know anything of Col. W. L. Stone, nor of his visit to Montreal. 
 
 I remember seeing the underground vaults of the Hotel Dieu, on 
 N. Hospice Street, when it was torn down to make room for a nice 
 row of commercial buildings belonging to the nuns, which of course 
 paid no taxes. 
 
38 
 
 When I was sailing to Montreal we used to carry large carboys 
 of vitriol which was said to have been for use by the nuns in de- 
 stroying the bodies of those novices who refused to surrender their 
 bodies to the lust of the visiting priests. We had to carry such carboys 
 on deck. 
 
 I lived seven years in Montreal, and never heard Maria Monk's 
 history questioned, far less denied. 
 
 During the summer months there was a woman who made regu- 
 larly three trips a week to Quebec and brought up four babies in the 
 clothes baskets for the Grey Nunnery, which also had an unlocked 
 gate on McGill M. provided with a receptacle to receive babies from 
 whomsoever might place them in it. The receipt of such strange babies, 
 of course, covered the well-known fact of those born to the nuns of 
 the institution. 
 
 St. Piere Island, in the St. Lawrence, above the Victoria Bridge, 
 belonged to the nuns, on which was a large house popularly known as 
 the Breeding Cage, where the nuns were sent for their confinement. 
 
 Consecrating the Womb of the Bride. — I can remember when a 
 boy, seven years ago, hearing a highlander from Inverness, Scotland, 
 telling his comrades of having been at a Roman Catholic wedding in 
 a hotel when the priest took the bride to a bedroom upstairs to con- 
 secrate her womb before he would perform the marriage ceremony; 
 and when I lived in Ottawa, in 1860, I knew a lumberman who was 
 wealthy, and was commonly reported in his neighborhood to have paid 
 a large sum to the priest to allow him to have his bride to himself. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 W. M. SOMMERVILLE. 
 
 So much has been said by the Romanists to discredit Maria 
 Monk's statements in regard to secret passages, secret cham- 
 bers, and secret crimes in the Black Ntmnery, that I will lay 
 before you an exact description of the secret rooms of the 
 Inquisition, near the Pope's palace, in Rome — not "the Spanish 
 Inquisition," but the Italian. It is taken from Dr. Theodore 
 Dwight's History of the Roman Republic of 1849, Chapter XII, : 
 
 The Opening of the Inquisition of Rome. — Feelings of the People on 
 Entering It. — The Edifice. — Its History. — Divisions. 
 
 The following account of it is translated from "L' Italia del Popola," 
 and was written by a distinguished writer, F. De Boni, an eye-witness, 
 of what he describes. 
 
 Near the Vatican Square, between the Church of St. Peter and 
 the Castle of Saint Angelo, extends a street which bears a melan- 
 choly name: "Via della Inquisizione" — The Street of the Inquisi- 
 tion. There that tribunal resides, which makes the altar a stepping- 
 stone to the prison. 
 
 In that street multitudes of people daily crowded in March and 
 April of 1849, and passed through the spacious edifice to which it leads, 
 uttering imprecations and maledictions as they returned, then silently 
 dispersed to their homes, with indignation, fear and horror contending 
 in their breasts. Sometimes a shout might be heard, a cry of "Vila 
 la Republica!" and then a hundred voices would reply: for a Viva then 
 expressed, to every heart, a malediction on the past and a hope of the 
 future. 
 
39 
 
 Falsehoods and calumnies have been published respecting this 
 subject. For the sake of truth, then, let us register, in the following 
 pages, the memory of facts, which will afford assistance in tracing 
 the picture of the Italian revolution. Being sure of triumph, we are 
 not impatient. Let us for the present consign over our vengeance to 
 history. 
 
 On the 4th of April, 1849, the government of the Republic (that 
 is, the Assembly and Executive power), moved by a sentiment of 
 justice and Christian compassion, having established, on the ruins of 
 the papal tyranny, the legitimate reign of brotherly equality, decreed 
 that the houses of the Holy Office should become the habitations 
 of poor families, who had only miserable dwellings, in unhealthy and 
 confined quarters of Rome. And in order to teach, in a practical 
 manner, that idleness leads to misery, and to cultivate a love of labor, 
 self-respect and self-dependence, the government did not grant the 
 apartments gratuitously, but required the payment of small sums, in 
 amounts and ways within the reach of all, at the end of each month. 
 
 They intended thus to cancel, on a republican plan, the remains 
 of ancient tyranny, by consecrating to beneficience what papal severity 
 had devoted to torture. 
 
 Consequently the Holy Office, which for three centuries had been 
 closed, except to the victims of suspicion, and the martyrs of liberty 
 and conscience, whom it buried in prison, or gave to the flames, was 
 
 thrown open to the people. Crowds entered it day after day, and were 
 excited by the deepest emotions, at the terrible spectacle. Within these 
 walls the people took their most solemn abjurations against the clerical 
 orders, and repeated from their hearts the oath against the govern- 
 ment of the priests. The people can reason clearly; and, in those 
 religious prisons, they better understood the necessity of rejecting 
 the pastor who bears a sword instead of a crook, and more admired 
 and loved the gentle doctrine of the Nazarene, while shuddering at the 
 tortures inflicted in his name. By seeing the effects of the dominion 
 of the clerical system, they understood the cruelty which had enforced 
 the creed of the Catholic primate in Italy. They saw his hand apply- 
 ing instruments of blood, guided by barbarous zeal, sacrilegious am- 
 bition and ignorance. The knowledge of the people is all in the 
 heart. By calling to mind the past, in their imagination, they de- 
 picted the horrible scenes which had occured within those walls year 
 after year; felt in their own hearts the agonies endured by men, who had 
 disdained to sell their consciences for the price of their blood, al- 
 though ignorant of their history and even of their names. With rage 
 and imprecations, they made the circuit of those apartments, prisons 
 and subterranean passages, which had heard so many groans, wit- 
 nessed so many tears and sorrows, swallowed up so many victims and 
 been the mysterious centre of that universal religious despotism, which, 
 with subtle chains, not yet destroyed, bound down all Europe, and in 
 the latest centuries has sustained civil tyranny. The spectators per- 
 haps sometimes, thinking they were dreaming, and feeling as if not 
 secure, would look behind them, fearing to see a Father Inquisitor 
 appear, and in revenge for their profanation, shut the door of those 
 horrid prisons. 
 
 And what awful scenes did history bring up to the mind, to those 
 who passed through those dismal halls. 
 
 From this place so near the Vatican, issued the orders for the 
 slaughter of the Jews and the last Mussulmans in Spain. Within 
 
40 
 
 this building was decreed the murder of the Waldenses in the Guardia 
 of Lombardy and the Subalpine ValHes; here Galileo was tortured, the 
 imprisonment of Gianone was ordered, Pasquali was condemned to the 
 flames, as well as Carnesecchi, Paleario and Giordano Bruno. Here 
 were planned the murder of the Ugonotti and the horrors of Flanders. 
 Here the censorship was organized, war was made against the printing 
 press, a holy act was pronounced treason, and attempts were made 
 to chain the mind. But that Prometheus has now broken its bonds, 
 and the world is going on under its influence. From this place pro- 
 ceeded the mysterious orders which sent at once, to all parts of Europe, 
 unarmed but formidable legions of men, towards the same object. 
 Here was thrown out an immense net, which confined, in the same 
 meshes the monarch and the peasant; which transformed the wife into 
 the accuser of her husband, the son into the betrayer of his father. 
 Here was, and will soon be again, the whispering gallery of all Europe. 
 But how long shall it last? 
 
 He that enters this building, and is not utterly ignorant of history, 
 must be moved with deep emotions, amidst the stench of putrid 
 corpses, and cannot but take an oath for the cause of the people, while 
 he thinks of the humane doctrines of Christ, who pardoned, while 
 dying for his enemies. We will now endeavor to describe the edi- 
 fices, as memory enables us, not as they formerly had been, but as 
 they were when seen by the Roman people in the month of April, 
 1849. 
 
 The edifice of the Holy Roman Inquisition was erected in part 
 about the middle of the sixteenth century, of simple and secure 
 architecture, as much as was required by the times, when taste, pre- 
 serving a trace of the dying popular greatness, was declining. The 
 present remains of it do not show what the interior was in those times, 
 when the imprisonment of Lutherans was demanded. It is presumed 
 by some, that the edifice rests its walls upon a prison of Nero. 
 
 This great fabric may be divided into three parts, having the 
 form of two rectangular buildings and a trapezium united. The first 
 rectangular part, which fronts the street, originally belonged to a 
 Cardinal; and Pius V. gave it to the Inquisition, who added a num- 
 ber of cells. It has little ornament on the front, and only two stories, 
 each with a loggiato, or gallery, with columns of the Tuscan order, 
 if my memory is correct. The second rectangular part, which is con- 
 structed in like manner, differs only in being of smaller dimensions 
 and more simple. It had originally two stories and two galleries; 
 the lower of which, in the former half of the seventeenth century, was 
 shut in to make new prisons, the greater part of the subterranean 
 cells probably being then abandoned. Perhaps at the same time 
 another story was built, where new prisons were formed, the only 
 ones which in our age have received prisoners, in this second rectangle. 
 The remaining part, served in all probability, for the family of the 
 Holy Office, where no other persons could enter. This third part 
 remained incomplete, wanting the left wing; and the right wing is not 
 finished. A high wall extends transversely, to exclude from human 
 view the horrid mysteries which, for three centuries, were performed 
 in that populous tomb. 
 
 In the month of March (1849), the government of the Republic 
 ordered accomodations for stables for the national artillery, and ap- 
 propriated a part of the Inquisition, under the closed gallery of the 
 second court. There the Father Inquisitor, a Dominican, resided, 
 
41 
 
 whom in the great fervor of disdain, no one offended. He offered 
 no other resistance to the will of the Government, but a protest; and 
 he was allowed to protect. In order to obtain a place to stable the 
 horses, a space was opened in the walls; when the workmen discovered 
 an aperture. The ardent curiosity which had always, up to that time, 
 surrounded everything relating to the Holy Office, and the hatred 
 against the government of the priests, suspended their labors. The 
 rubbish was removed, they descended into a small subterranean place, 
 damp, without light or passage out, with no floor but a blackish 
 oleagenous earth resembling that of a cemetery. Here and there 
 scattered about pieces of garments, of ancient fashions — the clothes 
 of unfortunate persons, who had been thrown down from above, and 
 died of wounds, or hunger. A baiocco (or penny) of Pius 7th, was 
 picked up, which probably denotes the epoch when that abode of dark- 
 ness and despair was walled up. The rich soil had hardly begun to 
 be removed, before human bones were uncovered in some places, 
 with some very long locks of hair, which had doubtless ornamented 
 the heads of females. The hands trembled, as well as the hearts of 
 those who went on to uncover and collect tliose funeral reliques. What 
 temples had been shaded by those tresses? what opinions had been 
 their crime? who had sent spies to seize these victims? who can 
 answer the questions? who will ever be able? Poor martyrs of ig- 
 norance and fanaticism, torn perhaps from the mother's arms to be 
 thrown into a cloister, and from the cloister into such a dungeon, 
 without light or door; still young and beautiful! These locks of hair 
 were dishevelled in their agonies of death, and there they expired, dis- 
 consolate, forgotten by the world, without a kiss from a friend, without 
 receiving a sigh or a tear, or even a handful of dust upon their corpses. 
 
 Many of the spectators carried away pieces of the earth and hair, 
 as amulets against the tyranny of the Pope. It is certain that the 
 "Trap-door" swallowed victims of whom it was important to the Holy 
 Office to destroy all traces, because the Foro, or Judgment-hall is 
 over it, in the second story of the first edifice, and it is exactly under 
 the vestibule of the chamber of the "Second Father Companion," which 
 adjoined the Hall of the Tribunal. 
 
 The other modern prisons are contiguous to the last court, which 
 has been converted into a garden. Each of those prisons is a very 
 small cell, capable of containing only a single person, being in two 
 stories and all alike. They are accessible from an exceedingly nar- 
 row corridor, like the cells of a convent. The walls of this passage 
 are everywhere covered with pictures, and inscriptions commenting 
 upon them, which intimate the horrid nature of the institution and hold 
 up to view the severest dogmas of the Catholic religion, not inter- 
 preted in a spirit of forgiveness. So well does the Court of Rome 
 know how to confine pardon to heaven. At every step, and near 
 every door, the solemn figure of Christ confronts you, not painted 
 according to representations of the Gospel,- — not as if affected more 
 by sympathizing sorrow for men than for himself: but in corres- 
 pondence with the system of the Inquisition, as if threatening from 
 the cross. On every side are scripture passages and mottos, which 
 sentence to eternal flames the hardened sinner. Yet the most tre- 
 mendous inscriptions were erased after the flight of the Pope. 
 
 There, where the French government has placed the correctional 
 prisoners, monks and friars had prisons in the Holy Office. The 
 cells were furnished with beds; and there the greatest disorder and 
 
42 
 
 filth everywhere prevailed. Here and there were worn-out cushions, 
 coverlets, chairs and tables, and old clothes of prisoners who died 
 in the cells many years ago. In a certain very small cell were things 
 which indicated horrible secrets: a piece of a woman's handkerchief, 
 of large size, and an old bonnet of a girl about ten years old. Poor 
 little child! What offence, perhaps unknown to you, could it have 
 been, which threw you into the place and destroyed the innocent peace 
 of your infantile years; which taught you to weep in the season of 
 smiles, and perhaps deprived you of your dear and early life. In 
 another cell were found four sandals, and several nuns' cords, a little 
 spindle, caskets containing needles, crucifixes, and unfinished stockings, 
 with the knitting-needles still well-pointed, and an infant's coach. 
 
 And so, in almost every one of the prison-rooms were to be seen 
 clothes, ornaments and other relics of their former occupants; and 
 as everything was wrapt in deep and mournful mystery, the imag- 
 inations of the people recalled ancient tragical stories, and they 
 wept over the misfortunes of persons of whose names they were ig- 
 norant. 
 
 The walls of all the cells were covered with inscriptions, some of 
 which expressed despairing grief, but most of them resignation, even 
 in that abode, and under the sufferings inflicted there, so well fitted 
 to becloud the mind, to terrify the boldest heart and to bend the most 
 iron will. 
 
 Under the two courts subterranean apartments abounded, com- 
 municating with each other. A few only were solitary; and to those 
 there was only one way of access, viz., a trap-door, which denoted 
 death! Some of them were prisons at first, and afterwards converted 
 into store-rooms. To their ceilings were still fastened iron rings 
 which formerly served to give to the Question (torture!) and after- 
 wards to suspend provisions. In one cell on the ground floor, in the 
 second building, a square piece of marble was observed in the floor, 
 which looked like the cover of a hole. It was raised, and beneath 
 was a vault, which proved to be a Vade in pace (go in peace — that is, 
 a place of silent death). Not a ray of light ever could have entered, 
 except when that funeral marble was lifted for a moment, and then it 
 soon again fell, over the head of the condemned person, who was left 
 to die of hunger, in the cold and darkness, and amidst a stillness un- 
 broken unless by his own cries or prayers. 
 
 A portion of those subterraneous apartments were closed in the 
 present century, or near the close of the last, as was plainly discovered 
 by a careful examination of the walls, that had shut them in, which 
 h.'id been artificially colored with a grayish hue, to make them look old. 
 1 his artifice was accidental!}' discovered. 
 
 The rubbish having been removed in one place, indications of a 
 stone staircase were observed, which was cleared, and persons went 
 down thirty steps. At the bottom was found a small chamber, filled 
 lip with a mixture of earth and lime, and which proved to l)e but 
 the first of manj' others like it. The prisons of Pope Pius V. were 
 now at last discovered. Along the walls were recesses, hollowed 
 out, so formed and arranged as to bring to mind the ancient Columbari 
 or dovecotes. There, it appeared, from what was observed, the con- 
 demned were buried alive, being immersed in a kind of mortar up to 
 their necks. In some instances -it was evident, they had died slowly 
 and of hunger. This was inferred from the position of the bodies, 
 which i)eople, in great numbers, had come to view this most horrible 
 
43 
 
 abode: and marks were seen in the earth of movements made in the 
 conclusive agonies of the last moments, to free themselves from the 
 tenacious mortar, vi^hile it was closing round their limbs. The bodies 
 were placed in lines, opposite each other. The skulls were all gone; 
 but these were afterwards found in another place. 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 Theod. de Niem. Nemor Unionis. Labyrinthus Tract vi, c 34. 
 
 Nuper ad nostrum pervenit auditum, quod in partibus Frisiae XXII 
 Monasteria Ordinis S. Benedictu Bremensis, Monasteriensis et 
 Trajectensis dioeceseos consistunt, in quibus olim— tantummodo moniales 
 dicti ordinis degebant, sed successu temporis contigit, quod in eisdem 
 etiam mares ejusdem professionis in magno — numero qualitercunue 
 cum — monialibus — degerent, prout degent ad proesens — in quibus 
 (monasteriis) pene omnis religio et observentia dicti ordinis, ac Dei 
 timor abscessit, libido et corruptio carnis interipsos mares et moniales, 
 necnon alia multa mala, excessus et vitia, quae pudor est effari, per 
 singlua succreverunt — . Fornicantur etiam quam plures hujusmodi 
 monialiuni cum eisdem sius praelatis monachis et conversis et iisdem 
 monasteriis plures parturiunt filios et filias. — Filios atuem in monachos, 
 et filias taliter conceptas quandoque in moniales dictorum monasterior- 
 um recipi faciunt et procurant; et quod miserandum est, nonnullae ex 
 hujusmondi monialibus materne pietatis oblitae, ac mala malis accumu- 
 lando aliquos foetus eorum mortificant, et infantes in lucem reditos 
 trucidant * * * Insuper quasi singulre moniales hujusmodi sinqulis 
 monachis et conversis * * * ad instar ancillarum seu uxorum * * 
 * sternent lectos, lavant etiam eis capita et pannos * * * nee non 
 decoquent ipsis cibaria delicata, as die noctuque cum ipsis monachis et 
 conversis in comniessationibus et ebrietalibus creberrimt conservantur. 
 Niem Basil, 1566. 
 
 (Nuns and Nunneries, p. 184.) 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Concilium Moguntiacense. X. Ut clericis interdicatur, mulieres 
 in domo suo habere, omnimodis decernimus. Quamvis enim sacri 
 canones quasdam personas foemi — narum simul cum clericis in una 
 domo habitare permittant; tamen, quod multum dolendum est, saepe 
 audivimus, par illam consessionem plurima scelera esse commissa, ita 
 ut quidam sacerdotum cum propriis soforibus concugbentes, filos ex 
 eis generassent. Et idcirco constituit haec sancta sypodus, ut nuUus 
 presbyter ullam foemimum secum in domo propri permittat, quantenus 
 occasio malde suspicionis vel facti Iriqui penitus auteratur. 
 
 Sacrosanta Concilia Stud. 
 P. Labbei et G. Cossart, Venice 1728-32, Tom XI, col. 586. 
 
I HANDBOOK I 
 
 •!♦ OF 4 
 
 y Y 
 
 |: Politics and Economics | 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
 X Bv THOS. E. WATSON % 
 
 y y 
 
 X . . y 
 
 % "Political and Economic Handbook" cantaining 475 pages *t* 
 
 ♦!♦ printed well on excellent book paper being in size 6x9 and ,K 
 
 y covered with a stiff paper cover. The frontis-piece is a strik- y 
 
 X ing photograph of the author. His preface reads: % 
 
 *!* *!* 
 
 *j* "In order that Editors, Speakers, Lecturers and Voters y 
 
 ♦*♦ might have in the convenient storehouse of one volume all X 
 
 Y the scattered information contained in many; and in order that ^ 
 
 X they might have a brief statement of the line of argument X 
 
 4» vi'hich w^e adopt upon all essential issues, I have written this X 
 
 y book. I liave tried to fill it to the brim with facts — important y 
 
 X facts, undisputed facts. I have tried to make it an armory X 
 
 ♦!♦ from which reformers can draw every weapon of offence and A 
 
 y defense." Thos. E. Watson, Thomson, Ga., November 1, 1915. y 
 
 y Y 
 
 •;♦ We list below a few of the questions discussed by the .♦♦ 
 
 y author to give you some idea of the trend of the book. y 
 
 ? . . % 
 
 y Planting of Democracy in Virgmia; Slavery, Religion; .♦♦ 
 
 X The Two Political Schools of Hamilton and Jefferson; The y 
 
 ♦*♦ Monroe Doctrine; A Complete Discussion of the Money Ques- X 
 
 ♦{♦ tion: The Panics of 1893 and 1907; Railroads and Public *^ 
 
 X Lands; Pet Banks; Special Privilege; A Chapter on Socialism; X 
 
 A The Federal Judiciary; The Greenback Party; A Great Crime X 
 
 y in High Finance; Party Platforms; The Roman Catholic y 
 
 X Church in American Politics; Looking Backward; About the X 
 
 ♦!♦ Peoples Party; Watson's Speech, etc. A 
 
 A ORDER NOW X 
 
 y I 
 
 X PRICE $1.50 DELIVERED X 
 
 t ' X 
 
 X X 
 
 :l The Tom Watson Book I 
 
 X X 
 
 I Co., Inc. I 
 
 X X 
 
 ? THOMSON, GEORGIA ? 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
4th DEGREE 
 OATH 
 
 OF THE ? 
 
 I ^ 
 
 A 
 
 X 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 ^: 
 
 I 
 
 ! KNIGHTS or I 
 
 I COLUMBUS I 
 
 X ji 
 
 ji (New Print) ^ 
 
 ♦♦♦ A 
 
 *i By THOS. E. WATSON j^ 
 
 ♦t* A 
 
 A Y 
 
 T A 
 
 Y A 
 
 *4 The demand for this 48 page pamphlet has been -^ 
 
 Jt* €o great that we have printed a new edition. Mr. :^ 
 
 :^ Watson in this booklet proves that a person taking this I^: 
 
 ? degree is guilty of treason to his country and should j> 
 
 \ be deported. 48 pages of dynamic fire against the Y 
 
 X Y 
 
 '^ Hierarchy. % 
 
 Price 35c, Delivered 
 
 THE TOM WATSON BOOK CO. | 
 
 ?♦ THOMSON, GEORGIA I^I 
 
 t 
 
I 
 
 t 
 By Thos. E. Watson ♦^ 
 
 THE HOUSE OF HAPSBURG 
 
 |: The Latest of Mr. Watson's Historical Works States >; 
 X Cause of Recent European War. 4 
 
 X 
 
 ♦ t 
 
 !|I Shows the Origin of the House of Hapsburg; X 
 
 X The Growth of the Papal Power of Rome. j» 
 
 ^ John Huss, John Wickliffe, Martin Luther, the Thirty *^* 
 
 X Years War and the Reformation. X 
 
 :< ILLUSTRATED— 96 Pages i 
 
 y. Stiff Paper Cover; Well Printed; Good Type ♦{♦ 
 
 ,:. 50 CENTS POSTPAID X 
 
 i TOM WATSON BOOK CO. ? 
 
 y Thomson, Georgia i* 
 
 X Y 
 
 X. Y 
 
 Watson's "Prose Miscellanies" 
 
 'jl This handsome volume contains twenty-height *:] 
 
 f "fugitive pieces" which have been selected as the X 
 X cream of Mr. Watson's literary writings. 
 
 I 
 
 f If you would have your order filled promptly, X 
 
 't* . . . fi 
 
 X mail it now. with one dollar accompanving. *^ 
 
 THE TOM WATSON BOOK CO. 
 
 ♦^ THOMSON, GEORGIA X 
 
X 
 
 :t! • i 
 
 A Book About the Socialists and 
 
 THE TOM WATSON BOOK CO, 
 
 I About Socialism | 
 
 X In this work, Mr. Watson takes up, one by one Y 
 
 ♦| each of the propositions of Karl Marx, and discusses ♦,♦ 
 
 % them fully and fairly. ♦!» 
 
 Y y 
 
 X He also analyses the great book of Herr Bebel, the Y 
 
 ♦t* world-leader of Socialism, "Woman Under Socialism." ♦,; 
 
 Y X 
 4 Mr. Watson cites standard historical works to prove .|. 
 X that Bebel, Marx and other Socialist leaders are alto- :»: 
 X srether wrong about. X 
 
 X ^ ^ ♦!♦ 
 
 t The Origin of Property, y 
 
 Y X 
 X The rise of the Marital relation, X 
 
 Y T 
 
 ? The Cause of the inequality of Wealth, etc. X 
 
 Y A 
 
 I Mr. Watson demonstrates that Socialism — as taught *^ 
 
 X by Marx. Bebel, LaSalle, Engel, etc.— would annihi- *^ 
 
 i late X 
 
 '|» Individuality and personal liberty, y 
 
 X Home-life as we know it, 4 
 
 y The White Man's Supremacy over the inferior races, y^ 
 
 X 't* 
 
 *^ The Marital relation, with its protection to women, »!« 
 
 X and finally ♦!' 
 
 X RELIGION OF ALL KINDS. X 
 
 I Mr. Watson proves that SPECIAL PRIVILEGE | 
 
 t intrenched in law and in government, is now, and al- *^ 
 % ways has been, the Great Enemy of the Human Race. | 
 
 ? PRICE $1.00 DELIVERED 4 
 
 4 
 
 :< THOMSON, GEORGIA A 
 
I CThe IDATSOniATl I 
 
 I I 
 
 I DEDICATED | 
 
 *»* *!* 
 
 X TO THE IDEALS ESPOUSED X 
 
 t t 
 
 X By 5: 
 
 y y 
 
 X y 
 
 ♦!♦ THOMAS E. WATSON •*♦ 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
 X X 
 
 X In an effort to build a monument to the late X 
 
 X X 
 
 ♦!♦ Senator Thomas E. Watson in the form of a monthly. *\* 
 
 y • ,, y 
 
 X magazine Ave offer you "The Watsonian." X 
 
 X X 
 
 *l* Its policy always will be to advocate Jeffersonian ♦*♦ 
 
 X and Watsonian principles ; "equal rights to all — special *:* 
 
 X privileges to none ; "fight for America and Americans X 
 
 y • y 
 
 y against un-American subjects." Y 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
 X As a result the WATSONIAN offers through X 
 
 y • y 
 
 y its columns each month selected writings of Mr. Wat- y 
 
 X son's, editorials on all current issues, a condensed X 
 
 X X 
 
 ♦!♦ report on all the important news of the month, and ♦*. 
 
 y y 
 
 y the most deadly indictments against the Roman Cath- y 
 
 X X 
 
 X olic Hierarchy that can be found today. X 
 
 y f 
 
 y y 
 
 I PRICE $1.00 PER YEAR | 
 
 X X 
 
 I THE WATSONIAN | 
 
 X A 
 
 :|: THOMSON, GEORGIA Jl 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
 y y 
 
 y y