To the Bishops, Clerg> and Laity of the United Church of
England and Ireland in the Province of Canada.
RIGHT RBv. AND Rzv. BRBTHaN, AND BaITHBBN or THB LATY:
You are, I have no doubt, all of you well aware of the discus-
sions which have arisen respecting the Patents issued by the
Queen for the appointment of a Metropolitan for this Province ;.
which question has recently attracted inereased interest in conse-
quence of certain proceedings which have taken place in connection.
with the Diocese of Cape Town and the Province of South Africa..
In the early part of this year I received from His Excellency
Viscount Monck a copy of a despatch from His Grace the Duke of'
Newcastle to the following effect:
DowNrsG ST?T, 10th Feb., 1864.
*MY LOBD,-A correspondence, which arose out of the recent case of'
Long v. the Bishop of Cape Town, has led me to submit for the opinion.
of the Law officers of the Orown the question whether any, and if so*
what -metropolitan pre-eminence or jurisdiction was conveyed by the?
Letters-Patent bearing date the 12th February, 1862, which constituted
the Bishop of Montreal Metropolitan Bishop in the Province of Canada.
The following is the answer which I have received:
"We think that it was competent to the Orown to constitute his
" Lordship a Metropolitan, and thereby to give him pre-eminence and'
"precedence over his Suffragans: but that as to the coercive juris-
"diction which the Metropolitan may exercise, and the manner in
" which it is to be exercised, these are matters which must be settled by
"the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Ohurch, in a General Assembly-
"of the Province, according to the provision of the local act of the-
" anadian Legislature, 19th and 20th Victoria, cap. 12l."