4th. If the Metropolitan could not convene the Synod, was the first
Synod, and the acts adopted thereat, legal under the Synod law ?
5th. Were the proceedings at the second Provincial Synod legal
under the Synod law ?
Upon the first point, I continue of the opinion, which I expressed at
the first Provincial Synod, that the Qrown, as the fountain of honour and
dignity, had the right to appoint a Metropolitan, give him pre-eminence
over the other Canadian Bishops, and confer corporate powers upon
him, notwithstanding our Synod Act: at any rate until the members of
the Church themselves exercised the powers vested in them by the
Synod Act.
Upon the second point, I am of opinion that the provisions in the
Letters-Patent, which are ultra vires, do not affect those privileges in
the Letters which the Crown had the right to confer.
The third and fourth points may be considered together. I think that
the Letters-Patent did not confer any right on the Metropolitan to con-
vene the first Provincial Synod, although they professed so to do; but
having reviewed the appointment, I am of opinion that the Metropolit%n
might properly call together the delegates from the different dioceses,
and that when they did assemble in pursuance of that call, they formed
a properly constituted Synod, whether they were legally convened or
not, as by common consent they proceeded to business, and no objection
wss made either to the manner, time or place, of their assembly, and
their acts are binding on the members of the Church in ~he several
dioceses under the Synod law.
On the fifth point, I bhave no doubt that the proceedings of the second
Provincial Synod are legal.
Your Lordship will bear in mind, that the validity of your appoint-
ment as Metropolitan, and the legality of the proceedings of the Provin-
cial Synod have been questioned only by the Synod and Bishop of one
diocese; and I shall briefly examine how far they are in a position to
make any objection either to the appointment or the proceedings.
It is true that the Synod of Huron did not petition for the appoint-
ment of a Metropolitan; but it is equally true that they elected and sent 1
delegates to the first Provincial Synod, that the Bishop of Huron took
his seat in the house of Bishops, that they all took part in the whole of
the proceedings, that they assented to the address to the Queen for the
amended Letters-Patent, that they concurred in the Declaration and Con-
stitution. It is also true-that they attended the second Provincial
Synod, agreed in the address of thanks to the Queen for the amended
Letters-Patent, that they joined in passing a canon for the Court of
Appeal, that they assisted in the motion for the committee on the suc-
cession to the Metropolitan see, and that their Bishop, and one of their