LS [in Brunet's handwriting, signed by both]. The writers are parish priests of Saint-Laurent [Leclerc] and Saint-Martin-de-Laval [Brunet]. On behalf of other priests, they describe their worries re the apostolic brief of 1 February 1820 [see SOCG 416] establishing a suffragan bp. [in Montréal]. They give the following reasons: [1] The only need for a suffragan bp. in Montréal was contained in a 1783 letter of some Montréal trustees, but now easy transportation within the diocese (one day from Québec to Montréal, one day from Montréal to the see of Upper Canada [Kingston]) and the Canadians' "goût de de Voyager" mean that the [a]bp. and his coadjutor suffice to the task;
[2] The respective powers of the [a]bp. of Québec [Plessis] and of his coadjutor [Panet] on the one side, and of the suffragans of Montréal (Lartigue), Upper Canada [A. McDonell] and St. John Island [A.B. MacEachern] on the other side, is unclear, their reigning over "des nations différentes" might cause a schism, and the [British] government could consider their acts null and void because the latter do not take the required oath to the Crown; [3] The power and prestige of the Sulpician Seminary of Montréal would be reduced; [4] The appointment of the bp. of Telmissus [Lartigue] and the problem of his residence and his revenues generated a major crisis in the peaceful district of Montréal;
[5] It is unclear whether Lartigue reports to Québec or directly to the Holy See; [6] In the establishment of the suffragan bishopric French canon law was not observed, as required by the Capitulation [?of Montréal, 8 September 1760] and by the British government, and the district of Montréal was wrongly equated with mission territories such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Upper Canada and the West; [7] Letters patent were not issued (the [Saint-Jean-de-]Nicolet Seminary mentioned); [8] The apostolic brief [of 1 February 1820] was never published; [9] The British government, and particularly Bathurst, is opposed to the establishment of several bishoprics and of the archbishopric of Québec; [10]
The writers challenge the validity of the fragment of a letter [to Plessis, dated 6 October 1823; see SOCG 349] of the vicar apostolic in the London district [Poynter] that caused the declaration of some priests and parish priests of the district of Montréal; furthermore, 18 parish priests and the Sulpicians did not sign the said declaration, two signed it upon certain conditions, and seven later disavowed it. The addressee is referred to the abp. of Baltimore [Maréchal], the bp. of Boston [B.-J. Fenwick] and the bp. of Bardstown [Flaget] for further information. PF notes (parish priests of the diocese of Québec for a suffragan [bp.] in Montréal). Bs: folio 510rv, 511rv, 520v, 521r.
![[LS [in Brunet's handwriting, signed by both]. The writers are ...]](/images/folder-80.png){kind=small}