for those provinces.185 Canon Simpson expanded upon his point further by saying that under the Letters Patent Bishop Binney could not have been removed as Bishop of Nova Scotia , save for some criminal offense, nor could his have been divided without his consent, but that the jurisdiction over Prince Edward Island could have been taken away from him at any time by the Crown whether or not he was willing to have this done. This was because the Letters Patent specifically say that his Jurisdiction over P.E.I , is given and granted only for the duration of the royal pleasure. Canon Simpson also dismissed the claim made by Judge Savary regarding the validity of the 1875 Act of the legislature of Nova Scotia as in any way involving the alteration of the boundary of the of Nova Scotia . The Act had simply amended the 1863 Act of the Incorporation of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia to allow delegates from the parishes on Prince Edward Island to sit in the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia , it was in no way a legitimate basis from which to claim the inclusion of P.E.I , within the of N.S ., as Judge Savary had argued, because the Legislature of Nova Scotia had no more power to enlarge or divide a diocese than the Town Council of Annapolis had. This matter could only be legally approached by the House of the Provincial Synod . The final point that Canon Simpson confronted and refuted was the claim put forward by Judge Savary in both of his letters that the Bishop of London had written letters to colonial clergymen in the thirteen colonies in which he referred to himself as "your Diocesan". Judge Savary had attached great significance to these letters concluding that "Technically, therefore, the colonies were part of the diocese of London".186 In reply, Canon Simpson argued that in his opinion, the Bishop of London had used an inexact expression. He argued, "He was their Bishop, but he was not their Diocesan as they were in no . Even Bishop's can make mistakes." 18? At this point in the correspondence the Editor of Church Work unfortunately stepped in and ended any further correspondence through the pages of that newspaper. The exchange of letters does provide valuable historical evidence of the scope of the problem and the complexities of the "issues involved". Many of these same issues are still being bandied about today and remain as unsettled as they were at the time of this correspondence in 1909. Canon Simpson did not push for a resolution of the dispute probably because his agenda was not the 185. Letter from Canon J. Simpson to Church Work. 186. Ibid. 187. "ibid. 157