uses; and though by this means ’a noble provision made for the sustentation of religion was frittered away so as to produce but few beneficial results,’[1] a question which had long been the occasion of much heart-burning was at least settled, and settled for ever.  A slender provision for the future was saved out of the wreck by the commutation of the reserved life-interests of incumbents, which laid the foundation of a small permanent endowment; but, with this exception, the equality of destitution among all Protestant communities was complete.[2]

The various stages through which this question passed may be traced in the following letters, of which the first was written to Lord Grey on July 5, 1850: 

Two addresses to the Queen were voted by the Assembly a few days ago and brought up by the House to me for transmission.  The one is an address, very loyal in its tone, deprecating all revolutionary changes.

[Sidenote:  Address to the Queen.]

The other address is not so satisfactory.  It prays Her Majesty to obtain the repeal of the Imperial Act on the Clergy Reserves passed in 1840, and to hand them over to the Canadian Parliament to deal with them as it may see fit—­guaranteeing, however, the life interests of incumbents.  The resolutions on which this address was founded were introduced by a member of the Government, which has treated the question as an open one.

You are sufficiently acquainted with Canadian history to be aware of the fact, that these unfortunate Clergy Reserves have been a bone of contention ever since they were set apart.  I know how very inconvenient it is to repeal the Imperial Act which was intended to be a final settlement of the question; but I must candidly say I very much doubt whether you will be able to preserve the Colony if you retain it on the Statute Book.  Even Lafontaine and others who recognise certain vested rights of the Protestant churches under the Constitutional Act, advocate the repeal of the Imperial Act of 1840:  partly because Lower Canada was not consulted at all when it was passed; and, secondly, because the distribution made under that Act is an unfair one, and inconsistent with the views of the Upper Canadian Legislature, as expressed at the time but set aside in deference, as it is alleged, to the remonstrances of the English bishops.  Some among the Anglo-Saxon Liberals, and some of the Orange Tories, I suspect, share these views.

A considerable section is for appropriating the proceeds of the reserves at once, and applying them to education, without any regard to the rights either of individuals or of churches.  These persons are furious with the supporters of the address for proposing to preserve the life interests of incumbents.  The sentiments of the remainder are pretty accurately conveyed by the terms of the address.

* * * * *