sold, and when they were all disposed of there would be realized more than two millions of pounds.  Price also pointed out the fact that only a small number of persons had derived advantages from these reserves.  Out of the total population of 723,000 souls in Upper Canada, the Church of England claimed 171,000 and the Church of Scotland 68,000, or a total of 239,000 persons who received the lion’s share, and left comparatively little to the remaining population of 484,000 souls.  Among the latter the Roman Catholics counted 123,707 communicants and received only L700 a year; the Wesleyans, with 90,363 adherents, received even a still more wretched pittance.  Furthermore 269,000 persons were entirely excluded from any share whatever in the reserves.  In the debate on the resolutions for the address LaFontaine did not consider the imperial act a finality, and was in favour of having the reserves brought under the control of the Canadian legislature, but he expressed the opinion most emphatically that all private rights and endowments conferred under the authority of imperial legislation should be held inviolate, and so far as possible, carried into effect.  Baldwin’s observations were remarkable for their vagueness.  He did not object to endowment for religious purposes, although he was opposed to any union between church and state.  While he did not consider the act of 1840 as a final settlement, inasmuch as it did not express the opinion of the Canadian people, he was not then prepared to commit himself as to the mode in which the property should he disposed of.  Hincks affirmed that there was no desire on the part of members of the government to evade their responsibilities on the question, but they were not ready to adopt the absurd and unconstitutional course that was pressed on them by the Clear Grits, of attempting to repeal an imperial act by a Canadian statute.

Malcolm Cameron and other radical Reformers advocated the complete secularization of the reserves, while Cayley, Macdonald, and other Conservatives, urged that the provisions of the imperial act of 1840 should be carried out to the fullest extent, and that the funds, then or at a future time at the disposal of the government “for the purposes of public worship and religious instruction” under the act, should be apportioned among the various denominations that had not previously had a share in the reserves.  When it came to a division, it was clear that there was no unanimity on the question among the ministers and other supporters.  Indeed, the summary given above of the remarks made by LaFontaine, Baldwin, and Hincks, affords conclusive evidence of the differences of opinion that existed between them and of their reluctance to express themselves definitely on the subject.  The majority of the French members, Messrs. LaFontaine, Cauchon, Chabot, Chauveau, LaTerriere and others, voted against the resolution which affirmed that “no religious denomination can be held to have such vested interest in the revenue derived from