for
the Clergy of the Church of England, 1160 acres for Ministers of the
Kirk of Scotland, 400 for Roman Catholics, and "none for any other
denomination of Christians."[43]

But there was a broader and stronger argument than any of these purely
technical contentions: an argument founded on experience and practical
utility. No matter what had been the intent of the original framers of
the Constitutional Act, the fact had become patent to all Dissenters,
and even to many liberal-minded lay members of the Anglican Church, that
the Clergy Reserves were a curse to the Province--a mill-stone about her
neck, which dragged her down in spite of all exertions to raise her to
the surface. Not long after this fact had become generally recognized,
an agitation arose in favour of the total abolition of State aid to
religious bodies. The plan advocated by Reformers was the sale of the
Reserves, and the application of the proceeds to public education and
municipal improvements. The agitation was kept up until long after the
period covered by this work, and the object sought to be attained by it
was not fully accomplished until the year 1854. Meanwhile, however, it
was the most important question before the country, and it occupied the
attention of the Legislature during a large part of almost every
session. Here was where the conflict between the two Houses was felt
with most pernicious effect. The advocates of abolition and
secularization clearly had the country with them, and the Assembly
passed Bill after Bill to effect those objects. Their efforts were
utterly nullified by the Upper House, which would not listen to any such
proposals, and which threw out as many Bills relating to this important
subject as the Assembly thought proper to send up for its consideration.
Such were the merits of the long and fiercely-contested question of the
Clergy Reserves.

Another serious obstacle to Upper Canadian prosperity was the continual
interference of the Colonial Office in our domestic concerns. Bills
passed by the Provincial Legislature for the regulation of our own
internal affairs were disallowed with vexatious frequency, and
sometimes, apparently, from mere caprice. Sometimes the irresponsible
Executive, unwilling that their obedient servants in the Upper House
should incur popular odium by opposing the will of the Assembly,
permitted Bills to pass both Houses, and then, through their tool the
Lieutenant-Governor, had these identical m