ur frankness,
courtesy, and general views, and said that if his high-church
friends had treated him with the same liberality and courtesy he
would have been saved from much difficulty and embarrassment, which
he had experienced in his previous exertions; but that he thought
there could be no objection to our publishing at large our views on
the subject. The preparation of the document was assigned to me.
When published, it appeared to meet the views of all parties,
except the ultra shade of one party, who want the whole of the
reserves; and it is now the most popular plan throughout the
Province of settling the question, except that of appropriating the
reserves to educational purposes exclusively.

A day or two before the publication of this document, the House of
Assembly went into Committee on a Bill to revest the reserves in
the Imperial Parliament! Going to Toronto at this time, I did what
I could to bring the subject again before the House, and
accordingly addressed a letter through the press to Speaker MacNab,
of the Assembly, on the importance of an immediate settlement of
the question, and also urging the adoption of the plan which had
been recently proposed.[93] These papers appeared to create a
considerable sensation among the members of the Assembly; it was
agreed on all sides that the question ought to be settled
forthwith. But the reluctance of the Crown Officers to take up the
subject soon became manifest; and it was not for some weeks after,
that the subject could be forced upon them.[94] Then all (with very
few exceptions) professed that the subject ought not to be
postponed any longer. But the Crown Officers had no measure
prepared, and differed in opinion on the subject--the
Attorney-General consenting to the revesting of the reserves in the
Crown, the Solicitor-General contending that they should be divided
among four denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists,
and Roman Catholics, according to their relative numbers in Great
Britain and Ireland!) This proposition had but three or four
advocates in the House, including the author of it. Mr. Boulton,
seconded by Mr. Cartwright, moved, in substance, that the clergy
reserve provision was made for the clergy of the Church of
England;--that it does not provide for m