exclaimed Pierre Bedard, whose name will appear
later in these pages, 'to wish to make a people's loyalty consist in
its tongue?'

The outcome of the debate, as might have been expected, was to place
the French language on a level with the English language in the records
and publications of the Assembly, and French became, to all intents and
purposes, the language of debate. The number of English-speaking
members steadily decreased. In the year 1800 Sir Robert Milnes {12}
wrote home that there were 'but one or two English members in the House
of Assembly who venture to speak in the language of the mother country,
from the certainty of not being understood by a great majority of the
House.'

It must not be imagined, however, that in these early debates there was
any of that rancour and animosity which later characterized the
proceedings of the Assembly of Lower Canada. 'The remains of the old
French politeness, and a laudable deference to their fellow subjects,
kept up decorum in the proceedings of the majority,' testified a
political annalist of that time. Even as late as 1807, it appears that
'party spirit had not yet extended its effects to destroy social
intercourse and good neighbourhood.' It was not until the regime of
Sir James Craig that racial bitterness really began.

{13}

CHAPTER III

'THE REIGN OF TERROR'

During the session of 1805 the Assembly was confronted with the
apparently innocent problem of building prisons. Yet out of the debate
on this subject sprang the most serious racial conflict which had yet
occurred in the province. There were two ways proposed for raising the
necessary money. One, advocated by the English members, was to levy a
direct tax on land; the other, proposed by the French members, was to
impose extra customs duties. The English proposal was opposed by the
French, for the simple reason that the interests of the French were in
the main agrarian; and the French proposal was opposed by the English,
because the interests of the English were on the whole commercial. The
English pointed out that, as merchants, they had borne the brunt of
such taxation as had already been imposed, and that it was the turn of
the French farmers to bear their {14} share. The French, on the other
hand, pointed out, with some justice, that indirect taxation was borne,
not only by the importer, but also partly by the consumer, and that
indirect taxation was therefore more equitable tha