Chapter 7



To implement the Act of 1847 the Board of Education had to make provision for a building and a master, as well as for books. The old stone gaol was fitted up as a home for the master, and a school house was erected within the same enclosure.1 Once again Governor Colebrooke corresponded with the Colonial Secretary on the subject of a qualified master. After some correspondence expressing doubt that a competent teacher could be induced to come for £ 200, Grey recommended Marshall d'Avray, who, as Director of a Normal School in Mauritius, was in receipt of double the sum voted by the New Brunswick Legislature, together with house rent and fees from private teaching. But since the climate was prejudicial to the health of his family, d'Avray was willing to come to New Brunswick if he could do so “without loss either of station or of emolument” . To defray expenses of passage and of providing clothing suitable for a northern climate, d'Avray, the Colonial Secretary said, asked for £ 300, one-third of which he would be willing to repay by monthly instalments should the Colonial Legislature exact it. Grey concluded the letter by saying that it would be difficult to find a person so well qualified as d'Avray who would accept the position at such a moderate scale of remuneration. Colebrooke's reply admitted the smallness of the salary, and expressed the hope that when the Normal School had been established and was appreciated, the salary might be augmented. Fifty pounds was already sanctioned for travelling expenses, and Colebrooke asked His Lordship to sanction an advance to d'Avray from the surplus Civil List Fund, if the advance should not be reimbursed by the Assembly.2 One fancies that Colebrooke may have chafed at the necessity of haggling over terms. Yet although economy was the cry during those years, large sums were often unwisely spent for less worthy purposes than the secure establishment of a Normal School. For instance, in 1850 the same Assembly that had passed the Act of 1847 setting £ 200 as the maximum salary of the master of the Training School granted Lieutenant-Colonel Brown of the First Royal Regiment practically the same sum (£ 198), for duties paid by him on liquor consumed by the regiment during the year.3 For the same session the postage charges of some of the members amounted to £ 17; and £ 8 15s. was paid for propping up a bush which had blown down in the Government House gardens.4
At this point in the history of New Brunswick's first Normal School our attention focuses on the man whose responsibility it was to initiate the

operations of the school. His background and education, his ideas and experiences, the limitations and difficulties which conditioned his work, all assume significance because of his position.
Joseph Marshall de Brett, second Baron d'Avray, was the eldest son of Dr. Joseph Head Marshall, an extraordinary Englishman who assisted Edward Jenner in the discovery of vaccination. His experiences included vaccinating a large part of the British Mediterranean fleet, introducing vaccination for the first time into Italy and other Mediterranean countries, popularizing it at the Neapolitan court and becoming Physician Extraordinary to the King of Naples. Subsequently he abandoned medicine for politics, warned the French government of the impending return of Napoleon from Elba, and became deeply concerned in the secret diplomacy involved in the overthrow of the Napoleonic empire, receiving the title of Baron d'Avray,5 a title which was afterwards confirmed by Louis XVIII. His eldest son, who commonly used the name Marshall d'Avray, spent his early childhood in France and his young manhood in England. Because of services rendered by Dr. Marshall to Britain in the matter of negotiations with the King of Naples and Louis XVIII, the British authorities may possibly have recognized an obligation to find situations for his children when he himself was dead and family fortunes had declined.6 This may explain why Grey, in recommending d'Avray to Lieutenant-Governor Colebrooke designated him as Director of a Normal School in Mauritius, when actually d'Avray had held no such position. Of this fact Grey was aware, as two months earlier he had received a letter from d'Avray reviewing the circumstances under which the latter had gone to Mauritius and had returned. From this letter7 we learn that His Majesty's Government had intended to establish a Normal School in the Island of Mauritius, and d'Avray had gone there as Director, having made preparation by attending the Normal Training School at Battersea, probably one maintained by the National Society, since d'Avray was an Anglican. On his arrival in Mauritius he found that the Colonial Government did not think it possible to establish a Normal School on the plan proposed in England, and he was therefore forced to engage in a number of activities, such as inspecting the Government Free Schools, drawing up reports, teaching in the Preparatory School of the Royal College, and substituting for professors in the College. Eventually he took charge of the Elementary Classes of the College, which seems to have been more of a secondary school than a university. Here his efforts met with great success,8 but living was high in Mauritius and he was never entirely free from financial worries. When he returned to England because of the illness of his wife, he was in debt to the Mauritius Government for advances in salary, and anxious to obtain almost any position. In September, 1847, he asked for the post of Inspector of Schools in British Guiana, a posi-

tion affording a salary of £ 500 and £ 200 travelling expenses, but Grey refused to accede to the request, saying that if the climate of Mauritius did not suit d'Avray, neither would that of British Guiana.9 A month later the position in New Brunswick was available. Although even in England the post could hardly have seemed a sinecure, d'Avray accepted, and early in 1848, with his wife and daughter, arrived in New Brunswick, where his communication with the members of the Legislature, then in session, made a favourable impression.10
The nature of Marshall d'Avray's ideas on education is significant, for if his ideas were carried out, they were an influence in the development of education in New Brunswick, and if they were ignored or rejected, they become a foil for those ideas which were preferred to his. d'Avray had to struggle with varied and nagging practical problems in the midst of strange people and unfamiliar surroundings, and within the framework of arrangements made before his arrival. A number of his reports, lectures, and plans abound in practical details, from which it is difficult to distil his philosophy, but fortunately two printed lectures are available in which he dealt with education generally. From these we may conclude that he held views which, in intelligence and vision, were far in advance of his time, and may even be regarded as ultra-progressive in certain quarters today. The second of these lectures was delivered two years after the first. One cannot read both without feeling that in the interval d'Avray had applied himself seriously to thinking about the educational needs of the provincial society in which he found himself, had come to a clearer realization of how those needs might be met, and had dared to cut away from what Parrington calls “the drab realisms of a cautious past” .11 One would not like to say that he had adopted any new theories not held prior to his arrival in the province, but one does feel that he had got a fresh perspective and had learned to see new meaning in European theories and ideas, as applicable to the colonial society and the educational problem with which he had to cope.
The first of these lectures was given on February 10, 1848. Since the occasion was the opening of the Normal School, d'Avray naturally stressed the importance of proper teaching, explained the function of the Model School in the acquisition of the art, and endeavored to inspire in teachers a sense of the dignity and responsibility of their profession. He reminded them of the part which repetition and practice play in the retention of what is learned, and warned teachers that their business was to teach so as to exercise the original faculties of their pupils' minds, (a timely warning in view of what the Inspectors of 1844 had observed). But d'Avray's address contained matter of greater significance than this. In his audience that day there may have been those who wondered if this gentleman of title and urbane manners had brought with him the English notions of class distinctions, and if he regarded the Parish Schools of New Brunswick with condescension, as schools for colonials of a static lower

order. Although one gentleman did ascribe these attitudes to d'Avray, as we shall see later, the tone of d'Avray's remarks on this occasion calls for a more liberal interpretation. His audience that day almost certainly included Wilmot and Fisher, men who had been born outside the charmed circle of provincial wealth and aristocracy,12 but who had become leaders of eminence. Whether d'Avray knew this or not, and whatever the beliefs on which he had been nurtured, he seemed aware that he had come to a land where humble birth presented no insuperable social barrier to talent, ability, and ambition. He did, however, advocate restricting the curriculum of the Parish Schools to Reading, Writing, Orthography, Arithmetic, Grammar, and Geography, since the majority of the pupils in those schools were not likely to devote a long time to schooling, and therefore should be taught really useful knowledge during the short time they remained under tuition.13 His intimate conviction was, he said, that such a limited scale of instruction was the best adapted to the present urgent wants of the community.14 Possibly he made a mistake when he said that “mere theorists” in education might think he had adopted too narrow a scale, for this jibe may have initiated the personal antagonism of John Gregory. Perhaps, too, it was tactless to justify a limited curriculum for the Parish Schools of New Brunswick by asking how few laboring men in England could answer a simple question in Arithmetic, Grammar or Geography, could read their Bibles or scrawl their names, for this comparison may have seemed to imply that the inhabitants of New Brunswick were on a level with the not yet emancipated laboring classes of England. But d'Avray was careful to explain that he did not mean that, for he asked: “And shall we be thought to have effected too little, if we succeed in raising the Inhabitants of this Province as far above them” (the labourers of England) “in intellectual acquirements, as they are superior to them in social position?” 15 Moreover, in speaking of the indifference of parents to education he said that this indifference was to be wondered at when we remember “that in this country, the blessings of Education offer, even to the humblest individual, every prospect of emancipating himself from the narrow and restricted circle of action in which he is born, provided his natural talents be such as to enable him to profit by the opportunities which are afforded for their cultivation.” 16 Furthermore, although d'Avray insisted on the function of the Parish School to impart that sort of instruction which would be of daily service to children through life “in their present sphere” , he added that such instruction was the stepping stone to the acquisition of further instruction whenever their inclinations prompted them to seek it, or their circumstances enabled them to do so.17 These quotations seem to predicate the existence of a belief in education as the birthright of all, satisfaction at the absence of social barriers in New Brunswick, and an appreciation of the eco-

nomic factor as the real drawback to educational progress. But d'Avray went further than this. He seems to have been the first person in New Brunswick to outline publicly a plan by which ambitious but poor children could obtain an advanced education. Living in an age which lacked good roads, motor vehicles, Gestetner machines, and quick mail service, he could not visualize the taking of secondary education to rural areas by means of regional high schools and correspondence courses, but he offered a modest scheme whereby bright country children might be sent to the high school. He admitted that to do this would involve expense, but declared that the comparatively trifling addition would increase one hundred fold the efficacy of the sums already applied to educational purposes. In his own words, the plan was that “of fostering superior talent, wherever it may be found among the juvenile population, by opening for it a path from the lowest to the highest of our Educational Establishments, by means of exhibitions (scholarships) from schools of one grade to those of a higher” . He proposed that each Grammar School be endowed with two exhibitions for two years, to be competed for by candidates from the Parish Schools of the County, such competitions to take place at each yearly visit of a General School Inspector. Further, he suggested that four other exhibitions for three years be attached to the High Schools of the Province, namely, one each to the Collegiate School at Fredericton, the Grammar School at Saint John, the Wesleyan Academy at Sackville, and the Baptist Seminary at Fredericton, to be competed for by candidates from the various county Grammar Schools. To crown the scheme he proposed an additional exhibition of three years duration at King's College. Thus “a clear way would be thrown open to the humblest individual, possessed of the requisite talents, to attain the highest literary eminence in the Province” .18 After noting the stimulating effects of this scheme on teachers, parents and pupils, d'Avray concluded the exposition of his plan with a burst of oratory, declaring that the blessings of Education, “which formerly fell to the share of a few would be placed within reach of all who chose to seek them. The Gates of the Temple of Knowledge which once opened with difficulty to the studious but favored Scholar, would be thrown back wide open upon their hinges that all might enter, and the waters of the Fountain of Wisdom, of which in other days a few pale students alone were seen to sip, would now be quaffed in deep draughts by any and all who thirsted for them” .19
d'Avray's scheme may be open to the modern criticism which has been directed against Thomas Jefferson's not dissimilar plan for Virginia in the eighteenth century, namely, that although it aimed to open the cultural riches of civilization to all, only a very few could profit,20 but if d'Avray's plan proved to be unacceptable, it was probably not because it was too narrow, but rather because it was too liberal. In this connection it should be borne in mind that

before his training at the Battersea normal school, d'Avray had been educated by his father who is said to have tutored the children of the liberal monarch, King Louis Philippe, and who according to the testimony of the Countess de Boigne and others, as interpreted by Joseph Conrad in his novel, The Suspect, was by no means unsympathetic to the democratic principles of the French Revolution. However, d'Avray could hardly have realized how novel, expensive, and therefore impracticable, his proposed plan would appear. It is likely that no one took it seriously, for there seems to have been no comment, and certainly it was not tried. One wonders what New Brunswick talent might have been salvaged if the scheme had been recognized as workable.
Two years later he delivered another lecture in the Temperance Hall at Fredericton, on January 22, 1850, which was afterwards printed at the request of the teachers of the district. In it he declared that the term education was often misapplied, since it did not signify that preparation for the actual business of life which ought to be the aim of all Education. As the result of his own experience and personal observation, he asserted that what was termed a first rate education in England was singularly ill-calculated to fit a young man for his future career. In asserting this he would not be biased, he said, by his early feelings and impressions, or by the certainty that he would be opposed by hundreds, who would argue in favor of the system of Classical Education “whose strongest claim to their sympathy and admiration arises from its venerable antiquity, and from the fact that despite its age . . . it is fashionable also” .21 Although acknowledging the value of the study of the dead languages in exercising the mental faculties and cultivating the perceptions, d'Avray anticipated modern educational theory by denying that such study was the only means of producing so desirable a result, and appealed to former classical scholars to confess that the Latin and Greek, which they had acquired at the cost of many years of painful work, was rarely of any service to them. He declared that the Universities themselves were tacitly admitting that for centuries they had been wrong, and were enlarging their course of studies to include those sciences which ought never to have been neglected. He then asked this long and searching question—if in the Old Country a new conception of education was emerging, if in that wealthy land men were concluding that Education should be so conducted as to qualify the rising generation for the skilful discharge of the duties of life, if the learned heads of the British Universities were becoming convinced “that they can no longer lag behind in the onward march of improvement, that they also must keep pace with the spirit of the times, and provide some better and more nourishing food than the romantic lore upon which they had fed so long; that they must endeavor now to make them practically useful men and not merely learned pedants-, if England, the land of dearly cherished prejudices is doing this, how clearly it is our duty in this favored Province, where all may find the means of a comfortable existence who choose to labour for it, but where all or nearly all must labour to obtain those means; how imperatively are we

called upon to adopt such a system of Education, founded upon such a solid base and sure foundation, as shall infallibly secure to our children that amount of really careful knowledge which shall prepare them for the business of after life, qualify them for intercourse with their fellowmen, and for the efficient and conscientious discharge of every duty” .22 In brief, d'Avray called for an educational system that would pay practical, social, and civic dividends, and challenged the people of the Province to demand it, declaring that the Government could not alone produce the desired benefit. “The Education of the people in its highest and best sense can be accomplished only by themselves.” Let us hope, he said, that the day is coming, if not already come, “when Education will be universally regarded as the birthright of man, and when to withhold intellectual and moral culture from minds created and placed within our reach, shall be esteemed an injustice to Society and a sin against God” .23
He then described the educational institutions of England and showed that the private and proprietary schools for the middle classes, while superior to those for the upper classes, were still defective, affording their pupils but scanty training for the business of earning a livelihood.24 He next described the schools for the poor—Pauper Schools, Infant Schools, Monitorial Schools, Sunday Schools, and Schools of Industry,25 drawing particular attention to the type mentioned last, because in those schools manual work, such as Shoemaking, Tailoring and Farming was combined with ordinary school subjects. In this connection, he referred to schools on the Continent, particularly the School and Model Farm near Berne founded by DeFellenberg, a Swiss associate and follower of Pestalozzi. While New Brunswick, by the bounty of Providence, did not need institutions for the education of paupers, d'Avray thought that from the example of such schools the Province might learn something of value. He proposed, therefore, the formation of at least one Agricultural School or College to which should be attached a Model Farm, where all the improvements of modern science could be applied to the tillage of the soil and to the cultivation of the best breeds of stock. There should be workshops also, where the students might acquire skill in the use of carpenter's tools and in the construction and repair of farm implements. He would have the Arithmetic course include lessons on keeping farm accounts, surveying fields, and measuring timber, hay, and manure. Lectures in Botany, Agricultural Chemistry, Mechanics, Anatomy, and the care of animals should supplement the ordinary school subjects of Reading, Writing, Geography, History, and Composition. “Such is the plan upon which it is my firm belief,” said d'Avray, “that Education can best be conducted in this Young Province . . . . Then would the Province of New Brunswick, finding in its own bosom enough and more than enough to supply its wants, cease to be dependent as it is now upon other States for the chief articles of consumption, and rapidly rise to that enviable position which must naturally

result from the well directed energy of its inhabitants.” As for the cost, he thought that after the original outlay, under proper management the annual expenses of such an establishment would be very small, and might even be covered by the produce.26
In conjunction with this Agricultural School, d'Avray said he would operate the Training School, which Parish School teachers would be required to attend for at least six months, and where they would take part in the exercises of the School and in all the occupations of the Farm and Work Shop. Since Algebra and Navigation were not in very general demand in the backwoods, let those who wished to acquire such subjects do so at the Grammar Schools. Of these he said he knew little, as no facilities had been afforded him of observing the mode in which they were conducted, but if they resembled the Collegiate School, with which he was acquainted, then they were well calculated to meet the exigencies of the scholar. He fervently hoped that the Collegiate School might long flourish at the head of the Grammar Schools of New Brunswick, and resist the attacks of ignorance and malignity27—a reference, doubtless, to d'Avray's avowed enemy, John Gregory, who had previously become involved in a violent and dramatic quarrel with George Roberts, the master of the Collegiate School, and the grandfather of Sir Charles G. D. Roberts.
d'Avray then addressed the teachers of the Province, who were, he said, in many respects to blame for much of the evil complained of in connection with the Parish Schools. He urged them to put away petty feeling and jealousy, to form Teachers' Associations, and above all to study diligently that they might become efficient instructors and elevate the standing of their profession. Finally, he hoped that his lecture might excite some interest in those who were in a position to give effect to his recommendations, and that such persons might be induced to acknowledge that education, to operate beneficially, must take a more practical direction than it had hitherto done.28
What were the effects of this speech? We know that many who heard it were enthusiastic, for it was in response to their solicitations that the lecture was printed. But when a new school act was passed in 1852 it embodied none of d'Avray's principles except two incidentals, inspection and optional assessment for schools, both features which had been urged in the Province before d'Avray came. Nearly ninety years had to pass before steps were taken to give to the education of rural children in New Brunswick that practical direction which he recommended, and a Provincial Agricultural School has never been realized. It is true that during the decade following this lecture a renewed and determined effort was made to convert King's College into an Agricultural School. It is also true that d'Avray opposed this proposal. It is evident that, in spite of his emphasis on vocational training, he never belittled the importance of classical education, although he stated in 1871 that many traditional and inherited opinions, such as the idea that Greek and Latin versification were the

only ends of any system of education, were gradually being exploded as fallacious, and unsuited to the requirements of the age.29 We must also bear in mind that at no time did he advocate the closing of the Grammar Schools or King's College, and the abolition of classical instruction. He merely called attention to the unreasonableness of the sole emphasis on such learning.
So far, we have examined only that evidence which seems to support the theory that d'Avray held liberal views in education. The fact that one of his contemporaries accused him of social bias requires an equally careful examination. The cause of the bad feeling between d'Avray and John Gregory is not certain. The personal reaction of each to the other may have been one of those natural antagonisms that occasionally spring up inexplicably between two strong personalities. On the other hand, Gregory, as Secretary of the Board of Education, and possessor of positive views, which he was accustomed to express freely, may have resented d'Avray's calm assumption that he, d'Avray, was the educational authority of New Brunswick. Moreover, Gregory, on his own word, was of the people and for the people, and seems to have found reason to suspect d'Avray of patrician sympathies. Whatever the cause, the battle seems to have commenced almost immediately after d'Avray's arrival in New Brunswick. d'Avray's reference to educational theorists, in his opening lecture, was evidently meant to include Gregory, for later d'Avray spoke of the disinclination of the Board of Education to accept and sanction any alterations or improvements “not emanating from themselves” . “None of them, he said, are practical men—many of them are entirely guided by the opinion and views of their Secretary who is nothing more than a Theorist like themselves, and they are, I believe, disposed to receive any new suggestions with considerable jealousy.” 30 In reply, Gregory criticized the tone of d'Avray's first report, and said that the designation which d'Avray had made of the Act of 1847 as an absurdity and an impossibility was a discourtesy to the Legislature and Council. The Act might not be perfect, but it would be neither an absurdity nor an impossibility in the hands of those who were “competent and disposed to carry out its provisions without being prematurely desirous of altering its principles and of opposing their own isolated views against the good sense of the Legislature, and the decisions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council” . If, said Gregory, d'Avray had a correct conception of the difference between a Crown Colony and one having a representative form of Government, he would be able to see more clearly how the law was to be carried out.31 Later, when a second Training School was opened in Saint John under the direction of E. H. Duval, Gregory, in his official report as Secretary to the Board of Education, spoke civilly enough of the arrangement,32 but five years later inferred that d'Avray had certified Duval for the position on the strength of interviews lasting no

more than two or three hours.33 At that time Gregory had lost his position as Secretary to the Board, since that position had merged with that of the Chief Superintendent in 1852, had accused d'Avray, who was then the Superintendent of Education, of actions which had placed Gregory in a false light, and had referred to d'Avray with considerable asperity in the presence of the Provincial Secretary.34 In a number of philippics in the form of letters to the press Gregory attacked afresh d'Avray's views on education, thereby elevating the question from a clash of personalities to a conflict between opposing educational philosophies, a conflict in which Gregory chose to regard himself as the champion of democratic education and d'Avray as its opponent.
Immediately after d'Avray's initial advocacy of a restricted curriculum for Parish Schools, Gregory had claimed that to insist on a limited curriculum was to say, in fact, that the greater number of Provincial youths should receive no further school instruction than Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Grammar, and Geography, and declared that “this would be a social mistake and a serious political blunder” .35 In 1854 Gregory spoke still more strongly. He declared that d'Avray's educational policy and not parental apathy and indifference was the real stumbling block to educational progress. When in 1848 d'Avray had reduced the course at the Normal School to less than what His Majesty's ministers had proposed for the emancipated negroes of the West Indies, all were struck dumb with amazement at d'Avray's bold pretensions. The limited course of instruction proposed by him might do for remote and poor districts, but it left no alternative to boys in towns and wealthy farming districts but that of wasting their time in vain repetitions, or removing to the Grammar Schools at an expense their friends could ill afford. Indeed, said Gregory, reflection on d'Avray's career in this province “and particularly on his evident anxiety to restrain popular education convinces me that his own early education has been very defective, and that while acquiring a knowledge of French, to which he is so much indebted, he has imbibed the political opinions of the French noblesse in the anti-Revolutionary times” .36 In his next letter to the press Gregory admitted that there was parental apathy in the Province, but said that it was due to the indifferent character of the schools and the little work that they accomplished. This in turn was due to d'Avray's promotion of a “subordinating system for the scholars who pursue only the English branches” . Gregory claimed that d'Avray, in urging the propriety of lessening the course of study for the

English scholar (as opposed to the classical scholar) was motivated, not by practical considerations, but by class feeling. Gentlemen study the classics; the mere English scholar never can be a gentleman; he is down and ought to be kept so. Such, said Gregory, was the master spirit which controlled education in the Province, and until a better spirit was infused it was libelous to charge the inefficiency of the schools to the apathy of the people at large.37 Nearly three years later Gregory was still writing in the same strain. He spoke of the vast social and political interests which were involved in the depths of the educational question, and appealed to Her Majesty's Government for protection against the obloquy to which he had been subjected, concluding: “I have yet to be convinced that it is a principle of the British Government that he who dares to interfere, even legitimately and officially with the educational question, in any way tending to the amelioration of the system as regards the comparatively poor, is deemed worthy of being degraded and wronged.” 38
Impetuous and officious as Gregory seems to have been, in these observations there are indications of a sincere interest in education. It seems a pity that he and d'Avray could not have worked together for the cause of education! Yet it is possible that their viewpoints were so diametrically opposite that teamwork was out of the question. This quarrel between John Gregory and Baron d'Avray may have reflected the elements of a social conflict. Gregory, who knew d'Avray personally and had opportunities of hearing him express his views in ordinary conversation, seems to have been convinced of d'Avray's Tory principles. We are bound to consider, of course, the possibility that Gregory's personal bias detracts from the reliability of his testimony. We note, too, that Gregory, in criticizing d'Avray's limited aims for Parish Schools, chose to ignore d'Avray's suggestion of scholarships leading from Parish Schools to King's College. On the other hand, d'Avray seems to have continued to insist on a restricted programme of instruction for Parish Schools after it may have been evident that there was no likelihood of the establishment of such scholarships. As far as can be discovered he offered no alternative except to remark that there were Grammar Schools in every County,39 although under existing economic conditions only a few children from rural areas could attend the Grammar Schools.
Contrary to what was alleged by Gregory, d'Avray's early pronouncements on education were marked, as we have seen, by an appearance of liberality. We must now examine his later statements as Superintendent of Education for further evidence of his views and attitudes. In 1854 he stated unequivocally in his School Report that while he believed in education for all, he did not believe that education for the poor laborer's son need be identical with that at the disposal of his wealthier neighbor. He then pointed to the schools of successive grades in France and Prussia, noting that the Primary Schools in those countries served those classes which were limited in time and means. It might

be argued, he said, that a restricted course for the Parish Schools of New Brunswick would deprive many children of the opportunity of distinguishing themselves in after life, but geniuses were not so common as was supposed and where they did exist would find their way.40 He then paid tribute to Massachusetts, and said that the Common School System of that state was devised with a view to the useful and practical, and did not comprise branches of study which the Parish Schools of New Brunswick were required to impart. Let us, he urged, try to acquire some of the admirable public spirit of Massachusetts, but let us not think it a glorious thing to find among us a Parish School in which the pupils are taught Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, English Grammar, Geography, and plain Needlework for fifteen shillings per quarter, and Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, Botany, Astronomy, Algebra, Book-keeping, the rudiments of Latin, and ornamental needlework for five shillings per quarter extra.41 In a later report he made references to the changes which had swept away many of the distinctions that once lay like a barrier between certain classes of society. The results were not all good. In education the lack of instruction of former days was succeeded by the universal system. Education was running wild, and the popular education so often lauded as a blessing was but a shell of education. He declared that if one insisted that children of the lowest rank were as entitled to be well educated as children of the highest rank, one might as well assert that the poor had a right to the property of the rich, unless one were prepared to admit that a smattering of knowledge was equivalent to knowledge itself, and that as much could be learned in three or four years by the one class as in the ten or twelve years which the other class could afford to devote to school and college. Cheap schools had replaced expensive ones, but the superficial had usurped the place of the sound and thorough, and accomplishments had superseded the useful and respectable, and had unfitted thousands for their proper sphere of duty. The result was that those who were born for trade were aspiring to the professions, and young women who should be fulfilling their destiny behind the counter or in the servant's hall were playing false notes, speaking bad French, and reading trashy novels. He feared, he said, lest the progressive system destroy all our ancient institutions, and replace sound learning by a flimsy affectation of knowledge. He was glad to know that throughout the Province the real friends of education acknowledged that he was right in advocating the instruction in Parish Schools of only Reading, Writing, Spelling, Geography, and the History of the Province. To learn things which could never be of service in one's walk of life was mere waste of time. The Common School was a place for giving the means of education; to give there a complete education was utterly impracticable.42
d'Avray's solitary opponent did not hesitate to interpret portions of these Reports as evidence of class prejudice. Moreover, the original quarrel had not been with d'Avray, but with Dr. George Roberts, and Gregory's original

hostility to d'Avray may not have arisen over a difference of educational policy, but from the fact that d'Avray was a friend of Roberts. d'Avray had sided with Roberts in the quarrel which the latter had had with Gregory, and Gregory had hinted that the expulsion of his son from the Collegiate School and the backing which the College Council had accorded at the time to Roberts, Headmaster of the School, furnished proof of the strength in New Brunswick of those class distinctions with which the educational system had begun. While the details of the feud between Roberts and the stormy Gregory do not concern us, certain aspects of the case cannot be ignored, because of their social implications. From a perusal of the Minutes of the College Council we learn that the Council, after hearing Roberts and Gregory, passed a resolution to the effect that it appeared George Gregory had been expelled from no improper conduct on his part, and expressed the opinion that since the Collegiate School was a school established by legislative enactment and supported mainly at the expense of the province, Roberts was not justified in expelling any pupil for any cause but improper conduct and non-payment of the usual fees, and that therefore Roberts ought to readmit George Gregory to the School. In the face of this resolution Justice Carter then moved an amendment to the effect that the Board, while unable to allow the uncontrolled right of the Master of the School to dismiss pupils for the misconduct of the parent, were of the opinion that the circumstances of the case afforded sufficient justification to Roberts for the course he had adopted with respect to Gregory's son, and that they were such as to prevent the Board from directing the readmission of the boy. From this contradiction of the previous resolution only two members of the Council, Alexander Rankine and J. A. Street, dissented.43 Gregory then published a pamphlet which included copies of the documents and letters which had figured in the affair, and described all the circumstances as they appeared to him. From this pamphlet we learn that Roberts, in one of his letters to Gregory during the quarrel, asked the latter if it did not occur to him that the examiners at the scholarship examinations were gentlemen, a question which may have had an invidious implication. We find also that Gregory, in one of his communications, declared that his enemies could not wound him by allusions to his descent, and spoke with defensive pride of his family connections.44 Thus, indirectly, Gregory implied that among the causes of the discrimination from which he believed his family had suffered were the circumstances of his birth as a mechanic's son, and the existence in the province of a spirit of class pride and snobbery.
It is possible, of course, that other factors were involved, such as a personal thorniness and aggressiveness in Gregory which antagonized constituted authorities, but the possibility that social considerations had a bearing on the case cannot be entirely ruled out, nor the implications of d'Avray's champion-

ship of Roberts. The inch-by-inch struggle for Responsible Government in progress at this time meant that exclusive privileges and traditional controls were passing, but passing slowly. To these illustrations which we have noted from time to time of public feeling on the question, we may add the address by John Boyd in the Hall of the Mechanics' Institute in Saint John in 1853. The speaker cautiously admitted that New Brunswick had class distinctions borrowed from the Mother Country, “one of her lesser evils amidst her greatest good” . One saw it, he said, during elections, when votes were cast for Mr. So and So “for he's a rale gentleman” . “Such is the homage paid to class even here.” The speaker then asked if class would have a foothold had education done her perfect work. “The time is coming when natural abilities, an enlightened education, and a desire to be useful to our fellow-man—whether possessed by the mechanic, merchant, or professional man—will be, as they aught, the only lines recognized as marking the grades that must always exist in social life, of superior, inferior, and equals.” 45
That day, however, had not yet fully come, and it is difficult to decide whether d'Avray, identified as he was with the social aristocracy of New Brunswick, fully anticipated the equalitarian doctrines that have since his time received a wider currency.
It could be, of course, that d'Avray had arrived in the province with a stock of English liberalism which flowered on first contact with the independent breath of North America, but became arrested in the face of practical difficulties, and modified as he became identified with the official, socially prominent, and academic circles of a conservative capital and a still more conservative King's College. On the other hand, d'Avray may have kept his ideals to the end, but, attempting to be a realist in the midst of a culturally poor society, made compromises which to him seemed the acme of commonsense but were interpreted by his enemies as deliberate reaction.
Two points clearly emerge, however. The practical trends in education which d'Avray advocated were ignored, unless they contributed to the verbal ammunition of those who wished to convert King's College into an Agricultural School. Decades were to pass before the strictly classical in secondary and higher education ceased to be the one and only ideal. Secondly, d'Avray's view of limited course of instruction for Parish Schools, whether wise or unwise, was only partially followed. By the Act of 1852 female teachers were called on to teach a limited curriculum, as likewise were male teachers of the second and third class, but male teachers of the first class were still required to teach Bookkeeping, Geometry, Mensuration, Land Surveying, Navigation, and Algebra. Trigonometry and Natural Philosophy, however, were dropped from the requirements. This meant, in effect, that rural areas had the opportunity of obtaining teachers of whom they could demand work in advance of the elementary. In a country economically poor and largely rural, but generally admitting no social barriers to ambition, this means that the door to advanced edu-

cation was at least partially open to country youths of ability and determination. Until comparatively recent times, this remained, for many, the only door. While advanced work was doubtless often carried on at the expense of the elementary classes, hundreds of ambitious young New Brunswickers managed to struggle through this narrow opening into business, the skilled trades, the teaching profession, and occasionally even the University. In this tendency to require the one-room school to do high school work, the educational policy of New Brunswick (and of her neighbor, Nova Scotia) has resembled that of Scotland.46
On the trail of d'Avray's views we have wandered far afield from the opening of the Normal School. We shall now consider some of the limitations and vexations which accompanied the operation of the School during its early years, and hindered it from achieving the fullest success. To begin with, the interval of training was only ten weeks, an inadequate period in view of the undeniable fact that many of the teachers needed scholastic instruction as well as pedagogic training. It did not take d'Avray long to discover that what the Inspectors had said on this point in 1845 was still true of many teachers. In his first annual report he commented on these deficiencies, saying that many teachers were poor readers and made constant mistakes in ordinary conversation. The majority knew little or nothing of Geography, and committing their thoughts to writing was work of the greatest difficulty. Some, he said, should never have been admitted.47 But more glaring than these deficiencies was the inability of the teachers to communicate the knowledge of which they were possessed, a handicap to which d'Avray repeatedly referred in letters and reports. “It is as teachers—as imparters of that knowledge, that they are in general so deficient, and it is in the acquirements of that art that they should be principally exercised during the time of their attendance.” 48 Because of these circumstances d'Avray criticized the brevity of the training period, and repeatedly emphasized the opinions which he had expressed in his opening lecture on the desirability of instructing and training Parish School teachers in a knowledge of elementary subjects only. This might be done in ten weeks, he said, but to try to do more was absurd, and would be useless, if effected, as the wants of the community which could, or should be, supplied by the Parish Schools were Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Grammar, and Geography.49 This came far short of what the Act of 1847 required of first and second class teachers, but of that piece of legislation d'Avray said: “The Act appeared to me an Absurdity and daily experience convinces me that it is an impossibility also.” Referring to his opening lecture, d'Avray asserted: “I promised enough to satisfy all who had more sense than to expect too much, and none were dissatisfied but the

Educational Theorists whose visionary expectations it would be impossible to realize.” 50
Besides these difficulties, d'Avray had to face lack of enthusiasm on the part of the teachers. To many of these, Normal School training represented inconvenience without commensurate compensation, for the increase in provincial grants promised by the Act of 1847 to trained teachers was but slight, and the subscriptions required from the community were to remain unchanged. Attendance at the Training School therefore demanded of the teacher some immediate expense, and held out no prospect of eventually improved financial standing. d'Avray seems to have been aware of this grievance, for one of his arguments in favour of County Training Schools was the reduction which such schools would mean in the travelling expenses of teachers.
In addition to objections to the inconvenience and expense of attending the Normal School, there seems to have been some criticism of the training as well, and possibly a disinclination to profit by it. Attorney-General Ambrose Street, during the debate on the School Bill of 1852, said he believed that the practice of sending up licensed teachers to the Training School was worse than useless, for such teachers would go back “execrating the Training School, and would relapse into their old habits” . It was difficult to “unlearn” people their bad habits and to instruct them in the new. He knew, he said, of a man of sixty who had gone to the Training School to be trained as a teacher, and who thought himself a cleverer fellow than his teacher, only he felt himself bound to attend under the law. The Attorney-General said he meant by this no imputation on d'Avray, but mentioned these facts to show the failure of the system of training licensed teachers.51 Inevitably the Training School became the subject of political controversy, as the practical problems which confronted it were seized upon by Gregory who assailed d'Avray as the author of all its difficulties. On the other hand Bishop Medley entertained a high opinion of d'Avray's ability and skill as a teacher, and John M. Brooke, Minister of St. Paul's Church, Fredericton wrote that, “As Principal of the Training School his labours have been highly appreciated, and thankfully acknowledged by a large body of teachers from all parts of the Province . . . . In his private capacity, by his agreeable manners, his amiable disposition, his upright and gentle manly conduct, he has secured the respect and esteem of all classes in the community” . Chief Justice Sir James Carter and Edwin Jacob, Principal of King's College, bore witness to his qualifications in matters of education and his character as a gentleman. If these testimonials mean anything they mean that the difficulties of the Training School were not of d'Avray's making.52 Attorney-General Street placed the blame on the indifference of the people and their unwillingness to adopt taxation for schools.53 Perhaps we should take into

consideration d'Avray's statement that as supervisor of both the Training School and the Model School he had to neglect one in order to attend the other.54 A warning issued by D. S. Morrison before the Normal School opened may have some bearing on this point. Morrison, afterwards a provincial inspector for many years, stated in January 1848 that in his opinion, to render a normal seminary efficient, a plurality of teachers was absolutely necessary, for one man could not possess all the qualifications required to instruct the various classes of teachers in every branch, and if he did have the qualifications, he could not have the time. Morrison also said that owing to the deficiency of New Brunswick teachers in knowledge as well as in the art of teaching, a years attendance at least was necessary. His conclusion was, therefore, that in order to give the Normal School a fair trial, an increase in the number of teachers and an extension of the time of attendance were indispensable, and that the cost of such a plan would promote the cause of education more than the same amount expended in any other way.55
The absence of a permanent Model School presented one of the greatest obstacles in the way of the smooth operation of the first Normal School. At the opening of the latter, the parish schools of Fredericton were used in succession as Model School classes, an arrangement which d'Avray did not find satisfactory.56 Moreover, the hourly change of masters which he thought necessary in order to give to each teacher as much teaching practice as possible operated against the interests of the Model School. Evidently parents did not like the arrangement either, for the pupils of the Model Classes fell off in attendance. At one time there was no attendance for five weeks, so that a set of teachers obtained no practice for half their training. Finally, the Madras School in Fredericton under a Mr. Graham was taken on as the Model School.57
Since in 1841 “Philos” wrote a series of letters to the Editor of The Chatham Gleaner pleading for the better education of women,58 and in 1850 E. H. Duval, Master of the Training School at Saint John, admitted that previous to his visitation of schools in Boston, New York, and Toronto he had had a prejudice against the employment of women teachers,59 we may suppose that female teachers, although employed to a certain extent in the schools of the province, were not held in very high regard. Lieutenant-Governor Colebrooke's plans, we remember, included the training of women for teaching, but when the Normal School was established the premises could accommodate such a limited number of teachers that the Board of Education, at an early date, decided that the attendance of females at the Training School should be dispensed with.60 “It is evident,” d'Avray said in 1848, “that they cannot attend the school with the men,” but on the strength of Sir William's approval of a

separate school for females he had given a certificate to a Miss Moore, daughter of one of the teachers in the city, and His Excellency had granted her a license. She had, d'Avray reported, twenty pupils,61 and he proposed that her school be advertised in the Government Gazette as open for the reception of female teachers who would be there trained under his superintendence.62 This, however, must have been one of the things in which d'Avray was frustrated by the Board, for the school does not seem to have obtained official standing as a training school, and in his first annual report d'Avray stated that of the one hundred and two teachers who had attended the Normal School only one female had attended, and for but a short time.63 As we shall see later, the training of female teachers did not begin until after the Normal School was founded in Saint John.
The Act of 1847 had made reference to the establishment of subsidiary schools, and d'Avray, as has been shown, supported the idea. However, County Training Schools were never established, probably because they could not all have been made useful without enormous expense. New Brunswick, in thus endorsing the advantage of one efficient Normal School over many small training schools, was in line with Nova Scotia, New York State, and Upper Canada. Unfortunately, for many years the one New Brunswick Normal School was conducted under such conditions of cramped quarters, poor heating, and bad ventilation that it could not achieve real efficiency.
Marshall d'Avray soon came to advocate support for schools in terms of the impetus which the adoption of the assessment principle would furnish.64 He also advocated inspection, pointing out that without it there was no guarantee that trained teachers would practise what they had learned at the Normal School.65 While we find no direct reference of his to the need of a Superintendent of Education, we note his suggestion of a series of lectures throughout the province to arouse interest,66 a type of evangelism which only some such official as a Superintendent could perform. In contrast with the procedure followed in Nova Scotia and Upper Canada, d'Avray was afforded no opportunity of visiting the schools of other countries, either before he entered on his work, or in the course of his duties. In spite of all the talk of a Normal School for years before it was established, the Legislature did not seem to appreciate fully either the magnitude of the undertaking, or the minutiae of preparation and detail necessary to insure the utmost efficiency.
It would appear that d'Avray found his position as Master of the Training School vexatious and unsatisfactory, for hardly had he arrived than he began corresponding with Grey on the subject of another appointment. He even expressed willingness to return to the Mauritius, but was advised that the position had been filled and no other was vacant.67 The causes of his dissatis-

faction are not far to seek. The political controversy over the Training School, and the failure of the government to fulfil his expectations must have made this period of his life in New Brunswick one of considerable difficulty. Chief Justice Carter was of the opinion that he had been placed in a false position as a result of the factional conflict. His connection with the Normal School ended, however, more abruptly than he could ever have expected. In November, 1850, a fire occurred in Fredericton which destroyed the Training School, d'Avray's quarters, and many of his possessions. For a time his only means of subsistence was the eighty pounds he earned as a substitute in King's College and the Collegiate School for Professor Houseal who was absent on leave. Eventually, the Government of New Brunswick gave him some compensation for his loss by fire,68 and Professor Houseal having resigned, d'Avray became Professor of Modern Languages at King's with full pay. Since the Province had brought him to this country, the Government must have felt some responsibility for his position— certainly d'Avray implied that they should.69 At any rate, when the first Superintendent of Education had resigned, d'Avray was given the appointment, at the same time retaining his professorship. He ceased to be Superintendent of Education in 1858 but remained at King's College, and then at the University of New Brunswick, which King's was soon to become, until his death.
With the destruction of the Training School in Fredericton, the Saint John School became the only institution in the province for training teachers. In tardy recognition of the limited accommodations at Fredericton, the Board of Education had responded to the solicitation of Edmund Hillyer Duval of Saint John and had established a second Training School in that city in the fall of 1848. Duval, formerly a school inspector in England and principal of a school at Bristol, had come to Saint John in 1845 to take charge of a school there under the auspices of the British and Foreign School Society.70 When the Board of Education appointed him master of the subsidiary Training School, his classes in the British School became the Model School. He could grant licenses of only the second and third classes, but candidates whom he approved for first class might transfer to Fredericton for four weeks training and final examination.71 From 1850 until 1867 this School in Saint John was the only official training school in the province,72 and for nine of those years was under Duval's direction.
It will be remembered that the British and Foreign School Society used the Lancastrian monitorial system. Why, one asks, was such a school established in Saint John in 1845 when the heyday of the monitorial system had passed? Duval's address at the opening of the school, August 25, 1845, ex-

plained that since the early days of the system a change had occurred in the “British” Schools, the education now given being of a more advanced character than at first. Hence, while the monitorial system was still used to some extent, much more direct and individual instruction was given by the master than formerly. Duval said that the system to be adopted in his school would exercise the judgment rather than burden the memory, and that the object was to get children to think.73 Clearly, changing times had brought modifications in the old rigid memoriter methods of the monitorial system.
Duval's aims for the “British” School and d'Avray's for the Parish Schools reveal an identity of purpose, which may explain why d'Avray, after only a brief interview with Duval, readily certified the latter in 1848 as a fit master for a Training School. On the occasion of the opening of the “British” School, Duval announced that the principle of the Society was to impart to children an eminently useful education, adapted to the circumstances in which they were likely to be placed. It did not offer instruction in the dead languages, but would give that education best suited to the mechanical and commercial portions of society. The course in his school, therefore, would embrace Reading, Writing, Spelling, Arithmetic, Geography, Grammar, English History, Natural History, Drawing, and Singing.74 Since the “British” School became the Model Class for Duval's Training School, it is apparent that after 1850 Duval either had to enlarge his curriculum to meet the requirements of first class teachers, or had to give first class candidates training in theory, without practice in teaching advanced subjects.
The most significant change in theory and practice during the early years of Duval's Training School began in 1849 with the enrolment of Martha Hamm Lewis. This girl, in her early twenties, “led the womanhood of this province in a great advance” . According to the story,75 as narrated long afterwards by her daughters, Miss Lewis had been educated by private tutors and in boarding school. Convinced that she knew as much as the young men of her acquaintance who were attending the Training School, she applied repeatedly for admission, but was as often refused on the grounds of custom and expediency. Finally she wrote the Lieutenant-Governor, who ruled that she was not ineligible, and the momentous hour came when an Order-in-Council directed that she be admitted to the Normal School. She was warned, however, that she could in no wise hold the Council responsible for any ill results. Duval, so runs the tale, was much perturbed and imposed certain regulations. She had to enter the classroom ten minutes before the other students and was required to wear a veil. She was asked to sit alone at the back of the room. retire five minutes before the lecture ended, and leave the premises without speaking to the male students. With these precautions, no untoward incident

occurred and “those who had sponsored her brave step were vindicated” .76 In the autumn of 1850 the Board of Education, in answer to a letter from Duval relative to the admission of female teachers to the Training School, ruled that he might admit as many as could be received without inconvenience in the present establishment, “but it will be requisite to enforce perfect propriety” .77 This was the beginning of a trend which quickly resulted in a plurality of females in attendance at the Training School, and in charge of the schools of the province. In 1850 Duval admitted that one of the things which had impressed him during his visits the previous summer to American and Canadian cities78 was the number of females enrolled in the training schools of Boston, New York, Portland, and Toronto, and the number of successful female teachers in the common schools. He had become convinced that his prejudice against the employment of females was unfounded and he recommended that they be received for training.79 In 1852, of the ninety-two students at the Saint John Training School forty-nine were females, and never afterwards did female students lose this ascendancy.
Two conflicting views at this time of the function of a Normal School may be discerned. The level of learning in New Brunswick was generally low, yet the ambition of the John Gregorys in the province demanded that Parish School teachers have some knowledge of advanced subjects. Because of the tendency of the New Brunswick temperament toward concession, the inevitable compromise emerged. To d'Avray a training school was to train teachers to teach. He was dismayed to find so many teachers deficient in learning, and found in this circumstance further argument for the limited course which he advocated for Parish Schools. He also favored the elimination of unfit candidates by means of entrance requirements. But as might be expected in a naive society, many people, teachers included, looked on the Training School as a sort of secondary school. In 1856 d'Avray, then Superintendent of Education, said he had met many young men who had made heroic sacrifices to become better scholars, with a view to obtaining a higher class of license, but had seldom encountered instances of a more desirable ambition to become better teachers—as if, he added, becoming better scholars without becoming better teachers could add to their value as teachers.80 In 1850 Duval had reported that the training period in the Normal School of Massachusetts was a year, but that most of the time was devoted to studies, each pupil spending only two weeks in the Model School. This, he said, differed materially from the plan contemplated by the

New Brunswick Act. He himself thought that the time spent in the Model School in Massachusetts was insufficient, but the authorities there seemed satisfied that theirs was the better plan.81 Gregory opposed d'Avray and Duval on this point. In his report as Secretary in 1850, he complained that the master of the Training School was not required by the Act of 1847 to promote directly the elementary knowledge of the teachers, a point complained of by the teachers. He himself concurred in the views of the managers of training schools in Massachusetts, and thought that an alteration was indispensably necessary to meet the expectations of New Brunswick teachers and to improve their efficiency.82 The matter was not discussed during the debate on the Bill of 1852, and in reference to the training of teachers the Act of that year only mentioned instruction in the art of teaching and in the best methods of conducting Parish Schools.83 It did, however, provide that the classification of teachers for license should be based largely on subjects, and that licenses were to be issued, not only on the report of the Training Master, but also on the ability of the candidates to pass examinations set and marked by unpaid examiners appointed from outside the Normal School.84 Duval, as we have seen, favored as much practice teaching as possible, but the quarters in which his Training School was conducted became so cramped as attendance grew that conditions operated against a large degree of professional training. It would seem, therefore, that while there was no deliberate shift of emphasis, there was a tacit recognition of the function of the Normal School to provide secondary education as well as training in teaching, and a tendency to emphasize the former at the expense of the latter. In 1855 d'Avray complained that the principle on which the training of teachers was conducted was that a little of a good thing was better than none at all. He said that the Act of 1852 imposed on candidates for first and second class such a long series of requirements that, in order to pass, the teachers were compelled to neglect training and instruction in the art of teaching, and devote themselves to the study of various branches, which, to them as common school teachers, were comparatively useless.85 Actually, in the Normal School which was conducted from 1867 to 1870 at Chatham for the teachers of the northern counties, professional instruction was given after the regular school hours.86 All this is not to say that Principals Duval, Mills, Crocket, and subsequent Normal School Principals were under any misapprehension regarding the true function of a Normal School, but they had to do the best they could under existing circumstances. Popular inertia, a tendency in the public mind to confuse knowledge and teaching ability, the unwillingness of the legislature to provide funds for expansion, the inadequacy of teachers' salaries, frequent shortage of teachers, have all combined; even to this day, to limit the professional training received in New Brunswick's Normal School. But, on the other hand, it is undeniable that a teacher,

if he is to have a proper perspective, must know more than the curriculum he is required to teach. It would seem that in d'Avray's opinion existing conditions necessitated a choice between teachers able to teach essentials well, and teachers possessed of considerable superficial knowledge but of little pedagogic skill. That he believed the former was preferable to the latter is no conclusive proof of a belief on his part in any restrictions or limitations on knowledge.
Duval had returned from his tour of schools outside the province impressed with the value of Teachers' Institutes, educational periodicals, school instruction in music, and in particular the benefits of assessment.87 All who were interested in the improvement of education in the province urged the timeliness of a new school act embodying the principle of assessment. At the same time, those who opposed the introduction of the principle began to bombard the Assembly with petitions. In 1850, for example, there were nine petitions signed by five hundred and seventy-six persons against an Act having for its object assessment for schools. During the election campaign of 1850, the leading cry had been for reform and retrenchment in expenditure. Among the new members elected were several supporters of responsible government, such as S. L. Tilley, W. H. Needham, J. H. Gray, and G. L. Hatheway. Wilmot and Fisher were both defeated, probably because of their seeming desertion of the Liberal party in 1846, when they had joined a Conservative government, hoping to effect a balance in the administration. The supporters of reform had the majority in the Assembly, but the principle of executive responsibility to the Assembly was not yet in full operation, and a number of professed reformers switched to the support of the government. In consequence, the Tory Executive remained in power. The unpopular question of assessment was therefore not pushed to a decision by a cautious Executive and a House characterized by a large element of uncertainty and vacillation. Moreover, the session of 1851 presented the legislators with a number of controversial topics, including the question of the Intercolonial Railway, the fate of King's College, and the initiation of money votes.88 The School Bill was therefore held over until the next session.89
According to a newspaper account of remarks on education made by Attorney-General Street during the session of 1851, that official pointed to the admirable way in which the principle of direct taxation worked in Maine and Massachusetts, and said that when we could find a good example we should not hesitate to adopt it because it happened to prevail in a republican country.90 An editorial in the same paper a week later criticized the bill because it said nothing about better pay for teachers, and because the assessment principle contained in the bill was permissive, and required a two-thirds majority of the inhabitants of the district. So long as people remained uneducated, they never would vote to be taxed. The editorial pointed to the good results of a system

of assessment in the neighboring states, even admitting: “It is to this system that the superior enterprise and intelligence of our neighbors are to be attributed” . Finally, the writer called on the Government and Legislature “to dare the transient unpopularity which may attend this measure, and generations yet unborn will bless the session of 1851 ” .91 Continuing its campaign in support of assessment, the Courier published a number of letters on the subject. One such complained that the government, although recognizing the principle of assessment as right, by shifting the responsibility of refusing or granting assessment from their own shoulders upon the shoulders of the counties, was virtually rendering useless the boon which they professed to be desirous of conferring. The writer hoped that no member of the House would show himself such a creature of his constituency as to allow the existing system to continue solely from deference to the grumblings of an apathetic ignorance.92 Another letter described the School Bill of 1851 as a “lame and meagre production” .93
In spite of the existence in the province of such opinions as these, the government of 1852 refused to take the risk of compelling assessment for schools, and the Bill of 1852, which was introduced by Attorney-General Street as a government measure, embodied the assessment principle only in a voluntary form. From the Synoptic Reports of the debate of 1852, we find that inspection and the financial support of schools formed the chief topics of the discussion on the bill.
Three of the leading Liberals elected in 1850 were absent from the House in 1852, Tilley, Simonds, and Ritchie from Saint John having resigned in 1851 following the defection to the government ranks of two of their colleagues, Gray and R. D. Wilmot.94 Besides Street, who was a Tory, the most vocal supporters of the assessment principle were Hatheway, a Liberal, Needham, a Liberal who had refused to resign along with his colleagues from Saint John, and Gray, who had transferred his allegiance and had become a member of the Tory Executive. Among the opponents of the principle were Hanington and John M. Johnson, both Liberals, and Barbarie, who had entered the House in 1850 in opposition to the government, but had later supported it. It would seem, therefore, that political affiliations did not materially affect the attitudes of members to the bill.
Analyzing the principal speeches made during the debate, we note first a general admission of the failure of Normal School training alone to effect any marked improvement in the schools of the province. Popular indifference and the inadequacy of teachers' salaries received a large share of blame. Hatheway declared that “People gave better wages to men laboring in the woods, than the Province gave to school teachers,” and as a consequence respectable men could not be induced to enter the profession.95 Needham said that if people's pockets were touched, they would wake up and determine that the schools should be

conducted in a proper and effective manner.96 Botsford thought that as long as the Province gave teachers only £ 20 a year, better teachers could not be expected,97 and John M. Johnson said that “No man would take the office of a Parish School Teacher that could do anything else, because by any other pursuit he could earn a better living” .98
A second point to be noted is the frequency with which references were made to other countries, particularly Massachusetts.99 The Attorney-General compared the amounts contributed to education by the government of New Brunswick with the sums similarly contributed in Maine and Massachusetts, and said that while New Brunswick spent nearly twice the percentage per head, her education was in nothing like the advanced state of theirs. He referred to Egerton Ryerson's report on education in 1851 so that the honorable members might see that Canada had had to contend with difficulties also. He said that since the last session he had studied the Canada School Act, and had observed that in Canada and in Maine as much information as possible was gleaned from other countries before measures were passed. “Therefore, in preparing this measure he had not drawn from his own powers, but had consulted the information afforded by the experience of other countries.” 100 Needham wished that the Attorney-General had turned his attention to the principle of direct taxation as stated by Horace Mann. If the Attorney-General had done so, he would have become convinced that only one part of every hundred parts of the property of any man belonged to himself; “the rest was entrusted to him for the promotion of the general welfare” . He, Needham, wished that he could boast of being the author of such statements and doctrines; but at least he believed in them. He then detailed at great length the particulars of certain schools in the United States which he had lately visited.101 But while Needham and Street felt the inspiration of Upper Canada and the American States, other members implied that it was folly to hitch one's wagon to a star, taking the stand that the limitations of the province must condition policies and practices in New Brunswick. Barbarie, who was opposed to assessment, told Needham that if he had travelled a little more in New Brunswick, he would know a little more about how to make laws to benefit his own country. Barbarie could tell him that the poor settlers in the woods and rural districts of New Brunswick could not bear a direct tax.102 Cutler deprecated the habit of exalting the institutions of the neighboring states and depreciating our own. “The poverty of the country, the scattered state of the population, and many other causes make the teachers what they are; and this it will be in great measure a work of time to rectify.” In plain words, the legislators of 1852, even those who favored

assessment in theory, seem to have exhibited the usual caution, the characteristic unwillingness to take progressive steps which might prove unpopular, and the old tendency to accept, as inevitable, a modest role for New Brunswick in things of the spirit. This last was in rather curious contrast to the feeling which was growing at the time that New Brunswick was about to ride high on a wave of economic prosperity, because of railway expansion.
A clue to the attitude of the Legislature probably lies in Barbarie's statement that if they inserted a clause to make a direct tax coercive, they would raise a storm about their ears that they could not withstand.104 Attorney-General Street himself set the tone when he said that he favored a direct tax, and always had, but was satisfied it could not be effected compulsorily. The bill, therefore, gave permission to assess, and held out inducements to encourage voluntary acceptance of the principle.105 A number of the members opposed even this. John M. Johnson thought it was better to bear the evils that were known than those “we wot not of” , and therefore preferred the present system to that proposed by the bill.106 Later, he declared that the premium offered for voluntary assessment would mean that rich and urban districts which could afford assessment would get the premium, while poor rural districts which really required aid could get none.107 Harlington thought the same—the system of a direct tax would be inoperative in rural areas where people could not command the use of money. It might do all right in Fredericton, the abode of public officials whose salaries were certain and regular, and in York County where everything represented money. Under the present system the schools had made progress—indeed he had heard it said by persons from Maine that the schools in New Brunswick were in a better shape, as a whole, than those of Maine.108
Only the Honorable J. H. Gray, Hatheway, and Needham showed a degree of readiness to support a more comprehensive measure. The first gentleman cited, as proof that several parts of the country were ready to adopt assessment, a conversation that he had held with several parties in Charlotte County, where at Milltown they had built one of the best schools in the province.109He declared his belief that there would never be a perfect system of education until there were free schools and a direct tax.110 Hatheway, who twenty years later was to risk the fate of his government on the question of free non-sectarian

schools, admitted on this occasion that assessment would be unpopular,111 but argued in its favor. Every child, he said, had a right to an education, and, as Horace Mann had argued, “the wealthy should bear the burden of educating the children with more pleasure than the burden of supporting gaols or poor houses” .112 Needham, whose support of anything was always wholehearted, believed that the Government were bound, even at the risk of their seats, to force direct taxation on the people. “Some laws must necessarily be coercive, and this was one of them.” One thing a Legislature ought to do was to take care that the people they ruled, and the children of the people they ruled, were educated, for it was a self-evident fact that nations were strong in proportion to their intelligence. “If the Legislature waited for all the people of this Province to consent to adopt direct taxation, they would never have it at all.” He himself, during the past summer, had prepared a bill based on the principles of direct taxation and the system of schools in Massachusetts and Maine, and he believed his own bill was better than the Government one, but he had not introduced it, believing it would not be carried in opposition to a Government measure. If he were a member of the Government, yes, if he were the whole Government, he would soon have his bill in operation, and he would stake his existence on the success of the system. In a burst of generosity he said he would give the Committee on Education his bill, if they liked, would say goodbye to his own child, and would throw off any glory that might be supposed to attach to himself as the author of it. In a concluding burst of oratory he cried: “Educate the people and make them free; educate the people and make them happy: educate the people and keep them from crime and misery.” 113
This question of assessment occupied the major part of the debate, but the subject of inspection came in for considerable discussion also. The Act of 1847 had provided for the appointment of two inspectors, but according to the Attorney-General the appointments had not been made.114 On this occasion the consideration was how many inspectors should be appointed. The Attorney-General himself favored having three at £ 250 each per annum, rather than the suggestion of fourteen at £ 50 each, for there must be provision also for a Superintendent.115 J. M. Johnson and Barbarie preferred local inspectors appointed by the counties.116 R. D. Wilmot thought that the cost of inspectors would be more than paid for by the influence of inspection in preventing the establishment, in certain localities, of three schools where one would do, as was sometimes the case.117 Hatheway said that when he considered the time annually spent by the Legislature in discussing the numerous school petitions presented at every session, he believed that the expense of such discussion would pay the salaries of the inspectors.118 Porter warned against having clergymen

for inspectors, as they were always jealous of each other and interfered with each other's suggestions.119 Crane showed that three inspectors would be insufficient, and that £ 250 annually was an inadequate salary for each,120 but Hanington was sure that county inspectors could be found perfectly competent and willing to visit the schools three times a year, and make reports, for £ 75 or £ 100 a year.121
Among sundry statements of interest made during the debate, was the Attorney-General's contention that the payment of an allowance to teachers in attendance at the Normal School opened the way for imposition. He had been told that people who had no intention of becoming teachers had come to the Normal School, even from the United States, merely to get the allowance and spent a few weeks in Fredericton.122 The Honorable J. H. Gray proposed adding to the curriculum instruction in the geography, history and resources of the Province, and pointed to the United States, where everyone, he said, was acquainted with the history, geography and natural resources of every State in the Union.123 Hanington, who had successfully introduced the previous year a measure to close the provincial treasury against grants to the college, criticized the expense, in connection with the college, of £ 2300 for twenty-three pupils, and said he had wished to bring in a resolution proposing the introduction of a system of High Schools, such as they had in Massachusetts, provided for out of the college funds, and free to select pupils from the parish schools124. He did not explain why he had omitted this feature from his resolution the previous year.
The Bill of 1852, in its final form as “An Act for the better establishment and maintenance of the Parish Schools” ,125 incorporated three features of importance, in addition to those which we examined earlier in connection with the licensing of teachers. In the first place, the Board of Education was enlarged to include a Superintendent of Education who was to be Secretary of the Board also, at a total salary of £ 200 per annum, with £ 50 allowed for travelling expenses and contingencies of office. Secondly, there were to be county inspectors appointed by the Governor in Council. These were to inspect each school in their respective counties four times a year. They were to be paid at the rate of 7s. 6d. for each inspection, and were guaranteed a minimum salary of £ 50 a year. Obviously, the Legislature did not consider that the task of inspection was a full-time job! Thirdly, districts or parishes were permitted to assess themselves for the support of schools. Any district or parish adopting the assessment principle would receive a bonus of 25% on the government allowance, and pupils attending the school would not be required to pay a tuition fee in excess of the sum of 2s. 6d. per quarter. As d'Avray pointed out in 1854, those who framed the Act made a mistake in not including, for assess-

ment purposes, the property of non-resident proprietors,126 an oversight which probably partly accounted for the general failure of districts to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by the Act for assessment.
The Act continued the provisions for the Training School at Saint John, extended the period for training to three months, and, by making allowance for a female teacher at the Model School, indicated that females were expected to attend the Training School. However, to encourage males in the profession, the Act made a distinction between the provincial allowance for male and female teachers. Males of the three classes were to receive £ 30, £ 20, and £ 18, while the grants to females were set at £ 14, £ 18, and £ 20. Districts were required to contribute an amount equal to the provincial allowance,127 but the equivalent might still be furnished in board and washing. Teachers already licensed who failed to attend the Training School were to revert to third class. All licenses were henceforth to be signed by the Superintendent. The Act also contained clauses relating to Inspectors' and Superintendent's reports and to teachers' registers, and made provision for the continuance of an allowance to those who attended the Normal School. To put an end to the scores of petitions received annually in the Legislature, the Act declared that the Legislature would not in future entertain any petition of a school teacher, unless it was sanctioned by the Board of Education. As we shall see later, until the Executive assumed the responsibility of provincial finances there was no marked reduction in the number of petitions annually presented to the Legislature.
According to the debate, the legislators of 1852 realized that a connection existed between the inadequacy of teachers' salaries and the generally poor state of the schools. Nevertheless the Act of 1852 did practically nothing to improve the financial status of teachers. This omission did not pass unnoticed. While the Bill was still before the House, “A Patriot” complained that the Bill neglected the wants of teachers and people alike, and asserted that in many parts of the province parochial teachers resembled mendicants in their attire, and that only Bacchanalians and the decrepit would pursue the vocation because of the insignificant sums which teachers received. This particular critic thought that the solution was to have the Government pay the whole salary from mean's realized in an indirect way,128 but others blamed the Government for failing to make assessment compulsory, and bewailed popular indifference. “It is a melancholy prospect for the future of New Brunswick,” wrote the Editor of The Courier in 1854, “when we find the hearty, stalwart pioneers of our wilderness represented as objecting to a direct tax for the education of their children. We think if one duty is obligatory on our members of Assembly more than another, that duty would be, for each and all, to explain and impress upon every individual constituent the imperative necessity for an impost for the purposes of education” .129 This “melancholy prospect” was to prevail, however, for many

a year, for it appeared less grievous to New Brunswick legislators than the loss of their seats.
d'Avray applied for the position of Superintendent, but the appointment was given to the Reverend James Porter. Edwin Jacob, Vice-Principal of King's, wished to be one of the inspectors but he too was disappointed. Lieutenant-Governor Head wrote to Jacob that he would like to comply with the request, but that in these matters he had to be guided pretty much by his Council—a significant statement from the standpoint of responsible government. He added: “Indeed, one great objection I have to the present bill is the patronage which it gives to the government, in the certainty that such patronage cannot be in all instances properly distributed.” 130
James Porter held the position of Superintendent for less than a year. When it was rumored that he was about to terminate his engagement, the Fredericton Head Quarters remarked that his resignation was to be regretted and also rejoiced in —regretted, because his place would be hard to fill, and rejoiced in because the resignation would probably in the end teach (if anything would) the public and the Legislature where the real difficulties existed in working out a scheme of liberal public instruction.131 What these difficulties were is not clear. At any rate, Porter resigned, and d'Avray became Superintendent in his place, at the same time retaining his professorship at King's.
From 1852 onwards the reports of the Superintendent and of the inspectors regularly furnished information about the schools. However, aside from expressing approval of assessment, they give scarcely any inkling of what the writers were thinking or reading. Among the more interesting items gleaned from these reports between 1852 and 1855, the following are as revealing as any.
In 1853 Superintendent Porter showed that only one third of the children of the province between the ages of six and sixteen years of age attended the Parish Schools. There were 107 schoolhouses made of logs, and 380 schools had neither yard nor privy. The Irish National Books were still sanctioned by the Board, together with Lennie's English Grammar and Pinnock's Catechism of the History of England and America. There was as yet no geography with maps for the teaching of New Brunswick geography.132 The inspectors generally complained of the negligence and selfishness of Trustees in marking off school districts. Cases were known where Trustees were selected in direct opposition to their predecessors for the sake of altering the location of school districts. Books were scarce and of a wide variety. Parents were apathetic, in some cases because of poverty, but not in all, for in general the ordinary business of the country had never been in a more prosperous state. Irregularities existed. One Inspector found a teacher who received only £ 6 a year from the inhabitants, and boarded himself. In some instances the contracts stipulated that the teacher

should have Friday and Saturday to himself. Erroneous ideas prevailed in regard to assessment, some people believing that compulsory assessment meant there would be no support at all from the government.133
Reports for 1853 were in a similar vein, particularly with reference to school districts and popular apathy. Duval cited examples of the embarrassment to teachers which boarding around often entailed. In one case a teacher was asked if he would defer his period of boarding with one of the families for some time, because flour was so dear at the time.134 The reports presented in 1855 gave further instances of the same sort. The Superintendent noted that teachers were sometimes paid in potatoes, buckwheat, and socks, all charged at the very highest rates in orders upon the stores, where the unfortunate teachers obtained indifferent goods at exorbitant prices.135 One inspector reported a case in Gloucester County where an increase in the teacher's salary was made by raising the price of the produce, in which, by previous agreement, the teachers were paid.136 The Superintendent also pointed to the time which teachers lost in travelling about, seeking a vacant school, visiting the inhabitants and obtaining subscriptions, and calling upon the Trustees for approbation and signatures. He suggested that engagements should be made through the local Inspector, who should have authority to institute proceedings in an action for debt for the sums which were promised. This, of course, would add to the duties of the inspectors, who should be reduced in numbers and given salaries to make their positions full-time. The Superintendent himself should receive more than £ 50 for travelling expenses if he was to know the province and the teachers.137 Because of the odious conditions attached to teaching, and because of the increased commercial prosperity of the province, the teachers, especially male teachers, were leaving the profession for more highly paid employment. Superintendent d'Avray implied that New Brunswick, like the Mother Country, had made the mistake of overlooking the fact that as the teacher is, so is the school. At the laying of the cornerstone of the Toronto Normal School, he said, the late Governor General of Canada had alluded to this, saying that it was difficult to find a more flagrant error of putting effect before cause than that exhibited in the course pursued by the friends of education in England and other countries, who for years had busied themselves in building schools, and endeavoring to induce children to attend them, without ever enquiring whether competent teachers could be secured, and without taking any efficient and vigorous steps to supply an admitted want of qualified teachers. Since 1846, however, England had been pursuing a more enlightened policy, and, by implication, d'Avray inferred that New Brunswick must do the same.138
There is something pathetic about the fact that year after year Superintendents and inspectors penned reports similar in nature to the above. These

officials, no matter how zealous in admonishing teachers and in informing the public, could work no sudden miraculous change in the character of the Parish schools. Year after year the Government and Legislature received their reports and, as often, failed to act on the information and suggestions therein presented, thereby robbing the work of such officials of much of its significance.
In 1854 the efficiency and usefulness of King's College were again vigorously attacked. As a result, five commissioners were appointed to consider the state of the college. Three residents of New Brunswick, the Honorable J. H. Gray, the Honorable James Brown, and the Honorable J. S. Saunders were members of the Commission, along with two distinguished educationists from outside the province, Egerton Ryerson from Canada West, and J. W. Dawson from Nova Scotia.139 While King's College and university education formed the principle theme of their report, the Commissioners envisioned such a linking of all the educational institutions of the Province in one comprehensive system that they felt unable to limit themselves to a consideration of the college alone. The report stressed the necessity of the recognition and application of the vital principle that every child had the right to such an education as would fit him for Christian citizenship, and that every man is bound to contribute in order to secure to every child the enjoyment of that right.140
Referring to the Normal and Model Schools, the Commissioners indicated that these institutions had been only partially successful, if not failures, and implied that this was because of inadequate facilities and meagre financial support. New Brunswick could have premises as spacious, and buildings as noble, as those in Canada West, at the expense of £ 1000 for procuring and fitting up the premises and apparatus, and £ 1000 a year for the support of the institution. A good Normal School and public libraries were, the Commissioners thought, absolutely indispensable. 141
Since the Parish Schools were in fact the colleges of nine-tenths of the people, “to despise those Schools, to neglect them, to make or keep the Parish School House the poorest and most comfortless place in the Parish, is clearly most impolitic and unwise” . Again the Commissioners pointed to Canada West, where the inhabitants had resolved that the buildings for elementary education should be no less convenient and complete, in their kind, than those for classical and scientific education. As a result the body of the people were more elevated and more capable of appreciating what was noble and refined.142
The Commissioners stressed the importance of the office of Chief Superintendent, which, incidentally, they thought should be combined with that of the Head of the University. Since such an administrative position required high qualifications, the remuneration should be sufficient to attract qualified persons. As Dr. Wayland, President of Brown University, had said, “it was bad econ-

omy to employ inferior talent to do badly that which could only be of service when it was done well” .143
While this report produced no immediate action in connection with the College, the Normal School, or the Parish Schools, a number of the Commission's recommendations were eventually applied to the College; and in the School Act of 1858 the influence of the Commission may be discerned in the encouragement afforded to school libraries, and in the clauses which provided for clerical assistance and increased salary for the Superintendent of Education. One of the most interesting things about the appointment of the Commission lies in its significance as an indication of an increasing tendency in New Brunswick to look to other parts of America, rather than across the Atlantic. The adoption of such models as Massachusetts and Canada West practically guaranteed the eventual development in New Brunswick of a system of schools open to all, and forming an educational ladder reaching from the lowest to the highest institution in the province. Obviously, the next time the provincial authorities felt impelled to import an educationist they would turn, not to England as they had done in 1847, but to one of the sister colonies in North America.
The ratification of the Reciprocity treaty in this same year, 1854, was an instance in the economic field of the way in which the interests of New Brunswick, of necessity, were becoming more and more identified with the continent of North America. It is true that certain features of this commercial treaty between the United States and the British provinces of North America were not popular in the Maritimes, the latter inclining to the belief that their fisheries were being sacrificed to the interests of the Province of Canada.144 There is a suggestion, also, that interested parties in Canada and America helped to secure the assent of the legislators of New Brunswick by bribes in hard cash.145 At any rate, the treaty was ratified by a special session of the New Brunswick Legislature with only five members dissenting.146
It was during this particular session of the Legislature that the Honorable Charles Fisher introduced a resolution declaring that the conduct of the administration during the last four years had not been in accordance with the principles of self-government. This resolution having been carried by a large majority, Fisher formed a new administration composed of members responsible to the Assembly, and at the next session in 1855 the new Government started action to put an end to the old wasteful system of appropriations, and to vest in itself the initiation of all money grants.147 Also in 1855 the last remnant of the old Imperial Custom House system was withdrawn by the British Government.148 By means of these changes Responsible Government became a reality. “The old order of things,” says Hannay, “had passed away . . . . Hencefor-

ward New Brunswick was committed to a policy, in which family compacts and despotic Lieutenant Governors could have no place.” 149
Coincident with all this, the Province was experiencing a mighty preoccupation with the question of railways—a preoccupation which featured a wide range of emotions, many rival schemes, and a number of overly ambitious ventures. In 1853, when the New Brunswick section of the European and North American railway was begun—a railway which was to connect Halifax and Saint John with the railway lines of the United States—there was great rejoicing.150 Hopes were still high, also, that the Imperial Government would assist the British provinces of North America in the building of an Intercolonial railway from Halifax to Quebec. Both projects, as it happened, were doomed to disappointing delays, but this was not yet apparent. The future seemed bright; there was commercial prosperity; New Brunswick ships still sailed the seven seas; soon shining rails would lead west and southwest; Responsible Government had been achieved; the province could boast of having much of the educational machinery which larger, more populous, and more prosperous states had achieved. All the kaleidoscopic bits and pieces of the previous twenty years seemed to be shaping into one simple splendid pattern— Prosperity. All the wavering lights and fitful flashes of those years seemed to be blending into a new radiance. One could almost believe, in 1854, that for New Brunswick a Golden Age lay just ahead.


^1. Department of Education of New Brunswick, Minutes of the Board of Education, 1847-1852. pp. 5, 6.

^2. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1848, pp. 54-56.

^3. Fenety, p. 348.

^4. Ibid., p. 358.

^5. Bailey, J. W. (1), pp. 22-103.

^6. Ibid., Footnote p. 5.

^7. University of New Brunswick Library, Letters and Papers Relating to the Family of J. Marshall d'Avray, d'Avray to Grey, Aug. 5, 1847.

^8. Attested to by a copy of Reports of the Mauritius Education Committee, 1844-1847, (CO 167/254), in the collection mentioned in footnote 6.

^9. University of New Brunswick Library, Letters and Papers Relating to the Family of J. Marshall d'Avray, d'Avray to Grey, Sept. 30, 1847.

^10. P.A. of Canada, C0188, Vol. 10, Colebrooke to Grey, Jan. 28, 1848, Disp. 10.

^11. Parrington (2), Intro. p. iii.

^12. Hannay (1), Vol. 2, p. 42.

^13. d'Avray (1), p. 4.

^14. Ibid., p. 8.

^15. Ibid., p. 5.

^16. Ibid., p. 6.

^17. Ibid., p. 4.

^18. John Gregory in 1850 said that the suggestion of Scholarships, to pave the way for the poor man's son from the Parish School to the honors of the College, originated some years before with the Attorney-General (Street), and was afterwards very properly adopted by d'Avray. (Gregory, Documents before the Council of King's College in the case of the Expulsion of George Gregory, p. 36.)

^19. d'Avray (1), p. 7.

^20. Curti, p. 43.

^21. d'Avray (2), p. 5.

^22. Ibid., pp. 6, 7.

^23. Ibid., p. 8.

^24. Ibid., pp. 10-12.

^25. Ibid., pp. 12-18.

^26. Ibid., pp. 18-20.

^27. Ibid., pp. 20-22.

^28. Ibid., pp. 23-25.

^29. d'Avray (3), p. 1.

^30. P. A. of Canada, Canada Misc., Delancey-Robinson Papers, Vol. 14, d'Avray to Colebrooke, April 17, 1848.

^31. Ibid., Vol. 14, Gregory to Colebrooke, April 28, 1848.

^32. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 72.

^33. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol, 43, No. 42, March 18, 1854, p. 2.

^34. The Weekly Chronicle, Saint John, Jan. 2, 1857. Gregory's opinion of d'Avray may be compared with that of Bliss Carman who wrote “Professor d'Avray and his wife were a most delightful couple; he a very distinguished-looking gentleman of the old school, with gray waxed moustache and a charming dry wit;. . .” Quoted by Sir John Willison, p. 15. Carman's opinion is corroborated by that of Eldon Mullen, one of d'Avray's students who was afterwards Deputy Director of Education in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. Of him Mullen wrote, “He was a thorough and elegant scholar, with a keen appreciation of what was best and truest in literature, and unerring taste in expression. There never breathed a kindlier man. He had an exquisite sense of humour, but his wit never wounded.” etc. Quoted in Bailey, J. W. (2) p. 55. d'Avray's urbane manners, good humour, and especially his composure may have irked the impetuous Gregory.

^35. P. A. of Canada, Canada Misc., Delancey-Robinson Papers, Vol. 14, Grey to Colebrooke (enclosure), April 28, 1848.

^36. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol.43, No.42, March18, 1854, p. 2.

^37. Ibid., Vol 43, No. 43, March 25, 1854, p. 1.

^38. The Weekly Chronicle, Saint John, Jan. 2, 1857.

^39. d'Avray (2), p. 21.

^40. New Brunswick: Journal of the House of Assembly, 1854, Appendix 194, 195.

^41. Ibid., Appendix 215, 216.

^42. Ibid., 1856, Appendix 180-182.

^43. University of New Brunswick Library, Minute Book of the College Council of King's College at Fredericton, N. B., Jan. 10, 1829-June 28, 1859, Oct. 27, 1849, pp. 386-388.

^44. Gregory, p. 41.

^45. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 43, No. 37, Jan. 14, 1854, p. 1.

^46. Canada: Dominion Bureau of Statistics 1927, “The Maritime Provinces since Confederation” , Chapter VIII, p. 133.

^47. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 68, 69.

^48. P. A. of Canada, Canada Misc., Delancey-Robinson Papers, Vol. 14, d'Avray to Colebrooke, April 17, 1848.

^49. Ibid., Draft Plan of Education appended to above letter.

^50. Ibid., d'Avray to Colebrooks, April 17, 1848.

^51. New Brunswick: Synoptic Report of Debates of the House of Assembly, 1952, pp. 169, 170.

^52. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 43, No. 42, March 18, 1854, p. 2. These testimonials are in the University of New Brunswick Library, Letters and Papers relating to the family of J. Marshall d'Avray.

^53. Ibid., Vol. 9, No. 40, March 1, 1851, p. 2.

^54. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 68.

^55. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 6, No. 35, Jan. 29, 1848, p. 2.

^56. P. A. of Canada, Canada Misc., Delancey-Robinson Papers, Vol. 14, Report on Education in New Brunswick, April 17, 1848.

^57. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 68, 69.

^58. Typescript in possession of Louise Manny of Newcastle, New Brunswick.

^59. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1850, Appendix 68.

^60. Ibid., 1849, Appendix 71.

^61. Almost certainly these were Juveniles, not pupil-teachers.

^62. P. A. of Canada, Canada Misc., Delancey-Robinson Papers, Vol. 14, Report on Education in New Brunswick, April 17, 1848.

^63. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 67.

^64. Ibid., Appendix 70.

^65. Ibid., Appendix 69.

^66. Ibid., Appendix 70.

^67. P. A. of Canada, C0188, Vol. 29, Grey to Head, June 13, 1848, Disp. 31.

^68. New Brunswick: Synoptic Report Of Debates of House of Assembly, 1852, p. 169.

^69. Office of Executive Council of New Brunswick, Head's Letter Book, Nov. 1850- Sept. 1854, (no vol. number), Head to d'Avary, March 25, 1852, p. 197.

^70. Maxwell (2), p. 8.

^71. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1849, Appendix 72.

^72. According to an advertisement in the New Brunswick Courier of May 5, 1855, there was a Model and Training School in Saint John in that year, conducted by the Colonial Church and School Society under the principalship of a Mr. Manning from the Metropolitan Training Institution, Highbury, London.

^73. Saint John Public Library, Newspaper Clipping “Old Times in Saint John in 1845” , Scrapbook R 971. 532, p. 358.

^74. Ibid., p. 358.

^75. M.L.H., “Martha Hamm Lewis Goes to Normal School” (as narrated by her daughters), The Educational Review, Oct. 1931, p. 7.

^76. The full story, which is probably colored by the imagination of the narrators, contains a number of inaccuracies and discrepancies regarding the length of the training period—errors which escaped the notice of the editor of the Educational Review—but it is hardly likely that Martha Hamm Lewis's daughters invented the ostracism and the veil.

^77. Department of Education of New Brunswick, Minutes of Board of Education, 1847-1852, p. 95.

^78. It seems likely that Duval made this journey at his own expense. On June 14, 1849, the Board of Education ordered that Duval be informed that the Board had no funds for paying his expenses “to the States” , but that letters of some kind would be given him. (Department of Education of New Brunswick, Minutes of Board of Education. 1847-1852, p. 60.)

^79. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1850, Appendix 68.

^80. Ibid., 1856, Appendix 186.

^81. Ibid., 1850, Appendix 66.

^82. Ibid., 1850, Appendix 75, 76.

^83. 15 V Cap. 40.

^84. Fitch, p. 54.

^85. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1855, Appendix 220, 221.

^86. Maxwell (2), p. 9.

^87. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1850, Appendix 67-70.

^88. Hannay (1), Vol. 2, pp. 139-151.

^89. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1851, p. 346.

^90. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 9, No. 40, March 1, 1851, p. 2.

^91. Ibid., p. 2.

^92. Ibid., Vol. 9, No. 42, March 15, 1851, p. 2.

^93. Ibid., Vol. 9, No. 43, March 22, 1851, p. 1.

^94. Hannay (1), Vol. 2, p. 152.

^95. New Brunswick: Synoptic Report of Debates of House of Assembly, 1852, p. 171.

^96. Ibid., p. 28.

^97. Ibid., p. 204.

^98. Ibid., p. 174.

^99. In 1850 Lieutenant-Governor Head had asked the Governor of Massachusetts for fifty copies of the Massachusetts Common School Report for the use of the New Brunswick Legislature. (Office of Executive Council of New Brunswick, Letter Book of Sir Edmund Read, 1848-1854, Feb. 23, 1850, p. 322.)

^100. New Brunswick: Synoptic Report of Debates of House of Assembly, 1852, p. 168.

^101. Ibid., p. 173.

^102. Ibid., p. 174.

^103. Ibid., p. 194.

^104. Ibid., p. 174.

^105. Ibid., pp. 168, 169.

^106. Ibid., p. 175.

^107. Ibid., p. 194.

^108. Ibid., p. 171.

^109. It is interesting to note that at this same session a petition was received from the Trustees of St. Stephen Academy stating that the inhabitants of St. Stephen had subscribed a large sum, and had built a School House for the purpose of establishing an Academy of a very superior nature. The petitioners therefore asked for aid in fitting up their school with the necessary library and apparatus (Journal of House of Assembly of New Brunswick, 1852, p. 53; also Debate of House of Assembly of New Brunswick, 1852, p. 24.) St. Andrews, it will be recalled, was the first place in New Brunswick, outside of Fredericton and Saint John, to establish a Grammar School. In view of these indications of interest in education on the part of Milltown, St. Stephen and St. Andrews, it is only logical to suppose that the proximity of these towns to the American border exerted an influence.

^110. New Brunswick Synoptic Report of Debates of House of Assembly, p. 194.

^111. Ibid., p. 171.

^112. Ibid., p. 194.

^113. Ibid., pp. 172, 173.

^114. Ibid., p. 169.

^115. Ibid., p. 169.

^116. Ibid., p. 174.

^117. Ibid., p. 194.

^118. Ibid., p. 171.

^119. Ibid., p. 174.

^120. Ibid., p. 172.

^121. Ibid., p. 171.

^122. Ibid., pp. 169, 170.

^123. Ibid., p. 194.

^124. Ibid., p. 171.

^125. 15 V Cap. 40.

^126. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1854, Appendix 198.

^127. The practical effect of this was to confirm many districts in the belief that second or third class teachers were preferable to teachers of the first class.

^128. The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 10, No. 35, Feb. 14, 1852, p. 2.

^129. Ibid., Vol. 43, No. 40, Feb. 4, 1854, p. 2.

^130. Office of the Executive Council of New Brunswick, Head's Letter Book, Nov. 1850-Sept. 1854 (No Volume No.), Head to Jacob, (private), April 5, 1852, p. 211.

^131. Quoted in The New Brunswick Courier, Saint John, Vol. 11, No. 11, Aug. 13, 1853, p. 2.

^132. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1853. Appendix 101-103.

^133. Ibid., Appendix 112-125.

^134. Ibid., 1854, Appendix 208.

^135. Ibid., 1855, Appendix 212.

^136. Ibid., Appendix 233.

^137. Ibid., Appendix 217, 218.

^138. Ibid., Appendix 210, 220.

^139. Hannay (1), Vol. 2, pp. 164, 165.

^140. New Brunswick: Journal of House of Assembly, 1855, Appendix 187.

^141. Ibid., Appendix 189, 190.

^142. Ibid., Appendix 190.

^143. Ibid., Appendix 191.

^144. Lower (2), p. 125.

^145. Ibid., p. 123.

^146. Hannay (1), Vol. 2, p. 168.

^147. Ibid., p. 170.

^148. Ibid., p. 172.

^149. Ibid., p. 171.

^150. Ibid., p.159.