Top

Anxious Years

THE Rev. John Bethune, appointed acting-Principal of McGill in temporary succession to Principal Mountain on November 18th, 1835, was a Canadian by birth and education. His father, the Rev. John Bethune, a native of the Island of Skye, Scotland, and a graduate of King's College, Aberdeen, emigrated to America before the War of Independence. At the beginning of the Revolution he served as Chaplain of a militia regiment fighting in the Carolinas on the British side; he was taken prisoner by Republican troops, and after his release by exchange he moved with other British Empire Loyalists to Canada. He lived for a short time in Nova Scotia, became Chaplain again of a Highland Regiment fighting in defence of Canada against Montgomery's Army, and when the War ended he settled in Montreal. Here he organised, as we have seen, the first Presbyterian Congregation in the City, and ministered to it from March, 1786, until May, 1787. He then removed to Williamstown in the county of Glengarry, where he became minister of the Church of Scotland.

The future acting-Principal of McGill, the Rev. John Bethune, the younger, was born at Williamstown, Glengarry County, in January, 1791. He received his education at the school of the Rev. Dr. John Strachan at Cornwall, already referred to. After serving in the War of 1812, he entered the ministry of the Church of England, possibly through the influence of his former teacher, who left a deep impression on the minds and lives of all his pupils, and in 1814, he was ordained by Bishop Mountain at Quebec. He was stationed for a time at Brockville and vicinity, and in 1818 he was made Rector of Christ Church, Montreal, where he remained for more than fifty years, eventually becoming Dean of the diocese. He was acting-Principal of McGill from November, 1835, until May, 1846. He died in August, 1872.

Soon after his appointment, the acting-Principal entered into negotiations with the Board of the Royal Institution on the question of the erection of a suitable building on the Burnside Estate for the reception and instruction of students, as required by James McGill's will. The Medical lectures, the only lectures given in the name of the College, were given in a building far removed from the College property. The College authorities did not even pay the rent of the building nor did they pay the salaries of the Professors, and the School, except in name, and for its own protection and the privilege gained thereby for the conferring of degrees, was still, to all intents and purposes, a private institution. Technically, it was contended, it was not a part of the University at all. It was not situated on the Burnside Estate as the will of the founder required, and it could not therefore be considered as fulfilling any of the provisions of the bequest. Even the legality of the degrees conferred had been questioned, and had been accepted on the basis of equity and intention rather than on that “of justice and of fact.” The Principal and Governors realised the force of these arguments, and the necessity of removing the cause. The situation could only be met, they believed, by the erection of a building or buildings on the Burnside Estate, as the terms of the bequest demanded, and the Governors urged immediate action. They pointed out that “without provision for resident students very little good can be expected to result from the opening of the College, and without residence within the College for one or more professors it cannot be expected that resident students will be obtained.” The acting-President of the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, A. W. Cochrane, wrote to Principal Bethune on January 11th, 1836, stating “with respect to the measures proper to be taken towards the speedy erection of a College on Burnside property, it was my intention to have submitted to a meeting of the Royal Institution which was fixed for Thursday next a proposal to advertise for plans and estimates of a suitable building.... My own opinion is that a new building calculated for 40 students (intimus) with a suitable public apartment and accommodation for two professors would be sufficient for the present demands of the country (perhaps even beyond what is necessary) and that at all events it would not be justifiable to exceed the expenditure of £4000 or £5000 out of the bequest for such a purpose at the outset. The present building, Burnside House, might be adapted to the residence of the Head of the College.” He added that, as promised in 1801, the Crown should give an endowment for general education in the Province, in a way that would not rouse political or sectarian feelings. “I should not,” he said, “wish to see the question connected with the proceedings of any political association. If taken up in this general way, I think that some public movement at Montreal in favour of it would not fail to have a good effect; but great caution and moderation are requisite.” But the Board and the Governors could not agree on the kind of building required and over a year passed without any action on the part of either body.

Further difficulty arose in connection with the amended Charter of 1834, which had not received the approval of the authorities. Until it was given confirmation no additional professorships could be appointed. That it did not conform to the ideas of the Board of the Royal Institution is evident from a letter written to Principal Bethune by the President in June, 1836. Objection was taken to making the Governors a self-elective body, and the necessity of making it essential that the Governors or a majority of them should be of the Protestant faith was also insisted on. That the discord between the Governors and the Board which led in the end to unfortunate bitterness and disaster, was then developing is also apparent in this letter. The President of the Board wrote: “Whatever changes are proposed to be made in the existing Charter must, I should conceive as a matter of course, be submitted for the consideration of the Royal Institution, the Visitatorial body who are bound to see that the views of the founder of the College are not defeated.” The Governors then decided to submit new amendments, and at a meeting held on November 14th, 1836, attended by the Lieutenant-Governor, the Chief Justice and the Principal, the Charter recommended in January, 1834, was changed to read as follows: “The Governors of the College shall consist of the Governor in Chief of Lower Canada; the Right Rev. Charles J. Stewart, Lord Bishop of Quebec and his successors, Bishops of Quebec; the Right Rev. George J. Mountain, Lord Bishop of Montreal and his successors, Bishops of Montreal; the Rector of Christ Church, Montreal, and his successors of the said Church; a minister of the Church of Scotland resident in Montreal, to be selected for the purpose by the Presbytery of Montreal to be perpetually succeeded by a minister of the Church of Scotland chosen in like manner; the Principal of the College; the Hon. James Reid; the Hon. George Moffat; the Hon. Peter McGill; William Robertson, M.D.; William P. Christie; Samuel Gerrard and John Samuel McCord.” Authority was given to fill all vacancies by a majority vote of the Governors, seven to constitute a quorum. It was stipulated that all Governors of the College must henceforth be residents in the district of Montreal. The Chief Justice and the Principal agreed to the above changes in the Charter, but the Governor of the Province “declined under existing circumstances to give any opinion on the subject, and his vote was not recorded.” It was also decided at this meeting that the rents from the Burnside Estate be expended on repairs and that the premises be placed in the occupation and charge of the Principal for the time being, he to keep them in a good state of repair. This latter decision was not approved by the Royal Institution and it gave rise to further controversy. Without the approval of the Board of the Royal Institution the Governors forwarded their amendments to the Governor-General for transmission to the Home Government, but at the request of the Board he stayed proceedings.

Meanwhile, the ultimate possession of the endowment fund was causing anxiety. The case was settled in favour of the College in 1835, but the Governors were unable to secure the money. The DesriviÈres heirs who were in control of the legacy demanded terms as we have already seen, but their terms were refused. When the Executors at last secured possession of the funds they declined to convey them to the Royal Institution until certain promised conditions were fulfilled by that body acting for the Home Government. On November 10th, 1836, a memorial on the subject of the legacy was forwarded to the Colonial Office by Dr. Strachan, one of the surviving Executors of the will of James McGill. He pointed out that the original bequest had increased by the accumulation of interest to £22,000. This amount together with the Burnside Estate would, he said, be transferred to the Royal Institution when two conditions were fulfilled—first, the contributing by His Majesty's Government towards the erection and endowment of the proposed University, and second, the carrying out of the intention of the testator, to which Dr. Strachan stated himself to be a living witness, that the proposed College should be essentially Protestant. To this Memorial the Colonial Office replied that the will did not stipulate for a contribution from His Majesty's Government towards the proposed University, and added “nor can we perceive any disposition on the part of the testator to impress on the Institution to which he so liberally contributed a character of religious exclusiveness.... The testator did not in his will either directly or indirectly introduce such a condition, and adverting moreover to the even-handed liberality with which his bequests were distributed between the poor Catholic and Protestant inhabitants of Montreal, we apprehend it would be impossible to impose such a restriction founded on mere verbal testimony as to the intention of the testator.... His Majesty's Government cannot now advise His Majesty to reconsider it for the purpose of narrowing the Charter of 1821.” In November, 1836, the Board conveyed to the Governors of the College the possession of the Burnside Estate, subject to the Board's subsequent approval of all decisions affecting it. But the controversy between the executors and the Colonial Office over the conveyance of the funds, which the heirs had not yet given up, continued for several months. It was not until October 20th, 1837, that the litigation finally ended. In December following, a transfer of all monies, investments, etc., was obtained by the Trustees of the Royal Institution, estimated at the value of £22,000, the amount of the legacy and accrued interest, and yielding an income of between £800 and £900. But in the meantime the College suffered and its progress was retarded.

There were other worries than those of buildings and charter and endowment fund. Since the College was opened in 1829 no repairs had been made on the Burnside property. The buildings and fences were rapidly falling into decay; the neighbours were complaining that the fences of Burnside had disappeared and that through the property cattle wandered at will to their lands and gardens, and the farmer who had leased the premises “on the halves” had neither the money nor the inclination to effect a remedy. There was also a demand for streets or roads through the estate. The Governors had no money at their disposal; they must beg every cent expended from the Royal Institution. The situation was incongruous. On December 17th, 1836, Principal Bethune wrote to the Secretary of the Board informing him that “there is a demand on the part of the neighbours for fences, which on a close inspection are found to be unserviceable with the exception of 170 cedar rails or rather logs which will serve by being split into two for rails.” The neighbours, he said, preferred “a fence 10 feet high, but they will be satisfied with one 6 feet high.” He also advised that the Royal Institution should join in the proposal of one of the neighbours, Phillips (who is remembered in the present “Phillips Square”), “a man difficult to deal with if thwarted by delay,” for opening streets through the estate of Burnside.

As a result of this appeal the Board granted £75 to be expended on the buildings and fences. The expenditure of this sum created further friction between the Governors and the Board. The latter body was not informed until February, 1837, of the Governors' decision at their meeting on November 14, 1836, to put Burnside House and premises into the occupation and charge of the Principal of the College. When they received the information they wrote to the Principal asking him what use he intended to make of the estate. The Principal in his reply questioned the authority of the Board, and said: “With regard to the use intended to be made by the Governors of the House, the Governors do not conceive themselves in any way accountable to the Board in this respect ... yet they feel no objection to communicating it for the information of the Board.” To this letter the Secretary of the Board replied: “The Board was only originally induced to make the grant of £75 on the 14th of November last, for the repairing of the Burnside House and fences in the expectation that the same would be made tenantable and be let to the advantage of the Trust, and have learned with much dissatisfaction that the House is to be occupied by the acting-Principal without any advantage to the Trust; and a personal interest thereby given to him to prevent the College going into speedy operation; and that the Board do also think it necessary to record their opinion that as the Visitors of McGill College they are at all times entitled to inquire into the management of the Burnside property, especially when a demand is made upon the Board for a grant of money to be laid out on the said property. It was ordered [by the Board] that Mr. Bethune be further informed that under the circumstances disclosed to the Board for the first time in his letter, the Board cannot feel themselves justified in advancing any further sums for the repairs on the Burnside property.” The Principal answered that the Board had no right to act in any matter affecting the College without consulting the Governors; that “the Governors cannot recognise the Visitatorial powers of the Board to the extent claimed”; and that the Board was “illegally and unjustly detaining the funds.” He emphasised his desire “to effect a restoration of harmony and unanimity between all the parties”; but it was clear that because of the rapidly growing friction and misunderstanding a crisis was not very far off.

For several months thereafter no meetings of the Governors were held. The Rebellion of 1837 and the struggle for Canadian autonomy required all the attention and the energy of the Provincial authorities, and the subject of Collegiate education was again somewhat neglected. But in May, 1837, the Royal Institution announced to the Principal that they were about to erect buildings for the University, and they asked for suggestions which might guide them in calling for plans. But the Principal and Governors declined to make suggestions. They denied the right of the Royal Institution to undertake the erection of buildings, and they contended that the whole property and management of the affairs of the College devolved upon the Governors. They would therefore not surrender into other hands what they conceived to be their own vested rights. They pointed out, too, that the case between the executors and the Royal Institution for the possession of the funds was not yet settled. The Board replied that until a College was actually erected they were in control, under the terms of the will. They were somewhat inconsistent in their attitude. In the first suit against the DesriviÈres heirs for the possession of the estate they had pleaded that by the mere obtaining of the Charter the College was to all intents and purposes “erected and established.” The courts sustained their plea. Now, however, they repudiated their own former contention; they maintained that the College had not yet been “erected and established”; and that until buildings were actually constructed they had the sole authority!

Discord continued to characterise the relations of the two bodies. The Governors' meetings were usually attended only by the Principal and the Chief Justice. The former had a double or casting vote in case of dispute. He was virtually in control. The Board of the Royal Institution declared that he did not represent the views of the Governors. Apart from the disagreements arising from a dual management, other causes contributed to the bitterness of the controversy. The period was not conducive to harmony. Downing Street was not a name to conjure with, and “Downing Street rule” had become in Canada a synonym for indifference or coercion. The suspicion that the Royal Institution was but the mouthpiece, or at least the meek and unprotesting agent, of Downing Street only added to the irritation. The suspicion was not well founded, for the Royal Institution did not willingly submit to dictation from the Home authorities. But a new and sturdy Canadian spirit was evident in education as well as in politics. It was apparent as early as 1815 when Dr. Strachan outlined his plan for a University and expressed his doubts on the suitability of English methods in Canada. It had grown rapidly since that time. The year 1837 was a year of turmoil, with a cry for the privilege of solving Canadian problems in a Canadian way by those who were familiar with the requirements and conditions, and were not dwelling thousands of miles away. In such a period, aside from the waste of time, it was doubly distasteful to the Governors and to those interested in education to have to submit all appointments and all plans to the Home Government for ratification. The friction was, on the surface, between the Governors and the Royal Institution, but its roots lay deeper. Its cause was not far removed from the cause of the political rebellion of the hour.

After several months of somewhat discordant discussion the Principal finally agreed to submit to the Board suggestions on the proposed buildings, and on June 30th, 1838, he forwarded an outline of what he believed the College should include. He suggested that it should provide “(1) Accommodation for 100 students, namely, 100 sleeping rooms, and 50 sitting-rooms, two students in one set of apartments; (2) apartments for the Principal, and Vice-Principal, and family, and for four other Professors. The present house of Burnside might, he said, be adopted for the residence of the Principal; (3) a College Hall which for the present may be used both for lectures, exercises and refectory; (4) a Library; (5) a Chapel; (6) Steward's apartments.” As an alternative to (3) he suggested three lecture rooms with some adjacent small apartments. It was proposed that prizes should be offered for the first and second best plans with specifications and estimates, not only for the buildings, but also for the laying out of College grounds on the northwest side of Sherbrooke Street “in avenues and ornamental and kitchen gardens.” It was pointed out that this land consisted of about seventeen acres, and was considered sufficient for the College grounds, and that the upper side of Sherbrooke Street, which was then being opened to the width of 80 feet, was considered the best site for the College, as it was the most elevated land on Burnside and had the best approach. It was desired that the Building should include “a large room for the business of the Professor of Latin and Greek which might also be appropriated to many general purposes; a room for the Professor of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Astronomy with suitable adjacent apartments for his apparatus; a room for the Medical Department with suitable adjacent apartments for Chemical apparatus.” The Professorships proposed to be established in the first instance were four: that of Divinity and Moral Philosophy to be occupied by the Principal; that of Medicine, with a suitable number of Lectureships in the different departments of Medical Science; that of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Astronomy; and that of Latin, Greek and History. It was pointed out that “in the present state of the College funds the greater number of these Professors can have little more allowed them than the fees derivable from pupils and that their salaries will therefore be uncertain.”

The Royal Institution refused, however, to proceed at that time with the erection of buildings on so large a plan as suggested. On August 1st, 1838, they announced their intention to “proceed immediately on such an extent as the limited resources at their command will justify.” They agreed to call for plans for a building containing lecture rooms and a public hall, but no apartments for students or professors, the building to cost not more than £5000. They contended that all the money in their possession was required to endow professorships and that they could not therefore make so great an expenditure as the large building suggested by the Governors would entail. They stated, too, that only three professorships could at present be established, those of Classical Literature, Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, and Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy, on the understanding that when the charter was changed to permit it, each of these professorships should be divided into two. They pointed out that their University scheme “in the absence of the long hoped for assistance from Her Majesty's Government will not embrace either Theology, Law, or Medicine.” It was stipulated that the Principal should be also one of the Professors. An interesting condition with reference to the teaching of Theology was also set forth by the Board in the following resolution:

“That it is not expedient that a Professor of Divinity be appointed under the Charter, but that it be intimated to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Montreal on behalf of the Church of England in this Province and to the Reverend the Presbytery of Quebec or the Synod of Canada on behalf of the Church of Scotland that Lecture Rooms will be set apart and that application will be made for such an alteration in the Charter as will give all rights and privileges of the University to such Professor or Professors as they may appoint and endow, or procure endowments for, for the instruction of students of Divinity of their respective churches; and that the authorities in both churches be respectfully requested to recommend or to enforce on their students attendance on the classes of general education in the College.”

It was later decided that the Board of the Royal Institution and the Governors of McGill should write a memorial to Her Majesty's Government asking for the means of endowing at least four Medical Professorships; that a similar memorial be prepared with respect to a Professorship of Law; and that until such Professorships be established, every facility be given within the College to Lecturers in the various branches of Medical and Legal Science. These memorials had no response.

Another effort was now made by the Governors to secure the passing of the new Charter as amended in 1834 and 1836, which had been ignored by the Home Government. But Lord Gosford, the Lieutenant-Governor, refused to give it his sanction. Application was then made to Lord Durham, but no answer was received from His Lordship, who declared that he was “too busy to consider the question.”

The correspondence during this period indicates that the Board and the Governors were working in harmony. But the peace was not of long duration. It lasted but a few days. It was, however, of sufficient length to permit of temporary agreement on the kind of building required. As a result, plans for the laying out of the grounds and for the erection of buildings were at last called for by the Board of the Royal Institution, and the following advertisement appeared in the Mercury and the Official Gazette on the 16th of August, 1838, and in the Quebec Gazette on the day following:

Plans were accordingly submitted by several architects, and were forwarded by the Board to the Governors of McGill for their comments. The Governors pointed out that even in the best and most suitable plan submitted “no provision was made for retiring rooms for Professors!” The plans provided for a Post Office at the entrance to the grounds, a Botanical Lecture-house and “ornamental bridges” over the stream that ran through the grounds near the present University Street. The Board of the Royal Institution declined to accept any of the plans submitted on the ground that they involved too great an expenditure, and building operations were again indefinitely delayed.

The Plan of the Proposed University

The Governors continued to urge with vigour the immediate erection of a building. They tried to force the Board, for no apparent legal reason, to have the building completed before the 29th of June, 1839, the tenth anniversary of the opening of the College, and in October, 1838, the Principal wrote to the Board: “I am well informed that it is the intention of the heirs DesriviÈres, should not a College be erected on Burnside property within ten years from the period of possession thereof by the Royal Institution, to sue for the recovery of the whole bequest. No legal advice has been taken on the subject, but we think it prudent to avoid the contest.” The Board sought legal advice on the latter question and were assured that there were no grounds whatsoever for such an assumption on the part of the heirs, and that such a contention could not be defended in law. No attempt indeed was made to put forward such a plea, and it is very doubtful if such an attempt was ever contemplated. But that the Board feared this possibility is evident from their determination speedily to establish the College on a more real basis. They decided to begin instruction in Burnside House. Difficulties, however, were in the way. The Principal was occupying the dwelling house, and although he had taken possession of it without the Board's approval they could not well compel him to leave. Moreover, he had expended a considerable sum from his own private funds on repairs to the estate. He had submitted a bill for the amount to the Board, but the Board declined to pay it as they had not authorised the expenditure. They contended, too, that he could reimburse himself from the products of the farm. The situation was a delicate one, and gradually the evils of a dual control were being disclosed. The Board knew that the Principal would not vacate the building in which they wished to begin instruction until his bill was paid. On November 21st, 1838, they voted: “that a communication be made to the Governors of McGill College that it is in the opinion of the Board expedient that a permanent Principal and Professors be appointed and the actual working of the College commenced as speedily as possible in Burnside House till such time as more convenient buildings be erected, by which means the wishes of the Governors to have the College established and in operation before the 29th of June next will be met, and that the Board will take into consideration the claim of Dr. Bethune arising out of expenses incurred by him on the estate of Burnside while in his possession on his vacating the premises and rendering an account.” Meanwhile the Governors' meetings had dwindled to two, and sometimes to one member. There was criticism that their meetings were no longer representative, and to these statements, because of their own objection to the alleged Downing Street methods of the Royal Institution, the Governors were sensitive. To meet this criticism they established the “Corporation” of the College, to include not only the Governors, but a number of the members of the teaching staff, and certain citizens selected because of their interest in education. The first meeting of this body was held on November 27th, 1838. There were present Sir John Colborne, the Governor-General; the Principal; Drs. Robertson, Stephenson and Holmes of the Medical School, and the Hon. George Moffat. It was at this meeting that the resolution of the Board above referred to was considered.

The resolution was not received with applause nor with delighted approval. The Governors doubted the efficacy of the plan. The Principal was not eager to vacate Burnside House. The Professors in the Medical School resented the suggestion that the “actual working of the College” had yet to be commenced. In answer, it was resolved that “in the opinion of Corporation it is expedient that a College be built before the 29th of June next on the Burnside Estate as the surest means of securing the bequest of the late Mr. McGill.” But the bequest had already been secured; it had been paid over to the Royal Institution in December, 1837! Notwithstanding the Board's decision, the Governors insisted on the erection of a building before the 29th of the following June. The amended Charter had not yet been approved. There was still provision only for four professorships, and these had been filled by the members of the Medical School. Only one of them was now vacant. Until the Charter was approved, then, and provision made for the appointment of more professors, the building erected could only be occupied mainly by Medical teachers. In December, 1838, the Royal Institution again recorded their opposition to the Governors' desire for “the hasty erection in a few weeks of a building adapted only for instruction in Medical Science.” They expressed their belief “that the first proper and most pressing measure to be adopted in execution of the plain expression of the testator's will and of the Charter is to commence forthwith a course of general instruction in the ordinary branches of a learned Collegiate education in the buildings now erected on the Burnside Estate.” They added that “they see no difficulty in accomplishing this object before it would be possible to commence the erection of a new building, and they are of opinion that it would be a nearer approach to a real performance of the testator's intentions than the attempt to run up a new building before the 29th of June, next, which even if it could be finished by that time would not deserve the name of a University.” They did not consider that the terms “erect” and “establish” used in the will “could with any propriety be interpreted as meaning the erection of a material building.” They declared that it was undoubtedly the testator's intention to establish an institution for collegiate education; they expressed their determination to apply the funds first of all to the payment of “a Principal and of such Professors as may be required, and to proceed in due course with the erection of a more extensive building than even that suggested by the Governors.”

To this the Governors would not agree; they urged that a decision on the Charter be obtained at once. On February 5th, 1839, the Board again expressed their views. They were sensible, they said, of the necessity for the appointment of additional professors, but they emphasised the folly of waiting for this permission before erecting a College building. Approval of the amended Charter might be postponed indefinitely, and the present Charter provided for a building for collegiate education. They added: “The Board are not aware of the circumstances under which the Medical Faculty of Montreal became possessed of all the Professorships of the College but they must suppose that it could only have been a temporary arrangement, without remuneration, adopted with such precautions as not to allow the present holders of Professorships setting up the pretension to continue to fill them to the exclusion of other branches of knowledge. The existing arrangement appears to the Board to be clearly liable to the objection that it is contrary to the terms of the Charter and the intention of the founder since an institution of which the offices are so filled for the purpose of one science alone cannot in law or in common parlance be considered as a University where all the branches of literature are or may be universally taught, and such an Institution is erected by the Charter according to the express will of the testator.”

Their plan was to appoint a permanent Principal who should be required to lecture in some branch or branches of knowledge, and to establish temporary Lectureships which could be changed to Professorships when the amended Charter, permitting an increase in the number of Professorships, was approved. Under this plan they saw “an easy means of opening at once a course of public instruction which would meet the present wants of the Province and be capable of future extension.” They would devote the endowment fund, they said, to the payment of Professors' salaries. The house on the Burnside Estate was sufficient, they thought, “for the limited purpose at present contemplated,” and “in that building, if nowhere else, a College should be put in actual operation,” for by so doing “an effective answer would be afforded to any demand or pretension that might be raised to obtain the forfeiture of the property bequeathed on the pretence of the College not being in operation.” They promised to proceed to the erection of a building “with all despatch consistent with due caution. But at least a year from next summer must elapse before a building suitable to the purpose of a University can be prepared for occupation.” They therefore urged the use of Burnside House for the present, at least.

In answer to this letter the Medical Professors contended through the Principal, that their appointment was not a temporary arrangement and that it was not their intention to resign their commissions. The Governors stated further, that they could not feel themselves justified in pressing for the resignation of any of these Professors, who were receiving no salary, but who “now had a near prospect of reaping some advantage from their appointment.” They condemned the Board for unnecessary delay in erecting a building in which to hold classes and their letters did not add to the harmony so desirable in that critical period. The Principal and Governors did not approve of using Burnside House for lecture rooms, because, in their opinion, it was unfit for such a purpose “except on such a scale as would entitle it only to the name of a Grammar School; because they believed a suitable building could be erected within a year; because it was intended to be the residence of the Principal; and because they could not see that any object would be attained by such a temporary, insufficient and unsatisfactory arrangement.” They stated further, with some suggestion of defiance, that they would be prepared to open the College with suitable teachers as soon as the necessary building or buildings were erected “on the most extensive scale and in the most efficient manner which the funds that may be at their disposal will admit of, and that until such a building was provided no instruction would be given.”

The Royal Institution seems to have desired harmony and to have been willing to meet the wishes of the Governors at least half-way. At a meeting of the Board on February 20th, 1839, it was decided to call again for plans to be submitted before the 10th of May following. It was resolved at this meeting “that the accommodation of the Medical Faculty be limited to two rooms for class rooms, these to form part of the general building unless separate accommodation in detached buildings could be obtained for them within the limits of the £5,000 allotted for the whole edifice, and without interfering with or embarrassing the general plan; and that if the Medical Faculty required other or larger accommodation than was consistent with these conditions they must be left to their own resources to obtain it, the Board, however, being willing to allow them to build on some part of the grounds of Burnside if they found funds for doing so.” They had meanwhile petitioned the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Colborne, and Council, for a Provincial grant to aid in the construction of the building, but their appeal had no success.

The Governors of the College then decided to agree to the erection of a smaller building than that at first requested. The Medical School, too, for various reasons concluded that they did not desire accommodation in the new building. The Governors wrote to the Board stating that they would be satisfied with the erection of a building for 60 students, without sitting rooms; necessary class rooms; College Hall; Library; Steward's Apartments and accommodation for the Principal and two Professors—which could be built for £6,000. They pointed out that in this estimate there was no provision whatever for the Medical Department “nor perhaps will such provision be at all necessary. The present Medical Professors are now of opinion that the situation of Burnside is too remote from the centre of the population for this department, because, besides the inconvenience to the Professors themselves, the attendance there of Medical Students who will be generally resident in the Town at 4 or 5 different Lectures daily will be attended with very serious inconvenience if not insuperable difficulty. They would therefore much prefer that a sufficient allowance should be made for renting a building in Town for the Medical Department. To meet their views in this respect the House on Burnside (which will not be required for the residence of the Principal if accommodation be provided for him within the walls of the College), together with that portion of the premises on the southeast side of Sherbrooke Street, might be let for a sum fully adequate to the expense of renting sufficient accommodation for the Medical Department in Town.”

To this latter suggestion the Board agreed. They were still determined that pending the completion of the proposed building, Collegiate teaching should be undertaken at once in Burnside House. But it was first necessary that the Principal give up the house. A dispute then arose between the Board and the Governors with reference to the responsibility for the repairs to the estate. More money had been expended than the Board had authorised. The Board contended that the Principal should make an allowance for rent of the house, which he had occupied for nearly two years, and they refused to pay the account submitted for the expenses incurred. The Governors declined to admit the justice of this claim. The Principal had already written to the Board in January, 1839, stating that he would “keep possession of Burnside until his full account was paid, and that he would vacate the premises when required to do so by the Governors.”

The Board then agreed to pay to the Principal the whole amount claimed by him, “however liable to objection, with whatever deduction for rent he himself should agree to,” if he would consent to vacate Burnside House. The Principal, in a somewhat scornful reply, declined for two reasons, first that this proposal implied the necessity of bribing him to vacate the premises; and second that by accepting it, he might be considered as selling for the settlement of his account the possession which the Governors held of the premises by reason of his occupancy. But he again stated that he would vacate the premises when ordered to do so by the Governors. The result was a protracted and bitter discussion between the two bodies, with many recriminations on both sides and more frankness than tact. The Lord Bishop of Montreal, the Rev. Dr. G. J. Mountain, who was Principal of the Royal Institution and formerly Principal of McGill, naturally interested himself personally in the discussion. On February 25th, 1839, he wrote to the Principal, saying, “I will tell you unreservedly what I think, which is that ... you are apt to give colour to the transactions in which you are engaged.... I say this without reserve because if you will receive it in good part I think it may be of use to you and save upon occasion hard constructions being put upon your proceedings.... It is very unwillingly indeed that as Principal of the Board, I have been drawn into any sort of collision with you.”

To this the Principal promptly replied, accusing the Board of gross neglect and unnecessary delay. “Indeed,” he said, “their zeal for the interests of the College has for some time past chiefly manifested itself in their efforts and schemes for dislodging me from Burnside and in their proceedings they seem to have adopted the favourite peroration of Cicero which may be freely translated thus, 'and Bethune must be ousted.'” He added: “I can afford to forgive the Board for any hard constructions they put upon my proceedings; they may be necessary for their own justification.” To this Bishop Mountain replied: “I have had quite enough of this painful collision.”

The Principal declared his intention of remaining in possession of Burnside House, and he wrote to the Board that “no precise period is fixed for my vacating the premises.” The Board contended that they “desired an amicable adjustment of such differences as had unfortunately existed”; but for several years no adjustment was made. It is unnecessary to enter here into the details of the subsequent dispute between the Board and the Principal and Governors over the occupancy of Burnside House. It was but one of many unfortunate disagreements in which each side contended for what they believed to be just. The Principal's account for repairs to the property was in the end paid and in November, 1839, he vacated Burnside House. But the controversy between the two bodies did not then end.

In the summer of 1839, the Governors decided to ignore the Board and to seek direct aid from the Provincial Government. They asked for a grant of £5,000 for building purposes and £5,000 for the purchase of philosophical apparatus, furniture and books for a Library. They included also £100 a year for a Professor of Classical Literature and £100 a year for a Professor of Mathematics; £50 each for two Divinity Lecturers, one of the Anglican Church and one of the Church of Scotland; £50 each for three Medical Professors; and £50 for a Professor of Law “much wanted.” They expressed their desire, if the building fund was granted, to rent Burnside House and with the proceeds therefrom to pay for a building in town for the Medical School. “The Medical Faculty,” they said, “could then go into immediate operation, and all the other Professors, with the exception of the Principal, could also commence instruction at their respective residences.” Apparently it was their opinion that the Medical School had not yet begun to operate as an integral part of the University. For obvious reasons the above appeal failed. The Government declined to interfere. The grant was not made and the Governors of the College turned again with reluctance to the Royal Institution.

There was likewise further difficulty in connection with the amended Charter, which the Home authorities had not yet ratified. The Board of the Royal Institution had been asked by the Governor-General for their detailed opinions and suggestions on necessary amendments. The Board was slow to answer. The delay was preventing the appointment of Professors and the growth of the College. The hands of the Governors were tied. On August 11, 1839, the Principal wrote to Sir John Colborne, the Governor-General, protesting against the continued failure to decide the issue. “When I agreed to the appointment of another Principal in my room,” he said, “it was in the confident expectation that the amended Charter would have been in our possession before this period. By that Charter I should retain my office of Governor of the College even if vacated by my resignation of the Office of Principal, but as obstacles are thrown in the way of a speedy accomplishment of the wishes of the Governors in respect of the amended Charter, I feel myself constrained to retain the office of Principal until the Charter shall have been procured.” He also objected on behalf of the Governors to the appointment of any Professors and to the opening of the College, except the Medical Department, until approval was given to the Charter. Possibly the fact that the amended Charter permitted the acting-Principal, after his retirement, still to be a Governor of the College as Rector of Christ Church, Montreal, influenced the Board in their disapproval of it. For the quarrel was not always above personal prejudices, to which the advancement of the College was often unfortunately sacrificed.

On August 17th, 1839, the Board at last broke their silence, and in a letter to Sir John Colborne they gave utterance to their reasons for opposition. They blamed the Governors for not having first submitted the Charter to them before sending it to the Colonial Office,—and in this they were well within their rights. They had not, they said, even seen a certified copy of the document. They now agreed, however, that the existing Charter required alteration. They suggested that all the Governors of the College should be residents of the Province, but they objected to giving the Governors power to fill vacancies as they occurred, as this would lead in the end to a clique or cabal rule which would lead to abuses in the management of the Institution. The number of Professorships should, they thought, be left unlimited, at the joint discretion of the Governors and the Board. The Governors were to be subservient in power to the Board, and all appointments were to be ratified by the Crown. There should also be permission given for the granting of Honorary degrees. The Visitatorial duties and powers of the Royal Institution should be more clearly defined. “The Board,” the letter stated, “also think it important, seeing that the declared object of the Royal Charter was the promotion of true religion, that the body of the Governors should be Protestants, and they beg leave also to call the particular attention of your Excellency to the necessity of introducing some provision into the amended Charter for requiring not only the Principal, Vice-Principal and Professors, and all others engaged in the instruction of youth in the University, but also the Governors themselves before being admitted to office, to make and subscribe a declaration of their belief in the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, and in the doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, as held by orthodox Protestant Churches.”

To the majority of these suggestions the Governors agreed. But they denied the right of the members of the Board to exercise so great a power as such suggestions, if carried out, would give them. They protested against the necessity of having appointments ratified by the Crown. There was a rapid cross-fire of correspondence to the Governor-General, in which the various suggestions were presented and answered by each of the contending parties. But into the details of this long-continued and at times bitter correspondence it is unnecessary here further to enter. Meanwhile the Charter waited.

In the autumn of 1839, the Medical School was in need of funds. They appealed to the Governors. The Governors had no money, but they voted £500, and on September 19th, they applied to the Royal Institution for a grant of that amount “in order to enable them to commence a course of Medical Instruction.” The Board refused in the following letter forwarded on October 12th: “The Board resolve with regret that they cannot give sanction to this vote of the Governors, as they conceive themselves bound in the first instance to apply the means at their disposal for purposes of general instruction, and those means are so limited as to render it impossible to grant the sum demanded by the Medical Faculty without sacrificing general to one branch of professional education.... The Board are, however, fully aware of the advantages to McGill College and to the public generally which the proposed course of Medical lectures cannot fail to be attended with.” They hoped at a later date “to be able to entertain the application,” if the appeal for funds recently made to the Government should succeed.

Principal Bethune desired to procure a legal decision before a competent tribunal on the Board's refusal to make the above grant. The Governor of the Province was appealed to, but as he was about to leave Canada at the end of his term of office he again declined to interfere. He felt, too, with reference to a Provincial grant that he was only authorised to issue from the funds of the Province such a sum as was absolutely necessary to carry on educational work until a meeting of the Special Council could make provision for such an object and also for the voting of “a sum of money towards the erecting of McGill College.” The discussion was finally closed by a resolution of the Board on the 4th of April, 1840, in which they said that in addition to having voted £8,000 for the erection of a building they had provided for the establishment of three Professorships with £300 a year for each chair, and an additional £100 for the Principal. “In these arrangements,” they pointed out, “the Board did not lose sight of the necessity of subsequently providing for the instruction of students in the Medical and Legal professions, but they were clearly of opinion that in the actual state of the funds, these objects, however desirable, must be postponed for the opening of the Institution in the other branches of general education. To these arrangements the Governors offered no material objection and it was obvious that the resources at the disposal of the Board did not warrant any material increase of expenditure.” With reference to the requested grant for the Medical School, they expressed surprise that such a demand should be made on their scanty and already inadequate resources, and they declared that they “would not be justified in the administration of their trust, in suffering their resources to be diminished for any object however desirable or important but that which they conscientiously judged the most desirable and important and primarily contemplated in the will of Mr. McGill,—which was the providing of collegiate education.” There the discussion ended. The Medical School continued to be regarded as an independent institution, under the protection of the McGill authorities for the purpose merely of legalising their degrees. The Board had won in their contention, and the question was temporarily dropped.

In the meantime, during the brief armistice between the Governors and the Royal Institution, plans for the College building had been agreed upon and the contract had been let. The original plans had been greatly modified so that the expenditure might be in keeping with the funds available. But even with many changes the first estimate of £5,000 was soon found to have increased in fact to between £10,000 and £12,000. One of the original plans herewith reproduced, and typical of all the plans submitted, called for a large building in the form of the letter H. The two main wings looked east and west, instead of north and south as at present, and between them was a connecting structure. Rooms were provided for 100 students. The Medical building was to be separate. The College building was to have a Chapel, but it was also to have a large “cellar for beer and wine.” Certain sections attached to the building were distinctly classified and designated “for Professors,” “for McGill students,” and “for servants and Medical students.” It was found that such a building would entail too great an expense, and the plans were changed to provide two buildings, the present Central Arts Building and the present East Wing, or Administration Offices. The latter was intended to contain the Principal's apartments and rooms for Professors, and there the Principal subsequently dwelt for several years. Between the two buildings provision was made for a covered passage.

It was soon apparent that the cost of the new buildings would be greater than estimated. Before June, 1840, a sum of £2,783 had been expended and provision had to be made for the payment of a further sum of £5,000 in the following January. In order to secure this amount it was decided to advertise for sale certain lots adjoining the College site on Burnside Estate, and to procure plans for the laying out in building lots of all the land not in use. This was the beginning of the disposal of the unused part of the estate, a sacrifice which relieved the College from temporary financial embarrassment but which in later years, when real-estate increased in value, greatly depleted its revenue. The funds at this time were so low that the Governors could not pay a watchman or caretaker and the Board wrote to the Governors in October, 1840, asking, “Is any suitable person known to you who would consent to have charge of them [the buildings under construction] without remuneration, on condition of the requisite fuel being provided?” The gross annual revenue from the McGill properties vested in the Board for the support of the College was only £559. 6. 8. The Board again appealed to the Government for a grant of £5,000 to finish the building, also for “a very moderate sum to purchase the large collection of books formerly belonging to the late Mr. Fleming, the greater part of which would form a suitable foundation for a Library.” This appeal was again unsuccessful.

During the summer of 1841, amidst many discouragements and financial worries, the erection of the buildings went forward. On October 21st, 1841, the Principal, who was one of the building committee, notified the Board that they were nearly ready for the reception of pupils. But their completion was for various reasons delayed several months. The Governors then decided to apply to the Legislature for a grant of £1,500 a year for current expenses and £5,000 for Philosophical Apparatus, the rudiments of a Library, and furniture; to ask also for the passing of an act repealing the Act of 1801, and vesting the McGill bequest in the Governors of the College; and to request that the Chief Justice and the Principal be authorised to communicate with the Royal Institution and to take steps to carry out this resolution. This application was again without avail, and the submitting of it was obviously not conducive to harmony and peace.

Arrangements were now completed for the sale of lots from the Burnside Estate. In all 25½ acres were offered in small sections “as soon as Mr. Phillips' consent could be obtained to give one-half of the ground required for a proposed street,” and negotiations were entered into for the leasing of any of the land left unsold. The Governors demanded that the Royal Institution should transfer to them the entire property, but the Board refused, claiming that they were prohibited from so doing by the terms of the will.

The Governors then devised an ingenious scheme to secure possession of the premises. The Principal proposed to the Board in May, 1842, that they lease the estate to the Governors for a period of 99 years. This the Board refused to do. They had obviously no desire to allow the Governors to get control. An endeavour to secure a lease was then made by a Mr. Pelton, and his application was recommended by the Principal. The Board replied that there were legal and insuperable objections to the granting of such a request and that they had no power under the law to give a lease for a longer period than 21 years. They agreed to give Pelton a lease for that period, and they guaranteed “that the same shall be renewed for each subsequent term until the whole period of 99 years shall be accomplished.” The lease seems to have been actually entered into, but because of difficulty over the security offered, combined with legal obstacles, it was cancelled soon afterwards. It transpired later that Pelton was merely the agent of the Governors and that in order to secure possession of the property, they had engaged him to act on their behalf, on the understanding that he was to transfer the lease to them when he received it.

Of the Governors' connection with this plan the Board was obviously not aware at the time. The details were frankly and clearly outlined in an interesting letter written by acting-Principal Bethune to the Hon. R. A. Tucker, Principal of the Royal Institution, on November 4th, 1845, when Pelton tried without success to establish a claim to some of the property. Extracts from this letter give further indication of the bitterness and hopelessness of the controversy:

“After the sale of the 99 years' lease had been advertised, it occurred to me that a good opportunity was thereby afforded to the Governors of the College for getting the management of the property into their own hands, by purchasing the lease. I need hardly say that the difficulties which had occurred between the late Board of the Royal Institution and the Governors of the College with regard to the right of possession naturally led to such a desire. Being the only Governor then resident in Montreal, and His Excellency, the late Sir Charles Bagot, having left the management with reference to that sale to me, I took upon myself the responsibility of making the purchase for the Governors;—but I felt convinced that if I did so in my own name, the Board of the Royal Institution would throw difficulties in the way. I therefore employed Mr. Pelton to purchase the property for me, and he did so on the perfect understanding that the property should, in the first instance, be conveyed to him, and afterwards by him to me, as he supposed, but really to 'the Governors, Principal and Fellows of McGill College.' In that transaction therefore Mr. Pelton acted as my agent; and continued to do so, placing only such tenants on Burnside as were approved by me, and collecting the rents for and paying them to me until the 1st May, 1844, after which he refused to continue to pay them to me. Immediately after the adjudication of the property, a correspondence took place with the Royal Institution about security for the payment of the rents, before it was discovered that a 99 years' lease could not be granted, and Mr. Pelton took upon himself without consulting me to offer security, which he said was accepted by the Board; and then, knowing that I had not offered any security, proposed to me to let him be the bona fide purchaser; but I refused, saying that I supposed the same person who was willing to be security for him would also be security for me. It was immediately after this discovered that the Royal Institution could not grant a lease for a longer period than 21 years, and the whole affair was considered by me as at an end, that is, that it was no sale, because the Royal Institution could not be expected to do that which they had no legal authority to do....” The lease was subsequently cancelled, and it was shown that Pelton had no legal claim upon the property.

When the College buildings were nearing completion, towards the end of 1842, the Board prepared the necessary documents for the transfer of the Burnside Estate to the possession of the Governors of the College. But they took care to safeguard their own powers. They retained the right to inquire from time to time into the management and administration of the University, to remove officers of the College for misconduct, to examine into the compliance of the Governors with the Charter, and to establish statutes and by-laws for the government of the College. In short, the Governors, although they were at last to obtain possession of the property, were still to be subservient to the Board.

This was naturally not satisfactory to the Governors. In accordance with the resolution passed on August 8th, 1842, they drew up a bill the object of which was “to abolish the Royal Institution, and to provide for the better government of McGill College.” It stipulated that all the monies, goods and chattels of which the Royal Institution was possessed under the will of James McGill should be vested in the Government of the University. The Principal went to Kingston to endeavour to have the bill passed during the following session of Parliament but the abrupt ending of the session prevented even its introduction. He went to Kingston again in 1843, but he was frustrated by a similar cause. Against the bill the Board emphatically protested. They declared it to be an attempt to overthrow the plainly expressed intentions and directions of the testator, and an action “as unexampled in the history of British legislation as it is contrary to the first principles of law, justice and reason.” They stated further that “they have executed the intentions of the testator diligently, faithfully and efficiently, so far as they have not been obstructed in doing so by the acts of those whose duty it was to have facilitated their proceedings.” The bill was not passed. It helped only to shatter whatever hopes may have existed for the ending of the quarrel between the Governors and the Board as then constituted. It made it plain that there was now no possibility of an amicable agreement.

In the spring of 1843, the buildings were completed as far as the funds available would permit. Because of lack of money, the Board did not feel justified in making any outlay on the College grounds. Meanwhile, however, they had increased the value of the estate by giving to the City of Montreal the continuation lines of Dorchester and St. Catherine Streets on condition that the additional fences required on opening these streets should be erected at the expense of the city.

In June, 1843, it was decided to open the buildings for the reception of students in the first week of the following September. To this the Board and the Governors, strangely enough, agreed, but the agreement was only momentary. The Board asked the Governors for an estimate of the amount required for furniture for the buildings. The Governors refused to make an estimate. They were unable, they said, to do so; they desired a covering grant of £500 to buy what they needed. The Board suggested with some touch of sarcasm that they should get “a carpenter or a tradesman” to make an estimate if they could not make it themselves, but the Governors again declined. The Board contended that they could not make a grant unless they previously knew precisely the details of the proposed expenditure; and the Governors answered that they would borrow £500 if the Royal Institution would not give it to them. The Board then asked for an accounting of the money “already received and expended by the Principal in connection with the rents and products of the Burnside Estate.” The Secretary was instructed to reply that no account would be submitted as the Governors felt that any money so received was but a very small remuneration for services rendered by the Principal. To this the Board rejoined with bitterness that the Principal had not been regularly appointed, that he had done no duty as Professor, that they had never authorised his taking possession of Burnside and that the products from the farm should provide for him more than a sufficient remuneration; they were determined, they said, to pay no salaries unless accounts were rendered to them and approved. Such, at this critical period, was the co-operation arising from a dual control!

On June 21st, the opening of the College in the autumn was approved by the Governor General. The Rev. F. J. Lundy (a graduate of Oxford) had been appointed Professor of Classical Literature in November, 1842. He had received, with the Principal, one of the first D.C.L. degrees conferred by McGill in the spring of 1843. In addition to his duties as Professor he was now appointed Secretary of the College, and was later made Vice-Principal. His appointment to the Faculty of Arts was not ratified at once by the Board of the Royal Institution, and they intimated that they would not pay his salary. The Governors voted £300 a year and fuel for a Professor of Mathematics. As a result of the Board's contention that the Principal had not been regularly appointed, a commission or warrant of appointment was issued by the Governors on July 12th, and on the following day the Principal was appointed to be also Professor of Divinity, at a salary of £250, “as soon as funds derived from the property shall admit of it.” A Bursar, Secretary and Registrar was appointed at a salary of £100 a year and fees, to be later sanctioned, and a Beadle was selected at £30 a year and fees and board.

A Code of Statutes, Rules and Regulations for the government of the College was now prepared by the Governors. Without the approval of the Board it was forwarded to the Governor-General for submission to the Crown for ratification. Six years passed before these Statutes, with slight alterations, received Royal sanction, with the result that the College opened without definite rules for its guidance. The reasons for this delay will be outlined elsewhere. It is only necessary to mention here that the first difficulty in connection with the Statutes arose from requirements connected with religious instruction in the University. Two of these, which were later disallowed by Her Majesty's Government, provided first, that “no Professor, Lecturer or Tutor shall teach in the College any principles contrary to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland,” and second, that “on every Sunday during the term, all the resident members of the University under the degree of B.C.L. who have not obtained a dispensation to the contrary, shall attend the morning service in the Protestant Episcopal Parish Church of Montreal.” It was also stipulated that “the prayers in the College Chapel shall be said in rotation by such officers of the College as shall be in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland.” These provisions, together with the fact that the acting-Principal, who was also Rector of Christ Church, had just been appointed Professor of Divinity, gave rise to critical discussion, and made Lord Metcalfe, the Governor-General, pause before advising the Colonial Office to obtain the Royal ratification of the Statutes. He wrote to Lord Stanley, “The main point involved in these questions is whether the Religious Instruction to be given at McGill College shall be exclusively that of the Church of England....

“The grounds on which the Governors have adopted the affirmative of the proposition, and appointed a Divinity Professor of the Church of England, are ably stated in their letter to me. On the other hand, there are strenuous remonstrances against this arrangement on the part of the Ministers of the other Protestant persuasions in the Province, and a strong feeling against it in the community; and the design manifested to connect the Institution, in that respect, exclusively with the Church of England will most probably deprive it of that support from the Provincial Legislature without which it will necessarily be crippled. The opinions on this subject, understood to be prevalent in the Province, are likely to lead to discussions in the Legislature; and it may become necessary to modify the Institution so as to make it more suitable to public expectation and general utility. If, therefore, it rested with me to determine on this reference, I should be disposed, either to disallow the Professorship of Divinity, or to suspend the decision until it could be seen that the Institution can stand on the footing on which the Governors have placed it.

“I am, by the Charter, a Governor of the Institution, but have not acted in that capacity; at first, simply because more urgent business prevented my going to Montreal to take a part in the proceedings of the Governors; but subsequently, on reflection, for the following reasons:—I doubt the expediency of the Governor-General's taking a part as one of the Governors of an Institution in which he may be overruled by a majority, and apparently sanction measures which he disapproves. The perusal of the correspondence between the Governors of the College and the Royal Institution of Quebec satisfied me that I ought not to place myself in a position which would render me liable to become a party concerned in such a correspondence, and subject to the assumed authority and control of another Institution. The Income of the Institution having become a bone of contention between the Church of England and the other Protestant Churches, it appears to me to be right that I should perform my part as Governor-General without being embarrassed by proceedings to which I might be a party as a Governor of the College.”

The action of the Governor-General was approved by Lord Stanley and consideration of the Statutes was consequently postponed.

In shaping the policy of the University the place of religious instruction and theological training received earnest consideration. On the necessity of including it in the College curriculum the Governors of the College and the Board of the Royal Institution agreed, but they differed on the nature of the instruction and on the theological creed which should dominate or dictate such teaching. It was recognised as a vexed question. The Governors attempted to explain and justify their attitude of alleged religious “exclusiveness” referred to above in Lord Metcalfe's despatch, and to give reasons for the Statutes already mentioned. The following extracts from a long and somewhat laboured letter forwarded by the Governors to Lord Metcalfe on July 15, 1843, are of interest. The arguments advanced in the letter and the frequent “begging of the question” need no comment. The Governors still pleaded for a Provincial grant, but they wished part, at least, of that public grant devoted to one exclusive form of theological teaching, and they were not averse to giving to the entire University a distinctively sectarian character.

“Another reason which compels us,” they said, “to commence on a scale so limited, is the scantiness of our means. At present, the resources of the College, arising from the property bequeathed by the founder, supply only an annual income of £560 Provincial currency, and that not clear of deductions. The Legislature has occasionally appropriated £500 annually, in aid of these funds, and though we trust there can be no danger of this assistance being withdrawn, after the College shall have begun to be more extensively useful to the Province, yet, it is incumbent on us, to consider that even this small aid is not permanently assured to the University, and that to enable us to go beyond what we have now proposed, it will be necessary that the funds should be very considerably increased.... To meet the exigency of the present moment, we earnestly hope that the liberal suggestion, in which the late Governor-General concurred, will be acted upon with effect by Your Excellency and the Legislature, and with as little delay as may be consistent with the unspeakable importance of the object to be obtained. In Lower Canada, which is supposed to contain a population of not less than 800,000 souls, there is at present (except in regard to the Medical Faculty) no seat of Learning, either Catholic or Protestant, in which a Degree can be conferred in any Art or Science. This is a defect which, we believe, has not existed since the era of civilisation among so large a community of British subjects, and we very anxiously hope that from this moment no time may be lost in establishing McGill College upon such a footing as may command the confidence of the country, and enable the Institution, though indeed too tardily, to answer the purposes contemplated by its munificent founder.... There is one point (and it is the last) upon which, from the interest naturally and properly attached to it, we are aware much discussion may arise, and upon which, from its paramount importance, we desire, above all things, to be open and explicit.

“It will be found, on examination of the Statutes now submitted, that no test of a religious character is requisite, either from the Teachers or Scholars. Persons of any religious creed may, therefore, dispense instruction or receive it, except as regards religion itself, the College being equally open to all. But it will be found also that it is proposed to be distinctly made a Statute of the College, that no Professor, Lecturer or Tutor shall teach within it any principles contrary to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland.

“We have not been able to bring ourselves to take part in the establishment of an Institution for the education of youth without making provisions for their Religious Instruction, and for inculcating as a duty the worship of their Creator. We have therefore made certain Statutes respecting the performance of, and attendance at, Divine Service, and we have established, so far as our power extends, a Professorship of Divinity in our College.

“Taking these provisions in connection with the Statutes which enjoins that nothing contrary to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland shall be taught within the College, it follows obviously (and this we wish to be plainly understood) that the Divine Service to be performed, and the Professorship of Divinity to be established, will be of the Church of England, and of no other. But we have been careful at the same time to exempt from any necessity of attending Divine Service, or of being present at the Lectures on Divinity, all such Scholars, being members of other Religious Communities, as may desire a dispensation.

“Knowing the diversity of opinions entertained respecting the footing on which religious instruction should be placed in Seats of Learning, and how futile have been the efforts made to reconcile them, we came to the consideration of this subject with a dire sense of its difficulty, and with much anxiety that we should ourselves arrive at the soundest and best conclusion, and that our conclusion may, for the sake of the Institution and of the Province, be sanctioned by that authority to which under the Statutes it must be submitted. We offer no further arguments for the propriety of not leaving religious instruction and public worship unattended to, or inadequately provided for, in a College which is destined to conduct in a Christian country the education of youth at a period of life when they are most exposed to temptations, and when, if ever, the attempt should be made to furnish them with the highest and most sacred motives to the discharge of their religious and moral duties.

“We do not believe that there is, rationally speaking, a choice between the two alternatives, of omitting wholly to establish any system of religious instruction and public worship in the College, or of providing for it by placing the Institution in strict and acknowledged connection with some one recognised Church or form of doctrine. Not assenting to the former course, we have unanimously agreed on the latter, and we have in favour of the course we have adopted the examples of the Universities of the Mother Country, which have been for ages looked up to with undiminished confidence and respect. We have also in its support the acknowledged favour of an experiment made in England under many advantages to recommend it to public favour, an University established on other principles; and we have, in addition to this, the very strong arguments to be derived from the well supported and most useful Institutions of learning established in Lower Canada in strict connection with the Roman Catholic Church, and from the efforts made by the Roman Catholics, the Church of Scotland, and the Methodist Society to found Colleges in Upper Canada as closely connected with their respective religious bodies,—Colleges in which there is not only nothing taught contrary to their respective Creeds, but in which the whole government and business of the Institution is carefully confined to those who profess the one form of Doctrine.

“We have considered, too, that while these Religious Bodies, comprising together the great bulk of the population, have given this strong and plain evidence of their conviction that this system is the soundest, they have not thought it unreasonable to solicit the aid and countenance of the Government and the Legislature towards the establishment of such Colleges, and have not found their solicitations hopeless. So far as regards our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, who form a great majority of the population in this portion of Canada, we do not apprehend that we shall be offending any prejudices of theirs, for we believe they would be as unwilling to throw impediments in the way of Institutions of Learning not intended to belong exclusively to their Church, as they would be reluctant to admit the interference of others in the management of their own valuable Seminaries where the exclusive maintenance of one form of doctrine and worship tends to secure in all respects the advantages of unity and peace.

“It then only remains, in the view which we have taken on the subject, that we should state shortly the reasons which have led us, where we thought a connection with some one Church should be established and acknowledged, to make that Church the Church of England.

“They are these:—1st. The founder, Mr. McGill, is silent in his will upon the subject of religion, and gave no direction to which these Statutes will be repugnant. He was himself a member of the Church of England, in communion with that Church. We do not feel at liberty to imagine that he desired religious instruction to be excluded, and we think it reasonable to believe that in selecting some Church whose ministration should be recognised in the College which he intended to found, he would naturally have desired the choice to fall on that Church of which he was a member.

“2nd. The Charter which appoints us to be Governors declares that His Majesty desired the erection of this University in order to provide for the instruction of youth in the principles of true religion, as well as in the different branches of Science and Literature; and whatever may be the honest convictions of opposing Churches and Sects, we think it right to assume that when the Sovereign speaks of the principles of true religion, he means that which is the prevailing National Religion of the British Empire, and which he must himself have solemnly professed. We consider, therefore, that in placing McGill College on the footing proposed, we have taken the only course which we could satisfactorily account for, whatever may be the opinions or acts of others, whom it does not rest with us to control.

“3rd. While other religious communities have their separate Colleges closely connected with their form of doctrine and worship and partaking of public support, there is none in the Province of Canada which is bound by plain and acknowledged ties to the Church of England. We have felt it not to be unjust or illiberal to allow to the members of that Church this advantage so desirable to themselves in an Institution founded by the munificence of one of their communion while the youth of all other religious bodies may, in the discretion of themselves and their parents, resort to it for instruction in the several branches of Science, with the assurance that no attempt will be suffered to be made to bias their religious belief; and with the satisfaction at the same time of knowing, that whenever instruction in Religion may be desired, it cannot be uncertain in what form it will be conveyed.

“We hope that our fellow-subjects of all persuasions will view, without jealousy or alarm, the provisions which we have proposed to make on this subject, and that they will carry their liberality so far as to give efficient aid to an Institution, founded, as we believe, on the only principles of which reason and religion can approve,—namely, the principle of giving it a known and acknowledged religious character. At all events, we have not refrained from adopting that course which our judgment has led us to prefer; we have had no difficulty in resting in the conclusion which we have come to, and no difference of opinion among ourselves. It now rests with Her Majesty to dispose of these measures, which we humbly submit to the Royal consideration.”

Her Majesty's Government, however, on the advice of the Governor-General, ultimately withheld their assent from the controversial clauses referred to.

Before the College was opened the Governors made a final effort to curtail the powers of the Board of the Royal Institution. They considered that with the erection of College buildings the duties of the Board in connection with the McGill bequest were at an end and that with any other buildings which might later be erected the Board was not concerned. They wrote to the Royal Institution and to the Governor-General setting forth their views. “If the Board's power is what is stated and assumed,” they said, “it will not be possible for the Governors to attain the object of the Charter.” They deplored the spirit in which the authority of the Board had been exercised. They assumed that James McGill intended his bequest to be administered by the Board only until buildings were erected and a Charter granted to a Corporate body, for the Board's control was primarily over grants from the Crown and not from private individuals. The Board had now, therefore, no legal existence, for the objects for which it had been created were gone. It was clearly apparent, in their judgment, that when he gave control of his bequest to the Board, James McGill thought public funds would be added to his gift; this, they believed, was proved by the stipulation of “ten years” after his death as the required term for the erection of the College; hence he had given his bequest to the Board simply and solely because they controlled public funds given for education. But practically no public funds had been regularly given; hence the Board's control automatically ceased.

It is unnecessary to follow here the Governors' subtle reasoning. They seem to have forgotten the Provincial funds granted from the Jesuits' Estates, and to be unmindful of the fact that they were at that very moment still pleading for a Provincial grant, as indicated in the letter quoted above. They justly emphasised, however, the necessity of providing a convenient power of management within the College itself and the ending of the dual control. It was absurd, they rightly contended, that every cent expended for a piece of stove pipe or a chair should be first approved by the Board. The Governors resented, too, the visitatorial power of the Royal Institution. “In what spirit,” they asked, “and for what purpose do they carry out the right of visitation?” Such power was useful, they declared, only for the purpose of interposing in the minutest details of the management of McGill College, although a Corporation and a board of Governors existed for that purpose; the Royal Institution, in short, was, in its connection with McGill, nothing more than “a source of interference and impediment,” and the Governors asked that the Legislature should investigate the whole situation with a view to remedying it. This appeal, like the others, failed to make any impression on the authorities, and the causes of friction were not removed.

In this atmosphere of discord and dissension and disputed powers the College buildings were opened on September 6th, 1843, and collegiate instruction was at last commenced in accordance with the founder's bequest. Twenty-two years had passed since the College had been established by Charter, and fourteen years had gone since its actual opening. They were years of doubt and uncertainty, of protracted litigation and differences, even of virulent wrangling and bitter strife. But amidst it all and in the face of all its obstacles, the College had gone slowly but steadily forward. Its sign-posts had pointed onward. Reading to-day the troubled pages of its early story revealed in a mass of musty documents written by hands long since folded, or dictated by voices long since stilled,—which then helped to shape its destiny,—we wonder how it survived. The explanation lies in the fact that the men who guided it, whether of Governors or of Royal Institution, were men of unfaltering faith; they believed in the future of McGill; amidst their disagreements and their controversies, they never lost sight of the founder's hope although their ways for the fulfilment of that hope lay often painfully apart. From the struggles of its early years McGill now emerged to be an established fact. The first of its buildings, the present Arts or Centre Building, had been erected and opened. The College had at last an actual home. But the days of its travail and its worry, its poverty and its depression, its fight for life itself, had not yet passed.