McGill and its Story, 1821-1921

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.

Rev. Dr. John Bethune
Actg. Principal of McGill University
1835-1846

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.