Chapter V: Anxious Years (2)

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.