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.