McGill and its Story, 1821-1921 — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
McGill and its Story, 1821-1921
John Stuart Mill · en
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."