The Board of the Royal Institution endeavoured earnestly to relieve the financial situation of the College, and they requested the Receiver-General to make all possible payments to the Governors. But the liabilities far exceeded the assets. In January, 1850, the College officers urgently pleaded for their overdue salaries. It was decided to pay them 2s. 9d. in the pound. Accordingly, Vice-Principal Leach received £55 of the £404 in arrears; L. D. Montier, the Lecturer in French, was given £4 of the £34 due him, and the others were paid very small amounts in proportion for a year or, as in the case of the Vice-Principal, several years of work. A grant of £25 was asked for by the College authorities to purchase books for students, but it was of necessity refused. The supply of fuel for the year was reduced to “ten cords of maple wood,” and altogether the outlook of the College was not promising.
Meanwhile the Statutes, Rules, etc., which had been forwarded to the Colonial Office for Royal sanction in 1843, had been approved with some alterations, and the Royal confirmation was announced in a despatch from Lord Grey to Lord Elgin, the Governor-General, on September 27th, 1848. The Home Government had delayed their approval of the Statutes because they were not sure of the attitude of the Provincial Legislature towards the College. Remembering the political events of 1837 and realising as a result Canadian resentment of any semblance of dictation or coercion, they decided to proceed with caution. In this they followed the advice of the Governor-General, Lord Metcalfe, who, as we have seen, strongly urged delay and a careful consideration of the clauses bearing on religious instruction, in his despatch of September 6, 1843. To this despatch Lord Stanley replied from Downing Street on October 13, stating his approval of the suggestions and expressing his desire to meet first the wishes of the Provincial Assemblies. “It is evident,” he said, “that these questions cannot be decided without the intervention of the Legislature of Canada and that it must rest with the Provincial Parliament to determine whether pecuniary aid shall or shall not be afforded to the College.... It could answer no useful purpose, but may lead to a most embarrassing controversy if, by the confirmation of those Statutes ... Her Majesty should hazard a collision on such topics as these, between the Royal Authority irrevocably exercised and the future recommendation of both or either of the Houses of local Legislature. Consequently, until I shall be apprised of the results of their deliberations, the decision of the Queen will be suspended.”
There were rumours that a bitter attack against the College, its administration and its religious exclusiveness would be made in the Legislature, and that a Bill would be introduced which might possibly lead in the end to its abolition. Lord Metcalfe feared such a possibility. But no attack was made, and on January 17, 1844, the Governor-General wrote to Downing Street: “No attack was made on McGill College in the shape of a Bill during the late Session. The Institution perhaps owes its escape to the prudence of the French Canadian party, who, having several Roman Catholic Colleges that are exclusive, are not disposed generally to join in attacking other Institutions on account of their exclusiveness, lest the same weapons should be turned against their own. Under those circumstances McGill College being in Lower Canada appears to be in a safer position than it seemingly occupied before the late Session; and I do not consider the expediency of withholding confirmation of their Statutes to be so urgent as I then conceived it. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the Institution may not be attacked in any future Session, for the Presbyterians and Dissenters of all classes are bent on destroying the exclusive character which it has acquired in the hands of the Church of England.” Efforts were now renewed by the Royal Institutions to have the Statutes, in part at least, approved, but the Board was informed by the Colonial Office that “it does not appear to Her Majesty that the College has the means of sustaining itself on a reasonable scale of efficiency.” The closing of the College was looked upon by the Home authorities as a mere matter of time!
After much discussion and delay, when it seemed probable that the College would weather the storm, the Statutes were finally in part approved in the autumn of 1848. The time for action had come and the Home authorities realised that “further delay might issue in the ruin of the College.” As we have already seen, the clauses relating to the sectarian character of theological instruction and of the College prayers were not confirmed. In giving reasons for the vetoing of these clauses, Lord Grey wrote that in his opinion, based on the advice of Lord Metcalfe, “aid would not be granted [to the College] if the Royal confirmation of the Statutes should first have impressed indelibly on that Institution a character of exclusiveness in whatever relates to Theological degrees and studies and to the public worship of the place.... The Will and Charter are both silent on the subject of the peculiar religious tenets or ecclesiastical principles to be inculcated at the College, a silence very significant in the case of a Testator who was himself the member of a Christian Church, a silence not less significant in the case of the Sovereign ... a silence not to be explained by any supposed forgetfulness or intentional omission of the subject, since the inculcation of 'the principles of true religion' is expressly provided for by the Charter; a silence, therefore, apparently indicating a design that Christianity should be taught, not in any single or exclusive form, but in any and in every form in which its great fundamental truths and precepts could be imparted to the students.... The questions respecting the religious and ecclesiastical principles to be inculcated in the College will, therefore, for the present rest in the same state of indecision as that in which the Will of the founder and the Royal Charter have left them.”
With the approval of the Statutes, the Governors made an effort to reorganise the College on a better working basis. In December, 1849, the Principal forwarded to the Board of the Royal Institution suggestions for amendments to the Charter in order to provide a greater freedom of action which might render the management more efficient. This step resulted largely from a report sent to the Governors by the Board of the Royal Institution, setting forth the latter's observations on conditions found during their official Visit in 1848, and including an outline of the remedies they thought should be applied. The Board approved of their suggestions and urged immediate consideration of the question. Three months passed without action. Meanwhile a peculiar situation had developed. The Principal of the College had desired in October, 1849, to resign, as he was about to move to Toronto because of the change in the seat of Government. He was now Assistant Provincial Secretary. But as no successor was available he was persuaded to retain the office for the present, although no longer able, because of his residence in Toronto, to take a very active part in College affairs, or to exercise any direct supervision over the administration. The remaining Governors consisted of the Lord Bishop of Montreal, who resided at Quebec; the Chief Justice of Upper Canada, the Hon. J. Beverley Robinson, who, like the Principal, dwelt in Toronto; and the Governor-General, Lord Elgin, who, after he had been attacked by a mob in 1849 as a result of his attitude on the “Rebellion Losses Bill,” no longer resided in Montreal. None of the Governors was therefore able to exercise any oversight of the College of which they were the legal guardians. In April, 1850, a Committee of the Board of the Royal Institution was appointed to suggest a solution of the peculiar problem. They wrote to the Governor-General, setting forth the absurdity and the hopelessness of a condition which permitted the College to be controlled by Governors no longer resident in Montreal, and emphasising the necessity that existed for “a prompt application of remedies to relieve the College from its present unfortunate state of depression.” They urged an amended Charter as the first requirement. A long correspondence followed between the Board and the individual Governors, relating to the details of the Charter. In June the Board's Committee wrote again to the Governor-General, stating that if the Charter were amended according to the draft prepared “McGill College would speedily be relieved from the difficulties by which it has been so long surrounded.”
The Board desired to amend the original Charter rather than to abrogate it in order not to raise any question of the tenure of the estate through a lapse of possession. They feared that between the brief period of time which would necessarily intervene between the annulment of the old Charter and the passing of the new, the heirs-at-law of James McGill might, even at that late date, claim that the College no longer existed in fact, and that they were entitled to the estate. They therefore preferred an amended Charter, even if more cumbersome. One of the amendments provided that the members of the Board of the Royal Institution should henceforth be the Governors of the College, the members still to be appointed by the Crown. The number of Governors was left indefinite, but the Board suggested strongly that “the number should not be less than thirteen, and that they should be selected from the different Protestant denominations in the city and district of Montreal.” Later they suggested that the number should be nine or eleven, exclusive of ex-officio members. They pointed out that “so long as the Board of the Royal Institution and the Board of Governors are composed of different bodies of men exercising a co-ordinate and uncertain jurisdiction over matters very ill-defined ... it is impossible to expect either unanimity in the bodies themselves or harmony in the system.... The only means of imparting to these bodies unity of action and design will be found in making them identical.” Such an amendment would forever end the dual control which had brought about in the past disaster and depression.
Other clauses in the amendment provided that all Statutes and Rules of the College could be approved by the Governor-General at his discretion without transmission to England; and that the visitatorial power be transferred from the Royal Institution and vested in the Governor-General. The purpose of the amendments was to simplify the government of the College and to secure an efficient administration. The suggestions with reference to numbers and to the selecting of the Governors from the different Protestant denominations were not followed by the Government. There was much correspondence between the Board and the Governor-General and his Council over the proposals. But it was on the whole amicable. The objections of one side were always met with reasonableness by the other, and a harmonious agreement was finally reached. The Governor-General forwarded the amended Charter to the Colonial Office with his approval and his advice that it should receive Royal sanction. The Board of the Royal Institution, realising from past experience the slow methods of Downing Street, appointed an agent in London to hasten the passage of the Charter through the different offices of the Imperial Government. It was not until August, 1852, however, that the amended Charter was finally approved.
Between 1849 and 1852 very few meetings of the Governors were held, owing to the absence of the Governors from Montreal. The affairs of the College were largely in the hands of the Vice-Principal and his assistants. Conditions gradually became graver. The Lecturers in French and Mathematics were dismissed because no money to pay them was in prospect. By 1851 the buildings, which had not been completed and were uncomfortable at best, had fallen into a dilapidated state. Rain and snow fell freely through the cracks in the roof, and leaked to the rooms below. Windows and doors, which in the course of time had been shattered, were still unrepaired. There was not enough fuel to heat the broken and damaged structures, for an allowance of “ten cords of maple wood for the winter” was not sufficient to bring warmth. The College grounds were uncared for. Students who dwelt in the city tramped through snowdrifts to the cold College classrooms. Because of the discomfort, the lack of adequate accommodation, and the inconvenient distance from the Hospital and the city, the Medical classes, which had been held in the Centre building since 1845, were removed in 1851, as already recorded, to the building on Coté Street, built by three members of the Medical Staff, Drs. Campbell, MacCulloch, and Sutherland, and leased to the Faculty. A year later the City began excavations for the reservoir in rear of the College grounds. The blasting in connection with this work did not add to the peace or the safety of student life in McGill, and later serious breaks in the buildings were caused by heavy stones falling on the roof. For these various reasons it was ordered by the College authorities that all occupants except the Vice-Principal should withdraw from the College buildings. The chief excuse given was economy, but the real reasons were not then disclosed to the public. The Arts classes were afterwards carried on in part of the building used for the High School. The McGill buildings were abandoned, except by the Vice-Principal, and it was not until 1860 that they were reoccupied by the Faculty of Arts.
Several changes now took place in the administration of the College. In 1851 Principal Meredith resigned. His resignation was followed the next year by that of the Rev. John Abbott, who had been Secretary and Bursar and Registrar for several years. The Hon. Judge Charles Dewey Day was now President of the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, and as such he assumed, in conjunction with Vice-Principal Leach, direction of the College management.
Charles Dewey Day was a native of Bennington, Vermont. While he was still a boy he moved with his parents to Montreal, and there he received his education. He studied law, and in 1827 he was admitted to the Bar. Ten years later he was made a Queen's Counsel. When the Rebellion of 1837 ended he was appointed Deputy Judge Advocate-General, and he consequently had an active part in the courts-martial appointed for the trial of accused insurgents. He was made Solicitor-General in 1839. At the election of 1841 he was chosen to represent the County of Ottawa, but he retired from political life in the following year and accepted a Judgeship in the Court of Queen's Bench. In 1849 he was elevated to the Superior Court. He was later appointed a member of the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, of which he became President, and after the amended Charter of the University was approved in August, 1852, he became in virtue of that position a Governor of McGill. In 1857 he became Chancellor of the University, a position which he occupied until his death twenty-seven years later. He filled many important offices. In 1859 he was one of the Commission entrusted to prepare a Civil Code for the Province of Quebec; he subsequently served on Commissions appointed at different times to determine the amount of the Provincial debt to be assumed by the Dominion; to investigate the details of the Pacific Railway scandal; and to settle the amount of subsidy which should be paid to the railroads for carrying the mails. He also helped to prepare Canada's case in the negotiations for the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, and after his retirement from the Bench he assisted in prosecuting the Hudson Bay Company's claims against the United States under the treaties of 1846 and 1863. After his appointment as a Governor of McGill, Judge Day took, a deep and earnest interest in the activities of the College. He devoted his energy and his time to advancing the College's welfare, to removing the causes of its many troubles, and to giving it a place of power and usefulness in Canada. He died in 1884. He was referred to in the contemporary press as “one of Montreal's most upright, honourable and useful citizens”; and speaking a few days after his death, on his connection with McGill, Lord Landsdowne said, “In this University he leaves an irreparable void and an enduring memory.”