Henry John Cody: An Outstanding Life

Henry John Cody An Outstanding Life

For My Wife and Family

Henry John Cody An Outstanding Life D.C. MASTERS

Dundurn Press Toronto • Oxford

Copyright © D.C. Masters, 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (except brief passages for purposes of review), without the prior permission of Dundurn Press Limited. Permission to photocopy should be requested from the Canadian Reprography Collective.

Designed by Andy Tong Edited by Judith Turnbull Printed and bound in Canada by Best Book Manufacturers The publisher wishes to acknowledge the generous assistance and ongoing support of the Canada Council, the Book Publishing Industry Development Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Publishing Centre of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. Care has been taken to trace the ownership of copyright material used in the text (including the illustrations). The author and publisher welcome any information enabling them to rectify any reference or credit in subsequent editions. /. Kirk Howard, Publisher

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Masters, Donald C., 1908Henry John Cody : an outstanding life Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55002-219-9 1. Cody, Henry John, 1868-1951. 2. Anglican Church of Canada - Clergy - Biography. 3. Clergy - Ontario - Toronto Biography. 4. University of Toronto - Presidents - Biography. 5. Educators - Canada - Biography. I. Title. BX5620.C6M37 1995

Dundurn Press Limited 2181 Queen Street East Suite 301 Toronto, Canada M4E 1E5

283'.092

C95-931309-5

Dundurn Distribution 73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford England 0X3 7AD

Dundurn Press Limited 1823 Maryland Avenue P.O. Box 1000 Niagara Falls, N.Y. U.S.A. 14302-1000

Contents

Preface Introduction

vii ix

1

Embro and Galt

1

2

University, 1885-1889

10

3

Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889

19

4

Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Paul's, 1889-1893

26

5

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893-1899

33

6

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905

45

7

Cody's Friends, 1900-1905

55

8

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906

60

9

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908

68

10

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909

78

11

The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914

88

12

World War I, 1914-1918

97

13

The Ministry of Education, 1918-1919

103

vi I Contents

14

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-1922 120

15

Two Journeys, 1922-1923

131

16

Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926

143

17

Maurice, 1927

156

18

Cody's Recovery, 1927-1929

161

19

Prelude to University Presidency, 1930-1932

170

20

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-1933

177

21

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-1935

188

22

The Later Depression, 1936-1939

210

23

The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941

233

24

The Frank H. Underhill Case

249

25

The War Continues, 1941-1944

269

26

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-1945

287

27

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947

299

28

From Strength to Strength

309

Notes Index

317 339

Preface

had personal reasons for writing a biography of HJ. Cody. He came out of an Ontario background quite similar to my own. He was a hero in my family. He had taught my father, C.K. Masters, at Wycliffe College and had been a lifelong friend. A picture of Cody always hung in my fathers study. I met Cody only twice but I heard him speak on many occasions: as guest speaker at the Ridley College Prize Day; as rector of St. Paul's Church, Toronto, which I attended frequently in my student years at the University of Toronto; and finally, when as president of the university he spoke at a memorial service for George V. I still have a vivid recollection of Cody as a dynamic speaker. I wish to express my gratitude to those who helped me in writing this volume. Leon S. Warmski, senior research archivist at the Ontario Archives, was of continuous assistance. I am grateful for his help and for many acts of kindness. Harold Averill, assistant university archivist at the University of Toronto Archives, was extremely helpful and encouraging, particularly in regard to material relating to the latter part of Cody's career. Alex Ross was most helpful during his stay at the Ontario Archives and later, when he was head of Twentieth Century Records with the Hudson's Bay Company, in Winnipeg, in the search for material on Archbishop Matheson in the Manitoba Archives in Winnipeg. I had cordial assistance from the staff of the Anglican General Synod. Dr. Tom Millman, the archivist, took a kindly interest in the book and recalled his own impressions of Cody's personality. Terry Thompson, a later archivist, and Dorothy Kealey, a member of the staff, were most cooperative. My old friend, the late Alfred Rickard, used to attend St. Paul's Church with me when we were students. Later, when he was a volunteer assistant at the church archives, Alf gave me some shrewd recollections of Cody. The Reverend William J. Hockin, the rector of St. Paul's Church, and Bishop Peter Mason, when principal of Wycliffe College, both took a keen interest in the book and helped to secure its publication.

I

viii I Preface

Mr. D. Miller Alloway, president of Cairn Capital Inc., gave strong encouragement. Among my University of Toronto friends, Professor Robin Harris suggested sources of material in the university archives, and the late Professor Gerald Craig gave me his recollections of the Cody-Underhill relationship. Senator D.J. Walker, a friend of Cody's son, Maurice, made a memorandum on his memories of Cody. Mrs. Barbara Storey wrote an account of her time as Cody's secretary in 1940-41. I am grateful to the late Sydney H. Hermant for permission to quote from his paper "Henry John Cody," delivered to the University College Alumni Association on November 9, 1982. Chapter 10 of my book is a revised copy of my paper "H.J. Cody and the Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909," which was published in the Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society, vol. 30, no. 2. I owe a tremendous debt to my family. My wife, Marjorie, shared in the research, typed the first draft, made many valuable suggestions, and edited the first draft before submission to the publishers. My daughter Margaret (Dr. Margaret Helder) was most helpful. She typed the entire manuscript and made many valuable criticisms. My other children - Jane, Mary Ann, Lois, and Charles - were helpful in typing and encouragement. Charles and our good friend Hugh Anderson helped to promote the publication of the book. My late sister Peggy and her husband Bill (Mr. and Mrs. W.R. Wallace) provided material about Havergal College and the Cody family in Embro. Catherine Steele, a former principal, also helped with material about Havergal. I am very much indebted to my agent, John Irwin, to my publisher, Kirk Howard of Dundurn Press, and to my able and considerate editor, Judith Turnbull. I wish to thank the Ontario Archives, the University of Toronto Archives, and the City of Toronto Archives for permission to reproduce their photographs; acknowledgment appears on each illustration. D.C.M.

Introduction biographer of HJ. Cody has special difficulties. If one is writing about a person already well known and celebrated, like Julius Caesar or Napoleon, one writes for readers who have an initial interest in the subject. Cody was a great man in his day, in Toronto especially, in the Anglican Church, in educational circles (both in school and university), and in the Conservative Party, but now, some forty years after his death, he is almost forgotten and indeed unheard of by anyone under 50. There are several reasons for this. Cody was essentially an exponent of ideas - religious, political, educational - but he wrote no books. He left a large number of sermon notes, manuscripts of speeches, and presidential reports. But these are not readily accessible, and even if they were, they would not be widely read. Cody left a larger body of "Cody Papers" (chiefly in the Ontario Archives and the Archives of the University of Toronto). As in the case with most private papers, the voluminous correspondence in the "Papers" consists mainly of letters to Cody. There are comparatively few letters by Cody (the author was assured by a university archivist, "Dr. Cody did not write many letters, he preferred to use the telephone"), but there are a few very significant ones, such as a letter to his friend Tommy Des Barres, written after the death of Cody's first wife, describing the continuing influence of the Christian faith in his life. A higher proportion of the letters are from Cody in the correspondence from the years after he became president of the University of Toronto than in that from his early life and his long rectorship at St. Paul's. Cody's diary, which he kept for most of his life, conveys more about his thoughts. The entries are terse, but often revealing, particularly when dealing with some slight or injustice. Cody's writings (sermon notes, speeches, presidential reports) give us a fair and full knowledge of Cody's opinions on the great issues of his life. But to see what kind of man he was, we must depend largely on the reactions of other people, the people who wrote letters to him or who wrote letters about him after his death. Some of these are negative. One of his parishioners thought he was always seeking preferment in the Church (a curious idea about a man who refused the offer of several bishoprics, an archbishopric, and the principalship of two theological

A

x / Introduction

colleges). Political opponents resented what they regarded as his adroitness. On the whole, however, the Cody Papers enable us to build up the picture of a very humane person, highly regarded by the parishioners of St. Paul's and by the many other men and women with whom he came in contact. He was a kindly man who had a genuine liking for people and a remarkable memory for names. Bishop Barfoot, a western Anglican bishop, recalled an incident when he was a young man: "The memory I cherish most was an occasion in St. James Church, Saskatoon, when he spoke to me as he moved in procession down the aisle. 'It's Barfoot, surely,' he said. I, an unknown and at that time very ill young man, was greatly healed and helped by that friendly notice." Cody's means of communicating his ideas was essentially through the oral rather than the written word. His sermons, his speeches across the country, his convocation addresses came to life when communicated through the force and magnetism of his personality. No one who heard him speak in public could forget the vigour and enthusiasm of his delivery. In a sense Cody had two careers, the first in religion, the second in education. After becoming curate at St. Paul's Church in 1893, he gradually took over the work of the parish under an aging rector and himself became rector in 1907, a position he held until 1932. He built up St. Paul's to be one of the largest and most vital Anglican churches in Canada. During the same period he became a sort of ecclesiastical statesman in the Anglican Church and a dynamic lecturer at Wycliffe College. At the age of 64 Cody resigned from St. Paul's and became president of the University of Toronto. He proved to be an able and courageous administrator who piloted the university through the later stages of the Great Depression and through World War II. He was a key figure in the famous Underbill case (Frank Underhill was a professor threatened with dismissal because of his wartime speeches). While Cody appears to have had two careers, his life was less of a dichotomy than might be supposed. Cody did not see any real break in his career as a churchman and a university president. He stood for the values of a Christian society, with each person responsible for the gifts that God has given him or her. He had derived this ethic from the Christian community in rural Ontario out of which he came. It inspired his thinking just as surely when he was the minister of education for Ontario as when he was the president of a great university or when he was an active minister of the Anglican Church. Cody was an important man of his time. The events in which he took part had a formative influence on Canadian life, an influence still felt today. This man's life and his ideals are eminently worthy of our consideration.

Chapter 1

Embro and Gait

enry John Cody (Harry) was born in Embro, Ontario, on December 6, 1868. His father, Elijah John (1844-1927), was a member of a family that had lived in New England since the eighteenth century and had come to West Zorra Township early in the nineteenth century. Zorra was mainly a Scottish settlement of Highlanders from Sutherlandshire. 1 Harry's paternal grandmother, a member of the Galspie family born in Sutherlandshire, was one of this Highland group. Harrys father had a long career in Embro, at varying times clerk and treasurer of Embro, magistrate, clerk of the Division Court, and postmaster, but his main occupation was as proprietor of a general store. He was also secretary-treasurer of the Bible Society for some forty years. Harry's mother (Elijah John's first wife), Margaret Louisa Torrance (1842—83), was of Irish descent, born in Dublin. Her parents, Henry Torrance (1814-98) and Margaret (1826-1904), settled first in Woodstock and later in Gait. Embro in the early 1870s was a comfortable rural community, with a population of about five hundred, mostly farmers (some of them Harry's cousins), storekeepers, clergy, and schoolteachers. For railway connections, one had to go to Beachville six miles to the south on the Grand Trunk line. The village was almost entirely Protestant. The four churches (Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Congregational) were all of the evangelical variety. The Congregationalists had established Ebenezer Church in 1872 and built a new church in 1877 on St. Andrew's Street. Since there was no Anglican church in Embro, Harry's

H

2/ Henry John Cody

mother attended the Congregational church. She wrote to Harry in 1881, "Mr. Silcox [the minister] continues to preach splendidly and his sermons are very instructive to the young people."2 North Oxford, in which Embro was located, had a strong Grit tradition. Harry later claimed that in the general election of 1878 when the National Policy came in, there were only seven Conservative votes polled in Embro.3 Harry's parents were Tories, as were the Torrances in Gait. When Elijah met John A. Macdonald at a local Tory convention, John A. said it did his heart good to meet a Tory from Grit North Oxford.4 While Embro villagers travelled to nearby Woodstock and Gait to attend football tournaments, political meetings, and so on, Embro itself was not without culture. The presence of Protestant clergy in the village, especially the Scottish Presbyterians, made for stimulating discussion, at least for the more literate citizens. Harry later recalled, "My grandmother was Scottish and the early life of the place was very much like what Ian Maclaren has described in sketches from Drumtochty, where the intellectual interests were very keen and there was a good deal of plain living and high thinking. From my earliest years, I can remember discussion in the Public Library on matters theological and philosophical, literary and political." In letters to Harry in 1881, Mrs. Cody reported the organization of a library fund and Elijah wrote of the setting up of a Mechanics' Institute. In 1882, when Harry was at school in Gait, Elijah asked him to bring home readings for use in a Christmas concert organized by the "Entertainment Committee."5 There was also the usual round of private parties. Elijah reported in March 1882, "Miss Beales 'that was' is married and Mrs. Macaulay is giving a grand party this evening in honour of it." There were other private amusements the Codys considered less respectable. Elijah complained to Harry in October 1881, "No local news of any account a great deal of whiskey drinking going on in the village." Like other progressive villages, Embro had an elementary school. The original frame structure had been succeeded in 1876 by the "new" school on a different site. Harry attended both schools. E.J. Jamieson, the principal, wrote to Harry (now in Gait), reporting that the school had a large attendance with forty or fifty pupils in the class Harry had been in, of whom a few were studying Algebra and Euclid.6 Jamieson's students had formed a debating society, while he had established a night school for the study of penmanship, bookkeeping, arithmetic, and composition. The quality of Jamieson's work was indicated by the fact that Harry's initial report after he had entered Gait Collegiate indicated that he was "very well-grounded in Euclid. "7

Embro and Gait 13 In 1880 Harry had gone to Woodstock, the county town, with a group of Embro students to write the entrance examinations. Having passed with flying colours, he went to Gait in the autumn of 1881 to live with his Torrance grandparents and attend Gait Collegiate. The Torrances reinforced the influence of Cody's parents, particularly that of his mother. They were very Tory and very Anglican. Harry was one of the boys of exceptional ability produced by small-town Ontario. From the first he did brilliantly at school. His relations with his parents seem to have been very happy. The Codys had only the one child, and the relations within the small family circle were quite exceptionally affectionate. Harry was considerate and performed his small household tasks well, such as splitting the kindling. When he left for Gait, he left a supply which lasted his parents for over a month. By modern standards, the letters that passed between Harry and his parents were effusive, typically beginning (from Elijah) "My dear little son," "My darling little son"; (from Mrs. Cody) "My precious boy," "My own darling Henry"; and (from Harry), "My own dear darling Papa." After Harry had gone to Gait in September 1881, his parents were lonely, but by October Mrs. Cody was beginning to adjust. Clearly, though, she was concerned with his welfare. On October 27 she adjured Harry (in the third person) "that he will never write his letters on Sunday if it can be avoided — that he will not neglect to wash his feet every night well and that he will eat porridge sometimes." There was always a religious emphasis in Mrs. Cody's letters and to a lesser extent in her husband's. During Harry's first autumn in Gait she urged him to join the Bible class run by one of his teachers, Mr. Carscadden, in the Methodist Sunday school, adding hopefully, "You may find the boys better behaved there and it is so near home." She was concerned he had not already joined a Bible class but was glad he was joining a class in Greek on Sunday mornings, "as it will not only be a benefit to you, but you will have the chance of studying the scriptures."8 Elijah said less about Harry's spiritual welfare than about his political development. He urged Harry to go and hear Mr. Meredith (the Conservative provincial leader), who was to speak in Gait, and reported his own attendance at Tory conventions. One of his big moments was his brief chat with John A. at the Conservative Convention in 1882. Harry's parents were immensely proud of his early academic achievements. In returning to Harry the first report he had received from the principal of Gait Collegiate, Elijah wrote, "He spoke very highly of my darling little son" (September 1881), and after a second report (February 17, 1882), "I am so well pleased with your last report

41 Henry John Cody

... It is such a comfort to pay fees, when I hear such good reports from my little son." Harry's correspondence in this period indicates that he was a friendly boy who got on well with his contemporaries. His friends wrote to him when they went on visits or had jobs outside Embro and Gait. Hugh Munro wrote chatty letters when he visited Fort Worth, Texas: "Cotton is coming in here every day in bales"; "I go to the Baptist Sunday School here the rest of the boys call the teacher 'Joe' and yell out 'Say Joe, what is this?' and the like of that."9 Perhaps the best letter to Harry in this period came from Bob Duncan, who wrote from Embro on October 9, 1885- Duncan captured the spirit of a small Ontario town, describing a fall fair in Embro, the establishment of a debating club, a large purchase of books by the Mechanics' Institute, and plans for making a roller-skating rink. The letter went on: We had an amusing time the other day. The crowd was composed of as follows Messrs. E. Cody, Dickson Stuart, Kam J. Stuart, Halesham and Duncan Pell and the object of the fun was Milton Payne. Well your worthy governor [Elijah] prevailed on Milton to come over to Hank Kam's barber shop and he (Kam) would play a tune and Milton would dance. We all went over and got Milton on the floor and of all the dancing you ever saw he only could shuffle his ponderous no. 1 and 2's. We told him it was the best dancing we saw in years while our sides were breaking with laughter. I have been out hunting one or two days and we have been feasting on partridge pie the last week. Man and boy who can possibly loan a gun is out shooting no harm done except the expenditure of powder and shot. Bigger than Embro, Gait in 1873 had a population of nearly four thousand. According to Lovell's Gazetteer, it possessed an impressive array of facilities: extensive water power, six churches, three branch banks, several insurance companies, two newspapers, twelve hotels, several large flour mills, an array of factories, and so on.10 It was a more exciting place than Embro with political meetings, football tournaments, and other entertainments. The Gait period was an important stage in Harrys life both academically and in a religious sense. Gait Collegiate presented something of a challenge to Harry. It was a fine school that enjoyed a national reputation, having been presided over by the famous educationalist Dr.

Embro and Gait/5 William Tassie. Tassie had left in 1881, but his tradition of excellence continued. 11 In this stimulating atmosphere Harry blossomed. In preparation for university matriculation he embarked on a heavy schedule of classical studies, but he did well in numerous other subjects on the curriculum.12 His first report was uniformly laudatory: Greek "Has made excellent start"; Latin - "Going to do capitally"; arithmetic - "Very good"; algebra - "Excellent"; history - "Excellent head for history." His second report was similar. That Harry was not too disgustingly perfect was revealed by the remarks on "Conduct." His first report made the cryptic comment "a very good bad boy," while the second, signed by "Kitty J. S." in February 1882, described his conduct as "only middling." By October 1882 Harry was held in higher esteem either that or Kitty J. S. had been overruled by the principal, who wrote, "Conduct Excellent."13 The teachers at Gait took a friendly and enthusiastic interest in Harry. J.E. Bryant, the principal, was a sensitive and considerate man. He established a friendship with Harry that carried over into Harry's time at the University of Toronto. Bryant retired from Gait Collegiate in 1884 and entered the publishing business in Toronto. D.S. Smith, the classics master, was equally interested in Harry, as was his successor, Logan, and the mathematics teacher, Thomas Carscadden. Bryant and Carscadden were both strong Christians, the latter conducting a Bible class in the Methodist Sunday school. Harrys turn toward Anglicanism probably began in Embro owing to the influence of his mother, although he attended the Congregational Church. There is good evidence that he had been baptized in Woodstock, probably by its famous rector William Bettridge, who served at St. Pauls Woodstock from 1834 to 1874.14 According to Harry's second wife, Barbara, Harry's mother had had him baptized at her parents' home in Woodstock by one of the local clergy.15 There seems to be no surviving church record of the baptism. Harry's relations with the Congregational minister, Silcox, and with his son, C.E. Silcox, were always friendly. Harrys drift toward the Anglican Church was brought to completion during his stay in Gait. He attended Trinity Church with the Torrances and joined the Church of England Temperance Society when a branch was formed at Trinity Church in 1884. His pledge card was signed on June 5, 1884. J.P. Hincks, the rector, took a great interest in Harry. Harry later recalled that Hincks "was a man about six feet three inches in height, thin and scholarly, eloquent and absent-minded. Boy as I was he made a very profound impression on my mind."16

61 Henry John Cody Hincks probably presented Cody for confirmation. While a search of the Trinity Church records failed to reveal an entry for Harrys confirmation, there is no reason to doubt Cody's assertion to his wife Barbara that he was confirmed in Gait, probably by Bishop Maurice Baldwin. Hincks subsequently encouraged Harry to enter the ministry. Writing to congratulate him on his fine showing in the matriculation examinations in 1885, he added, "I would fain hope that, God willing, you may yet become an 'able minister of the New Testament' in connection with the dear old English Church in Canada, but in any event your truest friends (among whom may I be remembered?) will rejoice most in the persuasion that your talents and learning are consecrated to our Divine Master's use." Hincks gave him a letter of introduction to his brother George, who was rector of St. Philip's Church in Toronto: "I am also happy to add that Mr. Cody is a consistent Evangelical Churchman, and he will be only too happy to render any service that may be assigned to him by his clergyman. I dare say he may find his way to St. Philips Church, but I know you will rejoice in making his acquaintance and will show him any attention in your power."17 Harry had truly become a convinced Anglican, and despite efforts by Presbyterian friends in Toronto to maintain a connection with him, he soon cultivated close relations with J.P. Sheraton, the principal of Wycliffe College, T.C. Des Barres, the rector of St. Paul's Church, and other Anglicans. It should be noted that while Cody came to accept the Anglicanism of his mother and his grandparents, he also shared with them a tolerant attitude toward other Christians, particularly of evangelical denominations. Neither Mrs. Cody nor the Torrances were narrowly denominational. Although Mrs. Cody had taken pains to have him baptized in the Anglican Church, she had also encouraged him to join the Methodist Bible class in Gait, and after he had gone to Toronto his grandmother was anxious for him to hear a sermon of the Presbyterian professor Gregory of Knox College. In March 1883 Harry suffered a profound blow. His mother died quite suddenly. She was only 41 (1842-83). According to the Embro Courier, she had been suffering from a stomach disorder for several weeks but became dangerously ill early in the week of March 11. Friends sat with her, particularly Mrs. Silcox, the wife of the Congregational minister, but Mrs. Cody was not thought to be in great danger until the afternoon of Wednesday, March 14, when the pain became acute. She died just after 6 p.m. Harry later told Barbara that

Embro and Gait 17

the doctor had given his mother the wrong medicine, but this was probably just a family suspicion.18 Harry arrived from Gait just a few minutes too late. Mrs. Silcox told him of her death and later told him of his mother's wish that he enter the Christian ministry.19 J.B. Silcox took the funeral service. Harry and his father received numerous letters of condolence, many of them couched in the devout language of the period. Principal Bryant of Gait, who had been at the funeral, wrote Harry a sympathetic letter. He took it for granted that Harry would not return to school until September and urged him not to spend too much of the intervening time in study but to begin to read more widely. Take up some other reading than mere school work. Have you ever read Shakespeare? I think you could read some of his plays now with great benefit. I have been reading Macbeth today. That is why I think of him [Shakespeare] - and I wish some one had compelled me when I was your age. I should then have gained much in time and ease of acquirement. Commence with one of his historical plays ... I am going to try this summer to read all his plays. Don't worry about your studies. Keep your health good by exercise, and as much as possible by riding drawing or playing. Write to me when you can.20 While Bryant advised wide reading and plenty of exercise, D.S. Smith, the classics master, took a different line in his letter of condolence. He advised more study in classics and spelled out a formidable list of readings in Latin. He also sent a Greek grammar "as a mark of personal esteem."21 There is no record of how Harry applied these rather conflicting recommendations. No doubt he put the time in Embro to good advantage. This period may well have helped lay the groundwork for his subsequent brilliant career in English and the classics at university. He had already begun to acquire the background that later showed in his superb use of English and classical quotations in his sermons and speeches. Mrs. Cody's death probably drew Cody closer to his father at least for a time. There was never a serious breach between them personally, although Harry told Barbara that he had not seen eye to eye with his father. Nevertheless, his relations with Elijah continued to be mutually affectionate.22 Harry returned to Gait and to his grandparents' home to resume his studies at the collegiate. He proposed to stay in Gait for two more

81 Henry John Cody

years and wrote to his father on September 6, 1883, with this explanation: I am in the form I wanted to be in last year namely the University Pass Matriculation form and have the same English and Mathematics as those who are trying to get a second class certificate, and have my Latin and Greek in the Senior Latin and Greek class. So I could go to the University next year [1884] in a pass course but I am too young and I want to go in an honours course. I am perfectly satisfied with my promotion. There had been some changes in the staff. Smith, the classics master, had resigned, moving on to a post at the Ottawa Collegiate Institute. His farewell letter to Harry gave evidence of his high opinion of the young man: "I was looking forward to a very happy year of work in Gait — knowing that you would be back once more amongst us to stimulate both master and pupil with your eager mind as well as your excellent heart."23 Bryant was having trouble with his eyes and sought treatment in Hamilton. He tried to hang on as principal in 1883-84, but was compelled to retire at the end of the academic year. Now living in Toronto, he continued to write to Harry with advice and encouragement: (July 26, 1884) "I think you should read some biography. If you have it in your library [Cody was in Embro for the summer] look over the first part of the life of F.W. Robertson - Select a few of the biographies accessible and send me their names and let me help you in choosing one." On August 2, 1884, Bryant recommended Plutarch's Lives ("I should choose a few of the best ... those whom you know to have a moral character") and some of Macaulay's Life ("especially that referring to his youth and character"). Harry continued to thrive at Gait Collegiate. He got on well with Carscadden, who succeeded Bryant as principal, and with C.S. Logan, the new classics master, to whom he had been recommended by Bryant. Harry had a high regard for Logan, later describing him as "among the best teachers in Ontario."24 Having passed the "non-professional" examinations at Gait with high honours in July 1884, Harry went to Toronto in June 1885 to write the matriculation examinations for admission to the University of Toronto. Bryant had written to him with further advice and an invitation to stay with the Bryants during his time in Toronto: "Be sure not to work hard now. Take a great deal of sleep and a good deal of exercise. Avoid trying to get up new things now."25

Embro and Gait 19

Harry's performance at the examinations marked the beginning of an outstanding academic career. He matriculated with first-class honours in classics, mathematics, and modern languages, and won four scholarships: the Classical, Modern Languages, Prince of Wales, and General Proficiency. It was a surprising performance and congratulations poured in from Harry's teachers, fellow students, proud relatives, and others. Logan, who was staying in Peterborough for the summer, had told two Peterborough teachers about Harry's brilliant prospects before the results came out. He reported, "They looked rather incredulous, as I imagine they often hear such assertions. I have seen the masters since however and I was approached by them and they expressed considerable surprise at my being under the mark in what seemed to them a very rash assertion."26 Grandpa Torrance's letter of July 17 indicates the exuberance of his rejoicing: When Mr. Woods came rushing down the steps his face lit up with joy and grasped me by the hand and congratulated me saying Harry won - four - scholarships - I was knocked into a cocked hat - poor Gran had just gone to post you a card. I rushed out in my excitement thinking I would be the first to send you the good news [he also sent a telegram on July 17] ... all Gait is stirred up you are spoken of by every one and we are congratulated coming from church — in the streets — in the stores — and calls at the house. In all the chorus of praise, two letters were more muted. Hincks expressed warm congratulations in rather formal language but was concerned that Harry should not "commit the great error of overtaxing a facile brain or forget the good old maxim 'mens sana in corpore sano' ['a healthy mind in a healthy body']." R. Balmer, another Gait teacher, hoped Harry would not become a remote academic but would do some good in the world. He concluded dubiously, "We are all anxious that what is undoubtedly a great force should also be a useful force. No elegant inutilities, my boy, no mere subtleties. The world has just now great needs, and we insist that the able skill [be] up and about to satisfy them."27 It was advice Harry may well have pondered. In a certain way, the whole of his subsequent career was an attempt to meet Balmer's demands.

Chapter 2

University, 1885-1889

hen Cody came to Toronto in 1885, it was a comparatively small place, judged by modern standards, with a population of about 90,000. The boundaries of settlement ran from the waterfront to south of St. Clair and from High Park to the region just east of the lower Don River. When Cody went to St. Paul's later as curate, most of his parishioners lived in the region of Jarvis Street, then considered the best residential street in the city, or in nearby Rosedale. The University of Toronto, too, was comparatively small. University College (UC), a beautiful Gothic structure built in 1859, was the principal building. The only other two structures, both located south of UC, were Moss Hall, built in 1850, housing the medical school (destined to be replaced by the biology building in 1888), and the first School of Practical Science building, completed in 1878; but neither medicine nor science were yet affiliated with the university. Registration was comparatively small. University College had about 250 students in 1867, 351 in 1881, and about 500 in 1889.1 The students were mainly from Ontario, a large number from families of modest means. Out of 53 who graduated, 8 were from Toronto and 45 from other parts of Ontario. Of the 45, 40 had been brought up on farms.2 Until 1884 UC had been an exclusively male institution, having up to that time resisted the attempts of women students to gain admission. When Agnes Walls, a friend of Cody's, asked him in 1887 whether women could take university courses, she was touching a sen-

w

University, 1885-1889111 sitive nerve.3 The demand for admission of women was part of the women's rights movement that characterized much of the nineteenth century. Canadian periodicals, particularly the Canadian Monthly, ran many articles on the subject in the 1880s. Sir Daniel Wilson, who became president of the university in 1881, was particularly opposed to the admission of women. He thought women were entitled to university training but should be taught in separate, all-female institutions. He confided to his diary on February 3, 1882. "A deputation of ladies strong-minded - bent on having the College thrown open to women, Parliament to be appealed to, etc., etc. I have had an inkling of this for some time, and kept it in view in writing certain letters to lady applicants which Parliament is welcome to peep into now if it has a mind."4 In spite of Sir Daniel, the Ontario government accepted the principle of co-education in 1884, and in October nine women entered UC as undergraduates. In 1888-89, thirty-nine were in attendance. Cody's friend Tommy Des Barres wrote to him ruefully in May 1888: "This will I think impress you - Miss Robson cleared all the fellows out in Moderns in our year."5 The academic staff, while small, included some men of distinction. Sir Daniel Wilson, for instance, was a scholar of note in the fields of English and history. Cody later recalled, "It was his habit to read his familiar lectures with great enthusiasm, punctuated by his familiar phrase 'Hence accordingly, gentlemen."'6 It was Wilsons task to pilot UC through the negotiations that culminated in university federation. Ever since the secularization of the University of Toronto, the Ontario government (Canada West until 1867) had been confronted with the problem of how to support the denominational colleges (Victoria, Trinity, St. Michael's, et al.) as well as UC. The act of federation of 1887 laid the basis for the scheme that would eventually provide a solution. Wilson was endlessly suspicious of what he regarded as the designs of the church colleges, particularly Victoria, to erode the position of UC in the proposed federation. However, University College survived and so did Wilson, who remained as president until 1892. Wilson was an evangelical, a founder of Wycliffe College, but he was a strong believer in the secularization of education. He thought the churches should confine their activities to theological seminaries like Wycliffe and Knox, leaving education in science and the arts to the secular authorities. Among the rest of the staff of UC were two notable scholars, George Paxton Young and Maurice Hutton. Hutton, who became professor of classical literature in 1880 and later principal of UC, was an

121 Henry John Cody

eloquent exponent of the civilizing influence of classical studies. Codyrecalled that he was "a lecturer of wonderful interest and possessed of the power of inspiring others in a marked degree" and that "he took an individual interest in his students, an obiter dicta on men, politics and world movements were always extremely stimulating."7 Young, a great exponent of ethical idealism, will be discussed later. WJ. Loudon, secretary of the class of 1880, provided a picture of student life in the period. He lived with his uncle, the dean of residence from 1867, and was himself an undergraduate from 1876 to 1880. Some of the students, chiefly the more affluent, lived in residence, where the cost was relatively high. The others, like Cody, boarded in the city and were called "outsiders." Many of the outsiders supported themselves by outside jobs. One of Loudon's friends was a boxing instructor in a city gymnasium. Loudon described the primitive character of college life. The rooms in residence were heated by grate fires. The students studied by lamplight, a few by candle light in the earlier days. The dining hall of residence was heated by means of a large box stove, which burned wood. I have helped to chop down trees in the park to supply winter firewood for the residence stove. I have caught chub and shiners and an occasional speckled trout in the pond which lay near the road below Hart House, and have trapped wild rabbits in the bush which extended up the ravine to Bloor Street.8 The principal forms of non-academic activities in the college were the Literary and Scientific (later the Literary and Athletic) Society, formed in 1854. The "Lit" operated a reading room, supervised debates, and organized the great social event of the year, the Conversazione. Elections to the executive were fiercely contended and brought out the rivalry between the residence and the outsiders. In 1876 the presidential candidate of the Outside Party defeated the residential candidate after an all-night session. After 1876 election battles became less strenuous with the increase in the number of outside students, but the rivalry continued. There was a good deal of drinking among the students. Loudon gave a spirited account of the Onion Club, a group of students that met in Sandy Innes's rooms on Yonge Street. Fortified with beer, onions, cheese, and tobacco, they spent the evening in song, recitations, solos on the fiddle or banjo, and argumentative discussion.9 Not

University, 1885-1889113 all the students were quite so uproarious. The non-drinkers enjoyed the staid activities of the YMCA, organized on the campus in 1873, and the University College Temperance League, established in 1883. As a poor boy from rural Ontario, Cody was an "outsider." He roomed for part of the time with his old friends the Bryants at 28 St. Mary Street, within easy walking distance of UC. One of his roommates was Howard Ferguson, later premier of Ontario. Ferguson, also a smalltown boy, from Kemptville, Ontario, arrived at the university in 1887. He had arranged to room with Stephen Leacock, but his parents thought Leacock too sophisticated for Howard and arranged to have him room with Cody instead. It was the beginning of a life-long friendship, one of the most important Cody would have. Cody went from one triumph to another in his academic career. He achieved high standing in the annual examinations, securing scholarships in classics, modern languages, and general proficiency in his first year, and in his second scholarships in general proficiency and modern languages, and medals in general proficiency, classics, and modern languages. At the beginning of his third year (in October 1887) he was awarded two additional scholarships, the Mulock and the George Brown. Cody was a little disappointed at his third-year results, but a confidential letter from a classics examiner, H.R. Fairclough, rather belied his pessimism. In four papers he had averaged over 88 percent.10 In his final year Cody swept the boards, winning the McCaul gold medal in classics, first-class honours in metaphysics, and the prize for the best English essay. He graduated with great credit in mathematics as well - his abilities and interests were not confined to the humanities alone. By no means engrossed in his studies alone, Cody engaged in a wide range of extracurricular activities, many of them Christian in nature. He played a prominent part in the YMCA as a member of the executive and of the devotional committee. As an active member of the University Temperance League (a branch of the city Temperance League), he attended a number of temperance rallies in the city. Like some of his friends, Cody was horrified by the hazing of freshmen at the hands of second-year students. In his third year he helped to organize the Ami-Hazing League. He was elected president in February 1888, with A.T. DeLury (later a distinguished professor of mathematics) as secretary and Tommy Des Barres as third-year representative. But the league had only a brief career and was dissolved on February 8,

14 / Henry John Cody

1889. Cody had some contacts with the Varsity, the student newspaper. After submitting an article by Archibald MacMechan, a former student, he was invited to submit articles of his own. He also participated in a few public debates at Convocation Hall, including one on December 16, 1886, on the resolution, "Resolved that a proper function of the state is to provide facilities for higher education of the subject." All these activities made Cody a well-known member of the student body, contributing to his greatest triumph as an undergraduate, his election as vice-president of the Literary Society in March 1888. This was a notable victory, particularly because Cody was an outsider, still a handicap though not as great as it had been a few years earlier. In the election of 1886 Cody had been defeated along with all outsider candidates. He did not run in the 1887 elections but continued to participate in the Lit debates. Finally, running as an "Independent" in 1888, Cody made it, defeating an old friend, A.H. Fraser, by a vote of 198 to 156. Religion, politics, and university life comprised a full program for Cody, but he also took advantage of the theatrical attractions of Toronto, both professional and amateur. He saw The Merchant of Venice in the Grand Opera House; dramatic recitals by Mrs. Scott Siddons; Modjeska, the famous Polish actress, in Much Ado about Nothing; and Richard Keene as Richelieu and later Richard III. He saw an early performance of The Yeoman of the Guard, with Helen Lamont as Elsie Maynard, and The Bohemian Girl. There were also less prestigious performances like Mr. George Bedford's dramatic and humorous recitals, including "The Midnight Charge of Rassassin." So much for the pattern of Cody's university life. It remains to consider the broad areas of thought that occupied the university (and Cody) in this period. It was a time of intellectual ferment in the fields of politics, economics, and social development. There were signs of burgeoning Canadian nationalism, but the most obvious struggle was between those who saw Canada's destiny as lying in close association with the United States (Goldwin Smith, Sir Richard Cartwright) and those who saw Canada's destiny as lying within the British Empire (Macdonald, Sir George Parkin, D'Alton McCarthy, G.M. Grant, the Imperial Federation League). These latter saw no conflict between Canadian ambition and the British connection. They were Britons who were living in North America and were developing a unique culture, different from that of the mother country. Many of them regarded the United

University, 1885-1889/15 States as a money-grubbing, godless outfit. In the 1880s the National Policy was encountering opposition from western free traders, disgruntled labour people, and others. French ultramontanism (bishops Bourget and Lafleche ) was regarded in Ontario as an alarming attempt to promote French Catholic culture in the West. The North-West Rebellion of 1885 widened the breach between French and English. It was a time when many kinds of reform were being demanded: prohibition, more rights for women, cleansing of municipal politics. Cody took an active interest in politics during his university career. He was a member of the Political Science Club and attended many debates on subjects of public importance, sometimes at the university but more often in the city. He attended debates in Convocation Hall on such resolutions as "The present union among the provinces of Canada is not likely to be permanent" (October 30, 1885); "It would be to the advantage of Canada to substitute for responsible government a system similar to the U.S." (December 4, 1885); "Canada should foster a military spirit" (November 9, 1888); and "The policy adopted by Great Britain towards the French Canadians has been conducive to the best interests of Canada" (December 14, 1888). During the federal election of 1887, Cody attended a Tory meeting on February 12, at which the principal speaker was the Hon. Thomas White, the minister of the interior. On election night, he went downtown to hear the results of the election, another Tory victory. On January 25, 1888, he saw Sir Alexander Campbell, the lieutenant-governor, open the session of the Ontario Legislature. Many political meetings concerned Irish Home Rule. Cody heard Michael Davitt and Justin McCarthy as well as Dr. Aubrey, "the defeated Gladstone candidate in Hackney." On May 14, 1887, he attended a meeting called to oppose the activities of an Irish activist who was visiting Canada. Cody found the pro-British and other sentiments of the Conservatives congenial, but his most immediate concerns were in the fields of religion and philosophy. For the most part, the theology of the churches with which he had been in contact was orthodox and conservative. Canada, however, was beginning to feel the impact of forces emerging in Europe, particularly in Germany, as well as in Great Britain and the United States. The challenge to orthodox Christianity initiated by the biologists and the biblical critics was under way in Great Britain, as evidenced by major publications in the period: Darwin's Origin of Species (1859); Essays and Reviews, published by a group of biblical scholars in 1860; A.R. Wallace's Contributions to the

16 / Henry John Cody

Theory of Natural Selection (1870); Darwin's Descent of Man (1871); and Driver's Israel Life and Times (1888). Literary skepticism was also a challenge to orthodox Christianity. Matthew Arnold, who regarded the Old Testament as poetry, published Literature and Dogma in 1873 and God and the Bible in 1873. J.S. Mill presented a picture of himself as a rational unbeliever (Autobiography [1875]), and Leslie Stephen published Freethinking and Plainspeaking in 1873. Meanwhile, Conservative theologians defended the orthodox interpretation of Christianity. Brooke Foss Westcott published the Revelation of the Risen Lord'm 1883 and Alfred Edersheim, a converted rabbi, the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah in 1885. In Canada the theologians and philosophers attempted an accommodation between the scientists and biblical critics on the one hand and traditional Christians on the other. Principal G.M. Grant of Queen's University pleaded for a fair consideration of the scientists and biblical critics.11 Idealist philosophers such as John Watson of Queen's attempted to preserve the ethics of Christianity while questioning its supernatural basis. Clarke Murray, the McGill philosopher, shared his ethical idealism. Cody was brought in touch with ethical idealism by the professor for whom he had the highest admiration, George Paxton Young. Young was a former Presbyterian minister whose philosophic development had by 1864 made it impossible for him to give to the Westminster Confession "the sort of assent expected by the Presbyterian Church." In 1871 he had been appointed to the chair of logic, metaphysics and ethics in University College. Young, a bearded and venerable presence, was a popular lecturer. His message reassured a generation perplexed by the challenge of science to Christianity, helping them to see that it was possible to lead a moral and satisfying life without necessarily accepting the supernatural aspects of Christianity. The Ethics of Freedom, a volume based on Youngs lectures, is an illuminating indication of his ideas on the moral standard.12 He declared that man's chief good was "the realization of the moral ideal." Man's knowledge of the moral ideal, he argued, would always be imperfect, but the ideal could be known "insofar as the moral nature has unfolded itself and there exhibited the capabilities that are in it." It was the function of conscience to reveal to man the moral law. Thus, Young attributed to the moral law an authority which Christians had accorded the Scriptures and the church. Cody was one of Young's brightest pupils. Not only did he sit at the feet of the Master in his lectures, he also went to tea at his home. It

University, 1885-1889117 was Cody who drew up a testimonial the students presented to Young on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Cody was one of the guard of honour who stood beside Young's coffin at his funeral in 1889. Years afterwards in an interview with the Toronto News, he recalled that Young had "left his mark on every man who ever sat under him. Not so much for the particular philosophy that he taught as for his power of inspiring thought and his love of truth before all things."13 In 1950 Cody told John Irving, who was making a study of early Canadian philosophers, that Young "was held in real reverence by all the students. We had a feeling that here was a man at the very antithesis to the materialist, that here was a man who behaved in the dominance of the intellectual and the spiritual. We always had the impression that he was the typical seeker after truth." 14 One cannot avoid speculation as to the nature of Young's influence on Cody. He was obviously impressed by Young at the time, but Young can scarcely have effected a lasting influence on Cody's thinking. There was an obvious conflict between Young's ethical idealism and the evangelical beliefs which constituted Cody's position in early manhood. What he retained was an admiration for Young as a fervent seeker of truth. While Cody was hearing the message of ethical idealism he was also being brought in touch with more orthodox Christian influences. Like some more recent university students, he attended a wide variety of churches, hearing sermons by the local clergy as well as by visiting preachers from Britain and the United States. He concentrated on Anglican churches, particularly the evangelical ones (St. Paul's, the Church of the Redeemer, St. Philip's, St. Peter's), but he also attended other churches (Central Presbyterian, St. Andrew's, Zion Congregational, Elm Street Methodist). What proved to be the dominant influence in Cody's career was the close connection he established in this period with the Wycliffe community and its principal, James Paterson Sheraton. Wycliffe, an Anglican theological college, had been established by a group of Anglican evangelicals in 1877, despite the opposition of Neil Bethune, the Bishop of Toronto. It had since become the centre of the evangelical community in the university and in the Diocese of Toronto. Sheraton gave it strong leadership until his death in 1906. Cody's connection with Wycliffe was likely through his University College friend Thomas Des Barres, whose father, the Rev. T.C. Des Barres, was rector of St. Paul's Church and a strong evangelical. Tom was thus on the fringes of the evangelical community. He was familiar

181 Henry John Cody

with their doings, but at the same time was critical, having begun the process of emancipation from his background. Tom, effervescent, rather cocksure, but shrewd and enthusiastic, was Cody's best friend at the university. He was the one who usually wired Cody his examination results when Cody was home on vacation. He wrote Cody long, gossipy letters and kept him posted on the doings of the Anglican Church and the evangelical community. Cody's initial contact with J.P. Sheraton, the Wycliffe principal, occurred at the end of his second year at UC. He received a note from Sheraton dated May 24, asking Cody to come and see him the next day after breakfast. Sheraton had heard from Des Barres that Cody had achieved a high standing and was leaving town the next day. Cody's subsequent interview with Sheraton must have been satisfactory, since it was followed by the development of their relationship in the fall of 1887. By October 14, Sheraton had developed such confidence in Cody that he made repeated efforts, apparently unsuccessful, to persuade Cody to act as his son's tutor. He also asked for Cody's help with a Bible class he had started for university students: "What about the Bible Class on Sunday afternoons? Will you help me, if I go on with it? I am reluctant to give it up, and yet I do not wish to begin unless the students cordially desire it." Cody and Des Barres promised to lend a hand and Sheraton was grateful.15 Before long Sheraton relied on Cody as a faithful supporter. Their relationship was destined to continue.

Chapter 3

Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889

hile Cody was going from strength to strength at the university, letters from relatives and friends kept him in touch with home. Family letters give glimpses of his appearance and demeanour in the late 1880s - "a great tall fellow" with a nose that "can be seen"; his brow in childhood, "a sunny frank one"; "still as modest and unassuming as ever," chopping firewood for his father when he was home in the holidays in 1886. In short he was a most engaging young man.1 An event occurred in 1885 that altered Cody's relationship with his father. Elijah, now 41, married again. His second wife, Estelle Barker, was 30. Apparently, Cody did not get on with his stepmother. She was only thirteen years older than he, and he may have resented her as a young usurper. However, all parties to tried to make their relationship amicable. There are cordial letters from Estelle to Harry, Elijah was pleased that Harry called Estelle 'Mother' and wrote: "Our darling mother is doing everything possible to make home cheerful, and me comfortable she is so pleased at your calling her mother, in all your letters darling refer to her lovingly and kindly as she truly loves you."2 Elijah strove for friendly relations between his son and his wife. In 1887, when Harry was coming home for Christmas, he sent him five dollars with the words, "Do not forget to bring some little thing for baby, a picture book or some little toy."3 Despite his efforts, the situa-

W

201 Henry John Cody

tion remained brittle. Cody still came home for holidays, but he made the trip more palatable by going round by Gait on the way. After 1885 his visits to Embro were infrequent, and when he did come he often found the house of his Uncle Merv and his daughter, Phila, more congenial. He never felt really at home in the Cody house in Embro. The rift between Cody and his stepmother was deep and permanent. There were several later indications of their estrangement. When Maurice, Cody's son, was drowned in 1927, Elijah attended the funeral, but his wife did not. After Elijahs death a tombstone was erected with his name upon it and room for Estelle's name when she should die. Cody put up a stone in his mothers name, with the inscription at the bottom, "erected by her only son." Except for its effect on Cody, Elijah's second marriage was happy. There were four children - May, Frederick D., Maxwell B., and Ernest. Cody got on well with his half-brothers and half-sister. Since he was so much older they probably regarded him as a sort of uncle but they always enjoyed his visits. According to Cody's wife Barbara, none of them looked like Cody but they all looked like his father.4 C.E. Silcox, the son of the Congregational minister in Embro, gave a pleasant picture of the Cody household at the time. Silcox was fond of Estelle, whom he called "Mother Cody." He used to play with the Cody children, especially Fred, who was about his own age. Silcox and Fred used to visit Elijah in his office (he was town clerk at the time). Elijah would "lift us up on a great big desk and ask us to preach a sermon for him! It is reported that we used to preach quite vigorously at the mature age of five, announcing our text from the somewhat apocryphal book of Goliath^ and usually concluding with the words 'Whosoever believeth not, shall be damned.'"5 Cody's letters from relatives and friends also dealt with the general issues of the period: elections in Canada in 1887 and in the United States in 1888; visits to Gait and Detroit by the famous abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher; and Shakespearean performances by the famous tragedians Booth and Barrett. Elijah, who had close connections with the Presbyterians in Embro, kept urging Cody to cultivate friendly relations with Knox College. After Principal MacVicar of Presbyterian College in Montreal had visited Embro, Elijah wrote: "We had a fine treat last Sunday Principal MacVicar Montreal preached for Mr. Munro [the local minister] both sermons. Mr. Munro came over Saturday morning expecting you home and very kindly invited you over to spend Sunday with the Principal was that not very kind and thoughtful of him."6 Perhaps

Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889/21 Elijah and Mr. Munro were anxious to recruit such a promising young man for the Presbyterian ministry. If so, they were a bit late. Letters from Elijah and also from Grandpa Torrance continued to be heavily political and Tory in tone. Thus, from Elijah: "[January 29, 1887] I have been away two days this week: one day at the Tory Convention at Woodstock"; "[March 4, 1887, after the general election of February 22] The Grits here feel pretty blue about the Elections. They were predicting about 40 majority for Blake - In the next house Sir John will have at least 30 majority." There was one jarring note. Cody had been seeing a good deal of Edward Blake, the Liberal leader, probably because Blake was chancellor of the university and a strong Wycliffe supporter. Elijah wrote on June 15, 1886: "I am a little bit offended with you having so much to do with Ed. Blake." In other letters in the period Elijah reported a conversation in Ottawa with J.C. Rykert, the Lincoln MP who had spoken fondly of Harry, and urged Harry to attend a Tory picnic.7 And so it went. Grandpa Torrance was equally political. His Tory prejudice spanned the Atlantic. When Harry was disappointed in his examination results in 1888, Grandpa wrote by way of comfort that he should notice that "Beaconsfield - that shining light was hurled from power by the despicable traitor Gladstone often, and our Old Chieftain John A. has suffered defeats."8 Grandpa Torrance was not an educated man and made fairly frequent spelling mistakes, but he wrote with vigour, emotion, and intelligence. No doubt aware of Grandpas limitations, Cody loved the old man and cherished his letters along with those from other family members. Grandpa was more strongly anti-Catholic than the rest of the family. He referred to "the means by which that pagan and Idolatrous Church has gained such influence and Exercised Such Tyranny over the masses."9 Like other Canadian Tories, he showed signs of becoming a Canadian nationalist. When the University of Toronto appointed a Britisher as professor of political science in 1888, Grandpa wrote indignantly on July 10: "I am sorry to see - for the credit of Canada - that the chair of political science had to be filled by an Oxford man - but the day is not far distant when a professor's chair will be filled by a young Canadian and that by acclamation — such is my prophecy." There was concern in Embro and Gait in the 1880s about the Darwinian controversy. When A.R. Wallace, Darwin's famous colleague, gave lectures at the university, both Elijah and the Torrances were disturbed and wanted to know if Cody had attended. The Torrances took a particular interest in Cody's welfare, both spiritual

221 Henry John Cody

and physical. Grandpa wrote in 1886: "I know your religious views are orthodox and in you a fixed principal [sic] yet I must say that I have sometimes very anxious thoughts when I think of you, without an earthly guide, and at your particular age left to yourself to battle against all the temptations of a large city." Grandpa continued earnestly, "I advise you hold no argument - nor enter into any controversy - with anyone holding what are respectably called peculiar religious views."10 Grandma Torrance was equally solicitous, attempting to take the place of Cody's own mother. She urged him to be careful in his choice of a regular church. "Try to find out the church that preaches the gospel faithfully no matter by what name high or low." Grandma also offered advice in regard to Cody's physical well-being. She urged him to be vaccinated, and not to go out at night for fear of "highwaymen. "ilii One of Cody's brightest correspondents was his second cousin, Phila Cody. Phila was fifteen years older than Cody but she took a sisterly interest in him. She wrote chatty letters giving news about Embro and about her two brothers, Mill and Elijah, who were medical students in Illinois. She was perplexed about another brother, Stilson, who was not a total abstainer. She drew a picture of her life in a small town where the main interests appeared to be the local churches and the eccentricities of one's friends and relatives. In November she was teaching school in Embro and living at home to keep her sister, Lottie, company. Lottie was something of a trial. "I'll be a martyr for the sake of keeping Lottie's tongue well oiled and I don't want to ignore the fact that Stilson requires an occasional dressing [down] but he's not the kind of fellow one likes to tackle."12 Phila attended church in Beachville, six miles away, with her father and reported that the preacher was better than the local clergy. She was anxious that Cody should hear a prominent Toronto preacher who defended "the Mosaic account of creation in opposition to the evolutionary theory." She approved of the sermon of a preacher she had heard in Embro: "It's a treat to hear earnest thought and eloquence combined in our little hamlet." But she added regretfully, "It seems to me it [Embro] is degenerating sadly in the temperance line."13 Phila's attitude to the theatre reflected her Protestant background. When a touring concert group came to town, it was denounced by the local clergy, apparently on the grounds that it included female dancers. Phila agreed with the clergy. She asserted, "My taste for the poetry of motion must be sadly deficient. I think I'd rather see a 'Grace Darling' or an Ellen Douglas propelling an oar with graceful sweep and strong

Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889123

full curves than to see lassies and lads dancing on a public stage."14 Phila preferred to stick to Christian literature and wrote approvingly of George MacDonald,15 who she believed was "more Christian in tone than any novelist I ever came across." She intended to read Kingsley's Water Babies, which Cody had commended. There was a strain of dry humour in Phila's letters. When she witnessed an Orange parade in Paisley, Ontario, on July 12, 1887, a local citizen had suggested to her that people in the south (i.e., Embro) must be more civilized. Phila observed "... and judging from the vehicles and fantastic costumes that put in an appearance that day I should think they were."16 Agnes Walls (Aggie) was a contemporary of Cody's, although a bit older. She had taught school in the Embro area but at the time of her letters she was taking a business course in Detroit. Like Phila, Aggie had a kindly interest in Cody and she kept him informed about her doings in Detroit. There she heard Canon Ferrar, the great English theologian (March 1, 1886), saw Edmund Booth in Macbeth (October 14, 1886), missed Justin McCarthy, the Irish nationalist (February 3, 1887) but was reading his book, History of Our Own Times, and so on. Aggie was a girl of some initiative. It took courage to abandon her teaching career and go off to the big city. Having the same evangelical bias as the rest of Cody's connection, she attended services at a mission conducted by W.S. Rainsford, the famous British evangelist, in St. George's and other churches in Detroit. She was no doubt in favour of the Prohibition movement: "How does Toronto get on under its new mayor? Has the whiskey element got a foothold again?"17 Aggie was referring to the controversy in Toronto that culminated in Mayor W.H. Howland's actively encouraging the vote for propertied women in Toronto municipal politics, especially as a bulwark against the "whiskey element." There are signs of feminism in her letters. She expressed the view that instead of having only manhood suffrage, women of property should also be given the vote.18 Aggie herself was bent on self-improvement. She seems to have contemplated university training and asked Cody to help her in the study of German. Unlike the rest of the Embro connection, Aggie favoured the Liberals. After the federal election of 1887 she wrote ruefully, "I suppose you crowed somewhat over the results of the Dominion elections. Well I am sorry to think you had cause for I thought John A. was going out, but he didn't."19 One cannot avoid speculation about Aggies attitude towards Cody. There is little in her letters to suggest that it was anything more than platonic, but even if there had been more to her

241 Henry John Cody

regard, nothing came of it. Aggie disappeared from the Cody record after the 1880s. Phila's two brothers, Millwood and Elijah G., both became doctors in Illinois. Like Aggie, they kept Cody in touch with contemporary American affairs. Mill very much admired President Grover Cleveland, "the man of destiny," and like Elijah G. thought he would secure reelection in 1888.20 He didn't. Letters from Tom Des Barres at the university help to round out the picture of Cody's background in the 1880s. He wrote of the matriculation results in 1886: "no Codys ... this year." Of a YMCA supervisor, he said, "Gale took charge of the YMCA work but has not snap enough." He described the Bishop of Rochester as "a Moody and Sankey - Temperance man, but not much of a speaker." He was in Nova Scotia when an episcopal election was in prospect and described one of the candidates, Archdeacon Gilpin: "He is a very advanced Ritualist, goes in for Confession and dear knows what not."21 Some of Tom's sly digs at Cody suggest Cody's diligence and what Tom regarded as excessive displays of erudition. On August 4, 1887 (just before Cody's third year), Tom speculated, "From your account of work I fancy by this time if you have not melted, you have about finished your Third Year Classics," and on September 12, 1887, "Please spare the classics in the next [letter] or else send a key to the last as I have not yet got it all translated." Des Barres wrote a vivid account of a missionary conference he attended in July 1888 at D.L. Moody's conference centre at Northfield, Massachusetts. It was attended by a large delegation of students and evangelical leaders from Canada, Great Britain, and other countries as well as the United States. Des Barres's comments were both critical and admiring: "All the British seem nice fellows, of course somewhat distant, but still I must say I prefer them much to the Yankees whom, however, I do not dislike"; "Foreigners are numerous they have a Frenchman, a Siamese quite a number of Japanese, a few Chinese, an Arminian [sic] from Asiatic Turkey." Des Barres was impressed by Moody: "Moody is a very remarkable man ... He has also about the biggest heart of anyone I know. His humour is irresistible. He himself speaks very little. Last night he answered questions which had been handed in to him. I haven't laughed so much in an hour as I laughed then for a long time. But yet it was good every word of it. He can be both amusing and instructive."22 Tom was less enamoured of Hudson Taylor of the China Inland Mission, being put off by his appearance and voice: "Dr. Hudson

Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889/25

Taylor is a very short man - rather peculiar looking. He has a voice which might be called a whine in anyone else but in him could at worst, be only termed monotonous." But Tom tried to be fair and ended by describing Taylor as a man of simple faith. There was admiration but also a suggestion of the patronizing in his final comment: "I think perhaps the chief influence he [Taylor] will exert here will be that excited by the simple purity of his character, rather [than] by anything he shall say." Des Barres was obviously moved by the conference, despite his air of sophistication. His comments were of some significance in Cody's early career because they helped him to relate to the outside world of evangelical Christianity.

Chapter 4

Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Paul's, 1889-1893

the end of his undergraduate career, Cody had progressed a long way towards the Anglican ministry. Starting from a Diocese of Huron and Embro background, he continued to be in contact with evangelical influences - his father, the Torrances, and his cousins, Phila and Mill Cody. As well, he had established a connection with the Wycliffe community and probably with St. Paul's Church and its rector, T.C. Des Barres Senior (Tommy's father). The evangelical Anglicans were a disciplined and well-organized group of clergy and laity.1 In 1869 they had organized the Evangelical Association of the United Church of England and Ireland in the Diocese of Toronto, which was merged in 1873 with the Church Association of the Diocese of Toronto. Among the leaders of the group were S.H. Blake, a Toronto corporation lawyer and brother of Edward Blake; J. George Hodgins, deputy superintendent of education for Ontario; Dean H.J. Grasett of St. James Cathedral; and Sir Casimir Gzowski, the famous engineer. They had conducted a determined opposition to Bishop Bethune, a high church Anglican, in the 1870s. They had strengthened their position by bringing Sheraton to Toronto in 1876 as editor of the Evangelical Churchman and by establishing the Protestant Episcopal Divinity School in 1877 with Sheraton as principal. Their position was basically the theology of the Protestant Reformation and the evangelical revival - justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and rejection of excessive ritual in church services.

By

Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Paul's, 1889-1893/27 Cody's association with the evangelicals was strengthened by his appointment to the staff of Ridley College in 1889. Ridley, a boys' school, was founded by Toronto evangelicals who formed a corporation, purchased a building in St. Catharines (formerly the Springfield Sanitarium), and opened the school in the fall of 1889. J.O. Miller, the principal, was a Wycliffe graduate and a budding authority on Canada's literary future. He had published an undergraduate essay in the Varsity (February 12, 1883) arguing that there was little immediate hope for the development of a distinctively Canadian literature. Like many of his evangelical friends, Miller was in the BritishCanadian tradition. He thought that Canadians should try to reach a universal audience by first cultivating a taste for British and European literature. One of Cody's colleagues at Ridley was FJ. Steen, who taught modern languages. Steen, an old friend of Cody's from college days, was not exactly what the Ridley corporation were looking for. He was an able scholar but an abrasive critic of what he regarded as the Anglican evangelical establishment, specifically the Evangelical Churchman in Toronto and, later, the Bishop of Montreal. Cody did not share such views, but Steen was his friend and Cody respected him. The intentions of Ridley's promoters are suggested by an excerpt from the first annual report of the first president, T.R. Merritt, in 1890: "We have endeavoured to carry out the object of the promoters in establishing a school under the auspices of the Church of England in Canada where sound religious training, Evangelical in character and thorough literary instruction may be obtained, combined with the best physical training." A year later the Evangelical Churchman described Ridley as "a school for the sons of Christian parents where this effort to carry out the home training of earlier years is definitely made."2 Cody was a candidate for the position of classics master at Ridley. His candidature was strongly supported by, among others, his old high school principal, Bryant. According to W.J. Armitage, a promoter of Ridley, Miller had watched Cody's career through university and "had listened to J.E. Bryant ... rhapsodize on the wonders of his mind as it developed in school life." There was another candidate for the classics position, Stephen Leacock, but his qualifications were not as strong as Cody's. Leacock's rueful account, written years later, describes Cody as "a blue-eyed, handsome young man with a squared jaw which correctly reflected his firmness, though he was never to be unreasonably opinioned."3 Cody was a popular teacher at Ridley. His friendly relations with the boys are reflected in a letter from an old student, Walter Caldecott,

28 / Henry John Cody

written after Cody had left Ridley in order to train for the Anglican ministry: Poor old Ridley, the football from all accounts must be weak, when such as Uniacke, Cartwright Major could get on, why honestly they hardly crawled into the II last year, I should think it hard on Mr. MacLean [the English master] and Perry to play with such a team. I have heard from Cam Cartwright, his health is good, but he says that Mr. White is not nearly so nice as you were when you tried to drill Latin into our dull Heads. I hope you may still be at St. Paul's when I return, it seems natural to listen to you, like old times. Do you remember the "Top Hat" supper? I'd give $5 to be at one now, although our songs were never in tune (especially when Thompson was there and Lee) still I think we all enjoyed ourselves. And perhaps you remember last Easter when the "Wing" came to attack the "main." We told them (the wing) that why they never arrived on the scene was because, they went and knocked at your door and asked to be sent back. I made the charge against Billy Evans. (I didn't go in the wing for a while after.) I really thought that Mr. Williams [the mathematics master] had designs on my life and if I had not been sleeping the sleep of the just I should have been a tender victim to Cruel fate, fortunately I am a heavy sleeper, as my snores must have assured him of my genuine sleep.4 The Ridley boys were probably not quite so hearty nor so innocent as they appear in Caldecott's letter, but it does bear out Leacock's assertion that Cody "had no pretensions and even though he had little athletic ability, the boys liked and respected him."5 Cody's stint at Ridley was the beginning of his long and friendly association with the school. He was a member of the Ridley board until his death. Cody likely decided to enter the Anglican ministry during his undergraduate career when he had already come under Sheraton's influence. He had been contemplating the ministry since his time with Hincks in Gait, but Sheraton and the Des Barres - Senior and Junior probably were the final influences. He registered at Wycliffe in 1890, but remained at Ridley for another two years. He took a summer course in Hebrew at Chautauqua, N.Y., in 1890, apparently in preparation for his divinity program. He may also have done some work at Wycliffe during vacations, and while at Ridley he did a good deal of

Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Paul's, 1889-1893/29

preaching in the college chapel and in churches in the St. Catharines area. The course at Wycliffe that preceded ordination normally took three years. Cody managed to complete it by the spring of 1893, although he was in residence for only a year, 1892-93. When he registered at Wycliffe in 1890 the college had been in operation for thirteen years. By that time it had produced some sixty graduates and was about to move into its new building on Hoskin Avenue, north of the site of the present Hart House. The faculty was still small. In 1885 it consisted of Sheraton, three young Wycliffe graduates (Edwin Daniel, George Wrong, and EH. DuVernet), two city clergymen (S.J. Boddy and Septimus Jones), and a professor from University College, J.M. Hirschfelder, who taught Hebrew. The course was similar to that of other evangelical Anglican colleges then and for a long time afterwards. The distinctive feature was tremendous emphasis on Bible study and on the theology of the Protestant Reformation. The core of the program was Old Testament and New Testament studies and a number of professional courses such as Apologetics (the defence of the truth), Systematic Theology (an organized presentation of the Christian faith), Homiletics (the organization and preaching of sermons), and Liturgies (the study of the Prayer Book). The program was based on a firm and precise seven-point statement of principles, set forth at the outset of Wycliffe's history and substantially restated in subsequent Wycliffe calendars. The first two indicate their tenor: "(1) The Bible as the sole rule of faith and (2) Justification by faith in Christ alone."6 Cody's continuing relationship with Sheraton was of especial importance to his career.7 Sheraton was the dominant personality at Wycliffe and the intellectual centre of the evangelical community in Toronto. He was an able theologian and a fine teacher. A man of slight stature, he was much beloved by his students, who called him "the little doctor." One gets a glimpse of this affection in a letter from one of his students to Mrs. Sheraton when Sheraton was ill in 1905, "As one of his boys who has had the privilege of his teaching I would not like to think of his being laid aside."8 Sheraton was very approachable and sympathetic in dealing with students. Tommy Des Barres was much impressed by his fairness. Des Barres was having intellectual difficulties about whether to go to Wycliffe. Probably his father desired it, but he was less sure. He wrote to Cody after a conference with Sheraton in which he had announced he was not going to Wycliffe:

301 Henry John Cody In his reply he endeavoured to broach some of my difficulties but did not succeed in removing them very considerably. I liked however, the spirit he assumed very much; he said he sympathized with me in my difficulties ... had himself passed through much the same, could not very well see how any thoughtful man could escape meeting them in some form or other ... He is certainly a Broad Evangelical, a progressive man and one in sympathy with all earnest seeking-after truth.9 Sheraton was an able administrator and an active participant in university politics. As editor of the Evangelical Churchman, he was a forthright exponent of the evangelical position in the Church of England. One of his colleagues, Dyson Hague, said he was a born propagandist who "devoted himself with a single eye to the glory of God" and "to the propagation of evangelical principles." Cody described him as "a real master of the voluminous literature of the Reformation Period." 10 He was the author of various works including The Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scriptures (1873) and Our Lord's Teaching concerning Himself {1904). During this period Cody had an especial contact with Sheraton as well as J.O. Miller through the Evangelical Churchman. The Evangelical Churchman had been one of Sheraton's main concerns since its inception in 1876. Although he was succeeded as editor by Miller in 1888, he continued to play an active role in the production of the paper. It is not clear whether he or Miller enlisted Cody's service, but at any rate Cody was doing editorial work for the Evangelical Churchman as early as 1889. There are letters in this period in the Cody papers from Goldwin Smith, Phillip Brooks (the great Boston preacher), and others in reference to applications from Cody for contributions to the Evangelical Churchman. A letter to Cody from Sheraton dated March 4, 1891, suggests how cordial the relationship between them had already become. Cody had submitted a review of a book on prophecy in which he was strongly critical of the author's premillennial view.* Although Sheraton himself was not a premillennialist, he was concerned about the many premillennialist subscribers to the paper and rejected Cody's review. Then, fearing his forthright rejection may have * Evangelicals were divided (some of them still are) by their interpretations of prophecy, especially in reference to the book of Revelation. Premillennialists look forward to the reign of Christ for a thousand years on the earth when he returns at the Second Coming, whereas the Amillennialists regard the reign of Christ as occurring in the present prior to his return. The book in question was by William Milligan, a Scottish theologian, The Resurrection of the Dead(1890).

Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Paul's, 1889-1893/31

hurt Cody's feelings, he wrote a long letter apologizing for his action and explaining his reasons in detail. He explained that the review had come to him in proof with a number of others: "I read very hastily and wrote a brief memorandum to the Committee. I have not at all changed my judgment as to the advisability of inserting it, but I feel that I did not make my reasons sufficiently plain and used some expressions stronger than the case warranted."11 Cody continued to receive counsel and news from his relatives and friends. Phila married a Baptist minister, H.G. Fraser, in 1889. The Frasers were stationed in Hamilton and Phila urged Cody to "run across" from St. Catharines to see them. In 1890 the couple moved to Owen Sound. Phila's father, Marvin, was living with them, apparently in ill-health, but still interested in the news: "He reads just as much as his daughters will let him, and though he is a good boy, he requires watching. The Birchell trial has occupied his attention lately." Phila was still concerned about Cody's spiritual welfare and earnestly enquired, "How is it now Harry do you sometimes find yourself absorbed just for the sake of the knowledge you gain, or is your life closely linked with the Giver of all wisdom. How grand a life may be if it is steadily guided by God."12 In his letters to Cody, Tommy Des Barres continued to display the supreme self-confidence that had characterized his earlier letters. In 1889 he was considering the problem of where to go after graduation from University College. Having decided not to enter Wycliffe, he chose Yale. After two years he was at Cambridge, but he did not approve of that university either: "Cambridge life is very different from Yale or Toronto life. At first I was struck with what I thought was the men's ignorance, but afterwards found to be narrowness of vision."13 Two years later, having survived Cambridge, Tommy decided to be ordained and to stay in England for several years. Meanwhile, a cycling trip around southern England produced more of his caustic comments. About Bishop Ryle, the great evangelical, author of Knots Untied and other works, Tommy averred, "I dare to go against the trend of popular opinion at Cambridge and say that I don't think Ryle is very much of an intellectual heavyweight. He is vastly G. Watkin's inferior." About Isaac Hellmuth, who had resigned in 1878 as Bishop of Huron and settled in England, he reported, "I saw Bishop Hellmuth when I was in Bristol ... I heard him styled 'that well-nourished old gentleman' and I thought it a most appropriate designation." Tommy's remarks about evangelicals were not those of a disciple: "It is interesting to note in England the various types of Evangelical churchmen e.g. 1) the

321 Henry John Cody

Protestant Controversialist 2) the Keswickians 3) the Mouleians 4) the Broad Evangelicals 5) the Moderate Evangelicals."14 The year 1892-93 was an important one in Cody's life. While finishing his course at Wycliffe, he established a connection with St. Paul's Church on Bloor Street East, an evangelical congregation under the rectorship of T.C. Des Barres Senior. This association likely came about as a result of the influence of Tommy and also of EH. DuVernet, one of Cody's Wycliffe friends. DuVernet was the curate at St. Paul's and professor of practical theology at Wycliffe. Cody was a student assistant at St. Paul's in 1892-93. He is mentioned in the annual Warden's Report for 1892-93 as having participated in the work conducted in the North End Hall by Stapleton Caldecott, a prominent parishioner.15 Though not yet ordained, he preached frequently at St. Paul's. Meanwhile he brought his undergraduate career at Wycliffe to a respectable conclusion in May of 1893, graduating with first-class honours. In the prize list for 1893 his name appears twice - as winner of the De Soyres Prize in Church History and the Macpherson Prize in Biblical Greek.16 John De Soyres, probably the donor of the history prize, wrote to Cody at the time of his graduation congratulating him on his "brilliant essay" and urging him to continue in the field of church history. "I do hope that you will not lose your grip on historical studies ... Church History is sword and shield alike for the men who are 'Evangelical Churchmen,' and we want you to carry truth effectively."17 But Cody found other fields of Christian endeavour more attractive. Cody was ordained by Bishop Sweatman at St. Alban's Cathedral on June 4, 1893.

Chapter 5

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893-1899

ody soon made his mark as a promising young clergyman. He wascurateintheexpandingparishofSt.Pau s l' ,wasappointed

C

a professor of theology at Wycliffe in 1893, was valued as a trusted writer in the Evangelical Churchman, and from 1894 served as the paper's co-editor with Sheraton. In remaining at St. Paul's after his ordination, he was carrying out what became one of Wycliffe's traditional practices - namely, having its students serve as lay assistants in city churches with the idea that they would continue in these same churches after ordination. Thus Cody began a connection with St. Paul's that was to last for the next thirty-nine years, but it took him seven years to achieve full control of the parish and fourteen to achieve the title of rector. In 1893-99 he was theoretically only Des Barres's curate, but Des Barres was getting on in years. In 1899 he retired from active participation in the work of the parish, although he retained the title of rector until 1907. Des Barres, like Sheraton, was a Maritimer, a graduate of King's College, Nova Scotia. He had seen service in the Diocese of Huron before coming to St. Paul's about 1878. Cody's relations with Des Barres were cordial, but the two did not achieve the mutual affection Cody and Sheraton developed during the 1890s and beyond. Cody had a great deal of respect for Des Barres.

34 / Henry John Cody

Cody was not very sympathetic with Des Barres's views on prophecy. Unlike modern Anglican evangelicals, Des Barres was a premillennialist. At a conference on prophecy in 1885 at the Queen's Royal Hotel in Niagara-on-the-Lake, the paper he presented on "The Second Coming of Christ" went down the line with the premillennialists.1 Cody was already developing as a fine preacher. Preaching was destined to be the central and dominant feature of his entire career in the Church. He was never a prolific writer, instead putting his effort into communication through the spoken word. Mostly he spoke from notes (written in a very small hand on a few pieces of paper). In this period his sermons were still a bit academic and high-toned. A.T. Hunter, who had heard a sermon on Balaam on April 15, 1894, objected to long words such as "monotonous" and "potentiality" and to several abstruse or classical terms. "I don't know what chance of promotion a little mother English would mar in your profession, but were I to preach, meaning to touch men's hearts, then I should get down to hard earth and stay down."2 Cody stuck to the great themes of the Christian religion3 - the sovereignty of God, human sinfulness, and salvation through faith. The character of his early preaching is indicated by a survey of his sermon notes. On the Sunday following his ordination he preached from John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This was a straightforward exposition of the Gospel, on much the same pattern he would use throughout his active ministry. Later, in the 1893-97 period, Cody preached on Isaiah 6:8 ("Whom shall I send ... Here am I, send me"), using Isaiah's call as a challenge to Cody's listeners; and 1 Thessalonians 5:8 ("But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and for an helmet, the hope of salvation"). Always an advocate of temperance, Cody preached strong temperance sermons on the subject in this period. Though his views never changed, in his later career he modified his ideas over how far the application of the principle was politically sensible. Cody's Lenten sermons of 1899 and 1900 on "the Men who Killed Christ" indicate his skill as a preacher. 4 The sermons on Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and "the people" displayed his ability to recreate the past and to analyse character. He described Caiaphas as one who saw Christ as a menace to his power and financial position and regarded Christ's execution as a matter of political expediency; Herod as a frivolous profligate who would not have been changed by further discussion with Christ; Pilate as a man whose shallow agnosticism allowed him to permit the great injustice, the Crucifixion.

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893—1899135 A passage from the sermon on Caiaphas conveys Cody's style: You see him [Caiaphas] in that dramatic moment when probably for the first time he stands face to face with Jesus. Like a consummate actor he rends his robes and feigns to be shocked by the prisoner's blasphemy. What an unspeakably sad consummation of the long history of Israel is this whole scene! On the one side stands the representative of that priestly line which went back to Aaron, the man whose right it was to wear the turban with the golden plate inscribed Holiness to the Lord ... Every act of his priestly office pointed forward to the one who should come in the fulness of time. Over against him stood that predestined One in whom all the history of Israel found its explanation for whom ancient prophets and seers had longed, who fulfilled all the teachings of type and shadow. The High Priest of Israel confronts the Hope of Israel and delivers Him over to the death. Cody's sermon on the role of "the people" (Matthew 27:22-25) throws light on his political philosophy. He thought of "the people" as the essential basis for governments, but also believed they were often ignorant, could be swayed, and were very dependent on leaders. In general he disliked "demagogues." He said that change for its own sake was not necessarily good. He appealed to men of principle to give good leadership. Individuals should stand out against the mob, since public opinion can be wrong if it is not based on principle. The whole Lenten series was an exercise in vivid narrative, but Cody's purpose was to apply the story to the needs of his immediate audience. He usually did this toward the end of a sermon, but in this case it was in his introduction: "And that same story is a present reality. We must judge ourselves now as before the all seeing eye of Him with whom we have to do. Ask yourselves such questions of judgment as these: am I crucifying the Son of God afresh? Would my aims and opinions bring Jesus to Calvary if He were on earth again? Would my thoughts of Him differ from those of the ordinary men of His own day? Would I be brave enough to break the bonds of tradition, and have heart enough to recognize and follow the truth?" As a minister Cody took on a load of activity that would have worn out many men. In the same year as his appointment at St. Paul's, he joined the staff of Wycliffe as professor in "The Literature and Exegesis of the Old Testament" and in "Ecclesiastical History"; he was also assistant

361Henry John Cody chaplain at the college from July 1, 1893. He lived at Wycliffe until his marriage in 1894. Cody was one of the three Wycliffe professors who led Anglican evangelical thinking in Toronto. The others were Sheraton and Dyson Hague. Hague, one of the younger evangelicals, was destined to have a long career at Wycliffe and in various churches in the dioceses of Ontario, Nova Scotia, Huron, and Toronto. His special field was liturgies. A very forthright, at times tactless, man, he was especially vigorous in his Protestantism. In his book The Protestantism of the Prayer Book (1890), he claimed that the Prayer Book was "the great stumbling-block in the way of Romanizers."5 Sheraton was the dominant personality of the three. An older and more established personality than the other two, he set the tone and put forward the ideas all three proclaimed. He believed in the inspiration and authority of Scripture.6 He regarded the Bible as the result of divine and human cooperation and repudiated the idea of "errancy" except in the sense that there were imperfect manuscripts and errors in translation. He maintained that there were no "errors" in the original text. Cody was popular as a teacher. He was a brilliant lecturer in church history and Old Testament studies (his two courses prior to 1906). When he retired from teaching in 1916, one of his students, W.T. Hallam, wrote, "As I have told you on other occasions, your Church History and Old Testament lectures gave me more help than any others." W.C. White, another old student, asserted that he would always remember his charm of manner, his lucid expositions couched in beautiful phraseology, and the brilliancy of his mind. To be sure they were Cody's favourite students, but their testimony, while perhaps a bit glowing, was not unmerited.7 With respect to Old Testament studies Cody could be described as a moderate conservative. This was the period when controversy raged over the authorship of the Pentateuch, Moses or the post-Babylonian writers. Hallam said that Cody was a stabilizing influence in this controversy, meaning that while Cody adhered to Sheraton's belief in a Mosaic authorship, he was prepared to discuss the opposing view. This was a technique not shared by some of his evangelical associates. One gets a glimpse of Cody's approach in the notes one of his students, C.K. Masters (father of the author), took on the authorship of the Pentateuch: "Vide Driver's Introduction which gives the case for the late date ... Prof. Cody thinks such reconstruction an irresponsible reconstruction. Practical difficulty = the difficulty of saving the moral

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893—1899/37

character of the writer. It is not so that people issued books under other people's names. Here is a crucial point that it came from Moses. If it did not and came from them [the post exilic writers] then they were frauds."8 Cody's lectures, like his sermons, were based on the same premise: he always took the Bible at face value. Cody's own lecture notes indicate how conservative his position was in regard to the Scriptures. While many critics maintained that the book of Isaiah had several authors, Cody favoured the view that there was only one Isaiah: "Without second part of book Isaiah's character would be a puzzle, second part simply completes and vindicates Isaiahs character." He regarded the events in Jonah as "within the bounds of possibility."9 Cody's church history lectures indicate that he was a moderate Calvinist.10 Like other reformed theologians he did not quarrel with Calvin's emphasis on the sovereignty of God or on the sinfulness of man and the doctrine of election. Like most Anglican Calvinists Cody stressed the positive side of Calvinism - salvation by God's grace. He did not dwell on its negative side, the condemnation of the wicked. Cody claimed that Calvin had much in common with the Anglican Church and that his sacramentarian doctrine was "the same as our own" (a view that would have surprised some of Cody's high church friends). He added that Calvin "thought episcopacy most ancient but not practicable for local circumstances of Geneva." Cody was more critical of Calvin's conduct at Geneva than he was of his theology, maintaining that in his vigorous enforcement of moral and religious discipline, he had shown "no deep conception of liberty of conscience." Cody said the Church at Geneva made two mistakes: (1) it carried the attempt to enforce its laws to such as extent "as unwarrantably to curtail liberty"; and (2) its power of coercion "subverted all liberty of private judgment." Yet, in exculpation of Calvin, he said that "stern measures were necessary." For obvious reasons, Cody disliked Archbishop Laud, the great exponent of the doctrine of free will (Arminianism) in the Anglican Church. Masters's notes reported: "Laud held steadily to his purpose of purging the church of Calvinism and puritanism." It was not a policy of which Cody could approve. Cody's lecture notes, particularly those on systematic theology, indicate how very Pauline his theology was. He laid tremendous emphasis on the grace of God. By God's grace the Christian committed his or her life to Christ. By God's grace the Christian was justified in the eyes of God. The Christian's sins were forgiven - that is, through

38 / Henry John Cody

the sacrifice of Jesus, God's son, they were not imputed or counted against him or her. The Christian became righteous in God's eyes and transformed through the work of the Holy Spirit, Christ-centred instead of self-centred, with a new relationship to others. The Christian would still have to contend against sin, but through God's grace the Holy Spirit would enable steady improvement. The Christian was "sanctified" - that is, set apart and strengthened in the fight against sin. Cody's view of the Church was conservative. He drew the distinction made by Calvin and many others between the invisible church ("the blessed company of all faithful people") and the visible church, which contained many believers but also many spurious "Christians." He did not favour the efforts of some, such as the Plymouth Brethren, to include only known believers in the visible church. Cody's view of the ministry was similar to that of other Anglican evangelicals. He regarded the ministry as related to the bene esse, the well-being, of the church; but he was not prepared to say that a Christian denomination that had no ministry was not a proper church. He regarded bishops as enhancing the bene esse but not essential to the esse of the church. He thought that the early Apostles could have no successors. They were witnesses of the Resurrection and endowed with miraculous powers attesting their commission. The Apostles as governors of the church could be said to have successors, but only in a loose sense, "but the Bishops are not successors of the Apostles in the sense that their office is identical or a prolongation of the apostolate."11 So much for the idea of Apostolic succession. Cody deplored the fact that the scriptural concept of ministry had been gradually replaced by a sacerdotal concept. He believed that the sacerdotal power of forgiveness can never be exercised by man but only by God. He said that the ancient prayer of absolution as a deprecatory prayer had been retained until the thirteenth century when the Lateran Council of 1215 introduced the formula "I absolve." The Evangelical Churchman was very much Sheraton's paper. Editor since 1876, he expounded the principles of the Reformation and the long struggle in Toronto between the evangelicals and their high church opponents. Over the years the paper had always been true to its principles, which it restated in 1882, pledging anew to "provide for the members of the Church of England in Canada a paper which shall unflinchingly maintain the principles of our Church as they were established at the Reformation." 12 By the time Cody joined the Wycliffe staff, Sheraton was beginning to feel the need of more assistance on the editorial staff. Who could be more suitable than Cody?

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893—1899139

While still at Ridley, Cody had written letters on behalf of the Evangelical Churchman inviting likely prospects to contribute articles. Once at Wycliffe, he took a more active role, becoming co-editor with Sheraton in November 1894. After that he probably did a good deal of the writing. His friend F.J. Steen, no great admirer of Sheraton's, wrote on February 20, 1895: "You are making a vast improvement in many parts of the E.G. Your news items are excellent and so full. The editorial notes are immensely improved in character. I think the subjects of the longer editorials might sometimes be more interesting but no doubt you are pushed." The paper still reflected Sheraton's anti-Roman Catholic and anti-high church views. An editorial on August 2, 1894, repudiated the doctrine of the real presence in the Holy Communion. 13 In a December 6 editorial, the Churchman asserted: "The ritualists are feeling more and more the incongruities and difficulties of their position. The nearer they approximate to Rome, the more keenly will they realize them." This sounds more like Sheraton than Cody, who was never much given to religious controversy. It is not certain how much influence Cody had in editorial policy. In a letter from Steen to Cody on February 20, 1895. Steen expressed his anger that Sheraton had not printed a letter in which Steen had criticized the English hymn book Hymns Ancient and Modern and had praised Moody and Sankey's hymn book. Steen claimed that since the Churchman was dominated by influential men like S.H. Blake, it would not publish anything even mildly critical of evangelicals, while it was forever belabouring the high church party. He did not think Cody had done enough in modifying that policy: "But I did hope that now things would change, and the paper take a strong stand and mete out justice to all irrespectively of parties or individuals. But it seems that you too are bound down by your environment and in taking up the paper have been obliged to take up its past spirit and traditions which certainly are not congenial to you. Apparently the paper has never been, and cannot be, fair." There was some basis for Steen's criticism of Sheraton. It will be recalled that Sheraton, while critical of premillennialism, had declined to publish Cody's anti-premillennialism book review because he did not want to offend some of his subscribers. He explained, "I have reportedly incurred the suspicion of these people whom I greatly respect. I feared lest the insertion might draw forth their criticism and provide a controversy which at present I thought very undesirable."14 Sheraton did not name any of the premillennialists. It is very unlikely that S.H. Blake or Homer Dixon (named by Steen as among the peo-

401 Henry John Cody

pie to whom Sheraton deferred) were among the number. As Steen had admitted, Cody had made quite a change in the news items and the "Editorial Notes." Editorials on social policy reflected Cody's influence, although they showed a conservatism Sheraton would have accepted. Thus, on July 26, 1894, in reference to the great strike in the United States, the Churchman condemned lawlessness and advocated the application of the Christian spirit to the relations of capital and labour. On August 9 the "Editorial Notes" carried an item probably written by Cody on "the error of Socialism." The writer asserted that socialists proceeded in a false estimate of human nature, assuming that man is naturally unselfish, while Christ "proclaimed that man is radically wrong, naturally selfish, and hence the necessity for individual regeneration as the only basis for social reconstruction." On November 8, 1894 (the issue in which Cody was first listed as co-editor), the paper argued that while the church should be interested in social problems, its main concern should be to proclaim the gospel of "Christ, His atoning death, His abiding fulness, His truth, with all the eternal principles of right thinking and right living." In summer 1893 Cody became engaged to Florence Clarke, the organist at St. Pauls. Florence had been appointed in 1892 at a salary of $200 per year.15 Her father, H.E. Clarke, a prosperous trunk manufacturer and member of the Ontario Legislature for Toronto West, died of a heart attack while speaking in the Legislature in March 1892. The family attended the old Methodist Church on Richmond Street West, so Florence adjusted easily to the evangelical atmosphere of St. Paul's. As assistant minister Cody had extensive dealings with Florence in his official capacity. At first there were misunderstandings between them. In a stilted letter, likely written on June 22, 1893, the organist agreed to meet the assistant minister on the next day, Friday, from four to six. Presumably this was supposed to be a purely professional discussion. What happened at the interview is not entirely clear, but it ended in a row, presumably a disagreement over the music program. (Cody had trouble with later organists, notably Healey Willan and Thomas Crawford.) Cody went off in a huff to visit his cousin Elijah in Chicago, and Florence, who was contemplating resignation, put in a miserable weekend. A year later (June 25, 1894) she recalled, "A year ago today you were in Chicago, and I had had my bad, very bad, quarter of an hour, and was preparing to leave St. Paul's and you"^ The situation soon improved. Just before Cody left Chicago to return to Toronto, he realized that he was greatly attracted to Florence. Later she recalled, "And do you remember telling me, love, one after-

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893—1899/41

noon last winter, of the good-bye you said to your cousin in Chicago, and of the thought that flashed through your brain at the time? And I had so little thought that you could care for me." After that the relationship developed quickly. Florence traced its course in a series of letters to Cody. On Sunday, July 2, Cody visited her at the Clarke house on Jarvis Street "and we talked first on the verandah and then in the library. Happy memories." Florence talked while Cody listened, striding excitedly up and down the room. Cody returned to the Clarkes two days later and Florence began to realize that he was deeply in love. By July 21 he had taken to quoting the more romantic passages from Tennyson's Guinevere (possibly "We needs must love the highest when we see it"). For a time Cody and Florence told no one of their mutual affection. Later in July, having attended a function at Wycliffe, they elected to see two lady friends back to their lodgings and Florence commented, "How little they imagine how far matters had progressed with us."17 Finally, on August 12, 1893, Cody and Florence became engaged. Judged by modern standards, Cody and Florence's engagement was fairly long (a year). In June 1894 they were discussing the time of their wedding. They were also confronted with the prospect of a brief separation. Florence and her elder sister, Ellen, had gone to England and were staying at lodgings in London, in Cavendish Square. The people of St. Paul's helped to solve the problem of their separation by undertaking to finance a European trip for Cody. The gift did involve a further problem: it involved good deal of travel on the continent of Europe, but Florence and Ellen wanted to stay in the British Isles. Still, it did reduce the time of her separation from Cody. Apparently, before his arrival in Britain, Cody had made some suggestion about the date of their wedding, but Florence was still uncertain and responded on June 2: "I have promised and it is the direct wish of my heart to be your wife - and I am ready to carry out that promise with all joy whenever it shall be best for us to consummate our happiness. Until I see you and talk with you, I cannot tell whether the way is now open for us." Cody arrived in England on June 5 and took up lodgings near Florence and Ellen. Florence recalled how she and Cody walked about London on "that never-to-be-forgotten Saturday" (June 9). Probably on that day they agreed on August 15 as the date of their wedding in England. Cody left the next day for the Continent. Florence wrote to the senior warden of St. Paul's, resigning from her position as organist. She also wrote to Cody about "the arrangements for the great event in August."18

421 Henry John Cody

Cody now began a strenuous continental tour, visiting Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and France. He rushed around Europe with such speed that Florence's letters arrived late at each place. She laughed at him: "Your main object on this, your first European trip, seems to be to get through with it as soon as possible." Cody complained that his suitcase was weighed down with Baedekkars, but was proud of the fact that he did not have to depend on guides.19 Meanwhile, Florence and Ellen had gone to Scotland. On June 23 they were touring in the Edinburgh area and planning to go on to the lake country, since Ellen was tired of ruins and wanted to see some scenery. Florence wrote to Cody almost daily. She had been buying books for him (Orelli on the Minor Prophets, William Winter's Shakespeare's England, George Adam Smith's book on the Holy Land). On July 1, writing from Glasgow, Florence with some diffidence told Cody "that I am fully five years older than you." Cody had said that he would never ask but she felt that he must know. She reiterated her confession on July 12. It made no difference to Cody.20 Florence and Ellen were back in London by July 8, and Florence pressed ahead with plans for the wedding. On July 12 she wrote: "I am trying to do all my shopping before you come, and I think I shall succeed pretty fairly ... Of course, beloved, I had to have a new frock to be married in. Dearest, you will not be disappointed, will you? that it could not be white. It could not be here, you see, where we shall probably walk over to the Church, together, and go through the ceremony that makes us one in the quietest possible manner. Four weeks from next Wednesday darling."21 They were married at St. George's Church Bloomsbury, on August 15, 1894. The officiant was the Rev. H.S. Stork. The only other Canadians present were Ellen and Tommy Des Barres. Marrying in England solved several problems. Would Cody have invited his stepmother and her children, and if so, would they have come? Would Florence have been married in a Methodist Church, thus offending the people at St. Paul's and possibly the bishop? If they were married at St. Paul's, would her Clarke relatives, especially her mother and Ellen, have been hurt? Did Florence and Cody want a splurge or a quiet wedding? If the latter, how quiet? How many should be invited? After an extended stay in England, the Codys arrived back in Toronto in late September. They had already agreed to live with Mrs. Clarke and Ellen. This arrangement worked well. The house at 603 Jarvis Street was just around the corner from St. Paul's, a convenient location for Cody. Cody got on well with his in-laws, and Ellen wel-

Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893-1899143

corned the couple in a cordial and rather jocular letter ending, "Happy thought: — to spend your winters with us and your summers in the beautiful world across the seas. Happier thought: always to ask me to join you 'personally conducted.' Happiest thought: — to come home now just as fast as you can."22 This promised well for the future and, in fact, the Codys continued at the Jarvis Street home for the rest of their married life. Mrs. Clarke died on November 6, 1898 and Ellen in 1913. They were welcomed by the congregation of St. Paul's at a gala reception in the schoolhouse on October 1. The rector, Mr. Des Barres, gave a felicitous speech. "He expressed regret that the happy event of the previous month had not taken place at St. Paul's, and that the guests of the evening had stolen a march upon their friends in being wed in a distant land. They were forgiven for this, however, he assured them and were most heartily welcomed back to home and St. Paul's." Cody replied in equally felicitous terms, "thanking the congregation for this unexpected, but gratifying expression of their good will and affection."23 After these happy beginnings to his further ministry at St. Paul's, life for Cody settled down to the regular parish and college routine. Three years later, however, his career at St. Paul's almost came to an end. In 1897 Cody accepted an offer from the Church of the Redeemer (located further west at the corner of Bloor and Avenue Road) to be assistant minister. The appointment was confirmed by the rector, Septimus Jones, in a letter dated March 8, 1897.24 Jones recorded that Cody had met with a delegation from the Church of the Redeemer and subsequently had an interview with Jones when "the position of Assistant Minister of the Church of the Redeemer, was formally offered and accepted between us and the matter settled." A memo was appended indicating that Cody's salary would be $1,000 per annum (he was receiving $450 at St. Paul's). Cody's duties (preaching, supervising the Sunday School, sick visiting, funerals, etc.) were spelled out. It looked like a fairly onerous program, although not more than many curates performed. Subsequently, Cody accepted the appointment in writing.25 When it seemed that everything was settled, Cody began to have second thoughts. He wrote to Mr. Stinson, one of the Redeemer wardens, asking for time to reconsider this acceptance: "Some further factors in the case (including my health) have since been pressed home upon me very forcibly. The way does not seem as clear to me now as it did last week. I want a few days more to consider my acceptance." He said he was aware that his request would seem most unsatisfactory to Mr. Stinson, but continued: "My dear Mr. Stinson, it is also a

441Henry John Cody

matter of gravest concern to myself. It is for me a crisis in my life. My whole future seems to depend upon it and I feel I have not been sufficiently deliberate in deciding."2'' Cody also wrote to Jones repeating his request. Jones and his wardens were stunned at this sudden about-face. Stinson wrote protesting. Jones wrote two letters urging Cody to adhere to his commitment. He insisted that Cody's agreement with the Church of the Redeemer was a binding contract. In his second letter he entreated, "Come, dear friend, redeem your promise, and throw off the agonizing burden of indecision." Jones was willing to accept a compromise: "Try me for a year and if you find the work too heavy - or your position undesirable in other ways, then you will be able to make a change which though regretted will cast no possible reproach upon yourself." But Cody resisted Jones's appeal and withdrew from the Redeemer appointment.27 There seems no reason to doubt that Cody's reasons for withdrawal were primarily reasons of health. His duties at the Redeemer would have been onerous in themselves. Taken in addition to his work at Wycliffe and with the Evangelical Churchman, the load would have been too much. In this period Cody was also doing some work for Maurice Hutton at University College, where he served as "Examiner in Classics" from 1893 to 1897. Cody wrote of this to Jones: "The work is great and important. The opportunities are large. But my doctor tells me that I am at present working up to the full extent of my powers and that additional strain would probably lead to a break-down through nervous prostration." Clearly, Cody was in an exhausted state in the period. Sheraton was concerned about his health and had written to him in 1896: "Now my dear brother you are depressed. Do choke this off. Get a tonic and take more regular exercise ... Oh cheer up. Be strong and of good courage."28 Cody's depression in 1897 probably had an additional cause, worry during Florence's pregnancy. Their son, Maurice, was born on July 4, 1897. There were good reasons for Cody's withdrawal but one cannot help feeling uncomfortable about this incident with the Church of the Redeemer. Cody's future was decided by this decision. Two years later Cody was put in effective charge of St. Paul's. At the Easter vestry meeting on April 17, 1899, he was offered the position of assistant rector, with a stipend of $1,500. Des Barres retained the rectorship nominally, but Cody was to carry the full responsibility for the parish. His fortunes would be linked to St. Paul's for the next thirty-five years.

Chapter 6

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905

T

he early years of the twentieth century were a buoyant time in the history of Canada. Trade was increasing, capital was flow-

ing in, immigrants were arriving in the thousands. Sir Wilfrid Laurier seemed justified in his assertion that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. In this buoyant atmosphere Cody's star was rising. An attractive young priest with an expanding congregation, supported by a band of devoted laymen and consulted by bishops, other clergy, academic colleagues, and students, he was indeed the coming man. Cody's correspondence and diaries give a picture of a busy urban church and of Cody's place in it. St. Paul's congregation for the most part consisted of comfortable, middle-class people living along Jarvis and the adjacent streets and in Rosedale, across the ravine. The names that recur in the diary are of business or professional people such as S.H. Blake, the Jarvises, the Larkins, R. Millichamp, W.R. Smallpeice, Strachan Johnson, and the Gooderhams. Cody's diary includes many casual references to events at St. Paul's: "Sept. 12, 1900 At church wedding of Mr. Skeats and Miss Chipman. Mr. Des Barres married them and I assisted, afterwards met Mr. and Mrs. Chipman, Mr. and Mrs. Hirschfelder, Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien ..." And a later entry for May 7, 1905: "175 communicants - Mrs. Bernard, the Ashworths, Lady Gzowski; Saw Mr. and Mrs. G. Gooderham." Cody was priest-in-charge from 1899, as Des Barres was still rector. But Cody was in virtual control, and his stipend was raised from

461 Henry John Cody

$500 in 1898-99 to $1,500 in 1900-1901. He was assisted by an assistant rector (i.e., a curate), R.B. Patterson from 1900 to 1904 and E.A. Mclntyre from 1904 to 1906. Cody did most of the preaching and a good deal of the pastoral work. Des Barres and the curate preached occasionally and Cody received some help from his old friend, George Wrong, at that time a professor of history at the University of Toronto. Occasionally a missionary or an evangelical bishop would also preach. Cody was a hard worker. Although he had declined the appointment to the Church of the Redeemer in 1897 on the grounds that the work would be too onerous, his program at St. Paul's was even heavier. Sundays were particularly tiring. Perhaps Cody's performance on September 9, 1900, was a little more demanding than usual but not untypical: "a.m. Preached on Naaman's cure 2 Kings 5:1-12. After church met a Mrs. Leith and Mrs. White fr. the south boarding 591 Jarvis St. & went into church with them. Before church met Mr. Millichamp Mr. Jno. Taylor. At S. S. met Miss Williams, Mrs. Copp. After S. S. called at the Thompsons: met Jno Jones & family preached at St. Paul's [evening service] on 'Greatest in Kingdom?' after service met Mr. Scovil, Mrs. & Miss Grosvenor." Only one of the clergy or a member of a clergyman's family could appreciate how unusual Cody's Sunday was. Most parish clergy found the Sunday services sufficiently tiring without the additional social contacts and pastoral visiting Cody recorded. No matter how busy his Sunday he always put in an appearance at the afternoon Sunday School to encourage the teachers and staff. Cody had one problem that became recurrent at St. Paul's, his relations with the organist. This was not an unusual situation for Anglican rectors, particularly the evangelicals. Many Anglican churches had a tradition of a simple service in which congregational singing was a primary feature. The organist and choir, however, were often primarily concerned with the beauty of the singing, preferably by the choir alone. They resented the untrained participation of the congregation and sought to increase the part played by the choir, through anthems and the use of unfamiliar chants. There was resentment on both sides and friction between the rector and the organist. Cody had trouble with at least three of his organists.1 In this case, the organist, H.D. Phillips, wrote to Cody on March 21, 1905, announcing his intention to resign. He complained about the location of the organ as well as the hostility of the congregation. He felt that the Codys were sympathetic (after all, Florence was a former organist), but added, "Unfortunately you are not yourselves musical and therefore do not grasp either the full significance of the drawbacks existing thro' the bad placing of the organ and

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-19051'47 choir or the utterly ignorant nature of the criticism made by the congregation." He went on, "The choir, I may tell you, have all along looked upon the congregation not as a friend to be pleased but as a foe to be appeased ... My greatest trouble however has been no connection whatever, all along between what the congregation have liked, and what has really been good either in the music itself or its performance and it is this which has paralysed my powers of initiative." One of the keenest critics of fancy music in the church was S.H. Blake, one of Cody's leading parishioners. He once wrote to Cody after an ocean voyage expressing his joy at the Sunday-morning service on shipboard because there was no choir. Blake had many allies in the congregation. Despite minor problems, St. Paul's continued to expand. Its growth was reflected in the renovation of the church in 1900 and by its extension in 1904. In the latter year, the church was lengthened and new transepts and a new chancel added; 450 seats were provided so that the church now had a seating capacity of 1,250. Sheraton congratulated Cody in glowing terms: "Every friend of Wycliffe ought to thank God for what you have done in St. Paul's and every true friend of your Church must find, in your work there a splendid encouragement and the best omens for the future."2 It should be noted that in all this prosperity Cody always sought to make clear the real purpose of the Christian church. When the church was reopened after the renovations of 1900, he preached on the text from Corinthians "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus," and followed with the admonition "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."3 St. Paul's served as an important source of help for smaller, lessprosperous congregations in the diocese. In May 1905 St. John's Church, Whitby expressed its thanks for the gift of a communion table from St. Paul's. More extensive aid was given to St. Paul's, Runnymede, which was in effect a colony of St. Paul's, Bloor Street. In 1905 Cody was involved in an event that might have had stormy consequences, the visit of A.E Kirkpatrick, the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. Kirkpatrick was a biblical scholar who shared the views of Welhausen, Driver, and others. When the visit was announced, he was attacked by the Rev. John Langtry and others in the columns of the Canadian Churchman. Langtry was a redoubtable high churchman but he had conservative views of the Scriptures. Canon E.A. Welch defended Kirkpatrick in the Canadian Churchman, asserting that his ideas were held by "almost all the competent scholars."4 Kirkpatrick's visit seemed likely to develop into a major confrontation, but it actually it went off quite smoothly. Kirkpatrick was

48/HenryJohn Cody more moderate than had been anticipated, and the press, mercifully, ignored the whole visit. "Spectator," a columnist in the Churchman, reported in relief: "Dr. Kirkpatrick of Cambridge, England, has come and gone, and behold the sun still shines in his might and the foundations of the earth are unmoved."5 Cody had supported the visit. He undoubtedly disapproved of Kirkpatrick's views but felt that so distinguished a visitor should be shown every courtesy. He attended at least two of Kirkpatrick's lectures and two dinners in his honour, one given by Kirkpatrick's cousin (a member of Cody's congregation), the other by Goldwin Smith. He gave a supper in Kirkpatrick's honour and even had him preach at St. Paul's. In this period Cody's reputation as a preacher continued to increase. Letters in the Cody Papers suggest the effectiveness of his sermons: from D.R. Keys in January 10, 1902, "Your sermon has been an epiphany to me ... God bless you and strengthen you in the work you must be doing"; from Fred Jarvis in November 10, 1904, "I hear you preached a magnificent sermon on the Apostle St. John last Sunday how I wish you could repeat it at St. John's York Mills." And so it went on. Some letters were patronizing, such as one from a Toronto barrister: "I don't suppose that I heard anything really new, but there is nothing so refreshing and helpful as the simple truths of the Gospel." One self-styled skeptic was impressed by Cody's sermon and wanted to find out "the ground upon which you stand and feel secure. "^ Not all the letters were laudatory. Some objected to Cody's delivery or to his use of big words. John Tate liked Cody's sermon on the justice of God but wanted more discussion of the corporate duty of people as distinct from their individual responsibility.7 But whatever the line taken by those who commented, they all testified to the fact that he was making a deep impression. A memorandum by Bishop White contains the best description of Cody as a preacher. White had had a long connection with Cody from the time that White was a student of Cody's at Wycliffe in the 1890s. His considered judgment was that the outstanding feature of St. Paul's was "the inimitable character of Canon Cody's preaching. It was Gospel preaching of an expository type, always evangelical even on Old Testament themes, and full of practical teaching."8 There can be no doubt of the profound effect of Cody's sermons upon many of his listeners. Others remembered only how long they were. It is true that many of them were long, particularly in the later stages of his ministry. The author once heard him preach for fifty min-

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905/49 utes in 1932. In his early career they were probably shorter. There is a story told of the student Cody preaching one Sunday morning in a country church. He had thought the sermon had gone rather well until an ancient parishioner assured him, "It was quite good ... what there was of it." While many of his sermons were indeed long, they were carefully crafted and devoid of meaningless rhetoric. An examination of Cody's sermon notes indicates the care and thoroughness with which he prepared them, but conveys little of the effect the sermons had on Cody's listeners. It was his personality, vigorous, enthusiastic, and sympathetic, that came through to the hearers and made his words so compelling and comforting. Canon W.A. Filer, who began his ministry when Cody was in his middle years, recalled, "A Cody sermon lasted about an hour, but it seemed like fifteen minutes." The work at St. Paul's was central in Cody's life, but he also maintained contacts with Wycliffe, Ridley, and the new girl's school, Havergal. As well, he did a good deal of public speaking and preaching at other churches. He was on the boards of Ridley and Havergal, and at Wycliffe he continued to establish himself as Sheraton's right-hand man. At Wycliffe the peace which had previously characterized the faculty was disturbed by what might be called "the Plumptre affair." In some ways it was petty, but it throws a good deal of light on the relations between Cody and his Wycliffe colleagues. H.P. Plumptre was appointed to the staff in 1902 to teach courses in Pastoral Theology and to act as dean. He was modest and well-meaning and anxious to get on well with Sheraton and his other colleagues. Unfortunately, he had liberal tendencies in theology and churchmanship. This made it almost impossible for him to establish a good relationship with Sheraton. There might also have been personality differences. Plumptre complained to Cody that Sheraton treated him with coldness.9 He trusted Cody and appealed to him for help in his relations with Sheraton, writing in June 23, 1902: "If you get a convenient opportunity before September next of letting Dr. Sheraton know the desire of my heart is simply for a true and happy friendship you would do me and the world here a service ... I know that a word from you would go a long way." But Sheraton became increasingly exasperated with Plumptre's ideas. By October 25, 1903, he was so upset that he suggested to Cody that he might resign the principalship. "Things cannot go on as they are," he protested, "and if my friends fail to act for me, I do not see how I can remain. I have gone far beyond the limits of self-respect and

501 Henry John Cody

of patience." Sheraton apparently felt he was not being adequately supported in his opposition to Plumptre. Indeed, there is some evidence of sympathy in the Wycliffe camp for Plumptre. George Wrong supported him, and C.C. Owen, a prominent evangelical and a Wycliffe graduate, told Cody he liked Plumptre and regretted that "things are so unsatisfactory at Wycliffe."10 The Plumptre affair might have precipitated a serious breach in the Wycliffe constituency. Fortunately for Sheraton and Wycliffe, the rift failed to develop. Things reached a climax in November 1903. Plumptre had decided he could not continue at Wycliffe, and when Bishop Carmichael offered him a post in the Diocese of Montreal, he accepted. Cody's role in the Plumptre affair may be deduced from the testimony of his colleagues. While he always treated Plumptre with sympathy and kindness, he must have disliked his ideas much as Sheraton had done. He remained loyal to Sheraton and did not support Plumptre in opposition to the principal. Wrong, who was more liberal than Cody, blamed Cody for not supporting Plumptre and thus for helping to bring about his resignation. Wrong told Cody that he would express his opinion of Sheraton's conduct in the Plumptre affair when Plumptre's resignation came before the Wycliffe Council. He added, "On the few occasions lately when I have found it necessary to speak of the situation there I have said that I lay a good deal of the blame on your shoulders."11 But Plumptre appears not to have born a grudge against Cody. He remained his friend. Later in 1907, when he was considering whether to accept the rectorship of St. Paul's Church, Woodstock, he consulted Cody in the matter. Havergal was established in 1894 by much the same group of Anglicans that had established Ridley in 1889. Its first principal, Miss Ellen Mary Knox, was a redoubtable English evangelical, a sister of Bishop E.A. Knox. The success of the school during its first thirty years was largely the result of her drive and personality. The objectives of the school's founders were indicated in an advertisement published in the Evangelical Churchman: "The promoters of the School are convinced of the importance of uniting distinct Evangelical spiritual influences with a thorough, intellectual culture ... Their aim will be to give such an education as will help to make the pupils not only accomplished gentlewomen, but also intelligent and useful members of society."12 Havergal was located in one of Toronto's most affluent areas. Having purchased the old Mervyn School building at 350 Jarvis Street, the school immediately began to expand its facilities by the purchase of

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905/51 additional land and the construction of new buildings in 1896—98 and 1902. In spite of all this expansion, however, the school needed yet another building and this was constructed in 1906—1907. Though not a member of the original board, Cody was soon closely associated with the school. St. Paul's and Havergal were within walking distance of each other, and Havergal students attended St. Paul's on Sunday mornings. In effect, Cody became Havergals parish priest. He was conscientious in his attentions to the school. He prepared the girls for confirmation and was frequently at the school for social occasions, prize-givings, and other special events. His membership on the board of directors brought him regularly in touch with his friends S.H. Blake (president), J. Herbert Mason (vice-president), George Wrong (secretary), Stapleton Caldecott, and N.W. Hoyles, among others. Cody soon became the friend and confidant of Miss Knox. She was frequently at his home for lunch or dinner and often came to him with problems about the financing of the school. In 1905 Cody, Wrong, and R. Millichamp (treasurer) were instrumental in carrying the school through a financial crisis, probably a result of the school's need for a new building. Miss Knox was most grateful and wrote to Cody on January 3, thanking him "for the way you have helped to save me and the school." She added cryptically, "It was done at so much risk to yourself - I was too tired to realize anything on Wednesday night except gratitude to those who put it through - Now I can see a way even though it may have difficulties. It literally was a fight for existence at any rate to me if not to the school. I don't think I can forget what you and Mr. Wrong and Mr. Millichamp have done." Precisely the nature of this crisis or the measure that saved Havergal is not revealed, but there seems no doubt of Cody's role in saving Havergal.1^ Cody's membership on the Ridley board kept him in touch with the school and with the principal. Most of his fellow board members were men he was associated with in other capacities, at St. Paul's, Wycliffe, or Havergal - Herbert Mason, N.W. Hoyles, Millichamp, and Sheraton. The evangelical community was a small one, a sort of family compact. The year 1904 was an amazing one for Cody. Although still a young man (36) and not yet the titular rector of St. Paul's, he was elected to the bishopric of Nova Scotia and rejected it. Three Winnipeg men urged him to let them nominate him for the archbishopric of Rupert's Land, but he declined that as well, saying he would not oppose his good friend S.P. Matheson, who had been consecrated assistant bishop in 1903. The third offer to stand, probably the most attractive to Cody,

521 Henry John Cody

came from the Diocese of Huron, where Bishop M.S. Baldwin had died. Cody was invited by Verschoyle Cronyn, the son of the first Bishop of Huron, and by other evangelicals to let his name stand. Huron was Cody's home diocese and the most evangelical of all the Canadian dioceses. To be sure there was some jealousy of Wycliffe men on the part of Huron college graduates, but this might be overcome. T.A. Wright, the rector of St. Jude's Church, Brantford, wrote to Cody on October 28: "We know that the feeling against Wycliffe men is quite strong. But have the Huron men a man among themselves that we can unite upon? I fear not from what I have so far gathered. The feeling against Wycliffe would largely give way if you were being considered." But Cody had already written to Cronyn declining to accept. Blake, Cody's mentor at St. Paul's, had been very concerned with rumours that Cody might accept, and was thus much relieved. He wrote reassuringly, "There must be something better in store, and in due time the Allwise will make it plain."14 Cody was fortified in his decision by a strong resolution from the St. Paul's advisory committee, dated November 15, 1904, describing his work at St. Paul's in glowing terms and concluding with the request "that you continue for the present in the work which God has opened for you, and which you have, by His good hand upon you, been so wonderfully successful."15 Cody urged the Huron evangelicals to back L.N. Tucker for the bishopric. Tucker was an evangelical, an eloquent preacher, and later dean of the cathedral in London. But Tucker was not elected. David Williams, nominally an evangelical, was elected and then consecrated on January 6, 1905. Cody hastened to send his congratulations. This was the beginning of his friendly relations with Williams, who later wielded a powerful influence in the counsels of the Canadian church. Early in 1905 Williams showed his good will by inviting Cody to preach at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Cody was rapidly becoming a sort of ecclesiastical statesman, controlling the future prospects of many of his friends and acquaintances. Because of his Wycliffe connection and his growing reputation in the church generally, he was widely consulted by bishops and others desiring to secure suitable men for curacies or rectorships. He was also invited by many of the younger clergy to support their own candidacies for desirable posts. In April 1902 the Bishop of Niagara, J.P. DuMoulin, asked Cody to recommend a student to act as a supply in Fergus. Cody suggested WT. Hallam. Dyson Hague, who had a church in Montreal,

Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905/53 wanted a curate and was demanding in his requirements: "Now what is needed is a man over 30-35 perhaps - a preacher with a good voice musical if possible - and of moderate churchmanship ... as far as possible a presentable man to a congregation like this ... and if a Wycliffe man a good all round man so as to disarm criticism."1(* Cody's old friend FJ. Steen, who had been appointed senior assistant minister at Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal, was looking for a curate. He was even more demanding than Hague: "It is a sine qua non that he be a gentleman in the highest and strictest sense of the word, with all a gentleman's manners and polish, and also that he be a good churchman of moderate views. I am not anxious to get an extremist, either High or Low. The Hague type of evangelical, however good, would never do."17 Everybody wanted a "moderate" man, even Dyson Hague, not regarded as moderate himself. Other correspondents enlisted Cody's help. A Bishop's College graduate, who had been teaching at Upper Canada College, wanted a position at Ridley, finding his duties at UCC too completely "secular."18 A curate in St. George's Cathedral, Kingston, wanted to succeed De Soyres, the rector of a church in Saint John, New Brunswick: "I understood that Evangelical principles prevail and I can say that my churchmanship coincides with yours and that nothing would be introduced to interfere with the spiritual upbuilding of the congregation." Moderation in the clergy was as valued then as later. Nobody wanted a man of extreme views. Those who wanted Cody to recommend someone usually stressed that the person be moderate, and those seeking posts frequently stressed their own moderation. Most of Cody's applicants could be classified as evangelicals, but all trusted in his fairness and discretion. Cody had had a strong interest in politics ever since his days in Embro and Gait. Now that he was a rector, this interest was reflected in some of his sermons. He never saw any conflict between his religious and political opinions. In his Thanksgiving sermon in 1910 on the text "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," for example, he discussed the connection between Christianity and patriotism. Some of the basic ideas he held that he considered Christian were actually common to much of Anglo-Saxon conservatism. In Thanksgiving sermons in 1913 and 1921 based on Luke 12:48 ("For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required"), he put forward the typical conservative idea that privileges always involved responsibilities. As a Christian, he insisted that the responsibilities

541Henry John Cody

could only be fulfilled if there were moral and spiritual growth among our people. Cody's type of conservative was frequently regarded by other nationalists as colonial, but he was not a colonial in the sense of regarding everything British as first rate and everything Canadian as second rate. Like other fellow conservatives such as George Monro Grant, George T. Denison, D'Alton McCarthy, and Alex McNeill, he was proud of Canada's position and achievements but never considered separation from the Empire. He believed Canada would become increasingly significant within the Empire. Evangelical Christians were often accused of not being interested in social justice. This was not the case with Cody. He had a sophisticated view of the relation between the Christian religion and social justice. He argued that God was concerned with all aspects of human life, physical as well as spiritual. Our duty is to make God's will prevail upon earth. It is his will that his children should have healthy homes and breathe pure air, and that capital and labour should not defraud each other. Cody insisted that Christian doctrine and concepts of social justice were closely related in the minds of Christians. In his early career Cody seemed merely to display the normal interest of a well-informed Canadian in current affairs and in the spectacles Toronto society provided. The South African War was in progress in 1900 and Canadian troops were actively engaged. On May 30 and 31 Cody went downtown to witness celebrations over the capture of Pretoria. He witnessed the Orange Parade on the "glorious twelfth" of July and the Labour Day procession on September 3. During the federal election campaign of 1900, he attended a Tory rally at Massey Hall. There he saw the leaders, Sir Charles Tupper and Hugh John Macdonald, and heard a speech by the Tory warhorse Sir George Foster. Cody continued his political participation through the 1900-1905 period. By the year 1905, the Laurier government was involved in the controversy over separate schools for the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. On February 7 Cody heard Sir John Willison speak of the issue at the Canadian Club. In the following month Cody addressed a meeting on "North-West Autonomy" at Massey Hall. Other speakers were John Willison and D'Alton McCarthy, the famous leader of the "Equal Rights" movement. In April he heard Clifford Sifton, the leading opponent of separate schools, at the Canadian Club. From the company he kept, McCarthy and Sifton, it is obvious that Cody was an exponent of public schools and an opponent of French separate schools in the West.

Chapter 7

Cody's Friends, 1900-1905

ody's friendships after 1900 were perhaps not so close as his earlier ones with undergraduate contemporaries like Tommy Des Barres and F.J. Steen. Because of his liberal views on doctrine, Steen had engaged in a struggle with Archbishop Bond. He had expressed bitterness at his suspension from active work at Montreal Diocesan, a theological college, and in the Diocese of Montreal ("I was being judged on a question of apologetics by men who really know nothing of the subject beyond Paley") but rejoiced in his reinstatement ("I withdrew nothing and recanted nothing").1 He died suddenly at the end of 1902. Tommy Des Barres was in England for a long time. Cody does not seem to have kept up the connection, although he and Florence visited him in the early 1930s. Some of Cody's friends were older men who had been his counsellors. Bryant, his old school principal in Gait and afterwards his friend in Toronto, maintained his interest in Cody. In 1902 he recommended Cody for the rectorship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Morristown, New Jersey. Cody of course was not interested in leaving St. Paul's. It was probably through Cody's influence that Bryant's publishing firm was for a time printer of the Evangelical Churchman. Sheraton, probably the dominant influence in Cody's theological life, continued to express his affection and encouragement. He had come to rely heavily on Cody for support in the difficulties at Wycliffe. In his letters to Cody, Sheraton was almost excessively warm in his expressions of gratitude. He described Cody as "everything to me in

c

561 Henry John Cody

friendship and in work - my right hand" and "my best beloved friend and strong fellow worker." Inviting Cody to give the Convocation Address at Wycliffe in 1905, he concluded, "No one can do it so effectively as you. In fact, I would like to have you always but I suppose that would not be practicable."2 S.H. Blake was Cody's principal counsellor and loyal friend at St. Paul's, until Blake s death in 1914. Blake was 65 in 1900 and he had all the confidence of an elder statesman. He was well connected (a scion of the Hume-Blake-Cronyn connection), a successful corporation lawyer, and principal leader of the evangelical party in the Diocese of Toronto. As a parishioner at St. Paul's, he admired Cody and was anxious to keep him at St. Paul's. His frequent letters to Cody were full of pithy comments and good advice about Wycliffe and St. Paul's. On February 21, 1901, Blake sounded off on the powers of the laity in the church: "It seems to me that as a general rule throughout the rural parts of our country there is very little influence on the part of laity except that which arises from their position as suppliers of money."3 On August 23, 1903, on the subject of Wycliffe, he asserted that "O'Meara [the Wycliffe financial agent] should be identified more with Wycliffe — We want him not only as a Financial, but also as one to look after and draw on young men." Blake also wanted changes in the Wycliffe faculty, asserting "our staff is not strong enough - we know the strength of the men that are in it, but to the outside world we may appear weak." While Blake was plentiful in the advice he offered, he was always generous in his encouragement to Cody and in his financial support of Wycliffe and St. Paul's. Another congenial associate was Archbishop S.P. Matheson of Rupert's Land, who usually stayed with the Codys when he was in Toronto. He was fond of Maurice, Cody's young son (born in 1897), and seems to have been on kidding terms with him. In a letter of 1907, written when he was en route to Winnipeg, Matheson instructed Cody, "Tell Maurice that we had snow on the ground from North Bay up to near Kenora ... but that was in Ontario. As soon as we came near to 'the Banana Belt' of Manitoba it was, of course, lovely."4 Matheson made a confidant of Cody. For instance, prior to his election as archbishop in 1904, he wrote Cody at some length of his embarrassment at the bad feeling between himself and a rival candidate. He often consulted Cody about appointments in his diocese. A keen evangelical, he was anxious to secure Wycliffe men for Rupert's Land: "Oh if I could only get ten good earnest evangelical young men this spring [1906], how I would thank God! It is heart breaking to see

Cody's Friends, 1900-1905/57 these parishes vacant and our Church people wandering to other bodies. I am praying that Wycliffe may be able to help us."5 Ellen Knox, the principal of Havergal, was immensely loyal to Cody. George Wrong wrote after her death that she "had strong opinions and very real likes and dislikes but she was never bitter or petty." Cody was one of her likes, the high church party her main dislike. Miss Knox was very anxious that Cody become president of the University of Toronto. After he failed to be appointed in 1907, she wrote, "I never liked to tell you how much I was longing it could have been you."6 Dyson Hague, another evangelical, was a son of George Hague, also a prominent evangelical and a leading Canadian banker. Dyson Hague was eleven years older than Cody and had preceded him in University College and Wycliffe. He was a very different type from Cody. There was an astringent, hard-hitting character to his utterances, rather like that of Blake. He was notoriously tactless, but had a genius for clear-cut statements of evangelical theology. The writer recalls Hague in old age as a bearded gentleman (in a period when beards were not fashionable) with piercing eyes and a capacity for emphatic utterances. He liked and trusted Cody. His daughter, Mary, was in Cody's confirmation class in 1903, and in a letter commending her to his care, Hague wrote, "I am sure we feel very grateful to you for all the trouble you have taken, and trust that you will have the reward of a happy consciousness of lives won, and quickened."7 Not all of Cody's friends were evangelicals. Indeed, he had a genius for remaining friends with men whose intellectual position he did not share. G.M. Wrong, for instance, was a close friend, although the two men could not have agreed on churchmanship. They did, however, come from similar backgrounds. Both came from rural Ontario (Wrong had been born on a farm in Elgin county). Both were graduates of University College and of Wycliffe. Both had begun their university teaching careers as lecturers at Wycliffe; Wrong had been a lecturer in history and dean at Wycliffe from 1883 to 1892. After that their paths diverged. Wrong became interested in secular history and was appointed lecturer in history and ethnology at U of T. From 1894 to 1927 he headed the Department of History. He was the real founder of the school of Canadian history that became such an important part of the Toronto contribution to historiography. After his appointment at the University of Toronto, he continued with some part-time teaching at Wycliffe until 1915 and for a time was much in the Wycliffe camp. He had married Sophia Blake, Edward Blake's daughter, in 1886. A letter he wrote to Cody in 1903, congratulating him on a recent academic

581 Henry John Cody

honour, suggests that he still regarded himself as an evangelical at that time: "Can anything illustrate better that victory is in the hands of men who hold our views if they only show a little tact and statesmanship. And can anything show better the utter failure of high and dry Anglicanism than the condition of its colleges now?"8 But his views and lifestyle moved away from their evangelical origins. He became merely a cultured English gentleman. His ideas on churchmanship had also changed. He became censorious of Sheraton. In 1905, when Miss Knox was asked if Wrong was likely to succeed Sheraton as principal of Wycliffe, she replied, "Hardly, I should imagine his views are broad." As noted in Chapter 6, Wrong supported the liberal Plumptre in his struggle with Sheraton and criticized Cody for not doing more to defend Plumptre.9 Yet Wrong remained friendly with Cody and assisted from time to time in the services of St. Paul's as late as the 1920s. After the election of 1911 Wrong wrote Cody an amusing letter that indicated he was close enough to Cody to indulge in a little joking. Poking fun at Cody's rigid Toryism, he professed to tell of a confused young man who was unable to decide whether the Conservatives were right in opposing Reciprocity with the United States in 1911. The young man went to hear his rector, at St. Paul's Church, for guidance. According to Wrong, the rector "must have a stronger head than my hesitating friend for he is never in doubt as to how he should vote. Indeed it is said that he has expressed privately his conviction that the Conservatives are always right and therefore that if a Conservative black cat were standing against a Liberal Shakespeare he should vote for the black cat."10 Another of Cody's liberal evangelical friends was John De Soyres, the rector of St. John's Church, Saint John, and a warm friend to Wycliffe College. He had donated the De Soyres prize in Church history Cody had won in his graduating year. De Soyres was supposed to be an evangelical, but his views on biblical criticism were scarcely in that vein. He was attracted to the moderate higher critic S.R. Driver, asserting that "Driver's calm judicial argument should do immense good." In 1904 De Soyres became involved in a controversy with the Montreal evangelicals Bishop Carmichael and ("the irrepressible") Dyson Hague. De Soyres appealed to Cody for support, expressing the hope that Canadian Protestantism would not come under the tyranny of Irish rhetoric and "crass obscurantism." He hoped that Hague and his ally Canon Troop "would work toward encouraging the devotional spirit."11 It seems that Cody wrote back to De Soyres, explaining that at least in the Diocese of Toronto the controversy over higher criticism

Cody's Friends, 1900-1905/59 had to be treated with caution. De Soyres appears to have taken this for encouragement to exercise less caution in other parts of Canada: "Your present position, which rejoices me more than I can tell you, gives the right to speak, and also the responsibility. I am aware of the circumstances of Toronto, and the necessity of the utmost wisdom and tact."12 De Soyres criticized Sheraton in an article titled "The Ethics of Religious Controversy" in the April 1905 edition of the Queens Quarterly. The main thrust was that in the controversy over biblical criticism writers on both sides should always treat their opponents with courtesy. De Soyres felt that Dr. Sheraton had not always done so. He began by praising him and then pointed out "a few inaccuracies in some of his statements." De Soyres wrote, perhaps uneasily, to Cody, "I trust he will not be offended by the slight criticisms in details I have added to the terms of my full admiration." Coming as it did not long after the Plumptre affair, the incident may well have provoked the principal.13 Maurice Hutton (1856-1940), the professor of classics at University College, was another friend who did not share Cody's religious views. Cody had been a student of Hutton's and had taught Greek for a short time in his department in 1892-93. The link between them was a love of the classics, but they did not see eye to eye in regard to Christian doctrine. The writer once heard Hutton ridiculing the doctrine of election in a speech to the Wycliffe students in the 1920s. Cody, who was a moderate Calvinist, would certainly not have approved.14

Chapter 8

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906

n October 1905 Cody was appointed to the royal commission "to enquire into and report upon the system of administering the affairs of the University of Toronto and of University College."1 The commission, known as the Royal Commission on the University of Toronto, was to consider not only the management and government of the university and of University College (UC) but also the advisability of incorporating the School of Practical Science with the university. In addition, it was to advise on such changes as should be brought about in the relations between U of T and the federated or affiliated colleges: Victoria, Trinity, Knox, Wycliffe, and St. Michael's. Cody's appointment was a signal honour for such a young man (he was only 37), but he had obvious qualifications. He was a distinguished graduate of the university, an academic in the Department of Classics with an inside knowledge of the workings of U of T, a spokesman for the Anglican constituency, and (a necessary qualification) a resident of Toronto and thus able to attend what promised to be the numerous meetings of the commission. The commissioners, under the chairmanship of Joseph Flavelle, the well-known financier and philanthropist, were a well-balanced and impressive group. In addition to the chairman and Cody, they included Sir William Meredith, the chief justice of Ontario and chancellor of U ofT; B.E. Walker, president of the Bank of Commerce; D. Bruce

I

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906/ 61 Macdonald, the principal of St. Andrews College; A.H.U. Colquhoun, the news editor of the Toronto News; and Goldwin Smith, the famous historian and journalist. The Commission had two businessmen, Flavelle and Walker; two academics, Cody and Macdonald; two journalists, Goldwin Smith and Colquhoun; and a leading jurist, Meredith. The problems confronting the commission were obvious. In fact, the whole university structure needed reorganization. President Louden had failed to maintain effective control, although this was not entirely his fault; he was partly the victim of a sadly decentralized university constitution. U of T had to be changed so that it could cope with the problems of the modern age. The rise of science and the consequent need to acquire expensive laboratory equipment presented a challenge. Furthermore, Cornell in the United States had presented the university with serious competition for students. The appointment of the commission had stirred up old tensions within the university. Ever since the passage of the University Act of 1849,2 there had been rivalry between the university and the churchrelated colleges, Victoria, Queen's, and from 1851, Trinity. In 1849-50 Robert Baldwin and Lord Elgin had hoped that Queen's and Victoria would affiliate with U of T, giving up their degree-granting powers except in divinity, but the colleges had refused to do so. The university and the church colleges had gone their several ways for over thirty years. Finally, Victoria entered the university federation that was formed 1887-92, and Trinity followed in 1904. Some of the mutual suspicion, however, persisted. Sir Daniel Wilson had been dubious about federation in the 1880s, confiding to his diary in 1884 that it was "neither more nor less than a revival of the attempt of the Methodists [i.e., Victoria] to lay hands on the university endowment."3 Sir Daniel's suspicions were still in evidence in the UC constituency in 1905. They were reciprocated by the church colleges. Victoria adherents thought that the commission would unduly favour the Anglican and Presbyterian interest, and UC; while UC people were jealous of any attempt to reduce their position, financial and otherwise, in U of T. Wycliffe and Knox Colleges both had a stake in maintaining the position of University College, since both sent their students to UC for arts training.4 Some of this rivalry brushed off on Cody. Burwash, the principal of Victoria, and Rev. M.L. Pearson of Berkeley Street Methodist Church complained to the government that the Methodists (i.e., Victoria) were underrepresented on the commission. Pearson pointed out that there were two Anglicans and two Presbyterians on the commission but only one Methodist, Flavelle. Burwash was distressed that

621 Henry John Cody

Cody and Macdonald were sitting on the commission, since Wycliffe and Knox were "not deeply interested in the federation policy under which Victoria had moved to Toronto." J.P. Whitney, the premier of Ontario, assured him that the government would do nothing "which would interfere in the slightest degree with the situation or the rights of any college under the Federation Act." He then appointed Flavelle, the sole Methodist on the commission, as its chairman, an action that appeared to mollify the complainants.5 Cody was under pressure to uphold the interest of UC. Sheraton wrote him two letters (November and December 1905). He had been talking to two Knox professors, Kilpatrick and Ballantyne, and the three had agreed that UC should be supported: "Evidently the whole stress of battle will be round University College and its relation to U of T. This is where the shoe pinches. They [Victoria and Trinity] want to make University College just like themselves and reduce to a minimum its connection with the state."6 Despite the welter of suspicion on the part of its various supporters, the commission soon began its deliberations placidly and constructively. Only a man of Cody's energy could have carried on his normal range of activities and at the same time have fulfilled the exacting demands of the royal commission. Between September 30, 1905, when the commissioners met Premier Whitney at the Normal School, and April 4, 1906, when they assembled at Goldwin Smith's home, the Grange, they held some seventy meetings. Most of the meetings were held at the Grange. Here the commissioners sat at the same mahogany table the old Family Compact had gathered around to discuss policy. In addition to attending meetings, Cody (with Flavelle, Colquhoun and Macdonald) made an extended trip to the American Midwest, where they consulted university presidents and other authorities. In December the four were joined by Meredith and Walker for a tour of eastern American universities. Cody was impressed by several American university presidents, particularly Charles Eliot of Harvard. He met Woodrow Wilson in the stormy days of controversy between Wilson and Dean Andrew Fleming West. The commissioners had many hearings with representatives of the various colleges within the university federation (Trinity, Victoria, UC, Wycliffe, and Knox). They spent a day at Guelph with President Creelman of the Ontario Agricultural College. They also submitted a questionnaire to the people interviewed. Cody's marginal comments on some of the answers suggest they were frank ("Danger or weakness that men will not always talk out in faculty meeting" and "Better bear

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906 / 63 a poor professor than make a good professor restless"). By early March the commissioners presented the government with a first draft. There was a mild flurry because two reporters from the World managed to steal a copy, and on March 12 the World published a lengthy account of the report. The Globe, while deploring the theft, also published a critique. It asserted that if the government unloaded its responsibility on a board of governors, the university's relations with the province would come to an end.7 The commissioners also prepared a draft university bill to implement their findings. They conferred with the government on March 1, 1906, about the bill, and on April 4, after Goldwin Smiths dinner at the Grange, they all signed the report. The report, one of the most famous in Ontario's history, laid the groundwork for the modern University of Toronto, as well as exerting a profound influence on the development of other Canadian universities. The commissioners insisted that education in the humanities must be preserved and strengthened: "In the case of the University of Toronto, we hope that if thorough teaching in the humanities requires more money the expenditure will be unhesitatingly incurred."8 They also asserted that scientific training must be strongly supported. Well aware of the mistrust between University College and the other federated colleges, the commissioners sought to reassure all the contending parties: "The maintenance of UC, with adequate State endowment, and on strictly non-sectarian basis, has thus become firmly embedded in the educational policy of the Province," and "The State supplies to its youth a complete system of higher education; the denominational colleges avail themselves of the State's provision for scientific training, and add to it their own contribution of the humanities, with such a religious or denominational atmosphere as seems most desirable to themselves."9 Although he could not have realized it, Cody was helping to prepare the position he was destined to occupy twenty-six years later. President Loudon's difficulties had largely arisen because of the weak constitutional position of the presidency. Fearing that U of T was in danger of disintegration, the commissioners insisted upon a strong president and a strong board of governors. The proposed organization must have been familiar to the businessmen on the commission, as it resembled that of an industrial corporation, with a board of governors and a plant manager. The commission made a number of recommendations. The new board of governors was vested with "the powers of the Crown in respect to the control and management of the University." The president was

641 Henry John Cody

given additional powers, "making the occupant in fact as well as in name the chief executive officer of the University." The commissioners sought to preserve the division of powers between administrative control (the president and the board) and academic control (the university senate).* The senate, which provided representation "of the federated and affiliated institutions and faculties and graduates should direct the academic interests of the University." The commissioners regarded the president as the connecting link between the board and senate: "His identification with the academic side of the University life makes him the natural channel of communication between the two."10 University College was to be preserved "as now constituted with a Principal, Faculty Council and Registrar of its own." But the colleges were to be conciliated by the creation of the Council of Faculty of Arts, which was to be composed of the faculties of all the arts colleges. The chancellor of the university was to be elected by the graduates and was "to preside over Convocation and confer degrees." The office of vicechancellor was abolished. The School of Practical Science was to be affiliated with the university. With regard to the financial provision for the increasing needs of the university, the report recommended that the grants in current account for the next three years should be $125,000, $168,000, and $184,000. To provide for capital expenditures, the government's income from succession duties should be allocated to U of T, as well as at least a million acres of land in northern Ontario. The grant of succession duties had been strongly advocated by the two businessmen, Flavelle and Walker. Goldwin Smith was opposed to the succession duties, regarding them as part of a general attack on savings, but he failed to convince his colleagues. According to Cody, Smith regarded succession duties as taxation without representation, since "the individual whose estate is being taxed, being dead, has no direct representation."11 The author has not seen any formal statement of Cody's opinion of the report. Cody said later that membership on the commission had given him "special satisfaction." Since he took part in all the discussions and signed the report, it may be assumed he agreed with its findings. His own copy of the report contains marginal marks in pencil, presumably put in by him, indicating the sections he thought important. It appears he favoured a strong central authority with clearly defined powers. He thought that strong control by the government should be main* Many Canadian universities have tried to preserve this distinction between the board's control of finances and the teaching staff's control of the "academic interests" of the universities. In practice, it has proved difficult to divorce financial from academic control.

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906 / 65 tained. The passage asserting "... no step should be taken to lessen the responsibility of the Legislature for the efficient management and support of the institution" was doubly marked. Cody also no doubt supported the idea of a strong UC.12 Cody's support of a strong central executive for the university was a harbinger of the views he would later develop as a university administrator. His belief in a strong University College was the result of his background at UC and Wycliffe. Sheraton and his Knox College friends had felt that the church colleges should send their divinity students to UC for their arts training, and for this reason they supported the idea of a strong UC and a strong central executive that would maintain UC in its position. Cody was particularly pleased with the report's concluding two paragraphs, which dealt with the future of the university. They had been written by Goldwin Smith, and Cody quoted them in a paper on the royal commission of 1905-1906 that he wrote for the Royal Society of Canada in 1946. He said that the paragraphs were written "in his [Smith's] own brilliant literary style." Smith questioned "whether the main object shall be, as it has hitherto been, intellectual culture, or the knowledge which qualifies directly for gainful pursuits." He expressed regret that "the second object has of late been, prevailing, especially where commerce holds sway," but added that "the two though distinct, need not be antagonistic. Science, properly so called, is culture of its kind and those who pursue it may in turn imbibe the spirit of culture by association." In conclusion Smith wrote, "We could do no more than provide a home for culture and science under the same academic roof, uniting them as far as possible, yet leaving each in its own way untrammelled by the union." This was one of Cody's favourite ideas.13 The report was released to the public early in April, and on May 2 Premier Whitney introduced the University Bill, which implemented the report's recommendations. In introducing the bill, Whitney read several editorials from the Globe approving the commission's findings as to the powers of the president in regard to government control of the university. He said that the government endorsed all the conclusions cited in the report except the proposal for a further land endowment. He accepted the proposal that for its endowment U of T be granted a percentage of the succession duties, fixed on the average of three years' revenue. Whitney said he had a lively satisfaction in announcing that not only the university and University College but also the church colleges "were in full accord with the provisions of the bill."14 There was no serious opposition to the bill. Burwash, who had

661Henry John Cody

objected to the personnel of the commission, was pleased with the report, especially the provision for a Council of the Faculty of Arts. He wrote, "In so important a reconstruction of the university government, the recognition of the Federal principle throughout in the care taken by the commission to preserve its essential features ... was a most important fact."15 Since the bill had now received the approval of former critics, it was speedily passed. Cody's membership on the royal commission brought him in close contact with university affairs. He got to know people with whom he would be associated on the university board of governors: Walker, Flavelle, and Meredith. Macdonald was already an old friend. Colquhoun was destined to be Cody's deputy-minister when he was minister of education. Cody came in touch with the government and the Conservative Party. He had always had a dual interest in church and university, Wycliffe and UC, but his interest in university affairs was much strengthened, leading to further ventures in education and university policy. The process could have been arrested had he been elected Bishop of Toronto in 1909. After all, Bishop Strachan also had a dual interest in church and politics, but after becoming Bishop of Toronto in 1839 he was much less active politically. Despite Cody's involvement in the activities of the royal commission, Wycliffe affairs occupied much of his time. As a faculty member, he attended numerous functions, such as a lecture by Sheraton, meetings of the Wycliffe Alumni Association, and the Wycliffe oratorical contest. The most momentous development was Sheraton's illness and eventual death. He was taken ill in December 1905, and his letter of December 15 to Cody must have been among the last he wrote. By December 21 old students of Sheratons around the country had heard of his illness and wrote letters of concern. To Cody fell the task of answering them. Sheraton lingered over Christmas but in January his health deteriorated. By January 23 he was near death. Cody was in close attendance, watching by Sheraton for most of the morning and again in the evening. Sheraton died on January 24. Cody, in cooperation with another of the Wycliffe staff, T.R. O'Meara, made the funeral arrangements and officiated at the funeral on January 26. Sheraton's death marked the end of an era at Wycliffe. He had provided a sound basis of evangelical scholarship for the college and for the evangelical community in general. His obituary in the Canadian Churchman was more objective than most: "In the tangled forest of Biblical Criticism Dr. Sheraton was intelligently conservative. He read all sides of the question, shirked no difficulties, was abashed by no

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906 / 67 weight of name, and held firmly and finally to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture as the word of God. His strong grip of dogmatic theology guided and steadied him amid the subjective eddies of Criticism."16 Cody, who owed much to Sheraton, had remained loyal to him, particularly when some of the younger men had been critical of Sheraton's supposed rigidity. Now Sheraton was gone and it remained to consider the problem of whom to appoint in his place. In many ways Cody would have been the logical successor, the man to carry on in the Sheraton tradition. He was offered the position of principal. It must have presented many attractions for him, but he decided to stay with St. Paul's. On February 20, after an interview with S.H. Blake, he declined the principalship but accepted further responsibilities at Wycliffe, taking over Sheraton's major course in systematic theology. The Wycliffe council then appointed T.R. O'Meara, a devoted but less brilliant man, as principal. Cody continued to preach good scriptural sermons at St. Paul's. A selection of his texts in this period indicate the character of his approach: Romans 13:12, "The night is far spent, the day is at hand"; Isaiah 26:4, "Trust ye in the Lord forever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength"; Luke 2:15, "Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass"; John 14:19, "Because I live, ye shall live also." Cody was continuing to preach the gospel of love, forgiveness and hope. While St. Paul's and the University of Toronto, including Wycliffe, occupied much of Cody's time, there were many other commitments. There was a crisis, one of many, at Havergal. In April 1906 Miss Knox threatened to resign. The problem was resolved after a series of meetings, but it arose again in 1907. In a special service for the Havergal girls, Cody preached on the text I John 5:21 — "Little children keep yourselves from idols" - which suggests an approach similar to that of Charles Kingsley, "Be good, sweet maid." Other commitments added to the activities of a busy life: a meeting of the Missionary Society of the Church in Canada executive in October 1905; a Ridley Old Boys dinner in December 1905, at which Wrong spoke on the Irish question; the annual ceremonial call on Bishop Arthur Sweatman on January 1; a meeting of the synod board of governors in March 1906; an ordination at Little Trinity on April 29, at which R.B. McElheran, one of Cody's proteges, was an ordinand; meetings of a synod subcommittee in May in regard to the election of a coadjutor (assistant) to Bishop Sweatman (the negotiations were abortive). And so it went.

Chapter 9

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908

t was a remarkable feature of Cody's career that he had achieved such prominence in the Canadian church while still only acting rector of St. Pauls, technically "Rector in Charge." The anomaly between his nominal and his actual status was now corrected. On April 23, 1907, Bishop Sweatman formally appointed Cody rector of St. Paul's, and he was formally inducted on May 26, 1907. Congratulations came from O'Meara (the new Wycliffe principal), Archbishop Matheson, and others. Gustavus Munro, the Presbyterian minister in Embro, hoped that this formal recognition would prevent Cody from leaving the ministry to devote his life to academic or "official" work. Munro was posing the central problem in Cody's career - which path to follow.1 Cody's pastoral ministry at St. Paul's continued, and each Sunday he recorded in his diary his sermon texts for the day. Thus, in July 1906, he preached on Psalm 43:5, "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? ... hope thou in God"; on Psalm 55:22, "Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee." Additional light on his preaching ministry is revealed in the program for his Lenten service in 1908: Christ the Centre of Christianity; The Completeness and Complexity of Christ; The Shortness of Christ's Life; The Individual Dealing of Christ; The Intolerance of Christ; The Sinlessness of Christ. Cody was already preaching long sermons, even by the standards of

I

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908169

the more accommodating congregations of the early twentieth century. An evening service that lasted only fifty-five minutes was an occasion for a note in his diary. Cody's large city congregation was a cross-section of Toronto society, containing people of every class, but it took its tone from the comparatively well-off and well-read elements in the church: the Blakes, the Caldecotts, the Willisons, the Denisons, the Jarvises, the Blackstocks, and the many like them. On February 4, when Cody lunched at the National Club with those of his sidesmen who were members, he recorded a dozen names, including Shirley Denison, F.A. Rolph, and Dean Ivey. When he married one of the Ansleys to a Baron Alfred von Wattenwyl in 1906, he recorded such names as Smallpeice, Catto, Hodgins, and Caldecott in the list of guests. John Willisons paper, the News, caught the atmosphere of St. Paul's in an article published in 1907: "Educated, thoughtful, alert, businesslike, self-respecting and respectful of the rights of others, people who are helping to make the city's social, commercial and collegiate life, men and women to whom life has been kind, such is the congregation of St. Paul's. Thus it may be seen any Sunday morning quietly seated, waiting to hear some truthilluminated discourse."2 The church was in good shape financially. In 1908 the annual report indicated a total income of over $30,000, large by the standards of the church at the time. The mortgage on the Sunday School had been paid off and the entire church property was free of debt. St. Paul's was destined to be a tower of strength in the church, giving assistance to less affluent congregations such as St. Paul's, Runnymede. Occasionally an offer of assistance from St. Paul's was gallantly declined. When the St. Paul's Women's Auxiliary offered some gifts for the children of a country clergyman, he declined, explaining that his stipend had been raised and he felt that he and his wife could manage without assistance. S.H. Blake, who was 71 in 1906, continued to give Cody (then 38) fatherly support and advice. He praised Cody's sermons on matters of churchmanship, and on June 3, 1908, he wrote in his usual caustic style about some negotiations between the Anglicans and two other churches for cooperation in Indian work. Afraid that some of the Anglican bishops, no doubt the high church ones, might prejudice the scheme, he urged Cody to try and prevent this, adding, "You are not a Bishop, so that you have no fear of being dragged by the hair round the council chamber if you happen to disagree with the statements made by any member of the Episcopal Bench."3

701 Henry John Cody

In contrast to his tribulations in the 1920s and early 1930s, this was a happy period in Cody's life. The Codys entertained a great deal, particularly on Sundays. Almost always they had guests to lunch, tea, or dinner. Visiting preachers were usually welcomed at 603 Jarvis Street. Often, they stayed with the Codys. Florence was a gracious hostess. She did not like going out in Toronto society but got on well with a some of its members. The Codys were quite friendly with the Blackstocks and took a kindly interest in their daughter, Barbara. At Christmas, 1909, Barbara reciprocated by sending a Christmas card to Florence and a cake made by herself to Cody. Florence responded with a friendly note: "Mr. Cody cut his cake on Christmas Day and officiates at it each time it is placed at the table. It is a beautiful one, I can assure you, and one that we all enjoy with him, as a safeguard against his participating too freely of it, as he might be tempted to do, if we did not watch him."4 Cody managed a few breaks in his excessively busy life, particularly in the summers. In July 1906 he had a few days among friends in the Georgian Bay area, Minnicog, Indian Harbour, and Penetang, and in the summer of 1907 he was in Europe, touring England and the Low Countries. Cody had never been a great athlete when in school and university, but he did participate in lawn bowling when the parish established a bowling green behind the church. Occasionally he bowled at other city rinks, and he was sufficiently interested to attend the Dominion Bowling Tournament in 1907, in which some of his parishioners were competing. Probably he got more exercise when he took Maurice, aged 10, to the Toronto Exhibition. In addition to Sheraton, two other men of some importance in Cody's career died in this period. John Langtry, the doughty and hard-hitting exponent of the high church position, died in August 1906. Langtry had been the great opponent of the evangelicals in the debates of the 1870s over the Church Association, but his insistence on the authority of Scripture towards the end of his career had made him more acceptable to them. Cody no doubt shared the view of the other evangelicals that Langtry was a vigorous opponent whom they could respect for his honesty and forthrightness. Cody had friendly relations with Langtry, whose parish, St. Luke's, adjoined St. Paul's. Cody and Canon Baldwin, another evangelical, were pallbearers at Langtry's funeral. T.C. Des Barres, Cody's old rector, died on September 2, 1907, four months after his formal retirement from St. Paul's. He had not been able to attend Cody's induction in May of that year. Cody later

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908171 referred to him as "one of the most saintly characters I have ever known." In the 1890s he had exercised an important influence on Cody, and to the end he was a sympathetic supporter. Cody took his funeral and preached the funeral sermon. His notes on the sermon might well have applied to Cody himself. He stressed Des Barress long ministry, his friendship with leading evangelicals, and the fact that he was a faithful pastor, a diligent student of the Scriptures, and one who declared "the whole counsel of God" in regard to the Atonement, the New Birth, the Holy Spirit and Christ's Second Advent.5 Cody's talents as a mediator were enlisted at Wycliffe and Havergal. Miss Knox was again threatening to resign, apparently because of a difference of opinion between herself and S.H. Blake, the chairman of the board. She wrote to Cody, giving him a free hand in the matter: "Do not trouble to answer this, make any moves you like or none. I am ready to run the school on the lines which I believe to be best for it or to go as you and the Directors will." Cody seems to have resolved the difficulty, since Miss Knox remained as headmistress and wrote in October expressing her gratitude: "It's good as one's work goes on to have behind it some of the Trust which makes life worth living."6 Another problem at Wycliffe was more difficult. C.V. Pilcher, a descendent of the Venns, a famous evangelical family, had been appointed to assist Cody in his courses and to teach Greek New Testament. Like other young university professors, fresh out of college, he was a fine scholar but had difficulty in communicating his ideas to his students, particularly the weaker ones. There were rumblings of discontent among the students in 1907, and Cody, who defended Pilcher, had conferences with Principal O'Meara and also with Pilcher. The crisis was apparently resolved, but a year later, in March 1908, a committee of the student body presented a petition demanding that Pilcher's appointment, a short-term one, should not be renewed. They maintained that as a classical scholar he had "undoubted ability," but that as a lecturer he was "an absolute failure."7 In spite of his efforts, Cody failed to save his colleague this time. Pilcher retired, officially for reasons of ill health. He returned to the Wycliffe staff in 1916 and became a respected Old Testament scholar. Later he served as Suffragan Bishop of Sydney in Australia. In the early years of the century, Cody became increasingly involved in the affairs of the Anglican Church in Canada as a whole. It was a period in which the church continued to progress toward a position of

721 Henry John Cody autonomy within the Anglican communion. Formation of the General Synod in 1893 had been an important landmark in the emergence of Canadian autonomy, and the church continued to progress through a process marked by successive General Synods in 1896, 1902, 1905, and 1908. The Canadian church produced a hymn book in 1908, "The Book of Common Praise," and made progress toward the adoption of a Canadian prayer book. These developments occurred against a background of continuing controversy in the Christian world over evolution, higher criticism, and increasing secularism. The Canadian Churchman and its correspondents showed grave concern that the orthodox position of the church and its clergy should not be destroyed. "The tone of much of the current thought of the present day is either openly hostile or offensively patronizing to the Christian religion," complained an editorial in 1907. "It is thought by many that science and criticism have undermined the foundations of the Christian Creed. For this reason Christian journals and Christian teachers should show from time to time the strength of the Christian Cause." The Churchman insisted that clergy whose faith in the traditional beliefs of the church had been undermined by the new intellectual movements should not continue to unsettle their congregations but should withdraw from the ministry.8 One notable indication of Christian concern over challenges to the faith was provided by three Anglican bishops in their charges to their synods in June of 1906. Ontario had recently published a high-school geography textbook, and the bishops — Charles Hamilton of Ottawa, W.L. Mills of Ontario, and Arthur Sweatman of Toronto - were concerned with its account of the origins of the earth. Hamilton spoke for much contemporary Anglicanism: "Without at all entering into the discussion of how far the theory of evolution - for it is only a theory may be true, while it harmonizes with the fundamental laws of human progress, we can all understand its dangerous character when it presumes to tell us that the universe, and this world as part of it, were not the work of a Supreme Being, but the product on the contrary, of chance or accident."9 But the church was already divided over the issue. Some of the Churchman's correspondents applauded the bishop, but others were more dubious. Herbert Symonds, Cody's Montreal friend, had a more avant garde outlook and insisted that one could believe in evolution and still be a Christian: "It is tacitly admitted everywhere that a clergyman can be an Evolutionist without forfeiting his reputation of orthodoxy." "Spectator," the regular columnist, was critical of the bishops,

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908173

asserting that the whole question was too deep for synods to consider.10 Controversies over biblical criticism and evolution tended to draw Anglican high churchmen and evangelicals closer together. The British evangelicals might object to Dr. Pusey's Tractarianism but they liked his conservative views on the Bible. It was probably John Langtry's conservative attitude to Scripture that attracted an evangelical like Bishop Carmichael. But as the Toronto episcopal election of 1909 was soon to demonstrate, the older rivalries between high churchmen and evangelicals had by no means disappeared. It was in this situation of challenge and response that Anglican theologians considered the adoption of a Canadian hymn book and a Canadian prayer book. The movement towards a hymn book began in a formal way when Matthew Wilson, an evangelical from Chatham, Ontario, moved a resolution in the Huron Synod that favoured a new hymn book. Later, in 1896, he got his high church friend John Langtry to present the resolution at the General Synod in Winnipeg, thus bringing the proposal for a hymn book formally before the church. The matter was considered at the General Synods of 1905 at Quebec and 1908 in Ottawa. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of James Edward Jones, a Toronto magistrate and the descendant of a noted clerical family.11 Jones was the strongest spirit behind the movement, and in 1908 the committee secured the permission of General Synod to use the draft hymn book in church services. To some extent the hymn book movement focused the struggle between the two wings of the church. C.H.P. Owen deplored the influence of evangelical and other conservative elements in the church: "Of course there will be some who will continue to use Moody and Sankey or Ancient and Modern [a British book] as better suited to their tastes than any other." A.H.R., more evangelical, hoped that some of the Moody and Sankey hymns would be included, particularly in the children's section.12 Cody played an active part in the hymn book movement. He recorded in his diary the sessions on the hymn book at Quebec on September 11 and 12, 1905. In 1908 he was consulted on the issue by Bishop David Williams of Huron, who said that Jones would like to get the book in print as soon as possible. Cody was regarded by the evangelicals as their principal spokesman in regard to the hymn book. Before the General Synod of 1908 he received some significant letters. The evangelicals objected to three hymns by St. Thomas Aquinas and one by Canon William Bright (of Keble College, Oxford) which they regarded as suggesting the doctrine

741 Henry John Cody of transubstantiation. S.H. Blake and WJ. Armitage were particularly determined to remove these hymns. Dyson Hague, who was later regarded as a truculent evangelical, favoured more conciliatory tactics. He wrote to Cody asking him to intervene personally with such high church leaders as Canon EG. Scott and Bishop A.H. Dunn of Quebec: "Tell them frankly that as a matter of majority the evangelical objection will probably not carry and that the only way in which it can be done properly is for the sake of your brethren and the conscience of the brethren and the peace of the church." He hoped that Armitage and Blake would not persist "in their policy of extermination."13 Cody accepted Hague's advice and had "an earnest discussion" with Canon Welch at the General Synod. This prompted a letter from one of the moderate high churchmen, George Forneret of Hamilton, who had been in touch with Welch. Forneret pleaded for a comprehensive hymn book which would satisfy both the high church and evangelical elements. Forneret's letter was significant in indicating the regard in which Cody was held, even by men who were not evangelicals. Even if one makes allowance for the amenities of polite discussion, Forneret's remarks are still impressive: "There is no clergyman in Canada for whose character, work, head and heart I have a greater regard than I have for those of the good Rector of St. Paul's and this makes me have all the more sympathy for the latter in his intellectual and moral difficulty about a few hymns in the proposed Hymnal."1^ The discussion went on into 1909, but Cody did not succeed in effecting the changes his friends desired. Florence wrote to encourage him in September: "I feel for you stranded among those reactionaries down there," and later, "I am glad you did such grand work over the Hymn Book. WJ. Armitage was horrified by the new book and exclaimed, "Its acceptance means the death of the Evangelical Cause in Canada." Blake too disliked the book. In 1910 he was busy organizing some sort of protest, but warned Cody against precipitate action. In the end, the evangelicals decided they could live with the book. N.W. Hoyles wrote to Cody: "My own opinion is strong as to the inexpedience of making any change as things are." Cody appeared to accept this and there the matter rested.15 Cody played a more influential part in the movement toward the adoption of a Canadian prayer book, but he became formally associated with discussions only after they had been in progress for some twelve years. The movement had been initiated in the Huron synod in 1896 by the redoubtable Matthew Wilson. He introduced a motion calling on the General Synod to print "a Prayer Book containing all the

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908175 prayers or other matter framed for the service of the Church of England in Canada."16 The result was the General Synod's proposal to produce not a prayer book but merely an appendix to the English prayer book. After the tortuous history, this idea was finally rejected by the General Synod of 1905. It had too many critics. Dyson Hague, for instance, objected to its English.17 But the friends of the prayer book would not let the matter die. In 1908 the General Synod set up a "Committee on Prayer Book enrichment and Adaptation." This was the turning point. From 1908, the adoption of a Canadian prayer book became practical politics. Cody enters the picture at this point with his appointment as a member of the committee. It was a large and variegated group, including evangelicals (Cody, Armitage, Hague, N.W Hoyles, and Matthew Wilson) and high churchmen (E.A. Welch, Provost Macklem of Trinity College, and Canon EG. Scott). The committee was to occupy much of Cody's attention for the next ten years. While Cody's world for the most part continued to be the Anglican Church, there were signs of the political interests which later came to occupy a greater part of his life. He was on formally cordial terms with J.P. Whitney, the premier of Ontario, and with Charles Moss, the chief justice, and he maintained a friendly relationship with Howard Ferguson, now a Tory back-bencher in the Ontario Legislature. Cody's other contacts were less directly related to Ontario politics. In January 1907 he met George Parkin, the secretary (technically "the organizing representative") of the Rhodes Trust. Parkin had been a leading member of the Imperial Federation group in Canada, a group whose views on the Empire Cody largely shared. At a dinner at George Wrong's in March 1907, Cody met William Wood, the Quebec historian. Among the other guests were B.E. Walker, the Toronto financier, and Edward Kylie, then a rising young man in the history department at the University of Toronto. Cody heard Henri Bourassa, the Quebec nationalist, at the Canadian Club in 1907, and in 1908 in Convocation Hall he heard William Jennings Bryan, the great American free silver advocate. Cody had many religious contacts beyond the confines of the Anglican Church of Canada. In March 1907 he heard General William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, at the Canadian Club. In April he dined at the Grange with a group of university academic and religious leaders, including Maurice Hutton, Nathaniel Burwash (president of Victoria), T.R. O'Meara of Wycliffe, and H.T. Duckworth,

761 Henry John Cody professor of Greek at Trinity. In September he heard the Bishop of London, Winnington-Ingram, at the Canadian Club. Sir Wilfrid Grenfell, the famous Labrador missionary, preached at St. Paul's in 1909. Cody corresponded with John R. Mott, the leader and organizer of the Student Volunteer Movement, and later was a principal speaker at the Student Volunteer Convention organized by Mott in Cleveland. For a time in 1906-1907 Cody had a fair chance of being appointed president of the University of Toronto, in succession to President James Loudon. Presidents at the university were nominated by the board of governors and appointed by the Ontario government. The search committee set up by the board in June 1906 included three of Cody's associates on the royal commission of 1905-1906: B.E. Walker, Joseph Flavelle, and Goldwin Smith. 18 Cody had strong support among the alumni and his name was put forward by John D. Swanson of Kamloops, who emphasized Cody's fine scholastic record at the university and the role he had played in the abolition of hazing. He described Cody as "a young man of honest Canadian stock, who has made his own way unaided to the highest honours in the gift of the University." Swanson further asserted that "his life and influence have been to many University men of his time a very wholesome memory." Howard Ferguson tried to persuade Premier Whitney that Cody should be appointed: "I attended college with Cody and have known him intimately for a number of years. He possesses the brains, culture and executive capacity to do the position great credit." ^ But Whitney demurred. He professed great respect for Cody but thought he would not be "ugly" enough for the post, which, Whitney thought, demanded something of an "intellectual tyrant." The premier no doubt recalled the stormy course of university politics under Loudon and did not want it repeated. The search committee was flooded with recommendations, eightyfive altogether. By January 1907 the committee had narrowed the list to four: Cody; Robert Falconer, the principal of Pine Hill College in Halifax; Michael Sadler, an English educator; and A. Ross Hill, the dean of Teachers' College, University of Missouri. Falconer was strongly supported by J.A. Macdonald, the managing editor of the Globe. Macdonald, a member of the Search Committee, had visited Falconer at Pine Hill in 1905 and later had talked to him at a meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The presidency was offered to Michael Sadler, who declined it in March 1907. Blake was indignant about a leak to the press in February about the negotiations in regard to the presidency. He was even more indignant

The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908177 about the proposal to make public the discussions at the board meeting of April 25. Unable to attend the meeting, he wrote to Walker complaining that private communications were to be made public "in an offensive manner." He continued, "We lose the feature of a calm deliberative assembly and enter the region of advocates for a particular candidate or mode of dealing in advance."20 But Blake's complaints did not affect the course of the negotiations. Falconer, who had been unofficially ranked ahead of Cody on the short list of four, was offered the presidency after the board meeting on April 25. He accepted on June 14. Cody lost out because of Falconer's many qualifications, well described by his biographer, James G. Greenlee. There had been a division of opinion in the university community over whether to appoint a local man or someone outside the province. The outsider won out. According to Cody's friend Bishop White, "recent adjustments in the University set-up made it advisable to seek a President from outside the Province."21

Chapter 10

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909

piscopal elections in the Anglican Church in Canada have often been tense and quietly competitive. They could well be examined by political scientists as well as by church historians. One of the most dramatic and significant was the Toronto election of 1909. Not only did it put two good men, HJ. Cody and Bishop George Thornloe, in apparent opposition to each other, but it crystallized the traditional rivalry between Wycliffe and Trinity and their respective adherents. This rivalry dated back to the days of Strachan and Bethune and had precipitated a struggle in the Toronto Synod of 1879 and led to the election of Arthur Sweatman, a compromise candidate. Sweatman held the balance between the two elements. As a former evangelical from Huron Diocese he leaned backward to avoid the appearance of favouring Wycliffe. Indeed, the Wycliffe people were offended by his coolness, particularly when he failed to appear at a Wycliffe convocation. The delicate balance Sweatman had maintained was brought to an end by his death on January 28, 1909. The election to choose his successor was fixed for February 17. Soon the clergy and others began contemplating the choice of a successor and forming preliminary organizations. The Toronto press counselled peace. The Globe and the World hoped the election would not become a confrontation between

E

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909179

Wycliffe and Trinity.1 One clergyman optimistically declared that the spirit of partyism had diminished in the diocese. It was a vain hope. The "high church" party had already held an organization meeting on February 16. The evangelicals were slower to organize but no less determined. Various candidates were mentioned in the press, including Edward A. Welch, the rector of St. James Cathedral, and J.A. Richardson, the Bishop of Fredericton, but H.J. Cody, the rector of St. Paul's Church, Toronto, and George Thornloe, the Bishop of Algoma, were most frequently mentioned. Of these two, the Canadian Churchman later declared, "it would perhaps be impossible within the Church in Canada to find ... two men of superior piety, intellect, scholarship and capacity for the high and sacred office of Bishop of the foremost diocese in the Dominion."2 Thornloe, a graduate of Bishop's College (1872), had been a prominent member of the Diocese of Quebec prior to his election as Bishop of Algoma in 1896-97. In churchmanship he reflected the views of Bishop G.J. Mountain and Jasper Nicolls, the principal of Bishop's College when Thornloe was a student. Thornloe was a fine man, the saintly type of high churchman evangelicals could respect, but who might not get their vote. W.J. Armitage described Thornloe as "alert and keen and vigilant, lest there be any departure from high ideals and standards," adding that Thornloe had brought to the prayer book committee of General Synod "a rich spiritual experience, and a most courteous presentation of his views."3 Thornloe was 61. This was said by some to be a handicap. T.C.S. Macklem, the provost of Trinity, played an important part in the synod of 1909 as the leader of the pro-Thornloe campaign. He was a man of great determination, a quality he shared with S.H. Blake of the opposite camp. Macklem, a graduate of Upper Canada College and Cambridge University, had been rector of a city church in Toronto prior to his appointment at Trinity. He was vigorous in mobilizing support for Thornloe, particularly among the clergy. Cody was supported by the same group that had fought the battle of evangelicalism in the diocese since the days of Bishop Bethune (1867-79). They had founded Wycliffe, Ridley, and Havergal as well as Sheraton's paper, the Evangelical Churchman. Their ranks had been thinned by death since 1879. Sheraton, Des Barres, Sir Casimir Gzowski, and Clarke Gamble (Gamble had negotiated the episcopal compromise of 1879) were all gone, but there were recent additions, such as W.H. Vance, the rector of the Church of the Ascension in Toronto. Some of the older leaders were still active, notably S.H. Blake

80 / Henry John Cody

and N.W. Hoyles, both of whom could now be regarded as the leaders of the group. Hoyles, another prominent lawyer, was a close friend of Cody's. In a long, fatherly letter, Hoyles urged Cody not to let his life of furious activity wear him out. Among the clerical delegates were many of Cody's friends - T.R. O'Meara, George Wrong, W.H. Vance, and others.4 As the synod was to demonstrate, the evangelicals in the lower house were more effectively led than were the evangelical clergy in the upper house; they were also proportionately more numerous. The election attracted a great deal more interest in the press than Anglican elections ordinarily do. The Globe and the World both favoured Cody. The World took a nationalist line, stressing the fact that Thornloe was English while Cody was native Canadian. One clergyman suggested to the World (February 17) that Thornloe was a compromise candidate, as he came from outside the diocese and was not identified with Wycliffe or Trinity. This view was not widely accepted. The Daily Mail and Empire was more impartial, attempting to be fair to both candidates. On February 16 it reported the remarks of one of Thornloe's friends: "In his [Thornloe's] administration of the Diocese of Algoma he has overcome many difficulties. During his career he has had varied experience in Canada. His executive ability is of a high order." Cody was described as "an eloquent preacher, a ripe scholar, being a professor of Wycliffe College ... In the conduct of his parish he has met with large success." However, some small points in the paper's coverage of the synod indicated a preference for Thornloe. The election was held in St. James' Cathedral. It was still called a cathedral, although St. Alban's, in the process of being built, was officially the diocesan cathedral. Perhaps in view of all the advance publicity the synod had received, the convening circular stated "that during the Balloting there shall be no manifestation of feeling, but that all, by quiet and orderly demeanor, shall pay the deepest respect to the solemnity of the sacred duty in which they are engaged."5 By today's standards there were unusual rules of voting. The clergy voted as individuals whether attached to parishes or not, but the laity voted as parishes. Each parish was entitled to one lay vote even though a parish might be represented by three lay delegates. The rule for lay voting was a follows: "The Scrutineers, having retired, shall record the vote according to the contents of each envelope. If two Representatives vote for 'A' and one for 'B' the vote shall be recorded for 'A.' If the Representatives vote, one for 'A' and another for 'B,' and a third for 'C';

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909 / 81

or if there be only two and they each vote for a different Clergyman, the vote shall be recorded as lost."6 Thus the lay vote, which was always in Cody's favour, appeared much smaller than the clerical vote (177 clerical and 128 lay votes on the first ballot.) The method of voting meant that the public received a distorted impression of the respective votes by the clergy and laity. For instance, after the balloting on the first day, the Mail (February 18) ran a picture of Thornloe on page 1 with a caption announcing that he had been "chosen Bishop of Toronto by a vast plurality of clerical votes." The caption below Cody's picture on page 2 named him the choice of a "working majority of laymen." In the Mail's news story, "Bishop Thornloe had a large majority of the clerical vote and Canon Cody, a substantial, but more narrow majority of the lay vote." The Mail was technically correct but appeared to labour the difference between Thornloe's "vast plurality" and Cody's "working majority." The opening formalities included a speech by Archdeacon J.F. Sweeney as chairman of the synod. As it turned out, Sweeney's position was important because it called him to the attention of the synod, even though he had not been regarded as a serious candidate at the outset. He urged members of the synod to discharge their duties "that so the mantle, fallen from the shoulders of our late beloved Archbishop, may rest upon him whom the Lord of the Churches shall choose, and that under him as our new leader, we may go forth strong in faith, patient in hope, and abounding in charity." He hoped that the new leader would have wisdom and power from on high and a broad vision of the church's claims and that "in these dangerous days of instability and unrest" he would be "steadfast, unmoveable, and always abounding in the work of the Lord."7 Balloting finally began at 4:50 p.m. (on February 17). The results of the first ballot, announced at 8:00 p.m., indicated how difficult the election was to be. Deadlock was already a possibility. There were 177 clerical and 128 lay votes. To be elected, a candidate had to secure 89 clerical and 65 lay votes. Thornloe received 109 clerical and 51 lay votes; Cody, 67 lay but only 60 clerical votes. Four other candidates received one clerical vote each, with Sweeney receiving 4 clerical votes. Thus, Thornloe was elected by the clergy and Cody by the laity. In that day's edition, the Mail and Empire had predicted that in many cases laymen would vote in accordance with their rector's advice. In many instances this was not so. The first ballot, like the following five, was an impressive demonstration of the independence of the laity. By the time of the second ballot, a few tired delegates had gone

821 Henry John Cody

home. The second result was much the same as the first. To be elected, a candidate now required 87 clerical and 62 lay votes. Cody received only 60 clerical but 65 lay votes; Thornloe 108 clerical but only 49 lay votes. Sweeney received 3 clerical and one lay vote. The synod adjourned at 10:30. Still undaunted, both sides determined to persevere. Thornloe's supporters were said to be elated and hopeful of securing the necessary lay votes. Prominent supporters of Cody said it was their duty to stand firm. The pro-Cody delegates held a meeting after the second ballot in the York County Municipal Buildings and "with much fervour" resolved not to cease their support. According to the World, they had no intention of substituting another name for Cody's.8 The second day was exhausting. It began with both sides eager for the fray. Macklem was reported to have declared, "We must stick to it."9 Cody's supporters, encouraged by the meeting of the previous evening, were equally determined, but the results were not encouraging to either side. The next three ballots, held in the morning and afternoon, left the situation unchanged. There were rumours on Friday, the 18th, that Thornloe had sent a telegram to Canon H.O. Tremayne, one of the scrutineers, announcing his withdrawal from the election, but Tremayne formally denied having received such a message. But there had been some truth in the rumours. A telegram had been sent not to Tremayne but to Sweeney as chairman. After the fifth ballot Sweeney read out Thornloe's message. Thornloe had been on a visitation in his diocese and his telegram, sent from Edgington, Ontario, read: "Have just emerged from backwoods and read newspapers. Have neither authorized nor approved what is being done."10 The telegram does Thornloe credit. Obviously he disliked the campaign to elect him and wished to dissociate himself from it, but if he intended this as a withdrawal, he failed in his purpose. Leaders of the Thornloe group were not disconcerted and continued to press for his election. Thornloe had behaved very well. Cody, who was at the synod, behaved equally well. The synod proceeded to the sixth ballot, held on the evening of February 18, but the deadlock continued. Thornloe had lost 14 clerical votes, but the result of the ballot was substantially the same as the preceding five. Thornloe received 98 clerical and 51 lay votes; Cody received 68 lay but only 56 clerical votes. Sweeney had come up to 7 clerical but no lay votes. However, there were signs of a break in the deadlock. People were

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909183

beginning to tire, and many of the rank and file favoured a compromise to end the impasse. Before the voting on the sixth ballot, the chancellor, J.A. Worrell, asked permission to introduce a motion providing for a conference of sixteen members of the synod, headed by Macklem and Hoyles "with a view to suggesting the name of some Clergyman who may receive the number of votes of each order necessary for an election."11 Permission was granted, but "as the adoption of the motion would not have been unanimous" the motion was withdrawn. After the sixth ballot, the exhausted delegates refused any further voting on that day, and the synod adjourned until the next morning, February 19. After the adjournment both groups held meetings, the Trinity group in rooms over the Bank of Commerce and the Cody group in the County Council Chambers on Adelaide Street. Both resolved to pursue Worrell's conference idea. Macklem told the Globe that he favoured a conference and hoped the proposal would again be submitted to the synod.12 The Cody supporters nominated Judge Harding and N.W. Hoyles as their representatives and instructed them to inform Chancellor Worrell that they favoured a conference. At this point the World interjected its own opinion. It disapproved of the conference idea and reported that the country was watching to see if the Anglican Church had heard of the new spirit of Canadianism that Cody presumably represented. The paper asserted that the Anglicans had depended too much on imports from Great Britain.13 Friday, February 19, was the decisive day. In the morning the synod revived the Worrell-Hoyles motion of the previous day "that a conference be held between sixteen members of the Synod, to consist of the Rev. Provost Macklem and Dr. N.W. Hoyles, and of seven members to be nominated by each of them, with a view to suggesting the name of some Clergyman who may receive the number of votes of each order necessary for election." The committee was duly set up. The Cody party was represented by N.W. Hoyles, S.H. Blake, Rev. W.H. Vance, W.H. Hoyle, Rev. C.J. James, Rev. C.H. Marsh, Judge Harding, and Judge Benson. The Thornloe party consisted of Provost Macklem, Chancellor Worrell, Canon Spragge, Canon Ingles, Rev. T.W Powell, D.W. Saunders, L.H. Baldwin, and A.R. Boswell KC. The deliberations of the committee were lengthy. They had been appointed shortly after 10:00 a.m. with the stipulation that the synod should reassemble at 2:00 p.m., but they were not ready to report either at 2:00 p.m. or at 2:30. At 3:30 the synod reassembled. A report in the Mail and Empire (February 20) suggests that Canon Welch and

84/HenryJohn Cody Canon L.N. Tucker were proposed. Neither would have been acceptable to both parties. Welch's churchmanship was much like Thornloe's. Tucker was the secretary of the Missionary Society of the Church in Canada and the organizer of the mission work of the church. He had been seriously considered by the evangelicals of Huron Diocese as a candidate for the bishopric of Huron in 1904, and with Cody's approval. A more obvious middle-of-the-road candidate than Welch or Tucker had to be put forward. The synod reassembled at 3:30 and proceeded to the seventh ballot. The committee had finally agreed to support Archdeacon Sweeney. Sweeney, a native of London, England, had graduated from McGill and had studied at Montreal Diocesan (which tended to be evangelical) but was a B.D and a D.D. of Trinity. He could thus be regarded as having a foot in each camp. He was moderate in churchmanship. As chairman, he had been continuously in the view of the synod. When members began to look around for a compromise candidate, Sweeney was likely to be considered. The recommendations of the joint committee had smooth sailing. Macklem and Hoyles (with Blake) rallied their respective forces in support of Sweeney. Voting on the seventh ballot began shortly after 3:30 and the result was announced at 5:00 p.m. This time a successful candidate needed 88 clerical and 63 lay votes. Sweeney received 153 clerical and 111 lay votes. A few hardy souls still voted for Cody and Thornloe. When the chancellor read the result, members of the synod rose to their feet and in traditional fashion sang the Doxology while Sweeney sat in his place with his face in his hands. At the evening service, announcing his acceptance, he was appropriately modest and gracious, inviting the prayers and help of the synod. After Sweeney's acceptance, Cody, having been called on by Canon Welch, addressed the congregation from the chancel steps. In a fine magnanimous speech, he pledged his loyalty and support to the new bishop. He also sounded a note of Canadianism, confirming some of the remarks made about him in the press. "This glorious old Church," he asserted, "had a history which goes back to the Apostles but it would not do to dwell too much on past history. To hold their own they must Canadianize the Church so that it could grapple with modern problems."14 In concluding, Cody returned to the theme of loyalty to the bishop-elect. A feeling of relief that a decision had finally been reached and a desire to cooperate in supporting the compromise candidate were the first

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909 / 85

reactions to Sweeney's election. Macklem, Hoyles, and Blake all made conciliatory statements to the press. Sermons preached in the Toronto churches reflected the desire of the clergy to minimize the breach between the two groups. Several of the clergy thought that the press had exaggerated the bitterness of the election. Canon Welch of St. James' asserted, "The contest was stubborn, but it was not acrimonious, and I know that I speak not only for myself but for many others when I say it has left no bitter memories behind." The Canadian Churchman minimized the ill feeling but insisted that the theological differences dividing the synod should be taken seriously. It charged the Toronto press with making unfair comments and unjust imputations and with drawing unwarranted inferences.15 Perhaps the coolest critique of the election was made by the Churchman's columnist known as "Spectator." He thought the rivalry between Trinity and Wycliffe had tended to exaggerate the theological differences between the two parties: "The division on ecclesiastical lines was much more pronounced than we had expected at this period of our Church History. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the Cleavage as representing two theological colleges than two schools of thought." The columnist went on to say that Cody and Thornloe were two very good men who were "forced by their well-meaning friends into positions that were altogether too narrow and unrepresentative of the Church for men of their calibre and character." He continued: "Bishop Thornloe's manly telegram on emerging from the wilds of his diocese intimated his resentment at being placed in such a position and from what Spectator knows of Canon Cody he believes him to be too large-minded and large-hearted to be bound by any narrow conception of the Church." It should be noted that Spectator's tendency to minimize the doctrinal differences was coloured by his own desire that Trinity and Wycliffe should merge, a desire with which Cody would never have agreed. Cody received many letters of sympathy after the election. Bishop Knox, the evangelical Bishop of Manchester, regretted that "we are not yet to have your support as one of the episcopate" but reported that his sister, Ellen, the redoubtable principal of Havergal, was glad that Cody had been spared to continue his work at St. Paul's and Wycliffe. Robert Renison, a young disciple of Cody's, congratulated Cody on his showing and concluded cryptically, "There are many obvious deductions from the story of last month."16 Over a year later, W.H. Vance, by this time principal of Latimer College, Vancouver, reported a conversation he had had with Charles

86 / Henry John Cody

Seager, a member of the Trinity group (later to become provost of Trinity before his consecration as Bishop of Ontario). Vance declared, "He told me they never intended or hoped to elect Bishop Thornloe, but merely to tire us out with him and then to elect Welch and he seems to think this explains Welch's later and rather sudden departure [to England]."1? Seager's statement must be examined. There is evidence in the press that at least some of the Trinity group were thinking of Welch's candidature early in the synod. The Mail and Empire (February 18) reported that in the previous evening it was said "that Bishop Thornloe's friends if they find that the laity cannot be brought to accept him, will bring forward Canon Welch's name as one who would be acceptable to the majority of both parties." On February 19, after two days of deadlock, the Mail, in speaking of the conference to choose a compromise candidate, reported that Welch and Tucker had been "prominently mentioned as clergymen likely to be chosen in such a conference." The Mail ran a picture of Welch with the caption "Canon Welch Who May be Chosen to Break the Deadlock." While some of the Trinity group had no doubt discounted Thornloe's chances of success from the outset, one wonders how many of them fought such a sustained and vigorous pro-Thornloe campaign merely as a tactical manoeuvre. Cody gave little indication of the effect the election had on him. His diary for this period was brief, even for Cody. His sermon at a crowded St. Paul's on the Sunday after the election showed his resilience. He expressed thankfulness that he was to remain at St. Paul's and, as reported in the press, "he hoped that the Church would now simply start a fresh chapter of parochial history now that uncertainty as to his remaining was removed, and that the Church's work could be on a larger scale than ever before."18 No doubt the election left scars, but these Cody never showed. He always cooperated with Bishop Sweeney and their relationship was at least nominally cordial. Sweeney was anxious for Cody to become an archdeacon, and Cody did receive such an appointment, as Archdeacon of York, on October 5, 1909. He was installed on November 11 and held the office until 1918. Life went on after the election of 1909. Indeed the following period was one of great achievement for Cody. Yet the election was a turning-point in his life. The "ifs" of history are always frustrating, since one can never be sure of what might have been. One cannot say how many other activities Cody could have combined with his duties as

The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909187

bishop, had he been elected. He was a man of tremendous energy. His ministry at St. Paul's, in many ways the best part of his life, would have ended in 1909 instead of 1932. He would have spent most of his time in the administration of the diocese. It is unlikely that he would have gone on to have a career in politics, at least to the extent that he did. After all, Bishop Strachan, who also participated in the affairs of church and state, was much less active in politics after he became Bishop of Toronto in 1839. Cody would probably not have served as minister of education in 1918-19 or as chairman of the University of Toronto Board of Governors in 1923-32. He might conceivably have become president of U of T in 1932, although there would certainly have been opposition to the appointment of an Anglican bishop.

Chapter 11

The New St. Pauls, 1909-1914

enied the Diocese of Toronto, Cody turned his back on the idea of a bishopric and concentrated on immediate tasks. Florence set the keynote for the next period of Cody's life in a letter to him at this time: "I feel like you that in Wycliffe, and in St. Paul's, is the hope of the future. Let us see what we can do to strengthen them both ... St. Paul's is all right and so is Wycliffe. Keep up your heart. We'll stand by you."1 His sermon on the Sunday after the election (February 21, 1909) on Isaiah 54:2 ("Enlarge the place of thy tent ... lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes") was a vigorous call for expansion of the work and the buildings of St. Paul's. Wycliffe responded to Cody's electoral defeat with an impressive display of support at its convocation on April 23, 1909. A portrait of Cody, commissioned by Wycliffe and painted by Toronto artist Wylie Grier, was unveiled. When Cody rose to respond, he was greeted by a boisterous standing ovation by the Wycliffe students. Cody enjoyed a position of increasing prestige in the Canadian church and indeed throughout the Anglo-Saxon world. Archbishop S.P. Matheson was not merely joking when he described him in 1911 as the "high Priest and Apostle of Evangelicalism."2 Invitations poured in - to preach, to speak at various public functions, to edit books, to accept university presidencies. He accepted many speaking engagements but refused to stand for the presidencies of British Columbia in 1910 and Manitoba in 1912. He had received a very low-key offer from Archbishop Matheson, chancellor of the University of Manitoba.

D

The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914/89 Matheson assured him that if he stood for the presidency he would be assured the unanimous support of the nominating committee, but he made it clear that he would prefer to keep Cody in the church. He was no doubt relieved when Cody declined the invitation. After Cody's sermon of February 21, 1909, "lengthening the cords" became the order of the day. Its principal manifestation was the building of a fine new church, still one of Toronto's landmarks. The initial decision to consider the building of the church was taken by the Finance Committee three days after Cody's sermon. It was a wise decision, as the old St. Paul's had become quite inadequate, despite the extension of 1904. S.H. Blake was enthusiastic and wrote to R. Millichamp in characteristic style. He was surprised and pleased that Cody himself had pledged $1,500, an unexpectedly large sum. He agreed with Cody that in Toronto the existent churches should be enlarged. This was better, said Blake, than "setting up the little shacks through our city neighbourhood which are of parasite growth and which do, to my mind, more harm than good." On March 2 Blake offered $5,000 for the "Cody Cathedral" if four other people would do likewise. He urged that the church should not only raise money for the building fund by direct subscriptions but also issue debentures which friends of the church should be encouraged to purchase. The scheme "must be all well thought out - land - church - Parish House - permanent structure — the best we can obtain to carry on the work."3 The decision to begin construction was taken at an enthusiastic meeting on March 23, 1909. The vestry resolved to build a church "of cathedral dignity" and authorized the wardens to buy an additional lot east of the church. A Building Committee was set up under the chairmanship of R. Millichamp and including S.H. Blake, W.R. Smallpeice, and Cody's close friend George Wrong. The Finance Committee included such well-known men as Hume Blake, G.H. Gooderham and PC. Larkin (later high commissioner to Great Britain). A special committee was set up to finance the building of a new organ. EJ. Lennox, the architect who built the city hall, Casa Loma, and other Toronto landmarks, was employed and the work pressed on. Blake was tireless in encouraging the committee, keeping an eye on the construction, and admonishing the architect. On April 5 he increased his subscription to $10,000, and this time the offer was unconditional. In August, Blake had alarming news. A "place of entertainment" was likely to be built on Bloor Street opposite St. Paul's.

901 Henry John Cody Blake wrote to Mayor Joseph Oliver, urging that the business district not be extended east from Yonge Street to the St. Pauls area.4 (Eventually, the property was secured by the sounder and more dignified Manufacturers Life.) In November, believing Lennox was too slow in completing the plans, Blake claimed that the delay made it more difficult to collect subscriptions. Other members of the building group were equally enthusiastic. Millichamp wrote to Blake on April 6, 1909, predicting that in addition to expanding its buildings, St. Paul's would vastly increase its support of missions: "I trust that we shall both live to see the day when the subscription and annual church surplus will reach the sum of 25,000 per annum, all to be used for missions." Larkin was encouraging about the preliminary sketches: "I think they are magnificent and will prove one of the architectural features of Toronto."5 The building campaign was not without its setbacks. At one point, harassed by lack of funds, the committee considered omitting the transepts from the new church, but when T.G. Blackstock offered to provide a new organ, they were able to go ahead with the whole plan. The cornerstone was laid by Blake on September 24, 1910, and the work proceeded towards completion in 1913. Altogether the original cost was $405,000, a staggering sum at the time. In 1910, with the building program well under way, Cody managed a trip to Britain as a delegate to the famous Edinburgh Conference. Organized by John R. Mott, the conference comprised an impressive number of delegates (1,555) representing many churches. The conference was to consider plans for the concentration of missionary activities throughout the world. The Edinburgh Conference was often regarded as the real beginning of the ecumenical movement. Two contacts Cody made in England illustrate the close link between Anglican evangelicals in Britain and in Canada. Wycliffe in Toronto, in search of a senior professor who would bring prestige to the college, had just appointed Griffith Thomas, a notable scholar and the principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Rev. R.J. Renison had already visited the Thomases at Oxford and had noted with surprise, "They seem to know all about Toronto." Matheson had heard of the appointment and wrote to Cody somewhat ruefully in June 1910: "What a 'find' you have made in Griffith Thomas. How on earth did you get him? I had my eye on him for Warden of St. John's but now greedy Wycliffe has got him. It is fine." Cody went to see Griffith Thomas at Oxford where the Thomases had already begun to prepare for the move

The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914/91 to Toronto. Thomas introduced Cody to another great Oxford evangelical, Canon A.W. Christopher, the rector of St. Aldate's Church, which was in some ways the evangelical centre of Oxford. Christopher afterwards wrote to Cody, warmly commending Griffith Thomas, who had been his curate some years before. Christopher added significantly, "Do all you can to promote prayer for a Pentecostal work of the Holy Spirit in Canada."6 Unfortunately, despite these warm commendations, Griffith Thomas had an unhappy time at Wycliffe. He did not get on well with Principal T.R. O'Meara. If his theology had the same pentecostal strain as that expressed by Christopher, he probably would have been happier elsewhere. There is some evidence that he was a rather rigid Britisher who found it hard to adjust to Canadian ways. Thomas left Wycliffe in 1919 to take up work in the United States. There he helped to found Dallas Theological Seminary. This was a happy and placid period in the Cody family life. Ellen Clarke (Florence's sister) lived with Harry and Florence until her death in 1913. She was a pleasant member of the household and never a burden, partly because she was away so much. Of independent means, she travelled a good deal in the winters when the Codys were at home and was at home when the Codys were away. The Codys enjoyed some of the material progress that was general at least among the better-off members of the congregation. In 1912 they purchased a summer place in Barrie. In 1914 Cody bought a Hudson car, and trips to Barrie became a regular feature of Cody summers from that time on. Cody was not closely involved in politics between 1909 and 1914, although his diaries contain a few political references. On September 21, 1911, Cody voted in the federal election and, not very happily, met Vincent Massey outside the polling booth. Massey was a budding Liberal. In the evening, Cody went downtown to hear the results - to the Codys a glorious victory. Afterwards he wrote letters of congratulation to newly appointed federal Conservative ministers. Thomas White, the Toronto financier who was now minister of finance, responded with becoming modesty. He admitted that he was not a religious man, but added cryptically that the experiences of the last two weeks had made him aware of the religious strain "deep down" in him.7 Life for the Codys revolved around their son, Maurice. Maurice was doing well at the University of Toronto Schools and passed his matriculation in 1913. He attended many functions in Toronto, either

921 Henry John Cody

with Cody or with one of his friends, such as Harold Wilkinson, the son of the rector of nearby St. Peter's Church. In the summer of 1909 Maurice and Florence toured the country together, and they did so again in 1911. In her diary Florence recorded her son's activities with loving care: October 4 [1913], Maurice and his father at Canadian Club to hear Rt. Hon. H.L. Samuel. Oct. 8. Maurice & Harold on house to house church census. Oct. 11. Maurice and I went to Barrie on 8 train - Back on 5:15 train. Oct. 30. Gerald Knight for dinner - Maurice & he at Henry IV... The Codys entertained with some dignity but not ostentatiously. Mostly their guests were clergy who had taken services at St. Paul's, clergy visiting in Toronto, Miss Knox, Barbara Blackstock, Healey Willan, and Wycliffe students. Mrs. Cody had a maid and also an arrangement with two others who could be called into service on special occasions, one as housemaid and cook and the other for waiting on table and for "plain sewing." In the 1920s they had become a bit more grand. A Wycliffe student recalled, "I was invited to dinner after the morning service on Sunday. I was shy and not accustomed to the services of a butler ... I hoped I was not disgracing myself completely."8 The greatest achievement of this period was the production of the first Canadian prayer book. Cody played a prominent part in this achievement. A Winnipeg friend wrote to him in 1912: "That which draws my unbounded admiration and confidence is that the Anglican Church still has that wonderfully beautiful Scripture-filled liturgy and that her ministers faithfully read the Word - a real salvation."9 Cody loved the Anglican liturgy, but he thought it was high time the Canadian church produced a revision that would meet Canadian needs. His rough notes in connection with the task of revision indicate his attitude.10 He thought that the conservative temper of the Canadian clergy and laity made it a good time to produce a Canadian revision of the British prayer book. Although Canada had used the British book until now, he felt that Canadians need not wait for the British to revise

The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914/93 it, that they had enough expertise to undertake the revision themselves. Canadians should not have a "craven fear of being great." But he insisted that there be no doctrinal change. No advantage must be taken of the occasion to introduce doctrinal variations in the present book or in additional services. The British book had been a concordat between Catholic and Protestant elements in the sixteenth-century church. It was still a concordat and should not be destroyed. The only changes that should be made were those that would be in harmony with the existent doctrinal position. So ran Cody's argument. Revisions had to be conservative. He was clear about the changes he did not want. He did not want the word "altar" in the prayer book, nor did he want to cater to high church desires by introducing an alternative communion service. New rubrics must not involve changes in doctrine. But the revisionists could avoid needless repetition, and he recommended that archaic words like "prevent," meaning to direct, be changed. We have already noted the progress toward revision prior to 1911. The method of General Synods was to appoint large, unwieldy prayer book committees. These committees then appointed small subcommittees that really did the work. Thus, in 1909 the subcommittee "for the adaptation, of the Book of Common Prayer," had established the principle that a Canadian edition of the prayer book should be issued. The original motion stated that "no change shall be made in Doctrine, Discipline or Sacraments as put forth in the present Prayer Book." The motion was strengthened by an amendment, moved by Matthew Wilson and Cody that "no addition or change in any portion of the Prayer Book shall be made which would in any way make, or indicate, a change in doctrines or principles of the Church of England in Canada." The Wilson-Cody amendment passed.11 Subsequently the motion was accepted by the Joint Committee of both houses of General Synod on April 26, 1911. Thus the evangelicals and the high church element had combined against the introduction of doctrinal changes. The way was prepared for the achievements of the Prayer Book Committee in 1911-15. The General Synod of September, 1911, in London confirmed the principles passed on to it by the Joint Committee. Cody took the lead in the lower house. He and Dean Crawford proposed the basic motions passed on by the Joint Committee. The Cody-Crawford resolutions again called for a revised prayer book and confirmed the all-important reservation that "no change, in either text or rubric, shall be introduced which will involve or imply a change of doctrine or of fundamental

94 / Henry John Cody

principles." Both resolutions were passed by the lower house.12 The House of Bishops unanimously supported the prayer book proposals. The General Synod then established another unwieldy committee, the General Committee on Revision, consisting of forty-nine members - thirty-one clergy and eighteen laity. This committee set up a number of subcommittees. The most important, the Central Revision SubCommittee, included Cody, WJ. Armitage, Dyson Hague, H.P. Plumptre, and Matthew Wilson, all evangelicals, but also G. AbbottSmith, and Canon EG. Scott.13 The Central Revision Sub-Committee now engaged in the detailed work of prayer book revision. During the next three years it held seven sessions, each lasting from five to eight days, in various cities: Toronto (three sessions), Kingston, Quebec, Ottawa, and St. Catharines. By the spring of 1914, the work was nearing completion. In May of 1914 the General Committee ordered that the draft prayer book be completed by the next General Synod. It was approved by the General Synod of 1915 and finally confirmed by the General Synod of 1921. The discussions on the prayer book and the hymn book greatly increased Cody's stature in the Canadian church. He emerged as a leading evangelical. WJ. Armitage praised his part in the prayer book discussions, describing him as "perhaps the most outstanding figure among the clergy, his commanding intellectual powers always carrying with them respect for his opinions, and his wide and accurate knowledge giving him a well-deserved pre-eminence."14 While this praise came from an ally, it was not undeserved. Cody not only took the lead in establishing the principle of no change in doctrine but was also very effective in the day-to-day discussions of the Central Revision SubCommittee as well as in successive General Synods. He played a significant part in discussions on the prayer for the "Clergy and People." He was successful at the General Synod of 1915 in retaining the definite article in the phrase "God, the giver of all spiritual gifts." While apparently a small point, the omission of "the" would have weakened the reference to God. Cody secured a significant change in punctuation in the Nicene Creed in the Communion Service. He suggested adding a comma after the word "Lord" in the phrase "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of life." Cody did so in order to emphasize the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He also collaborated with Abbott-Smith and Principal C.C. Waller of Huron in writing the Bidding Prayer, which was adopted in a revised form by the General Synod of 1918. And Cody was one of three, with Bishops EJ. Bidwell and David Williams,

The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914195 who wrote the preface to the prayer book, which explained that the General Synod had forbidden "any change in text or rubric which would imply a change of doctrine or principle of the Church of England." It was Bidwell who wrote the first draft, and Cody and Williams collaborated in its revision. The completion of the new church in 1913, followed by the death of Blake in 1914, was in a sense the end of an era at St. Paul's, an era characterized by the old church and the fatherly advice of Blake. The last service in the old church was held on November 23, 1913. Enormous crowds attended the morning and evening services. The new St. Paul's was opened in the presence of the primate, Archbishop S.P. Matheson, on the following Sunday, and Florence diary entry for the event was ecstatic: "Enormous congregation Everything went without a hitch. Glorious service. Evening equally great crowd. Wonderful day."15 Indeed the new church merited the rejoicing. The style was inspired by the early and decorated periods of English architecture. The Gothic lines of both the interior and exterior of the building and all the ornamental detail were carried out with due regard to the magnitude of the church. The interior was designed after the cathedral style, and the general ground plan included cruciform with nave, aisles, transepts, and side aisles that carried the transept widths halfway down the nave. The size of the church may be indicated by a table of comparison: Dimensions of Nave Length Height

St. Paul's Canterbury Cathedral Westminster Abbey Chester Cathedral

Width with Aisles

(ft-)

(ft-)

(ft-)

152 178 166 145

91 80 102 78

76 71 72 75

The grandeur of the building was celebrated in the inscription on the north wall: "The Lord hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad."16 One of the particularly notable features of the church was its organ, a Casavant donated by the Blackstock family. It was formally dedicated on April 29, 1914, with Healey Willan, the new organist, at the console. Florence reported, "Dinner at 6. Opening of organ 8. Great congregation. Reception afterwards."

961 Henry John Cody

S.H. Blake, who had done so much to build the new church, did not live long to enjoy it, but he played his usual role in church affairs almost to the end. As his health declined, he continued to lay stress on his antipathies as well as on his positive beliefs. His letter to Cody on December 7, 1911, written when he was in failing health, summed up his position. He still deplored the influence of the high church party: "Surely we should not stand quietly by without warning at the present moment, in season and out of season the members of our Church of the dangers that surround them from Jesuits in the Church of Rome on the outside and the Mirfield Jesuits from within." He also deplored the worldliness of a large part of the church, the emphasis on moneymaking campaigns and the decline in prayer. Presumably, people should support the Lord's work adequately, but they should not allow the emphasis on money-making to destroy their devotional lives. Blake wanted more prayer meetings in the church. "I suppose that the state of my health causes me now, thank God, to think more of this than ever I did, but the thought of it [the state of the church] distresses me more than I can tell you." Always the Protestant, Blake thought that if the Anglican Church stressed its Protestant position it would draw closer to the other Protestant churches.17 Blake carried on until 1912. His letter of August 30 showed much of his old spirit, but in that year he retired from the Prayer Book Committee, although its work was not yet completed. He died on June 23, 1914. He was 78. At his memorial service, Cody preached on the text 2 Timothy 4:7, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." It was singularly appropriate.

Chapter 12

World War I, 1914-1918

ar came suddenly for the Codys. Life had seemed so peaceful in July of 1914. Florence and Maurice were at the summer home in Barrie and Cody commuted from Toronto. Florence s diary suggests the usual round of peaceful activities, complicated only by a few minor upsets:

W

July 3 [1914]. Maurice at Mrs. Penchen's [a neighbour] for lunch and tennis. July 4. Piano came - out of tune. July 8. Harry came on 10:50 train. Arthur Woodhouse [a friend of Maurice s] for tea. July 14. Up at 6. Maurice off at 7 for 7.45 train [to Toronto] to get motor. [Harry had purchased a new Hudson on June 4.] ... July 15. Maurice and his father having [driving] lessons off and on all day - went for drive in morning. The O'Mearas left at 2.20... July 20. Gathered 2 quarts raspberries. July 28. Self-starter broken! ... July 30. Self-starter out of order again! Sent for electrician. Arrived about 4. Car in order. Went into town. But suddenly there was a more jarring note. On August 2 Florence recorded, "Evening - Mrs. Penchen in with alarming news of war."

981 Henry John Cody

For the Codys the transition from peace to war was gradual. Life went on much as usual. Mrs. Cody and Maurice remained in Barrie for half of September. Maurice, who had written his matriculation examinations in June, began his university career. He and his friend Douglas Ellis went off to the first lecture on September 30. The family continued to enjoy the triumphs of the motor car age. In October they took two of their friends for a drive to the end of Danforth Avenue and back, a distance of twenty-two miles. But the war soon dominated their lives. Cody reacted to the war much as did most of his friends and associates. He believed that Britain, Canada, and their allies were fighting a righteous war. Like many of his compatriots he had a tremendous admiration for Britain, but he always regarded the war as very much Canada's war. He was convinced that Germany was morally wrong in invading Belgium and believed it to be the aggressor. He maintained that the war was a war to defend Christian civilization, that its outbreak was not a detached event; rather it was the product of a movement that had begun with German philosophers such as Nietzsche and had culminated in a German determination to conquer the world.1 George Wrong, who shared many of Cody's opinions, thought Cody had overreacted. In the autumn of 1914, declining to preach at St. Paul's, he explained that "for the moment enough has been said from the pulpit about the causes of the War."2 As the war proceeded, Cody continued to insist that the real menace was "Pan-Germanism." He spoke on such topics as "The AngloGerman Problem — The Real Issue of the Present War" and "PanGermanic Propaganda and the Perils of a Premature Peace." He did not find any clash between his Christian faith and his support of the war effort. Canadians were fighting a righteous war and they could take comfort in their faith in God. God was sovereign and would aid his people. His sermons, particularly in the early part of the war, sent a message of assurance - "Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart" (Psalm 27:14); "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord which made heaven and earth" (Psalm 121:1-2); and "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength" (Isaiah 40:31). Cody's views on the war were the product not only of his Tory and Christian background but also of his immediate environment. He received a stream of letters encouraging him to take a strong stand. A few examples may be given. A postcard from an admirer on December 13, 1914, read, "More power to your tongue and brains! Heard from husband and daughter the stand you took on the war question and am glad you take the stand you do. I don't believe in neutrality — certainly

World War I, 1914-1918/99 not on this question. Give hot shot to every one - try to poke up those who say they are calm." Others were equally ardent. RJ. Christie urged, "Please continue your war sermons," and assured him, "Most of your people are with you, as you can see by the numbers in the church. Only a few can question the wisdom of driving home the real situation and you do not need to be bothered by them."3 Letters from parishioners in the army kept Cody well informed on the war effort. C.H. Mitchell, a staff officer in the First Division, wrote a series of letters describing his experiences at Camp Valcartier and overseas. He crossed the Atlantic with the great armada that carried the first contingent of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) to England: Slowly steaming over the Atlantic at only about 10 knots an hour, that being the speed of the slowest ship. Our fleet consists of 32 transport ships and 7 warships, two of the latter being gigantic super dreadnoughts. We are in three long columns 11/2 miles apart and the ships of each column are 1/2 mile behind each other. It is truly a wonderful sight these great ships, day after day, night after night, always in their same positions, while the war ships ahead and behind and on each side on the horizon are ever watching.4 Later came letters from men who had been in action. N. Smallpeice, writing in 1916, had been wounded and was convalescing in Wales. His battalion, the 35th, had lost "practically every fit man who came over with us." G.B. Archer, in the medical corps, described his grim experiences in a Casualty Clearing Station in France. C.E. Stonehouse, in the 58th Battalion, gratefully acknowledged that Cody's teaching had enabled him to bear up in the ordeal of front-line action. W.A. Reddick, a lieutenant who had been censoring his men's letters home, testified to their scorn for any proposals of a negotiated peace.5 Cody's activities in support of the war effort began not long after the outbreak of hostilities. On August 24 he spoke at Massey Hall for the Patriotic Relief Fund. It was reported in the press that "Archdeacon Cody's speech alone must have impressed every person present with the duty confronting the citizens of a British city in the present fight."6 In September he attended meetings of the Home Guards Association. In November he seconded a resolution at a Massey Hall meeting attended by Premier Hearst and the Hon. Rodolph Lemieux. Also in November, he preached to 3,000 soldiers at the Exhibition Camp.

1001'HenryJohn Cody

In the next four years there followed a long series of Cody addresses: to the troops at Camp Borden; to the Canadian Clubs in Toronto and Trenton; at the Central YMCA in Toronto; at the "British dinner" in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; at the Empire Club and the Rotary Club in Toronto; at the Church of the Epiphany in Washington D.C.; at the Women's Canadian Club in Hamilton - to name only a few. In addition to these speaking activities, Cody performed other wartime services, some in an official or semi-official capacity. In September 1914 he was gazetted to the Voluntary Aid Committee attached to the Second Division. In 1915 he served on a royal commission on unemployment. The commission included Sir John Willison, Professor A.T. Delury of the University of Toronto, and the Roman Catholic archbishop Neil McNeil. In 1915 Cody was made a life-member of the Red Cross. Cody had something of a reputation as a recruiter. In November 1914 he was urged by E.B. Osier to join a group of interested citizens in a recruiting campaign - "more particularly throughout the country districts where apparently there is a great apathy."7 It is not clear whether Cody took up the offer, but later he did engage in recruiting in Canada and, after the Americans came into the war, in the United States, speaking at a recruiting meeting for the Queens Own Rifles in Massey Hall on December 3, 1916, and at an "Allied Recruiting Rally" in Chicago in July 1917. Cody got on well with Sir Sam Hughes, the stormy minister of militia. Before the war Hughes appointed Cody chaplain of the 2nd Battalion of the Queen's Own Rifles, with the rank of hononary lieutenant-colonel. The two men had similar backgrounds: both came from Ontario small towns and had been schoolteachers in their early careers. Their mature views in regard to the Empire and Canada's place in it were similar. Both were imperialists who envisaged Canada taking a leading role in Empire politics and imperial wars. Hughes had more contempt than Cody for British generals, but their views on Canada's role in the war were similar.8 Cody was one of those who remained loyal to Hughes after his dismissal from the Borden government in November 1916, and he preached at his funeral in Lindsay in 1921. St. Paul's during the war was very much a centre of patriotism. In the early stages of the war, the church raised money and purchased food for the Belgians. The ladies of the church knitted comforts for the troops and provided suppers at St. Paul's for troops stationed in Toronto. Many parishioners joined the armed services. By February 1916 the church had contributed 122 officers, 145 NCOs (noncommissioned officers) and men, and 9 nursing sisters. The price was high,

World War I, 1914-19181101 as is testified by the many memorial tablets on the walls of the church. As the war continued, news of casualties came in. Cody's diary is filled with clippings of men killed in active service. Cody wrote letters of sympathy to many of the bereaved. Their answers make sad reading. A heart problem and poor eyesight kept Maurice out of the armed forces. He had completed the first two years of his University course by the spring of 1916. He then served briefly on the musketry staff of his military district and was later attached to the Medical Corps, successively as assistant quartermaster and then as quartermaster and captain. He spent the last half of 1916 in camp at Niagara and the rest of the war (1917-18) with the Base Hospital in Toronto. In 1916 Cody retired as professor at Wycliffe, a decision much regretted by his Wycliffe friends. R.B. McElheran, for example, his protege in Winnipeg, wrote, "I am taking the liberty of writing to say that I feel, what every graduate must feel, that this is the most serious setback received by Wycliffe for a number of years." Cody probably gave up the professorship because of pressure of work. He always carried a heavy load and his friends were fearful he might break down. Hoyles had cautioned him, "Do not dissipate your energies too much, conserve your splendid ability, your eloquence, your influence, so that the fountain may not be prematurely exhausted."9 While the Wycliffe resignation closed one door, it opened another. As a member of the Wycliffe faculty Cody had been ineligible to become a member of the university board of governors. With that obstacle removed, he was appointed to the board in January 1918. He had already taken up the cudgels on behalf of the university in insisting in a speech of November 20, 1916, that the university should not be closed for the duration of the war, as some were advocating. In other ways the pattern of Cody's life did not change much during the war. He still attended functions at Wycliffe, and at the college opening of October 1914 he paid a fine tribute to S.H. Blake. The churchwardens at St. Paul's were concerned about the expansion of the business district into the St. Paul's area, and N.W Hoyles passed on a letter from Miss Knox in regard to additional land purchases for Havergal. Cody had several hilarious letters from his friend and parishioner W.G. MacKendrick, who in 1915 had made a trip to England to look over the situation. He commented that he did not approve much of the services in English cathedrals, that the services at St. Paul's in Toronto were more democratic and the sidesmen better looking.10 Friends and relatives continued to ask Cody to recommend suitable candidates for parish appointments. Archbishop Matheson wanted

1021 Henry John Cody a man of "sound views" for St. Margaret s in Winnipeg. A Mr. Bickle wanted a really good man of moderate views for St. Peter s, Coburg. A western rector wanted a curate - "a worker, a spiritually minded man, sound in the faith; an evangelical of course; a gentleman, with good education one that can read well and preach fairly, physically strong, a Sunday school man, one that loves young people and will be loved by them, preferably a single man, a young man, so long as he gives good promise."11 The Cody family patriarch, "Uncle Merv," died in Embro in December, 1916, at the age of 101. He had lived for most of his life in the Cody family home at "Cody's Corners" just south of Embro. Mervin was Cody's great-uncle, a brother of Cody's grandfather, John. Cody preached his funeral sermon. Cody kept up his interest in politics during the war, a prelude to his becoming provincial minister of education in May 1918. He corresponded with various members of the federal government, including Prime Minister Borden and Sir George Foster, the postmaster-general. He supported the government war savings campaign in January 1917, making a strong appeal from the pulpit. Minster of Finance Sir Thomas White thanked him for his "earnest and able appeal of last Sunday evening in aid of the National savings campaign. It will do much good directly and indirectly by inspiring others of like effort."12 Though prior to 1917 Cody had never intervened publicly in party politics, he took an active part in the conscription election of 1917, strongly supporting the bi-partisan Union government.13 He spoke at Lindsay in December 1917 in support of Hon. Sir Sam Hughes, and like many of his Anglo-Saxon friends, he thought that Quebec had not done its fair share in the war. But Cody was probably more interested in Ontario politics. He took great satisfaction in the Conservative victory in the 1914 election, partly because of his friendship with Howard Ferguson. Cody was also friendly with James L. Hughes, former chief inspector for schools for Ontario (and a brother of Sir Sam Hughes). Cody had a further contact with provincial politics when he helped to pilot a bill of incorporation of Wycliffe. He appeared twice before the Private Bills Committee in support of the bill, which was opposed by Cody's former opponent, Thornloe (now an archbishop) as well as by Bishop Sweeney and a layman, Dyce Saunders. But when the measure was considered by the committee, the opposition failed to appear. Thus the bill was duly passed.

Chapter 13

The Ministry of Education, 1918-1919

odys ' appon i tmentasmn is i terofeducato i nn i 1918markedan important departure in his life. Previously he had had friendly relations with the Conservatives, particularly with Howard Ferguson and members of the Department of Education, such as A.H.U. Colquhoun and John Seath, but these contacts had not made serious demands on his time and energy. A full-time appointment as minister, however, was very different and presented serious problems. No doubt negotiations with Cody had gone on for some time, but the official offer came on May 1, 1918, when Sir William Hearst, the premier, formally offered Cody the position of minister of education.1 His phrasing was shrewd, reflecting his Methodist background as well as his desire to make the sort of appeal that would attract Cody:

C

In short, it is the Minister of Education who decides the policy and directs the course upon which, to a very large extent, depends the intellectual, moral and spiritual, as well as the material welfare of the Province in the future. To no other man is given an equal opportunity for consecrated Christian and patriotic work in moulding the character of the citizenship and determining the future destiny of this Province, as is given to the Minister of Education. Hearst went on to describe the man he wanted for the post:

104 / Henry John Cody

He should be a man of education and broad vision, capable of understanding the needs, alike of a parish school in Northern Ontario, and our great Toronto University ... a man capable of directing our educational system in such a way as to not only give opportunity for training along academic, professional, technical and scientific lines, but in such a way as to build up Character to make our boys become men and our girls women, in short to develop in this thrice favoured land of Ontario a citizenship and civilization higher and nobler than has yet flourished. In short the man must be Cody. Hearst argued that the church should be willing to give up Cody so that he could perform these important services, that the Department of Education was "as nearly a nonpolitical one as it is possible for a Department under our system to be." He assured Cody that a constituency could easily be secured for him. Cody must have agonized over Hearsts invitation. To be sure, to be a minister of the Crown must have had its attractions for Cody with his Tory background. On the other hand, he did not want to desert the people of St. Pauls and the church. In the end it seems to have been his sense of duty to the people of Ontario that decided him, especially as the nation was fighting a desperate war. Cody told the press that he undertook the new work "primarily from a sense of duty, and from the feeling that in these strenuous days everyone is called upon to render all the public service he possibly can."2 Later he told the St. Pauls congregation that he could not refuse to enter public service for the common good. Cody did not think that he was entering partisan politics. He accepted Hearst's claim that the war had produced a degree of unusual cooperation among political partisans. The Toronto Telegram was assured by a close friend of Cody's that "he does not consider that he has gone into politics. He is Minister of Education during the political truce only, and will step out of the Government when political hostilities are resumed."3 The claim that there was a non-partisan spirit in politics could have seemed convincing at the time. After all, the Conservatives and a large part of the Liberal Party had just formed a Union government, although the struggle after its formation was far from non-partisan. Later, after the defeat of the Hearst government in 1919, Cody would demonstrate that his assertions of non-partisanship had not been mere rhetoric. Cody had no desire to remain in the

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191105 Legislature as a mere politician, and although re-elected personally (by acclamation), he resigned his seat at the end of the first session. Having decided to accept Hearst's offer, Cody had next to decide what to do about St. Paul's. He could not continue on a full-time basis, but he was reluctant to break the tie completely. He was soon able to arrange a solution. He announced his appointment as minister on Sunday morning, May 26, telling the congregation, "It was my earnest hope, desire and expectation that in accepting this portfolio I might not have to sever my connection with this beloved church, to which five and twenty years of my life have been devoted." He went on to say that the church's Finance and Advisory Committee had "expressed their strong desire that I should remain as rector." He added, "I accepted thankfully and gladly their judgment." After that, the resolution of the vestry meeting was decisive: "The meeting approves the acceptance of Dr. Cody in the Post of Minister of Education in the Province of Ontario and is of the opinion that it is desirable in the interests of St. Paul's Church that Dr. Cody should still continue as rector and that all necessary arrangements be made accordingly." The principal new arrangement was to appoint an additional clergyman, so that St. Paul's now had three instead of two. Cody's assistants were the Rev. W.E. Taylor, the Rev. G.S. Despard, and the Rev. E.A. Mclntyre. Cody had already begun work as education minister before making the final arrangements with St. Pauls. The Star reported on May 27: "Dr. Cody was one of the first to enter the buildings this morning, wearing a dark grey suit and clerical collar. The new minister ... was at his desk before 9 o'clock." He spent the morning in conference with the premier and, later, with Dr. Colquhoun, his deputy minister.4 Cody was not without doubts about the wisdom of his decision. Florence reported on June 1 in her diary, "Took Harry to office. Called for him again at 12. Afternoon Harry terribly down - Can it have been a mistake?" Cody's depression was partly a result of ill-health. He was somewhat run-down. Florence reported the result of his doctor's appointment on June 2: "Report on whole good. Heart 'tired.'" But there was more to it than that. It was not easy for Cody to avoid feeling guilty for curtailing his ministry at St. Paul's. He would meet parishioners on the street or at the church, and not all of them approved of what he had done. He could not help but wonder whether complaints against him were justified. Cody's appointment received a cordial, non-partisan reception from the Toronto press. The News predicted that his regime would be

1061'HenryJohn Cody

"as progressively revolutionary as that of Great Britain's new Minister of Education, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Fisher." The G/o^and Mailboth praised his selection. The Telegram hoped that his "sincerity and strength" would embellish the educational system with the works of "an able Canadian head and a true British heart." In the Star, a laudatory article by A.R.R. asserted that Cody had a close knowledge of statecraft but was free of shoddy ambition, "a tolerant man in the best sense of the word" and a "gentleman in manner as in mind."5 Letters of congratulation to Cody expressed a mixture of joy and dismay. Sir Edmund Walker, chairman of the university board of governors, thought it was proper for a member of the board to be also minister of education. Archbishop Matheson sent a joking note of congratulation: "Now that Ontario has an Archdeacon as Minister of Education; how would it do for Manitoba to appoint a rural dean as Minister of Agriculture." A.M. Donovan, a Toronto barrister, was glad that the province had a minister of education who knew the Bible.6 There were a few jarring notes. Henri Bourassa, the great French Canadian nationalist, thought the appointment of an Anglican as minister of education might not be viewed with favour by "the other sects." Alfred D. Morine, a Newfoundland lawyer, regretted that the church was losing Cody, although admittedly he would be doing important work. He hoped Cody would not preach while he was in office, partly because he would need all his energy for the new post but also "because when the pulpit is occupied - at least when frequently occupied - by men in politics, public respect for it tends to decrease." He insisted that Cody's division of activities would not be just either to the church or to himself: "The result I fear would be disaster."7 Cody had now to secure a seat in the Legislature. The Tories proceeded to nominate him for the "A" seat in North East Toronto, an admirable choice since Cody lived in the riding as did many of his friends and parishioners. He attended nomination meetings on June 10 and 24, and though Hearst anticipated Cody would be elected by acclamation, this was not to be. William Varley was nominated, as a Soldier-Labour candidate, to oppose him. The Conservatives organized the campaign with reasonable care. People who contributed to the campaign included Alfred Rogers, the coal merchant; E.R. Wood, the financier; Shirley Denison, a lawyer and prominent parishioner at St. Paul's; and Howard Ferguson. They gave an average of $50 a person. For the times it was an extremely inexpensive campaign. Friends contributed $4,316 and Cody's total

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191107 expenses were only $4,248, of which the main items were rent of halls ($745), printing ($1,761), and stationery ($1,742). The Conservatives had analysed their constituency carefully. They had compiled a list of names (classified by ward) which included such friends as Strachan Johnson and Col. A.E. Gooderham in Ward 2, Sir John Willison in Ward 3, and George H. Gooderham and Miss Nordheimer in Ward 4. Cody's part in the campaign was not too onerous. On August 6 he appeared at the Ryrie Building to meet the ward presidents. On August 12 he spoke at a meeting of workers in Ward 4 in the Aura Lee Club Rooms. On August 14 and 15 he and Mark Irish addressed meetings in the Masonic Hall and Playter's Hall. On August 16 and 17 there were visits to committee rooms. Florence had taken an active part in the campaign, driving Cody to and from speaking engagements. On election day, August 19, Cody and Mark Irish toured the wards. All went well, and Cody reported laconically in his diary, "In Evg. returns of 9000+ for self agt. 4000+ for opponent." No doubt Cody had run in a safe seat, but the victory was partly a tribute to his own prestige. In view of the government's record in other by-elections (they had lost both North Perth and South West Toronto in 1916), it was an encouraging performance.8 In the summer of 1918 Cody was invited by the British Ministry of Information to visit England as their guest "for consultation as to soldiers welfare matters." He was also to "study British methods in technical and industrial education and training." However, at this point he felt he couldn't accept because of the upcoming "farcical election." (He thought that Varley had no chance of winning.) Once the election was safely over, he was free to go.9 The visit to England and the western front was one of the great experiences of Cody's career. It gave him a chance to study the Canadian military establishment at first hand, visiting camps, hospitals, Red Cross and YMCA centres (anywhere there were Canadian troops). He also met many prominent men in British political life. Crossing the Atlantic in wartime was in itself an experience. Cody sailed from New York on September 1 in a convoy of twenty-one ships carrying some 50,000 American troops, escorted by a cruiser and two destroyers at the U.S. end and by seven destroyers at the British end. On September 3 there was a submarine scare ("All summoned to stations"). This was followed by a day of zig-zagging manoeuvres. On September 12 they were off the coast of Ireland ("Passed over the

108 / Henry John Cody

grave-yard of many ships"). The convoy was in the Mersey on September 13, where they heard of the sinking of the passenger ship Messonabie. After arriving in London and establishing himself at the Kenilworth Hotel, Cody paid a visit to Mrs. Blackstock and her two daughters, Barbara and Dorothy, at Walmer. He went for a walk along the seashore and reported, "Talk with Barbara re her work at London Hospital - Thinks balance is in favour of human nature - Her desire to be a social worker." On September 21 he was at Canadian headquarters, where he met General Currie. He went on to Cherkeley Court, the home of Lord Beaverbrook, the minister of information. Cody spent the evening with Beaverbrook, who talked of affairs in Russia and his duties as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He kidded Cody about Toronto: "Toronto people all had the same intonation all said 'Tronta all were peculiar."10 Cody continued his tour and reported a visit to Bramshott Camp, where he spoke at a church parade and had a conversation with General Rennie, the new OC (officer commanding), who did not smoke, made unexpected personal inspections of the camp at 8 a.m., and insisted on his officers attending church services. At Epsom, Cody visited a large convalescent camp (4,000 patients - all Canadians) and the Khaki College, where he noted Russians learning English, English soldiers learning French, and French Canadians learning to read and write French. In London, he visited the Canadian Red Cross, the Department of Information (including the War Prisoners' Section), and the Maple Leaf Club. Everywhere Cody went he took note of how Canadian troops fared: their food, facilities for entertainment, and other particulars. As a Canadian cabinet minister Cody rated attendance at a series of ceremonial dinners in London: the Lord Mayor's luncheon for a high Italian Roman Catholic official on September 24 (Cody noted the attendance of Prince Colonna, Lord Bryce, and Lord Lytton and had conversations with Sir Henry Newbolt, the poet, and Sir Sydney Lee); a dinner given by General Smuts, the great South African leader (afterwards Beaverbrook assured Cody that "Smuts [is] played out in England - is too conniving"); and finally a dinner in Cody's honour at the Strand Hotel on September 27, attended by, among others, Beaverbrook, Sir George Perley (Canadian high commissioner), the Bishop of London, and Dean Inge (not one of Cody's favourites). At home Cody's diary entries were brief, usually a list of the main events of the day. When he travelled, his entries included descriptive

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191109 comments, impressions of the people he met, and notes on what was said. In England he noted the growth of a national spirit among Canadian troops, often taking the form of resentment against the British. Cody reported the comment of a wounded officer after an offensive: "Would have gone farther but for the English. Had to guard our flank." In the same passage he stated what was the view of at least some Canadians: that Englishmen will not work as hard as Canadians and are not as ready to change or adapt to new ways. Cody proudly recorded a statement of a guest at General Smuts' dinner: "[Canadians] never failed to reach an objective they set out to reach or to hold a position they had gained." Cody's trip to Europe included a visit to the western front, but this was not recorded in the available part of the diary. We get a glimpse of that tour in the reminiscence of a Winnipeg war veteran who wrote to Cody in 1934, recalling that they had met outside a dressing station dug-out at Passchendaele in France.11 H.A. Bruce, the inspector-general of the Canadian Army Medical Corps overseas, recalled that in 1918, on returning to France, he discovered that "my old friend Canon Cody" was also in the country. He invited Cody to accompany him on his visits to casualty clearing stations. 12 As minister of education Cody had been especially concerned with educational facilities of Canadian troops. Thus he had visited the Khaki College at Epsom and consulted various military officials in London, whose advice was often platitudinous. Cody was especially interested in facilitating the training of prospective teachers for Ontario in the post-war period. He seems to have been afraid that the supply of teachers would be insufficient. After his return to Canada, he announced that the government would pay for the training not only of men who had been teachers-in-training before enlisting but also of those who would enter the teachers' course for the first time. He asserted that this plan would provide Ontario with sufficient male teachers, "the scarcity of whom has been one of the great problems confronting the Department in the last few years."13 Cody's views on education14 reflected the fact that he was not only a professional educator and a Christian but also a person living in a country just emerging from a desperate war against Germany. He thought that education should be broadly based, developing body, mind, spirit, and character. He maintained that the Germans had failed in the development of character, whereas the British had succeeded.

1101 Henry John Cody

Cody's report of 1918 argued that "the German educationalists thought of civilization in terms of intellect, the British in terms of character. Which indeed is the safe and worthier, history has pronounced."15 Blaming German intellectual development for Germany's performance in 1914 had been part of Cody's stock in trade for some time. As we saw in Chapter 12, he had argued in 1914 that the war was a product of German philosophers such as Nietzsche, whose influence had produced a determination to conquer the world. Presumably Cody drew a distinction between Nietzsche et al. and the German educationalist J.F. Herbart, who was popular among professional educators in Canada in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Herbart s dominant message was that education should develop in youth the will to be good and the desire to make sound moral choices.16 In Canada's intellectual climate of 1914—18, it was easy to assume that the Germans had failed to do so and that the British and Canadians had succeeded. In an interview with the Toronto Star just before he took office, Cody asserted "that his basic idea, with regard to education, was that education should mean not only, or, indeed chiefly, the acquisition of knowledge but the upbuilding of character. That, he said, is what mainly differentiates the English system of education, and our own, from that of the Germans."17 He insisted that education in Ontario should develop a capacity for citizenship that would include a knowledge of Canada's British heritage. In his first major policy statement in the Legislature on April 9, 1919, he promised that "moral and patriotic ideas will be cultivated." He believed schools must teach the traditions and practices of democracy: "Democracy must be intelligent. Of all forms of government, democracy can least afford to neglect universal education."18 When Cody talked about democracy, he was talking primarily about "British" democracy.19 He was emphatic that not only Canadians born in Canada should be educated in these political traditions but socalled new Canadians as well. He had mentioned the issue in some of his political sermons long before 1914 and continued to do so. In June 1918 his view was made especially clear in an exchange he had with E.W Hagarty, the principal of Toronto's Harbord Collegiate and a noted critic of Germany. In a speech at his school on September 7, 1914, Hagarty had denounced Germans and Germanism. This initiated a train of events that led to the resignation of Professor Paul Mueller and other German professors at the University of Toronto. After Cody became minister of education, Hagarty wrote to him objecting to the

The Ministry of Education, 1918-1919 /111 presence of "foreigners at Harbord." Cody, however, thought the school should take advantage of their presence. He pointed out that they "should be educated with a definite view to becoming citizens in our Dominion and showing all the benefits that citizenship entails."20 While Cody always stressed the moral and religious aspects of education, he also stressed its practical aspects: "Technical and industrial education is a necessity if a country is to hold its own in world competition.'^! As a Christian clergyman, Cody firmly believed that religious instruction should be an integral part of the educational system. In November 1919, in a letter to a Manitoba friend, he indicated his belief in "the universal desire to have proper emphasis laid on moral and religious instruction as the soundest basis of citizenship."22 His ideas on the subject never changed. As minister, he accomplished comparatively little in the matter of religious instruction, but this was because of political resistance to change and the views of officials in his own department. John Seath, the superintendent of education, described by an unfriendly critic as the "czar" of the provincial system, had written several memoranda on religious and moral instruction in the schools. He regarded the insertion of religious courses in the public schools as impracticable but would accept courses in moral instruction if suitable textbooks could be provided. He suggested various alternative plans for religious instruction, including a two-year course in selected passages in the Old and New Testaments to be taught in the home and also by the clergy. He also suggested the inclusion of a question on the Bible in the paper on literature in the entrance examination. He seemed willing to accept a course in moral instruction with the use of the American Golden Rule series, "provided that selections, British in content and tone, were substituted for those which were too markedly American." On the whole, Seath seemed satisfied with the existing system, which called for the reading of a passage from the Bible and recital of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the school day.23 This was still the practice when Cody took office. None of Seath's alternative plans had been put into effect. Cody accepted Seath's view that it was impracticable to introduce Bible courses into the curriculum. He also went along with the idea of importing moral instruction into the curriculum, particularly through the use of literature. He had in fact edited the Golden Rule series for the department in 1915, no doubt replacing sections "too markedly American."24

1121 Henry John Cody

Cody was not influenced by the theories of John Dewey even though his ideas had already appeared in the Ontario schools. Cody did not talk about progressive education and the child-centred school. He was very much in the idealist tradition, stressing the ability of the teacher to influence the thought and development of the student. Some years later, Rupert C. Lodge described the idealist tradition in words to which Cody would have subscribed: "The idealist regards [the pupil] as essentially a transcendental self, needing assistance in setting himself free from the fetters imposed by acceptance of the physical and social world accepted by realism."25 So much for Cody's general philosophy of education; it remains to describe his program of action. He made it clear at the outset that his main concern as minister would be the public schools. The Mail and Empire reported on July 6, 1918: "He sees clearly ... that the main business of education in the province is concerned with the public school. Not that the secondary and higher education should receive less attention, but that the Public School should receive more." He was rather old-fashioned in his emphasis on what would later be called "the basics" in education. In his important speech of April 8, 1919 in the Legislature, he said there would be time in the educational system for the "fundamentals." These he defined as reading, writing, spelling, ciphering, geography, history, and in the upper forms, manual training and household science.26 As a former teacher, Cody was anxious to encourage Ontario's teachers. He expressed a desire to tour the province, visiting the schools and talking to the teachers. He told the Toronto Star that "he wanted to see the teaching profession dignified. He has long felt that the work of the school-teachers is not so widely appreciated as it should be." But he did not intend to confine himself to mere talk; he hoped to improve the status of the teachers and to raise their pay.27 Having grown up in a country district, Cody was sympathetic to rural teachers and rural schools in general. He had romantic ideas about a little schoolhouse he frequently passed on the way to Barrie. He was anxious to increase the efficiency of rural schools, and in order to do so he favoured the gradual development of consolidated schools. He thought it would be possible "by the use of such reasonable means of transportation as could be devised" to amalgamate two or three rural schools. Cody was also anxious to develop technical schools in the province.28 Cody does not seem to have mentioned in his opening statements what turned out to be his most celebrated reform, the advance of the

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191113 school-leaving age to 16, but this was predicted in general terms in the 1918 report, which asserted, "It is increasingly recognized that, no matter what modifications may be made in the course of study in elementary schools, it is impossible to teach under the age of 14 all that a boy or girl ought to learn for effective citizenship or for life work."29 Cody's views on policy were largely the product of his own background and strong personality, but he was of course influenced by his advisers in the development of his immediate program. There were a number of able men in the department particularly A.H.U. Colquhoun, the deputy minister; F.W. Merchant, the author of the famous Merchant Report of 1912; and John Seath, the chief inspector. Cody got on very well with Colquhoun and the two sometimes conducted joint interviews with people doing business with the department. He was also close to Howard Ferguson, his old friend and his successor as minister of education (following the term of the United Farmers of Ontario). On one perennial issue confronting the government Cody stayed out of trouble. He avoided involvement in the long struggle of FrancoCanadians, dating from the nineteenth century, to establish French as a language of instruction in Ontario schools. The struggle had culminated in 1912 with the publication of the Merchant Report and Regulation 17 by the Ontario Department of Education, confining the use of French as the language of instruction and study to the first two years of the public school course.30 Regulation 17 was subsequently challenged a number of times in the courts (four of the cases reached the Privy Council), but it was always upheld. The most notable was the Ottawa City School case, Board of Trustees of Roman Catholic Separate Schools vs. Mackell and others, in which the Privy Council ruled that Regulation 17 was constitutional and that the French-controlled Ottawa school board must abide by it.31 In 1919 a Franco-Canadian group, pushing again for the use of French in the Ottawa separate schools, sent Cody a petition. He consulted Hearst. The premier adhered rigidly to the policy of Sir James Whitney: "The then Prime Minister took a strong and positive position on the question and emphatically laid down the policy that the Government could not recognize or in any way be a party to a system of racial schools in the Province. The position taken by my predecessor was, in my opinion, a sound and wise one, and the policy he laid down should not be departed from."32 Cody had some sympathy for the French in Canada, viewing their struggle to resist the inroads of other cultures (brought in by new

1141 Henry John Cody Canadians) as similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons. Some years later, in addressing the Public School Men Teachers about the education of new Canadians, Cody asked the question, "Haven't the French and English been the greatest white nations?"33 However, in the case of the 1919 petition, he accepted Hearsts advice. Indeed, his decision was perfectly consistent with the emphasis he had always laid upon English culture. There is some evidence that Cody did not believe that the Roman Catholics were entitled to separate secondary schools in Ontario. In 1922, when W.P.M. Kennedy pointed out that a bill providing for separate schools in Upper Canada had lapsed at the session of the Legislature of the old province of Canada in 1866, Cody wrote at the bottom of Kennedys letter, "Proof positive ag't R.C. right to separate Secondary Schools in Upper Canada."34 Not all of Cody's time was occupied with educational policy and reform. In addition to his quite considerable activities at St. Paul's, he made a great many speeches around the province to teachers' associations, schools, Canadian clubs, and other groups. He listened to deputations from school districts and from other pressure groups. Much of his time was spent in considering memoranda from officials in the department, from school inspectors, and teachers. The most important were from Colquhoun. There were requests from teachers and private citizens for revisions in the curriculum - more courses in agriculture, better instruction in French, history courses that favoured Anglo-Saxons over Roman Catholics. One critic complained that English and Canadian histories gave a prejudicial account of the Anglican Church. The Liberal-Conservative Association wanted to introduce the study of Italian into the High Schools. Another proposal was that in a revised geography course a place be given to the flag of each country "in its true colours, as well as a note on the origin of the design of each flag."35 One woman teacher wrote two scorching letters charging that the public schools "were just so many mills for turning out successful candidates of Departmental Exams." There was "money for pavements, but no equipment for the gymnasium, not a sign of a paper or magazine for their reading, no school rallying point, no traditions, no inspirations." She was eloquent on the subject of the principal, whom she described as poorly qualified, having only an old-fashioned, secondclass certificate, and getting on well with the school board mainly because he was a Presbyterian, as were six of the ten board members. She concluded that the principal did not support his teachers in their demands for higher pay and indeed that his favourite motto was "Do nothing to arouse criticism."36

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191115 Cody brought forward an impressive series of bills in the spring of 1919. The program was prepared in close consultation with Howard Ferguson, who also took a keen interest in Conservative educational policy. Cody was ill in March and Ferguson presented part of Cody's legislative program, including the compulsory school attendance bill. When Cody returned to the Legislature on April 7, he took up the cudgels in expounding and defending his program. He was successful in the Legislature, where his long career as a teacher and public speaker stood him in good stead. He answered a number of questions about the compulsory school attendance bill in an hour-long session on April 7, and on April 8 gave a full-length speech elaborating on his program. He began with an historical account of educational progress in Ontario since the days of Egerton Ryerson, paid a tribute to the reforms of his immediate predecessor, Dr. R.A. Pyne, discussed the general character of his program (moral and patriotic), and promised aid to school libraries in rural areas, higher salaries for rural teachers, and the establishment of special secondary agricultural, commercial, and technical schools. Press accounts of the speech varied from detailed and objective coverage in the Globe to an enthusiastic piece by Dewitt Hutt in the Times under the headline "Premier Showed Wisdom Choosing Hon. Dr. Cody as New Minister." Hutt's article included a vivid glimpse of Cody's effectiveness in the question period: "'Will the Honourable the minister of education explain that Clause of Bill 7?' whereupon Dr. Cody, with a graciousness that is characteristic, elaborated the clause. And I might go even further' and the Minister would 'feed' the 'enemy' with more explanation, leaving nothing unexplained that could contribute to a thorough understanding of bills which are found to have far-reaching effect upon the intellectual life of Ontario."37 Cody's legislation was passed by April 24, when all the acts received royal assent. The most important were those on compulsory attendance in the public and elementary schools. "An Act respecting Compulsory School Attendance" required that "every child between eight and fourteen shall attend schools for the full term during which the school of the section or municipality in which he resides is open each year, unless excused for reasons hereinafter mentioned." There were exemptions for children who were otherwise under efficient instruction, who were ill."38 A second piece of legislation provided for Cody's most celebrated reform. "An Act respecting School Attendance of Adolescents" required that adolescents between fourteen and sixteen years of age must attend

1161 Henry John Cody

the school of the municipality in which they resided. Again there were exemptions for those who were ill, had passed the matriculation of an approved university, or were attending some other educational institution approved by the minister.39 The School Law Amendment Act of 1919 made a number of important additions to the Department of Education Act and to the Public Schools Act. It empowered the minister to establish a College of Education, permitted the employment of people who were not British subjects but had applied for citizenship, and made provision for the levy of school rates in an urban municipality where there was no public school.40 There were three other pieces of legislation: "The Teachers' and Inspectors' Superannuation Act" spelled out the details of the superannuation fund. "An Act respecting Consolidated Schools" set up machinery for their establishment, and a very significant measure was passed "to render Farmers' Wives and Daughters Eligible as Members of School Boards." It was a most promising beginning to Cody's career as reforming minister and made significant progress toward nearly all his principal objectives. Unfortunately, as things turned out, it was not only the first stage of Cody's reforms, but also the last. As we have seen, Cody's main concern as minister of education was with the public schools and the high schools. However, his own interests and the fact that he had just been appointed to the University of Toronto Board of Governors brought him in closer touch with the universities than was normally the case. He was consulted by the universities from time to time, in reference, for instance, to the medical act, which was under discussion in 1919, and the personnel of the regulating body of the professors, the Medical Council. Queen's University wanted its medical grant to remain at the same level, pending government consideration of university grants. An official of the Law Clerks' Office thought that Trinity and Victoria would be dissatisfied with their lack of representation on the Medical Council. The chiropractors were concerned about the proposed medical act, claiming that it would put them out of business.41 Cody kept in fairly close touch with Sir Robert Falconer, the University of Toronto president. On February 6, 1919, when preparing his estimates, he wrote to Falconer to enquire how much funding was required by the University of Toronto for the new medical and engineering buildings. Falconer requested, respectively, $200,000 and

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191117 $350,000. In March, Cody had an exchange with Falconer over an enquiry from the British government as to what concessions (in regard to entrance examinations, fees, and residence accommodation) would be made by the University of Toronto to British ex-service men. The university promised concessions except in regard to fees, which presumably would be covered by a grant from the imperial government to each student. On a less edifying subject, Falconer wrote to Cody in July 1919 about a matriculation examination scandal in one of the Ontario schools. Would the department foot the bill if Falconer employed the Pinkerton Agency to investigate?42 By the autumn of 1919, a provincial election was imminent. The government had been in office until almost the end of its statutory period. The agreement of the provincial Conservatives and Liberals in 1917 not to have an election "until after another session" had run its course. Hearst decided to meet the electors on October 20, and the Legislature was accordingly dissolved on September 23. The government decided to hold a referendum on the liquor question on the same day. Ever since the passage of the Ontario Temperance Act in 1916, implementing Prohibition, the government had been involved in controversy over the issue, and Hearst had promised to hold a referendum as soon as the war was over. The referendum of 1919 consisted of four questions: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Are you in favour of repeal of the Ontario Temperance Act? Are you in favour of the sale of light beer ... through government agencies? Are you in favour of the sale of light beer ... in standard hotels in local municipalities that by majority favour such sales? Are you in favour of the sale of spiritous and malt liquors through government agencies?

Hearst had assured Cody that the Department of Education was "as non-political as can possibly be," but had added that Cody would "assume all the duties" and would be "subject to all the incidents pertaining to a Minister of the Crown." Whether this pertained to election campaigning on Cody's part is not clear, but at any rate he played a vigorous part in the campaign. He spoke not only in his own constituency but in a number of others within a wide radius of Toronto. His talents as an advocate and his great prestige as a sort of Olympian figure were a great asset to the party. He spoke at the Opera House in Renfrew with

1181 Henry John Cody

Sir William Hearst on September 16, and after that his engagements came steadily. Cody was elected by acclamation for his seat (Seat A) in NorthEast Toronto on October 13. This left him free to campaign for other Conservative candidates. He spoke in Waterford, St. Thomas, Aurora, Newmarket, and Cobourg as well as in other parts of Toronto. During the campaign Cody received encouraging letters from friends and admirers, but despite their good wishes the government lost the election. The final tally of seats in the Legislature was Conservative 25, Liberals 29, United Farmers of Ontario 45, and Independent Labour Party 11. The prime minister was defeated in Sault Ste. Marie, losing to a Labour candidate. This catastrophic defeat has been attributed partly to extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the government and partly to the government's own poor performance.43 The rise of the Progressive movement in Canada and the development of Canadian labour (this was the year of the Winnipeg General Strike) had produced protest parties in Ontario - the United Farmers of Ontario and the Independent Labour Party. The Hearst administration had a good record, a housing plan, unemployment bureaus, and educational reform, but the government liquor policy, which had produced the Ontario Temperance Act, had alienated some old-time Tory voters. The government itself was divided over Prohibition (Hearst vs. Ferguson). The division among the Conservatives was reflected in North-East Toronto. Mark Irish, the previous member for Seat B, declined to run in 1919. Joe Thompson, the Conservative candidate, supported the Ontario Temperance Act, but there was an independent Conservative who supported the sale of beer and light wine. Other factors weakened the government: Hearst's quarrel with Sir Adam Beck, the famous czar of Ontario Hydro, and the alienation of Franco-Ontarians as a result of the governments continuing support of Regulation 17. Cody went down to the Albany Club on election night. It must have been a gloomy session. The Cabinet had its final meeting on November 13 and resigned the following day. There were various expressions of regret that Cody was leaving the Ministry of Education. One of the newspapers urged that he retain his old portfolio in the new United Farmers of Ontario government, asserting that he was "not generally regarded as a politician but as an educationist."44

The Ministry of Education, 1918-19191119 This was not so improbable as might be supposed. Cody was well respected by opposition parties of the time. Hartley Dewart, the Liberal leader, asserted that had the Liberals come into office they would have asked Cody to remain as minister of education. Cody got on well with the United Farmers of Ontario government, which appointed him chairman of the Royal Commission on University Finance in 1921. Cody was not invited to join the new government, but had the offer been made, he likely would have declined. While he would have liked to retain his present position, under cabinet government it was impossible. He explained to Inspector John B. Robinson that he could not have accepted the conditions of Premier Drury, who "demands of everyone who enters his Cabinet submission to himself and to his platform. He is really, while inveighing against party, creating a new party and demanding the strictest party allegiance to it." He stated further that "the U.F.O. party, as they have expressed themselves in their organ - 'The Farmers' Sun,' believe that I have been exclusively devoted to University matters and that my desire is to train up a group of Imperialistic jingoes in the schools. In consequence they do not wish to have anything to do with me." Cody took comfort in the conviction that the United Farmers of Ontario would not be long in office. He hoped "that the Province will in the course of a comparatively short time regain its equilibrium and regret what it has recklessly done."45 Cody issued his last official statement as minister of education on November 14.^6 He said good-bye to his staff on the same day, but remained an MLA until the end of the first session of the new Legislature. He was not unduly discouraged. His letter of November 3, 1919, to Dyson Hague expressed his considered judgment on the whole political interlude in his life: "It is a great joy to me to be able to go back to my full parochial work, but I do not in the slightest degree regret the splendid opportunity I had of rendering an educational service to the Province. Religion and education are very closely allied."

Chapter 14

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-1922

fter his release from the Department of Education, Cody went through a period of intense activity involving church, education, and politics. His schedule would have exhausted a lesser man. A diary entry after a teachers' meeting at Port Colborne outlines a not atypical day:

A

Friday, October 13, Left Port Colborne at 8.50 reached Toronto 12.30 met by J.P. Milnes & Bert Applegate to speak at Rotary Club (325 prest) on "Experiences in England" at MSSC Executive [Missionary Society of the Church in Canada] called on Girls' Auxiliary ... called at Wellesley Hosp. to see Mr. James Nicholson. In evening spoke at Women's Liberal-Conservative Club on Canada's International position. Cody was now internationally known, courted by admirers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and even Australia. St. Paul's had become a national church, attended upon occasion by governors general (Devonshire and Byng), lieutenant-governors, and other distinguished visitors such as John Drinkwater, Sir Michael Sadler, and Sir Henry Newbolt. Despite this heavy schedule, Cody remained the conscientious parish priest, preaching the Gospel from Sunday to Sunday.

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-19221121 His domestic and social life continued placidly. Florence presided happily over the home in Toronto and the summer home in Barrie. In summer Cody divided his time between the two establishments, leaving as much time in Barrie as he could manage. The friendship between the Codys and the Blackstocks continued. Maurice did well at the university, graduated in arts in 1921, and then entered Osgoode Hall. Cody's was glad to return to full-time parochial work. Despite the demands of outside commitments, he was soon immersed in the regular round of parochial activities: Sunday service, visits to the Sunday school, ministering to the sick and to the bereaved, officiating at weddings and funerals, welcoming visiting clergy. During this period Cody was also occupied with the installation of memorial windows and tablets in the church, many of them tributes to the men who had died in World War I. The great chancel windows above the communion table were dedicated "To the Greater Glory of God and in Everlasting Remembrance of the Men of St. Paul's Parish who gave their lives in defence of Justice, Liberty and Truth, A.D. 1914—1919." The windows were ceremoniously unveiled by Governor General Lord Byng on November 27, 1921. Cody preached the sermon. On November 25, 1923, Cody himself was honoured by the unveiling of the "Rose Window" in the east transept of the church. It was dedicated "to the Glory of God and in affectionate appreciation of the thirty years of continuous service in the parish, rendered by the Rector."1 The mainspring of the work at St. Paul's continued to be Cody's preaching. Many of his sermons were still devotional. He preached on such texts as "In all their affliction he was afflicted" (Isaiah 63:9); "Though your sins be as scarlet" (Isaiah 1:18); and "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Revelation 3:20).2 There were still political and social strains in his sermons, but he always maintained a Christian perspective. He preached on "Elijah as a Social Rebuilder" (1 Kings 21:20) and "Nehemiah as a Leader in Rebuilding Society." On December 5, 1921, the day before the civic elections, he preached on "The Christian as Citizen." He appealed to citizens to bear their share in government, opposed the organization of political parties on a class basis, and extolled the virtues of patriotism to the point of death in defence of the country. The congregation continued to voice their appreciation and gratitude, verbally and in letters to Cody. Occasional letters arrived from visitors to St. Paul's, who had been attracted by Cody's reputation as a preacher and the downtown accessibility of St. Paul's. Not everybody in

122 / Henry John Cody

the congregation admired Cody's preaching, as was shown by the Healey Willan controversy. For three years (1920-23) Cody and the wardens had been concerned with the problem of finding a suitable organist for St. Pauls. There had been difficulty reconciling the wishes of Cody and the congregation with the artistic proclivities of the organist they had had for some years. Healey Willan had been appointed in 1913. He was a distinguished organist who did justice to the Blackstock organ, and at first Cody and Florence were pleased. In her diary, Florence described a recitals in May 1914 as "fine" and "a delight." Mr. Willan was in high favour in 1914. But by 1921, the relations between him and the Codys had cooled. It was the old story of an organist who favoured an exceptional choir and a rector who preferred a simple service with plenty of congregational singing. Cody believed that there was spiritual power in music. Years later he preached on "Music in Public Worship." His text, 2 Kings 3:15, was based on an incident in the life of Jehoshaphat, an Old Testament king who called for a minstrel when debating a difficult problem. The verse reported, "When the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came upon him." Cody thought that music could inspire but that it must be kept in its appropriate place. The wardens and other members of the congregation supported Cody in his views on church music. A prominent parishioner, E. Alford, wrote to Cody in the middle of the controversy expressing a view widely held in the congregation: "There are values higher than music. For these we stand with you."3 The Willan viewpoint had some support in the church. A member of the congregation who ran a music store wrote sarcastic letters demanding less preaching and better music. He thought that "the organist should be given a free hand and not in anyway interfered with by the clergy." He reported a talk with another member of the congregation who "wished Dr. Cody would not bore him to death with his 40 minute sermons and give us instead more good music."4 By 1921 Willan was exasperated and had begun to contemplate a return to England. Nevertheless, he and Cody each tried to be fair to the other. They had a long conference in September 1921 but failed to resolve their differences. Finally, in October, Willan offering his resignation: "I have realised that for some time past there has been considerable discrepancy in our views upon the general subject of church music, both in selection and performance. This idea has been strength-

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-19221123 ened by our conversation of Sept. 15th and by more recent ones. Under these circumstances I wish to place my resignation in your hands."5 After consulting his wardens, Cody accepted Willan's resignation. When Willan told the choir he was leaving, a soloist, P.G. Riggs, showed his support by dropping out of the choir. Both Cody and Willan professed their personal friendship, despite their differences over policy. The search for a successor began immediately, and in the meantime Dr. T. Alexander Davies, a medical doctor and skilled musician, was appointed on an interim basis. Florence approved - "Dr. Davies at organ gave good satisfaction."6 A great number of possible appointees were considered. One candidate was recommended by the Bishop of Chicago as being (apparently unusual in an organist) "interested, not only in music but in the church and in religion."7 Some candidates protested that St. Paul's was not offering enough money. Cody brought the search to England in the summer of 1922. There he consulted, among others, Sir Hugh Allen, a famous organist, and Dr. Vogt, the principal of the Toronto Conservatory of Music, who was in England at the time. Near the end of his visit, Cody interviewed a most promising candidate, Thomas J. Crawford, the organist of a London church. Crawford had fine credentials, was fairly young at forty-five, and had occupied his present position for twenty years. Cody and Vogt were favourably impressed but they did not act hastily. After returning to Canada, Cody cleared the appointment with his wardens and with St. Paul's legal counsellor. Crawford's appointment took effect in 1923. The Crawfords arrived in Toronto in December 1922 and quickly purchased a house. They stayed with the Codys before moving in, and the two couples got along well. Mrs. Crawford was a violinist and she and Florence played together. The Codys introduced the Crawfords to St. Paul's society. All was sweetness and light. During this period Cody was still being consulted by Anglicans from all parts of Canada and even from Great Britain. Much of his correspondence concerned appointments within the church. The quality of moderation was at a premium. A prominent layman in a western church asked Cody to recommend a rector who could handle a congregation divided over their church's form of worship: "We do not want anyone with decided views, but rather a broad-minded man who will be able to unite the congregation."8 Cody supported his friend RJ. Renison successfully in his Candida-

1241 Henry John Cody

ture for the Church of the Ascension in Hamilton in 1920. In the following year he was successful in his support of Ernest C. Earp, a former curate at St. Paul's, for the rectorship of St. Thomas' Church, St. John's, Newfoundland, and for All Saints', Windsor, in 1922. In the Windsor appointment, Cody was successful despite the opposition of the Bishop of Huron, no mean feat. A warden at All Saints' wrote gratefully, "I was enabled to use your splendid letter recommending Mr. Earp, to full advantage with the majority of our select vestry, so that it was unanimously resolved, in the face of the Bishop s strong opposition to offer the living to Mr. Earp."9 There were other applications to Cody. Bishop G.E. Lloyd consulted him about W.T. Hallam as a candidate for principal of Emmanuel College, Saskatoon. Hallam was appointed. A western bishop who was contemplating resignation asked Cody's advice. Bishop J.A. Richardson of Fredericton, who was unable to attend the General Synod of 1921, wrote to Cody about an impending debate on the prayer book. And so it went on. Occasionally there were flashes of humour in Cody's correspondence. Archbishop Matheson wrote in mock dismay after the installation of a window in St. Paul's: "What a beautiful window that must be and how costly ... But how desperately Ecclesiastical you are becoming. The time is evidently approaching when I shall have to associate you in my mind with Mowbray's High Church publications, Church Times, and Anglo-Catholic processions."10 Cody kept up his political contacts after the Hearst Government had vacated office and even after he resigned from the house on March 3, 1920. There is some evidence that the Conservatives would have liked Cody to stay on. They had assigned him a seat beside Ferguson, the acting leader, apparently as a sort of indication that he was second in command of the parliamentary opposition. 11 No doubt the party regretted his refusal to continue, but they do not seem to have born him any ill will and his relations with Ferguson continued to be cordial. Cody also maintained friendly relations with Hearst and others, and with permanent officials in the Department of Education. There were luncheons and dinners at Government House and dinners back and forth between the Hearsts, the Fergusons, and the Codys, as well as other meetings, both casual and formal. As it turned out, Cody got on quite well with the UFO (United Farmers of Ontario) government of E.G. Drury. He was also more popular with both the other parties than he would be later in the decade, after they were embittered by his part in the elections of 1926

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-19221125

and 1929. In this early period he had a good deal of contact with his successor as minister of education, R.H. Grant. Cody's position as chairman of the Royal Commission on University Finance, 1920-21, gave him a continuing official link with the field of higher education.12 Canadian universities had been maintained under great difficulties during the war. Registration had been at a minimum and some of the buildings had been occupied by the armed forces. Now the universities returned to full-time operation and they were in an expansionist mood. The University of Toronto, anticipating a registration of 4,600, proposed to expand its various faculties and was anxious to develop a well-organized graduate school. According to the university's brief to the commission, "No Ontario youth should be under the necessity of leaving his own province in order to secure the most advanced instruction and the best guidance in graduate work and research which are to be afforded on the continent." Obviously, the ambitious plans of the three universities - Toronto, Queen's, and Western - would require government assistance.13 The royal commission, under Cody's chairmanship, was the government's immediate answer to the problem. The other commissioners, carefully chosen to provide representation of all the interested parties, were Sir John Willison, T.A. Russell, J. Alex Wallace, C.R. Somerville, and A.P. Deroche. Cody and Russell, a Toronto financier, were both members of the University of Toronto Board of Governors. Willison was a Queen's trustee. Wallace, a former livestock breeder from Simcoe, Ontario, and a prominent Progressive, had close ties with the UFO (he was elected as a Progressive to the federal Parliament in 1921). Somerville, a London lawyer, was supposed to represent western Ontario and the University of Western Ontario. Deroche was identified with eastern Ontario. According to its terms of reference, the commission was "(a) to inquire into and report upon a basis for determining the financial obligation of the Province toward the University of Toronto, and the financial aid which the province may give to Queen's University of Kingston and the Western University of London and (b) to recommend such permanent plan of public aid to the said Universities as shall bear a just and reasonable relation to the legislative grants to primary and secondary education."14 Two points may be noted about the terms of reference. As the provincial university, Toronto was in a preferred position. The report asserted, "It is a primary obligation of the Province to make the Provincial University worthy of the intelligence, wealth and resources of the Province."15 The province had "an obligation" to Toronto, while

1261 Henry John Cody it "might give" aid to Queens and Western. Secondly, the government was clearly anxious that the universities should not gain at the expense of the primary and secondary schools. Peter should not be robbed to pay Paul. The commission held a series of meetings between November 1920 and February 1921, the first at the Department of Education. The commission visited the three universities and also heard representatives of the UFO government, the Ontario College of Education, the Workers' Educational Association, and others. On January 20, 1921, there was an all-day session with representatives of the universities over their exact financial requirements. The report was written early in the year and transmitted to the lieutenant-governor on February 10. The next day Cody conferred with Grant, the minister of education. Cody had worked hard on the report, doing far more than merely presiding at meetings. His file on the report contains a number of preparatory drafts in his own handwriting, including a series of initial proposals arguing that primary, secondary, and higher education were part of a "great educational effort" of value to the whole community. Also in Cody's hand was a summary of the statements of the three universities and such other concerned bodies as the Ontario Agricultural College and the Royal Ontario Museum as well as material on the financing of American universities (this latter supported the financial recommendations of the commission). Further, Cody wrote the University College brief. The report proposed that the support to the University of Toronto and to University College recommended by the royal commission of 1906 should be restored to them; that definite annual maintenance grants should be paid to Queen's and Western out of the consolidated revenue; and that grants on capital account for badly needed buildings be given to the universities ($1.5 million for Toronto, $340,000 for Queens, and $800,000 for Western). The recommendations with respect to financial assistance were less controversial than the proposals for the actual sources of such aid. The grant to the University of Toronto was to be financed by a portion of the provincial succession duties (50 percent of the average revenue from succession duties over a three-year period). In addition, if increased revenue were necessary to finance the commission's proposals, the province was asked to consider the levy of a direct tax of one mill on the dollar on the municipally assessed value of moveable property in the province, excluding incomes. This tax was to be earmarked for general educational purposes.

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-19221127 Aid to the universities was not to be unconditional: it was to involve increased government control. For example, permission of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (i.e., the government) would be required for the construction of new buildings in publicly supported universities. The commission also recommended that, in the case of a large increase in university registration and a consequent need of increased staff and buildings, the present first-year university work should be taken over by the collegiates and high schools. (Ferguson pursued this idea on his return to office.) The report received a cool reception from the UFO government. Tax increases were never welcome, least of all to farmers. George Waldron and JJ. Morrison representing the UFO had testified before the commission, advocating greater frugality in government support to universities. Peter Smith, the provincial treasurer, was even more hostile. Premier Drury, while more friendly, went along with this view. The government rejected the grant of succession duties to the University of Toronto and also the 1 percent levy on property. Only the grant on capital for buildings (specifically, a new anatomy building) was given. Queen's and Western got what was recommended (definite annual maintenance grants and the special grants out of capital account for buildings), but Toronto, denied the revenue from succession duties, had to apply annually for amounts over its statutory grant of $500,000.16 Cody, as reported in the Star, was "both surprised and non-plussed"17 by the rejection of the grant from succession duties. No doubt he felt the same way about the governments treatment of the report in general. Cody's chairmanship of the Royal Commission on University Finance had disappointing results, but it was soon to be followed by another important appointment in university affairs. He became chairman of the U ofT Board of Governors on October 30, 1923. The period 1921-23 was particularly notable for the important appointments Cody turned down: the archbishopric of Melbourne and the provostship of Trinity College (Toronto) in 1921 and the post of minister of education in Ontario in 1923. The Melbourne offer came suddenly. On April 4, 1921, Cody received personal letters informing him of his election as Archbishop of Melbourne. The official letter from Archdeacon Hindley of the Diocese of Melbourne arrived the next day, April 5. The press reaction was mixed. The Globe and the Telegram encouraged Cody to accept. The Star and the Mail and Empire wanted him to remain at St. Paul's (the

1281 Henry John Cody

article in the Mail was entitled "Canada Needs Her Best Man").18 After the announcement, many people wrote to Cody urging him to remain at St. Paul's. W.T. Hallam, for one, asserted, "But your friends know - that you have the post of even more than an Archbishop of Canada for your influence is far beyond the borders of our Church."1? There were a few jarring notes from Melbourne. The Globe and the Telegram both published a letter which had appeared in a Melbourne paper: "It is quite natural that right thinking members of the Church of England are up in arms against such an appointment and the same should be cancelled." The attack stemmed from high church sources but it also took the form of a nationalist protest against the appointment of an outsider. The board of electors in Melbourne were sufficiently concerned as to wire Cody on April 21, asking him to ignore criticism "instigated by insignificant section otherwise universal prayer for your acceptance." In spite of these assurances, Cody may well have been warned by this Australian criticism. He probably agreed with the assertion of a Toronto friend, Alex Mullin, "With a mixed congregation you would have nothing but trouble."20 On Sunday, April 24, Cody announced his decision at the morning service at St. Paul's and in a simultaneous press release in Melbourne. After three weeks of "agonizing indecision" his answer was "no." The announcement was greeted with a spontaneous demonstration at St. Paul's. The young George Luxton (later to be Bishop of Huron), among St. Paul's congregation that morning, reported, "With the great congregation, I stood and sang the Doxology with sincere thankfulness."21 Cody explained that while he was not unattracted by the Australian offer (hence his long hesitation), he simply could not face the prospect of such a break in his life. He told the St. Paul's congregation that he had to regard the personal equation, his ability and his age: "I am fifty-two. I have breathed the spirit of Canada since my infancy and the question arose whether I could wisely be transplanted." He recalled that for thirty years he had been ministering to the people of St. Paul's. He could not bear to leave them. The Australian press release stressed his broader involvement in Canadian affairs: "He had decided that, in view of undertakings in which he was already involved and of problems before the Canadian Church and nation, in the solution of which he was profoundly concerned his present duty lay in Canada."22 Before Cody turned down the Melbourne appointment, he

Back to Normal: The Melbourne Offer, 1921-19221129 received another offer, that of the provostship of Trinity College, replacing T.C.S. Macklem. In view of Trinity's role in the 1909 election, this may seem surprising, but there were circumstances which would help to explain it. Trinity was in financial difficulties, and some Trinity men felt that Cody would be able to solve Trinity's financial problems, especially as he had the personal support of people who had a reputation for sacrificial giving. While Cody himself might not have been viewed with complete enthusiasm, the perception that he could bring in the needed financial support made him worth sponsoring. There had already been signs of a rapprochement between Cody and Trinity, including Cody's being awarded an honorary doctor of divinity. Cody's main protagonist at Trinity was J.B. Fotheringham, a rector from Huron Diocese. When I was a boy in St. Mary's, Fotheringham preached for my father, the rector, and stayed at the rectory overnight. I remember him as a bluff, forthright, no-nonsense man. Although a Trinity man, he was a great admirer of Cody's. Cody was approached on April 22, 1921, and rumours of the offer had leaked out by April 23. Some time after April 24, Cody refused the Trinity offer, but his parishioners were still worried lest he should accept. On Sunday, May 8, he reassured the congregation: "I did not decline the Archbishopric of Melbourne with its tremendous responsibilities and opportunities in order that I might forthwith resign the Rectorship of St. Paul's."23 Charles Allen Seager (later to be Bishop of Ontario and then of Huron) was duly elected to the provostship of Trinity. The offer of the provostship was one of the perennial moves toward the union ofWycliffe and Trinity. Since 1900, Trinity had made a number of such overtures. The most promising had occurred in 1910 after E.G. Whitney, a lumber magnate, had offered a large grant to Trinity on condition that Wycliffe and Trinity should unite. Macklem, the Trinity provost, was anxious to bring about union, but the Wycliffe board, especially S.H. Blake, were strongly opposed. They particularly objected to Trinity's proposal to join Wycliffe and the theological part of Trinity (as St. Paul's College) and to have the Wycliffe students take their arts course at Trinity instead of at University College. Cody was one of the Wycliffe delegates who met with a Trinity group in March and July, but nothing seems to have been accomplished except to increase bitterness. A subsequent attempt at union led to a conference ofWycliffe and Trinity representatives (including Cody) at Osgoode Hall on June 21, 1921. This conference was also abortive.

1301 Henry John Cody

Again the proposal for union was more popular at Trinity than at Wycliffe. Cody's outspoken friends were probably not far out of line with the consensus of opinion. W.H. Vance was afraid that Wycliffe would be absorbed: "So long as Trinity adopts any superior attitude I could not discuss the matter with them. I should be prepared to discuss it as equals only." Ellen Knox was even more adamant: "If it could have been a worldwide calamity for you to leave St. Paul's it would be world wide calamity for Wycliffe to leave its free strategic position ... Why not let us stand the jeers and criticism of today by keeping aloof as our Founders stood the jeers and criticism of yesterday."24 Despite his own friendly relations with Trinity, Cody shared the views of his Wycliffe friends. He felt that union could only be accomplished by one institution absorbing the other, and that he was not willing to accept: "It is inevitable that there should be two colleges, owing to the fact of the two great outstanding Schools of Thought in the Church of England."25 He never varied from this position. Cody received another significant invitation in 1921, this one from E.A. Knox, the Bishop of Manchester. Knox had developed a great admiration for Cody, partly as a result of the influence of his sister, Ellen. About to retire in 1921, Bishop Knox was anxious to put forward Cody's name as his successor. He wrote urgently to Cody in July 1921, describing a critical situation in the British church created by the tendency of the evangelical bishops, who were moving in the direction of "inclusion," to subordinate the points of difference between themselves and "advanced Catholics." He was confident that Cody would approach the problem "in the fullest physical and intellectual vigour."26 But Cody declined. He was determined to remain at St. Paul's. One wonders why Cody refused so many bishoprics. Obviously he was not excessively anxious to become a bishop, otherwise he would have accepted one of the early offers, even though there were special reasons for each refusal. He refused to stand for election in Rupert's Land in 1904 because of his friendship with Matheson. In the case of the Huron election (also 1904), S.H. Blake and the St. Paul's advisory committee pressured him not to leave St. Paul's.27 Even in the early period of his ministry, Cody had developed a great affection for St. Paul's. Florence was a thorough Torontonian and would have been even more reluctant than Cody to leave. The only bishopric he might have accepted was denied to him in 1909. By 1921 his ties with St. Paul's were even stronger than they had been in 1904. Neither Melbourne nor Manchester could tempt him to leave.

Chapter 15

Two Journeys, 1922-1923

wo trips made the years 1922 and 1923 special for Cody: a two-month visit to England in 1922 and a journey to Moose Factory in 1923.1 For the most part his life followed its usual round of pastoral duties at St. Paul's and addresses of various sorts. Around this time Cody's father, Elijah, retired as clerk and treasurer in Embro at the age of 79. In February and March of 1922, Cody was involved with the committee of the Missionary Society of the Church in Canada (MSCC) with regard to the purchase of the Morrison house at 604 Jarvis Street. There were farewell parties for P.C. Larkin, one of Cody's parishioners, who had just been appointed Canadian high commissioner to Great Britain. The Codys hosted one dinner for him and Cody spoke at another in his honour at the Ontario Club. Then, on May 31, Cody received a cable from the "Chaplaincy, London," inviting him to preach at the evening service in Westminster Abbey on July 16. This was followed by a cable from the Archbishop of Canterbury, asking him to preach, also at the Abbey, at the consecration of Howard Mowll as Bishop of West China on June 24. Mowll, an old friend of Cody's and a former dean of Wycliffe College, had requested that Cody be asked. Cody hastened to accept both invitations. He was soon receiving letters of congratulation and offers of help. Archbishop S.P. Matheson wrote on May 18, jokingly offering "to tell all I know about you to the Archbishop of Canterbury." He added,

T

132 / Henry John Cody

"You will of course be in clover now that Mr. Larkin is at the helm in London."2 Cody sailed from Montreal on June 10, on the White Star liner Regina ("very crowded"). Arriving in London on June 19, he immediately began a strenuous round of activities which lasted until his departure from England on August 11. He was fairly well known by reputation among the British clergy. Larkin helped to secure his entree into the British religious and political establishment, and his preaching engagements at the Abbey brought him in touch with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, and other British bishops. His first major engagement was the service at the Abbey on June 24, at the consecration of Bishop Howard Mowll and two other bishops. Cody preached on the text "God hath not given us the spirit of fear" (2 Timothy 1:7). He exhorted the bishops to be real spiritual leaders (not merely administrators or committee men). Afterwards, the archbishop congratulated him in moderate terms, assuring him that the sermon did them all good and it was not too long (an unusual compliment for Cody). Other assurances were enthusiastic. Mowll was grateful: "It just made no end of a difference to be walking in the Abbey with you, for you to be preaching the sermon. Everyone was so stirred and uplifted by it." The London Times reporter observed, "What he says is said with grace and eloquence, but it is the message itself which makes the impression."3 Cody's second major sermon was delivered at the Abbey at the evening service on July 16. He preached on the text "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves" (Romans 15:1). Cody was well received by the ecclesiastical establishment, the archbishop was uniformly cordial. Cody stayed at Lambeth for two days and confided his impressions of the archbishop and bishops to his diary. Randall Davidson was "unwaveringly kind remembering and courteous." Bishop E.S. Talbot remembered his visit to Toronto and talked a great deal about Goldwin Smith. The Archbishop of York, Cosmo Gordon Lang, was in a jocular mood. He was impressed that Cody was anxious to hear as many preachers as possible in England and observed, "If a man isn't preaching himself I can't conceive why he should want to hear someone else. One of the joys of heaven will be there won't be any sermons there." For obvious reasons, Cody fervently disliked WR. Inge, the famous dean of St. Paul's: "Dean Inge absent most of the time. Has no interest in Cathedral. During war was strongly pro-German: hates

Two Journeys, 1922-1923/133 Americans and French - was under surveillance during war." Cody was shocked by Inge's sermon at St. Paul's on July 26, when he had asserted that all were guilty of precipitating World War I and there was little difference between Germany and the rest. Cody attended a meeting of the National Assembly of the Church of England on June 28, and heard a debate on the new prayer book then under consideration (it later was rejected by the House of Commons). The difficulties of satisfying the various schools of thought within the church were much in evidence. William Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, asserted that the Church of England required uniformity of practice in its public worship but gave large liberty to the individual preacher. While Cody enjoyed his contacts with the church establishment in general, he was more at home with the evangelicals, especially Bishop E.A. Knox now retired as Bishop of Manchester. Cody had lunch with him and Ellen Knox in July and described him as "wearing short coat of dark grey - very stout - aged 74." Knox asserted that he would not have retired "but for the painful necessity of having to fight the evangelical bishops." He felt that they were wrong in accepting a prayer book that made such great concessions to the Anglo-Catholics. He thought that in accepting an alternative communion service the evangelical bishops had given the case away. Miss Knox was more vigorous in her remarks. While she herself was an evangelical, she regarded the younger evangelical bishops "as risen men, who had not courtesy or manners." In general she thought the church of England was "too set and cold." Cody attended a committee meeting of the Church Missionary Society, a body dominated by evangelicals, on July 12. The society considered the question of higher (biblical) criticism, always a bete noire to the evangelicals. The Bishop of Truro, a moderate, moved a resolution in favour of a conciliatory attitude. Cody's dislike of the resolution is revealed in his description of Truro, who "moves about a great deal nervously - rather 'smart' in his remarks and replies." Knox and Bishop C.M. Chavasse, another noted evangelical, introduced a less conciliatory amendment and this passed. Knox felt that the evangelicals had gained more in the meeting than some were willing to admit: "Our dear conservative friends seem to think that they have not gained all they wanted ... Whereas they have for the first time secured the 'holding with conviction the evangelical interpretation of the XXXIX Articles' as a condition of membership of the staff of C.M.S. [Church Missionary Society]. It is really an enormous gain for them."4

1341 Henry John Cody

In his contacts with British official life, Cody was mainly an interested observer but on one or two occasions an active participant. On the day of his arrival in London, June 19, he saw Raymond Poincare', the president of France, lay a wreath on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier; saw the dignitaries arriving at Lloyd George's luncheon (General Henri-Philippe Pe"tain, Poincare, and members of the British cabinet); attended the Pilgrim Dinner for ex-president W.H. Taft; and heard Taft, Arthur Balfour, and Dean Inge. On June 22 he saw Sir Henry Wilson, a former chief of the Imperial General Staff, unveil a tablet honouring the men of the Great Eastern Railway killed in the war.5 Later in the day he heard that Wilson had been assassinated in front of his house. At the invitation of the Bishop of London, Cody was a chaplain at Wilsons funeral at St. Pauls. The bishop introduced Cody to many of the clergy "as one of the leading men of Canada." On June 24 Cody spoke at one of the platforms in Hyde Park at a "demonstration for the League of Nations." He was in good company. The Archbishop of York and Lord Robert Cecil also spoke. At the Canada Day dinner on June 30, Cody proposed the toast to the chairman, PC. Larkin. Winston Churchill spoke, commenting on the Washington Conference and the Irish situation (at that time in a very critical state). On the latter, Churchill hoped for a happy issue, suggesting in a courteous gesture to his hosts that Ireland might follow the example of Canada. On July 4 Larkin took Cody to lunch at Marlborough House, where he met the famous French Canadian nationalist Henri Bourassa. While Cody disapproved of Bourassas politics, he regarded him as brilliant. During their lunch conversation, Bourassa expressed disillusionment with the probity of politicians. They always had to compromise and accept lower standards. He was caustic about Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whom he had at first supported and then opposed: "If you went to see him to secure some objective he would pull a long face and say 'See Mr. Tarte' or 'Talk it over with Sifton."'6 Cody, along with 5,000 guests, attended the King's garden party on July 21. He noted that the King (George V), who was wearing a grey frock coat and top hat, talked much to Labour members of Parliament. (The Labour Party was gaining ground and was destined to secure office in 1923.) On July 24 Cody heard a House of Commons debate on the removal of an embargo on Canadian cattle. Winston Churchill concluded the debate in an "excellent debating speech good humoured - alert." Cody had already spoken publicly against the embargo.

Two Journeys, 1922-1923/135 Interviewed by the Times on June 21, he had asserted that its removal had been promised and that Canadians felt strongly on the subject. The Telegram reported ecstatically that Cody had cooperated with Larkin and had "filled London, England, with the sound of more than apostolic labours for the withdrawal of the stigma on the good health and good name of Canada's 'beef critters.' "7 While Cody admired the British and was impressed by the pomp and circumstance he encountered, he was still critical. He noted a revival of insularity and an excessive concern with purely domestic problems. There was less concern for the Empire than previously. He also noted in Britain the opinion that the overseas dominions must not be a burden to the homeland and must bear their share of the load. Politics and religion occupied most of Cody's time in England, but he managed a few contacts with other aspects of British culture. He heard a lecture by Bernard Shaw at the Victoria and Albert Museum, on the evolution of the theatre ("a delightful speaker, humorous - historical"). He visited the National and Tate art galleries. He was "rather bored" by J.M. Barries play Dear Brutus* but later went to see his Shall We Join the Ladies. He saw John Galsworthy's Loyalties at the St. Martin's Theatre, and he liked Old Bill, the dramatization of Bruce Bairnsfather's famous cartoon character. Old Bill had come to embody the British Tommy, a popular character. Cody regarded the play as splendid propaganda against Bolshevism and anarchy - "Wot if we'd struck for a shilling a day during a battle." Walking through Hyde Park, Cody encountered another aspect of British life: he watched people riding in Rotten Row. Cody had oldfashioned views about the female sex and wondered whether it was appropriate for women to ride straddling the horse instead of side-saddle: "Is it well for girls and women to minimise the distinctive qualities and characters of their sex?" On July 19 Cody received an exciting communication, a letter from Lord Stamfordham, the King's secretary, inviting him to preach before the King and Queen at Buckingham Palace. Stamfordham's letter was appropriately low-key: "I take the liberty of writing to you to ask whether it would be convenient to you to preach in the King's Private Chapel at Buckingham Palace at the ten o'clock Service on Sunday, 6th August. Such an arrangement would give great satisfaction to their Majesties." Though Cody had intended to sail for Canada before August 6, it was inconceivable that he would decline. He chronicled the great experience in meticulous detail. He made his way to Buckingham Palace

1361 Henry John Cody

through a drizzle of rain. The streets were quiet. He was conducted to the private chapel where Percival, the royal chaplain, garbed in a scarlet cassock, was awaiting him. The choir boys wore scarlet coats with gold braid. In the "downstairs chapel" on one side sat the Gentlemen of the Household and the footmen, also in scarlet. On the other side were the maids and, higher up, the housekeepers. The King and Queen sat in the gallery with the Duke of York and Prince George. Percival took the service, an ordinary Anglican mattins. There were two hymns: "Ten thousand times ten thousand" and, specially printed, "O Love that will not let me go." Cody preached for fifteen minutes (as he could see by the clock in front of the gallery). He pronounced the Benediction from the front of the Holy Table. After the service he went "up-stairs" to see and speak to the King and Queen. The King was genial. He had pleasant recollections of his trip to Toronto in 1901. The Queen recalled that there was fog in Toronto that day. The King commented on the energy and progressiveness and enterprise of Ontario and its loyalty. He asked Cody about American immigration to western Canada (this was also a period of heavy British immigration to the Dominion) and suggested that Cody have a talk with Churchill, the colonial secretary about conditions in the West. The King asked if they had Prohibition in Ontario and referred to conditions in the United States - stills, dope, and so on. He added that there was less drunkenness in England than ever, but more in parts of Scotland. Towards the end of the chat the King directed, "Tell them in Canada how keenly we are interested in Canada's welfare," and thanked Cody for postponing his return to Canada. Cody shook hands with the King and Queen and retired with an official, Commander Cust. They passed through rooms with many pictures of Queen Victoria and full-length portraits of Kaiser Fredrick III and Kaiser William IV. Cody said good-bye to Percival and the great event was over. Cody arrived back from Britain on August 18. The trip had been a wonderful experience, but in retrospect he felt it had merely strengthened attitudes he already possessed. He told the Mail and Empire that he retained "a feeling more ardent than ever in his love and devotion to the Mother Country," but added that "he was even more ardent than ever in his admiration of Canada, and convinced that the Dominion's opportunity for progress and advancement was not surpassed by any part of the British Empire." Miss Knox had expressed the same attitude at the Lord Mayors Banquet on July 5> when she whispered to Cody,

Two Journeys, 1922-1923/137 who was sitting beside her, "I like tremendously being at these things but they leave me Canadian."9 It was this combination of apparently contradictory attitudes which critics of the "imperialists" could not understand and which was so basic to the thinking of Cody, Sir George Parkin, W.L. Grant, D'Alton McCarthy, Alexander McNeill, and others of similar mind. While Cody was enjoying England, Florence was left at home, dividing her time between Toronto and Barrie. She kept busy, although she was probably lonely when she was at the cottage in Barrie and Maurice was in Toronto. Maurice would join her for most weekends in June and July. There was some diversion in visits with her friends in Barrie (the Blackstocks, the Brocks, Mrs. R.B. McElheran, the wife of the archdeacon and a Brock). Florence often sat under the apple tree at the cottage, reading or sewing. She read extensively - Jane Austen, Bailey's Political Thought, and Milton. July 5 was a fairly typical day: "Returned to Barrie by train. Aft'noon sat under apple tree - read paper - played with kittens - wrote to Harry - darned - gathered lettuce and washed it." She was not very well, having trouble with dizzy spells. Her doctor in Toronto advised a strict diet, "no starch nor fattening things." Cody's many absences from home during much of his career suggest the question of whether Florence was neglected. Even when in Toronto, Cody frequently went out for meals and Florence rarely accompanied him. Nevertheless, she did not mope or complain. They kept in close touch when apart, and it was a happy marriage. It had always been assumed that Florence would be at home like most other wives of the period. After all, she had resigned as organist in order to get married. During the years Maurice was growing up she stayed at home for the most part, but she had many resources to keep her occupied. She was active in church work. She had a wide circle of friends, particularly Barbara Blackstock, who was frequently at 603 Jarvis Street. Florence, like many middle-class wives, was also much occupied with domestic tasks, even though she always had help. She preserved fruit, made pickles, sewed, and darned. She was an avid reader and passed on to Cody the fruits of her reading. Maurice was her great companion, taking her on expeditions in the car, spending weekends in Barrie, bringing his young friends, especially Arthur Woodhouse (later professor of English at the University of Toronto), to the home. While Florence was content, she must have been glad of the diversion provided by her trip to the Pacific coast and Alaska. The trip was not the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision. It had been planned

1381 Henry John Cody before Cody left for England. Although she was having dizzy spells, she and Maurice set out for the West on July 27. They travelled west by CPR. In Winnipeg she attended a stimulating service in R.B. McElherans church - "large congregation wonderfully hearty service good sermon." She visited Old St. Andrews and reported ruefully, "saw and stepped in Prairie mud." Her health had improved once she began the trip. At Banff, "Took walk towards Mt. Fairview outlook Extraordinary walk for me." At Lake Agnes "pretty good tramp for me climb of 1200 feet." Florence and Maurice arrived at Vancouver on August 14. Two days later they left on the Alaska boat, bound for Prince Rupert, Juneau, Skagway, and Wrangel. On the return trip Florence recorded nearing Prince Rupert, "Glorious day - wonderful sunset." Back in Victoria on August 27, Florence heard Bishop C.H. Brent, the great American advocate of ecumenism. She was not impressed. "Church filled. Sermon fair." Florence and Maurice returned to the east by CNR. She complained, "very rough going in Fraser Canyon - not much sleep." On the prairies, "saw threshing on big farms. Piles of chaff as high as a house." Later, "Severe storm threatening — sharp lightning — weird sight to see piles of chaff burning all over prairies." On their last day on the train, September 7, she recorded, "glorious sight of Lake Temiskaming at sundown." Harry was there to meet them when the train pulled into Union Station at 7:40 a.m. Cody continued to be close to Howard Ferguson during the period in which the Ontario Conservatives were in opposition. He stood by Ferguson when he was under heavy fire in the timber probe in 1920. Accused of corrupt practices when he was minister of lands and mines, Ferguson defended himself brilliantly, but he was very grateful to Cody for his support. Howard Ferguson was elected leader of the Conservatives in 1920. Before the provincial election of June 25, 1923, he asked Cody to introduce him at a great Conservative rally in Massey Hall "as an old schoolmaster, personal friend and former colleague." Cody did so. The Conservatives were returned to office, displacing Drury s UFO government, and Ferguson began to choose his cabinet. He was anxious that Cody should resume his former position as minister of education. On July 3, 1923, he offered Cody his former post. Cody was thus confronted with a problem. Should he re-enter the field of politics? If he chose to do so, should he again seek temporary leave from some of his duties at St. Pauls, or should he simply resign the rectorship? It did not

Two Journeys, 1922-1923/139 take him long to make the decision to decline. Florence's diary tells the story. July 3. L.D. [long distance] telephone to Harry at 7:30 [a.m.] decided to leave on afternoon train. Into town. Afternoon took Harry to 2:05 train. July 4. Lovely day. Up at 6:45, Maurices birthday. Put in L.D. call. Harry called me first. Decision to be made between Church & State - shall it be absolute break! Spoke to Maurice. Evg, Harry telephoned, had refused Ministry of Education.10 This decision would shape the future course of Cody's life. Had he accepted, he would have gone on to a career in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party. He might well have become premier when Ferguson retired in 1930. In all likelihood he would have left St. Paul's in 1923 and not have become president of the University of Toronto. As it was, he withdrew from politics and pursued careers in the spheres of religion and education. He did not, of course, forsake politics completely. Indeed, he played a controversial part in the elections of 1926 and 1929. His friendship with Ferguson continued unabated. In 1923 Cody undertook a journey very different from that of previous year. In 1922 he had strengthened his ties with the Old World; in 1923 he expanded his knowledge of the New. In September he accompanied Lieutenant-Governor Henry Cockshutt, Ferguson, and some others on an expedition through northern Ontario to Moose Factory. It was an official trip, the lieutenant-governor and premier making a visitation to northern constituencies. Cody went along, presumably because of his friendship with Ferguson, but also because he was good company and his presence would add to the prestige of the expedition. There was an element of truth in Ferguson's humorous remark, "Harry makes me look respectable. I benefit by the leavening of his holiness."11 Cody kept a special diary, carefully recording the details of the trip. In addition to Cockshutt and Ferguson, the group included George Lee, the manager of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railroad; Colonel Alexander Fraser, the lieutenant-governor's aide-de-camp; C.A. Zavitz, an Ontario Agricultural College professor; a Dr. Campbell; and six others (thirteen in all). Starting from Toronto on September 12, 1923, they travelled by train to the northern extremity of the TNO

1401 Henry John Cody

Railway and then by canoe down the Abitibi and Moose rivers. The most exciting part of the journey was by canoe. There were six canoes, and guides and paddlers did the physical labour. The officials merely had to walk over the portages. They found even that sufficiently arduous. After walking from the railway to the hut of a TNO engineer on September 13, Cody reported, "Walk over trail 1/2 mile in dark through pools of water - over logs and steep climb up hill - about all in when we reached Engineer's hut." The next day, they started the canoe and portage part of the trip. Cody recorded, "On trails - wet spots, slippery fallen trees, steep hills take wind out of you." The guides either carried the canoes over portages or ran the rapids. On one occasion Cody's canoe was temporarily stuck on a rock and he had to be transferred to another until his was set free. Cody made frequent comments about the scenery in his diary: "Spruce, tamarack, jack pine, poplar, white birch ... River banks vivid with green trees and poplar turning gold ... River winds - broad, beautiful vistas. The mauve maple leaves turning red - Dark green against light green & yellow." The meals were good. On one evening dinner consisted of duck, celery soup, pork, boiled potatoes, and apricot jam. On another the travellers were treated to a delicious soup made from partridges shot by Dr. Campbell. Cody enjoyed the nights at the campsite. There was good talk. Colonel Alexander Fraser, a well-known author, recalled his experiences on both sides of the Atlantic. He had heard some of Gladstone's speeches in the British election of 1880.12 George Lee gave an amusing account of his visit to Government House. Unable to understand the butler who gave him a choice of drinks, he chose water. Not surprisingly, some of the remarks were distinctly Tory. With reference to the Workman's Compensation Act, someone said, "Workmen are selfish and will not give a square deal to manufacturers and politicians are so frightened of labour vote they will not do fairly by manufacturers." Cody performed a few religious devotions en route, reading prayers, saying grace, and holding the occasional after-supper service. Cody took pains to record glimpses of Ferguson. He noted that the premier had exclaimed that the North Country was "the most beautiful country in the world." At an after-supper service, Ferguson held the flashlight while Cody read the 23rd Psalm and the sixth chapter of Ephesians ("Put on the whole armour of God ..."). Afterwards, while assisting the cook with the flashlight, Ferguson managed to step in the frying pan "and oiled his canvas shoes."

Two Journeys, 1922-1923/141 On Thursday, September 20, the visitors arrived in state at Moose Factory, flying a flag borrowed en route for the occasion. Six canoes with three men in each came out to meet them and fired a salute. Having landed, they were formally received by Mr. Roy, the factor of the James Bay District. There were addresses of welcome to which Cockshutt, Ferguson, and Cody duly replied. Cody recorded that it was "the largest party of white men who ever visited the fort at one time." The Hudson's Bay Company post at Moose Factory had originally been established in 1672-73. It was located on an island in the Moose River, fifteen miles up from James Bay. At the time of Cody's visit, it had a population of about 450. The company buildings consisted of the houses used by the factor, the manager of the post, and the chief accountant; the company storehouse; and a community hall. The houses of other company personnel and of the Native people stretched along the waterfront. The Anglican mission was at the south end of the island on 120 acres donated by the Hudson's Bay Company. It consisted of the Mission House (frame, painted red) housing the residence of the missionary, the Rev. J.T. Griffin, and a boarding school for Native girls. The mission house had been decorated three times with leaves in expectation of the lieutenant-governor's visit. In addition there was a schoolhouse of white-washed frame on the northeast corner of the property, adjoining a small hospital building, at the time unused. Cody divided his attention between the Hudson's Bay post and the mission. He stayed with the missionary and his wife, filling the dual roles of visiting ex-cabinet minister and distinguished Anglican clergyman. It was almost like an Episcopal visitation. His principal public functions were three services, which he took in the Anglican church, St. Thomas'. At the first one, shortly after his arrival, the church was packed, the congregation consisting of the visitors in front, all the company officials (who did not ordinarily attend services), and Native people. At the insistence of the lieutenant-governor, Cody preached, appropriately, from Isaiah 43:1-2: "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee." Cody and the other VIPs attended one uproarious event on the evening of September 20, an Indian dance and dinner in the hall. The guests arrived about nine o'clock while round dancing (comparatively restrained) was in progress. A Cree chief read an address of welcome in Cree and which was translated by a young Metis. ("They have a high thin rather drawling voice.") Cockshutt, Ferguson, and Cody were

1421 Henry John Cody then admitted as honorary chiefs of the Swampy Cree tribe. Later in the visit they were given certificates of membership written on birchbark. More dancing and a feast followed. The evening ended with a war dance - with whoops - at about four o'clock in the morning. Cody spent a good deal of time trying to encourage the Griffins. Griffin, an Irishman, had served some seventeen years in the diocese, the last two at Moose Factory. He had married the matron of the school, Miss Quatrain. Between them they ran the mission and the school. While the school was a boarding school for girls, it also accommodated boys. In 1923 it had thirteen boys and twelve girls. Griffin provided services in Cree, Metis, and English. He was a combination of missionary, school principal, teacher, maintenance man, and farmer. Mrs. Griffin was tied to the school the whole time. After the service on the 20th, the Griffins had to return with their pupils to the school, leaving Cody to go to the subsequent festivities. They felt discouraged and alone. On September 21 Cody accompanied the lieutenant-governor and the premier to the school, where all three addressed the boys and girls. Both Cody and Ferguson admired Griffin. Cody commented, "Mr. G's genuine and whole hearted sacrifice, thought for others, belief in God's word and obedience to his will." Ferguson exclaimed, "By George, a man must be in earnest to stick it out here." Cody undertook to try and get Griffin a public health nurse and a school assistant. He left a sizeable gift of money for Griffin's personal use. The whole experience gave Cody a greater appreciation of the difficulties of mission work among the Indians. He commented that the Indian work was "so vast in distance but so limited in numbers." He had an increased awareness of the shortages of staff, particularly of people fluent in Cree. While Cody was at Moose Factory, Griffin was visited by an Indian delegation requesting an assistant fluent in the Indian language, "a request practically impossible to fulfil." On September 26 the seaplanes arrived and the party travelled to Toronto, by plane, motorboat, wagon (a "democrat"), and private railway car.

Chapter 16

Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926

he years 1924-26 were among the happiest in Cody's life. As a preacher, he went from strength to strength. Two university students who attended service at St. Paul's in this period have vivid memories of Cody. P.A. Rickard recalled, "In these days when public address systems are common it seems remarkable that with only the parabolic reflector over his head to help him he made his voice heard distinctly in most parts of the church. The content of his sermons was well organized and he expressed his thoughts clearly. I remember one occasion when I wrote down the main points in my room later without having taken any notes."1 The other student was the author. I can still recall Cody's clear, well-organized, hard-hitting style, even some of the details of his sermons. A few examples of Cody's fine devotional and expository sermons may be cited. The sermon on December 12, 1926, was a carefully reasoned and scriptural account of the career of John the Baptist. Cody described him as a mighty man who denounced evil but did not learn the winsomeness of love. Cody urged his hearers to scourge evil but also to be loving members of Christ's Kingdom. 2 The sermon on Matthew 24:44 ("Be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh") was an orthodox discourse in which Cody made clear his own belief in the Second Coming and counselled preparedness.3 Cody preached two significant sermons on the creation: February 17, 1924, Genesis 1:16 ("He made the stars also") and February 8,

T

144 / Henry John Cody

1925, Genesis 2:1 ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"). Cody described the latter as "a vision of creation." Florence, who scarcely ever made any comment in her diary about the quality of Cody's sermons, described the former as "very fine."4 The second sermon (Genesis 2:1) was an eloquent exposition of Cody's views on the Genesis account.5 Cody insisted that the object of the early chapters was to give an account of our universe that would be intelligible both to primitive people and to the most cultured. The Bible, he said, was not a scientific textbook. Its purpose was not to answer the questions that science can answer. "God has his Book of Science. It is written in the large and glorious and flaming chariots of the Heavens, inscribed in the broken script of the strata of the earth, recorded in the works and studies of man. We get the astronomer and geologist and biologist to spell out the pages of that Book of Creation." The purpose of the Bible, said Cody, was to write about "the great facts of creation, of man's relation to God, of sin, of problems of life." Cody obviously had none of the difficulties that plagued many of his friends.6 It was a clever and comprehensive statement. It would have been reassuring to orthodox Christians in its insistence that the Genesis account makes clear that God was the creator of the universe and that the account was really about God's nature and what he does. The sermon strongly resisted the view that "creation" was the result of an impersonal force, a view being put forward by the positivists. On the other hand, Cody's sermon left the way open for a belief in theistic evolution and would therefore have given comfort to at least some of the scientists, but he did not push his views on the "how" of creation to any specific conclusions. Some of Cody's sermons were occasioned by political situations, many of them in May of each year: church parades, patriotic anniversaries, visits from the governor general. A good example would be May 17, 1925. In the morning Cody had the annual church parade of the St. Andrew's College cadets. At three o'clock there was the annual church service of the Order of the Eastern Star. Cody preached on "Esther, the Queen." In the evening the United Empire Loyalists were in attendance and Cody preached on Genesis 12:2, "I will make of thee a great nation." On May 24, 1925, the Queen's birthday, Cody preached at his morning service, in the presence of Lord Byng, the governor general, and Lady Byng, on "The special meaning of Empire."7 In the afternoon Cody preached at the garrison parade service in the Arena, again in the presence of Lord Byng.

Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926 /145 Cody's sermon on "Courage" had political implications for him. It was mostly an analysis of "courage," what it is and what it is not, with many examples - Leonidas, Pericles, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr. Johnson. Cody tied in courage with Christianity: it comes from God and especially from the "hill of Calvary." The sermon was delivered on November 28, 1926, three days before the Ontario election. Prohibition was an issue, and Cody was advocating a policy that must have been unpopular with a large part of his evangelical constituency. He may well have applied the need for courage to himself. Cody was an influential chairman of the University of Toronto Board of Governors. He got on well with President Falconer, who frequently consulted him about appointments and matters of policy. Even more important to the university was Cody's influence with Howard Ferguson. The prime minister had shown his high opinion of Cody by offering him the Ministry of Education and later in the same year, 1923, by appointing him chairman of the university board. It has been suggested that many decisions were made during private luncheons attended by Ferguson, Cody, and other board members, such as Sir Joseph Flavelle and T.A. Russell.8 Falconer and other members of the board frequently took advantage of Cody's relationship with Ferguson. On one occasion Falconer sent Cody a draft plan for the creation of the Faculty of Dentistry, asking him to look it over and "sound out the Premier as to whether in general he would approve of the arrangement subject of course to modification." When the board was concerned about a Ferguson speech, they sent Cody and two others to consult with the premier about "university matters." In 1926, after the board had considered the university estimates, Cody, with Falconer and Russell, interviewed the premier.9 Russell sometimes enlisted Cody's help directly. In July 1926 he sent Cody a copy of a letter he had written to Ferguson describing a complicated financial scheme involving the university and the Toronto General Hospital. Russell pressed Cody: "I hope you may be able to see him and get him to put through the transaction which certainly would be of much value to the whole situation."10 Some people believed that Ferguson was running the university, a view he sometimes appeared to share. He once declared, probably in jest, "I am the boss of the Toronto University."11 However, there were distinct limitations on his control. He complained when Toronto professors expressed unacceptable (to him) political views in public or grumbled at the extent of provincial grants to the university.

1461 Henry John Cody

Occasionally he tried to intervene on behalf of individual students who claimed to have been treated unfairly. Yet there were no major cutbacks in university grants, no staff dismissals, and no evidence of strong-arm methods on behalf of individual students. Ferguson's attempt in 1926-27 to have first-year university work transferred to the high schools and collegiates produced a storm of opposition in the universities and nothing came of the proposal. This proposal had been contained in Cody's 1921 Report of the Royal Commission on University Finances (pp. 20-22). Ferguson may have derived it from Cody or vice versa. There were other aspects of Cody's involvement in university affairs. He received many letters from people who wanted something and felt that Cody could approach the top. A distinguished professor of economics complained about the ventilation in one of his classrooms. A Sudbury school official wanted the matriculation requirements at the University of Toronto changed so that students from Sudbury Technical School could enter the Faculty of Applied Science instead of going to Queen's. A professor of law, who had secured some funding from outside the university for a research trip to England, wanted additional assistance from U of T. Minutes of the board of governors, often cryptic and sometimes dull, indicate some of its concerns. In November 1925 the board prohibited hazing at the university. In 1926 there was an alarming rumour that the floor of the University College Women's Union was unsound ("a perceptible swaying of the building had been noticed on the occasion of a recent dance"). After investigating the matter, the superintendent of buildings conveyed the assurance of a structural engineering firm "that the building is structurally sound in every way and that it is perfectly safe for dances or meetings of any kind." In April 1926 the authorities of Victoria and St. Michael's colleges urged that the university should not sell any of its land located east of Queens Park. Both colleges built extensively later in this area. Trinity and Wycliffe made a request for the use of Convocation Hall for an address by a visiting Anglican dignitary, the Bishop of London. Although the board had a rule that the hall should be used only for meetings of "an academic or educational character," the request was granted on the motion of Vincent Massey. In January 1924 Cody lost one of the principal figures in his educational world with the death of Ellen Knox, the headmistress of Havergal. She had been associated with Cody and St. Paul's for over thirty years. Fiercely loyal to Cody, she was in complete agreement with

Cody at Geneva, 1924-19261147 his theology and with his position in the church. She was a keen supporter of Wycliffe and had been closely associated with S.H. Blake, N.W. Hoyles, and the other Anglicans who had founded Havergal and had given it ongoing support.12 Under Ellen Knox's direction, Havergal had expanded (from 30 students to over 600) but had preserved its Christian character. An article she wrote not long before her death indicated her Christian educational philosophy: "It has been truly said that it is anything but easy to be outwardly much like our neighbours, and yet follow an ideal which permeates the whole of life and stretches out into the beyond. It is anything but easy to cut out the frivolous, and tainted, and yet at the same time keep all the honest wit and good-humour. It is anything but easy to live selfless [lives] according to the will of God, instead of regulating our lives according to the whims and fashions of our neighbours. But after all that is what we women are here for."13 Miss Knox had been ill for only a few days. She had had what was thought to be a mild attack of influenza but pneumonia set in. Cody visited her a number of times before her death on January 24. He preached the sermon at her funeral. After considerable deliberation, the Havergal board appointed Miss Marion Woods to succeed Miss Knox. Life for the Codys went quietly on, but was not without minor excitements. There is a cryptic reference in Florence's diary entry of June 1924 to the theft and subsequent retrieval of Maurice's car. History does not record its condition, but he bought a new one in March 1925. A fairly serious fire at the Cody's Barrie property, also in June 1924, destroyed the barn, the ice and wood houses, and the caretaker's car. Later in 1924 the Barrie house was broken into and a number of articles stolen. Florence had the usual problems in securing domestic help. Considering the amount of entertaining they did, the Codys were not excessive in their establishment. Florence ordinarily employed a cook and a housemaid. A handyman was also available for maintenance purposes. Additional help could be called in on special occasions, such as the dinner for Bishop A.C. Headlam in 1924. When Florence went to Barrie, she took a maid with her, leaving the cook at 603 Jarvis Street. A caretaker in Barrie did odd jobs and watched the house when the Codys were absent. It was difficult to keep cooks and maids for any length of time. Florence had four cooks between April 1924 and January 1925. One housemaid started her job at twelve-thirty noon on

1481 Henry John Cody

May 6, 1924, and left "during lunch." In Toronto, Florence had to compete with more attractive sources of employment, and in Barrie it was even more difficult. The maids were simply bored. In the summer of 1924 Florence tried to keep a maid amused by driving her around the countryside and into Barrie. The maid lasted until November. Maurice, who was most attentive to his parents, made life pleasant for them. Florence recorded his activities in her diary with loving pride. In March Maurice spoke at a father and son banquet at St. Barnabas' Church in Toronto and his Osgoode debating team defeated McMaster and won the Kerr Shield ("McMaster poor style - poor material. Osgoode much better"). In June he was elected as a delegate to the Anglican General Synod. In September Florence helped him furnish his new office; in the same month Harry and Maurice went to the General Synod in London, Ontario. In November they attended a football game together (Queens 14, Toronto 13). And so it went. The Codys took in the plays, movies, and concerts in Toronto. Usually Maurice and Florence went together. Occasionally Harry accompanied Florence. On at least one occasion she went to a play alone. Florence recorded these events, with critical comments: January 2, 1925, Afternoon with Harry to see "Hunchback of Notre Dame" no more movies of that type for me. January 7, Paderewski, Absolutely satisfying. March 27, Maurice and I to hear Sophie Breslau — glorious contralto. Nov. 11, Massey Hall, Edward Johnson. Pianist brilliant. Programme not very appealing. Jan. 21, 1925, Maurice and I to see Cyril Maude in "Aren't We All." Very good. Jan. 31, Evening to Convocation Hall to hear Mrs. Philip Snowdon on Russia - most exciting - splendid address - wonderful voice - Heckling by "Reds." Feb. 10, Maurice and I at "Romantic Age" (A.A. Milne) Very Good.

Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926/149 March 14, Afternoon 2:15, Philadelphia Orchestra - great house, great performance. Evening, Mendelssohn Choir and Philadelphia Orchestra - Great house again - Orchestra gorgeous. March 20, Evening to Comedy Theatre by myself to see "The Dover Road" - extremely funny. Entertaining visiting dignitaries, mostly British, was an important part of the Codys' life. Cody was involved in the entertainment of British scientists (A.S. Eddington, Sir Ernest Rutherford, Sir David Bruce) during meetings of the British Association at the university in August 1924. Cody heard H.A.L. Fisher, the famous Oxford historian, speak at the York Club; he attended Vincent Massey's dinner in Fisher's honour and arranged for him to speak at the Sunday evening service at St. Paul's. (Scarcely an orthodox Christian, Fisher spoke on the ethics of health.) Immediately after Fisher's visit, the Codys did the honours for A.C. Headlam, the Bishop of Gloucester and a famous theologian. In Toronto for eight days to give a series of lectures, Headlam stayed with the Codys, who gave two dinners in his honour and a reception for the city clergy. Cody managed an informal lunch with Headlam at Hunt's Restaurant and two informal chats, one lasting two hours, at 603 Jarvis Street. Florence found Headlam "friendly absent minded easy to please." It was a notable visit, and in the middle of it all the Codys attended a dinner at Government House in honour of the Prince of Wales. Cody made a considerable number of trips in 1924-25. There were speaking tours to western Canada, the Maritimes, and New York City as well as one-day engagements outside Toronto. His trip to England, June 11-August 1, 1925, under the auspices of Major Ney and the National Council of Education, did not include any major speaking engagements, but it again brought him in touch with many echelons of British life, religious and secular. On this trip, as in 1922, Cody spent much of his time with Anglican and other clergy. He attended St. Barnabas, Chester, on June 21 and reported that the service was like St. Paul's in Toronto but that the sidesmen were poorly organized. On July 11-13, at Canterbury, he met various dignitaries including a Canon Gardiner, rather a joker. He told Cody that he had doubled his congregation in a London church -

1501 Henry John Cody

there were three when he arrived and six when he left. Gardiner poked fun at Cody about his habit of collecting stones from famous English cathedrals, describing it as "teaching history by theft." Cody met Bishop Hensley Henson, who said he would not go to the United States now that it was dry; he had just spoken against Prohibition in the House of Lords. On July 19 Cody preached at Gloucester Cathedral and in a church in the Forest of Dean. Cody attended all the festivities having to do with the opening of Canada House and the actual opening on June 29, 1925, by the King and Queen. Cody was "presented" along with Howard Ferguson, Sir Robert Falconer, Bishop Bidwell, and Lyman Duff, later to be chief justice. He met Neville Chamberlain and saw Viscount and Lady Asquith ("Margot had very tight-fitting dress - a face like parchment"). At the Dominion Day dinner at the Hotel Cecil, Cody was one of an impressive list of speakers which included Asquith, Ramsey Macdonald, and Howard Ferguson. Cody attended a reception given by the Marchionness of Salisbury on July 7 and reported, "Special table set for distinguished guests which included many Indian Princes and also a delegation from the Malay States, who came with weird head-dresses." Cody thought the whole performance demonstrated "the diversity of the British Empire." Visiting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on July 9, Cody talked to Lord Haldane and was surprised to find that he knew a great deal about the University of Toronto. Haldane had commented to Cody: "You and Falconer are running the University - You are virtually the Chancellor." Cody also had time for the more customary sightseeing: the Parliament Buildings, Hampton Court, Windsor Castle, Eton, Greenwich, "the Victory," the theatres and art galleries. He saw Gladys Cooper in Iris at the Adelphi, Caesar and Cleopatra by the Birmingham Players ("extraordinary and whimsical ... Caesar's belief in clemency is emphasized"). He saw some futurist work at the Academy Exhibition (of Art), and, always the traditionalist, was "Greatly bored by it." A tour of Devonshire brought Cody in touch with ordinary folk. A Mr. Newson, whom Cody met on a "charabanc" after leaving Lynton, was very downright. He said that now, on account of the dole, practically no one in England need be hungry: there was no longer such desperate poverty as in the past. Commenting on the high fees paid to English lecturers in the United States, he asserted that "they [the Americans] owe us a good deal. We ought to get a good deal back from them." Cody was impressed by the Devonshire hedges. He saw a

Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926/151 hedger "clipping the hedge of the 'edge." At Framington he had a "sumptuous tea" - brown and white bread and butter, strawberry jam and Devonshire cream, lettuce sandwiches, cake, and tea - for two shillings. From the point of view of public prominence, his sermon at Geneva during the opening of the seventh session of the League of Nations was the most important event in 1926 for Cody. It had become customary to have a distinguished preacher in the service for English-speaking people at St. Peters, Calvin's old church. The annual service was organized, and the preacher chosen, by the four resident clergy at Geneva, presiding over Trinity Church (Church of England), the American Episcopal Church, the Scottish Church, and the National Protestant Church of Geneva (St. Peter's). There was a good deal of consultation with the Anglican authorities at Lambeth. By March the decision to invite Cody had been made. Cody was an appropriate choice in view of the prominence he had secured in England as a result of his visits in 1922 and 1925. There had been some resentment among Canadians that Harry Emerson Fosdick, the American theologian, had been the preacher in 1925, although the United States was not in the League of Nations. David C. McCready, the English chaplain, invited Cody to preach at the opening service on September 12, 1926. He told Cody that he was the unanimous choice of the clergy and lay representatives of the four Geneva churches.14 Cody was invited to choose the hymns and Scripture passages. Less generous was the stipulation that he should pay his own expenses, perhaps, it was suggested, from donations by enthusiastic parishioners. In announcing the invitation, the New Outlook listed the names of Cody's distinguished predecessors as preacher: not only Fosdick, but also the Archbishop of Canterbury (Randall Davidson), Dean W.R. Inge, and Bishop C.H. Brent, presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.15 Cody received a good deal of advice as he prepared his sermon. An American correspondent urged him to do his best for good relations between the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. He seemed to regard Canada as an anti-Communist champion. W.P.M. Kennedy thought that world peace could still be secured by men of good will, particularly by North Americans who had a will to peace.16 The Codys - Harry, Florence, and Maurice - sailed for Europe at the end of August. The service on September 12 was ecumenical.

1521 Henry John Cody Cody's sermon was an eloquent and closely reasoned call to peace, reflecting his own religious and political philosophy, but although he urged peace, he still believed in the concept of a righteous war. The Great War, he said, had been fought to maintain freedom, justice, and mercy. Our values would not have been maintained if we had been beaten. There are times when the state may have no alternative but war. Peace-loving citizens face a problem in the case of a just war. They must decide whether to share in the common sacrifice. God is calling them to make a special sacrifice equal to, though different from, that of the soldier who gives his body for the defence of his country. Tragedy lies in the clash of duties. This perplexity is a further incentive to attack the situation that creates it. Thus Cody moved from World War I into the post-war period, which he hoped would be one of peace - characterized not merely by the absence of war but by a positive condition in which we can get on with the constructive tasks of civilization. To achieve this objective we must build a harmonious world society for the promotion of human well-being, such as Isaiah's idea of a warless world. Cody asserted that there were two obstacles to this world society. One was nationalism of a fanatical and disruptive type, which might degenerate into a source of selfishness, isolation, suspicion, fear, and restlessness. Equally disruptive was a complete absence of national pride. The real foe of internationalism was the vague fellow who loved every country but his own. What was needed was the combination of the right kind of nationalism with internationalism. Internationalism, he said, is the complement and handiwork of nationalism. The fabric of internationalism must be erected on a basis of reasonable nationalism. This was a period of optimism. Gustav Stresemann, Aristide Briand, and Austen Chamberlain were supposed to be ushering in solid guarantees of peace. Yet Cody could see that the world he hoped for was beyond the capacity of fallible human nature. He closed on a distinctively Christian note. The system would work only by act of God. The influence of the church, "the blessed company of all Christian people" could alone make for peace. We have in the League the instrument of peaceful internationalism. What will preserve and purify it? Goodwill, clear thought, determined effort, earnest prayer, Christian support. The factors that ultimately count in the life of nations are good faith, love, brotherhood, justice, truth. These overlap national boundaries. They are broadly human. They are divine. On

Cody at Geneva, 1924-19261153 their presence and power in national life depends the peace of the world. But it is chiefly to the Christian Church, "the blessed company of all faithful people" dispersed throughout the world, that we are entitled to look, for the creation, preservation and development of these supernatural forces, on whose operation peaceful international relations ultimately depend. In the light of what happened in the 1930s, Cody's speech appears overly optimistic. He was, of course, preaching to a Christian congregation. His remarks were less a prediction of the immediate future than an assertion of what could happen if the world were dominated by Christian tenets. The sermon is of interest as an indication of Cody's ideas in regard to world peace. After Geneva the Codys continued their European tour. Cody and Maurice went to Rome while Florence made a side trip through Switzerland. She sent a postcard to Barbara Blackstock and shared an incident which amused them: Cody had sat in Calvin's chair at the service, something the Archbishop of Canterbury had refused to do when he preached. In a happy sequel to the trip, the people of St. Paul's presented Cody with an illuminated scroll and a portrait of himself, to mark the honour given him in being asked to preach by the League of Nations. Shortly after their return from Europe, Cody and Maurice became involved in the political campaign preceding the provincial election on December 1, 1926. The great issue was the liquor question, a major factor in Ontario politics in the 1920s. Since the passage of the Ontario Temperance Act in 1916,17 which introduced Prohibition, the Conservatives had supported the policy officially, but they were in fact a divided party. After their return to power in 1923, Ferguson had appointed W.F. Nickle, a strong prohibitionist, as attorney-general and a real attempt was made to enforce the Ontario Temperance Act. Stronger liquor laws were passed and the powers of the police were widened. However, opinion in Ontario had begun to move away from support for Prohibition. It had been overwhelmingly endorsed in the referendum of October 1919, but in a plebiscite on October 23, 1924, on the question of whether liquor could be sold "in sealed packages under government control," the vote had been fairly close - 551,000 "for" to 585,000 "against." Prior to the election of 1926, the Ferguson government came out

1541 Henry John Cody

in favour of government control of the sale of liquor. Ferguson gave assurances that there would be no bars and the government control of packaging outlets would be rigid. Nickle resigned as attorney-general and broke with the government. He ran unsuccessfully as a Prohibition candidate. Cody and Maurice both campaigned for government control. Maurice and his university friend, David Walker, toured the province advocating that position. Maurice became so identified with the antiProhibition cause that the Intermediate League (a youth group) of Danforth United Church cancelled his speaking engagement on November 20. He had been asked to speak on the League of Nations, but as the minister of the church explained, "Some members were afraid that some mention of government control would be made."18 The Danforth minister explained to the Star: "Feeling is pretty strong in regard to the principal issue before the electors. Mr. Cody is recognized as being actively associated with the movement against the O.T.A." Cody's support of government control was remarkable. He had always been a temperance man, and as an undergraduate he had attended meetings of the Temperance League in Toronto. When Vincent Massey, the Canadian minister to the United States, gave a reception (to the Pilgrims of the United States) in 1927, he organized the reception in two groups, wets and drys. Cody was in the latter group along with such notable drys as Sir Joseph Flavelle and N.W. Rowell. But in the 1920s Cody decided that unlimited Prohibition was not the way to secure real temperance. Perhaps Maurice had helped to persuade him. Ferguson's influence and considerations of party solidarity may also have been a factor. At any rate, he came to be regarded as a wet and became an eloquent champion of government control. Later he was invited by Nova Scotia wets to come to their assistance. What his evangelical friends thought of this may be imagined. Cody made his position clear in a number of important statements. His interview by the Mail and Empire on October 25 set the tone for all his subsequent pronouncements in 1926 and also in the election of 1929. The report in the Mail and Empire began, "As one who has always voted in favour of Prohibition in the past, Rev. Canon HJ. Cody ... stated in an interview last evening his unqualified belief in the government control program which the Ferguson government is submitting to the people in the present Provincial general election." Cody maintained that his position was based solely on his investigations of government control in the Prairie provinces, particularly Alberta. After interviewing a cross-section of people in the West

Cody at Geneva, 1924-19261155 (attorneys-general, directors of liquor control systems, , police, mayors, university professors, businessmen), he found that the West preferred a policy "where Government lays down a policy and is responsible for it" rather than one based on referenda. He pointed out that Prohibition did not completely prohibit. There were many alternative means of liquor distribution, including bootlegging and the production of home brew. Cody praised Ferguson for his courage, asserting that the premier had adopted his policy "with the sincere motive of endeavouring to improve the moral welfare of the province." In November Cody elaborated on his initial statement in several public addresses. Cody drew a large crowd for his evening service at St. Paul's on October 31. He had announced that he would preach on "Thirsty Souls." The crowd included a number of journalists, but contrary to their expectations the sermon was about the thirst of certain souls "for pleasure and power and other worldly attractions." Cody's text was Psalm 42:2, "My soul thirsteth for God." The choir sang the Mendelssohn setting of Psalm 42. There was nothing in the sermon about beer or beer parlours. It will be recalled that Cody had introduced Ferguson at a great election rally in Massey Hall in the election of 1923. He gave a repeat performance in Massey Hall on November 26, 1926. He urged the voters to trust Ferguson not only in the general administration of the province, "but even in the handling of one of the most ancient, most difficult of all problems - the right use and efficient control of the liquor traffic." He insisted that the Ferguson policy would better realize the ideals of the temperance people "than the continuance on the statute book of an act proved to be, for all good service an unenforceable statute." Cody created great resentment among the Liberals by having his speech at Orillia on the night before the election widely broadcasted. He would repeat this action in the 1929 election, Ferguson s last one. The Conservatives were returned to power by a substantial majority on December 1, 1926. Government control had been endorsed. The government accordingly introduced (March 10, 1927) the bill establishing the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and government liquor stores opened on June 1.

Chapter 17

Maurice, 1927

n the spring of 1927 Maurice appeared to have the world at his feet. He was indeed a young man of exceptional promise. He had had an exceptional career in school, university, and law school and was already a partner in a respected law firm. Having interrupted his university career in 1916, Maurice had resumed his course after the war and graduated in May 1921 with firstclass honours. In the autumn of 1921 he had been "admitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada" - that is, he entered Osgoode Hall. At the same time he articled with the firm of Shirley Denison, an old friend of Cody's and a parishioner at St. Paul's. In his first year at Osgoode Hall, Maurice stood seventh in the class of eighty-one, and made a record score of 100 percent in the course on "Real Property." He was called to the bar on June 19,1924, and later became a partner in the firm of Rykman, Denison, Foster and Cody. Maurice took an active interest in the life of the Anglican Church, both at St. Paul's and in the broader areas of church organization. He was a lay delegate to both the synod of the Diocese of Toronto and the General Synod. He had already begun to take an active role in public life. Howard Ferguson said in 1927 that he would eventually have offered Maurice a cabinet post.1 Later tributes from his friends and acquaintances indicated their high opinion of his ability. He was considered not merely able but also kindly and considerate of others. One of the most striking reports was a letter from a young man who had been a patient in the military hos-

I

Maurice, 1927/157 pital to which Maurice was attached in the later stages of the war. B.F. Clarke had not had many friends or much influence, and he had been rather a problem to the hospital staff. Maurice had been kind to him, going out of his way to cheer him with talk of student days.2 Maurice's special friends were Arthur Woodhouse, a promising student of English, and Dave Walker, a fellow debater at the university and a promising lawyer (later he had a distinguished career in the Conservative Party). Maurice had become friendly with Fred Roberts, a younger man, in the year preceding Maurice's death. The Codys had an exceptionally social time during the early part of 1927. The D'Oyly Carte Company were performing at the Royal Alexandra, and the Codys saw The Mikado, The Gondoliers, H.M.S. Pinafore, and The Yoemen of the Guard. Cody and Florence attended a good many political lunches and dinners, some at Government House, some at the King Edward Hotel. On February 18 they gave a dinner for the Fergusons. Maurice bought a new car, an Essex, in March, and his parents a McLaughlin shortly afterwards, "a beauty." Maurice's reputation as a debater continued to grow. On February 4 he and Dave Walker were participants in a Hart House debate, at. the University of Toronto. They upheld the negative in a resolution calling for approval of the findings of the Imperial Conference of 1926. The conference had produced the famous Balfour Declaration on Dominion Autonomy: "equal in status in no way subordinate one to another." The affirmative was upheld by Escot Reid and a student from St. Michael's named Donahoe. Speaking fifth was the guest of the evening, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who had just returned in triumph from the Imperial Conference. Its findings seemed to vindicate King's stand against Lord Byng and Arthur Meighen in the controversy in the summer of 1926 over the question of the dissolution of Parliament. The House was crowded, and the audience noisily roared its approval and disapproval. Maurice made a brilliant speech, claiming that the conference had been dominated by "rebellious Irishmen and disgruntled Dutchmen." King then dealt wittily and persuasively with the points raised by the negative. He noted that Maurice had said a good deal about sins of omission and commission at the Imperial Conference and suggested that his remarks about sin were a result of his ecclesiastical upbringing. (Dr. Cody was in the audience.) This sally brought down the house. The affirmative won by a vote of 408 to 125, but the debate increased the stature of Maurice and of Dave Walker, who had also spoken well.

158 / Henry John Cody

Early in the summer of 1927, Maurice began to make preparations for his summer trip. He planned to see something of the north country in Ontario, to go part of the way in his car and then to continue into rough country by some other means of transportation. He wrote to Howard Ferguson about the possibility of a seaplane. Ferguson replied that a seaplane was not available, but that he had written to George Lee, the manager of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. Maurice could go north on the TNO and Lee would make all the arrangements. Maurice was anxious to take Dave Walker with him, but Dave had secured a job as counsellor at Camp Ahmek, a prestigious boys' camp, and could not get the time off. This was unfortunate, as Dave was an expert paddler and might have been able to avert the disaster that occurred. Instead of Dave, Maurice invited Fred Roberts. On the evening of July 7, Maurice was at the Walkers' for a farewell dinner. Afterwards he and Dave went out on the lawn and drove golf balls around. The next day, Maurice and Fred set out for the north. Leaving the car in North Bay, they went by train to the Marten River, some forty-five miles away. Here they made the camp of the Marten River Construction Company their headquarters. On July 14 Maurice and Fred decided to canoe down the river so that Maurice could fish.3 They were accompanied by a young employee of the company, Dan Pardiac. Pardiac had the job of ferrying supplies for the company from a point farther down the river, and Maurice and Fred agreed to take him. He promised to show them the good fishing places. They proceeded down the river for about seven miles, with Pardiac in the stern, Maurice in the middle, and Fred in the bow. They circled a small bay and emerged in a rough stretch with rocks on the bottom, below "Chute One." Here the canoe capsized. Roberts emerged on the west side of the canoe to see Maurice and Pardiac clinging to the craft. Eventually they lost their grip. Roberts was swept ashore. He scanned the river anxiously but could not see his companions. He made his way through the bush to the construction camp, an agonizing struggle that took some two and a half hours. Roberts gave the alarm, then returned to the scene of the catastrophe with R.T. Lyons, the resident engineer. Roberts dived into the water a number of times in search of the bodies, but without success. At about midnight he gave up the attempt. Roy G. Sneath, the engineer in charge of development in the Marten River district, telephoned the Hon. William Finlayson and

Maurice, 1927/159 Cody. The Codys were in Barrie when they received the terrible news that Maurice had probably drowned but his body had not yet been found. Harry and Florence went as quickly as possible to North Bay. Cody was taken immediately to search for Maurice. Finding that no canoes were available, he had to wait for one to be brought from North Bay. He and Sneath were just starting out in the canoe when news came that the bodies had been found, quite close to each other. It was 11:15 a.m. on July 15. Maurice's body was taken to Toronto on the same train that brought Harry and Florence home. Arthur Woodhouse, in his letter of condolence, referred to "that terrible journey north from Barrie and back."4 The Fergusons, along with a considerable group of friends, met the train and took the Codys home with them. Fred Roberts drove Maurice's car from North Bay to Toronto. There were two funeral services, a private one and a public service at St. Paul's. The private service was attended by the family, including Cody's father and two of his half-brothers, Ernest and F.D. Cody. Barbara Blackstock was there and Fred Roberts, "a pathetic figure." Also in attendance were a number of Cody's close associates: the Fergusons, the lieutenant-governor and his wife, Sir William Mulock, and Sir Robert Falconer. At the public service, Falconer paid a moving tribute to Maurice: "By his touch, his kindness, his wisdom, he gathered others about him, unravelled knotted threads, restrained those who were breaking away from safe paths, initiated peace and order among those who might make confusion." At Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Cody himself read the committal, "in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life."5 Years afterwards, a friend of the Codys wrote to Barbara, "A hardheaded man - one, not a very regular church-goer - who was present, told me that it [Cody's action] was the most eloquent expression of faith in 'the sure and certain hope,' and most convincing he had ever experienced."6 In the days that followed, condolences flowed in. Many were primarily tributes to Cody. Others were from Maurice's friends and associates: the Hart House Debates Committee, the Anglican Mission Board, the University College Literary and Athletic Society, the St. Paul's vestry, Henry Roche (a former curate at St. Paul's), and B.F. Clarke. Maurice's death was followed by a series of memorials. Friends of the family set up a trust, the Maurice Cody Research Fellowships, which awarded fellowships to graduate students to study "the factors

1601 Henry John Cody and conditions which made for the economic development of Canada." The list of subscribers included many distinguished names. There were other memorials. The University College Literary and Athletic Association unveiled a tablet to Maurice in the Junior Common Room of University College. The "Maurice Cody Public School" (at the corner of Belsize Drive and Cleveland Street) and the "Maurice Cody Hall" at St. Pauls Church were both opened in 1928. Maurice left funds for the establishment of two scholarships, one at the University of Toronto and another at the University of Toronto Schools. These funds were supplemented by Cody and Florence. The one at the university, "the Maurice Cody Memorial Scholarship," was to be awarded to the student ranking "first in the examinations in the final year of the honours course in Modern History." Life for the Codys appeared to go on as usual. Cody showed a remarkable ability to recover. He took the funeral of Judge J.M. Vance of Barrie on July 22, only four days after Maurice's funeral, and he soon resumed his busy routine, but the wound was deep. He wrote to W.T. Hallam on August 10, 1927: "We wish to thank you both for your kind message of sympathy. It is not a dream, as at first it seemed, but a reality of realized loneliness. We can only bow before the will of God."7 He was amazingly considerate of those who had helped on July 14 and went to some trouble to have the men who had searched for Maurice sought out and compensated.8 He always spoke warmly of Fred Roberts and several years later used his own influence to secure the young man a job. As for Florence, she never recovered. In the long run, Maurice's death may have helped to bring about a deliberate shift in Cody's life. He had had high hopes for Maurice, projecting his own political ambitions onto his son's career. Mackenzie King had said in his telegram of condolence, "Few young men gave promise of a more brilliant future."9 This was no more than Cody himself believed. Now Maurice was gone and Cody may well have turned with renewed vigour to politics and education. Eventually education was to become dominant in his life.

Chapter 18

Cody's Recovery, 1927-1929

he years after 1927 were a time of strenuous activity for Cody. He was excessively busy in the affairs of the church, the university, and the community at large, and still in demand as a public speaker by all sorts of bodies, both in Canada and the United States. Yet until the end of his time at St. Paul's, he remained very much the parish priest, ministering to the needy in mind and spirit. His own sadness seemed to make him more able to help the sick and bereaved. One man wrote to Cody in 1928: "I did so want you to feel, in your great sorrow, what a great strength you have been and an inspiration to many including myself and only those who have suffered know how to sympathize." Another bereaved parent expressed his gratitude for Cody's sympathy for himself and his wife, adding, "We know that it comes out of a sorrow like our own." There were other similar letters.1 In 1928 Cody was still preaching sound biblical sermons on such texts as "Now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12), and "If Christ be not risen" (1 Corinthians 15:14).2 St. Paul's was one of the first churches to broadcast its services. In 1928 Cody began broadcasting his evening service over station CFCA. He received a warm response from patients in hospitals and other shut-ins. The work of St. Paul's continued to thrive. The building program was pressed with vigour: the old church was renovated and made available for use as a Sunday school and the Maurice Cody Memorial Hall was opened in 1928.

T

1621 Henry John Cody

St. Paul's was a great supporter of mission work in Canada and beyond the seas. The church not only contributed its mission quota to the Diocese of Toronto but also gave direct support to a large number of people and projects. In 1927 the church's mission quota to the diocese covered work in the Canadian West, Japan, China, and India, as well as the work of the General Board of Religious Education and the Social Service Council. In addition, sums designated by the donors were paid directly to the Arctic Mission, the St. Paul's Hospital in Kweitah, China, the Mission to Lepers, and a number of young churches in the Toronto area and in other parts of the country. St. Paul's Runnymede was practically an offshoot of St. Paul's. So was St. Olave Church, Swansea. Cody presided over this process of aiding needy churches, receiving letters with requests for aid and helping to steer the available funds to worthy objectives. When Bishop Fleming of the Arctic preached at St. Paul's, three cheques were offered in support of his Arctic hospital one for $5,000, one for $3,000, and the third for $2,000.3 Cody was still consulted by bishops and other clergy. Bishop Knox worried about the prayer book put forward in England in 1927, thought to be Anglo-Catholic.4 Some Canadian clergy were concerned about its possible repercussions in Canada. The Bishop of Calgary asked Cody to recommend a suitable candidate for rector of St. Stephen's, Calgary ("I want a good man with a Diocesan view point; not an extreme man either way, you know what I mean"). A churchwarden at St. Thomas's, St. John's, Newfoundland, sought advice about the qualifications of an Ontario rector who had just been recommended for St. Thomas's. Cody's career as a public speaker culminated between 1927 and 1931. Though he made pronouncements in regard to education and continued to preach fairly often after 1931, as president of the University of Toronto he regarded himself a civil servant who could not make political statements. Before 1932 he felt no such limitation, particularly during the provincial election campaign in 1929. Among Cody's more significant utterances in the 1927-31 period were his speeches to the World Federation of Educators, the Wycliffe Alumni, and the Anglican Woman's Auxiliary of the Diocese of Toronto. His emphasis was on the maintenance of traditional values, but having mellowed over the years, he also stressed the importance of tolerance. In 1927, speaking at the Wycliffe Alumni celebrations, he affirmed

Cody's Recovery, 1927-19291163

his personal attitude: "I am so reasonably assured of my own faith that I am willing to allow other people to be reasonably assured of theirs. That, in my opinion, is the essence of toleration. I am as profoundly convinced as ever of the teachings I received at Wycliffe, but I am more ready now to let other people have their own beliefs."5 Here he was probably thinking of his friends across the street at Trinity. Later he returned to the same theme of religious toleration when he assured the College Catholic Club at St. Michaels College that religious toleration, obviously desirable, was fostered by the University of Toronto federation. Cody had also changed his attitude toward the Germans. Speaking to the World Federation of Educators on August 8, 1927, he asserted, "We ought no longer to keep alive old-time grudges and old-time prejudices. Children should have history books so written that they may read history without hating other countries. The time will come when the history of the great war may be read as history and not as propaganda." Cody was now living in the atmosphere of "Geneva, 1926." By May of 1928, he was expressing approval of Germany's entry into the League of Nations. Cody adhered to his basic position on Canada's external relations: he admired and relied on the British but remained resolutely Canadian. In his convocation speech at McGill on May 30, 1928, he spelled out his hopes for Canada: "Canada is a country which cannot stand still. It has a momentum from the past that will inevitably drive it on. Canada is a country worth working for ... We need discussion, not animosity, argument, not suspicion, and the realization that we are all engaged in the stupendous task of building up one great commonwealth from the Atlantic to the Pacific which must one day be numbered among the foremost nations of the World." Cody also made clear his attitude to the Americans. He admired but also feared them, considering them, not the British, the real threat to Canadian autonomy: "It is at once an advantage and a danger to live beside our neighbour. We may learn from his successes and his failures, but there is a danger lest we lose our identity." Canada's future, he asserted, still lay within the Empire. "We are an integral part of the Empire, yet the range of our independent activities has steadily widened. Unity must be preserved in the interests of all; British connection is fundamental. Yet the sense of national consciousness is real and growing, we are developing a full national life." As in most of his political speeches, Cody ended this one by tying in his religious faith with his political views: "Believe in Canada. Believe in yourselves. Believe in the God of Nations, who has given you

1641 Henry John Cody this fair land to possess and use for His glory and the welfare of mankind."6 Other speeches brought out Cody's views on democracy in its various aspects. He was in the Conservative tradition in drawing a distinction between democracy and egalitarianism. Speaking at a luncheon of directors of the Toronto Exhibition on August 29, 1928, he decried the notion that all human beings are born free and equal: "Arbitrary equality is not a postulate or a demand of democracy ... But what democracy does demand is that one and all shall be given an equal opportunity to make their way in the world and become useful citizens, according to their individual capacities. And that this opportunity shall be given to every child, adolescent and, if necessary, every adult."7 It was shown earlier how Cody tied in "equality of opportunity" with his democratic view of education, that every boy and girl should be given an adequate education. Cody spoke about the rights of youth and the rights of women in several speeches, notably his address to the Anglican Woman's Auxiliary on May 29, 1928. Here he linked privileges with responsibilities, a traditionally conservative viewpoint. He discussed youth's demands for more freedom and women's demands for more power in modern society. Both claims had merit, he said, but both involved obligations. He invoked one of his favourite texts, "lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes." Thus, he asserted that while youth and women were entitled to some extension of their positions in society, they should also develop their resources of character. He concluded, "The advance of women into all realms is characteristic of the age. Yet it is well worth this lengthening of cords that women should never forget the stakes of being womanly." After their personal loss, the Codys put on a brave front. Florence still spent her summers in Barrie, and Cody joined her there as much as possible, particularly in July and August of 1928. They continued to welcome friends to their home. Archbishop Matheson stayed with them when he was at meetings in Toronto, and Dave Walker spent a great deal of time at the Codys during the two years following Maurices death.8 A young law student, he moved into his fraternity, Sigma Chi. His own parents had recently died and he recalled how he "used to accept many invitations from the Codys for Sunday dinner and also dinner off and on through the week. Eventually this led to me staying at the Codys from time to time, sometimes for long periods, over a span of two years."

Cody's Recovery, 1927-19291165

Dave had warm recollections of the Codys. When he was staying with them, he used to tell Cody of his experiences in the legal profession, poking fun at the great men he had encountered. He recalled Cody's wonderful Irish sense of humour and great fund of stories. He also recalled that Cody was very strict, expecting the same sort of diligence from others that he demanded of himself. Arthur Woodhouse, too, kept in touch with the Codys, sharing his memories of Maurice with them. The Codys' close association with the Blackstocks continued. Mrs. Blackstock was a strong supporter of St. Paul's and made a generous contribution toward the construction of the Maurice Cody Hall. There was an another painful wrench in Cody's life. His father, Elijah John, had been at Maurice's funeral in July 1927 but in December became very ill. Cody hastened to Embro on the 17th to find him unconscious. He died two days later. Cody's relations with his father had always been happy, although his visits to Embro had been infrequent, perhaps because of the coolness of his stepmother. The Codys travelled extensively in this period, presumably in an effort to improve Florence's health and spirits. In 1929 they undertook a major overseas trip (to Great Britain and the Holy Land). McElheran, who had been to Palestine, offered them some advice: "I found it difficult to relish their food. Too many Arabs. And they are a dirty crowd. I ate a great many oranges. - I ate practically no meat. You never know what you are eating — A porterhouse steak may be a camel's ear or anything else. At first I bought bottled water. But when I found them just filling the bottles at the ordinary wells, I decided that I might just as well save my money."9 The trip started badly. The Codys' ship ran aground on Partridge Island, New Brunswick, and they had to be transferred to the Montcalm, but they eventually reached England. Here they parted temporarily, Florence going to Devonshire and Cody setting out for the Holy Land. His letters and postcards sketch in the progress of his trip and also indicate how lonely he was, going it alone. One wonders why he did so. Cody sailed out of Marseilles for Palestine, stopping en route at various points of interest, never failing to jot down his observations in his journal. In Asia Minor he hired a car and went to Tarsus: "It really gave me a thrill. There is an ancient house which is pointed out as the place" (where St. Paul was bom). From Jerusalem Cody sent more cards and letters, including a picture of the ruins of "Pilate's Judgment Hall," which had just been excavated.

1661 Henry John Cody Cody always collected mementoes of his journeys. On this one he picked up a stone from Mars Hill (where St. Paul had addressed the Athenians), shells from the Pool of Bethesda, and a bit of stone from the spot on Mount Carmel where the prophets of Baal were said to have been defeated by Elijah. The Holy Land was a great experience, but Cody was worried about Florence and anxious to get back to England. "I trust you are now happily settled at Torquay, and are now enjoying the beauty and restfulness of the country," he wrote from Marseilles on the first leg of the journey. "I wish you could be with me on this trip - but it would be strenuous and too hot." And later from Jerusalem, "So thankful to have received another letter from you - Soon we shall be together again." Of the Holy Land he said, "I may say I am glad to have had the necessary education," he told Florence "but I never want to see the place again." Later he told the Telegram the same thing, concluding, "It was about what I expected. I was not disillusioned. The part that appealed to me was Galilee and the Sea of Galilee. It has not changed."10 About to leave Jerusalem Cody wrote to Florence: "By the time you receive this, I trust I shall be leaving Alexandria for Marseilles on the homeward journey to you, God bless and spare us to each other."11 Cody arrived back in England in June. Early in August he and Florence returned to Toronto. Cody soon became involved in the political campaign preceding the provincial election of October 30, 1929. It was Ferguson's last campaign as premier and once more the burning issue was Ferguson's Liquor Control Act. Cody's speech of October 29, 1929, was a repetition of his performance in 1926, broadcasted from Orillia on the eve of the election. As they had the 1926 speech, the Liberals resented the 1929 speech, although this time they were not taken by surprise. The speech was preceded by some discussion in the press. The Globe hoped, unavailingly as it turned out, that Cody would oppose the governments policy on liquor, venturing to assume "that Dr. Cody would like to see the liquor business wiped out, root and branch." The Star deplored the fact that Cody was speaking so late in the campaign, leaving little time for a reply.12 However, W.E.N. Sinclair, the Liberal leader, arranged to counter Cody's speech with one of his own, to be broadcast on CFRB. The Cody-Sinclair radio debate proved to be a highlight of the election

Cody's Recovery, 1927-19291167

campaign. Cody's speech, which lasted some ninety minutes, was an eloquent defence of Ferguson's Liquor Control Act,13 which he believed was the best possible solution, at that time, to the liquor problem in Ontario. Speaking "as a private citizen, profoundly interested in the intellectual and moral well-being of the people," he insisted that we cannot make people moral or sober by coercion, but he also asserted that Canadians are not a drunken people. The meat of his address focused on the possible alternative policies. Making it clear that he longed "to see the province sober," he asserted, "I ask myself what is the alternative? Is it a plebiscite or referendum, the putting off of the proper responsibility of government, or is the only other alternative the reenactment of the Ontario Temperance Act [originally passed in 1916], a piece of legislation which is simply impracticable to enforce?" The Ferguson government, he said, had improved on the OTA. The Liquor Control Act could be developed along enforceable lines. Therefore, he concluded, "I cannot see any reason for throwing on the scrap heap an act which gives the only reasonable, practicable hope of sobriety and temperance in the province." Cody spelled out his defence of the principle of self-control: "The present system is an application of the moral and religious principles of self control, based on Christian and apostolic precept ... You may make the people of the great Dominion sober by education but not by coercion." He elaborated on his defence of the Liquor Control Act, insisting that it was in accordance with Ferguson's promises and that it had been described as the "best liquor control act in Canada" and had "stopped the wholesale bootlegger, prevented public drinking, stopped the public invitation to drink through advertisements and prevented a growing disrespect for law in general." Cody refused to consider the statistical evidence cited by the press that suggested the Liquor Control Act was not an unmitigated success. He claimed that these reports were "biased, exaggerated and unfair" and "that there is no misrepresentation or actual falsehood which cannot be more basely propagated than one that is based on selected statistics." It was this part of his speech that came in for the hottest attack from Cody's critics. An hour after Cody's speech, Sinclair replied over the air. He contended that Cody's speech was not a defence of the Liquor Control Act or its administration, but rather a brilliant oration in favour of returning the Ferguson government to power. Everyone knew of Cody's friendship with Ferguson, he said. "Why didn't he just get up and say

168 / Henry John Cody

'Me too; I'm with Howard' and shut up?" He accused Cody of ignoring the abundant evidence (in the press and from social workers) of large-scale infractions of the Liquor Control Act. He was indignant at some of Cody's accusations: "He alleges misrepresentation and distortion of facts by those who are criticizing the act! I really did not expect such an accusation from a man occupying the position he does, an evangelical clergyman in a large and prosperous pulpit."14 The press reaction was along party lines. The Mail headline announced, "Canon Cody Breaks Political Silence with Strong Defence of Liquor Control." The Globe condemned him in sorrow while grudgingly admitting the effectiveness of his speech: "The tens of thousands of Ontario voters who listened to Canon Cody's speech will regret the unfortunate fact that it was made on the very last night of the campaign. Its lofty and sweeping generalizations could inspire nothing but admiration." The Globe regretted that Cody had not discussed the statistics of the liquor law record.15 The Star's report of the speech was full and reasonably fair, although it described Cody as as "good and reliable a party man as any of the ward associations can produce. He is right there at every pinch." Its most scorching critique was contained in an article by the journalist clergyman R.E. Knowles. Knowles described the speech as "of great emotional power and of exquisite plausibility ... a stately and eloquent address." It would, he believed, turn many votes to the Ferguson government. But he castigated Cody for his uncritical defence of the Liquor Control Act. Like others, Knowles was critical of Cody's cavalier attitude to statistics relating to the effectiveness of the act. "Not once, during the whole 90 melodious minutes, did this eminent debater refer to 'statistics.' Except, that is to put them in their proper place as altogether negligible and unreliable things." He thought too that Cody had ignored the question of momentum, "the fact that the thing - and the things - we deplored have steadily increased in the last three years." Knowles was critical of what he took to be Cody's attempt to separate his activities as citizen from his position as a cleric. "If the issue affects the souls of men as Dr. Cody last night declared it does why didn't he preach it from the pulpit the previous Sunday?" Cody could take comfort from some of his defenders. Saturday Night, more neutral than the Toronto dailies, objected to the view of Knowles and others that Cody as a noted cleric should not have been making political speeches. The journal pointed out that Ferguson had been widely denounced from the pulpit by many Toronto clergy on the

Cody's Recovery, 1927-19291169

Sunday before the election, "but, Canon Cody is Canon Cody and because he chose to make an appeal to reason and express confidence in his friend of forty years standing, Howard Ferguson, is sternly called to account."16 Cody's speech brought him many letters of congratulation from friends and admirers. There was one, received after the election, from a grateful Orillia MLA, the Hon. William Finlayson, who had received "an unexpectedly large majority in the election." Cody also received critical letters from temperance advocates, one asserting, "You get the blame for giving Ferguson such a majority. I hope for your sake God does not think so, for if he does you will be chastened."17 Many believers in temperance will question the tightness of Cody's stand on the liquor issue, but nobody can look at his entire record, including his sermons, and doubt his sincerity. It is of course impossible to tell how effective the speech was in swinging votes. Knowles, who was critical, and Finlayson, who was an ally, both considered it influential; but there were other factors at work. In general, Ontarians had a relaxed attitude toward Prohibition and the Ferguson administration had a good record in general. However, Cody did pay a price for his position on Prohibition: he carne to be seen by opposition parties as merely an adroit partisan politician. As minister of education he had been quite widely regarded as a non-partisan who simply wanted to improve the Ontario system of education. It will be recalled that Hartley Dewart, the Liberal leader, had asserted after the election of 1919 that, if the Liberals had won, he would have maintained Cody in office. After Cody's pre-election speeches in 1926 and 1929, it became much more difficult for the Liberals to regard him with anything but suspicion. Cody's brief involvement in municipal politics did nothing to remove Liberal suspicions. Cody had been persuaded to be honorary chairman of a committee seeking to develop the central business district in Toronto, "the Down-town Scheme Committee." The Globe was critical of the committee, suspecting its aim was to unload on the taxpayers expenses that should be defrayed by developers.18 Cody withdrew from the honorary chairmanship, having realized that technically he would be in conflict of interest. Florence owned a building at 105 King Street, which was in the area to be developed. However, Cody remained a member of the committee, much to the disgust of the Globe.

Chapter 19

Prelude to University Presidency, 1930-1932

he period 1930-32 marked the last major shift in Cody's career. Before that, except for a brief time as minister of education, he was primarily a churchman, being the rector of St. Paul's and an active participant in the affairs of the church. While the university and the Conservative Party engaged much of his attention in this period, they were a secondary, though growing, interest. After 1932, however, he was primarily an educator and remained so until the end of his active career. The period began as if it was to be an extension of his past career. Life went on as usual. In 1930 he wrote to McElheran, who was negotiating for the principalship of Wycliffe, and recommended his protege and former curate, G.S. Despard, as rector of St. Matthews, Winnipeg, to succeed McElheran. He served on a Committee of Ways and Means to facilitate the granting of mortgages and loans to new churches in the Diocese of Toronto. In 1931 he served on a subcommittee of the Anglican National Commission that dealt with aspects of the report issued by the Lambeth Conference in 1930. He carried on an exchange of ideas with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto in regard to the financing of separate schools. In August Cody presided over a row between the organist — TJ. Crawford — and the church wardens, which ended in Crawford's resignation. In September 1931 Cody vigorously defended university students at the General Synod and secured the

T

Prelude to University Presidency, 1930-19321171

removal of a clause from a commission report charging "loss of faith" among high school and university students.1 Bishop P.S. Abraham wrote to Barbara Cody after Cody's death, saying how privileged he had been to see Cody's "last but forceful effort in General Synod."2 Cody might well have been elected Archbishop of Rupert s Land in 1931 had he been willing to stand. Matheson, in poor health, resigned as Primate of All Canada in September 1930 and as Archbishop of Rupert's Land in January 1931. He wrote wryly to Cody: "During the past few days I have been simply deluged with expressions of good will. Turks, Infidels and Heretics, Laborites and Communists combine in singing Paeans or Te Deums at getting rid of me, strewing my outgoing path with wreaths of kindliness."3 He was anxious that Cody stand as a candidate for the archbishopric: "What a joy it would be to me and what a great thing for the church at large if such a thing were possible." Bishop G.E. Lloyd, the Bishop of Saskatchewan, wrote on March 12, 1931 urging Cody to let him know whether he would stand. He believed that many delegates who would not ordinarily vote for an evangelical would vote for Cody. Cody replied on March 25, refusing to stand: "I have not decided hastily. I have also had to take into account personal and domestic problems [a reference to Florence's health]," Cody recommended McElheran, who, he said, would make "a splendid Archbishop."4 That should have ended it, but Lloyd and his friends persisted. On the way to the Provincial Synod at Winnipeg in which the new archbishop was to be elected, they decided to attempt to secure a unanimous vote for Cody, hoping that "if Mrs. Cody was against leaving Toronto such a vote would influence her." Unfortunately, their plans were leaked to the press, ruining the attempt at a draft. Even so, the Saskatchewan delegation of six voted repeatedly for Cody. Finally, they gave up their attempt and Bishop Isaac O. Stringer, a strong evangelical, was elected. In 1931 the other alternative to continuance at St. Paul's presented itself, the offer of the university presidency. Falconer's health was deteriorating in the spring of 1931, and he was obviously on the verge of retirement. Speculation as to his successor began and Cody's name was prominently mentioned. Cody was an obvious choice to succeed Falconer. He was a distinguished educator and well known in educational circles in Great Britain and the United States. As chairman of the board of governors since 1923, he had played an active part in the life of the university, working

1721 Henry John Cody closely with Falconer and other members of the board. Falconer consulted Cody on appointments, particularly in the Department of History, in the interim between Wrong's resignation as head of the department in 1927 and the appointment of Chester Martin in 1930. Falconer also consulted Cody about junior appointments in the history department after the departure of Lester Pearson and Hume Wrong to join the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. Cody was also involved in discussions about the principalship of University College prior to the appointment of Malcolm Wallace in 1928. Cody had several close friends on the board likely to be favourable to his candidature for the presidency: E.N. Armour, Joseph Flavelle, F.W. Merchant, T.A. Russell, and Bruce Macdonald, the vice-chairman. Ferguson, who had gone to England as high commissioner, does not seem to have played an active role in Cody's appointment, although his support of Cody was probably in the minds of his former associates at Queen's Park. George Henry, the new prime minister of Ontario, was a friend of Cody's. Some perplexing developments preceded the discussions about the presidency. The university was drawn into a controversy between the Toronto Police Commission, headed by Brigadier Denis Draper and Judge Emerson Coatsworth, and the Toronto branch of the newly organized Fellowship of Reconciliation, a group of intellectuals anxious to secure world peace. The group included prominent clerical reformers such as Salem Bland, Richard Roberts, Rabbi Eisendrath, and some university professors. Draper and Coatsworth regarded the organization as a Communist front and attempted to prevent it from renting halls for its meetings and forums. Sympathy for the Fellowship ran high in the university and the result was the issuance of an open letter or manifesto, drafted by Frank Underbill and Eric Havelock of Victoria College, and signed by sixtyeight university personnel. They were usually referred to as the "Sixtyeight Professors," although the list included lecturers and instructors. The manifesto declared that attempts to nullify or restrict one of the proudest heritages of the British people were "short-sighted, inexpedient and intolerable."5 This drew the board of governors into the matter. Members of the board were not sympathetic to the Fellowship and feared that the manifesto would be regarded as an official statement by the university. On January 22 the board appointed a committee (Mulock, Cody, Flavelle, Massey, Armour, Gibson, Russell, and Merchant) to deal with the issue. Mulock and Cody met with Falconer, who then conferred with

Prelude to University Presidency, 1930-1932 /173

representatives of the Sixty-eight. Falconer's advice to the professors was conciliatory but firm. He assured them that the board did not "intend to pass any resolution of censure nor indeed to make any public statement in regard to the matter." But he warned them: "Unless the staff and all concerned with the University protect their own freedom by great wisdom in their use of their privileges, the time might come when the University would again be subjected to partisan politics, and conditions arise such as have seriously injured several of the American State Universities." Falconer reported to the board that the professors undertook to refrain from further discussions "on this or political matters." Subsequently, despite Falconer's assurances to the professors, the board decided to issue a public statement indicating that the Sixtyeight Professors were not speaking for the University of Toronto. There the matter rested, for the time being.6 Cody gave one interview to the Globe just after the appearance of the manifesto: "It is a free country and they have a right to give expression to their own opinions." When the Globe asked if the board would take action, he replied, "I don't know just how it would come under the purview of anybody."7 He refrained from being drawn any further into this public controversy. But as Cody was the board's chairman and a member of the special committee, the actions of the board can be regarded as substantially in accordance with his views. On the heels of the Sixty-eight Professors affair was a second controversy over free speech. This one involved the student newspaper, the Varsity, and eventually the Ontario Legislature. The Varsity had had a long tradition of sponsoring free speech in the university, usually in opposition to the university authorities. As recently as February 1929, the then editor, Paddy Ryan, had engaged in a noisy controversy over the issue. The paper had been suppressed, and the staff, in retaliation, had briefly published the "Adversity" in a Toronto paper. Now the Varsity supported the Sixty-eight Professors and took a vote of university students over the issue, no doubt to the annoyance of the board members. The row over the Sixty-eight had barely died down when the Varsity precipitated another controversy. Andrew Allan, the editor, published an editorial asserting that the students at the university and most of the graduates were practical atheists and that the professors were teaching atheism. The editorial was repudiated by the board on February 26. Eventually, the executive of the student council and the Caput (the university disciplining body) suspended publication of the Varsity for the balance of the academic year.

174 / Henry John Cody

But there were repercussions in the down-town press and at Queen's Park. Neither the downtown press nor members of the Legislature had any quarrel with Allan; they were gunning for the "atheistic" professors. A motion of censure was introduced in the Legislature on February 27, 1931 and solemnly debated. Liberal Leader W.E.N. Sinclair argued that the University of Toronto was a non-sectarian body and could not be censured for views on religion advanced within it. The government took its lead from Sinclair and the motion was withdrawn. The activities of the Sixty-eight Professors and Allan probably had some influence on the discussions about a new president. They gave the impression that the University of Toronto was becoming a stormy place which required the direction of a president who was firm and in good health. There was a good deal of discussion about the presidency in the late winter and early spring of 1931. Vincent Massey would have liked the position, but after sounding out his friend N.W. Rowell, he thought better of the matter. Rowell consulted Flavelle, who reported that Cody was slated to succeed Falconer. (Alice Massey reported to her sister, Maude Grant, in April, "Sir J says Cody wants it and must evidently have it.")8 On April 29 the Telegram reported a rumour that Cody was to succeed Falconer on June 30, 1932. The rumour was denied by Cody, who pointed out that the matter had not been considered by the board and that Falconer had not resigned.9 The Star thought that Cody's appointment was "very unlikely" because Cody was nearly as old as Falconer. He was, in fact, only a year younger. The period of uncertainty about Falconer ended on June 10, when Falconer presented his resignation to the board, to take effect on June 30, 1932, just as the Telegram had predicted in April. The board tentatively accepted the resignation, "with deep regret." There was some difference of opinion over the timing of the appointment of a successor. Cody's friends wanted speedy action, but some board members counselled caution. In the end they appointed a committee (which included Cody and was chaired by T.A. Russell) to consider the terms of Falconer's resignation and the matter of a successor. Cody was not present at the meeting of June 10 - he and Florence were about to leave for England for the summer - but it seems unlikely that as the leading candidate, he would have attended in any case. While the Codys were away, the board met again, on June 25, and formally accepted Falconer's resignation. A decision about the presidency was deferred until the autumn.10

Prelude to University Presidency, 1930-19321175

In England Cody was occupied in connection with his chairmanship of the Royal Commission on the Treatment of Cancer by Radium. While he went from one cancer facility to another in England and Europe, studying the latest techniques in treatment, Florence attempted to rally her failing health by staying quietly in Torquay. Ever since Maurice's death, she had suffered from a serious heart problem. Back in Canada in September, Cody received a friendly letter from Falconer, who, not surprisingly, said nothing about the succession. The board finally considered the burning question in October. There was more discussion about timing. The motion to proceed at once to the appointment of a president was passed "on division" — that is, the vote was not unanimous. The motion to offer the presidency to Cody then passed unanimously. A committee, consisting of Macdonald, Mulock, and Mr. Justice Kelly, was appointed to "wait on Cody." They did so on the morning of October 9. Cody accepted. On October 10, the press announced the appointment and the Globe ran a picture of Cody "talking over Cody's election with the Premier."11 Such is the formal record of Cody's appointment. What went on behind the scenes must remain a matter for speculation. Such questions as did Cody do any active campaigning, who were his supporters on the board, and who were his opponents have not yet been answered. Obviously he had good friends, enough to carry his election. Judging by Alice Massey's letter to her sister, the decision was pretty well made by April 1931. On Sunday, October 11, Cody broke the news to the people of St. Paul's. Congratulations poured in, from parishioners, friends, and dignitaries alike. Anglicans, particularly parishioners at St. Paul's, were torn between their desire to express congratulations and their regret at his departure from the church. Matheson wondered who could take his place at St. Paul's. Dave Walker and Arthur Woodhouse both recalled how proud and happy Maurice would have been. Cody's old Orillia friend, Hon. William Finlayson, after congratulating Cody, went on to say that many people in the North regarded the university as a hotbed of extreme views but felt that Cody would have a steadying effect there. According to the Mail and Empire, Liberal Leader Sinclair, probably recalling Cody's Orillia speeches, described Cody as political and partisan.12 So ended Cody's active career at St. Paul's. He had been connected with the church for almost forty years. He had built it up to be one of the largest and most vital in Canada. He had ministered to his people whether in sickness or in health and had been of particular comfort to

1761 Henry John Cody the bereaved. He was a fine expository preacher, addressing all the traditional Christian and evangelical doctrines: the sovereignty of God, the divinity of Christ, justification by faith, and the Trinity. Some people groaned because of the length of his sermons, but numerous letters in the Cody papers expressed the gratitude of many of his hearers. A man of tremendous energy and great personal charm, Cody had never confined his activities to purely parochial affairs. He had helped to train several generations of evangelical clergy and he had become a sort of ecclesiastical statesman within the Anglican communion, consulted by bishops and other clergy. He had taken a major part in the drafting of the first Canadian Book of Common Prayer. From the start of his career Cody had a great interest in education (Ridley, Havergal, Wycliffe, the Ministry of Education, the University of Toronto), but St. Paul's had always been his primary interest. Now he was retiring from the rectorship to begin a second career at an age (64) when many people would have been contemplating retirement. The new post was destined to make new demands, some of them very different from those he had faced at St. Paul's.

Chapter 20

Cody s First Year as President, 1932-1933

ody's appointment as president of the University of Toronto dated from July 1, 1932. The university in 1932-33 had a registration of 8,274. A complex organization, it included the university proper (University College, a considerable number of university departments - history, political economy, and science), the federated church colleges (Victoria, Trinity, St. Michael's), affiliated theological colleges (Knox and Wycliffe), the scientific faculties (Medicine and the School of Practical Science), and a number of schools (such as Nursing). To a modern observer, the university of 1932 would have seemed very different. Already it was large, but unlike its appearance in the post-1945 years, it did not give the impression of having vast numbers of students. St. George Street in the luncheon hour was still a quiet and uncrowded thoroughfare. Many of the present buildings, including the Robarts Library and the Sidney Smith Building, had not yet appeared. Simcoe Hall, where Cody's office was located, had been built in the twenties. It was later described by Claude Bissell, one of Cody's successors, as "a symbol of bureaucratic remoteness and stuffiness." The president's office was "a handsome, symmetrical room with two sets of windows looking out on the campus."1 Cody was relieved to be free of his duties as a sort of lame duck rector of St. Paul's, but many problems awaited him as president. The

C

1781 Henry John Cody

university had just suffered a cut in the government grant, yet it had many pressing needs. The central library was far too small. The university was anxious to establish new departments, such as Fine Arts and Chinese and Japanese Studies (Bishop William C. White, Cody's friend and protege", had acquired a Chinese library of some 40,000 books for the Royal Ontario Museum and hoped to establish a school of Chinese studies). Cody wanted to strengthen and develop graduate studies in the university. There were ominous signs of trouble to come. Cody was already receiving complaints about the activities of "campus radicals" such as Professor Frank Underhill at the university and professors John Line and Eric Havelock at Victoria. Dr. W.R. Tutt wrote from Sarnia on December 15, 1932, complaining that "Prof. Underhill and other teachers of the University should, while drawing salaries from the Provincial University, financed in part by the public purse, lend their names, their official status and the people's time to the furtherance of a party whose openly advertised policy is to bring about a revolution bloodless indeed - in our country." Cody replied with a soothing letter, assuring him that "Professor Underhill has already been warned on account of certain actions, and will be dealt with in the future." 2 Henry Brock of Oakville, who had been a member of the university senate, warned Cody about the possibility of cliques in the senate. Dean Mitchell of the School of Practical Science passed on to Cody an anonymous letter charging that the school was unfair to financially poor students (a charge the school denied).3 The Machray scandal in Winnipeg had demonstrated what could happen to university finances if close supervision was not maintained. J.A. Machray was the treasurer of the University of Manitoba, St. John's College, and the Anglican Province of Rupert's Land. Having unwisely invested some of the funds entrusted to his care, he embezzled from other trust funds to cover the losses. Happily, Toronto was free of such scandals, but they were taken seriously enough to precipitate a special survey of U of T finances by the university auditors. They found them perfectly satisfactory. Cody was shocked at the Machray scandal, although he took a charitable view of Machray's actions, explaining to his friend Bishop Knox: "The whole thing arises out of bad investments which for years he sought to cover, paying out of capital. He got nothing for himself and his family."4 Cody began to issue invitations to his installation as president, to take place on October 16. He was pleased that the board had allotted $1,000 to defray expenses (a respectable grant in 1932).

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-19331179

The Codys hoped that Florence would be able to attend Cody's installation and perhaps even participate in some of the accompanying social activities. Her health had noticeably declined during the last two years. She and Cody went to Barrie in the summer of 1932, trusting a quiet holiday would do her good, but her health deteriorated further and in the middle of August they returned to Toronto. They looked forward to returning to Barrie shortly, but she continued to fail. She suffered a final heart attack and died on September 26, 1932, the day that university classes opened for the fall term. Cody's friends rallied around him, particularly Dave Walker, who had shared so many of Cody's sorrows. Principal McElheran of Wycliffe College stayed at 603 Jarvis Street with Cody for three days after Florences death. There was a private service at the house on September 28 and a public burial service at St. Paul's Church with McElheran and J.M. Crisall as the officiating clergy. Among the pallbearers were Dave Walker and another old friend, Arthur Woodhouse. The congregation sang two of Florence's favourite hymns, "Jerusalem tne Golden" and

"Abide with Me." The Toronto papers were sympathetic and not undiscerning in their obituaries. Cody pasted into his diary one entitled "She Chose the Quiet Life." It read, "Shunning the limelight everywhere, she chose the life of quiet and helpfulness. Time and again we have come on something that this helpmate of a man who has been called out into so many posts of prominence, has done to make someone happier. She did not express her opinions on platforms."5 Florence left a considerable estate, of which the principal items were 603 Jarvis Street and an office building on King Street. After the payment of a series of small bequests, Cody was given a life interest in the income from the estate. After his death, large bequests were given to St. Paul's Church, Wycliffe College, and U of T (all a reflection of Cody's interests and career). The St. Paul's bequest, much the largest, was conditional on the church "maintaining its services and teaching in essentials as at present."6 Thus began Cody's time of loneliness. "I am staying on at the house," he wrote to Tommy Des Barres "for I suppose I shall be less lonely there than anywhere else." Still the house was depressing and he was seldom home. "Things are running smoothly at the house," he reported in November. "I am scarcely in for meals except breakfast."7 Friends, particularly the Blackstocks, frequently entertained him, but it was a time of sadness. Moreover, his health was not very good, as suggested by his two visits to Dr. R.T. Noble in the spring of 1933.

180/HenryJohn Cody Cody sought to fill up the empty hours with strenuous activities at the university. He was assiduous in attending football games with Dave Walker or Dr. John MacCallum and conscientious in attending student functions of all sorts, in addition to his other official duties as president. He found comfort in the basic Christian beliefs he had possessed since boyhood. He testified to his faith in letters to his old friends, Maurice Hutton and Tommy Des Barres. Gradually Cody got into the work of the presidency. He was facing problems that had plagued Falconer in the closing years of his administration: depression financing, student journalists, controversies about free speech. It was soon evident that a new hand had taken over; Cody had definite ideas about the role and function of the university and about his place in the organization. He set forth his concept of the university in his presidential reports of 1932-33 and 1933-34. He saw the university as a great civilizing force, providing leaders and responsible citizens who would live rewarding lives and make democracy work. He saw the university, too, not only as a teacher, but also as the guardian of the knowledge of the ages and the extender of the bounds of knowledge. He stressed the importance to society of the wisdom and character that a university education could impart to students: "Never more than in these days was there a greater need for the well-trained mind, the clear thought, the determined will, the disciplined character which a university training ought to have a share in creating."8 Cody believed that it was the role of the university, as it was the role of the church, to create character. Cody also discussed the issue of academic freedom. His struggle with Professor Frank Underbill, which was just beginning, may have prompted these remarks. He maintained the same position throughout his presidency. In his 1932-33 report he asserted, "While academic freedom is rightly held to be essential to true university teaching, academic responsibility accompanies it, and is equally imperative. The teacher to whom freedom is gladly given must realize and practise the responsibility which its possession imposes."9 Cody did not raise the question of what to do with a professor deemed irresponsible. Cody thought that his role as president was to pull the whole university complex together and to proclaim to the university constituency what higher education was all about. Thus, he stressed the interdependence of the various disciplines, insisting especially that the sciences and humanities must relate to and support each other. Quoting a pas-

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-19331181

sage by Goldwin Smith in the report of the royal commission of 1906, Cody asserted that the university was to be "a home for culture and science under the same educational roof, uniting them as far as possible, yet leaving each in its way untrammeled by the union."10 With his background in the humanities, he naturally saw the Faculty of Arts as the vital central link in the whole system: "In the Universities of the Motherland emphasis is placed on the centrality and supremacy of the liberal arts. The Faculty of Arts remains the cultural heart of the University."11 While stressing the role of the Faculty of Arts, Cody tried his best to understand and relate to the scientific faculties. He got on remarkably well with the scientists, particularly with the medical doctors and the engineers. Cody was popular with the students, with the exception of the radicals. As we shall see, he was often at odds with the latter. In general, he was sympathetic to the students but always firm. When involved in discipline cases, he supported the Caput, the law enforcement body, but on occasion he did temper justice with mercy. In October 1932 three students from the School of Practical Science, in festive mood, painted the windows and walls of the medical building. They were each fined $21.50 by the Caput. Cody supported the Caput but was generous in extending the time allowed to them to pay. He assured the bursar that two of the students "can by no possibility make the payment of $21.50 within the week."12 Students who had failed an examination or even their year wrote to Cody, pleading extenuating circumstances and requesting special consideration. Concerned parents also wrote. Cody was meticulous in writing careful and detailed letters in reply. One parent appealed for his daughter to be given standing in second-year Arts on grounds of ill health and a death in the family. Cody and the registrar reviewed the girl's record and found she had failed three out of five subjects. Cody recommended she repeat her year. Cody took an active interest in the fortunes of the football team in the fall of 1932. This might have been partly because of his loneliness, but he did have a genuine liking for the game. He attended all the football matches, not only at Varsity, but also at Western, Queen's, and McGill (the other three teams in the intercollegiate league at the time). Cody was conscientious in attending, not only football games, but all manner of student meetings on the campus. He made a point of dining in the Hart House dining room. Here, according to Saturday Night (April 8, 1933), he met the officers of student societies and kept an eye on the cuisine. He even sampled the twenty-cent meal provided

182/HenryJohn Cody for the less affluent students and pronounced it excellent. It may be noted that twenty cents was a competitive price. A graduate student, who had his meals in this period at the Campus Coffee Shop on Huron Street, recalled that its prices were ten cents for breakfast and a quarter for each of lunch and dinner. Cody was fortunate in the appointment of E.A. Macdonald as secretary of the Students' Administrative Council (SAC), the governing committee of university students. The secretary could be of strategic importance in fostering or hindering good relations between SAC and the president. Macdonald proved to be most cooperative, sympathetic, loyal, and even self-sacrificing. He kept Cody informed about the activities of SAC and other student bodies. He informed Cody, for example, that women were admitted to Hart House for the occasion of a special debate with British students, apparently a notable concession. He even supported a cut in his own salary in May 1933, because he thought that other departments (which had suffered a cut) would resent it if SAC were not in line. Cody's relations with student radicals were similar to his relations with faculty leftists (Frank Underbill, H.M. Cassidy, Eric Havelock, John Line). While he didn't agree with the politics of the student radicals, he tried to be fair to them, and when there were protests from "friends of the university," he defended the students. His attitude to radicals was similar to the attitude he had expressed in a letter to J.A.C. Evans about a companionate marriage debate: "I fancy that on the whole less harm is done in allowing reasonable freedom in these matters than by undue restraint in their choice of subjects."13 Cody's relations with the professorial staff were in general amicable. He was kindly and considerate and in some cases he gave personal assistance. One senior professor who had heavy financial obligations and a Depression salary wrote gratefully to Cody in this period, "I do appreciate your generous offer of help and I trust everything in your hands."14 There are other such letters in the Cody Papers. As noted, his relations with radical faculty were difficult from the beginning. In responding to letters of complaint (with which he might have been inclined to agree) about Underbill and Cassidy, on the university staff, and Line and Havelock, at Victoria, he defended the professors by downplaying their influence and pointing out that Line and Havelock were not under his jurisdiction.15 In this way he staved off an immediate crisis, but only for a time. Cody's relations with the scientists were uniformly amicable. While not a scientist, he had carried mathematics as an option while at university

Henry John Cody

University College YMCA Committee, 1887-88. Cody second from left.

Henry John Cody

Cody's graduation picture, 1889. In the examinations in his final year, Cody "swept the boards."

Henry John Cody

Staff of Ridley College, St. Catharines, 1891-92. Cody (seated, second from right) had won out over Stephen Leacock for the post of classics master.

Henry John Cody

Florence Cody in 1897, three years after her marriage to Cody. Courtesy of Ontario Archives, AO 1924

Henry John Cody

The Royal Commission of 1905-1906. From left to right: the Rev. D. Bruce Macdonald; Cody; Sir William Meredith; Joseph Flavelle; the chairman, Dr. A.H. Colquhoun; Goldwin Smith; and B.E. Walker.

Henry John Cody

Cody in 1910, a year after the Toronto episcopal election.

Henry John Cody

Maurice Cody in barrister's robes, a year before his death.

Henry John Cody

Cody with Premier George Henry on the evening after the announcement of Cody's appointment as president of the University of Toronto.

Henry John Cody

Wedding picture of Cody and Barbara, December 27, 1933.

Henry John Cody

Cody, university president, about 1934.

Henry John Cody

Barbara Cody, 1935.

Henry John Cody

Cody with Governor General Lord Tweedsmuir (far left) and American Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Tweedsmuir assisted Cody in bringing Hull to the University of Toronto, where Hull received an honorary degree.

Henry John Cody

Cody with Sir William Mulock in Guelph, 1937 or 1938, probably on a visit to the Ontario Agricultural College. Mulock was at least 94 at the time.

Henry John Cody

Barbara curtseying to Queen Elizabeth, later the Queen Mother, 1939.

Henry John Cody

Cody (third from left) at Newman Club breakfast. Cody's relations with the Catholic community were excellent.

Henry John Cody

Herbert Bruce and George Drew at the funeral of Sir William Mulock. Cody blamed them for the opposition to Sir Williams reappointment as chancellor of the University of Toronto.

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-19331183

and had a good general knowledge of science. As chairman of the board from 1923 to 1932 he had become well aware of the needs of the science bodies and the manner in which they fitted into the university structure. He had to deal with three different science units: the science faculties (Medicine and the School of Practical Science); the science departments (Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy), which were university departments as distinct from departments in the federated colleges; and the Toronto General Hospital, which was closely related to the university though not a part of it administratively. Cody had some close friends within the science organizations. Mark Irish, the chairman of the hospital board, had had a long association with Cody. They had had adjoining constituencies in the Ontario Legislature in 1918-19 and the friendship had continued after they were out of office. C.H. Mitchell, the dean of the School of Practical Science, was another close friend and also a parishioner of Cody's at St. Paul's. Cody's actual role with regard to the scientists was largely ceremonial. On October 17-18, 1932, for example, A.N. Whitehead, the mathematician and philosopher, and Sir James Irvine, a British chemist, were both his guests at the university. Cody's diary for October 17 reported that he gave a lunch for Sir James Irvine; presided over a lecture by Whitehead on "The Concept of Civilization"; gave a dinner at the York Club for Irvine and Whitehead; and attended a university convocation in the evening at which Irvine received an LL.D. and delivered an address. October 18 was equally strenuous. Cody was especially interested in the problems of the medical school and the Toronto General Hospital. He had been a member of the hospital board as a government appointee during his time as chairman of the university board of governors. He was particularly interested and knowledgeable in the field of cancer research. As already noted, in 1931 he had been chairman of the Royal Commission on the Treatment of Cancer by Radium and had presided over a tour of investigation in Britain and on the Continent prior to the opening of the new Institute of Radiotherapy at the Toronto General Hospital. Cody continued to be involved in the cancer research program after becoming president. In October 1932 he attended a meeting of department heads of the medical faculty to consider the work of the Cancer Institute. In November, along with Sir William Mulock, Mark Irish, and P.P. Wood, he called on the premier in regard to the cancer hospital. When Dr. G.E. Richards went to Europe in 1933 to visit various radiology centres in preparation for the opening of the Radiology Institute, Cody provided him with letters of introduction and offered

184 / Henry John Cody

to tell him "of some of the latest developments of which I heard this summer in London."16 He was a great admirer of Frederick Banting and relied on him for advice, but he was less directly involved in regard to insulin and diabetes. He did, however, have some contact with the university's "Insulin Committee" and attended its meetings. Cody helped to encourage the smaller science departments. He promoted interest in the work of the forestry department among Ontario MPPs with heavily forested constituencies. Cody also sought to promote interest in science by inviting distinguished scientists to give lectures at U of T. In 1933, finding that Sir Arthur Eddington was slated to give a lecture to the Royal Canadian Institute, Cody invited him to give two or three lectures "in the Department of Mathematics, or Physics or Astrophysics." He offered a modest fee and as an added inducement suggested that Eddington could visit the new Dunlop Observatory, then under construction.17 Cody enjoyed the ceremonial aspects of university life. It gave him pleasure to attend and in some cases to preside at lectures given by distinguished visitors such as Lord Lothian (later the British ambassador to the United States), Lord Zetland, who spoke in Convocation Hall on "What Great Britain has done for India," Sherwood Eddy, the theologian, and Vita Sackville-West, the famous novelist. Cody particularly liked organizing and presiding at university convocations. Invitations to possible candidates for honorary degrees brought him in touch with many more distinguished people: governors general, authors, educators, members of the armed services, and noted scientists. He was in his element at the convocation ceremonies. With his fine presence, resonant voice, and very distinctive delivery, he was always an impressive figure. The convocation of May 26, 1933, was particularly notable. Honorary degrees were conferred on no less than eleven candidates, including Sir Josiah Stamp, the British economist and business tycoon; Dr. Herbert Bruce, the lieutenant-governor of Ontario; a former moderator of the United Church, the Very Rev. H. Oliver; and the director of education for Ontario, G.T. Rogers. The other seven were mostly heads of Canadian and American schools and colleges. The convocation prayer seems to have been revised by Cody, who had added the petition "that there may never be wanting a supply of persons duly qualified to serve God both in Church and State."18 The list of LL.Ds appeared to provide evidence that the prayer was being answered.

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-19331185

Maclean's magazine published a humorous article about Cody in March 1933, in which the writer wondered whether Cody was "the best clergyman in politics or the best politician in the clergy." But as president of the university, Cody sought to avoid politics by maintaining a nonpartisan position, in both the political and secular fields. Cody refused to say anything about the liquor question, although he had played such a prominent part in the twenties. He even declined to repeat the small annual contribution he had previously made to the Temperance Education Association. When the secretary of the Prohibition Union invited him to sign a petition opposing any increase in the sale of beer and wine in hotels and restaurants, the only result was a formal acknowledgment from Cody's secretary. His general attitude to anything smacking of politics was indicated by a letter to W.L. Grant, president of the League of Nations Society. Grant wrote to Cody on March 8, 1933, urging him to sign an open letter in support of international disarmament and to use his influence to have Canadian representatives on the Assembly and Council of the League of Nations instructed to insist on the abolition of the private manufacture of certain types of armament. But Cody declined to intervene. He explained, "I have found it wiser not to sign any of the various excellent manifestos that are being constantly sent to me; and that is the course which I think it best to follow even in the case of your League of Nations letter."19 There was one exception to Cody's policy of political neutrality, the League of Empire. Cody regarded the British Empire as a non-controversial subject. When Miss EM. Standish invited him to become a member of the Advisory Council of the League of Empire, a body which had the governor general for honorary president and Principal Maurice Hutton of University College as president, Cody accepted. Cody tried to avoid the appearance of undue support in the university of any religious denomination, even the Anglican Church. When Sir Henry Drayton asked him to raise money for the Anglican Restoration Fund, he refused, saying, "As President I must hold the balance impartially between the various constituent members of the University."20 There was one other unavoidable exception to Cody's policy of political neutrality, his relations with the provincial government, on which the university was so heavily dependent. Cody, of course, was highly regarded by the Conservative government, which was in power until 1934. Howard Ferguson had treated the university very well in the 1920s, despite a certain amount of grumbling. George Henry, who

186 / Henry John Cody

succeeded Ferguson in 1930, was equally well disposed, although the onset of the Great Depression made generosity difficult. Cody's relations with Henry were continuously friendly. Henry, like Ferguson, was apprehensive about radical politics among the staff and students. In July 1932 he complained to Cody about the activities of the justorganized League for Social Reconstruction. Cody tried to pacify him, saying that the League was not officially recognized by the university and anyway its leaders were in Victoria College, over which he had no jurisdiction. Despite Henrys fears about the university, Cody was still able to report to Ferguson (by this time Canadian high commissioner in London), "We have talked things over with Mr. Henry and on the basis of his assurance we can speedily complete our estimates."21 Later in his presidency, Cody got on badly with George Drew, but in this period their relations were friendly. When Drew urged Cody to succeed him as president of the Empire Club, Cody declined but he was obviously pleased at the offer.22 From the outset Cody was less successful in staying out of trouble in regard to so-called radical politics (the League for Social Reconstruction, the CCF, the Student Peace Movement, et al.). Occasionally he rejected requests for particular individuals to speak at the university. A case in point was his not allowing the president of the Toronto CCF Club to address a meeting of the Fabius Club in March 1933. Cody continued to have an active relationship with the church. It might have been expected that a man of 64 who assumed the onerous duties of a university president might have been diverted from all but a nominal relationship; but this was not the case. Granted, he had found his pastoral duties somewhat onerous in the later stages of his ministry (he assured a correspondent early in September, "Having shed the responsibilities of looking after the details of a large parish, which responsibilities rest on one day and night, I really feel about fifteen years younger"), but he found his duties as president sufficiently exhausting in the early stages of his new position to rule out any possibility of much preaching. In declining one invitation to preach he explained, "Indeed it is not practicable for me to go out to address meetings on Sunday. I am so pressed with work throughout the week that I cannot manage a seventh day."23 He felt somewhat alienated from St. Paul's. R.J. Renison, a prote'ge of Cody's and former Bishop of Athabaska, began his rectorship at St. Paul's on October 2, 1932. Cody found Renison's sermons superficial.

Cody's First Year as President, 1932-19331187

He reported to Des Barres: "I seem to have dropped completely out of the life and work of St. Paul's. It seems to belong to another age. Bishop Renison has taken charge, and I think he will suit the mentality of the majority. His sermons are very short, very thin, and very illogical, but made palatable by a bit of cheap sentiment and a story or two. However, they seem to serve their purpose, and most of the congregation seem to like them."24 Cody was deeply hurt because he was not invited to attend or to take part in the service when Renison was inducted at St. Paul's. However, Cody kept up his membership at St. Paul's and attended the services quite regularly. This was partly a matter of convenience, as he continued to live at 603 Jarvis Street, just around the corner from the church. He quite frequently celebrated early communion and occasionally preached. Gradually, as he became more acclimatized to his new position, he accepted fairly frequent preaching engagements. Some were prestigious ceremonies such as an Easter service in the Harvard Chapel and a Civic service in Toronto on the eve of the city's hundredth anniversary, but others were in young urban churches in Toronto or in country churches. Most of Cody's letters in response to letters of condolence did not reveal much of his real feelings, but one or two, to close friends, were more revealing. In letters to Tommy Des Barres and to Maurice Hutton, he spoke of his grief and loneliness but also of his reliance upon his Christian faith. To Hutton he wrote, "I do believe with all my heart that in hours like these both you and I make no mistake in falling back upon those deep and intuitive truths that are also set forth and confirmed in the pages of the New Testament." To Des Barres, he reaffirmed his early faith: "I am keenly conscious of the problem of which you speak in regard to the future life ... as I try to puzzle out something of its meaning I become so bewildered that I have to fall back on the somewhat crude and simple faith of my childhood, but at the heart of things, there must be infinite wisdom and love or else this were a mad world."25

Chapter 21

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-1935

ody continued to struggle with the problems of the Depression. In 1935 he wrote to his friend, Harvey Grant: "I am in pretty fair health, but the burden of this work is desperately heavy, and has not been made lighter by the financial difficulties of the times. I cannot help considering it with the financial situation of the past years when I was Chairman of the Board [of Governors], and the money came easily from the Government."1 It was indeed a grim time. Moreover, some of Cody's old stalwarts were passing. Cody lost two friends in the period. Archie Young, his old friend from college days, died in April 1935 and Dyson Hague in May. In September 1935 C. Venn Pilcher went off to Australia to become Suffragan Bishop of Sydney. However, Cody was helped and strengthened by his marriage to Barbara Blackstock at the end of 1933.

c

Cody gradually recovered from his loneliness. The principal reason was his growing friendship and eventual marriage to Barbara. Barbara had had a long relationship with the Codys, and Cody regarded her almost as a daughter (he was twenty-two years her senior). Barbara had been a good friend to the Codys in their times of happiness and grief. After Florence's death Cody gradually came to depend on her for help and encouragement. Eventually he fell in love with her. Precisely when they became engaged is not clear. There is a letter to

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—19351189

Barbara on July 10, when he was in Europe, couched in ardent language. When he returned early in August, Cody went to the Barrie house for the weekend. He had tea and dinner with the Blackstocks and the next day he entertained them to supper. It seems likely that he proposed to Barbara on August 6th, as there is a piece cut out of the diary for August 6th. Perhaps she did not give him a definite answer until August 19th, as there is another piece cut out of the diary for that day. In any event he saw Barbara much more frequently during September, entertaining her to lunch. Cody and Barbara were married in a quiet ceremony in the Wycliffe College Chapel on December 27, 1933. Only a few relatives (Blackstocks and Gooderhams) and friends were present. R.B. McElheran was the officiant, assisted by B.W. Horan, Barbara's brother-in-law. David Walker was the best man. Bishop Renison pronounced the benediction. Afterwards there was a luncheon at the Blackstock residence, 79 Prince Arthur Avenue, and a brief visit by the bride and groom to 603 Jarvis Street for tea. Before Barbara and Cody left for a few days in New York, Barbara wrote a note of gratitude to her mother, concluding, "I am supremely happy, your daughter Barbara Cody." It was a very successful marriage. Barbara had great strength of character. She was comparatively young and a person of some initiative. She had shown this in 1911 when she decided to go to India. She had written to Cody, "I hope I have done right in deciding to go - but it is my own decision and as it is the first I have ever made it caused a lot of trouble."2 Later, when the building of the new parish hall at St. Paul's was under consideration, Barbara had played an active part in making sure that the project got into the hands of "the right people."3 Her most celebrated exploit was in 1937 when, in her capacity as the president's wife, she attended a June convocation. It was an uproarious affair with student cat-calls and fire-crackers. The release of a mouse threatened to create pandemonium. Barbara seized the mouse, put it in her purse, and kept it there until the end of the ceremony. She gave Cody fine support in the activities of his later career, often accompanying him on trips within Toronto and to outside localities. They had a memorable tour of Britain, complete with their own car and chauffeur, in the summer of 1934. Barbara accompanied Cody to many of the social functions which were so large a part of the presidency. Occasionally they divided their activities. Thus on February 1, 1935, Barbara attended an At Home of the Medical Association while Cody was at the COTC At Home in Hart House. Cody was not in good health in this period. In December 1934 he was laid up for some

190 / Henry John Cody

days with "indigestion," and again in February 1935, but Barbara took good care of him. Occasionally, Cody was persuaded to take a night off and attend the theatre. They saw a series of performances of Gilbert and Sullivan operas by the D'Oyley-Carte Company as well as The Taming of the Shrew with

Alfred Lunt and Lynne Fontaine. They also saw the Lunts in Nowell Coward's play Reunion in Vienna. The casual morality of the latter was too much for Cody, who found the play "highly objectionable."4 Barbara was a personality in her own right, entertaining faculty wives and others. With her expertise as a social worker, she was in some demand as a public speaker, addressing the University Women's Club, the Victoria College Women's Association, a civic body in Brampton, and so forth. Cody was fortunate in his two marriages. Florence too had given him fine support, but in a quieter way. Lily Sutherland, who knew both of them well, wrote to Barbara after Cody's death expressing admiration for their differing contributions to Cody's career.5 From the beginning of Cody's administration, he was perplexed and embarrassed by problems of finance. "We are paring our estimates for the coming year to the quick," he wrote in 1933. "Certainly the great depression demands a wholesale investigation of every spending department of the University."6 Even before he became president, he was informed that his salary had been cut by $2,255. In November 1932 he was informed by the bursar that the board thought it necessary to curtail expenses for 1932-33 "to the utmost possible extent." The board asked to be informed what curtailment of travelling expenses was possible for "the President and Academic staff." Cody offered to save at least $2,000 on the account for travelling, entertainment, and visiting lecturers.7 These communications set the tone for Cody's policy for the next six or seven years. Since the university was largely dependent on the government for financial support, the problems of the government were always a factor of prime importance. The Henry administration was friendly to the university, but like everybody else, the government was feeling the effects of the Depression. The Hepburn government, which succeeded to power in July 1934, was less friendly, but its treatment of the university was about the same as that of its predecessor. Both made cuts in the university grant. The sums involved in Depression financing now appear extremely low, but they were of great moment to the university. The trend was steadily down. The university was granted $1,418,000 in 1932, $1,200,000 in 1933, and $1,100,000 in 1934, including a

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—19351191

supplemental grant of $200,000. Cody complained to Howard Ferguson, Canadian high commissioner in London: "The cuts [the university grant] have been very severe ... we are making such cuts as to enable us to balance the budget." After Mitchell Hepburn became prime minister, Cody assured one of his friends that "the Government has been so far very fair to us in the matter of grants," but in the spring of 1935 the grant was down to $900,000. In Cody's view, the university needed at least as much money as in 1934, but had already sustained two salary cuts (although one had been restored in 1934). It was impossible to cut salaries further; nor could the university cut the general expenses of administration "without impairing the efficiency of the University."8 A substantial addition to fees was necessary. Cody sketched in the details of fee increases in a letter to President Sherwood Fox of Western.9 Fees in Arts were to be $130 per annum. Library and examination fees were combined to bring in an increase of $15 over the present fees. There were comparable increases in other faculties: $25 for Applied Science; $25 for Forestry; $50 for Medicine and Dentistry, "perhaps even a little more." He went on to explain that "the federated colleges have made the situation much more complicated," requiring a share of the increase in Arts fees. Cody had an annual crisis when the university was preparing its budget for presentation to the government and several times excused himself from outside commitments in these times. When the Archbishop of Sydney invited him to go to Australia in May 1936, Cody consulted his board of governors replied: "We are very uncertain as to the amount of the Legislative grant which we may expect from the Province. This grant is made year by year. The preparation of our estimates is a very formidable business. All the details have to be gone over by the President with the heads of departments and the deans of faculties. No one can very well do this but the President; and it is especially necessary that under the circumstances, he should be on hand during both the preparation of estimates and their presentation to the Government." Cody concluded, "Both the Chairman and ViceChairman of our Board, with whom I have taken counsel, are strongly of the opinion that I should not be absent from the University during this critical financial time."10 Other details of Cody's policy of economy may be indicated. In addition to the two salary cuts already mentioned, the university attempted to avoid new appointments. The few that were made (in Geography, Fine Arts, Chinese and Japanese Studies) were largely financed by the American Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations or by the Department of Education. When Professor H.A. Innis was pressing

1921 Henry John Cody for a professor of geography in 1932, Cody explained that there would be no appointment that year. The contributions of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations were of immense help to the university. Cody was assiduous in his attentions to the executive officers of both. But there were limits to the sort of help the foundations would give. The Carnegie had a policy of financing the heads of new departments for a limited number of years, usually three. However, the executive officer, P.P. Keppel, declined to help in the establishment of the Department of Chinese and Japanese Studies. In this period Cody was under pressure to accept refugee German professors, usually Jewish. The Carnegie Foundation undertook to finance a candidate for two years, but only if the university would guarantee an appointment in the third year. As the university had no money for new appointments, only one or two were accepted. Professor D.B. Haurwitz, a meteorologist, secured a post in physics because the federal government promised an eventual appointment in the Dominion Meteorological Department. When Harold Laski, the famous British economist, recommended a refugee professor to the Law Faculty, Cody explained that there were no funds for an eventual appointment. Also denied were a considerable number of Dutch and German professors. The Carnegie Foundation was perplexed by the fact that a British committee (the Academic Assistance Council of England) that sponsored some of the candidates did not understand the terms under which the foundation would support candidates. The misunderstanding also gave Cody trouble. Economizing also affected the efforts of the university to secure outside lecturers. Distinguished visitors were offered extraordinarily low fees, even by 1932-35 standards. (Sir Arthur Eddington, the great scientist, was offered $50 a lecture for three lectures, for example.) Advocates of women's rights would have been dumbfounded at one department head's suggestion that, in view of the current prejudice against married women working, female married visiting lecturers should be asked to offer their services free!11 Undergraduates suffered from the Depression just as much as did the staff. Canadian university students had been accustomed to financing their careers largely by summer jobs, a practice Cody supported. He disagreed with visitors from ancient universities who thought that "the fine flower of scholarship was thus lost." He contended that there was "much to be said by way of counterbalance in the strength of character which comes through struggle and the ready adjustment to life

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-19351193

which contact with men and things inevitably brings."12 During the Depression, jobs became very difficult to find. At the same time, many parents who would otherwise have helped the student became unable to do so. Cody received many letters from undergraduates who were in arrears in paying their fees and wished special consideration. He took note of these difficulties in his annual report for 1932-33. Registration declined gradually during this period, from 8,274 in 1932-33 to 7,711 in 1934-35. In December 1933 Cody took comfort in a letter from A.B. Fennell reporting that only fourteen students had reported inability to pay their fees before completion of the fall term.13 Gradually the employment situation brightened. By March 1934 the university employment bureau had placed all the graduates of Commerce and Finance for 1933 as well as all the graduates in Civil Engineering. In Forestry, the picture was less encouraging. Early in 1933, the dean of Forestry reported that nearly half of the 1932 graduates had been unable to secure forestry jobs, while a considerable proportion of those who had secured jobs since 1923 had now lost them. While Cody practised a policy of rigid economy during the Depression, he identified those needs of the university that had to be met when conditions improved. In his 1932-33 report, he specified the new departments that should be established. A Chair of Geography had for some years been under consideration, as had a Chair of Fine Arts. Cody pointed out that the extensive resources of the Royal Ontario Museum and the Toronto Art Gallery provided a basis for the study of fine arts. With unique treasures in Chinese art and the prospect of the university housing a Chinese library of some 40,000 volumes, the university would seem to be a natural centre for Chinese and Japanese studies. He insisted that the university must move in strengthening the development of graduate work. Indeed, "the spirit of investigation and research must permeate the whole university."1^ Cody attempted to encourage the staff and students by expressing his admiration for them and his gratitude for the sacrifices they had made. In his annual reports he was careful to praise the staff, the students, and their parents for their courage and perseverance, as well as the board and administrative staff for loyal support. In 1932-33 he declared that while financial difficulties had confronted many undergraduates "they have manfully and resourcefully won through." And in 1934-35 he saw the fact that registration had kept up so well as an indication that "young men and women are intensely determined to have higher education for themselves, and that their parents share their determination." In the 1933-34 report Cody spoke warmly of the

1941 Henry John Cody

cooperation of the administration and academic staff. For many of the university teachers "sacrificial frugality," he said, had become a "rule of life." He pointed out that salary cuts fell especially on junior members of the staff, as they could not receive their normal salary increases. He was thankful that the second salary cut had been restored in 1933-34. Cody was aware that reduced budgets were likely to affect the morale and efficiency of the university. In the face of so much discouragement he tried to be optimistic. In the 1932-33 report he declared, "There may be a temporary slowing down in some departments, but better times will bring new opportunities and the University, I trust, will be ready to avail itself."15 In the following year's report, he expressed the hope that the day was not far distant when salaries would be restored to the original scale. It may be doubted that these assurances gave much comfort to the university community, but they did indicate Cody's sympathy and hope for colleagues and students. Cody was meticulous in organizing the social aspects of university life. He enjoyed social functions such as the mammoth reception for the entire faculty held in the Royal Ontario Museum in October 1933. It was attended by over a thousand and became an annual event. With his phenomenal memory for names and his warm interest in people, Cody was at his best at such functions. Some of his convocations were particularly notable. He was enterprising in securing distinguished candidates for honorary degrees and adroit at staving off inconvenient recommendations. On June 6, 1934, degrees were conferred on no less than seven candidates, including the Archbishop of Quebec, the prime minister of New Brunswick, and an Ontario cabinet minister. The opening of the Dunlop Observatory on May 31, 1935, and the attendant ceremonies all bore the mark of Cody's fine hand. He presided at the opening of the observatory, supervised the list of guests at the Hart House dinner, presided at the evening convocation, and entertained some of the notable guests at his home. He saw to it that both Mackenzie King and the lieutenantgovernor of Ontario, H.A. Bruce, were present. Occasionally there were hitches in Cody's fine-laid plans. In November 1934, in arranging a luncheon at Hart House for the members of Urwick's staff (among others) to meet a visiting British scholar, he was embarrassed to find that Irene Biss, a lecturer in economics, was debarred from attending. Hart House rules excluded women, except from a few evening dances such as the Masquerade and the Arts Ball. Sometimes Cody's geniality got him into trouble. Just before the memorial service for King George V, Cody met the Anglican primate,

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-19351195

Archbishop Derwyn Owen, on the steps of Convocation Hall. He stopped for a chat and invited the archbishop to sit on the platform. Owen accepted. The results were unfortunate. The principal of Emmanuel College, R. Davidson, was not in the platform party (the only head of a college not to be), and E.W. Wallace, the chancellor of Victoria - of which Emmanuel was a part - expressed his indignation. He had been under the impression that there would be a small convocation procession and so had agreed to represent Victoria university as a whole. He was surprised to find that the procession "was practically a complete gathering of heads of colleges and faculties." Already annoyed, Wallace had been further aggravated by the presence of the primate. "The omission of the Principal of Emmanuel College from the platform was noticed and has caused very unfavourable comment, particularly when a place was found for a representative of a religious body in a service which was announced as a gathering of the University family in memory of His late Majesty." Cody was all apologies. He was sorry Principal Davidson had not been in the procession, and took full responsibility for the presence of Archbishop Owen. He was glad that there was to be an early meeting of the senate executive, "as there are sundry uncertainties that both the Registrar and I would very much like to have cleared up so that responsibility for decision on these delicate matters will not have to rest with us."16 There the matter rested. While appointments to the staff were negotiated by various people in the academic hierarchy, usually heads of departments, Cody was frequently consulted. Sometimes his services were enlisted to facilitate an appointment. In 1934 he discussed with the Ontario minister of education the appointment of Dr. J.G. Althouse as dean of the Ontario College of Education and later made the recommendation to the board of governors that Althouse be appointed. In January 1935, when EJ. Urwick wanted to secure Kenneth Taylor, the economist, for his department, Cody agreed to interview Taylor, although he was dubious about the attitude of the board to an additional appointment. To Cody fell the delicate task of warning a fellow university president of an impending raid from Toronto. Thus, he wrote to Chancellor H.P. Whidden of McMaster about the offer to Kenneth Taylor: "I feel like the Babylonian ambassadors who came to see Hezekiah and all his treasures, and then set out to carry off some of them." He explained Toronto's need of a professor of social science and went on, "Professor Urwick has come to the conclusion that Professor Kenneth Taylor on your staff is in all ways suitable to fill this position." He explained that Taylor would start as an associate professor at a salary of $4,000. Cody hoped that Whidden would let him come to Toronto.

1961 Henry John Cody Whidden's reply to Cody was brief but decisive, "I knew some time ago that Professor Urwick was casting covetous eyes in the direction of Professor Taylor inasmuch as these things, of course are passed on in an informal way, especially where ... Political Economy and History are concerned. It would be hard indeed for me to get along without Mr. Taylor and I am naturally gratified to learn from him that he is planning to remain at McMaster."17 Cody was most frequently involved in appointments within the university departments, particularly History. Two cases may be cited, one in History and the other in Geography. R.G. Riddell was a brilliant graduate of Manitoba and Oxford universities in history. He had arrived back in Canada in 1934 and was engaged as a tutor in the men's residences in Victoria. The Victoria authorities were anxious to have Riddell connected with the academic staff of the university. Thus, E W. Wallace approached Cody with the proposal that Riddell be appointed to the Department of History. Victoria would pay his salary and Riddell would continue with some duties in the Men's Residences. A considerable correspondence followed between Cody, Wallace, and Chester Martin, the head of the history department. The history people were a bit wary at first, fearing church penetration of a secular department, but eventually the arrangement was accepted. The appointment of Griffith Taylor as professor of geography was an example of close cooperation between Cody and Harold Innis. Innis had not yet become head of the Department of Political Economy, but he was exercising a powerful influence on university policy in the whole field of the social sciences. He had already begun to press for the appointment of a professor of geography in Cody's first year and had been told that the university would not consider an appointment in 1932-33. Now, in 1935, he again took up the cudgels with Cody. He favoured the appointment of Griffith Taylor, an Australian geographer and a senior professor at the University of Chicago. Cody had already begun to make enquiries about Taylor early in January. He was assured by another Chicago professor that although Taylor disagreed with his colleagues about the emphasis on "human ecology" (to which he was opposed), "there is absolutely no question that Taylor is a man of world-wide reputation." At the same time Innis sent Cody a brief strongly urging Taylor's appointment. 1 8 He argued that as the Americans would soon be taking an increased interest in Canada, it was of vital importance that Toronto take a prominent role in the development of research, particularly in the north and the Arctic regions. Taylor, he said, commanded the respect of geographers in the United

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—19351197

States and throughout the world. He would establish a centre for research and would be able to attract funds for any project (a point which would be especially attractive to the hard-pressed president). Finally, "his appointment would establish our supremacy in the field immediately and for a long period." Thus admonished, Cody interviewed Taylor in Chicago on February 10 and then conducted the negotiations. He offered Taylor $6,250 (he was receiving $7,299 at Chicago) and later raised it to $6,500. Taylor finally accepted, even though it meant a cut in his salary. The Toronto offer had other attractions - Taylor was to be head of a department instead of merely a professor. Innis congratulated Cody "on the energetic way in which the whole problem has been attacked. His appointment will be in the best interests of geography, of Canada and of the University and a great tribute to your administration."19 This was not mere flattery. Innis was obviously sincere, although he himself could take much of the credit. Taylor entered Canada in August and was soon vigorously engaged in organizing the new department, setting up honours courses, and so on. His public career at Toronto began with ceremonies organized by the university and the Canadian Geographical Society. A dinner in Taylors honour at the York Club was attended by a cabinet minister, President Cody, and an impressive array of other academic dignitaries. A public lecture by Taylor in Convocation Hall followed. A good proportion of Cody's time was taken up in dealing with complaints about the university. Many of these had been provoked by the public utterances of professors (these will be dealt with later), but there were many other complaints. Everyone who had a grievance wrote to Cody. Probably some believed in always dealing with the top man in an institution. With others, the president's name was the only one they knew. Cody tried to answer all the letters tactfully and fairly. A few examples may be cited. One man had observed that the boys in the university residence on Hoskin Avenue were playing ball in the quad at ten-thirty on Sunday morning. He hoped that this was not the thin end of the wedge toward an "American" Sunday.20 Cody's old friend A.H. Young, then on the Trinity staff, complained that the city was cutting down trees on Hoskin Avenue in front of Trinity. Cody explained that the city had been given outright a road allowance that permitted a widening of Hoskin Avenue and therefore the cutting down of the trees.21 Sir Joseph Flavelle appeared to think that the university was not being sufficiently thorough-going in its economies. He urged the university to "look into its expenditures and try to cut back." For example, he complained that the Griffith Taylor appointment would involve

198/HenryJohn Cody additional expenditure by the university "even if there is a donor." In his reply, Cody pointed out that the university was getting by on a government grant which had been progressively reduced and that the staff were still under a salary cut. He explained that the provincial Department of Education had been anxious that there should be a professor of geography, that the appointment had been made only after continued consultation with the Department of Education and that payment of Taylor s salary was divided between the university and the department. He concluded by assuring Flavelle, "I quite realize that it is a time for consolidation and not for expansion and can assure you we shall do our best to maintain efficiency without avoidable expansion in the present distress."22 One woman who had lost her "police dog" suspected it had been kidnapped by the university biologists. She wrote to the chancellor, Sir William Mulock: "I ... ask you as Chancellor with the honor of the University at heart, to interest yourself in this dog and to endeavour to have her located."23 Sir William, 91 at the time, discreetly passed on the letter to Cody. For the most part, Cody's relations with the students remained amicable. E.A. Macdonald continued to guide the Students' Council and to keep Cody informed in regard to council activities, including its relations with the Varsity. He consulted Cody about arrangements for coming events like the Masquerade and the alumni dinner. Cody continued to attend many student functions, meetings of student associations, football games, and Hart House debates. Cody maintained his support for individual students in need of assistance. For example, he wrote to W.G. Watson, general manager of Toronto General Trust: "You will remember that the other day, as we sat at the Empire Club, you spoke to me about the possibility of getting a little further help for a needy and deserving student from some of the Leonard funds."24 Cody proceeded to describe the qualifications of the student, a medical student, the son of a farmer near Staynor, a young man of fine appearance, with a most excellent academic record, anxious to become a medical missionary. The Varsity was reasonably cooperative with the Hepburn administration, avoiding derogatory remarks. The paper praised the government for giving the university an additional grant of $150,000 in the autumn of 1934, editorializing, "Unfortunately the erroneous opinion has been widely circulated that the Conservative party was more friendly to the institution than the Liberals. The passing of the grant silences such unjust and unfortunate criticism."25 Cody was embarrassed.

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—19351199

Shortly afterwards the Varsity seems to have fallen from grace. Some sort of incident led to the dismissal of first the editor and then his replacement. E.A. Macdonald's letter to Cody suggests Macdonald had played a prominent part in the handling of the crisis: "I really believe that he [the new editor] will co-operate with us to conduct the 'Varsity' along proper lines and to keep us from being involved in contentious issues that might do harm to the University. I really feel that from now on the 'Varsity' will cause no more trouble. The dismissal of Mr. Cochrane I think you will agree, was handled with the minimum of publicity and what might have been serious complications arising out of the dismissal were very carefully avoided." Macdonald felt that what was done was "in the best interests of the University."26 Cody's relations with the leftist students, as well as with leftist faculty members, were considerably more strenuous. On such issues as socialist politics and world peace, Cody was denounced from two sides: by outside critics of the university for permitting the expression of leftist sentiments and by students and others in the university for being too reactionary. He always resented accusations that the university was coddling Communists and socialists, either in the faculty or among the students. A conservative critic wrote to him in 1935: "I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read in today's Star that Karl Marx is to be taught in a University Extension course ... Of course, I was already aware that the University harbours a CCF Club, Student League, Young Communist League, Workers' Party, Friends of the Soviet Union and the Student Peace Movement 'controlled by the more radical element' and officially recognized by the Caput ... But this teaching of Marx in the University is the last straw."27 Cody replied vehemently: "He is not 'taught' in the sense that you seem to imply, viz. in order that disciples may be made for him ... To infer that to teach about the history and tenets of any man in the background of history is to endorse his teaching is, as of course you would readily admit, unwarranted. It is only in this sense that Marx is 'taught.'" On the subject of the student clubs, Cody wrote, "In regard to the various groups you mention your information is quite inaccurate. The CCF Club, representing a new and national political party, could not fairly be refused permission to organise and meet. You might as well make your protest against the Dominion House of Commons because there are CCF members in it. The other clubs you mention are simply not recognised by the Caput, and never have been. There was an application from a group of students to form a peace society, but ultimately no constitution was submitted to the Caput, and so no recognition was given."28 Cody tried to be fair to student radicals, but in view of his own

2001'HenryJohn Cody

opinion this was sometimes difficult. He relied on the Caput, the body that had formal control over the recognition of clubs. Few of the many clubs recognized by the Caput were particularly controversial from a political point of view. The Caput recognized the CCF in October 1933, but on certain conditions: (1) the Caput did not "recognize" the publications of the clubs, (2) it must approve outside speakers at club or association functions, (3) university buildings must not be used by clubs in connection with provincial and federal elections.29 After Cody read to the Caput a letter from C.L. Coburn requesting recognition of the And-War Society (soon to become the Student Peace Movement), the Caput set up a committee, chaired by R.B. McElheran, "to report on the Caput's general policy in recognition of societies and clubs."30 In 1934 the Caput accepted the report of the McElheran Committee specifying (1) that while societies could be formed without consent of the Caput, their formation must be reported to the president; (2) that in order to use university buildings, clubs must secure consent of the responsible authorities; and (3) they must secure consent of the Caput for outside speakers.31 Cody was particularly aggravated by the peace movement at the university. It involved the faculty as well as the students. The students were more unrestrained than the faculty members in denouncing the president for allegedly reactionary sentiments. Cody's views on war were much as they had been during World War I. He believed in the concept of a righteous war and was especially devoted to Remembrance Day services honouring those who had died in the Great War. He did not find the presence of COTC (Canadian Officer Training Corps) cadets at Remembrance Day services offensive. In fact, he particularly enjoyed the annual service at the Hart House Tower. Then as now the advocates of the peace movement were in favour of honouring the glorious dead but not at the cost of glorifying future wars. Cody's differences with the peace advocates were brought to a head by the "Cry Havoc" controversy in 1935. The controversy was not confined to the University of Toronto, but the students were a part of it. It was precipitated by Cody's speech at a regimental dinner of the Queen's Own Rifles at the King Edward Hotel on April 26, 1935. In responding to the toast of the regiment, Cody made a vigorous attack on an anti-war volume, Cry Havoc, which Beverley Nichols had published in England in 1933.32 The book's title was taken from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Nichols denounced all those factors he thought made for war, including those people in British society who believed in the concept of a just war. Nichols admitted that he might fight in an international army in an interna-

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—1935/201

tional cause, but in general, he hated wars and those who regarded them as necessary. He regarded patriotism as a major cause of war and argued that the whole of British culture, particularly as conveyed in the schools, tended to the glorification of war. He was scathing in his denunciation of Rupert Brooke, the author of the poem "If I should die think only this of me," and of British historians who glorified naval and military victories. He ridiculed the military father who had just returned from active service and who regarded his pacifist son with shocked surprise. In his speech to the Queen's Own, Cody attacked the whole school of anti-war advocates, including Beverley Nichols.33 He described Nichols as "a self-complacent youngster who dismissed lightly men whose shoes he was not fit to tie." Cody declared that, while reading the book, he had resented more and more the references to jingoists. He coupled Dean Inge, the famous English preacher, with Nichols and commended John Buchan's King's Grace, which had just appeared, as an antidote to Nichols and his friends. The speech was given prominence in the press, which reacted on party lines - the Star and the Globe critical, the Mail and Empire and the Telegram friendly. Joseph Salzburg, a leftist politician, in a rally at Queen's Park, asserted that Cody "comes out openly in Fascist speeches" and that he would "play the game with the exploiters and will protect imperialism." A woman asserted in a letter to the Star, "Dr. Cody should be the mainspring of peace and brotherhood in all its phases. It behooves the thinkers to learn who is 'Crying Havoc' in their midst." A prominent Toronto clergyman, Stanley Russell, was polite but firm: "I can only proclaim myself as shocked and in fundamental disagreement with one for whom I have the most profound esteem."34 Cody received a number of hostile anonymous letters, presumably from students.35 One of them assured him, "It is old men of your fungi type that is a barrier to the youth of today. But you can crow as you like it makes no difference. For an old man like you though in a higher position cannot stop the nobler and higher aspirations of youth against war." Another commended Vera Brittain's Testament of Youth to Cody. Perhaps the bitterest remarks appeared on a fly sheet distributed by the Student League of Canada on the university campus: "Cody's statements which praise and glorify nationalist jingo propaganda and pay high tribute to the fascist butcher-Mussolini, are opening shots in the intensification of the preparations for war. That the university is to form a decisive link in these preparations becomes obvious from the utterances of the president."36 Cody had supporters as well as critics. Among them was his old

2021 Henry John Cody friend H.C. MacKendrick, who commended a film to him, Lest We Forget, produced by the Dominion government and sponsored by the Canadian Legion. MacKendrick described it as "the most powerful influence for the cause of peace that the country has seen." W.B. Kerr, a Canadian professor at the University of Buffalo, wrote to Cody: " Cry Havoc contains so many inaccuracies, illogicalities and baseless accusations that it should definitely not be in any school library."37 Cody's other controversy with the peace advocates stemmed from the same attitudes that were laid bare in the Cry Havoc incident, although the second did not produce the same fireworks. The peace movement was coordinated in the university by the Student Peace Movement (originally the And-War Society), an umbrella organization which included members of the CCF Club, the Student League, and the Student Christian Movement. The secretary informed Cody that the movement's specific aims were (1) to "awaken all students to the immediate danger of war by organizing a strong anti-war movement on campus; (2) to secure the widest possible publicity of war plans and all war activities; (3) to work for the stoppage of the manufacture and transport of munitions and all materials of war." The fourth aim, which appeared to call for direct action within the university, was "to work against official support of COTC through government grants and special privileges, to expose ... the militarization of the universities, reactionary propaganda in the lecture room ... and the military character of celebrations such as Empire Day, Armistice Day."38 From the peace movement perspective, the Remembrance Day service was the chief occasion on which war was glorified. They set out to minimize the influence of the service, not by opposing it head on, but by holding an alternative, non-militaristic service in a nearby location. Cody's attitude to the student advocates of world peace was indicated in his November 1933 letter to a conservative friend: "There is a small group of students at the moment who want to organize an antiwar society, to make a definite attack on the COTC ... The immediate result of the proposal has been to increase recruiting to the COTC."39 He was especially dubious about the Student League. When the League applied for recognition by the Caput in 1935, Cody asked the secretary some searching questions about the League's organization and personnel, ending with the query, "For the cause of peace is any other organization than the Student Peace Movement necessary? ... We note that for the purpose of promoting peace you seem already to be associated with that movement."40 The first exchange over the issue of Remembrance Day ceremonies

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—1935/203

occurred early in 1935. Ken Woodsworth asked Cody to cancel the university lectures for March 29 so that members of the Student Peace Movement could lay a wreath at the foot of the Soldier s Tower (traditionally the site of the Remembrance Day service). He invited Cody to be present at the ceremony. Cody rejected the request, saying that the Caput would be unlikely to cancel lectures so late in the academic year and suggested that November 11 would be a more appropriate time. He did not refer to Woodsworth s invitation to himself.41 The sequel to the exchange came in the following November. The anti-war students decided to hold an alternative Armistice Day service on November 11, without the COTC and with more emphasis on the need for peace in the future. They organized the ad hoc Committee on the Armistice Day Service. The secretary explained in a letter to Cody: "Since there are a large number of students on the campus who feel the need for a Remembrance service in which the emphasis will be peace, and which will be a student service, we have decided to hold a service to satisfy this need." The service was to be held in the Hart House theatre at 10:50 November 11 (the same time as the service at the Tower). Cody was invited to attend the alternative service and to sit on the platform. Cody replied brusquely, explaining that he had already promised "to do what I have done for many years, take the alumni service at the Tower." His resentment was clear: "I regret exceedingly that another service is being held by any group of students at the same hour in the immediate vicinity of the Tower." There the matter rested.42 The two services were duly held. The alternative one, presided over by the Student Christian Movement "for the benefit of those students who object to the military aspect of the Tower service."43 Cody recorded in his diary for November 11, "At 10:50 Service at Memorial Tower large turn out of students. (Rival Service under S.C.M. in Theatre of Hart House - about full - mostly girls and from Victoria)." "Cry Havoc" was not the only one of Cody's public statements that embroiled him in controversy. His speech to the Montreal Canadian Club on December 19, 1933, produced equally vigorous opposition, although not quite so bitter. In discussing the role of the university in relation to the public, he developed his favourite theme that the role of the university was to produce well-educated, cultured, and responsible citizens. He felt that the teaching role of staff and professors was more important than their public speeches. The core of his argument was this: "I do not believe that churches or universities will do their best work if they leap into the arena of practical politics or active economic

2041 Henry John Cody and industrial questions. They will do their best work by sending out men of trained and disciplined mind whose minds are well stored with knowledge, who have grasped principle."44 In practice, however, Cody could accept the involvement of professors in the political arena. For example, professors from the University of Toronto participated in summer schools held by the Liberal and Conservative federal parties in September 1933, the Conservatives at Pickering College, Newmarket, and the Liberals at Port Hope. Some nine Toronto professors - with Cody's approval - participated at Pickering, including Alex Brady, H.M. Cassidy, H.A. Innis, Edgar Mclnnis, and N.A.M. Mackenzie. Later Cody wrote to W.L. Grant (the principal of Upper Canada College): "This summer members of the staff of the University have evidently given very freely of their time and effort at the various summer schools. This is I think a duty that members of the university staff really owe to the public."45 Cody's Montreal speech, reported in the press, seems at odds with the sentiments of his private letter to Grant. Cody was understood from this speech to be more opposed to public statements than he actually was. The result was a wave of objections and criticism, public and private. There were hostile letters in the Globe, and the Montreal Gazette ran a news story under the heading "Dr. Cody Under Critical Barrage. Evangelical Board of United Church Resents Recent Remarks Here." Several critics recalled Cody's famous radio speech on the eve of the 1929 election as proof that he did not practise what he preached. One correspondent described the 1929 speech as a last-minute "leap into the arena of practical politics." The most prominent critic was Norman Rogers, a Queens University professor of economics and later a Liberal cabinet minister: "Are the church, university and the state of this and every other country to play the role of Pharisee in the parable of the Good Samaritan and pass by on the other side?" He went on to say that modern problems demand cooperation of all, including "institutions which are supposed to reflect the light of the spirit and the light of learning and understanding."46 Cody did not reply publicly to Rogers's attack. Obviously they were not far apart. Rogers conception of the university as the light of learning was much the same as Cody's. It was Cody's belief that the church and the university had public responsibilities, although this would not be too clear if one considered the Montreal speech without understanding his general position. He did not rule out the duty of the university and the church to make public pronouncements, but merely insisted that they had other - and perhaps more important - duties.

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—1935 / 205

Complaints to Cody about radicalism in Canadian universities and Toronto in particular were a recurrent feature of Cody's administration from its beginning until 1941. The whole story will be discussed in Chapter 24. Protests were frequent in this period, and many of them focused on the University of Toronto's Frank Underbill. A speech delivered by Underbill in October 1934 at London, Ontario, drew criticism. A Toronto lawyer interpreted the speech as predicting inevitable war, Canada's neutrality, and the disintegration of the British Empire. He demanded Underbill's dismissal, asserting, "If one of our judges desires to make a partisan political speech, he should first resign from the bench. So in this case, any professor, entering upon such contentious subjects, should vacate his chair." Another Toronto lawyer insisted that a "disintegrating, disparaging, and disloyal speech of this kind should not be tolerated in one who has a responsible position on the staff of the Provincial University."47 Cody tried to defend Underbill to the outside world, minimizing his influence: "No one takes him seriously, and as far as I have ever heard he makes no reference of these views nor does he attempt them in the University. It seems that he breaks out only in public utterances away from the University."48 There was soon to be an occasion when Underbill "broke out," but within the orbit of the university community. At a meeting of the Learned Societies held at Queen's in May 1935,49 Underbill gave a paper in which he argued that social scientists were failing in their duty of furthering the cause of social justice. He compared the capitalist system to a motor car. The economists, he said, were the mechanics, tinkering at the engine, the historians and political scientists were the front-window boys orating about Responsible government and Dominion Status, while the owners of the car (the capitalists) ran the car and derived all the benefits (i.e., the profits). He said all this in his usual genial manner, but he provoked vigorous replies from Norman Rogers, H.A. Innis (who said he was one of the mechanics), and others. Afterwards there was a furious argument between Underbill and Innis. Innis would later be one of Underbill's defenders, but the Kingston incident affected their relations for years. Cody's relations with the greater part of the university faculty were, of course, pretty remote. So far as the federated colleges and professional faculties were concerned, he dealt only with the heads (E.W. Wallace at Victoria, F.H. Cosgrave at Trinity, C.H. Mitchell at the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering). However, he had closer relations with faculty from those parts of the university under his direct control

2061 Henry John Cody

(i.e., UC and the departments such as History, Economics, Physics). Here, Cody tried to be accessible, not only to department heads but to anyone who approached him about a grievance or matter of concern. Cody was personally close to a few department heads: G. S. Brett, dean of the Graduate School and head of the philosophy department; E.F. Burton, head of the physics department; and E.J. Urwick, head of the political science department. His old friend Arthur Woodhouse, who had come from the University of Manitoba to the Department of English in UC, was very much in Cody's confidence. Consulted by Cody about one of his former colleagues at Manitoba, H.N. Fieldhouse, Woodhouse recommended him as "realistically conservative and imperialist. If I were looking for someone effectively to offset a too-radical [history] department Fieldhouse would be my choice. He has a great capacity for legitimate popular appeal."50 Urwick wrote frequently. Like every department head, he was concerned with promotions for his staff. He wrote in August 1934, urging promotions for junior staff members: "Our staff is in grave and growing danger of losing more than one or two of our ablest members, owing to the increasing demand for expert economists both in Government service and in business. Well merited recognition of the work and devotion of the junior members might go far to lessen this danger."51 N.A.M. Mackenzie wrote in regard to the question of teaching "International Relations" at the university. He argued that it was a composite subject, requiring lectures in history, law, economics, and political science. He suggested visiting lecturers in the various fields, such as Sir Alfred Zimmern. Cody was sympathetic and offered to finance visiting lecturers like Sir Arthur Salter and Professor Brierly.52 Occasionally Cody received protests from staff members in the federated colleges. Professor C.B. Sissons of Victoria College was upset by a Mail and Empire report that it was the "official opinion" of the University of Toronto that Latin should be dropped as a compulsory subject for the middle school examinations in Ontario high schools and collegiates. Sissons pointed out that the Council of Arts at the university had voted overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of Latin. He urged Cody to correct the error. Sissons was supported by his chancellor, E.W. Wallace, who wrote to Cody in a similar vein. Cody replied to Sissons with a calming letter, insisting that the press account need not be taken seriously. His letter throws a good deal of light on his attitude toward the press: "I do not take perhaps with sufficient seriousness statements made in the newspapers unless they are made over someone's signature. Usually the reporter's own imagination or

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933—1935/207

misunderstanding is responsible for inaccuracies. I feel it would be fatal to begin correcting misstatements that appear in the papers ... I do not think that anything that appeared in the paper will affect one way or another the future of Classics in our schools. That future will largely depend on the character of the teaching."53 Cody was concerned with what might be called the outreach of the university. He was anxious to maintain and extend U of T's presence in other parts of Canada, especially in rural Ontario. He always stressed the fact that the university was not merely a Toronto organization but a provincial one. Organizing the alumni was one means to accomplish this outreach. Cody saw the alumni as a source of monetary support and also as a means of recruiting students not only for the undergraduate courses but also for the graduate school. He had been interested in the development of a graduate program at least since 1921 when his Royal Commission on University Finance had recommended "that a Department of Graduate Studies and Research be organized in the Provincial University as soon as possible." Cody pursued a policy of organizing and attending meetings of Toronto alumni associations not only in Ontario centres but across the country. He was probably the most sought-after speaker in Canada for addresses to Canadian Clubs, service clubs, educational and church associations, and he often combined such engagements with meetings of alumni branches. With his friendly presence and magnificent talent as a speaker he was always an impressive success. Cody was constantly being worried by his staff and others about what they regarded as the imperialism of Queen's and McGill. He responded warmly to these warnings. In 1933 Dr. Morton E. Hall, a Toronto alumnus in Edmonton, complained that the Alberta Medical School refused posts to University of Toronto graduates: "In spite of the fact that we [Toronto] outnumber McGill and even though many are medallists or honour graduates with training equal to or better not one of these have a place on the Faculty councils in at least two faculties [Medicine and Engineering]." His letter emphasized the fact that McGill people use only their own. Cody replied on November 29: "Many thanks for your interesting letter of November 23. It supplies a clue to many things and certainly puts one on guard." He added, "The University of Toronto is keenly interested in the welfare of her western graduates." He promised to make a western tour to visit alumni and concluded, "When next I have the opportunity of speaking to President Wallace ... I shall carefully and diplomatically make enquiry

2081 Henry John Cody

as to the situation in the Faculties of Medicine and Applied Science."54 He may have done so in 1935, when he secured an honorary degree from the University of Alberta. On that occasion he not only saw a good deal of President Wallace but also had tea with Dr. Morton Hall. Some of Cody's staff shared Hall's concern. E.E Burton, head of the Physics Department, complained that in its awards the National Research Council showed a similar McGill bias: "There seems to be undoubted evidence, not only of favouring of McGill undergraduates, but also of favouring candidates from other Universities who express intention of working at McGill."55 He included a table of National Research Council awards for 1935 that supported his contention. Toronto historian Robin Harris has commented on "the special relationship between H.A. Innis and Cody."56 Harris's dictum is confirmed by a reading of their correspondence of the 1930s and early 1940s. In his frequent letters to Cody, always in longhand, Innis dealt not only with the concerns of his own department but also with university policy in general. Cody often took his advice. Innis supported Cody's program of developing graduate studies at Toronto with a proposal of his own. He was anxious to bring young professors in the social sciences from other Canadian universities to Toronto on one- or two-year stints. He argued that many of them had been struggling during the Depression with large classes and low salaries. They would benefit by a "relaxed" period (with a light teaching load) at Toronto. After becoming familiar with the Toronto system, they would return home and organize their classes along the lines of Toronto's, using the same textbooks. In due course, they would be sending graduate students to Toronto.57 Cody approved of the proposal and the result was a series of visits from young professors from western universities: W.T. Easterbrook, George Britnell, and others. Innis's appointment as head of the Department of Political Economy in 1937 was an important step in the evolution of the University of Toronto. He was the first Canadian to occupy this position. The appointment was not a foregone conclusion. Indeed in 1936, when E.J. Urwick was contemplating retirement as head of the department, Innis had not yet been appointed a full professor. In spite of his great ability and international reputation, he was thought by some to lack the style expected of a departmental head in a great university. While Innis had his detractors, he also had good friends in the university. Not the least of these was Urwick. Innis and Urwick did not agree about the role of the social sciences in the scheme of things, but this did not prevent Urwick from giving strong support to Innis's Candida-

The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-1935 / 209

ture. Cody accepted Urwick's advice, which was in accordance with his own high regard for Innis, and appointed Innis as head of the department in June 1937. In thanking Cody, Innis wrote, "I hope I shall be able to uphold the traditions of Ashley, Mavor, Maclvor and Urwick [his British predecessors] and you will not regret the appointment of the first Canadian."58 A few of Cody's speeches not directly concerned with the university should be mentioned. He was briefly sympathetic to Italy, having visited the country in the summer of 1933. In November 1933 he addressed a distinguished audience at Ottawa's Chateau Laurier on the subject of Italy. Prime Minister R.B. Bennett and some federal cabinet members were in attendance. On January 9, 1934, he spoke at Convocation Hall along with a high Italian official, with Arthur Meighen in the chair. Later he addressed the Italian-Spanish Club in a meeting at Victoria College. Cody was invited to speak at the Watchnight service in 1934 on the centennial of Toronto's incorporation - a significant indication of his standing in the civic community. He used one of his favourite texts, "Lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes." It was the same text he had used in his first sermon after his failure in 1909 to be elected Bishop of Toronto. He had sounded an optimistic note in 1909 and he did so again in 1934. His address blended a historical and Christian idealism. He was proud of the accomplishments of those who had built Toronto. He felt they had tried to build the "city beautiful," even though they may have fallen short. He went on to describe his standards for the perfect city. The perfect city must be characterized by a high standard of civic morality, by some plan of ordered growth, and by an impartial yet kindly administration of justice. Its citizens must have a proper attitude to work, the wisdom and willingness to help the less fortunate members of the community, high aims, and high standards of education. The perfect city must be inspired by the strength and influence of religion. Cody stressed both civic and religious themes: "With searching of soul and confession of frequent failure, we look upon the present situation with its manifold problems and challenges, and yet cherish the belief that we are 'citizens of no mean city.'" Though regretting its failures, he was proud of Toronto. He closed on a note of hope. The only monument to the achievements of those who had died in the war would be, he said, "a city pure, brotherly and God fearing."59

Chapter 22

The Later Depression, 1936-1939

he first four years of Cody's administration had been plagued by the problems of the Depression. From the fall of 1939 until the end of his presidency in 1945, Cody would be occupied with problems arising from the war, and anything like placid development was impossible. The interim, 1936-39, was not exactly a happy period. No one could be free from worry in a world drifting toward war, but at least it was a time of comparative quiet. During these years Cody was able to proceed with the development and expansion of the University of Toronto. Cody had achieved a position of great prestige in the community of Canadian universities. In 1937 he was consulted by the search committee of the University of Saskatchewan in regard to a successor to President W.C. Murray. President W.A.R. Kerr of the University of Alberta asked for his advice in reference to problems of appointments and promotions in the university. President Sherwood Fox of Western consulted him about representation of university graduates on the university board of governors.1 Upon occasion Cody took a strong line in defence of the interests of the University of Toronto. When General A.G.L. McNaughton of the National Research Council sought to direct medical research to the National Research Council and Ottawa, Cody discouraged the proposal, insisting, "I think better results would be gained by remitting problems [of medical research] to the different

T

The Later Depression, 1936-19391211 medical schools where already large research facilities are available and where there is a keen atmosphere of research already existing."2 The optimistic tone of Cody's policy in the late 1930s was indicated in a letter to President W.A. R. Kerr of the University of Alberta: You will be glad to know that the University of Toronto is making steady progress in spite of the Depression. Thanks to various extra funds that have been at our disposal medical research is making rapid strides. We are now contemplating an enlargement to the Banting Institute. We are also planning for the erection of a new and commodious gymnasium for the women undergraduates at the University. Two new Chairs of geography and fine arts have recently been established and are evidently meeting a widespread demand, as the registration in these courses are far beyond our expectations.3 Cody continued to demonstrate his talents as an administrator. On the whole he got on well with the board, although he occasionally became impatient with them. After the appointment of George McCullagh, the newspaper publisher, to the board, Cody recorded in his diary (October 28, 1937): "Bd of Governors - 15 present business over in 35 minutes - discussion opened by Geo. McCullagh for one hour on how to save time at meetings and on turning board into debating and discussion body on all university subjects." On the whole, Cody was satisfied with a system in which the provincial government appointed the board members but left them comparatively free to control the university. The government, of course, could exert its influence through partial possession of the purse strings. Cody explained to an American university official who had enquired about the Toronto system, "Our tradition is that the Government does not interfere with the freedom of action of the members of the Board of Governors once they have been appointed. The Government's ultimate control lies in its power to grant, administer and withdraw annual appropriations for the upkeep of the University."4 In the matter of appointments to the academic staff, Cody kept a close watch on what was being done. He explained to President Kerr: "What is usually done is that in all important appointments the President appoints an ad hoc committee from the related departments."5 An increasing Canadian nationalism in government circles subjected Cody to a certain amount of difficulty in making appointments in

2121 Henry John Cody new esoteric fields of study. In 1936, when Cody had requested that a British mathematician, H.S.M. Coxeter, be admitted to Canada to take up a post at the University of Toronto, the deputy minister of immigration made it clear that non-Canadian appointments were not popular with the Department of Immigration. The department would admit Coxeter and his bride because his particular field of mathematics had not been studied in Canada. The department expected that advanced students trained by Coxeter would make it possible that "it will not be necessary to use in the future, any but Canadian-born instructors in the department of mathematics."6 Cody was not enthusiastic about alumni requests for control of elections to the board. He explained to Sherwood Fox that the alumni, by an amendment to the University Act, had been given the right to nominate eight of the twenty-two board members, but that the government need not accept the nominations. Of the lists of nominations sent in by the alumni, the government had accepted four out of eight on the first occasion but only one from a second list. Cody said, "There was no end of log rolling in connection with the nominations. The experience of this University has rather been in favour of leaving the appointments to the government. Panels chosen by the alumni may be helpful, if you get a sufficiently large vote ... and if the appointing body is not bound to accept nominations."7 Cody had a great deal of authority in the preparation of the university budget for presentation to the government. While the financial situation was better than earlier in the decade, finance was still his major problem. The Depression had had an effect on some local donors. One declined to renew his scholarship, while another reduced his, adding the condition that it be "subject to review at the end of each year."8 The university was extremely cautious in its expenditures. When Dean Neville of Western enquired about the university's policy in regard to secretaries, Cody explained, "This question of secretarial and clerical assistance is one of perpetual difficulty. We do our utmost to reduce the number of such persons to a minimum." The office in University College had one secretary and shared the services of another with the college registrars office. There were very few departmental secretaries in the Faculty of Arts and each of these was also a departmental librarian. Other faculties were similarly short-handed. Cody wrote, "The general policy is to cut down the number of these secretarial librarians as much as possible. They are easy to secure and hard to get out."9 The question of whether holders of matriculation scholarships should also receive free tuition was a thorny one for the university

The Later Depression, 1936-19391213 administration. The issue first came up when Percy Hermant donated funds in 1937 for matriculation scholarships, tenable for four years. This led to the question of whether all scholarship holders should receive free tuition. Cody believed that they should, but he was not entirely successful in maintaining this policy. The Hermant scholarship holders retained the right to free tuition for the four years providing the holder maintained a standing of first-class honours. Other scholarship holders who had been given free tuition in the past were to retain it, but the board of governors expressed the opinion that no other new matriculation scholarship holders should be awarded the same privilege. There were other indications of financial embarrassment. The Carnegie Foundation had given a small grant for the maintenance of the Workers Educational Association (WEA) at the university, an organization, loosely connected with the university, that offered evening lectures to working men. In 1937 Dalhousie University attempted to establish a branch of the WEA but had difficulty raising the money to pay the lecturers. Dalhousie appealed to Toronto for $200, to be taken from its Carnegie grant. Toronto regretfully declined on the ground that the Carnegie grant was for use only in Ontario. WJ. Dunlop, the director of University Extension, also explained that the $200 could not be spared if Drummond Wren, the WEA secretary, was to receive his salary up to November 1938. EJ. Urwick, in effect the dean of social science at this time, had difficulty in allocating space to the various departments in the old McMaster building. The Department of Sociology was in process of being established, and Urwick was hard-pressed to find offices for its two professors. The superintendent of the building agreed to clean and paint a small unused room on the floor occupied by Social Science, but there remained the problem of furnishings. Urwick appealed to Cody: "But we have no funds with which to pay for two desks or tables and chairs, for which the sum of $105.75 is required." He requested a special grant from the board of governors.10 While there were difficulties in Cody's supervision of university finances, there were also bright spots. Individual members of the faculty expressed gratitude for salary increases. W.S. Wallace, the university librarian, wrote, "I know that the members of the Library staff are grateful to you for the removal of the cut, and for what you have done for them in the way of increases." J.E. Shaw of Modern Languages was grateful for "the recent increase in salaries which we all owe to your efforts as well as those of the Board of Governors." Equally encouraging was the university bursar's report about the deficit, which had been

214 / Henry John Cody

of such concern to Cody and the board. F.A. Moure reported that it would be "practically wiped out" as of June 30, 1937.11 Cody continued his policy of rallying the alumni in support of the university. Like other university presidents, he was a tremendous traveller, visiting the alumni from coast to coast in Canada and the United States. His western trip in the spring of 1937 was particularly notable. The record of his engagements indicates that he carried out the roles of university president, civic leader, and active churchman, but above all he cultivated the alumni, attending an alumni function (usually a luncheon or dinner) in every centre he visited. In addition he addressed Canadian Clubs in Winnipeg ("Higher Education in National Life"), Saskatoon ("Signs of National Health"), and Regina ("The Crown and the Empire"), as well as the Women's Canadian Club and Kiwanis in Vancouver. He preached in Holy Trinity Church, Winnipeg, and Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver, and attended convocations in two Anglican colleges, Emmanuel, Saskatoon, and the Anglican Theological College, Vancouver. In Vancouver Cody paid a special visit to an elderly Toronto alumnus, SJ. McKee, who was old and in ill health. One of McKee's friends wrote later to Cody that "at least there is a proud old couple that will never forget your visit."12 In the same year, 1937, Cody addressed the New York Alumni Association at a dinner in the Waldorf Astoria on April 20. In June he was at a summer camp at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, to address another Toronto alumni gathering. Cody always gave the alumni a priority in arranging his engagements. When invited to address teachers and service clubs in Owen Sound, he stipulated that he wished to include alumni in the program. He declined to attend the Anglican General Synod of 1937 because of his western trip to visit alumni, and he turned down an invitation to address the Women's Canadian Club in Regina because of other pressing engagements, including a meeting with alumni. Sometimes Cody's journeys were adventurous. He made a long trip to address the alumni at Timmins, Ontario, and reported in his diary, January 31, 1936, "On train to Timmins - was hurled by train's irregular motion against a window and broke it. By a freight wreck [was] 2 1/2 hours late. Did not arrive till 7:30 went direct to alumni dinner spoke on recent developments in University. February 1 Saturday went on visit to Mclntyre mine - went down to 5375 foot level." The alumni appreciated Cody's efforts at promotion as well as his other accomplishments as president. J.A. Groves, president of the Alumni Association of University College, wrote, "We appreciate your

The Later Depression, 1936-1939 / 215 untiring zeal in all phases of the University's work. We are grateful for the growth which has taken place during your Presidency in numberless directions - in scientific and Medical Research, in Geography and the Fine Arts to mention but a few. The fine esprit de corps of the staff is evidence of the spirit of cooperation which you have evoked." The Vancouver alumnus, already cited, testified that the "tremendous value of the visit of Mrs. Cody and yourself was in tightening anew the bonds that bind us to the University."13 In this period Cody's relations with the professors were on the whole cordial, although there were elements of friction. As noted, Professor Frank Underbill was Cody's special problem, but there were incidents when he did not see eye to eye with members of the staff. Most of his day-to-day exchanges were with heads of departments and deans, particularly with G.S. Brett, the head of the philosophy department and later dean of graduate studies, E.J. Urwick, head of the political science complex, and H.A. Innis, Urwick's successor. Urwick and Cody seemed to be of the same mind in regard to H.M. Cassidy, who had had a rather stormy career at Toronto and had left to accept a post in British Columbia. Cassidy now began to negotiate a return to Toronto, proposing to organize an "Institute of Social Sciences." Cody was not enthusiastic about Cassidy's returning, and Urwick discouraged the institute project, suggesting to Cody that Cassidy was merely attempting to make a job for himself. Whatever Cody thought of Urwick's suggestion, he was extremely cautious in letters to President L.S. Klinck of the University of British Columbia and also to Cassidy. When Klinck enquired about the project, Cody assured him that "very careful consideration is being given to it by the department of economics, and they have not yet arrived at a definite conclusion." Over a year later, they were still considering it, and Cody reported to Cassidy that "for the coming year on account of financial limitation we shall not be able to make any direct development in research in the social sciences." There the matter rested.14 Cody had close relations with G.S. Brett, who was vigorous in pressing the claims of the philosophy department. As in other departments, the philosophers were overworked. Brett passed on a letter from F.H. Anderson complaining that some were teaching as many as seven courses and having to read between 5,000 and 6,000 pages per year. Occasionally departments felt menaced by the activities of other departments, fearing an encroachment on their turf. Anderson (and Brett) complained about a course offered by the Department of Economics on Hobbes to Bosanquet, plus Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine.15

216 / Henry John Cody There are other evidences of Cody's good relations with the staff. When an ardent patriot wrote complaining that George Glazebrook, one of the history professors, had referred to "England" rather than "Great Britain" in a Hart House debate on the subject of British rearmament, Cody replied that Glazebrook was usually accurate in his nomenclature and anyway he was probably misquoted. Not all of Cody's contacts with the faculty were cordial. In one case a professor of physiology had secured research grants from the Banting Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation in 1937. In the following May he informed Cody that he had received an offer from Swarthmore and would like to negotiate with Cody, presumably to secure a raise in salary at Toronto. While this was not an unusual ploy on the part of university professors, Cody thought the professor was being ungrateful for recent favours. He requested the man's resignation and returned to the Rockefeller Foundation the portion of the grant that had not already been paid to the professor. With people outside the university Cody was scrupulously resistant to requests for favours. When a relative of his proposed that one of his friends be appointed "Military Instructor" at the university, Cody politely declined, explaining that the appointment should go to a member of the university Officer Training Corps. ^ Cody's desire to appoint German refugee professors continued to be frustrated by the shortage of funds. As noted in Chapter 21, the Carnegie Foundation would give grants for the first two years of a professor's appointment, but only on condition that there was an assured permanent appointment for the third year. In most cases, Cody could not give this assurance. Occasionally, he made special efforts to secure the appointment of a particularly desirable candidate. Frederick Banting had shown signs of anti-Semitism early in his career but seemed to have changed his attitude by the 1930s. He allowed his name to be used by the Canadian Committee to Aid Jewish Refugees and accepted Jewish professors if they were likely to be of aid to Canada. He had already accepted the brilliant scientist Bruno Mendel, who was now engaged in cancer research in Banting's department, but Mendel had brought his own laboratory equipment and enough money to finance his research.17 In 1936 Banting wanted to secure the appointment of another Jewish scientist, Hermann Fischer. Fischer, the son of a famous scientist and a friend of Mendel's, had collaborated with his father in synthetic chemistry. He had been a professor at the University of Berlin but was forced out of Germany and now lived in the United States. Cody

The Later Depression, 1936-1939 / 217 worked vigorously to bring Fischer to Toronto. He raised money for the appointment, a generous guarantee from F.K. Morrow, who promised $5,000 a year for ten years for the establishment of a chair of clinical research. Cody sounded out Flexner of the Rockefeller Foundation about the possibility of a grant to pay for the necessary facilities. He explained that they had Fischers salary for ten years but there was one difficulty: accommodation. "We thought that if there was any possibility of our receiving from the Rockefeller Foundation either by way of a grant towards a new wing, or by way of the establishment of a regular Institute of Clinical Research, we would be ready to do our share in looking after the personnel." He predicted that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation would enable the new work to be as successful as the Institute of Public Health, which had been financed by the foundation.18 At the same time he wrote to H.D. Dakin, an American scientist with whom Fischer had been in touch, seeking to enlist his influence with the Rockefeller people. Dakin promised to do his best.19 Fischer accepted the Toronto appointment in March 1937. It then became a matter of securing his admittance to Canada. Cody wrote to the commissioner of immigration in Ottawa urging him to facilitate Fischer's entrance to Canada. He pointed out that "there is no one in Canada who could take the work we are expecting Fischer to accomplish."20 The commissioner complied rather reluctantly, indicating a preference for Canadians in university positions. Fischer became research professor of organic chemistry in the field of "Special Research." Refugee professors continued to arrive in 1938-39. In May of 1938 Leopold Infeld, a Jewish professor from Poland, was appointed lecturer in the Department of Applied Mathematics. Cody's record in regard to the appointment of refugee academics reflected his relations with the Jewish community in general. He appreciated them. It was easy, of course, to be cordial to philanthropists like Sigmund Samuel, who was generous in his donations to the university, particularly to the Royal Ontario Museum, but Cody went beyond the courtesies of his relations with the rich. He defended Jewish academics against the prejudices of some critics of the university. In 1935, when a Toronto lawyer protested that a course on Karl Marx was being taught - and being taught by a Jew - Cody replied, "You say that the course is to be taken by a Jew ... The Jew is a graduate of our own University, not a communist, and I am informed by Professor Urwick, the head of the department in which he graduated, that he is a wise and competent teacher."

218 /HenryJohn Cody In order to meet charges of a too large Jewish presence in the university, Cody was supplied with information about actual Jewish presence. A letter from A.B. Fennell to Cody in 1933, probably in reply to a request from Cody for information, informed Cody that the proportion of Jewish students in the university was "surprisingly low," only 7.5 percent, although they were concentrated in University College and the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry.21 Cody endeared himself to the Jewish community in Toronto in June of 1938. Speaking at a commencement dinner at Hart House, he paid a glowing tribute to the Jewish community and to the performance of the Jewish refugee professors in the university. Leaders of the Jewish community expressed their gratitude for Cody's record in regard to the refugees. Sigmund Samuel wrote, "On more than one occasion I have discussed with you the appointment to the staff at the University of these German Professors who have been driven from their homeland and it was a great satisfaction for me to know that those you have already appointed have proven to be so satisfactory." Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, of Holy Blossom Temple, was equally grateful: "Such a generous expression as that to which you gave utterance the other evening will serve as a partial antidote to the many unBritish influences which are rampant in so many other lands today."22 Cody continued to get on well with the students in general and to maintain a polite but cool relationship with the radicals. One reason for his popularity was that he took great care to investigate complaints or requests for assistance from students, their parents, or friends when he was approached personally. A father wrote to Cody, worried because his son did not see himself as sufficiently prepared for university work, particularly in economics. Cody wrote to the professor concerned, asking him to keep an eye on the boy, but not to mention the fact "that I have spoken to you about him." A Ph.D. student protested that her thesis had not been fairly marked by the examiners. Cody communicated with the examiners, who reviewed the thesis, but still found it unacceptable. An unsuccessful candidate for the Rhodes Scholarship was going to Oxford at his own expense. Cody wrote to C.K. Allen, the warden of Rhodes House, asking him to secure admission for the young man to an Oxford College - no easy task. The young man was admitted to Hertford. And so it went. Even where he could not help, Cody always indicated how seriously the request had been taken.23 His principal bone of contention with the radicals continued to be the peace movement. Remembrance Day services and meetings in support of peace were still the occasion of friction. On March 20, 1936, the Student Peace Movement organized a service in the West Hall of

The Later Depression, 1936-1939 / 219

University College as part of a "National Peace Hour." Though Cody spoke at the service, his ideas on peace clearly differed from those of the movement. As reported in the Varsity: Dr. Cody said the success of the venture [the peace movement] will depend largely on the note struck by the various speakers throughout Canada. If generalities are indulged in the efforts will be negligible ... The place for platitudes about the necessity of peace is not Canada, but some of the more militant countries of the world ... "Peace is not an end in itself, but rather a byproduct of more important things, including fair-play, cooperation, and good-will. If the Hour does something to instil in the people of Canada these ideas, and does something to show the way in which these things can be brought about then the amount of good derived from it could be tremendous." Cody said that the League of Nations was the most important factor in making for peace, concluding, "Second in importance, almost taking the leading role in fact ... British people are taking the role of co-ordinators and directors of the peaceful moves of all the countries."24 It was certainly not a speech in the spirit of Beverley Nichols and his admirers. There was a reference to "militant nations" but presumably this did not include the British and there was no denunciation of militarism, the armament industry, or British imperialism. In the fall of 1936, the Varsity was busy criticizing or denouncing people with whom Cody was anxious to maintain good relations. A student prank in 1936 ended in an attack by the Varsity on Principal T. Eakin of Knox College. According to the press, a May Day parade of Communists was passing Knox College on St. George Street. From an upper window of the college, a student threw water on the paraders. Not unreasonably, the Communists were enraged and threatened to "tear the building down." Principal Eakin was later informed of the incident. He was quoted as asserting, "You have a Communist who could hardly speak the English language threatening the life of a youth whose grandfather was probably a pioneer of this country." The Varsity attacked Eakin, claiming that he "considers it quite right and proper that third generation English-speaking, but thoughtless and ignorant Knox College students should pour water on a man because he cannot speak English."25 On the day after the Varsity's attack on Eakin, the politicians came in for attention. The Varsity was of the opinion that neither Premier Mitch Hepburn nor Earle Rowe, the Conservative leader, would aban-

2201 Henry John Cody

don the system of political patronage unless they were subjected to strong pressure by the public. More aggravating to Cody was a Varsity editorial, appearing October 29, on a Hart House debate on the resolution "That Canada should prepare to take a more active part in Empire Defence." The resolution was defeated 123 to 70. The debate was in the tradition of the famous "King and Country" resolution in the Oxford Union in March 1933. The Varsity reported approvingly that the opponents of the Hart House resolution had urged Canada to break clear of the "cobwebs and entanglements of the British Foreign Office." The paper declared, "Only under a new and enlightened economic system can we be placed above the interests of armament manufacturers and international manipulators." The continuing attacks of the Varsity on Remembrance Day services were even more galling to Cody, particularly the editorial of November 11 which posed the question, "Is it not almost blasphemy to glorify [the men killed in the War] for such a sacrifice while at the same time, we give evidence of our continued subjection to the sin which they died to overthrow?" Cody never interfered directly with the editorial policy of the Varsity, even though he found it distasteful. To be sure, the Varsity was officially the creature of the Students' Administrative Council, which depended on the good will of the board of governors for its funds. Later, in November 1936, the editor allowed the publication of what was described as "an indecent letter." Cody received complaints, and Macdonald, the secretary of the SAC, wrote to Cody expressing his concern. He reported that during the previous four years, the Varsity editors had cooperated with the SAC, but "this year it has been more difficult, and it may be necessary for us to take very drastic action ... If this course is necessary, I assure you it will be dealt with firmly." In the end, the SAC took no drastic action, but Macdonald was pleased at the choice of a new editor, A.C. Vipond, in March 1937. He confided to Cody, "I personally felt that he [Vipond] was a man of good judgment ... He is definitely not a Leftist."26 In 1936 Cody was confronted with a crisis in the affairs of the Conservatory of Music. The Conservatory had gone through several dispensations prior to its affiliation with U of T in 1896. It had gradually become integrated with the university, which by the 1920s was in virtual control. The Conservatory's board of governors was nominally appointed by the university, but actually selected by the chairman of the Conservatory board in consultation with Cody. The Conservatory

The Later Depression, 1936-19391221 was headed by the two distinguished musicians: Sir Ernest MacMillan, the principal, and Healey Willan, the vice-principal. Like other parts of the university, the Conservatory had suffered during the Depression but survived through the help of Sir Albert Gooderham and others. Following Gooderham's death in 1935, the Conservatory found itself in serious financial difficulty. After lengthy discussions, the board decided drastic action was necessary. One of the moves presumably dictated by the circumstances was the abolition of the post of vice-principal. The board hoped that Willan would remain as a teacher and lecturer. He was to have a year's leave of absence on full pay. The office of vice-principal was replaced by an "executive assistant to the principal." Willan was bitterly resentful at this summary treatment and refused to be mollified by the board's conciliatory efforts. He left the Conservatory and never returned to its staff. Cody had been anxious to expand the university's Faculty of Music into a teaching as well as an examining body. Healey Willan's departure from the Conservatory facilitated the achievement of this objective. There was a great deal of sympathy for Willan in the university community. Since he was now at a loose end, it seemed obvious that he must be included in any scheme of expansion of instruction in music. At their February 22, 1937, meeting, the board of governors discussed a new Arts course in music and voted $1,000 for the purpose. Sir Ernest was delighted, but stipulated that all the courses should be "under the roof of the Toronto Conservatory of Music." On the strength of the $1,000, he proposed that the Conservatory offer three courses to the Arts students: harmony and counterpoint, elementary form and history, and ear training.27 He proposed that Willan teach Harmony and Counterpoint, while Leo Smith of the Conservatory staff should teach Elementary Form and MacMillan Ear Training. MacMillan tried to persuade Willan to return to the Conservatory. He offered him "a guarantee of $ 1000 for the ensuing year covering work as Lecturer and Examiner and independent of teaching, and also, of course, of University honorarium." But Willan was obdurate. He would have nothing further to do with the Conservatory. Cody, who had accepted MacMillan's scheme provisionally, tried unsuccessfully to intercede with Willan, reporting in his diary on May 27, "Interview with Dr. Willan re return to Conservatory- Doubtful." On June 1, 1937, MacMillan summed up the position. Willan would be eligible to teach the Harmony course, even if he were not a member of the Conservatory staff; but since Elementary Form was a

2221 Henry John Cody Conservatory course, it must be taught by Leo Smith, a member of the Conservatory staff. MacMillan insisted, "The whole matter raises the question of the relationship of the Conservatory to the University and I think I am speaking for the Board in expressing the opinion that clarification of the relationship between the two bodies is becoming increasingly urgent." Cody had already expressed his agreement with MacMillan over the need to clarify "the relation of the University Faculty of Music to the additional work required for music in the Faculty of Arts."28 Meanwhile, the movement to appoint Willan as professor had been developing. Friends rallied to his support, including his close friend Sir Frederick Banting. Marjorie Low, one of Willan s supporters, informed Cody that a group wished to raise money for the Chair of Music, providing Willan was appointed professor of music. Cody referred her letter to the board.29 On June 28 Cody came down from Barrie to settle the question of Healey Willan and the professorship of music. He and Bruce Macdonald, the chairman of the university board, successfully presented the case to the board of the Conservatory. Willan was given "permission to take the position of Professorship of Music so long as the appointment in no way interferes with the close and harmonious relations between the University and the Conservatory."30 On the very next day Cody wrote to Mrs. Low, assuring her that the university board "will be glad to accept a fund for the purpose of establishing a chair of music in the University of Toronto, of which chair when established Dr. Healey Willan will be the first incumbent."31 The board suggested that the group raise $100,000. The arrangements for Willan's stipend reveal the university authorities' concern for his sensitivities. The university and Conservatory each paid $2,000 of the $4,000 stipend, but the entire amount was paid to Willan through the university as part of his official salary.32 Cody was very interested in the Royal Ontario Museum, particularly in Bishop William White and the Chinese collection. The immediate problem involved providing shelving for the 40,000 Chinese volumes Bishop White had secured. For this purpose, two new floors were constructed, financed by a combination of government and private donations (Sigmund Samuel and British financier Sir Robert Mond contributed generously). Cody had used his good offices with Mond, Samuel, and the provincial Department of Education to good effect. The Chinese library was duly opened on November 5, 1937.

The Later Depression, 1936-1939/223 Bishop White became involved in a mild flurry with McGill University. McGill had purchased from Mr. Gest, an American industrialist, a large collection of Chinese volumes, but on the condition that Gest could repurchase the collection if he sought to do so within a year from the date of the sale. Twenty-four hours before the expiry of the year, Gest repurchased the collection and subsequently sold it to Princeton University. Bishop White was reported in the Montreal Gazette (January 26, 1937) as deploring "the step of McGill of permitting the world famous Oriental library, known as the Gest library, going to Princeton University." McGill principal A.E. Morgan was enraged, writing to Cody, "I feel sure you will agree that it is unseemly for members of a University to criticize the action of a sister University without ascertaining the facts on which such criticism is based."33 Displaying his talents as a diplomat, Cody wrote a soothing letter to Morgan, suggesting that White had probably been misquoted. He would pass Morgan's letter to White. There was no intentional injustice done to McGill. He concluded, "As you say the most friendly relations exist between our Universities and ourselves." White later explained to Morgan that the Gazette interview had been by telephone and the reporter must have misunderstood him. What he had meant to say was that if the facts were as given, the resale was much to be deplored, since it would leave the University of Toronto as the only Canadian centre where Chinese cultural studies could be pursued. He closed with appropriate regrets.34 The granting of honorary degrees at Toronto was a complicated question. The federated colleges could grant honorary degrees in theology, but otherwise the power was vested in the University of Toronto. Many of the degrees were given to members of the University of Toronto community - senior members of the faculty, members of the board, donors of large sums of money to the university. The most spectacular part of the process was the granting of degrees to distinguished men and women from outside the university - politicians, soldiers, scientists, famous authors, and others. The president was involved in the whole selection process, but he was especially responsible for negotiating with the prospective recipients of the degrees, supervising the whole convocation ceremony, often organizing hospitality for the distinguished visitors. The convocation of October 22, 1937, illustrated some characteristic features of the conferring of honorary degrees upon distinguished visitors. Invariably the recipient was a busy person, and it often took a

2241 Henry John Cody good deal of negotiating to persuade him or her to accept the honour. University presidents might have to arrange the event for a suitable time. There were obvious advantages for the university if the great man or woman could be persuaded to come. The convocation, often a "special convocation," and the attendant social functions attracted desirable publicity (articles in the press, photos of distinguished visitors posing with university authorities). Convocation brought the university authorities in touch with important and interesting people, and it provided an occasion for the entertainment of local dignitaries. There were times the university may have cherished the hope of eventual financial support, but this was not the case as often as was sometimes supposed. In the case of Cordell Hull, the United States secretary of state, the initial overtures from the university began in March 1937, six months before the convocation. Cody wrote to Hull offering him an honorary degree. Hull replied courteously, thanking him but declining. Cody appealed to Lord Tweedsmuir, the governor general, who was to visit Washington early in April, asking him to speak to Hull on the university's behalf. Tweedsmuir did what he could. He assured Cody that he had had several talks with Hull about his visit to Canada: "And my last words to him on departure were an urgent demand that he should come to us; first to receive your degree at Toronto and then to stay with me in Ottawa." He advised Cody to ask Hull to name his own time, and to promise a special convocation. Cody accordingly did so. Hull replied on April 8, agreeing to come and receive a degree, but pleading inability to make plans immediately.35 It was Tweedsmuir who instigated the final arrangements. His secretary, A.S. Redfern, wired Cody on September 21, informing him that Cordell Hull was about to visit Tweedsmuir in Ottawa and that it might be possible for the University of Toronto to confer a degree on Hull on October 22 at a convocation which Tweedsmuir would attend. The date of the convocation was duly established for October 22. It was apparent at the outset that to entertain both the governor general and the U.S. secretary of state on the same occasion could not be a "half and half affair." Cody had one month less a day to make the detailed arrangements for such an undertaking. Cody was able to press ahead with the invitations to the convocation itself and to the luncheon preceding it. Some of those to be invited were people usually honoured by invitations, such as the premier of Ontario and the prime minister of Canada. Cody was punctilious in inviting Premier Hepburn to university functions, usually suffering brusque replies. On this occasion, Hepburn accepted, but left the writ-

The Later Depression, 1936-19391225

ing of the letter of acceptance to his secretary, who wrote in much more cordial language than Mitch would have used. Mackenzie King was very gracious and particularly so in his letter of thanks following convocation.36 As it turned out, Premier Hepburn did not attend. A luncheon at the York Club preceding convocation was the usual entertainment for the dignitaries, but this time Cody had to adjust the guest list to include the unforeseen number of Hull s staff. The luncheon had another unusual problem. Because the governor general was on a very strict diet, the menu had to include only things His Excellency could eat. His secretary sent a list of the things His Excellency could not eat: soup of any kind, salmon, lobster, crab, trout or smoked fish, pork or veal, turnips, sprouts, cabbage, tomatoes, parsnips, onions, old carrots, celery, grapefruit, grapes, cherries, strawberries, melon, pineapple, savouries, creamy sweets, ice cream. The menu decided on was oysters, lamb cutlets, green peas, cauliflower, potatoes, and ice cream. Cody had obviously made a mistake and had to change his plans for the dessert. On the 18th of October, Cody was informed that baked custard would be fine instead of ice cream. Meanwhile, Redfern was pressing for detailed information about the other arrangements. Cody replied in letters of October 4 and 6. The October 6 letter indicates Cody's meticulous attention to the details of the arrangements: morning coats would be worn at the luncheon preceding the convocation; the dignitaries would arrive at the university at 2:45 p.m.; Hull would be seated in the front row at the right of the chancellor; the governor general would sit next to the chancellor, then the lieutenant-governor and then Hull; Mrs. Hull would be seated in the front row at the right-hand side of the centre aisle in the body of the hall; the ladies of the party would come to Simcoe Hall and be escorted to their seats before the beginning of the academic procession; probably two thousand persons would be present; Cody would present Hull for his degree "in a speech of about eight minutes."37 On October 22, at 9:30 a.m., the Codys went to Union Station, where the Tweedsmuirs' private car was standing, and welcomed the Tweedsmuirs, Hon. Cordell Hull, and Mrs. Hull. The lieutenant-governor and Mrs. Bruce were there, as was Lamont Woods, the American consul. The plan was that the American consul would take the Hulls on a tour of the city and to the Royal Ontario Museum to see the Chinese collection and the Bruces would entertain the Tweedsmuirs until it was time for the luncheon. There were sixty-six guests at the luncheon at the York Club, and the responsibility for seeing to the entertainment of their wives would fall to Barbara Cody.

226 / Henry John Cody The Cordell Hull visit went off smoothly. Cody's speech in presenting Hull for the LL.D. was a good example of his style on such occasions. He coupled references to Hull's long and successful career with something of a defence of the foreign policy he himself represented. "He is a peace-loving citizen of the world," asserted Cody. "His special method of attaining his object has been through freer trade." He offered a brief defence of American policy: "It is sometimes said that the United States has stood unhelpfully apart from Europe since she rejected the Treaty of Versailles. As a matter of fact, this is very far from the truth. While the United States has pursued her traditional policy of avoiding permanent political commitments in the Old World, she has frequently cooperated for special purposes notably in the economic sphere." He continued: "The Trade Agreements programme has been Mr. Hull's special contribution in the world movement of peace through trade. Mr. Hull believes that experience is justifying his opinion that wider international trading will both help to prevent war and to ward off economic depression."38 In the light of what would shortly follow in the history of the world, it makes strange reading. It reflects the desperate optimism of Cody and others in a world already moving to another war. Whether Cody got all this into the eight minutes he had predicted may be doubted. Following the convocation, Cody and Barbara entertained the visiting dignitaries at tea in the presidents room. The Hulls left by train for Washington at 6 p.m. and the Codys were present to see them off. The final event was the dinner at Government House for the Tweedsmuirs. A full day! Cody carried out his customary strenuous program in spite of quite indifferent health. He had a bout of pleurisy in April 1936 and was confined to bed over Easter. He and Barbara managed a trip to England in the summer of 1936. Cody spoke at Cambridge University and represented the University of Toronto at the centennial celebrations of the University of London. He was in the gallery of the House of Commons on the day the British government announced the withdrawal of sanctions against Italy, and he reported that Sir Stafford Cripps was the only one in the whole parliament who spoke "in tones of embitterment."39 In October 1937 George Glazebrook of the history department arranged that Cody give a broadcast on Dr. William Tassie, the famous principal (1853-81) of Gait Collegiate. Since Tassie had left Gait just before Cody had arrived, many of Cody's classmates would have had first-hand recollections, sometimes painful, of the old principal. Tassie

The Later Depression, 1936-1939 / 227

was a fine teacher of the old school. He seemed to be chiefly remembered by old students for his vigorous discipline. Cody gave a vivid and sympathetic, but not uncritical, account of Tassie. He saw him as a fine teacher of the classics but one who, toward the end of his career, had failed to adjust to new developments in educational theory and method. Cody's broadcast closed on a note of appreciation: "But he wrought a great work in his generation. His personality created in a famous school an atmosphere of loyalty to the institution, which fostered all the higher loyalties of life, and he sent forth into the broad fields of the Dominion hundreds of youths imbued with fine ideals of sincerity, thoroughness, perseverance and public service. This is no mean legacy to leave to any people in any age."40 Cody's broadcast was quite a success. Glazebrook passed on to him some reports from appreciative listeners. Louis Blake Duff, a wellknown literary figure, asserted that Cody "gave a faithful picture of the man and his shading was delicate." With regard to school discipline, Duff mentioned having met an aged graduate of Gait who had proudly displayed a scar across the palm of his hand "that Tassie had put there more than eighty years before."41 Cody was particularly gratified by a letter from R. McLeish, one of Tassie's students. In his letter of response, he wrote, "I rejoice to know that you are in your 90th year ... The school discipline and routine must have been good for your health."42 Ill health plagued Cody again in 1937. His most serious illness appeared to begin as a result of his attending the Queen's-Varsity football game at Kingston on November 13, in spite of very inclement weather. It was a thoroughly depressing day for Cody. In his diary, he wrote, "Queen's 3 Varsity 0 field soaked, muddy and partly under water." In making his apologies to Principal R.C. Wallace of Queen's for not looking him up, he explained, "I was so wet, and cold and dirty that I betook myself at once to the hotel and then to the train. I never saw so bad a field in which two teams had to play."43 Cody worked as usual during the week of November 14, but it took great effort. Anxious to complete his annual report for 1936-37, he struggled to the office from Wednesday to Friday, finishing the report on Friday, November 19. In the meantime, he was visited several times at his home by his family physician, Dr. Noble, and had an X-ray taken. The X-ray revealed a small, duodenal ulcer. Cody was ordered to remain in bed for the next five weeks. Cody profited by his enforced holiday, but he missed various endof-the-year engagements. Barbara and the Falconers received at the great faculty reception on December 3 in the Royal Ontario Museum.

228 / Henry John Cody

Queen's won the playoff football game, defeating Varsity 7 to 6, but Cody was pleased with a basket of flowers the two teams sent to him. Another X-ray on December 10 indicated that the ulcer had healed. Yet Cody still spent the whole of Christmas Day in bed. Cody's convalescence began slowly. On December 27 he got up after midday. On December 28 he got up after breakfast. On December 29 he was up all day and walked around the block, and on December 30 he went to the Royal Alex to see Maurice Evans in Henry IV, Part I. But Cody began to cut down on some activities not directly connected with his presidency. He resigned as chaplain of the Queen's Own Rifles, a post he had occupied for twenty-five years, and from the Toronto Rectory Surplus Fund Commission, but remained on the executive of the church missionary society, the MSCC. While Cody was ill, he had the compensation of kindly exchanges with old and new friends. Archbishop Matheson, now very old, still kept in touch from Winnipeg. R.B. McElheran came to see Cody several times during his illness. McElheran was one of Cody's favourites and he reported to Archbishop Matheson: "McElheran was in yesterday. He is well and very happy in his work. He has a fine lot of students who are doing splendidly both in the University and in Theology."44 There was the usual flood of Christmas cards, including one from J.C. Robertson, a classics professor at the University of British Columbia, with a Latin translation of the verse "God Rest You Merry Gentlemen." Cody greatly appreciated the verse and reported that he had been reading The Story of Greece and Rome, by Robertson and his son, during his illness.45 Cody summed up the story of his illness to Archbishop Matheson on December 29: "I am up again now, going round the house and hope to be back at the office after the New Year. Both Dr. Bruce and Dr. Noble strictly charge me, however, not to undertake any work outside the University for the next four months. Diet and rest appear to be the best remedies. Surgery is really out of the question. As a matter of fact I feel I got off rather easily. I feel able for almost anything now after having had five solid weeks of rest in bed."46 Hart House, the university student centre, was always a matter of serious concern to Cody. In his time, it was a male preserve, providing a gymnasium, swimming pool, squash courts, library, dining hall, medical centre, barbershop, and theatre. Women were excluded from all facilities and activities, except for the Hart House Theatre and the various university dances (the Masquerade, the UC Follies, the Arts Ball).

The Later Depression, 1936-19391229

Hart House occupied a semi-autonomous position in the university. Vincent Massey regarded it as a Massey fiefdom, as it had been built with Massey money and was under Massey's supervision. He was jealous of its control. Hart House was organized and administered by the warden, J.B. Bickersteth, and by a board of stewards elected by the students. While the warden was nominated by the president and appointed by the board of governors, Warden Bickersteth was in very close touch with Massey. Massey was very concerned when the board of governors appointed a standing committee on Hart House. He anxiously enquired of Cody what was meant by the word "control" in its terms of reference. Cody replied on March 23, 1936: "There is no intention of interfering with its [Hart House's] present internal management by the Warden nominated by the president and appointed by the Board, by the Board of Stewards elected by the students."47 Cody's reply underlined his feeling that in spite of Massey's personal influence in Hart House the university had a legitimate share in its control. Cody and Bickersteth did not get on well. Each was formally polite to the other, but Cody found Bickersteth far too independent and ambitious. Bickersteth was extremely friendly with Massey, whom he regarded as his patron. Cody was likely annoyed by the relationship, although he never said so. It is probable that Bickersteth regarded Cody as too domineering. Cody never attempted a complete hands-off policy in regard to Hart House. On one occasion he passed on to Bickersteth complaints that the Great Hall, which was in effect a large restaurant, paid no rent to the university for heat and light. In his response Bickersteth explained that the Great Hall laboured under certain disadvantages. It had to serve meals throughout the year, including weekends and the summer when it was unprofitable to do so. The Great Hall had to maintain a staff sufficiently competent to serve banquets, and it had to pay reasonable wages and serve meals at lower prices than competing restaurants. Cody and the board of governors appeared to accept this defence. Cody went out of his way to indicate an interest in Hart House, ostentatiously having an occasional lunch in the Hart House cafeteria. He recorded in his diary for October 9, 1936, "Had lunch at Hart House - indigestion." The Hart House Theatre was administered by a board of syndics of which Massey was a prominent member. The plays presented occasionally drew protests. One caused something of a furore. In January 1937 a leftist group called the Theatre of Action produced Roar China, a play by Russian writer Sergei Tretiakov. Based on an incident in a small

230 / Henry John Cody

Chinese river town in 1924, it appeared to condemn the actions of British naval officers and British missionaries. Varsity editor M.B. Loeb wrote, "No stronger indictment of imperialism and exploitation that is complementary to it can be found than 'Roar China,' the Theatre of Actions current production at the Hart House Theatre."48 Cody began to receive protests against the play on the day after its initial performance. He went to see it on the second night and reported in his diary for January 13, 1937: "In evening went to Hart House Theatre to see 'Roar China!' by Sergei Trettiakov - first soviet play to be produced in Toronto: a slanderous misrepresentation of British officers and Christian missionaries." Cody wrote to Eric Haldenby, the chairman of the board of syndics, and insisted that the play should not have the support of the syndics of Hart House Theatre. On the following day, he continued his protest in an interview with Haldenby.49 Later Cody wrote to Vincent Massey in London, repeating his opinion that Roar China was a bit of Soviet propaganda, "gravely misrepresenting the action and policy of Great Britain in the East and of Christian missions in China. "5° Cody reported that Haldenby "feels that the organisation which presented it [the play] should not be granted the use of the theatre again, as it also broke the regulations of Hart House by introducing a propagandist speaker between the acts." Massey replied non-committally on March 1, expressing regret that the difficulties described by Cody had arisen. Haldenby would be in England in a few weeks. Massey would discuss Cody's ideas for strengthening the board of syndics and would let Cody know the result of their deliberations.51 There the matter rested. While Cody continued to abstain from political activity in the sense of supporting any political party, he could still express opinions on Canada's relations with Great Britain and foreign countries. He could afford also to give support to worthy causes of a quasi-political character, such as the Canadian Radio League in its campaign for a national broadcasting system. Cody maintained his dual position on free speech - that it should be defended but that it must be accompanied by a sense of responsibility. Thus he assured the Engineering Society, "Democracy is less a system of rights than a system of equal responsibilities and you share common responsibilities of citizenship."52 Cody's advocacy of free speech did not prevent him from taking precautions to forestall incidents involving free speech. In March 1936 a New York City school principal informed him that certain

The Later Depression, 1936-1939 / 231 student peace strikers had been "grossly disobedient, boldly defiant, and flagrantly disrespectful of constituted authority"; he enquired whether the University of Toronto would want a notation of such conduct "on the blanks of students applying to your university." Cody gave instructions that the University of Toronto's answer should be "Yes."53 This response provoked protests from the Teachers' Union of New York City and from the Committee of Academic Freedom of the American Civil Liberties Union. The latter protest was signed by an impressive group of people, including Felix Frankfurter and Reinhold Niebuhr.54 Cody did not always avoid issues likely to get him into trouble. In a period when many Canadians were hysterical on the subject of Communists he permitted Tim Buck, the leader of the Canadian Communist Party, to speak at the university. The visit elicited the usual complaints. One irate alumnus from Moose Jaw enquired sarcastically, "Is the University of Toronto under communist control? ... This was talked of when the papers reported that you had allowed Tim Buck to address the students in the University."55 The drift toward World War II had not yet affected Cody's attitude to the Axis powers. Despite the Italian performance in the war against Abyssinia, Cody was still well disposed toward Italy and accepted a decoration from that country, "the order of commendatore della corona d'ltalia," at the opening of the Italian Vice-Consulate in Toronto in November 1936. He returned the decoration after Italy's entry into World War II. Cody was cordial in his entertainment of fifteen German exchange students at the University of Toronto. In his attitude to the Spanish Civil War, Cody was humane; he supported a telegram to Franco after the capture of Santander, requesting that some 2,000 prisoners not be executed.56 The death of George V in January 1936 brought out Cody's affection for the late king and the Empire. He organized a form of service for Military District No. 2, giving thanks for what was accomplished in the reign of George V and asking for blessing for the new king. He also organized and spoke at a memorial service in Convocation Hall. This author attended the service and recalls one utterance: "Georges father, Edward VII, had his own sphere of interest. It was the European continent. George V also had his sphere of interest. It was the British Empire." Cody made no public comments about the sad reign of Edward VIII, who abdicated in order to marry an American divorcee, Wallis

232 / Henry John Cody Simpson, but he had had his doubts about Edward from the beginning of his reign. He had noted sourly in his diary for March 1, 1936: "Heard King Edward over the air no reference to God in it." Like other Canadians Cody followed the course of the crisis with rapt attention. His own thoughts were indicated by his remark in a letter to EH. Stewart: "It does seem that the Empire had a great escape when Edward abdicated."57 By the year 1938, the world was obviously drifting toward another war. Cody's public utterances took on a new note of urgency. In March he addressed the Irish Protestant Benevolent Society in a speech described as "a ringing challenge to Canada to 'take sides' in the grave international crisis confronting the world." Cody was quoted as enquiring, "What would happen to the world today if the British Empire fell? ... Were Britain beaten in Europe where would democracy be throughout the world?"58 When Dr. Sherwood Eddy asserted in a speech in Convocation Hall that the next war would be "a war between British imperialism and German imperialism," Cody, who was in the chair, intervened with "a sharp retort." Eddy explained that "he had not intended to classify Great Britain with Germany but had used imperialism in an economic sense rather than in the sense of seeking new territory."59 In September 1938 Cody wrote to the editors of the weekly press. He congratulated them on the influence they exerted and urged them to effect national unity in Canada by seeking cooperation between East and West and between city and country. He insisted upon the vital need of cooperation within the Empire: "A strong united, free Empire can keep the peace of the world and restrain the aggressor and the tyrant and the egomaniacs." He stressed the importance of faith: "We need more confidence in God, the God of Nations who has given us half a continent for our inheritance and requires of us that service which abundant possessions make possible."60 The Remembrance Day service at the Memorial Tower, in the shadow of another war, took on an added significance. Cody reported a crowd of 5,000, including Lieutenant-Governor Albert Matthews, Bruce Macdonald (the chairman of the board), Sir Robert Falconer, Sir Joseph Flavelle, and members of the Students' Administrative Council. Cody presided and preached. Later he was thanked by the lieutenantgovernor for his "heartening words and beautiful prayers .., full of dignity and sympathy and heart searching."61

Chapter 23

The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941

ar did not seem to come so suddenly in 1939 as it had in 1914. The Munich settlement had brought a reprieve in October 1938, but in 1939 there had been a series of disasters: the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March, German threats against Poland, the Soviet-German treaty in August, and then the German attack against Poland. Finally, September 3 saw Neville Chamberlain's sad and measured announcement that Britain was at war. News came quickly of hostilities in Europe and, on the evening of September 3, of the sinking of the Cunard liner the Athenia. Seven days later Canada was at war. For the Codys, life had followed its usual busy course during the pre-war year. The great event had been the visit of King George and Queen Elizabeth in May. Cody had been asked by the Reuters news agency to draft a statement of welcome to their Majesties, to be published in the British press. He wrote his statement on the back of the letter of request. On the great day the Codys were presented to the King and Queen on the steps of Hart House. At the June convocation of the university, Cody celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of his graduation. There was an anniversary dinner at the Toronto Club on June 8, attended by many old friends, including Howard Ferguson and Malcolm Wallace. At the convocation dinner and dance on June 9, Cody was given a tremendous ovation and

w

2341 Henry John Cody presented with fifty red and white roses. There were many speeches, but the one especially noted by the press was that of Sir William Mulock: "The bearded Chancellor swept aside ceremonial for the moment to recall a day fifty years ago when he took the hands of a young lad by the name of Henry John Cody between his white-gloved ones and ... said, 'Admitto te.' [For Cody's great service] I claim some benefit or credit."1 On the next weekend Cody travelled to Bishop's University in Lennoxville, Quebec, to receive an honorary doctor of civil law, then on to Barrie for the summer. It was probably his last summer of real relaxation until the end of his term as president. Cody came down to Toronto from Barrie on the evening of September 3 and was soon busily engaged in the many arrangements made necessary at the university by the outbreak of war. His personal attitude to this war was much the same as his attitude had been to World War I. He was convinced that Great Britain and Canada were fighting for a righteous cause. Germany was again the villain, a challenge to freedom and civilization. The war must be pushed with vigour. There must be no talk of a compromise peace. Hitler was the personification of evil. Cody's speeches throughout the war did not vary in their basic theme. In the period after Britain had declared war but while Canada was still technically at peace, Cody deplored the possibility of Canadian neutrality. Canada must enter the war at once, he asserted in a speech at the Canadian National Exhibition. "Our own self respect demands it, our self-interest demands it, our conviction demands it, our gratitude to the Motherland from whom we sprang demands it." Early in the war he insisted, "The present war is only an extension of the last. Here is a bid for world power. One race, one blood is seeking to dominate not only a continent, but a world. Don't let us forget that."2 After nearly two years of war, Cody's attitude was unchanged. The June 6 convocation of 1941 was marked by the graduation of navy, army, and air force men in addition to the ordinary graduates. The Globe and Mail reported, "Dr. Cody scorned the 'obnoxious' ideas of the past decade that it was wrong to answer the call, no matter how noble the cause, to shed blood or to 'put ourselves out' in any way." He insisted that the British Empire and the United States were two great strongholds of freedom in the world today. "On their faithfulness and devotion will depend the future life of all that is best in the world."3 Although Cody was always the advocate of a vigorous war effort,

The Coming of War Again, 1939-19411235 he never thought that the universities should suspend any of their peace-time functions during the time of hostilities. Like other university presidents in Canada he believed that the universities should give the government every possible assistance in the prosecution of the war. By doing so, they would earn the right to continue their usual teaching activities, not only in the professional and scientific faculties, but in the humanities as well. It was easy to defend the services of the medical, engineering, and scientific faculties, but Cody always insisted on protecting the universities' more intangible contributions in the realm of thought and morale. In his 1939-1940 presidential report he declared: As we survey our resources and mobilize them for the immediate national needs, we do not forget that the great task of universities remains through the ages "the training of intelligent well-disposed citizens for life in the democratic state, and of forwarding the welfare of that state and of the world through its contributions to truth" ... They set forth the ideals which are to be defended; whatever therefore strengthens and purifies democracy itself. Part of our work is to help in the making of informed, capable and useful citizens. In a modern democratic society a university seeks to preserve and to advance knowledge; it also should seek to instruct public opinion, (p. 16) Cody admitted in 1941 that there was a trend away from emphasis on the humanities, that is, the Arts course. To cope with this problem, he said, "it would therefore be wise to infuse as much of the humanities as possible into the professional courses and to maintain a professional balance between cultural values of the past and the urgent needs of the present." Cody also pleaded for increased attention to the social sciences: "The mutual relations of human beings and their organization into groups will be forced upon the attention of individuals and governments in the period of reconstruction after the war. The human being is still the centre of social interest and well-being. Study of what has been and what is and what may be in social relations will point the way to a better world."4 Cody's diary gives a picture of how Cody organized the war effort at the university. Among other items, in September 1939 he described a conference with his own advisers (A.D. LePan and W.J. Dunlop) about the university's relations with the air force; a meeting with district medical officers in regard to hospital units; and a conversation with

236 / Henry John Cody

Duncan McArthur, the deputy minister of education, about the proposed occupation of the president's house by the provincial police force (this did not occur). The diary also made note of Cody's speech at the Canadian National Exhibition and a second conference in regard to air force training. Later in the year, there were references to a conference of Cody's aids about additional rooms for medical registration; a consultation with L.W. Douglas, the McGill principal, in regard to leave of absence and allowances for staff members enlisting in the armed services; a meeting of the Arts Council in regard to the university's involvement in the officer training program, the COTC; and an interview with a member of the "Flying Corps" about the use of "Holwood," Sir Joseph Flavelle's old residence, for war purposes. After ten months of war Cody summed up, in his presidential report, his and the university's efforts up to that point.5 He had urged students to complete their courses as speedily as possible, especially those taking professional courses. He had urged senior men, physically fit, to join the COTC and to gain officer certificates. About 500 graduates and 1,200 undergraduates had responded. Research had been pursued with great energy. Several war problems were dealt with in the schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Engineering and in the departments of Physics and Psychology. Special investigations had been conducted in regard to physical capacity in relation to aerial navigation. While the university was gearing itself for war, a considerable number of university people (staff, graduates, and undergraduates) had gone on active service. By the summer of 1940 over a thousand had enrolled. About sixty members of the staff, chiefly from the medical faculty, had gone on full-time military duty. The staff had given courses of lectures on the origins, issues, and problems of the war. Cody's diary and correspondence give glimpses of the University of Toronto's technical contribution. In November 1940 Professor E.E Burton of the physics department secured a grant from the WennerGren foundation for work in geophysics. A.R. Gordon of the Department of Chemistry wrote to Cody in October 1940 describing the achievements of the department in improving the manufacture of British explosives and in making new discoveries about mustard gas. He explained about the latter discovery, "This is a matter of great importance as there is every indication the enemy will start using mustard gas against Great Britain in the near future."'' Fortunately, this did not occur. In 1940-41 the introduction of radar by the British had an

The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941 / 237 effect on life at U of T, as it was called upon to train large numbers of radar technicians. Young men in air-force uniforms became a familiar sight around the campus. One of Cody's special contributions to the Canadian war effort consisted in his public advocacy. Always in demand as a public speaker, he now turned his special gifts in this area to the support of the Canadian and Allied cause. He did so in Canada and also in the United States, both before and after the Americans' entry into the war. His speeches at this time included the speech at the Canadian National Exhibition (September 9, 1939) and addresses to the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce ("Moral Issues of the War," May 7, 1940), to the Detroit English-speaking Union ("War Causes and Issues," May 18, 1940), and to what Cody described as a "large and attentive gathering" of students at U of T (September 25, 1940). In November 1940 he spoke to a Canadian-American dental convention in Toronto on "International Good Relations and Why Canada is at War." In April 1941 he addressed the Newcomen Society of New York and was thanked because "you expressed so ably the spirit of the British people."7 Cody was present at the luncheon of the Empire Club on June 10, 1940. The gathering was to have been addressed by the Hon. Norman Rogers, but Rogers never arrived. He had been killed in an air crash on the way from Ottawa to Toronto. While the members of the Club waited, and before they heard the news, Cody made a short speech, "to fill in the time."8 Letters from England in the summer of 1940 gave Cody glimpses of wartime life in Britain. The French had collapsed. Britain stood alone. Everyone lived in the fear of a German invasion. J.B. Bickersteth, warden of Hart House, was in England at the time, originally for reasons of ill health, but even after recovering he resolved to stay on. At Canterbury he had joined a militia guard, digging trenches in the daytime and standing guard on roadblocks at night. He was apprehensive about fifth columnists: "How many ... we have I don't know. But several were detained a few weeks ago and only three days ago a woman was arrested. Incidentally, ___, who was a fellow subaltern with me in the Royal Dragoons, 1914-1918, was arrested last week, so one can never tell who is what and there is admittedly quite a strong pro-German group in England and a Communist one I suppose." There was indeed an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. Bickersteth added, "Cryptic signs appear on telegraph poles - triangles and squares and figures scrawled in red chalk. Some were found a mile or two from here a few days ago. So the enemy has some friends in this country."9

238 / Henry John Cody

In August 1940 Bickersteth's termination of leave was approaching and he applied to Cody for an extension. When this was granted, he provided an additional picture of the British situation in his letter of thanks to Cody: "As you can imagine, the situation is pretty tense and we remain here day by day in a state of Emergency." The old people, including Bickersteth's mother, had all been evacuated from Canterbury. "London is having a bad time ... All communication is very difficult - indeed except for priority messages practically non-existent without very long delays. There was a most terrific air fight over Canterbury on Sunday morning and afternoon last that I have ever seen. It was all over this part of Kent and German machines were falling like leaves in autumn ... Several houses in the Precincts have been hit but so far the Cathedral is untouched. Evensong last Sunday was very moving - that vast building mostly shrouded in darkness - a handful of people - the Dean taking the intercessions and praying for deliverance from invasion and the Archbishop giving the blessing from his throne."10 Cody's friend and old classmate Viscount Hamar Greenwood wrote from England on the same day: "We are all used to air raids in England now, and they have only strengthened our determination to fight through to victory. The bombing of Buckingham Palace which was a personal attack on our beloved King and Queen has strengthened our allegiance ... We are supremely confident of ultimate victory."11 While his British correspondents were pledging their determination to fight on, Cody was also hearing from American friends, mostly former Canadians, expressing sympathy for the Allied cause. Kendall B. Castle, a Toronto alumnus practising law in Rochester, N.Y., regretted American coolness toward the war. He feared that recent teaching in American colleges "has tended toward pragmatism and away from the eternal virtues."12 One feature of the University of Toronto's war effort was its program of placing in Canadian homes British children who had been sent by their parents to escape the German bombing. Such schemes in Canada and the United States were part of a larger program that saw of British children transferred from urban centres, especially London, to less populated - or safer - areas. While most children stayed within Britain itself, a good many were sent to North America, some accompanied by their mothers. In a novel by Philip Gibbs about the summer of 1940 in Britain, one mother exclaims, "Oh, I'm not panicky, - but I face the facts. That is why, at all costs I'm taking the children to Canada."13

The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941 / 239 Finding places for mothers with their children was not easy. As one Canadian lady told this author, "It was a bit startling to be phoned by a member of the Committee with the news that Tm trying to place Lady _____ and a delicate, high-strung baby.'" The University of Toronto became involved in the Canadian scheme from the beginning. A local group was formed, and Charles Cochrane, a professor of ancient history, cabled to an Oxford don, Kenneth Bell, offering places for "a limited number of evacuees." Presuming, wrongly, that this was an official invitation from U of T, Bell convened a meeting of interested professors at Rhodes House. This led to the creation of the Oxford Committee, which would make arrangements for the evacuation to Canada of children of British university professors. Bell soon dropped out of the committee, and C.K. Allen, the warden of Rhodes House, kept in touch with the U of T group. Eventually the response from interested parents at Oxford, Cambridge, and Birmingham became too great for the Toronto people to handle. Other universities, particularly Yale and Swarthmore, were enlisted in the scheme. Various key people were involved in the plan of sending children to Canada, including Vincent and Alice Massey and Geoffrey Shakespeare, the secretary of state for the dominions, who organized the Children's Overseas Reception Board.14 Alice Massey apparently cabled Cody for help in the arrangements.15 In Toronto, the University Women's Service Committee organized a subcommittee for British Overseas Children, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Peter Sandiford. One of the most difficult positions was that of chairman of the Mothers' Placement Committee. This task was assigned to the very capable Mrs. Roland Michener, the wife of a future governor general of Canada. The Toronto group cooperated with similar groups at McGill, Yale, and Swarthmore. Cody fully supported the scheme. Acting as a coordinator, he corresponded with Allen, as well as with Principal Cyril James of McGill, Aydelotte at Swarthmore, and the university chaplain at Yale. Cody was present on a number of occasions to meet the children, to confer with the committee, and to meet Geoffrey Shakespeare. The children began to arrive in Toronto in the middle of the summer of 1940. On July 30 Cody and Barbara went to Union Station to welcome a party of sixty-seven from the universities of Cambridge and Birmingham. Later the same day about twenty-nine arrived from Oxford. Cody was involved in the early arrangements. He and Principal James sought to cheer British parents by publishing a tactful

2401 Henry John Cody letter in the London Times on September 5, 1940. Canada and the United States, the letter reported, had now received several hundred children: "In spite of the adverse conditions of travel and the unaccustomed heat of a Canadian summer the young people are arriving in a remarkably good state." Canadians were impressed by the high morale and good behaviour of the young visitors. "They have aroused the admiration of everyone who has seen them and astonished us all with the extent of their consideration, self-control, steadiness and good humour, in spite of fatigue and amid confusion. They have given a remarkable demonstration of ancestral British qualities."16 This fulsome praise made rather strange reading when considered in conjunction with one of its sequels, the publication of a book by two of the English children, Eddie and Caroline Bell, the children of one of the scheme's originators, Kenneth Bell. The young Bells spent the summer of 1940 in Toronto and Muskoka before going to Long Island to join an older married sister. According to one of the directors of the American part of the scheme, their critique of Canadian manners "kept most of Long Island in a hilarious mood." In 1941 they published their book Thank You Twice or How We Like America.^1 Despite the reference to "America" the book seems to have been mainly about the experiences of the authors in Canada. The point of the title was the authors' claim that Canadians were excessively polite and expected to be thanked not once, but several times, for any kindness they might render. The book caused consternation on both sides of the Atlantic. Kenneth Bell was embarrassed and wired his regrets to Mrs. Michener.18 C.K. Allen was profuse in his apologies: "I have now seen the book, which has also been read by a number of other people in Oxford. However tolerant and broadminded you may have been about it in Toronto, I should like to tell you that this stupid and vulgar performance has caused great indignation here."19 He was glad that he and his friends had managed to stop publication of the book in Oxford. In Toronto, Thank You Twice was reviewed by William Arthur Deacon, the literary editor of the Globe and Mail. Deacon was restrained but resentful in his remarks: "Apart from prejudice, pertness and lack of full comprehension that people were putting themselves out and being as kind as they knew how, the infant invaders have turned out a rather creditable travel book."20 Cody made no comment about Thank You Twice in his diary, but he took the trouble to paste within it the clipping of the Globe and

The Coming of War Again, 1939-19411241 Mail review. He and Allen agreed that it would be wise to make no public protest "in the hope that interest in the matter will speedily vanish."21 The young Bells aside, the scheme to provide for British "overseas children" in Toronto was a success. The U of T subcommittee was extremely competent in its administration of the project, placing 147 children by October 1941. University personnel had born the greater share of the billeting: of the 104 children who were unaccompanied, 78 were billeted with them (41 members of the staff and 37 graduates). The rest of the unaccompanied children were mostly billeted with other supporters of the scheme. Of the 43 children accompanied by mothers or nurses, most lived in apartments or boarding houses. One of the foster parents was F.H. Underbill, who was having his own trouble with the university board of governors at the time. The subcommittee had serious financial problems. Since funds from Britain, fighting for its life, were not available, the scheme was supported almost entirely by contributions from Canadians. Foster parents were subsidized, mothers and children in apartments and in boarding houses were supported, medical and dental service provided. As the time lengthened out there was an increasing need of new clothing. The subcommittee managed to cope with all these demands. A few of the "children" were teen-agers and anxious, to enter the University of Toronto. The university agreed to defer the payment of fees until after the war. Upper Canada College made the same offer. In general, relations with the mothers were amicable, largely because of the redoubtable Norah Michener, chairman of the Mothers' Placement Committee. Cody assured her: "You have more than exhausted the limits of patience and consideration ... I think you yourself have quite outdistanced Job in the matter of endurance."22 Cody's measured judgment on the Toronto scheme, expressed to C.K. Allen, was probably an understatement: "I am really amazed that with twenty-two mothers and one hundred and fifty children to be placed in unfamiliar surroundings, the results have on the whole been so satisfactory. I believe that nearly all of them are quite happy."23 Little more was heard of the program after 1941. British parents had always been hesitant to subject their children to the dangers of German submarines. Many, including Winston Churchill, regarded the scheme as defeatist.24 After partial cessation of the heavy bombing experienced in 1940-41, public attention in Britain and in Canada was diverted to other aspects of the war.

242 / Henry John Cody

The National Conference of Canadian Universities (NCCU) was a rather loose-jointed association. Its principal function had been to hold annual meetings in one or other of the university centres. Its meetings were attended by university presidents and a few other representatives, mostly senior faculty, from each member university. Presidents were able to confer together and sessions were held at which the representatives heard and discussed papers in reference to university affairs. The conference had not previously been of great significance in Canadian university life; but with the onset of war in 1939 it provided a means by which the universities could coordinate their war policies and the federal government could communicate with the universities as a group. The annual meetings of 1939 were held at McGill (in conjunction with the meetings of the Learned Societies). The gathering discussed university fees, the cost of education, student self-government, and foreign affairs. Cody was elected chairman of the conference at the May meeting. This meant that in the early part of the war he played a key role both in negotiating with the federal government and in coordinating the war-related policies of the Canadian universities. Being chairman also meant that Cody spent a good deal of time in Ottawa. Some of his activities were purely social and ceremonial (such as the visit to Government House on July 5, 1940, to meet the new governor general, the Earl of Athlone and his wife, and Princess Alice), but others were of more importance (conferences with cabinet ministers and other officials). Duties of the latter type included a conference with Hon. C.G. Power on September 9, 1940; a meeting of the NCCU subcommittee (Cody, Mgr. Maurault, Cyril James, and R.C. Wallace) with Major-General L.R. LaFleche and ministers J.L. Ralston, C.G. Power, and Angus Macdonald on some points of military service (April 2, 1941); and a conference of the subcommittee on September 23, 1941, with Major-General LaFleche and Col. J.K. Lawson in regard to the exemption from military training of medical students in their senior years. While Cody was in constant touch with Ottawa, he was also in close communication with colleagues in the other universities, passing on to them information about such government directives as the regulations in regard to military training for students over 21 (issued in June 1941). Cody informed the other university heads, "Thus a student of 21 and over is now given the choice between going to Camp or a Training Centre for 15 days, or taking his chance of being called up under the 4 months training plan."25

The Coming of War Again, 1939-19411243 While Cody dealt with all the Canadian universities in his capacity as chairman of the NCCU, he also had special conferences with representatives of Ontario universities and McGill. His attendance at the June 1941 meeting at Kingston of the Intercollegiate Board of Referees (Toronto, Queen's, Western, and McGill) was one such example. There it was decided to suspend intercollegiate athletics during the war, but to allow each university to arrange matches with clubs in its own area. Cody's role in the NCCU's dealings with the federal government was of prime importance in the wartime history of the University of Toronto. He and other university heads and officials went far in satisfying the manpower and research needs of the federal government, but they managed as well to maintain university life on an almost normal basis. Even while Cody was struggling with the special conditions of wartime, he still had to cope with the usual problems of finance and thus with the Hepburn government. Occasionally he became frustrated. Shortly before the war began, after receiving bad news from the government, he confessed, "At the University of Toronto ... where we have a staff of over 8,000 we are told overnight that we must get along with $100,000 less. It causes many of us to join the duo-denal club."26 Actually, during the early stages of the war, his relations with Hepburn remained reasonably good. Cody was always keenly aware of the university's dependence on the provincial government. He realized that Hepburn must be treated diplomatically, even though Hepburn could be very rude. Cody cancelled a meeting scheduled by the CCF at the university for December 4, 1940, at which C.H. Millard, the wellknown labour leader, was to speak on the topic "Hepburn must go." Cody explained that the subject was "indiscreet."27 On the very next day, Cody and Chancellor Mulock called on Hepburn to offer him an honorary degree. Hepburn did not immediately accept, but when Cody called on Duncan McArthur, the deputy minister of education, a few days later he was told that the prime minister would eventually do so.28 There was some friction with the government over the Underhill affair (see Chapter 24), but the usual negotiations over the university budget continued without significant incident. On January 8, 1940, Cody led a delegation of five members of the university board of governors and the secretary of the board to confer with Hepburn and the minister and deputy minister of education. Hepburn promised not to reduce the university grant that year. On February 26, 1941, the same

244 / Henry John Cody group met the deputy minister, Duncan McArthur, in McArthur's office to go over the same subject as well as the university estimates and budget. McArthur promised an additional $50,000. In June 1941 another delegation (Cody, Mulock, and six governors) conferred with Hepburn, Harry Nixon, and Chester Walters, the provincial treasurer, on the subject of the university deficit. The prime minister and his associates agreed to pay the deficit by Treasury warrant, "on condition that the University keeps within the budget next year."29 Cody's reference in June 1939 to the "duo-denal club" was more than a joke. He was threatened with ulcer problems for much of his later career. In February 1940 he was confined to bed for four days and in his diary reported bleeding. His reference to an X-ray on March 19 suggests ulcers.30 Barbara was very active, sometimes with her own interests as a former social worker and sometimes with Cody's duties - she often took his place at engagements he was unable to attend. On May 20, 1940, she presided at an important conference on social welfare. Old friendships continued, particularly the one with faithful David Walker. After a Raymond Massey performance, David wrote, "Some way or other the President seems to bring me in on rare treats - Lord Irwin, New Year Luncheon at York Club, - and you both let me hear Lord Baldwin and now Raymond Massey."31 The diaries offer occasional glimpses of Cody's ability to enjoy a joke against himself. On June 1, 1940, he wrote about a dinner at Hart House for the Royal Astronomical Society. Cody had spoken at some length in replying to the toast to the university. To remember the occasion he had pasted in his diary a scrap of paper signed by "Elmer," with the message "grand and glorious why didn't you talk till dawn." Cody and Barbara found time for a few diversions, despite their busy programs. On April 11, 1940, they went for a walk in Rosedale, an unusual event for them. Occasionally they attended theatrical or musical performances: March 11, 1940, Gone with the Wind; March 13, the Hart House String Quartette; December 20, The Thief of Bagdad, which Cody regarded as "not much good." Several of Cody's associates died in this period. Sir Joseph Flavelle, a friend and supporter since the royal commission of 1906, died in Florida on March 7, 1939. Cody's secretary, Miss A.W. Patterson, died in November 1940. A competent, though temperamental, person, she had long served former U of T presidents, beginning with James Loudon in 1900. A graduate of the University of Toronto, she was a

The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941 / 245 strong advocate of women's rights. She had been a member of the Canadian delegation at four conferences of the International Federation of University Women. Toward the end of her career as Cody's secretary, she had become rather irascible, perhaps because of ill health. Cody reported in his diary for November 16, 1940: "Miss Patterson in very bad temper gave notice she would leave at end of month," and on November 29, "Miss Patterson walked out without saying good-bye." Cody wrote a gracious letter regretting that he had not been able to say good-bye, thanking her for "all your faithful and efficient service in the past" and expressing the hope "that in your time of well-earned rest and leisure you may enjoy good health and happiness."32 Miss Patterson did not see Cody's letter. She died suddenly on November 30. Cody was deeply saddened, not only by her death but also because he had had no chance to say good-bye and express gratitude for her fine work. Cody then had the problem of finding a competent secretary. Miss Agnes MacGillivray was appointed, but she did not have shorthand. It was arranged that during her first year she would be in Dr. Cody's outer office dealing with visitors and telephone calls, and Barbara McClennan, a secretary in the office of Dr. Dunlop (the director of the extension department), would be loaned to Cody as necessary to handle his correspondence. Barbara McClennan's reminiscences give a vivid picture of Cody in this period.33 "No matter how preoccupied he was or how many letters were stacked on his desk, he always rose to his feet when I came in. His dress was immaculate and his manner gracious." Taking dictation from Cody posed its problems. In dictating letters he displayed the same eloquence as in his sermons and public speeches. "The words just tumbled out." Barbara's shorthand was good but not up to that challenge. "I used to put down a key word, memorize a sentence, then rush back to our office [Dr. Dunlop's office] admonishing others to say nothing to me until I had filled the spaces. So far as I ever knew, I remembered the words correctly." Cody still had his old ideas regarding the observance of Sunday. When Barbara asked permission to be absent on a Saturday morning so that she could join in a skiing weekend to Collingwood, Cody "hesitated and wondered about Sunday afternoon for ski-ing." Barbara assured him that her hosts were the Anglican rector and his wife and that the rector would have three services on Sunday as well as a Sunday school in the afternoon. That changed the picture and Barbara went off happily to Collingwood.

246 / Henry John Cody In his relations with his staff Cody was firm but considerate. "Conscientiousness and a sense of duty were attributes Dr. Cody demanded of himself and expected of his staff. In those days we worked every Saturday until one o'clock and Dr. Cody made no exception for himself. In fact it was said Mrs. Cody often telephoned at 1:30 or 2 o'clock to see why he wasn't home for lunch. But both Dr. Cody and Dr. Dunlop insisted that members of the staff leave promptly at 1." One gets a picture of Cody as a conscientious, hard-working president, immersed in the problems of a university in wartime, grieving over the Underhill affair and the death of Sir Frederick Banting, but always considerate of his staff. Cody's greatest personal loss in this period was the death of R.B. McElheran. McElheran had done his finest work in Winnipeg, where he had built up St. Matthew's Church from a city mission to a thriving urban church. In 1930 McElheran had become principal of Wycliffe, a post in which he was never very happy. He was essentially a parish priest and found bumptious young theologs difficult to work with. Cody was said to have wanted McElheran to succeed him at St. Paul's. McElheran had been in ill health since the early summer of 1939. Cody was devoted in his attention to McElheran in his terminal illness. Mrs. McElheran wrote to Cody on June 30, 1939, "At every crisis - at every turn of the road - at every moment of special pain or anxiety you have been beside us to cheer, steady and strengthen us all."34 McElheran had a severe heart attack on August 9, 1939, and a second and fatal attack on August 12. Cody presided at the private funeral service in the Wycliffe College chapel and participated in the public service at St. Paul's, with Archbishop Owen, Bishop White, and Bishop A.R. Beverley. Cody was very much involved in the process of choosing McElheran's successor at Wycliffe, who turned out to be Ramsay Armitage, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver. Cody phoned the offer to Armitage on August 16. Armitage accepted. Later Cody was consulted by the Canonical Committee of Christ Church Cathedral about "the relative suitability" of candidates on a short list of possible successors to Armitage.35 Cody continued to hear from one of his oldest clerical friends, Archbishop Matheson, now living in retirement in Winnipeg. Matheson still retained his sense of fun. He wrote jokingly in 1939, "It was very good and kind of you to write me such a newsy letter and for an old man your writing is wonderfully steady and clear" Matheson was 87 at the time. Cody was 70. Matheson wrote again when he was 89,

The Coming of War Again, 1939-19411247 but added, "I cannot see to revise and correct the above, so I let it go." He died in 1942. Cody and the university suffered a tragic loss in the death of Sir Frederick Banting. Banting had set out for England in a Lockheed Hudson bomber in February 1941. The plane reached Gander safely but was held up by bad weather. The flight was resumed but the plane crashed in Newfoundland some twelve miles from Musgrove Harbour. The pilot survived. Banting was desperately injured and died the next day, February 21. Sometime later the wreckage was discovered and the news flashed to Toronto. Cody had been a fervent admirer of Banting. There is evidence that he had sided with Banting in his divorce suit in 1932. Cody recorded the news of Bantings death in his diary for February 24. He called to see Lady Banting (the former Henrietta Ball) the next day and again on March 1. He conferred with Banting's old friend Duncan Graham, Dr. Best, and others in regard to the funeral arrangements. Cody took the funeral service on March 4 and gave the address. Barbara McClennan, in her reminiscences, recalled the agonizing care with which Cody organized every detail of the funeral, repeatedly asking Dr. Dunlop, "Can you think of anything I have omitted in the plans for Banting's funeral?" She added, "Dr. Cody need not have worried whether he had done everything to provide a suitable, dignified funeral for Dr. Banting. There was a horse-drawn black carriage for the coffin which was drawn at slow pace through the university grounds, a salute of guns and a very solemn service in Convocation Hall." Healey Willan played the organ. One of the mourners who helped to comfort Lady Banting at the funeral was the 97-year-old chancellor, Sir William Mulock. In his tribute, Cody said in part, "So he has passed over, and I doubt not that, in John Bunyan's phrase, 'all the trumpets sounded for him on the other side,' ... a great scientist, a great servant of humanity, a great friend, a great man, the glory of this university and of Canadian science." He recited Banting's virtues and his many honours, adding that Banting was "a man loyal to his friends, especially his old friends." This was a favourite idea of Cody's. (Three years later, in delivering Sir William Mulock's funeral sermon, Cody said that Mulock "had the faculty of making friends and standing by them when they needed friends most."36 Cody himself had been loyal to Howard Ferguson in the early twenties when Ferguson was under a cloud over the timber limits.) Cody concluded his funeral address on Banting, "We mourn his loss, we thank God for what he was and did, we humbly accept his challenge to 'carry on.' "37

248 / Henry John Cody

By the end of 1941 the university's war effort was running smoothly. In his annual report of November 27, Cody was able to report the university's effort in tabular form:38 1. All male students of British citizenship over 18 years of age were receiving military training either in the Officers' Training Corps or in the Training Centre Battalion. More than a whole brigade 3,500 - were under instruction. 2. About 2,500 undergraduates and recent graduates and 110 members of the teaching and administrative staff, chiefly from the Faculty of Medicine, were now on active service. 3. A new drill hall on St. George Street were utilized as headquarters of military training. Accommodation was provided for the war program in Convocation Hall, the examination halls, "and indeed in any available building belonging to the University." 4. Research on war problems continued, including work in aviation medicine, which Banting had begun. And so the list continued: special courses for the armed forces, including intelligence testing by Professor E.A. Bott and technical courses in radio for the Royal Canadian Navy by Professor E.E Burton and his colleagues; the work of the University of Toronto's Women's War Services Committee for the Red Cross; and the organization, under the Women's Voluntary Training Detachment, of the Red Cross Auxiliary Corps. Cody's list was impressive. It was an essential part of his argument that the university had not been remiss in its duty to the nation. It was part of the price that the University of Toronto, like its sister universities, paid in order to continue its normal functions of teaching, research, and writing.

Chapter 24

The Frank H. Underhill Case

rofessor Frank H. Underhill had been a source of controversy almost from the time he began his career at the University of Toronto in 1927. By 1939 things had come to a head. Underhill was one of a group of radicals among the student body and staff. The League for Social Reconstruction and the Fellowship for a Christian Social Order had both appeared in the early 1930s. Underhill at Toronto and Frank Scott at McGill had organized the League. The Fellowship had been organized at Toronto, Queen's, and McGill in 1931-32. In 1936 the Fellowship published Towards the Christian Revolution, The book's general message was that the Protestant churches had laid insufficient emphasis on social reform and must do better.1 Two of the principal writers were John Line and Eric Havelock, both Victoria College professors. Cody's conservative friends regarded these two men much as they regarded Underhill. Of the radical professors only Underhill and H.M. Cassidy were under Cody's immediate jurisdiction, but Cody could be attacked by conservative parents and friends of the university for articles published in the Varsity, which served as a mouthpiece of student radicalism. The Varsity was more discreet than it had been under Falconer but it could still draw protests. However, Underhill was the principal object of conservative protest. As an old student of Underbill's, I can only regard him with great affection and respect. He was a fine, witty lecturer, popular with his students. He was good-natured but he had a genius for provoking

P

250 / Henry John Cody

people. Underbill's public speeches did not ordinarily provoke his immediate audience, as he usually had a smile on his face; but he was widely reported in the press and the speeches seemed much more controversial when read. Underhill's contemporaries can be quoted. Peter Sandiford, a professor at the Ontario College of Education (OCE), described him as a very fair and stimulating teacher, but added, "He however has the peculiar personality that revels in controversy, especially in controversies that make the headlines in newspapers."2 Carleton Stanley, the president of Dalhousie, had a similar opinion: "I know how trying Underhill can be. Perhaps few people know better, for I was with him during a two year period in England and Germany, and I know how irresistible he finds it to say a thing which is clever though it may wound his friends."3 In 1930 Underhill was still nominally a Liberal, advocating such reforms as the introduction of proportional representation, but he moved into the CCF orbit shortly afterwards, and indeed, along with Frank Scott, he drafted the famous Regina Manifesto. While conservatives disliked his supposed socialism, they mainly objected to his attitude toward the British connection and "British wars." A Toronto businessman told Cody in 1940 that most people would have been willing to accept Underhill's views on foreign policy, "except that he is now quite generally recognized as a confessed radical socialist and the public views the activities of the group with growing apprehension."4 Underhill's views on socialism and his realistic analysis of Canada's relations with Great Britain were bound to be unpopular with Cody's very conservative board of governors and with many equally conservative friends at the university. But it was his provocative way of putting things that particularly raised their ire. An example was his speech at a joint meeting of the Political Science and Historical Associations held at Queen's in 1935 (see page 205). Cody complained in 1941 that "there are 938 members of the teaching staff at the university and University College and only one of that great number who has ever caused difficulty has been Professor Underhill and that not because of the substance of what he says but the manner in which he says it."5 While no doubt Underhill's ideas annoyed people too, there was a large element of truth in Cody's statement. Another example was Underbill's references to his war service. Having joined the Canadian Army early in World War I, he eventually secured a commission in the Imperial Army with the Hertfordshire regiment. No doubt he was pleased when some of his defenders in the

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1251

1930s praised him for his war service, but he was also a bit embarrassed by praise for his remarkable promotion from the rank of private to that of commissioned officer. Probably he felt undeserving, or perhaps his egalitarianism was offended. At any rate, he explained several times, notably in the Saturday Night letter column, that "my commission was solely the result of pull exercised by some kind Oxford friends." This was resented by Balmer Neilly, a member of the university board, as a denigration of the British army and he hastened to send a copy of Underbill's Saturday Night letter to Cody and to complain about Underbill's conduct.6 Underbill was the great test of Cody's views on freedom of expression on the part of university professors. Cody's basic position was that of Edmund Burke: that one has the right to do for oneself all that one can do without trespassing on the rights of others.7 Cody believed that university professors were entitled to freedom of expression but that they had responsibilities to the university in general. Cody was more concerned with the need for academic freedom within the university itself than in total freedom with regard to public speeches outside the lecture hall. University professors must be free to teach what they regarded as the truth, but if they addressed Canadian Clubs or made statements in the press, they must do so responsibly, showing consideration for the welfare of their colleagues and university. He stated in his President's Report ot 1935 (pp. 23-24), "Academic freedom lays on the University the responsibility to allow freedom of research and of teaching in the true spirit of science, but it also lays on the instructor the responsibility to approach his work not as a propagandist or partisan, but as a seeker for the whole truth, with open mind, fair judgment, and regard for all the facts." But Cody did not rule out the right of the professor to give public addresses. Indeed, he approved of Toronto professors' participation in the various political summer schools across the province in 1933. Yet, in his opinion the professor must remember "that the business of the university is the search for truth, in the field of conduct we must equally remember that expression should be marked by dignity, good taste and the decent restraints of scholarship." Cody pointed out that any statement made by a university professor was in some way an official utterance by the university. "But members of the staff are a fair cross section of the community in regard to their political and economic views. They differ from one another in temper, outlook and opinion, as do any group of intelligent men."8

252 / Henry John Cody Cody did not favour dismissal of a professor, even under extreme provocation. Prior to the crisis of 1940, he always avoided Underbill's dismissal, refusing to make a martyr of him. Professors John Line and E.A. Havelock were also the objects of protest during this period, but complaints about them, one from John Ferguson, could always be passed on to Chancellor E.W. Wallace of Victoria. Cody expressed his own indignation to Wallace."! do frankly feel that in these days of social unrest, when riots are already beginning, the greatest care should be taken by public speakers not to stimulate that unrest." But Wallace refused to be alarmed. He blamed the press for stirring up trouble and defended Line: "I think I know Professor Line's inmost heart and he is not the man that the newspapers have decided he is and are determined to make him out no matter what he may say."9 When complaints came in about Underbill, Cody resorted to different tactics. He sympathized with the protesters, minimized Underbill's influence in the university, promised to expostulate with him, but declined drastic action. Francis G. Venables wrote in December 1932, complaining about Underbill's association with the CCF. Cody replied, "The curious thing is that Professor Underbill is the only professor of the university who is openly associated with the movement. The most effective supporters are on the staff of Victoria College ... Professor Underbill will be dealt with I trust wisely but firmly. I do not think that Professor Underbill carries much weight with the Undergraduate body. One has to avoid making a martyr of any member whose influence is really very slight."10 While he refused to dismiss or even to discipline Underbill, except for some expostulation, Cody did narrow Underbill's range of activity outside the university. However, in November 1933 the Globe and Mail reported on "insolent" comments by Professor Frank Underbill in a university extension lecture: "Our political leaders were held up to derision, the Prime Minister in particular ... The effort to build up trade within the Empire was silly and hypocritical, as also was the opposition to trading with Russia ... Lord Beaverbrook was a 'pest.' Canada's economic future lay with the States, not with the Empire ... Sympathy was expressed for China ... excuses made for Germany and Japan but from beginning to end there was not one kindly or appreciative word for the mother country ... except the grudging admission that Britain's League policy is not sinister, like that of France." Not surprisingly, the board of governors objected. Cody tried to avoid further trouble by instructing W.J. Dunlop, the head of the university Extension Department, no longer to allow Underbill to speak under

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1253

the auspices of the Extension Department either in English tutorials or in out-of-town lectures.11 While obviously a violation of the principle of academic freedom, Cody probably argued that the strategy would keep Underbill out of trouble, making his dismissal easier to avoid. Cody's patience with Underbill was wearing thin by the end of 1933. In his letter to Bruce Macdonald, reporting his instructions to Dunlop, Cody wrote, "I am to see him in a day or two. The feeling of the Board was very strong and unanimous. My own patience is almost exhausted with him. I had an interview with him last term, and I suppose the fair thing to do is to give him one more chance with a warning that if he does not restrain his tongue from insolent remarks the welfare of the University will require his removal." This would appear to indicate that Cody was contemplating Underbill's dismissal as early as 1933, but it seems more likely that this early threat was calculated to mollify the board and to stave off a concerted demand for action. But the criticisms of Underbill continued. H.A. Bruce, lieutenant-governor of Ontario and one of Underbill's bitterest opponents, sent a clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune about Underbill's isolationism, with the snide comment that he thought that Underbill "had not benefitted sufficiently from your last talk with him." John Ferguson renewed his attack on Underbill in October 1934. He sent newspaper reports of an Underbill speech in London, Ontario, predicting inevitable war, Canada's neutrality, and the disintegration of the British Empire. Ferguson demanded action. To similar complaints by W.N. Ponton, a Toronto lawyer, Cody replied in his usual vein. He deplored Underbill's "silly utterances" but pointed out that he did not attempt to teach these views in his history lectures. He explained that Underbill "breaks out only in public utterances away from the University" and concluded, "A propos of this last outbreak we are giving very careful and serious attention to his case. What will be done I cannot say yet." Another delaying action.12 In the later 1930s, Underbill made a genuine attempt to stay out of the public eye. He assured Cody in 1937 "that I would try to avoid undesirable publicity by being careful about the way in which I expressed myself in public."13 Underbill made a sincere attempt to keep that promise, but he had become a marked man. Any statement of his - past or present - was likely to be taken up by his critics. Underbill was not without supporters. Warren W Tanner, an old student of his, insisted, "No one can accuse Professor Underbill of forcing his views upon his classes or of requiring that his interpretation of

254 / Henry John Cody facts be returned to him in essays or examinations ... We who have graduated in history owe to him ... much thanks." David Walker, Cody's old friend, had a different view and assured Cody, "I am happy to see you have succeeded in not becoming embroiled in the public controversy over Underbill. He's not worth it."14 For the most part Underbill stayed out of trouble in the late 1930s, but in 1939 he became involved in a major controversy. The cause of the uproar was a passage he had written five years earlier. In 1934 various groups and committees of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) were preparing for the International Studies Conference to be held in the summer of 1935. Underbill was asked to write a memorandum "presenting the so-called isolationist point of view of Canadian foreign policy."15 It was his understanding that contributions of various members of the CIIA would merely comprise background material for a final committee which was to prepare the memorandum from Canada to be presented to the International Conference. Underbill did not understand that memoranda of particular members, including his own, were sent to Paris along with the Canadian memorandum. Subsequently, also without his knowledge, the explosive passage was published in the report of the International Conference. It did not attract any attention in Canada (even Underbill didn't see the report until 1937), but unfortunately for Underbill, his statement was published again in 1938 in the CIIA volume Canada Looks Abroad.^ In a chapter entitled "Non-intervention," Underbill and several other Canadians, including Henri Bourassa and A.R.M. Lower, were quoted. Here, too, Underbill had not been consulted. Even in 1938 his statement did not result in any immediate protest. The explosion came the following year. Underbill's statement follows in full: We must therefore make it clear to the world, and especially to Great Britain, that the poppies blooming in Flanders fields have no further interest for us. We must fortify ourselves against the allurements of a British war for democracy and freedom and parliamentary institutions, and against the allurements of a League war for peace and international order. And when overseas propagandists combine the two appeals to us by urging us to join in organizing "the Peace World" to which all the British nations already belong, the simplest answer is to thumb our noses at them. Whatever the pretext on which Canadian armed forces may be lured to Europe again, the actual result would be that Canadian workers and farmers would shoot down German

The Frank H. Underhill Case / 255

workers and farmers, or be shot down by them, in meaningless slaughter. As the late John Ewart remarked, we should close our ears to these European blandishments and, like Ulysses and his men, sail past the European siren, our ears stuffed with taxbills. All these European troubles are not worth the bones of a Toronto grenadier.17 It was a provocative statement, couched in Underbill's best style. The passage may not have appeared very alarming when it was written, but by 1938 the international situation had grown much more tense. The Munich capitulation had occurred in October and after that the world moved swiftly toward the outbreak of war. In early 1939 the quotation was dynamite. The agitation against Underhill began in the Ontario Legislature on April 13, 1939.18 It commenced with an attack on Professor George Grube of Trinity, another prominent leftist. Threats were made to secure Grube's dismissal. When it was realized that the government could not touch Grube, because he was on the staff of a federated college, Underbill's name was drawn into the argument. George Drew, at that time the leader of the Opposition, quoted the Underhill passage in Canada Looks Abroad. Fraser Hunter, a member of the Legislature, moved a resolution demanding the dismissal of Grube and Underhill for "hurling insults at the British Empire." Prime Minister Hepburn ended the debate with the threat that if the university did not discipline Underhill and Grube, the government would. On the same day, Dr. H.A. Bruce raised the issue with the board of governors, quoting the Underhill statement. This precipitated a special meeting of the board on April 19. In the interval between the two board meetings, Cody prepared for the challenge. He wrote to Underhill (April 14) enquiring whether the quote was accurate and whether it had been published with Underbill's consent. He wired Mackay, one of the book's editors, in Halifax, making the same enquiry. Mackay advised him that he had not consulted Underhill. On April 16 Cody consulted Chester Martin, who was critical of Underhill but felt he would respond to an appeal for his loyalty to the university.19 Underhill replied to Cody on April 18, arguing that it was unfair to censure him for a statement written four years previously and published without his knowledge or consent. But he also made a conciliatory statement: "My opinions on this question of Canadian policy are still substantially unchanged. But I now see that this sentence of mine about thumbing our noses at certain propagandists for

256 / Henry John Cody 'the Peace World' were phrased in such a way as to be offensive to a good many people, and I regret very much having expressed myself in this way."20 There were various expressions of support for Underbill, including a petition bearing the signatures of 1,104 faculty members and students protesting the dismissal. This all led up to the critical board meeting of April 19.21 It was attended by Cody, Underbill, Dean Beatty, and three professors, Chester Martin, W.P.M. Kennedy, and H.A. Innis. Cody presented the statements by Underbill and Martin, and the four professors spoke. Underbill "made a statement as to the spirit and method of his teaching in his university classes,"22 and was then subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by members of the board. This was the most critical stage of the meeting. Underbill was not the most tactful person and under such intense cross-examination he might well have lost his temper and said something that would have damaged his cause. It was at this point, however, that Howard Ferguson intervened. Each time the discussion edged into dangerous channels, Ferguson intervened and steered it into more innocuous waters. Later Ferguson was to turn against Underbill, but on this day he appeared to be on his side. Underbill reported afterwards, "Howard Ferguson, of all people, was operating with his usual smoothness to prevent any trouble. He of course was assisting Cody" and together they "prevented things from becoming hot."23 The board decided to defer any action until a further meeting. This postponement meant, in effect, that Cody and Underbill had turned the corner in that particular crisis. On the strength of the news that the university was dealing with the matter, Fraser Hunter, on April 29, withdrew his motion in the Legislature calling for the dismissal of Grube and Underbill. Cody confronted the board, probably in June 1939, with a report describing Underbill's military record in World War I. He also quoted from Underbill's defence of himself in the letter of April 18, and followed this with a lengthy quote from his presidential report describing the rights but also the responsibilities of universities and teachers (see pages 180-81). He concluded: "With these views [in the presidential report] Professor Underbill expressed his hearty agreement and repeated his promise to act in harmony therewith. In view of the foregoing I recommend that the Board take no further action at present." The board accepted Cody's recommendation and that was the end of the crisis of 1939. But it left scars that had not entirely healed when

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1257 Underhill became involved in a much more serious challenge in 1940. The crisis of April 1939 had one important sequel. The heads of the Arts departments in the university and in University College held a meeting of April 18 "in connection with the recent protest in the Legislature." The next day Dean Beatty and Professor Innis reported to Cody that the meeting "was unanimous in holding that nothing but irritation can result from ill-advised and offensive statements made by members of the staff, either on the public platform or in the press." Beatty and Innis offered to set up a small committee to investigate "public statements by members of the staff which prove to be irritating to a section of the public to the detriment of the University." They also offered to report their findings to Cody, "with suggestions looking toward alleviation of the annoyance."24 Nothing came of the offer immediately, but it indicated the senior Arts professors' intention and willingness to play a part in future discussions on statements by Underhill and others. The final Underhill crisis and the one which nearly finished his career at Toronto began in the late summer of 1940, barely a year after the agitation of 1939. The atmosphere in 1940 was infinitely more tense. World War II had begun in the autumn of 1939 and Canada had thrown in her lot. First had come the period of "the phoney war," then the tremendous German drive in the spring of 1940, the collapse of France, the Dunkirk escape of the British army. Britain was now a beleaguered fortress. Canadians lived in the fear of British collapse. In this atmosphere, Underhill made his ill-fated speech at the Couchiching Conference on August 23. This conference was held each year in Geneva Park, on the shore of Lake Couchiching near Orillia, Ontario, and was sponsored by the Canadian Institute of Economics and Politics, an offshoot of the YMCA. Each year at the end of August, distinguished speakers from Canada, Great Britain, and the United States addressed an audience of university professors, civil servants, interested business people, and others on aspects of current affairs. On the last evening of the conference, Underhill spoke as a member of a panel that was discussing the merits of a united North American front. The panel was under the chairmanship of N.J. Maclean, the chairman of Canada Packers. The other panelists were Charles Forman of the U.S. Department of the Interior, J.R. Green of New York, and C.E. Silcox, an old friend of Cody's and a United Church clergyman. Underhill spoke after Dr. Forman, who had stressed that all the countries in North and South America must be organized to meet economic conditions in the post-war period.25

258 / Henry John Cody

When it was first announced that Underhill would speak at Couchiching, Silcox had been questioned by the RCMP about the professor. Silcox had thought he had satisfied the officers that Underhill would not say anything subversive,26 but perhaps he was not altogether confident of this himself, as he had had himself put on the panel. He was scheduled to speak fourth, just after Underhill, presumably so that he could smooth over anything provocative Underhill might say. Since Underhill had no text, there is no precise record of what he said, but the course of his argument is clear enough. He took as his point of departure the Ogdensburg Defence Agreement between the United States and Canada, which Roosevelt and Mackenzie King had just negotiated (August 18, 1940). Underhill had anticipated some protests in Canada from Canadian Tories and especially from the Toronto Telegram. "When I first heard of the agreement," he reported, "I rushed to buy a copy of the Toronto Telegram expecting to find a regular sizzler of an editorial, but even the Tely did not seem to be running a temperature on that occasion." He was surprised to find that there were practically no protests from the Canadian press.27 His finding was later confirmed by the Department of External Affairs, which reported that a survey of fifty-four editorials in thirty-seven Canadian newspapers and magazines revealed no opposition to the agreement. Underbill's theme was the increasing importance of the United States and the decline of Great Britain as potential defenders of Canada. His speech did not shock many people in his immediate audience of businessmen and academics. As usual it was not what he said but the way he said it that got him in trouble with the press, with "friends of the university," and eventually with the University of Toronto Board of Governors. Already a marked man, he was speaking during a grave period in British fortunes. France had just capitulated and the Battle of Britain, in the air, was about to commence. It was his reference to the British and the British Empire which raised the hue and cry. Underhill was thought to be advocating Canada's desertion of Britain in her hour of need. The Telegram came out on August 24 with a hostile news story, "Suggestion by Professor that Empire Tie Waning Brings Hearers' Protests." The piece began with a critique of the speech by H.M. Tory, the director of the Canadian Board of Research, and then went on to give a series of quotes from Underbill's speech: "Down to May of this year Canada was dominated by the prestige of British policy ... Nothing that Britain could do was wrong. But doubts came after Munich. And then came the over-running of France ... and then all had doubts"; "We now have two loyalties - one to Britain, the other to

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1259

North America. I venture to say it is the second, North America is going to be supreme now. The relative importance of Britain is going to sink no matter what happens"; "Canada will attach itself to the nearest geographic power ... We are never going back to putting all our eggs again in one British basket."28 Cody was immediately concerned. Reaction to the Telegram article was swift. Cody's telephone rang continuously with protests about Underbill. On Sunday, August 25, Cody telegraphed Underbill at Geneva Park: "Have received vigorous protests regarding report of your address in yesterday's Telegram. Kindly send me full statement of what you said Friday evening." Cody concluded with a reproach: "I had understood you were not making public speeches at present." The telegram never reached Underbill, who had already left the conference site, but he promptly replied to a letter Cody wrote to him on September 3. He enclosed a reconstruction of what he thought he had said. This version is probably accurate in its report of the speech's general argument. It suggests that as was usually the case with the press, the report by the Telegram and other papers had selected a few brief passages out of quite a long speech. Underbills text ran to seven typed pages of foolscap of which the first five were a scholarly account of the character and background of the Ogdensburg Agreement and a description of the development of Canadian attitudes toward the United States from 1867 to 1940. The passages to which the press took exception were all on pages 6 and 7, and it seems that in general he was not misquoted. His text contained such assertions as (p. 6) "We can no longer depend on the power of Britain and France standing between us and whatever may develop on the continent of Europe. And so we can no longer put all our eggs in the British basket." He protested (p. 7), "Let it be noted that the new step in our policy does not necessitate a breach with our old connections." But he predicted that the post-war world would be dominated by "great continental aggregations of political and military power" - Russia, a new Far East, perhaps a panAmerica. He concluded, "The nineteenth century world under British economic leadership and kept peaceful by British sea-power has passed forever ... All these conditions are going to make the big power next door to us relatively much more important to us when we consider our security in an uneasy world."29 Some who heard Underbill's speech claimed that the general effect was less shocking than the selected portions printed in the press. Charles Bouckham, a vice-president of Sterling Trust, assured Cody: "I heard the whole of his address and the discussion which followed it, and I do not think the articles in the Toronto press fairly presented his

2601 Henry John Cody remarks. They placed emphasis on a part and excluded the other part which if reported as a whole, would not have been subject to the same criticism."30 In the opinion of the author, Underhill's concluding remarks would have proved upsetting to many Canadians in the gloomy atmosphere of 1940, even if they had heard the whole speech. Much of the press reaction, especially that of the Toronto Telegram, was hostile. The general impression was that Underhill was proposing to desert Britain in her hour of need. The Orillia Packet on August 29 enquired "whether the University of Toronto is justified in affording Professor Underhill the opportunity to inoculate the coming generation of Canadian citizens with views subversive of the accepted traditions and established political status of the Dominion from the vantage point of the chair of history." Contrary to its usual custom, the Star agreed with the Telegram. In an editorial, "An Ill-timed Address" (August 31), the Star went over the same ground, quoting Underhill selectively: "We now have two loyalties ... The relative importance of Britain is going to sink ... We are never going back again to putting all our eggs in one British basket."31 Arthur Meighen staunchly loyal to British tradition, wrote to Ernest Lapointe, the minister of justice, suggesting that Underhill be interned: "When Mayor Houde called on the people of his Province to defy the law of Canada in respect of Registration, it was perfectly proper and, indeed, in my opinion necessary that he be interned. The words of Professor Underhill, in their effect on the Canadian war spirit, are infinitely more dangerous and disintegrating ... I urge in the strongest terms, that an example be made of this man and that he and all of his ilk be given to understand that this Country is at war and that they must behave accordingly."32 Cody was under tremendous pressure to act. Sydney Hermanns account of a visit to the president during an earlier crisis gives us a picture of what he was facing: "Dr. Cody, courteous and kindly as always, showed me his table which was literally covered with telegrams and he said, 'Sydney, these telegrams demanding Professor Underhill's resignation represent the voice of citizens from all parts of the Province who support the University, I am under pressure from the public, from the Government, and from the Board of Governors.'"33 The board met on the issue, inconclusively, on September 12, 1940, then adjourned until September 16, having requested the president to present a report on the case. After that, Cody received some expressions of support for Underhill. NJ. Maclean, who had presided over the meeting at

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1261

Couchiching, said that Underhill s reconstruction of his speech contained nothing to disturb anyone.34 Silcox, Cody's old friend, wrote reassuringly, "The police have since talked to me about it [Underbill's speech] and they are, I think quite satisfied ... I am tracing several things connected with this whole matter, because some aspects of it bear the marks of deliberate persecution and pique." He enclosed his letter to the Globe and Mail, which read, "I can say emphatically that I listened very intently to his address because it was my responsibility to comment upon it, and I got a different impression of the actual purport of his meaning from that suggested in the paragraph quoted and further distorted by some of the commentators."35 Malcolm Wallace, principal of UC, wrote to Cody expressing concern about the press's criticism of Underhill and, even more worrisome, the probable effect of discharging him: "At Couchiching last month he said nothing to which any reasonable man would object. Moreover in the discussion he took occasion to emphasize explicitly his loyalty to the Empire and his faith in a British victory."36 Underhill had his defenders in the press. The Globe and Mail concluded that the attack on him was "indecent." Bernard K. Sandwell, managing editor of Saturday Night, who had been present at Couchiching, assured Cody, "I am utterly unable to see anything in his language which could in itself be regarded as incompatible with its holding of a university Chair."37 The board meeting of September 16 eased the crisis, at least for the time being. In a letter to Bruce Macdonald, the chairman of the board, the university solicitor Hamilton Cassels strongly advised that no action be taken against Underhill on the basis of the Couchiching speech: "The reports as to what he actually did say differ considerably and it is extremely doubtful if it could be established that he made the statements which called forth most of the criticism. Under the circumstances, I think it would be unwise to discharge Professor Underhill basing the action on the ground that he made the statements recently attributed to him." Cassels did not rule out the possibility of the board giving notice that Underbill's appointment would be terminated at a future date (he suggested June 30, 1941), "paying him the salary he would have received if he had remained until the time the notice expired."38 Cody and the board took their cue from Cassels in regard to the Couchiching speech but did not act on his suggestion about giving notice. Cody reported to the board: "After careful inquiry I find that there is no stenographic report of his speech and of the subsequent dis-

2621 Henry John Cody cussions, nor is there other satisfactory evidence to support the published account of what he said. I recommend that no action be taken in respect thereof." This recommendation was accepted.39 The Underhill affair, however, was not so easily settled. Discussion and agitation continued. Saturday Night approved of the board's decision not to fire Underhill but hoped the professor would show more restraint in the future: "It is not only unnecessary but it is positively wrong, and in these days positively dangerous to go around talking as if any increase in the intimacy of relationship between this country and the United States necessarily involved a corresponding decrease in the intimacy of relationship between this country and Great Britain; and that is exactly what Mr. Underhill ... has been constantly doing for years past."40 The Orillia Packet took a hard line in its article of October 3: "Toronto University Can't Shirk Issue Raised by Professor Underhill." The Packet insisted, "Toronto University will remain under a cloud in the eyes of a large section of the Public as long as Professor Underhill remains on its staff." Balmer Neilly, a mining executive and former president of the Alumni Association, continued the agitation in the board of governors. At the board meeting of September 26, 1940, Neilly moved "that the President be instructed to advise Professor EH. Underhill that the Board will not continue to pay Professor Underhill a salary equivalent to that which he is now receiving." Subsequently Neilly withdrew his motion, "pending a report from the President," but later, in a letter to Cody, he proposed reducing Underhill s salary to one dollar a year.41 While the board did not favour Neilly's drastic proposals, it was still prepared to give further consideration to the "Underhill Question." On December 10 the University History Club met at Cody's home on Jarvis Street. It was an undergraduate organization but faculty members attended its meetings. Underhill was present on this occasion, and one wonders if he and Cody had any conversation. No doubt they were scrupulously polite to each other. At a special board meeting on December 19, Cody presented his report on the Underhill affair. It was a surprising reversal of his earlier recommendation not to fire the professor.42 Cody described his dealings with Underhill during the previous thirteen years and noted Underbill's recurrent promises to stay out of the public eye and his recurrent failure to do so. In regard to the Couchiching speech, Cody wrote, "After the discussions in the Legislature and in the Board in April, 1939,1 had every right to assume that Professor Underhill would make no public speeches for some time. It was with surprise, therefore,

The Frank H. Underbill Case / 263

that I read that he had made an address last August at Lake Couchiching." That Cody's patience had been exhausted was indicated in a closing paragraph: Since November 24th, 1938, Professor Underbill's utterances have been discussed by the Board of Governors on seven separate occasions. An inordinate amount of time has been devoted to his conduct during the tenure of his professorship. No other member of our teaching staff has called for reproofs and warnings. These indicate that the Board has not adopted a general policy of restraint of freedom of speech, but is doubtful of his discretion and has not great confidence in his willingness or his ability to carry out his promises of silence or amendment. There is always the fear that he will again make some statement in such a form that public indignation will be aroused and further injury done to the good name and usefulness of the university. Cody closed with this recommendation: "Without any reference to specific details of the writing or utterances of Professor Frank Underbill and viewing his record as a whole, I believe it is in the best interest of the University that his services be dispensed with."43 Cody's recommendation might well have finished Underbill's career at the University of Toronto. Its immediate result was not to finish Underbill but to extend the controversy into 1941, where it raged for another six months. At the December 19 meeting, Chancellor Mulock defused the threatened explosion by moving that any action by the board be deferred until June 1941. The board was anxious to avoid having to fire Underbill and would have preferred that he resign. Accordingly, a committee of three (Mulock, Bruce Macdonald, and Leighton McCarthy) met with him on January 2, 1941, and promised him the money from his pension fund and a year's salary if he would agree to resign. Underbill went away to consider the offer. He consulted his lawyer, Hon. Leopold Macaulay, who warned him that if he resigned he would have little chance of securing an academic appointment. He refused to resign. Meanwhile, Cody was receiving a flood of letters. Many of them opposed the dismissal of Underbill. A few supported Cody. Chester Martin, the head of the history department, was one of the former: "I cannot find words to say how much I deplore this outcome of the long controversy over the matter ... I cannot contemplate without despair the bankruptcy of all confidence and cooperation in dealing with this

2641 Henry John Cody matter." Professor E.V. Henderson (Pharmacology) thought that dismissal would do more harm than good: "I feel that Underbills dismissal after all that has occurred will create a stir in undergraduate and academic circles. This I deprecate."44 Hugh Keenleyside, the secretary of the Canadian section on the (Canadian-American) Joint Board of Defence, was concerned about the reaction in the United States. A senior member of the Department of External Affairs, Keenleyside had been acting as a go-between for Mackenzie King, Cordell Hull, and Roosevelt. He felt that at a time when the British were making such efforts to secure American support in the war, it would be extremely unwise for Canadians to fire a professor for advocating closer relations with the United States. He wired Cody on January 8: "I suggest every possible step be taken to postpone action until present international crisis is ended." Professor J.B. Brebner, a Canadian professor at Columbia University in New York, made the same argument: "Is this a time to allow a Toronto professor to be forced out for exercising the ordinary rights of a British citizen? ... Can Canada risk widespread dissemination of extracts from the Canadian press charging Underbill with the sin of being proAmerican?" 45 One of the most explosive reactions came from the Toronto Young Communist League: "The first major blow against academic freedom in the University of Toronto has now been struck."46 Peter Sandiford of OCE expressed what was likely the representative opinion of the university, critical of Underbill but opposed to his dismissal. "I wish to inform you that the vigorous reaction of the staff (probably over 90% in favour of Underbill despite his trying conduct) was due to the fact that they realized that everybody's security would be weakened if Underbill were removed." Sandiford wanted to let bygones be bygones - "and tell Underbill that so long as he behaves with propriety his position as a member of the University Staff in Toronto will never be in jeopardy."47 Cody's January 7, 1941, meeting with a large number of senior professors and administrators added fuel to the Underbill crisis. His notes, however, indicate that the meeting was not as acrimonious as has sometimes been thought. Most of the professors were opposed to dismissal, although some (Charles Cochrane a professor of ancient history, and Hardolph Wasteneys) were very critical of Underbill. Malcolm Wallace, principal of UC, said that there was a division of opinion in the university in regard to Underbill and that his dismissal would cause further disunity. Furthermore, it would make headlines and hurt

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1265

friends of Great Britain in the United States. Dr. J.H. Elliott said he would stand by the president's decision. Professor W.P.M. Kennedy argued that "common sense is the basis of freedom" and that it had not been shown by Underbill. Dean Beatty said he would accept whatever decision was made. H.A. Innis made a low-key speech in defence of Underbill.48 He began by reminding the meeting of his own long record of differences with Underbill. "I imagine I have crossed swords with greater violence with Professor Underbill on the platform and in print than anyone here." Underbill was an activist who believed that the university professor should participate in politics and make public statements about current events. Innis thought that the professor should confine his or her activities to teaching, research, and scholarly writing. But Innis argued that as a war veteran Underbill was entitled to special consideration: "It is possibly necessary to remember that any returned man who has faced the continual dangers of modern warfare has a point of view fundamentally different from anyone who has not." Innis predicted that the firing of Underbill would tarnish the University of Toronto's reputation as a champion of academic freedom. Having served, at Cody's request, on an advisory committee to the Workers' Educational Association, Innis felt qualified to voice an opinion about the university's relations with labour: "If the proposals regarding Professor Underbill are carried out our task [in regard to labour relations] is hopeless." Innis believed that Underbill's real enemies were the board of governors and the Ontario Legislature. After discussing the potentially damaging repercussions of Underbill's dismissal, Innis continued, "I am profoundly convinced that once the Board of Governors understands this, the immediate issue becomes of paltry importance." Innis also felt Cody needed to be supported against the board. He coupled Cody and Underbill in a drastic offer: "If my resignation would save the president's position, the unity of the university, and Professor Underbill I would give it gladly." (This was taken by some of Underbill's friends to be a threat against Cody as well as the board, but Innis had meant to show his support for Cody. On January 8 he took trouble to send Cody a copy of his speech, which he described in a covering letter as "intended to express a feeling, which I am sure you sensed to the full, among all members of the staff of general personal affection for you." Innis closed his speech with the question "Can the University make a contribution to this war by dismissing a veteran of the last?" Cody presided over the meeting with his usual urbanity. The meet-

2661 Henry John Cody ing has been regarded as effecting a change in Cody's thinking, persuading him to reverse his decision of December 19. This may have been the case in the long run, but Cody's own notes indicate that he thought his opinion had been supported: "Question at issue not his teaching - supreme question is welfare of university - how many undertakings has he given - the issue of academic freedom not really involved - Is there any method of getting rid of unsatisfactory member of the staff. - the nuisance gets the sympathy."49 These words suggest that his position remained as it had been in December. He still thought that professors, while entitled to academic freedom, had responsibilities and that Underhill had not observed his responsibilities. For some time after the meeting of January 7 Cody continued to defend his decision of December 19, 1940. When Keenleyside wired from Washington about Underbill's dismissal, Cody drafted a letter to Mackenzie King (January 10) enquiring whether Keenleyside was expressing a personal opinion or representing King's views. Cody assured King that "if any action is taken in connection with Professor Underhill it will not be taken on the basis of statements alleged to have been made at the late conference at Couchiching." He indicated that he could see no connection between Underhill and the international situation. Cody then wired Keenleyside (January 13) that he did not think the Underhill decision would affect American activities in aid of the British Empire. On the same date he wrote to Clifford Sifton II, a son of the famous publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press, asserting that the Underhill problem was one not of "freedom" but of "personality."50 When a U of T president took an unpopular line, there was a tendency to blame it on pressure from the provincial government. Thus, a number of well-informed people regarded Mitch Hepburn as the real instigator of the movement to dismiss Underhill. Underhill himself thought so and he expressed this in a letter to Keenleyside: "The pressure really comes from Hepburn ... the younger members of the board are of course Hepburn's gunmen. His using of his power over the annual University grant is an abuse of power and completely undermines the intention of the University Act of 1906, which was to divorce the University from political influences." Clifford Sifton, a prominent Liberal, attempted to remove the pressure, whether or not it had been exerted. On January 10 he told Hepburn of the widely held belief that Hepburn had directed the board of governors to get rid of Underhill. He warned him that if Underhill were fired, Hepburn would be regarded as responsible, whether or not this was true. Therefore, Sifton concluded, Hepburn must defend Underhill.51

The Frank H. Underbill Case 1267 Probably Hepburn favoured Underbill's dismissal. He had been violently opposed to Underbill during the 1939 crisis, though no direct evidence of actual intervention on his part has been revealed. In any case, in 1940 the Ontario government denied any intention of exercising financial pressure. Provincial Secretary Harry Nixon, speaking for the government, promised that no grant to a university would be cut because of the views of staff members. Mitch also made a disclaimer, and Cody was able to write reassuring letters to friends of the university. These government disclaimers left it squarely up to the board of governors to decide Underbills fate. The board postponed its decision for six months. The critical - and as it turned out, the decisive - board meeting was held on June 26. Whatever Cody may have felt after deciding in December 1940 to fire Underbill, he went through a long period of indecision before the board meeting of June 26, 1941. He had come to favour dismissal because of Underbill's propensity to involve the university in recurrent public controversy. After his long defence of Underbill, this was not an easy decision for Cody to make. As the events of the early months of 1941 unfolded, he became increasingly burdened with the Underbill problem. Was he right to get rid of what he had come to regard as a nuisance or was he wrong? Ought he to fire Underbill and be faced with censure and vigorous opposition from a sizeable part of his faculty or should he change his mind and thus offend a large section of the board and of the public. If Underbill were retained and subsequently became involved in another controversy, would Cody be able to cope with such a challenge? Cody's discouragement was strong enough that he seriously contemplated his own resignation. Innis tried to dissuade him, writing on June 11, 1941, "A suggestion of resignation disturbs me. It disturbs me more on the present occasion since resignation by you means resignation by me. We must support you to the limit."52 Cody did not resign, but it had been a grievous time for him. Barbara McClennan, his secretary, later recalled, "Then there was the Frank Underbill affair ... What I do remember is the intensity of Dr. Cody's feelings when writing about Frank Underbill, the pained expression on his face and the constant shaking of his head when he dictated the letters."53 Cody's good friend Howard Ferguson, who had previously protected Underbill at the board, had now become his principal opponent and led the attack at the June 26 meeting. He and Bruce wished to fire Underbill, but without this action reflecting in any way on Cody. They moved, "That in the opinion of the Board, without any reference to specific details of the writings of utterances of Professor Frank H.

2681 Henry John Cody

Underhill and viewing his record as a whole, it is in the best interests of the University that his services be dispensed with. This resolution is not to be construed as any personal reflection on the President." This resolution seemed likely to be carried; but Cody had changed his mind: "I hereby withdraw the recommendation made last autumn in regard to Professor Underbill's continuance on the staff of this University, and substitute for it a recommendation that no action be taken to dismiss him." At this point Chancellor Mulock pointed out that, according to the University Act, no dismissal could be made without the recommendation of the president. 54 That settled the matter. The Ferguson-Bruce motion was put to the meeting and duly passed by a vote of 7 to 4. The chancellor, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the president voted nay. The other members (Ferguson, Bruce, Morrow, Burns, LaBine, Osier, and Rose) voted yea. But failing Cody's compliance, the motion was a dead letter. That was really the end of the Underhill affair. Underhill went away for a year on a Guggenheim Fellowship and the din of battle abated. Cody's record as university president is a creditable one, judged in the light of his situation. He had to cope with a difficult board, difficult friends of the university, a difficult government, and a professor with a genius for getting into trouble but with strong support among the faculty. His final decision not to fire Underhill was a difficult one. He changed his mind partly because of faculty sentiment, partly because of some support on the board (particularly Mulock and Bruce Macdonald), partly because of his own humanitarianism. In the final critical meeting of June 26, he defied the majority group headed by Ferguson and Bruce. The decision left scars. Ferguson was indignant for a time. Cody described the September 25, 1941, board meeting in his diary: "Warm discussion on Underhill. Ferguson and Rose attacked my stand." He was cheered by his old friend, the chancellor, and reported on September 26, "Afternoon call from Sir William Mulock re yesterdays meeting 'Glad you stood to your guns - Don't worry.'" Ferguson eventually forgave Cody, but according to a contemporary, David Walker, he never forgave Mulock for his opposition. Underhill never got over his resentment. One of his colleagues, the late Gerald Craig, told me that "Frank always retained a grudge against Cody, I think unjustly." Cody's final stand earned him enemies on the board, particularly Dr. H.A. Bruce and Balmer Neilly, consistent hardliners against Underhill.

Chapter 25

The War Continues, 1941-1944

nce the Underbill affair was settled, life for Cody became more placid, but the war, now in its third year, had had its effect. It was not easy to carry on a policy of business as usual at the university when there was a continuing drain of staff and students. By the end of 1941 the policy of the University of Toronto in regard to undergraduates was clear.l There were two military units: the COTC (Canadian Officers Training Corps) for students already enrolled in the Officers Training Battalion, and the Training Centre Battalion for other students. Students in scientific courses such as Medicine and Engineering were permitted to substitute technical courses for the military courses, with the stipulation that when they were not taking the technical courses they must perform the ordinary military service. Cody wrote to the dean of medicine in October: "The Department of National Defence will accept as the equivalent of military training the study of medicine in fields appropriate to military medicine ... at a university in which the student is taking clinics for an average of not less than twelve hours per week." He added that when not taking clinics students should carry on normal military work. "Otherwise students in other faculties will consider they are not being fairly treated." Cody explained to a fellow university president, "We are keeping all the medical men in the clinical years to medicine, and are leaving students in the junior years to follow their own inclination, but

O

270 / Henry John Cody

we are giving general advice to finish their courses before enlistment. That seems to me to be the clear intention of the Ottawa authorities."2 When the Air Training Plan was introduced in the university in 1941, it not only provided preparatory training for the RCAF, but also gave complete training in aerial navigation. A Link Trainer, a simulated flight machine, was installed at the Engineering building to provide the necessary equipment for the training. In 1943 the university added a naval division to the military and air force divisions. In the same year it offered a "Canadian Army" course. The course consisted of instruction in mathematics, engineering, and science and "pertained to specialized branches of the army." The first course was taken by 140 young men from across Canada. Cody was present at their graduation parade on May 29, 1943. After a competition among platoons and a march past, he presented their certificates. On September 18 he welcomed a second group to the course.3 The system worked smoothly for a while, but as the war went on, there was increased pressure to terminate the studies of students who were doing poorly. During the latter part of the war, students in the bottom half of a class standing could be called for military service. By 1944 the pressure to recruit had further intensified. A Toronto dean was informed by the Mobilization Board healthy male members of the university staff who had been given deferment from military service should be replaced "by men who were not physically fit or who were above the calling age."4 Many extramural activities were sacrificed to the war effort. Cody explained in his annual report for 1941 that "the necessary social activities of the students have been made simple, inexpensive and informal." Asked about university athletics by President Cyril James of McGill, Cody declared that intercollegiate competitions (i.e., football, athletic competitions) should be suspended. Each university could make "what local arrangements it pleases, provided it does not go in for intercollegiate competitions between members of our group, and provided it does not spend time in practising for games which should be spent in military training, and provided it does not spend money on travelling."5 While Cody was anxious to cooperate with a wartime government, he was frequently exasperated at the continuing drain on personnel in the universities and even the high schools. His attitude to the manpower problem is suggested by notes he took at a meeting in Ottawa in May 1942. Representatives of the universities were to confer with the government departments in regard to the needs of the government, particularly the defence department and the National Research

The War Continues, 1941-19441271 Council, for engineering and science workers. On the question of whether the supply of such workers at the universities was sufficient to meet the present and future needs, Cody wrote on his copy of the meetings agenda: "Yes, 3000." Still, he was clearly concerned that the supply of students entering the university might be curtailed, for he wrote in the margin, "Will do utmost. But must have the students from schools - Don't take them away. Don't take our teachers away."6 Cody was more perturbed by the loss of staff than by the curtailment of male student registration. He wrote to a Vancouver friend in October 1941: "The War has brought many additional burdens to us all. The University is fairly humming with war work ... We are finding it very difficult, particularly in the Faculties of Medicine and Engineering to hold enough members of the staff to carry on the work of teaching efficiently." Later he complained to J.B. Bickersteth: "Our department of psychology is being sadly shot to pieces." He listed the senior psychologists who were doing war work and added that two economists, J.F. Parkinson and A.F.W. Plumptre, had also been called to Ottawa. In January 1942 he wrote to Bickersteth again: "We still have the Air Force men and probably shall have, as long as the War lasts. Naturally the number of men in Arts is steadily dropping. As soon as they can get into the Air Force they leave the University." He went on, "We have difficult problems almost every day in making new arrangements necessitated by the absence of instructors in war work."7 Cody's remarks reflected complaints he was receiving from deans and heads of departments. E.A. Bott spelled out the plight of the psychology department: three professors (John Line, J.E. Griffin, and C.R. Myers) had already applied for leave of absence, while the RCAF was likely to request the services of a fourth professor, S.N.E. Chant. Bott himself was applying for leave of absence to do special work for the United Kingdom Air Liaison Mission.8 Indeed, Cody had helped Bott gain his appointment. WE. Gallic, the dean of medicine, wanted a member of his faculty, Lt.-Col. R.W. Wansbrough, recalled from military duty for service in the Sick Children's Hospital. Three members of the surgical staff had just departed and two other members were in ill health. Those remaining found it impossible to do the surgical work properly or to carry on with the necessary instruction of students.9 Cody received complaints and enquiries from heads of other universities and from other outside university officials. Sherwood Fox, president of the University of Western Ontario, reported that the war had made it necessary for Western to add a number of secretaries to its

2721 Henry John Cody administrative staff. Carleton Stanley, the president of Dalhousie University, was concerned that the glamour of the air force would divert a great many students from the COTC: the COTC "will become a nonentity ... there will be no male students left in the Universities." Cody did not share his alarm. He agreed that the new Air Wing attached to the COTC would reduce numbers of the regular COTC, but argued that this would have happened anyway, since there were not sufficient openings for officers at the moment (he wrote this when the army was still confined to the British Isles). Stanley was not convinced. He objected to the fact that officers of the air force wanted to address the male students at Dalhousie on the desirability of signing up. They had already visited all the high schools in the Halifax area. Stanley regarded this high-pressure recruiting as a violation of the government's previously declared policy - "Now, the last instructions the universities had from the Government were to let nothing interfere with the continuance of University training."10 In April 1942 the chairman of the Council for Democracy at Harvard University, wrote to Cody about the loss of the council's executive vice-president, who had left to join the army. He asked Cody to suggest someone from his "public relations staff" to replace him. Cody regretfully responded, "Our own staff is almost every day being drawn upon, either by the Government for special work or by Active Service Forces. This week I am losing three excellent men, one from Architecture, one from Botany, and the manager of the University Press."11 The strongest complaint to Cody came from H.A. Innis, who deplored the effect of the war in lowering the quality of education given university students. Innis felt that his own generation had been treated badly by the universities after World War I, and he did not want the present generation to suffer the same fate. He claimed that a decline in the numbers of students had meant a further weakening of the staff. He continued, "I have had far too much occasion in the past to apologize to you for the steady deterioration of our staff. Deterioration of teaching in the high schools as well as in the Universities involves a shocking disregard of our obligations to the generation of students in the University now and a scandalous disregard of our obligations to the students beginning to return ... It is not good enough to hustle large numbers through accelerated courses - time is of the essence of University education. In other words I [can] see no alternative to the present system plus a more determined effort to strengthen the staff."12

The War Continues, 1941-19441273 Despite all the problems in preserving the university in these difficult times, Cody could still be proud of the university's role in the war effort. He described the university's Armistice Day service (1941) in glowing terms: "The whole front campus was filled with our men in uniform, together with 350 radio technicians for the Air Force and a group of naval ratings — these two latter are taking courses at the University. We are giving a broad, thorough military training to the Officers Training Corps and to the Training Centre Battalion."13 He declared in his annual report for 1942, "The University is no safe retreat for any who seek to avoid their solemn obligation to serve their country; it is a place of training where men and women alike are being prepared for the better discharge of these obligations to defend human freedom and human decency ... Never were universities made more directly responsible for the nation's war effort than they are today, and never, I believe, was a more wholehearted answer given."14 In the 1930s Cody had dealt with the problem of Jewish refugee professors from Nazi Germany who wished to be employed in Canadian universities. After the outbreak of war, he was confronted with a different, although similar, problem, that of released German Jewish internees who wished to study at Canadian universities. In 1939 the British authorities had interned a considerable number of "enemy aliens." Many of them were Jewish refugees who were certainly not sympathetic to the Nazis. Some had been sent to Canada for internment, and a number of these refugees were eventually released. Some hoped to take advantage of their enforced transference to the New World by registering as students at Canadian universities, including the University of Toronto. Cody was sympathetic to their admission, subject to the necessary safeguards; but he had to cope with the misgivings of certain members of his board of governors. The most prominent critic of Cody's policy was Dr. H.A. Bruce, at this time a member of Parliament as well as a member of the university board of governors. By the middle of 1941 the university had registered some twenty-three former internees for the academic year 1941-42. In November 1941 Bruce became concerned. He had been talking to Dr. Cyrus Macmillan, an MP who had a McGill connection. Macmillan was far from pleased that four "enemy alien" former internees had been admitted to McGill. Their admission, he said, had caused great bitterness in Montreal. Bruce shared his concern and asked Cody how many had been admitted to Toronto. He was especially anxious about the possibility of their admission to departments in which research for the

2741 Henry John Cody war effort was being conducted. Cody assured Bruce that the internees who had been released had been carefully screened by British authorities in Canada. Bruce could secure information about them from Lt.Col. R.S.W. Fordham, the commissioner of refugee camps, with headquarters in Ottawa. Cody pointed out that all the internees registered at Toronto were Jewish. He mentioned several, including two who were sponsored by Professor Herman Fischer of the U of T staff. G. Rosenblatt was a third-year political science student. Ulrich Goldsmith, in fourth-year modern languages, "was teaching in England for some years." Cody pointed out, "You will see that none of them are in any department where war research is being carried on. As a matter of fact war researches are carried on under the seal of strictest secrecy, particularly in chemistry, and even our own Canadian undergraduates have no knowledge of them." He concluded, "I do not anticipate any trouble from students formerly internees."15 Cody's exchange with Bruce did not end the discussion; rather it marked the beginning of a controversy that went on at Toronto for nearly a year. Bruce s concern was shared by other board members. As a result, the board addressed itself to the question of released internees on January 8, 1942. Dr. O. Maas, the director of clinical research in Ottawa, had recommended that Toronto adopt the same policy as that followed at McGill, "where internees while allowed to register are limited to courses which would not necessitate them entering the chemistry building." While Cody was sympathetic to the internees, he was sensitive to the pressure of criticism from Bruce and his friends. At the meeting he tried to satisfy their apprehension by recommending two safeguards: (1) that internees should not be allowed to register in any course in which instruction in chemistry was being given; and (2) that no internees should be admitted to the university unless the Committee of Applications presented a report to the board and such a report was adopted by the board. The board ordered that these recommendations be carried out and that they be retroactive.16 Lt.-Col. Fordham was much more favourably disposed toward the internees than some U of T board members. He wrote to Cody in February 1942 indicating a kindly interest in those registered at Toronto. He asked for an interview in regard to "the position of a number of students who are now at the University." He was grateful that "the University authorities have shown the greatest possible consideration toward these students."17 The question of enemy aliens was further complicated by the outbreak of war with Japan in December 1941. A few Canadians of

The War Continues, 1941-1944/275 Japanese origin applied for admission to U of T, but the board regarded them, as it had the Jewish internees, as enemy aliens. Thus, in June 1942, when Roy H. Nose, "a Japanese student," applied for entry to the Faculty of Medicine, "the Governors regretfully felt that it would not be advisable to alter their former decision in regard to Japanese students."18 The board had some doubts, however, in regard to its legal position. At the September 10, 1942, board meeting, the secretary was instructed "to obtain from the solicitor a statement as to the legality of the University's position in refusing to admit such students." Cody tried to maintain friendly relations with the Jewish community, reporting in his diary some interviews: September 2, 1942, "Interview with Sadowski on prevention of Jewish students taking chemistry"; September 11, "Long interview with Michel & Kohn 2 refugee Jewish students." On September 24 the enemy-alien controversy revived, with the board taking a very recalcitrant position. Cody submitted a list of fifteen internees to be considered for admission to the university. All had been accepted by the Committee on Admissions and were recommended by the president. The minutes of the meeting recorded: "Upon motion of Mr. Bryce, seconded by Mr. Neilly, the Board decided not to accept these applications." Cody reported in his diary that the board "by a vote of 5 to 3 (self, Rose and Anderson) rejected all applications of refugee students and of Japanese." Cody had taken a position squarely opposed to that of the Bruce, Neilly, and Bryce faction.19 Reaction to this decision of the board followed swiftly. On October 8 J.J. Gibson and Howard Ferguson moved that the rejection of the application be reconsidered and that the heads of colleges be consulted. At the special meeting with the heads of colleges that was subsequently held on October 13, Gibson and J.S. Duncan moved that all the internees listed on September 24 application be admitted except for the four who had applied for admission to Applied Science. The question was held over. On October 19 the original motion (that of September 24) was withdrawn and the matter was referred to a committee, which included the main protagonists in the discussion: Mulock, Cody, Ferguson, Bruce, Gibson, and Neilly. Representatives from Victoria, Trinity, and St. Michael's colleges were added. On October 29 the committee voted for the admission of the refugee students by a vote of 9 to 3. Bruce, Neilly, and the Hon. H.T. Kelly voted against. An effort was then made to bridge the division with the Jewish community. Cody reported in his diary on November 3, 1942, that the

2761 Henry John Cody "Chairman, Dr. Gibson, Dr. Bruce and self had conference with Rabbi Eisendrath, Benj. Sadowski ... on Jewish matters." On November 12 Cody moved the adoption of the report of the committee of October 29. He also introduced a motion for the admission of two Japanese students and deferment of one other who had applied for admission to fourth-year Mechanical Engineering. The all-important vote on the motion to admit the refugee students was declared defeated. The vote was 7 to 7. Cody voted for the motion along with Mulock, Gibson, Duncan, H.B. Anderson, Kelly, and Chief Justice Rose. Bruce and six others voted no. Bruce Macdonald, the chairman, would have voted yes but was paired with Neilly, who would have voted no. The motion was lost because, according to a by-law of the board, motions receiving a tie vote were deemed defeated. This setback failed to banish the questions around the admission of the internees and the Japanese. Protests against their exclusion spread. Cody and other dignitaries attended a meeting of some 200 students, sponsored by the Students' Administrative Council. The meeting passed a resolution supporting Cody's motion of November 12 and requesting the admission of "friendly aliens" mentioned in his resolution.20 Other student organizations took the same position. On November 26 the university senate sent a message to the board challenging its right to reject students already enrolled in the Arts colleges.21 The senate approved registration of the students whose names were on the list of September 24. At this point (November 26) Sir William Mulock attempted to quiet the controversy by moving for the establishment of a "conciliation committee" which could consider "any question likely to imperil harmonious working of the University." George McCullagh resented the senate's challenge to the board's authority to rule on the admission of students, and demanded that the matter be referred to the minister of education. It was the government in Ottawa that settled the question of the internees. The board's minutes of December 10 made note of the fact that, according to the minister of defence, released internees could take military training. The board gave this development as the reason for its final decision, moved by Gibson and Anderson, rescinding the motion of January 8 that had started the whole controversy. The GibsonAnderson motion particularly mentioned clause 2 of the January motion, which had stipulated that no internees be admitted unless the board accepted the recommendations of the Committee on Admissions.

The War Continues, 1941-19441277 Cody's record in this whole controversy did him credit. Confronted with a very divided board of governors, he had pressed steadily for the admission of Jewish internees and Japanese Canadians and had opposed resolutions for their exclusion. In the end he was to pay a price in gaining the increasing enmity of some influential members of the board. As president of the University of Toronto and chairman of the National Conference of Canadian Universities (NCCU), Cody became involved in a whole series of war-related activities, both inside and outside the university. I can mention but a few. On June 3, 1942, Cody presented diplomas to students who had completed the course in aerial navigation and radio techniques. On June 10, he played host to the NCCU, with a morning conference in Simcoe Hall, a luncheon for distinguished visitors (the president of the University of Michigan and the secretary of the Association of American Colleges), and a dinner in the Faculty Union for some sixty delegates. On June 18, Cody visited the COTC at the camp at Niagara-onthe-Lake. Having crossed the lake on the morning boat (probably the Cayuga), he was met by officers of the university detachment. He spent the morning watching various military operations and had lunch at the University of Toronto Officers' Mess. In the afternoon he saw "military operations of attackers and defenders and blowing up a bay of bridge." He returned to Toronto on the Cayuga. In August 1942 Cody was busy arranging for the loan of seats from Varsity Stadium for use by a "Fair for British Relief." In August 1943 he gave a broadcast over Station CKCL for Polish relief. In October 1942 he went to the Toronto Shipbuilding Company to see the launching of a corvette, curiously named Friendship. In November 1943 he made a trip to Port Hope, where he visited a refinery providing radium and uranium. Whether Cody knew in 1943 the importance of uranium is not entirely clear. Cody was cheered by the announcement in the King's birthday list that he had been awarded the CMC (Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George). Congratulations flowed in. One of the most gratifying was from Cody's old friend George Wrong: "We are now truly very old friends and I value the friendship deeply. You have done a great work, and it delights me to find that you are spoken of in ever warmer terms as the years pass." In answering a letter from another friend, Cody explained why he thought the award had been made: "I do appreciate the honour bestowed, as a recognition by the State of

2781 Henry John Cody work in the field of Education, and especially of the work done by Canadian universities in connection with the war effort."22 The editor of Debrett invited Cody to fill in a form so that his name could be included in its 1944 edition. Cody duly filled in the form and sent the required 5.5s for a copy of Peerage.2^ Cody and Barbara went to Ottawa on November 23, 1943, for Cody's investiture. They stayed at the Chateau Laurier, managing to get a "room without bath for the day." In the afternoon they went to the investiture at Rideau Hall. The governor general, the Earl of Athlone, presented Cody's insignia. Cody saw Redfern, with whom he had corresponded before the Cordell Hull convocation, and chatted with Princess Alice. Cody probably regretted that he was given a mere CMG instead of a knighthood (KCMG) - a KCMG would have made him Sir Henry Cody. Prime Minister Mackenzie King may also have had some regrets about the matter. Cody recorded a visit he and King had paid to Sir William Mulock in January 1944: "Called on Sir William Mulock (with Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King. If we had titles it would have been a K)."24 Cody was in indifferent health in this period. Barbara frequently took his place at functions when he was ill. Entries in the diary trace the story. On March 27, 1941, Cody was laid up with a bad cold. Barbara went to the Victoria College dinner. He was confined to his bed from April 3 to April 11. Barbara went to Lady Hearst's funeral on April 11 and attended a League of Nations meeting on April 13. She attended the Wycliffe College closing on April 21 and the Trinity College Divinity Convocation on April 21. In January 1943 Cody cancelled a projected trip to Washington because of illness. Despite the strains and stresses of a busy life and periods of illness, Cody managed an occasional diversion. In December 1941 he attended a concert at Hart House and afterwards reported that he had had a chat with the British novelist Sir Philip Gibbs. Gibbs had expressed a high opinion of Bickersteth, the warden of Hart House, and of his work in organizing educational facilities for the troops in England.25 In 1943 he and Barbara saw Noel Coward's wartime movie In Which We Serve. They also enjoyed an evening of Gilbert and Sullivan at the Royal Alexandra. Cody attended Canadian Club luncheons and similar meetings. On May 3, 1942, with Barbara and Sir William Mulock, he attended a meeting for the United Palestine appeal. He was not impressed by the speaker of the evening, Alben Barkley, a former Roosevelt vice-

The War Continues, 1941-19441279 president. Cody snorted, in his diary, "not much in it - disjointed shouting." On the other hand, when Mackenzie King addressed the Canadian Club on April 19, 1943, Cody was generous: "Mr. Mackenzie King spoke (an excellent address delivered with fire)." This must have been one of the few times King was described as speaking "with fire." Unlike most of his Conservative friends, Cody always regarded King as a friend. King took the trouble to visit Cody at his house in Barrie in August 1942. It must have been an unexpected visit. Barbara was out at the time and only arrived back just as King was leaving.2^ Cody spoke at a luncheon meeting of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Political Science Association during the meetings of the Learned Societies in May and June 1942. The luncheon was at Trinity College. Cody welcomed the two societies and said that being a speaker at Trinity reminded him of that redoubtable character Bishop Strachan. In fact, Cody and Strachan, both of them pillars of church and state, had much in common. For Cody, the summer house in Barrie was a sort of retreat, away from the complications of university and civic affairs. Here he had time for leisurely reading. Some of his reading was purely secular, like Philip Guedallas Hundredth Year and G.G. Coultons Sketch of H.W Fowler, the famous authority on correct English usage, but much of it was concerned with the Christian church and its clergy. He read several biographies on Cardinal H.E. Manning and Lytton Strachey's scathing essay in Eminent Victorians, He also read G.K.A. Bells two-volume work on Randall T. Davidson, the Archbishop of Canterbury.27 In his diaries and notebooks Cody recorded amusing sayings he had encountered in his reading or in conversation. He loved to tell jokes. His eyes would sparkle and his whole personality would light up. He often used jokes to illuminate points. At a parish dinner in St. Mary's in the 1920s, he was discussing the importance of tactful relations with one's neighbours. He told the story of a friendly elephant who was walking down the road and noticed a deserted bird's nest containing some eggs. Anxious to hatch the eggs, the elephant sat down on them - "Now there was contact without tact." In a speech to a student dinner in Toronto during the Depression, he told an anecdote about a pessimist and an optimist on a rainy day. Pessimist: "Do you think it will ever stop?" Optimist: "Well, it always has."

2801 Henry John Cody In a notebook, he pasted this joke: "I'm a self-made man." "You're lucky. I'm the revised work of a wife and three daughters." Cody also copied out a series of limericks by Father Ronald Knox, the Roman Catholic son of the Anglican Bishop of Manchester. One of them read: There was a young man who said "Damn I clearly perceive that I am Predestined to move In a circumscribed groove In fact, not a bus but a tram."28 Although Cody had found the problems of the war stressful, especially the drain on university staff, he was nonetheless determined that the Allies must fight on to final and complete victory. He told a Lion's Club convention in Toronto in July 1942: "Nothing less than final victory must be the Allies' goal. The way may be long, bloody and costly, but nothing less will win a lasting peace."29 At the same time, Cody and his colleagues were beginning to contemplate plans for post-war reconstruction. Cody's views were set forth most clearly in a volume entitled Reconstruction in Canada, published by the University of Toronto Press. The volume consisted of ten lectures, delivered at the university in the autumn of 1942, which dealt with plans for recovery in Canada, particularly economic recovery.30 The point to Cody's lecture, entitled, "Recapitulation and the Ideals of Reconstruction," was made clear near the beginning: "We may talk glibly and eagerly of reconstructing politics, business, industry, education, social life, theology, but we may tragically forget the need of reconstructing ourselves." He then discussed Canada's historical context and the causes of some of the country's problems: its geographical complexity, the nearness of the United States, the dual Canadian nationality. He attributed to Lord Strathcona the statement "Canada is a country worth working for. Canada cannot stand still." It was a saying remarkably like the later assertion by John F. Kennedy, "America must go forward, America cannot stand still." Cody went on to discuss what he considered the requisites for successful reconstruction: the need to solve national problems in their rela-

The War Continues, 1941-1944/281 tion to international problems; the preservation of a balance between government control and individual initiative; the "revivifying" of Parliament and its committees. He suggested a whole series of economic reforms: the greater development of mixed farming; a careful study of the problems of water, soil, and forests; the development of effective employment offices. Halfway through the lecture Cody passed from "recapitulation" to "ideals." "What then are the ideal elements, the moral and spiritual elements in reconstruction, in any really 'new order' that may be established?" Thus Cody proceeded to set forth his distinctive position. Under "Economic Ideals" he expressed a preference for a position of modified free enterprise. "It is, of course, not implied that the state should entirely abstain from intervention in economic life," but "the regimentation which the prosecution of the war necessitates, is not, most people hope and will demand, to be a permanent policy." He argued that the great enemy was "statism," and insisted that "the chief article of its creed is that the state is its own absolute and the state's interest is its supreme law." This, he said, was a "false faith." Cody concluded by stating his own Christian position: "This idea [statism] cannot be overcome by the vague conception of the general good of all men. The only faith adequate to supplant it is that the only true absolute is God and the supreme law is that of His righteousness." Cody's view of the relation between religious faith and reconstruction was supported by articles by a Yale professor, Lister Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, which appeared in a volume published, also in 1943, by Dalhousie University.31 Saturday Night commented that both the Toronto and Dalhousie volumes "lead to a conclusion in which it becomes clear that a revival of the religious spirit of man is the chief requisite for the brave new world."32 While Cody and his colleagues were producing lectures on the brave new world, they were also making practical plans for post-war developments at U of T In view of an expected flood of students after the war, they proposed an ambitious program that would require extensive funding and a financial campaign to provide it. On November 25, 1943, the board set up a committee to consider plans for the campaign. In the following weeks, with the assistance of this committee, Cody drafted a letter of appeal for the university expansion. The letter and a series of printed statements and brochures indicated the details of the campaign. A later letter from Cody to the public, dated August 24, 1944, explained that the annual expenditure of the university was a little over $3 million, of which the Ontario

282 / Henry John Cody

Legislature provided $1 million, student fees $1 million, and income from the endowment and gifts the balance.33 Obviously the return of the men and women from the armed forces would necessitate a great expansion at the university and a consequent need for an increase in capital funds. Cody spelled out the details of the plan, the minimum objective of which was $5 million: • • • • • • • • • •

research in Industry, Mining and Forestry, $1 million; new Chemical Engineering unit, $1 million; extension to Chemical building, $500,000; extension to Mechanical Engineering building, $200,000; Banting Institute, $450,000; School of Nursing and Research in Public Health, $500,000; women's gymnasium, $500,000; University College men's residence, $400,000; addition to Central Library, $950,000; and new central heating plant, $ 1 million.

Cody put his argument in succinct form in a letter to Minister of Finance J.L. Ilsley: "The purpose of our appeal was to provide, not endowment, but buildings and equipment, necessary to handle the returned soldiers after the war, to extend our facilities for research, particularly in Medicine, Dentistry and Public Health Nursing; and to meet the requirements of our national growth. Both in peace and in the time of rehabilitation the university must handle at least one-third of the whole English-speaking student population of Canada, and this work can be done only if we have larger accommodation and more equipment."34 Cody repeated his appeal to the general public in another statement, probably written in 1944. He declared firmly, "For the first time, in more than one hundred years the University of Toronto makes an appeal to its friends, to its graduates, to private individuals, for support in its efforts to raise a capital sum of not less than $5,000,000 for much needed equipment and buildings in the years just before us."35 During the campaign the university produced several brochures setting forth the details of the appeal. One thirty-two-page booklet, The University of Toronto Post War Expansion Programme, gave a wellbalanced account of the university's organization and work, as well as its contribution to the state. It began with a section entitled "What a University Is," quoting Nicholas Murray Butler that its chief aim was to "train intelligent and well-disposed citizens for life in a democratic

The War Continues, 1941-1944/283 state, and to forward the welfare of that state and the world through its contribution to the truth." Although the campaign emphasized the needs of the science faculties, the brochure also stressed the place of the humanities, quoting Winston Churchill: "When this war is over, we shall have averted disaster. There will remain the greater task of directing knowledge lastingly towards the purposes of peace and human good." The brochure closed with a final appeal, "Our University may be placed in the forefront of this humanitarian effort if wise plans are made and carried out ... colleges today have three great responsibilities (1) to provide trained men and women to help win the war (2) to educate the citizens who will take part in rebuilding a stricken world (3) to preserve the cultural heritage of the past ... Will you help us, to the best of your ability to discharge these responsibilities?"36 The style of the booklet and its emphasis on the humanities suggest that Cody may have written it. The second booklet, The University of Toronto, Its Work and Needs, laid particular stress on science, medicine, engineering, and dentistry. It did not show signs of Cody's influence to the same extent.37 The campaign had its strains and stresses. Just as it seemed to be gathering momentum, Finance Minister Ilsley, in January 1944, made a statement in the House of Commons that caused grave concern at the university. The university's fund-raising campaign had been based on the assumption that the university was recognized by the Department of National Revenue as a charitable institution under the Income War Tax Act, which permitted a 10 percent deduction of incomes for individuals contributing to the university. Cody interpreted Ilsley's statement in the House as meaning "that the amount of excess profits in the past available for charitable (including educational) purposes would be henceforth drastically, curtailed."38 Convinced that this change would cripple the fund-raising campaign, Cody wrote an indignant letter of protest to Ilsley on February 7, 1944. He was particularly resentful because McGill, through the aid of financial magnate J.S. McConnell, had just completed a $5-million campaign for its endowment: "Various Ontario and indeed Toronto organizations, like banks, generously subscribed to this good cause." Toronto had begun a similar campaign "among our Ontario corporations." The campaign, begun in December 1943, had been going well up to this point. He asked Ilsley for information: "What really does your ruling mean, and how would it affect our campaign, as compared with that of McGill? What share of a corporation's excess profits would it be able to give to a charitable object?" He asked pointedly, "If our

284 / Henry John Cody campaign is seriously restricted so that we cannot carry out our building programme after the war, is there any chance that the Dominion government s programme of public buildings would include our public buildings or those of a university like ours?" Cody concluded his letter, "Our whole organization for making our contribution to the post-war problems must be seriously modified and restricted if the present permissions are seriously altered."39 Cody particularly resented the fact that McGill, in its financial campaign, had canvassed Toronto corporations. Later on, Sidney Smith, when he became Cody's executive assistant (as principal of UC), realized how Cody felt. Smith wrote to Cody after speaking to the Men's and Women's Canadian Clubs in London, Ontario, "The visit afforded me an opportunity to meet a large number of the business men of that city. It was not without interest for me to learn that Principal James of McGill University will address the two clubs on Wednesday of next week."40 Cody complained to his friend Leighton McCarthy, the Canadian ambassador in Washington: "Our financial campaign for the University Building Fund was going splendidly till Mr. Ilsley put a serious crimp in it, after McGill University had attained the amount aimed at. We hope however that some modification may be made in his proposed ruling."4* The "modification" came on February 25, 1944, when Cody received a clarifying letter from Ilsley, along with a statement he had made in the House of Commons on February 18. He explained to Cody: "The modification of the previously announced limitation will allow the full tax benefit to continue in cases where the level of giving by a corporation is not above the annual average of its contributions in the two years prior to the coming into force of the 100% rate of excess profits tax. In my view this modification removes the basis for any possible criticism of the government's policy towards charitable donations."42 Since the object of the Toronto campaign was to persuade individuals and corporations to contribute more than they had in the previous two years, Cody could not have been satisfied with Ilsley's statement. As might have been expected, Ilsley declined to comment on Cody's query about federal assistance to the University of Toronto for buildings, but there, for a time, the whole matter rested. Ilsley's policy may have slowed up the Toronto financial campaign. The "Expansion Fund" increased slowly in 1944 and 1945. Months after the termination of Cody's presidency it had only reached a total of $3,147,199, including "promises and prospects."43

The War Continues, 1941-1944/285 The campaign encountered another difficulty. The heads of two of the federated colleges were indignant that their institutions were not included in the expansion plans. Provost EH. Cosgrave of Trinity College asserted that Trinity supporters would be more generous if they could be assured "that the Governors of the University of Toronto have a sympathetic interest in Trinity College and are concerned that it should maintain a high quality of work." He urged the Toronto board to make it clear that the federated colleges were not included in the campaign and that they also depended upon the public for support.44 Walter Brown, the president of Victoria College, claimed that the university would be canvassing people who ordinarily supported Victoria. He urged that Victoria should be included in the campaign and that the proceeds be divided "upon a basis to be mutually agreed upon." Worried by these protests, the board of governors favoured consulting the federated colleges, but in the end the campaign continued as a purely University of Toronto affair. Cody explored other ways to improve the university's financial position. He hoped to persuade the Ontario government to wipe out or reduce the university deficit. In the autumn of 1943 he wrote to C.S. Walters, the deputy minister of finance. He wrote to Walters on October 1, 1943: "The Government, as you know, has been good enough to place in the budget $100,000 a year for the last two years, towards the reduction of a total deficit of about $650,000 ... We are now facing the inevitable increase of expenditure when members of the staff return to their posts from active service, and research work must be carried on and pushed forward in connection with the conservation and development of our natural resources ... It would therefore be of incalculable help to the University, if this burden of the past could be removed." The Ontario government responded to Cody's pleas, and a few months later he was able to assure Leighton McCarthy: "The new Ontario Government has been very helpful both in regard to our past deficit and the annual grant."45 While Cody struggled with the university's financial problems, plans were already being laid by his colleagues for the post-war period. The senate had set up a Special Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor E.F. Burton, to consider ways to cope with the anticipated influx. In its report, presented to the senate on December 10, 1943, the Special Committee recommended a preparatory course for students who had not completed Grade 13 and a special first-year program for students desiring to study science. In view of the need for a great increase in the number of instructors, the senate asked that the board

2861 Henry John Cody approach the federal government to request that demobilization be facilitated for those university graduates qualified to serve as teaching instructors. The senate duly accepted the report,46 and it was passed on to Cody by Burton for consideration by the board of governors. The Special Committee also passed on to the board a series of recommendations about the post-war use of Research Industries Limited. The first recommendation was "Temporary Accommodation for University Classes during the demobilization period."47 As 1944 began, Cody was busily preparing for the post-war period at the university. He could not have realized that he was preparing for a "Promised Land" he was not destined to enter, at least in the capacity of president of the university. That realization came later in the year.

Chapter 26

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-1945

ody's appointment as president had occurred under the sponsorship of a friendly Conservative government, with George

c

Henry as premier and Howard Ferguson in England as a sort of

eminence grise. Cody's resignation as president and his subsequent career as chancellor occurred under another Tory government, but one much less favourable to Cody. George Drew was returned to power on August 17, 1943. For reasons that are not clear, Drew was hostile to Cody. Perhaps his dislike of Ferguson coloured his view of Cody. At any rate, his hostility extended over a period that was critical for Cody. By the end of his tenure as president, Cody had accumulated a number of opponents on the board. These men were critical of his administration and probably not keen on his succession to the chancellorship. In 1942-43 Herbert Bruce, the former lieutenant-governor, had been offended by what he regarded as Cody's lax attitude toward the question of admitting former enemy aliens to university courses. Later, in May 1945, he and Cody had a misunderstanding about the candidature of one of Bruce's friends for an honorary degree. Bruce thought the man had been recommended; Cody maintained that his candidature had merely been considered.1 In 1944-45 Balmer Neilly probably still resented Cody's refusal to dismiss Underbill in 1941. Cody was inclined to be impatient with George McCullagh, the publisher of the Globe and Mail, who he thought talked too much.2 Henry Borden, another board member, was extremely annoyed by

2881 Henry John Cody

a remark he understood Cody had made about him. The incident began at a university dinner. Borden, who was sitting next to Cody, asked him if the new McGill Department of Geography was not the first in Canada. Cody was very proud of U of T's Department of Geography, which had been in existence for several years, and was thus surprised and irked by the question. At a subsequent university meeting he made reference to Borden's question to show that universities ought to improve their publicity. Borden was not pleased. Cody had sent a courteous letter of apology to Borden explaining that an improvement in publicity was his motive. Although Borden may have accepted the apology, the incident was not completely forgotten.3 By 1944 Cody had been in office twelve years. He had seen the university through the problems of the Depression and World War II. He was now 76, and some, particularly his enemies, anticipated his retirement. While he did not want to retire immediately, he did need help in administering the university. In this situation, a temporary solution presented itself. Malcolm Wallace, the principal of University College, had become very unhappy with the position of UC as merely one arts college among four. He had written several memoranda insisting that the integration of UC with the other arts colleges in the university should cease and that UC should become a self-sufficient arts college. It would be free to expand its program, unhampered by the restrictions that integration involved. After describing UC's plight, he asserted, "When one remembers that University College owes its existence to men who believed that university education should be divorced from denominationalism, it is safe to assume that many of its grads and friends would be shocked to learn the facts ... The state college should offer a complete course of instruction in each of the subjects for which it is responsible."4 Even though Wallace had some support (Innis supported him and even urged that UC be allowed to give instruction in the social sciences)5 and Cody had discussed an extension of his term of office with him, Wallace remained frustrated with the situation and indicated he wished to retire in June 1944. Thus, the university was presented with an attractive solution. Why not have the new principal of University College also act as an executive assistant to the president? Cody seems to have regarded the double appointment as a means to lengthen his own stay as president. Arthur Woodhouse outlined the sort of person required for the position: "It seems to me supremely important that the man should be one in whom you could place complete confidence, one who would be content to work and wait, who would not encroach upon your position

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-1945 / 289

or try to anticipate or to hasten, the term of his own full control."6 Cody and his friends now had to consider whom to appoint. They favoured securing Sidney Smith, president of the University of Manitoba, as principal of UC with the right to succeed Cody as president. Cody had had some previous contacts with Smith, and Smith was well thought of in the academic community. By April 5 the negotiations were under way, and on April 13 the board empowered Cody to make Smith a formal offer. Smith accepted, and on April 27 he was appointed executive assistant to the president and principal of UC at a salary of $10,500 a year, with $1,500 for expenses, a free house, and the right of succession to Cody. Smith wrote to Cody on May 6, expressing his satisfaction with these conditions. Eddie Macdonald, having seen the press report of Smith's appointment, noted that Smith would have the right of succession "in due time" and hoped "that the time may be long distant."7 In the general chorus of praise for Smiths appointment, there was one dissenting voice. Professor H.A. Innis wrote to Cody on May 6 opposing the appointment of an outsider: "The views expressed to you in conversation that the position of the college ought not to be confused with the University become stronger with the prospect of bringing in someone from outside to act as Principal. By patient effort you have brought the College completely around to your support particularly during the past year. I am anxious to see that your position in the College remains at its high level and this can only be done by recognizing their amour propre and appointing a member of their own staff as Principal."8 But Innis was too late to have his views considered. The appointment had already been made. Smith was a genial but shrewd and pragmatic administrator. He was also democratic and friendly with junior staff, though at Manitoba he had sometimes resorted to strong-arm methods. W.L. Morton, the noted historian from the University of Manitoba, commented on his "brisk drive" and his "dapper confidence as a man of academic affairs."9 Smith's appointment was something of a disappointment to Vincent Massey, perhaps because he had some ambitions to succeed Cody himself. He had had some contact with Cody's opponents. In December 1943, in England, where Massey was still serving as Canada's high commissioner, George Drew and Massey had several cordial conversations. When Massey was in Canada in February 1944, Dr. Bruce had assured him that he (Bruce) and other influential members of the board of governors wished him to accept the presidency. Massey had expressed interest, but whatever hopes he may have had were

2901 Henry John Cody

frustrated by the news that Smith had been appointed.10 Smiths appointment closed one door to Massey, but he had good prospects of succeeding Sir William Mulock as chancellor. Sir William was 100 years old and was expected to retire when his term expired in 1944. However, he was not certain to do so. Cody wrote a cordial letter to Massey after the Smith announcement, offering to support Massey's candidature for the chancellorship: "I have long desired to see you elected as Chancellor of your Alma Mater, and I should gladly use whatever influence I have to bring that to pass." According to Claude Bissell, Cody was talking about "a comfortably removed period in the future."11 Massey took Cody's letter as a pledge of immediate support and replied on June 26: "First let me tell you how deeply I appreciate your suggestion that I should be nominated for the Chancellorship of the University." He was magnanimous about Smith, "I am much interested to learn of the appointment about Dr. Sidney Smith. I have never met Dr. Smith but I have always heard very good things about him." Bruce wrote to Cody on August 3, supporting Massey's nomination papers. Fennell, the registrar, told Cody (August 19) that Bruce had seen Sir William and strongly advised him against allowing his name to stand for chancellor.12 Though Massey's succession as chancellor now seemed assured, it was frustrated by the action of the old chancellor. He wanted to die in office. Bruce had already nominated Massey, while Sir William had been nominated by members of the Alumni Federation for the period 1944-48. Cody was unwilling to have Massey and Mulock running against each other. He was loyal to the chancellor and anxious to prevent a confrontation with Massey. After consultation with Cody, Fennell cabled Massey, essentially telling him to withdraw. Massey did so. At the board meeting of September 14, Neilly, Bruce, Bryce, McCullagh, and others made a serious attack on Cody and Mulock.13 Bryce began the attack by introducing a resolution from the Alumni Federation deploring the message sent by Fennell to Massey. Since Fennells cable had questioned Massey's eligibility, on the grounds that he was not a resident of Ontario, Balmer Neilly wanted to know whether the senate had examined the qualifications of all candidates for the chancellorship. In other words, had the qualifications of Sir William, who was 100, also been considered? Obviously not. The board went on to pass a resolution to inform the senate that at its meeting "the qualifications of the Chancellor-elect [Sir William] were raised, discussed and seriously questioned." The chairman of the board was also instructed to express to Massey that the board regretted both the cables

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-19451291 wording and that it had been sent. The registrar was to be reprimanded. Despite this protest, Sir William was duly re-elected for a four-year term. He died two weeks after the meeting, on October 1. Sir William's death changed the problem of Cody's immediate future. So long as Sir William was chancellor, it was unlikely that Cody would resign as president; but with Sir William's death, Cody, as president, would assume the chancellorship. He could contemplate the office as the completion of his career in the university. Premier George Drew's increasing hostility, together with that of his friends, had made Cody's position as president almost untenable. Drew attacked the university management in March 1943. When Cody sought out leading Conservatives (such as Leopold Macaulay and George Henry) to determine why, they were not reassuring. Macaulay wrote, "I am disappointed that Col. Drew has rushed into these charges against the University of Toronto and I would be glad to discuss it with him but he seems very fixed in his views of the matter." Henry merely promised to show Cody's letter to Drew.14 Cody regarded attacks on the university as attacks on Mulock as well as on himself. Usually he made no complaints in public but sounded off in his diary. Thus, after Sir William's funeral on October 4, he confided in his diary that "Drew and Bruce had the effrontery to attend." In the autumn of 1944, Drew renewed his attack on the university management. It was this intervention that finally precipitated Cody's immediate resignation as president. At the board meeting of September 28, Chairman Bruce Macdonald reported that Drew had requested an interview with himself and Cody. Drew felt "that serious consideration should be given to the future prospects of the University, particularly in view of the heavy obligations which will be laid upon it following the conclusion of the War." He went on to assert "that he was not convinced that the University was prepared to meet the new conditions." He asked for advice from the board as to the best manner in which to meet the new situation.15 This looked like the opening gambit of an attack on Cody. On the strength of it, a special meeting was convened for October 5. It began with a statement from the Chairman Macdonald: he had informed Drew that the board members were willing to resign if it would help Drew carry out his wishes, but Drew had "definitely deprecated such action." Macdonald had complained to the prime minister that it was difficult for the board to reach any conclusions and to offer any counsel, "since the statement of himself as Prime Minister and Minister of Education was quite general."

292 / Henry John Cody

Macdonalds statement could well have been followed by an attack upon Cody, but Cody had asked permission to speak before there was any discussion. He referred to "his nearly thirteen years' occupancy of the office of president, and the developments which had taken place in the University during that period." He felt that he should retire "in order to hand over the responsibilities to a younger man." He announced his definite intention to offer his resignation at the next board meeting, to be effective on June 30, 1945.16 Afterwards, Cody wrote in his diary that the meeting was held in reference to "Drew's message of dissatisfaction with the University management" and that he (Cody) "had notified the board of my resignation of June 30, 1945." He obviously linked the two.1? Cody presented his formal resignation at the board meeting of October 12. Bruce expressed his regret, referring to "his many years of very close friendship that he had enjoyed with him [Cody]." Balmer Neilly moved for the acceptance of the resignation "with regret." Neither one was very friendly to Cody at this time.18 Drew remained bitter against Cody. On October 18 he wrote to Massey: "Dr. Cody has come to look upon Toronto University as his own private property to be dealt with according to his own wishes."19 It is clear that Cody had not contemplated resigning before the Smith appointment. When Harold Innis expressed regret at his resignation, he replied, "I had hoped to continue as President, for a little longer, but circumstances arose which made that impossible. Some day I will tell you the story."20 Since Cody had become chancellor as a result of Sir William Mulock's death, he could hold the position until 1948, under the bylaw of 1939. He refused to do so, proposing that instead of merely appointing him as chancellor, the senate should hold a formal election. A new statute was drafted to this effect. After the announcement of his resignation as president, Cody was anxious to be elected chancellor. In answering some of the letters of regret for his resignation, he began making discreet references to his prospects of election as chancellor. To Dr. T.S. Cullen of Baltimore, he wrote, "I may say in confidence that I have heard there is a movement to elect me Chancellor in succession to Sir William, but I do not know what will come of it. I naturally would be glad to retain some connection with my Alma Mater." To Sir John Dill, "But there seems to be a good prospect that I may be elected Chancellor in succession to Sir William Mulock. The election will take place a month hence." To F.B. Edwards, after the same prediction of his prospects of election,

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-19451293

Cody added, "If that is the case, I shall still be a member of the Board of Governors, and be able to give assistance to my successor." He made a similar assertion to Hon. G.D. Conant.21 One cannot help wondering how pleased Sidney Smith would have been about Cody's promises of help. After all, Smith had presided over the University of Manitoba for ten years and may not have appreciated the prospects of advice from a distinguished predecessor. Cody did not confide his hopes to all his friends and was scrupulous in not mentioning his hopes to any who might have a vote. Massey's friends did not accept defeat easily. They attempted to facilitate Massey's prospects by changing the rules for the election of the chancellor. Believing that Massey would have a good chance of being elected by the alumni, they proposed to secure a revision of the University Act so that only graduates could vote. At the same time, Bruce made charges against Cody and Fennell for their treatment of Massey prior to Mulock's re-election. Howard Ferguson managed to prevent a resolution of censure. The proposal to change the University Act was referred by A.L. Fleming, president of the Alumni Federation, to the senate on November 10, 1944, and was duly defeated by a vote of 43 to 31. Afterwards, a group of alumni, headed by J.S. McLean, a member of the board of governors and a friend of Massey's, circulated a petition to the same effect. The petition secured 300 signatures, including Arthur Meighen's and Clifford Sifton's. Not all the alumni favoured presentation of the petition. Fleming, for one, declined to support it. Grey Hamilton, K.C., another alumnus who had refused McLeans invitation to sign the petition, reported to Cody: "I suggested that surely no group of graduates was particularly concerned in this regard, except for some specific reason, he (McLean) very 'coyly' agreed that perhaps their specific concern was to promote V.M.'s personal interest therein." Hamilton argued strongly in support of Cody in a letter to Fleming: "Without disparaging Massey, it would seem to me that in point of fact, there can be no comparison between Dr. Cody and Massey, either as to sheer academic brilliance, or continued personal efforts on behalf of the University. Massey's chief claim to preferment is that he very generously gives his family's money to the University."22 The crucial meeting of the senate for the election was held on November 17. McLean introduced his petition to reopen the question of changing the rules. It required a two-thirds majority but was defeated by a vote of 68 to 40. Cody was then elected by acclamation for a four-year term (1944-48).

2941 Henry John Cody

Among Cody's supporters, Brock McElheran, a son of the late Wycliffe Principal, had an entirely different view of Cody's future. In a letter, he strongly urged Cody to write books now that he was retiring: "I do not feel that men of your experience should devote their entire lives to administration and not contribute something permanent to Canadian thought ... I hope sir, that you will not consider the above remarks presumptuous. But there are so many fields in which no other Canadian is as well qualified to write that I feel your continued literary silence would be most regrettable."23 Cody did not take McElherans advice. The reasons are clear. He had always been too much of an activist to write and publish books, and took too great an enjoyment in personal contact with people to desire to influence through the abstraction of print. Even in retirement he continued to fulfil many speaking engagements, most of them outside Toronto. He could never undertake the sustained departure from other activities the writing of books required. He wrote a great deal, but his art form was the forty-minute discourse: the sermon, the address to Canadian Clubs, service clubs, and all manner of civic and other organizations. He worked long and carefully to produce these statements. Just after the war he addressed the Chartered Institute of Secretaries. Barbara McClennan Storey, whose husband was a chartered accountant at the institute, remembers, "Dr. Cody gave a wonderful speech, but what amazed everyone was his knowledge of the history, background and purposes of the Institute. He evidently had gone to a lot of trouble to procure all this information."24 The year 1945 was a happy one for Cody. There were more letters of congratulation from old friends on his election as chancellor - from Tommy Des Barres, George Wrong, Arthur Woodhouse, and a very old college friend, Thomas Marshall. He answered them with wry and humorous references to his new position. To one friend: "I carry on the work of President until the end of June, and then am 'elevated to the academic House of Lords.'" To Thomas Marshall, a reference to his predecessor, Mulock: "I am afraid I shall never attain unto Sir Williams age and ability to deal with the 'scotch.' Although, as Mark Twain said of his death, the report about Sir William's ability in that field was greatly exaggerated."25 Both staff and students held closing ceremonies in recognition of Cody's years of service to the university. The most impressive was the dinner at the Royal York Hotel on February 27, 1945, attended by over 500 members of the staff and by friends of the university. Professor J.W. Bain acted as chairman. Healey Willan played organ selections,

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-19451295 including one of his own compositions, Prelude and Fugue in B Minor; George Lambert sang a group of songs including an old English melody "Pastime with Good Company"; and Professor E.E Burton made the presentation, two leather armchairs. Arthur Woodhouse afterwards described the dinner as "so evidently the University's tribute of goodwill, affection and gratitude."26 In replying to both the toast in his honour and the gift, Cody thanked the staff members present for "the outward and visible sign of friendship and fellowship." He said he was glad to step up to the office of chancellor "while still in good health and vigour." He ventured to add to "the evenings already extensive fund of scriptural quotation the Old Testament adage, 'it is better to be a living dog than a dead lion.' "27 Cody also commented on problems confronting the university. He had always stressed the university's role in developing good citizens and he now declared, "The problem of every citizen of the future will be how to be conservative but not reactionary, progressive without playing with dynamite, liberal without compromising sound principles." He warned, "Civilization is tending to be decivilized by materialism and selfishness." There was one jarring note in Cody's speech. He appears to have been worrying about the sluggishness of the expansion fund campaign, for after stressing the university's need for new buildings, he asserted, "I cannot understand why leaders of industry in Toronto, unlike those in Montreal, have so largely failed to realize the services a university renders to the whole Dominion and the Commonwealth. We must go on making the community realize the worth of its great servant, a loyal and inspiring university."28 Cody said good-bye to the student body in a meeting in Convocation Hall on March 5, 1945. (All lectures and laboratories had been cancelled to allow full attendance.) After reiterating the sentiments he had expressed at his resignation, he asserted rhetorically that he would gladly take a caretaker's job, if that were necessary, just to stick around the campus a while longer. The students presented Cody with a framed university crest. In the evening some 140 undergraduates and faculty honoured him with a dinner at Hart House.29 Interviewed by the Varsity on March 16, Cody reminisced about his own experiences as an undergraduate at the university. He recalled a number of student pranks. One was about a university janitor who pastured his cow in the back campus. In the dead of night he was wakened by the tolling of the tower bell and found his cow in the loft with the bell-rope tied to its horns.30

2961 Henry John Cody

Cody received letter of tribute from various members of the faculty - C.R. Young, the dean of applied science; Professor R.D. Defries, the director of the Connaught Laboratories; and Dr. Gordon Howland, a retiring member of the medical faculty. Equally gratifying was a letter from the secretary of the board of governors, informing him that in connection with his retirement as president the board had voted him a grant of $6,000. The resolution had been moved by his erstwhile friend H.A. Bruce.3i Cody's relations with his successor in the early period were excellent. He had begun with a high opinion of Smith. In January 1945 he wrote to Des Barres that Smith "is both good and wise, and I feel quite satisfied to leave the reins of government in his hands." Smith worked amicably as Cody's executive assistant, careful to defer to him in all important activities and decisions. He wrote Cody flattering letters both before and after he succeeded him as president. After the dinner of February 27, he wrote, "I am confident that you feel very happy about your testimonial dinner. The whole atmosphere was charged with loyalty and affection for you. I could have no deeper wish than this that I will warrant a comparable attitude on the part of the staff." Just before assuming his new office, Smith wrote, "As I have learned more about the University I have appreciated more deeply the high quality of your leadership ... Your ideals as eloquently propounded and so faithfully practised will serve as guiding principles for me ... Your assurances to me in your office on Tuesday that I could count on your advice and assistance is a source of encouragement to me. I will need the story of the past and advice for the future."32 At the University of Toronto the president always addressed the student body at the beginning of the academic year. Smith addressed the students on September 26 and reported to Cody: "You would have been very happy to hear the resounding applause from the students in Convocation Hall yesterday when I mentioned your name."33 Cody's last formal statement to the university community was contained in his President's Report of June 1945. He rejoiced in the Allied victory "in a terrific world struggle for our survival and for the maintenance of freedom, justice and international security." He stressed the importance of the humanities to the entire academic community: "One of the most remarkable features of our growth has been the desire of the professional faculties to introduce into their curricula a generous measure of humanistic studies" (p. 23). He emphasized another favourite idea: "Everything comes back to the problem of character. The ultimate goal of a sound education is the fullest development of

Presidency and Chancellorship, 1944-1945 / 297 our highest powers and their dedication to the service of the community and of humanity" (p. 24). He closed with a reference to his future as chancellor: "I go when I am still in sound health of body and mind, and am still able as Chancellor to ascertain and represent graduate opinion, and to bring to our alumni and alumnae in various parts of Canada knowledge of what their Alma Mater is doing for the welfare of the University." The patterns of Cody's life did not change significantly after he retired as president. He still lived on Jarvis Street, still went to the office (although it was a different office in Simcoe Hall). He still entertained visiting dignitaries, made speeches, and preached sermons. He continued to spend his summers in Barrie, catching up on his reading and visiting back and forth with David Walker and his family. Cody had not stopped taking a personal interest in U of T students. In July the CSL steamer Hamonic, sailing in Lake Huron, had a serious fire, necessitating the hasty evacuation of passengers and crew at Sarnia. Cody sent messages of concern to two students who had served as stewardesses.34 And he had not lost his enthusiasm for football - and not only college football. He reported in his diary for October 20, 1945: "In afternoon at football match, Argos 13 and Tigers 10." Sidney Smith wrote Cody chatty letters from the president's office during the summer. On August 7 he reported that during the first week of the holidays he had received a phone call that his house had been burgled. Among other things, he had lost eight suits! He went on to report: "McGill tried to lure Creighton (D.G. Creighton, the historian) but we have kept him with a promotion."35 In a letter written three days later, Smith mentioned a professor with whom he had had difficulties: "A has resigned. His wife and he are joining the staff of the Rhode Island School of Design at Providence. I did not weep on his shoulder about his resignation - to invoke an understatement." In September Sir Richard Livingstone, the famous British classical scholar and university administrator, came to Toronto to give the Falconer Lectures in Convocation Hall. During the whole of Sir Richard's thirteen-day visit, Cody was involved in his entertainment. He met the train when Sir Richard arrived, took him to 603 Jarvis, where Sir Richard was to stay, and accompanied him to a dinner in his honour at the Granite Club. So began a strenuous round of social engagements and lectures by Sir Richard. On September 16 he and Cody attended morning prayer at St. Paul's, and on the following day Sir Richard gave his first lecture, "Education and Character." At the second lecture, George Drew was in the chair. There was a dinner at

298 / Henry John Cody the Howard Ferguson's on September 19 and one at Victoria College on the 21st. On September 22, in a government car complete with chauffeur, Cody, Barbara, and Sir Richard travelled to Midland, where they visited the Martyr's Shrine. On the way back to Toronto they stopped at the house in Barrie ("Tea in our kitchen"). On September 24 there was a motor trip to Niagara-on-the-Lake and Queenston. Finally, on September 27, Cody saw Sir Richard off at Union Station, en route to the United States. The Codys, accustomed to this sort of prolonged hospitality, took the visit in stride. Cody had sufficient energy to preach twice on the following Sunday, at Christ Church, Deer Park, in the morning, and St. Paul's in the evening. His evening text was John 11:9, "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" In October 1945 Cody and Barbara made a characteristic Cody trip to Vancouver. During their five-day visit Cody preached at Christ Church Cathedral (Archbishop de Pencier and Bishop Heathcote attended the service in "robes"), gave addresses to the Men's Canadian Club and the Women's Canadian Club, and attended a luncheon for Wycliffe graduates. On October 30 he addressed a gathering of 140 University of Toronto alumni in the Vancouver Hotel. On his last night in Vancouver, he spoke at a University of British Columbia dinner attended by Lieutenant-Governor W.C. Woodward and General F.F. Worthington.

Chapter 27

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947

hen Cody was elected chancellor in 1944, he thought he could look forward to a quiet four years, but his term of

w

office was anything but placid. He still had to cope with a hostile premier and a core of hostile board members (Colonel Bruce, George McCullagh, and Balmer Neilly). Even W.E. Phillips, the new chairman of the board, was unfriendly Phillips was a vigorous, outspoken, aggressive man, later described by Peter Newman as "the toughest minded member of the Argue group."1 One of his opponents in university politics reported ruefully, "If you've ever crossed Phillips you know what it's like to meet an adversary. Able as they make them, and tough as they make them." Phillips was a very energetic man who wanted to get things done. After his appointment to the board of governors in October 1944, he began to bombard Cody with demands for action. On the day of his farewell party at the Royal York (February 27, 1945), Cody could scarcely have appreciated the arrival of no less than three letters from Phillips demanding immediate action in connection with a number of issues of board business.2 Massey's friends were not willing to wait until 1948 for Cody's resignation. They embarked on a course of action which led to noisy and acrimonious controversy. Why they were so anxious to get Cody out a year before his time was not entirely clear. Of course, they were not sure that the old man would retire in 1948. After all, Sir William had still been in office at the age of 100. Perhaps they wished to avoid another competition between Cody and Massey.

3001'HenryJohn Cody Massey did not actively foment the movement against Cody, but it is unlikely that he checked it. Ever since Cody became president in 1932, relations between him and Massey had been strained. While Massey was high commissioner in Britain, he and Cody had exchanged letters couched in stiff diplomatic language ("You will not misunderstand me if I say," etc.). Control of Hart House had been a cause of mutual suspicion. Now, after Smith's appointment as president and Cody's election as chancellor, Massey was still hostile. Cody recorded significant contacts with Massey. After squiring Sir Richard Livingstone around the university in September 1945, he recorded in his diary, "Met Vincent Massey coming out of President's office - gave me the cool hand and passed on." A year later, having attended the Prize Day Ceremony at Upper Canada College, Cody reported, "Vincent Massey gave address. Self presented Mason Medals saw Chief Justice Robinson - Massey grouchy to me as usual."3 Cody's Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Honorary Degrees was a source of some disagreement between Cody and members of the board. The organization of the Committee on Honorary Degrees was under discussion in 1946-47. At one stage, Cody, Phillips, and Smith comprised a subcommittee to consider the nomination of board members to the honorary degree committee. Cody thought that only board members who were U of T graduates should be eligible. Phillips, very much the champion of self-made businessmen, disagreed. In 1947 George McCullagh was on a preliminary list of possible candidates for honorary degrees but his name does not appear in the recommendations from Cody's subcommittee on April 30, 1947. McCullagh probably blamed Cody. He secured his honorary LL.D. five months after the end of Cody's term of office. Friction over honorary degrees did not cause the enmity of Bruce and others against Cody, but it must have aggravated pre-existing resentments. The instigator of the move to shorten Cody's term of office appears to have been Colonel Bruce. In 1946 the board of governors and the senate established a committee (the University Committee) to consider revisions of the University Act. The committee included the chairman of the board, the president, the chancellor, four board members, and four members of the senate. Bruce and George McCullagh were among the board representatives.4 On May 30, 1946, Bruce introduced a series of proposed revisions to the University Act: the chancellor would be chosen by a Committee of Nomination; this committee would be chaired by the chairman of the board and would include six board members, six members of the

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947/301 senate, and six members of the Alumni Federation. The sole duty of the nomination committee was to submit to the lieutenant-governor in council (i.e., the government) a nomination for chancellor. On the face of it, the proposals seemed innocuous enough. Had Cody's term as chancellor been allowed to continue until 1948, no one could have objected very strenuously to the new method of choosing a successor. As it turned out, the new University Act did not leave Cody undisturbed. Probably realizing the implications of the Bruce proposals, Cody spoke out vigorously against them. He "emphasized the historic right of election of the Chancellor by the graduate body, and stated his apprehension at any departure from the historic principle of election."5 However, he received little support from the committee, and Bruce was instructed to prepare a re-draft of his proposals. So began the formal movement to shorten Cody's period of office. Eventually the University Committee submitted to the Ontario government a proposed act for the government of U of T. As will be discussed below, the sections on the chancellorship were unacceptable to Cody. Later Phillips made much of the fact that Cody voted for the report, but Cody maintained he regarded the proposals as merely one stage in an exchange of views between the government and the university. He had expected that the proposals would be returned to the university for further consideration.6 Unfortunately for Cody, the government failed to do so. Instead, it secured passage of the act substantially unchanged. The purpose of the sections on the chancellorship appeared to be to get rid of Cody.7 The new University Act reduced Cody's term to three years and provided a new procedure for the appointment of the chancellor (as outlined above). Whether the board and the senate had the option of rejecting the nominee was not entirely clear, a feature of the act which later led to violent controversy. While the act was originally drafted by the University Committee, it was very much a government act and quite in accordance with Drew's attitude to Cody. Its passage led to a confrontation between Cody and Massey for the chancellorship. The pro-Massey element carried the board at every stage of the struggle in 1947. Cody had more friends in the senate, which favoured him almost to the end. The controversy, as it developed, became a board versus senate conflict. Sidney Smith used all his influence as president to secure Masseys nomination. Though under an obligation to Cody, who had been largely responsible for his appointment in 1944, he had now turned against him. He did so because of his reluctance to offend Premier

3021'HenryJohn Cody Drew. Drew had made it clear that he wanted Cody out and Massey in. Smith felt that since the university was so completely dependent on the governments financial support, Drews wishes should prevail. Smith may also have had personal reasons for supporting Massey. He may have found it restricting to have the old president on the board where he could offer paternal advice. Even though Smith was gracious enough to say in his 1947 presidential report that Cody had offered advice only when asked, he may have resented Cody's assistance. After passage of the University Act (it received royal assent on April 3, 1947), the three university bodies to be represented on the nomination committee chose their representatives. As provided in the act, the committee included the chairman of the board (Colonel Phillips), the president (Sidney Smith), and six members each from the board, the senate, and the Alumni Federation.8 The board delegation included Bruce, Henry Borden, and R.A. Bryce, all of whom, in addition to Phillips, were hostile to Cody. Cody made a vigorous effort to secure the nomination for chancellor. In April, after news of the new University Act had been made public, he wrote a considerable number of letters to friendly alumni. He explained the new rules for nomination of the chancellor and asked for their support, enclosing nomination forms to be sent to the nomination committee. He received an encouraging response. An alumnus in Hamilton undertook to secure ten signatures from the Hamilton area. The dean of the College of Pharmacy organized a petition on Cody's behalf. Alex Stringer, a Winnipeg lawyer, secured the names of many prominent Manitobans on the nomination paper. He also forwarded a nomination paper signed by thirty-three lawyers. Dave Walker, who was on holiday, wrote encouraging messages from Bermuda, but remarked, "I am amazed, however, at the breadth and intensity of the campaign put on by Mr. Massey."9 There were many other letters pledging support. The nomination committee appears to have been dominated by the board members. At any rate its decision was very much in accordance with their wishes. The committee nominated Massey to take office on July 1, 1947, only a month away. The board of governors accepted the nomination unanimously on May 29. So far things had gone smoothly for Massey s supporters, but now a hitch developed. Cody had some very good friends in the senate, including Sydney Hermant, a Toronto graduate and a great admirer, and E.A. Macdonald. They challenged Massey's nomination, and on May 30 the senate declined to accept the nomination. According to the

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947/303 Globe and Mail and the minutes of the board, the vote in the senate was 64 to 42.10 At this point President Smith intervened actively. According to Dave Walker, Smith lobbied people "one by one" to turn against Cody. On June 3 he convened a meeting of the heads of the arts colleges and the deans of faculties and urged them to reverse the senates decision. According to Sydney Hermant (who was not at the meeting but probably received an account from senate friends who had been), Smith pleaded that Drew was keen on Massey s nomination and it would be very bad for the university's interests to go against the premier's wishes. Hermant paraphrased Smith as arguing, "Now look, the Government has been pretty good to us. We have a list of problems with financing at the University. This is a political decision. It isn't mine but they're going to get their own way. So I expect you to go in there and support me or we'll be in trouble."11 Much of the controversy after the May 30 senate meeting turned on the question of the relations between the senate and the Committee of Nomination. The amending University Act had stated (Section 64), "If a vacancy in the office of Chancellor occurs from any cause the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment by the Board and by the senate of a successor nominated by the Committee of Nomination." One view, held by the Massey party, was that the board and the senate must accept the nomination of the committee. The other view (held by Cody's adherents) was that the board or the senate had the right to reject a nomination of the committee. The board presented no problem, having already accepted the Massey nomination. The vote of the senate had created the problem. Phillips responded by hastily convening a meeting of the board on June 2. He made a strong speech in support of the Massey nomination. The board questioned the right of the senate to reverse the decision of the nomination committee and referred the question to the university solicitor, Hamilton Cassels.12 On June 13, 1947, the senate held a second meeting to decide the question of the chancellorship. On the same day the Toronto Star published an interview with Cody. For most of the controversy Cody had remained in the background, refraining from making public statements, but he now replied to a statement Phillips had made on June 12. Phillips had asserted that Cody had been an active member of the committee that had drafted the act reducing his term of office to three years. In short, Cody had voted for his own retirement. Phillips had also accused Cody of bad faith in offering to support Massey for chan-

3041 Henry John Cody cellor and then himself taking the office. The Star's report of Cody's reply was given the headline "Cody Says 'Fight to Bitter End.'" Cody claimed that Phillips was attempting to saddle the university with responsibility for the new law, whereas the real instigator was the Drew government. He insisted he had been critical of the proposed bill when it was under consideration: "I did not make a minority report, but I did object to any points which I did not think were good and I did object to cutting down the time of the present incumbent of the Chancellor's office." He had not voted against the draft of the bill before it was forwarded to the government because he thought it would be returned to the university for further discussion. He had also objected to the time the new bill would come into force, July 1, 1947, and added, "But even then I felt sure nothing would be done until this point and others were discussed fully by the senate." In regard to the charge that he had gone back on his promise to support Massey for the chancellorship, Cody insisted that his offer had been made before Sir Williams death and that when Sir William did die, the whole situation was altered. The senate meeting of June 13 was convened in a very tense atmosphere.13 Unlike most senate meetings, this one was held in the evening so that the attendance would be as large as possible. Colonel Phillips, who rarely attended senate meetings, although he was an ex officio member, came to this one and sat in the front row. Many of Cody's friends were there, including Sydney Hermant, E.A. Macdonald, Arthur Woodhouse, and B.W Horan (his brother-in-law). President Smith, in the chair, took a strong line throughout the meeting. At the outset he submitted two legal opinions from Hamilton Cassels. Cassels asserted that the senate must appoint the nominee of the Committee of Nomination. Friends of Cody had asserted that the senate, having rejected Massey on May 30, could not, without a twothirds majority, raise the same issue again until the next session. Cassels brushed this view aside. He argued that since the senate had not accepted the nomination of May 30, it had not disposed of the issue. Therefore the question could be raised again, without the necessity of a two-thirds majority. Cassels also said that the Committee of Nomination could not make a second nomination. He warned the senate that if another chancellor was not elected by June 30, the old chancellor (Cody) would remain in office until another election could be held in June 1950. Walker and Hermant had prepared for the meeting by getting Cody to write to President Smith, promising that he would not stand

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947/305 for re-election when his term of office expired. Hermant later recalled, "We [Dave Walker and I] sat in Cody's house till very late one night and Dave Walker got Cody to write out a letter in his own handwriting to the chairman of the senate, that was Smith, saying that 'I wish to advise you that at the end of my normal term as chancellor - I will not be offering myself for re-election.'"14 Walker and Hermant had also secured an opinion from Cecil ("Caesar") Wright, the dean of Osgoode Law School, contradicting Cassels's ruling that the senate must accept the Massey nomination. Smith refused to hear the Wright opinion, either its text or a verbal summary offered by Hermant. Judge DJ. Cowan, a graduate representative, claimed that Cassels was wrong to say the senate did not have the power to reject the report of the nomination committee. He said too that Smith was wrong in rejecting the demand that Wright's opinion be read. The motion to approve the report of the nomination committee and to approve Massey as chancellor for a three-year period, beginning July 1, 1947, was moved by Dean J.A. Macfarlane and seconded by Bunnell. This precipitated a hot debate to which Hermant, Dean Beatty, President Brown of Victoria College, and others added their voices. Eddie (E.A.) Macdonald told Cody the next day that "Sydney Hermant was magnificent."15 Support for Cody came from unexpected quarters, from Professor Griffith Taylor, George Grube of Trinity, and C.B. Sissons of Victoria. Sissons, who had opposed Cody at the meeting of May 30, now reversed his position and supported the view "that the senate ought to have the right of rejecting the nominating committee's nomination, for the sake of academic freedom." 16 Hermant attacked Smith for playing a partisan role. Hermant and Macdonald attempted to shelve the Massey recommendation by moving that the election be suspended, pending a request to the Ontario government to reconsider the clauses of the act in reference to the nomination of the chancellor. Eventually they withdrew their motion. The final vote was on the Macfarlane-Bunnell motion. The president announced that in view of the solicitor's opinion (that the senate must accept the recommendation of the nomination committee), he had no option but to vote for Massey's election. The election was very hush-hush. The meeting had accepted Professor Grube's suggestion that the vote and its actual count should be secret. When the process was all over, Massey was declared elected: "The President ruled that in accordance with the vote, the senate had approved of the report of the Committee of Nomination and had

3061 Henry John Cody approved Vincent Massey chancellor of the university for a period of three years, commencing July 1st 1947." The actual count was never made public and is obscured in the minutes of the senate. Afterwards Smith, accompanied by Colonel Phillips, met the press in his office at Simcoe Hall. He seemed tired and irritable. "This is going to be brief and snappy - and no comments," he began. He then read a brief statement announcing Massey s election and the fact that he would be chancellor as of July I.17 The senate's decision was met with a storm of protest. While everyone agreed that Massey was an excellent choice, they objected to the summary dismissal of Cody. Sydney Hermant set the tone when he was asked to comment after the meeting: "If I were to tell you now, when I am so mad, what went on at the meeting it would not be fair to anyone." A writer at Saturday Night was less explosive but equally firm: "We congratulate both [Massey] and the University very warmly, although we should have been happy to see Chancellor Cody, who fought many battles for the University finish his appointed term."18 The Financial Post's editorial on the meeting so annoyed Colonel Phillips that he called it an example of abuse by the press. It began: "The fight over the Chancellorship of the University of Toronto is going to leave deep scars. Almost everybody will welcome to the place of honor the Right Hon. Vincent Massey. But only a few will excuse the shabby scheming which put Dr. Cody out of the post a year before expiry of the term for which he was appointed." The Financial Post blamed the board of governors: "It appears that three members of the board of governors have violent personal antagonisms for Dr. Cody. Others on the Board found themselves swept along into this inept, graceless bungle."19 Cody's friends rallied around, sending letters expressing their regrets at his removal from office: from Lily Sutherland, "After all you have done it does seem too bad that you could not finish the term as a climax to a work that has meant so much to the University and Canada itself"; from Healey Willan, "I cannot let today pass by without telling you how grieved and shocked I was to read of the University affairs in the morning paper"; from Loftus H. Reid, "That you should be the victim of crude and cruel treatment resulting from legislation enacted by a Conservative government in Ontario is only believable because it is true"; from Gilbert Kennedy, a professor of law at the University of British Columbia, "I have no hesitation in saying that it is outrageous, in my opinion, in making the changes in respect to the office of Chancellor, apply immediately and not at the end of the regular term."

Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947/307 The letter from W.S. Wallace, the university librarian, must have been especially gratifying to Cody, since Wallace expressed not only regret at Cody's dismissal, but gratitude for his many kindnesses to him. One incident he described offers a glimpse of Cody's great sensitivity in his relations with the university staff: "I am thinking in particular of one occasion when, rather than let anyone think you were having me 'on the carpet' you did not send for me, but came over to my office to see me yourself. That was one action I shall not forget."20 Though Cody was deeply hurt by the premature termination of his career as chancellor, he kept out of the public battle. In a statement issued after the June 13 meeting, he described his sixty-two-year connection with the university and concluded, "I have tried to serve my alma mater to the best of my ability and it is a great satisfaction to have had the opportunity. That satisfaction cannot be taken from me. I have loved my association with the staff and students. I wish Mr. Massey well in the high office which he will assume on July I."21 His bitterness was confided to his diary (June 13): "Special meeting of senate - to force through Massey's election as Chancellor. By clever manoeuvring avoiding 2/3 vote for reconsidering and confirmed Massey election." Massey was not actively involved in the campaign to get him elected as chancellor and to put Cody out, though he certainly knew what was going on. He was in Canada during the later stage of the fight and was present at the board meetings of March 27 and April 10 (at the latter delegates were chosen for the nomination committee). He was not present on May 29 when the report of the nomination committee (nominating Massey) was unanimously adopted by the board. No doubt he did not feel any particular obligation to rescue Cody. In retrospect it is clear that between them the Drew government and the board of governors strove to remove Cody. Members of the board were largely responsible for drafting the act of April 3, 1947, and the Drew government was happy to pass it. Once the act was passed, the board members led the anti-Cody and pro-Massey movement, although they had some willing colleagues in the senate and among the alumni. Smith fell in line with the campaign, not only because he was concerned about the university's relations with the government, but also because he was pressured by Phillips and Bruce. Afterwards Sidney Smith tried to ingratiate himself with Cody and his friends, by saying nice things about Cody at the end of Cody's time as chancellor. In the President's Report for 1947, Smith paid a welldeserved tribute to Cody. After reciting Cody's many contributions to the university, he concluded, "Wise in counsel and fervent in his love;

3081'HenryJohn Cody

for his Alma Mater, he was in his various offices an understanding friend of the staff, the students and the graduates. For his unfailing assistance and advice, proffered only when sought, I, as his successor in the Presidency, express my indebtedness to him" (p. 9). Massey was installed as chancellor of the University of Toronto on November 21, 1947. Honorary degrees were conferred on nine dignitaries, including Lord Beaverbrook, Harold W. Dodds, the president of Princeton University, and Chief Justice Thibodeau Rinfret. Two of those honoured, George McCullagh and Lawrence Hunt, a New York lawyer, had been the cause of some of the difficulties Cody had had with members of the board of governors. Cody did not attend the ceremony, nor did he mention it in his diary entry for November 21, which contained a full account of his activities for the day.

Chapter 28

From Strength to Strength

uring the struggle over the chancellorship, the Codys had to cope with another problem, one in connection with the house at 603 Jarvis Street. Cody had lived there for over fifty years, but now he had to move. He received a notice on February 15, 1947, that the city proposed to expropriate it so that it could proceed with a street extension project. While Cody was struggling with the board of governors about the chancellorship, he and Barbara were also searching for a new residence. They finally decided to purchase a house at 6 Dale Avenue in Rosedale, and on April 21 they signed an agreement to purchase it for $35,000. Their dismay at moving was somewhat alleviated by the fact that the city paid them $42,000 for the Jarvis Street property. The price was described by the mayor of Toronto as "more or less fair."1 On July 10, 1947, Barbara paid her final visit to 603 Jarvis and handed over the keys to their lawyer, David Walker. On the whole, Cody enjoyed the early part of his retirement. He was busy for some days supervising the move of his books. He was assisted by friends, including a student from Wycliffe. Later, Wycliffe was to be the final repository of his books. It was also a time of strenuous activity, as he was still very active in the church and kept up his contacts with the university and Wycliffe. He also maintained his links with Ridley, Havergal, the Leonard Foundation, and the Boy Scout Association. The Codys still entertained largely. They gave a tremendous reception for the Horans (Mrs. Cody and Mrs. Horan were sisters) on the occasion of the Horans' twenty-eighth wedding anniversary in 1949.

D

3101 Henry John Cody Cody's domestic life remained placid and happy. Cody accompanied Barbara to various social functions in connection with her interests in the church and social work. In 1949 he loaned bonds to her so that she in turn could lend $10,000 to the Anglican Women's Training College. The Codys attended various plays, movies, and concerts together - Bernard Shaw's Candida at the Museum Theatre, Lawrence Olivier in Hamlet at the Odeon, Oedipus Rex produced by the New Play Society. In the summer there was the cottage in Barrie. The couple enjoyed simple pleasures — raspberry picking or expeditions to points of interest in the area. The Codys went to see Wilfrid Jury's excavations at the Jesuit mission, Fort St. Marie, at Midland. Cody continued to read widely. Occasional entries in his diary reported Coulton's Vindication of the Reformation, Arnold Toynbee's Test of Civilization, Churchill's Gathering Storm, Thomas Raddall's Halifax, Warden of the North. He was something of an authority on Dickens. He delivered a paper to the Dickens Club in 1949 on "Gad's Hill: The Link between Dickens and Shakespeare." Cody took an active part in organizing his investments, frequently exchanging securities with a comparatively low yield for others bringing in a higher rate. He was generous but not undiscriminating in giving financial assistance to his relatives. Max Cody, his half-brother, had purchased a house in Victoria in 1948. Cody helped him to make payments in March, November, and December 1948. On the other hand, when Ernest Cody, another half-brother, asked him to guarantee a loan of $5,000 to buy "a place in the country," Cody, having consulted David Walker, declined.2 Although he no longer had an official position at the University of Toronto, Cody continued to attend many university-related functions. In 1948 he attended the COTC Ball at Hart House on January 30, the Athletic Banquet for University College on March 17, and a meeting of the board of trustees of the Royal Ontario Museum on May 6. He took the Armistice Day service at the University of Toronto and preached at the university service in Convocation Hall on November 14, using the text from Ezekiel 2:1-2, "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee." In 1949, among other activities, the Codys entertained the University History Club at their home on January 13 and Cody made a brief speech on the subject of nationalism. On March 7 he attended the Athletic Dinner at the university. He commented wryly on the speech given by an American professor: "Astounding address: stories of

From Strength to Strength / 311

games lost and won - shouting - funny remarks, good advice at end very long - did not leave till 11:30." One of the highlights of the year was the reunion of the University of Toronto class of 1889, the last class reunion Cody attended. Out of eighty-seven who graduated, twenty-one were alive in 1949, sixty years later. In spite of the events of 1947, relations between Smith and Cody were afterwards, at least on the surface, reasonably friendly. Smith's glowing remarks about Cody in the autumn of 1947 set the tone for other courtesies later on. Cody no doubt resented Smith's earlier actions, but in the years that followed he made a number of references in his diary to kindnesses from Smith. Smith included Cody in his list of guests at luncheons and dinners at the York Club and at his own residence. He visited Cody at Dale Avenue when Cody was ill in 1950, and when Cody went to see him that same year about a visit of Sir Richard Livingstone to Toronto, Smith offered to give a luncheon in Livingstone's honour. Cody's careful references in his diary to these courtesies indicate that he appreciated them, but one entry suggested a continuing resentment. When Cody attended the Falconer lecture given by the Earl of Salisbury in Convocation Hall in October 1949, he sat in the audience. Three years earlier, as chancellor, he would probably have chaired the meeting. He reported glumly, "Massey and Smith on Platform." It may be noted that not all of Cody's opponents of 1947 were as well disposed to him as was Smith. After attending a football match in 1949 (November 20), he encountered various old friends and acquaintances including "Charlie Burns (no handshake) and George McCullagh (no handshake)."3 In May 1950 the university and the Ontario Government made a graceful gesture in inviting Cody to rejoin the board of governors. Colonel Phillips called on him on May 15 and broached the subject of his reappointment. Cody recorded, "In afternoon telephone ft. Premier Frost re appointment as Governor of U of T - accepted." Leslie Frost who had succeeded Drew, was more friendly to Cody, perhaps because Cody had used his influence to get Cecil, Frost's brother, into Osgoode Hall as a veteran after World War I, despite Cecil's lack of the required qualifications.4 On May 18, 1950, Cody reported that when the order-in-council for his appointment was passed, the "whole cabinet clapped - unprecedented." He attended a meeting on May 25, but his deafness made it a burden - "very long, much inaudible." A visit to see the "Glendon" property with other members of the board on June 13 was more pleasant.

3121 Henry John Cody Cody continued to play an active role in the life of the Anglican Church. He still attended St. Paul's and occasionally took services. Even more occasionally he preached. He also attended vestry meetings, but when this was impossible, he sent Barbara in his place. However, he was unhappy at St. Paul's. He resented changes in the services made by his successors, Bishop R.C. Renison and EH. Wilkinson. Cody's attitude was reflected in what one of his closest adherents, Talbot P. Grubbe, wrote to Barbara after Cody's death: "Each succeeding Rector in turn seems to want to outdo the others in introducing innovations which get us further and further away from the old simple evangelical service which drew so many of different denominations to St. Paul's."5 For the most part Cody confined critical comments to his diary (on April 15, 1949, "Very dismal service"). It was definitely a generation which knew not Joseph. All the old friends seemed to be gone and the present generation seemed surprisingly young. After attending the annual vestry meeting on January 26, 1948, Cody observed "that it was largely attended by young men and women few of the older members were present." EH. Wilkinson was uncomfortable with Cody's continuing influence at St. Paul's, as well as with that of his own immediate predecessor, Renison. Wilkinsons biographer, the Rev. George Young, recorded that Wilkinson had difficulties with "the 'Codyites' and the 'Renisonites' in whose eyes he could do nothing right."6 Cody's chief ministry in this period was outside St. Paul's. He preached in a number of churches in Toronto and in other parts of the province (Church of the Messiah, St. Michael and All Angels, St. Timothy's, and St. Clements in Toronto; Trinity Church in Gait; St. George's in Willowdale; harvest services at St. Paul's, Clinton). He made two tremendous trips to more distant points. In February 1948 in a week-long visit in Winnipeg, he preached at St. John's Cathedral and two large city churches, St. Luke's and Trinity, and was largely entertained by civic as well as church authorities. George Calvert, a notable Wycliffe graduate, did much of the arranging. In 1949 Cody made an equally strenuous trip to Victoria, where he preached at Christ Church Cathedral on May 11, 1949, and two days later at the synod service for the Diocese of British Columbia. In the latter sermon he spoke from the text he had used so often, "Lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes." In June he was at the other end of the country, at Halifax. Here he spoke from St. Paul's famous text, Philippians 3:1314, "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of

From Strength to Strength 1313

the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Cody was now 81 years of age. He may well have had his own future in mind. Back in Toronto Cody later gave a lecture based on his recent travel experience and appropriately entitled "Canada from Sea to Sea." Despite his age, Cody's effectiveness as a preacher was not diminished. A contemporary newspaper could well report at the end of 1950: "Dr. Cody is still in demand as a preacher and speaker in Ontario, Western Canada, the Maritime Provinces and the United States."7 As well, Cody still participated in the work of the national church. He was a member of the executive board of the Missionary Society of the Church in Canada and conscientiously attended its day-long sessions. In that period, churchmen were concerned with a problem having to do with the office of primate. It was felt that to expect a man to be primate and at the same time a diocesan bishop was to make excessive demands on his strength. Several had died after short terms in office. C.L. Worrell, the fifth primate, and G.E Kingston, the seventh, had both died after three years in office. There was talk of setting up a "Primatial See" so that the primate would have a lighter load than under the existing system. St. Pauls Church, Toronto, was suggested as the Primatial See. Cody was an active member of the committee organized to consider the project. The scheme appears to have received careful attention but it came to nothing. In 1947 Cody was consulted by Bishop A.L. Fleming, the Bishop of the Arctic, about a proposed rearrangement of diocesan boundaries between the northern Canadian dioceses. Cody played an active part at the General Synod in September 1949 in Halifax, speaking out in the debate on changing the name of the church and again on the subject of "missionary education." Cody clearly retained some of his conservative sentiments, reporting in his diary, "Communist case - Dr. Flanagan and Mr. Corbett spoke on innumerable occasions. Nuisances."8 Cody's old friends were dying off. In this last period of his life, he pasted their obituary notices in his diary and there were many such insertions. George Wrong died in July 1948. Tommy Des Barres, his old friend of university days, died in November (Cody recorded, "Wrote at once to his widow").9 Mark Irish died in 1949. The friends of his own age were gone, but he had a circle of friends much younger than himself on whom to depend. Eddie Macdonald, whose friendship with Cody dated back to the early years of Cody's presidency, was most considerate, often driving Cody to and from his many meetings. Sydney Hermant remained a loyal and affectionate adherent. Cody's closest friend was David Walker. Dave was his lawyer as

314 / Henry John Cody well as his friend. It was almost a father and son relationship. Dave had come to fill the place that Maurice might have filled. The Cody diaries in this period are full of references to Dave. He was frequently at the Codys either on business or socially. There were many phone calls. He entertained Cody a number of times at the Albany Club, keeping him in touch with prominent Tories. On one such occasion Cody met Arthur Meighen and Alan Cockeram. Cockeram was the man who had vacated his seat in the House of Commons (York South) so that Meighen could run (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) in a famous byelection in 1942. Dave Walker was promoting John Diefenbaker as leader of the federal Conservatives. He talked to Cody about Diefenbaker's prospects and in July 1947 brought Diefenbaker and his wife to meet Cody. After that there were several encounters between Diefenbaker and Cody. Cody's diary does not indicate how he felt about Diefenbaker's chances of winning the leadership at the convention called for October 1948, but it is almost certain that he sympathized with Diefenbaker and was disappointed with the result. Dave nominated Diefenbaker amidst some boos and hisses, and the leadership was won by George Drew, not one of Cody's favourites. Cody recorded, with his usual brevity: "Over radio result of voting in Ottawa 1242 votes Drew 827 Diefenbaker 311 Fleming 104."10 Ill health revisited Cody in 1950 and he was never entirely well again. In February and March he developed an ailment affecting his legs. He was confined to the house for much of February and March. He was often in bed all day, and there were frequent visits by Dr. Noble. At the end of April, Cody rallied and managed a visit to Halifax, where he preached at St. Paul's, addressed the Kiwanis Club of Halifax and Dartmouth (April 23) on "St. George vs the Dragon," and proposed the toast to "St. George and England" at a dinner in the Lord Nelson Hotel.11 After returning to Toronto on April 26, he attended the Wycliffe Convocation on April 27, then left for Ottawa the same evening to attend the annual meeting of the Boy Scouts Association. On April 30 he and Barbara motored to St. Catharines, where he preached at St. Georges Church. It was the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Diocese of Niagara, and Cody again used his favourite text, "Lengthen thy cords." On June 25 Cody and Barbara motored to Schomberg, Ontario, where he preached at St. Mary Magdalene. Robert Hulse, then a boy, heard him on that occasion and later recalled that Cody looked very

From Strength to Strength / 315

old and frail. His text seemed personally prophetic, "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." It was his favourite text in the latter period of his life. He preached on it more than a dozen times in the years between 1940 and 1950. The valley, he said, was not a terminus. It was a thoroughfare leading to a higher and a fuller life. In September 1950 Cody's old trouble with ulcers flared up once more. On October 20 Dr. D.R. Mitchell operated on Cody at the Toronto General Hospital. He was home briefly, but on November 4, bleeding profusely, he was rushed by ambulance to the hospital. He later reported that Dr. Mitchell cleared up the obstruction.12 Even in this last phase of his life, Cody showed remarkable powers of recuperation. There followed a period of convalescence. By November 9, after a blood transfusion, he was able to report that his blood count was up to 83 percent. On November 11 Cody returned home by ambulance, attended by a nurse. For some time he was confined to bed. There were calls from Dr. Noble and from the faithful Dave Walker on November 13. A week later Cody was up and dressed for the first time, though confined to the upstairs.13 By November 26 he was joking with Ramsay Armitage, the Wycliffe principal, about the wife of an eastern bishop who was famous for outspokenness. She had asserted that St. Paul's would not be the primatial cathedral "because the bishops did not want it."14 Cody was cheered by a message from a librarian friend who wrote on the back of a library order slip, "Please get well soon Dr. Cody."15 On November 28 Cody was downstairs and on the next day the nurse was able to leave. Dave and his wife dropped in on their way to the St. Andrew's Ball. Dr. Noble reported on December 2 that Cody's blood pressure was better (116). On the same day, President Smith called and brought Cody a book, George W. Browns Canada. There were more calls from Dave and Eddie Macdonald. By December 12 Cody was able to visit the hospital, not as a patient, but to see a friend after her operation. He worked steadily at Christmas cards, sending his cards and receiving others. Dave and Dave Junior called on Christmas Day and on December 27 Cody listened to a broadcast of the Messiah by the Mendelssohn Choir. During the first part of 1951 he continued to fulfil social engagements. On January 18 the Codys entertained the University History Club at their home. A week later Cody attended a meeting of the university board of governors; Massey and McCullagh were also present.

3161 Henry John Cody On February 5 he spoke at a dinner at Montreal's Ritz Carleton Hotel to honour the people who had worked for a Boy Scout campaign.16 But after that his condition deteriorated alarmingly. He went to see Dr. Mitchell on February 14 in regard to his "unsatisfactory condition after the operation." Dr. Mitchell prescribed "even more drastic" surgery and operated the next day. Cody returned home and regretfully recorded in his diary that he could not attend the meeting of Havergal directors or the unveiling of a bust of Banting at Simcoe Hall, but he managed to attend a dinner at Hart House on March 2 in honour of his old friend W.J. Dunlop, who was retiring as director of university extension and publicity. Barbara McClennan Storey and her husband were present at the dinner. Years later she recalled, "Dr. Cody had been very ill and got up out of bed at his own insistence to give the farewell speech for his long-time friend and colleague. Despite being pale and shaky, he gave a tribute to Dr. Dunlop at that dinner." Mrs. Cody drove Cody to a Masonic service at St. George's Church, Islington on March 4. It was his last church appearance.17 Cody had a bad night on March 7 and Dr. Mitchell ordered strong tablets "to clear up the infection." The last entry in the diary in Cody's hand was to report his presence at a ceremony at Boy Scout headquarters in Toronto on March 10. The governor general, Lord Alexander, invested him with the "Silver Wolf" for "services rendered." Cody gave the prayer of dedication. The final entry in the diary (written by Barbara or by Bishop White) was for April 27. It reported that Cody died peacefully at 7:30 p.m. Cody's funeral service was held at St. Paul's. Many old friends participated in the service, which began with the hymn "Jesus lives!" Hallam read the opening sentence: "I am the Resurrection and the Life." Renison read the Scripture passage from 1 Corinthians 15: "But now is Christ risen from the dead." Bishop White gave the address and Bishop H.R. Beverley, the Bishop of Toronto, pronounced the benediction. Charles Peaker, the organist at St. Paul's, was assisted by Cody's old friend, Dr. Alexander Davies. The organ postlude was from Healey Willan's Elegy. Cody was buried in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. His tombstone bore the inscription (from 2 Timothy) "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." It was an apt commentary on Cody's life.

Notes ABBREVIATIONS CHA Canadian Historical Association (annual meeting report) CHR Canadian Historical Review (quarterly magazine) CP Cody Papers in the Ontario Archives UTA University of Toronto Archives OP Office of the President, University of Toronto Archives

CHAPTER 1 Embro and Gait 1. The section on Cody genealogy is based on a statement by Ernest Cody, one of Henry John's halfbrothers; tombstone inscriptions in North Embro Cemetery; an anniversary booklet, Embro and Zorra 1858-1893, published by an Embro committee; William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 6; Cody Papers (hereafter CP), Max Cody to Bishop W.C. White, May 12, 1953. The original Cody to settle in the area was Elijah (1775-1828), Harry's great-grandfather, who bought a farm in West Zorra in 1821. His son John, Harry's paternal grandfather, ran a blacksmith shop and wagonbuilding establishment in Embro. He died in the cholera epidemic of 1849. 2. CP, Mrs. Cody to Harry, Oct. 20, 1881. 3. Cody, "Rector of St. Paul's Relates Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916, 4. CP, Elijah to Harry, clipped to a letter from Mrs. Cody to Harry, Sept. 27, 1882. 5. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916; CP, Mrs. Cody to Harry, Oct. 27, 1881; Elijah Cody to Harry, Dec. 6, 1881; Elijah Cody to Harry, Dec. 5, 1882. 6. CP, GJ. Jamieson to Harry, Dec. 12,1881.

7. Report from the Gait Collegiate on Cody's progress, clipped to a letter from Elijah Cody to Harry, 1881. 8. CP, Mrs. Cody to Harry, Nov. 17, Dec. 13, 1881. 9. CP, Hugh Munro to Cody, January 16, Oct. 15, Nov. 1, 1880. 10. Lovell's Gazetteer, 122. The factories were "manufactories of axes, iron castings, machinery, soap and candles, lasts, pails, woollens, wooden ware." 11. Dr. William Tassie (1815-86), an Irishman, emigrated to Canada in 1834 and became headmaster of Gait Grammar School, which became Gait Collegiate Institute in 1872. He left to become principal of Peterborough Collegiate Institute. 12. See White, Canon Cody, 9-11. 13. Ibid., 11. 14. One of his friends asked him in 1885, "Do you still take as much interest in Bishops as ever?" CP, Agnes Walls to Harry, Nov. 2, 1885. Bettridge was a notable character. He had served as an officer in Wellington's army in the later stages of the Napoleonic wars before entering the Anglican ministry. 15. CP, Comments by Barbara Cody on a letter, Grace Gifford to Bishop White, Oct. 13, 1951. Also comments by Barbara on a letter from C.E. Silcox to Barbara, July 19, 1951. 16. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. 17. CP, Hincks to Harry, July 20, 1885; Hincks to "George," Sept. 30, 1885, quoted in White, Canon Cody, 14, 15. 18. CP, comments by Barbara on letter from Grace Gifford, Oct. 13, 1951. 19. Embro Courier, Mar. 21, 1883; C.E. Silcox to Barbara Cody, July 19, 1951. 20. CP, J.E. Bryant to Harry, Mar. 24, 1883. 21. CP, D.S. Smith to Harry, Mar. 28, 1883. 22. CP, Barbara's comments on letter from Grace Gifford to Bishop White. Max Cody, Harry's halfbrother, tells a story of Harry having his father down to St. Paul's in 1913 when the new church was opened. Four or five bishops were present,

318 /Notes

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

and Harry presented Elijah to them on the verandah of his house with the words, "I want you to meet my beloved father." CP, Max Cody to Bishop White, May 12, 1953. CP, D.S. Smith to Harry, Sept. 1, 1883. Unfortunately, Smith did not get on well with the principal of the Ottawa school and a year later he was looking for another position. Bryant to Harry, July 26, 1884. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. CP, Bryant to Harry, June 8,1885. CP, C.J. Logan to Harry, July 20, 1885. CP, R. Balmer to Harry, Aug. 26, 1885.

CHAPTER 2 University, 1885-1889 1. W.S. Wallace, A History of the University of Toronto (Toronto, 1927), 105; D.C. Masters, The Rise of Toronto, 1850-1890 (Toronto, 19476), 198; Maurice Hutton, University College, in W.J. Alexander, University of Toronto and Its Colleges, 1827-1927 (Toronto, 1906), 116. 2. W.J. Loudon, Studies of Student Life (Toronto, 1928), 5:19-20, 223. 3. CP, Agnes Walls to Cody, Mar. 18, 1887. 4. H.H. Langton, Sir Daniel Wilson (Toronto, 1929), 110-12. 5. CP, T.C. Des Barres to Cody, May 31,1888. 6. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. 7. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto W«w,Nov.25, 1916. 8. Loudon, Studies of Student Life, 3:261. 9. Loudon, Studies of Student Life, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1923); Masters, Rise of Toronto, 161-2. 10. CP, H.R. Fairclough to Cody, June 15, 1888. The marks were: De Cor. 75, Birds 90, Grammar and Philology 97, Frogs 91. See also CP, T.C. Des Barres to Cody June 1, 1888. 11. Queen's College Journal, Dec. 15, 1877. 12. George Paxton Young, The Ethics of Freedom, Notes selected, translated

and arranged by his pupil, James Gibson Hume (Toronto, 1911). 13. Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. 14. John A. Irving, "Philosophy in Central Canada," Canadian Historical Review (hereafter CHR), Sept. 1950,264. 15. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Oct. 14 and 27, 1887. CHAPTER 3 Relatives and Friends, 1885-1889 1. CP, Agnes Walls to Cody, Nov. 2, 1885, Oct. 14, 1886, Mar. 22, 1888; Phila Cody to Cody, January 20, 1886; Mill Cody to Cody, January 26, 1886. 2. CP, Elijah to Cody, Oct. 7, 1885. 3. CP, Elijah to Cody, Dec. 16, 1887. 4. CP, comments by Barbara Cody and written on letter from Grace Gifford to Bishop White, Oct. 13, 1951. "The brothers are all very different to him tho' very like their father. Then in feature they all lack that sincerity which made him himself." 5. CP, C.E. Silcox to Mrs. Barbara Cody, July 19, 1951. 6. CP, Elijah to Cody, Oct. 7, 1885, June 15, 1886, Oct. 20, 1887. D.H. MacVicar, the principal of Presbyterian College, Montreal, was a fine preacher. When Ralph Connor, the novelist, was a boy MacVicar assisted Connor's father, the Rev. Daniel Gordon, in a precommunion service in Glengarry. MacVicar's sermon on that occasion served as the model for the Fast Day sermon preached by the "college professor" in Ralph Connor's novel, The Man from Glengarry. John H. MacVicar, Life and Work of Donald Harvey MacVicar (Toronto, 1904), 53-4; Ralph Connor, The Man from Glengarry (Toronto, 1901), 253-6. 7. CP, Elijah to Cody, Feb. 23, May 1, 1888; June 17, 1889. 8. CP, Grandpa Henry Torrance to Cody, May 13, 1888. 9. CP, Grandpa Torrance to Cody, Feb. 14, 1887. 10. CP, Grandpa Torrance to Cody, Feb. 7, 1886. 11. CP, Grandma Torrance to Cody [Oct. 1885] (presumably the church was to be Anglican, as one did not

Notes 1319

12. 13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

use the terms "high" and "low" in reference to other churches); Oct. 25, 1885; Nov. 17 [1885]. See CP, Elijah Cody to Cody, Apr. 26, 1889; Phila Cody to Cody, Nov. 5, 1885. CP, Phila Cody to Cody, Dec. 9, 1885; January 20, 1886. CP, Phila Cody to Cody, Feb. 22, 1886. Grace Darling (1815-42) was an English heroine. The daughter of a lighthouse keeper, she, with her father, rescued nine survivors of a steamer which had foundered in a storm off the Longstone Lighthouse on September 6, 1838. George Macdonald, 1824-1905, Scottish minister, novelist, and poet, author of Phantastes, The Princess and the Goblin, Lilith and other works. He had a considerable influence on C.S. Lewis. CP, Phila Cody to Cody, July 13, 1887. CP, Aggie Walls to Cody, Jan. 8, 1885; Mar. 18, 1887; Mar. 22, 1888. CP, Aggie Walls to Cody, Mar. 22, 1888. The controversy was part of the general movement for women's suffrage strongly supported by the Women's Suffrage Association (originally founded in 1876 as the Toronto Women's Literary Club). The Women's Christian Temperance Union, organized in 1885, also supported AAthe suffrage movement. CP, Aggie Walls to Cody, Mar. 18, 1887. CP, Mill Cody to Cody, Nov. 15, 1886; Aug. 2, 1887; June 19, 1888; Elijah G. Cody to Cody, June 24, 1888. Cleveland was defeated by Benjamin Harrison. CP, T.C. Des Barres to Cody, Aug. 4, 1886; July 12 and Aug. 4, 1887. CP, Des Barres to Cody, July 8, 1888. Des Barres was one of six delegates from Toronto.

CHAPTER 4 Ridley, Wycliffe, and St. Pauls, 18891893 1. See D.C. Masters, "The Anglican Evangelicals in Toronto, 18701900," Journal of Canadian Church Historical Society, Sept.-Dec. 1978,

51-66; H.E.Turner, "Protestantism and Progress: The Church Association of the Diocese of Toronto," Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society, Apr. 1980, 1-28. 2. Evangelical Churchman, Nov. 1, 1891. 3. W.J. Armitage, "Related Institutions," Jubilee Volume of Wycliffe College, 250; Albert and Theresa Moritz, Leacock (Toronto, 1985), 63-8; Leacock's unfinished autobiography, Last Leaves, quoted in Kim Beattie, Ridley, the Story of a School(St. Catharines, 1963), 26-7. 4. CP, Walter Caldecott to Cody, Oct. 2, 1892. 5. Quoted in Beattie, Ridley, 27. When Cody was interviewed by the Toronto News in 1916 (Nov. 25), he was asked whether he was in the football line of Gait Collegiate. He replied, "Did I belong to the team? Well, no. I was a junior and never good enough for that any way. I have always gone in for sport purely for the fun of it." 6. Wycliffe Jubilee Volume (1927), 1819. 7. Later, in speaking of this period, Cody recalled that Sheraton was "one of the men who helped in the making of my character at that time [1889-91]." Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. 8. The student was C.K. Masters, the author's father, who had graduated from Wycliffe in 1903. Wycliffe Archives, Masters to Mrs. Sheraton, Dec. 21, 1905. 9. CP, Des Barres to Cody, Aug. 24, 1889. See also Des Barres to Cody, Aug. 10 and 11, 1889. 10. Wycliffe Jubilee Volume, 12, 83. 11. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Mar. 4,1891. 12. Phila (Cody) Fraser, to Cody, Oct. 2, 1890. The Birchell trial was famous murder case, tried at Woodstock. Mervyn was 75. He had twenty-six years to live. 13. CP, T.C. Des Barres to Cody, Aug. 10-11 and 24, 1889; Dec. 18, 1891. 14. CP, T.C. Des Barres to Cody, Apr. 9, 1893. He is referring to adherents of Handley Moule (1841-1920), at that time Principal of Ridley Hall Theological College and later

3201'Notes Bishop of Durham. According to the New International Dictionary, "Moule was a convinced evangelical, but was able to understand other views." 15. North End Hall was the original St. Pauls building. It had been moved to the Yorkville area when the new church was built in 1860. 16. Wycliffe Calendar, 1893. Also CP, memorandum by W.T. Hallam. 17. CP, John De Soyres to Cody, May 26, 1893.

10.

11. 12.

CHAPTER 5 Curate and Professor, Engagement and Marriage, 1893-1899 1. See D. Dengate, The Second Coming of Our Lord, being papers read at a Conference held at Niagara, Ont., July 14th to 17th, 1885. Toronto, (S. R. Briggs). There is a copy in the Library at Brock University. 2. CP, A.T. Hunter to Cody, Apr. 16, 1894. 3. The sections on Cody's sermons are based on the large collection of sermons in Series D of the Cody Papers. Some of them were published privately in 1954 by Cody's biographer, William C. White. 4. Preached at St. James' Cathedral in 1899 and at St. Paul's in 1900. Based on Winnington-Ingram, "Men Who Crucify Christ." 5. Hague eventually became a legend around Wycliffe. On one occasion he and his wife were visiting in Winnipeg. After they had been there for several days their hostess took them out to lunch. Hague addressed his wife, "My dear, how's your tea? It's the first decent cup of tea I've had since we left home." 6. See Sheraton, The Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scriptures (Toronto: J.E. Bryant Company, 1893), 17-18,30-1. 7. CP, W.T. Hallam to Cody, Feb. 5, 1916; memorandum by Hallam, n.d. but circa 1953; William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 19. 8. C.K. Masters, Notes on Old Testament III, c. 1901. 9. See Cody's lecture notes in

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

University of Toronto Archives (hereafter UTA), B 88-0053 Box 20. Masters, Notes on Church History III, Dec. 2, 1901: "As theologian [Calvin] put predestination in the forefront of his system"; "Source of doctrine practical. Man is weak and sinful... God is all in all." Lecture notes, UTA. For notable issues see the Evangelical Churchman, June 19 and 20, 1878 (Sheraton's debate with John Langtry in the Toronto Synod); June 19, 1879 (the Great Compromise with the high church party); Nov. 2, 1882 (Sheraton's speech at a Wycliffe opening); Nov. 30, 1882 (a strong temperance stand.) The Evangelical Churchman was opposed to those who taught the doctrine of "a local presence of Christ in the bread and wine upon a so-called 'altar.'" CP, Sheraton to Cody, Mar. 4,1891. St. Paul's Archives, James E. Lee to Florence Clarke, June 14, 1892. CP, Florence to Cody, [June 22, 1893] CP, Florence to Cody, June 25, 1894; July 1,8, and 13, 1894. CP, Florence to Cody, June 23, 1894; Florence to WR. Smallpeice, June 12, 1894; Florence to Cody, June 12, 1894 (note appended in regard to Ellen's passage to Canada). CP, Florence to Cody, June 19, 1894; July 9, 1894. CP, Florence to Cody, June 20 and 23, July 1, 12, and 13, 1894. CP, Florence to Cody, July 12, 1894. CP, Ellen Clarke to Cody, Sept. 18, 1894. St. Paul's parish magazine, Oct. 1894. CP, Septimus Jones to Cody, Mar. 8, 1897 (first letter). CP, Jones to Cody, Mar. 8, 1897 (second letter). CP, Cody to Stinson, draft letter, Mar. 8, 1897. CP, Cody to Jones, Mar. 8, 1897; Cody to Stinson, Mar. 8, 1897; Jones to Cody, Mar. 8 and 10, 1897; Cody to Jones, n.d., but after Mar. 10, 1897. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Jan. 31, 1896.

Notes 1321 CHAPTER 6 Cody, the Coming Man, 1900-1905 1. H.D. Phillips; Healey Willan, T.J. Crawford. 2. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Mar. 14, 1904. 3. 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31. 4. Canadian Churchman, Mar. 2, 16, and 30, 1905. 5. Ibid., Apr. 27,1905. 6. CP, A.N. Donovan to Cody, Nov. 18, 1902; George Hutchison to Cody, Feb. 12, 1907. 7. CP, John Tate to Cody, Mar. 16, 1903. 8. CP, White, memorandum on Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church, n.d. 9. W.J. Armitage, The Story of the Canadian Revision of the Prayer Book (Toronto, 1922), 57, described Plumptre "as a exponent of the modern and liberal attitude of mind. He joined a reverence for the past and its standards with the spirit of the present age. He might have said, ... 'All things change, creeds and philosophies and outward systems - but God remains.'" My father, who was at Wycliffe in 19021903, told me that Plumptre was liberal. CP, Plumptre to Cody, June 23, 1902. 10. CP, C. C.Owen to Cody, Sept. 21, 1903. 11. CP, Wrong to Cody, n.d. (internal evidence indicates the end of 1903). 12. Evangelical Churchman, Aug. 30, 1894. 13. CP, Miss Knox to Cody, Jan. 3, 1905; For Havergal meetings see references in Cody Diary for Jan. 1905. 14. CP, G.F. Coombs, J.O. Murray, and Thos. Robinson to Cody, Nov. 26, 1904. Coombs and Murray were canons of St. John's Cathedral in Winnipeg. Robinson was a lay delegate to the synod. CP, Cody to Coombs, Dec. 12, 1904. There was still some prejudice when I was a boy living in Huron Diocese (D.C.M.). CP, Cody to Cronyn, Oct. 27, 1904; CP, S.H. Blake to Cody, Oct. 28, 1904. 15. The Advisory Committee included Caldecott, Blake, Smallpeice, and other ardent supporters of Cody's.

There is some evidence that Cody also declined to be considered as bishop of the Diocese of Caledonia, a missionary diocese in western Canada. The appointment was in the hands of the Church Missionary Society. See William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 45. 16. CP, Dyson Hague to Cody, Apr. 30, 1902. 17. CP, F.J. Steen to Cody, Nov. 25, 1902. Steen, an early exponent of higher criticism, had been dismissed from his post at Montreal Diocesan College and inhibited from preaching in the diocese. See Masters, Protestant Church Colleges in Canada, 135-6. 18. CP, Benjamin Watkins to Cody, June 16, 1902. CHAPTER 7 Cody's Friends, 1900-1905 1. CP, Steen to Cody, Mar. 28,1901; Jan. 28, 1902. 2. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Apr. 17, 1905. 3. CP, Blake to Cody, with a memorandum, Feb. 21, 1901. 4. CP, Matheson to Cody, Oct. 30, [1907]. 5. CP, Matheson to Cody, Feb. 15, 1906. 6. Havergal Memorial Volume, Ellen Mary Knox (Toronto, 1925), 35; CP, Miss Knox to Cody - the letter is wrongly dated April 26, 1903, but internal evidence indicates that it must have been written in 1907 or later. 7. CP, Dyson Hague to Cody, Apr. 3, 1903. Other evangelical friends were W.J. Armitage, the rector of St. Thomas' Church, St. Catharines, and later of St. Paul's, Halifax, and C.C. Owen, the rector of Christ Church, Vancouver, and a founder of Latimer College, Vancouver. See Masters, Protestant Church Colleges, 169. 8. CP, Wrong to Cody, Aug. 16, 1903. 9. CP, Miss Knox to Cody, Jan. 23, 1905; Wrong to Cody, n.d., c. 1902. 10. CP, Wrong to Cody, Sept. 25,1911. 11. CP, De Soyres to Cody, Nov. 7, 1902; Oct. 29, 1904.

3221 Notes 12. CP, De Soyres to Cody, Oct. 29, 1904. This is one of the occasions where one is frustrated by the absence of a Cody letter. De Soyres seems to have thought that Cody was encouraging him, but he could well have taken Cody to mean more than he actually said. 13. Queen's Quarterly 12:252-9. De Soyres's remarks on Sheraton were mainly a critique of Sheraton's booklet "The Higher Criticism" (1904). A consideration of De Soyres's article bears out his claim that the criticisms were on minor details. CP, De Soyres to Cody, [1905]. This undated letter was written just before publication of his article in April 1905, which he described "as a little essay in which I illustrate dangers by so admirable a representative as our friend Sheraton." 14. CP, Hutton to Cody, Mar. 14, Apr. 25 [1892], Nov. 30, 1902. Other friends of Cody's were Pelham Edgar, the great professor of English at Victoria College, and Goldwin Smith. CHAPTER 8 The Royal Commission of 1905-1906 1. Report of the Royal Commission on the University of Toronto (Toronto, 1906) (hereafter cited as Report}. 2. 12 Viet., Cap. 82. 3. H.H. Langton, Sir Daniel Wilson (Toronto, 1929), 127. 4. Not an unmixed blessing. Some of the divinity students, for various reasons, continued their secular studies and abandoned the ministry. 5. Charles W. Humphries, Honest Enough to be Bold, the Life and Times of Sir James Pliny Whitney (Toronto, 1905), 114-16; Michael Bliss, A Canadian Millionaire, the Life and Times of Sir Joseph Flavelle Bart, 1858-1939 (Toronto, 1978), 164. There were other causes of dissatisfaction. President Loudon did not think it the right time for a royal commission. The vice-president of the Alumni Association wanted expert witnesses - say from Yale or Harvard. 6. CP, Sheraton to Cody, Nov. 30,

7. 8. 9. 10.

n.d.; Dec. 14, 1905. Globe, Mar. 13, 14, and 16, 1906. Report, liv. Ibid., xiv, xlviii. Ibid., xx, xxi.

11. Report, liv, Iv, Ivii; Cody, "A Chapter on the Organization of Higher Education in Canada, 1905-6," Transactions, Royal Society of Canada, 1946, Section II, 97. 12. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916; see especially ix, xiv, xvi, xix of the Report, Report, xxiii. 13. Cody, "A Chapter on the Organization of Higher Education in Canada 1905-6," 87-9; CP, Cody diaries, 1905, 1906; Cody, "A Chapter on the Organization of Higher Education in Canada, 19056," 87-9; Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916 (they had sixteen meetings in Feb. 1906 and sixteen in March, including repeated meetings with the representatives of Victoria and Trinity); Report, lix, be. 14. Royal Statutes of Ontario, 6 Edward VII 1906, An Act respecting the University of Toronto and University College; Globe, May 3, 1906. 15. Nathaniel Burwash, A History of Victoria College (Toronto, 1927), 438.

16. Canadian Churchman, Feb. 1, 1906, 72-3. CHAPTER 9 The Hymn Book and the Book of Common Prayer, 1906-1908 1. CP, Gustavus Munro to Cody, Apr. 26, 1907; T.R. O'Meara to Cody, June 8, 1907. 2. Toronto News, Nov. 23, 1907 published in William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 49-50. 3. CP, S.H. Blake to Cody, Nov. 4, 1907, June 3, 1908. 4. CP, Florence to Barbara Blackstock, Dec. 31, 1909. 5. Cody, "Reminiscences," Toronto News, Nov. 25, 1916. See Des Barre's obituary in Canadian Churchman, Sept. 5, 1907; Cody

Notes 1323 Diary, Sept. 6, 1907; Also St. Pauls Archives, notes by Cody on funeral sermon of Des Barres. 6. CP, E.M. Knox to Cody, June 6, 1907, Oct. 4, 1907. 7. CP, student petition, Mar. 30, 1908. 8. Canadian Churchman, Nov. 7, 1907; May 10, 1906. 9. Ibid., June 21, 1906, See also June 26, 1906. 10. Canadian Churchman, July 26, Aug. 16, 1906; July 12, 1906. 11. Jones' great-grandfather was a follower of Wesley and his grandfather was brought over to Canada by the Bishop of Quebec, GJ. Mountain. 12. Canadian Churchman, Mar. 1, 1906; Apr. 12, 1906. 13. CP, Dyson Hague to Cody, Aug. 27, 1908. 14. CP, George Forneret to Cody, Sept. 14,1908 15. Florence to Cody, Sept. [1909] and Sept. 28, 1909; Armitage to Cody, Sept. 27, Oct. 20, 1909; S.H. Blake to Cody, Mar. 11 and 12, 1910; N.W Hoyles to Cody, Aug. 15, 1910. 16. W.J. Armitage, The Story of the Canadian Revision of the Prayer Book (Toronto, 1922), 2. 17. Ibid., 11. The language of the appendix appears to have suffered by comparison with that of Cranmer. Actually Hague was strongly in favour of a Canadian Prayer Book. 18. UTA, Office of the Secretary of the Board of Governors, Committee for the Search for a President, Box 51; James G. Greenlee, Sir Robert Falconer, A Biography (Toronto, 1988), 112-14. 19. Whitney Papers, Ferguson to Whitney, June 26, 1906 and reply, June 27, 1906, Ferguson to Whitney, June 29, 1906 and reply, July 3, 1906. Quoted in Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson, Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977), 32. 20. UTA, Office of the Secretary of the Board of Governors, Committee for the Search of a President, Box 51. 21. White, Canon Cody, 48; Greenlee, Sir Robert Falconer, 115.

CHAPTER 10 The Toronto Episcopal Election of 1909 1. Globe, Feb. 16, 1909; Toronto World, Feb. 17, 1909. 2. Canadian Churchman, Feb. 25, 1909. 3. W.J. Armitage, The Story of the Canadian Revision of the Prayer Book (Cambridge and Toronto, 1922), 56; Canadian Churchman, Mar. 1, 1906. 4. Vance was soon to become principal of Bishop Larimer College in Vancouver. Wrong was still nominally on the Wycliffe staff, although his main position was as professor of history at U of T. He was a warm but sometimes critical friend of Cody's. 5. Journal of a Special Meeting of the Incorporated Synod of The Church of England in Canada in the Diocese of Toronto Held for the Election of A Bishop ...On the 17th, 18th and 19th days of February, 1909 (Toronto, 1909), 10 (hereafter SynodJournal). 6. Ibid., 11. 7. Ibid., 37-9. There is a slightly different version in the Globe, Feb. 18, 1909. 8. World, Feb. 18, 1909. 9. Globe, Feb. 19, 1909. 10. Synod Journal, 45, 46. Tremayne asserted "that he had not received any communication from the Bishop, that he did not know him and the statement is untrue." 11. Synod Journal, 47. The chancellor of an Anglican diocese is usually a lawyer who advises the synod on matters of church law. When disputes arise over procedural issues during a synod, the chancellor is called on to give a ruling. 12. Globe, Feb. 19, 1909. 13. World, Feb. 19, 1909. 14. Canadian Churchman, Feb. 25, 1909; Synod Journal, 52.1 have quoted the Canadian Churchman report of Cody's speech. It is somewhat fuller than the report in the Synod Journal. The Globea.no. Worldalso reported the speech, Feb. 20, 1909. 15. World, Feb. 22, 1909; Canadian Churchman, Feb. 25, 1909. 16. CP, E.A. Knox to Cody, Mar. 4,

3241 Notes 1909; RJ. Renison to Cody, Mar. 10, 1909. 17. CP, W.H. Vance to Cody, Sept. 21, 1910. 18. World, Feb. 22, 1909; William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 50-1. CHAPTER 11 The New St. Paul's, 1909-1914 1. CP, Florence Cody to Cody, Sept. 25, c. 1909. 2. CP, S.P. Matheson to Cody, Mar. 1, 1911. 3. St. Pauls Archives, S.H. Blake to R. Millichamp, Feb. 18, 1909; S.H. Blake to Cody, Mar. 2, 1909. 4. St. Paul's Archives, S.H. Blake to W.C. Wilkinson, secretary of the Board of Trade, Aug. 12, 1909; Wilkinson to Blake, Aug. 13, 1909; Joseph Oliver to Blake, Aug. 13, 1909. 5. St. Paul's Archives, R. Millichamp to S.H. Blake, Apr. 6, 1909; PC. Larkin to Blake, Aug. 9, 1909, enclosed in Blake to Cody, Aug. 13, 1909. 6. CP, RJ. Renison to Cody, Feb. 10, 1909; S.P. Matheson to Cody, June 2, 1910; Griffith Thomas to Cody, July 15, 1910; A.W. Christopher to Cody, July 22 and 25, 1910. 7. CP, W.T. White to Cody, Oct. 14, 1911. See also M. Burrell, minister of agriculture, to Cody, Dec. 11, 1911. 8. PA. Rickard to author, Feb. 17, 1981. 9. CP, A.D. Baker to Cody, Mar. 30, 1912. 10. CP, "Cody's Note and Materials on Prayer Book Revision." 11. WJ. Armitage, The Story of the Canadian Revision of the Prayer Book (Cambridge and Toronto, 1922), 26-9. 12. Ibid., 35-6. On a subsequent motion of Chancellor J.A. Worrell and M. Wilson, "fundamental" was removed from the second resolution. 13. Ibid., 79. There were also subcommittees on the lectionary, the psalter, special services, and business. 14. Ibid., 50-8. Armitage assessed the role of those who were instrumental

in the completion of the Prayer Book. He praised Dyson Hague and Matthew Wilson and was cautious in his remarks about F.G. Scott and about H.P. Plumptre, describing the latter as "an exponent of the modern and liberal attitudes of mind." 15. CP, Florence Cody Diary, Nov. 30, 1913. 16. Nunn, 5. Not everybody admired St. Paul's. William C. Cook described it as "a kind of gothicized auditorium, with a sloping floor so that those at the rear could see as well as those at the front and a seating capacity of 2500." Cook, "The Diocese of Toronto and Its Two Cathedrals," 108. 17. CP, S.H. Blake to Cody, Dec. 7, 1911. See also June 29, 1910; Blake to Cody, Aug. 12, 1912. CHAPTER 12 World War I, 1914-1918 1. CP, pamphlets by Cody (The War, A Survey of the Struggle, Jan. 11, 1917; Canada and the War in 1917, June 10, 1918); the Bishop of Montreal to Cody, Nov. 3, 1914. 2. CP, George Wrong to Cody, 1914. 3. CP, RE. Way to Cody, Dec. 13, 1914; R.J. Christie to Cody, Dec. 15, 1914. 4. CP, C.H. Mitchell to Cody, Oct. 10, 1914; Also Sept. 20, Dec. 19, 1914. 5. CP, N. Smallpeice to Cody, May 3, 1916; G.B. Archer to Cody, July 23, 1916; C.E. Stonehouse to Cody, June 21, 1916;, W.A. Reddick to Cody, Jan. 1917. 6. CP, Cody Diary, Aug. 24, 1914, press clipping. 7. CP, E.B. Osier to Cody, Nov. 1914. 8. See Sam H.S. Hughes, "Sir Sam Hughes and the Problems of Imperialism," CHA Annual Report, 1950, 30-41; Donald M.R. Vince, "The Acting Sub-Militia Council and the Resignation of Sir Sam Hughes," CHRMzt. 1950, 1-24. 9. CP, R.B. McElheran to Cody, Oct. 29, 1915; N.W Hoyles to Cody, Nov. 10, 1915. 10. CP, W.G. MacKendrick to Cody, Nov. 29, 1915. MacKendrick, an engineer, later had a distinguished

Notes 1325 career in the British engineering service, building roads for the army in France. He ended the war as a lieutenant-colonel. See clipping in Cody Diary, Jan. 1 and 2, 1918. 11. CP, O. Fortin to Cody. Feb. 19, 1916. 12. CP, Sir Thomas White to Cody, Jan. 3 and 29, 1917. 13. "A.P.R." in Toronto Star, May 25, 1918. Many of the Protestant clergy supported the Union government. In St. Mary's, where I lived as a small boy, the Ministerial Association appeared in a body on the platform at a Union government rally. CHAPTER 13 The Ministry of Education, 1918-1919 1. CP, Sir William Hearst to Cody, May 1, 1918. 2. World, May 24, 1918. 3. Telegram, May 31,1918. 4. Toronto Star, May 27, 1918; similar report in Telegram, May 27, 1918. 5. News, May 25, 1918 (the appointment of H.A.L. Fisher in Lloyd George's coalition government had been widely acclaimed in Great Britain); Globe, May 30, 1918; Mail and Empire, May 30, 1918; Telegram, May 25, 1918; Toronto Star, May 25, 1918. 6. CP, Edmund Walker to Cody, May 24, 1918, pasted in Cody Diary. Walker recalled that in a recent interview with the premier, before Walker knew of Cody's appointment as minister, he had discussed the propriety of the minister of education being a member of the university board. Walker concluded, "I stand by my view that, the University being a state institution, much good would come from such a connection"; CP, Matheson to Cody, June 6, 1918; A.M. Donovan to Cody, June 21, 1918. 7. Quoted in the Toronto Star, May 29, 1918; CP, Alfred D. Morine to Cody, June 1, 1918. 8. See Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson, Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977), 30-1. The Conservatives had suffered a smashing defeat at the hands of the Liberals in South West Toronto.

9. CP, Cody Diary, Special Supplement on European trip, Sept. 1918; Toronto News, Sept. 4, 1918; UTA, Falconer Papers. 10. Later in the diary, Sept. 23, 1918, Cody added the comment of Sir Andrew McPhail, the great Canadian surgeon and man of letters: "In Canada he [Beaverbrook] beat the crooks at their own game in England he beat the politicians at their own game; and now he is beating the social set at their own game. He is a wonder." 11. UTA, Office of the President (Cody), Francis I Nind to Cody, Mar. 8, 1934. 12. H.A. Bruce, Varied Operations (Toronto, 1958), 102-3. 13. Globe, Nov. 7, 1918. 14. For statements of policy, see "Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1918" (hereafter Education Report 1918), Ontario Sessional Papers, vol. 21, 1919, 6, 18, 19; Globe, Apr. 9, 1919. Times, Apt. 12, 1919; See also Cody, "Education and Religion," address over CBC, Sept. 21, 1942. 15. Education Report 1918, 6. Cody may not have written the 1918 report, except for the first part, but it accurately reflects his ideas. See Cody Diary, Mar. 15, 1919: "At home all day — with cold. Wrote Introduction to Minister's Report." 16. See J. Donald Wilson, Robert M. Stamp, and Louis Philippe Audet, Canadian Education History (Scarborough, Ont., 1970) 308-10; Oliver, Ferguson, 234. 17. Toronto Star, May 25, 1918. 18. Globe, Apr. 9, 1919; See also Education Report 1918, 12, par. 12; Education Report 1918, 6. 19. In 1918 Cody gave some encouragement to the League of Empire, an organization anxious to encourage the knowledge of British traditions in the schools. 20. Barbara M.W Wilson, Ontario and the First World War (Toronto, 1977), ci-civ, 162-5; CP, E.W. Hagarty to Cody, June 8, 1918; Cody to Hagarty, June 24, 27, 1918. 21. Education Report 1918, 6. 22. CP, Cody to W.F. Osborne, Nov. 3,

3261 Notes

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29. 30.

31.

32. 33. 34. 35.

1919. Cody wrote to accept Osborne's invitation to join the National Council on Education. Synopsis of Regulations on Religious Instruction in the Public and High Schools, 1915. CP, A.H.U. Colquhoun to Cody, Sept. 23, 1915, enclosing a $200 cheque for editing the Golden Rule series "for the very valuable services rendered by you"; Seath to Cody, Aug. 21,1915. Rupert C. Lodge, Philosophy of Education (New York. Harcourt Brace & Co. 1937)5. Mail and Empire, July 6, 1918; Globe, Apr. 9, 1919. Mail and Empire, July 6, 1918. Toronto Star, May 28, 1918; Education Report, 1918, 6, 9 ("Technical and industrial education is a necessity if a country is to hold its own in world competition"). In February 1919, Cody made two major appointments to his technical staff. Globe, Feb. 14, 1919. See also Globe, Dec. 14, 1918, for Cody's plans to increase the number of technical schools in the province. Education Report 1918, 10-11. C.B. Sissons, Church and State in Canadian Education (Toronto, 1959) 83ff.;G.M. Weir, The Separate School Question in Canada (Toronto, 1934), 157-60. See Appeal Cases, 1917,75; Times Law Reports, 1916, 37, cited in Weir, Separate School Question, 159. Sissons, Church and State, 88, cites Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1917, 71. The school board claimed that Regulation 17 was in violation of Section 93 of the BNA Act, guaranteeing the rights in regard to denominational schools "which any class of persons have by Law in the Province at the Union." The Privy Council ruled that "class of persons" had a religious but not a linguistic connotation. CP, Hearst to Cody, Apr. 29, 1919. Mail and Empire, Apr. 12, 1928. CP, W.P.M. Kennedy to Cody, Mar. 17, 1922. CP, Educational Papers, Suggestions and Criticisms; also Cody's notes on various issues.

36. CP, Educational Papers, Adelaide H. Clayton, Listowel, to Cody, May 12, 1919. 37. Globe, Apr. 9, 1919; Times, Apr. 12, 1919. 38. Statutes of Ontario, 1919, 9 Geo. V. Cap. 77. 39. The act passed its third reading on Apr. 15, 1919. See Cody Diary, Apr. 15, 1919; William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 79. 40. Statutes of Ontario, 1919, chap. 73. 41. CP, Bruce Taylor, Principal of Queens to Cody, Jan. 23, 1919; A.M. Dymond, Law Clerks' Office, Legislative Assembly, to Cody, Dec. 12, 1918; Dorrie L. Hillyer to Cody, Jan. 17, 1919. 42. UTA, Falconer Papers, Falconer to Cody, Mar. 14, 1919; Cody to Falconer, Mar. 18, 1919; Falconer to Cody, July 18, 1919. 43. Peter Oliver, "Sir William Hearst and the Collapse of the Ontario Conservative Party," CHR, Mar. 1972, 21-50. 44. UTA, clippings (73-0026-63), unmarked paper, probably a Toronto paper, in early November 1919. 45. CP, Cody to John B. Robinson, Nov. 6, 1919. Also Cody to Principal Bryson of Cobalt, and to Miss R. Macdonald, both Nov. 6, 1919. 46. Telegram, Nov. 14, 1919. It was an announcement that in future, High School students would be able to qualify at the same examinations for entrance to both Normal Schools or the Faculty of Education and the Universities. CHAPTER 14 Back to Normal 1. St. Paul's Church, (booklet) 14; Toronto Star, Jan. 30, 1923. 2. The text was the inspiration for Holman Hunt's famous picture. 3. CP, E. Alford to Cody, Nov. 28, 1921. 4. CP, R.S. Williams to Cody, Jan. 6, 1923 also Williams to J.W. Baillie (forwarded to Cody), Nov. 2, 1922. 5. CP, Healey Willan to Cody, Oct. 17, 1921.

Notes/327 6. F. Cody Diary, Dec. 4, 1921. 7. CP, Bishop C.P. Anderson to Cody, Feb. 1, 1922. 8. CP, Judge Jackson to Cody, Jan. 11, 1920. 9. CP, William Penfield to Cody, Jan. 10, 1922. 10. CP, Archbishop S.P. Matheson to Cody, June 2, 1922. 11. Globe, Mar. 6, 1920: "The rank and file of the Conservative party regarded him as a source of strength during the coming season. In the allotment of seats he was placed next to the Acting Leader, Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, and was looked upon as 'second mate' of the party." See also Mail and Empire, Mar. 6, 1920. 12. This section is based on Cody's file on the royal commission of 1920-21 in the UTA, B 57 B72-015 (two boxes). The royal commission was appointed on October 27, 1920. 13. McMaster and the Roman Catholic colleges had not yet rated government assistance, an arrangement which appeared to be mutually acceptable. 14. Report of the Royal Commission on University Finances (Toronto, 1921), 3. 15. Ibid., 9. 16. Wallace, History of the University of Toronto, 196-7. 17. Toronto Star, Apr. 16, 1921. 18. Telegram and Globe, Apr. 14, 1921; Toronto Star, Apr. 15; Mail and Empire, Apr. 18, 1921. 19. CP, W.T. Hallam to Cody, Apr. 15, 1921. 20. CP, letter from Melbourne Age, reprinted in Telegram and Globe, Apr. 20, 1921; wire from Meredith Atkinson to Cody, Apr. 21, 1921; Alex Mullen to Cody, Apr. 20, 1921. 21. CP, Bishop G.N. Luxton to Mrs. Barbara Cody, Apr. 7, 1953. 22. CP, Cody Diary, Apr. 20, 1921, memorandum for the Australian Associated Press. 23. CP, Cody Diary, May 8, 1921; see also William C. White, Canon Cody of St. Paul's Church (Toronto, 1953), 89. 24. CP, W.H. Vance to Cody, Aug. 4, 1921; Ellen Knox to Cody, May 2, 1921.

25. White, Canon Cody, 89-90. 26. CP, Bishop E.A. Knox to Cody, July 10, 1921. Knox reported that Ellen was staying with him. She was bright and cheerful, but he saw signs of nerve strain. "Pray do what you can to preserve her from overwork." 27. CP, S.H. Blake to Cody, Oct. 28, 1904.

CHAPTER 15 Two Journeys, 1922-1923 1. This chapter is based mainly on the diaries of Cody and Florence Cody for 1922-23. 2. CP, Archbishop S.P. Matheson to Cody, May 18, 1922. 3. CP, Howard Mowll to Cody, June 26, 1922; London Times, June 24, 1922, reprinted in Mail and Empire, July 14, 1922. 4. CP, Bishop E.A. Knox to Cody, July 14, 1922. 5. Wilson, a flamboyant and eloquent advocate of Anglo-Irish union, had just been elected to the House of Commons. He was much hated by Irish nationalists. 6. Prominent members of Laurier's early cabinets. J.I Tarte was dismissed in 1902 and Clifford Sifton resigned in 1905. 7. London Times, interview, June 24, 1922 (published in Mail and Empire, July 14, 1922); Telegram, July 26, 1922. 8. The play was basically an exposition of the doctrine of original sin (i.e., the idea that the misfortunes of the people in the play were the result of their own characters). One of them explained, quoting Shakespeare, "our fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." While Cody would have accepted the message, he was probably bored by the play's rather tiresome dialogue. 9. CP, Cody Diary, July 5, 1922. 10. F. Cody Diary, July 3 and 4, 1923; Cody Diary, July 3 and 4, 1923. 11. Quoted in Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson, Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977), 274. 12. Alexander Fraser was author of The Last Laird of 'MacNab (1899), The 48th Highlanders of Toronto (1900),

328/Notes and The History of Ontario, 2 vols. (1907). CHAPTER 16 Cody at Geneva, 1924-1926 1. P. A. Rickard to author, Feb. 17, 1981. 2. Luke 7:27, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee." 3. The author took notes on these two sermons which are at the end of the 1926 diary. There is also an entry for Dec. 19, 1926, "Church at St. Paul's. Dr. Cody very good." 4. CP, Cody Diary, Feb. 8, 1925; F. Cody Diary, Feb. 17, 1924. 5. Published in Bishop White's typescript brochure, "Seventy Sermons." 6. F.N. Condee, one of Cody's admirers from St. Catharines, approved of the sermon, believing it explained away many of the difficulties in regard to Genesis 1 and 2. He wrote, "So many children are taught to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, that, when they grow older ... they have doubts with regard not only to that but many other portions of the Bible as well." Cody Diary, Feb. 18, 1924. 7. His text was Deut. 26:18, "And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people ... and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments." 8. Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson, Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977), 240. 9. UTA, Falconer Papers, Falconer to Cody, Jan. 15, 1925; CP, Cody Diary, Jan. 22 and 24, 1925; UTA, minutes of the board, June 10, 1926; CP, Cody Diary, June 22, 1926. 10. CP, T.A. Russell to Cody, July 16, 1926, enclosing Russell to Ferguson, July 16, 1926. 11. Oliver, Ferguson, 239-49. 12. See memorial volume by Miss Knox's relatives and associates, Mary Ellen Knox (Toronto: Havergal College, 1925). 13. Newspaper clipping pasted into Cody Diary, quoting Miss Knox at Government House. CP, Cody Diary, Jan. 1924.

14. CP, David C. McCready to Cody, Mar. 8, 1926. 15. New Outlook, Mar. 31,1926. 16. CP, J.W. Hamilton to Cody, Apr. 2 and 5, 1926; W.P.M. Kennedy to Cody, Apr. 2, 1926. 17. See Joseph Schull, Ontario Since 1867 (Toronto, 1978), 220-1. By the Ontario Temperance Act, all beer and liquor shops were to be closed for the duration of the war. No liquor could be kept in hotels, boarding houses, etc. Liquor could be sold only for "medicinal, mechanical, scientific and sacramental purposes." 18. Toronto Telegram and Toronto Star Weekly, Nov. 20, 1926. CHAPTER 17 Maurice 1. Interview with Senator David Walker, Dec. 4, 1984. 2. CP, B.F. Clarke to Florence Cody, Sept. 5, 1927. 3. Accounts of the accident, including interviews with Roberts and R.T. Lyons, appeared in the Telegram and the Toronto Star, July 15-16, 1927. 4. CP, Arthur Woodhouse to Cody, Aug. 17, 1927. 5. Toronto Star, July 18, 1927. 6. CP, T.A. Reed to Barbara Cody, Mar. 23, 1953. 7. CP, Cody to W.T. Hallam, Aug. 10, 1927. 8. See CP, R.T. Lyons to Cody, Sept. 24, 1927, reporting that Cody's gift had been given to the only two men still employed by the company who had taken part in the search. 9. CP, telegram from Mackenzie King to Cody, July 16, 1927; Memorandum from Senator Walker, Dec. 1984. CHAPTER 18 Cody's Recovery, 1927-1929 1. CP, Arthur J. Gidd to Cody, Jan. 16, 1928; CP, George Wrong to Cody, Feb. 23, 1928. 2. The sermon texts and topics are from the St. Paul's Church bulletins, 1928, and the Cody Diary, 1928. 3. A.L. Fleming, Archibald of the Arctic

Notes 1329 (New York, 1956), 322. 4. CP, Bishop E.A. Knox to Cody, Mar. 5, 1928. Knox needn't have worried. The prayer book was rejected by the British House of Commons. 5. CP, Toronto Star, Sept. 24 and 26, 1927. 6. Mail and Empire, May 30,1928; also undated newspaper clipping in Cody Papers, reporting McGill speech, May 30, 1928. 7. Mail and Empire, Ku%. 29, 1928. 8. Phone interviews with Senator David Walker, Nov. 1, Dec. 4, 1984; memorandum by Senator Walker, Dec. 1984. Walker graduated in Arts in 1928 and was called to the Bar in 1931. 9. CP, R.B. McElheran to Cody, Mar. 5, 1929. 10. CP, Cody to Florence, May 14, 1929; card from Jerusalem labelled "Pool of Bethesda"; Telegram, Aug. 12, 1929. 11. CP, Cody to Florence May 27, 1929. 12. Globe and Toronto Star, Oct. 29, 1929. 13. Mail and Empire, Telegram, Toronto Star, and Globe, Oct. 30, 1929. 14. Mail and Empire and Telegram, Oct. 30, 1929. 15. Mail and Empire, Globe, and Toronto Star, Oct. 30, 1929. 16. Saturday Night, Nov. 9, 1929. 17. CP, B. St. George to Cody, Dec. 2, 1929. 18. Globe, Dec. 10, 11, 12, and 14, 1929. CHAPTER 19 Prelude to University Presidency, 19301932 1. Toronto Mail and Empire, Sept. 21, 1931. Cody's vigorous defence of university leaders and students at the General Synod was prompted by the charge of atheism against professors and students. 2. CP, Bishop PS. Abraham to Barbara Cody, Apr. 9, 1953. 3. CP, church correspondence, Matheson to Cody, Feb. 12, 1931. 4. CP, Bishop G.E. Lloyd to Cody, Mar. 12, 1931; Cody to Lloyd, Mar. 25, 1931.

5. James G. Greenlee, Sir Robert Falconer (Toronto, 1988), 290. 6. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Feb. 11, 1931. 7. Quoted in Greenlee, Sir Robert Falconer, 292-3. 8. Quoted in Claude Bissell, The Young Vincent Massey, (Toronto, 1981), 192-3. 9. Telegram, Apr. 30, 1931. 10. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, June 25, 1931. 11. Globe, Oct. 10, 1931. Cody was a dinner guest at the premiers home. 12. CP, Matheson to Cody, Oct. 12, 1931; D. Walker and A. Woodhouse to Cody, Oct. 12, 1931; Hon. William Finlayson to Cody, Oct. 15, 1931; Mail and Empire, Mar. 18, 1932. CHAPTER 20 Cody's First Year as President, 19321933 1. Claude Bissell, Halfway up Parnassus (Toronto, 1974), 20-1. 2. OP, Dr. W.R. Tutt to Cody, Dec. 15, 1932; Cody to Tutt, Dec. 20, 1932. 3. OP, Dean C.H. Mitchell to Cody, Oct. 15, 1932. The writer of the anonymous letter charged that the School of Practical Science accepted the money of all who qualified for entry to the first year and then failed a proportion decided on beforehand, regardless of marks. 4. OP, Cody to Bishop E.A. Knox, Sept. 23, 1932. 5. CP, Cody Diary, Sept. 27, 1932. 6. Globe, Oct. 31, 1932; Telegram, Oct. 30 and 31, 1932. 7. OP, Cody to Des Barres, Oct. 24, 1932; Cody to Howard Ferguson, May 24, 1933; Cody to Mrs. J.K. Sutherland (Lily), Nov. 29, 1932. 8. President's Report, 1932-33, 13 (Part 10). 9. Ibid., 13. 10. President's Report, 1933-34, 18 (point 1); Report of the Royal Commission on the University of Toronto (Toronto, 1906), 42. 11. President's Report, 1932-33, 12. 12. Varsity, Oct. 19, 1932; OP, Cody to three students, Oct. 19, 1932; Cody

330 /Notes to F.A. Moure", Nov. 7, 1932. 13. OP, Cody to J.A.C. Evans, Dec. 5, 1932. 14. CP, W.P.M. Kennedy to Cody, Sept. 9, 1932. 15. OP, Cody to EG. Venables, Dec. 20, 1932. 16. OP, Cody to Dr. G.E. Richards, Aug. 26, 1933. 17. OP, Cody to Sir Arthur Eddington, Sept. 25, 1933. 18. OP, copy of the convocation prayer, May 26, 1933. Cody's file contains a typed copy of the prayer with additions in Cody's writing and also a printed copy of the final version. 19. OP, W.L. Grant to Cody, Mar. 8, 1933; Cody to Grant, Mar. 9, 1933. 20. OP, Cody to Sir Henry Drayton, Mar. 15, 1933. Drayton was minister of finance in the Meighen administration of 1920-21. 21. OP, George Henry to Cody, July 22, 1932; Cody to Henry, July 29, 1932; Cody to G.H. Ferguson, Apr. 28, 1933. 22. OP, Cody to George Drew, Dec. 9, 1932. 23. OP, Cody to Dr. Edna M. Guest, Sept. 2, 1932; Cody to W. Walters, Feb. 13, 1933. 24. OP, Cody to T.C. Des Barres, Oct. 24, 1932. 25. OP, Cody to Maurice Hutton, Sept. 30, 1932; Cody to T.C. Des Barres, Oct. 24, 1932. CHAPTER 21 The Cody System during the Depression, 1933-1935 1. OP, Cody to W. Harvey Grant, June 1, 1935. 2. Presumably trouble with her mother, although Mrs. Blackstock accepted the decision. CP, Barbara Blackstock to Cody, July 16, 1911. 3. CP, Barbara Blackstock to Rolph of Rolph Clarke Stone Ltd., Oct. 13, 1927; Rolph to Barbara Blackstock, Oct. 17; Rolph to Cody, Oct. 17, 1927. 4. CP, Cody Diary, Apr. 2, 1934. 5. CP, Lily Sutherland to Barbara, May 21, 1956. 6. OP, Cody to Howard Ferguson, Mar. 13, 1933.

7. OP, F.A. Moure" to Cody, Nov. 15, 1932; Cody to Moure, Dec. 20, 1932. 8. OP, Cody to Howard Ferguson, Mar. 13, 1933; Cody to W.H. Vance, Jan. 23, 1935; the university grant in 1935 was the same as in 1934 but this time without any hope of a supplementary grant. In 1934 the supplementary grant had been $200,000. OP, Cody to Chancellor E.W. Wallace, Apr. 16, 1935. 9. OP, Cody to Sherwood Fox, Apr. 23, 1935. 10. OP, Cody to Archbishop Howard Mowll, Jan. 28, 1935. 11. OP, E.J. Urwick to Cody, 1932. 12. President's Report, 1934-35, 1. 13. OP, A.B. Fennell to Cody, Dec. 12, 1933. 14. President's Report, 1932-33, 10. 15. Ibid., 5. 16. OP, Chancellor E.W. Wallace to Cody, Jan. 30, 1936, enclosing Wallace to A.B. Fennell, Jan. 30, 1936; Cody to Wallace, Feb. 4, 1936. 17. OP, Cody to H.P. Whidden, Mar. 15, 1935; Whidden to Cody, Mar. 19, 1935. 18. OP, R.J. Bonner to Cody, Jan. 24, 1935; Innis to Cody, Jan. 25, 1935. 19. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, Mar. 4, 1935. 20. OP, Ian Many to Cody, Apr. 23, 1934. 21. OP, Cody to A.H. Young, Oct. 29, 1934. 22. OP, Cody to Sir Joseph Flavelle, May 1, 1934. 23. OP, Lilian Carruthers to Sir William Mulock, Oct. 10,1935. 24. OP, Cody to W.G. Watson, Oct. 26, 1934. 25. Varsity, Oct. 16, 1934. 26. OP, E.A. Macdonald to Cody, Nov. 19,1934. 27. OP, F.J.A. Davidson to Cody, Oct. 1, 1935. 28. OP, Cody to Davidson, Oct. 4, 1935. 29. OP, H. Gordon Skilling to Cody, Oct. 3, 1933 with Cody's comments at the bottom of the page; excerpt from minutes of Caput, Oct. 19, 1933. 30. OP, excerpt from minutes of the

Notes 1331 Caput, Dec. 16, 1933. 31. Ibid., Oct.-Nov. 1934. 32. OP, Beverley Nichols, Cry Havoc (Toronto, 1933). 33. Mail and Empire, Apt. 26, 1935; Globe, May 3, 6, and 9, 1935; Toronto Star, Apr. 27, May 2, 1935; Telegram, Apr. 30, 1935. 34. Globe and Toronto Star, May 3, 1935; Mail and Empire, May 6 and 9, 1935. 35. A number of these anonymous letters are filed in Cody's university correspondence for 1935. OP, A680006-014 (05). 36. Telegram, Apr. 30, 1935. A reference to the distribution of the fly sheet on the University campus. The fly sheet is in the President's 1935 correspondence. 37. OP, H.C. MacKendrick to Cody, May 11, 1935; W.B. Kerr to Cody, July 24, 1935. 38. OP, C.L. Coburn to Cody, Nov. 1 [1934]; C. deMastral to Cody, Jan. 16, 1935. 39. OP, Cody to W.B. Kerr, Nov. 15, 1933. 40. OP, Cody to M.E. Stern, Feb. 5, 1935. 41. OP, Cody to K.C. Woodsworth, Mar. 19 and 23, 1935. 42. OP, Harriet Christie, secretary of Committee on the Armistice Day Service, to Cody, Nov. 1, 1935; Cody to Harriet Christie, Nov. 4, 1935. 43. Varsity, Nov. 4, 1935. 44. Globe, Dec. 20, 1933. 45. OP, Cody to W.L. Grant, Oct. 17, 1933. 46. Montreal Gazette, Dec. 30, 1933; Globe, Dec. 28, 1933; The Chesley Enterprise, Dec. 28, 1933 made the same point; Globe, Jan. 17, 1934. 47. OP, J. Ferguson to Cody, Oct. 19, 1934; W.M. Ponton to Cody, Oct. 20, 23, 25, 1934. 48. OP, Cody to W.M. Ponton, Oct. 23, 1934. 49. The Queens University meeting is described in D.G. Creighton's Harold Adams Innis (1957), 91-3; D.C. Masters Diary, May 28, 1935: "We visit Ft. Henry in the morning. In afternoon hot discussion on federalism. Underbill the aggressor."

50. OP, A.S.P. Woodhouse to Cody, July 11,1935. 51. OP, EJ. Urwick to Cody, Aug. 16, 1934. 52. OP, N.A.M. Mackenzie to Cody, May 7, 1934; Cody to Mackenzie, May 15, 1934. Sir Alfred Zimmern and Sir Arthur Salter were authorities on international affairs. In this period Zimmern published The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918-1935 (New York, 1936); Salter, Recovery and the Second Effort (New York, 1932); and Brierly, The Law of Nations (New York, 1928). 53. OP, C.B. Sissons to Cody, Apr. 25, 1935; E.W. Wallace to Cody, Apr. 25, 1935; Cody to Sissons, Apr. 25, 1935. 54. OP, M.E. Hall to Cody, Nov. 23, 1933; Cody to Hall, Nov. 29, 1933. 55. OP, E.F. Burton to Cody, Apr. 11, 1935. 56. UTA, Robin Harris interview with Sydney Hermant, text of tape. 57. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, June 5, Aug. 25, 1935; Apr. 19 and 23, June 2, 1937. 58. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, June 1937. 59. CP, pamphlet, "Lengthen Thy Cords and Strengthen Thy Stakes," Mar. 6, 1934. CHAPTER 22 The Later Depression, 1936-1939 1. OP, P.E. Mackenzie to Cody, Apr. 15, 1937; W.A.R. Kerr, to Cody, Nov. 24, 1936; Cody to Kerr, Nov. 30, 1936; Cody to Sherwood Fox, Nov. 25, 1936. 2. Cody to General A.G.L. McNaughton, Nov. 8, Dec. 7, 1937. 3. OP, Cody to W.A.R. Kerr, Nov. 24, 1936. 4. OP, Hon. Francis T. Murphy to Cody, Mar. 1937; Cody to Murphy, Mar. 12, 1937. 5. OP, Cody to WAR. Kerr, Nov. 24, 1936. 6. OP, J. Magladery, deputy minister of immigration and colonization, to Cody, July 10, 1936. 7. OP, Cody to Sherwood Fox, Nov. 25, 1936. 8. OP, Cody to Sir Joseph Flavelle,

332/Notes

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

Apr. 9, 1937; Flavelle to Cody, Apr. 10, 1937. OP, Cody to K.P.R. Neville, Feb. 26, 1936. OP, E.J. Urwick to Cody, May 21, 1936. CP, W.S.Wallace to Cody, June 16, 1937; J.E. Shaw to Cody, Sept. 6, 1937; F.A. Moure to Cody, July 14, 1937. CP, Vancouver Alumnus to Cody May 20, 1937. CP, J.A. Grogan to Cody, Dec. 17, 1937; Vancouver Alumnus to Cody, May 20, 1937. OP, Cody to L.S. Klinck, Feb. 15, 1937; Cody to Cassidy, Apr. 11, 1938. OP, G.S. Brett to Cody, Feb. 24, 1937, enclosing F.H. Anderson to Brett, Feb. 12, 1937. OP, G.C. Blackstock to Cody, Aug. 25, 1937; Cody to Blackstock, Sept. 4, 1937. Michael Bliss, Banting a Biography (1984, 1985), 236, 252. OP, Cody to Flexner, Feb. 26, 1937. Flexner replied with a sympathetic but non-committal letter. OP, Cody to H.D. Daken, Feb. 26, 1937; Daken to Cody, Mar. 1, 1937. OP, Cody to A.L. Joliffe, June 26, 1937. OP, A.B. Fennell to Cody, May 11, 1933. Sigmund Samuel to Cody, June 11, 1938; CP, Rabbi Maurice N. Eisendrath to Cody, June 14, 1938; Oscar Cohen, Executive Secretary Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Division, Nov. 1938. OP, Cody to Vincent Bladen, Jan. 29, 1936; Mrs. Harriet Talcott to Cody, Mar. 3, Apr. 27, 1936; Cody to Mrs. Talcott, May 13, 1936; Cody to T. A. Russell, Aug. 10, 1936; T. A. Russell to Miss Patterson, June 28, 1937; Miss Patterson to Russell, June 29, 1937. Varsity, Mar. 20, 1936. Ibid., Oct. 26 and 27, 1936. OP, E.A. Macdonald to Cody, Nov. 20, 1936, Mar. 25, 1937. OP, MacMillan to Cody, May 25, 1937, enclosing MacMillan to Willan,May21, 1937.

28. OP, MacMillan to Cody, June 1 and Mar. 4, 1937; Cody to MacMillan, Mar. 8, 1937. 29. OP, Marjorie Low to Cody, June 22, 1937. 30. CP, Cody Diary, June 29, 1937. 31. OP, Cody to Marjorie Low, June 29, 1937. 32. F.R.C. Clarke, Healey Willan: Life and Music (Toronto, 1983), 34. 33. OP, A.E. Morgan to Cody, Jan. 27, 1937. 34. OP, Cody to A.E. Morgan, Jan. 30, 1937; White to Morgan, Feb. 1, 1937. 35. OP, Cody to Cordell Hull, Mar. 13, 1937; Hull to Cody, Mar. 18, 1937; Tweedsmuir to Cody, Apr. 3, 1937; Cody to Hull, Apr. 5, 1937; Hull to Cody, Apr. 8, 1937. 36. OP, R.H. Elmhirst to Cody, Oct. 15, 1937; Mackenzie King to Cody, Oct. 23, 1937. 37. OP, Cody to Sir S. Redfern, Oct. 6, 1937. 38. Globe and Mail, Oct. 23, 1937. 39. Ibid., Aug. 17, 1936. Britain in common with other League of Nations powers had imposed sanctions on account of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. 40. The broadcast was published in the Gait Daily Reporter, Oct. 19, 1937. 41. CP, George Glazebrook to Cody, Aug. 31, Oct. 6, 1937. 42. OP, Cody to R. McLeish, Nov. 17, 1937. 43. OP, Cody to R.C. Wallace, Nov. 15, 1937; Wallace to Cody, Nov. 16, 1937. 44. OP, Cody to S.P. Matheson, Nov. 29, 1937. 45. OP, Cody to J.C. Robertson, Dec. 20, 1937. 46. OP, Cody to Matheson, Nov. 29, 1937. 47. OP, V. Massey to Cody, Mar. 13, 1936; Cody to Massey, Mar. 23, 1936. 48. Varsity, Jan. 12, 1937. 49. OP, Cody to Eric Haldenby, Jan. 14, 1937; Cody Diary, Jan. 15, 1937. 50. OP, Cody to Vincent Massey, Jan. 27, 1937. 51. OP, Massey to Cody, Mar. 1, 1937. 52. CP, message from the president of the U of T to the Engineering

Notes 1333 Society in its fiftieth year. 53. OP, Gabriel R. Mason to Cody, Mar. 30, 1936. Written notation in the margin. 54. OP, Bernard J. Stern to A.B. Fennell, May 19, 1936; Committee on Academic Freedon, ACLU, to Fennell, May 19, 1936. 55. OP, A. Clarke Mayers, Moose Jaw, to Cody, June 27, 1936. 56. CP, telegram, Franz Boss to Cody, Sept. 3, 1937, and reply. 57. OP, Cody to F.H. Stewart, Apr. 2, 1937. 58. Globe and Mail, Mar. 21, 1938. The speech was also recorded in the Varsity, Mar. 21, the St. Thomas Times-Journal, Mar. 22, and the Brantford Expositor, Mar. 23, 1938. 59. Winnipeg Free Press, Apr. 4, 1938. 60. CP, handwritten copy of Cody to editors of weekly newspapers, Sept. 1938. 61. CP, Albert Matthews to Cody, Nov. 12, 1938. CHAPTER 23 The Coming of War Again, 1939-1941 1. Globe and. Mail, June 9, 1939. 2. Globe and Mail, Sept. 8, 1939; CP, speeches, typescript 1918-47 (MU 7008). 3. Globe and Mail, June 7,1941. 4. President's Report, 1940-41, 19-20. 5. Ibid., 1939-40. While the report is dated November 28, 1940, Cody says on 1 that it covers the academic year ending June 10, 1940. 6. CP, A.R. Gordon to Cody, Oct. 5, 1940. See also C.P. Stacey, Arms, Men and Governments, The War Policies of Canada, 1939-1945 (Ottawa, 1970), 323, 512-13, 527. 7. CP, R.L. Spencer to Cody, Apr. 28, 1941. 8. CP, Cody Diary, June 10, 1940. 9. CP, J.B. Bickersteth to Cody, July 7, 1940. 10. CP, Bickersteth to Cody, Sept. 17, 1940. 11. CP, Viscount Hamar Greenwood to Cody, Sept. 17, 1940. 12. CP, Kendall P. Castle to Cody, June 3, 1940. 13. Philip Gibbs, The Amazing Summer (Toronto, 1941), 121.

14. R.H.S. Grossman, The Charm of Politics (London, 1958), 78-80. 15. CP, J.B. Bickersteth to Cody, July 7, 1940. 16. CP, the clipping was attached to the Cody Diary for 1940. 17. Caroline and Eddie Bell, Thank You Twice, or How We Like America (1941). 18. CP, cable from Mrs. Michener to Cody, Aug. 29, 1941. 19. OP, C.K. Allen to Cody, Oct. 24, 1941. 20. Globe and Mail, July 26, 1941. 21. OP, Cody to C.K. Allen, Sept. 5, 1941. 22. OP, Cody to Mrs. Michener, Mar. 21, 1942. 23. OP, Cody to C.K. Allen, Sept. 5, 1941. 24. Grossman, The Charm of Politics, 79. 25. CP, draft of letter from Cody to heads of Canadian universities, June 1941. 26. Evening Telegram, June 1, 1939. 27. CP, newspaper clipping (Dec. 5, 1940) pasted in Cody Diary, Dec. 3-5, 1940. 28. CP, Cody Diary, Dec. 5, 1940. 29. CP, Cody Diary, June 24, 1941. 30. Ibid., Feb. 11-15, Mar. 19, 1940. 31. CP, David Walker to Cody, Dec. 8, 1939. 32. CP, Cody to Miss A.W. Patterson, Nov. 30, 1940. 33. Mrs. Leslie Storey (Barbara McClennan) memorandum and telephone interview Jan. 1990. 34. CP, Mrs. R.B. McElheran to Cody, June 30, 1939. 35. CP, D. N. Knight to Cody, Jan. 24, 1940. 36. Globe and Mail, Oct. 5, 1944. 37. CP, Cody Diary, Feb. 24-Mar. 4, 1941; CP, speeches and typescripts, 1918-47; address at funeral service of EG. Banting, Mar. 4, 1941; Michael Bliss, Banting: A Biography (Toronto, 1985), 298-308. 38. President's Report, Nov. 27, 1941, 7-8. CHAPTER 24 The Frank H. Underbill Case 1. R.B.Y. Scott and Gregory Vlastos, eds., Towards the Christian

3341 Notes

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22.

Revolution (Chicago, New York, 1936). OP, Underbill file, Peter Sandiford to Cody, Jan. 14, 1941. OP, Underhill file, Carleton Stanley to Cody, Feb. 26, 1941. OP, Underhill file, W.P. Yendall to Cody, Oct. 1, 1940. OP, Underhill file, Cody to Clifford Siftonll.Jan. 13, 1941. OP, Underhill file, Balmer Neilly to Cody, May 8, 1939; Underhill to Cody, Apr. 19, 1939. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). President's Report, 1935, 24. OP, Cody to E.W. Wallace, Oct. 27, 1932; Wallace to Cody, Oct. 29, 1932. OP, EG. Venables to Cody, Dec. 16, 1932; Cody to Venables, Dec. 20, 1932. See also OP, Cody to Hon. Frank Carrol, Oct. 23, 1933. OP, Cody to D. Bruce Macdonald, chairman of the board, Nov. 24, 1933. OP, H.A. Bruce to Cody, Aug. 9, 1934; J. Ferguson to Cody, Oct. 19, 1934; W.N. Ponton to Cody, Oct. 20, 1934; Cody to Ponton, Oct. 23, 1934. OP, Underhill file, Underhill to Cody, Apr. 18, 1939. OP, Warren W. Turner to Cody, June 2, 1937; Walker to Cody, June 8, 1937. OP, Underhill file, Frank Underhill to Cody, Apr. 18, 1939. M. Bourquin, ed. Collective Security (Paris, 1936), 51-2, cited in R.A. MacKay and E.B. Rogers, Canada Looks Abroad (Toronto, 1938), 269. Mackay and Rogers, 269. R.D. Francis, Frank H. Underhill Intellectual Provocateur (Toronto, 1986). OP, Underhill file, Cody to Underhill, Apr. 14, [1939]; Telegram, R.A. MacKay to Cody, Apr. 17, 1939; Underhill file, Chester Martin to Cody, Apr. 19, 1939. OP, Underhill file, Underhill to Cody, Apr. 18, 1939. OP, Underhill file, Cody statement regarding Underhill [June 1939]. Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson: Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977), 438.

23. Quoted in ibid. 24. OP, Underhill file, S. Beatty and Harold A. Innis to Cody, Apr. 19, 1939. 25. OP, Underhill file, W.C. Kean, York Branch manager of the Sun Life Co., to Cody, Sept. 16, 1940. 26. OP, Underhill file, C.E. Silcox to Cody, Sept. 15, 1940, enclosing Silcox to the Globe and Mail, Sept. 15, 1940. 27. OP, Underhill file, Underhill to Cody, Sept. 5, 1940, enclosing his reconstruction of his Couchiching speech; C.P. Stacey, Arms, Men and Governments (Ottawa., 1970), 340. 28. Toronto Telegram, Aug. 24, 1940 29. OP, Underhill file, Cody to Underhill, telegram, Aug. 25, 1940; Underhill to Cody, Sept. 4, 1940, enclosing reconstruction of speech at Couchiching, Aug. 23, 1940. In addition to the clipping of the Telegram foi Aug. 24, 1940, the Underhill file contains an account of the speech in Cody's handwriting, labelled "Telegram fr. Orillia, Aug. 24, 1940." 30. OP Underhill file, Charles Bouckham to Cody, Sept. 16, 1940. 31. Toronto Star, Aug. 31, 1940. 32. Quoted in Roger Graham, Arthur Meighen, vol. 3 (Toronto, 1965), 123. 33. Sydney M. Hermant, "Henry John Cody," manuscript of lecture delivered to the University College Alumni Association, Nov. 9, 1982. Published by kind permission of Mr. Hermant. 34. OP, Underhill file, NJ. McLean to Cody, Sept. 14, 1940. 35. OP, Underhill file, C.E. Silcox to Cody, Sept. 15, 1940, enclosing Silcox to the Globe and Mail, Sept. 15, 1940. 36. OP, Underhill file, Malcolm Wallace to Cody, Sept. 15, 1940. 37. Quoted in the Orillia Packet, Oct. 3, 1940; OP, Underhill file, B.K. Sandwell to Cody, Sept. 16, 1940. 38. OP, Underhill file, Hamilton Cassels to D. Bruce Macdonald, Sept. 16, 1940. 39. UTA, Minutes of the board of governors, Sept. 16, 1940. 40. Saturday Night, Sept. 28, 1940.

Notes 1335 41. OP, Underhill file, Balmer Neilly to Cody, Dec. 6, 1940. 42. OP, Underhill file, Cody report marked confidential. The report is undated but internal evidence indicates the date as late in December 1940. 43. UTA, Minutes of the board of governors, Dec. 19, 1940. 44. OP, Underhill file, Chester Martin to Cody, Jan. 3, 194l;E.V. Henderson to Cody, Jan. 7, 1941. 45. OP, Underhill file, H.L. Keenleyside to Cody, telegram Jan. 8, 1941 (for Keenleyside's activities in Washington, see Stacey, Arms, Men and Governments, 328-30; Memoirs of Hugh L. Keenleyside, vol. 2: On the Bridge of Time [Toronto, 198], 10510); J.B. Brebner to H.A. Innis, Jan. 10, 1941, forwarded to Cody. 46. OP, Underhill file, propaganda leaflet from Toronto and District Young Communist League, Jan. 9, 1941, entitled "Stop the Attacks on Academic Freedom." 47. OP, Underhill file, Peter Sandiford to Cody, Jan. 14, 1941. See also in Underhill file, letters or telegrams to Cody in 1941 from E.A. Macdonald, Jan. 7; Hardolph Wasteneys, Jan. 8; Lesslie R. Thomson, Jan. 8; Christine E. Graham, Jan. 9; T. S. Ewart, Jan. 14; Carleton Stanley, Feb. 26. 48. OP, Underhill file, H.A. Innis to Cody, Jan. 8, 1941, enclosing typed copy of his speech at the meeting of Jan. 7, "Statement typed for the President's personal use." 49. OP, Underhill file, Cody, notes on the meeting of Jan. 7, 1941. 50. OP, Underhill file, H.L. Keenleyside to Cody, Jan. 8, 1941; Cody to Mackenzie King (in his capacity as secretary of state for external affairs), Jan. 10, 1941; Cody to Keenleyside, Jan. 13, 1941; Cody to Clifford Sifton II, Jan. 13,1941. 51. Underhill to Keenleyside, Jan. 6, 1941, quoted in R.D. Francis, Frank Underhill: Intellectual Provocateur (Toronto, 1986), 123-4; OP, Underhill file, Clifford Sifton II to Hepburn, Jan. 10, 1941, enclosed in Sifton to Cody, Jan. 20, 1941. 52. CP, H.A. Innis to Cody, June 11,

1941. For a discussion of Innis's views, see Donald Creighton, Harold Adams Innis, Portrait of a Scholar (1957), 109. 53. Memoir of Barbara (McClennan) Storey. 54. UTA, Minutes of the board of governors, June 26, 1941, 192.

CHAPTER 25 The War Continues, 1941-1944 1. A memorandum from the President's Committee, dated Sept. 9, 1941, and with comments written by Cody, spelled it out. 2. OP, Cody to WE. Gallic, Oct. 24, 1941; Cody to Carleton Stanley, Oct. 1, 1941. 3. CP, Cody Diary, Feb. 1, May 29, Sept. 18, 1943. 4. OP, A.B. Fennell to Cody, Jan. 14, 1944. 5. OP, Cody to F. Cyril James, Dec. 10, 1941. 6. OP, Conference of Presidents, Deans of Science and Engineering and Representatives of government departments, May 11 and 12, 1942; Cody Diary, May 11, 1942. 7. OP, Cody to Amy Kerr, Oct. 30, 1941; Cody to J.B. Bickersteth, Nov. 17, 1941, Jan. 21, 1942. 8. OP, E.A. Bott to Cody, Oct. 27, 1941. 9. OP, WE. Gallic to Cody, Dec. 16, 1941. 10. OP, Carleton Stanley to Cody, Sept. 27, 1941; Cody to Carleton Stanley, Oct. 1, 1941; OP, Stanley to Cody, Apr. 11, 1942. 11. OP, C J. Friedrich, Apr. 16, 1942; Cody to Friedrich, May 10, 1942. 12. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, Dec. 16, 1942. 13. OP, Cody to Bickersteth, Nov. 17, 1941. 14. Report of the President, Nov. 30, 1942, 1. 15. OP, H.A. Bruce to Cody, Nov. 4, 1941; Cody to Bruce, Nov. 6, 1941. 16. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Jan. 8, 1942. 17. OP, Lt.-Col. R.S.W Fordham to Cody, Feb. 5, 1942. 18. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, June 25, 1942.

336/Notes 19. Ibid., Sept. 24, 1942; Cody Diary, Sept. 24,1942. 20. Varsity, Nov. 17, 1942. 21. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Nov. 26, 1942. 22. CP, G.M. Wrong to Cody, June 2, 1943; Cody to Dr. F.A. Hardy, July 30, 1943. 23. CP, Cody Diary, July 3 and 25, 1943 including letter from "G.F.," Editor of Debrett. 24. CP, Cody Diary, Jan. 11, 1944. 25. OP, Cody to Bickersteth, Dec. 16, 1941. 26. CP, Cody Diary, Apr. 19, 1943, Aug. 4, 1942. 27. CP, Cody Diary, June 30-Aug. 8, 1942. 28. UTA, notebook, 1941, jokes pasted in. 29. CP, speeches printed 1914-49, Address to Lion's Club Convention delegates from the United States and Latin America. 30. C.A. Ashley, Reconstruction in Canada (Toronto, 1943). 31. L. Richter, ed., "Canadian Post-War Organization," special number of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University, 1943. 32. Saturday Night, Toronto, Feb. 27, 1943. 33. CP, Cody to the public, Aug. 24, 1944. 34. OP, Cody to J.L. Ilsley, Feb. 7, 1944. 35. CP, speeches, typescript, 1918-49, Cody, "The University of Toronto Expansion Fund," c. 1944. 36. UTA, B88-053, Box 19, The University of Toronto Post-War Expansion Programme. 37. UTA, The University of Toronto, Its Work and Needs (1943) (B88-053). 38. OP, Cody to J.L. Ilsley, February 7, 1944. 39. Ibid. 40. OP, Sidney Smith to Cody, Jan. 18, 1945. 41. OP, Cody to Leighton McCarthy, Feb. 22, 1944. 42. OP, Ilsley to Cody, Feb. 25, 1944. 43. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Oct. 11, 1945. 44. Ibid., Feb. 10, 1944, letters from F.H. Cosgrave to Cody; and from Walter Brown, Feb. 2, 1944.

45. OP, Cody to C.S. Walters, Oct. 1, 1943; Cody to Leighton McCarthy, Feb. 22, 1944. 46. OP, H.B. Fennell to university bursar, Dec. 15, 1943, enclosing report of the Special Committee, Dec. 7, 1943. 47. OP, E.F. Burton to Cody, Jan. 11, 1944, enclosing report of the Special Committee, Dec. 7, 1943; also suggestions for use of Research Industries Ltd. CHAPTER 26 Presidency and Chancellorship, 19441945 1. OP, Herbert Bruce to Cody, May 17, 1945; Cody to Bruce, May 18, 1945. 2. CP, Cody Diary, Oct. 28, 1937. 3. CP, Henry Borden to Cody, Apr. 2, 1945; Cody to Borden, Apr. 3, 1945. 4. OP, Malcolm Wallace to chairman, College Committee, board of governors, Feb. 5, 1942; memorandum on University College, June 1943. 5. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, Oct. 28, 1943. 6. CP, Arthur Woodhouse to Cody, Apr. 12, 1944. 7. CP, Sidney Smith to Cody, May 6, 1944; OP, E.A. Macdonald to Cody, May 19, 1944. 8. OP, H.A. Innis to Cody, May 6, 1944. 9. W.L. Morton, One University, A History of the University of Manitoba 1877-1952 (Toronto, 1957), 159. 10. Claude Bissell, The Imperial Canadian (Toronto, 1985), 177-8. 11. Cody to Massey, May 17, 1944, quoted in ibid., 179. 12. CP, Massey to Cody, June 26, 1944; A.B. Fennell to Cody, Aug. 19, 1944. 13. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Sept. 14,1944. 14. CP, L. Macaulay to Cody, Mar. 4, 1943; George Henry to Cody, Mar. 10, 1943. 15. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Sept. 28, 1944. 16. Ibid., special meeting, Oct. 5, 1944. 17. CP, Cody Diary, Oct. 5, 1944. 18. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, Oct. 12, 1944.

Notes 1337 19. George Drew to Massey, Oct. 18, 1944, quoted in Bissell, The Imperial Canadian, 180. 20. CP, H.A. Innis to Cody, Oct. 18, 1944; Cody to Innis, Oct. 20, 1944. 21. CP, Cody to Dr. T.S. Cullen, Oct. 16, 1944; Cody to Sir John Dill, Oct. 17, 1944; Cody to EP. Edwards, Oct. 17, 1944; Cody to G.P. Conant, Oct. 17, 1944. See also Cody to Baron Silvercruys, Belgian ambassador, Oct. 19, 1944. 22. CP, Grey Hamilton to Cody, Nov. 17, 1944, enclosing Grey Hamilton to A.L. Fleming, Nov. 16, 1944. 23. CP, Brock McElheran to Cody, Oct. 30, 1944. 24. Mrs. Leslie Storey (Barbara McClennan) memorandum and telephone interview, Jan. 1990. 25. CP, Cody to Principal H.R. Trumpour, Vancouver, Jan. 4, 1945; Cody to Thomas Marshall, Jan. 23, 1945. 26. CP, Arthur Woodhouse to Cody, Feb. 28, 1945. 27. Varsity, Feb. 28, 1945. Cody paraphrased the verse in Ecclesiastes 9:4. 28. Varsity, Feb. 28, 1945. 29. Globe and Mail, Mar. 9, 1945. 30. Varsity, Mar. 16, 1945. 31. CP, Gordon W. Howland to Cody, June 22, 1945; C.R. Young to Cody, June 26, 1945; R.D. Defries, June 30, 1945; C.E. Higginbottom to Cody, June 30, 1945. 32. CP, Cody to T.C. Des Barres, Jan. 4, 1945; Sidney Smith to Cody, Feb. 28, 1945; Smith to Cody, June 27, 1945. 33. CP, Smith to Cody, Sept. 27, 1945. 34. CP, Agnes MacGillivray to Cody, July 20, 1945; Mrs. H.M. Cartwright to Cody, Aug. 10, 1945. 35. CP, Sidney Smith to Cody, Aug. 7, 1945. CHAPTER 27 Cody as Chancellor, 1945-1947 1. Peter C. Newman, The Canadian Establishment, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1975), 23. 2. UTA, Sydney Hermant, tape of interview by Robin Harris; OP, W.E. Phillips to Cody, Feb. 26, 1945, three letters.

3. CP, Cody Diary, Sept. 20, Oct. 25, 1946. 4. UTA, committee to consider revisions in the University Act, May 16 and 30, 1946. 5. Ibid. 6. Toronto Star, June 13, 1947. 7. See Sections 64-7, Statutes of Ontario, 11 Geo. VI, 1947, 522-6. 8. OP, circular from registrar and secretary describing University of Toronto Act (1947) and membership of nomination committee: Chairman of board President Board of governors: Henry Borden, J.A. Hope, H.A. Bruce, C.F.W. Burns, R.A. Bryce, A.D. Vaughan Senate: Prin. W.R. Taylor, Prof. A. R. Gordon, Prof. R. E Farquharson, Prof. T.R. Loudon, Hon. C.P. McTague, Judge Helen Kinnear Alumni Federation: C. Lear White, Dr. J.A. Bothwell, Dr. EJ. Clifford, W.A. Osbourne, A.C. Fleming, Miss Margaret Gillies 9. CP, see letters to Cody from WJ. Deadman.Apr. 16, 1947; T.S. Cullen, Apr. 15; R.O. Hurst, Apr. 18; David Walker, Apr. 26, 1947. 10. Globe and Mail, June 13, 1947; minutes of the board of governors, June 2, 1947,89-90. 11. Interview with Hon. David Walker, Nov. 1, 1984; Robin Harris's interview with Sydney Hermant, text of the tape, 23. 12. UTA, minutes of the board of governors, June 2, 1947, 87-91. 13. Ibid., June 13, 1947, 454-61. 14. Robin Harris interview with Sydney Hermant, text of the tape, 25. 15. CP, E.A. Macdonald to Cody, June 14, 1947. 16. Toronto Star, June 14, 1947. 17. Ibid., June 14, 1947. 18. Ibid., June 14, 1947; Saturday Night, }\int 21, 1947. 19. Financial Post, quoted in minutes of the board of governors, June 26, 1947. 20. CP, To Cody from Lily Sutherland, June 13; Healey Willan, June 14;

338 /Notes

Loftus H. Reid, June 18; Gilbert Kennedy, Apr. 16, 1947;W.S. Wallace, June 17, 1947. 21. Toronto Star, July 14,1947. CHAPTER 28 From Strength to Strength 1. CP, Cody Diary, Mar. 25, Apr. 3, 7, and 21; newspaper clipping pasted to diary on page May 13-14, 1947. 2. CP, Cody Diary, Jan. 17 and 18, 1949. 3. CP, Cody Diary, Oct. 5, Nov. 20, 1949. 4. Interview with the late Roger Graham, 1988. See Roger Graham, Old Man Ontario: Leslie M. Frost (Toronto, 1990), 27. 5. CP, Talbot P. Grubbe to Mrs. Barbara Cody, Apr. 19, 1953. 6. George Young, Wilkinson (Toronto, 1984), 62. 7. Clipping pasted in Cody's diary at the end of 1950. 8. CP, Cody Diary, Sept. 15, 1949. 9. Ibid., Nov. 5,1948. 10. Ibid., Oct. 2, 1948. 11. Ibid., Apr. 21-25, 1950. 12. Ibid., Sept. 19, Oct. 20, Nov. 4, 1950. 13. Ibid., Nov. 9 and 20, 1950. 14. Ibid., Nov. 26, 1950. 15. Pasted in Cody's diary, between Nov. 27 and 29, 1950. 16. CP, Cody Diary, Feb. 5, 1951. 17. Ibid., Feb. 14-15, 18-19, and 21, 1951; Barbara McClennan Storey, memorandum on Dr. Cody, Jan. 1990; CP, Cody Diary, Mar. 4, 1951; R. Greene to Barbara Cody, Jan. 31,1954.

Index Allan, Andrew, 173, 174 Allen, C.K., 218, 239, 240, 241 Alumni Federation, 290, 293, 301 Anderson, H.B., 275, 276 Armitage, Ramsay, 246, 315 Armitage, W.J., 27, 74, 75, 79, 94 Armour, E.N., 172 Athlone, Alexander Augustus, Earl of, 242, 278 Banting, Sir Frederick, 184, 216, 222, 246, 247,248,316 Banting Institute, 211, 216 Beatty, S.W., 256, 257, 265, 305 Beaverbrook, Lord (Max Aitken), 108, 252, 308 Bell, Kenneth, 239, 240 Bickersteth, J.B., 229, 237, 238, 271, 278 Bidwell, E.J., 94, 95, 150 Blackstock, Barbara. See Barbara Cody Blackstock, T.G., 69, 70, 90, 95, 122, 137 Blackstock, Mrs.T.G., 108, 165, 179, 189 Blake, Edward, 21,26 Blake, S.H., 26, 39, 45, 47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 67, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 95-96, 101, 129, 130, 147 Board of Governors of University of Toronto, 63, 64, 66, 76, 77, 87, 101, 106, 116, 125, 127, 145, 146, 171-75, 178, 183, 188, 190, 191, 195, 210, 211, 213,214,221-23,229,232, 241, 243, 244, 250-53, 255, 256, 258, 260-63, 265, 267, 268, 273-77, 285, 287, 289-93, 296, 298-303, 306-8, 311, 315 Borden, Henry, 287, 288 Bott, E.A., 248, 271 Bourassa, Henri, 75, 106, 134, 254 Brady, Alex, 204 Brett, G.S., 206, 215 Brown, Walter, 285, 305 Bruce, H.A., 109, 184, 194, 228, 253, 255, 267, 268, 273-76, 287, 289-93, 296, 299, 300, 307 Bryant, J.E., 5,7,8, 13,27, 55 Bryce, R.A., 275, 290, 302 Burns, Charles, 268, 311 Burton, E.F., 206, 208, 236, 248, 285, 286, 295 Burwash, Nathaniel, 61, 65, 75 Byng, J.H., Viscount, 120, 121, 144, 157 Caldecott, Stapleton, 32, 51,69 Canadian Churchman, 47, 48, 66, 72, 79, 85 Caput, 173, 181, 199, 200, 202, 203 Carnegie Foundation, 191, 192, 213, 216 Cassells, Hamilton, 261, 303, 304, 305 Cassidy, H.M., 182, 204, 215, 249

CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation), 186, 199, 200, 202, 243, 250, 252 Chinese and Japanese Studies, 178, 191, 192 Churchill, Winston, 134, 136, 241, 283 Clarke, B.F., 157, 159 Clarke, Ellen, 41, 42-43, 91 Cochrane, Charles, 239, 264 Cockshutt, Henry, 139, 141 Cody, Barbara (nee Blackstock), 6, 70, 92, 108, 121, 137, 153, 159, 171, 188-90, 225-27, 239, 244, 278-79, 298, 309-10, 312,314,316 Cody, Elijah G., 24, 40 Cody, Elijah John, 1-4, 7, 19, 20-21, 159, 165 Cody, Ernest, 20, 159,310 Cody, Estella (nee Barker), 19, 20 Cody, Florence (ne'e Clarke), 40-42, 44, 55, 74, 88, 91-92, 95, 97-98, 105, 107, 12123, 130, 137-39, 144, 147-94, 151, 153, 157, 159-60, 164-66, 169, 171, 174-75, 179, 190 Cody, Frederick D., 20, 159 Cody, Margaret Louisa (ne'e Torrance), 1-3, 6,7 Cody, Maurice, 20, 44, 56, 70, 91-92, 9798,101, 137-39, 147-48,151, 153-54, 156-60, 164,165, 175 Cody, Maxwell, 20, 310 Cody, May, 20 Cody, Mervin, 20, 31, 102 Cody, Millwood (Mill), 24, 26 Cody, Phila,20,22,24,26,31 Colquhoun, A.H.U., 61-62, 66, 103, 105, 113-4 Committee of Nomination, 300, 302-5, 307 Committee on Applications, 274-76 Convocation Hall, 146, 148, 184, 195-96, 209, 231-32, 248, 295-97, 310-11 Cosgrave, F.H., 205, 285 COTC, 189, 200, 202-3, 216, 236, 248, 269,272-73,277,310 Council of Faculty of Arts, 64-65, 206, 236 Crawford, Thomas J., 40, 123, 170 Daily Mail and Empire, 80-81, 83, 86, 106, 112, 127-28, 136, 154, 168, 175, 201, 206 Dalhousie University, 213, 250, 272, 281 Davies, T. Alexander, 123, 316 Delury.AT., 13, 100 Denison, Shirley, 69, 106, 156 Department of Chemistry, 236, 274 Department of Education, 124, 191, 198, 222,291 Department of Geography, 191-3, 196-7, 211,215,288 Des Barres, T.C., 6, 17, 28, 32-4, 43, 45-6, 70-1,79 Des Barres, T.C. Junior, 11, 13, 17-8, 24-5, 28-9, 31-2, 42, 55, 179-80, 187, 294, 313 De Soyres, John, 32, 53, 58-59

3401 Index Despard, G.S., 105, 170 Dewart, Hartley, 119, 169 Drew, George, 186, 255, 287, 289, 291-92, 297,299,301-4,307,314 Drury, E.G., 119,124, 127,138 Duncan, J.S., 275-76 Dunlop, W.J., 213, 235, 245-47, 252-53, 316 Dunlop Observatory, 184, 194 Eddington, Sir Arthur S., 149, 184, 192 Eddy, Sherwood, 184,232 Eisendrath, Maurice N. (Rabbi), 172, 218 Evangelical Churchman, 26-27, 30, 33, 3840, 44, 50, 55 Faculty of Applied Science (Engineering), 60, 64, 146, 177-78, 181, 183, 191, 205, 207-8, 236, 269, 270-71, 275-76, 28283, 296 Faculty of Arts, 181, 189, 193,212,222, 235, 257, 276, 283, 288 Faculty of Dentistry, 145, 191, 218, 236, 282-83 Faculty of Forestry, 184, 191, 193,282 Faculty of Medicine, 177, 183, 191,207-8, 215, 218, 236, 248, 269, 271, 275, 28283, 296 Faculty of Music, 221-22 Falconer, Robert, 76-77, 116-17, 145, 150, 159, 171-75, 180, 227, 232, 249, 297, 311 Fennell, A.B., 193, 195, 218, 290-91, 293 Ferguson, Howard, 13, 75-76, 102-3, 106, 113, 115, 118, 124, 138-42, 145-46, 150, 154-59, 166-69, 172, 185-86, 191, 233, 247, 256, 267-68, 275, 287, 298 Ferguson, John, 252-53 Fine Arts, 178, 191,211,215 Finlayson, Hon. William, 158, 169, 175 Fischer, Herman, 216-17, 274 Flavelle, Sir Joseph, 60-62, 64, 66, 76, 145, 154,172,174,197,232,236,244 Fotheringham, J.B., 129 Fox, Sherwood, 191, 210, 212, 271 Fraser, Col. Alexander, 139-40 George V, 134-36, 150, 194,231 George VI, 136,233,238,277 Gibbs, Sir Philip, 238, 278 Gibson, J.J, 275-76 Glazebrook, George, 216, 226-27 Goodenham, G.H., 89, 107 Grant, G.M., 14, 16, 54 Grant, R.H, 125-26 Grant, W.L., 185,204 Griffin, Rev. J.T., 141-42 Grube, George, 255, 305 Hagarty, E.W., 110 Hague, Dyson, 30, 36, 52-53, 57-58, 74-75, 94,119,188 Hall, Morton E., 207-8 Hallam, W.T., 36, 52, 124, 128, 160, 316

Hart House, 157, 159, 181-82, 189, 194, 198, 200, 203, 216, 218, 220, 228-30, 233, 237, 244, 278, 295, 300, 310, 316 Havelock, Eric, 172, 178, 182, 249, 252 Havergal College, 49-51, 57, 67, 71, 79, 85, 101, 146-47, 176,309,316 Headlam, A.C., 147, 149 Hearst, Sir William, 99, 103-6, 113-14, 117-18, 124,278 Henry, George, 172, 185, 190, 287, 291 Hepburn, Mitchell, 190-91, 198, 219, 22425, 243-44, 255, 266-67 Hermant, Sidney, 260, 302-6, 313 Hirschfelder, J.M., 29, 45 Horan, B.W., 189, 304, 309 Hoyles, N.W, 51, 74-75, 80, 83-85, 101, 147 Hughes, Sir Sam, 100, 102 Hull, Cordell, 224-26, 264, 278 Hunter, Fraser, 255-56 Hutton, Maurice, 11, 12, 44, 59, 75, 180, 185, 187 Ilsley, J.L., 283-84 Inge, W.R., 108, 132-33, 140, 151, 201 Innis, H.A., 191, 196-97, 204-5, 208, 215, 256-57, 265, 267, 272, 288-89, 292 Institute of Clinical Research, 217, 274 Institute of Public Health, 217, 282 Irish, Mark, 107, 118, 183, 313 James, F. Cyril, 239, 242, 270 Jones, Septimus, 43-44 Keenleyside, Hugh, 264, 266 Kelly, H.T., 175, 275-76 Kennedy, W.P.M., 114, 151, 256, 265 Kerr.W.A.R.,210-11 Khaki College, 108-9 King, WL. Mackenzie, 157, 160, 194, 225, 258, 264, 266, 278-79 Kirkpatrick, A.F., 47-48 Knowles, R.E., 168-69 Knox, E.A., 50, 85, 130, 133, 162, 178, 280 Knox, Ellen Mary, 50-51, 57-58, 71, 85, 92, 101, 130,133,136, 146-47 Knox College, 6, 11, 60-62, 65, 177, 219 Langtry, John, 47, 70, 73 Larkin, P.C., 45, 89, 90, 131, 132, 134, 135 Leacock, Stephen, 13, 27 League of Nations, 134, 151-54, 163, 185, 219, 278 League for Social Reconstruction, 186, 249 Lee, George, 139, 140, 158 Lennox, E.J., 89, 90 Leonard Foundation, 198, 309 Line, John, 178, 182, 249, 252, 271 Liquor Control Act, 155, 166-68 "Lit" (The Literary and Athletic Society), 12, 159, 160 Livingstone, Sir Richard, 297, 300, 311 Lloyd, G.E., 124, 171 Loudon, James, 61, 76, 244

Index 1341 Macaulay, Leopold, 263, 291 Macdonald, D. Bruce, 60-61, 62, 66, 172, 175, 222, 232, 253, 261, 263, 268, 276, 291-92 Macdonald, E.A., 182, 198-99, 220, 289, 302, 304-5, 313, 315 Mackenzie, N.A.M., 204, 206 MacKendrick, W.G., 101 Macklem, T.C.S., 75, 79, 82-85, 129 Maclean, N.J., 257, 260 MacMillan, Sir Ernest, 221-22 Martin, Chester, 172, 196, 255-56, 263 Mason,]. Herbert, 51, 54 Massey, Alice, 174-75,239 Massey, Vincent, 91, 146, 149, 154, 172, 174, 229-30, 239, 289-90, 292-93, 299303,305-8,315 Matheson, S.P., 51, 56, 68, 88-90, 95, 101, 106, 124, 131, 164, 171, 175, 228, 24647 Maurice Cody Hall, 160-61, 165 McArthur, Duncan, 236, 243-44 McCarthy, Leighton, 263, 284-85 McClennan, Barbara (Storey), 245, 247, 267,294,316 McCullagh, George, 211, 276, 287, 290, 299-300,308,311,315 McElheran, R.B., 67, 101, 137-38, 165, 170-71, 179, 189,200,228,246 McGill University, 16, 84, 163, 181, 207-8, 223, 236, 239, 242-43, 249, 270, 27374, 283-84, 288, 297 Meighen, Arthur, 157, 209, 260, 293, 314 Merchant, F.W., 113, 172 Meredith, Sir William, 60-62, 66 Michener, Norah (Mrs. Roland), 239-41 Miller, J.O., 27, 30 Millichamp, R., 45-46, 51, 89-90 Missionary Society of the Church in Canada (MSCC), 67, 84, 120, 131, 228, 313 Mitchell, C.H., 99, 178, 183, 205 Mott, John R., 76, 90 Mowll, Howard, 131-32 Mulock, Sir William, 159, 172, 175, 183, 198, 234, 243-4, 247, 263, 268, 275-6, 278, 290-4, 299, 304 National Conference of Canadian Universities (NCCU), 242-3, 277 National Research Council, 208, 210, 27071 Neilly, Balmer, 251, 262, 268, 275-76, 287, 290, 292, 299 Nichols, Beverley, 200-201, 219 Nickle,W.E, 153-54 Nixon, Harry, 244, 267 Noble, R.T., 179, 227-28, 314-15 O'Meara, T.R., 56, 66-68, 71, 75, 80, 91, 97 Ontario Agriculture College, 126, 139 Ontario College of Education (OCE), 126, 195, 250, 264 Ontario Temperance Act (OTA), 117-18,

153-54, 167 Orillia Packet, 260, 262 Owen, Derwin, 195, 246 Patterson, Miss A.W., 244-45 Phillips, WE., 299-304, 306-7, 311 Pilcher, C.V., 71, 188 Plumptre, H.P., 49-50, 58, 94 Queen's University, 16, 61, 116, 125-27, 146, 181, 204, 207, 227-28, 243, 249-50 Redfern, A.S., 224-25, 278 Renison, R.J., 85, 90, 123, 186-87, 189, 312,316 Richardson, J.A., 79, 124 Riddell, R.G., 196 Ridley College, 27-28, 39, 49, 51, 53, 67, 79, 176, 309 Roberts, Fred, 157-59 Rockefeller Foundation, 191-92, 216-17 Rogers, Norman, 204-5, 237 Roosevelt, ED., 258, 264, 278 Rose (Chief Justice), 268, 275-76 Rowell, N.W, 154, 174 Royal Commission on the Treatment of Cancer by Radium, 175, 183 Royal Commission on the University of Toronto 1905-1906, 60, 62, 65-66, 181, 244 Royal Commission on University Finance 1921, 119, 125-27, 146,207 Royal Ontario Museum, 126, 193-94, 217, 222,225,227,310 Russell, T.A., 125, 145, 172, 174 SAC (Students' Administrative Council), 182, 198,220,232,276 Sadowski, Benjamin, 275-76 St. Michael's College, 11, 60, 146, 163, 177, 275 St. Paul's Church, 6, 17, 26, 32-3, 35, 40-9, 51-2, 55-8, 67-70, 74, 79, 85-90, 95, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 114, 122-4, 127-8, 130, 139, 146, 149, 153, 155-6, 159-62, 165, 170-1, 175-7, 179, 183, 186-7, 189, 297-8,312,314-6 Samuel, Sigmund, 217-18, 222 Sandiford, Peter, 250, 264 Saturday Night, 168, 181, 251, 261-62, 281, 306 School of Nursing, 177, 282 Scott, EG., 74-75, 94 Scott, Frank, 249-50 Seager, Charles A., 85-86, 129 Seath.John, 103, 111, 113 Senate (U ofT), 64, 178, 195, 276, 285-86, 290, 292-93, 300-307 Sheraton, James P., 6, 17, 18, 26, 29-30, 33, 36, 38, 40,44, 47, 49, 50-51, 55, 58-59, 62, 65-67, 70, 79 Sifton, Clifford II, 266, 293 Silcox, C.E., 20, 257-58, 261 Simcoe Hall, 177, 277, 297, 306, 316

3421 Index Sinclair, W.E.N., 166-67, 174-75 Sissons, C.B., 206, 305 Smallpeice, W.R., 45, 69, 89 Smith, Goldwin, 14, 30, 48, 61-65, 76, 132, 181 Smith, Leo, 221-22 Smith, Sidney, 284, 289-90, 293, 296-97, 300,301,305-7,311,315 Sneath, Roy G., 158-59 Stanley, Carleton, 250, 272 Steen, F.J., 27, 39, 53, 55 Student Christian Movement (SCM), 202-3 Student League, 199, 201-2 Student Peace Movement, 186, 199-200, 202-3, 218 Sutherland, Lily, 190,306 Sweatman, Arthur, 67-69, 78 Sweeney, J.F., 81-82, 84-86, 102 Taylor, Griffith, 196-98, 305 Taylor, Kenneth, 195-96 Thomas, Griffith, 90-91 Thornloe, George, 78-86, 102 Toronto Conservatory of Music, 123, 22022 Toronto General Hospital, 145, 183, 315 Toronto Globe, 63, 65, 76, 78, 80, 83, 106, 115, 127-28, 166, 168-69, 173, 175, 201, 204; Globe and Mail, 234, 240-41, 261, 287, 303 Toronto News, 17, 61, 69, 105 Toronto Star, 105-6, 112, 166, 168, 174, 199,201,260,304 Toronto Telegram, 104, 106, 127-28, 135, 174, 201,258-60 Toronto World, 63, 78, 80, 82-83 Torrance, Henry, 1, 3, 6-7, 21-22 Torrance, Margaret, 1,3,6, 22 Training Centre Battalion, 248, 269, 273 Trinity College, 11, 60-62, 75-76, 78-80, 83-86, 116, 127, 129-30, 146, 163, 177, 197, 205, 255, 275, 278-79, 285, 305 Tucker, L.N., 52, 84, 86 Tweedsmuir, John Buchan, 1st Baron, 201, 224-46 Underhill, Frank, 172, 178, 180, 182, 205, 215, 241, 243, 246, 249-68, 287 United Farmers of Ontario (UFO), 113, 118-19, 125-27,138 University Act, 300-303 University College (UC), 10, 11, 16, 29, 44, 57, 59-66, 126, 129, 146, 160, 172, 177, 185, 190, 206, 212, 214, 218-19, 22122, 250, 257, 261, 264, 282, 284, 28889,310 University of Manitoba, 178, 196, 206, 289, 293 University of Toronto, 10, 11, 21, 46, 57, 60-67, 75-76, 87, 100-101, 110, 116-17, 125-27, 137, 139, 145-46, 150, 160, 162-63, 171-74, 176-85, 190-92, 19496, 198-201, 204-8, 210-12, 215, 218, 220-23, 226, 228, 231, 236-39, 241,

243-44, 246, 248-51, 253, 256, 260, 262-69, 271-77, 279, 281-85, 288-89, 291-96, 298, 301, 303, 306-8, 310-11 University of Western Ontario, 125-27, 181, 191,210,212,243,271 Urwick, E.J., 194-96, 206, 208-9, 213, 215, 217 Varsity, 27, 173, 181, 198-99, 219-20, 230, 249, 295 Victoria College, 11, 60-62, 75, 116, 146, 172, 177-78, 182, 186, 190, 195-96, 205-6, 209, 249, 252, 275, 278, 285, 298, 305 Walker, Sir B.E., 60-62, 64, 66, 75-77, 106 Walker, David, 154, 157, 164-65, 175, 179, 189, 244, 254, 268, 297, 302-5, 309-10, 313,315 Wallace, E.W., 195-96, 205-6, 252 Wallace, Malcolm, 172, 233, 261, 264, 288 Wallace, R.C., 207-8, 227, 242 Wallace, W.S., 213, 307 Welch, E.A., 47, 74-75, 79, 83-86 Whidden, H.P., 195-96 White, W.C., 36, 48, 77, 178, 222-23, 246, 316 White, Sir W. Thomas, 91, 102 Whitney, Sir James P., 62, 65, 75-76, 113 Willan, Healey, 40, 92, 95, 122-23, 221, 306, 316 Williams, David, 52, 73, 94-95 Willison, Sir John, 54, 69, 100, 107, 125 Wilson, Sir Daniel, 11,61 Wilson, Matthew, 73-75, 93-94 Woodhouse, Arthur, 97, 137, 157, 159, 165, 175, 179, 206, 288, 294-95, 304 Workers Educational Association (WEA), 126, 213, 265 Worrell, J.A., 83 Wrong, George, 29, 46, 50-51, 57-58, 75, 80,89,98, 172,277,294,313 WyclifFe College, 6, 11, 17-18, 21, 26-27, 29, 32-33, 35-36, 38, 41, 47-58, 60-62, 65-67, 71, 75, 78-80, 85, 88, 90-92, 101-2, 129-31, 146-47, 162-63, 170, 176-77, 179, 189, 246, 278, 294, 298, 309,312,314-15 Young, George Paxton, 11, 16-17