Читать книгу Henry John Cody - Donald Campbell Masters - Страница 16

Chapter 8

The Royal Commission of 1905–1906

In 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 of T; B.E. Walker, president of the Bank of Commerce; D. Bruce 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 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 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 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 maintained. 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 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.

Sheratons 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 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.

* 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.