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