Father James T. Foley: Irish-Canadian Priest and Journalist.

McEvoy, Frederick J.

Abstract: Father James Foley was generally considered the leading Catholic journalist of his day as editor of the Catholic Record from 1912 to 1932. Even before this, while serving 20 years as pastor in rural parishes, he had strong connections to the Laurier government, which he used to advance the interests of Ontario's Irish Catholics in conjunction with his close friends Charles Murphy and Bishop Michael Fallon. He had strong opinions on Canada's constitutional status, favouring independence within the Empire/Commonwealth as opposed to participation in an imperial parliament. True to his Irish roots he took a keen interest in the situation in Ireland, originally condemning the 1916 Easter Rising but coming to support Sinn Fein when he realized it had gained the support of a majority of Irish. He supported Canada's war effort, though not without doubts about the conscription issue, believing that all the nation's resources should be put towards winning the war. He virulently opposed the campaign of Franco-Ontarians for French-language schooling, which he feared would lead to the demise of the separate school system in Ontario. During the 1920s he developed an intense hatred of Mackenzie King, leading him to support the Bennett Conservatives in the 1930 election. He again sought to forward the cause of Irish Catholics with the new prime minister, but to no avail. His death in 1932 was widely mourned within the world of Catholic journalism in Canada.

Resume: Le pere James Foley fut considere comme le journaliste catholique le plus apprecie de son epoque dans son role de redacteur en chef du Catholic Record de 1912 a 1932. Meme avant cette periode, au cours des vingt annees de sesfonctions en tant que cure dans des paroisses rurales, il jouissait d 'etroites connections avec le gouvernement Laurier; celles-la lui permettaient d'avancer les interets des Catholiques irlandais d'Ontario avec l'appui de ses proches amis Charles Murphy et l'eveque Michael Fallon. Il avait des opinions tres fortes sur le statut constitutionnel du Canada, favorisant l'independence a l'interieur de l'Empire/ Commonwealth plutot qu 'une participation a un parlement imperial. Fidele a ses origines irlandaises, il s'interessait particulierement a la situation en Irlande, condamnant l'insurrection de Paques de 1916 en meme temps qu 'il appuyait Sinn Fein quand il se rendit compte que celui-ci avait acquis le soutien de la majorite des Irlandais. Il soutint l'effort de guerre canadien, tout en mettant en cause la question de la conscription, croyant que toutes les ressources de la nation devraient contribuer a la victoire. Il s 'opposa avec vehemence a la campagne des Franco-ontariens pour l'instruction en langue francaise, craignant que celle-ci ne provoque la destitution du systeme d'education separe en Ontario. Pendant les annees 1920 il se prit d'une animosite intense a l'endroit de Mackenzie King, ce qui 1'amena a soutenir les Conservateurs de Bennett lors des elections de 1930. Il essaya de nouveau d'avancer la cause des Irlandais aupres du nouveau Premier-ministre, mais cefut en vain. Sa mort en 1932 provoqua un deuil generalise au sein des journalistes catholiques du Canada.

**********

At a time when religion and politics most definitely did mix in Canada, the point of intersection was often the press. Roman Catholic journalists, that is, journalists whose Catholicism was central to their professional activities, played a significant role in articulating--and, sometimes, shaping--public and political opinion among Canadian Catholics. Such a figure was Father James Foley, the long-time editor of The Catholic Record in London, Ontario. Even though it was based in London, the paper had a country-wide, even international, distribution. Foley's editorial career offers a unique insight into the relationship between the Irish-Canadian Catholic press and political power in early twentieth-century Canada, and graphically demonstrates how ethnic and religious loyalties continued to influence Canadian politics. Despite assertions of non-partisanship, Foley never hesitated to comment, often strongly, on political issues.

James Thomas Foley was born on 26 April 1863 in Asphodel, a farming community near Peterborough, Ontario. His father Patrick was born in Ireland and his ethnicity would be an important factor in Foley's life. After teaching at a school in the nearby town of Norwood, he received the B.A. degree in 1888 from Ottawa College (now the University of Ottawa), which promptly hired him as a teacher. (1) Here he made two friends who would play a major role in his life: Charles Murphy, a future Liberal cabinet minister and senator, and Michael Fallon, the future bishop of London, Ontario. Both men would prove to be staunch defenders of the Irish Catholics of Ontario, what Murphy termed "our clan." (2)

In 1892 Foley was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Ottawa. After a brief term as curate at St. Patrick's Parish in Ottawa, he served as pastor in two country parishes, Farrellton, Quebec, and Fallowfield, Ontario, for the next twenty years. (3) Both areas had a strong Irish component.

But the life of a country pastor was not sufficiently fulfilling for a man of Foley's intellectual bent. Like many Catholic clerics of his generation he turned to politics to project his concerns and ideas beyond the ambit of his parish A staunch Liberal, he maintained regular contact with Wilfrid Laurier during his long tenure (1896-1911) as prime minister. At this time patronage was the glue that held parties together. As a contemporary biographer wrote "Sir Wilfrid Laurier had a large toleration for patronage.... He believed there was far more of gain than of loss to governments and parties through control over appointments to office and distribution of public contracts." (4) Foley became one of many applicants for positions, not for himself, but on behalf of Ontario's Irish Catholics, never hesitating to stress the importance of the Catholic vote and to give Laurier political advice.

Foley was perturbed by the result of the federal election of 1900, which saw Quebec vote solidly Liberal while the party lost fourteen seats in Ontario where many Protestant voters who had supported Laurier in 1896 returned to the Conservative fold. (5) He believed this split "constitutes a danger not only to the party but to the country." The "race cry" would be raised, asking Protestants to "cut loose from French Domination." There was "only one way to offset the defection of bigoted Protestants and that is to gain amongst Irish Catholics." Foley also raised the issue of Irish representation in the cabinet. Ontario's Irish Catholics had long been dissatisfied with Richard Scott, their current cabinet representative. (6) Foley, however, strongly opposed the appointment of John Costigan, a New Brunswick MP, to the cabinet Costigan sat in Conservative cabinets from 1882 to 1896, but was elected as a Liberal in 1900. Foley considered that switching parties showed him to be "mercenary and lacking in moral courage." Costigan had admitted that as a cabinet minister, he had been unable to obtain any benefits for Irish Catholics. Thus, Foley believed that Irish Catholics would consider Costigan's appointment an insult that would lead to Liberal losses in the next Ontario election in 1902, which the Conservatives would attribute to "the appeals to race prejudice," so that "this dangerous and mischievous policy will receive new life." (7) Laurier laconically replied that he had no intention of making cabinet changes at that time; Foley, he advised, was misinformed. (8)

Foley also suggested candidates for other, lower level positions. In each case Laurier gave a non-committal answer, that he would pass on the recommendation to the appropriate minister, in the case of a judgeship, to his Ontario colleagues as a group since they had more say than he did. (9) This was in line with Laurier's view of provincial rights; it was up to Ontario Liberals to manage party business in their own province. (10)

Cabinet appointments were another matter, however, as final decisions were the prime minister's to make. Though unsuccessful earlier, in 1907 Foley again suggested a cabinet appointment, emboldened, he noted, by Laurier's courteous hearing of his previous approach "with regard to the status of Irish Catholics in public life and in the Liberal party." He recommended that the appointment of his friend Charles Murphy as a representative of Irish Catholics, "would allay discontent and convert apathy into enthusiasm," thus preventing Conservative gains in Ontario. (11) Murphy was, in O.D. Skelton's words, "a vigorous and outspoken Ottawa barrister." (12)

Laurier was again non-committal, though stating that he would "always be glad of the opportunity" to discuss the issue with Foley. (13) In the end, shortly before the 1908 election, he did appoint Murphy to cabinet, which pleased Foley, who believed it would help the Liberal party with the Irish Catholic vote in Ontario. (14) Laurier confirmed that his objective in making the appointment was "to give satisfaction to the Irish element of the community, who wanted to be represented by a younger man than Mr. Scott.... I sincerely hope that his fellow compatriots will give him the assistance to which he is certainly entitled." (15)

Although his lobbying efforts focused on Irish Ontario, Foley described himself as a Liberal and a Canadian. (16) He was concerned about the future of the country, warning Laurier about clubs in Toronto dedicated to annexation to the United States, whose members included "several leading present day Protestant politicians." He believed, however, that Laurier was "the Pilot... who will guide us into the port of nationhood within the Empire." (17)

As a result of the federal election of 1911, Robert Borden and the Conservatives replaced Laurier and the Liberals as the government of Canada. About the same time, Foley's own career was in transition. For almost twenty years, despite his broad intellectual interests, Foley had only served in rural parishes. His close friend, Father J.J. O'Gorman, noted that the "inevitable loneliness" of a country pastor "weighed heavily" on one who loved discussion and argument with his intellectual peers. (18) Then, his college friend Michael Fallon, now Bishop of London, Ontario, recruited him to take on the editorship of one of the country's leading Catholic newspapers, the Catholic Record, despite Foley's lack of journalistic experience. "I shall do my best," Fallon wrote Murphy, "to make the arrangements satisfactory to him [Foley] and, so far as my own relations with him are concerned, he need have no fear of the future. I am convinced, moreover, that he can be of immense service in a position where his great ability can be turned to good account." (19) Making all the arrangements, including Foley's appointment as chaplain at St. Joseph's Orphanage in London, where he resided, took time and his name did not appear as editor until 28 December 1912.

His new position put Foley in a position to preach to a wider audience. Published weekly, the Catholic Record had been in existence since 1878 and owned by Thomas Coffey since 1879. Born in Ireland, Coffey strongly supported the movement for Home Rule in his homeland, a cause Foley would also champion. In general, the paper faithfully reflected the concerns of Canada's English-speaking Catholics. By 1913 Coffey had built up the circulation of the paper to around 30,000, extending far beyond the diocese of London itself. (20) Though officially neutral in politics, he was a staunch Liberal, who was rewarded with a Senate appointment in 1903. In particular, Coffey was loyal to Laurier, a stance that was certainly congenial to Foley.

Foley had a clear vision of the nature of a Catholic paper and a strong sense of his role as editor. The paper was "an antidote to the poison that is within reach of everyone. It exposes our doctrines and repels charges against them. It is a safeguard against the calumnies that are championed by a hostile press. And it also strives to impress upon its readers that eternity should not be forgotten." (21) When readers complained that the Record did not print local news, he explained that it "bids fair to become the national Catholic weekly of Canada, if, indeed, it has not already attained that status." As such it had to concern itself with broader issues. (22) He was also determined to run the paper on business principles, as Catholic papers had an unfortunate tendency to go out of business. On the other hand, as he later told Murphy, if the paper's business manager ever tried to influence editorial content he would have resigned. (23) Nor would he accept political advertising, as "political bias would be suicidal for the Catholic Record." (24) While a Catholic paper "must ever be strictly orthodox in doctrinal matters and it must have a single eye to the interests of God's Church," it need not be "merely the echo of prevailing Catholic sentiment." (25)

Foley stressed that the paper had "one Editor. Two or three, it is true, contribute something to its columns. But even these are subject to the Editor's supervision." (26) He also clearly stated that the paper was not "the diocesan organ of London," though it was under the jurisdiction of the bishop. However, Fallon "gives us a scope so free and untrammelled that we are made to feel that one thing only would entail the exercise of his unquestioned authority; and that one thing is not the expression of opinion divergent from his own, but the publication of matters or views unworthy of the Catholic name we bear." (27) Editorial independence was accompanied by Catholic orthodoxy.

One issue that continued to concern Foley was the status of Canada. He bitterly opposed Borden's proposal to give $35 million to Britain to construct battleships as opposed to Laurier's plan to establish a Canadian navy. In the 1911 election, imperialists rejected Laurier's policy as insufficient while in Quebec it was attacked as inevitably leading to conscription; as a result, Laurier lost forty-two seats in his home province. (28) Foley believed that Borden's policy was "the first step" towards "Canada's permanent policy, viz. Joint Defence with its corollary of participation in Imperial foreign policy ... 'A nation within the Empire' is Imperialism enough for most of us.... If British connection is not compatible with Canadian autonomy then so much the worse for British connection." (29) Laurier must, he told Murphy, lead a campaign of "Canadianism against the suicidal policy of Imperialism to which Borden was committing the country"; Canada needed "a true national sentiment begetting national self-reliance and national self-respect." (30)

On the other hand, he did not oppose Canadian participation in the First World War. Parliament, he asserted, "will show a warring world that Canada is ready and willing to assume her full measure of responsibility as an integral part of the British Empire." (31) Foley had no doubt as to the justness of the Allied cause: We are at war because it is a necessary and unavoidable measure of self defence on the part of the British Empire against the premeditated and carefully matured plans of German colonial expansion at our expense.... we are fighting for a great principle --the principle of individual liberty as against the nearest possible modern approximation of the deified State of ancient Rome. (32)

The Allied powers and the then neutral United States, however, were not without blame for the state of the world, as shown by their lack of social conscience. As Foley wrote in 1915: the war is an infliction, permitted by God to harass the world, because of almost world-wide sin.... The capitalist's crimes of underpaying and overtaxing are committed daily upon countless victims.... So with Germany's monster of militarism may be coupled the United States' monster of dollar-blinded industrialism.... [The war] merely expresses by violent methods the greed, cruelty and dishonesty that flourish in the business world under most respectable garb. It is God's lesson for the human race, to emphasize the need of new principles in the world of business and politics. (33)

The war, he hoped, would restore "the appreciation of the old values of eternal truths ... [the] follies and fetiches [sic] of the modern unchristian philosophy of life may be seen in all their hideous deformity in the fierce light which the War sheds on life and death, their purpose and their meaning." (34) Later in the war he noted that "the war has saved many souls from grave danger" by bringing them back to God. (35)

Conscription became an issue in 1916 in the face of falling enlistment and rising casualties. Under great pressure from English Canada and believing it a military necessity, Prime Minister Borden announced its imposition on 18 May 1917. (36) Foley's first reaction was positive. Concerning the obligations of Canadians he wrote, "it seems clear that the only fair, equitable and democratic apportionment of that obligation to individual Canadians is by the action of the responsible authorities of the State." (37) Nevertheless, he defended the right of French Canadians to object to conscription, though not to indulge in "hooliganism," which would do "far greater injury to Quebec than all the Orangeists of Ontario put together." (38) By June, mirroring Laurier's position, he favoured a referendum to show definitively whether the government had a mandate for conscription, feeling that Quebec would accept a yes vote, but "in either case the division on racial lines which menaces the peace and unity of the Dominion would be obviated." (39)

When the government announced that farmers and munitions workers would be exempted from conscription, his position shifted and he denounced conscription that was for military purposes only: The whole question should be squarely put before the people as a comprehensive measure, vesting the Government with wide powers to mobilize the entire resources of the nation and to exercise compulsion on those who stay at home as well as those chosen to go to the front, to claim the same authority over the incomes of the rich as over the lives of the poor. (40)

This reflected the position of both organized labour and farmers.

At the same time, Foley criticized newspapers that were stirring up trouble between French and English--"the yellow gossip of ... stupid bigots." He noted that opposition to conscription was not limited to Quebec, and expected it would be defeated in a referendum. The press "should desist from its veiled threatening and tart lecturing, it should on the contrary practice the art of soothing and reconciling." (41)

The Liberal party imploded when Laurier refused to support the government's policy; many leading Anglophone Liberals joined a Unionist government under Borden. In the subsequent election the government swept English Canada while the Liberals dominated Quebec. Unlike Fallon, and several other anglophone bishops, (42) Foley did not explicitly endorse the Union government. Despite the vitriolic anti-Catholicism of some segments of the Unionist party, Foley felt that the country was split along racial, but not religious lines, He hoped that "the voices of hatred will be stilled; that the message of peace and goodwill and mutual understanding will find a permanent lodgement in the hearts and minds of all Canadians." (43)

At the Armistice, Foley briefly summarized what had taken place. "State supremacy," he declared, "is the most odious form of tyranny; and State supremacy was carried to its logical conclusion in Germany.... State-worship and Catholic principles are incompatible as fire and water, darkness and light. Nationalism and the Catholic Church are necessarily and irreconcilably antagonistic.... the Catholic Church is the creator and preserver of civil liberty." (44)

The war did not change his view of imperialism and his belief in Canada's need for a greater voice in its affairs. Canada "may suffer all the consequences of an unsuccessful war," he wrote, "yet Canada has no more to do with the policies that led to war than Afghanistan.... either we set up for ourselves as a self-governing nation in reality or we enter into full partnership with a partner's rights and duties and responsibilities. This we take to be the great political question confronting Canadians in the very near future.... The war has not changed our relations to the Empire; it has only revealed in a striking manner how anomalous they are." (45) The issue required intelligent discussion, otherwise, "we may be hurried into ill-considered action, which will profoundly and radically affect the future of Canada." (46)

This was not a new idea for Foley. With the end of the war in sight Foley believed that Canada's political future would inevitably change. He agreed that there were three options: imperial federation, full independence, or union with the United States. Few Canadians favoured the last option, but intelligent conversation was required to decide which of the other two options was best for the country. In Foley's view, Canada could not remain in a state of "arrested development," leaving the country with a status inferior to such countries as Holland, Switzerland or the South American republics. (47)

During the war he had expressed concern lest Canada fall into a relationship with the empire that would negate Canadian autonomy. He had weighed into the debate between those who believed Canada's influence could best be exerted through an imperial parliament, composed of members from the self-governing dominions and those who thought that Canada's best course was as an independent nation within the British Empire-Commonwealth. (48) No money should be given to an imperial parliament in which the colonies had no representation, a principle "so fundamental, so essential that its surrender or violation would imperil the whole fabric of responsible self-government.'" (49) Imperial federation required the free consent of the self-governing dominions; it could not be "foisted upon" any of them. (50) He noted the increasing use of the term "Commonwealth" as "Imperialism had been so cheapened, so degraded, so prostituted by flag-waving political mountebanks to the basest partisan purposes." (51)

Foley closely followed the gradual change in Canada's status after the war. He believed that Canada's delegates at the peace conference in Paris, where the Dominion successfully argued for representation separate from that of Britain, "have secured for Canada the status of a small nation ...," (52) "We cannot be useful citizens of the world," he asserted, "without being ardent and devoted sons of Canada ... in this way only can we, as Canadians, render the greatest service to the British Commonwealth of self-governing nations." (53) However, there remained "the all-important matter of the extension of self-government to foreign relations. That is the fundamental question of Canadian politics which sooner or later must be squarely faced." (54)

Membership in the postwar League of Nations, he believed, gave Canada "international recognition as a nation among the nations of the world," but that status must be clearly defined to reflect the constitutional changes that had been, and would be, made. (55) Public figures had stated that Canada and the other dominions were now equal to Great Britain, but the details, he believed, had not been worked out. An enlightened public opinion was needed to guide policy.

The first real test of this new status came in October 1922, when the Chanak crisis threatened war between Britain and Turkey over the latter's reoccupation of territory granted to Greece by the Treaty of Sevres. A British appeal for Canadian assistance appeared in the press before the government had received it. Canada's new Liberal prime minister, Mackenzie King, and his Cabinet colleagues were extremely annoyed by this and rejected the request. Foley heartily supported this decision. He felt that the issue raised important questions: Canada's 'effective voice' in British foreign policy is sheer buncombe; we must consider if Laurier was not right when that great Canadian and sane Imperialist held that the Government of Great Britain must be wholly responsible for British foreign policy, for. though it necessarily affects Canada, no means can be, or have been devised, to give Canada an 'effective voice' therein other than the assertion and maintenance of Canada's right to participate or not participate in a foreign war. (56)

He stressed that Canada could only have an impact on imperial affairs by maintaining "her full traditional right of self-government.... On the specious pretext of reaching a higher national status we must beware of surrendering the essentials of self-government." (57)

In the lead-up to the Imperial Conference of 1923, Foley reiterated his view that "consultation of the Dominions on British foreign policy is illusory.... There is just one fundamental principle that must govern in all cases: the Parliament of each Dominion is supreme." On this he expressed his faith in Mackenzie King, Laurier's self-professed disciple and an emerging champion of Canadian autonomy. Unlike Borden, who had sought to obtain for Canada a voice in imperial councils, King believed that a common imperial foreign policy would be injurious to Canadian autonomy. (58)

Foley was pleased with the results of the 1926 Imperial Conference, which declared that Great Britain and the dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs." He believed that this was "something, a great thing, to have that status expressly recognized and defined. It determines for all time to come the stupendous and important fact that every British Government must respect the national sovereignty of Canada as scrupulously as they respect that of Belgium or France or Italy." This marked a defeat for the "narrower and more timid of Canadian imperialists ... [who] have interpreted imperialism as setting limits to Canadian autonomy, and hitherto ... have too often condemned as savoring of treason the national aspirations of self-respecting Canadians." (59)

While concerned with Canada's sovereignty during this period, Foley also paid close attention to the situation in Ireland, his ancestral homeland. After taking over the Catholic Record, he continued his predecessor's policy of supporting the achievement of Home Rule by constitutional means under the aegis of the Irish Parliamentary Party led by John Redmond. He was appalled by the "sinful and insane rebellion," the Easter Rising in 1916, which saw a small band of rebels occupy various areas of Dublin before being overpowered by the British military with extensive damage to the city and the loss of many innocent lives. (60) The blame was not entirely the rebels', given the obduracy of the Ulster Unionists, who were prepared to oppose Home Rule at all costs. He also decried the hypocrisy of the British government for denying Ireland what Britain claimed to be fighting for: "the rights of small nations, a war for liberty and democracy." (61) Gradually, Foley's perception of the situation changed. As the more radical Sinn Fein party began to gain electoral support, winning several by-elections, he concluded that the Irish people "were done with constitutional methods," (62) though he continued to hope that a political solution could be found.

While Foley wanted to see Irishmen continue to fight for Britain during the Great War, he strongly opposed the proposed extension of conscription to Ireland, which, lacking the consent of the Irish people, would only increase "Irish distrust, discontent and resentment." (63) He referred to conscription in Ireland as an "insane policy," (64) and now attributed the Rising in 1916 to the British stance on the draft. Sinn Fein's landslide electoral victory in December 1918 demonstrated that it now represented the will of the Irish people. Foley accepted this, welcoming the establishment of an Irish parliament, Dail Eireann, and wishing God's blessing on their battle for "the sacred cause of Irish liberty." (65) He continued to believe, however, that the best solution for Ireland was not an independent republic, but dominion status within the Empire.

The outbreak of violence in 1919, which marked the beginning of the Anglo-Irish war and Britain's repression of it, pushed Foley to an even more radical position. He reported atrocities committed by the rebels as British propaganda, and British atrocities as "blunders and crimes and murders" akin to those committed by the Germans. (66) Foley defended the use of hunger strikes by imprisoned rebels, the most famous of which was that of Terence MacSwiney, Lord Mayor of Cork, which ended in his death. Foley considered that MacSwiney's goal was to bring the world's attention to "the barbarities of English rule in Ireland"; his death was an "unintended consequence" and hence not contrary to Catholic moral teaching about suicide. (67)

As the war dragged on, Foley wondered if the rebels could defeat "the might of the British Empire," as he warned that persisting in an unwinnable war would in itself be sinful. Compromise was required as he thought Britain would not accept an independent republic. He believed that the Irish people would, on the whole, accept dominion status. (68) Thus, Foley enthusiastically greeted the ceasefire and the negotiations that led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921, establishing the Irish Free State, even though six of the nine counties in Ulster remained in union with Britain. Foley believed that Ireland had become a republic in all but name and that reunion of the country would soon follow. (69) He had no sympathy for those who opposed the treaty, especially Eamon De Valera, or for the civil war that followed, but warmly welcomed the ultimate victory of the Free State. (70)

Another editorial preoccupation during this period was much closer to home, though similarly controversial, that is, the issue of bilingual schools in Ontario. In 1912, just as Foley was succeeding to the editorship of the Catholic Record, the Ontario government issued the infamous Regulation 17, which confined teaching in French to the first two years of schooling. The issue became a source of a long and bitter conflict between anglophone and francophone Catholics. In Ottawa the French school board defied the government's edict, even to the extent of closing its schools in June 1914. Bishop Fallon, whose diocese included bilingual schools, was one of the leading voices supporting the government. (71) Many anglophones feared that the controversy would lead to an all-out assault on the separate school system and its possible destruction.

The English-speaking, Irish-Catholic Foley completely agreed with Bishop Fallon. He expressed his depth of feeling in a personal letter to Archbishop McNeil of Toronto. The French, he asserted, had attacked authority figures, especially Bishop Fallon, "the venomous bitterness of which [attack] has never been approached by the Orange Sentinel." Decrying "their insane nationalism to which they prostitute religion" and "their arrogant claims and defiant lawlessness," he argued that the French language had no rights outside of Quebec and the federal parliament and courts. It was his "most intimate conviction that our whole education system ... is in very much greater danger from the illegal, unconstitutional, dishonest, and insufferable campaign of French Canadian agitators, mostly from the Province of Quebec, than it is or ever will be from the Orangemen of Ontario." (72)

Foley made his thoughts clear in the Record, if not quite so brutally. In December 1915 he stated that "in no country in the wide world has a conquered race been treated so generously as in the Province of Quebec. When the exceptional privileges with regard to the French language enjoyed in that province are made the basis for arrogant demands in the other parts of Canada it is at once a tribute to and an abuse of the generosity which was granted them." (73) He accused the French of using their schools as "the medium of effectively promoting the plans of French-Canadian colonization by forcing English-speaking farmers to move elsewhere; or in the case of new districts to stay away. The terms 'invasion' and 'conquest' are appropriate." (74) This was especially true of eastern Ontario, where there had been an influx of francophones from Quebec in recent years. On this issue, however, Foley and Fallon were on the losing side. Cooler heads prevailed, preferring rapprochement between French and English to continuation of the conflict. In 1927 the Conservative government of Ontario amended Regulation 17 in a way that met the concerns of francophones, though it was not repealed until 1944. (75)

While Foley endorsed Mackenzie King's policies on Canadian autonomy, he developed a profound hatred of King. So intense was this feeling that Foley came to support the Conservative party of R.B. Bennett. He shared this hatred of King with his good friend Charles Murphy. In September 1925 King ousted Murphy, who had served as Postmaster General since 1921, from cabinet by appointing him to the Senate and then denying him a cabinet seat on the grounds that he did not believe senators should serve as ministers, though previous prime ministers had included senators in their cabinets. (76) In congratulating Murphy on his senate appointment Foley declared that Irish Catholics "shall be accustomed to look to you as our competent lay representative in placing our position in its true light before our fellow Canadians." However, he added, "I resented deeply King's dropping you as it were." (77)

A second bombshell was King's decision to appoint N.W. Rowell to cabinet. Rowell was one of the leading Liberals who had abandoned Laurier and joined the Union government. Murphy and Foley, the staunchest of Laurier loyalists, viewed Rowell as a traitor of the worst kind, and also considered him to be virulently anti-Catholic. (78) In fact, Rowell had alienated so many Liberals on a variety of issues that King had to back down. (79)

Another irritant involved a memoir published in 1929 by Beckles Willson, a journalist and prolific author. In it, he wrote that Laurier's "religious opinions became unsettled in youth, and I think he was regarded by his intimates as an agnostic, although he was careful never to betray himself." (80) Adding insult to injury was the book's dedication to "my distinguished friend and fellow-countryman" Mackenzie King. Enraged by what he considered a slur on Laurier's memory, Foley admitted in an editorial that Laurier had at one time ceased to be a practicing Catholic, but later became quite devout: "the present writer, a priest, knew Sir Wilfrid and talked with him about religion; he is utterly convinced of Sir Wilfrid's simple, humble and sincere Catholic faith." He demanded that King explain "the amazing dedication to him of this scurrilous book." (81) A week later, when King had not responded, Foley ominously stated, "We used to feel a pretty warm interest in one of the political parties. We think now that politicians of either or both parties can fall pretty low." (82)

King, in fact, paid attention to Willson's "fool book." In caucus on 12 March 1930, he recorded, "A great furore has been stirred up," which he attributed to the machinations of Murphy. (83) In the House of Commons the next day, King denied knowing of the book, or the dedication, until he had actually received a copy. He clearly stated that he had not been asked for permission to dedicate the book to him, plaintively adding "I wish he had dedicated it to someone else." (84) Foley was not particularly mollified, wondering why King had waited so long to respond. (85) Some months later after the victory of Bennett and the Conservatives in the 1930 election, King described the issue as "the most diabolical plot to influence the catholic vote, thro [sic] circulation of Beckles Wilson [sic] libel from Catholic Record.... Bennett was a party to this." (86)

In the run-up to the 1930 election Foley had written an editorial that, while not openly breaking the policy of political neutrality, could be read as a subtle endorsement of the Conservatives. Noting claims that the Liberals were using "rumour of war" in Quebec to sway voters against the Conservatives, he asserted that this was not good either for Canada or the Conservative party and that "it would be better," for Quebec and better for Canada if Quebec Catholics and other Catholics were divided on grounds other than race or religion between the two great parties.... No matter which party is in power it is important--both for Quebec and for Canada--that French Canadians should be adequately represented not only in the number of Ministers but in their ability something that is hardly possible if all Quebec is on one side. (87)

Liberals read this as an attack on their Quebec stronghold.

For their part, Conservative operatives took Foley's writing, tweaked it to make it more obviously pro-Conservative, and distributed it as a pamphlet purportedly coming from the Record itself. A number of subscribers cancelled their subscriptions, presumably because they either supported the Liberals or felt the paper had become entangled in partisan politics. On 9 August Foley disavowed responsibility for the pamphlet in an editorial, calling it "this unwarranted use of the Catholic Record's name." (88) Privately, he stated, "we have always had the moral courage to comment on things political when they are of Catholic interest. We stand by anything that appeared in the Catholic Record in the sense made evident by the context of the articles themselves. Beyond that our responsibility ceases." (89)

In the same issue, Foley commented on the Conservative victory in the election that July, particularly noting that their support in Quebec would prevent the "injection of racial and religious questions into the policy or tactics of any party in the future." (90) Writing later to Bennett, Foley made a rather grandiloquent claim of the Record's influence. Despite the paper's position of non-partisanship, Foley believed that it had "contributed very largely to your success in the last election. It was not because it loved R.B. Bennett or his political principles, but because it hated Mackenzie King and his total lack of all principle." As he had done with Laurier, Foley now sought Bennett's patronage for Catholics, recommending the appointment of J.J. Leddy, a prominent Saskatoon Catholic, for a vacant senatorship in Saskatchewan. If this were done, he offered, the Record would praise the government, "which should have some political value." (91)

Bennett thanked Foley for his frankness, but stated that, while he had promised his followers that he would appoint a Catholic from Northern Saskatchewan, Leddy was not popular with them and his appointment "would greatly increase our difficulties." (92) Despite this negative response, Murphy told Foley that the letter showed that "you enjoy his confidence and esteem. It is of prime importance that you retain both...." (93)

Foley returned to the attack, reminding Bennett of Catholic strength, which could "make the difference in some ridings." He now promised to praise the government and "congratulate Catholics on having such a representative.... it will please Catholics not only in Saskatchewan but in every one of the other eight provinces. That should have some political value." However, he reasserted the paper's policy of non-partisanship and that he would not hesitate to criticize Bennett if necessary. (94)

Leddy's prime rival for the senate position was a francophone, Arthur Marcotte, another example in the longstanding battle for control of the church between Irish and French Catholics. Foley, who was well versed in this situation, urged Bennett not to appoint a francophone, feeling that the French were already well represented in public life: Protestants look upon a French-Canadian appointment as a Catholic appointment; French Canadians look upon the appointment of an English-speaking Catholic as an English appointment. So between the French Canadian Catholics on the one hand, and the Protestants on the other, English-speaking Catholics are ground between the upper and nether millstones. (95)

Despite Foley's arguments, the appointment went to Marcotte. (96)

Although Foley failed in this effort, he did impress Bennett, who later told Murphy that he could not recall any meeting "that gave him a higher opinion of his visitor" than the one he had with Foley. Murphy attributed this to Foley's "human side" and his ability to appreciate "the point of view of our separated brethren." (97)

Foley had another issue with the government; he wanted compensation for the loss of subscribers caused by the Conservative circulation of their election pamphlet as if it came from the paper. R.M. Burns, the paper's business manager, learned from Arthur Ford, the editor of the London Free Press, that Bennett "acknowledged the unfairness of the pamphlets sent out by his party in this and other districts, and told him that we certainly will be put on the advertising lists of the various departments at Ottawa." (98) Murphy confirmed this and advised Burns that the Record would receive government printing contracts. (99) When no contracts had appeared by April 1931, Burns wrote directly to Bennett, threatening to make the situation public and asking "just what the Conservative Party plans to do for the Catholic Record." (100) Bennett advised the private secretary to the Minister of Immigration, who had forwarded Burns' letter to Bennett, that he had insufficient knowledge to speak to the situation and had never spoken directly to Burns. (101) Some of the correspondence came into the hands of Mackenzie King, though Bennett did not know how. In the end Bennett was unwilling to correspond with Burns "in the light of what has transpired." (102)

Little less than a year later, after a period of illness Foley died on 5 March 1932. After a funeral service in London the body was returned to Ottawa for burial. His death was widely noticed, with obituaries in all the Catholic papers, which the Record reprinted. The Western Catholic of Edmonton believed that during his tenure as editor the Record "has been the dominant influence in moulding Catholic public opinion in Canada." (103) The Catholic Register called him "the best-informed journalist of our day and generation." (104) The Canadian Freeman noted, "Always he was a militant Canadian, loving his country with an intense earnestness and giving generously of his time and talent in her service." (105) His intelligence and knowledge were praised. His good friend Father J.J. O'Gorman wrote, "A brilliant conversationalist and as inveterate a debater as he was a smoker, he loved to argue with those who, like himself, possessed a liberal education and a keen intellect." (106) However, according to the Catholic Register, "he could on occasion manifest the haughty mood of the schoolmaster teaching a dull class." (107) Charles Murphy praised "the literary gifts, the all-round education, and the sound political knowledge of my dear old friend, Father Foley." (108)

Memorialists also commented on Foley's interest and expertise in educational matters. His concern for the future of Catholic schools went beyond the bilingual crisis of Regulation 17 to the battle for a fairer distribution of the taxes Catholics paid in support of the public school system. He was deeply concerned about the quality of the teaching of the catechism in school as well, prevailing upon Bishop Fallon to establish the Summer School of Catechetics in London, which was attended by teachers of religion, lay as well as religious. (109) One congregation of sisters believed that "the course gave impetus to a higher grade of Religious Instruction in our schools which must in a short time bear evident fruit." (110) Foley himself regarded it as "one of the most important events in the Catholic educational history of Ontario during the last half century." (111) As memorialists noted, he had also served as an adviser to the bishops of Ontario on educational matters and on the board of the London public library. (112)

Foley's relationship with his old classmate. Bishop Fallon, who predeceased him on 22 February 1931, was key to his success as editor. Fallon could be intimidating or, as Father Charles Mea of Prescott, Ontario described him, "a very arbitrary superior. His [Foley's] great success as editor after his great ability in that line was due in large measure to the fact that he was one of the four persons whom I know whose personality overawed the audacious and vigorous Michael Fallon.'" (13)

James T. Foley's journalistic career shows how ethnicity and religion remained important factors in Canadian political culture; it also reveals the continuing importance of patronage to the workings of government during the period. His positions on key issues highlight the ongoing conflict between French and English for control of the church in Canada, with English Catholics caught between French Catholicism and Anglo Protestantism. As editor Foley commented widely on political affairs and Canadian status in the Empire-Commonwealth, though always from a Catholic perspective. Caught between his Canadian nationalism and his Irish heritage, he maintained a deep personal interest in the situation in Ireland, as did Murphy and Fallon, expressing his opinion of British policy in vitriolic terms. Under his editorship the Catholic Record, far from being parochial, brought the major issues of the day to the attention of its far-flung readership. In the process, he shaped the larger discourse in Catholic Canada in the early decades of the twentieth century.

(1) Foley to Archbishop of Ottawa, 16 August 1888, James T. Foley File, Archives of the Archdiocese of Ottawa.

(2) Murphy to Dr. E.J. Mullally, 9 August 1927, Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Charles Murphy Fonds, vol. 21, 8715.

(3) J.J. O'G[orman], "Rev. J.T. Foley, D.D.--An Appreciation," Ottawa Journal, 9 March 1932. At that time the Archdiocese of Ottawa encompassed parishes on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River.

(4) Sir John Willison, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Part II (London and Toronto. Oxford University Press, 1927), 468-9. As another biographer stated, "The distribute of patronage was the most important single function of the government." Oscar Douglas Skelton, The Life and Utters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Volume II: 1896-19,9, edited by David M.L Fair (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1965), 103.

(5) Skelton, Life and Letters, Vol. II, 49.

(6) P.D. Stevens "Laurier and the Liberal Party in Ontario, 1887-1911," PhD. thesis, University of Toronto, 1966, 316. Scott had been the English Catholic representative in the cabinet of Alexander Mackenzie, 1873-78, and in Laurier s cab.net from 1896. He retired from cabinet in 1908 at the age of 83. Brian P. Clarke, "Scott Sir Richard William," Dictionary of Canadian Biography, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/scott_richard_william_14E.html, (accessed 2 May 2017).

(7) Foley to Laurier, 11 November 1900, LAC, Sir Wilfrid Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C780, 50542-5.

(8) Laurier to Foley, 14 November 1900, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C780,50546.

(9) Foley to Laurier, 22 August 1906, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C837, 113073; Laurier to Foley, 113074; Foley to Laurier, 6 September 1906, microfilm reel C838, 113462-7; Laurier to Foley, 113468.

(10) Stevens, "Laurier and the Liberal Party in Ontario," 3-4.

(11) Foley to Laurier, 23 November 1907, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C855, 132668-74.

(12) Skelton, Life and Letters, Vol. II, 99.

(13) Laurier to Foley, 26 November 1907, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C855, 132675.

(14) Foley to Laurier, 17 September 1908, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C866, 144867-71.

(15) Laurier to Foley, 19 September 1908, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C866, 144872. Liberal success in Ontario in the 1908 election has been credited to Murphy and George Graham, former leader of the provincial party. Stevens, "Laurier and the Liberal Party in Ontario," 317. Despite Foley's optimism about the effect of Murphy's appointment, the Liberals won the same number of seats in Ontario in 1908 as in 1904.

(16) Foley to Laurier, 23 September 1908, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C867,145081.

(17) Foley to Laurier, 7 October 1908, Laurier Fonds, microfilm reel C687,145639-46.

(18) J.J. 0'G[orman], "Rev. J.T. Foley, D.D.: An Appreciation," Ottawa Journal, 19 March 1932, 4.

(19) Fallon to Murphy, 24 June 1911, LAC, Charles Murphy Fonds, Vol. 9, 3569.

(20) On Coffey see Michael Power, "Coffey, Thomas," Dictionary of Canadian Biography, http//www.biographi.ca/en/bio/coffey_thomas_14E.html, (accessed 2 May 2016). Coffey died on 8 June 1914, though his name remained on the masthead for some time afterwards.

(21) "The Catholic Paper," Catholic Record, 20 September 1913, 4.

(22) "The Catholic Record and the Catholic People II," Catholic Record, 9 August 1913, 4. In a later editorial Foley noted that the paper had more subscribers in St. John's, Newfoundland, than in London as well as some 1,500 subscribers in the United States. "A Little 'Local Talk' With Sensible Readers," Catholic Record, 23 January 1916, 4.

(23) Foley to Murphy, 3 September [1930], Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4271.

(24) "The Catholic Record and the Catholic People I," Catholic Record, 2 August 1913, 4.

(25) "Catholic Journalism," Catholic Record, 16 August 1918, 4.

(26) "Separate Schools," Catholic Record, 26 February 1916, 4.

(27) "A Little 'Local' Talk With Sensible Readers," Catholic Record, 23 January 1916, 4.

(28) Skelton, Laurier, II, 141-2.

(29) Foley to Murphy, 25 March 1913, Murphy Fonds, vol. 9, 4133-5.

(30) Foley to Murphy, 13 June 1913, Murphy Fonds, vol. 9, 4143.

(31) "Canada and the War," Catholic Record, 15 August 1914, 4.

(32) "The Causes of the War III," Catholic Record, 7 November 1914, 4.

(33) "A Peace That Is As Cruel As Europe's War," Catholic Record, 4 September 1915, 4. This reflected the social teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.

(34) "One Good Result of the War," Catholic Record, 20 November 1915, 4.

(35) "The Brighter Side of the Great War," Catholic Record, 12 February 1916, 4.

(36) Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook, Canada 1896-1921A Nation Transformed (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974), 264-68.

(37) "Conscription in Canada," Catholic Record, 26 May 1917, 4. On this issue the Catholic Register was much stronger in its support for the government's policy. Mark G. McGowan, The Waning of the Green: Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887-1922 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999), 275-78.

(38) "Quebec and Conscription," Catholic Record, 2 June 1917,4. The Protestant press, though generally supporting conscription, also opposed using the issue to stir up antiFrench and anti-Quebec feelings, believing that such divisiveness would be a danger to the nation especially during a time of war. Gordon L. Heath, "The Protestant Denominational Press and the Conscription Crisis, 1917-1918," Canadian Catholic Historical Association, Historical Studies, 78 (2012): 27-46.

(39) "Selective Conscription," Catholic Record, 9 June 1917, 4.

(40) "Conscription," Catholic Record, 30 June 1917, 4.

(41) "The Duty of the Press," Catholic Record, 28 July 1917, 4. He also sardonically noted the large number of requests for exemptions in Ontario, which showed a similarity of view between French and English. "Claims For Exemption," Catholic Record, 27 October 1917, 4.

(42) McGowan, Waning of the Green, 279-80. Despite his Irish sympathies, Fallon was also a staunch imperialist who believed in the righteousness of the Allied cause and regarded conscription as essential if the war were not to be lost. Adrian Ciani, '"An Imperialist Irishman': Bishop Michael Fallon, the Diocese of London and the Great War," Canadian Catholic Historical Association, Historical Studies 74 (2008): 73-94

(43) "Unprecedented Political Situation," Catholic Record, 29 December 1917,4. On Unionist anti-Catholicism see McGowan, Waning of the Green, 279.

(44) "Downfall," Catholic Record, 16 November 1918, 4.

(45) "Imperialism," Catholic Record, 13 February 1915, 4.

(46) "The Future of Canada," Catholic Record, 11 November 1916, 4.

(47) "Canada's Political Future," Catholic Record, 19 October 1918, 4.

(48) On this issue see Carl Berger. The Sense of Power: Studies in the Ideas of Canadian Imperialism 1867-1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970).

(49) "Political Organization of the Empire," Catholic Record, 6 January 1917, 4.

(50) "The One Great Question," Catholic Record, 3 February 1917, 4.

(51) "The Round Table, Ireland and the Empire," Catholic Record, 12 May 1917,4. At the Imperial War Conference of 1917, a meeting of the dominion and British governments, the status of the dominions was defined (by Resolution IX), "as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth" with a right to a voice in foreign policy and other matters of common concern. C.P. Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict: A History of Canadian External Policies Volume 1: 1867-1921 (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1977), 213.

(52) "Canada A Nation," Catholic Record, 1 February 1919, 4.

(53) "Canadian National Sentiment," Catholic Record, 19 June 1920, 4.

(54) "Is Canada A Nation?" Catholic Record, 15 November 1919.

(55) "The National Status of Canada," Catholic Record, 22 April 1922, 4.

(56) "What is Canada's Status with Regard to War?" Catholic Record, 7 October 1922, 4. On Chanak see Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict!, 17-27.

(57) "Canada's "Effective Voice" in Foreign Policy," Catholic Record, 14 October 1922, 4.

(58) "Let Us Make Haste Slowly," Catholic Record, 18 August 1923, 4; Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict 2, 66-67.

(59) "National Status Acknowledged," Catholic Record, 18 December 1926, 4. On the conference see Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict 2, 83-89.

(60) "The Insane Folly of the Sinn Feiners," Catholic Record, 6 May 1916, 4. See Frederick J. McEvoy, "Canadian Catholic Press Reaction to the Irish Crisis, 1916-1921," in David A. Wilson, ed. Irish Nationalism in Canada (Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen's University Press, 2009), 121-39. There is an extensive literature on the Rising. See, for example, Charles Townshend, Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion (London: Penguin Books, 2006).

(61) "Why Ireland Is Opposed to Conscription," Catholic Record, 18 November 1916, 4.

(62) "Developments in the Irish Question," Catholic Record, 19 May 1917, 4.

(63) "Ireland, Home Rule and Conscription," Catholic Record, 20 April 1918, 4.

(64) "Must Reverse Their Irish Policy," Catholic Record, 15 June 1918, 4.

(65) "The Dail Eireann," Catholic Record, 1 February 1919, 4.

(66) "The Latest Sinn Fein 'Outrage,'" Catholic Record, 10 January 1920, 4.

(67) "Was It Suicide?" Catholic Record, 6 November 1920, 4.

(68) "The Irish Impasse," Catholic Record, 18 December 1920, 4.

(69) "Dominion Status for Ireland," Catholic Record, 17 December 1921, 4.

(70) McGowan, Waning of the Green, 201.

(71) See Jack D. Cecillon, Prayers, Petitions and Protests: The Catholic Church and the Ontario Schools Crisis in the Windsor Border Region, 1910-1928 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2013).

(72) Foley to McNeil, n.d., London Diocesan Archives, Bishop Fallon Fonds, Box 5, File 23.

(73) "Our French-Canadian Friends," Catholic Record, 25 December 1915, 4. On this issue Foley did not extend the same sympathy to the francophone position as he did during the conscription crisis.

(74) "Language Not Religion," Catholic Record, 10 June 1916, 4.

(75) Robert Choquette, Language and Religion: A History of English-French Conflict in Ontario (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975), 245-7.

(76) H. Blair Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Volume Two 1924-1932: The Lonely Heights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963), 172-73.

(77) Foley to Murphy, 10 December 1925, LAC, Murphy Fonds, vol. 10, 4175.

(78) A contemporary journalist wrote, "There was never a better hater than Mr. Murphy," and that he "almost savagely resented" those Liberals who had deserted Laurier. See Arthur R. Ford, Ai the World Wags On (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1950), 71-2.

(79) Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King, 173.

(80) Beckles Willson, From Quebec to Piccadilly and Other Places: Some Anglo-Canadian Memories, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929), 62.

(81) "Blackguard Expatriate," Catholic Record, 1 March 1930. 4.

(82) "That Amazing Dedication, That Resounding Silence," Catholic Record, 8 March 1930, 4.

(83) Diary entry for 12 March 1930, 5670, William Lyon Mackenzie King Fonds, LAC.

(84) Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 13 March 1930, 549.

(85) "Is Willson the Ass or the Goat," Catholic Record, 22 March 1930, 4. The gap between the first editorial and King's statement was twelve days. King may not have been aware of the issue until 10 March when his secretary brought it to his attention, referring to the 8 March editorial as a veiled attack on the prime minister. H. Baldwin to King, 10 March 1930, King Fonds, microfilm reel C2316, 145824-5.

(86) Diary entry for 17 September 1930, King Fonds, 5841-2.

(87) "Politics and Religion," Catholic Record, 5 July 1930, 4.

(88) "A Word in Season from the Catholic Record," Catholic Record, 9 August 1930, 4. This was the actual title of the pamphlet.

(89) Foley to J.A. Boyd, 28 July 1930, King Fonds, microfilm reel C2326, 158506.

(90) "Some Reflections," Catholic Record, 9 August 1930, 4.

(91) Foley to Bennett, 3 February 1931, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4290-1.

(92) Bennett to Foley, 24 February 1931, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4281-2.

(93) Murphy to Foley, 4 March 1931, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4284.

(94) Foley to Bennett, 3 February 1931, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4290-1.

(95) Foley to Bennett, 16 March 1931, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4293-4. Italics in original.

(96) Michael Cottrell, "John Joseph Leddy and the Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church in the West," Canadian Catholic Historical Association, Historical Studies 61 (1995): 41-51. Marcotte was actually from Gravelbourg in south-central Saskatchewan.

(97) Murphy to R.M. Burns, 22 March 1932, Murphy Fonds, volume 4, 1458.

(98) Burns to Foley, 18 August 1930, Murphy Fonds, volume 10, 4270.

(99) Murphy to Burns, 2 September 1930, King Fonds, microfilm reel C2326, 158493-4.

(100) Burns to Bennett, 6 April 1931, LAC, R.B. Bennett Fonds, microfilm reel M1208, 129425-6.

(101) Bennett to M.J. Cullen, 10 April 1931, Bennett Fonds, microfilm reel M1208, 129429.

(102) Bennett to Charles McCrea, 15 April 1931, Bennett Fonds, microfilm reel Ml 208, 129431.

(103) "Editorial Tribute Paid Doctor Foley," Catholic Record, 26 March 1932, 4.

(104) "Rev. Dr. Foley Dead," Catholic Record, 19 March 1932, 4.

(105) "Catholic Editor Passes," Catholic Record, 19 March 1932, 4-5.

(106) "Rev. J.T. Foley, D.D. An Appreciation," Ottawa Journal, 9 March 1932, 13.

(107) "Rev. Dr. Foley Dead," Catholic Record, 19 March 1932, 4.

(108) Murphy to W.T. Kernahan, 21 March 1932, Murphy Fonds, vol. 14, 5719.

(109) "The Rev. J.T. Foley, D.D.," Catholic Record, 12 March 1932, 4.

(110) Archives of the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph, Sister Genevieve Hennessy, "Chronicles of the Sisters of St. Joseph in the Diocese of London, Ontario 18531928," unpublished manuscript, 2014, 277.1 wish to thank Mary Kosta, the Congregation Archivist, for this reference.

(111) "The Summer School of Catechetics," Catholic Record, 20 July 1929, 4.

(112) "The Rev. J.T. Foley, D.D.," Catholic Record, 12 March 1932,4; "Death Comes to Father J.T. Foley," London Free Press, 5 March 1932. Foley strongly believed in the importance of the public library, which "offers equality of opportunity to every citizen capable and desirous of taking advantage of it.... In helping individuals it confers an unquestionable benefit on the entire community." Father J.T. Foley, "A Public Library Confers a Benefit on Its Whole Community," Ontario Library Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (June 1916), 12.

(113) Charles J. Mea to Murphy, Murphy Fonds, volume 20, 8260.