² Lenton-Young, G., “Variety Theatre” in Saddlemyer, A., ed., Early Stages: Theatre in Ontario 1800–1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990) [hereinafter Early Stages] 166 at 197.Google Scholar

³ For details on Stair's purchase and development of the Star, see “Police Once Owned the Star, Sold it on a Mortgage” Evening Telegram (23 September 1912) 13 at 16 [hereinafter Telegram]; Lenton-Young,, supra note 2 at 197; R. Plant, “Chronology: Theatre in Ontario to 1914” in Early Stages, supra note 2 at 344; “Changes in a Theater” Toronto Daily Star (15 February 1904) 1 [hereinafter Star].

⁴ Gardner, D., “Burlesque” in Benson, E. & Conolly, L.W., eds., The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989) 67.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. See Adams, W.D., A Book of Burlesque (London: Henry & Co., 1891)Google Scholar; Alexander, H.M., Strip Tease: The Vanished Art of Burlesque (New York: Knight Publishers, 1938)Google Scholar; Jennings, H., Francis & Day's Twelfth Book of Dialogs, Gags, Burlesque Lectures, and Sketches (London: Francis, Day & Hunter).Google Scholar

⁶ Valverde, M., The Age of Light, Soap and Water (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1991) at 77Google Scholar [hereinafter Valverde]; Bliss, M., “‘Pure Books on Avoided Subjects’: Pre-Freudian Sexual Ideas in Canada” in Horn, M. & Sabourin, R., Studies in Canadian Social History (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1974)Google Scholar [hereinafter Bliss].

⁷ R. Davies, “The Nineteenth-Century Repertoire” in Early Stages, supra note 2, 90 at 93.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ See Salerno, H.F., “The Problem Play: Some Aesthetic Considerations” (1968) 11 English Literature in Transition 195.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The full extent of the Canadian campaigns against vicious literature and theatrical productions deserves fuller treatment than it can receive here. Some of the reported cases are R. v. Jourdan (1900), 8 C.C.C. 337 (Recorder's Ct., Montreal); R. v. McAuliffe (1904), 8 C.C.C. 21 (Co. Crim. Ct., Halifax); R. v. Beaver (1905), 9 O.L.R. 418 (C.A.); R. v. Graf (1909), 19 O.L.R. 238 (S.C.); R. v. McCutcheon (1909), 15 C.C.C. 362 (Alta. S.C.); R. v. MacDougall (1909), 15 C.C.C. 466 (N.B. S.C.); and R. v. L'Heureux (1910) R.L. (N.S.) 32 (Que. Cour des sessions de la paix). Many more cases went unreported in law books but appear in newspapers and court records.

¹¹ For information about these campaigns, see Wilson, S.C., “‘Our Common Enemy’: Censorship Campaigns of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the National Council of Women, 1890–1914” (1998) 10 C.J.W.L. 438 [hereinafter Wilson].Google Scholar See also McLaren, J.P.S., “‘Now You See It, Now You Don't': The Historical Record and the Elusive Task of Defining the Obscene” in Schneiderman, D., ed., Freedom of Expression and the Charter (Toronto: Carswell, 1991) 105 at 123–24.Google Scholar More generally, on the activities of these organizations and others like them, see e.g. Cook, S.A., “‘Earnest Christian Women, Bent on Saving Our Canadian Youth’: The Ontario Woman's Christian Temperance Union and Scientific Temperance Instruction, 1881–1930” (1994) 86 Ont. Hist. 249Google Scholar; McLaren, J., “White Slavers: The Reform of Canada's Prostitution Laws and Patterns of Enforcement, 1900–1920” (1987) 8 Crim. J. Hist. 53Google Scholar; Mitchinson, W., “The WCTU: ‘For God, Home and Native Land’: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Feminism” in Kealey, L., ed., A Not Unreasonable Claim: Women and Reform in Canada, 1880s–1920s (Toronto: Women's Press, 1979) 151Google ScholarPubMed; Mitchinson, W., “The Woman's Christian Temperance Union: A Study in Organization” (1981) 4 Int'l J. Women's Studies 143Google Scholar; Mitchinson, W., “The YWCA and Reform in the Nineteenth Century” (1979) 12:24Histoire Sociale 368Google Scholar; Valverde, supra note 6 at 58–63.

¹² R. v. King; R. v. Skill; R. v. Skill & King (20 December 1909) York County No. 145, 146, 147 (Gen. Sessions), Provincial Archives of Ontario, RG 22–5871, files 145–09, 146–09, 147–09 [hereinafter PAO]. See also Wilson, supra note 11; Minutes of the General Sessions, York County, PAO, RG 22–94.

¹³ See Fraser, B.J., The Social Uplifters: Presbyterian Progressives and the Social Gospel in Canada, 1875–1915 (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1988) at 146–47 [hereinafter Fraser].Google Scholar

¹⁴ R. v. Britnell (1911), 26 O.L.R. 136 (C.A.); Rowell, Reid & Co. case file on R. v. Britnell, PAO, RG 4–32, App. A2, Pt 1, 1911, #530.

¹⁵ See Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29; The Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1900, S.C. 1900, c. 46; The Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1903, S.C. 1903, c. 13, s. 3; Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1906, c. 146; The Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1909, S.C. 1909, c. 9, s. 2. Regarding the history of obscenity legislation in Canada, see Saint-Denis, P., Legislating Morality: The Case of Obscenity Legislation in Canada (M.A. Thesis, University of Ottawa 1981) at 43–47 [unpublished].Google Scholar

¹⁶ Supra note 11 at 471. Wilson observes that the WCTU “eschewed political action during its early years, consistent with its ideology of evangelical feminism and the importance of individual reform” but that by the 1890s, it, like the NCW, turned to political lobbying about legislation and Customs and post office lists: Ann Saddlemyer attributes the absence of an official censor in Toronto until 1913 partly to the effectiveness of religious disapproval and partly to the discretion of variety syndicates regarding what to show: “Introduction” in Early Stages, supra note 2 at 12.

¹⁷ Many writers have attempted to explain the decline of the major Protestant churches in the first decades of this century. See generally Allen, R., The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada 1914–28 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Cook, R., The Regenerators: Social Criticism in Late Victorian English Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Marshall, D.B., Secularizing the Faith: Canadian Protestant Clergy and the Crisis of Belief, 1850–1940 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Semple, N., The Lord's Dominion: The History of Canadian Methodism (Montreal: McGill-Queen's, 1996)Google Scholar [hereinafter Semple]; Gauvreau, M., The Evangelical Century: College and Creed in English Canada from the Great Revival to the Great Depression (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Christie, N. & Gauvreau, M., A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900–1940 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

¹⁸ In 1911, 26.6 percent of Ontarians were Methodist, down from 30.5 percent in 1901 and 30.9 percent in 1891. Presbyterianism had fallen less, from 21.4 percent in 1891 to 20.85 percent in 1911. Anglicanism grew slightly, largely due to English immigration, from 18.3 percent in 1891 to 19.4 percent in 1911. Roman Catholicism grew most, however, again because of immigration, from 16.9 percent in 1891 to 17.9 percent in 1901 to 19.2 percent in 1911. See Semple, supra note 17 at 181.

¹⁹ See McKillop, A.B., A Disciplined Intelligence: Critical Inquiry and Canadian Thought in the Victorian Era (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1979) at 185, 216–17Google Scholar; Fraser, supra note 13 at 3–8.

²⁰ See Airhart, P.D., “Condensation and Heart Religion: Canadian Methodists as Evangelicals, 1884–1925” in Rawlyk, G.A., ed., Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1997) 90 at 101.Google Scholar

²¹ “More Hot Criticism from R.B. St. Clair” Star (3 July 1912) 8.

²² Semple, supra note 17 at 7, 390, 425, 431, 435, 444; Clark, S.D., Church and Sect in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948) at 142–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Apparently St. Clair felt he became entitled to use this title when he was called to minister to a congregation in Port Elgin, Ontario – a post he seems never to have taken up. He may also have previously ministered to other Ontario congregations. See Examination for Discovery of St. Clair, St. Clair v. Stair et al., PAO RG 22–5800, York County Action File #1315, 1912, TB 271A, A-42, B-4, S-2, C-10; United Church Archives [hereinafter UCA], Maple Grove Evangelical Church, Series 1, TR-1, 77.693L, LCM-249, FN 2583; UCA, Hamilton Conference, Bruce Presbytery, Port Elgin, Ontario, Quarterly Conference Minutes, 1868–1967, Accession #77.047L, Box 2–2; “Rev. R.B. St. Clair Again in the Limelight in Toronto” Star (14 March 1912) 1, 18 [hereinafter “Limelight”]; “Counsel for R.B. St. Clair Criticizes Police Court” Star (8 June 1912) 5 [hereinafter “Counsel Criticizes”].

²⁴ See McLaren, J., “Recalculating the Wages of Sin: The Social and Legal Construction of Prostitution, 1850–1920” (1995) 23 Man. L.J. 524Google Scholar; Marquis, G., Policing Canada's Century: A History of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993) at 81, 83–90.Google Scholar

²⁵ See “Harsh Fate of Purifier of the Public Morals” Telegram (23 May 1912) 21; Strange, C., Toronto's Girl Problem: The Perils and Pleasures of the City, 1880–1930 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995) at 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ L.W. Conolly calls Coburn (1874–1954) “[o]ne of the most fervent and dedicated, perhaps the most fervent and dedicated of all religious critics of theatre in Canada”: “The Man in the Green Goggles: Clergymen and Theatre Censorship (Toronto, 1912–13)” (1980) 23 Theatre Hist, in Can. 111 [hereinafter Conolly]. See also John Coburn, UCA, biographical file.

²⁷ Lenton-Young, supra note 2 at 195–96. Most of the records of the Toronto Police Court have been destroyed, but I have examined the records of the York General Sessions, County Court and Criminal Assizes. An 1895 case pertains to a playbill: R. v. F.W. Stair, 1895, AO, York Criminal Assizes case file RG 22–392–0–8643, Box 259.

²⁸ “Limelight,” supra note 23. Until the bulletin was lost, it was indexed as “Investigation file of the OPP concerning an immoral performance at the Star Theatre in Toronto, 1912,” AO, RG 23, Series E-18, Box 1, File 19, Ontario Provincial Police, Criminal Investigation, Records and Reports, 1910–15 [hereinafter St. Clair, “Bulletin”]. I am grateful to Steven Maynard for sending me a copy.

²⁹ One of the Vigilance Association's main concerns was to “‘aid in preventing boys being led astray by moral perverts.’” The Association's offices were at Bay and Richmond Streets, around the corner from the Star Theatre. From there, St. Clair and his colleagues were well placed to learn that the Star Theatre was, as Steven Maynard has described, one of the key sites in the homosexual subculture involving men and teenaged boys that existed around the intersection of Queen and Bay. The theatre was a place for meeting and pick-ups. Teenaged boys, often living on the streets, loved the theatre and, although often seeing themselves as heterosexual, seem to have been willing to exchange admission for the delivery of oral or manual sexual services in the darkened, smoky rows. For the customer with homoerotic preferences, the heterosexual fare on stage may have camouflaged his actual desires. Between 1911 and 1914, the police engaged in a sustained campaign of surveillance and prosecution of the homosexual goings on in the parks and alleys in the neighbourhood of the Star Theatre. See Maynard, S., “‘Horrible Temptations’: Sex, Men, and Working-Class Male Youth in Urban Ontario, 1890–1935” (1997) 78 Can. Hist'l Rev. 191 at 191–212, 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Through a Hole in the Lavatory Wall: Homosexual Subcultures, Police Surveillance, and the Dialectics of Discovery, Toronto, 1890–1930” (1994) 5:2 J. Hist. Sexuality 207.

³⁰ Regarding the genesis of this figure, see Cassel, J., The Secret Plague: Venereal Disease in Canada 1838–1939 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987) at 82Google Scholar; Rotundo, E.A., American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: Basic Books, 1993) at 82–87, 262–79Google Scholar [hereinafter Rotundo].

³¹ “Show ‘Hell Upon Earth’” Telegram (14 March 1912) 17.

³² “Taking Fire for Police, Silenced by Judge” Telegram (21 September 1912) 21; R. v. St. Clair (1913), 21 C.C.C. 350 at 378, 4 O.W.N. 856 (Ont. C.A.) [hereinafter St. Clair (C.A.), cited to C.C.C.]. The court file for this case is missing from the AO, but the minute books exist: AO, York County Judges' Criminal Court minute books, 1890–1912, RG 22–5869, file 59–12. See also Coburn, J., I Kept My Powder Dry (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1950) at 118 [hereinafter Coburn].Google Scholar

³³ “Urge Exclusion of Children at Theatres” Toronto Globe (22 May 1912) 9 [hereinafter Globe]; “Vigilance Officer Placed Under Arrest” Globe (23 May 1912) 8.

³⁴ “Vigilance Officer Remanded for Week” Globe (24 May 1912) 8.

³⁵ See Homel, G.H., “Denison's Law: Criminal Justice and the Police Court in Toronto, 1877–1921” in Macleod, R.C., Lawful Authority: Readings in the History of Criminal Justice in Canada (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1988) 167 at 169–70Google Scholar; Denison, G.T., Recollections of a Police Magistrate (Toronto: Musson Book, 1921) at 59–61.Google Scholar

³⁶ “St. Clair Goes to Jury, Is Let Out on Easy Bail” Toronto Star (7 June 1912) 10; “‘Vigilance’ Secretary to be Tried by Jury” Globe (8 June 1912) 9; “Rev. Mr. St. Clair to a Jury: His Own Bail Accepted” Telegram (7 June 1912) 19.

³⁷ See “Counsel Criticizes,” supra note 23.

³⁸ “Mr. St. Clair Tells of Cells” Telegram (13 June 1912) 13; “Says Police Officials are Untrue to Trust” Toronto World (13 June 1912) 1 [hereinafter World].

³⁹ See e.g. “Editorial Notes” Canadian Congregationalist (18 July 1912) 1; “The Sikh Problem: Views of Women” Globe (29 May 1912) 3; “‘Glad They Arrested Me,’ Says Rev. R.B. St. Clair” Globe (13 June 1912) 4; “Women Score Police Methods” World (13 June 1912) 1; “Women Backing Up Rev. R.B. St. Clair” Star (13 June 1912) 3.

⁴⁰ See e.g. “Police Methods in the St. Clair Case Smack of Russia” Star (10 June 1912) 2.

⁴¹ “Toronto Tolerates No Ill-Fame Houses” Star (10 July 1912) 15; “Unfair Criticisms of Toronto Police Warmly Resented” Star (13 July 1912) 23; “Gives Toronto a Clean Bill” Telegram (10 July 1912) 24.

⁴² R.S.C. 1906, c. 146.

⁴³ See the Globe, Star, Telegram and World between 21 and 26 September 1912.

⁴⁴ “Would Head Mob to Burn Theatre, Says Clergyman” Star (23 September 1912) 1, 5; “Matter of Taste Says Play Censor” World (24 September 1912) 12; St. Clair (C.A.), supra note 32.

⁴⁵ “Mr. Raney Threatens to Show Up Police” Globe (23 September 1912) 9.

⁴⁶ R. v. St. Clair (1912), 24 O.W.R. 267 (Co. Ct.) [hereinafter St. Clair (Co. Ct.)].

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ See the Globe, Star, Telegram and World from 27 September to 2 October 1912. See also UCA, Minutes of Annual Meeting, General Board, Department of Temperance, Prohibition and Moral Reform of the Methodist Church, 26 & 27 September 1912 at 10.

⁵⁰ Likely the police did not think the Star Theatre was enough of a moral hazard to warrant a conviction. It is interesting to speculate that class-based sympathies may have made the police reluctant to prosecute the Star. The upper decision-making ranks of the police force, however, tended to come from the middle, rather than working class. Even with regard to constables, as Greg Marquis has shown, many characteristics other than class, such as religion, ethnicity, economic aspirations, occupational past, affiliation with fraternal organizations and family status (generally heterosexual and nuclear), suggest that their priorities and values probably diverged from, as well as converged with, those of the Star's audience in important respects. See Marquis, G., “Working Men in Uniform: The Early Twentieth-century Toronto Police” (1987) 20 Histoire Sociale 259.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See the Star, Telegram and World, 2 October 1912.

⁵² “Hot Social War in City” Telegram (4 October 1912) 30; “To Take Up the Case of R.B. St. Clair” Globe (1 October 1912) 1; “Hold Mass Meeting Friday, November 1” Globe (18 October 1912) 9.

⁵³ “Reorganize Police Force Demand of Mass Meeting” Telegram (2 November 1912) 30. See also “Board's Good-Bye to Mayor” Telegram (17 October 1912) 13; “Board Will Censor Plays” Telegram (31 October 1912) 10; “Board of Censors to Watch the Plays at the Theatres” Star (17 October 1912) 19 [hereinafter “To Watch the Plays”]; “Great Gathering in Massey Hall Condemns Police, Demands a Change” Star (2 November 1912) 6, 9.

⁵⁴ “Mayor Opposed to Five Members Upon the Police Board” Star (2 November 1912) 1; “‘I Accept Full Responsibility’ – Chief Grasett” Star (2 November 1912) 1; “Call in High Court Judge, Probe Police Department” Telegram (2 November 1912) 29; “Chief Constable Would Welcome an Inquiry” Globe (4 November 1912) 9 [hereinafter “Welcome an Inquiry”].

⁵⁵ “Colonel is Not Flustered” Telegram (2 November 1912) 29.

⁵⁶ “St. Clair is Surprised” Telegram (4 November 1912) 22; “Welcome an Inquiry,” supra note 54.

⁵⁷ “To Watch the Plays,” supra note 53.

⁵⁸ “Problem of Play Censorship Now Up to the Controllers” Star (19 October 1912) 4.

⁵⁹ “What Can Be Done with the Theatre?” (13 October 1910) Presbyterian 387 at 387–88.

⁶⁰ For commentary, see Rotundo, supra note 30 at 172.

⁶¹ His libel suit against Fred Stair and a local weekly called Jack Canuck drew some press: see St. Clair v. Stair, supra note 23.

⁶² After many months, Stair was acquitted by Judge Morgan, sitting without a jury in the York County Court on 2 and 3 June 1913. See AO, Minutes of York General Sessions, RG 22–94; General Sessions case file RG 22–5871, 187–12; York Criminal Assize Clerks' Indictment Reports, RG 22–391; York County case file RG 22–5870, 119–13; R. v. Stair (1913), 24 O.W.R. 689; “Theatre Owner Sent for Trial” Star (28 November 1912) 1.

⁶³ For coverage of this incident, see the Telegram, Star and World on 4 and 5 December 1912.

⁶⁴ “Discovery by Mr. St. Clair Rather Late” Star (4 December 1912) 1 [hereinafter “Rather Late”].

⁶⁵ Valverde, supra note 6 at 67–69. See also Bliss, supra note 6.

⁶⁶ Hunter, I., Saunders, D. & Williamson, D., On Pornography: Literature, Sexuality and Obscenity Law (Houndsmills, England: MacMillan Press, 1993) at 65–73, 92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. v. Hicklin (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 360.

⁶⁷ St. Clair told the Vigilance Association that the Congregationalist United Brethren required their (lay) ministers to drop the title “reverend” after an absence of more than two years from active work: “St. Clair is No Longer Rev.” Telegram (5 December 1912) 26; “St. Clair Shocked in Normal School” World (4 December 1912) 1; “Rather Late,” supra note 64.

⁶⁸ See UCA, Congregational Union of Canada, Minutes of Seventh Annual Meeting, 4–9 June 1913 at 431–33.

⁶⁹ “Should Change be Made in Law Against Immoral Shows?” Star (21 December 1912) 5; “Crown Attorneys Differ” Telegram (17 December 1912) 15.

⁷⁰ See “To Increase Police Board,” Telegram (4 December 1912) 15 [hereinafter “To Increase Police Board”]; “More Publicity in the Control of Police Force” Star (4 December 1912) 5; “Commission of Five Favoured” World (5 December 1912) 3; “More Members for Police Board” World (21 December 1912) 10; “Abolish Three Committees Council Decides on Merger” Telegram (21 December 1912) 28; “Keep Politics Out of It” Telegram (30 January 1913) 25.

⁷¹ R. v. Stair; R. v. Pearce, AO, York Criminal Assize Clerks' Indictments Reports RG 22–391; Criminal Assizes case files RG 22–392–0–8991, Box 270 and RG 22–392–0–8992, Box 270 [hereinafter Stair and Pearce]. Regarding the proceedings and evidence, see the coverage by the Telegram, Globe, Star and World for 10 to 13 January 1913.

⁷² St. Clair, “Bulletin,” supra note 28.

⁷³ Apparently St. Clair expected to be a Crown witness at the General Sessions in December. When the case was put over to the Criminal Assizes in January, the Crown lawyers subpoenaed him but then told him they would not call him after all. He then left town, so that when the defence decided to call him, the court officers could not find him.

⁷⁴ Regarding the verdict and what followed, see the Telegram, Globe, Star and World on 13 and 14 January 1913. Middleton was born Anglican but married a Presbyterian and attended St. Andrew's Presbyterian church in Toronto, even after it stayed out of the United Church in 1925. He seems to have opposed church union and was probably among those who resisted the reform efforts of Shearer and others. See Arnup, J.D., Middleton: The Beloved Judge (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1988) at 160–61Google Scholar; Fraser, supra note 13 at 91–92, 132, 156, 165–68.

⁷⁵ Coburn, supra note 32 at 123–24.

⁷⁶ “Call Theatres Plague Spots and Score the Police Department” Telegram (21 January 1913) 21. The grand jury's report is in the case file on Stair and Pearce, supra note 71.

⁷⁷ This understanding came from their reading of the Consolidated Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1903, c. 19, s. 583, as amended by S.O. 1908, c. 48, s. 15 and S.O. 1911, c. 57, s. 12. See also “Star License is Renewed and Can't be Revoked” Telegram (14 January 1913) 13; “City Can Revoke Licenses” Telegram (18 January 1913) 32; “Effective Check on Play Houses” World (19 January 1913) 2.

⁷⁸ “Want to See Commissioners” Telegram (22 January 1913) 25; “Clergymen Want to Argue Star Case” Globe (22 January 1913) 9; “Plain Talk to Police Board for Licensing Star Theatre” Telegram (5 February 1913) 8; “Police Board Points to Theatre Censor” Globe (5 February 1913) 9; “Police Commissioners Will Not Revoke Star Licence” Star (5 February 1913) 7.

⁷⁹ See “Police May Revoke Theatre Licenses?” Star (7 February 1913) 2; “Can They Close Theatre?” Telegram (17 February 1913) 22; Municipal Institutions Act, S.O. 1913, c. 43, s. 420(3).

⁸⁰ “To Increase Police Board,” supra note 70; “Women Police Suggested” Telegram (11 December 1912) 24; “Wm. Banks, Theatre Censor” Telegram (26 December 1912) 20; “No Theatre Censor as Yet” Telegram (8 January 1913) 8; “Col. Denison to Preside Over Police Board” Globe (8 January 1913) 8; “Junior Officers Are Dissatisfied” Star (5 March 1913) 2; “Police Board Surprises” Telegram (5 March 1913) 12; “Mr. Banks, Sen., Named Theatrical Censor” Globe (5 March 1913) 9.

⁸¹ “Keep Close Watch on Star Theatre” Star (22 February 1913) 3; “Are Watching the Theatre” Telegram (22 February 1913) 31; “Two Star Performances Were Vastly Different” Globe (22 February 1913) 8; “Rev. John Coburn Gets Assistant Pastor” Star (15 April 1913) 8.

⁸² “Court of Appeal to Decide Did St. Clair Serve Public Good?” Telegram (3 October 1912) 17; “St. Clair's Basis of Appeal” Telegram (3 October 1912) 24; “Court of Appeal Asked to Decide St. Clair Case” Star (3 October 1912) 3; “Appeal Judges Freely Comment in St. Clair Case” Star (26 November 1912) 1, 12; “St. Clair Used Carbolic Acid, not a Perfume” Star (27 November 1912) 4; “‘I Would Have Acquitted,’ Says Mr. Justice Garrow” Telegram (26 November 1912) 15; “Judges Comment on St. Clair Bulletin” Globe (27 November 1912) 9.

⁸³ St. Clair (C.A.), supra note 32 at 358–72. Hodgins was the newest appointee to the Bench, a younger judge of fifty-eight. He held a B.A. from the high Anglican Trinity College in the University of Toronto, had practised with the Toronto Board of Education and had been a Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada from 1910 to 1912. He probably sympathized with moral reformers, as a few years later he sat on the two Royal Commissions on venereal disease and feeblemindedness, and he drafted legislation regarding venereal disease: Law Society of Upper Canada Archives [hereinafter LSUC], “Frank Egerton Hodgins,” Ontario Bar Biographical Research Project Database 1990 [hereinafter OBBRP]; John McLaren, personal communication, November 1998.

⁸⁴ St. Clair (C.A.), ibid. at 352–57. At sixty-five, Meredith was one of the older members of the Bench that heard St. Clair's appeal. He came from an established, Conservative, Anglican legal family in London, Ontario, which included his brothers W.R. Meredith, who had been appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal by the time the appellate verdict in St. Clair came down (at the same time, R.M. Meredith became Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas); Edmund Meredith, who prosecuted Fred Stair; and T.G. Meredith, a London solicitor: see LSUC, “Richard Martin Meredith,” OBBRP; “William Ralph Meredith,” OBBRP; “Thomas Graves Meredith,” OBBRP; LSUC, Series 21–01, Past Members' Records, Member Record Cards, “Edmund Allen Meredith,” File 5879.

⁸⁵ See Mathew 6:3.

⁸⁶ W. Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth, in Evans, G.B., ed., The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974) 1312 at I.i. 11–12.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ St. Clair (C.A.), supra note 32 at 357–58. Magee was a military man born in England of Irish descent and raised in London, Ontario: LSUC, “James Magee,” OBBRP.

⁸⁸ St. Clair (C.A.), ibid., at 372–81. Maclaren, age seventy, was a lifelong member of the Methodist church and had been its legal advisor for many years. He was by far the most educated member of this Bench and had a distinguished record of academic involvements and achievements. He held a B.A. from Victoria College (Methodist) and also held the degrees M.A., LL.B., LL.D., B.C.L. and D.C.L., all or most of which he appears to have earned. He was Q.C. in Quebec and Ontario, and he published several standard legal texts. He was Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University for many years and a member of the Senate and an honorary member of the law faculty at the University of Toronto. He was a Trustee of Upper Canada College. Maclaren was heavily involved in Methodist Sunday School work, was a leader in the prohibition movement and acted as counsel in some of the important federalism cases that arose from that movement. His reasoning in this case seems to fall within the Methodist traditions of suspicion of secular pastimes and of a greater sense of the duty of individuals to take responsibility for the morality of others. See LSUC, “John James Maclaren,” OBBRP and Minutes of Convocation, vol. 17, p. 414Google Scholar, in biographical file on Maclaren.

⁸⁹ “St. Clair Rightly Convicted” Globe (27 February 1913) 9.

⁹⁰ “Judges Say St. Clair Was Not Justified” Star (26 February 1913) 3.

⁹¹ “Hits Police Commissioners” Telegram (26 February 1913) 25; “Judge Maclaren's Dissent” Telegram (27 February 1913) 12; “St. Clair Sentence Delayed” Telegram (10 March 1913) 16.

⁹² “Citizens' Committee Rather Reticent About Coburn's Burlesque Disguise” Star (1 April 1913) 1; “Rev. John Coburn Went to Burlesque Show in Disguise” Star (1 April 13) 4; “Clergyman at Star Wearing a Disguise” Globe (1 April 1913) 8. See Conolly, supra note 26.

⁹³ See Conolly, ibid., and also Dean, M., Censored! Only in Canada: The History of Film Censorship – the Scandal Off the Screen (Toronto: Virgo Press, 1981) at 8–10.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ R. v. Day (6 June 1913), Ont. Div. Ct., contained in AO, case files of the Attorney General of Ontario, RG 4–32, File 1913, #834. Morson judged the play in its censored form, but the charges were laid on the uncensored version. This fact garnered criticism at the time, but it does not concern us here.

⁹⁵ See “St. Clair Sentence Delayed” Telegram (4 March 1913) 16; “St. Clair Sentence Delayed” Telegram (10 March 1913); “[Illegible] in St. Clair Appeal” Telegram (12 March 1913) 11; Coburn, supra note 32 at 119.

⁹⁶ Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Vol. 58 at 317 (16 March 1903).