CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 693 
fore arose whether the legislation in question actually affected 
any right existing by law or practice at the time of union, 
and in the second place, what was the effect of the right to 
appeal to the Governor-General in Council. In particular, 
did the right of appeal lie when a privilege or right had been 
given to denominational schools after union, although it did 
not exist at the beginning? In the corresponding section of 
the British North America Act the wording of the clause was 
explicitly to show that if separate schools were established 
after union, then an appeal lay if the privileges so conferred 
were later on changed. But this was not the case in the 
Manitoba, Act. 
The Roman Catholic minority protested, and the Dominion 
Parliament, which was then in the hands of the Conservatives, 
supported the protest with much energy. The first appeal 
to the Privy Council! resulted in a defeat for the minority : 
they went to that body on the subject whether the Act of 
1890 did not contravene the first subsection of s. 22 of the 
Provincial Constitution,? which forbade a provincial law to 
infringe any right or privilege with respect to denominational 
Schools which any class of persons had by law or practice in 
the province at the time of union (the last words being a 
rather comic adaptation of a word applicable only to the 
Original four provinces and other independent provinces). 
The Privy Council held that there was no grievance, as the 
only privilege which the minority had in 1870 was that of 
Paying for the education which they gave their children. 
But the provinces had not finally triumphed; for theminority 
then went to the Privy Council ® on the subject of the sub- 
Section of the Act which permits an appeal to the Governor- 
General in Council from any Act or decision of the legislature 
of & province or of any provincial authority affecting any 
ght or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic 
Minority of Her Majesty’s subjects in relation to education. 
* City of Winnipeg v. Barrett; Same v. Logan, [1892] A. C. 445; 198. C. R. 
374; 7 M. R. 273. * 33 Vict. c. 3. 
. * Brophy v. Attorney-General for Manitoba, [1895] A. C., 202 ; 22 8. CR. 
WIT. Cf also Becrton, Federations and, Unions, pp. 152-4.