Lord Buckmaster:- This appeal raises an important question as to the validity of a Circular of Instructions issued by the Department of Education for the Province of Ontario on 17th August, 1913. The Primary schools within the province are for the purpose of this circular separated into two divisions, public schools and separate schools, the latter, with which alone this appeal is concerned, being denominational schools, established, supported, and managed under certain statutory provisions to which reference will be made. The population of the province is, and has always been, composed both of English and of French speaking inhabitants and each of the two classes of schools is attended by children who speak, some one language, some the other, while some, again, have the good fortune to speak both, so that distinction in language does not and cannot be made to follow the distinction in the schools themselves. The circular in some of its clauses deals with all schools, but its heading refers only to English-French schools which it defines as being those schools, whether separate or public, where French is a language of instruction or communication, which have been marked out by the Minister for (Education) as provided in the circular. The object of the circular is to restrict the use of French in these schools and to this restriction the appellants, who are the Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools of the City of Ottawa, assert that they are not obliged to submit. The respondents, who are supporters of the same Roman Catholic schools, desire to maintain the Circular of Instructions in its integrity and upon the appellants' refusal to abide by its terms the respondents instituted against them the proceedings out of which this appeal has arisen, asking, among other things, a mandatory order enforcing against the appellants obedience to the circular. The Supreme Court of Ontario granted the injunction that was sought and their judgment was affirmed by the unanimous opinion of the judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The appellants' defence to the action rests in substance upon the contention that the instructions were, and are, wholly unauthorised and unwarranted and beyond the powers of the Minister of Education because they were contrary to, and in violation of, the British North America Act, 1867. The appellants' defence to the action rests in substance upon the contention that the instructions were, and are, wholly unauthorised and unwarranted and beyond the powers of the Minister of Education because they were contrary to, and in violation of, the British North America Act, 1867. In order to confer legislative authority upon the instructions an Act of the Province of Ontario (5 Geo. 5, c. 45) has been passed during the litigation declaring that the regulations imposed were duly made and approved under the authority of the Department of Education and became binding according to the terms of their provisions on the appellants and the schools under their control, and containing consequential provisions. It is obvious that the validity of this statute depends upon considerations similar to those involved in determining the validity of the instructions but the statute is the subject of another proceeding in Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools for Ottawa v. Ottawa Corporation [1917] A.C. 76 — (1916) 86 L.J.P.C. 73, and the present appeal is confined to the question whether the Minister of Education had power to issue the circular. The number of schools which are affected by the dispute is considerable, for of 192 Roman Catholic schools under the charge of the appellants 116 have been designated English-French schools. The material sections in the British North America Act upon which the appellants rely are Secs. 91, 92 and 93. Sec. 91 authorizes the Parliament of Canada to make laws for the peace, order, and good Government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by the Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces. Sec. 92 enumerates the classes of subjects in relation to which the Legislatures of the provinces may exclusively make laws and includes therein generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province. Sec. 93 deals specifically with education and enacts that in and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the provisions therein contained. It appears, therefore, that the subject of education is excluded from the powers conferred on the Parliament of Canada and is placed wholly within the competence of the Provincial Legislatures who again are subject to limitations expressed in four provisions. It appears, therefore, that the subject of education is excluded from the powers conferred on the Parliament of Canada and is placed wholly within the competence of the Provincial Legislatures who again are subject to limitations expressed in four provisions. Provision 1 is in these terms : "Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union." Provision 3 contains an important safeguard, which gives an appeal to the Governor-General in Council from any act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the King's subjects in relation to education. Provision 4 provides machinery for making the decision of the Governor-General in Council effective. If a provincial law which seems to the Governor-General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of the section is not made, or any decision of the Governor-General in Council is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority then and in every such case and so far only as the circumstances of each case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor-General in Council under the section. These provisions contain a procedure of great value to the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in relation to education. They do not affect or diminish whatever remedy the appellants have under provision 1, and cannot operate to give the Legislature of Ontario authority to legislate in matters specially excepted from their authority. Accordingly it would require an Act of the Imperial Legislature prejudicially to affect any right or privilege reserved under provision 1, and if the regulations which are impeached do prejudicially affect any such right or privilege, to that extent they are not binding on the appellants. Accordingly it would require an Act of the Imperial Legislature prejudicially to affect any right or privilege reserved under provision 1, and if the regulations which are impeached do prejudicially affect any such right or privilege, to that extent they are not binding on the appellants. There is no question that the English-French Roman Catholic separate schools in Ottawa are denominational schools to which the provision applies and it has been decided by this Board that the right or privilege reserved in the provision is a legal right or privilege, and does not include any practice, instruction, or privilege of a voluntary character which at the date of the passing of the Act might be in operation : City of Winnipeg v. Barrett [1892] A.C. 445 — (1892) L.J.P.C. 58. Further, the class of persons to whom the right or privilege is reserved must, in their Lordships' opinion, be a class of persons determined according to religious belief, and not according to race or language. In relation to denominational teaching, Roman Catholics together form within the meaning of the section a class of persons and that class cannot be subdivided into other classes by considerations of the language of the people by whom that faith is held. The appellants and the respondents, therefore, are members of the same class; but this fact does not affect the appellants' position on their appeal, for their case is that even to the class so determined there were preserved by the statute and vested in them as trustees rights or privileges which include the right of deciding as to the language to be used as a means of instruction; and the question, therefore, that arises is, what were the rights and privileges that were protected by the Act and were they invaded by the circular according to its true meaning? Now it appears that at the date of the passing of the British North America Act, 1867, a statute was in operation in Upper Canada by which certain legal rights and privileges were conferred on Roman Catholics in Upper Canada in respect to separate schools, and so far as the facts of this case are concerned this was the only source from which the rights and privileges could have proceeded. This Act Separate Schools Act, 1863. (26 Vict. This Act Separate Schools Act, 1863. (26 Vict. C. 5 Upper Canada), enabled any number of people, not less than five and being Roman Catholics, to convene a public meeting of persons who desire to establish a separate school for Roman Catholics and for the election of trustees for the management of such schools; by Sec. 7 it is enacted that the trustees of such schools should form a body corporate under the statute should have power to impose, levy, and collect school rates or subscriptions from persons sending children to, or subscribing towards the support of, such schools and should have "all the powers in respect of separate schools that the trustees of common schools have and possess under the provisions of the Act relating to common schools." A special clause also related to the appointment of teachers, who, before the passing of this statute had been arbitrarily appointed by boards of trustees, and this power was regulated and restricted by Sec. 13 which provided that the teachers of the separate schools should be subject to the same examinations and receive their certificate of qualification in the same manner as common school teachers while Sec. 26 provided that the schools should be subject to inspection and should be subject also "to such regulations as may be imposed from time to time by the Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada." In order, therefore, to ascertain the true extent and limit of the powers conferred by this statute it is necessary to see what were the powers enjoyed by trustees of the common schools. These are to be found in another statute of Upper Canada, 22 Vict. c. 64 known as the Common Schools Act, 1859. This statute conferred upon trustees for common schools (now called public schools) certain powers, the most important of which are to be found collected under several heads in Sec. 79. A mere glance at this section will show that such powers are undoubtedly wide. They include under Sub-sec. 7 power to acquire school sites and premises and to do what may seem right for procuring text-books, and establishing school libraries, while Sub-sec. 8 places in the hands of the trustees the determination of "the kind and description of schools to be established", the teachers to be employed and generally the terms of their employment. These powers are, however, to some extent limited by Sub-sees. 8 places in the hands of the trustees the determination of "the kind and description of schools to be established", the teachers to be employed and generally the terms of their employment. These powers are, however, to some extent limited by Sub-sees. 15 and 16, the first of which in effect requires that the text-books should be a uniform series of authorized text-books, while the latter compels the trustees to see that all the schools under their charge are conducted according to the authorized regulations. Counsel for the appellants naturally place great reliance upon these previsions, and in the wider aspect of their argument they contend that "the kind of school" that the trustees are authorized to provide is a school where education is to be given in such language as the trustees think fit. They urge that it was a right or privilege possessed with respect to denominational schools in 1867 in determining the number and kind of schools to say within what limits the French language is to be used; for, according to their contention, "kind of school" means a school where the French language, under the direction of trustees, may be used as a medium of instruction on terms not less favourable than the use of English. Their Lordships are unable to agree with this view. The "kind" of school referred to in Sub-sec. 8 of Sec. 79 is, in their opinion, the grade or character of school, for example, "a girls' school", "a boys' school", or "an infants' school" and a "kind" of school, within the meaning of that sub-section, and not a school where any special language is in common use. The schools must be conducted in accordance with the regulations, and their Lordships can find nothing in the statute to take away from the authority that had power to issue regulations the power of directing in what language education is to be given. If, therefore, the trustees of the common schools would be bound to obey a regulation which directed that education should, subject to certain restrictions, be given " in either English or French, the trustees of the separate schools would also be bound to obey a regulation of the same character affecting their school, provided that it does not interfere with a right or privilege reserved under the Act of 1867, i.e., a right or privilege attached to denominational teaching. The objections to the instructions which were urged before their Lordships however were not chiefly based on the allegation that they prejudicially affected in any special manner denominational teaching, but on the wider ground. Their Lordships appreciate the affection which the French-speaking residents in Ottawa feel for the French language; but it must not be forgotten that although a majority of the supporters of the English-French separate schools in Ottawa are of French origin, there are other supporters to whom French is not the natural language. This fact has no doubt caused great difficulty in adjusting fairly as between the different inhabitants the natural rivalry as to the languages to be used in the education of the children and the care with which this difficulty has been considered is evidenced in the terms of a valuable report which is printed in the record and to which their Lordships would direct attention : "As was stated in our former report, while all classes of the French people are not only willing but desirous that their children should learn the English language, they at the same time wish them to retain the use of their own language and there is no reason why they should not do so. To possess the knowledge of both languages is an advantage to them. And the use of the English language instead of their own, if such a change should ever take place, must be brought about by the operation of the same influences which are making it all over this continent the language of other nationalities as tenacious of their native tongue as the French. It is a change that cannot be forced. To attempt to deprive a people of the use of their native tongue would be as unwise as it would be unjust, even if it were possible. In the British Empire there are people of many languages. The use of these does not affect the loyalty of the people to the Crown and the English language remains the language of the Empire. In the British Empire there are people of many languages. The use of these does not affect the loyalty of the people to the Crown and the English language remains the language of the Empire. The object of these schools is to make better scholars of the rising generation of French children and to enable them to do better for themselves by teaching them English, while leaving them free to make such use of their own language as they please." It therefore becomes necessary to examine closely the terms of the circular in order to ascertain the nature and extent of the restrictions it imposes. Unfortunately it is couched in obscure language, and it is not easy to ascertain its true effect. It opens with a definition of English-French schools, and it was argued on behalf of the appellants that even this definition was not within the power of the Department; but there is no weight in this objection, provided that the selected schools are so dealt with as not to impeach any legal right or privilege of the appellants. The second paragraph of the circular is important. The regulations and courses of study prescribed for the public schools, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the circular, are applied to the English-French schools, with the following modifications : "The provision for religious instruction and exercises in public schools shall not apply to separate schools, and separate school boards may substitute the Canadian Catholic readers for the Ontario public school readers." These modifications bring the instructions into agreement with the provisions as to regulations affecting religious instruction in the Common Schools Act and the Separate Schools Act. The only reference to religious instruction to which their Lordships were referred in these statutes is Sec. 129 of the former statute. This section provides that no persons shall require any pupil to read or study in or from any religious book or join in any exercise of devotion or religion objected to by his or her parents or guardian, and this provision preserves these rights. This section provides that no persons shall require any pupil to read or study in or from any religious book or join in any exercise of devotion or religion objected to by his or her parents or guardian, and this provision preserves these rights. Indeed the clause, in their Lordships' opinion, indicates that the whole course of religious teaching in the separate schools is outside the operation of the circular, for the circular applies to public schools and separate schools alike and impartially and if it contained provisions with regard to religious instruction in the public schools by virtue of this clause those provisions would not apply to the separate schools; throughout the whole of the circular, however, there is nothing whatever to indicate that it is intended to have any application, excepting it may be in the case of public schools, to anything but secular teaching and it is in this connection that clause 3 must be read. This is the clause which regulates the use of French as the language of instruction and communication and it is against these provisions that the complaint of the appellants is mainly directed. The clause refers equally to public and separate schools and directs that modifications shall be made in the course of study in both classes of schools, subject to the direction and approval of the chief inspector. In the case of French-speaking pupils, French where necessary may be used as the language of instruction and communication but not beyond Form I, except on the approval of the chief inspector in the case of pupils beyond Form I who are unable to speak and understand the English language. There are further provisions for a special course in English for French-speaking pupils and for French as a subject of study in public and separate schools. Mr. Belcourt urged that so to regulate use of the French language in the separate Roman Catholic schools in Ottawa constituted an interference, and is in some way inconsistent with a natural right vested in the French-speaking population; but unless this right was one of those reserved by the Act of 1867 such interference could not be resisted and their Lordships have already expressed the view that people joined together by the union of language and not by the ties of faith do not form a class of persons within the meaning of the Act. If the other opinion were adopted there appears to be no reason why a similar claim should not be made on behalf of the English-speaking parents whose children are being educated in the Roman Catholic separate schools in Ottawa. In this connection it is worthy of notice that the only section in the British North America Act, 1867, which relates to the use the English and French languages (Sec. 133) does not relate to education and is directed to an entirely different subject-matter. It authorizes the use of either the English or French language in debates in the Houses of Parliament in Canada and the Houses of Legislature in Quebec, and by any persons or in any pleading or process in, or issuing from, any Court of Canada and in and from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. If any inference is to be drawn from this section, it would not be in favour of the contention of the appellants. Further objections that are taken to the circular depend upon these considerations that it interferes with the right to manage which the trustees possess; and that it further infringes a right on the part of the trustees to appoint teachers whose certificates are provided by a board of whom the trustees can appoint one. In their Lordships' view there is no substance in either of these contentions. The right to manage does not involve the right of determining the language to be used in the schools. Indeed, the right to manage must be subject to the regulations under which all the schools must be carried on; and there is nothnig in the Act to negative the view that those regulations might include the provisions to which the appellants object. If, therefore, the regulation as to which the trustees of the common schools were bound to carry on the class of school committed to their charge did in fact under the Act of 1859 enable directions to be given as to the medium of instruction the power possessed by the trustees of the separate schools would have been subject to the same limitation and the question as to interference with the powers of management does not arise as an independent question. So far as the teachers are concerned the words of Sub-sec. So far as the teachers are concerned the words of Sub-sec. 8 of S.79 empower the trustees to determine the teacher or teachers; but this merely means that they are to be determined out of the number who are duly qualified and it is for the Board of Education to impose what conditions they think fit as to the necessary qualifications of such a teacher. Under the statute of 1859 the body for examining and giving certificates of qualification for the teacher was constituted by three members of the Board of Public Instruction, including a local superintendent of the schools; and it is argued that under the power of appointing the local superintendent a power conferred on the trustees — the provisions in the circular which impose as a necessary condition of qualification of the teachers that they must possess a knowledge of the English language, interfered with the trustees' right in this respect. To accede to this argument would involve the removal of the condition as to the necessary qualification of the teachers from the Board of Education. This might be a serious matter for the cause of education in the Province of Ontario; but there is no need to consider that the statute compels this view. Even assuming that the provision of Sec. 96 as to the granting of certificates to teachers might be still revived, yet even then there is nothing to prevent the establishment of special conditions as conditions with which the teachers must comply before any such certificate can be given. In the result, their Lordships are of opinion that, on the construction of the Acts and documents before them, the regulations impeached were duly made and approved under the authority of the Department of Education and became binding according to the terms of those provisions on the appellants and the schools under their control and they will humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss this appeal. The appellants will pay the costs. Appeal dismissed.