As I was making a law of general application, I was trying to take a number that might be-not right up to the maximum or right down to the minimum-but that might fairly be. considered a general number. As I have already stated, it is the principle that seems to me important, and if it be thought that there would be an advantage in saying sixty rather than forty-eight, I would be open to consider the suggestion. The hon. member for Laval has stated that I should take the matter up with the Attorneys General, and suggest to them that they should-in the case of Manitoba, at all events, and any other provinces which may have at any time fixed a number by statute-revert to that number. I would not have any particular objection to doing that, but if I did it I would be undertaking to intervene with the province with regard to the sort of legislation they should enact concerning a matter which they would most strenuously claim to be within their own jurisdiction, and which I am prepared to admit for all practical purposes in regard to this present measure, is their constitutional prerogative.
I had ventured to communicate with the Attorney General for Manitoba, and, whatever we may think about our own respective languages, his reply was not of a kind to indicate that he welcomed or was delighted with my intervention.
Mr. PUG'SLEY: He did not like the bluff.