§ SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he wished to ask the Law Officers of the Crown, in the construction of the following sentence in the Schedule of the Highways Act—namely, "All questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present," whether it is necessary that there should be a majority of the persons present, or that it is sufficient that there should be a majority of those who, being present, give their votes.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the point alluded to by the hon. Member was one on which there was a great diversity of opinion. As the clause had not yet received a judicial interpretation, he would be a bold man that would venture to express a confident opinion upon it. Nevertheless he had an opinion, and he would state it for what it was worth. It appeared to him there could be no fair doubt as to what the answer should be. It was not sufficient that there should be a majority of those who, being present, gave their votes; but there ought to be, for the purpose of constituting an effectual majority, a majority of persons present voting one way or the other.