The Marquess of Normanbybegged to call the attention of the House to a point of order. It might be in the knowledge of some of their Lordships that a protest had been entered upon the Journals against the third reading of the Maynooth Bill, which had been signed, amongst the noble Lords, by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London.) He understood it to be the invariable practice of the House that no noble Lord should sign a protest, unless he had been personally present and voted on the question. It was contrary to custom to refer to the terms in which a protest had been drawn; but he might nevertheless observe that this protest was couched in pretty strong terms, stating that the Maynooth Bill was contrary to the principles which had placed the reigning family on the Throne. The right rev. Prelate had signed this protest, but he had not been present at the third reading, and had voted by proxy. He (the Marquess of Normanby) was ready either to submit a Motion on the subject, or to leave it to the right rev. Prelate to move that his name be withdrawn.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he had taken part in the discussion on the Bill, and he was not aware that it was necessary for him to be actually present on the third reading to entitle him to sign the protest. As it was, it only remained for him to apologize to their Lordships for any trouble he might have put them to in consequence of his ignorance of the form, and to withdraw his name from the protest.
Lord Campbellwished to know whether it was an universal custom of the House that a protest should not be signed by a noble Lord unless he were present when the question was put?
The Lord Chancellorsaid there could be no doubt at all about the practice.
Leave given to withdraw name from the Protest, his Lordship not having been present on the Question being put for the third reading of said Bill, but having voted by proxy.