oposed, that in the intervals of
sessions, the lower house might appoint committees to prepare matters;
and when business should be brought regularly before them, the
archbishop would regulate the prorogations in such a manner, that they
should have sufficient time to sit and deliberate on the subject. This
offer did not satisfy the lower house, which was emboldened to persist
in its demand by a vote of the commons. These, in consequence of an
address of thanks from the clergy, touching Mr. Lloyd, son to the bishop
of Worcester, whom they ordered to be prosecuted after his privilege
as member of the convocation should be expired, had resolved, that they
would on all occasions assert the just rights and privileges of the
lower house of convocation. The prelates refused to depart from the
archbishop's right of proroguing the whole convocation with consent of
his suffragans. The lower house proposed to refer the controversy to the
queen's decision. The bishops declined this expedient, as inconsistent
with the episcopal authority, and the presidency of the archbishop. The
lower house having incurred the imputation of favouring presbytery, by
this opposition to the bishops, entered in their books a declaration,
acknowledging the order of bishops as superior to presbyters, and to be
a divine apostolical institution. Then they desired the bishops in an
address to concur in settling the doctrine of the divine apostolical
right of episcopacy, that it might be a standing rule of the church.
They likewise presented a petition to the queen, complaining, that in
the convocation called in the year 1700, after an interruption of
ten years, several questions having arisen concerning the rights
and liberties of the lower house, the bishops had refused a verbal
conference; and afterwards declined a proposal to submit the dispute to
her majesty's determination; they therefore fled for protection to
her majesty, begging she would call the question into her own royal
audience. The queen promised to consider their petition, which was
supported by the earl of Nottingham; and ordered their council to
examine the affair, how it consisted with law and custom. Whether their
report was unfavourable to the lower house, or the queen was unwilling
to encourage the division, no other answer was made to their address.
The archbishop replied to their request presented to the upper house,
concerning the divine right of presbytery, that the preface to the