The queen being apprised of their design, desired the archbishop to prorogue them for three weeks, before the expiration of which the act of union had passed in parliament.

The lower house delivered a representation to the bishops, in which they affirmed no such prorogation had ever been ordered during the session of parliament.

The bishops found in their records seven or eight precedents of such prorogations, and above thirty instances of the convocation having sat sometimes before, and sometimes after, a session of parliament; nay, sometimes even when the parliament was dissolved.
The queen, informed of these proceedings, wrote a letter to the archbishop, intimating that she looked upon the lower house as guilty of an invasion of her royal supremacy; and that if any thing of the same nature should be attempted for the future, she would use such means for punishing offenders as the law warranted.

The prolocutor absenting himself from the convocation, the archbishop pronounced sentence of contumacy against him.

The lower house, in a protestation, declared this sentence unlawful and altogether null.