mentioned. Those who were considered
likely to agree with the Government, were allowed to vote; those of
whose dissent there could be no doubt, were not allowed a voice in the
affairs of the nation.

It might be supposed that, with the exception of a few members of the
upper house, such a Parliament would at once comply with the Queen's
wishes; but the majority made no secret of their intention to oppose the
change of religion, and the penal code which should be enacted to
enforce it. The Deputy was in an unpleasant Position. Elizabeth would
not easily brook the slightest opposition to her wishes. The Deputy did
not feel prepared to encounter her anger, and he determined to avoid the
difficulty, by having recourse to a most unworthy stratagem. First, he
prorogued the house from the 11th of January to the 1st of February,
1560; and then took advantage of the first day of meeting, when but few
members were present, to get the Act passed; secondly, he solemnly swore
that the law should never be carried into execution, and by this false
oath procured the compliance of those who still hesitated. I shall give
authority for these statements.

The letter of Elizabeth, with her positive instructions to have the law
passed, was dated October 18, 1559, and may be seen _in extenso_ in the
_Liber Munerum Hibernia_, vol. i. p.113. There are several authorities
for the dishonest course pursued by the Lord Deputy. The author of
_Cambrensis Eversus_ says: "The Deputy is said to have used force, and
the Speaker treachery. I heard that it had been previously announced in
the house that Parliament would not sit on that very day on which the
laws against religion were enacted; but, in the meantime, a private
summons was sent to those who were well known to be favourable to the
old creed."[408] Father George Dillon, who died in 1650, a martyr to his
charity in assisting the plague-stricken people of Waterford, gives the
following account of the transaction: "James Stanihurst, Lord of
Corduff, who was Speaker of the lower house, by sending private summons
to some, without any intimation to the more respectable Irish who had a
right to attend, succeeded in carrying that law by surprise. As soon as
the matter was discovered, in the next full meeting of Parliament, there
was a general protest against the fraud, injustice, and _deliberate
treachery_ of the proceeding; but the Lord Justice, having solemnly
sworn that the law would never be carrie