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 carried into execution, the remonstrants were caught in the dexterous snare, and consented that the enactment should remain on the statute-book."[409] Dr. Rothe corroborates these statements, and records the misfortunes which followed the Speaker’s family from that date.[410] Dr. Moran[411] has very acutely observed, that the day appointed for the opening of Parliament was the festival of St. Brigid, which was always kept with special solemnity in Ireland; therefore, the orthodox members would probably have absented themselves, unless informed of some business which absolutely required their attendance.

The Loftus MS., in Marsh’s Library, and Sir James Ware, both mention the positive opposition of the Parliament to pass this law, and the mission of the Earl of Sussex to consult her Majesty as to what should be done with the refractory members.  If he then proposed the treachery which he subsequently carried out, there is no reason to suppose her Majesty would have been squeamish about it, as we find she was quite willing to allow even more questionable methods to be employed on other occasions.

The Loftus MS. mentions a convocation of bishops which assembled this year, “by the Queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.”  The convocation was, if possible, a greater failure than the Parliament.  If the bishops had obeyed the royal command, there would have been some record of their proceedings; but until the last few years, when the ipse dixit of certain writers was put forward as an argument—­for proof it cannot be called—­that the Irish Catholic bishops had conformed to the Protestant religion, so wild a