The last was the worst of all.  Elizabeth wished to heal the wounds of the Irish nation by appointing Ormond lord deputy.  He was a nobleman of Norman descent.  His family had been true to England for centuries.  He had commanded her armies during this exterminating war, and, being a native of the country, he would be best fitted to carry on the work of conciliation after so much slaughter.  But, says Mr. Froude, ’from every English officer serving in the country, every English settler, every bishop of the Anglo-Irish Church, there rose one chorus of remonstrance and indignation; to them it appeared as a proposal now would appear in Calcutta to make the Nizam Viceroy of India.’[1] Wallop wrote that if he were appointed, there would be ’no dwelling in the country for any Englishman.’

[Footnote 1:  Ibid. p.202.]

The fear that a merciful policy might be adopted towards Ireland sorely troubled Wallop and Archbishop Loftus; but they were comforted by a great prize—­an archbishop fell into their hands.  Dr. Hurley refused to give information against others.  Walsingham suggested that he should be put to the torture.  To him Archbishop Loftus wrote with unction.  ’Not finding that easy method of examination do any good, we made command to Mr. Waterhouse and Mr. Secretary Fenton to put him to the torture, such as your honour advised us, which was to toast his feet against the fire with hot boots.’  He confessed something.  They asked permission to execute him by martial law.  The queen took a month to consider.  She recommended an ordinary trial for high treason, and if the jury did not do its duty, they might take the shorter way.  She wished for no more torture, but ’for what was past her majesty accepted in good part their careful travail, and greatly commended their doings.’  The Irish judges had repeatedly decided that there was no case against Archbishop Hurley; but on June 19, 1584, Loftus and Wallop wrote to Walsingham, ’We gave warrant to the knight-marshal to do execution upon him, which accordingly was performed, and thereby the realm rid of a most pestilent member.’[1]

[Footnote 1:  Froude, vol. xi. p.264.]

This was the last act of these two lords justices.  Sir John Perrot, the new viceroy, made a speech which sent a ray of hope athwart the national gloom.  It was simply that the people might thenceforth expect a little justice and protection.  He told the natives that ’as natural-born subjects of her majesty she loved them as her own people.  He wished to be suppressed and universally abolished throughout the realm the name of a churle and the crushing of a churle; affirming that, however the former barbarous times had desired it and nourished it, yet he held it tyrannous both in name and manner, and therefore would extirpate it, and use in place of it the titles used in England, namely, husbandmen, franklins or yeomen.’  ‘This was so plausible,’ wrote Sir G. Fenton, ’that it was carried throughout the whole realm, in less time than might be thought credible, if expressed.’