December of that year, he was held under house arrest by the Elizabethan authorities. They discovered that Ridolfiâs bills of foreign exchange were for the Bishop of Ross, Maryâs ambassador at Elizabethâs court, and for Thomas Howard, fourth Duke of Norfolk. This was clearly suspicious, but nothing certain was proved either way. Only in 1571 did all the elements of Ridolfiâs plot come properly to light. Because of the arrest at Dover of a courier working for the Bishop of Ross, Elizabethâs government discovered that Ridolfi had been working as a contact between the Spanish government and English Catholic noblemen sympathetic to the cause of the Queen of Scots. Chief among them was the Duke of Norfolk, who had plotted to free and then marry Mary and to encourage a Spanish invasion of England. In unmasking Norfolk as a traitor to Elizabeth, the Ridolfi Plot struck a blow to the heart of the Elizabethan state. The dukeâs beheading in 1572 was the price Elizabeth had to pay for resisting pressure from her Privy Council and a very angry parliament to execute the Queen of Scots herself.
One of the profoundest problems facing Elizabethâs advisers was that of Maryâs asylum in England. For nearly nineteen years, between 1568 and her execution in 1587, she was Elizabethâs guest both uninvited and unwanted. She was believed by the English government to be complicit in the murder of her second husband, Henry, Lord Darnley, in 1567. She was obviously hostile to Elizabeth and wanted her kinswomanâs crown; she plotted with foreign powers in Europe on behalf of her own royal claim to England. Elizabeth, nervous of killing a fellow monarch even by justice, refused to put Mary on trial for her life. Equally, it would have been madness for Elizabeth to send her back to Scotland: the consequences for Englandâs security, and fora friendly Protestant government in Scotland, were unthinkable. To return her to France was much too dangerous a prospect. At least in England she could be held at Elizabethâs pleasure. So Mary was isolated, moved between houses and castles in the midland counties of Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire, her movements and household controlled as much as possible by the English government. But Elizabethâs ministers could not cut her off from Europe completely, much as they tried â from Spain and King Philipâs ambassadors in London, from her Guise kinsmen in France or from Rome. It was known that secret letters passed between Mary, her secretaries and her friends at home and abroad. Eager English Catholic gentlemen volunteered to act as her couriers.
To English eyes it was clear as daylight (though of course concealed in shadow and secrecy) that the Queen of Scots was determined by hook or by crook to get for herself the Tudor crown. They believed that she sat at the centre of a web of European Catholic conspiracy. This toxic fear of Mary provoked in 1585 the Act for the Queenâs Surety, one of the most extraordinary and menacing laws ever passed by an English parliament. This statute set out how any action against Elizabeth âby or forâ a pretender to the English crown would be tried by a special commission of privy councillors and lords of parliament. Anyone found guilty of such a conspiracy against the queen â and also the pretender with whose knowledge or assent the conspiracy was planned â could on being found guilty by the commission be hunted down and âpursued to deathâ. The statute, in other words, sanctioned vengeance against Mary by private subjects authorized to do so by an act of parliament. True, her name did not appear in the act, but nevertheless the statute was clearly and obviously aimed squarely at the Queen of Scots. Indeed it was the very law that took her to the executionerâs block at Fotheringhay Castle two years later.
The Act for the Queenâs Surety spoke of âsundry wicked