Trial of William Laud

The trial of William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, took place in stages in the first half of the 1640s, and resulted in his execution on treason charges. At first an impeachment, the parliamentary legal proceedings became an act of attainder.

Arrested in late 1640, Laud was held initially for tactical reasons in the struggle between Charles I of England and the English parliament. When charges were actually brought, their main thrust was that Laud had run an ecclesiastical state within a state. This was supposed to have happened under the cover of the personal rule of the king. The prosecution case was argued from the standpoint of Erastianism.

The trial has been called a "travesty of justice", in that Laud was clearly innocent of the major charges, which were not seriously documented even given the run of his private papers. Testimony against him was subject to tampering. On the other hand, Laud's defence of his own actions was not conducted with full candour; and lesser charges sometimes stuck, despite his astute use of denial of personal responsibility.

Laud in custody
William Laud was arrested at the same time as Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, whose fate he would eventually share. While the impeachment of Strafford proceeded shortly, Laud's case was neglected until a point in 1643.

Laud was first placed in the custody of Black Rod, on the day (18 December 1640) when Denzil Holles moved his impeachment in the Lords. This was not a close confinement, and he was allowed a visit to Lambeth Palace and his papers. He was later confined to the Tower of London.

Laud was eventually executed in 1645.

Political situation in the English Parliament in 1641
The indictment of Laud arose from the Long Parliament, in particular from committee work around Sir John Glynne. In mid-1641 the judicial effort against King Charles's "evil consellors" was bogged down: on 12 July an effort was made to expedite the trials of Laud and George Ratcliffe, Strafford's supporter, but it failed. Thirteen bishops had been made subject to impeachment proceedings in 1640, in connection with the Laudian canons. In October 1641 Denzil Holles requested that the House of Lords should move forward with this impeachment.

Articles against Laud
The articles against Laud were brought to the House of Lords; initially they were in vague and general terms. While they are often said to be 14 definite points, the sources differ. The second set of articles from over two years later raise more specific charges. It is unclear whether the original verbal charges can be recovered accurately from the published versions, some of which can be considered pamphleteering or subject to editorial additions. Besides the English parliamentary situation, pressure from Scottish presbyterians played a part in the outcome: their views were in The Charge of the Scottish Commissioners against Canterburie and the Lieutenant of Ireland (1641).

First charges
The first set of charges was from early 1641 (N.S.). Laud was sent to the Tower in late February or March 1641, supposedly on 14 charges. These are variously recorded and documented, in versions that are ample but inconsistent.

One version is in the 18th-century State Trials of Francis Hargrave. A version of John Pym's speech to the Lords was published. A version of a pamphlet Accusation and Impeachment (1641) was later published in the Harleian Collection. The points in this version, abbreviated, are:


 * That he hath endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws of this kingdom [...].
 * His countenancing of books for the maintenance of his unlimited power [...]
 * That he traiterously went about to interrupt the judges, by his threatenings, and other means, to constrain them to give false judgment in the case of ship-money [...].
 * That he hath taken bribes, and sold justice in the high commission court [...].
 * That he hath traiterously endeavoured the incroachment of jurisdiction, institution of canons, and they are not only against law, but prejudicial, and against the liberties of the subjects [...].
 * That he hath traitorously assumed to himself a capital power over his Majesty's subjects, denying his power of prelacy from the King.
 * That, by false erroneous doctrines, and other sinister ways and means, he went about to subvert religion, established in this kingdom, and to set up popery and superstition in the church [...].
 * That, by divers undue means and practices, he hath gotten into his hands the power and nominating of ministers to spiritual promotions, and hath presented none but slanderous men thereunto; and that he hath presented corrupt chaplains to his Majesty.
 * That his own ministers, as Heywood, Layfield, and others, are notoriously disaffected to religion; and he hath given power of licensing of books to them.
 * That he hath traiterously endeavoured to reconcile us to the church of Rome; and to that end hath employed a Jesuit, a papist, and hath wrought with the pope's agents in several points.
 * That to suppress preaching, he hath suspended divers good and honest ministers, and hath used unlawful means, by letters, and otherwise, to set all bishops to suppress them.
 * That, he hath traiterously endeavoured to suppress the French religion here with us, being the same religion we are of, and also the Dutch church, and to set division between them and us.
 * That he hath traiterously endeavoured to set a division between the King and his subjects, and hath gone about to bring in innovations into the church, as by the remonstrances may appear, and hath induced the king to this war with the Scots [...].
 * That, to save and preserve himself from being questioned and sentenced from these and other his traiterous designs, from the first year of his now Majesty's reign, until now, he hath laboured to subvert the rights of parliamentary proceedings, and to incense his Majesty against parliaments [...].

There is a different version attributed to Pym in William Prynne, Antipathie of the Lordly Prelacie (1641), for the date 26 February 1640 (O.S.) Mr. Pym coming to the Lords Bar to present the Articles, spake as followeth.

My Lords,

I am commanded by the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, now assembled for the Commons in Parliament, to deliver to your Lordships these Articles in maintenance of their Charge against the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their Desire is, That first your Lordships would be pleased to hear the Articles read: and then I shall endeavour to present to you the Sense of the Commons, concerning the nature of the Charge, and the order of their Proceedings.


 * 1. That he hath traiterously endeavoured to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of this Kingdom of England, and instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical Government against Law; and to that end hath wickedly and traiterously advised his Majesty, that he might, at his own Will and Pleasure, levy and take Money of his Subjects, without their Consent in Parliament: and this he affirmed was warrantable by the Law of God.
 * 2. He hath, for the better accomplishment of that his traiterous Design, advised and procured Sermons, and other Discourses, to be preached, printed and published, in which the Authority of Parliaments, and the Force of the Laws of this Kingdom have been denied, and absolute and unlimited power over the Persons and Estates of his Majesty's Subjects maintained and defended, not only in the King, but in himself, and other Bishops, against the Law; and he hath been a great protector, favourer, and promoter of the publishers of such false and pernicious Opinions.
 * 5 He hath traiterously caused a Book of Canons to be composed and published without any lawful Warrant and Authority in that behalf; in which pretended Canons many matters are contained contrary to the King's Prerogative, to the Fundamental Laws and Statutes of this Realm, to the Right of Parliament, to the Property and Liberty of the Subject, and matters tending to Sedition, and of dangerous Consequence, and to the establishment of a vast unlawful, and presumptuous Power in himself, and his Successors; many of which Canons, by the practice of the said Archbishop, were surreptitiously passed in the late Convocation, without due Consideration and Debate; others by Fear and Compulsion were subscribed by the Prelates and Clerks there assembled, which had never been voted and passed in the Convocation as they ought to have been. And the said Archbishop hath contrived and endeavoured to assure and confirm the unlawful and exorbitant Power which he hath usurped and exercised over his Majesty's Subjects by a wicked and ungodly Oath in one of the said pretended Canons, enjoined to be taken by all the Clergy; and many of the Laity of this Kingdom.
 * 6. He hath traiterously assumed to himself a papal and tyrannical Power, both in Ecclesiastical and Temporal Matters, over his Majesty's Subjects in this Realm of England, and in other places, to the disherison of the Crown, dishonour of his Majesty, and derogation of his Supreme Authority in Ecelesiastical Matters; and the said Archbishop claims the King's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as incident to his Episcopal Office, and Archiepiscopal in his Kingdom, and doth deny the same to be derived from the Crown of England, which he hath accordingly exercised, to the high Contempt of his Royal Majesty, and to the Destruction of divers of the King's Liege People in their Persons and Estates.
 * 7. That he hath traiterously endeavoured to alter and subvert God's true Religion, by Law established in this Realm, and instead thereof to set up Popish Superstition and Idolatry. And to that end, hath declared and maintained in Speeches, and printed Books, divers Popish Doctrines and Opinions, contrary to the Articles of Religion establish'd by Law. He hath urged and enjoined divers Popish and Superstitious Ceremonies without any warrant of Law, and hath cruelly persecuted those who have opposed the same, by corporal Punishments and Imprisonments, and most unjustly vexed others, who refused to conform thereunto, by Ecclesiastical Censures of Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, and Degradation, contrary to the Laws of this Kingdom.
 * 9. He hath, for the same traiterous and wicked Intent, chosen and employ'd such Men to be his own domestical Chaplains, whom he knew to be notoriously disaffected to the Reformed Religion, grosly addicted to Popish Superstition, and erroneous and unsound both in Judgment and Practice: and to them or some of them hath he committed the Licensing of Books to be printed, by which means divers false and superstitious Books have been published, to the great Scandal of Religion, and to the feducing of many of his Majesty's Subjects.
 * 10. He hath traiterously and wickedly endeavoured to reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome; and for the effecting thereof, hath consorted and confederated with divers Popish Priests and Jesuits, and hath kept secret Intelligence with the Pope of Rome; and by himself, his Agents and Instruments treated with such as have from thence received Authority and Instruction: he hath permitted and countenanced a Popish Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical Government to be established in this Kingdom. By all which traiterous and malicious Practices, this Church and Kingdom hath been exceeding endangered, and like to fall under the Tyranny of the Roman See.
 * He hath maliciously and traiterously plotted and endeavoured to stir up War and Enmity betwixt his Majesty's two Kingdoms of England and Scotland, and to that purpose hath laboured to introduce into the Kingdom of Scotland divers Innovations both in Religion and Government, all or the most part of them tending to Popery and Superstition, to the great Grievance and Discontent of his Majesty's Subjects of that Nation; and for their refusing to submit to such Innovations, he did traiterously advise his Majesty to subdue them by force of Arms, and by his own Authority and Power, contrary to Law, did procure sundry of his Majesty's Subjects, and enforced the Clergy of this Kingdom to contribute towards the maintenance of that War: And when his Majesty, with much Wisdom and Justice, had made a Pacification betwixt the two Kingdoms, the said Archbishop did presumptuously censure that Pacification, as dishonourable to his Majesty, and by his Counsels and Endeavours so incensed his Majesty against his said Subjects of Scotland, that he did thereupon (by Advice of the said Archbishop) enter into an offensive War against them, to the great hazard of his Majesty's Person, and his Subjects of both Kingdoms.

The said Commons do further aver, that the said William Archbishop of Canterbury, during the times that the Crimes afore mentioned were done and committed, hath been a Bishop, or Archbishop of this Realm of England, one of the King's Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Matters, and one of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council, and hath taken an Oath for his faithful discharge of the said Office of Counsellor, and hath likewise taken an Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance. The version in John Rushworth's collections is not apparently as complete; or Prynne's version may contain interpolations. A summary of the whole case out of other volumes of state trials (edited by Thomas Salmon, Sollom Emlyn and Thomas Bayly Howell) was made by Alexander Simpson.

Additional charges
The second set of impeachment articles was voted by the Commons on 23 October 1643 and sent to the Lords. It was a more serious attempt to set out a legal case that could be brought to trial. These articles were given in extended form in the collections of Rushworth. Summaries were made by Daniel Neal in his History of the Puritans.

The trial begins
The trial was precipitated by Laud's refusal to present Edward Corbet to a living. Oliver St John had a hand in reviving the stalled prosecution, in 1643, having regard to the views of the Scots and his own position. Legal proceedings were started in November 1643, but initial delays occupied some months. On 28 December, as Laud recorded, Isaac Penington whose father was Lieutenant of the Tower brought Thomas Weld to confront Laud in his room, asking "in a boisterous manner" whether Laud repented.

The trial proper began on 12 March 1644. The impeachment trial ran on to 29 July. It was in front of the House of Lords, which at this stage of the First English Civil War consisted of about a dozen peers.

The prosecution team consisted of Samuel Browne, John Maynard, Robert Nicholas, and John Wylde, with William Prynne acting as solicitor. Laud's legal team was made up of Chaloner Chute, Richard Gerrard, Matthew Hale, and John Herne. The first 20 days of the trial fell into a pattern of the prosecution presenting their case in the morning, a two-hour break, and Laud answering in the afternoon.

Witnesses against Laud

 * John Ashe.
 * Edward Corbet testified to ritual innovations imposed at Merton College, Oxford.
 * Daniel Featley testified to William Bray's censorship of his sermons.
 * Thomas Foxley, imprisoned.
 * Joshua Hoyle testified to religious changes at Trinity College Dublin.
 * Thomas Hoyle
 * George Huntley of Kent, clergyman imprisoned for nonconformity.
 * Thomas Jackson, testified that Laud had tried to enforce bowing towards the altar.
 * John Langley. He testified to changes Laud had made to ritual as Dean of Gloucester, and prejudice to the lecturer John Workman.
 * Humphrey Mackworth.
 * Anthony and Henry Mildmay testified that Laud had factional Catholic support in Rome and had eased the Church of England's relations with the Roman Catholic Church.
 * Mary Oakes on behalf of her late husband John Oakes, a printer.
 * Michael Oldisworth. He testified that the Earl of Pembroke as lord chamberlain had been obstructed by Laud in his right to appoint royal chaplains.
 * Peter Smart testified to a comment of Augustine Lindsell, claiming ignorance on the part of Calvinist clergy who objected to Laudian innovations on altars.
 * Michael Sparke.
 * Samuel Vassall.
 * Georg Rudolph Weckherlin.
 * John White. He testified on the legal proceedings against the feoffees for impropriations, and actions taken against Edward Bagshaw. According to Prynne's account, he also mentioned changes made to the text of Richard Clerke's works by Laudians before their publication.
 * Thomas Wilson.

The case of Richard Culmer was also placed in evidence. An example brought up relating to lay property rights was the abbacy of Arbroath.

Attainder
In the end the impeachment proceedings were halted. On 30 October 1644 Parliament heard a sermon from Edmund Staunton, and the following day moved to the process of attainder. Prominent among the advocates of attainder was Sir Samuel Browne.

Laud was beheaded on Tower Hill on 10 January 1645.