THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM LAUD By NICHOLAS ROBERT CHARLES FORWARD A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham For the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Modern History School of Historical Studies College of Arts and law University of Birmingham March 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Archbishop William Laud was arrested on 18 December 1640, and specific treason charges were brought forward early in 1641. However he did not stand trial until 1644. This study aims to assess the charges; consider the reasons for the significant delay between the arrest and trial; review the law of treason pertaining at the time and how this was applied to Laud; analyse the condemnatory and often vindictive views of Laud within the public sphere as reflected in the pamphlets and newsbooks of the period; and assess in detail the trial itself. Along with Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, Laud was a principle counsellor to the king and a major hate figure for parliament who considered the two men responsible for leading the king astray during the period of the personal rule. Strafford’s trial, however, has been comprehensively studied, whereas the trial of Laud has not received the attention from historians that might have been expected. This study intends to demonstrate that Laud received a thorough trial which reflected parliament’s resolve that it could administer justice in accordance with the procedures of the time, despite the on-going conflict with the king. DEDICATION To Steph for her constant encouragement, to my daughters Jacqui and Suzanne, and to my granddaughter Kara and my grandson Harrison. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Richard Cust for his sage advice and assistance during the course of my studies. The need for encouragement and guidance cannot be underestimated. I would also like to thank Stephen Roberts at the History of Parliament, London, for kindly giving me access to transcripts of the diaries and journals of Walter Yonge, Simonds D’Ewes and Laurence Whitaker. Also my thanks to the website Early English Books Online which has enabled access to a plethora of contemporary documents, thereby assisting for many the scholarship of, in particular, the public sphere. CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The Arrest and Charges 17 Chapter 2. The Pamphlet Campaign against Laud 52 Chapter 3. Bringing Laud to Trial and the Law of Treason 86 Chapter 4. The Trial 107 Conclusion 165 Bibliography 174 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Wenceslaus Hollar, Archbishop Laud discharging a cannon 56 © Trustees of the British Museum Wenceslaus Hollar, Trial of Archbishop William Laud 114 © Trustees of the British Museum LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Attendance by Members of the House of Lords on the days of Archbishop Laud’s Trial. 115 ABBREVIATIONS BL British Library CJ House of Commons Journals. CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic EEBO Early English Books Online HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission HMC, Braye, MS. The Manuscripts of the House of Lords Vol. X1; Addenda 1514 – 1714, edited by Maurice Bond, 1962. Laud, Works The Works of the most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D. ed. W. Scott & J. Bliss, (Oxford: John Henry Parker. 1847-1860) in seven volumes. LJ House of Lords Journals NA National Archive ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. PLP Proceedings in the opening Session of the Long Parliament, ed. Maija Jansson, (Rochester, New York & Suffolk: University of Rochester Press, 2000-2007), in seven volumes. RHC J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, in eight volumes, 1659 – 1701. INTRODUCTION I On 10 January 1645, Archbishop Laud was executed at Tower Hill, bringing to an end the life of one of the most controversial characters of British seventeenth century history. This study intends to concentrate on the final years of Laud’s life: his arrest, imprisonment, trial and execution. It will consider the public view of Laud, reflected in the contemporary pamphlets, treatises, ballads, corantos, and newsbooks. Also, it will review the trial process from both the prosecution and the defence standpoints, and consider the law of treason as it prevailed at the time. It will be argued that the trial was effective in reflecting publically the legitimacy of parliament’s judicial procedures. It is a widespread view, expounded when it receives brief mention in civil war histories, that the trial was ‘a travesty of justice’.1 The insistence on the trial and beheading of Laud by parliament has been variously described as ruthless, and ‘a stain on its cause’.2 Laud’s trial is judged to have ‘gratified his more vindictive enemies’; however ‘the prosecutors found that the law strictly interpreted could not be stretched to find the Archbishop guilty’.3 History’s condemnation of the trial proceedings deserves a full reconsideration. The trial and execution for treason of the most senior prelate in England was clearly an extraordinary event and there are few precedents, especially given that Laud still had the support of the reigning monarch (although there is little 1 ODNB biography of William Laud written by Anthony Milton, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112, (accessed 18 April 2011). 2See I. Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638-1652, (Harlow: Pearson, 2007) p. 248; and A. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625-1660, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 295. 3 C.V.Wedgwood, The King’s War 1641-1647, (London: Fontana, 1966), p. 361. 1 doubt that by this time Charles’s support for his archbishop was somewhat lukewarm).4 The accepted view of the trial proceedings has been summed up by Michael Braddick; Accusations of treason and the promotion of popery were manifestly untrue and the prosecution sustained its case by unfair means: interfering with witnesses, failing to detail in advance the evidence which would be used to sustain the charges and giving Laud only a limited time to prepare answers before each hearing. Prynne, given access to voluminous private papers and driven by vengeance, was unable to substantiate the charges. Laud was not always straightforward in his answers, though: he was innocent as charged but less than candid in answer.5 The prosecution of Laud focused on religious controversies, and the subversion of the law and the traditional rights of parliament. A re-examination of the arguments put forward in the trial, and Laud’s rebuttal of those arguments, is overdue. The controversy surrounding Laud’s life is reflected in modern historiography. However there has been relatively little written of his final years, the public condemnation that accompanied his arrest, and his trial. Compared to the trial of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, in 1641, which has received far more attention both contemporaneously and subsequently, the trial of Laud was a lower key affair. In the foremost biography of Laud’s life, Hugh Trevor-Roper pays scant regard to the trial. He comments briefly on the three main components of the prosecution’s case; 4 The production of a pardon from Charles to Laud in January 1645 indicated that Charles showed some support for his archbishop although it should be borne in mind that the pardon was around 18 months old when it was presented. 5 M. Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire – A New History of the English Civil Wars, (London: Penguin 2009, first published 2008), p. 359. 2 subversion of the fundamental laws and the introduction of arbitrary government, subversion of religion and the introduction of popish superstition, and subversion of the ancient rights of parliament, but gives little account of the proceedings itself.6 In his biography, Charles Carlton covers the trial in a little more detail, and Alan Orr’s study of four trials, (including Strafford, Laud and the king himself) considers it from the perspective of the prevailing law of treason at the time, but does not greatly consider the public view of Laud as evinced in the popular press.7 Orr’s focus on treason is interesting and the interpretation, perhaps distortion, of the statutes regarding treason in order to bring a successful prosecution against Laud is a subject to which this study will, inevitably, return. It is not intended to give a detailed account of Laud’s career; however it is important to understand the main issues that have been the subject of historiographical debate and also led to the level of antipathy shown towards him within the public sphere.8 Laud attracted considerable hostility during his arch-episcopate and this clearly contributed to the vindictiveness with which his enemies pursued him after 1641. In 1608, still at an early stage in his career, Laud became chaplain to Richard Neile, bishop of Rochester, and he quickly became integrated into the group of ecclesiastics known as the Durham House set, led by Neile but also including Lancelot Andrewes and John Buckeridge, 6 H. Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, 1563-1645, (London: MacMillan, 1962-second edition), p. 420. 7 See D. Alan Orr, Treason and the State: Law, Politics, and Ideology in the English Civil War, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), in particular chapter 4. 8 The biographies of Laud by Trevor-Roper and C. Carlton, Archbishop William Laud, (London: Routledge, 1987), give a detailed review of Laud’s life and works.