5 - The Scottish Dimension to Laud's Impeachment, Trial and Execution, 1640–45

Summary

On 18 December 1640, the Painted Chamber in Westminster Palace was the scene of a dramatic event in Laud's career. William, Lord Paget, stood to read the ‘Charge of the Scottish Commissioners against the Archbishop of Canterbury’ before a joint committee of both houses. The charges were read in the House of Lords the following day, and shortly afterwards, a message was delivered by Denzil Holles that Laud was accused of high treason by the Commons. The archbishop was immediately placed under house arrest in Charing Cross, in the custody of James Maxwell, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. This was the first stage in the process of impeachment against the archbishop that resulted in his committal to the Tower on 1 March 1641, where he remained until his execution on 10 January 1645. Despite being central to Laud's downfall, the Scottish dimension has, bizarrely, scarcely featured in relevant secondary literature. Departing from existing accounts and drawing on underexplored Scottish sources, this chapter argues that Laud's downfall can only be properly understood in the context of Anglo-Scottish political relations. It offers an alternative perspective by examining first how the king's defeat in the Second Bishops’ War enabled the Scottish commissioners to secure the archbishop's removal from power in the early Long Parliament; and secondly, it shows the significance of Scottish pressure in bringing Laud to trial and, eventually, execution.

The Decision to Launch the Second Bishops’ War, Spring 1640

As we saw in the previous chapter, in late 1639 the king was forced by pure financial necessity to summon an English parliament to supply him with funding for a second war against Scotland. Charles expected a peremptory session to grant him the necessary supply, with few questions asked. Strafford's influence here is unmistakeable: Charles’ experience with his English parliaments in the late 1620s must surely have prepared him for some redress of grievances, prior to supply. He could not expect the English parliament to behave like its Irish counterpart. The Short Parliament inevitably failed to live up to his expectations, since members were keen to maximise on their first opportunity in eleven years to air their grievances, particularly surrounding ship money and religious innovations.