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.^[1] The prosecution case was argued from the standpoint of Erastianism.^[2]

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.^[3]

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.^[4] He was later confined to the Tower of London.^[5]

Laud was eventually executed in 1645.

The indictment of Laud arose from the Long Parliament, in particular from committee work around Sir John Glynne.^[6] 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.^[7] 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.^[8]

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).^[9]

The trial was precipitated by Laud's refusal to present Edward Corbet to a living.^[22] 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.^[5] Legal proceedings were started in November 1643, but initial delays occupied some months.^[16] 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.^[23]

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.^[24]

The prosecution team consisted of Samuel Browne, John Maynard, Robert Nicholas, and John Wylde, with William Prynne acting as solicitor.^[25] Laud's legal team was made up of Chaloner Chute, Richard Gerrard, Matthew Hale, and John Herne.^[26] 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.^[27]

• John Ashe.^[28]
• Edward Corbet testified to ritual innovations imposed at Merton College, Oxford.^[29]
• Daniel Featley testified to William Bray's censorship of his sermons.^[30]
• Thomas Foxley, imprisoned.^[31]
• Joshua Hoyle testified to religious changes at Trinity College Dublin.^[32]
• Thomas Hoyle^[33]
• George Huntley of Kent, clergyman imprisoned for nonconformity.^[34]
• Thomas Jackson, testified that Laud had tried to enforce bowing towards the altar.^[35]
• John Langley. He testified to changes Laud had made to ritual as Dean of Gloucester, and prejudice to the lecturer John Workman.^[36]
• Humphrey Mackworth.^[37]
• 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.^[38]
• Mary Oakes on behalf of her late husband John Oakes, a printer.^[39]
• Michael Oldisworth. He testified that the Earl of Pembroke as lord chamberlain had been obstructed by Laud in his right to appoint royal chaplains.^[40]
• Peter Smart testified to a comment of Augustine Lindsell, claiming ignorance on the part of Calvinist clergy who objected to Laudian innovations on altars.^[41]
• Michael Sparke.^[42]
• Samuel Vassall.^[43]
• Georg Rudolph Weckherlin.^[44]
• John White. He testified on the legal proceedings against the feoffees for impropriations, and actions taken against Edward Bagshaw.^[45] According to Prynne's account, he also mentioned changes made to the text of Richard Clerke's works by Laudians before their publication.^[46]
• Thomas Wilson.^[47]

The case of Richard Culmer was also placed in evidence.^[48] An example brought up relating to lay property rights was the abbacy of Arbroath.^[49]

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.^[50] Prominent among the advocates of attainder was Sir Samuel Browne.^[51]

Laud was beheaded on Tower Hill on 10 January 1645.