The following are a few choice excerpt’s from Hugh Trevor-Roper’s biography of archbishop Laud.

“The social policy of the government of Charles I was never free from other less disinterested motives, and every action can be viewed in two aspects, — as a means of restoring social justice, and as a means of replenishing the treasury without recourse to Parliament.” (167)

On the Church Abroad     “The advocates of “pure religion” have made two serious objections to Laud’s policy. They have objected to the Erastian methods which he tried to use, and to his indifference to the fortunes of the faith in other countries. But if we understand Laud’s aims aright we see that he was not primarily interested in “pure religion”, but in the practical application of a social policy to given conditions which seemed to him to require it. And while the missionaries of an universal gospel may ignore political frontiers, and the champions of a purely spiritual faith may reject political methods, the practical man, whose faith is the reflection of a political and social system, will naturally confine his activity within the limits of his authority, and employ whatever methods seem to promise success. These limitations Laud accepted: but within them he exerted his authority to the full.” (231)

On Laud:     “Laud’s acquaintance with the world was not wide: his was not a mind that could appreciate the advantages, or the innocence, of diversity: and he had no more sympathy with local loyalties than with individual appetites. He was resolved that over all the provinces of his master a single rule should prevail: and yet how diverse were those provinces, how tenacious of their particular liberties, he could not understand. With that haste which is implicit in the policy of Thorough, he set out to reduce them to uniformity without understanding the reasons which wedded them to their diversity. There was Scotland, which owed allegiance to King Charles, but pretended devotion to Knox. There was Ireland, where the English Church had been introduced without any of the safeguards of government, like a rich traveller walking unarmed into a nest of highwaymen. There were the English regiments and English merchant companies exposed to all the dangers of intercourse with the irreligious Dutch. And there were colonists in the American Plantations of whom Laud knew little except that they were English and ought to be Anglican. Up to these limits he determined to extend the discipline of his Church: further than these he had no intention of going, and was not even concerned to look.” (323)

On Ireland:     “For Ireland existed under the blind eye of the English government. Throughout the reign of James I there had been negligent government in England: but in Ireland there had been none. And the Irish had easily adapted themselves to such conditions. The interest which the English Crown took in its third kingdom was that which an absentee landlord takes of a distant estate left in the hands of rapacious agents. It was merely a source of revenue: and so long as the revenue was not held up by overt rebellion, the estate could be left to the agents, even if rapacious. Meanwhile, undesirables might be sent thither to bury their reputations, and pensions might be derived thence to satisfy courtiers. In such circumstances the race was to the swift and the battle to the strong, and speculators throve and prospered.” (236)

On Wentworth:     “He was no a bureaucrat, but a born tyrant, inspiring both fear and love. His argument was the argument of force, and he was afraid of no force that could be opposed to his. Conscious that he was acting for the ends of justice, he despensed imperiously with the forms of law, intimidating intimidators and bullying bullies. He went out of his way to overbear his opponents by his commanding presence. He did not need to worm himself into a position of influence by intrigue as Laud had done: he openly overthrew the junto which thought to rule him, one by one, and installed in their places trusted supporters of his own, — Mainwaring, Wandesford, Radcliffe. While Laud trembled at the prospect of a parliament, Wentworth delighted in it.” (240)

“… those who had previously been transported to Virginia as punishment now went thither voluntarily to avoid it. Further, when Laud’s ecclesiastical tyranny added heretics to debtors and speculators, emigration received a sanctifying halo, and martyrs and pilgrims…. (259)

“The establishments of the commissions showed the intentions rather than the powers of the government; and although, on paper, Laud had now absolute control of the ecclesiastical organization of the English in the British Isles, the Netherlands, and America, in reality this control was imperfect in England, slender in Holland, and in America naturally ridiculous.” (261)