WILLIAM, Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Charles I., was born at Reading in 1573. His father was a wealthy clothier, and his mother a sister of the Lord Mayor of London. After receiving his education in his native town till his sixteenth year, he entered St John's College, Oxford, of which he became a scholar in 1590, and a fellow in 1593. He was ordained a priest in 1601; and in the following year read a divinity lecture, which was thought at the time to savour strongly of Popery; and which awakened in the mind of Dr Abbot, then master of University College, that unfavourable opinion of Laud, which time only confirmed. In 1605, being chaplain to the Earl of Devonshire, he sanctioned, by performing the rites of marriage, an illicit connection between that nobleman and Lady Rich, whose husband was still alive. This act, for which he used to read a penitential service every year, proved for a long time an insurmountable barrier to his preferment in the church, and confined his ambition to rapid changes in the lower walks of ecclesiastical service. He became vicar of Stamford in 1607; and in the following year he received the living of North Kilworth, and was made chaplain to Bishop Neile, who became his patron and friend. In 1609, the living of West Tilbury came into his hands, and in 1610 that of Cuckstone, which, on account of his health, he exchanged, in the same year, for the benefice of Norton. In 1611, through the influence of Neile, and in spite of the counter-influence of Abbot, he was elected president of St John's College, and was soon after appointed one of the king's chaplains. After a stay of five years at court, in undisguised disgust at the slowness of his preferment, he was presented with the deanery of Gloucester, where, more than by the faithful memories of court-gossips, his life was embittered by the Calvinism of the bishop. Laud accompanied King James to Scotland in 1617. With considerable reluctance the king raised him to the see of St David's in 1621; and Laud, in consequence, resigned his presidency. He is thought to have been concerned in the framing of the royal edict of 1622, by which any pastor under a bishop or dean is prohibited from preaching on predestination, and other difficult doctrines mentioned. In the same year took place the famous "Conference with a Jesuit," in which Laud assisted to establish the sinking faith of the Countess of Buckingham; and was rewarded by becoming the confessor of her son the Duke. This is supposed to be the meaning of that passage of his diary, where he writes that he became "C." to the Duke of Buckingham. By the Duke's influence, and at his own earnest request, he became, in 1624, a member of the Court of High Commission, from which he had been excluded by the old enmity of Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury. The accession of Charles I. increased the influence and brightened the prospects of Laud. It seems, however, that even in taking this step to power, he was not untroubled with new guilt, for heavy charges were afterwards brought against him of having corrupted the prayers, and altered the coronation oath. He became the king's confidential adviser in church affairs; he wrote his parliamentary speeches, and (as the old phrase went), he tuned the pulpits, when money was wanted for the Spanish war. For his devotion he was appointed, in 1626, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and dean of the Chapel Royal; in 1627, a privy-councillor, and, in 1628, Bishop of London. After the assassination of Buckingham, Laud succeeded to his favour with the king; and as he thenceforward plunged recklessly into political affairs, he inherited a double share of unpopularity with the people. He inaugurated his rise to power by a relentless persecution of the Puritans. Leighton, a physician, was among the first victims. For the publication of Zion's Plea, he had his nose slit, his ears cropped, and his forehead branded, besides being publicly whipped. In 1630 he became Chancellor of Oxford; and, by his donations of valuable manuscripts, proved a liberal benefactor to that university. Three years afterwards, he was present at the king's coronation in Scotland, fostering and planning the vicious policy of Charles in regard to a forced religious uniformity; but, at the same time, by his overbearing insolence, creating much of the enmity that afterwards burst upon his head. Returning home, he was presented in the same year to the see of Canterbury; and one of his first acts as primate was the republication of the Longfellow Sunday Sports. The very appropriate offer of a cardinal's hat, however, at this time, affords one of the indications of the existence of principles stronger than his ambition—when the offer was made he hesitated, consulted the king, and at last replied, "That somewhat dwelt within him, which would not suffer that, till Rome were other than it is." During his metropolitan visits in 1634 and 1635, he charged all the churchwardens, on pain of being punished by the Star-chamber and High Commission, to place the communion-table at the east end, instead of the middle of the chancel, and to fence it, like a Popish altar, with rails. In 1634 he became one of the Committee of Trade and the King's Revenue, and soon after a commissioner of the Treasury. The decree of the Star-chamber, in 1637, constituting him, along with others, the censor of the press, brought him into great public odium, which was greatly increased when the Nonconformists, Pryme, Burton, and Bastwick, chiefly at his instigation, were mercilessly fined and mangled. Soon after the meeting of the Long Parliament in 1640, he was accused before the House of Commons of high treason, and was committed to the Tower. After three years of harsh confinement, he was tried before the House of Lords; and although the charge was not proven, he was ultimately condemned by a bill of attainder. He was executed on Tower-hill, January 10, 1645, and met his fate with firmness.

That Laud was cruel and intolerant beyond his times, cannot be denied. His diary, which, however, only discloses one side of his character, yet plainly shows that few who sacrificed everything to ambition have had fewer relentings. Only once did he give proof of intellectual power in his boasted argument with the Jesuit, Fisher; but all respect for the acuteness which he then displayed is lost in the contempt which we feel for the idle narrator of stupid dreams and paltry prodigies, such as we find him in the record of his daily life. Unchecked by any deep benevolence, or any strength of reason, the love of church uniformity was his master-passion; and to this idol of the fifth century he did not scruple to sacrifice all that his country then possessed of true piety and freedom.

His principal works are:—Seren Sermons preached on several occasions, 1651, 8vo; Short Annotations upon the Life and Death of the Most August King James; Answer to the Remonstrance made by the House of Commons in 1628; His Diary by Wharton in 1694, with six other pieces, and several letters, especially one to Sir Kenelm Digby on his embracing Popery; The second volume of the Remains of Archbishop Laud, written by himself, 1700, folio; Officium Quotidianum, or a Manual of Private Devotions, 1650, 8vo; A Summary of Devotion, 1667, 12mo. About eighteen Letters of Laud to Gerard John Vossius have been printed by Columbius in his edition of Vossii Epistolae, London, 1650, folio; some others are published at the end of the Life of Usher, by Parr, 1686, folio; and a few more have been inserted by Dr Twells in his Life of Dr Pococke, prefixed to the theological works of that author, 1645, 2 vols. folio. His biographies include the works of Pryme (London, 1646), Heylyn (London, 1671), John Parker Lawson (London, 1829), Charles Webb le Bas (London, 1836), and of the Rev. J. Baines (London, 1855). A complete edition of his works is published in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, 6 vols., Oxford, 1847.