Joshua Watson UD3

Explain how far the views in Source B differ from those

in Source A in relation to the role of Laud in the
religious reforms of the 1630s.

In the 1630s, there was a great amount of reformation and change in the church and
religious establishments in England. The churches, which were traditionally more
Protestant and Puritan, were being converting into Arminian churches, which was much
closer to Catholicism than Puritanism was.

William Laud was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633-1645, and was sympathetic
towards Arminianism, and opposed to radical Puritanism. Source A describes Laud as
being a man who would force his beliefs onto others, regardless of their beliefs, saying
that he was willing to trample on those who opposed religious policy. This depicts Laud
as having a vital role in the religious reforms, as it shows how de dealt with those who
opposed him, and it shows his drive and determination, as well as his confidence in his
beliefs, and his willingness to enforce his idea of religion in England. This is opposed to
Source B, which states while Laud has carried much of the blame for Charless religious
policies, they were very much the kings own. This source depicts Laud as a scapegoat
for Charles, and a fall guy upon whom all of the blame for the unpopular policies fell. It
also shows him as being a pawn, used by Charles in order for him to get his way,
instead of showing him as the main driving force behind the reforms, as is the case with
Source A. The argument in Source A is further supported by the fact that Laud was
himself using the Courts of High Commission in order to prosecute Puritan critics of the
church, showing that he had the drive needed to enforce these religious reforms, and
showing that he wanted to enforce them.

Source A also describes Lauds role in the reforms which were taking place at the time,
and the gusto with which he committed himself to these reforms, saying that it was Laud
who insisted upon the policy of restoring English churches and who lead the appeal for
the restoration of St. Pauls Cathedral in London. This shows that the author of the
source believes that Laud was trying to fund the changes in religion in the country, and
was being proactive in his reforms. Source B, on the other hand, describes how Laud
was merely making suggestions and recommendations to the King; Charles was the one
who was enforcing these laws and changes to the church throughout England. This is
shown when the source states that Lauds instructions regarding the placing of altars
were intended to be merely recommendations-it was Charles who made them
compulsory, a statement which would seem to show that Charles was the major driving
force behind the reforms to the church, and Laud was only a figurehead/scapegoat. This
point is supported by the fact that it was Charles who launched a special levy for the
refurbishment of St. Pauls, showing that he was taking action for the reforms, more than
Laud.

In conclusion, I believe that Sources A and B have completely opposing opinions and
views on the role of Laud in the religious reforms of the 1630s. Source A, which is
Joshua Watson UD3

probably written from the point of view of a Revisionist historian (who would be pro-
Charles), is stating that Laud was very active in the reforms of the 1630s, and had a
large role to play in them, whereas Source B, which probably written from the point of
view of a Whig historian (who would be anti-Charles) depicts Laud as just being a
figurehead and a scapegoat for Charles, and that the real driving force behind the
religious reforms of the 1630s was in fact Charles, and not Laud.