This volume contains a collection of 223 of William Laud’s letters, drawn from a wide range of archives, and which did not appear in the nineteenth-century edition of his works. As the editor notes, these extra letters represent an additional 29 per cent of the known corpus of Laud’s correspondence. For that reason alone, this collection is of great value to scholars of this period, significantly enriching our picture of this remarkable prelate. It shines an interesting new light on the working relationship between Laud and the king. The letters make clear that Laud regularly drew the king into the minutiae of ecclesiastical affairs and was therefore able to deploy royal approbation both to advance the causes close to his heart, and to deflect criticism of actions he had taken. His acknowledged closeness to the king could also be used as a threat to bring underperforming colleagues into line, or to ensure that the sentence given against his avowed enemy, John Williams, was exacted in full. Only rarely did the king frustrate Laud’s wishes, though he seems to have done so in resisting Laud’s attempt to hold the sees of London and Winchester in plurality; though, as Dr Fincham underlines, it is a remarkable testimony to Laud’s self-confidence that this possibility was ever entertained.

The letters underline, once again, Laud’s meticulous attention to the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, and his efforts to tackle the poverty of many clergy. They reinforce the picture of his long-standing commitment to the reform and government of Oxford University. The letters also show how central Laud remained to the restoration of St Paul’s Cathedral, years after he had left the bishopric of London. One of the most interesting runs of correspondence within the volume is the exchange between Laud and John Bridgman, Bishop of Chester. Not much of Laud’s regular correspondence with other bishops survives. The exchange with Bridgman began rather unhappily, with Laud chiding Bridgman for making a contribution towards the restoration of St Paul’s that was perhaps a little small in comparison to the Bishop’s presumed personal wealth. However, the relationship clearly grew into one of close cooperation and mutual respect, not to say affection, with Laud gently teasing his colleague for sending a replacement mount whenever he caught wind (via Bridgmen’s son, ‘a blabb’) of one of the Archbishop’s horses dying: ‘I would not have you empty your owne stable to fill myne.’ As the editor points out, these letters certainly support the traditional image of Laud as an energetic reformer and a rigorous disciplinarian. However, they also reveal a more moderate, humane and even humourous side to his character, as well as a man deeply preoccupied with his public image. The volume concludes with a very useful timeline and index of all Laud’s published letters, the last of which, contained in this volume, reveals a touching concern for the two servants who would witness his will. Laud was executed just two days after it was written. This excellent collection will be a welcome work of reference for all students of the Early Stuart Church.