CONWAY, Edward (c. 1623-83)

Although Conway, a holder of significant Anglo-Irish interests, held a series of local offices as well as one of the principal offices of state, he has long been dismissed as little more than a bungler. Such a reputation is not wholly deserved. If he lacked the gravitas or political knowledge possessed by some of his contemporaries, he compensated for this with astute insight, a genuine intellectual curiosity and willingness to remain on terms with men of opposing camps. He was also able to appreciate the subtleties of the ‘cunning game’ in hand as well as to benefit from its fallout. Essex Pprs. i (Cam. Soc. n.s xlvii), 150.

The Conway family’s origins were in Wales but it was as loyal servants of the court in England and Ireland that they achieved distinction. By the early 17th century the family had amassed estates in England, Ireland and Wales, with the latter based on the castle of Conwy. In England the principal estate was at Ragley in Warwickshire. Conway Letters, 7. For much of the period, though, the family’s interests in Ireland predominated and in 1665 Conway provoked consternation when he sought permission to strip his Welsh seat of its lead, timber and iron to transport it to Ireland. A. Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 26. Conway’s estates in Ireland proved a significant source of revenue and patronage, and the basis of his political connection. A close associate throughout his career of Richard Jones^‡, earl of Ranelagh [I] and of his own brother-in-law, Sir George Rawdon, bt., Conway also proved a ‘real friend’ to Sir Edward Dering^‡, one of the commissioners for executing the Act of Settlement in Ireland. In 1667 Conway used his influence on Dering’s behalf to secure him the reversion of the auditor’s office. Stowe 744, ff. 148, 151; CSP Ire. 1666-9, pp. 347, 483; Dering Diary, 164. In the same year Conway was awarded £2,000 under the Act of Explanation towards his father’s arrears for service in Ireland before 1649. Conway’s title to the lordship of several Irish towns was also confirmed at about the same time. CSP Ire. 1666-9, pp. 271, 273.

Conway’s father had been a loyal cavalry commander in the royalist army during the Civil War. Following the king’s defeat his estates were sequestered and he retired to France where he died in 1655. Conway, on the other hand, served as a colonel in the parliamentary army in Ireland after his enforced return from his studies abroad in early 1642 and his role in helping to put down the rebels in Ulster in 1646 was later commended by Parliament. HMC Hastings¸ii. 351-2; Conway Letters, x. Like George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, Conway may have considered service in the parliamentary forces against Irish rebels acceptable in a way that service against the king in England was not. It also appears that he was encouraged by his father, aware of the king’s declining fortunes, to curry favour with Parliament. Rawdon Pprs. 181-3.

Conway appears to have remained in Ireland until about 1651, when he married in England Anne Finch, the philosopher and Quaker sympathiser. Conway himself was an Anglican and seems to have had little patience for his wife’s ‘friends in the truth’, whom he thought ‘as arrant knaves… as any I know’. Nevertheless, while he was always adamant that his wife was no Quaker herself, he appears to have been remarkably tolerant of Lady Conway’s gatherings at Ragley and he was not averse to participating in theological discussions with members of her circle. He also seems to have been more than willing to employ his interest on behalf of some of his wife’s intellectual acquaintance, in particular the Cambridge scholar, Henry More. Add. 23213, f. 46; Conway Letters, 234, 298-9, 414.

In 1656 Lady Conway, who suffered from cripplingly poor health, travelled to France in search of a cure. While crossing the Channel to join his wife in Paris, Conway was abducted by the Dutch. He was robbed of all his clothes and possessions and imprisoned. Conway’s relatives were forced to appeal to the council of state to assist in obtaining his release. Conway Letters, 136. By 1657 Conway appears to have resumed his grandfather’s influential role in Warwickshire society and in December of that year he was admitted to the county’s assessment committee. With the collapse of the Cromwellian regime, Conway played a crucial role in settling the Warwickshire militia and in the selection of candidates to the Convention through the mediation of his cousin Sir Edward Harley^‡. A. and O. ii. 1083, 1444; Add. 70007, f. 198. On Harley’s readmission to Parliament in February 1660 Conway wrote to congratulate him. He also outlined his own aspirations:

If I were admitted (who I think may pretend to be a secluded member) my vote should be that all parties might be put into a secure, peaceable and quiet condition both for conscience and estate, which is the only way to take off that edge of war which runs through the nations. Add. 70007, f. 188; Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warws. 331.

The Warwickshire militia committee which emerged in March 1660 was headed by Conway, Robert Greville, 4th Baron Brooke, and Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh. A. and O. ii. 1444. Conway’s name also appeared along with the royalist James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, attached to the ‘humble address of the nobility and gentry of the county of Warwick’ submitted to Charles II later in the year. The moderates were hard pressed to maintain their control of the militia in Warwickshire. Conway reported to Edward Harley that ‘these are not all such as would have had, yet more than we should have obtained, being but 7 or 8 of us, to 18 of the contrary party, if we had not stood very stiff to the principles’. Add. 70007, f. 209.

Alongside this involvement in Warwickshire affairs, Conway maintained a strong interest in Ireland throughout the 1650s. He maintained a close association with Monck, increasingly influential under the rule of Oliver Cromwell^‡, and treated him to hospitality in his residence in London in 1652. Monck introduced him to the Cromwellian lord deputy of Ireland, Charles Fleetwood^‡. By the winter of 1660, perhaps under the influence of Albemarle (as Monck had become in July 1660), Conway was awarded with both a place on the Irish Privy Council and the command of a company of foot in that island. CSP Ire. 1660-62, p. 141; HMC Hastings, ii. 361-2, 363.

In advance of the Convention, Conway was marked by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as one of those peers whose fathers had sat in the House in the 1640s. Despite his previous service for parliament, Conway quickly re-established himself at court and over the next few years emerged as one of Charles II’s companions in his social, if not necessarily his political, inner circle. Conway owed this in part to his cultivation of Barbara Palmer, countess of Castlemaine [I] (later duchess of Cleveland), but also to his chameleon-like ability to adapt to changing circumstance. The Stuart Courts, ed. E. Cruickshanks (2000), 175. He was fortunate too in being able to make use of the interest of another Anglo-Irish magnate, Roger Boyle^‡, earl of Orrery [I], who was credited with introducing Conway to Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, ‘and the other great ministers of state’. CSP Ire. 1663-5, p. 522; HMC Hastings, ii. 363-4. Conway’s Irish interests may have been an additional reason for his successful cultivation of the court. These necessitated frequent absence from the House but in spite of this he maintained close links with associates in Westminster, when he was detained elsewhere. Conway Letters, 187-8, 201-2.

Conway took his seat in the Convention on 27 Apr. 1660, part of the first influx of eight peers of royalist lineage who were able to force their way into the House. He claimed in a letter written that day that nothing now kept him in London but lack of money, but that must have proved hard to come by as he attended 68 per cent of all sitting days prior to the adjournment. Rawdon Pprs. 201. On 1 May he was nominated to the committee to consider the letter of thanks to be communicated to the king and on 5 May he was added to the committee to draw up an ordinance to constitute a committee of safety of both Houses. On 9 May he was nominated to the committee for an ordinance for settling the militia, and a week later he was added to the committee for petitions. He was one of the eight peers granted leave on 22 May to attend the king on his arrival. He returned to his place six days later, on which day he was named to the committee considering the bill for the ordinance confirming the monthly assessment. Conway was named to five more committees in the weeks prior to the adjournment of 13 September. He returned to the House on 6 Nov. after which he was present on two thirds of the remaining days of the session. Absence from the House for the whole of October may have been connected with the death of his young heir, Heneage Conway, during that month. Conway Letters, 168. In the midst of the business conducted by the Convention, Conway maintained close contact with the progress of elections for an Irish Parliament. He relied on Rawdon to ensure the election of his nominees to be burgesses for Down and Antrim. HMC Hastings, ii. 363.

Ireland and the Irish cattle bill, 1661-67

Conway was one of those to be fortunate to emerge from the coronation festivities in April 1661 unscathed even though his horse proved hard to control and fell three times during the procession. He noted that James Stuart, duke of York, fared little better falling twice and that the king eventually ordered the musicians to stop playing as the cavalcade looked set to end in disaster. Conway’s attendance declined markedly during the first few sessions of the new Parliament as Irish business monopolized his attention. He took his seat at the opening of Parliament on 8 May but on 10 June he was granted leave to travel to Ireland, following which he was absent from the rest of the first session, having attended just 19 sitting days. On 10 July he registered his proxy with Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, which was vacated by the prorogation. PH, xxxii. 249. Absent from Parliament for the ensuing four years, Conway was kept apprised of events there by contacts such as his brother-in-law, Sir John Finch. Add. 23215, ff. 40-1, 42. On those occasions when he registered a proxy it was normally entrusted to one of his Anglo-Irish colleagues. On 2 Dec. 1664 he gave it to James Butler, earl of Brecknock (better known by his Irish title as duke of Ormond), at Orrery’s request. Orrery advised Charles Stuart, duke of Richmond, to do likewise. CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 101; CSP Ire. 1663-5, p. 450.

Conway was in London in the spring of 1665 but by summer he had quit the capital to avoid the plague. His decision proved too late for at least one of his servants who died shortly after and he was forced to allow two more to be boarded up in his London residence. He seems to have been more concerned about the goods he had not been able to move out in time, by which he estimated he would be a loser to the tune of £200 or £300. Add. 70010, f. 234; Rawdon Pprs. 204-5. He returned to the House for the session convened in Oxford on 16 Oct. 1665, after which he was present on just over half of all sitting days. In advance of the session, on 11 Oct. he was entrusted with Anglesey’s proxy. Conway’s attention during the session was dominated by the controversy over the Irish cattle bill (on whose committee he was placed), which had taken him and several other Irish notables by surprise. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. lx. 17. On 19 Oct. he warned Ormond of the threat to Ireland if the bill were permitted to pass:

the consequences will be very dangerous to that poor country and utterly disable them from those payments which are expected in the bill of settlement and all other public charge, and besides the advantage it will give the French and Dutch to work upon our discontents there, when we are debarred trade, from all the world, which this is in effect to do, we must either live like brutes, and Americans, or the profit of our trade must go into foreign parts. Bodl. Carte 34, f. 442.

When the bill arrived in the Lords, Conway was on 26 Oct. named to the committee considering the measure. Bodl. Carte 34, f. 456. In an effort to slow the bill’s progress, he insisted that all relevant witnesses be given time to offer their evidence. He sought the intervention of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, ‘who hath ever been a true patron to Ireland’ and accompanied a delegation waiting on Henry Bennet, Baron (later earl of) Arlington, in an effort to prevent the bill’s passage. He was also reported as leaving ‘nothing undone to stave it off in the House of Commons’. Add. 75354, ff. 139-40. The spirited opposition led by Conway and other peers dependent on the trade in Irish beef combined with direct pressure from the king resulted in the bill being dropped on this occasion. Ibid. 464.

Conway was one of several Irish peers to put his name to a letter of August 1666 accusing some of York’s officers of harming the duke’s Irish estates and depleting his revenue there. Bodl. Clarendon 84, f. 250. The same month he was named in a petition by Ormond requesting the king’s continued intervention against the Irish cattle bill. Bodl. Carte 35, ff. 32-5. Conway returned to the House a month into the ensuing session, on 25 Oct. 1666, when he was forced once again to respond to a renewed effort to push through the Irish cattle bill, now backed vigorously by George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. Conway was deeply critical of Ormond and the Irish Committee of trade, who he believed had been too slow in their response to the threat. HMC Hastings, ii. 375. On 27 Oct. in one of his regular bulletins to Ormond Conway reported the House’s canvassing of the word ‘nuisance’ the previous week and its adoption on the 26 Oct. of the phrase ‘detriment and mischief’ in its place. Making an analogy with the source of the recent fire of London, Conway commented that ‘the destruction of Ireland would begin at Pudding time.’ Eager to make the most of his contacts at court to head off the unwelcome bill, Conway resumed his regular attendance at Lady Castlemaine’s soirées, ‘as an opportunity of the king’s conversation which is very desirable.’ Bodl. Carte 34, f. 459. He also prepared the ground for securing concessions for Ireland in the event of the bill passing but was forced to conclude that the measure would pass ‘without any enlargement of time, or any proviso by way of compensation or relief for the inconveniences it will bring upon that kingdom’. Perhaps significantly, Conway was not named to the committee considering the bill during the session and the Irish case was further weakened by Clarendon’s rapidly diminishing influence, who despite being ‘very zealously a friend’ to the Irish interest ‘could not make one convert.’ Conway attributed much of the cause for the bill to the hostility in the House towards Ormond demonstrated by Buckingham, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury) and John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S] (attending the House as earl of Guildford), as well as Ashley and Lauderdale’s desire ‘to engross and monopolize … the trade of cattle between England and Scotland.’ In an effort to maximise the voting bloc of those opposed to the measure, he appealed that the duke would send up his proxy but it was not until the following month that Ormond wrote to Clarendon offering the proxy either to Conway or Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington. Swatland, 100; Bodl. Carte 35, ff. 120,126, Carte 48, f. 432. Conway’s efforts to rally the opposition proved vain and on 23 Nov. he was left with little option but to register his dissent at the resolution to pass the bill. He was one of only four peers to do so, all of them with significant lands and interest in Ireland – Conway, Anglesey, Burlington and Ormond’s son Thomas Butler, Baron Butler of Moore Park (better known as earl of Ossory [I]). Four days after this vote, he informed Ormond ‘of the fatal blow given to Ireland… and that Irish Cattle had the honour to die by a jury of 63 temporal lords’, opposed by 47, ‘all the bishops included’. Bodl. Carte 35, f. 148. In spite of this, Conway remained optimistic in the face of defeat and commented to Sir George Rawdon that, ‘I am one of those that have the vanity to believe this restraint of trade into England will turn very much to the advantage of Ireland.’ HMC Hastings, ii. 374. Conway’s appraisal of the situation proved to be prescient. Irish trade developed in new directions, while that of England suffered. Irish Hist. Studies, xviii. 501.

As proceedings in the House became increasingly fraught during the winter of 1666-7, Conway kept Ormond apprised of events, informing him of the impeachment brought in against John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt. In the last days of December 1666 Conway had the ‘misfortune’, as he considered it, to be one of the six peers named to the accounts commission established by royal prerogative, intended as a means of forestalling the Commons’ planned parliamentary commission of public accounts. In spite of his former prediction that the session ‘would have ended with an outward calmness’ by the end of the year he was warning of greater troubles ahead. Bodl. Carte 35, f. 197; Timberland, i. 80-1; CSP Dom. 1666-7, pp. 365-6.. The temper of Parliament worsened in the heated debates and Conway reported in January 1667 that, ‘the two Houses of Parliament are at great difference, and the king’s affairs, and the concernments of the kingdom are neglected.’ Rawdon Pprs. 227-8. The Irish cattle bill continued to cause dissension. Much of the debate centred on the Commons’ insistence on the use of the term ‘nuisance’ in describing the import of Irish cattle. On 14 Jan. 1667 Conway subscribed the protest against the adoption of the ‘nuisance’ clause, joined this time by a number of court followers who objected to the limitation of the prerogative implied by the term, and the same day he reported back to Ormond that, ‘I little thought to have seen the passages of this day, that when more than five parts in six of the House of Peers were against the word Nuisance, we have passed it by the King’s particular command’. Sheldon had even told Conway that ‘the king was resolved to ruin himself, and it would not be in their powers to preserve him.’ Bodl. Carte 35, f. 30. Conway himself was dismayed to note how little the bill appeared to have concerned the king or Lady Castlemaine:

Here is no news but the death of my Lady Denham, the queen’s sickness, and the ill correspondence of both Houses of Parliament. I supped with the king and my Lady Castlemaine last night, and was with them till two o’clock this morning, they were very merry, and did not trouble their heads with any of these things. Stowe 744, f. 144.

He also reported to Ormond Clarendon’s assessment that it had been Arlington who had convinced the king to allow the measure to pass in the hopes of securing a more compliant Commons for other business. Bodl. Carte 35, f. 259. The royal commission of accounts to which he had formerly been appointed was also a cause of conflict between the houses, as the Commons decided to press on with its parliamentary commission. When the bill to establish it was before the House on 24 Jan., Conway’s name was added, once again, as a commissioner for the peers.

England and Ireland after the Irish Cattle Act, 1667-73

Following the tempestuous events of the summer of 1667, Conway took his seat four days in the new session on 14 Oct. 1667. He was thereafter present on 40 per cent of all sitting days. The opening found Conway pessimistic in his appraisal of the situation. On his first day he was appointed to the commission to consider the state of trade with Scotland. He felt that while Scotland was ‘under considerations of great favour’, Ireland was overshadowed by ‘evil stars.’ Eager to get to the bottom of the matter, Conway made a point of turning out regularly for the committee on Scottish trade, sitting on one day from three in the afternoon to nine at night. He then conveyed the details of the debate to his kinsman, Rawdon, in the hopes that he would be able to make ‘judgment useful to Ireland better than I can.’ Rawdon Pprs. 229-30.

Besides the ongoing concerns over the state of trade between England, Scotland and Ireland, the beginning of the session was dominated by the moves against Clarendon and the rumours of an intended impeachment of Ormond, expected to be brought in by Sir Richard Temple^‡. Conway assured the duke that he had called on Arlington to find out the truth of the matter and been informed that it was nothing more than something ‘vented out of the shop of Clarendon house.’ Bodl. Carte 36, f. 25. After the session had been adjourned on 19 Dec. 1667, Conway on 13 Jan. 1668 made over his proxy to Arlington, while the following day he informed Ormond of his intention to retreat to Warwickshire for the recovery of his health and advised the lord lieutenant to lodge his proxy with Arlington as well. Ibid. f. 104. Similarly at the beginning of February 1668, Conway set out to explain to Sir John Finch the events of the recent session. He despaired that Parliament was ‘formed into more cabals and parties than any Parliament that ever was’, but in the course of the letter he recommended that Finch also look to Arlington for patronage. CSP Dom. 1667-8, pp. 258-9. Two years later, Conway again recommended that Finch cultivate Arlington, believing that ‘you will find yourself more happy under his protection than if you had choice of the court, for his power and readiness to oblige is greater than any man’s.’ CSP Dom. 1670, p. 701. Conway clearly looked increasingly to Arlington as a patron following the fall of Clarendon, though he had been associated with him since at least the summer of 1665 through Orrery’s mediation. Conway Letters, 239. A motivation for this growing partnership may have been Conway’s and Arlington’s shared antipathy towards Buckingham, about whom Conway commented that he ‘heads the fanatics; the king complies with him out of fear; the Commons are swayed by him as a favourite and a premier minister; he himself thinks to arrive to be another Oliver, and the fanatics expect a day of redemption under him’. CSP Dom. 1667-8, pp. 258-9.

Conway anticipated being out of town until the beginning of April but in the event it was not until 7 May 1668 that he resumed his place in the House, thereby vacating the proxy only two days before another long adjournment. Bodl. Carte 35, f. 259. In July he attended a meeting of the Irish officials and grandees, such as Ormond, Anglesey, Orrery and Dering, to discuss steps to be taken following the Irish Cattle Act. Bodl. Carte 59, f. 264. Conway anticipated being at Ragley in the spring of 1669 and then planned to spend the majority of the summer in Ireland. Add. 70011, f. 67. It was presumably on account of his concentration on Irish affairs that he was absent for the entirety of the ensuing session of October 1669 and he was still missing at the opening of the new session on 14 Feb. 1670. He may have registered his proxy soon after the beginning of the session with Buckingham, but the precise date (probably sometime in the first three months of 1670) in the proxy book is unfortunately obscured. This was vacated when he took his seat finally on 3 December. He was thereafter present on 35 sitting days in the remainder of the session, approximately one fifth of the whole. He last sat in the session on 7 Feb. 1671, registering his proxy with Buckingham once more the following day for the remainder of the session. It is unclear for what particular business Conway expected Buckingham to use his proxy and why he chose him as a recipient. His choice of the duke appears peculiar in view of Buckingham’s vigorous support for the Irish Cattle Bill, as well as in Conway’s own assessment of the duke as one who ‘thinks to arrive to be another Oliver’ CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 258.

Conway appears to have turned his concentration once more to Irish affairs over the next few years. While Arlington, Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, Ormond and Ranelagh all struggled to achieve supremacy in the province, Conway, as ever, attempted to be all things to all people. CSP Dom. 1671, p. 243. Conway’s own influence in Ireland was underwritten by his appointment as governor of Charlemont in 1672, though his selection encountered difficulties when the lords justices refused to authorize Conway’s succession until they had received confirmation from the lord lieutenant. Ibid. 214, 411. Following Essex’s appointment as lord lieutenant in 1672, Conway maintained a regular correspondence with him. Thomas Osborne, Viscount Latimer (later duke of Leeds), assured Essex that Conway was his ‘entire friend’ and Conway in turn assured Essex of Latimer’s support for him. At the same time he warned of ‘the ill offices’ to which Essex was subjected by Orrery. Essex Pprs. i (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 139-41, 141-2, 145, 150, 152, 160, 228; Browning, Danby, ii. 49. Eager to shore up his position in the province, Conway attempted to add the mastership of the ordnance in Ireland to his responsibilities in April 1673 following the death of Sir Robert Byron. In spite of Essex’s support, he failed to secure the post. HMC Dartmouth, iii. 117; Add. 28053, f. 78. He was more successful the following year when he was appointed lieutenant-general of horse in Ireland and was also provided with an additional company of foot to command. CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 222. 273.

Danby’s agent 1673-79

Conway had registered his proxy with John Granville, earl of Bath, on 22 Feb. 1673 for the session of spring 1673, but he was present to take his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on every day bar one. The session was dominated by moves launched in the Commons against Buckingham. Conway interpreted the petition presented to the House in protest at the duke’s killing of Francis Talbot, 11th earl of Shrewsbury, and his cohabitation with Shrewsbury’s widow, as being intended ‘only to usher in something else.’ Essex Pprs. i (Cam.Soc. n.s. xlvii), 160. The fall of Clarendon and Arlington’s waning star had forced Conway to seek a new patron. From 1673 onwards, as evidenced by his negotiations with Essex, Conway became increasingly identified with Latimer, created earl of Danby in June 1674, and within a short while he appears to have emerged as one of his most trusted agents. In advance of the new session of spring 1675, Danby wrote to Essex requesting that he would ‘not only spare my Lord Conway but prevail with him to let us have his company at that time.’ He also hoped that Essex and Conway might, ‘influence as many of your friends as you can which are of the Parliament to assist the making this next session a quiet and calm one.’ Browning, Danby, ii. 56. Although Essex responded that he thought Conway had not intended to take his seat, Conway expressed his eagerness to do Danby’s bidding, declaring fulsomely that ‘if I could be serviceable to your lordship I should make no scruple of going to the farthest part of the world… to disobey your lordship is a thing I cannot do. I would excuse my self to all the rest of mankind, but I shall not do so to your lordship.’ Eg. 3327, ff. 95-6, Eg. 3329, f. 10.

In April 1675 Conway was marked, unsurprisingly, among those thought likely to support the non-resisting test and his willingness to put aside his concerns in Ireland to rally to Danby’s call was made apparent on 10 Apr. when Essex informed Danby of Conway’s imminent arrival in England. Eg. 3327, ff. 103-5. Conway took his seat almost a fortnight into the new session on 26 Apr., thereby disproving reports that he had been drowned during the crossing. He continued to attend on 62 per cent of all sitting days. Add. 70233, Sir E. Harley to R. Harley, 8 May 1675; Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 1 Apr. 1675. Conway returned to the House for the subsequent session on 13 October. Present on all but one of its 21 sitting days, he was named to two committees, though it is not clear that he took a prominent role in either.

Despite Danby’s evident support, Conway struggled to exert his interest against far more capable and more entrenched opponents in Ireland. A number of letters of 1675 and 1676 warned Essex that Conway was manoeuvring against him, reports that Essex was more than ready to believe. Essex Pprs. ii (Cam Soc. ser. 3, xxiv), 14-15, 17, 30-1, 60. As pressure mounted on Essex in 1677, he expressed his concern at the idea of Conway assuming the lieutenancy. By early summer, Danby appears to have conceded the implausibility of Conway assuming the post and to have proposed instead that Essex be replaced by James Scott, duke of Monmouth, as lieutenant with Conway taking effective charge of the province as Monmouth’s deputy. The scheme was opposed by York, who championed Ormond’s return to office. By the end of the summer York had triumphed enabling Essex to return to England leaving Ireland once more in Ormond’s hands. Bodl. Carte 38, ff. 581-2; CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 202; Verney ms mic. M636/30, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 21 June 1677.

Conway’s efforts to employ his interest in England met with similar disappointments. He proved unable to woo the Derbyshire Member William Sacheverell^‡ away from the opposition and in 1675 was also unable to persuade Orlando Gee^‡ to step down as member for Cockermouth to make room for Ranelagh. In 1676 he was similarly unsuccessful in attempting to exert his interest at Coventry, where he sought to rein in Richard Hopkins^‡, who had joined the opposition to Danby in the Commons. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 579, 662, iii. 371. In February 1677, still intent on assisting Ranelagh to a safe seat, he wrote to Danby asking that he support Ranelagh’s candidacy at East Looe. Conway seems to have been unaware that Danby’s brother, Charles Osborne^‡, also possessed an interest in the town. Eg. 3330, ff. 73, 75. In the event Danby backed his brother’s campaign. The influence of Danby and his brother proved far more potent than the combined interests of Conway, his cousin (by marriage) Sir Edward Seymour^‡, and the sitting knight of the shire, Sir Jonathan Trelawny^‡, and Ranelagh was once more disappointed in his ambitions. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 182.

Unperturbed by these reversals, Conway remained active in attempting to employ his interest both in England and Ireland on Danby’s behalf. Michael Boyle, archbishop of Dublin and lord chancellor of Ireland, reported to Ormond his concerns that Conway appeared intent on persuading Danby to exploit the Irish revenue. HMC Ormond, iv. 23. In September 1678 the death of the Irish primate, James Margetson, archbishop of Armagh, offered Conway an opportunity to recommend to Danby despatching an English archbishop to Dublin instead of Ormond’s candidate. This, he suggested, would, ‘be an ample recompense for any man that has deserved well of the king there.’ Eg. 3331, f. 90. Conway’s suggestion was ignored and Margetson was succeeded by Archbishop Boyle.

Conway took his seat at the opening of the new session on 15 Feb. 1677, after which he was present on 80 per cent of all sitting days. In March he chaired the committee considering a bill for settling Robert Cooke’s estate, reporting the committee’s findings to the House on 28 March. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, pp. 177-8, 181. He seems not to have been a prominent member of any other committee but Conway’s close identification with Danby and the court was reflected in Shaftesbury’s assessment of him as doubly vile. Conway was injured in a fall from his coach that summer of 1677, and was fortunate to escape with a dislocated shoulder. Even so, the accident left him confined at Ragley for almost four months. Add. 70012, f. 255. He had recovered his strength by 28 Jan. 1678 when he took his place in the House once more. On 22 Feb. he was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, John Poulett, 3rd Baron Poulett. The proxy should have been vacated on 9 Apr. when Conway registered his own proxy with William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, though the proxy book only noted the cancellation two days later when Poulett also registered his proxy with Maynard. Conway’s proxy was then vacated by the close of the session.

By the beginning of August 1678 Conway was back in Ireland. Ormond informed Danby of his arrival and how he hoped to gain ‘much assistance from his advice and interest.’ Eg. 3331, ff. 49-50. Presumably intent on affairs in Ireland, Conway remained away from the House for the final two sessions of the Parliament. On 2 Nov. 1678 he registered his proxy with Danby and he was still in Ireland when the news of Danby’s impeachment reached him. Conway promised Danby to assist whenever he wished but he seems not to have been overly concerned by his ally’s predicament. He confided to his wife that ‘hearing that he gets the better of them in the House of Lords, I hope he is in no great danger.’ Conway Letters, 447. Danby marked Conway as an absent supporter in a series of lists compiled early in March 1679. Conway assured Danby, apparently in response to a rebuke for his failure to come up, that he had not neglected the embattled treasurer’s concerns and that he had waited on Sir Thomas Armstrong^‡ in order to arrive at a settlement with Monmouth and Shaftesbury. Add. 28053, f. 140. For all his assurances of his willingness to assist, Conway remained away from the House for the first month of the new Parliament. In April Danby informed him of his surrender to Black Rod and asked for the help of his friends, of whom he counted Conway, ‘one of the best of them.’ CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 123. It may have been in response to this latest plea that Conway finally rallied to take his seat in the House on 26 Apr. after which he was present on 39 per cent of all sitting days in the second session of the Parliament. On 10 May he voted against appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider how to proceed against the impeached lords, and on 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases. From this point onwards, perhaps because of his efforts on Danby’s behalf, Conway’s political focus became increasingly on English rather than Irish affairs. He also appears to have added an interest at Evesham to the Warwickshire boroughs in which he had previously attempted to exert some influence. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 466.

Defence of Danby, secretary of state, and death, 1679-1683

Conway’s tardiness in returning to Parliament in the spring of 1679 may not just have been on account of misplaced confidence in Danby’s ability to manage his attackers. Danby’s imprisonment had come hard on the heels of the death of Anne, Lady Conway, in February 1679. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 118. Both factors seem to have quelled Conway’s natural ebullience and by May his confident predictions of the previous year had declined. He summed up the state of English politics gloomily suggesting that ‘no sooner doth any man get the least employment but a hundred others are immediately contriving to turn him out, so that here will be nothing but tumbling down one another till they come all to the bottom of the hill’. His faith in the king had also abated. He commented derisively of the king’s attitude to Danby that Charles was ‘no more concerned for him than for a puppy dog, nor for what becomes of York neither’. HMC Hastings, ii. 387-8. The extent of Conway’s disillusionment is perhaps revealed by advice offered to Danby by Bath, that Conway needed encouragement and that Danby should impress upon him how much he relied on his support. HMC Buckinghamshire, 408-9. Conway’s friendly relations with several of those opposed to Danby were of particular interest to the embattled treasurer. As such he was put to work undertaking negotiations with Monmouth and Shaftesbury in the hopes of securing their acquiescence in Danby’s application to be bailed. K. Feiling, Tory Party 1640-1714, 189. Although Monmouth appeared to have been open to suggestions on the question of Danby’s release, Shaftesbury seems not to have revised his earlier opinion of Conway and remained unmoved. Add. 28053, f. 140.

In the midst of his efforts on Danby’s behalf, Conway was rewarded with promotion to an earldom on 3 Dec. 1679. The advancement was rumoured to have cost him £10,000, which was paid to the duchess of Portsmouth, although Conway protested to Rawdon that he had not sought the honour. HMC Hastings, ii. 388; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 406. His promotion coincided with his quest for a new wife. Still lacking an heir, Conway seems to have been urged on to remarry by his relatives, soon after his first wife’s death. His cousin Sir Edward Seymour was a prominent advocate of Conway’s preparing his ‘wooing equipage and… wooing countenance.’ Conway Letters, 463; CSP Dom. 1679-80, pp. 288-9. Conway’s thoughts at first turned to Margaret Poulett, and in December 1679 it was reported that his promotion as earl of Conway had been made in anticipation of this marriage. Eg. 3329, ff. 12-13; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 211. Her brother Poulett, another of Conway’s cousins, appears not to have favoured the match and he forbade Conway admittance to his house at Wells. The reason given was Poulett’s antipathy to Seymour rather than to Conway, though Margaret Poulett also seems to have been reluctant to agree to the marriage. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 373; Conway Letters, 466. Conway was forced to look elsewhere. Sir Edward Harley had attempted to put him in mind of a daughter of Thomas Crew 2nd Baron Crew, or one of the Clare family, both of whom could be expected to bring portions of £5,000. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 504. Neither of Harley’s suggestions interested Conway, though in rejecting them he had protested that ‘if I saw any lady whom I liked very well, it would be indifferent to me whether she had £5,000 or nothing at all’. Add. 70013, f. 36. Having decided against these and other possibilities, Conway turned his attentions to Elizabeth Booth. He justified his choice to Danby insisting that he hoped thereby to recruit her father George Booth, Baron Delamer, to Danby’s cause. In early October 1680, in advance of the new Parliament, he explained that both he and Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, ‘importuned my Lord Delamer, and prevailed with him to be in London the 21st instant contrary to his intentions… But I am certain he will be your lordship’s friend, and if I had not been assured of it, all the world should not have made me marry into his family.’ His assurance echoed his predictions from earlier in the summer that he was confident of being able to ‘make some to be your friends that were not so before.’ Add. 28053, ff. 179, 197. In the case of Delamer, Conway’s confidence proved to be quite misplaced as his new father-in-law consistently voted for Danby’s impeachment. In the event the connection did not last long as the new Lady Conway died in childbirth the following summer. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 353; Conway Letters, 469.

In April 1680 Conway had reported a crisis in the heart of government, complaining that ‘our present cabal of governors are all to pieces among themselves, and they cannot agree either who is wisest or most in favour.’ HMC Portland, iii. 365. By September, he perceived that Ormond was under threat in Ireland and noted Essex’s expectation of replacing the duke once more there. More positively, his undertaking to recruit members to Danby’s cause appears to have had some success among some of his Warwickshire neighbours with both Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, and Thomas Leigh, 2nd Baron Leigh, undertaking to join their voices with Conway’s on Danby’s behalf. Acknowledging the favour, Danby conveyed his gratitude to Brooke for ‘his civility’. Add. 28053, ff. 188, 190; HMC Lonsdale, 95.

It was in this uncertain state of affairs that Conway took his seat in his new dignity at the opening of the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680, introduced between Bath and Nicholas Leke, earl of Scarsdale. He was then present on 79 per cent of all sitting days. In November he attempted once more to liaise with Monmouth and Shaftesbury on Danby’s behalf but was rebuffed. Add. 28053, ff. 203, 205; Add. 28049, ff. 127-8. Equally opposed to the opposition’s moves to introduce the exclusion bill as he was committed to assisting Danby, Conway voted on 15 Nov. in favour of rejecting the exclusion bill at first reading. He had reported confidently (and perceptively) to Ormond that ‘tis certain it will not pass the House of Lords, for by the largest computation they are but thirty of the temporals, which is all be for it… and we shall be fifty now sitting against it, besides the bishops.’ Conway’s assessment of the number of the bill’s supporters was quite correct. Supplemented by the bishops, those opposed to the measure swelled to 63 votes. He wrote later to clarify the position to Rawdon in response to Rawdon’s suggestion that he had not been among those ‘dissenters’ to the bill who supported York’s right to the throne:

You say you have the names of the dissenters to the duke’s bill and did not find my name among them. I believe you mistake the question, but if you mean the 63 dissenters I was certainly one of them. If you mean the protesters, who were but 24 that entered their protestations, though they were 30 in all, I was none of them. HMC Ormond, n.s. v. 486; Kenyon, Sunderland, 64; HMC Hastings, ii. 391.

Conway may have been adamant in his support for Danby and York but he proved more than willing to offer up a scapegoat and on 7 Dec. he joined with the majority in finding William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason. The verdict was said to have angered the king enormously. W.D. Christie, Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, ii. 382.

Aware of the imminence of the dissolution, which was proclaimed on 18 Jan. 1681, Conway advised Ormond that:

nothing [is] so necessary in this juncture for the king’s service and the good of Ireland as the present calling a parliament there. Tis certain they will be loyal, though my lord Shaftesbury and my lord Essex will influence some, and my lord Burlington, who has not gone with them this session in English affairs, will go with them in Irish affairs. HMC Ormond, v. 553-4.

Shortly after the dissolution, Conway was on 2 Feb. sworn to the Privy Council and appointed secretary of state in place of Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland. Add. 28053, f. 236; HMC Hastings, ii. 391. Observers such as Roger Morrice had noted Conway as one of those thought likely to succeed Sunderland early on, alongside candidates such as Ranelagh, Conway’s own nephew Daniel Finch, later 2nd earl of Nottingham, Seymour, and several others. Of Sunderland’s potential replacements the king was thought to favour Finch, while York supported the appointment of Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon. Finch’s father, and Conway’s erstwhile brother-in-law, Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, appears to have vetoed his son’s appointment, apparently concerned that Finch was not ready for the responsibility. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 266-7; Bodl. Carte 243, f. 532; Hutton, Charles II, 398. Conway’s eventual selection appears to have been the result of lobbying by Sir Edward Seymour. Ailesbury Mems. 42-43; Kenyon, Sunderland, 80. While Danby was quick to welcome the rumours of Conway’s appointment, eager to have ‘so good a friend at so near a station to his majesty’, and hoping thereby for a change in his fortunes, Conway appeared reluctant to accept the post and was keen to stress that he had ‘not been a solicitor for it to any body’ and would have preferred ‘a less station’ under Danby. Add. 28053, ff. 232, 234; Add. 28049, f. 147.

Conway’s tenure of the post has been widely criticized, if largely unfairly. M.A. Thomson, Secretaries of State (1968), 5, 91-2; G. Aylmer, Crown’s Servants, 17, 223. Undoubtedly, he owed his preferment as much to the king’s desperation in seeking loyal servants following the loss of Sunderland and Essex to the movement for exclusion as to Conway’s own aptitude for the task. Life of James II, i. 658-9. Admittedly he may not have been the best informed of ministers. Burnet, ii. 339. He displayed some confusion over the extent of his duties, was criticized by the French ambassador, Barillon, and on one embarrassing occasion was so drunk before the Oxford burgesses that he could (it was said) hardly speak and was barely able to stand. Add. 35104, f. 12; Thomson, Secretaries of State, 5; Prideaux Letters, 102. He seems to have struggled with the range of his responsibilities which included responding to petitions such as that submitted soon after his appointment by Dr Thomas Baines seeking the banning of coffee houses and of extravagant clothes and the reform of the theatres. HMC Finch, ii. 111. That said, Conway’s analyses of domestic politics were frequently both shrewd and witty. When he left the post in 1683 he did so with some honour and a handsome pension. HMC Downshire, i. 17. That his support continued to be cultivated after his departure from office by York, who assured him of his continuing friendship, and Lawrence Hyde, earl of Rochester, whom Conway suspected of pressing for a ‘correspondency’, may also suggest that Conway’s term of office should not be dismissed out of hand. Add. 37990, ff. 34, 50.

In his new role, Conway was active in exerting his interest in Warwickshire for the elections of late February 1681, with habitually uneven results. He encouraged Thomas Archer^‡ to stand for Warwickshire but although Archer seems initially to have been willing to stand with Sir Richard Newdigate^‡, he later resolved not to challenge the seat and Newdigate was returned with Thomas Mariet^‡ instead. Add. 34730, ff. 66, 71; SCLA, 37/2/87/128. Neither was likely to have been acceptable to Conway. Having failed to get his way in his home county, Conway took his seat at the opening of the Oxford Parliament on 21 Mar. 1681, after which he was present on each one of its 7 sitting days. He appeared uncharacteristically uncertain of the mood of the assembly: ‘We are like to be a full assembly but what temper they will be in I know not.’ Add. 35104, f. 8. Whatever his own doubts, Conway was selected by Danby as one of his principal points of contact in his ongoing efforts to secure release from imprisonment. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, Danby’s private instructions, 17 Mar. 1681; HMC Lindsey, 426. The failure to secure a satisfactory response to Danby’s petition for bail seems not to have concerned Conway unduly and following the dissolution, Conway assured Sir George Rawdon that, ‘I know on such occasions you are apt to judge our affairs very desperate, and I did desire you might look, see, and hear the contrary from others. I think the king’s affairs were not in a better posture these many years.’ Rawdon Pprs. 265. In June Conway was called as one of the witnesses at the trial of Edmund Fitzharris. He admitted that Fitzharris had been employed in ‘some trifling businesses’ for the government, but otherwise maintained that the king had no knowledge of him before his arrest. TNA, PRO 30/24/19/232. The following month he was one of the signatories of the council order for committing Shaftesbury. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 283.

Conway’s optimistic appraisal of the state of affairs in the aftermath of the Oxford Parliament struck a hollow note. In the summer of 1681 it was reported that he might replace Ormond in Ireland, but this proved to be unfounded. Although rumours that Conway was to be replaced as secretary either by Seymour or by Sir William Coventry^‡ also failed to come about, it was asserted that this had been the plan all along and Conway’s appointment no more than a temporary expedient. What does not seem to have been in doubt was the rapid decline of Conway’s reputation. He was mocked in the news-sheets and the ladies at court, it was observed, ‘ridicule him very much.’ Castle Ashby ms 1092, newsletters to Northampton, 20 Apr., 1 June, 13 July 1681; Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 16 May 1681; Add. 75363, Sir T. Thynne to Halifax, 13 Aug. 1681. With his position at court in steady decline, Conway suffered a further blow with the loss of his wife shortly after her giving birth to a stillborn son later that summer. Although Conway complained to Danby of his ‘present trouble which lies heavy upon me’, he appears to have recovered from his loss remarkably quickly and within six weeks, and before the end of August 1681, had married again. Add. 70084, T. Keyt to Sir E. Harley, 5 July 1681; Add. 28053, f. 271; HMC Rutland, ii. 57. The new countess, Ursula Stawell, the 15-year old daughter-in-law of Conway’s kinsman, Henry Seymour^‡, brought with her a fortune of some £30,000. Described as being ‘much in the queen’s favour,’ Lady Conway was appointed one of the ladies of the bedchamber towards the end of the year. HMC Ormond, vi. 142, 144; HMC Rutland, ii. 56, 62.

For all Conway’s rumoured loss of interest, he remained a central figure at court at the height of the Tory reaction. In November 1681 his name appeared alongside that of Rochester and George Savile, earl (later marquess) of Halifax, as ‘favourers of the duke of York’. Shaftesbury’s supporters claimed that they were intent on fabricating evidence to ‘cast the odium off the papists and throw it on the Presbyterians’. In December he was appointed to the lieutenancy of Warwickshire during the minority of George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton. CSP Dom. 1680-1, pp. 568, 650. He added this post to his already existing one of custos rotulorum of that county, which he had exercised since 1675, following the death of its previous holder Denbigh. At a more mundane level too Conway continued to employ his interest as secretary. Through his intervention the diplomat Edmund Poley was awarded an additional allowance of 10s. a day. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 15, W. Blathwayt to E. Poley, 15 Nov. 1681. In the face of harsh criticism of his abilities, Conway maintained a subtle balance at court, eager to cultivate all parties. When York canvassed opinion among the council for his return from Scotland in 1681 Conway was said to have passed the message on to Halifax, even though York had deliberately omitted him from his list of those who were to be consulted. Life of James II, i. 698.

Such malleability no doubt helped maintain the steady stream of rumour of Conway’s likely replacement of Ormond in Ireland. In November 1681 Francis Aungier, earl of Longford [I], warned Ormond that Ranelagh was working to have him removed from the lord lieutenancy and replaced with Conway. Four months later, Ormond’s position was still being undermined by Conway’s supporters, keen to represent Ormond as the marginalized leader of a few ‘old protestants’ while Conway enjoyed the more powerful interest of ‘the new English in Ireland.’ HMC Ormond, vi. 218, 313. Over the course of 1682 similar reports continued to circulate, though at least one of those to repeat the rumour acknowledged it as little more than ‘a coffee house story’ and Conway himself was keen to emphasize that such reports injured himself quite as much as they did Ormond. Bodl. Carte 216, f. 27; HMC Hastings, ii. 392; Verney ms mic. M636/37, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1682.

While Conway struggled to maintain his own position he remained a committed supporter of the imprisoned Danby, though his efforts on his ally’s behalf were complicated by intricate negotiations between them over the lease of Danby’s London residence. Eg. 3332, ff. 37-8, 39, Eg. 3334, f. 18. Conway’s position had weakened further by the close of 1682 and on 28 Jan. 1683 he was at last put out of his place as secretary and replaced by Sunderland. HMC Ormond, vi. 475, 515; Life of James II, i 736; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 344. After the long period of uncertainty about his prospects, Conway’s eclipse was relatively quick. He was able to salvage some dignity by laying down the post voluntarily. He also retained his position on the Privy Council and was awarded a pension of £1,500 a year as well as a present of £2,500. He may also have been promised the reversion to the office of lord chamberlain. HMC Hastings, ii. 393; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 27, W. Blathwayt to E. Poley, 23 Jan. 1683; Kenyon, Sunderland, 86. Following his departure from office Conway retired to his Warwickshire estate at Ragley, where he had been undertaking substantial building work since 1677. VCH Warws. iii. 27n. His retreat from court did not, however, represent a complete cessation of his interest and he continued to participate in ‘intrigues’ at Littlecott with Rochester and George Legge, Baron Dartmouth. News of the Rye House Plot elicited a characteristically lively response: ‘I doubt not but all the Whigs in England, whether in the Court or out of the Court, and all the French pensioners, if any such there be, were in some measure concerned.’ Convinced that there was more to follow, he warned that those concerned would be quick to make another attempt. HMC Dartmouth, i. 81-82.

Conway died, unexpectedly, on 11 Aug. 1683. The cause of death was attributed to a surfeit of melon, followed by milk and water. Bodl. Carte 216, f. 331; HMC Hastings, ii. 394. His body ‘was carried out of London in great state’ and buried at Ragley. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 381. At his death, the house was still unfinished but Conway left a considerable estate to his widow estimated to be worth £1,000 a year, which passed eventually to his first cousin once removed Popham Seymour (son of Sir Edward Seymour and Letitia Popham). He also left £2,000 as portions for his nieces Brilliana and Dorothy Rawdon. As a condition of his will, which his widow hurried to prove before her husband was cold, Conway required that his building work at Ragley should be completed, the funds to come from the income from his Irish estates. HMC Hastings, i. 321-2; Hatton Corresp. ii. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxiii), 34. Conway’s widow later married John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), who contrived to spend most of her inheritance. It was, therefore, a depleted estate that eventually passed to the Seymour family and it was not until the following century that Conway’s house at Ragley was finally completed.