CONWAY, Francis Seymour (1679-1732)

A scion of what was technically the senior branch of the family of the dukes of Somerset, Conway had extensive connections and it is this that explains his elevation to the peerage as one of the four creations of 1703, rather than his own particular merits. Through the marriage of his cousin Alexander Popham to Lady Anne Montagu, Conway was related to Ralph Montagu* , duke of Montagu, and he was also a distant cousin of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford. His most influential relative by far was his father, the former Speaker of the Commons, and although their relations were at times far from amiable, Seymour was probably responsible for Conway’s return at Bramber in 1701. TNA, SP 34/6/14, Lady Seymour to Conway, 25 May 1705. It was undoubtedly through Seymour’s influence that Conway was granted the barony of Conway when many might have expected Seymour himself to be the more likely object of ennoblement. Collins, Peerage, ii. 560–3.

While his promotion was largely due to his father’s manoeuvrings on his behalf, Conway was more than able to support his new quality, having inherited the estates (and acquired the surname) of the long-deceased earl of Conway when his brother Popham Seymour Conway was killed in a duel in 1699. J. Childs, British Army of William III, 45–46. Even so, Conway’s inheritance was to prove something of a poisoned chalice. It brought him into conflict with both John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby (later duke of Buckingham), husband of the earl’s widow, and his distant kinsman, Sir Arthur Rawdon, who had felt himself poorly used by the earl’s failure to bequeath his property to him as the nearer relation. Rawdon Pprs. 280–1. The Conway estates in Warwickshire and Ireland brought with them an annual income in excess of £7,000, and it was as one of the most eligible bachelors in England that Conway entered into negotiations in early 1703 to marry the daughter of Sir Henry Johnson^‡ (‘next the Duke of Newcastle’s daughter, the greatest fortune in England’ Add. 70075, newsletter, 28 Jan. 1703.). An earlier scheme to marry him to one of the daughters of his kinsman Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, and to advance him to an earldom had come to nothing. Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 335–6. On this occasion Conway was to be disappointed once more. Despite his evident preference for the match (said by some to be worth £50,000), a disagreement over the financial settlement between Sir Edward and Sir Henry meant that the expected alliance came to nothing. Add. 22186, ff. 190–1; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 276.

In the midst of these negotiations, Conway was elevated to the Lords as Baron Conway. Rumours of his expected elevation and that of a number of others had been current since the previous summer. Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 20 June 1702. On 25 Mar. it was reported that his patent had been delayed on account of ‘some expressions that seemed a little odd in the preamble’, but the problem was soon rectified and on 22 Apr. he took his seat in the House, introduced between John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, and William Legge, 2nd Baron Dartmouth. Add. 70075, newsletter, 25 Mar. 1703. Intended to assist with bolstering the Tory presence in the House, Conway naturally gravitated towards the grouping dominated by his father, Seymour, and future father-in-law, the earl of Rochester. In May he bought the rangership of Hyde Park from Anthony Rowe and during the year employed his interest at Lisburn (his brother’s former seat in Ireland) on behalf of Richard Nutley, who was seated on petition. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 293; HIP, v. 365; CSP Dom. 1703–4, p. 157. The strength of Conway’s interest in the area was later underlined when a subsequent candidate at Lisburn declared that the borough belonged to Conway ‘entirely’ and that his ‘recommendation to the said borough is undeniable’. Add. 70316, H. Speke to Oxford, 8 Aug. 1711.

Although absent for the first two months of the session of November 1703, Conway was estimated by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in both of his forecasts to be a supporter of the Occasional Conformity bill. It was noted that his proxy was employed in support of the measure in a division of 14 Dec., though the proxy register has not survived. Conway resumed his seat on 12 Jan. 1704, after which he attended on just over a third of all sitting days. Despite being listed as present on the attendance list for 17 Feb., he was married to Lady Mary Hyde that same day. Add. 70075, newsletter, 10 Feb. 1704. The alliance reinforced his attachment to the Hyde–Seymour group in Parliament. Following a break of just one day, Conway returned to the House on 19 Feb. and on 3 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to make the key to the ‘gibberish letters’ public. On 21 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers in a division on the recruits bill; he then subscribed the resulting protest when the bill was carried. He protested again on 25 Mar. in response to the resolution that the failure to pass a censure on Robert Ferguson was an encouragement to the enemies of the crown. He was included in a list of some members of both Houses prepared by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in 1704, which may indicate his support over the ‘Scotch Plot’.

Conway returned to the House at the opening of the following session in October. He was again named to eight committees in the course of the session but his rate of attendance declined and he was present for less than a quarter of all sitting days. Absent from the House from 18 Dec. he registered his proxy with his kinsman John Granville, Baron Granville, that day, which was vacated by his return to the House on 16 Jan. 1705.

Although absent from Warwickshire during the elections of the summer of 1705, Conway employed his interest on behalf of the sitting members and, following their successful re-election, he was assured by his agent that he had ‘carried in all the tenants according to your lordship’s commands’. TNA, SP 34/6/12, T. Harris to Conway, 17 May 1705. Relations with his father appear to have been less cordial, necessitating Lady Seymour to write to her son emphasizing that Sir Edward was ‘a good father in the main’ and imploring him not to ‘talk of going where I shall not see you’. TNA, SP 34/6/14, Lady Seymour to Conway, 25 May 1705. Conway was again present at the opening of the new session of October 1705, after which he attended on 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Nov. he protested at the resolution not to put the question whether an address be prepared requesting that Princess Sophia be invited to England and on 30 Nov. subscribed a further protest at the resolution not to offer any further instructions to the committee of the whole to which the bill for securing the queen’s person and the Protestant succession was committed. The following week he voted in favour of the motion that the Church was in danger and then subscribed the resulting protest when the motion failed to carry.

Although absent for much of December, he registered his proxy with his father-in-law, Rochester, on 8 Dec., which was vacated by his resumption of his seat the following month on 8 Jan. 1706. Three days later, the House took into consideration Conway’s petition to bring in a bill enabling the exemplification of the late earl of Conway’s will granted by the Irish courts to be used as evidence in trials at law there. Conway’s Irish relations, the Rawdons, had always disputed the earl’s will and he now found himself embroiled in a series of actions questioning the dispersal of the estates. His bill received its first reading on 15 Jan. and was committed the following day. The committee was chaired by Rochester and little over a fortnight later the House resolved to pass the measure and send it down to the Commons. On 22 Feb. Conway was nominated a manager of the conference considering Cary and Hatley’s bill. Six days later the House debated certain amendments proposed by the Commons to his own bill, after which it was resolved to hold a conference with the Commons to discuss their differences. Following the conference held on 2 Mar. agreement was reached and the bill received the royal assent later the same month.

Conway was missing at a call of the House on 29 Jan. 1707. On 1 Feb. he registered his proxy with his father-in-law once more, which was vacated by the close of the session. He then took his seat two months into the new Parliament on 17 Dec. but was thereafter present for just 9 per cent of sitting days in the session. He was listed as a Tory in an assessment of party classifications in May of the following year, the month that also witnessed the opening salvoes in a bitterly contested dispute when Buckingham exhibited a bill in chancery against Conway. At the heart of the case was the earl of Conway’s desire that after his death his half-finished mansion at Ragley should be completed. TNA, PROB 11/374. The task had been entrusted to Buckingham following his marriage to the dowager countess and the dispute between Conway and Buckingham, which principally concerned whether or not the house had indeed been completed, persisted for the ensuing four years. TNA, C 33/309, f. 337; C 33/311, f. 457; C 33/313, ff. 425, 449; C 33/315, ff. 46, 108, 154; C 33/317, ff. 4, 66; SP 34/10/13, copy bill of Francis, Lord Conway, 24 July 1708.

Conway returned to the House on 18 Nov. 1708 but sat for just seven days before again quitting the chamber for the remainder of the session. His absence may have been owing to the loss of his wife in January 1709. If so, his period of mourning proved brief and at some point later that year he married again. He also had the embarrassment of having one of his former servants, Thomas Sheppard (‘about 5 foot 6 inches high, and great lips’), being sought after by local constables, having committed ‘notorious crimes’ that spring. Post Man, 1–3 Mar. 1709. Conway took his seat once more on 15 Nov., after which his attendance improved somewhat, with him present for just under a third of all sitting days.

In common with a number of Warwickshire peers, he was presumably spurred into action by the prospect of the trial of Henry Sacheverell. A consistent supporter of the embattled doctor, on 14 Mar. 1710 he entered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the House and the same day subscribed the protest at the resolution not to include the particular words supposed to be criminal in articles of impeachment. Two days later he protested again at the resolution to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment against Sacheverell and subscribed a further protest at the resolution that the Commons had indeed made good the first article. On 17 Mar. he protested again at the resolution that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth articles and the following day at the resolution to limit peers to a single guilty or not-guilty verdict. Predictably enough, Conway found Sacheverell not guilty of the charges against him on 20 Mar. and entered his dissent in response to the guilty verdict. The following day he registered his dissent at the censure passed against Sacheverell and acted as one of the tellers on the motion whether Sacheverell should be barred from receiving benefice for three years. The ending of the Sacheverell trial did not bring to a close Conway’s involvement in the session. On 30 Mar. he was named one of the managers of the conference concerning the amendments to the Eddystone lighthouse bill and on 1 Apr. he was one of the tellers in a division on the bill concerning the dispute between the inhabitants of Hammersmith and Henry Compton, bishop of London.

Conway returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Nov., after which he was present for almost 42 per cent of all sitting days. The following month it was reported by John Verney^‡, Viscount Fermanagh [I], that Conway had commissioned a new carriage in preparation for his marriage to one of the maids of honour (a Miss Wyvell). Fermanagh must have been mistaken but the incident may indicate that Conway’s marriage to Jane Bowden was not yet widely known. Verney Letters 18th Century ed. M. M. Lady Verney, i. 286; Verney ms mic. M636/54, Fermanagh to R. Verney, 5 Dec. 1710. Conway was absent from the House from 11 to 14 December. His absence was covered once more by a proxy registered with Rochester. Having taken his seat again, he entered his dissent at the resolution to reject the bill for repealing the General Naturalization Act on 5 Feb. 1711. On 14 Feb. he registered his proxy with Rochester again, but it was vacated the following day. In April Conway approached James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, for his support for a bill before the Irish Parliament. HMC Ormonde, viii. 149. On 1 June he served as one of the tellers for a division in a committee of the whole on the Scotch linen bill, and the same month he was listed among the Tory patriots.

Further inaccurate rumours about Conway’s marriage circulated in November: this time a ‘Mrs Kingdom’ was believed to be the new Lady Conway. Wentworth Pprs. 207; Add. 22,226, f. 21. In advance of the new session, Conway was reported to be one of those peers sent to by his neighbour Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh, to ensure his presence in the new session. Add. 70214, W. Bromley to Oxford, 3 Dec. 1711. It was perhaps in response to this that Conway wrote on 3 Dec. to Oxford that he would leave his country business aside and be in London on the following Monday. Add. 70282, Conway to Oxford, 3 Dec. 1711. A similar letter was conveyed to Oxford’s ally, Francis Gwyn^‡. Add. 70294, F. Gwyn to Oxford, 4 Dec. 1711. Conway took his seat accordingly at the opening of the new session on 7 Dec. and the same month was estimated to be in favour of permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to assume his seat in the House as duke of Brandon. Despite this, he voted against permitting Scots peers from sitting in the House by virtue of post-Union British titles in the division held the following day. Conway was involved in another family dispute towards the end of the year, this time brought by his half-brother, Sir Edward Seymour^‡, over the settlement of their father’s estate. Seymour petitioned the House on 15 Dec. and, after hearing the answer of the co-respondents, comprising Conway, his mother and other members of the family, on 2 Feb. 1712 the House ordered that the case be remitted to chancery.

Conway’s support for Oxford was said to be wavering at the beginning of 1712. On 2 Jan. he voted with Nottingham and a clutch of other Tory peers against adjourning. Bodl. Ballard 20, f. 74. On 31 Jan. he acted as one of the tellers in a division in a committee of the whole over whether the preamble to the act repealing the General Naturalization Act should stand apart. Absent from the session briefly the following month, Conway registered his proxy with Rochester on 15 Feb., which was vacated by his return to the House three weeks later on 7 March. The same day (15 Feb.) a petition was submitted to the House on Conway’s behalf concerning his ongoing dispute with Buckingham over the completion of Ragley Hall, which had not been settled in chancery or common pleas. Conway sought to obtain the reversal of a judgment of June 1710, which had favoured Buckingham, but on 13 Mar. the House dismissed his petition, resolving by 32 votes to 27 not to reverse the decree. The conclusion of the matter in Buckingham’s favour proved to be so much to the surprise of the duke, ‘not having much of the favour of the house’, that he proceeded to thank all those who had supported him, ‘as if they had considered him more than his cause’. Wentworth Pprs. 279.

Conway’s failure to compel Buckingham to finance the completion of Ragley may have been the catalyst for his decision to purchase Sandywell in Gloucestershire in 1712. Two years later he added the neighbouring manor of Whittington to his new estates. VCH Glos. ix. 57, 238. He quit the session briefly following his disappointment, covering his absence with a proxy registered with Heneage Finch, Baron Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford). He resumed his seat on 4 Apr. but absented himself once more seven days later, registering his proxy with Guernsey again on 13 Apr., which was vacated by his return to the House the following day. On 19 May Conway acted as one of the tellers in a division in the committee of the whole considering the grants bill. Later that month, on 28 May, he once more rallied to the ministry when he divided against the motion to request the queen to reverse the orders restraining Ormond from pursuing an offensive war against the French. PH, xxvi. 177–81. He then continued to sit until three days before the close of the session on 21 June.

Conway was granted an additional Irish barony in the autumn of 1712, perhaps as part of Oxford’s efforts to retain his loyalty to the ministry. News of the grant was published in the newspapers three months prior to the award being finalized, when it was also reported that he was to be added to the Irish privy council. Post Boy, 1–3 July 1712. Listed by Oxford as one of those to be canvassed in advance of the new session, Conway returned to the House on the opening day but was thereafter present for less than a quarter of all sitting days. In May he was noted by Jonathan Swift as one of the possible opponents of the French treaty of commerce to be contacted in advance of the debate and the following month he was again estimated as being possibly opposed to confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the treaty. The same month a further forecast listed him as a court supporter likely to desert over the issue. Continuing disputes with Buckingham again came to the fore at that time. In mid-June a quarrel between the two peers was believed to have resulted in a challenge but the intended duel was prevented by the swift interposition of Oxford. Wentworth Pprs. 337–8; HMC Dartmouth, i. 315.

Conway was present for just seven days of the first session of the new Parliament. In May 1714 Nottingham forecast him to be in favour of the Schism bill. Following the death of Queen Anne, he attended just two days of the brief August session. He was present again on 21 Oct. but was afterwards absent from the House for almost three years. During his absence he suffered the death of his second wife, Jane, in childbirth and shortly afterwards the death of their two-month-old son, viciously reported by a Captain Moore to his Rawdon relations as ‘agreeable news’. Rawdon Pprs. 399–400. Once again, Conway did not allow grief to detract from the need to secure his estate and he remarried soon after. Taking his seat on 25 May 1717, he attended for a further 20 days before quitting the House for the final time on 15 July.

The reason for Conway’s complete retirement from the House is uncertain. A close friend and, by his third marriage, brother-in-law of Sir Robert Walpole* , later earl of Orford, Conway certainly does not appear to have been opposed to the new Hanoverian regime at all. It seems likely that after 1717 interest in his Irish estates may have predominated but during the 1720s he was also engaged in extending the house at Sandywell, so there is no reason to believe that he decamped from England altogether. VCH Glos. ix. 57, 240. In 1721 he took his seat in the Irish House of Lords and, towards the end of his life, he was rewarded with a place on the Irish privy council and with a minor office as governor of Carrickfergus. The latter part of his career will be more fully considered in the next part of this work.

Conway died at Lisburn, co. Antrim, in February 1732. In his will, he left considerable bequests to his wife and seven surviving children, with the exception of Mary Conway, who was restricted to a legacy of £5 as a punishment for marrying without his permission. Add. 34738, ff. 127–45. Guardianship of the disgraced Mary and her sisters Catherine and Harriet was left to Henry Hyde* , 2nd earl of Rochester and 4th earl of Clarendon (mistakenly described as Edward, earl of Clarendon, in the will), while that of Francis Seymour-Conway* [986], later marquess of Hertford, and his brother, Henry Conway, was detailed to Walpole and Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend. The guardianship of Conway’s remaining daughters, Jane and Anne, was entrusted to Lady Conway. Aside from his elaborate arrangements for his children’s upbringing after his death and encumbering the estate with the payment of his wife’s annuity and children’s portions, which amounted to more than £25,000, Conway also left debts totalling in excess of a further £25,000. Add. 34743, f. 142. These and the unfinished house at Ragley were left to his heir, Francis Seymour-Conway, his eldest son by his third marriage, who succeeded underage as 2nd Baron Conway.