COVENTRY, George (1628-80)

On the outbreak of Civil War, Coventry and his brother Thomas were despatched to France to avoid the conflict but they had returned to England by 1651, when they were in arms for Charles II. Cornw. RO, Antony House mss, CVZ/Y/34, cited in Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 48. Investigated for their role in the rebellion, the brothers were eventually cleared and restored to their estates. CCAM, 1369.

Judicious marriage alliances contributed to making Coventry one of the most brilliantly connected members of the House. In addition to his uncle Craven, he could boast close relations with George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, as well as Nicholas Tufton, 3rd earl of Thanet, and Anne, Baroness Clifford, with whom he appears to have been on good terms. Bath mss at Longleat, Thynne pprs. 27, ff. 170–1; R.T. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 221. Coventry’s sister-in-law, Cecilia, later married Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton, while his other uncles, Sir William Coventry^‡ and Henry Coventry^‡, offered him potentially significant influence at court. There were close local connections, too: Coventry’s brother-in-law Sir John Pakington^‡ was in turn brother-in-law to Samuel Sandys^‡, Member for Droitwich and Worcestershire. He also appears to have had contact with members of the London merchant community, such as Sir Thomas Vernon^‡. Badminton, Coventry pprs. FMT/A4/1/1.

Despite this, Coventry appears to have been content to lead a retired life in Worcestershire, satisfied with keeping ‘a great retinue & a noble & plentiful table’, though his estates appear to have suffered a decline during his stewardship. Croome Estate Archive, Parish Box 17, cited in Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 49. In 1661 he was appointed custos rotulorum of the county, though the appointment appears to have been due more to his standing as one of the wealthiest local landowners than to his desire to exert any political influence. Occasional references to him as also holding the office of lord lieutenant are erroneous: it was entrusted to Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth). Even so, Coventry’s influence in the county was considerable, and one of the seats at Droitwich was held consistently by the Coventry interest in the period 1660–85. His brother, Thomas, was elected to the Convention for Droitwich in spite of his well-known previous royalist activities. The following year, Thomas gave way to his uncle Henry Coventry^‡ who held the seat for the ensuing 20 years. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 464.

Coventry’s wife Margaret was a devoted upholder of the Church of England, and there is no reason to doubt that her husband shared her opinions. Shortly after his succession, Coventry withdrew his contribution towards the curate’s income at Stroud in Gloucestershire, on account of the Presbyterian doctrine of the incumbent, Robert Pleydell. Pleydell appealed to have the £10 stipend restored several years later, offering testimonials of his orthodoxy, but it is unclear whether he was successful. VCH Glos. xi.138.

Coventry took his seat in the House on 23 Nov. 1661, after which he continued to attend on a further 34 days (21 per cent of the whole) but was named to only one committee during the remainder of the session. He was marginally more active in the second session, of 1663. He took his seat at the opening, when he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions and the subcommittee for the Journal. Present on half of all sitting days in the session, he was otherwise named only to one other committee, that considering the bill to regulate glass bottles, and was notably absent for the first reading of his uncle Sir John Pakington’s bill on 7 May 1663. He was still missing the following day, when a committee was nominated to consider the measure, but returned to the House in time to witness the passing of the bill on 13 May.

For the rest of the decade Coventry’s attendance remained sporadic and his activity in the House limited. He failed to attend the third session but was excused at a call of the House on 4 Apr. 1664. He took his seat once more in the fourth session, on 2 Dec. 1664, after which he was present on 34 per cent of all sitting days, but he was again named to just one committee. He attended a mere three days at the close of the subsequent session in October 1665 and was again missing at the opening of the following session in October 1666. He eventually took his seat on 10 Nov., after which his attendance improved markedly, to approximately 57 per cent of all sitting days. Even so, he was named to only two committees and there is no evidence that he played a significant role in either one. Coventry failed to attend the following session but was again excused at a call of the House on 29 Oct. 1667. He was then present for just one day of the eighth session, taking his place on the final day on 1 Mar. 1669. His attendance improved once more later that year: having taken his seat two months into the new session on 8 Nov. he proceeded to attend on just over 72 per cent of all sitting days but he was again named to no committees.

Coventry’s activity in the House underwent a significant change the following year. Having taken his seat at the opening of the new session on 14 Feb. 1670 he proceeded to attend on 87 per cent of all sitting days. He may also have been more involved in committee work. He was named to the standing committees for petitions and privileges and on 2 Mar. to that considering Lady Lee’s bill. On 8 Mar. he was named to two more committees and on 24 Mar. to that considering the bill to prevent the malicious burning of houses. Following the adjournment, on 9 Nov. Coventry was named to two further committees, considering the bills for Christopher Monk, 2nd duke of Albemarle, and William Howard, Viscount Stafford. There may have been local interest involved in the decision of 23 Nov. to add him, along with William Herbert, 3rd Baron Powis, and Halifax, to the bill concerning Worcester gaol. Similar local interest may have involved Coventry’s nomination three days after to that considering the bill for the improvement of navigation on the River Trent.

Coventry was named to two further committees in December 1670 and on 14 Jan. 1671 he was also named to the committee of the House examining the assault on the lord steward (James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], earl of Brecknock in the English peerage). On 17 Jan. he was nominated to the committee considering the bill for Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, the son of his former neighbour in Worcestershire, Francis Talbot, 11th earl of Shrewsbury, and on 14 Feb. to that considering Neville Yelverton’s bill. Yelverton was the posthumous son of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, whose family owned estates in Warwickshire, so it is possible that there was, again, a local dimension to Coventry’s involvement with this committee. Through March and April Coventry was named to a further six committees, one of which was that considering the bill for regulating tobacco. The illegal propagation of tobacco was rife in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, crops being grown in Pershore, close to the Coventry’s Croome estates, and in Prestbury, where Craven was the dominant landowner. C.M. MacInnes, Early English Tobacco Trade, 84; A.R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire, passim; VCH Worcs. iv. 164; VCH Glos. viii. 76. Other centres of illicit tobacco manufacture included Tewkesbury, where Coventry was high steward, which suggests that he must have had a keen interest in the outcome of the bill, though there is no evidence of his playing a prominent role in the committee’s deliberations. VCH Glos. viii. 139; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 451, 453.

Despite this apparent resurgence of activity, Coventry’s attendance declined once more in the subsequent session. Absent from the opening, he was excused on the grounds of ill health at a call of the House on 13 Feb. 1673 and it was not until 3 Mar. that he finally took his seat. He was thereafter present on just under half of all sitting days, during which he was named to no committees. He failed to return to the House for the brief 12th session of October 1673 but took his place once more at the opening of the following session on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committees for petitions and privileges, he was thereafter appointed to three further committees during the remainder of the session.

Coventry was absent for the two following sessions, though he entered his proxy in favour of his uncle Craven on 20 Apr. 1675, which was vacated by the closing of the session. At a call of the House on 10 Nov. he was said to be travelling to London to attend but he appears to have altered his resolution. He took his seat in the new session on 15 Feb. 1677 and was present thereafter on 68 per cent of all sitting days. On 19 Feb. he was named to the committee considering the bill for prevention of frauds and perjuries. The following day he was nominated to the committee for the bill of Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, and to a further six committees during the following two months. In April 1677, a marriage settlement appears to have been in train between Coventry’s daughter Margaret and ‘Lord Howard’. Despite having the backing of Henry Somerset, marquess of Worcester (later duke of Beaufort), and Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, and an assurance that Howard intended to convert to the Church of England, neither Coventry nor his wife appear to have favoured the match and it is perhaps indicative of Lady Coventry’s greater sway that, when Worcester and Carlisle visited to negotiate, she handled the discussions, while Coventry slumbered in his chamber, his wife professing herself ‘loath to disturb him’. Bath mss at Longleat, Coventry pprs. 105, f. 190.

Coventry was noted as ‘worthy’ by Shaftesbury in his assessment of May 1677. He took his seat in the House following the adjournment in January 1678, after which he was named to three committees during March and April. On 4 Apr. 1678 he voted Philip Herbert, earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter. ‘The Thynnes and all the Coventrys and their interest’ were listed as being enemies of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), in 1678. Add. 28049, f. 36. Danby still reckoned Coventry to be one of his opponents in a series of forecasts gauging support in March of the following year.

Coventry’s level of attendance collapsed once more in the final sessions of the Cavalier Parliament. He failed to attend the session of May 1678 at all and only managed to rouse himself to be present on two days of the following session in December. On 24 Dec. he was noted among three peers believed to have resolved to back the court, though there remained some doubt about his steadfastness. Add. 28049, ff. 34–35. He attended two days of the abortive session of March 1679, before taking his place a month into the new Parliament, on 15 April. He was subsequently present on 33 per cent of all sitting days. On 10 May he voted in favour of appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against Danby and the other impeached lords, and on 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during consideration of capital cases. Coventry’s attention at the time may have been more taken up with attempting to settle a marriage for one of his daughters. In March he appears to have been on the point of concluding a match with James Hamilton, earl of Arran [S] (later 4th duke of Hamilton [S]), though the question of portion appears to have been a sticking point. Arran’s father suggested that Coventry should be persuaded to increase the portion in return for an earldom but nothing further came of it. NAS, GD 406/1/6142, GD 406/1/6144. The negotiation clearly collapsed soon after, and during the summer Coventry’s daughter Margaret was married to Charles Powlett, styled earl of Wiltshire (later duke of Bolton), instead, with a £30,000 portion. Halifax Letters, i. 177–8; Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 7 July 1679; J. to E. Verney, 10 July 1679; J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 July 1679. The marriage, ‘kept with great solemnity according to the fashion of old England’, was marked by a ball at Coventry’s house attended by the king. Savile Corresp. 110; CSP Dom. 1679–80, p. 197; Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to Sir R. Verney, 26 June 1679.

In spite of his former opposition to Danby, Coventry seems not to have been willing to continue in opposition and in the general election he attempted to exercise his influence in support of anti-exclusionist candidates. Towards the end of August he attended the poll for the city of Coventry in company with Simon Digby^‡, 4th Baron Digby [I], who aimed to stand against Richard Hopkins^‡ and John Stratford^‡. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 430. Coventry and Digby’s attempt to influence the election aroused the irritation of the townsmen, who refused to allow them into the town, saying ‘that as they were peers they had nothing to do with the election, and they knew no business they had there, and in plain terms told them therein they should not come’. The townsmen had their way and, despite an attempt to persuade the sheriff to adjourn the election, Digby ended bottom of the poll. HMC Lindsey suppl. 30–31. This unsuccessful bid appears to have been one of the few occasions when Coventry attempted to exert what ought to have been considerable political influence.

Coventry failed to take his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680. On 30 Oct. he was missing at a call of the House but was excused on the grounds of ill health. He took his place on 15 Nov. but attended on just 12 days before quitting for the final time. On his first day back in the House he voted in favour of putting the question that the Exclusion bill should be rejected at its first reading but was then listed as absent from the subsequent division on whether or not to proceed with the bill. On 23 Nov. he may have voted in favour of appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the kingdom, though the annotation against his name is uncertain. Coventry sat for the last time on 4 December. Three days later he was excused once again at a call of the House and was consequently absent from the division on Stafford’s guilt. He died just over a week later, on 15 December. His death was related dismissively by his cousin Halifax to Henry Savile, who commented only that it ‘may give you the opportunity of mourning if you care for it’. Savile Corresp. 171. John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, made more of the event, noting that the deaths of both Coventry and Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester, had occurred shortly after the great comet (Kirch’s comet) had been observed in the skies. Add. 4236, f. 225.

In his later years, Coventry appears to have made some effort to improve his estate. Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 49. Although he died intestate, he was able to leave a substantial inheritance to his heir. An inventory of his estate compiled in February 1681 listed goods in excess of £12,450. TNA, PROB 4/17510. He was buried at Croome and succeeded by his son, John Coventry, as 4th Baron Coventry. His widow continued to exercise her own influence; after her husband’s death she remained a devoted upholder of the Church of England. Add. 32095, f. 279. She outlived both her son and his successor, dying in July 1729.