COVENTRY, Thomas (c. 1629-99)

Coventry had an undistinguished career in Parliament before inheriting the peerage from his nephew in his late fifties. In spite of his father’s royalist activities during the civil wars and his own suspected support for Charles II at Worcester in 1651, Coventry was returned to the Convention Parliament on the family interest for Droitwich. The following year he made way there for his uncle Henry Coventry^‡ and was returned instead for Camelford on the interest of Sir Piers Edgecumbe,^‡ whose daughter he had married the previous year. Cornw. RO, ME 2951; HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 156–7. In addition to his responsibilities in Cornwall, Coventry also maintained his Warwickshire interests and the same year he purchased an estate at Snitterfield from Lady Hales for £14,500. HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 157.

Coventry appears not to have stood for Parliament in 1679. In 1681 he transferred to Warwick with the support of Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke. Ibid. ii. 157. Having narrowly avoided death in a catastrophic riding accident that left him incapacitated for 11 weeks in 1684, he was returned once more in 1685, but the premature death of his nephew John Coventry, 4th Baron Coventry, in 1687 promoted him to the peerage, propelling him into a political arena that he appears to have been more than ready to quit. Cornw. RO, Antony House mss, CVC/Z/18, G. Harris to G. Coventry, 11 Oct. 1684, CVC/Y/1/2. At the time of his succession he was described as ‘living as a private gentleman’, though Henry Savile^‡ thought he appeared to be ‘a man to some purpose’. W. Dean, An Historical and Descriptive Account of Croome d’Abitot (1824), 34.

Coventry came into a substantial estate comprising lands in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Middlesex valued at over £8,471. Antony House mss, CVE/2/1. Despite this, as his nephew died intestate Coventry was compelled to expend some £6,000 in securing the personal estate from the dowager Lady Coventry (with whom he appears to have been on particularly poor terms). He then spent a further £2,000 buying further land from Sir Francis Russell to consolidate his holdings. Northants. RO, FH 1397; Antony House mss, CVC/Z/18, T. Coventry to G. Coventry, 27 Aug. 1687; C. Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 54. Coventry also appears to have been £5,000 in debt to his Savile cousins. Add. 75375, f. 12. Reflecting his new prominence in Worcestershire society he was elected as high steward at both Worcester and Evesham and he was one of those to wait on the king at Worcester and Coventry in August 1687. Sherborne Castle, Digby mss, vol. ii. f. 319. Although his own political sympathies appear to have been less rigid than his predecessor’s, he continued the latter’s opposition to James II’s policy of repeal of the Test.

Coventry’s comparative indifference to politics was not carried over into his personal life. Bruising contretemps within his immediate family appear to have been a common occurrence. His relations with his wife deteriorated seriously over the years, and in February 1688 he was summoned before the ecclesiastical commissioners following complaints from Lady Coventry of ill treatment. Poor relations with his younger son, Gilbert Coventry, later 4th earl of Coventry, also resulted in a series of ruptures. Antony House mss, CVC/Z/18, Coventry to G. Coventry, 19 Jan. 1692; Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 54.

Coventry does not appear to have been active at the time of the Revolution. He defaulted at a call of the House on 25 Jan. 1689 but took his seat in the Convention four days later. He was thereafter present on 31 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to 11 committees, including that considering the Droitwich salt works bill, a measure in which he had a close interest. VCH Worcs. iii. 78. Coventry initially supported the establishment of a regency and voted against the declaration of the prince and princess as king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons over the use of the term ‘abdicated’ but two days later he was noted among those who had made an about-face and dropped their former objections; it was noted that he then ‘went off’.

Coventry’s lukewarm reception of the Revolution notwithstanding, in June 1689 he was appointed custos rotulorum for Worcestershire. Collins and other authorities record that he was also appointed lord lieutenant of the county, but this is erroneous. Dean, Croome d’Abitot, 34. On 21 June he was granted permission to travel into the country, presumably as a result of his new responsibilities in Worcestershire. The same day he entrusted Charles North, 5th Baron North and Grey, with his proxy. The proxy should have been vacated by Coventry’s return to the House the following day, after which he was absent for the remainder of the session, but on 30 July North exercised the proxy to vote against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates.

Coventry responded to the demands for a self-assessment that summer by pleading that, as his debts ‘by some thousands of pounds surmount the value of my whole personal estate’, he was liable to pay nothing. Chatsworth, Halifax Collection, B.24. He was again missing at a call of the House on 28 Oct. 1689. On 8 Nov. he sent in his apology (read four days later), in which he claimed to be ‘too indisposed with pain to make the journey’ and begged to be excused. He was granted ten days’ grace but it was not until 25 Nov. that he eventually took his seat. Thereafter he was present on a quarter of all sitting days. In a list drawn up between October 1689 and February 1690 Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen and later duke of Leeds, assessed Coventry as an opponent of the court.

Coventry appears to have attempted to bring about a reconciliation with his younger son towards the close of the year, amid efforts to secure a suitable marriage for the young man. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/7. He also seems to have been eager to employ his interest at Droitwich in the elections for the new Parliament on behalf of Richard Coote^‡, earl of Bellomont [I], though Bellomont’s ultimate re-election for the seat probably owed more to his own connections and the backing provided by Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/6; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 709. Coventry took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 but proceeded to attend on just 30 per cent of all sitting days. His lack of activity appears striking, considering his clear ambition to secure promotion in the peerage at this time. In April he approached his kinsman, George Savile, marquess of Halifax, seeking his ‘favour in this affair’. He then reminded Halifax of his desires the following month, but made no further progress. He also asked Halifax to make his excuses should he be missed from the session. Add. 75366, Coventry to Halifax, 26 Apr. and 5 May 1690.

Difficulties between Coventry and his younger son, Gilbert, continued to plague both men, in spite of the intervention of influential neighbours such as Thomas Leigh, 2nd Baron Leigh. In April 1690 one of Coventry’s agents informed Gilbert of his father’s annoyance that he had attempted to persuade his older brother to break certain engagements. These possibly related to the recent election, but financial difficulties seem to have been at the root of their disagreements. By October of the following year matters had reached such a pitch that Coventry expostulated with his son:

You cannot be in want of money … Taxes &c make money scarce with me, which you will do well to consider, & the debts also which your Mother, your Brother and self have occasioned; you consider your own quality, notwithstanding which you may live private, but take no notice of my dignity as a Peer of the Realm which ought in the first place to be supported. Cornw. RO, Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/9, 10, 15.

Relations between father and son failed to improve and in January 1692 Gilbert Coventry was commanded to stay away from Croome and Snitterfield unless given ‘particular leave’ by his father. Antony House mss, CVC/Z/18, Coventry to G. Coventry, 19 Jan. 1692. Coventry was better pleased with his heir, Thomas Coventry, later 2nd earl of Coventry, who was able to secure a prestigious match with Lady Anne Somerset, daughter of Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, in 1691, with a portion of £10,000. HMC Finch, iii. 19; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 216.

Coventry’s attendance of the House continued to be lacklustre. He was missing at the opening of the new session in October 1691 and defaulted on a call of the House in November. Having finally taken his seat on 11 Dec. he proceeded to attend on just 19 per cent of all sitting days. Towards the end of the year he was assessed by William Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as a likely opponent of Derby’s efforts to secure restitution of property lost during the civil wars. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Coventry failed to return to the House for the ensuing session of November 1692, in spite of the presentation of the Salwerpe navigation bill, in which he was named alongside Shrewsbury as one of the principal trustees. HMC Lords, iv. 387–90. He took his seat once more the following year, at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov., after which he was present on 29 per cent of all sitting days.

Coventry’s countess died in June 1694. Relations between the two seem to have continued to be frosty and she was, perhaps significantly, buried at Clerkenwell rather than Croome. Although Coventry was noted as being in mourning for his wife, he refused to make any provision for mourning for his sons and comments were also made about the unseemly haste with which Lady Coventry was interred. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/29, 32; Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 54.

Coventry responded to the devastation created by the great fire of Warwick that summer with a donation of £30. HMC Portland, iii. 555. He failed to take his seat at the opening of the new session on 12 Nov. and was again missing at a call of the House on 26 November. Despite receiving a summons to attend in December and using his haste to return to London as an excuse not to write to Gilbert Coventry’s new father-in-law, Sir William Keyt, that month, he failed to return to the House until the following year, on 3 January 1695. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/37. He was thereafter present on just 18 per cent of all sitting days.

Later that year, Coventry scandalized his family by marrying the niece of his housekeeper, who was also 40 years his junior. Badminton, FMT/A4/4/8. The following year (1696) he caused further offence by declining an invitation to stand godfather to Gilbert Coventry’s daughter and advising that another godmother be found in preference to the one whom Gilbert and his wife had proposed. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/47. Coventry’s refusal was presumably owing to continuing ructions between him and his younger son over the financial settlement made at the time of Gilbert’s marriage to Dorothy Keyt. The dispute dragged on for several months, and at the close of 1696 Coventry wrote furiously to Sir William Keyt, complaining of Gilbert Coventry’s ‘extravagant wasteful humour of living above his estate’. He continued:

If he expects to live above his quality, and does not, or will not consider that I ought in the first place to take care of my own dignity according to the station I am in, but would pull me down low enough to set up himself … I must declare that unless it please God I live to be better satisfied with him than I am at this time, he will have but little cause to expect any more from me. Antony House mss, CVC/Z/20, Coventry to Sir W. Keyt, 29 Dec. 1696.

By the beginning of 1697 Coventry seems to have handed the matter over to his agent, George Harris, who attempted to convince Keyt that Coventry’s outburst was not intended as ‘any reflection’ on his daughter-in-law and that he as well as Gilbert was finding cash hard to come by, owing to the ‘backwardness of tenants and scarcity of money’. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/49.

No doubt distracted by such family dramas, Coventry’s attendance at Parliament remained poor in the closing years of his life. Missing again from the opening of Parliament in November 1695, he took his seat at last on 11 Mar. 1696 but then proceeded to attend just 11 days of the session (approximately 9 per cent of the whole). He signed the Association but was then absent once more for the opening stages of the new session and consequently failed to participate in the debates surrounding the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡. On 14 Nov. he was ordered to attend the House within 12 days; when he failed to appear, the House issued an order for him to be sent for in custody. Coventry wrote explaining that ‘none would pay a readier obedience to their lordships’ order than himself, were it not that his age and the craziness of his health have now rendered him very unfit either to winter in London or to take a journey thither’. His excuse was dismissed. On 7 Dec. the House was presented with a certificate from Coventry’s physician and affidavits from two of his servants confirming his infirmity, as a result of which he was at last excused attendance. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 264–5.

Coventry finally returned to the House on 29 Mar. 1697, in time to attend four days towards the end of the session. Despite his poor record of attendance, the following month he was finally rewarded with an earldom, ‘by the special favour’ of the king. Dean, Croome d’Abitot, 34; Post Boy, 22–24 Apr. 1697; Add. 29575, f. 38. The promotion, for which he had laboured for so long, was rumoured to have cost Coventry £8,000. Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 55. By a special remainder, the descent of the earldom was extended to Coventry’s cousins.

Coventry took his seat in the House as earl of Coventry on 3 Dec. 1697, introduced between Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, and Francis Newport, earl of Bradford. He sat for just two more days and thereafter withdrew from public life. He died in July 1699 and was succeeded in the peerage by his favoured eldest son. In his will he left an annuity of £200 and a personal estate later valued at £40,000 to his widow. He also instructed that a suitable memorial should be constructed for him, ‘as to my executrix shall seem meet’. Midland History, xxxi. 18–36; TNA, PROB 11/451; SCLA, DR 38/68. Scandal continued to dog the family after his death. Doubts were expressed about the validity of his will, and his lavish funeral proved to be the subject of further controversy as the dowager countess was accused of bribing her future brother-in-law, Gregory King, Lancaster Herald, to fabricate a suitable family history for her and to impale the earl’s arms with spurious ones of her own. Antony House mss, CVC/Z/20, Coventry to G. Coventry, 22 Dec. 1699; Herald and Genealogist, vii, 109; TNA, DEL 1/312, ff. 38–51. The false achievements were duplicated on the memorial commissioned by the dowager countess. The new earl refused to allow the structure to be erected in the church at Croome and he commissioned a separate tomb for his father instead. The fanciful monument was later erected at Elmley. VCH Worcs. iii. 344–5.