COVENTRY, Thomas (c. 1662-1710)

Coventry appears to have been a man of contradictions. On the one hand, he was a supremely reluctant holder of his dignity, rarely in attendance in the House and resentful of the prominence that his local political role allotted to him; on the other, he was a determined defender of his family name (engaging in a long and tendentious legal battle with his stepmother over her claims to noble birth), a firm espouser of the Whig interest and a powerful local political broker. His expectations had been transformed in 1687, when the death of his cousin John Coventry, 4th Baron Coventry, advanced his father to the peerage. Coventry’s altered circumstances perhaps contributed to him breaking off the marriage negotiations which had been in train with one of the daughters of Henry Pollexfen^‡. Cornw. RO, Antony House mss, CVC/Z/18, E. Cookes to G. Coventry, 9 May 1687; Verney ms mic. M636/42, newsletter, 4 Aug. 1687. Up until then, as the member of a cadet branch of a noble family with only modest means, he appears to have found it difficult to attract anyone willing to marry him. Morrice recorded how those who had rejected him ‘are now ready to go into mourning indeed, such a great estate and honour being now certain if he lives’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 114.

Closely connected to a number of the gentry families of Worcestershire and Warwickshire, Coventry was a cousin of William Craven, earl of Craven, William Herbert, marquess of Powis, and Sir John Pakington^‡ of Westwood. The Coventrys’ principal estates at Croome in Worcestershire and Snitterfield in Warwickshire gave them considerable local political influence and in 1690 Richard Coote^‡, earl of Bellomont [I], sought the support of Thomas Coventry and his brother, Gilbert Coventry, later 4th earl of Coventry, in his election for Droitwich, where the Coventry family exercised particular influence. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/1/6. The following year, Coventry married Lady Anne Somerset. Through this marriage into the Beaufort family, he extended his interests into Gloucestershire and further broadened his connections as brother-in-law to Henry Howard, 6th earl of Suffolk, and James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond.

In 1694 Coventry reluctantly agreed to use his influence with his brother-in-law, Charles Somerset^‡, styled marquess of Worcester, to procure an introduction to Ormond for his brother, Gilbert. Ibid. CVC/Y/1/27. Coventry’s relations with his brother were uneven. Gilbert had earned their father’s deep displeasure through his extravagant lifestyle, and continual attempts to reconcile father and son eventually resulted in a rupture between the brothers as well. By 1695, relations between the two men had all but broken down. Coventry wrote, in exasperation at his brother’s accusation that he had sought a quarrel, ‘without falling into Billingsgate I am fully convinced did either yourself or one you can confide in impartially read and weigh the contents of my letter, upon a second perusal it would be found a difficult task to make that ill construction yours implies’. Ibid. CVC/Z/20, T. to G. Coventry, 13 Feb. 1695.

In 1697 Coventry’s father was advanced in the peerage as earl of Coventry, and on his death in July 1699 Coventry succeeded to the earldom. His father’s demise immediately revealed deep divisions within the family, primarily owing to the late earl’s 1695 mésalliance with one of his servants, Elizabeth Grimes. Ibid. CVC/Y/1/60. The dowager countess was named as sole executrix of her late husband’s estate. She benefited from an annuity of £200, as well as inheritance of the entire personal estate. TNA, PROB 11/451. Her hand in the old earl’s final arrangements led to some members of the family casting doubt upon the validity of the will. Antony House mss, CVC/Z/20, Coventry to G. Coventry, 22 Dec. 1699. The prospect of inheriting an earldom alienated from a large proportion of its actual wealth posed an intractable problem for the new earl:

I doubt not but I am sufficiently envied for what is fallen to me, though without reason, by such who don’t consider the disadvantages I come to the estate with; and nothing, I am satisfied, will gratify the ambition, and malice, of some people unless, Esau-like, a man will sell his birth-right for a mess of potage. Ibid. CVC/Y/1/60.

Coventry acted as chief mourner at his father’s funeral, supported by Gilbert Coventry and their Warwickshire neighbour Richard Verney, 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke. Badminton mss, FMT/A4/4/8. Although Coventry was chief mourner, the dowager countess and Gregory King, the Lancaster Herald, engineered the proceedings and fabricated false achievements for the low-born widow. TNA, DEL 1/312, f. 38 ff.

Coventry succeeded his father as custos rotulorum for Worcestershire in 1699 but, unlike his predecessor, he was a determined upholder of the Whig interest. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 702. On 16 Nov. he received his summons to the House and on 30 Nov. a declaration was issued allowing his countess the precedence of the daughter of a duke. CSP Dom. 1699–1700, p. 306. Coventry took his seat on 22 Dec., but sat for just one day before retiring to the country. He did not return to the House until March 1701.

Although Coventry exhibited a marked disinclination to involve himself with affairs at Westminster, he was unable to avoid a prominent role in Worcestershire and Warwickshire, where his greatest interests lay. In December 1700, Sir Thomas Rous^‡, conscious that ‘your lordship’s interest is superior to any other’, solicited Coventry’s support in the forthcoming election for Worcestershire. A similar request was made by Coventry’s cousin, Sir John Pakington, though in Pakington’s case kinship counted for nothing and Coventry proved consistently inimical to his ambitions. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, T. Rous to Coventry, 5 Dec. 1700; FMT/A3/3, Sir J. Pakington to Coventry, 23 Dec. 1700. Among the other potential candidates was Thomas Savage of Elmley Castle, who had married Coventry’s stepmother. Significantly, he withdrew, claiming a disinclination to divide the county, but it is equally possible that he was unwilling to weather the determined opposition that his candidature would almost certainly have met with from Coventry. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 702. Coventry, out of the county at the time of the poll, appears to have offered his support to William Walsh^‡, who was returned with Pakington. At the same time, he also received requests for his interest by Sir Charles Shuckburgh^‡ and Sir John Mordaunt^‡ for Warwickshire, Shuckburgh professing that he would ‘not have the confidence to do it without your lordship’s approbation’. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, Sir C. Shuckburgh to Coventry, 19 Dec. 1700.

From 1700 Coventry’s attention became increasingly focused on an unfolding legal tussle with his stepmother, her second husband, Savage, and Gregory King. Following the pomp of the 1st earl’s funeral, the dowager countess had continued to flaunt her suppositious ancestry and commissioned an elaborate monument to her late husband, intending that it be erected in the church at Croome. The piece repeated her claims to a respectable pedigree and displayed the arms of the Graham family as her own impaled with those of the Coventrys. Coventry refused his permission for the monument’s erection and the dowager was forced to content herself with raising it in her second husband’s family church at Elmley. VCH Worcs. iii. 344–5. Incensed, Coventry introduced cases against Savage and King in the court of chivalry. TNA, DEL 1/312; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 363. The earl marshal upheld his complaint, but Savage was successful in moving the court of king’s bench for a prohibition in his own case, leaving Coventry no choice but to pursue King. He had little success here too, as King challenged the earl marshal’s jurisdiction and the case was moved to the court of delegates. Badminton mss, FMT/A4/4/8; Midland History, xxxi. 18–36.

A need to attract support among his fellow peers seems to have forced Coventry out of his country hibernation, and on 25 Mar. 1701 he took his seat in the House once more, though he attended on just three days before quitting the chamber for the remainder of the session. He found his own case overshadowed by the proceedings for a separation in train between James Annesley, 3rd earl of Anglesey, and his countess. On 26 Mar. he wrote to his wife, excusing himself for his failure to write and complaining at being unable to leave the chamber the previous day on account of ‘the tedious examination of evidence’ that ‘kept me in the House fasting till 4 in the afternoon’. He was present to hear Lady Anglesey’s petition for maintenance on 1 Apr. but afterwards attended on just one more day. Coventry appears to have remained in London for at least a week more, taking advice on his own business, but, although he planned to have his case printed and the copies distributed to members of the House in case he should ‘have occasion to bring the affair on there’, he does not appear to have considered it necessary to attend in person. Badminton mss, FMT/B1/1/1/10.

Coventry returned to the country to find himself besieged on all sides once more with requests for his interest in the forthcoming elections. Sir Francis Russell sought his support for William Walsh and William Bromley^‡ for Worcestershire. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, Sir F. Russell to Coventry, 17 Nov. 1701. Charles Hancock^‡, who probably owed his previous return to the support of Coventry’s father-in-law, Beaufort, was eager to secure his assistance at Tewkesbury. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 225. John Howe^‡ and Sir Ralph Dutton^‡ also hoped for Coventry’s backing in the Gloucestershire election. In August, Sir Joseph Jekyll^‡ reported confidently to John Somers, Baron Somers, that Walsh appeared in a strong position thanks to the combined interest of Coventry, Russell and Bridges Nanfan. Surr. Hist. Cent. 371/14/01/12. Hancock, on the other hand, was on far less certain ground. Fearing that one of Coventry’s retainers planned to vote for Sir Richard Cocks^‡ and that others would follow suit, he requested that Coventry would look into the matter and that, ‘if true, cause him to alter his mind and friends or stay at home, for I look upon Sir Richard to be the greatest enemy I have’. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, C. Hancock to Coventry, Jan. 1701. There is no reason to think that Coventry would have felt compelled to assist the Tory Hancock, who was defeated at Tewkesbury, while Cocks was returned for the county in all probability with Coventry’s full support. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 225. Possibly too involved in affairs in these counties, Coventry made it known that he would not play a part in the election for Warwickshire. WCRO, CR 1368/iii/45.

Following his exertions in the elections, Coventry was missing at a call of the House on 5 Jan. 1702 but he was allowed little respite before the brief 1701–2 Parliament’s dissolution following the death of King William again forced him into electoral activity. In April 1702, Sir John Talbot considered approaching Coventry in the hopes that he might reverse his usual objection to Sir John Pakington, but in alliance with Sir Francis Russell and Sir Thomas Cookes Winford^‡ Coventry once more set his weight behind William Walsh. Worcs. RO, Hampton mss, Pakington pprs. 705:349/4657/iii/13; Cal. Wm Lygon Letters, 57. The election threatened to provoke conflict within the family, as Gilbert Coventry also proposed attending the poll in support of Pakington. Following the intercession of Lady Throckmorton he undertook not to vote for either candidate, but remonstrated with her that: ‘I will not pretend to advise one way or [the] other not knowing how far the nobility ought to concern themselves in elections, but it is very hard that my brother should pretend to forbid me any place, because he is there present’. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/2/13.

Coventry resumed his seat in the House on 26 Nov. 1702. His motivation was primarily a desire to make progress in his suit against King and he lost no time in waiting on two of the delegates, Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon, and Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford. Badminton mss, FMT/B1/1/1/19. He sat for a further 13 days (approximately 16 per cent of the whole), which was to prove his most regular attendance of the House during his tenure of the earldom. On 1 Dec. he was nominated to the committee considering Goddard’s bill and was then named to a further nine committees during the session. On 7 Dec. he recorded that the House sat until 9 in the evening debating the Tack, after which he ‘was obliged’ to attend a supper given by William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, that lasted until midnight. HMC 12th Rep. app. ix. 96. The following day, counsel met to discuss the case against King but the ensuing debates over occasional conformity further threatened to delay Coventry’s case. On 9 Dec. Coventry was one of those to sign the resolution against annexing clauses to bills of aid or supply. The following day, he recorded the week’s proceedings in a letter to his wife:

The dangerous bill I mentioned in my last is passed our house, though not without great amendments, the penalties very much lessened, and the peerage, I think exempted from being liable to them … The bill is sent to the Commons for their concurrence, though how they will relish the amendments is very uncertain. Badminton mss, FMT/B1/1/1/20.

On 17 Dec., although missing from the attendance lists, Coventry does appear to have attended the House in the afternoon, having spent the morning at Doctors Commons pursuing his affair against Gregory King. He found the demands of life in London taxing and he complained to his wife: ‘I confess myself already weary with the thoughts of it, though I shall with more satisfaction undergo the toil since I have the promises of a great many lords that they will be present at the hearing, and I shall endeavour still to engage more.’ Despite his good intentions, Coventry appears to have been unable to ‘undergo the toil’ and, troubled by a persistent cough, he sat for only two more days before once again retiring to the country. HMC 12th Rep. app. ix. 96. He failed to return to the House for the ensuing three years.

A list compiled by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in January 1703 reckoned Coventry to be an opponent of the bill to prevent occasional conformity. In May, Coventry found himself in trouble over his refusal to involve himself at Westminster and he was warned that his failure to take out his commission as custos rotulorum for Worcestershire, despite having been told to do so in the House six months previously, had attracted the attention of the lord keeper. Badminton mss, FMT/A4/3/30, duke of Somerset to Coventry, 11 May 1703. This was in spite of the fact that Coventry’s commission as custos had been renewed in July 1702. Coventry faced further pressure in October, when his stepmother and Savage entered a bill of complaint in chancery, accusing Coventry of withholding part of his father’s personal estate from the dowager. In spite of their ‘friendly’ attempts to approach Coventry, Savage and the dowager protested that he would not even permit them into his house at Snitterfield to undertake an inventory. TNA, C9/467/150.

Although Coventry showed little inclination to return to Parliament that autumn, he was included in a forecast compiled by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in November as an opponent of the bill against occasional conformity. A division on the issue on 14 Dec. 1703 listed Coventry as having voted against it by proxy, but no record of the proxy has survived. The same year, Coventry’s case in the court of chivalry was temporarily suspended, and in March 1704 the death of Henry Yelverton, Viscount Longueville, one of the delegates, was the occasion of a further delay in the case, as King objected to the new constitution of the court. Badminton mss, FMT/A4/4/8, petition of G. King to Sir N. Wright; TNA, DEL 2/49, petition of earl of Coventry. On 22 Nov., a month after the opening of the new session, Coventry entrusted his proxy to Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, who held it until the close. The same year the case against King was finally dropped, amid a concerted effort by the gentry of Worcestershire, and by King himself, to arrive at a settlement with Coventry. Harl. 6834, f.39 ff; Herald & Genealogist, ed. J.G. Nichols, vii. 111.

Settlement with the Savages failed to bring Coventry’s travails to a close and in April 1705 he and his brother were involved in a dispute with All Souls College, Oxford, over the rights to a copyhold estate. Antony House mss, CVC/Y/2/22. The same month he was estimated a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. Coventry’s interest was insufficient to make much impression in the elections of that year. He was one of several peers to offer his support to the maverick George Lucy for Warwickshire. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, ‘A list of the noblemen, knights and Esqs … that are in Captain Lucy’s interest’. He made his interest available to William Walsh in Worcester once more but, on this occasion, Pakington and Bromley comprehensively beat Walsh into third place. Worcs. RO, Hampton mss, Pakington pprs. 705:349/BA 4739/1/iii/1. Coventry remained resentful of his political role, complaining to his wife later that year that ‘were I in Warwickshire I should be in danger of attacks by messages about elections, or from the owner of the neighbouring castle’. Badminton mss, FMT/B1/1/25. He took his seat in the House on 25 Oct. but his attendance remained half-hearted and he sat for a total of nine days before absenting himself for the final time. On 30 Oct. he kissed the queen’s hand, introduced by Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, on the recommendation of his Worcestershire neighbour Somers. HMC 12th Rep. app. ix. 97. On 12 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House, having again entrusted Somerset with his proxy.

Despite his poor record of attendance in the House and decidedly lukewarm attitude to involvement in politics, in 1706 Coventry was elected recorder of the city of Coventry. T.W. Whitley, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 135. Denouncing the ‘arbitrary practices’ of certain Worcester justices to William Cowper, Baron Cowper, he used his influence to ensure that the commission of the peace was extended to include his own nominees and attempted to exclude several of those whom he deemed ‘furious zealots of the high church party’. In the event only one Tory was removed. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 704; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F154, Coventry to Cowper, 30 Jan. 1706.

On 5 Feb. 1707 the 1705 Coventry election was declared void, and on 20 Feb. Coventry’s support was applied for once more by Edward Hopkins^‡ and Sir Orlando Bridgeman^‡ for their candidature in the re-election. Badminton mss, FMT/A4/3/15. Following the death of William Bromley the same year, Coventry’s interest was again solicited for the by-election for Worcestershire, while Sir Richard Cocks also sought his assistance in Gloucestershire. Ibid. FMT/A3/3, Sir R. Cocks to Coventry, 26 Dec. 1707. Coventry’s continuing absence from the House occasioned an appeal from Somerset in December that he might make an appearance, ‘though your lordship stayed no longer than to take the oaths and thereby to qualify your self to make a proxy’, but Coventry failed to respond. Ibid. FMT/A4/3/30, Somerset to Coventry, 6 Dec. 1707. The following May (1708) he found his interest again sought by Sir John Mordaunt, this time in partnership with Andrew Archer^‡ for Warwickshire, Ibid. FMT/A4/3/17. but Coventry made clear his extreme dislike for the way in which Mordaunt and Archer had been set up in a letter to his wife:

As England has been remarkable for a Heptarchy, or government by 7 kings, so Warwickshire is like to be no less famed for an attempt made to govern that branch of the kingdom by 7 electors who … have very imperiously and unanimously fixed upon Mordaunt and Archer; but so very few gentlemen appearing ’tis thought the tide is turned and that some person incognito has secured the greatest part of the interest with an attempt to oppose, [even] if he does not carry the election. Ibid. FMT/B1/1/1/34; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 622.

Coventry was thought unlikely to be ‘very zealous’ in assisting with the influx of poor Palatines into the county in June 1709. Surr. Hist. Cent. 371/14/D/18, W. Lloyd, bp of Worcester, to Somers, 27 June 1709. The following summer he fell ill, and in August his death was imminently anticipated. WCRO, Hampton mss, Pakington pprs. 705:349/BA 4739/2/vii/5. Almost to the end he continued to receive letters requesting his interest, from John Howe and John Symes Berkeley^‡ in Gloucestershire and Samuel Pytts in Worcestershire. Badminton mss, FMT/A3/3, S. Pytts to Coventry, 30 June 1710. Coventry died on 20 Aug., intestate and with debts of £7,914. Gordon, Coventrys of Croome, 63. He left an estate estimated to be worth £6,400 per annum and a personal estate of £3,000. TNA, C9/207/40. He was buried at Croome and succeeded by his eight-year-old son, also Thomas Coventry, as 3rd earl of Coventry. His widow survived him by 53 years.