CONWAY, Edward (c.1563-1631)

Conway belonged to a prominent Warwickshire gentry family with roots in north Wales. His father, a professional soldier, served as governor of Ostend in the late 1580s, while Conway himself spent nearly two decades as lieutenant governor of the cautionary town of Brill.55 Dugdale, 849-50. An extensive knowledge of European affairs led to his appointment in 1620 as a roving ambassador in the Low Countries and Germany. His mission to halt the Habsburg advance into the Palatinate failed, but it brought him to the attention of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, who increasingly relied on him for advice on countering the Habsburg threat. Conway joined the Privy Council in 1622, and early the next year Buckingham procured his appointment as a secretary of state.56 CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 437; 1621-3, pp. 557-8; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 233; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 85; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 241-2.

By now Conway was aged around 60, an old man by contemporary standards. Well aware that his position and prospects depended entirely on the whims of his patron, he routinely showered Buckingham with slavish compliments, and pursued his wishes with dogged devotion.57 Goodman, 286, 291-2. This total loyalty brought its rewards. During the 1623 Spanish Match negotiations, when Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) and the favourite visited Madrid to fetch the Infanta, Conway became the sole conduit for the most confidential correspondence between them and James I.58 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 174, 180; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 106. This privileged access strengthened Conway’s standing at court, and when the Match was abandoned, and Buckingham and the prince instead began manoeuvring England into war with Spain, the secretary’s military experience made him no less indispensable to them. Conway was the principal architect of a hugely ambitious plan to build an international alliance of France and the leading Protestant states, which would attack the Habsburgs by land and sea. Once this strategy was adopted, he became a pivotal figure in both the diplomatic and military preparations.59 T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 70-2; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 293, 419; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 262, 294, 308. Nevertheless, by early 1625 the war was going badly, and in mid-March rumours circulated that Conway would be pensioned off with a peerage, or given a less central government role such as lord deputy of Ireland. In the event, he not only retained the secretaryship, but was also created Baron Conway of Ragley on 24 March.60 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 606-7.

King James died three days later, and Conway played a prominent role in the formal transition to the new reign. Charles I immediately reappointed him secretary of state, and in the following month named him to a ‘cabinet council’ set up to advise him on key matters of state. On 17 Apr. Sir Tobie Matthew^‡ described Conway as ‘the greatest instrument in the dispatch of business’, and shortly afterwards it was rumoured that he might become lord treasurer.61 APC, 1625-6, pp. 3-5; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 21; SP16/1/67; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 611, 613. Instead of this promotion, however, Charles added to his existing responsibilities by making him lord lieutenant of Hampshire in place of Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, who had died in November 1624. Conway had already been appointed the county’s vice admiral and captain of the Isle of Wight in the closing months of James’s reign, but otherwise lacked local connections to strengthen his authority. These additional offices would eventually become a significant distraction from his other duties, and were therefore a mixed blessing.62 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 590; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 255; HMC Cowper, i. 259. As a further mark of favour, the king granted Conway a pension of £2,000 for 21 years. Welcome as this gift doubtless was, the secretary was now rather more concerned about how to fund the continuing war effort, and key to raising that money was the forthcoming Parliament.63 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 30-1; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 15; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 50.

The 1625 Parliament

Conway was appointed lord lieutenant of Hampshire too late to influence the shire election, and indeed never managed to emulate his predecessor Southampton as a patron of the county’s Members. On the Isle of Wight, where by tradition the captains exercised electoral patronage, he enjoyed greater success, securing seats at Newport and Newtown for Sir Nathaniel Rich^‡ and Thomas Malet^‡, and probably also finding a place at Yarmouth for Buckingham’s servant Edward Clarke^‡. Nevertheless, when Conway was asked to obtain a seat for the diplomat Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later 1st Viscount Dorchester), he felt obliged to refer him to a more active electoral patron, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, thereby revealing the limits of his own power.64 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 145, 151-2, 154, 164; Oglander Memoirs ed. W.H. Long, 163. One reason for his restricted activity as an electoral patron was that he was simply too busy with official duties, corresponding with the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln, over the prorogation of Parliament in early June, and overseeing preparations for the mustering of soldiers at Plymouth, Devon for the forthcoming naval expedition.65 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 34, 42-3, 46; Procs. 1625, pp. 640-1. Naturally, these military distractions did not cease when the first Caroline Parliament opened. Conway missed over half the sittings of the Lords, and on 28 June admitted that his duties as secretary were a factor. To complicate matters further, he fell ill around the start of July, absenting himself from the House for over a week.66 Procs. 1625, pp. 66-7, 717.

Conway was formally introduced in the Lords on 27 June, when Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth acted as his supporters. However, he had been present most days since the state opening nine days earlier, including 23 June, when he was nominated to the committee for privileges, and chosen to help request an audience with the king for the presentation of a joint petition for a general fast. His first known speech in the upper House was given on 28 June, when he relayed a message from Charles fixing the date of the fast day. Conway’s only other appointment during the Westminster sitting concerned a bill about a crown manor at Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire.67 Ibid. 44-5, 52, 59, 66-7. His intimate association with the war effort nevertheless ensured that he remained a high profile figure in Parliament. As a member of the council of war, he received a request from the Commons on 1 July to report on how the taxes voted for the war in 1624 had been spent. Presumably aware that he and Buckingham were both being blamed for the military setbacks on the Continent, he pleaded poor health, and declined to oblige.68 Ibid. 277, 282, 717; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 107. On 11 July, with Parliament about to adjourn on account of the plague, Conway assured the Lords that there was still important business to address. Summarizing the progress of the war to date, and reminding the House that Parliament had pushed for conflict with Spain the previous year, he insisted that the two subsidies that the Commons had just granted were inadequate to meet the rapidly spiralling costs, and that ‘further counsels’ would be required. That same day, he signed the Privy Council letter authorizing Parliament’s relocation to Oxford.69 Procs. 1625, pp. 116-17, 121, 661.

Conway’s son-in-law, Sir Isaac Wake^‡, subsequently claimed that the secretary left London in a hurry to escape the plague.70 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 178. During the recess, the pressure of official business remained relentless, and in large measure disagreeable. A loan of ships to the French crown, approved by Charles and Buckingham, the lord admiral, as part of the current alliance with France, had run into trouble when it emerged that the vessels would be employed against the Huguenots of La Rochelle, and Buckingham secretly instructed the English captains not to cooperate. Conway entirely supported this move, and in a letter to the duke on 25 July he denounced the ‘scandal, offence, and hazard’ of allowing these ships to be used against England’s co-religionists. Nevertheless, in order to respond to French diplomatic pressure, he simultaneously issued a string of official letters in which he insisted on the captains obeying their instructions.71 Docs. Illustrating the Impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlv), 176, 183, 204, 214, 222-3, 228-9, 242, 244-7, 249-50, 267. Similarly, on 17 July he intervened to protect a Dorset Catholic, Mary Estmond, in line with concessions made to France about the treatment of English recusants.72 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 63; Procs. 1625, p. 153. Meanwhile, with funding for the war hanging in the balance, military planning for the naval expedition was interrupted while the court travelled to Oxford, and the financier Philip Burlamachi informed Conway that the credit arrangements underpinning the recruitment of new soldiers had fallen through, for lack of government security. The realization of the secretary’s grand strategy was becoming an ever more distant prospect.73 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 60, 76; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 109.

When Parliament resumed at Oxford, the mood was fractious. On 4 Aug. both Houses assembled in Christ Church hall, where Conway presented a detailed briefing on the current state of the war. As a direct result of English intervention, an international anti-Habsburg alliance had been brought into being, dramatically changing the balance of power on the Continent. However, Charles was subsidizing several of his allies, as well as trying to meet the costs of reinforcing Ireland and preparing the fleet. The taxes previously voted for the conflict had already been spent, and if more money was not found now, and England seemed to draw back, her allies would fall away, resulting in the demise of the anti-Habsburg strategy.74 Procs. 1625, pp. 136-7, 386-7. The logic of Conway’s case was indisputable, but the Commons, having already voted what it considered an appropriate level of supply, did not want to hear the hard facts. Instead, the lower House opted to launch an attack on the secretary over his handling of the Mary Estmond case. In a draft petition to the king, shown to the Lords on 9 Aug., Conway was accused of obtaining pardons for recusants, contrary to Charles’s undertaking on 11 July to clamp down on Catholics. Clearly rattled by these allegations, Conway assured the upper House that the king had not broken his word, as the pardons in question all predated that pledge. Nevertheless, he did his best to distance himself from this affair; insisting that he had exercised his official duties, not his conscience, he ‘protested his sincerity to the true religion here established, whereof he had formerly given good testimony’. The Lords evidently accepted his explanation, for the next day he was named to the committee for the bill to tighten up the recusancy laws. His only other appointment at Oxford was to a legislative committee concerning preservation of the crown’s revenues.75 Ibid. 127, 152-4, 169.

Mounting setbacks, 1625-6

With no prospect of a further grant of supply, and the Commons starting to attack Buckingham, Parliament was abruptly dissolved on 12 August. However, as Conway subsequently observed, this conclusion ‘soured all things’. Without additional money, preparations for the fleet that would soon be sent against Cadiz dragged on until October, and the expedition then failed to strike a decisive blow against Spain.76 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 440; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 118, 146. Already, in early August, Conway was beginning to doubt the sincerity of France’s commitment to the war, and his suspicions only deepened as the autumn wore on, with French demands for concessions towards English Catholics becoming increasingly unreasonable, and evidence growing that Louis XIII would indeed attack La Rochelle.77 CSP Ven. 1625-6, pp. 138, 221, 251. Meanwhile, fears of a possible Spanish invasion placed Hampshire potentially on the front line, and exposed the weakness of the county’s defences. Since becoming lord lieutenant, Conway had commissioned a report on the Isle of Wight’s fortifications, but there was no money available for the urgent repairs that this recommended, and one coastal castle subsequently collapsed, a disaster for which he himself was blamed by the island’s inhabitants.78 APC, 1625-6, pp. 141-2; 1626, pp. 200-1; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 29; Oglander Memoirs, 163. In the absence of further parliamentary taxation, the government attempted instead to raise money through privy seal loans. Conway was expected to implement this policy in Hampshire, but he admitted to his deputy lieutenants that he could not advise them, as his ‘knowledge of the country … [was] so little’.79 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 105; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 51.

Not surprisingly, Conway was gradually becoming disillusioned with the scale of his responsibilities, which seemed to bring few personal rewards. As he told his daughters on 9 Sept., ‘service and offices make fair shows and promises, but are no inheritance’.80 HMC Portland, iii. 20. Shortly afterwards, the Venetian ambassador complained that a minor diplomatic incident had not been properly addressed, ‘because Conway has charge of it, and his delays are endless owing to his slowness and neglect’. In fact, some of the burden of military organization was about to be eased by the appointment of Sir John Coke^‡, an experienced naval administrator, as secretary of state. For the moment, Conway remained a key figure in the inner counsels of government, the only minister fully trusted by both Buckingham and the king.81 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 169; Dalton, 135-6; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 237; M. Young, Servility and Service: the Life and Work of Sir John Coke, 152-3. In late October, it was again reported that Conway was about to become lord treasurer, and although once again nothing came of this, he was described the following month as monopolizing all government business while the duke visited the Netherlands.82 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 57; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 143; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 235.

The fleet arrived back at Plymouth in December 1625. Conway was determined to keep the Cadiz veterans together, so that the benefits of their training and battlefield experience could be drawn on again in future campaigns. However, this would require billeting on an unprecedented scale, well beyond what the Plymouth region could handle, and as ever there was little money available to cover the costs.83 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 171, 183-4; Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 80-1; S.J. Stearns, ‘Military Disorder and Martial Law in Early Stuart Eng.’, Law and Authority in Early Modern Eng. ed. B. Sharp and M.C. Fissel, 116; APC, 1625-6, p. 285. In order to spread the load, some soldiers were removed to other parts of the country, with several companies from a regiment commanded by the secretary’s own son, Sir Edward Conway^* (later 2nd Viscount Conway), allocated to Hampshire. As the Isle of Wight was already accommodating some troops who had landed there rather than at Plymouth, Conway was able to get privy seal loan money assigned to meet local expenses. Even so, by late January 1626 the county’s billeting costs were starting to exceed the available cash.84 APC, 1625-6, pp. 283-5, 328; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 234; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 100.

The 1626 Parliament

In theory a financial solution was now at hand, as a new Parliament had been summoned to meet in February 1626. Conway moved too slowly to obtain a seat at Warwick for his son Sir Edward, but was able to provide for him at Yarmouth. Thomas Malet was again returned at Newtown. However, Conway’s nominee for the third Isle of Wight borough, Newport, was rejected, amid complaints that the town had been unfairly targeted for privy seal loans. Conway responded angrily to this snub, but was unable to change the outcome.85 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 152, 154, 164, 426. Meanwhile, he faced a more serious challenge from a fellow peer who had been denied a summons to the Lords. John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, a distant kinsman, had been ambassador to Madrid during the Spanish marriage negotiations, and became the principal scapegoat for their failure. The official government line, publicly unveiled during the 1624 Parliament by Prince Charles and Buckingham, was that Spain had never been serious about the treaty discussions, and that Bristol had departed from his instructions in a misguided attempt to reach a deal. The earl, believing that his honour had been besmirched, declined to corroborate this account, or admit to having made mistakes, and was therefore placed under house arrest upon his return to England.86 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 623; 1623-5, pp. 171, 222, 234, 288, 315, 363, 435; SP14/155/65. He had obeyed Charles’s order to stay away from the 1625 Parliament, but in January 1626 he decided to force the issue of his treatment, writing to Conway and demanding to know where he now stood with the king. Charles promptly indicated that Bristol remained in disgrace, but the earl responded in early February by announcing that he wished to be put on trial, so that he could present his version of events. As Conway had seen all of the diplomatic correspondence during the Match negotiations, and had also handled the communications with Bristol since his return, Digby’s request threatened to place him in a difficult position.87 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 256; 1625-6, pp. 218, 227; ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence of his Negotiations in Spain’ ed. S.R. Gardiner, Cam. Misc. VI (Cam. Soc. civ), p. xxxi.

Conway’s attendance of Parliament in 1626 was marginally better than it had been the previous year, though he was still present for barely half of all sittings. This time most of his absences occurred in a single block, between 11 Feb. and 28 Mar. inclusive. The first two weeks of absence were caused by sickness,88 HMC Cowper, i. 255; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 339; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 104-5. but, as will be seen, it then suited Conway to plead illness during early March, even though he was by then back at his Whitehall desk. Only from the end of that month did he attend the Lords on a more or less regular basis.89 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 269, 272-3, 275-7. Ironically, in early May his brother-in-law, Horace Vere^*, 1st Lord Vere, himself fell ill, and handed Conway his proxy.90 Procs. 1626, iv. 11, 230.

Given this record, it is no surprise that Conway again featured only intermittently in the Lords’ proceedings. Although reappointed to the committee for privileges, and named to the committee for a bill against recusancy, he contributed nothing to most routine business, and the bulk of his 17 or 18 speeches were made towards the end of the session, when he needed to defend himself against Bristol.91 Ibid. i. 48, 127. As in 1625, Conway found himself under scrutiny over the conduct of the war. Following the failure of the Cadiz expedition, the Commons redoubled their efforts to find out how the taxation voted in 1624 had been spent, and therefore Conway was summoned with the other councillors of war to appear before the lower House on 3 March. It was not immediately clear how he and his colleagues should respond to the Commons’ questioning, so Conway stalled, informing the Commons that he was too ill to attend. Undeterred, the lower House issued a fresh summons for 9 March. In the meantime Conway consulted Buckingham and the king, thrashing out a common line for all the councillors to follow. Once again, Conway pleaded illness, apparently with some justification this time, prompting the Commons to question him at home. However, as instructed by Charles, he offered merely to discuss the bare bones of military spending, not the strategy being followed. This stonewalling was successful, and the Commons, primarily interested in investigating Buckingham’s role as a war leader, abandoned their inquiry.92 Ibid. ii. 148, 186, 239-40, 256, 258; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 276; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 107; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 358.

Not until 30 Mar. did Conway make any public comment on the conflict. By then the king was requesting a larger sum than the Commons thought necessary, and a conference was arranged at which Buckingham outlined recent developments on the military and diplomatic fronts. Conway was on hand to supplement the duke’s address as required, initially just adding minor details about spending and strategic objectives. However, at length, referring specifically to the Commons’ concerns that funding had been mis-applied, he summarized the whole course of events from the 1624 Parliament through to the death of James I, detailing the financial burden, and the circumstances in which the costs had spiralled. Asked specifically by Buckingham whether any decisions were taken ‘by single counsel’, Conway emphatically answered ‘no’. He added that the late king had acted with advice and never precipitately: ‘from step to step with counsel, and not by confusion’.93 Procs. 1626, ii. 402, 409-10. Surprisingly, after this carefully orchestrated performance, Conway blundered badly two days later in the Lords. During a debate on how best to protect English merchant shipping from attack, he first insisted that the existing coastal patrol was already fully employed, then invited his fellow peers to propose a method of funding additional warships, from their own pockets if need be. Either his tone or the content of his speech caused offence, and this time Buckingham had to intervene to support him.94 Ibid. i. 242; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 387. Despite this episode, Conway was added on 20 May to the committee to consider the defence of the realm, and on 10 June he successfully moved for the committee to meet, informing the Lords of reports of an imminent invasion from Flanders.95 Procs. 1626, i. 536, 604.

In fact, by this stage Conway had effectively abandoned hope of Parliament contributing towards the war effort. As early as 30 May, he wrote to tell Secretary Coke, then at Portsmouth, that all business had ground to a halt. There was now ‘no wheel to be moved for want of oil’, with the Exchequer empty and both Houses at a standstill. On 5 June, he reported gloomily to James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle:

I have spoken with three or four of the Parliament, the wisest of my acquaintance, and find so little ground to build any hope upon as if I did not defy despair it would take up every corner of me. I was of opinion that the worst of malice had spent itself, but every occasion multiplies it so much as certainly the things require … that his Majesty should once more lay before them his necessities, … and put upon them the mischiefs and inconveniences that the public affairs may run into.96 HMC Cowper, i. 269; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 30-1.

The malice to which Conway referred was no doubt the Commons’ sustained assault on Buckingham, culminating in impeachment proceedings. The secretary had been following these developments since at least 11 Mar., when Samuel Turner^‡ made a series of allegations against the duke on the basis of common fame. The next day, Conway wrote to his patron condemning this attack, and promising to gauge reactions in the Lords.97 Procs. 1626, iv. 332-3. In fact, he had good reasons of his own to monitor the progress of the ensuing Commons’ inquiry, since one of the charges against Buckingham related to the loan of ships to France in 1625. As the evidence on this incident was gathered, Conway’s role in enforcing the government’s decision was revealed, and was indeed spelt out when the relevant impeachment article was presented on 8 May. However, as the lower House was intent on pinning all the blame on the duke, Conway himself was not treated as culpable.98 Ibid. i. 429-30, 432; ii. 352; iii. 35.

A much more significant distraction for the secretary was the earl of Bristol’s simultaneous attack on Buckingham and himself. A final attempt by the king to browbeat the earl into submission had failed, and by mid April Bristol was in London, requesting that his case be adjudged by his fellow peers in the Lords, and accusing Buckingham and Conway of persecuting him. The latter was clearly nervous at what might now come out, and wrote to Bristol assuring him that he felt no personal malice towards him, and had merely been carrying out royal commands.99 ‘Bristol’s Defence’, pp. xxxi-xxxii; Procs. 1626, i. 286; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 113-14. Nevertheless, when Charles hit back by accusing the earl of treason, and inviting the Lords to hear these charges as well, Conway cooperated fully in providing documentation for the prosecution. On 29 Apr. he argued strongly against a proposal for Bristol to be allowed to take his seat, insisting that he had been summoned before the House as a delinquent.100 Procs. 1626, i. 295-6, 322; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 117. He was now anxious for the whole business to be heard, but in reality he had little to fear. When Bristol finally presented his 11 articles against Conway on 1 May, they contained little of genuine substance. The secretary stood accused of being too close to Buckingham, of obstructing Bristol’s efforts to clear his name with both James and Charles, of falsely accusing the earl of disobeying his instructions as ambassador, and of covering up James’s consent to a proposal for the Elector Palatine’s heir to be educated at the imperial court. After the protracted build-up to these revelations, the Lords experienced a distinct sense of anticlimax. As Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer remarked, (mis)quoting the Roman poet Horace: ‘We expected great matters. Montes parturire et nascitur ridiculas mus [the mountains will be in labour and an absurd mouse will be born]’.101 Procs. 1626, i. 329, 331-4, 337, 340. The original phrase reads: ‘Parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus’. Bristol had overreached himself. On 6 May he urged the Lords to prevent Conway from using his ministerial influence to interfere in his case. However, the secretary two days later simply countered by affirming that he had only ever dealt with Bristol in his official capacity, and that all his previous communications with the earl had been by royal command. Recognizing that this was Conway’s trump card, the House opted to defer a decision on Bristol’s request.102 Ibid. i. 364-5, 382.

With both Buckingham’s impeachment and Bristol’s trial now on the Lords’ agenda, parallels began to be drawn between the two. In the Commons, Sir Dudley Carleton argued on 9 May that the mere presentation of charges against the duke was no basis for ordering the imprisonment of Buckingham, otherwise Conway should have been confined on the basis of Bristol’s allegations. When the lower House requested Buckingham’s arrest anyway, Conway reminded the Lords on 16 May that the Commons were not judges in an impeachment, and asserted that the king could clear his favourite on all counts.103 Ibid. i. 489; iii. 211. Three days later, Conway again found himself on the defensive, as Bristol, responding to the crown’s case against him, produced a series of letters written by the secretary during the Spanish marriage negotiations. While these added little to what Bristol had already said, they did reveal several compromising details, such as Conway’s consent to the concessions for English recusants demanded by Spain. Evidently alarmed, the latter promptly beseeched the Lords not to draw conclusions about him before all the facts had been aired.104 Ibid. i. 509, 522, 529, 531; iv. 167. On 8 June Conway requested permission to respond to Bristol’s complaints, and was allowed counsel. His written answers were presented to the Lords five days later. He again insisted that, with the exception of some minor details, he had always acted according to the wishes of either James or Charles, had not attempted to prevent Bristol from clearing his name, and had indeed attempted to reconcile the latter with Buckingham. As for his own relationship with the duke, he conceded that he did indeed use terms such as ‘gracious patron’, but urged the Lords not to read too much into that.105 Ibid. i. 588, 591, 616-20. On 14 June Bristol tried a new line of attack. He pointed out that the evidence presented against him included a highly critical but confidential letter to him from Charles, the implication being that Conway had breached the king’s trust in a bid to damage the earl’s reputation. Once again caught on the back foot, the secretary denied that this letter was ‘surreptitiously gotten’, and blustered that Bristol was unfairly ‘taxing his honour’. The earl, sensing blood, asserted that Conway was unfit to sit in judgement over him, pushing the secretary into conceding that he had no wish to do so. The Lords now rallied to Conway, clearing him of any wrongdoing, but nevertheless decided to inspect the letter themselves before declaring the matter closed. Parliament was dissolved the next day, with Bristol’s case still unresolved, and by the autumn the earl was back under house arrest.106 Ibid. i. 628-30, 635; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 170.

Conway had survived, but his reputation had been damaged by these exchanges. Moreover, one final complaint by the lower House was also left unanswered. The abortive remonstrance against Buckingham, drafted by the Commons at the end of the session, alleged that Conway had acted provocatively by having Sir Dudley Digges^‡ and Sir John Eliot^‡ - the spokesmen who presented the Commons’ charges of impeachment against the duke - arrested at the Commons chamber, rather than at their lodgings, as the king had intended. The secretary presumably enjoyed the task of confiscating copies of the Remonstrance after the dissolution.107 Procs. 1626, iii. 438; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 453.

Declining influence, 1626-8

Over the next few months, Conway’s hopes of military success continued to recede. With Louis XIII’s clampdown on his Huguenot subjects showing no sign of abating, tensions between England and France escalated. In August Conway oversaw the expulsion of most of Queen Henrietta Maria’s French servants, and the unpalatable prospect of war between the two countries started to be taken seriously. However, if France could not be retained as an ally, the anti-Habsburg strategy needed to be restructured. According to the Venetian ambassadors, Conway was now promoting the concept of a ‘northern’ alliance involving Denmark and Sweden, along with Transylvania. The drawback of this approach was that Denmark could not sustain its army without regular subsidies from England. When the 1626 Parliament ended without voting supply, the money dried up and the Danes suffered a crushing defeat at Lutter in August, which all but ended their participation in the war.108 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 416; CSP Ven. 1625-6, pp. 486-7, 514; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, vi. 139-40. To make matters worse, the English fleet sent out in the autumn was driven home by storm damage sustained in the Bay of Biscay. By the end of the year, the Habsburgs seemed to be winning on every front, and Conway was increasingly convinced that France would soon come to terms with Spain. While he argued in October that it was entirely feasible for England to fight both Catholic powers simultaneously, this change of thinking merely underlined the failure of his original policies.109 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 461; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 86; British Naval Documents, 1204-1960 ed. J.B. Hattendorf, R.J.B. Knight, A.W.H. Pearsall and N.A.M. Rodger (Navy Recs. Soc. cxxxi), 146-7.

With every new setback, Conway’s own position came under closer scrutiny. In October 1626 Contarini, the Venetian ambassador, reported that he remained ‘utterly bound to the duke’ and therefore politically secure. In fact, Buckingham’s confidence in him was gradually diminishing, and in February 1627 Conway was alarmed to discover that the favourite had sounded out the Dutch government about a possible Anglo-Spanish peace without consulting him.110 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 596; 1626-8, pp. 141-3. This slight was symptomatic of a general decline in his influence, as Coke was now handling a larger share of the secretarial workload, leaving Conway, who spent most of his time travelling around with the king, ever more detached from routine government. In August 1626 he procured the mastership of the Mint for his son-in-law Sir Robert Harley^‡, but the following March he proved unable to prevent Harley’s position being undermined by the appointment of Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland as sole exchanger.111 HMC Portland, iii. 21; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 573; 1627-8, p. 76. When, on 15 Mar., Conway was created Viscount Killultagh at Buckingham’s request, it was widely assumed that he was about to be made lord deputy of Ireland, or simply dismissed. As Contarini commented, he was now in poor health, and his well-known hostility towards Spain made him a liability if England seriously wanted to make peace.112 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 89; Birch, i. 209; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 177; HMC Skrine, 113.

Conway’s future remained a matter of intense speculation until late April 1627. Rumours circulated that the duke was displeased with him, and would make him a scapegoat in the event of a new Parliament being summoned. According to Contarini, Conway was encouraged to resign, but when he refused to do so, the king decided not to force the issue. With Buckingham now preparing to lead an army to France, he could not afford to leave a disaffected secretary behind him, and accordingly bridges were rebuilt. By 20 June Conway was once more assuring the duke of his continued devotion to his service; six days later, on the eve of Buckingham’s departure for the Île de Ré, he became Viscount Conway of Conway Castle.113 Procs. 1628, p. 110; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 187; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 224-5; Birch, i. 218-19.

Even so, in real terms Conway’s career had now peaked, and from this point on he was more likely to be implementing policy than devising it. With Buckingham at Ré, the new viscount was ostensibly left in charge of foreign affairs. In practice, however, his attendance on the king during the latter’s summer progress meant that he was one step removed from the real levers of power. As the months went by, and the news from France became less encouraging, Conway bombarded his government colleagues with the king’s demands for speedier supplies and reinforcements for the duke. However, as he admitted to Sir William Beecher^‡ on 16 Aug., there was little that he could do to convert his affection for Buckingham into active assistance. In September he reminded his son Sir Edward, then serving at Ré, to display loyalty to their patron, the duke, but his letter conveys a distinct sense that he was seeking to compensate for his own shortcomings.114 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 312; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 286, 291, 294, 298, 317, 329. By the time of the English withdrawal in November, he had already concluded that the war with France was a mistake. However, with the principal Catholic powers now all coming together, he was unable to contemplate abandoning the struggle to defend Protestantism. In early 1628, with Buckingham and the king still committed to assisting the Huguenots of La Rochelle, Conway continued doggedly to back the duke’s ambitions in Privy Council meetings, and to draft new schedules of military objectives, albeit on a reduced scale, and with greater emphasis than before on defending the English coast.115 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 433; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 483, 524; Cust, 73.

If nothing else, Conway’s responsibilities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight had given him a rude reminder of southern England’s vulnerability to attack. As lord lieutenant, he had maintained his efforts to strengthen local defences, demanding fresh supplies of gunpowder, dispatching a new muster master to improve militia training, and ordering new weaponry.116 APC, 1625-6, p. 435; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 404; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 128. However, any benefits arising from these initiatives were soon outweighed by the burden of billeting inflicted on the county as a consequence of successive naval expeditions against Spain or France. Conway did what he could to help. Once the Forced Loan was launched in late 1626, Hampshire was offered the concession that money raised there could be used immediately to meet billeting costs. For several months in late 1626 and early 1627, the soldiers were removed altogether from the Isle of Wight. To address military disorders, martial law was also introduced.117 APC, 1626, pp. 101, 221, 388; Cust, 123-4; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 409; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 174. Nevertheless, by the summer of 1627, the steady stream of troops being imposed on the county, and the inadequacy of the funding for billeting, pushed the local gentry into open and vocal protests.118 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 173-4, 189; Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 223-4; APC, 1627, pp. 289-90. Conway’s promises of assistance sounded increasingly empty, and when he finally visited the Isle of Wight for the first time in September, he was summed up by Sir John Oglander^‡, one of the deputy lieutenants, as ‘old, unwieldy, and very sickly; neither fit for the employment or command’. For many residents, the arrival of a Scots regiment on the island two months later was the final straw.119 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 319, 435; Oglander Memoirs, 34-5.

The 1628-9 Parliament and final years

When Parliament was summoned in January 1628, Conway made electoral nominations to at least six Hampshire boroughs. On the mainland he enjoyed reasonable success. His son Ralph^‡ was returned at Andover, while two of his deputy vice admirals, William Towerson^‡ and Owen Jennens^‡, found seats at Portsmouth, ostensibly through Buckingham’s patronage. Conway’s request to Southampton to elect one of the duke’s clients, Sir Francis Annesley^‡, was rejected, but with his backing Sir Henry Whithed^‡, a local magistrate, secured a burgess-ship at Stockbridge.120 Procs. 1628, pp. 124, 165-7; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 157, 159, 161; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 556; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 158. However, on the Isle of Wight it was a different story. Conway appealed directly to the resident gentry, explaining that he needed supporters in the Commons to help him push for improvements to the island’s defences, but to no avail. Current grievances over billeting carried more force than the secretary’s blandishments. Moreover, Conway clumsily offended his local electoral agent, Sir John Oglander, by requesting both seats at Yarmouth for his kinsmen Edward Reade and Sir Fulke Greville, his other deputy vice admiral. Oglander normally took one place himself, and, feeling snubbed by Conway, probably did little to further his nominations. Reade and Greville were both rejected, as was Sir Edward Conway at Newport, and even Thomas Malet at Newtown. Oglander, by contrast, was returned for Yarmouth as usual.121 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 29, 541-2, 568, 576-7; Procs. 1628, pp. 156-8, 172. Elsewhere, Conway with difficulty obtained a burgess-ship for his son-in-law Harley at Evesham, where he was high steward.122 Procs. 1628, p. 149.

Conway’s attendance record during this session was somewhat better than in previous meetings. He was formally excused on eight occasions, each time without explanation, though he was certainly ill in mid June. Overall, he was present for just over three-fifths of the sittings, and never missed more than four in a row. As in 1626, he held Lord Vere’s proxy.123 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87, 189, 339, 389, 546, 558, 686, 689; HMC Cowper, i. 350. On 20 Mar. Conway was reintroduced to the Lords as a viscount, supported by Edward Cecil^*, 1st Viscount Wimbledon, veteran of the 1625 Cadiz expedition, and, more surprisingly, by William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, a Forced Loan refuser. Conway’s latest peerage prompted a brief precedence debate. The Henrician statute governing seating arrangements in the Lords had hitherto given him precedence, as secretary of state, over other barons, but the Act made no provision for a secretary with a viscountcy. After some discussion, it was decided that only his date of creation should now be taken into consideration, a ruling in line with the treatment afforded to Robert Cecil^* when he became 1st earl of Salisbury in 1605.124 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 724; LJ, iii. 686b.

As usual, Conway contributed sparingly to Lords’ proceedings. He received just two appointments, to the committee for privileges, and to the committee for a naturalization bill.125 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 678. His six speeches were all used to defend the government’s position over the liberties of the subject. On 2 Apr. he predictably defended the use of martial law to govern billeted soldiers, insisting that this was the most appropriate way of maintaining discipline.126 Ibid. 139, 141. He also upheld the crown’s right to use arbitrary imprisonment, maintaining on 21 Apr. that the king could not always act within the strict letter of the law, and that the Commons were trying to limit the authority of Charles and the Privy Council. The next day he again asserted that the government must be allowed discretion.127 Ibid. 312, 315-16, 323. As discussion of the Petition of Right got underway in the Lords, the king himself set out his position on arbitrary imprisonment, insisting that while he had no intention of abusing this power, neither could he relinquish it. On 12 May, in a bid to prevent discussion of this letter, several peers left the chamber early, claiming that the House had been adjourned. The duke then forced a debate anyway. When the legitimacy of this move was challenged the following day, Conway naturally sided with Buckingham, arguing that no early adjournment had been agreed. On 14 May the Commons themselves refused to discuss the king’s letter, using the procedural argument that he could not respond to the Petition before it was formally presented, but then invited the Lords to present their own reasons for amending the text on this point. Back in the upper House, Conway urged his fellow peers to do as requested, but commented gloomily that the Commons’ delaying tactics had left them ‘more tied than before’.128 Ibid. 416, 428. The Lords’ solution to this impasse was to draft an addition to the Petition, saving the royal prerogative, but predictably this found no support in the lower House. Conway, ever conscious that time was slipping by, and that parliamentary supply was an essential prerequisite for further military action, recommended on 20 May that if no agreement could be reached over the prerogative, the Commons should present the Petition on their own. Nevertheless, he was so relieved when Charles finally approved the Petition in a manner acceptable to the Commons - thereby clearing the way for taxation - that he attributed it to God’s guidance. The king’s second answer, he informed Secretary Coke, ‘begot such an acclamation as made the House ring several times. … I never saw a more general joy in all faces than spread itself suddenly in all countenances and broke out into ringing of bells and bonfires miraculously’.129 Ibid. 480, 487; Procs. 1628, pp. 211-12.

Conway’s delight at the prospect of fresh funds was entirely understandable. Quite apart from the fact that it paved the way for another English expedition to La Rochelle, the situation in Hampshire had been getting rapidly out of hand. In April the secretary had to obtain a commission of oyer and terminer for the Isle of Wight, where the billeted soldiers were committing serious disorders. Later that month Southampton corporation refused to take in any more troops, as billeting payments were now three months in arrears, a form of protest which spread to other parts of the county during May, with Conway unable to address the underlying grievance. Not until mid June could he confirm that the billeting debts would soon be cleared, though two more months passed before there was any real progress.130 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 62, 70, 92, 107, 111-12, 164; APC, 1627-8, pp. 395, 434, 490-1; 1628-9, p. 102.

By the end of June a government reshuffle was underway, and Conway was offered the alternative post of lord president of the Privy Council, a prestigious but less onerous position. However, he once again refused to resign the secretaryship, with the result that the presidency went instead to the outgoing lord treasurer, James Ley^*, 1st earl of Marlborough. Nevertheless, complaints about Conway’s performance as secretary were now mounting, with even the king finally starting to hold him more responsible for the incessant delays to the forthcoming expedition. This uncertainty about his future may help to explain why Conway’s public reaction to Buckingham’s assassination on 23 Aug. was muted.131 HMC Cowper, i. 358; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 189; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 250.

Conway was excluded from the commission to investigate his patron’s murder, a striking omission which underlined the fact that his position at Court was now weak. By early September the Privy Council was openly criticizing his handling of business. Shortly afterwards the new lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, 1st Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), stopped his pension and allowances, leaving Conway to request plaintively that he might at least be paid the arrears due to him.132 HMC Cowper, i. 364; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 269, 322, 326. When tentative peace negotiations began with France, Conway was very much involved, but he was no longer regarded as indispensable. In December, Lord President Marlborough retired on health grounds, and Conway was appointed to replace him, probably against his wishes. Shortly afterwards, he received an anonymous death threat from disaffected soldiers who believed that he was trying to reduce their pay. Their chilling message advised him to expect the same fate suffered by Buckingham – a stark reminder of how closely the two men were associated in the public mind, and how much he had come to share in the duke’s unpopularity.133 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 311, 459; APC, 1628-9, p. 459; Birch, i. 450, 454.

Conway attended almost two-thirds of the brief 1629 parliamentary session, though his appearances were as usual intermittent. Named yet again to the committee for privileges, he was appointed on 27 Jan. to attend the king and find out when Charles would receive a joint petition from both Houses requesting a general fast. He may have helped deliver the king’s reply later that day, but otherwise he left no trace on the Lords’ proceedings.134 LJ, iv. 6a, 14a.

Whatever his feelings about becoming lord president may have been, Conway fulfilled his new duties conscientiously, rarely missing Privy Council meetings, except in late 1629 and late 1630, when he suffered extended bouts of sickness.135 APC, 1628-9, p. 262 et seq.; 1629-30, pp. v-vii; 1630-1, pp. v, vii. He was actively involved in peace negotiations with Spain during the summer of 1629, and also continued to deal with Hampshire business.136 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 117, 127-8; CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 33, 69, 95, 191. Despite this, it was widely assumed that his career was now drawing to a close. While he was ill in October 1629, his official diet was stopped as part of the latest round of economies, and even though he was compensated, it was shortly being reported that ‘he hath almost left the court, what with sickness and age’.137 Birch, ii. 34; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 123; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 345. In fact, it was another year before he finally began to withdraw from public life. The death of one of his daughters in September 1630 ‘so disordered him’ that he became unable to transact business. His health now broke down again, forcing him to miss most Council meetings during October and November, though even then he continued to perform favours for relatives, for example intervening to prevent his recently bereaved son-in-law from being selected as sheriff of Essex.138 CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 337, 369, 375, 383. Nevertheless, he was back in harness by mid December, attending a reception at the Spanish ambassador’s London residence to mark the new peace with Spain. He presided over the Council for the last time on 31 Dec., and died three days later of apoplexy at his house in St. Martin’s Lane. His body was taken back to Warwickshire, and buried at Arrow, close to his ancestral seat of Ragley.139 Birch, ii. 86; APC, 1630-1, p. 174; Oglander Memoirs, 164; Dugdale, 850.

Conway’s papers were confiscated by the crown three weeks after his death, and as a result most of them remain among the public records. Although his pension was by now substantially in arrears, his debts stood at less than £4,000.140 CSP Dom. 1629-30, p. 490; 1631-3, p. 29; 1633-4, p. 370. In his will, drawn up on 23 July 1629, he primarily made supplementary provision for his second wife, but he also bequeathed a £2,500 dowry to his youngest daughter, and awarded £140 annuities to his youngest sons, Sir Thomas and Ralph. Administration of the will was eventually handed in July 1632 to his heir, the 2nd Viscount Conway, after the designated executors, a set of trustees, all renounced this duty.141 PROB 11/160, ff. 409-10v; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 373.

Conway’s reputation was contested after his death. While the 2nd viscount claimed that his ‘designs were ever guided by reason and honour’, the more neutral Venetian ambassador, Soranzo, considered him ‘a minister with sound views’, whose advancing years had diminished his standing. The most damning verdict, however, emanated from the Isle of Wight, where he continued to be blamed for the outrages of local billeting. As Sir John Oglander recorded: ‘it was a common by-word amongst many, as having some cross or loss, they would sweeten it with saying, “But my Lord Conway is dead”.’142 HMC Portland, iii. 29; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 478; Oglander Memoirs, 164.