Resident at Wenlock by the early fifteenth century, William Lawley and his son John represented nearby Bridgnorth in the Commons five times during the reign of Henry VI. Their descendants subsequently played an active part in Wenlock’s municipal politics, although none of the senior branch of the family sat in Parliament again until Richard Lawley in 1545, who was returned shortly after his acquisition of substantial estates from the town’s recently dissolved priory.
As the youngest of three brothers, Thomas Lawley had to make his own way in the world, and in about 1600 he was apprenticed to the London Draper Edward Rotheram. He did not take up his freedom until 1623, due to an extended sojourn in the Low Countries, where he resided from 1607, initially as a factor to his master no doubt.
Any cash flow problems in Lawley’s business were offset by his inheritance of the Spoonhill estate at the death of his eldest brother in November 1624. He must also have received a substantial dowry with his own bride in 1625, as he assigned her a jointure estate worth £300 a year.
The only parliamentary issue in which Lawley was directly interested involved a petition from another London Draper, Henry Billingsley, about the revocation of his contract to handle foreign letters for the Merchant Adventurers. This had been quashed at the behest of Matthew de Quester, whose existing monopoly of foreign posts it infringed, while Billingsley’s refusal to co-operate had led to his committal to the Marshalsea in March 1628. The issue was of direct relevance to Lawley, who stood surety for Billingsley’s debts only a few days before the latter’s arrest, and paid out £650 to Billingsley’s creditors over the next few months. Given this background, it is likely that Lawley promoted much of the parliamentary opposition to de Quester, whose patent was censured, although Billingsley’s own contract, held upon similar grounds, went unnoticed. An appeal to the king secured Billingsley’s release shortly after the end of the session, but he ungratefully fell out with Lawley later over the sale of the cloth the latter held as security for his debts.
Lawley is not known to have been involved in the controversy over the seizure of the goods of the merchant John Rolle* for non-payment of customs, which became the focus of merchants’ grievances against the government during and after the 1629 session. However, the imposition of high duties on cloth imports by the Spanish Netherlands when trade resumed in the following year led him to join in a petition which persuaded the Privy Council to include the issue on the agenda at trade negotiations in 1631.
Lawley is not known to have stood for re-election at Wenlock at either of the general elections of 1640. He did take up office as alderman of Castle Baynard Ward, London in January 1641, but he stood down after paying a fine of £800 only six weeks later ‘in regard of his inabilities of body’.