COVENTRY, Sir Thomas (1578-1640), of Croome d’Abitot, Worcs., the Inner Temple, London and Durham House, The Strand, Westminster

‘A gentleman by birth and education’, who spoke in a kind of ‘graceful lisping’ and possessed, according to Clarendon, a ‘strange power of making himself believed’,‘Thomas, Lord Coventry: Some notable observations in the course of his life and ultimum vale to the world’, Sloane 3075, ff. 2, 4v; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. W.D. Mackray, i. 57-8. Thomas Coventry was the eldest son of a justice of Common Pleas. Originally from Oxfordshire, his father laid the foundations of the family fortune in Worcestershire, buying the manor of Croome d’Abitot from the Clare family in 1592.T. Nash, Colls. for Hist. of Worcs. i. 260; VCH Worcs. iii. 314. Hopeful that Coventry would follow in his footsteps, he sent him to Balliol, his old Oxford college, and the Inner Temple, of which he was a member. He was not to be disappointed, for at the Inn Coventry quickly made a favourable impression on account of his ‘indefatigable diligence in study’.Sloane 3075, f. 2v.

Coventry forged some useful contacts at the Inner Temple, among them Sir Edward Coke*, who was treasurer of the Inn during his second year of study. In later years Sir Francis Bacon* would remind the king that Coventry had been ‘bred by my Lord Coke’, and indeed, Coventry became so closely linked with Coke that, following the latter’s death in 1634, he acted as his executor and erected a monument in his memory.CITR, ii. p. lxvii; C.W. James, Chief Justice Coke, 49. Another important contact Coventry made at the Inn was undoubtedly William Sebright, who regularly served as the Inn’s butler over Christmas.CITR, ii. 6, 12, 53, 69, 92, 97, 104, 109. Prest mistakenly describes William as Sarah’s grandfather: Prest, 352. For the real relationship, see Vis. Worcs. (Harl. Soc. xxvii), 126. It was probably through Sebright that Coventry not only met his first wife Sarah but was introduced to City government, as Sebright was town clerk of London. In February 1605 Coventry obtained reversions to the town clerkship, to the judgeships of both sheriff’s courts and the secondaryships of both compters. Although he surrendered his reversion to the clerkship in 1613,CLRO, Reps. 31, pt. 1, f. 87v. Coventry became a judge of the sheriff’s court in the following year.

It was probably through his father’s influence rather than as a result of any personal contacts developed at the Inner Temple that Coventry obtained his first employment after being called to the bar in 1603. At the beginning of James’s reign the elder Coventry’s fellow Inner Templar and serjeant-at-law, Thomas Foster, became a counsellor-at-large to Anne of Denmark.Illustrations of British History ed. E. Lodge, iii. 66; Foss, Judges of Eng. vi. 157. Foster and Coventry’s father were appointed sjt.-at-law at the same time: CITR, i. 453. Realizing that he would no longer be able to devote much time to his accustomed job as their counsel, the governors of the London Skinners’ Company instructed Foster in May 1604 to recruit a young barrister, ‘to be by him acquainted with the titles and suits brought for or against this Company concerning any of their lands and tenements’.GL, ms 30708/2, f. 356v. Foster’s choice settled on Coventry who took over for the company the handling of minor matters, such as bequests. Normally Coventry was simply required to keep Foster regularly briefed, but on one occasion at least Coventry apparently stepped into Foster’s shoes when Foster failed to appear before Sir John Croke†. Coventry subsequently played a key role in a dispute with the churchwardens of nearby St. Michael’s Paternoster over Whittington College, which the Company had recently bought from the Mercers. He pleaded the Skinners’ cause on various occasions, drafted their petition to Archbishop BancroftGL, ms 30727/5, unfol. 1604-8 accts. and made such a favourable impression as junior counsel that he was invited to the Company’s election dinner in June 1606.Recs. of Skinners of London ed. J.J. Lambert, 301. He was also remembered in the will of the Company’s clerk, Edward Balthrop, who not only bequeathed him his signet ring but also ‘my picture of the duke of Norfolk’.PROB 11/114, f. 247v. However, by the time the will was proved, in 1609, Coventry had evidently left the Company’s service.

The death of his first wife afforded Coventry the opportunity to strengthen his links with the City. In 1610 he married Elizabeth Pichford, the ‘lovely, young, rich,’ widow of a London Grocer. That same year, after borrowing money from a leading Grocer, Thomas Moulson*, and John Aldersey, he summarized for the Grocers a bill laid before the Commons by the Apothecaries of London, who sought statutory permission to secede from the Company. He subsequently acted as counsel to the Grocers on an irregular basis, and in 1627 became the first lawyer to be admitted as one of its freemen.GL, ms 11571/9, f. 356; 11571/10, ff. 34v, 124, 261v, 354v-5; 11588/3, p. 104; LC4/197, f. 39; CD 1621, vii. 324-5; B. Heath, Co. of Grocers, 267. The Grocers were not Coventry’s only important City clients at around this time. In 1615 or 1616 he acted for the Drapers in a probate case, while in June 1616 he represented the Merchants of the Staple before the Privy Council.Drapers’ Hall, London, WA 6/13, f. 19v; CD 1621, vii. 497. By 1613 Coventry’s abilities had come to the notice of the City authorities. In October he assisted the recorder of London, Sir Henry Montagu*, on behalf of the merchant Humphrey Slany in an Exchequer action brought against the lieutenant of the Tower, Sir William Waad*.E126/2, f. 1. Two months later London’s corporation asked him to advise its solicitor in suing out a licence regarding Gresham College.CLRO, letter bk. FF, f. 32.

Although now based in London, Coventry retained his links with his home county of Worcestershire. In 1609 the advowson of Ombersley church was sold to him and Thomas Sandys, probably as trustees for Sir Samuel Sandys*,VCH Worcs. iii. 468. and in 1616 he was retained by the city of Worcester to act as its legal adviser.Chamber Bk. 141. At some point before 1621 he also became a freeman of Droitwich, where he owned some salt pits.C7/305/4. In 1624 he became guardian to the son of Sir John Pakington*, who later married one of his daughter,Trans. Worcs. Arch. Soc. xiii. 38. and between 1615 and 1639 he acquired 14 Worcestershire manors to add to his inheritance.Prest, 352.

During the mid-Jacobean period Coventry broadened his legal experience by riding the Oxford circuit with James Whitelocke*, John Walter* and Henry Yelverton*.Liber Famelicus, 54. In November 1616 he was elected recorder of London in place of recorder Montagu, who became lord chief justice of King’s Bench in place of the dismissed Sir Edward Coke. This sudden promotion was surprising, for as Chamberlain observed, Coventry was ‘no confidant of the Court’. Moreover, although ‘a well learned and an honest man’, he was, as attorney-general Bacon pointed out, ‘seasoned’ in the ways of the now disgraced Coke. However, the king was denied any choice in the matter, for after James’s nominee, Sir Henry Yelverton, refused to accept the recordership, the mayor and aldermen ‘took the advantage ... before any other should be nominated to them’ to appoint Coventry.Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 39; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 92; CLRO, Remembrancia, viii. no. 21; Reps. 33, f. 5r-v. The City’s choice was regarded was regarded with approval by the lawyer Sir Richard Hutton, who described Coventry in his diary as ‘un homme bien erudite et de grand opinion’.Diary of Sir Richard Hutton ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 16.

Coventry did not remain in the recordership for long. Four months after his unexpected advancement, and before he had yet reached his fortieth birthday, he was named solicitor-general after Yelverton succeeded Bacon as attorney-general. It is unclear who was behind Coventry’s appointment, but at least one contemporary believed that, through ‘secret labouring’, he had secured the support of the royal favourite, George Villiers, earl of Buckingham, although ‘it will cost him dear’.HMC Hastings, iv. 16. Further evidence for this view can be found in the statement by Bishop Goodman that Coventry was first introduced to the Court by Sir Lionel Cranfield*, as Cranfield was then well connected with both the City and the favourite.Ct. of Jas. I ed. G. Goodman, i. 318. If Coventry was the beneficiary of Buckingham’s support it would certainly explain why he was chosen in preference to Prince Charles’s attorney-general, John Walter*, whom ‘all the world’ had expected to be appointed on the grounds that he was ‘the fittest man in England for it, and ancient to Mr. Coventry a dozen years or more’.Liber Famelicus, 53-4. One other possibility is that the king himself was behind Coventry’s appointment. At a time when James was endeavouring to secure a large loan from the City he may have felt that it would be politic to promote its recorder.For the loan, see R. Ashton, Crown and the Money Market, 122-4.

The new solicitor-general soon proved himself to be more effective than his senior colleague, attorney-general Yelverton. During the 1619 Star Chamber prosecution of the former lord treasurer, the earl of Suffolk, one observer contrasted the performance of Coventry, whose remarks were made ‘to no light purpose’, with that of Yelverton, who ‘scarce ever interposed one word’. At one point during the trial Coventry, addressing the charge that Suffolk had embezzled £140 to pay for his a particular piece of building work, ‘took occasion to ejaculate - "Thus the great foundation of the Exchequer must be subverted for the building up of my Lord’s stables"’.HMC Hatfield, xxii. 95, 97. It is not surprising that Coventry was appointed acting attorney-general when Yelverton was suspended from office in June 1620.

Yelverton’s dismissal in January 1621 opened the way for Coventry to be appointed as his successor. At around the same time he was elected to the 1621 Parliament for the Worcestershire borough of Droitwich. Before he could take his place, however, he was unseated by the Commons as it had been resolved in 1614 that the attorney-general, being a legal assistant in the Upper House, was not eligible to serve. Coventry nevertheless played an active role in the Lords where, on 14 May, he defended Buckingham against Yelverton’s comparison of the favourite with Edward II’s crony, Hugh Despenser.LD 1621, 82; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 103.

In September 1625 Buckingham offered Coventry the post of lord keeper in place of the bishop of Lincoln, John Williams, whom the duke suspected of plotting against him. Coventry’s anonymous biographer observed that Coventry was chosen because he was ‘the only person of the times capable of so high an office’,Sloane 3075, f. 3v. but in fact Buckingham had already offered the post to the master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, John Preston, who had declined it.Preston ed. Harcourt, 117; Lockyer, 277. In his letter of acceptance, Coventry, in a revealing statement, thanked Buckingham for having interceded on his behalf ‘in this and in all other occasions that have concerned me,’ both under ‘His Majesty and his royal father’.Harl. 1581, f. 328.

Coventry remained lord keeper for the rest of his life. His hold on office while Buckingham lived was nevertheless precarious, for unlike his patron and the king he emerged as a keen advocate of parliaments.R. Cust, Forced Loan, 13, 44-5; Holles Letters ed. P. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. rec. ser. xxv), 337, 345. Later, in 1633, he apparently annoyed Charles by suggesting that the moment was ripe to summon another Parliament.Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 141. Nevertheless, he was sufficiently well regarded to be elevated to the peerage in 1628, and in 1634 he helped prepare the ground for the introduction of Ship Money.K. Sharpe, Personal Rule, 550-2.

Coventry died on the morning of 14 Jan. 1640 in Durham House in the Strand, having been in some pain from ‘the stone’ for several weeks.CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 340. He was buried, in accordance with his wishes, near his parents at Croome d’Abitot. Over the course of his career he had amassed a vast fortune, and in his will, prepared a couple of years before his death, he was able to leave his wife, Elizabeth, a principal residence and six other houses of her choosing. Moreover, he made arrangements that, should his three youngest daughters not be married at the time of his death, he would leave them the enormous sum of £4,000 apiece.PROB 11/182, ff. 1-4v. He was succeeded by his eldest son Thomas, who represented Droitwich in 1625 and 1626 and Worcestershire in 1628.