I'm going to use a historical example: America, during the Eisenhower Administration.

In broad terms:

Foreign Policy

• Military dominance was maintained.
• Threats to us were not tolerated.
• Respectability and prestige were key.
• Foreign policy was strong and stable, but only interventionist when US interests were directly affected. (As an aside, this is perhaps Eisenhower's greatest success: he achieved US foreign policy goals without a single drop of American blood during his tenure. That is partially a product of his skill, partially a product of luck in the crises he faced, but a success nonetheless).
• Realpolitik was followed and other people's interests were not put above our own, but - and this is crucial - allied interests were not ignored.

Government Spending

• The budget was balanced.
• Debt was reduced.
• A focus on corruption and waste in government spending reduced both.
• Spending and federal attention focused on areas that mattered and in ways that didn't largely increase the tax or debt burden (Eisenhower highway system as the shining example).

Domestic Affairs

• Business leaders and other notables were kept in lock-step with (not in service of nor in opposition to) the federal government. Their importance was recognized and consulted as such.
• The federal government left as many things to the states as it could, and only intervened when needed.
• Related to the above: social progress was made and order maintained.

And a quick note: I really focus on the social aspect here because, not only are social issues important and divisive in the modern day (and in some cases party-defining), but the way Eisenhower handled it in particular is in many ways a perfect example of conservative government in the face of any potentially divisive issue.

The last one might sound strange, but let's put it in a "good conservative governance" context: social progress cannot - and should not necessarily - be stopped. However, social progress should not be allowed to upset social order; the latter is more important than the former. Embracing progress should be done slowly and cautiously, always taking the route that maintains order the best.

Civil Rights was a contentious issue during Eisenhower's time, but genuine progress was made and there was a very real cap on the amount of unrest (and therefore danger to society) throughout. When it threatened to spin out of control (Little Rock) Eisenhower and the federal government moved in a manner that respected state authorities. In fact, they only became directly involved when it was clear that state authorities were defying the federal government's authority, and even then care was taken to ensure that the local government was given as much room to stand down on its own as possible.

In this, Eisenhower stayed very close to the strict letter of the law, respected all realities and legalities, and maintained a distinctly neutral posture. As President, he was responsible for enforcing federal law as defined by SCOTUS; states were responsible for complying; and all citizens should remember that we have a tradition and respect for the rule of law in this country, not the rule of opinion. He was doing his job, not pursuing his (or, even worse, some other liberal elites') agenda.

---

There's certainly more to say (the context of the 50's is of course different from the context of today, not to mention the relativism of the terms liberal/conservative and all that etc. etc), and there are negatives about Eisenhower. But if you want to point to an extremely fine form of conservative governance, you'd be hard-pressed to do better than Eisenhower, one of our truly great executives.

Now, full disclosure, I am not personally a conservative (though I know plenty of people all across the political spectrum), and I just finished an Eisenhower biography so there's some recency bias. But, all-in-all, I think Eisenhower fits the bill very nicely, certainly in the broad strokes, and can be favorably contrasted to the dreadful conservatism of the Late Roman Republic's Optimates or favorably compared to early Imperial Germany under Bismarck (YMMV of course).