JONES, Edward (1641-1703)

JONES, Edward (1641–1703)

cons. 11 Mar. 1683 bp. of Cloyne; cons. 17 Jan. 1693 bp. of ST ASAPH

First sat 17 Jan. 1693; last sat 3 Feb. 1703

bap. 24 July 1641, 1st s. of Richard Jones (d.1688) and Sarah (d.1685), da. of John Pyttes of Marrington, Salop. educ. Westminster; Trinity, Camb. BA 1664, ord. priest May 1667, fell. 1667, MA 1668, DD 1692. m. (1) lic. 2 Feb. 1668, Maria (d.1670), da. of Col. Humphrey Hurd, of Lisdowney, co. Kilkenny, ?s.p.; (2) aft. 1670, Elizabeth, da. of Sir Richard Kennedy, bt., of Newmountkennedy, co. Wicklow, 6ch. (at least 3s., at least 1da.). d. 10 May 1703;1 will 16 Apr. 1699, pr. 13 Mar. 1703.2

Chap. to James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], from 1670; Master, Kilkenny Coll. 1670-?83; preb. Aghour and Freshford 1677-83; dean, Lismore 1678-83;3 rect. Aber-Hafesp 1690, Halkin 1694, Caerwys 1695, Llansainffraid (Llansantfraid) 1696.4

Also associated with: Golden Square, Westminster5 and College Court, Westminster.6

Edward Jones appears to have come from a relatively humble, lower gentry background. There is little evidence of the family’s total fortune, but under the terms of his parents’ marriage settlement lands in Montgomeryshire worth a modest £60 a year were settled on his mother for her life.7 Quite how Jones, a new fellow of Trinity, Cambridge, came to the attention of the duke of Ormond is unclear; by the time of his first marriage he was evidently already living in Kilkenny, Ireland, where Ormond was the dominate magnate. Jones’s relationship with the duke was to prove crucial to his career. All his Irish preferments, from the mastership of the recently re-founded Kilkenny College (where his students included the future Dean Swift) to the bishopric of Cloyne came through the patronage either of Ormond himself or of Ormond’s son, Richard Butler, earl of Arran [I], (Baron Butler in the English peerage).8

Despite his promotion to an Irish bishopric and a promise to Arran that he would not ask for another post to be held in commendam, Jones demanded to be allowed to retain the deanery of Lismore, arguing that it lay just three miles outside of his diocese and that his ‘small income’ as bishop of Cloyne was insufficient for his needs. His persistence clearly annoyed Arran and Ormond, who tried to persuade him to settle for the hope of ‘an advantageous remove’ instead. Even before Jones had been consecrated, the death of the bishop of Dromore created another opportunity for promotion, but Ormond was determined to send Jones to Cloyne, where he considered that ‘the want of a resident bishop [had given] great advantage to perverters of all sorts to withdraw and keep the people from the service of the Church and from their loyalty’.9 Jones got to keep the deanery of Lismore, but this did not stop him from exploring other opportunities for promotion: in 1685 he asked for the see of Cashel; a year later he approached Ormond’s successor as lord lieutenant of Ireland, Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, in an attempt to obtain a translation to Ossory. Clarendon had little hesitation about recommending such a step. He wrote to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, describing Jones in glowing terms as a man who had done much ‘to promote the interest of the church’ and ‘does good where he lives and will always make his calling his business’.10 Jones also had a role in greasing the workings of the Irish patronage system. In February 1690, for example, he was exploring the possibilities of persuading Ormond to obtain a baronetcy for a client and attempting to find out ‘what money may be expected for the honour.’11

Jones appears to have left Ireland, where he had acquired an estate worth about £500 at some point in 1688, probably in response to the changed religious policies imposed by Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I]. He seems not to have returned to Ireland thereafter. Having been forced to abandon his Irish estates, his financial situation seems to have been precarious. In an undated petition for preferment which probably dates to the period between the assumption of the crown by William and Mary in 1689 and Jones’s appointment to St Asaph in the autumn of 1692, he sought translation to a richer Irish bishopric, referring to the ‘great losses’ he had sustained and the demands of his ‘numerous family’.12 In 1688 the death of his father meant that he inherited his mother’s jointure lands in Montgomeryshire, which were immediately mortgaged for £300; a little later he used them as security for a further loan of £550.13 These may have been the properties at Tregynon and Betton whose sale to pay debts he authorized in his will. A considerable part of Jones’s financial difficulties seems to have been caused by his desire to make generous provision for his six children: he was later said to be determined to give his daughter a portion of £4,000, an extraordinarily high sum for the daughter of a bishop.14 In his petition Jones had asked for translation to a more lucrative Irish see and it is not clear why he should have been appointed to a Welsh one instead, although it is likely that as a Welshman (able to write and speak Welsh) he was considered a suitable candidate.

Jones was summoned to Parliament as bishop of St Asaph by a writ dated 16 Jan. 1693 – that is, one day before his consecration.15 He took his seat the following day, but it is not clear whether this was before or after the act of consecration. He was subsequently present on almost every one of the remaining sitting days of the session (just under 40 per cent of the whole). During the summer recess he journeyed to his diocese for the first time, where he began to upset some of the local clergy by his inattention to his duties. He was also said to have declared that having found that bishops’ secretaries were often untrustworthy, that ‘I design to make my wife my treasurer’. The role of the bishop’s wife in the life of the diocese would later prove one of the central complaints brought against Jones’s administration there.16

He returned to the House three days into the new session in November 1693 and then maintained his high level of attendance throughout the session (just under 84 per cent of all sitting days), during which he held the proxy of Humphrey Humphreys, bishop of Bangor. On 17 Feb.1694 he voted against reversing the court of chancery’s dismission in the long-running case of Montagu v. Bath. In the summer of 1694 Jones was named as one of the commissioners for the metropolitical visitation that investigated allegations of extortion and simony that had been made against Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids.17

Jones was present on some 67 per cent of the sitting days in the 1694-5 session, but his attendance fell back to 54 per cent in the 1695-6 session. On 6 Mar. 1696 his petition relating to a Member of the Commons, Hugh Nanney‡, was presented to the House. As Nanney was not in the Chamber, consideration was delayed until the following Monday (9 March). The petition alleged that Nanney was protecting Peter Price, who had ejected Robert Wynn from the rectory of Llanillin. The matter was referred to the Commons’ privileges committee.18 On 6 Apr. 1696 he was named as a manager of the conference on the privateers bill. A few days later he demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by signing the repugnance at the decision of the nonjuring clergymen, Cook and Snatt, to grant absolution to the men who were executed for their part in the Assassination Plot.19 In the 1696-7 session his attendance dropped still further to just under 46 per cent. Perhaps his health was deteriorating, for in November 1696 he asked to be excused attendance a little longer on the grounds that he was ‘so crippled with the gout that he has not the use of his limbs’ and needed to build up his strength before undertaking ‘so hard and hazardous a journey’.20 Perhaps he wished to avoid being present for the impeachment of Sir John Fenwick‡. It is also possible that he was already worried about the simmering discontent in his diocese. As a result it was not until 7 Jan. 1697 that he finally took his seat in the House.

The local clergy were upset about a variety of issues including the bishop’s failure to ensure that holy communion was celebrated weekly or to employ an organist for the cathedral. Jones then created a powerful enemy by attempting to block the election of Francis Evans as clerk to the chapter. Evans not only had considerable local influence but was also close to Jones’s predecessor at St Asaph, William Lloyd, now bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to whom he had once been secretary. In the summer of 1696 Jones added to his enemies when he appointed his brother-in-law, Daniel Price, as dean of St Asaph instead of promoting the chancellor, Robert Wynne.21 Price was also given a valuable living, the presentation to which had already been the cause of some dispute. Under the agreement, Price was granted the living in trust with the income going towards the education of Jones’s son, Thomas. The ejected incumbent sued Price, alleging that he had obtained the place by simony, and won his case. Price’s subsequent attempt to overturn the ruling failed.22

In March 1697, presumably inspired by the example of their neighbours in St Davids as well as by the recent successful case brought against Dean Price, 38 local clergymen drew up a comprehensive list of examples of diocesan mismanagement and presented their complaint to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury.23 Given the action then pending against Bishop Watson, Tenison had little option but to order a metropolitical visitation. Responsibility for it was handed to Jones’s predecessor, Bishop Lloyd; even before he had set out, he passed on to Tenison a complaint against Jones relating to the parish of Llansainffraid.24 When the visitation commenced in July, the complaints were turned into a series of formal presentments. The complainants declared that Jones had given ‘great offence by his discourse and behaviour and has uttered several scandalous expressions to defame his clergy calling them knaves and rascals with unchristian imprecations and wishing their death and ruin’. The charges also included multiple accusations of simony and of ordering unauthorized fees to be paid to his servants.25

While the investigations continued, Jones continued to attend the House. He was present for the prorogation day of 13 May before taking his seat at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. 1697. He was thereafter present on about 60 per cent of all sitting days for the session. On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted in favour of committing the bill to punish Charles Duncombe‡. In July the charges made against him at the visitation were turned into formal articles, with the examination of witnesses beginning in November. The case continued for the ensuing two years. Embarrassingly, given the continuing proceedings against Bishop Watson, it soon became clear not only that Jones was guilty of far more serious offences of simony than Watson, but that his practices were not significantly different to those of his predecessor, Bishop Lloyd.

Jones did not attend the return to the House until 23 Jan. 1699 and was then present for just under 31 per cent of the remaining sitting days. He was again present for a prorogation day during the summer, and when Parliament reconvened in November 1699 he attended over 55 per cent of the sitting days of the session. Significantly, on 6 Dec. he was among the minority speaking in favour of allowing Bishop Watson privilege.26 Jones was present on 23 Feb. 1700 to vote against going into a committee of the whole house to discuss amendments to bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 5 Apr., when it had become clear that the complaints about his conduct would result in a trial before the archbishop of Canterbury, he declared that he would not insist on his own privilege.27 Sentence was anticipated on 5 June or shortly afterwards, but it was a further year before a definitive sentence was arrived at.28

Jones was present on just under 57 per cent of the sittings of the first session of the 1701 Parliament. On 17 June 1701 he voted to acquit John Somers, Baron Somers. The following day Archbishop Tenison finally pronounced sentence against him but, contrary to expectation, Jones was merely suspended for six months.29 Narcissus Luttrell‡ was not the only observer who had expected Jones to be deprived when commenting on the case back in the summer of 1699, but the bishop had a wide range of influential connections and he had put considerable effort into marshalling their support. Testimonials to his good character, his hospitality and his piety from high ranking individuals, some of whom were former pupils, had been amassed during the summer months of 1699. At least one seems also to have hinted at anti-Irish bias among the Welsh clergy. Chancellor Wynn was reported to have threatened to ‘make his Irish understanding sensible that the said bishop would want him more than he the bishop’.30 Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Jones was cleared of actual simony and convicted only on a number of lesser charges, including permitting laymen to act as curates, omitting the oath of simony at a collation and failing to maintain ecclesiastical discipline. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, later rather unconvincingly explained that the judges had distinguished between actual simony and practices of a simoniacal tendency.31 Jones’s failure to make adequate submission meant that the sentence was not lifted until May 1702 after he had at last made a full and abject confession, in which he apologized for his crimes concerning misgovernment of the diocese and for practices that might have given risen to a suspicion of simony. The contrast between his sentence and the deprivation inflicted on Watson was a matter for considerable comment and encouraged a belief that Jones had received favourable treatment because he was politically more in tune with his archbishop and the Whigs than his neighbour in St Davids.32

Jones did not return to Parliament until 20 Mar. 1702. He was then present on almost every remaining sitting day of the session (though just 33 per cent of the whole). During the summer he was busy with his triennial visitation during which, according to a contemporary pamphlet, he reminded his clergy of their solemn vows of obedience, declaring that ‘I shall not determine the extent of those Oaths and Vows, and the obligation they have upon the conscience; but leave you to reflect on your late behaviour … and I shall heartily pray that he may forgive you all’.33 He failed to attend the House for the opening of the new Parliament in October 1702. His first attendance of the session was on 2 December. He attended only 17 days in the session (just under a fifth of the whole). Despite his alleged whiggishness, in January 1703 he was listed as a supporter of the bill to prevent occasional conformity. He stopped attending the House three weeks before the close of the session and died at his house in Westminster in May, leaving his eldest surviving son, Richard, to struggle to find a way to pay his debts.34 Although he had expressed a wish in his will to be buried at Forden, he was instead interred in the parish church of St Margaret, Westminster.

R.P./R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Add. 70075, newsletter, 13 May 1703.
  • 2 TNA, PROB 11/475.
  • 3 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 410.
  • 4 LPL, ms 930/46.
  • 5 Survey of London, xxxi. 149.
  • 6 E. Walford, Old and New London, iv. 2.
  • 7 TNA, QAB 1/3/29.
  • 8 Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, 238; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 410.
  • 9 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 505, 511-12, 516, 524, 528, vii. 348.
  • 10 Clarendon Corresp. i. 252, 253, 257.
  • 11 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 30.
  • 12 Add 28939, f. 233.
  • 13 QAB 1/3/29.
  • 14 LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, interrogatories on the part of Thomas Skeynes.
  • 15 CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 474; HMC Lords, iv. 303.
  • 16 LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, deposition of John Price, John Edwards and Ellis Lewis.
  • 17 LPL, ms 953/17.
  • 18 CJ, xi. 494-5, 498-501.
  • 19 State Trials, xiii. 413; Add. 70081, newsletter, 18 Apr. 1696.
  • 20 HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 266.
  • 21 LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, interrogatories to be administered on behalf of the bishop of St Asaph.
  • 22 LPL, ms 930/46, ms 942/139; Short Narrative of the Proceedings against the Bishop of St Asaph, (1702), 28-31; Carpenter, 238.
  • 23 Short Narrative, 28.
  • 24 LPL, ms 930/45, 46.
  • 25 LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, presentments against the bishop of St Asaph.
  • 26 Bodl. Rawl, B380, f. 224.
  • 27 LJ xvi. 570.
  • 28 Bodl. Ballard 4, f. 44.
  • 29 LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, definitive sentence against St Asaph; Bodl. Rawl. B380, f. 211.
  • 30 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 560; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 330; LPL, VX 1B/2g/3, depositions of Standish Hartstone, Inchiquin, Lucas, John Hartstone, bp. of Ossory, William Culliford and George Kyffin.
  • 31 Burnet, iv. 415-18.
  • 32 Short Narrative, preface; Burnet, iv. 460-1.
  • 33 Short Narrative, 77-88.
  • 34 Add. 70075, newsletter, 13 May 1703.