TYLER, John (1640-1724)

Tyler was of obscure parentage. Born in West Hide, to the east of Hereford, his marriage brought him into a branch of the Scudamore family associated with moderate Presbyterianism. Havergal, 14. His wife’s aunt, Elizabeth Cooke, also married a John Scudamore, of Kentchurch, and it seems possible that this provided his first step on the ladder of preferment as rector of Kentchurch from about 1668. CCED; info. from Mr A. Whitfield. Even more important to his career than the Scudamores of Kentchurch was the patronage of their more powerful associates, the Foley-Harley clan. His degrees conferred by Convocation at a relatively late age in 1686 suggest a regularization of an existing career, although the existence of many John Tylers makes his early career in the Church difficult to ascertain with any certainty. Tyler’s appointment as a prebend of Hereford in June 1688 suggests perhaps the patronage of the Foleys and Harleys, and Paul Foley^‡ and Sir Edward Harley^‡ seem to have shared the patronage of St Peter’s, Hereford to which Tyler was collated in 1690. On 15 May 1691 Sir Edward Harley wrote that ‘Mr Tyler of Hereford preached at the funeral [of Colonel John Birch^‡], very well.’ Add. 70234, Sir E. to R. Harley, 15 May 1691. Following his appointment as the dean of Hereford in 1692, Tyler acknowledged Harley’s patronage, noting that it was ‘to your powerful interest that I stand first so much indebted for my present promotion’. Add. 70125, Tyler to Sir E. Harley, 12 Sept. 1692. According to Foley, the queen had signalled Tyler’s appointment on 1 Sept., and a royal warrant (signed by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham) was then issued. Add. 70225, P. Foley to R. Harley, 6 Sept. 1692; Add. 38889, f. 83; CSP Dom. 1691-2, pp. 432, 447. Tyler seems to have been popular at court, for on 8 Sept. Abigail Harley reported that the queen had made Tyler dean because of ‘the extraordinary character she had of his piety and learning and that she could not but have a good opinion of those clergymen that did not crowd after preferment.’ Add. 70116, A. to Sir E. Harley, 8 Sept. 1692. Tyler was added to the commission of the peace for Herefordshire in March 1693, retaining his place on the bench until 1720. TNA, C231/8, p. 302; Add. 70063, names omitted from the commn. of 1714.

Tyler was an active dean (later holding it in commendam with his bishopric), and he attended three out of every four audits held during his tenure of the office. Hereford Cathedral ed. G. Aylmer and J. Tiller, 134; Morgannwg xlix. 36. A false rumour circulated in November 1694 that Tyler was being promoted to the deanery of Lincoln, but it did not become vacant until the following May. Wood, Life, iii. 472. Around the beginning of June 1699, Paul Foley wrote to Sir Edward Harley that ‘Mr [Thomas] Brome being dead and Ross given to the Dean of Hereford, on supposition of his resigning St Peter’s, there has been application made by Captain Scudamore to give a presentation thereof to a kinsman of his, one Mr [Charles], Hoskins of Balliol’. In answer Foley had replied that Harley had ‘joined with me in the purchase of that advowson and therefore it was your right and not mine this turn to present.’ On 14 June 1699 Foley wrote again to Harley, to inform him that although Tyler had previously said ‘he would accept of Ross if it were offered him’, when Gilbert Ironside, bishop of Hereford, ‘made him the offer he refused it’, and when forced to reconsider ‘he at last said it was a place too great and could not answer what might be expected from him there whereupon the bishop hath given Ross to Dr Whiting.’ Add. 70225, P. Foley to Sir E. Harley, n.d.; Add. 70114, P. Foley to Sir E. Harley, 14 June 1699. On 9 Feb. 1700 James Morgan of Hereford informed Sir Edward Harley that ‘the Dean of Hereford has lately resigned up the cure of St Peter’s.’ Add. 70087, J. Morgan to Sir E. Harley, 9 Feb. 1700.

The death of William Beaw, bishop of Llandaff, on 10 Feb. 1706 provided an opportunity for Tyler’s elevation. Tyler was reluctant to accept ‘one of the poorest bishoprics in Christendom’ but Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, ‘would not be denied’. NLW, Plas yn Cefn, 2245, 2698-99. He was duly nominated with the directive for his election being issued on 8 Mar., followed by the royal assent in mid June (signed by Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, Sir Edward’s son) and consecration on 30 June 1706. Add. 38889, ff. 86, 88. Tyler seems to have been allowed to hold a couple of benefices in commendam. Morgannwg, xlix. 36. Once Tyler had taken possession of the episcopal residence, he filed a suit for dilapidations from the widow of Bishop Beaw. TNA, QAB 1/3/21. The poor condition of the palace gave him a valid reason for continuing to reside in the deanery at Hereford when in the country. Hereford Cathedral, 127; J. Tyler, Letter Concerning the Cathedral Church of Landaff (1710). On 16 Sept. he wrote to Humphrey Humphreys, bishop of Hereford, suggesting that he lodge his proxy with Humphreys. One week later he offered to take Humphreys’ proxy up to London, although he only planned to stay for a few days in London. Humphreys had offered to lend him appropriate robes as well as recommending suitable lodgings. On 5 Oct. he informed Humphreys that he would set out for London at the end of the month, and on the 9th he duly informed the bishop that he would set out in the stagecoach on 24 October. Plas yn Cefn, 2244-7.

Tyler took his seat in the Lords on 3 Dec. 1706, the opening day of the parliamentary session. He attended on 80 days, 93 per cent of the total and was named to 37 committees. On 7 Jan. 1707 he was ordered to preach before the Lords on the 30th. On the 31st the House ordered publication of the sermon; it was in print and being circulated by 14 February. Nicolson, London Diaries, 407, 417. He was present on the last day of the session on 8 Apr. but did not attend the short session of April 1707, which began a few days later.

Tyler was not present when the 1707-8 session began on 23 Oct., first sitting on 6 Nov. 1707 when the House got down to business. He attended on 87 days of the session, 81 per cent of the total. He attended the traditional dinner at Lambeth on 26 Dec. 1707. LPL, ms 1770 (Wake diary), f. 54. He was present on the last day of the session, 1 Apr. 1708. In about May 1708 Tyler was marked as a Whig on a printed list of the first Parliament of Great Britain (a Tory designation having been crossed through). This analysis was in keeping with what we know of his social circle; he was in frequent contact with William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, and other Whig bishops whenever he stayed in his London residence at Crutched Friars. Nicolson, London Diaries, 452. In August 1708 Tyler was in Hereford (where he seems to have spent most summers). Corresp. and Mins. of the SPCK, 14.

Tyler was present on the opening day of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708. He attended on 60 days of the session, 65 per cent of the total. Tyler joined the traditional dinner for bishops at Lambeth on 28 Dec. 1708. LPL, ms 1770, f. 72. On 21 Jan. 1709 he probably voted against the right of Scottish peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers; although the list includes too many bishops, it was likely he followed the other Whig bishops into the no lobby. However, in the division in the committee of the whole on the general naturalization bill on 15 Mar. 1709, he joined William Wake, bishop of Lincoln, John Evans, bishop of Bangor and the Tory bishops in favour of the motion proposed by William Dawes, of Chester, that subjects wishing to take advantage of the act should take the Anglican sacrament rather than join ‘some Protestant Reformed Congregation’. On 22 Mar. 1709, in a committee of the whole on the bill for improving the Union, Tyler supported the motion that those accused of treason should be given a list of witnesses five days before their trial. Three days later, again in a committee of the whole on the bill, he voted to resume the House the following day to debate the validity of Scottish marriage settlements. Nicolson, London Diaries, 485-9.

Tyler did not attend the 1709-10 session and was thus listed as out of town at the time of the division on the Sacheverell verdict. In August 1710 he was again in Hereford. Corresp. and Mins. of the SPCK, 32. On 3 Oct. Robert Harley listed him as a certain opponent of the new ministry. He was missing when the Parliament opened on 25 Nov. 1710, possibly because he was attending a sermon at St Paul’s before the opening of Convocation. LPL, ms 1770, f. 101. He first sat on the second day of the new Parliament on 27 Nov., and was present on 66 days of the session, 58 per cent of the total. Throughout January and February, he supported the Whigs in the various divisions concerned with the war in Spain. On 9 Jan. 1711, after the lengthy debate on the conduct of Charles Mordaunt, 3rd earl of Peterborough, Tyler voted with the minority in a committee of the whole against a resumption of the House (the real issue at stake was described by Bishop Nicolson as whether Peterborough had given a ‘just, faithful and honourable account’ of the council held at Valencia before the battle of Almanza). Nicolson, London Diaries, 531. Two days later Tyler protested against the rejection of petitions from Henry de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], and against the resolution that Almanza was lost through the conduct of Galway, Tyrawley, and James Stanhope^†, the future earl Stanhope. On 12 Jan. he protested against the censure of ministers for having approved an offensive campaign in Spain. On 3 Feb. he again protested against the incorporation into an address to the queen of resolutions that two regiments in Spain were inadequately supplied, and that as a result the Whig ministry had neglected the war in Spain. Six days later he protested three times against the decision of the Lords to expunge part of the protest made by the Whigs against the address of 3 February.

As the political climate polarized even further within Convocation, Tyler was active in the Whig corner, especially in support of the beleaguered Tenison, under pressure from Francis Atterbury, the future bishop of Rochester, and his allies in the lower house, seeking to use the changed ministerial position to their advantage. Thus, on 23 Feb. 1711, Tyler attended a meeting at the home of Bishop Wake in Dean’s Yard to revise Convocation reports and negotiate with Philip Bisse, bishop of St Davids on the queen’s controversial new licence to the synod. Tyler was also involved in the committee of Convocation examining the Whiston heresy case. N. Sykes, William Wake, i. 124-5, 129-30, 133; LPL, ms 1770, ff. 105-6. On 1 Mar. Tyler almost certainly voted in favour of the motion that the appeal of James Greenshields had been brought regularly before the Lords, which was carried 68-32 on an adjournment motion, all the bishops (or perhaps all bar William Talbot, of Oxford and Jonathan Trelawny, of Winchester) voting against an adjournment and for reversing the decree. Although he had not been named to the committee for the Journal at the start of the session, he signed as one of those examining the Journal up to the end of January on 24 Mar., and up to the end of February on 3 April. NLS, Avocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. Letters, Quarto V, f. 148; Nicolson, London Diaries, 553, 563, 567. On 26 Apr. Tyler received the proxy of William Fleetwood, bishop of St Asaph. He did not attend the session after 10 May, missing the last month of business. He was in Hereford in July and August 1711. Corresp. and Mins. of the SPCK, 38, 40.

With the Whigs mobilizing their resources for an attack on the ministry’s peace policy, Tyler’s name appears on a list compiled by Oxford, perhaps of possible supporters. If Oxford was hoping for Tyler’s support he was to be disappointed as Tyler entered his proxy in favour of Bishop Evans on 29 Nov. 1711 and was absent for the whole of the session which began on 7 December. He was in Hereford at the beginning of July 1712. Add. 45511, f. 89.

Tyler attended the St Stephen’s Day dinner at Lambeth at the end of 1712 and attended the prorogations of 13 Jan. and 17 Feb 1713. On 8 Mar. Tyler accompanied Wake to court for the queen’s birthday. He was not recorded as attending the prorogation on 10 Mar., but he dined that evening with Wake and the dean of Lincoln, Richard Willis^†, the future Bishop of Salisbury. LPL, ms 1770, ff. 128, 130. He attended further prorogations on 17 and 26 March. About this date, his name appears on a list compiled by Swift and amended by Oxford, as an opponent of the ministry. He was present when the session opened on 9 Apr., attended on 51 days, 77 per cent of sittings and was named to 12 committees. He last attended on 3 July, two weeks before the end of the session.

In expectation of the parliamentary session, Tyler was in London by 3 Nov. 1713, being listed by Edmund Gibson^†, the future bishop of London as one of the ‘bishops in town on our side’, along with John Moore, of Ely, John Hough, of Lichfield and Coventry, Richard Cumberland, of Peterborough, Charles Trimnell, of Norwich and Bishop Fleetwood. Bodl. Add. A.269, p. 26. Tyler paid a visit to Wake on 15 Feb. 1714, the day before the Parliament opened. He was present on the second day of the session, 18 February. He attended on 63 days, 83 per cent of the total. On 8 Mar. he and Wake waited on the queen on her accession day. LPL, ms 1770, ff. 140-1. When the Lords voted on 5 Apr. on the motion that the Protestant succession was not in danger under the queen’s administration, contemporary comment noted that all the bishops, bar three courtiers, voted against: Tyler was presumably one of those voting against. Likewise, on 13 Apr. when the Lords considered the queen’s reply to the address on the danger from the Pretender, the ministry carried the motion to thank the queen for her answer, rather than presenting a new address setting out the apprehensions of the House about the succession, by only two votes. Tyler joined all the bishops present, with the exception of Atterbury and Nathaniel Crew, of Durham, in voting against the court. EHR, l. 463-4; Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 363. On 29 Apr. Tyler attended both Convocation and Parliament. On 25 May Nottingham forecast that Tyler would oppose the schism bill. On 11 June Tyler duly voted against the clause extending the bill to Ireland, and on 15 June he voted and protested against the passage of the bill itself. Meanwhile, on 2 June, Wake recorded that Tyler and George Smalridge, bishop of Bristol had a meeting at the dean of the arches’ [Dr John Bettesworth], with ‘Dr Henchman: Dr Pinfold and Dr [blank], about the bill for excommunication’. On 23 June Tyler received the proxy of the ailing Edward Fowler, bishop of Gloucester. On 2 July Tyler attended Convocation and then Parliament. LPL, ms 1770, ff. 143, 145-6. This session also saw the passage of a bill for taking away mortuaries within the Welsh dioceses, which annexed the treasurership of the cathedral (when next vacant) to Llandaff. Morgannwg, xlix. 42.

At the accession of George I on 1 Aug. 1714 and the brief three week session that followed, Tyler attended on one day only (18 Aug.) to take the oaths. Clearly Tyler was now more in favour. On 25 Aug. Tyler visited Wake and on 1 Sept. when Wake visited Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax, he found Tyler there with Sir Peter King^†, the future Baron King. LPL, ms 1770, f. 148. This may have been in connection with Tyler’s attempt to succeed Bishop Moore at Ely. His failure to achieve his ambition left him ‘almost ready to quit that party’. Bodl. Ballard 19, f. 62. The remainder of his career will be considered in the next part of this work. Tyler died on 8 July 1724 and was buried on 11 Aug. in the south transept of Hereford Cathedral. Havergal, 14-15; Wake mss, 22/312. By the time of his death Tyler held landed property in Herefordshire, Monmouthshire and Radnorshire, and an undefined quantity of annuities and stock in the South Sea Company and Bank of England. His cash bequests alone amounted to over £3,000. His main beneficiary was his great-nephew, John Tyler (the son of William Tyler, vicar of Dilwyn in Herefordshire).