MOUNDEFORD, Sir Edmund (c.1595-1643), of Dunton’s Manor, Feltwell, Norf.

Their kinsman, John Bramston†, would describe the Moundefords of Feltwell as ‘a name and family ancient and honourable, but now totally extinct’.27Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, 7. The family had claimed descent from Hugh de Montfort who had fought with the future William the Conqueror against the Franks in 1054. More reliably, they could claim to have held land in Norfolk since the thirteenth century. This branch had lived at Feltwell, on the Norfolk-Cambridgeshire border, since the fifteenth century.28Blomefield, Norf. ii. 181-2, 192-3; Vis. Norf. 1563, 1589 and 1613, 200-1.

Moundeford first sat in Parliament in 1628, when his election as MP for Thetford was probably secured by the influence of his cousin, Framlingham Gawdy*. In December 1629, nine months after Parliament had been dissolved, Moundeford was knighted by the king.29Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 197. Following the death of his first wife, he married a sister of William Heveningham*; he thought Heveningham ‘a lazy rascal’, but only because he did not write to him often enough.30Eg. 2716, f. 56.

Moundeford’s character had its entrepreneurial side. In 1631 he lobbied navy officials in the hope of selling timber to them from the estates of his ward, Charles Gawdy of Crow’s Hall, Debenham, Suffolk.31Eg. 2716, ff. 41, 44, 48, 50; C.R. Manning, ‘News-Letters from Sir Edmund Moundeford’, Norf. Arch. v. 70. More importantly, he was also one of the 20 original investors in the Providence Island Company. In 1629 he put up £200, of which half was paid in by him immediately.32A.P. Newton, Colonising Activities of the English Puritans (New Haven, 1914), 59. In 1637, when the Company was seeking new investors, he tried to interest Sir Simonds D’Ewes*. As he explained, they now also planned to create a colony in New England, which was ‘highly commended for health and plenty’ and where there were already ‘many good people and very considerable teachers’.33Harl. 287, f. 265; Newton, Colonising Activities, 249-50. Nearer home, Moundeford sided with Sir Roger North* in opposing the scheme to make the River Lark in Suffolk navigable between Bury St. Edmunds and the Little Ouse.34C205/14/10; C205/14/16; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 386; 1637-8, p. 186. Moundeford’s business dealings were not without risk and at times during the 1630s he and Gawdy were borrowing heavily.35Eg. 2716, ff. 105, 133, 139, 224.

His involvement with the Providence Island Company is probably the best clue about his politics in this period, as this linked him to some of the king’s leading critics, including John Pym*, Oliver St John*, Sir Gilbert Gerard* and John Gurdon*. But Moundeford’s extensive correspondence with Gawdy says little about politics, although he clearly followed the campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany with some interest.36Manning, ‘News-Letters’, 70-2; Eg. 2716, f. 123. In November 1631 he did report news of ‘a general reformation in hand for court and country’, by which he meant that there were rumours that some offices were to be allocated on the basis of merit.37Manning, ‘News-Letters’, 71; Eg. 2716, f. 48. Perhaps it took more time for him to become fully disillusioned with Charles I.

The calling of a new Parliament for the spring of 1640 gave Moundeford the chance to stand as knight of the shire. He seems to have secured his election with few difficulties, with the real contest instead being between John Potts* and Sir John Holland* for the other seat. Moundeford spoke at least twice during the Short Parliament. He contributed to the debate on religious innovations on 29 April by citing several examples from the Norwich diocese, including the enforcement of bowing to the altar.38Aston’s Diary, 89. When on 4 May the Commons debated the king’s request that they grant supply before considering grievances, Moundeford was among those who were sceptical.39Aston’s Diary, 130.

Moundeford was re-elected that autumn, although this time with Potts rather than Holland as his colleague. At the start of the session he was appointed to the privileges committee.40CJ ii. 21a. Later he sat on the committees on the Great Marlow election dispute (1 Dec.) and to investigate the breaches of privileges in the two previous Parliaments (18 Dec.).41CJ ii. 40b, 53b; Procs. LP, i. 399. An early concern for him was the issue of monopolies. Moundeford was named to the committee on the subject on 16 November.42CJ ii. 30a. Four days later, when the complaints against Thomas Horth, who controlled the salt monopoly, were aired in the Commons, Moundeford suggested that this be referred to the committees for grievances.43Procs. LP, i. 210.

Moundeford’s disapproval of the monopolists fitted into a wider pattern. Already in these opening weeks of the Long Parliament, he was giving his full support to the king’s opponents, some of whom, such as Pym and St John, were men he knew well. One obvious target for their discontent was the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) and Moundeford was duly included on the committee set up on 30 November for a conference with the Lords to discuss a possible impeachment against the earl.44CJ ii. 39b. Another early committee to which he was appointed was that on the courts of star chamber and high commission, created on 3 December in response to the petitions from William Prynne* and Henry Burton.45CJ ii. 44b. A fortnight later he was named to the committee on the petition from their fellow victim, John Bastwick.46CJ ii. 52b. Those most suspicious of the king’s intentions were keenest to see the armies in the north disbanded as quickly as possible. Moundeford therefore pledged his security for £1,000 for the loans for the army on 21 November.47Procs. LP, i. 228, 232, 235. He did the same again, promising to underwrite £500, the following March.48Procs. LP, ii. 628. He may well have supported the bill for annual Parliaments.49CJ ii. 60a. His involvement with the Providence Island Company explains why he was added to the committee on the Virginia plantations in early January 1641.50CJ ii. 64a.

Moundeford was clearly one of those MPs who saw this new Parliament as an opportunity for far-reaching religious reform. On 24 November 1640 he proposed that a day be set aside so that they could debate objections to the Book of Common Prayer.51Procs. LP, i. 270. When a committee was appointed on 12 December to gather evidence against the bishop of Bath and Wells, William Piers, Moundeford was a member.52CJ ii. 50a. In the debate on 8 February 1641 on whether to commit the London ‘Root and Branch’ petition against episcopacy, he suggested that all the petitions on that subject should be committed.53Procs. LP, ii. 390. That same week he was named to the committee on the bill to abolish superstition and idolatry (13 Feb.).54CJ ii. 84b. The following month he sat on the committees on the bills to prevent clergymen holding lay offices (8 Mar.) or multiple ecclesiastical benefices (10 Mar.).55CJ ii. 99a, 101a. His comments on 26 March in the debate on the fate of the dean and chapter lands are, as recorded by D’Ewes, rather cryptic, but were probably in favour of the need for reform.56Procs. LP, iii. 155. On 27 April he was named to two committees on the bills to reform the ecclesiastical courts and to punish those clergymen who had sat in Convocation.57CJ ii. 128b, 129a. In June he was added to the committee on the bill against scandalous ministers.58CJ ii. 184b.

In Moundeford’s mind, there may have been little difference between Laudians and Catholics, and early that year his animus against Catholics had already found one focus in his membership of the committee to review the laws against Catholic priests (26 Jan. 1641).59CJ ii. 73b. He had since been named in late March to the committee on the bill against popish recusants, while he also sat on the committee on the bill for the security of religion (6 May), which included further measures against Catholics.60CJ ii. 113b, 136b.

To Moundeford, the most formidable danger may have been represented by the man who, until 1638, had been his local bishop, Matthew Wren, now of Ely. On 14 April 1641 Moundeford successfully moved that the parliamentary committee investigating Wren should meet to draw up their report.61Procs. LP, iii. 548. Three weeks later he made sure that time was found for Sir Thomas Widdrington* to report those findings to the House.62Procs. LP, iv. 249-50. More MPs were added to that committee at his suggestion on 12 May.63Procs. LP, iv. 336-7, 346. When the impeachment articles were presented to the Lords at a conference on 20 July, Moundeford was given the honour of reading them to the peers.64Procs. LP, vi. 22.

Like most of his colleagues, Moundeford took the Protestation on 3 May.65CJ ii. 133a. His attempts to speak during the division on 21 May concerning the treaty with the Scots were quashed by Sir Robert Harley*, who pointed out that this was contrary to parliamentary procedure.66Procs. LP, iv. 510-11. He probably did support the treaty, for on 2 June he supported the proposal that plate should be minted so that the Scots could be paid.67Procs. LP, iv. 692. He presumably also supported the Ten Propositions, offered by Parliament as a possible settlement with the king, for he was one of the MPs sent by the Commons to discuss them at a conference with the Lords on 28 June.68CJ ii. 190b. Among several anxieties reflected in the Proposition was Parliament’s concern about the control of the militia. On 15 July Moundeford was included on the committee asked to draft a bill to address that concern.69CJ ii. 212b. Meanwhile Moundeford backed some of the moves to ensure that the funding for the disbandment of the English and Scottish armies was in place before the king’s departure for Scotland.70CJ ii. 196a, 197b.

When the dispute over the enclosures by the 1st earl of Manchester (Sir Henry Montagu†) at Somersham, Huntingdonshire, was raised in the Commons on 5 July, Moundeford got the matter sent back to committee.71Procs. LP, v. 495. His immediate concern may have been that no more time was wasted by the House so that it could move on to Widdrington’s report about Wren. On 17 July he was named to the committee on the estate bill for the 5th earl of Bedford (William Russell*), quite possibly because the Bedford Level extended almost as far as Feltwell.72CJ ii. 215a; Procs. LP, v. 687. However, on 23 July Moundeford sought and was granted permission to go into the country.73CJ ii. 222b; Procs. LP, vi. 71. But he did not leave immediately. He was named to two committees the following day – on the bills to regulate the printing of book and concerning the trained bands - and he was probably still in London on 30 July when he was included on the committee to prepare the impeachment of the bishops.74CJ ii. 222b, 223a, 230b. He no doubt considered the latter matter to be as good a reason as any for delaying his journey to Norfolk. He was certainly absent by 19 August, when he was excused from the call of the House.75CJ ii. 263b.

He may have attended the House in late August, as he was named to two committees on 25 and 26 August, including the one on the state of the navy.76CJ ii. 271b, 273b. At this time he was also one of the three MPs appointed to disarm recusants in Norfolk.77LJ iv. 385b. That task is one he doubtless took up with enthusiasm and may in itself explain why he seems to have been absent from Westminster even after Parliament returned from its recess in late October. He reappeared in the House only in mid-December.78CJ ii. 338b, 343b.

The most pressing crisis was now the rebellion in Ireland. This fed into all Moundeford’s anti-popish fears. He was keen to assist their fellow Protestants in Ireland and he was added to the committee on the recusants’ bill on 20 December after the bill to assist the refugees from Ireland was referred to it.79CJ ii. 350a. On 29 December he was included on the committee to prepare a declaration on Irish affairs.80CJ ii. 362a. He and the Norwich MP, Richard Harman*, later combined to subscribe £600 to the Irish Adventure.81CSP Ire. Adv. 1642-59, p. 314; Bottigheimer, Eng. Money and Irish Land, 183, 187. His wish to see firm action taken against the Irish rebels therefore remained strong. In May 1642 he was named to the committee on the bill allocating the revenues from fines imposed by Parliament to be used to help fund the war in Ireland.82CJ ii. 563a. A couple of weeks later he and (Sir) John Potts discussed what information they should submit to this committee to assist it in that work.83W. Vaughan-Lewis and M. Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court (Lavenham, 2009), 239. The following month he was added to the committee organising relief supplies of corn for Ireland.84CJ ii. 600b. His sense of what could be accomplished may however have been unrealistic. At about this time he wrote of the continuing ‘wonderful success’ being achieved there.85Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court, 240.

Events in Ireland meanwhile heightened concerns about security nearer home. On 24 December 1641, when they were trying to block the king’s appointment of Colonel Thomas Lunsford as lieutenant of the Tower of London, Moundeford was one of the eight MPs sent to discuss the security of the Tower with the Lords.86CJ ii. 356b. Moreover, three days later Moundeford informed the House of accusations which had been made against Henry Hughes, who had previously been appointed by the Commons to search for Roman Catholic priests. The Commons therefore referred the matter to a committee.87D’Ewes (C), 349. His concern was presumably that those searches were not thorough enough.

Moundeford may have been absent from Parliament during the crisis of January 1642, following the king’s attempt to arrest the Five Members, although he was back at Westminster by early February.88CJ ii. 414b, 429b. On 7 March he returned to one of his favourite themes, when he persuaded the House that the existing laws restricting the movements of recusants should be enforced.89PJ ii. 6. He also still had the bishops in his sights. In February he was named to the committee on the bill to forfeit the estates of the archbishop of York, John Williams.90CJ ii. 448b. Then, on 4 March, when the Norfolk petition against Bishop Wren was presented to the Commons, Moundeford declared that there were ‘not above three or four gentlemen of quality but hath their hand to it’.91PJ i. 505.

On 7 March he was one of the eight MPs appointed by the Commons for the delegation to wait on the king at Newmarket with their declaration justifying the militia ordinance.92CJ ii. 469b. Using the powers under that ordinance, the Commons then added Moundeford to the list of new deputy lieutenants for Norfolk.93PJ ii. 54. On 16 April he was among those MPs appointed to investigate those refusing to take the Protestation.94CJ ii. 530b.

A letter written by Moundeford to Potts on 24 May made clear that he now feared the worst, for he reported without demur the recent votes of 20 May by which the two Houses had asserted that the king intended to make war against them.95Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court, 238. He was moreover one of those MPs who, now that war seemed all too likely, met with the Lords three days later to discuss the state of the kingdom.96CJ ii. 589a. He was then appointed on 6 June to the joint committee to receive any news arriving from York, where the king was now based.97CJ ii. 609b. He shared the view of many at Westminster that the king’s decision to begin summoning forces was an especially bad sign.98Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court, 240-1. On 9 July Moundeford was named to the committees to prepare a declaration defending the militia ordinance and on the latest militia bill.99CJ ii. 663b. His own personal contribution to the military mobilisation was to promise to supply and maintain two horses for the defence of Parliament.100PJ iii. 469.

On 25 July the Commons included Moundeford on its committee to scrutinise the behaviour of those who had been named as commissioners in the king’s commissions of array. But, as its next item of business, the Commons also granted permission to Moundeford to withdraw to the country ‘for recovery of his health’.101CJ ii. 689b. He left London with Framlingham Gawdy three days later.102PJ iii. 270.

Had they not already been on their way there, Moundeford and Gawdy would soon have been dispatched to Norfolk anyway. On 1 August they and four other Norfolk MPs were ordered to travel to the county to publicise the declaration against the commissions of array and to raise money for Parliament’s defence.103LJ v. 251b-253a. But Moundeford’s return journey had been interrupted. By the time he reached Newmarket he was spitting up blood and he then developed a fever. He was therefore diverted to Cambridge to receive medical treatment. That only depressed him, because, thanks to the suspect loyalties of the dons, he found this ‘a place as malignant to the Parliament, as report can render it’, a ‘Purgatory’ where he expected to be stuck until the middle of the month.104Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court, 245-6. He may therefore still have been in Cambridge on 19 August, when he and five other East Anglian MPs were ordered by Parliament to set up armed guards on the bridges on the road between Cambridge and King’s Lynn.105LJ v. 306b.

Moundeford however had longer-term concerns on his mind. On 10 September 1642 he granted 840 acres at Feltwell to twelve feoffees, including Sir Thomas Wodehouse*, Sir Ralph Hare*, William Heveningham and Framlingham Gawdy, in order that they could found a school and some alms houses.106Blomefield, Norf. ii. 199. This might well indicate that he knew he was dying. But his friends in London may not have realised the seriousness of his condition. Writing to the absent Potts in mid-January 1643, William Pierrepont* told him that he and Moundeford were much needed at Westminster.107Vaughan-Lewis, See You in Court, 272. In February and March he was included on the Norfolk assessment and sequestration commissions, although this may have been little more than a formality.108A. and O. Any uncertainty was ended by his death on 5 May 1643.109C142/710/33. He was buried at Feltwell.

Two weeks before he died, Moundeford had got his ‘honest friend’, Tobias Frere*, to draft his will. The payment to Frere for doing so was a bequest of £15 in plate, a lavish reward, but then the will he prepared was a far from straightforward document. Neither of Moundeford’s marriages had produced children. So he left his lands to various relatives in a complex series of life interests. The first beneficiary was his sister, Elizabeth, the only other child by his father’s first marriage. After her death, the estates were to pass to their four half-sisters, the children of their father’s second marriage. And then on to his cousin, Francis Moundeford, and his sons. The ultimate beneficiaries were to be the heirs of the five sisters. Any land grants resulting from his investment in the Irish Adventure were left to his three godsons, including Moundeford Spelman, son of John Spelman*. Moundeford meanwhile directed that his Greek lexicon should be passed to a cleric from his household, while he left the works of William Perkins and his books of canon law to his cousin. Among the recipients of the 59 mourning rings donated to friends were fellow MPs, Gawdy, Harmam, Heveningham, Potts, Holland, Wodehouse, Hare, Spelman, Sir Thomas Barrington*, Sir John Hobart*, Sir Henry Bedingfield† and Sir John Thorowgood*.110PROB11/192/364. Moundeford’s sister, Elizabeth, had married Simon Smith of Winston, Norfolk, and so one consequence of the instructions left by Moundeford was that some of the lands at Feltwell eventually passed to Smith’s great-nephew, Smith Fleetwood, the eldest son of Charles Fleetwood*.111Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, 7-8; Blomefield, Norf. ii. 191, 193. The charity Moundeford had established in 1642 still exists.