DUNCH, Edmund (1603-78), of Little Wittenham, Berks.

The Dunch family traced their ancestry back to Edmund’s great-grandfather, William Dunch†, a Tudor courtier who had served Henry VIII and Edward VI as the auditor of the Mint and Elizabeth I as one of the esquires of the body. Their Berkshire estate at Little Wittenham had been bought by him in 1552.30VCH Berks. iv. 382. Since then in each generation male members of the family had followed him by becoming MPs, often doing so by representing Wallingford, the constituency closest to Little Wittenham. Edmund had done so himself in every Parliament since he had inherited those lands on the death of his grandfather, Edmund†, in 1623, whether as knight of the shire or as MP for Wallingford.

Dunch augmented that inheritance in 1639 when he married a wealthy heiress, Bridget Hungerford, the only daughter of Sir Anthony Hungerford; a clerical error confuses the record of the wedding at St Ann, Blackfriars.31St Ann, Blackfriars par. reg. The inheritance she brought with her was certainly extensive and included lands in Gloucestershire around Down Ampney, although the later claim by Mark Noble that she was worth £60,000 seems much exaggerated.32Noble, Mems. of House of Cromwell, ii. 198. Bulstrode Whitelocke* would later complain about her ‘pride and folly’, describing her as ‘high conceited’.33Whitelocke, Diary, 202, 267.

Dunch’s status as the head of one of the leading Berkshire gentry families also ensured that although still only in his twenties he began to be appointed to local office within the county. Of these, the most important was that of sheriff, which he held in 1633-4.34List of Sheriffs, 6; Coventry Docquets, 366. He also acquired an honorific court office when in 1635 he was appointed as one of Charles I’s gentlemen of the privy chamber extraordinary.35LC5/134, f. 87.

In 1640 Dunch maintained the family tradition by standing at Wallingford in that year’s two parliamentary elections. His return for the Short Parliament and his conduct in it seem to have been uneventful. The same was not true of the Long Parliament contest. He stood for re-election on 15 October 1640 and was initially returned along with Anthony Barker*. However, that result was challenged, prompting the Commons to order on 15 February 1641 that a new writ be issued.36CJ ii. 85b; Procs. LP ii. 453. Unlike Barker, Dunch won a second time. He was able to take his seat by 16 March, when he was added to the committee on the popish hierarchy.37CJ ii. 105b. He seems not to have made much of an immediate impact. He duly took the Protestation on 3 May 1641, but, for the time being, the only other committees to which he was named were those on St Paul’s Covent Garden and Emmanuel College, Cambridge.38CJ ii. 191b, 197a. He also supported suppression of the Irish rebellion.39CJ ii. 468b. Rather more substantial was the fact that he was one of the four MPs appointed on 14 February 1642 to deliver the militia bill to the king.40PJ i. 378, 422; CJ ii. 442b. This places him among those MPs who had come to distrust Charles’s intentions and, for all his apparent inactivity, he should probably be linked to those eager for reform.

His stance once the breakdown between the king and Parliament was complete is much clearer, for there is no doubt that Dunch sided with Parliament. His offer in June 1642 to supply four horses to the forces being raised to fight the king was particularly generous, as the standard offer from most of his colleagues was only two.41PJ iii. 476. The following month he obtained permission from the Commons to transport weapons and horses, confirming that he was keen to contribute to the war effort.42CJ ii. 759b. The following January he also sat on the joint committee to prepare a justification of Parliament’s actions.43CJ ii. 925a. The only hint of doubt was over the Solemn League and Covenant, for he was one of the MPs who asked for more time on 30 September 1643 when it was tendered to them.44CJ iii. 259b. He was presumably uncomfortable with the thought that Scottish-style Presbyterianism might be imported into England. He nevertheless consented to take the Covenant three days later.45CJ iii. 262a.

During the later stages of the war he became more obviously involved in the discussions on military matters in the Commons, particularly when they related to the campaign in the Thames valley. On 8 June 1644 he headed the committee sent to persuade the London militia committee to provide more troops to serve in Oxfordshire and he later carried the bill implementing that request up to the Lords.46CJ iii. 523a; LJ vi. 641a. During 1645 he consistently supported measures to fund the army and its supporters, particularly when those forces were protecting Berkshire.47CJ iv. 115b, 198a, 335a. Moreover, in late August 1645 he and Bulstrode Whitelocke* were sent by the Commons to ask Richard Browne II* why he had been so slow to respond to the king’s return to Oxford.48CJ iv. 256b; Whitelocke, Diary, 178. But, at the same time, when the assessments from Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire were assigned to the troops being sent to fight in the west country, it was Dunch who was asked to make the arrangements.49CJ iv. 238a, 260a.

Dunch’s involvement in affairs at Westminster may have declined once Oxford surrendered in July 1646, removing any immediate military threat to Berkshire. But there was one matter directly arising from that surrender that did interest him. The fall of Oxford gave Parliament its chance to purge the university. Dunch was added to the Commons committee considering the issue on 24 July 1646. As no one was added with him, it would seem that he particularly wanted to serve on it.50CJ iv. 627b. Over the following weeks he was named to a couple of other committees, namely those on the sending of troops from the Berkshire area to Ireland (4 Aug.) and on the petition from James Herbert* (3 Oct.).51CJ iv. 633a, 682b. He then disappears from the Journals. However, following the Presbyterian coup at Westminster of late July 1647, he was among those MPs who took refuge with the army and signed their declaration of 4 August.52LJ ix. 385b; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 755. He presumably re-entered the capital with the army, but he was absent when the House was called on 9 October 1647, although he was deemed to have been excused.53CJ v. 329b.

In December 1648 he was not among the purged MPs and he dissented from the vote of 5 December on 20 December.54PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, pp. 473-4; [W. Prynne], A Full Declaration of the True State of the Secluded Members Case (1660, E.1013.22), 21. However, he was not named to the high court of justice to try the king and it cannot be assumed that his willingness to sit in the Rump extended to approval for the regicide. Moreover, he was not now any more obviously involved in Parliament’s proceedings than he had been before the purge. His next appearance in the Journal was on a personal matter; he petitioned the Commons in September 1649, apparently seeking reimbursement for money he had spent on Parliament’s behalf.55CJ vi. 291a. Three months later, on 14 December, he was the teller in the division on whether excise duties should be paid by the person who first imported the commodities. He sided with the minority who thought that they should.56CJ vi. 333a. Apart from his single appearance on the committee list in December 1650 on the proposed naturalizations of the wives of Walter Strickland* and Philip Skippon*, he is not known to have attended again until February 1651.57CJ vi. 515b. As well as sitting on the committee on the powers of the lord high admiral, he then acted as a teller once more, this time for those who wanted the bill for the sale of delinquents’ estates to be amended to clarify that any transactions that had been agreed before treason had been committed should be allowed to stand.58CJ vi. 543a. Thereafter his attendance in the Rump seems to have continued to be only very intermittent.59CJ vii. 55b, 280a.

There is, however, some evidence from this period that Dunch was on good terms socially with the Cromwells. His late mother, Mary Cromwell, had been one of Oliver Cromwell’s* aunts and this blood tie would become increasingly important to Dunch’s political career as his cousin became ever more powerful. In December 1652 Cromwell wrote to Dunch’s relative Anthony Hungerford* after Dunch had informed Mrs Cromwell that Hungerford had been trying to get in touch with him.60Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 598. Several months later Dunch’s wife had occasion to write to Cromwell on some piece of unknown personal business.61Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 628. One pamphlet later insinuated that Bridget Dunch’s friendship with Cromwell was far from innocent, jeering her as ‘that fine Mistress Dunce, a great favourite of the protector’.62Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 9.

Dunch was next returned to Parliament in 1654 as one of the five MPs for Berkshire. Unfortunately, any assessment of his conduct in this Parliament and in the next is complicated by the fact that his cousin John Dunch* was one of the other Berkshire MPs, making it largely impossible to be sure which of them is being referred to in the Journal. The more likely possibility is that most of the references relate to Edmund, if only because he was much older and was already an experienced MP. Moreover, the Journal does once refer to John in 1656 as ‘Captain Dunch’, strengthening the chances that the various references to ‘Mr Dunch’ are mostly about Edmund.63CJ vii. 466a. Whoever he was, ‘Mr Dunch’ (assuming he was just the one person) only sat on a small number of committees, albeit on an eclectic range of subjects. They included a couple on Irish matters and those on scandalous ministers, the corn trade, the draining of the Lincolnshire fens and the seditious pamphlets of John Biddle.64CJ vii. 370a, 371b, 373b, 374b, 380a, 381a, 400a.

On being re-elected in 1656 at least one of the Dunches pursed a more eventful parliamentary career than had been the case in the past. But, once again, distinguishing between the two of them is almost impossible. Apart from a couple of committee appointments, neither of much consequence, very little can be said with certainty about Edmund’s activities.65CJ vii. 503b, 504b. Amid such apparent confusion, only a few possible themes emerge. One Dunch seems to have had an interest in commercial policy, particularly the duties on wine and beer.66CJ vii. 435b, 436b, 442a, 445b, 514a. It is tempting to link this back to Edmund’s tellership in the division on excise duties in December 1649. Moreover, one of them was evidently keen to discourage new building developments in and around London, serving as a teller in two of the divisions on that subject in June 1657.67CJ vii. 532a, 548a, 546b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 181.

But one clear theme does emerge, which is that Edmund Dunch was one of those associated with Cromwell who supported the moves towards a more regal style of government. In his case, this included supporting the proposal that the Humble Petition and Advice should grant his cousin the title of king.68A Narrative of the late Parliament (so called) (1657), 22 (E.935.5). This would also have been the reason why he served as one of the tellers in the division on 17 March 1657 on the precise wording of the requirement in the Petition that Parliament’s approval be sought for the appointment of the officers of state.69CJ vii. 506b. Less certain but still probable is the possibility that he served on a number of the committees during the Petition’s passage thorough the Commons.70CJ vii. 502a, 505a, 521b, 535a.

His participation in the proceedings of this Parliament’s brief second session in early 1658 may have been confined to taking part in the delegation sent to ask Cromwell that his speech to them be printed.71CJ vii. 589a. Even so, the lord protector still seems to have valued his loyalty. This was made explicit on 26 April 1658 when Cromwell granted him the title of Baron Burnell of East Wittenham.72Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 789-91; Sheffield Archives, EM1284(c); C.H. Firth, ‘Cromwell and the House of Lords’, Macmillan’s Magazine, lxxi. 239; CP ii. 436. As an honour, this was all the greater for being something of an anomaly, for it was one of only three peerages offered by Cromwell and one of the two that were accepted. It did not entitle Dunch to sit in the Other House but it was hereditary. (Confusion over the exact nature of the title accounts for the incorrect assumption that what he had been granted was a baronetcy.73CB.) The choice of Burnell as his title was intended to mark the fact that Dunch’s wife was the descendant and co-heiress through female lines of the holders of the medieval Burnell barony.74CP. That Cromwell also appointed him as constable of Wallingford Castle is unverified.75Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 9. Dunch’s kinship with the lord protector was again reaffirmed in public later that year when he walked with the members of the family in Cromwell’s funeral procession.76Burton’s Diary, ii. 527.

The reassembling of the Rump in May 1659 gave Dunch a chance to sit at Westminster one more time. How much he did so is less clear, not least because the evidence for his activity at this time relates as much to his non-attendance. His colleagues fined him £100 for his absence during the calling of the House on 8 August, although this was subsequently waived.77CJ vii. 751a, 777b. His only committee appointments were those on the petition from Michael Oldisworth* (24 Aug.) and, as one of the local MPs, on the poor knights of Windsor (20 Sept.).78CJ vii. 767a, 782a.

The return of Charles II in 1660 was clearly a setback for Dunch. The restored monarchy did not recognise the Cromwellian peerages and so Lord Burnell necessarily reverted back to being plain Edmund Dunch. He was also removed from almost all his local offices. He might have been entitled to feel that the one major local office to which he was appointed, that of sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1667, was intended as a burden, not as a honour.79List of Sheriffs, 110. Although he did have some lands in Oxfordshire, the appointment also made it necessary for him to go to the trouble of obtaining special permission to allow him to reside in Berkshire during his year in office.80CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 39. His sale of the manor of Over Court at Silchester in Hampshire at about this time perhaps hints at financial difficulties.81VCH Hants, iv. 54. He died in 1678 and was then buried in the church at Little Wittenham.82PROB11/358/144; Little Wittenham par. reg. His son and heir, Hungerford†, who was twice elected as a whig at Cricklade the following year, survived him by only two years. Hungerford’s son, Edmund†, went on to marry one of the Godfrey nieces of the 1st duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) and, as a result, had an active political career under Queen Anne and George I as master of the Household and as a whig MP. The male line of the family died out on his death in 1719.