First mention of a Jno. Bunch is in Nugent:
3 Mar 1656 - Land patent of a Mr. Gervase Dodson for 600 acs. In Lancaster Co. for trans. Of 12 pers: Jno. Glandfeild, Jno. Newman, Tho. Blackborne, Walter Sparr, Wm. Greenhoure, Wm. Watts, Wm. Smoocker, Eliz. Hopkins, Abra. Watson, Tho. Priors, Jno. Bunch, Tho. Habe (or Hake). (p. 343)
If he came as an indentured servant, he was probably a young lad, possibly 16 years old, thus born about 1637. (Land patents were usually recorded about 3 years after actual importation and settling.) Six years after the above patent, probably 9 years after arrival (1653), he patents his own land in New Kent Co. He is about 25 at this time and has probably married and started a family. He may have settled on his land earlier than the patent date (as was generally the case), his first child may have been born as early as 1659:
18 Mar 1662 – John Bunch, 450 acs. New Kent Co., … On both sides of Rickahock Path, beg. By Burchen Sw., running W. N. W. &C to land of Mr. Richard Barnehouse, thence E.N.E. &C. Granted to Thomas Merreday 25 Feb. 1658, by him sold to Phillip Freeman, who assigned to sd. Bunch. (p. 470)
22 Mar 1666 – Land patent of a Ralph & Tho. Blag (Blagg), 209 acs. W’moreland Co., … by lands of Major Underwood and Thomas Johnson. 100 acs. Granted to Blag 23 Sept 1654, 109 acs. Due for trans. Of 3 pers: Wm. Bunch, Sarah Wells, Mary Jones. (p. 546)
If this William Bunch is related to Immigrant John Bunch (1637), he could be a younger brother or cousin following a similar trajectory. However, I don’t find other references to him elsewhere. He may have died young. My guess is that he is a son of John Bunch (1637) whose name has been lent for headright purposes as a favor or for remuneration. (Common practice.)
1 Apr. 1671 – Land patent of a Mr. Leonard Clayborne, 3000 acs. (New Kent Co.) No. Side of Mattapony Riv on upper side of Doctor Moody… trans. Of 60 pers. Incl. Jeremiah Bunch. (p. 92 vol. 2)
The same situation appears to be the case with Jeremiah Bunch. He appears and then disappears. Again, one suspects that he is being “loaned” to Mr. Clayborne for headrights since he does appear in New Kent Co. where John Bunch is located. It appears to have been rather common for friends and relatives to “lend” themselves to be used as headrights as a favor or even for private remuneration of some sort. If that was the case, both William Bunch, above, and Jeremiah Bunch, could have been children, brothers, or cousins of John who simply did not live long enough to make additional marks in the records (which are not perfect in the first place).
20 Sept. 1683 – Land patent of Col. Edward Hill, 2717 acs. In New Kent & Rappa. Co.’s: on brs. Of Mattopony & Piscadeway Cr. … trans of 55 pers: Jon. Burch (or Bunch). Also includes Jon. Pride. (p. 268 vol. 2)
Again, this could be a “borrowing” of a name for headright purposes. Quite often, when this is done, names are spelled slightly differently from one patent to another. In this case, we know that John Jr. is in his 20s, at least so could have simply served an indenture.
The next record poses some problems. John Bunch Immigrant would be too old to be in the militia in 1702 – aged about 65 – so this must be John Bunch II, born around 1660. That he is designated as “Sr” suggests that he is married and has a John Bunch Jr son, and that his father is dead.
4 July 1702 – Virginia’s Colonial Soldiers of New Kent Co: John Bunch, Sr. (Records relating to Virginia in the Public Record Office, London. English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records)
The next record shows two Bunch men in New Kent Co, both owning land parcels of 100 acres each.
1704 – Quit Rent Roll shows John Bunch, New Kent Co. 100 acs. Paul Bunch, New Kent Co. 100 acs. (English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records)
We know that John Bunch I patented 450 acres and we haven’t yet found patents for any of his sons, so this must be the same land divided amongst his offspring suggesting four of them, i.e. the above mentioned William and Jeremiah added to John and now Paul. But, we only see two offspring, so perhaps two of the sons have died, as I already suggested, and their land was sold or went to their widows.
The next record is a puzzle. The first issue is: which John Bunch? We know it must be the John Bunch of New Kent because the mentioned parish served that county. We know that John Bunch has patented land in the county and that he his sons apparently have received inheritance of this land. We have estimated dates of birth of John, Immigrant, and his son John, now apparently known as John Sr., and it does not seem that the John in question in this following record could be the John born (est.) 1690, who would have been only 15 years old in 1705, so it must be John, the son of John, Immigrant; that is, John born est. 1659/60 who probably had brothers: William, Jeremiah and Paul. Here is the record:
5 Sep 1705 – Volume III, pages 28 and 31 of the Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia (May 1, 1705--October 23, 1721) Published by The Virginia State Library:
Page 28,
" The Petition of John BUNCH and Sarah SLAYDEN praying that the minister of Blissland Parish may be ordered to publish the Banns between the Petitioners in order to their marriage, whether he hath hitherto refused on PRETENSE OF THE SAID BUNCH's being a Mulatto, was read, and referred to Attorney General to report his opinion whether the Petitioners case be within the intent of the Law to prevent Negros & White persons intermarrying to ye next meeting of the Council.
The proceedings of the Council yesterday and this day was read over and approved."
Page 31:
"Upon perusal of a Petition of John Bunch & Sarah Slayden to his Excellency Edw Nott Esq. and upon perusal of an Act of Assembly of this Colony entitled an Act for suppressing Outlying Slaves; I am of opinion & do conceive that ye said Act being Penal is Coercive or restrictive no further then the very letter thereof, and being wholly unacquainted with the Appellations given to ye issue of such mixtures, cannot resolve whether the issue begotten on a White woman by a Mulatto man can properly be called a Mulatto, that name as I conceive being only appropriated to the Child of a Negro man begotten upon a white woman, or by a white man upon a negro woman, and as I am told the issue of a Mulatto by or upon a white Person has another name viz that of, Mustee; whether is so, I conceive it wholly out of the Letter (tho it may be conjectured to be within ye intent) of the said Act. That which (as above being Penal) is, as I conceive not to be construed beyond ye letter thereof. Upon consideration of which Report, and that the Petitioners Case is matter of Law, it is therefore ordered that the Petition of the said Bunch and Slayden be referred till next General Court for M Attorney to argue the reasons of his opinion before his Excellency and ye Council."
The justice apparently knows a great deal more about the case than we do and the issue appears to be one of nomenclature. He appears to be arguing that the John Bunch in question, known to him, is a son of a white woman and a mulatto man and therefore cannot be mulatto himself, but rather “Mustee”. That tells us that the John Bunch in question must have been born of a father known to be Mulatto, that is, John Bunch, Immigrant. If John Bunch, Immigrant, was Mulatto, there are two possibilities: “a Mulatto, that name as I conceive being only appropriated to the Child of a Negro man begotten upon a white woman, or by a white man upon a negro woman,”
According to the Bunch DNA project through WorldFamilies.net, the male ancestral line of John Bunch, born circa 1630, arrived in Virginia circa 1651, antecedent of Henry Bunch, born circa 1695, died 1775 in Bertie County, North Carolina, belong to Haplogroup E1B1a, denoting African descent on the male line which excludes a white father and African mother; his father or grandfather was African.
Thus, it appears that John Bunch, Immigrant, was of mixed race. What is not known is whether or not he was first or second generation Mulatto. And what is certainly true is that he was not “John Punch” who was sentenced in 1640 to serve “for the remainder of his life” for running away to Maryland. This was the first legal sanctioning of slavery in the colonies since Punch had come, undoubtedly, as a regular indentured servant, most of whom were white. John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and was condemned to slavery, as he was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life."
We note that John Punch was described as a Negro, not a Mulatto, and John Bunch II, in the petition, is described as the son of a Mulatto and a white woman and therefore not a Mulatto himself, technically, thus, John Bunch, Immigrant, was Mulatto and the legal situation surrounding John Punch makes it extremely unlikely that a son of his would have been imported to Lancaster County so easily. There was a Bunch family (probably several) in England and the likely origin of John Bunch, Immigrant, is that a daughter of a Bunch family living in Barbados or one of the islands populated by English Immigrants at the time (many), had a child by an African and the child was raised in his English family and then encouraged to sign on as an indentured servant to the colonies to start a new life. That scenario better explains the ease with which John Bunch made his way, serving his indenture, patenting land, etc. The story about John Punch being transformed to John Bunch is just extremely unlikely. (Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.)
Getting back to the petition, it seems to me that it was one made by a mature man, seeking to marry a second time, and having the confidence of one who has not only been successful in life, but has served in the Militia which service extended his network of relationships that he may have established by lending his sons as “headrights” to various friends. I haven’t seen any follow-up to this petition, but if I had to guess, based on the very favorable attitude of Justice Nott, I expect it was granted. John Bunch II (now known as Sr) and Sarah Slayden probably married and there may even have been more children than the four already suggested in the records, i.e. John, William, Jeremiah and Paul (Paul and John appear to be well supported by documentation but little on Jeremiah and William).
