BOURCHIER, William (c.1557-1623)

The Bourchiers were descended from a French nobleman, William, count of Eu, who married a granddaughter of Edward III. Their son William^† attained the FitzWarin barony through marriage, being first summoned to Parliament in 1449, and settled at Tawstock, in north Devon, by 1460.22 Vivian, 106; Roberts, Trans. Devon Assoc. cii. 71-2. The 1st Lord FitzWarin’s grandson John^†, a sometime privy councillor to Henry VIII, was created earl of Bath in 1536. John Bourchier^†, the 2nd earl, briefly served as lord lieutenant of Devon under Mary I, and died in 1561, having outlived his eldest son by four years. Accordingly, the earldom passed to his grandson, Bourchier, who was still an infant. The family apparently secured the young earl’s wardship, though William Cecil, 1st Lord Burghley^†, master of the Court of Wards, took a close interest in his upbringing, as Bath later acknowledged.23 H. Miller, Henry VIII and the Eng. Nobility, 27; Roberts, Trans. Devon Assoc. cii. 73-4; HMC Hatfield, xv. 21. The earl spent his formative years in East Anglia, completing his education at Cambridge. His tutor at Gonville and Caius College, Thomas Hinson^‡, subsequently became his estate-manager in Devon, and Bath remained on friendly terms with several other Caius’ fellows in later life.24 Vis. Suff. ed. Howard, i. 193; HMC Bath, ii. 53-4. While visiting Cambridge in 1578 the earl secretly married a distant relative, Mary Cornwallis. Under pressure from his mother, he shortly renounced the match, but it took two years to obtain an annulment, and as late as 1601 he had to appeal to the Privy Council to stop Mary claiming that she was still his legitimate wife. In 1582 Bath secured a more suitable bride, a daughter of the 2nd earl of Bedford^*, but that earlier episode did lasting damage to his reputation, pointing to a weakness of judgment that would plague his subsequent career.25 Roberts, Trans. Devon Assoc. cii. 78-9; APC, 1600-1, pp. 396-7; HMC 5th Rep. 138.

By the mid 1580s Bath had settled at Tawstock and begun to participate in local administration. In 1586 he succeeded his father-in-law as lord lieutenant of Devon, but was immediately banned from acting without the advice of his deputies. The Privy Council cited his age and inexperience to justify this restriction, but as late as 1609 the earl was still trying to get this clause removed from his commission, which indicates continuing concerns about his character and leadership.26 APC, 1586-7, pp. 239-40; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 488. In fact, Bath proved to be a competent and conscientious lieutenant, winning praise from the Council for the ‘great pains and care’ he took over Devon’s defences during the Armada campaign of 1588, and introducing several reforms to the county’s militia in the closing years of Elizabeth’s reign.27 APC, 1588, p. 215; 1589-90, p. 396; CSP Dom. 1581-90, pp. 474-5; 1598-1601, p. 263. Nevertheless, he struggled intermittently to impose his authority on his deputies, and his local standing was damaged by bitter disputes with his second wife. In 1591 the Council intervened to effect a reconciliation, though much blame was attached on that occasion to Bath’s servant Hinson, who was deemed to have turned the earl against the countess.28 APC, 1591-2, pp. 161-2; 1595-6, pp. 234-7; 1596-7, p. 197; HMC Hatfield, ix. 206.

Bath first entered the Lords in 1581, and also attended the sessions of 1584-5, 1589 and 1593. Thereafter, he rarely showed his face at Westminster, sending a proxy in 1597 and 1601.29 LJ, ii. 191a, 226a. His excuse on the former occasion is not recorded, but in October 1601 he wrote to Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), requesting leave on the grounds that he was unfit to travel due to a long-standing infirmity. The accuracy of this claim may be doubted, given that barely three weeks later he assured Cecil that he had just been riding round Devon levying men for service in Ireland.30 HMC Hatfield, xi. 401, 443. Conceivably the earl’s reluctance to visit London actually indicated a growing aversion to meeting his fellow peers. In 1594 his marriage had broken down again, and news of the impending separation spread at court. The royal favourite, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, sent Bath a stinging rebuke, reminding him that he had been fortunate to marry so well after his first disastrous nuptials, and warning him that he would be blamed by the countess’ many powerful friends if they were not reconciled. The marriage was patched up once more, but in the spring of 1601, just six months before the last Elizabethan Parliament, the whole saga of the Cornwallis marriage was again aired in public, further adding to Bath’s embarrassment. Henceforth, the evidence suggests that he preferred to deal with the government and high society from a distance.31 HMC Portland, ii. 19-20; APC, 1600-1, pp. 393-4, 396-7.

By contrast, Bath showed far more confidence as an electoral patron, albeit on a limited scale. Notwithstanding his occasional difficulties as lord lieutenant, he enjoyed the status of Devon’s only regularly resident peer, while his personal estate of more than 6,500 acres allowed him to impose his will on most of his neighbours. Consequently, between 1586 and 1601 he invariably nominated one Member at Barnstaple, the borough closest to Tawstock, where in 1596 he was also chosen as recorder.32 C142/407/69; HP Commons 1558-1603, i. 144.

At the close of Elizabeth’s reign, Bath took steps locally to ensure a smooth transition of power, and on 31 Mar. 1603 sought Cecil’s guidance ‘in the well ordering of things’ to James I’s liking. For his loyalty he was rewarded with the renewal of his lieutenancy, while in August 1603 he was also appointed vice admiral of north Devon, a new jurisdiction created especially for him, doubtless at the instance of his kinsman Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, the lord admiral.33 HMC Hatfield, xii. 702; xv. 21; HMC 15th Rep. VII, 56; Sainty and Thrush, 12, 15; Vivian, 107. Notwithstanding these marks of favour, however, Bath remained strongly averse to meeting his fellow peers. In February 1604 he once again sought permission to absent himself both from Parliament and the king’s ceremonial entry into London, alleging that he needed treatment in the city of Bath for ‘an old grief’ in one of his legs, which no physician in the capital had been able to cure. Once his request was granted, he awarded his proxy to Cecil.34 HMC Bath, ii. 53; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 84; ‘Jnl. of Levinus Munck’ ed. H.V. Jones, EHR, lxviii. 251; LJ, ii. 263a. Although recorded as attending the Lords on 19 Mar. and 30 Apr., he was almost certainly not present on the former occasion, as he was at Tawstock just three days later; the latter date should probably also be ascribed to clerical error. Nevertheless, Bath was keen to know what he was missing. Having secured a Commons’ seat at Barnstaple for Thomas Hinson, he urged his servant on 22 Mar. to ‘send up what news is stirring’, warning him to follow his orders ‘in every respect’.35 OR; HMC Bath, ii. 53-4. One item of business during this session was a bill laid before the Lords by William Cotton^*, bishop of Exeter, to resolve a jurisdictional dispute with Exeter corporation. This measure proved abortive, and Bath himself was subsequently drawn into this business. However, though he acted as arbiter between the two sides in the autumn of 1604, the corporation proved reluctant to adopt all his recommendations.36 LJ, ii. 283b, 287a, 290a; Devon RO, ECA Act Bk. 6, pp. 156, 180, 182, 187.

The earl evidently missed the opening of the 1605-6 parliamentary session, for he wrote to Cecil (now 1st earl of Salisbury) from Tawstock on 17 Nov. expressing his joy at the failure of the Gunpowder Plot. Bath apparently applied for leave of absence retrospectively, as the Lords were not formally notified of his licence until 21 Jan. 1606. Predictably, he again awarded his proxy to Salisbury. Although recorded as present on 15 Mar., it is unlikely that he actually attended.37 SP14/16/84; LJ, ii. 355a, 361a. Consequently, he was unable to intervene in a piece of parliamentary business that directly affected him. For several years Bath had been at odds with a Devon tradesman, Philip Bushton, whose scheme to transport timber down the River Taw to Barnstaple threatened the earl’s fishing rights. In July 1604 the Privy Council upheld Bath’s complaint about a licence granted to Bushton two months earlier, and the issue was referred to the courts.38 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 107, 138; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 149-50, 362, 403. However, this failed to resolve the dispute, and on 18 Mar. 1606 Bushton secured a first reading in the Lords of a bill to enforce his licence. Five days later, Bath received a letter from Salisbury alerting him to this development, whereupon he immediately dispatched a servant to London to brief counsel against the measure. In the event, the earl’s kinsman, the 1st earl of Nottingham, reported from committee on 12 Apr. that the bill was ‘unmeet to be farther proceeded in’.39 LJ, ii. 397a-b, 413a; SP14/19/75-6. Salisbury presumably had a hand in this outcome, as Bath wrote to him on 12 May, thanking him for his ‘most honourable and friendly care and speech uttered in my behalf, and for the maintenance of my honour and reputation in the open assembly of so many honourable and worthy personages’. That ostensibly concluded this episode, but Bushton may not have given up completely, for in June 1610 Bath wrote to Robert Bowyer^‡, clerk of the parliaments, requesting a copy of Bushton’s bill and an account of the Lords’ proceedings in it.40 Hatfield House, CP 116/45; HMC 3rd Rep. 13.

In August 1606 the earl inadvertently offended Salisbury by interfering in the detention of a suspected renegade Catholic at Barnstaple. Bath routinely questioned such people when they entered his jurisdiction, but Salisbury had taken a particular interest in this case, and dismissed the lord lieutenant’s intervention as meddling. An indignant Bath extricated himself by blaming Barnstaple’s corporation for misleading him about the prisoner’s status, and the matter was allowed to rest.41 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 221-2, 234-5, 252-3, 304-5. On 11 Nov. 1606, a week before Parliament was due to resume, the earl again wrote to Salisbury, affirming that he had thought to attend the king in London ‘at the conclusion of the Union’; however, in view of the season, the length of his prospective journey, and reports of the likely ‘shortness of the Parliament’, he had now reconsidered, and wished again to have leave of absence. As usual he gave Salisbury his proxy. When the Lords resumed sitting in February 1607, Bath took the precaution of checking that this was indeed ‘but a prorogation of the former’ session, and confirming the existing proxy arrangements. It is therefore highly unlikely that he attended on 23 Feb., as recorded in the Journal.42 Hatfield House, CP 115/110, 118/48; LJ, ii. 449b.

In August 1607, Bath wrote to Salisbury requesting news of the king, and reminding his patron that he lived too far from London to ‘conveniently come to do personal service as others of my rank’. In the following January, while notifying Salisbury that he had just overseen the embarkation of soldiers to Ireland, he observed that he had received news of Parliament’s latest prorogation just as he was finishing a letter requesting leave of absence.43 HMC Hatfield, xix. 220; Hatfield House, CP 120/30. In 1609 he contributed £66 13s. 4d. towards Prince Henry’s feudal aid.44 SP14/47/37. When Parliament finally resumed in February 1610, Bath presumably again made his excuses, and certainly gave his proxy to Salisbury. During late March and early April he was in fact busy in Devon dealing with a pirate based on Lundy Island.45 LJ, ii. 548a; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 593; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 209-10, 213. However, he then made his way to Westminster, making five appearances in the Lords between 30 May and 23 July, and taking the oath of allegiance on 12 June. Presumably drawn to London by Prince Henry’s investiture as prince of Wales on 4 June, he made no other known contribution to the Lords’ proceedings, and never sat again.46 LJ, ii. 612b.

On 13 Oct., with the second session of 1610 about to begin, Bath wrote to Salisbury requesting leave of absence on the usual grounds of unseasonable weather and an overlong journey. He also claimed that it would be dangerous for him to stay at his house in Holborn, as there was a plague outbreak next door. His proxy to Cecil eventually reached Westminster on 14 November.47 Hatfield House, CP 196/21; LJ, ii. 666b.

In January 1611 Bath apparently faced outright opposition to his influence over Barnstaple. When the borough received a new charter that month, James I took the highly unusual step of instructing the corporation to re-elect the earl as recorder, the implication being that some other candidate was being considered. The issue was finally resolved only in the following June, when a fresh charter was granted which explicitly confirmed Bath’s role.48 Barnstaple Recs. i. 223; ii. 13; C.F. Patterson, Urban Patronage, 31, 35. Whatever the cause of this resistance, Bath presumably won back some popularity in late 1613 by endorsing local complaints against the monopolistic London French Company, thereby persuading the Privy Council to restore to West Country ports the privilege of free trade with France.49 APC, 1613-14, pp. 247-8. At any rate, in early 1614 Bath was able to secure a Commons’ seat at Barnstaple for John Gostlin^‡, another of his Caius College associates.50 Roberts, Trans. Devon Assoc. ciii. 119; Al. Cant. The earl himself did not attend the 1614 Parliament, and no proxy was recorded for him, though the session’s abrupt conclusion meant that he was one of several peers in that category.51 HMC Hastings, iv. 285.

During the next few years Bath remained busy with local concerns, attempting with limited success to achieve uniformity of practice in Devon’s musters, and taking steps to encourage the rebuilding of Tiverton following the devastating fire of 1612.52 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 254-5, 257; APC, 1613-14, pp. 623-5; 1615-16, pp. 562-4. However, the true extent of his reliance on his servants was exposed in early 1618 when he temporarily lost much of his official paperwork. Thomas Hinson had managed his correspondence until his death in 1614, and the earl then transferred the documents to the custody of Hinson’s son. However, after the latter died in the autumn of 1617, his widow absconded with many of the papers, which were mixed up with her own property. In February 1618 Bath was obliged to appeal to the Privy Council for assistance, and though Mrs Hinson finally backed down three months later, the dispute was not completely resolved until 1621.53 APC, 1618-19, pp. 36-7, 41, 134-5; 1621-3, p. 29. Meanwhile, Bath underlined his dislike of London by selling his Holborn house to Fulke Greville^*, 1st Lord Brooke in 1619.54 R.A. Rebholz, Life of Fulke Greville, 192.

Bath’s vice-admiralty commission was renewed in January 1620 by the new lord admiral, George Villiers^*, marquess of Buckingham, and the earl was kept busy later that year with preparations for the naval campaign against the Barbary corsairs.55 Sainty and Thrush, 15; APC, 1619-21, pp. 247-8. However, he was less enthusiastic when asked in October to contribute £200 towards the cost of the Palatinate war, and had to be sharply reminded by the Council in the following January before finally paying up.56 APC, 1619-21, pp. 292, 334-5; SP14/117/2; 14/118/60. When Parliament was summoned in response to the Palatinate crisis, Bath moved faster than usual to avoid it, securing leave of absence on 24 Dec. 1620. This time he gave his proxy to Buckingham, and is not known to have attended either of the 1621 sittings. Barnstaple failed to return one of his clients to this Parliament, but it is unclear whether this was because Bath failed to propose a nominee or because his candidate was rejected.57 SO3/7, unfol.; LJ, iii. 4a; HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 91.

Bath was still active in local government in late 1622, but by now his thoughts were increasingly turning to his posterity. Under the terms of two deeds drawn up in August 1619 he had already placed the bulk of his lands in trust, establishing entails and providing £4,000 for his three granddaughters. Thus his will, made on 31 Oct. 1622, dealt primarily with personal bequests. The poor of eight local towns were assigned £50 in total, while Caius was left £40, to be spent either on books or a window in the dining hall. All his household servants were to be retained on full board and wages for a year after his death; 56 of them were additionally bequeathed sums totalling nearly £1,300, from £2 for a ‘singing boy’ to £200 each for Bath’s surveyor-general and secretary. Bath’s son and heir Edward was left furniture, plate and horses. However, execution of the will was entrusted to the earl’s surveyor, secretary and two lawyers, all of whom were to be monitored by three overseers, including his cousin Francis Russell^*, 2nd Lord Russell. Bath requested burial at Tawstock, with appropriate solemnity for a man of his rank, but ‘with as little pomp as may be’, the event to cost no more than £700. He died at Tawstock in July 1623, and is commemorated in the church by a magnificent tomb bearing life-sized effigies of him and his second wife. His titles and lands descended to his son Edward.58 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 455; C142/407/69; PROB 11/142, ff. 207-9; Hoskins, 489.