Bourchier’s lawyer ancestor Robert Bourchier†, the first MP in the family, was ennobled in the fourteenth century, but this title passed to the Devereux earls of Essex. Bourchier’s paternal grandfather was an illegitimate child of the 2nd Baron Berners, while his father inherited a Yorkshire estate from his maternal uncle.
Unusually for a younger son, Bourchier was granted the manor of Hanging Grimston, Yorkshire by his father in about 1593. This was partly to compensate him for the fact that his brother-in-law, Sir Richard Verney*, was unable to afford to pay a dowry, and partly because his elder brother was a lunatic. The latter’s wardship was secured by his wife and her brother, Sir Francis Barrington*, shortly after he inherited the family estate in 1598. Bourchier objected to this arrangement, and in 1601 accused Barrington of abusing his position as guardian to break the entail on his brother’s estate. Barrington did not take this lying down, and in 1615-17 he prosecuted Bourchier ‘for certain debts supposed to be due to the lunatic’.
Converted from arable land to sheepwalks in the 1580s, the manor of Hanging Grimston was highly profitable. Indeed, it must have yielded about £1,200 p.a., for in 1623 half the estate was sold (at 15 years’ purchase price) for £9,500. Bourchier, who was more entrepreneurial than most landowners, initially used the income from the manor to purchase other property, investing at least £6,000 in land between 1598 and 1608. He exploited his purchases to their full economic potential, leasing Spanton woods, Newton-upon-Ouse manor and probably most of his other estates at rack rents.
While Bourchier’s estates were managed efficiently, almost all of his investments in manufacturing projects met with disaster. The first was a 21-year lease of a small alum refinery at Slape Wath, near Whitby. This lease, and the contacts he made with London financiers through his land dealings, probably explain why Bourchier was joined with lord president Sheffield, Sir David Foulis and Sir Thomas Chaloner* in the monopoly to manufacture alum, established in January 1607. The patentees quickly leased their rights and half their profits to a consortium of London merchants led by William Turner, but the availability of foreign imports meant that the scheme failed to prosper. However, it caught the attention of lord treasurer Salisbury (Robert Cecil†), who, having received a favourable report on the industry’s potential from the customs farmers Sir Arthur Ingram and Sir Nicholas Salter, bullied the alum farmers into surrendering their rights to the Crown in May 1609. The knighthood which Bourchier received a few weeks after this surrender was presumably intended as part of his compensation.
Even before the failure of the alum farm, Bourchier was in trouble with one of his most important creditors, the London Grocer Richard Burrell. In 1602 Bourchier had arranged to mortgage to Burrell the Lincolnshire estates of his cousin, Arthur Hall, standing surety for the deal with a bond of £3,600. However, when the offer of Hall’s son to sell the estate to Burrell was refused in 1610, Bourchier was arrested upon his earlier bond. Bourchier eventually paid Burrell £1,360, and sealed a fresh bond of £1,500 as surety for any further outstanding debts. In the midst of this furore, Bourchier was also prosecuted by Hall’s daughter over her unpaid dowry.
Despite his outlawry, which should have rendered him ineligible, Bourchier was elected to Parliament in 1614. Evidently he viewed parliamentary privilege as a more secure form of refuge from his creditors than a royal protection. Returned for Hull, he was almost certainly nominated by Lord Sheffield, whose former secretary, John Edmondes had represented the borough in 1604. He is noted to have spoken only once, during the debate of 25 May over Bishop Neile’s attack on the Commons for questioning the king’s right to levy impositions: he moved ‘to proceed in no business till righted’, and supported the motion of Sir Thomas Hoby and Sir Jerome Horsey to refer the matter directly to the king rather than the House of Lords.
Bourchier’s losses from the alum farm did not discourage him from investing in other projects. Indeed, in 1610 he secured a lease of the Mineral and Battery Company’s brassworks at Maidstone and Lambeth. However, although Turner was co-opted as a partner, the business had collapsed by 1621.
There is no evidence that Bourchier sought re-election to the Commons in 1621, but even if he had, Sheffield’s removal from the presidency deprived him of his only patron. He was, however, involved in three separate issues which came before this Parliament. He was apparently a partner in Sir Ferdinando Gorges’† monopoly of fishing in American waters, which was investigated by the Commons at the behest of the Devon ports, and only narrowly escaped condemnation. He was also one of the subjects of George Morgan’s bill to confirm a Chancery decree awarding him damages for the £22,000 still owed him by members of the failed alum syndicate of 1610-12.
Bourchier was finally discharged from liability for the debts incurred during his lease of the alum farm in 1622, by which stage the business had begun to turn a profit. Bourchier remained interested in the patent through his Durham coalmine, and in 1618 he offered to buy out Sir John Brooke’s share in the farm. He also proposed a scheme to take over the alum farm and the new patent for the manufacture of soap from home-produced potash as a joint venture in 1623. This latter project was apparently backed by the London financier Sir Paul Pindar, whose great diamond, worth £35,000, was offered as an entry fine, together with £6,000 annual rent and a levy of 40s. on every ton of soap sold. However, while Bourchier bought the support of secretary of state Sir Edward Conway I* with the promise of an annuity of £2,000, Sir Arthur Ingram refused to surrender his lease.
While Bourchier’s plans for the alum farm came to nothing, he invested heavily in the manufacture of soap from English potash. He raised the capital by selling half of Grimston manor to Sir William Cockayne for £9,500, a sale which brought with it its own problems, as Cockayne required assurances that his investment would be freed from Bourchier’s debts. The soap patent, however, was opposed by the Eastland Company, which imported potash from the Baltic. In order to defuse the Company’s opposition, Bourchier bought up £9,000 of their stocks, and promised to take up the remainder in return for an import ban. The London soapmakers also objected to the challenge to their trade, but were overruled after trials established that the new soap was more economical.
Bourchier died intestate on 17 Mar. 1626, leaving his affairs in considerable confusion. His daughter Mary quickly secured administration of his estate in London, but in the following August letters of administration were issued at York to one of Bourchier’s servants, who was then suing a lawyer for mishandling a trust of Bourchier’s Yorkshire estates. One of Bourchier’s sons took over the administration in 1635, in a vain hope of securing a share of the £5,000 granted to the defunct Soapmakers’ Company, but his former partners quickly demonstrated that Bourchier’s outstanding debts far outweighed his share of the compensation. His estate was still being pursued for old debts in 1638.