THE BOURCHIER TABLET IN THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST. CANICE, KILKENNY, WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF THAT FAMILY.

BY RICHARD LANGRISHE, FELLOW.

PART I.

[Read MAY 26, 1903.]

THIS HIS most remarkable tablet, probably unique in Ireland for the number of armorial bearings displayed upon it, was originally placed in the north chapel of the choir of St. Canice's Cathedral in Kilkenny; and in the pavement beneath were laid slabs ornamented with the Bourchier knot. This statement appears in the "6 History of St. Canice's Cathedral," by the Rev. James Graves and John G. A. Prim, published in 1857.

Some ten years later it appears to have been removed, as were most of the monuments in the cathedral, to preserve them from injury during the restoration works.

It appears that the learned authors of the above-mentioned History were permitted by the Dean and Chapter, when the monuments were about to be replaced on completion of the works, to arrange them in the nave according to their dates, which accounts for that of which we are about to treat being now placed on the wall of the north aisle, near the transept. One of the slabs bearing the Bourchier knot is fixed in the wall beneath.

The tablet was erected by Sir George Bourchier (third, but eventually second, surviving son of John, twelfth Baron Fitz Warine, and second Earl of Bath) and Martha, his wife, fourth daughter of Lord William Howard, first Baron Effingham, in memory of their children, Charles and Frederick Philip.

The account of the arms sculptured on the tablet given in Graves and Prim's History is exceedingly meagre, being nothing more than any casual visitor with some knowledge of heraldry might write down on seeing it for the first time. It, therefore, seemed to be worthy of a fuller account being written of it, showing how the Bourchier family became entitled to the several coats thereon, and their connexion with Kilkenny. The inscription, which is in the usual black-letter characters of the sixteenth century, reads as follows:

“Qui clari fuerant fili spesq' alma parentū,
Bourcheri Charolus Fredericusq' Philippus

Ossa immatura simul flebilis nunc contigit urn'

Morte puer juvenis virq' senexq' cadit.

Quorum alter obiit xvii die Septembris, 1584.
Alter viii die Martii A° 1587."

Mr. Graves translated it thus:

"Charles and Frederick Philip Bourchier, who were the fair sons and fond hopes of their parents. The mournful urn now covers their immature remains together. By death falls the boy, the youth, the mature man, and the aged. One of them died on the 17th day of September, 1584. The other on the 8th day of March, 1587."

The portions of the second last line which are underlined are illegible, having probably been broken away in the removal of the tablet, as they are given in full in the History of the cathedral.

The dexter or "baron" side of the shield is Quarterly of 10. (1) Argent, a cross engrailed, gules, between four water bougets sable, for Bourchier; (2) Gules, billetée or, a fesse argent, for Louvain; (3) Per fesse dancettée, quarterly ermine and gules, for Fitz Warine; (4) Gules, a fret or, for Audley; (5) Gules, three oak-leaves slipped, argent, two and one, for Cogan; (6) Sable, a chevron barry-nebuly, argent and gules, for Hankford; (7) Argent, two bendlets wavy, gules, for Stapledon; (8) Argent, on two bars gules, three bezants, for Martin; (9) Gules, a fesse dancettée ermine (but cut as five lozenges conjoined in fesse), for Dynham; (10) Gules, three arches argent, two and one, for Arches.

The marshalling of the coats is incorrect: as will be seen from the subjoined pedigree, they should be placed in the following order :(1) Bourchier; (2) Louvain; (3) Hankford; (4) Stapledon; (5) Fitz Warine; (6) Audley; (7) Martin; (8) Cogan; (9) Dynham ; (10) Arches. The shield is also incomplete, a large number of the coats of heiresses intermarried with having been omitted, some of these being very notable, as will be shown hereafter. The arms on the sinister or "femme" side of the shield are those as then and now borne by the Dukes of Norfolk. Quarterly, (1) Gules, on a bend between six cross crosslets fitchy, argent, an escutcheon or, charged with a demi-lion rampant pierced through the mouth with an arrow, within a double tressure, flory counter-flory of the first, for Howard; (2) Gules, three lions passant guardant in pale, or, in chief a label of three points, argent, for Plantagenet, Earl of Norfolk; (3) Chequey, or and azure, for Warren, Earl of Surrey; (4) Gules, a lion rampant, or, for Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. This quarterly coat in the funeral entries is differenced with a mullet, placed on the fesse point, for William, Lord Howard of Effingham, who was the third son of the second Duke of Norfolk, who left issue.

There are three exemplifications of Sir George Bourchier's arms in Ulster's office, and one of those of his son, Sir John Bourchier. The first, being the record of Sir George having been made a P.C., is not impaled, and exhibits eight coats only, four of those on the tablet being omitted, and two not there added, viz.-(1) Bourchier; (2) Louvain; (3) Plantagenet, Earl of Gloucester; (4) De Bohun; (5) Fitz Warine; (6) Audley; (7) Dynham (the charge tricked here also as lozenges); (8) Arches; a

crescent for difference, showing that his elder brother, Henry, had died without issue. The second is the funeral entry of his wife, Martha Howard, and the third is his own funeral entry; the dexter half in each case is quarterly of eleven, viz.-(1) Bourchier; (2) Louvain ; (3) Hankford; (4) Stapledon; (5) Fitz Warine; (6) Cogan; (7) Audley; (8) Martin; (9) Dynham; (10) Arches; (11) Daubeney; a mullet argent for difference, Sir George having been the third son. Both these exemplifications are impaled with Howard, quarterly, as on the Kilkenny tablet, but with a mullet sable, for difference, as Lord Edward and Lord John Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham's elder brothers, having died without issue, he became the third son, having issue. The marshalling of the coats in these funeral entries is correct, but that Cogan should have been placed after Martin. The fourth exemplification in Ulster's office is that on the funeral entry of Sir John Bourchier, which contains the quarterings of Bourchier in the same order as in those of his father and mother; but there is no impaled coat, as Sir John never married.

The family name of Bourchier seems to be of fanciful construction; it first appears in the Patent and Close Rolls, temp. Ed. II., as Le Bourser, and more commonly as Le Bousser. Le Bourser is evidently a corruption of the French boursier, a bursar, or a treasurer; and the founder of the family most probably attained to affluence through being the agent and treasurer of some magnate of his time, of which some evidence is forthcoming, to be mentioned later on.

The first of the family mentioned in the Patent and Close Rolls is John de Bousser, who, on the 15th January, 1315-6, 7th Ed. II., was appointed with two others to take assizes in the counties of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex. On the 12th August following, he had another commission with two others, as John le Bousser, to try certain offenders, and was named on the same date in a commission of oyer and terminer, as John Bousser. He continued to be named in frequent similar commissions down to the last mention of him in the commission of assize in April, 1329, generally as John de Bousser, but occasionally as le Bousser. On the 30th March, 1322-3, he is called le Bourser, and on the 25th October, 1324, John de Bourser, knight. In the "Dictionary of National Biography," he is referred to as "John de Bourchier or Boussier, judge, first mentioned as deputy by Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, to represent him in the parliament summoned in 1306 for granting an aid on the occasion. of the Prince of Wales receiving a knighthood. In 1312 he was permitted to postpone the assumption of the same rank for three years, on consideration of paying a fine of 100s. . . . . In 1321 (15th May) he was summoned to parliament at Westminster, apparently for the first time, as a justice, and on the 31st of same month was appointed a justice of the Common Bench. The last fine was levied before him on Ascension Day in 1329. He died shortly afterwards, as we know from the fact that in the following year his heir, Robert, was put in possession of his estates by the King."

...