To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Thomas Gerard, 1st Baron Gerard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Gerard, 1st Baron Gerard (c. 1564–1618). from a composite family memorial in the Gerard Chapel, Church of St John the Baptist, Ashley, Staffordshire.

Thomas Gerard, 1st Baron Gerard (c. 1564 – 15 January 1618) was a Staffordshire and Lancashire landowner and politician, a member of six English parliaments for three different constituencies.[1] Although a prominent member of the Essex faction in the reign of Elizabeth I, he avoided involvement in the Essex Rebellion and received greater honours, including a peerage, in the reign of James I.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    1 327 407
  • The Industrial Economy: Crash Course US History #23

Transcription

Episode 23: The Rise of the Industrial Economy Hi I’m John Green this is Crash Course U.S. History and today we’re going to discuss economics and how a generation of- Mr. Green, Mr. Green, is this going to be one of those boring ones no wars or generals who had cool last words or anything? Alright, Me From The Past, I will give you a smidge of Great Man history. But only a smidge. So today we’re gonna discuss American industrialization in the decades after the Civil War, during which time the U.S. went from having per capita about a third of Great Britain’s industrial output to becoming the richest and most industrialized nation on earth. Libertage Meh, you might want to hold off on that Libertage, Stan because this happened mostly thanks to the Not Particularly Awesome Civil War, which improved the finance system by forcing the introduction of a national currency and spurred industrialization by giving massive contracts to arms and clothing manufacturers. The Civil War also boosted the telegraph, which improved communication, and gave birth to the transcontinental railway via the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, all of which increased efficiency and productivity. So thanks, Civil War! Intro If you want to explain America’s economic growth in a nutshell chalk it up to G, D, and L: Gerard, Depardieu, and Lohan. No, Geography, Demography and Law. However, while we’re on the topic, when will Gerard, Depardieu, and Lindsay Lohan have a baby? Stan, can I see it? Yes. Yes. Geographically, the U.S. was a huge country with all the resources necessary for an industrial boom. Like, we had coal, and iron and, later, oil. Initially we had water to power our factories, later replaced by coal. And we had amber waves of grain to feed our growing population which leads to the Demography. America’s population grew from 40 million in 1870 to 76 million in 1900 and 1/3 of that growth was due to immigration. Which is good for economies. Many of these immigrants flooded the burgeoning cities, as America shifted from being an agrarian rural nation to being an industrial, urban one. Like, New York City became the center of commerce and finance and by 1898 it had a population of 3.4 million people. And the industrial heartland was in the Great Lakes region. Chicago became the second largest city by 1900, Cleveland became a leader in oil refining, and Pittsburgh was a center of iron and steel production. And even today, the great city of Pittsburgh still employs 53 Steelers. Last but not least was the Law. The Constitution and its commerce clause made the U.S. a single area of commerce – like a giant customs union. And, as we’ll see in a bit the Supreme Court interpreted the laws in a very business friendly way. Also, the American constitution protects patents, which encourag4B-es invention and innovation, or at least it used to. And despite what Ayn Rand would tell you, the American government played a role in American economic growth by putting up high tariffs, especially on steel, giving massive land grants to railroads and by putting Native Americans on reservations. Also, foreigners played an important role. They invested their capital and involved Americans in their economic scandals like the one that led to a depression in 1893. The U.S. was at the time was seen by Europeans as a developing economy; and investments in America offered much higher returns than those available in Europe. And the changes we’re talking about here were massive. In 1880, for the first time, a majority of the workforce worked in non-farming jobs. By 1890 2/3 of Americans worked for wages, rather than farming or owning their own businesses. And, by 1913 the United States produced 1/3 of the world’s total industrial output. NOW bring out the Libertage, Stan. Libertage Awesome. And even better, we now get to talk about the perennially underrated railroads. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Although we tend to forget about them here in the U.S., because our passenger rail system sucks, railroads were one of the keys to America’s 19th century industrial success. Railroads increased commerce and integrated the American market, which allowed national brands to emerge, like Ivory Soap and A&P Grocery Stores. But railroads changed and improved our economy in less obvious ways, too: For instance, they gave us time zones, which were created by the major railroad companies to make shipping and passenger transport more standard. Also because he recognized the importance of telling time, a railroad agent named Richard Warren Sears turned a $50 dollar investment in watches into an enormous mail order empire, and railroads made it possible for him--and his eventual partner Roebuck--to ship watches, and then jewelry, and then pretty much everything, including unconstructed freaking houses throughout the country. Railroads were also the first modern corporations. These companies were large, they had many employees, they spanned the country. And that meant they needed to invent organizational methods, including the middle manager--supervisors to supervise supervisors. And for the first time, the owners of a company were not always day-to-day managers, because railroads were among the first publicly traded corporations. They needed a lot of capital to build tracks and stations, so they sold shares in the company in order to raise that money, which shares could then be bought and sold by the public. And that is how railroads created the first captains of industry, like Cornelius “They Named a University after Me” Vanderbilt and Andrew “Me Too” Carnegie (Mellon) and Leland “I Named a University After My Son” Stanford. The Railroad business was also emblematic of the partnership between the national government and industry. The Transcontinental Railroad, after all, wouldn’t have existed without Congressional legislation, federal land grants, and government sponsored bond issues. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Apparently it’s time for the Mystery Document. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document and if I’m wrong, which I usually am, I get shocked. Alright. “The belief is common in America that the day is at hand when corporations far greater than the Erie – swaying such power as has never in the world’s history been trusted in the hands of mere private citizens, controlled by single men like Vanderbilt...– will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.” Corporations directing government? That’s ridiculous. So grateful for federal ethanol subsidies brought to you by delicious Diet Dr. Pepper. Mmm I can taste all 23 of the chemicals. Anyway, Stan, I’m pretty sure that is noted muckraker Ida Tarbell. No! Henry Adams? HOW ARE THERE STILL ADAMSES IN AMERICAN HISTORY? That makes me worry we’ll never escape the Clintons. Anyway, it should’ve been Ida Tarbell. She has a great name. She was a great opponent of capitalism. Whatever. AH! Indeed industrial capitalists are considered both the greatest heroes and the greatest villains of the era, which is why they are known both as “captains of industry” and as “robber barons,” depending on whether we are mad at them. While they often came from humble origins, took risks and became very wealthy, their methods were frequently unscrupulous. I mean, they often drove competitors out of business, and generally cared very little for their workers. The first of the great robber barons and/or captains of industry was the aforementioned Cornelius Vanderbilt who rose from humble beginnings in Staten Island to make a fortune in transportation, through ferries and shipping, and then eventually through railroads, although he once referred to trains as “them things that go on land.” But the poster boy of the era was John D. Rockefeller who started out as a clerk for a Cleveland merchant and eventually became the richest man in the world. Ever. Yes, including Bill Gates. The key to Rockefeller’s success was ruthlessly buying up so many rivals that by the late 1880s Standard Oil controlled 90% of the U.S. oil industry. Which lack of competition drove the price of gasoline up to like 12 cents a gallon, so if you had one of the 20 cars in the world then, you were mad. The period also saw innovation in terms of the way industries were organized. Many of the robber barons formed pools and trusts to control prices and limit the negative effects of competition. The problem with competition is that over time it reduces both prices and profit margins, which makes it difficult to become super rich. Vertical integration was another innovation – firms bought up all aspects of the production process – from raw materials to production to transport and distribution. Like, Philip Armour’s meat company bought its own rail cars to ship meat, for instance. It also bought things like conveyor belts and when he found out that animal parts could be used to make glue, he got into the glue-making business. It was Armour who once proclaimed to use “everything but the squeal.” Horizontal integration was when big firms bought up small ones. The best example of this was Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which eventually became so big incidentally that the Supreme Court forced Standard Oil to be broken up into more than a dozen smaller oil companies. Which, by the way, overtime have slowly reunited to become the company known as Exxon-Mobil, so that worked out. U.S. Steel was put together by the era’s giant of finance, J.P. Morgan, who at his death left a fortune of only $68 million – not counting the art that became the backbone of the Metropolitan Museum of Art – leading Andrew Carnegie to remark in surprise, “And to think he was not a rich man.”[1] Speaking of people who weren’t rich, let us now praise the unsung heroes of industrialization: workers. Well, I guess you can’t really call them unsung because Woody Guthrie. Oh! Your guitar! And my computer! I never made that connection before. Anyway, then as now, the benefits of economic growth were shared...mmm shall we say...a smidge unevenly. Prices did drop due to industrial competition, which raised the standard of living for the average American worker. In fact, it was among the highest in the world. But due to a growing population, particularly of immigrant workers, there was job insecurity. And also booms and busts meant depressions in the 1870s and 1890s, which hit the working poor the hardest. Also, laborers commonly worked 60 hours per week with no pensions or injury compensation, and the U.S. had the highest rate of industrial injuries in the world: an average of over 35,000 people per year died on the job. These conditions and the uncertainty of labor markets led to unions, which were mostly local but occasionally national. The first national union was the Knights of Labor, headed by Terence V. Powderly which grew from 9 members in 1870 to 728,000 by 1884. The Knights of Labor admitted unskilled workers, black workers, and women, but it was irreparably damaged by the Haymarket riot in 1886. During a strike against McCormick Harvesting Company, a policeman killed one of the strikers and in response there was a rally in Chicago’s Haymarket Square at which a bomb killed seven police officers. Then, firing upon the crowd, the police killed four people. Seven anarchists were eventually convicted of the bombing, and although Powderly denounced anarchism, the public still associated the Knights of Labor with violence. And by 1902, its membership had shrunk considerably--to 0. The banner of organized labor however was picked up by the American Federation of Labor under Samuel L. Gompers. Do all of these guys have great last names? They were more moderate than the anarchists and the socialist International Workers of the World, and focused on bread and butter issues like pay, hours, and safety. Founded in 1886, the same year as the Haymarket Riot, the AFL had about 250,000 members by 1892, almost 10% of whom were iron and steel workers. And now we have to pause to briefly mention one of the most pernicious innovations of the era: Social Darwinism: a perversion of Darwin’s theory that would have made him throw up. Although to be fair, almost everything made him throw up. Social Darwinists argued that the theory of survival of the fittest should be applied to people and also that corporations were people. Ergo, big companies were big because they were fitter and we had nothing to fear from monopolies. This pseudoscience was used to argue that government shouldn’t regulate business or pass laws to help poor people. It assured the rich that the poor were poor because of some inherent evolutionary flaw, thus enabling tycoons to sleep at night. You know, on a big pile of money, surrounded by beautiful women. But, despite the apparent inborn unfitness of workers, unions continued to grow and fight for better conditions, sometimes violently. There was violence at the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 and the Pullman Rail strike of 1894 when strikers were killed and a great deal of property was destroyed. To quote the historian Michael Lind: “In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the United States had five times as many unionized workers as Germany, at a time when the two nations had similar populations.”[2] Unions wanted the United States and its citizens to imagine freedom more broadly, arguing that without a more equal economic system, America was becoming less, not more, free, even as it became more prosperous. If you’re thinking that this free-wheeling age of fast growth, uneven gains in prosperity, and corporate heroes/villains resembles the early 21st century, you aren’t alone. And it’s worth remembering that it was only 150 years ago that modern corporations began to form and that American industry became the leading driver in the global economy. That’s a blink of an eye in world history terms, and the ideas and technologies of post Civil War America gave us the ideas that still define how we--all of us, not just Americans--think about opposites like success and failure, or wealth and poverty. It’s also when we people began to discuss the ways in which inequality could be the opposite of freedom. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Halse Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Each week there’s a new caption for the Libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. Make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Industrial Economy - ________________ [1] Brands, American Colossus p 6. [2] Lind, Land of Promise 171

Background and early life

Thomas Gerard's mother: Anne Radcliffe or Ratcliffe of Winmarleigh, Lancashire, wife of Gilbert Gerard. Gerard memorial, Ashley.
Thomas Gerard's father: Gilbert Gerard (before 1523–1593), Attorney General 1559–81, Master of the Rolls 1581–93. Gerard memorial, Ashley.

Thomas Gerard's parents were:

Thomas Gerard was educated privately by a Thomas Taylor. It is thought his childhood was spent in the south of England, as he was described as coming from Harrow on the Hill at his admission to Caius College, Cambridge, in 1580, aged 16. He was first returned to the House of Commons of England aged only 20, as member for Lancaster.

Early parliamentary career

Gerard's early political career was owed to his father's influence. Gilbert Gerard had been appointed vice-chancellor at Lancaster in 1571. The Duchy of Lancaster, merged with the Crown in 1399, had always been decisive in the choice of members of parliament for the borough, and candidates were generally friends of duchy officials, although election was formally by the mayor, bailiffs, burgesses, and citizens.[4]

In 1584, they simply sent a blank indenture or election return to Gilbert Gerard, the duchy's chief law officer, and he filled in the name of his son. Thomas was returned alongside Henry Sadler, son of Ralph Sadler, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Sadler had already represented Lancaster in the two previous parliaments. Both Sadler and Gerard were returned as members for Lancaster again in 1586.[citation needed]

Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, long a favourite of Elizabeth I, rival to the Cecils, and a patron of Thomas Gerard.
Robert Cecil, later 1st Earl of Salisbury. Although Cecil was an enemy of Essex, Gerard cultivated good relations with him through their shared love of falconry.

In the parliamentary elections of October 1588, Thomas Gerard was returned by both Lancashire and Staffordshire. His family had estates in both counties and he had by this time married Alice Rivet, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Rivet of Chippenham, who had lands in Staffordshire.[5] So it was for Staffordshire he decided to sit. It is possible that both he and the electors were influenced by Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, who was the rising power in the county[6] and leader of a powerful court faction. As a result, Lancashire was forced to hold a by-election in February 1589, just after the assembly of the parliament.[5]

The other knight of the shire for Staffordshire in the 1589 parliament was Walter Harcourt. His family, based at Ellenhall and Ranton Abbey were part of a religiously conservative faction that had dominated Staffordshire politics early in Elizabeth's reign.[6] However, Essex was determined to win over both Gerard and Harcourt.[citation needed]

Member of the Essex faction

In 1591 Essex was put in charge of an English force sent to aid Henry IV of France in his war with the Catholic League. He persuaded both Gerard and Harcourt to join the expedition. After a successful campaign, he knighted both of them before the walls of Rouen. Both seem to have been won over to his side.[citation needed]

Essex regarded Staffordshire as his own county and was trying to build a power base in it.[7] The county contained Chartley Castle, his main seat, and Lettice Knollys, his mother, lived at Drayton Bassett with Sir Christopher Blount, her husband, who was a crony of Essex. The earl was appointed Staffordshire's Custos Rotulorum sometime in the early 1590s. He gathered around him a faction made up of ambitious, mainly young, members of local landowning families, particularly the Littleton, Bagot, Chetwynd, Trew and Aston families. While leaning personally towards the Puritan wing of the Church of England, Essex was tolerant of other beliefs. In 1590 it was rumoured he had links to the Catholic double agent Gilbert Gifford, son of the Staffordshire landowner John Giffard.[8] Gerard's own father was accused of being "a protestant at London and a papist in Lancashire",[2] so the relatively relaxed attitude of Essex may have been an attraction, and he was similar in age and background to the majority of the earl's Staffordshire supporters.[citation needed]

Gerard proved particularly helpful and accommodating to Essex in 1593. A parliament was summoned on 4 January. Essex had already appointed Sir Edward Littleton, Sir Edward Aston and Richard Bagot as his agents in Staffordshire. On 2 January 1593 Essex he had written urging them to secure the return of his step-father Christopher Blount in the forthcoming elections.[9] A week later he wrote again, this time asking them to support Gerard as second member.[10] By this time, however, Harcourt had also thrown his hat into the ring. Essex never wrote to clarify or resolve the situation, leaving his Staffordshire supporters confused.[6] Fortunately, Gerard still had influence in Lancashire and was able again to secure a nomination for the county seat.

The election in Lancashire was not entirely a foregone conclusion. There was great bitterness between Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby, who had great influence in the county, and Richard Molyneux of Sefton, who had represented the county in the past and wished to do so again.[5] Molyneux was Gerard's brother-in-law,[11] and there was a serious danger that Derby might promote one or more candidates against the pair of them and thus create a contest for the seats. In the event, Gerard was returned with Molyneux. Before the parliament convened, Gilbert Gerard died, leaving Thomas as heir to his substantial estates and his properties in London. Derby waited until after the short-lived parliament to pursue his feud with Molyneux, committing him to the Fleet prison and hauling him before the Privy Council, although the earl died in September and his eldest son and successor a few months later. Thereafter, Gerard was able to build good relationships with both the great Merseyside landowning families.

Gerard's efficient and uncomplaining service was well-rewarded, as his connection with Essex opened up many lines of preferment, especially in various military ventures. In 1595 he was appointed captain of the Isle of Man. He was instructed to reorganise the defences discreetly, without disturbing the civil government.[1] Perhaps already feeling some disquiet at the frequent ineptitude of Essex, Gerard sent a present of a trained sparrowhawk to Robert Cecil, the Secretary of State and the main rival of Essex for the queen's attention. He wrote an accompanying note to make sure his gesture of friendship was noted:

I send you by this bearer a sparhawk, which is an excellent hawk for anything you will fly her at; she will kill a "pye" (black and white pigeon) very well if your man be skilful to make the flight. I am going towards West Chester (a specific name for Chester) and I mean to take shipping so soon as the wind will give me leave. I humbly entreat your favour in my absence. – From my lodge, 5 August.[12]

Gerard was soon engaged in stockpiling arms and ammunition. Supplies were handled by William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, second son of the old earl, with whom Gerard maintained a cordial correspondence, ensuring that he received monies already due.[13] Thereafter Gerard ensured that payment was made in ready cash to the earl by his Comptroller, Humphrey Scarswick.[14]

In March 1596 Essex commissioned Gerard to recruit a thousand men to serve in an Anglo-Dutch expedition to Cadiz, which set off from Plymouth in June. Gerard accompanied the expedition as colonel of a regiment of foot. The Capture of Cadiz was one of the most severe losses suffered by Spain in the war, with the city itself and the Spanish fleet destroyed. Gerard was not paid for his service but he had a small ship of his own, which he used for privateering. Over the next two years, he was involved in organising militia forces in Northamptonshire, Middlesex and Hertfordshire to guard against a possible Spanish invasion. In May 1597 Gerard was honoured with the post of Knight Marshal of the Household, deputy to Essex, the Earl Marshal. [15][citation needed]

In November 1597 Gerard was returned again to the House of Commons as member for Lancashire, although not before Molyneux, now High Sheriff of Lancashire, had his revenge for past slights by sending back the election writ to London on a technicality. Molyneux's position barred his standing, and Gerard's colleague this time was Robert Hesketh of Rufford Hall.[citation needed]

Breach with Essex

It was the Irish war that finally split Gerard from the Essex faction. Essex was nominated for the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by the Cecil faction, in the expectation that he would fail. Gerard travelled with Essex to Ireland in April 1599 and they stayed at his Staffordshire manor of Gerrard's Bromley together on the way. They reached Dublin on 15 April but Gerard left within five days. It is not clear what his duties, if any, had been in Ireland and he did not return. The Privy Council ordered Gerard to send supplies to Ireland from the Isle of Man, but he had no further dealings with Essex in Ireland. In April 1600 he was still attending to his duties in and around London, conducting the French ambassador to the coast to meet messengers from Henry IV, and keeping in close touch with Cecil.[16]

When Essex returned to disgrace in May, Gerard left the court and headed for the country. It seems he had been accused of something, perhaps concerning his dealings with Essex, by Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland, a strong supporter of Essex. Gerard wrote to Robert Cecil on 9 May in abject terms, seeking to explain his actions, although he had clearly panicked:

If my occasions to the country had not been great, I had attended you before my departure. Her Majesty charged me deeply at my coming away, and I vow before God, if I had been guilty, I would never have denied, and where it pleased her to name my Lord of Rutland for one of my accusers, I have sent her my Lord's own hand to the contrary, and if anyone that was with me at that time would ever have avowed it, I would have given good satisfaction to the contrary, but that particularly and before witness they have all freed me. How grievous it is unto me that I, who have so often and sundry times received her Majesty's gracious favour, should now be held so base and dishonest a servant as to equal any (in my love and duty to her), much more a man being but her subject and one that in his life never pleasured me, but in his love that he afforded to many others, [and] should now be condemned upon an unjust accusation. I refer to the secrets of a true heart, and therefore, as in this matter I was first beholden to you at Richmond, where it pleased you to deliver your mind frankly and honourably unto me, so I now most humbly crave your favour, as if by chance you hear her Majesty speak on me, to answer by your good word for me, which I will assure you by the reputation and credit of an honest man, that if I live, you shall fully find by my courses wherein I will give good satisfaction to make requital.[17]

Gerard succeeded in creating enough distance between himself and Essex to resume his responsibilities within a few months. In July he wrote to Cecil asking that the Isle of Man garrison be paid in cash, not kind, to benefit the local economy,[18] a measure suggested by George Lloyd, the Bishop of Sodor and Man.[citation needed]

Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud ben Mohammed Anoun, Moorish Ambassador to Queen Elizabeth I. Gerard was responsible for ensuring his well-being during his stay.

In August 1600 Gerard was living in his house at Charing Cross and again carrying out diplomatic escort duties, this time looking after the travel and dietary arrangements of the man he called the "Barbery Embassador" [sic]. This was a sensitive and important task, entrusted to him by Cecil.[19] England was in the process of cementing the Anglo-Moroccan alliance. The Sultan of Morocco, Ahmad al-Mansur, was an ally against Spain and a major commercial partner. Gerrard was deputed to arrange accommodation for Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud, the sultan's ambassador. On 11 August he wrote to Cecil to explain that he had arranged via the Lord Mayor of London to house the ambassador in Alderman Radclyffe's house. Three days later, Gerard rode down to Gravesend to make first contact with the Moroccan party, who were awaiting a favourable tide to carry them swiftly into the capital. Tactfully, he let them rest overnight before talking further, and then rode back to London to make sure they were fully provided for.[citation needed]

When the Essex Rebellion occurred in February 1601, Gerard was among the first to denounce it. It was he who handed over Essex, Rutland, and Southampton at the Tower of London on 9 February.[1] In April both Gerard and Molyneux were put under suspicion by informers in the case of Thurston Hunt and Robert Middleton, two Lancashire Catholic priests who were executed, accusations that Molyneux angrily rebutted.[20] Fortunately both were cleared by the evidence of Hunt himself.[21]

Gerard was appointed Custos Rotulorum of Staffordshire in place of Essex sometime in 1601. In October of that year, he was easily returned to parliament as member for Staffordshire. The 1597 election scandal in Staffordshire had discredited Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley, who had frustrated the parliamentary ambitions of Edward Littleton and Essex. With the Essex faction itself also cleared out of the way, Gerard was returned alongside Sir John Egerton, a relative of Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley, the Lord Chancellor.[citation needed]

Under James I

When James I came to the throne in 1603 Gerard was immediately accepted into the new king's favour. He was elevated to the peerage as Baron Gerard of Gerards Bromley. He was named as one of 13 peers allowed to enter the privy chamber. The king even visited Gerard's substantial house at Gerrard's Bromley. Another more frequent visitor was Robert Cecil, with whom Gerard pursued their interest in falconry.[citation needed]

In 1616 Gerard was appointed president of the Council of Wales and the Marches, which was based in Ludlow and had overall supervision of government in Wales, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire. He also became Lord Lieutenant of Wales, a post associated with the presidency of the council. However, it appears that the office was essentially honorary. He stayed in London and did not exercise his authority in the field, resigning in 1617.[citation needed]

In fact, Gerard suspected his life was nearing its end and made his will on 6 October 1617. He now owned a very large amount of landed property and goods. He made large bequests to his younger sons, William and John, but mentioned nothing specific for his heir, Gilbert. His second wife was well provided for and he made smaller but still substantial bequests, including £50 for his servant Edward Lloyd. He asked for Christian burial, in the night without a funeral, in the chancel at Ashley, Staffordshire, a village about half a mile from Gerrard's Bromley, where his father had been buried. He died on 15 January 1618 and was buried in accordance with his wishes. A life-sized effigy, in a kneeling position, was placed behind his parents' tomb in the church.[citation needed]

Marriages and family

Gerard married twice:[22]

  • Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas Rivet of Chippenham, was his first wife. They had three sons:[22]
  • Gilbert, Thomas's heir, who became the 2nd Baron Gerard (died 1622). He married Eleanor, daughter and heiress of Thomas Dutton of Dutton, Cheshire.[22][23] They had children of whom four survived him.
  • William.
  • John.
  • Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Woodford of Burnham, Buckinghamshire, was his second wife. The marriage seems to have been childless. [22] After Gerard's death, Elizabeth married Patrick Ruthven, a member of the disgraced Scottish Ruthven family. They had three sons, including Patrick Ruthven (died 1667) who was a soldier in Swedish service. Their daughter Mary Ruthven (died 1645) was a maid of honour to Henrietta Maria. She married the painter Anthony van Dyck. He painted her portrait several times. Their daughter Justiniana van Dyck was baptised on the day the painter died, 9 December 1641.[24]

Citations

  1. ^ a b c N.M.S. (1981). "Gerard, Thomas I (c. 1564–1618)". In Hasler, P.W. (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  2. ^ a b c W.J.J. (1981). "Gerard, Sir Gilbert (d.1593), of Ince, Lancs. and Gerrard's Bromley, Staffs.". In Hasler (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  3. ^ Alan Davidson (1981). "HOLCROFT, Sir John (by 1498–1560), of Holcroft, Lancs.". In Bindoff, S.T. (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509–1558. Boydell and Brewer.
  4. ^ M.A.P. (1981). "Lancaster". In Hasler, P.W. (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  5. ^ a b c M.A.P. (1981). "Lancashire". In Hasler, P.W. (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  6. ^ a b c Hasler, P.W., ed. (1981). "Staffordshire". The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  7. ^ Hammer, Paul E. J. (1999): The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597, Cambridge university Press, ISBN 0521434858.
  8. ^ Lomas, Sophie Crawford, ed. (1927). "Appendix: December 1587: Stafford to Walsingham 15 December". Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth (1586–1588). Vol. 21. British History Online. pp. 660–661.
  9. ^ "Essex: Letter to Sir Edward Littleton, Sir Edward Aston, and Richard Bagot. Hampton court (2 January 1693)". Folger Shakespeare Library. – Printed in W.B. Devereux' Lives and letters of the Devereux, earls of Essex, 1853, I, 281; and in Staff. Hist. Coll. 1917–1918, 395.
  10. ^ "Exssex to Sir Edward Littleton, Sir Edward Aston, and Richard Bagot (5 January 1693)". Folger Shakespeare Library. – A copy. Printed in Staff. Hist. Coll. 1917–1918, 396.
  11. ^ N.M.S. (1981). "Molyneux, Richard II (c. 1559–1623), of Croxteth and Sefton, Lancs.". In Hasler (ed.). The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558–1603. Boydell and Brewer.
  12. ^ Roberts 1894, 1–15 August 1595, pp. 297–324.
  13. ^ Roberts 1894, 1–15 September 1595, pp. 358–380.
  14. ^ Roberts 1894, 16–30 October 1595,pp. 417–437.
  15. ^ "GERARD, Thomas I (c.1564-1618), of Gerrard's Bromley, Staffs., Astley, Lancs. and Charing Cross, London". History of Parliament Trust. Retrieved 13 April 2019.
  16. ^ Roberts 1904, 16–30 April 1600, pp. 92–110.
  17. ^ Roberts 1904, 1–15 May 1600, pp. 134–148.
  18. ^ Roberts 1904, 1–15 July 1600, pp. 261–287.
  19. ^ Roberts 1904, 1–15 August 1600, pp. 257–279.
  20. ^ Roberts 1906, 1–15 April 1601, pp. 153–165.
  21. ^ Roberts 1906, 16–30 April 1601, pp. 165–188.
  22. ^ a b c d Burke 1831, p. 219.
  23. ^ After Lord Gilbert died in 1622 Eleanor (née Dutton) married Robert, Lord Kilmorey (the father-in-law to her daughter Frances – which marriage came first is not stated in Burke 1831, p. 219).
  24. ^ John Bruce, 'Certain Documents relating to William, first Earl of Gowrie abd Patrick Ruthven', Archaeologia, 34 (London, 1851), p. 203.

General references

Parliament of England
Preceded by
Thomas Sadler
Henry Sadler
Member of Parliament for Lancaster
1584–1588
With: Henry Sadler
Succeeded by
Roger Dalton
John Atherton
Preceded by
John Grey
William Bassett
Member of Parliament for Staffordshire
1588–1589
With: Walter Harcourt
Succeeded by
Preceded by Member of Parliament for Lancashire
1593–1601
With: Thomas Walmsley 1588–1589
Sir Richard Molyneux 1593–1597
Robert Hesketh 1597–1601
Succeeded by
Preceded by Member of Parliament for Staffordshire
1601–1603
With: Sir John Egerton
Succeeded by
Political offices
Preceded by Lord President of Wales
Lord Lieutenant of Wales
(less Glamorgan and Monmouthshire),
Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire

1617
Succeeded by
Preceded by Custos Rotulorum of Staffordshire
1601 – aft. 1608
Succeeded by
Peerage of England
New creation Baron Gerard
1603–1618
Succeeded by
Gilbert Gerard
This page was last edited on 11 September 2023, at 06:02
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.