Part 47

Sir John Pakington, who, having married Margaret, daughter of Sir John Keys, died in 1688, and was in turn succeeded by his only child, Sir John Pakington, the fourth baronet, who, when only nineteen years of age, became M.P. for Worcestershire, and so remained, with one exception, when he voluntarily withdrew himself, to the time of his death. He was “a strenuous asserter of the rights and liberties of the country,” and in 1702 preferred that remarkable complaint against the Bishop of Worcester and his son for unduly interfering in the elections, which resulted in the Bishop being removed by the Queen from his office of almoner, and other proceedings being taken. Sir John married, first, Frances, daughter of Sir Henry Parker; and, secondly, Hester, daughter and sole heiress of Sir Herbert Perrott. By his first marriage he had issue two sons, who died young, and two daughters, one of whom married Viscount Tracy. By his second wife, Hester Perrott, Sir John had a son, Sir Herbert Perrott Pakington, by whom, on his death in 1727, he was succeeded.

Sir Herbert Perrott Pakington, fifth baronet, M.P. for Worcestershire, married, in 1721, Elizabeth, daughter of John Conyers, Esq., of Walthamstow, and by her had issue two sons—John and Herbert Perrott, each of whom enjoyed the baronetcy—and two daughters. Dying in 1748, he was succeeded by his son—

Sir John Pakington, as sixth baronet, who married Mary, daughter of Henry Bray, Esq., of Bromyard, but, dying in 1762 without issue, was succeeded by his brother—

Sir Herbert Perrott Pakington, as seventh baronet. Sir Herbert married, in 1759, Elizabeth, daughter of Cæsar Hawkins, Esq., and widow of Herbert Wylde, Esq., of Ludlow, and by her had issue two sons and four daughters—viz. John, his successor; Thomas, who died without issue; Dorothy; Anne; Louisa; and Elizabeth, who married William Russell, Esq., of Powick, Worcestershire, by which marriage she had an only son, the present Lord Hampton, who, as will be shown, ultimately succeeded to the estates. Sir Herbert Perrott Pakington died in 1795, and was succeeded, as eighth and last baronet, by his son—

Sir John Pakington, D.C.L. This gentleman was born in 1760, and died without issue, and unmarried, in 1830, when the title became extinct, and the estates passed to his nephew, John Somerset Russell, Esq. (son of his sister, Elizabeth Pakington, by her marriage with William Russell, Esq., of Powick), who at once assumed the family name of Pakington in lieu of that of Russell, and became John Somerset Pakington, Esq., and is the present noble owner of Westwood.

The Right Hon. Lord Hampton—the first peer of the family—was born in 1799, and, as we have stated, is the son of William Russell, Esq., by his wife, Elizabeth Pakington. He succeeded, as John Somerset Russell, to the estates of his uncle, Sir John Pakington, in 1830, and assumed the patronymic of Pakington in lieu of his own name of Russell. He was educated at Eton and at Oriel College, Oxford. In 1837 he was elected M.P. for Droitwich, which town he continued to represent until 1874, when, after nearly forty years of able, useful, and faithful public servitude, he was defeated at the general election. In 1846 he was created a baronet, by the name of Sir John Somerset Pakington, of Westwood Park. In 1852 Sir John held office as Secretary of State for the Colonies; in 1858-9 was a member of the Committee of Council for Education; in 1858-9, and again in 1866-7, was first Lord of the Admiralty; and in 1867-8 was Secretary of State for War. In 1874 he was created Baron Hampton, of Hampton Lovett and of Westwood, in the county of Worcester, in the peerage of the United Kingdom. Lord Hampton, who is a Privy Councillor, a G.C.B., an Hon. D.C.L. of Oxford, an Elder Brother of the Trinity House, a Magistrate, for many years Chairman of the County Quarter Sessions, and Deputy Lieutenant of the county, has married three times: first, in 1822, Mary (who died in 1843), daughter of Moreton Aglionby Slaney, Esq., by whom he has issue living one son, the Hon. John Slaney Pakington (heir to the title and estates), who was born in 1826, and married, in 1849, the Lady Diana Boyle, daughter of the Earl of Glasgow; secondly, in 1844, Augusta Anne (who died in 1848), daughter of the Right Rev. George Murray, D.D., Bishop of Rochester, by whom he has issue living one son, the Hon. Herbert Perrott Murray Pakington, born in 1848; thirdly, in 1851, Augusta, daughter of Thomas Champion de Crespigny, Esq., and widow of Colonel Davis, M.P., of Elmley Park, Worcestershire, by whom he has no issue.

Lord Hampton is by no means entirely, or even mainly, indebted for renown to the high positions he has occupied, although they are among the very highest. There have been, of late years, few projects designed and calculated to benefit mankind to which he has not been, in some way, a contributor; foremost, indeed, he has always been in every good work that may lessen suffering, extend social advantages, and advance the cause of education and religion. The descendant and representative of a race that has for centuries given to England true patriots, in the best sense of the word, he has been a powerful benefactor wherever his influence could reach.

The arms of Lord Hampton, who is patron of the living of Hampton Lovett, are—per chevron, _sable_ and _argent_; in chief three mullets, _or_, and in base as many garbs, one and two, _gules_. Crest—an elephant, _or_. Supporters—dexter, an elephant, _or_; sinister, a talbot, _argent_; each charged on the shoulder with a mullet, pierced, _sable_. Motto—“Fidelis et audax.” His seats are Westwood Park, Droitwich, and Powick Court, Worcester.

The pretty little Church of Hampton Lovett—one of the burial-places of the family—lies about two miles from the mansion, from which it is approached by a delightful drive across the park and the outlying portions of the estate. The Church is charmingly situated, and possesses some features of interest. It consists of a nave, chancel, and north aisle, with a tower at the west end, and contains a modern stone pulpit of exquisite design; and, besides recent stained-glass windows, there are some good remains of ancient armorial stained glass, including the royal and Pakington arms, &c. In the chancel, which is paved with encaustic tiles, is a piscina on the south side, and on the north a fine canopied tomb, on which has been placed an explanatory brass plate, bearing the inscription, “This monument was discovered behind another, which was removed to the west wall of the side chapel, during the repair of the church in 1859. Though much mutilated, the design was preserved, and the heraldic escutcheons (which were uninjured) show it to have been erected to the memory of Sir John Pakington, Kt., of Hampton Lovett, and Anne, his wife, daughter of Henry Dacres, sometime Sheriff of London. He was eminent as a Lawyer and a Judge, and amongst other honours received a grant of the lands of Westwood from King Henry VIII.”

The monument here noted as being removed in 1859 stands against the west wall of the north aisle, or “side chapel.” It is a fine piece of sculpture in the style of Roubilliac, with a semi-recumbent figure of St. John. It bears this highly interesting inscription:—“Here lyes Sir John Pakington, Kt. and Bart., aged 55 years, an indulgent father to his children, a kind master to his servants, charitable to the poor, loyal to the king, and faithful to his country. Who served in many parliaments for the county of Worcester speaking his mind there without reserve; neither fearing nor flattering those in power, but despising all their offers of title and preferment upon base and dishonourable terms of competition. He was chosen Recorder for the City of Worcester the 21st day of February, 1725, in the room of Other, Earl of Plymouth, deceased, which few ever enjoyed the honour of under the degree of a Peer of the Realm. He dyed the 13th of Augt., 1727. In the same church lyes Sir John Pakington, Kt. and Bart., and his lady, grandfather and grandmother to the said Sir John. The fyrst try’d for his life and spent the greatest part of his fortune in adhering to King Charles I., and the latter justly reputed the Authoress of The Whole Duty of Man, who was exemplary for her great piety and goodness.” There is also a tablet to Dorothy Anne, second daughter and co-heiress of Sir Herbert Perrott Pakington, 1846; her father, 1785; her mother, Dame Elizabeth Pakington, daughter of Sir Cæsar Hawkins, 1783; and Sir John Pakington, 1830; and one to the memory of Mary, the first wife of Lord Hampton, and daughter of Moreton Aglionby Slaney, Esq., who was born in 1799 and died in 1843.

In the churchyard are some venerable yew-trees, and near the path is a tall and lovely cross, of simple but effective design, restored by Lord Hampton in memory of his second wife. At the head of the lofty shaft is a crocketed cross bearing the sacred monogram: beneath this are beautifully sculptured figures of the four evangelists under crocketed canopies. At the base are the four evangelistic symbols, and beneath is the inscription, “To the beloved memory of Augusta Anne, second wife of Sir John Pakington, Bart., this cross was restored A.D. MDCCCXLIX. She was the daughter of George Murray, Lord Bishop of Rochester, and departed this life in the true faith of Christ, February xxiii., MDCCCXLVIII., after the birth of her second child, and in the XXXIST year of her age. + Not my will but thine be done.”

We said, at the commencement of our notice, that Westwood Park lies a couple of miles or so from Droitwich, and it therefore behoves us, before closing, to say a word or two about that town, and the “healing waters” which are its great attraction and blessing.

The neighbourhood of Westwood and Droitwich is very charming, the walks and drives are beautiful, and the whole locality is rich in historic lore and in antiquated traditions. Venerable church towers, pretty villages, homely yet comfortable cottages, fruitful orchards, productive meadows and corn lands, delicious lanes rich in wild flowers, wooded slopes, broad and narrow rivers (notably, majestic Severn), are in view from any ascent. But the eye takes in more than these: ancient mansions are numerous; among them several of our justly boasted baronial halls. There are houses of prosperous gentry, and picturesque dwellings of wood and plaster of a long-ago time. Indeed, the rich and the poor may be equally content with their lot in this fair, fertile, and rarely gifted locality. It is suggestive of prosperity, and indicative of content, although the whistle of the railroad is often heard, and the mysterious wires of the telegraph skirt the principal highways. The distant views are even more graceful and majestic than those near at hand. Grand old Malvern, the Abberley Hills, the Clees, the “hunchbacked Wrekin,” the Clents, the Lickeys, Tardebigge, Astwood, and even the far-off Cotswolds, may be seen from any of the neighbouring heights.

Droitwich itself is a town devoid of beauty or interest, but it is situated in a lovely district, with a glorious country around it, and a neighbourhood rich in scenery and in picturesque localities. Internally the town is a “land of many waters,” its brine wells, from which thousands of gallons per hour are constantly being pumped up, producing an enormous quantity of salt, which is sent out to supply the tables, and the workshops, and the manufactories of our native population, as well as to help to render our fields more prolific, and find employment for nearly the whole of its population. Droitwich, there can be no doubt, is a town of Roman foundation, and its salt-works were worked by that people on precisely the same system of evaporation in vats as now. A portion of an interesting Romano-British tesselated pavement—part of a Roman villa—was discovered here some few years ago, and is preserved at Worcester. It is indisputable evidence of Droitwich and its springs being known to the Romans. Although small, and mainly depending for its prosperity on its salt-works, Droitwich has always, since the Conquest, been a place of importance, and until the passing of the Reform Bill sent two members to Parliament; it now sends only one. It is governed by a mayor and corporation, possesses abundance of schools and charitable institutions, has spacious churches and other places of worship, and has every facility of railway and canal communication.

The main feature of the place, however, is its recently re-established Brine Baths. The efficacy of the saline springs was first brought into notice of late years during the sad visitation of cholera to the town in 1831. In that year, when numbers of the inhabitants were being carried off by the pest, some parties, in their agonies of distress and their desire to find means of saving the lives of those near and dear to them, dipped the sufferers into the warm brine in the evaporating vats of the salt-works, and this was found to produce such marvellous results that it was generally adopted; indeed, it is affirmed that all who were so treated, even those in a state of collapse, recovered from the attack. The fame of these cures spread far and wide, and numbers being brought there for that and other complaints, it was determined to form a bath. This was done, and the efficacy of the brine firmly established. Later on a company was formed; but although baths were erected, and patients were not wanting to visit them, the whole matter fell into a state of unfortunate inanition, despite the attention which had been directed to the place by Dr. Hastings and other men of eminence. In 1871 Mr. Bainbrigge, F.R.C.S., a medical man of enlarged experience and skill, visited the baths for the purpose of examining, and analyzing, and reporting upon their properties and efficacy. The result was, that a joint-stock company for the erection of new baths, the opening up of the curative properties of the waters, and the development of Droitwich into an inland sea-bathing place, was formed, and baths were erected. These baths were opened in 1873, and since then the whole affair has passed into the hands of a few private individuals. The old George Hotel, with its pleasant garden (closely adjoining the bath), has been converted into a private boarding-house, and about eight acres of pleasure-grounds and gardens, with here and there a pleasant residence attached, have been added and laid out with taste.

The visitor will find many objects of interest in Droitwich; and many places of note—Whitely Court, the truly “Stately Home” of the Earl of Dudley, being one of them—are within easy drive of the place.

MELBOURNE HALL.

MELBOURNE HALL is interesting from the curious and unique character of its gardens rather than from the elegance or beauty of the house; but it possesses in its historical associations, and its connection with famous families, a larger share of importance than falls to the lot of many more pretentious places. It is to the history of the “Home,” and its charming and curious grounds, as well as to the history of the noble families to which it has belonged, that we purpose to direct attention.

Melbourne itself—from which is derived the title of Viscount Melbourne, as well as the name of the thriving city of Melbourne, in our far-distant dominion of Australia—is a small manufacturing and market town in Derbyshire, being situated on the borders of Leicestershire, and lying in the charming valley of the Trent. It is only eight miles from Derby, from which place it is conveniently reached by a branch railway; it is, therefore, now, since the opening of this line, of easy access from that great centre of railway traffic. The town contains some goodly manufactories of silk and Lisle-thread gloves, figured lace, &c., for which it is much noted; and it is also well known for its productive gardens and nurseries. It is but seven miles from famous Ashby-de-la-Zouch, the scene of Sir Walter Scott’s undying “Ivanhoe,” and where the splendid ruins of the grand old castle of the Zouches still stand in all their beauty, and are among the most majestic and picturesque in the kingdom, Kenilworth scarcely excepted. Melbourne is also within some few miles of Calke Abbey, the elegant seat of Sir John Harpur Crewe, Bart.; and not much farther from Donington Park, the seat of the late Marquis of Hastings and the present Earl of Loudoun; Staunton Harold, the charming residence of Earl Ferrers; and Elvaston Castle, the ancient seat of the Earl of Harrington, whose gardens are much of the same character as those we are about to describe. Indeed, the whole district, turn in whatever direction one may, is full of interest and beauty.

At Melbourne, as stated in Domesday Book, King Edward VI. held “six carucates of land for geld. Land for six ploughs. The King has one plough there, and twenty villanes, and six bordars, having five ploughs. A priest and a church there, and one mill of three shillings, and twenty-four acres of meadow. Wood, pasturable, one mile in length and half a mile in breadth. In the time of King Edward it was worth ten pounds; now six pounds; yet it renders ten.” It was from very early times a royal manor, and was granted by King John to Hugh de Beauchamp, whose eldest son gave it in marriage with his daughter to William Fitz-Geoffrey, but within a short period it again reverted to the Crown. By Henry III. it was, in 1229, granted to Philip de Marc, from whom it again passed into the sovereign’s hands. The manor and castle were afterwards held by Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, brother to Edward I., and passed to his son Thomas, by whom they were conveyed to King Edward II., who granted them to Robert de Holland. This person was summoned to Parliament as a baron, but having joined in the insurrection, he surrendered himself at Derby, and was ultimately beheaded for high treason, and his estates were confiscated. They were then held by Henry, Earl of Lancaster, who had a grant of a market, &c.; and they continued attached to the earldom and duchy of Lancaster until 1604, when they were given by King James to the Earl of Nottingham, who soon afterwards conveyed them to the Earl of Huntingdon, from whom they passed to the Marquis of Hastings.

In the reign of Henry V. the country around the royal manor and castle of Melbourne sent many warriors to the battle of Agincourt; and although it may be a question whether the hills in the neighbourhood, which are called “Derby Hills” to this day, or those in the Peak, at the north end of the county, are intended in the ballad—

“Recruit me Cheshire and Lancashire, And Derby Hills that are so free; No marry’d man or widow’s son: For no widow’s curse shall go with me.

“They recruited Cheshire and Lancashire, And Derby Hills that are so free; No marry’d man or widow’s son: Yet there was a jovial bold company”—

certain it is that Derbyshire men were among the most valiant in that battle, and that John, Duke of Bourbon, who was taken prisoner, was brought to Melbourne Castle, and there kept in close confinement for nineteen years. Melbourne Castle, now entirely destroyed, is traditionally said to have been founded by Alfred the Great in 900. There appears, however, to be no mention of it until 1307. In 1319 it passed into the hands of Thomas de Holland, who obtained a license to crenellate the place in the fourth year of Edward II. In 1322 “John de Hardshull was joined in the governorship of the castles of Melbourne and Donington,” and a few years later it became the property of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. In 1414. as already stated, John, Duke of Bourbon, was prisoner here under Sir Ralph Shirley, the governor of the castle, and afterwards under Nicholas Montgomery, the then governor. It is said to have been dismantled by order of Margaret, Queen of Henry VI. It was, it seems, repaired by Edward IV., and in Henry VIII.’s reign is said to have been in “good reparation.” In 1602 a survey was made, by order of Queen Elizabeth, by Thomas Fanshawe, then auditor of the duchy of Lancaster, in which it is said, “Her Majesty hath a faire and ancient castle which she keepeth in her own hands, and that Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury, was then constable of the same and bailiffe there by letters patent during his life, with the annual fee of £10.” It afterwards came into the hands of the Huntingdons, and was suffered to fall into decay. The site now belongs to Mr. Hastings.

Melbourne was formerly in the honour of Tutbury, its officers in that honour being the “Steward of Melbourne,” the “Constable of Melbourne Castle,” the “Keeper of Melbourne Park,” and the “Bayliffe of Melbourne.”

The Bishops of Carlisle had formerly a palace and a park at Melbourne, and occasionally resided there, the palace being near the church, tolerably close to the castle, and on the site of what is now Melbourne Hall. After being long held on lease from the see, it ultimately became the property of the Coke family. An arch, in the early English style, conjectured to have belonged to the old nunnery near the church, was taken down about 1821.

The Cokes, to whom Melbourne Castle and Hall belonged, are an old Derbyshire family, whose estates lay principally at Trusley, Marchington, Thurvaston, Pinxton, Egginton, and other places, The head of the family, in the forty-third year of the reign of Edward III., was Hugh Coke, son of Robert Coke. His eldest son, Thomas, married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Odingsells. By this lady, who brought the Trusley estates into the family, he had issue a son, William Coke, who, marrying Joan, daughter of John Hilton, by her had issue a son, William Coke, who, by his first wife, Cicely Brentwood, had a son, also William Coke, by whom he was succeeded. This William Coke married a daughter of Sir Ralph Longford, by whom he had issue his son and successor, William Coke, who, marrying Dorothy, daughter of Ralph Fitzherbert, of Tissington, had issue two sons—John and Richard—and six daughters, viz. Elizabeth, Dorothy, Margaret, Anne, Ellen, and Mabel. He was succeeded by his son, Richard Coke, who married Mary, daughter and sole heiress to Thomas Sacheverell, by whom he acquired considerable property. By this marriage Richard Coke had issue six sons—viz. Sir Francis Coke, of Trusley, Knt.; Sir John Coke, Secretary of State; Thomas Coke; Philip Coke; George Coke, Bishop of Hereford and Bristol; and Robert Coke—and four daughters, viz. Elizabeth, Mary, Margaret, and Dorothy.