is an elegant room, with a ceiling of moulded pargetting in scrolls
and foliage, and is of great elegance in all its appointments. At the
opposite end of the Saloon a doorway opens into an apartment over the
Dining-room. It is now disused, but, with its panelled frescoed walls
and beautifully decorated ceiling, is an apartment of much interest.
The remainder of the rooms of this grand old mansion do not require
special notice; it is enough to say they are all full of interest, and
that they contain many pictures of value.
[Illustration]
OF the many families of note upon which we have treated in these pages,
few are of greater antiquity or possessed of more historic interest
than that of Pakington, of which the Right Hon. Lord Hampton is the
head. It dates from Norman times, and presents a long succession of
notables, whose history is that of the various ages in which they
lived, and moved, and had their being. It is clear, from the foundation
of Kenilworth Monastery, that the family flourished in the reign of
Henry I., and from that time down to the present moment its members
have been among the most celebrated men of the country. In the reign
of Henry IV. Robert Pakington died, and was succeeded by his son John,
who in turn was succeeded by his son of the same name, who married
Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Thomas Washbourne, of Stanford, and
thus the family became connected with the county of Worcester. By this
lady he had issue three sons—John, Robert, and Humphrey. The eldest
of these, John Pakington, was of the Inner Temple, and was constituted
Chirographer of the Common Pleas in the reign of Henry VII., and in the
next reign was made Lent Reader and Treasurer of the Inner Temple; and
in the same year (20 Henry VIII.) had a grant from the King “that he,
the said John Pakington, for the time to come shall have full liberty
during his life to wear his hat in his presence, and his successors, or
any other person whatsoever; and not to be uncovered on any occasion or
cause whatsoever, against his will and good liking; also that he shall
not be appointed, called, or compelled to take the order of knighthood,
or degree, state, or order of a baron of the Exchequer, serjent-at-law,
or any office or encumbrance thereto relating.”
In 1532, however, he was appointed serjeant-at-law, and received a
discharge so as to enable him to accept that office. Having been
appointed a justice of North Wales, he was, in 1535, commissioned to
conclude and compound all forfeitures, offences, fines, and sums of
money due to the King or to his late father, Henry VII. He received
many other appointsovereign ments and honours, and was ultimately
knighted. He received from the a grant of all the manors belonging
to the dissolved monastery of Westwood, and thus that fine property
came to the Pakingtons. At the time of his death, in 1560, Sir John
was seized of thirty-one manors, and of much other land which he had
purchased from seventy different persons. Leland says that he resided
“at a goodly new house of brick, called Hampton Court, six miles from
Worcester.” Sir John is variously stated to have married Anne Rolle
(widow of Tychebourne) and Anne Dacres. Whichever of these is correct,
he died without male issue, leaving his estates divided amongst his
two daughters—Ursula and Bridget—and his two brothers, Robert and
Humphrey.
His brother, Robert Pakington, was M.P. for the City of London in the
time of Henry VIII., and was murdered in the streets of that city in
1537. By his wife, Catherine, daughter of Sir John Baldwin, Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas (by his wife, a daughter of Dormer of
Wycombe, through whom the manor of Ailsbury came to the family), he had
issue one son—Sir Thomas—and three daughters.
Sir Thomas Pakington, who was knighted by Queen Mary, succeeded
to the estates of the Pakingtons and Baldwins. He was sheriff of
Worcestershire in the 3rd of Elizabeth, and, dying in 1571, at Bath
Place, Holborn, was conveyed in great pomp to Ailsbury, the officers
of the College of Arms attending, and buried there in state. By his
wife (who survived him, and married, secondly, Sir Thomas Kitson, of
Hargrave), Sir Thomas had, with other issue, a son—Sir John, by whom
he was succeeded—and three daughters.
Sir John Pakington, the “Lusty Pakington” of Queen Elizabeth’s Court,
was an especial favourite of the “Virgin Queen,” and a man of rank in
his day and generation. It is said that “Good Queen Bess” “first took
notice of Sir John in her progress to Worcester, where she invited
him to attend her Court, where he lived at his own expense in great
splendour and reputation, with an equipage not inferior to some of the
highest officers, although he had no greater honour than Knight of the
Bath, which was conferred upon him in the lifetime of his father. He
was remarkable for his stature and comely person, and had distinguished
himself so much by his manly exercises that he was called ‘Lusty
Pakington.’”
[Illustration: _North-east View._]
“Having by his expensive life contracted great debts, he took the wise
resolution of retiring into the country, and said he would feed on
bread and verjuice until he had made up for his extravagances; which
coming to the royal ear, the queen gave him a grant of a gentleman’s
estate in Suffolk, worth eight or nine hundred pounds a year, besides
goods and chattels, which had been escheated to the Crown; but after
he had been in the country to take possession, he could not behold
the miseries of the distressed family without remorse and compassion;
and the melancholy spectacle of the unhappy mother and her children
wrought so effectually upon his fine feelings, that he repaired to
court immediately, and humbly besought the queen to excuse him from
enriching himself by such means, and did not leave the presence until
he had obtained his request, which involved the restoration of the
property to the rightful owner. Soon after this he left the court,
but not before he had liquidated all his debts, and then, with great
reputation and honour, he commenced his journey into the country, being
handsomely attended by servants and tenants to the number of sixty,
well mounted and appointed, who came purposely from his estates to
pay him this compliment, and waited at the court gates while he was
taking leave of the queen. After settlement in the country, Elizabeth
granted him for sixty years (in the 25th of her reign), for his good
and faithful services, several lordships, manors, and lands which had
fallen to the Crown, in no less than seventeen counties. He was also
constituted lieutenant and _Custos Rotulorum_ of Worcestershire, and
appointed bowbearer of Malvern Chase, one of the best in England, which
he retained until he had finished his noble park at Hampton Lovet;
and then, that chase being at too great a distance from his dwelling,
he obtained the queen’s leave to dispose of it. He was in Elizabeth’s
favour to the end, as appears as well from other evidence as from a
grant she made him for eight years (in the 40th year of her reign, he
paying into the Exchequer £40 per annum) that no one should import
into the kingdom, or make any starch, but by his permission. By his
affability and obliging deportment he acquired the good opinion of his
equals and inferiors, and by his courage and resolution on occasions
requiring the exercise of those attributes, he became formidable
to persons in power. A memorable instance of this occurred when he
executed the office of sheriff for his county. The Lord Chief Baron
Periam having committed a gentleman at the assizes, Sir John, sitting
in his sheriff’s seat, called to him to stay, telling the judge he
would answer for his forthcoming; neither could he be dissuaded by
all the menaces he received, boldly alleging in his defence that the
gentleman was his prisoner, and he as sheriff was accountable for him.
Sir John is said on one occasion to have betted with three courtiers
to swim against them from Westminster, _i.e._ Whitehall Stairs, to
Greenwich for a stake of £3,000; but Queen Elizabeth, out of her
special regard for him, and her fear for his life or health, by her
imperative command prevented it.” “The good queen,” it is said, “who
had particular tenderness for ‘handsome fellows,’ would not permit Sir
John to run the hazard of the trial.”
From this worthy member of a worthy family the popular tune of
“Pakington’s Pound,” or “Paggington’s Pound,” which has held its own
for three centuries, takes its origin. This tune, which in Queen
Elizabeth’s Virginal Book is named “Packington’s Pound,” is called by
Ben Jonson “Paggington’s Pound,” as also in an ancient MS. “A Fancy
of Sir John Paginton” appears in many of the early books of tunes,
and numberless ballads were written to it. Even Shakspere’s ballad
(supposed to have been written by him) on Sir Thomas Lucy is written
to this tune. It has been stated by some writers that, besides the tune
of “Pakington’s Pound,” that of “Sir Roger de Coverley” took its origin
from this worthy; but this is surely a mistake, as the latter tune
takes its origin from one of the Calverleys of Yorkshire.
Sir John Pakington married the daughter of Mr. Humphrey South, Queen
Elizabeth’s silkman, of Cheapside, London, the representative of
an ancient family in Leicestershire. She was the widow of Alderman
Barnham, “who left her very rich; and that consideration, together
with her youth and beauty, made it impossible for her to escape the
addresses even of the greatest persons about the court; but Sir John
was the only happy man who knew how to gain her, being recommended
by his worthy friend, Mr. William Seabright, town clerk of London,
who had purchased the manor of Besford, in Worcestershire.” This
lady, by her first husband, had four daughters; and by Sir John one
son—John, his successor—and two daughters: Anne, married, first, to
Sir Humphrey Ferrars, Knt., of Tamworth, and, secondly, to Philip,
Earl of Chesterfield; and Mary, who married Sir Robert Brooke, of
Nacton, Master of the Ceremonies to James I. Sir John died in 1625,
aged seventy-seven, and his widow married, thirdly, Lord Kilmurry; and,
fourthly, Thomas, Earl of Kelly.
By this great Sir John Pakington the house at Westwood was erected.
“After he had finished his stately structure at Westwood,” it is
recorded, “Sir John invited the Earl of Northampton, Lord President,
and his countess to a housewarming; and as his lordship was a jovial
companion, a train of above one hundred knights and gentlemen
accompanied him, who staid for some time, and at their departure
acknowledged they had met with so kind a reception _that they did not
know whether they had possessed the place or the place them_. The
delightful situation of his mansion was what they had never before
seen, the house standing in the middle of a wood cut into twelve large
ridings, and at a good distance one riding through all of them: the
whole surrounded by a park of six or seven miles, with, at the further
end facing the house, an artificial lake of one hundred and twenty-two
acres. His most splendid entertainment was given, however, to James I.
and his queen at Ailsbury, when his majesty honoured him with a visit
after his arrival from Scotland, before his coronation. Upon this
occasion he set no bounds to expense, thinking it a disparagement to be
outdone by any fellow-subject when such an opportunity offered; and
the king and court declared that they had never met with a more noble
reception.”
Lloyd, in his “Lives of the Statesmen and Favourites of England since
the Reformation,” thus speaks of Sir John Pakington:—“His handsome
features look the most, and his neat parts the wisest at court. He
could smile ladies to his service, and argue statesmen to his design
with equal ease. His reason was powerful, his beauty more. Never was
a brave soul more bravely seated; nature bestowed great parts on him,
education polished him to an admirable frame of prudence and virtue;
Queen Elizabeth called him her Temperance, and Leicester his Modesty.
It is a question to this day whether his resolution took the soldiers,
his prudence the politicians, his compliance the favourites, his
complaisance the courtiers, his piety the clergy, his integrity and
condescension the people, or his knowledge the learned, most. This new
court star was a nine days’ wonder, engaging all eyes until it set,
satisfied with its own glory. He came to court, he said, as Solomon
did, to see its vanity, and retired, as he did, to repent it. It was
he who said first, what Bishop Sanderson urged afterwards, _that a
sound faith was the best divinity, a good conscience the best law, and
temperance the best physic_. Sir John Pakington in Queen Elizabeth’s
time was virtuous and modest, and Sir John Pakington in King Charles’s
time loyal and valiant; the one did well, the other suffered so.
Greenham was his favourite, Hammond his; the one had a competent
estate and was contented, the other hath a large one and is noble;
this suppresseth factions in the kingdom, the other composed them in
the court, and was called by courtiers Moderation. Westmorland tempted
his fidelity, and Norfolk his steadfastness, but he died in his bed an
honest and a happy man.”
His son and heir, John Pakington, was created a baronet in 1620, as
Sir John Pakington of Ailsbury, where he resided. He married Frances,
daughter of Sir John Ferrars, of Tamworth (who married, as her second
husband, the Earl of Leven): by her he had issue one son, John, and
two daughters. John died at the early age of twenty-four, during
the lifetime of his father, and was succeeded in the baronetcy by
his infant son, who ultimately became possessed of the whole of his
grandfather’s estates.
[Illustration: _The North Front._]
Sir John Pakington, the second baronet, who was only five years of
age when he succeeded, was placed under the guardianship of the Lord
Keeper Coventry, “by whose vigilant care of his education, both by
travel and other advantages, he became a most accomplished gentleman.”
He was elected M.P. for Worcestershire (15 Charles I.), and when
the rebellion broke out was member for Ailsbury; and, having on all
occasions given proofs of his fidelity to the Crown and the rights of
the subject, was intrusted by the King, in 1642, with a commission for
arraying men for his service in Worcestershire, on account of which he
was taken prisoner, committed to the Tower, and fined £5,000; had his
estate sequestered, his house in Buckinghamshire (one of the best in
that county) levelled with the ground, and such great waste committed
in his woods, that an estimate of the loss, still remaining, in the
handwriting of his lady, amounts to £20,348. His zeal in the loyal
cause never swerved, for, notwithstanding he had suffered so much for
his loyalty, he had the courage to join King Charles II. with a troop
of horse at the battle of Worcester, and was taken prisoner there,
yet was so popular that, when afterwards tried for his life, not one
witness could be produced to swear against him. He was consequently
acquitted and set at liberty, but afterwards fined £7,670, and
compelled, “for the said fine, to convey the market-house, the tolls,
the court leet, and certain grounds called Heyden Hill, parcel of the
estate at Ailsbury, to Thomas Scott (who was one of the king’s judges),
and other trustees, for the use of the town, which they kept until
after the Restoration, when, by a special act of parliament, the said
conveyances were made void.”
Sir John married Dorothy, daughter of his guardian, the Lord Keeper
Coventry, by whom he had issue one son, his successor, and two
daughters. This lady, Dorothy Pakington, was a woman of remarkable
talent, and possessed of every acquirement which a natural goodness of
disposition and the best tutorship could give. To her gifted mind it
is, with all but positive certainty, averred that the world is indebted
for that admirable book—about which almost as much controversy has
been evoked as over the “Letters of Junius”—“The Whole Duty of Man,”
and for the several other works by the same pen. The authorship of
“The Whole Duty of Man” has been variously ascribed to Lady Pakington,
Archbishop Sancroft, Archbishop Frewen, Archbishop Sterne, Bishop Fell,
Bishop Chapel, William Allestry, Abraham Woodhead, William Fulman, and
others; but the weight of probability, and certainly the weight of
evidence, goes to prove that that honour belongs to her ladyship. An
almost incontrovertible evidence of Lady Pakington being its authoress
“arises from the assertions of Archbishop Dolben, and Bishops Fell and
Allestry, who are said to have declared this of their own knowledge,
after her death, which she obliged them to keep private during her
life—_that she really was the author of that best and most masculine
religious book extant in the English language, ‘The Whole Duty of
Man.’_” Upon a finely sculptured monument in Hampton Lovett Church
she and her husband are recorded in these words:—“In the same church
lyes Sir John Pakington, Kt. and Bart., and his lady, grandfather and
grandmother to the said Sir John. The first, 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.” Sir John died in
1680, and was succeeded by his son—
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.
[Illustration: _The Principal Front._]
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.