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.”
[Illustration: _Hampton Lovett Church._]
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.
[Illustration: _Arms of Coke._]
Sir John Coke, the first of the family who settled at Melbourne, was
born in 1563, and greatly distinguished himself by his learning. He was
successively Professor of Rhetoric at Cambridge, Secretary of the Navy,
Master of the Court of Requests, Secretary of State to King Charles I.,
and for several years a member of Parliament, where he took an active
and dignified part in the debates. Sir John, who died in 1644, was
married twice: first, to Mary, daughter of John Powell, of Presteign,
by whom he had issue; and, secondly, to Joan, daughter of Alderman Sir
John Lee, Knt., and widow of Alderman Gore. He was succeeded by his son
(by his first wife), Thomas Coke, whose son (by his wife Mary, daughter
of —— Pope, of Wolferston), John Coke, married Mary, daughter of Sir
Thomas Leventhorpe, by whom, with other issue, he had three sons, one
of whom, the Right Hon. Thomas Coke, became Vice-Chamberlain to Queen
Anne and King George I., and served in Parliament for many years.
This gentleman was so great a favourite with his sovereign, Queen
Anne, that she presented to him, among other marks of royal favour,
the two splendid vases now placed in the grounds of Melbourne Hall.
By his first wife, Mary, daughter of Philip, Earl of Chesterfield,
he had issue two daughters—Mary, married to Viscount Southwell, and
Elizabeth, married to Bache Thornhill, Esq.; and by his second wife,
the Hon. Mary Hale, sister of Bernard Hale, Esq., one of the maids of
honour to Queen Anne, he had issue, with others, a daughter, Charlotte,
who became his sole heiress on the death of her brother, George Lewis
Coke.
This Charlotte Coke married, in 1740, Sir Matthew Lamb, Bart., of
Brockett Hall, Hertfordshire, nephew and co-heir of Peniston Lamb,
Esq., and was the mother, by him, of Sir Peniston Lamb, Bart., who
was created Baron Melbourne, Baron Kilmore, and Viscount Melbourne of
Melbourne. His wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Ralph Milbanke, by
whom he had four sons and three daughters—viz. the Hon. Peniston Lamb,
who died unmarried; the Hon. William Lamb, who succeeded him; the Hon.
Frederick James Lamb, who also succeeded to the titles and estates; the
Hon. George Lamb, M.P. (well known for his literary attainments), who
married Mdlle. Caroline Rosalie St. Jules; the Hon. Emily Mary Lamb,
married, first, to Earl Cowper, and, secondly, to Viscount Palmerston;
the Hon. Harriette Lamb; and a daughter who died in infancy. Lord
Melbourne, who died in 1828, was succeeded in his titles and estates,
as second viscount, by his second son, William, who, after holding many
important posts, and taking an active part in the administration of
this country, became Prime Minister. He was born in 1779, and educated
at Eton, Cambridge, and Glasgow, and in 1804 was called to the bar. In
1805 he entered Parliament, and in the same year married Lady Caroline
Ponsonby, daughter of the Earl of Bessborough, a lady who became, as
“Lady Caroline Lamb,” distinguished in the literary circles of the day.
[Illustration: _Melbourne Hall, from the Garden._]
In 1818 Mr. Lamb became Secretary for Ireland under Canning, and so
continued under the next two administrations. In 1828 he succeeded to
the titles and estates as second Viscount Melbourne, Baron Melbourne,
and Baron Kilmore. In 1830 his lordship became Home Secretary, and
in July, 1834, was made Prime Minister, but only retained that
office till the following November. In 1835 he again became Prime
Minister, and so continued until 1841. Being Premier at the time
of the Queen’s accession to the throne, Lord Melbourne became her
Majesty’s confidential adviser. His lordship died, in 1848, without
surviving issue, when the title passed to his brother, the Hon.
Frederick Lamb, who had been, in 1839, created Baron Beauvale, and
had held many important posts. His lordship, who married the Countess
Adela, daughter of Count Maltzan, Prussian Ambassador at Vienna, died
without issue, when the title became extinct. The estates then passed
to his only surviving sister, the Hon. Emily Mary, married, first,
to Earl Cowper, and, secondly, to the late Prime Minister, Viscount
Palmerston. This lady was born in 1787, and married, in 1805, Peter
Leopold Louis Francis, fifth Earl Cowper, by whom she had issue—George
Augustus Frederick, Viscount Fordwich, who became sixth Earl Cowper;
Lady Emily Caroline Catherine, married, in 1830, to the present Earl
of Shaftesbury; the Hon. William Francis Cowper, who, on the death of
Lady Palmerston, in 1869, became the owner, under his will, of Lord
Palmerston’s estates, and assumed the additional surname of Temple
(Cowper-Temple); the Hon. Charles Spencer Cowper, who married the
Lady Blessington, and afterwards Jessie Mary, only surviving child
of Colonel Clinton McLean; and the Lady Frances Elizabeth. Earl
Cowper dying in 1837, Lady Cowper, in 1839, was married to Viscount
Palmerston, who, dying in 1865, left her again a widow, and his title
became extinct. At Lady Palmerston’s death, in 1869, her estates passed
to her grandson, the present Earl Cowper, who now owns Melbourne Hall
and its surrounding estates.
The Hon. Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston and Baron Temple
of Mount Temple, was the son of Henry, second Viscount Palmerston,
by his second wife, Mary, daughter of Benjamin Mee, of Bath. He was
born in 1784, and was educated at Harrow and at St. John’s College,
Cambridge, and succeeded his father in the titles and estates as third
Viscount Palmerston and Baron Temple in 1802, and entered Parliament
in 1807, from which time his name was intimately mixed up with the
political history of this country. He successively became a Knight of
the Garter and a Knight Grand Cross of the Bath, and, among other
offices, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Constable of Dover Castle,
Elder Brother of Trinity House, Lord Rector of the University of
Glasgow, a Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary at War, Foreign Secretary,
and Home Secretary. In 1855 he became Prime Minister, and so continued
until 1858. In 1859 he again became Prime Minister, and died whilst
holding that office in 1865. The title then became extinct. Lord
Palmerston by his will, dated November 22nd, 1864, left his real
and leasehold estates in England and Ireland to Lady Palmerston for
life, and after her decease to her second son, the Right Hon. William
Francis Cowper. The will expressed an earnest wish that Mr. Cowper,
upon coming into possession of the estates, should immediately apply
for a royal license to take and use, for himself and his descendants,
the surname of Temple, either in substitution for, or in addition to,
that of Cowper, but so that Temple should be the final name; and the
family arms of Temple to be quartered with those of Cowper. This was
accordingly done. The arms of Lord Palmerston were—quarterly, first
and fourth, _or_, an eagle displayed, _sable_; second and third,
_argent_, two bars, _sable_, each charged with three martlets, _or_.
Supporters—dexter, a lion reguardant, _pæan_; and sinister, a horse
reguardant, _argent_, maned, tailed, and hoofed, _or_. Crest—a hound
sejant, _sable_, collared, _or_. Motto—“Flecti non frangi.”
It is a somewhat curious circumstance, as will have been gleaned, and
one worth noting, that Melbourne Hall became the seat, within twenty
years, of two Prime Ministers, and that the titles of each, Lords
Melbourne and Palmerston, have become extinct.