Chapter XXIV: Introduction (7)

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.

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.

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.

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.

The present noble owner of Melbourne Hall and its surrounding estates is the Right Hon. Francis Thomas De Grey Cowper, seventh Earl Cowper, Viscount Fordwich, Baron Cowper, Baron Butler, and Baron Dingwall, and a Baronet. His lordship (who is grandson of Lady Palmerston) was born in 1834, and is the son of George Augustus Frederick, sixth earl, by his wife, Anne Florence, Baroness Lucas, daughter of the second Earl De Grey, and was educated at Harrow and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he proceeded M.A. in 1855. He succeeded to the titles and estates on the death of his father in 1856, and from 1871 to 1874 was Captain and Gold Shell of H.M. Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms. In 1870 Earl Cowper married Katrine Cecilia, daughter of Lord William Compton, heir-presumptive to the Marquis of Northampton, by whom, however, he has no issue, the heir-presumptive being his brother, the Hon. Henry Frederick Cowper, M.P.

The arms of Earl Cowper are—_argent_, three martlets, _gules_; on a chief engrailed, of the last, three annulets, _or_. Crest—a lion’s jamb erased, _or_, holding a cherry branch, _vert_, fructed, _gules_. Supporters—two dun horses, close cropped (except a tuft on the withers) and docked, a large blaze down the face, a black list down the back, and three white feet, viz. both hind and the near fore foot. Motto—“Tuum est.”

The Gardens and Grounds of Melbourne Hall are its chief attractions They are a curious and elegant relic of the old style of horticulture, which was brought from Holland by William III., consisting of groves, fountains, statues, &c., and are of the most strikingly peculiar character. In one place, on entering, the visitor finds himself in the Lover’s Walk, a literal tunnel (the outside, of which is shown in our view of the grounds) formed of very aged yew-trees, arched and netted and intergrown one with another, only here and there pierced by rays of light. In another he finds himself by the side of a basin, in the centre of which a fountain is ever playing; while in its clear waters magnificent carp are lazily swimming or basking in the sun. In another place he comes upon a “cool grot”—a mineral spring, over which is erected a charming rustic grotto of spars, shells, stalactites, and other natural objects, and bearing on a marble tablet lines by the Hon. George Lamb:—

“Rest, weary stranger, in this shady cave,
And taste, if languid, of the mineral wave;
There’s virtue in the draught; for health that flies
From crowded cities and their smoky skies,
Here lends her power from every glade and hill,
Strength to the breeze, and medicine to the rill.”

The lawn in front of the mansion is laid out in ornamental beds, filled with the choicest flowers, and dotted over with groups, single figures, vases, &c., of fine sculpture, of which it may be interesting to note that the pair of black figures only cost, about the year 1630, £30, and the Perseus and Andromeda £45. At the opposite side of the grounds from the house is an alcove of elaborate design in wrought-iron, bearing the arms of Coke, which, with the central basin and fountain, is shown in our engraving of the gardens as seen from the hall. The Scotch firs which form the background of the gardens were planted in the time of William III., the trunks being, in many instances, 80 feet in height, and 13 or 14 feet in circumference. One of these Scotch firs, which fell in the spring of 1875, was known to be one hundred and seventy-six years old; its dimensions were extraordinary. They were as follows:—Height, 82 feet; length of butt, 39 feet; circumference at eight feet from the ground, 10 feet 8 inches; circumference at thirty-nine feet from the ground, 9 feet 2 inches; total contents of timber, 340 cubic feet. Leading in a south-easterly direction from the parterred lawn, the gardens become entirely changed in character, and the visitor wanders through sylvan walks, bounded on either side by impenetrable yew hedges, which intersect each other in every direction, at every turn coming upon a fine piece of sculpture, or rippling stream, or bubbling fountain.

One of the walks leads to a gentle eminence at the junction of three splendid glades, with gigantic lime hedges, in the centre of which is placed the enormous bronzed vase of lead—one of the finest pieces of modelling in existence—called the “Seasons,” which, with another exquisite, though plainer, vase placed almost in close contiguity, was presented by Queen Anne to her Vice-Chamberlain, Thomas Coke. On the pedestals is the monogram, “T. C.,” of the Thomas Coke to whom they were given. On occasion of its being repaired, in 1840, the following inscription, written by Mr. H. Fox, was placed in its interior:—

HOC SIMULACRUM
EX DONO ANNÆ REGINÆ
THOMA COKE ARMIGERO DOMINI CUBICULARII
VICEM FUNGENTE
POSITUM
E LOCO MOTUM ET AD VETEREM
NORMAM RESTITUTUM
GULIELMUS VICECOMES MELBOURNE
PRINCEPS DOMINORUM REGII THESAURI
REPOSUIT
ANNO VICTORIÆ REG. QUARTO
ANNO CHRISTI 1840.

The Terrace Walk, formed so as to overlook the magnificent lake, is a pleasant and favourite promenade for visitors, and commands some charming views of the grounds, the lake, the church, and neighbourhood.

The Lake, or Pool, as it is commonly called, is nearly twenty-two acres in extent, and is beautifully wooded on its banks, and, with its island, the swans which are always sailing on its surface, and the pleasure-boats frequently gliding about, forms a beautiful picture from whatever point it is viewed. The gardens, it may be added, cover an extent of nearly twenty acres of ground; and it is worth noting that on the wall near the Conservatory and the Muniment-room is the finest and largest _Wistaria_ in existence—its extent along the wall being no less than two hundred and sixty-four feet.

In the hall itself is a splendid collection of pictures, including many very rare examples—family portraits, principally of the old celebrities of the Coke family and others. In this house Baxter wrote his “Saint’s Rest;” and here many distinguished men have at one time or other resided. Of this Baxter himself thus wrote:—“The second book which I wrote (and the first which I began) was that called ‘Saint’s Everlasting Rest.’ While I was in health I had not the least thoughts of writing books, or in serving God in any more public way than that of preaching; but when I was weakened with much bleeding, and left solitary in my chamber at Sir John Coke’s in Derbyshire, without any acquaintance but my servant about me, and was sentenced to death by my physicians, I began to contemplate more seriously the _Everlasting Rest_ which I apprehended myself just on the borders of; and that my thoughts might not be scattered too much in my meditation, I began to write something upon that subject, intending but a sermon or two (which is the cause that the beginning is in brevity and style disproportionable to the rest); but being continued long in sickness, where I had no poor or better employment, I followed it on till it was enlarged to the bulk in which it is now published.” The hall was at one time, about 1811, occupied by Sir Sidney Smith, the “Hero of Acre,” and also by Sir William Rumbold: it was likewise for many years in the occupation of Colonel Gooch, one of the heroes of Waterloo—in fact, one of the seven brave men immortalised in history as having defended the important and critical post of Houguemont in that great battle. It is now occupied by William Dashwood Fane, Esq.

Closely adjoining the hall is Melbourne Church, which is, without doubt, one of the very finest and most perfect Norman structures remaining to us, reminding one forcibly, in its massive piers and other features, of Durham Cathedral. Indeed, it is far more of a cathedral in appearance than a parish church. The western doorway is one of its most striking external features; but internally it is full of interest in every part. It is a cruciform structure, with massive central tower, and two other lantern towers at its west end. The nave is divided from the side-aisles by a series of massive round piers supporting semicircular arches, above which is a fine open triforium running entirely round the nave. Remains of a circular apse are to be traced at the east end. Its monuments, too, are worthy of careful examination; they are mainly to the family of Hardinge, of King’s Newton, the head of which family is the present Lord Hardinge.

One mile from Melbourne is the pleasant village of King’s Newton, with its Holy Well and its Hall, now in ruins, but long the paternal residence of the Hardinge family, and from which its then representative, Viscount Hardinge, of King’s Newton—the heroic Governor-General of India—took his title. This distinguished family had been settled at this place for several centuries, the hall being built by them _circa_ 1400. Sir Robert Hardinge, who was Master of the Court of Chancery and Attorney-General to Charles II., resided here, and was visited by that monarch, who remained his guest for some days. On the glass of the window of his room King Charles scratched the anagram, _Cras ero lux_, being a clever transposition of the words, _Carolus rex_, and meaning “To-morrow I shall shine.” In the garden is a famous old mulberry-tree, under which it is said the monarch used to sit: it is still luxuriant in foliage and in fruit. The hall was destroyed by fire only a few years ago, and its picturesque ruins and grounds are now open to the public, who during the summer months “there do congregate” for pic-nic parties and rural enjoyments. Our engraving shows the hall as it appeared before the fire.

The village of King’s Newton, one of the most delightful of villages, has a literary celebrity attaching to it. Here Thomas Hall, who wrote “Wisdom’s Conquest” in 1640, resided; and here, too, Speechly, the Rural Economist; Mundy, who wrote “The Fall of Needwood” and “Needwood Forest;” Mrs. Green, the authoress of “John Gray of Willoughby;” the Ortons, one of whom is known by his “Excelsior” and his “Three Palaces,” and the other by his varied writings, were residents, as was also the author of “Thurstan Meverell;” and here, in his native place, resided till his death, in February, 1876, the able historian of Melbourne, Mr. John Joseph Briggs, who also ranked high as a writer on natural history. The locality has other attractions “too numerous to mention.” Independently of its great natural beauties, its most attractive associations are undoubtedly with a grand and honourable past. Of King’s Newton Mr. Briggs thus wrote:—

“Sweet Newton, first to thee my song I raise.
Thy charms, loved hamlet, need no poet’s praise;
O’er thy green meads first trips the laughing Spring,
And shakes primroses from each flower-wreathed wing:
There the first swallow skims the daisied vale,
And the loved cuckoo breathes her mellow tale,
And merry chiff-chaff from the budding tree
Gives out his joyous notes so wild and free.
And when old Autumn sheds o’er field and bower
The radiant hues of many a gorgeous flower,
And bids the sun lead down his stately dance,
Thy fields are last to catch his parting glance.
Within thy bounds I drew mine earliest breath,
And there, grant Heaven, these eyes may close in death!”

Besides its ruined hall, there is at King’s Newton a Holy Well, the structure over which was erected by Robert Hardinge in 1660, and restored a few years back by one of his descendants. It bears on its front the inscription—“FONS SACER HIC STRVITVR ROBERTO NOMINIS HARDINGE, 1660.”

In the neighbourhood of Melbourne, too, are many pleasant places and delightful “bits” of scenery. Weston Cliff,

“Just rising from fair fields clad now in green,
Its beauteous church-spire tap’ring o’er the wood,”

on the banks of “silver Trent,” is one of the most favourite and famous fishing resorts of the district, and its manifold attractions have often been the theme of the local poet’s song:—

“Sweet Weston Cliff! how beautiful art thou!
How dark the firs that crown thy rugged brow!
Adown thy sides the straggling white sloe falls,
And blossom’d thorns outspread their snowy palls,
And the glad furze hath beauteously unrolled
For the Spring’s feet her gorgeous cloth of gold.”

Donington Cliff, too, on the river margin of the broad lands of Donington, the seat of the late Marquis of Hastings and of Mr. Hastings, father of the present Earl of Loudoun, is a charming spot, especially where, as shown in our engraving,

“Proud trees bend, and on Trent’s waves descry
Their own bright image as it passes by,”

just where the boat-house and landing-place are situated. But we have no space wherein to describe the beauties of the neighbourhood, and must leave Melbourne to pass on to our next chapter.

SOMERLEYTON.

SOMERLEYTON, the Sumerledetun of Domesday survey, and occasionally in later times written Somerley, lies about six miles from Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, its nearest point on the coast being some four miles distant. At the time of the Conquest, Wihtred, a free man and a priest, held forty acres for a manor, and Ulf, a free man under the protection of Earl Gurth, held two carucates of land for a manor. The whole place was seized by the Conqueror, and given to Roger Bigod as steward. It was soon after held as one manor by Sir Peter Fitz-Osbert, whose son, Sir Roger Fitz-Osbert, was lord of the place, _temp._ Henry III., and was, 22nd Edward I. summoned to Parliament as Baron Osborne: he died in 1305-6. His sister, Isabel Fitz-Osbert, wife of Sir Walter Jernegan, or Jerningham, of Horham Jernegan, in Suffolk, and widow of Sir Henry de Walpole, became heiress to the Somerleyton estates on the death of her brother, and thus they passed into the Jernegan family.

The Jernegans, even at that time, boasted an ancient pedigree. The earliest of whom there is any record was living in 1182, and left by his wife Sibilla a son, Hubert, who, in 1203, married Margery, daughter and heiress of De Harling, of East Harling, and by her had issue, besides others, a son, Sir Hugh Jernegan, who married Ellen, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Englethorpe. Their son it was who married Isabel Fitz-Osbert, and thus acquired the manor of Somerleyton in her right. Their son, Sir Peter Jernegan, Knt., married three wives: first, Alice, daughter of Sir Hugh Germayne; secondly, Matilda, daughter of Sir Roger Herling; and thirdly, Ellen, daughter of Sir Roger de Huntingfield. By his first wife he had issue Sir John Jernegan, Knt., of Somerleyton, whose wife was Agatha, daughter of Sir Robert Shelton, of Shelton, Knt. Their son, Sir John Jernegan, who died in 1375, married Joan, daughter and co-heiress of Sir William de Kelveden and widow of Sir John Lowdham, by whom he had issue his son and successor, Sir John Jernegan, who, by his wife Margaret, daughter of Sir Thomas Vise de Lou, Knt., of Shotley, had, besides other issue, a son, Sir Thomas Jernegan, Knt., who succeeded him, and who married Joan Appleyard, of Dunston, by whom he left a son, John Jernegan, who succeeded him. This gentleman married twice: by his first wife, Jane, daughter of Sir John Darell, of Calehill, he had a son and heir, John Jernegan, who married Isabel, daughter and heiress of Sir Gervase Clifton, Knt. The issue of this marriage was a son, Sir Edward Jernegan, who was knighted, and succeeded his father in the estates.

This Sir Edward Jernegan was married twice: first, to Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Bedingfield, Knt.; and, secondly, to Mary, daughter and co-heiress of Richard Scroope, son of Lord Scroope. By this second marriage he had, among other issue, a son, Sir Henry Jerningham, of Wingfield and Huntingfield Hall, in Suffolk, and of Coney, in Norfolk, Vice-Chamberlain and Master of the Horse to Queen Mary, from whom are descended the present Jerninghams of Staffordshire and other counties. By his first wife Sir Edward had issue six sons—Sir John, Sir Robert, Thomas, Olyf, Nicholas, and Edward—and two daughters: Ann, who became the wife of five husbands, and Margaret, who was twice married. He died in 1515, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Sir John Jernegan, of Somerleyton, who married Bridget, daughter of Sir Robert Drury, Knt., of Halsted, by whom, with other issue, he had a son, George Jernegan, who succeeded him, and who, having espoused Elye, daughter of Sir John Spelman, of Narborough, Knt., was succeeded by his son, John Jernegan. This gentleman married Catherine, daughter of George Brooke, Lord Cobham, and had by her issue four daughters, his co-heiresses—viz. Elizabeth; Katherine, married to Wymond Carew; Frances, married, first, to Thomas Bedingfield, and, secondly, to her relative Henry Jerningham, of Coney Park; and Margaret, married to —— Ford, of Butley. Frances, the third daughter, inherited Somerleyton, and conveyed it to her second husband, Henry Jerningham, who sold it to John Wentworth, Esq.

It will thus have been seen that the Jernegans (whose arms were—_argent_, three buckles, _gules_) held Somerleyton for no fewer than thirteen generations. In addition to this, they became possessed of the greater part of the King’s manor of the Island of Lothingland—a district occupying the north-east corner of the county of Suffolk, and containing the sixteen parishes of Somerleyton, Lowestoft, Corton, Gunton, Oulton, Ashby, Lound, Fritton, Flixton, Hopton, Blundeston, Gorleston, Belton, Burgh, Bradwell, and Herringfleet. In 1619 Henry Jerningham died at Cossey, nine years after having sold Somerleyton to John Wentworth, whose son was Sir John Wentworth, one of the chiefs of the Cavalier party of the district during the civil wars; and Cromwell and his troopers paid several visits to the old hall, making free with its forage, and “carrying away its musquets.” The village of Somerleyton appears, like its master, to have been staunchly loyal, and was harassed in consequence by the quartering of soldiers and the exaction of forced loans by the partisans of the Commonwealth. Ireton, in 1648, summoned the bailiffs of Yarmouth to meet him in conference at Somerleyton Hall, and there delivered to them the Lord General’s peremptory command, either to “ingarrison their town, or to demolish their walls and fortifications.” A rousing bonfire and bountiful distribution of bread and beer celebrated the restoration of King Charles II.

Sir John Wentworth records that “on the 14th day of March, 1642, Collonell Cromwell’s troope, and Captain Fountayne with his troope, and divers others, to the number of 140, came to Somerley Hall;” the day after they “tooke away muskets, bandeliers, rests, head-pieces, and one fowling-piece,” and other things of which no note was made. The Protector was, therefore, certainly an inmate of Somerleyton, and probably more than once. Matters changed, however: in 1660 an order was issued to the constables of Somerleyton and Ashby “to re-provide prayer books for their churches;” also to warn “all alehouse-keepers and butchers to enter recognisance for the observation of Lent and fish dayes.” The stout old knight did not live to see the King “enjoy his own again;” but his loyal widow did, and subscribed ten shillings “towards the building of a bone fire” upon St. George’s Day, 1661.

Sir John Wentworth married Anne Soame, but died without issue in 1651. From the Wentworths, Somerleyton passed to John Garneys, the son of Elizabeth Wentworth, sister of Sir Thomas Wentworth, who had become the wife of Charles Garneys, a member of the fine old Suffolk family who bore the alliterative motto of “God’s Grace Guides Garneys.” The Garneys (whose arms were—_argent_, a chevron engrailed, _azure_, between three escallop shells, _sable_) were originally seated at Boyland Hall, Morningthorpe, Norfolk, and at Heveringham and Kenton, in Suffolk. In 1672 the then representative of the family, Thomas Garneys, sold the estate to Admiral Sir Thomas Allin, Bart., a Suffolk worthy whose name figures prominently in history. Thomas Garneys then removed from Somerleyton to Boyland Hall, where he had a son, Wentworth Garneys, who married Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas Abdy. Sir Thomas Allin was born in 1613, and was captain of one of the ships in the service of the Commonwealth which went over to the Prince of Wales. In 1663 he was constituted commander-in-chief in the Downs, and later on of the Mediterranean. In 1665 he struck the first blow of war with the Dutch by attacking their Smyrna fleet of forty ships with eight sail of the line, when, after making prizes of four ships, he drove the remaining thirty-six into Cadiz harbour. In the same year, in the great sea-fight off Lowestoft, when the English fleet, under the Duke of York, Prince Rupert, and others, engaged the Dutch fleet under Van Tromp, Admiral Allin held a command.