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.
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—