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.’”

“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.

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.

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.