The Reverend Francis Litchfield of Great Linford
Francis Litchfield was born in 1794, in Northampton. The son of a successful Doctor, he had been educated at Rugby and Merton College, and in 1838 assumed the living of Farthinghoe in Northamptonshire, as well as the same year the living of Great Linford, a situation that caused him some bad press, as for instance a letter carried in the Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette of June 23rd, 1838.
How wrongly would any one act who should entertain any suspicion or distrust as to the high religious motives of that domestic chaplain to the Earl or Clanwilliam, the Rev. Francis Litchfield, in accepting, within three months, the two livings of Farthinghoe. Northamptonshire, and of Great Linford, Bucks, he already holding the vicarage of Elham, Kent. And who can doubt the Rev. Gentleman would deprecate a system of compulsion that strip him of two his livings.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
Timothy Homespun.
Given the meaning of the phrase Homespun Wisdom as simple plain knowledge and the fact that not a single person of that name can be located anywhere, the suspicion that Timothy Homespun is an alias becomes all but inescapable.
It is only fair to note that Litchfield wrote a strongly worded repudiation of any suspicions that he was feathering his nest, claiming that in fact in swapping various livings, he had lost money, and that his motives could not then be judged as greedy. Appearing in the Northampton Mercury of October 26th, 1839, his letter claims that as regards the living of Great Linford, “I was offered the living of Great Linford by a neighbouring clergyman, who was unable, on account of the state of his other preferment, to hold it himself.”
The argument that he was simply doing a good deed seems a thin one at best, but despite the general feeling in the country that holding two or more livings (a so called plurality) was simply wrong, Litchfield retained the living of Great Linford until his death at the age of 82 in 1876.
It is only fair to note that Litchfield wrote a strongly worded repudiation of any suspicions that he was feathering his nest, claiming that in fact in swapping various livings, he had lost money, and that his motives could not then be judged as greedy. Appearing in the Northampton Mercury of October 26th, 1839, his letter claims that as regards the living of Great Linford, “I was offered the living of Great Linford by a neighbouring clergyman, who was unable, on account of the state of his other preferment, to hold it himself.”
The argument that he was simply doing a good deed seems a thin one at best, but despite the general feeling in the country that holding two or more livings (a so called plurality) was simply wrong, Litchfield retained the living of Great Linford until his death at the age of 82 in 1876.
The Northampton Herald: Litchfield's other pulpit
Described as a “furious conservative”, Litchfield was a founder and chief editorialist of the Tory leaning newspaper the Northampton Herald and from this pulpit appears to have picked fights, one of which in 1836 saw him successfully sued for libel by a Reverend Dr Arnold. His various feuds spilled over into the pages of other newspapers, particularly the Whig leaning Northampton Mercury, with the newspapers trading barbs on a regular basis, as for instance a typically pointed editorial from the Mercury of November 2nd, 1839, which proclaimed the following:
The charges against our reverend opponent are – that being a Clergyman he had not only undertaken the unclerical office of conducting a scurrilous newspaper, but that he discharges that office in a manner utterly disgraceful to him, not merely as a Clergyman but as a gentleman.
The same article makes the following tart point about the clearly still festering issue of his living at Great Linford. “Mr. Litchfield has carefully refrained from telling his readers what is the value of his living of Great Linford, which he holds in plurality with his living of Farthinghoe."
Renting out Great Linford Rectory
Somewhat further denting his claims of fiscal probity, it also seems that the Reverend Litchfield was in the habit of renting out the Rectory rather than providing it as a home for the parish Curate, who he would have been responsible for appointing. We can see this happening in 1841, when the census and Tithe records for that year show that the Rectory was occupied by a farmer named Thomas Kemp, while the poor Curate, a gentleman by the name of William Law was forced to find less salubrious lodgings elsewhere. This can be plausibly identified as “Canal Cottage”, which can still be seen just off the bridge by Marsh Drive.
His habit of renting out the Rectory did not go unremarked upon, as is evident from the following extract from a scornful letter published in the Northampton Mercury of November 30th, 1844; the figure of £379 referenced is the value of the living of Great Linford then available to the Reverend.
His habit of renting out the Rectory did not go unremarked upon, as is evident from the following extract from a scornful letter published in the Northampton Mercury of November 30th, 1844; the figure of £379 referenced is the value of the living of Great Linford then available to the Reverend.
The non-resident incumbent of Great Linford renders no service whatsoever for his £379, but, on the contrary, excludes some other incumbent, who would reside in the parish, and occupy that very Rectory House, which I see by the weekly advertisement in the Rev. Editor’s own paper, is to be let to any stranger who pleases to rent it, instead of being tenanted as it ought to be, rent free, by the curate.
Great Linford second in his affections?
Notwithstanding these various controversies, Litchfield received a glowing obituary in the Banbury Guardian of September 14th, stating that, “Farthinghoe was at the centre of his affections and the field of his work." Telling perhaps that Great Linford receives no mention at all, and so his personal contribution to the village seems highly suspect, where a succession of curates appointed by Litchfield can be identified from census records, from William Law in 1841, to Thomas Bakewell in 1851, to John Webb in 1861 and 1871.
Litchfield’s eulogy offers clear evidence as to the level of control he exercised in all walks of life, though whether this zeal was exercised in proxy by the curates he appointed in Great Linford is impossible to say.
Litchfield’s eulogy offers clear evidence as to the level of control he exercised in all walks of life, though whether this zeal was exercised in proxy by the curates he appointed in Great Linford is impossible to say.
Cottage improvements, also whitewashing, and general cleanliness were there insisted upon long before sanitary affairs occupied the attention of the Legislature. The moral improvement of the people, too, met with strict attention at his hands, and all the rules for the management of his clubs, gardens, and cottages were drawn up with reference thereto.
There is other evidence available that Litchfield was active in Farthinghoe as regards good works; he appears to have been instrumental in having Almshouses built there, and also helped organise a "clothing society", which presumably was a charitable endeavour. Clearly though, his micro-management of affairs did not sit well with all his parishioners, as the same obituary observes, “Such a man could not but arouse the evil passions of the unthrifty and the immoral and he met with his full share of abuse as the reward for his endeavours.
The above eulogy taken at face value paints a picture of a good man wronged, however, it is not difficult to piece together a different picture of Litchfield that is far from complimentary, as for instance the appraisal offered in the book Victorian Brackley by John Clarke. “A big man, Litchfield liked a “good pace” and was “always looked for at the Northampton Races.” He was not often at Farthinghoe; he would gallop into the village just in time for the service on Sunday and then ride away.” The same book also offers that Litchfield had been the author of a number of letters to the Northampton Mercury, in which he expressed the opinion that the Poor Law led its recipients to extravagance, idleness and the destruction of natural affection, that they should feel disgrace to have received Poor Relief, and that women with illegitimate children belonged in prison. Sadly, he was also an anti-semite, who was on record as strongly objecting to the idea that Jews should be afforded full civil rights.
Of course to be charitable, Litchfield was a product of his times, doubtless feeling entirely comfortable in his own skin and with plenty of public support for views that in modern times we could scarcely describe as Christian. But if we are to judge him purely as the Reverend of Great Linford, it is perhaps telling that unlike many other Rectors and Curates who came before and after him, there is not a mention to be found in any newspaper of a visit to the village or church, nor act of kindness or generosity to the people of the parish, despite having reaped the benefits of the living of Great Linford for 40 years. Nor perhaps most tellingly is there any mention of an expression of lament within the parish upon his passing. It would however be wrong to say he was entirely disconnected from affairs within the parish, as we have one reference to his appearance at the church. Writing in his autobiographical pamphlet (reproduced on this site), Newman Cole describes encountering him on one of his, "periodical visits to the village to see that his curate was carrying out his duties in a proper manner."
The above eulogy taken at face value paints a picture of a good man wronged, however, it is not difficult to piece together a different picture of Litchfield that is far from complimentary, as for instance the appraisal offered in the book Victorian Brackley by John Clarke. “A big man, Litchfield liked a “good pace” and was “always looked for at the Northampton Races.” He was not often at Farthinghoe; he would gallop into the village just in time for the service on Sunday and then ride away.” The same book also offers that Litchfield had been the author of a number of letters to the Northampton Mercury, in which he expressed the opinion that the Poor Law led its recipients to extravagance, idleness and the destruction of natural affection, that they should feel disgrace to have received Poor Relief, and that women with illegitimate children belonged in prison. Sadly, he was also an anti-semite, who was on record as strongly objecting to the idea that Jews should be afforded full civil rights.
Of course to be charitable, Litchfield was a product of his times, doubtless feeling entirely comfortable in his own skin and with plenty of public support for views that in modern times we could scarcely describe as Christian. But if we are to judge him purely as the Reverend of Great Linford, it is perhaps telling that unlike many other Rectors and Curates who came before and after him, there is not a mention to be found in any newspaper of a visit to the village or church, nor act of kindness or generosity to the people of the parish, despite having reaped the benefits of the living of Great Linford for 40 years. Nor perhaps most tellingly is there any mention of an expression of lament within the parish upon his passing. It would however be wrong to say he was entirely disconnected from affairs within the parish, as we have one reference to his appearance at the church. Writing in his autobiographical pamphlet (reproduced on this site), Newman Cole describes encountering him on one of his, "periodical visits to the village to see that his curate was carrying out his duties in a proper manner."