424

CHAPTER XI

THE LAND SYSTEM IN THE CORPORATE COLONIES OF NEW ENGLAND

The form of group settlement which we have seen developing in Plymouth was reproduced throughout New England, and wherever New Englanders settled. The joint action of the settlers in locating dwellings and home lots, in laying out village streets, in subdividing the adjacent arable land, in subjecting the meadow and the forest for a time to common management, resulted in the founding of the town of Plymouth. The agrarian policy of the settlers constituted the most characteristic element in the town organization. The church fellowship, originating in this case at an earlier date, formed another bond of union within the group. It was the coexisting agrarian and ecclesiastical bonds which united the inhabitants into a group and made the creation of a town government both natural and a necessity.

That which occurred at Plymouth happened also at Salem, in each of the settlements about Massachusetts bay, in the towns of Plymouth colony, as one after another they came into existence, among the settlements of northern New England, in the towns which were founded on the shores of Narragansett bay and along the course of the Connecticut river. On Long Island, too, and wherever in New Jersey New Englanders found their abode, the same form of settle ment was reproduced. Throughout this entire section the study of local settlement and of town government is the study of a single model and of the somewhat minute variations to which as an original type it was subjected. Local settlements in the section referred to conform as strictly to a single type as do the colonies themselves. A high degree of uniformity distinguishes the colony governments of New

425

England, but it is no greater than that which appears among the towns.

It would seem that the explanation of this is to be found in the fact that settlement throughout New England, and in the outlying districts which were colonized by New Englanders, was effected by groups. Each group was moved by an impulse which at the outset was shared by all or nearly all its members. Incongruous elements might later creep in, but as a rule they were carefully excluded. The migrations and removals which resulted in the colonization of New England were effected by congregations, by neighborhoods, by families. Some of these groups religious or political conflicts had united, while the same struggles had separated them from former associates. Others, acting under a common social impulse, sought better farming lands or locations more favorable for trade. The familiar history of the settlement of the oldest towns in each of the New England colonies furnishes detailed illustrations of this fact. The extension of settlement from the original centres and the reproduction of towns, whether by the division of old ones or by the formation of new and remote villages, simply multiply illustrations of the same process.

The groups which formed the population of the New England towns were democratically organized. This does not mean that they were without class distinctions, or that they were destitute of leaders or of families which possessed strong aristocratic instincts. But it does mean that a considerable degree of social and political equality existed within them, and that it was the conscious policy of each group to maintain such equality. The towns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were in the main simple farming communities, where many small freeholders and almost no large ones, existed. In local concerns they were governed by non-representative democratic assemblies, and by officials who were elected in these assemblies. The very plan upon which the town was founded and in accordance with which it was governed discouraged the growth of large properties and the development of social inequality. Its object was to perpetuate the unity and the simplicity of the town as they were at

426

the beginning. Families were able to accumulate large wealth only in port towns and by means of trade. Though there were aristocratic elements in the New England town and its society, the monarchical element was totally lacking. The town has been likened to the manor, and the analogy to an extent is justified. The European manor was peopled by what may roughly be called a peasant democracy, settled in villages and hamlets. In England in the seventeenth century these early organizations for general local purposes had grown together into the parish. From such groups in many instances came the early American colonist. The characteristics of these groups were to a degree perpetuated in the New World. Experiences, suggestions, customary modes of action derived from the manor, the village, the hamlet, the parish, probably influenced the course of action of the first settlers, though no written evidence of the process appears. The town was an adaptation of well-known English forms of local settlement to new, or at least modified, conditions at the beginning. In a similar sense were all the features of colonial government—the executive, legislative, judicial, military, ecclesiastical systems—imitations and adaptations of English, or more general European, practice. But in no case were they slavish imitations of a model, while the emphasis will doubtless be incorrectly laid if any one of the entire list were selected as par excellence an example of either imitation or adaptation.

The manor, especially in its later and customary form, was a democratic group with a monarchical head. The New England town was a democratic group without a monarchical head. In English-American colonization the proprietor, both socially and politically, was the representative and embodiment of the monarchical idea. Monarchy, as an institution, secured its foothold in American soil, in one form or another, through the proprietorship. Wherever the genuine proprietary régime existed, emigration and settlement were largely directed from a single centre, because the proprietor sought income from the land of his province, he advertised its advantages, planned its settlement, sold its lands, exacted a quitrent from its grantees, in short, developed a provincial land system,

427

the nature of which will be the subject of future inquiry. In a real, though not in the fullest sense, emigration to the proprietary provinces was assisted emigration, the encouraging and directing influence of the proprietor being felt through it all. That emigration to New England and the progress of settlement within that section were wholly unassisted or left without direction, it would be a mistake to claim. Salem was founded under a proprietary system, though it soon escaped from control of that kind. A plantation or two, like that of Cradock at Medford, was granted, on which tenants may possibly have lived. Productions like White’s Planters Plea, and events like the removal of the Leyden congregation, the Agreement at Cambridge, and the consequent action of the Massachusetts company, and many events connected with the settlement of other colonies and of towns as well, show that Puritan emigration was not without intelligent control.

But the method and the purposes of that control differed from those which appear in connection with the settlement of the proprietary provinces. Moved by the pressure of religious disabilities at home and by the fear of greater sufferings which were believed still to be in store, the Puritans removed spontaneously and in large numbers to the New World. They did this under a common impulse, and as the result of agreements and widespread understandings. Occasionally an entire congregation removed. The departure of ministers or prominent laymen induced parts of congregations and large numbers of families and individuals to go. This was accomplished without special aid from broadsides, pamphlets, or sermons setting forth the advantages of the new country, without the offer of head rights or concessions of land in other forms. The fact that a prospect was opened for escape from episcopal domination, for the establishment of their favorite ecclesiastical polity under the protection of a government of their own, was tacitly accepted as a sufficient guaranty of the rest. It was instinctively believed that comfort and prosperity would follow in the wake of this much desired liberty.

This view of the problem resulted in the development by

428

the Puritan colonies of a land system which differed characteristically from that of the proprietary provinces. The Puritan colonies as such did not seek profit from their land, but granted it freely to actual settlers and in such amounts as suited their immediate and prospective needs. No distinct land office was established by any New England colony. Land was not sold by the colony; neither, except in the case of certain islands¹ and very rarely of some other tract, was it leased. Rent² formed no appreciable part of the colony revenue. Many grants of land to individuals were made by the colony, usually as a form of reward for valued public service. But such grants were the exception rather than the rule. By far the greater part of the land in the New England colonies was granted to towns, that is, to groups or communities of settlers by whom it was allotted to individuals. The grants to towns were made in large tracts, six miles square³ or more, the grant often being described in the most general terms, without even a specification of its bounds. Under the pressure of immediate need the earliest settlers about Massachusetts bay located themselves where the best chances seemed to offer, without formal grants, and the bounds of their towns were afterwards fixed by the general court, or were determined by the establishment of new towns. The sickness which prevailed at Salem during the winter of 1629-1630, and that which followed among Winthrop’s colonists at Charlestown during the next summer and autumn, forced the settlers to divide. This resulted in the settlement of Boston, Roxbury, Dorchester, Watertown, Newtown, Medford, and Saugus. These towns were named

429

by order of the assistants, while six years later their powers were recognized by the general court,¹ and the authority of the court over them was fully asserted. Even before this general township act was passed, the general court had declared that none but itself had power to dispose of land or to give and confirm property rights.² Towns, therefore, in allotting lands, acted legally as agents of the Massachusetts company.

Massachusetts, after the first few years had passed, carefully superintended the founding of towns, and did not scruple to interfere in their affairs when occasion seemed to demand it. The magistrates and general court sought in this matter, as in all others, to follow a system, having regard not only to local interests, but to the welfare of the colony as a whole. It was customary for the general courts to appoint committees, consisting in most though not in all cases of residents, to superintend the laying out of plantations. The founding of Ipswich, first as a plantation and afterward as a town, was undertaken with express reference to the need which was felt, during the years 1633 to 1635, that the northern part of Massachusetts should be settled, so as to keep it out of the hands of the French.³ In 1635 Newbury, in the same region, was also made a plantation. The court ordered land to be set apart there for the keeping of sheep and cattle which had recently come over in “the Dutch shipps,” and also granted permission for the building of a mill and weir. In 1638 a committee was appointed by the general court to assist in the settlement of Hampton and in the allotment of land there, and it was ordered that nothing should be done without their allowance.⁴

The establishment of a plantation at Marblehead was ordered and regulated by the general court, and none were allowed to inhabit there without its leave, or without the permission of two of the magistrates.⁵ The process of laying

430

out Lancaster—then called Nashaway—under the authority of the general court, began in 1644. In 1645, upon the petition of the interested parties, a committee of residents was designated to lay out lots there to all the planters in proportion to their estates and charges, to locate their houses, and to see that all grantees took the oath of fidelity. But delays¹ in the settlement followed, and not until 1653 were town rights fully bestowed, and then under very comprehensive regulations as to the laying out of lands. When, in 1655, Groton was made a plantation, the general court made the grant, designated Mr. Danforth of Cambridge and those whom he should associate with him² to lay it out, and appointed those who for two years should serve as its selectmen. Controversies having arisen in Sudbury concerning both common and allotted lands, a committee which was appointed by the general court reported in 1656 in such a way as to indicate that the management of town lands might be subject to review to almost any extent.³ This report was accepted by the inhabitants of Sudbury and ratified by the general court, as embodying a satisfactory adjustment of the dispute.

In 1660, in response to a petition of certain inhabitants of Ipswich, the general court granted them a tract, six miles square, near Quaboag ponds, on condition that within three years twenty families should be settled there, and that they should have a minister. These⁴ conditions were not fulfilled. In 1667 there were only six or seven families on the place. The general court then declared that the original grant was void, and that the Ipswich men, with the exception of those who had become actual settlers, had lost their rights. But in response to a petition and in order to promote the settlement of the place, the court now appointed a committee, with Captain John Pynchon at its head, to admit inhabitants, grant lands, and manage local affairs until the plantation had become sufficiently strong to be made a town. If the inhabitants of Ipswich who had professed a desire to settle there would give security that they would make the removal

431

within one year, their rights should be secured. The experiment now proved a success. In 1673 the plantation was made a town with the name of Brookfield, and a post was thereby planted in the Nipmuck country, midway between the settlements along the streams and tide-waters of the east, and those which were already developing in the Connecticut valley.

The attempt of the magistrates to divert the inhabitants of Newtown, Watertown, and Dorchester from removal in 1635 to the valley of the Connecticut agitated the whole colony. Though in the end the removal could not be prevented, it was to an extent controlled by the general court. When in 1641 the question arose whether Springfield lay within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts or Connecticut, the general court at Boston¹ specially commissioned William Pynchon to administer justice in Springfield, trying and adjudging minor causes there according to Massachusetts law, and granting appeals to the court of assistants. Commissions were issued to Pynchon, to Henry Smith, and afterward to a board of three members whose jurisdiction should extend over Springfield, Northampton, and Hadley. The last mentioned board was continued in existence until Hampshire county was established.² These commissions, however, were judicial in character, and did not extend to the entire management of town affairs. But Northfield, the remote frontier town, was laid out by commissioners of the general court; was twice resettled under such jurisdiction, and continued under it far into the eighteenth century.³ In 1679 a general order was passed that localities which had been abandoned during the late war should not be resettled, or new plantations formed, except under the direction of committees appointed by the governor and council or by the court of the county where the settlement was to be located.

The outline which has now been given of the way in which the Massachusetts general court, by means of committees, superintended the settlement of the colony, will show

432

how easy it was for her to extend such control outside the bounds which were set by the royal charter. A mode of procedure which would prove effective on the Connecticut might also be used on the Piscataqua, among the Narragansett settlements, or in the Pequot country. As we have seen, attempts were made with greater or less success to use them in all those regions. Inhabitants of Roxbury were granted a remote plantation, which, when the lines were correctly run, developed into Woodstock, Connecticut. Dedham, as well as other towns in the eastern part of the colony, was interested in the same way in settlements along the Connecticut valley. To the forming of plantations and the reproduction of towns there need be no limit. From the existing hive swarms might be sent off in any direction, and might establish a new hive at any point. The process was already begun by which the continent was to be peopled; by which much of Europe had been peopled centuries before. It is clear that circumstances of climate and soil were more favorable to the extension of settlement in the northern than in the southern colonies. But the process of settlement itself was more effective and vital in New England than was that which obtained under the proprietary regime in the south.

The legislation of Massachusetts affected the towns not only at the time of their organization, but continuously and in reference to their most important internal affairs. As in this connection we are immediately concerned with the land system, only a passing reference will be made to the utilization of the towns by the colony as local units for the election of deputies, for the assessment of rates, for the organization and training of the militia, for the maintenance of the peace, the care of the poor, the building and repair of roads and bridges, the registry of deeds, and of births, deaths, and marriages, and for all purposes of government. The towns also were the ecclesiastical centres within the colony, and upon them devolved the obligation of maintaining the common schools. In regard to all these things colony legislation to an extent prescribed and directed their action. In the matter of land, fences, and town herds—the subjects now under consideration—the towns were not left to themselves.

433

Not only were the boundaries of all the towns fixed by order of the general court, and boundary disputes settled by it, but by an act of 1647¹ they were required to perambulate their bounds once every three years. This should be done in May by officers of the selectmen’s appointment, and by them the heaps of stones and the trenches by which the bounds were marked should be renewed. From early times the law required the maintenance of fences about fields and meadows, and imposed upon him who was faulty in this respect the damage which might be inflicted by cattle.² The obligation to fence enclosed commons was imposed on all who shared in their use, and that in proportion to their shares. The same principle also applied to the decision of questions relating to the management of common fields. The voices of those who held the largest shares should carry the greatest weight.

The act of 1643 on the subject of common fields gave to town officers the decision of disputes among commoners. It read as follows: Whereas it is found by experience that there hath bene much trouble and difference in severall townes about the manner of planting, sowing, and feeding of common corne fields, & that upon serious consideration wee finde no generall order can provide for the best improvement of every such common ffield, by reason that some consists onely of plowing ground, some haveing a great part fit only for planting, some of meadowe & feeding ground; also so that such an order as may bee very wholesome and good for one field may be exceeding priudiciall & inconvenient for another,—it is therefore ordered, that, where the commoners cannot agree about the manner of improvement of their field, either concerning the kind of graine that shall be sowen or set therein, or concerning the time or manner of feeding the herbage thereof, that three such persons in the severall townes that are deputed to order the prudential affaires thereof, shall order the same, or in case where no such are, then the maior part of the freemen, who are hereby enioyned with what convenient speed they may

434

to determine any such difference as may arise upon any information given there by the said commoners.”

In the early years of the colony many special orders were passed concerning the care of herds of cattle and swine, but soon the regulation of details in this matter had to be left to the towns. The appointment of fence-viewers and maintenance of pounds were required by law.¹

Upon the policy which was followed in the admission of residents into the towns depended not only the moral and religious character of the people; but also the number of paupers, or of those who were likely to become such, who solicited admission to the colony or transference from town to town. In 1637, while Massachusetts was in the heat of the Antinomian excitement, she passed for religious reasons a rigid law of settlement.² It forbade any town, under penalty of heavy fine, to entertain a stranger for a longer period than three weeks, or to allot him any land without the consent of one of the council³ or two of the other magistrates. In the following year this act was made permanent. The towns very generally passed a similar order, though in their case it was intended more as a protection against the settlement of paupers than was the original colony act.

The land systems of Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven differed in no important particular from that of Massachusetts. The control which was exercised by those colonies over their towns was quite as complete as that which has just been described. In the case of Plymouth it was somewhat more complete. The general court granted land very freely to individuals, both in the town of Plymouth and outside, and continued to do so for⁴ some time after distinct town governments came into existence. The colony did not hesitate, through committees, to regulate in great detail the distribution of land within towns when controversy⁵ had arisen. A peculiarly close connection existed

435

between the colony government and the town of Plymouth, so that occasionally, subsequent to 1640, records of grants by town meetings appear also in the colony records. Somewhat the same confusion appears in the early records of New Haven town and colony, showing that in the early years the two were not kept so distinct as was the case in the other colonies.

The system followed by those colonies in the establishment of plantations, the recognition of them as towns, the fixing and maintenance of their bounds, the regulation of the granting of lands, of common fields, fences, herds, the punishment of trespass, the admission of inhabitants and freeholders, the requirement that fence-viewers and pound-keepers should be appointed, that records of land titles should be kept, is substantially the same as that which has been already described, and the details need not be repeated. Orders were issued and committees were appointed by the general courts for the regulation¹ of those matters as freely as in Massachusetts. The extension of settlement by the multiplication of towns finds as remarkable illustration in the history of Connecticut and New Haven as it does in that of Massachusetts. Stamford, in Connecticut, and Hadley, in Massachusetts, were offshoots of Wethersfield; Newark, in New Jersey, was an offshoot of Branford, while New Haven attempted to reproduce itself on the Delaware.

In the Narragansett settlements the towns were always much more independent of colony action than they were elsewhere. In the records of the colony during the seventeenth century very few references to town affairs occur. The colony was occasionally forced to attempt the settlement of disputes among the towns, especially those which almost perpetually agitated Providence. Between the first calling of a general assembly in 1647 and the close of our period, there was little occasion for the establishment of new

436

towns. The colony laws make no important reference either to that, or to the regulation of town lands¹ and herds. Neither do references to such regulation by the colony appear in the extant records of the original towns. The necessary inference must be that in the management of their lands, as in everything else, the towns of Rhode Island pursued a more independent course than did those in the other New England colonies. A comparison, however, of their internal history with that of the towns in the adjacent colonies will show that in all essential particulars they conformed to the New England model. The original Narragansett towns were themselves offshoots of Salem, Boston, and other preexisting towns, and their founders remained true to the polity with which they were familiar.

In our discussion thus far of the form of settlement in New England, and of the relations between the colony and the town, we have attempted to show that in those colonies there was no land system apart from the towns. The colony, in other words, did not attempt a territorial policy apart from that which was implied in the making of grants to towns, and in the exercise of necessary control over them as centres of local government. Such grants as the colony made to individuals were mere incidents of its administration in general. They may be regarded in some instances as a form of pension, and in others as a rudimentary form of salary for public officials. The management of land throughout those colonies was left to the towns. It was partly for that purpose that they were created as centres of local government. Notwithstanding the supervision which was exercised over them, they enjoyed an authority which was adequate to the purpose. Therefore, in order to discover what the land system in New England really was, it will be necessary to examine in outline the territorial arrangements which existed within the towns themselves.

In nearly all cases the settlements which were made prior

437

to 1660 were located on arms of the sea or on the banks of streams within the tide-water area. The land which was subject of grant, when cleared, consisted of upland, meadow, salt marsh, and fresh marsh or swamp. In many cases the upland which was first utilized was an Indian corn-field or clearing. As the clearings were extended into the primeval forest, the area of upland and meadow which was made available for use was increased. The continuity of upland and meadow was frequently interrupted by rocky hills and ridges, or by marsh. The meadow was usually located adjacent to streams and on the rocks or points which formed the varied contour of the coast. The different varieties of land¹ were distributed in the most heterogeneous fashion, thus making the problem of division and allotment a complicated one. To the variety in the surface of the country of which the colonists took possession is largely due the ever changing characteristics of local topography. The colonists, though working on a simple and consistent plan, were obliged to adjust it to the face of the country. From this process resulted the infinite variety in the extension, directions, and relations of village streets and commons, in the location of fields and meadows, and of the outlying forest and waste, in the direction, extent, and number of highways, lanes, and bridges which were needed to connect the different parts of each settlement, or to unite adjacent towns and plantations with one another. To these unyielding natural conditions is to be added such variety as was due to human choice and judgment. The influence of this it is impossible with any accuracy to estimate. But to the two sets of causes, acting in conjunction, is due the fact that, though the plan of settlement in its general outlines was uniform, in the result there was infinite variety of detail. It was not possible that the topography of any two villages or towns should be the same.

The settlers made use of the upland for home lots and planting fields. The meadow was generally utilized for

438

hay and pasturage. From the marshes and swamps hay and thatch were also procured. In the remote uncleared or only partially cleared tracts, swine, sheep, and young cattle were pastured. Oxen, horses, and milch cows were pastured upon land nearer the village. That part of the cattle which were daily driven to and from their pasture occupied the chief attention of the town herdsman. In the autumn, after the hay and other crops had been gathered, the cattle were admitted to the meadows and upland fields. Having thus indicated in a general way what was the physical substratum of the town and the use which the settlers made of their land, it is necessary to describe the plan according to which the towns were laid out.

Several of the towns which were first planted about Massachusetts bay, those which later formed the colony of Rhode Island, as well as many others in Connecticut and on Long Island, were established by the spontaneous act of their settlers and upon land which they had occupied in most cases after the extinguishment of Indian claims. All other towns—and they soon became by far the larger number—were organized under definite grants from the general courts of their colonies. The issue of the grants, however, was occasioned by petitions from would-be settlers. In either case the first settlers constituted a reasonably definite group. As a quasi-corporation they received the land of the town and proceeded to dispose of it.

The settlement of a town normally began with the laying out of the village plot and the assignment of home lots. This to an extent determined the location of highways, of the village common, and of some of the outlying fields. On or near the common the church was built, and in not a few cases the site that was chosen for this building went far toward determining the entire lay-out of the town. The idea of a home lot was a plot of ground for a dwelling-house and outbuildings, for a dooryard and garden, and usually also an enclosure for feeding cattle and raising corn.¹ In Salem at the beginning the home lots appear to have contained

439

two acres each. Somewhat later they were reduced to one acre. At Winter Harbor, an outlying settlement in the town of Salem, they contained one-half acre each. Fishermen’s lots at Marblehead were not above two acres each.¹ In the Charlestown records homesteads are referred to as containing “half an acre by estimation.”² In the Boston Book of Possessions they are referred to as “a house and lot,” “a house and garden,” and usually contained half an acre.³ In the Roxbury land records home lots varying in size from two to five acres—some even larger⁴—are referred to. Some of the home lots in Cambridge (Newtown) were as small as a quarter of an acre. Those which were located in the town were usually less than an acre in extent.⁵ At Hingham they approximated five acres. At Newbury the smallest home lots were four acres each. In Springfield we are told that no man, except William Pynchon, should have as many as ten acres for his house lot. At Northampton the house lots varied from four acres upward. At Hartford some contained two acres and others only half an acre each. In Providence they contained five acres.⁶

The assignment of the first home lots was accompanied or immediately followed by the earliest allotments of arable land and meadow. This process steadily progressed with the increase of population in the towns and with the clearing of the forests. By means of it the settlers secured planting land, and the process advanced through various stages until the available land of the towns was approximately or entirely occupied. When the process was completed the township had been entirely laid out, and settlement within it had assumed a relatively permanent form This was accomplished in part by the granting of lots to individuals and in part by the laying out of common fields. The common fields too, in their turn were later

440

subdivided among their proprietors. As the result of this process a system of individual ownership gradually took the place of a system of joint ownership and management; a settled and cultivated township came to exist where previously there had been only an unappropriated forest and waste. The order of this process differed in the case of each town, but its general characteristics, as they appear in the records of the older towns, may be briefly indicated.

At Salem a standing order was first issued that a ten-acre lot should be granted with each house lot. But in 1636 this was repealed, and it was resolved that the size of such lots should be fixed at the discretion of the town. Lots and farms of various extent were then granted, some of them reaching the area in a single tract of three hundred acres. In April, 1637, it was ordered that if any lots of land were so located that they had little or no marsh or meadow, “the Layers out allott such proportions of marsh and meadow ground . . . in such places next adjoining as may be most fitt and equall for each.” Near the close of the same year it was agreed, “that the marsh and meadow Lands that have formerly layed in common to this Towne should be appropriated to the Inhabitants of Salem, proportioned out to them according to the heads of their families. To those who have had the greatest number an acre thereof and to those that have least not above half an acre.”¹ Under the authority of this order a large number of small lots were granted. In 1638 fifteen lots, varying in size from three to eight acres, were granted at Marblehead. The records, during the early years, abound in grants to individuals.

But this did not preclude the existence within the town of many common fields, each of which, under authority of the town, had its associated proprietors. These had common fences and were cultivated under a joint system. We are told that in Salem in 1640 there were no less than ten such fields,² and that their fences were under the supervision of fence-viewers, who were chosen in town meeting. Of the fields the most important were the “north field” and

441

the “south field,”¹ the former containing 490 acres and the latter 600. The proprietors of the latter continued as a distinct organization until after the Revolution, while the “north field” was divided soon after 1742, and became a part of the estate of its proprietors considered as individuals. The “town neck” was also a common, as was the old “planters” meadow” and various other tracts of the same sort within the limits of the town. The “town neck” was used for baiting cattle. A large tract, originally embracing about four thousand acres, and extending southward toward the modern Swampscott and Peabody, was long reserved under the name of the “cow pastures” or “cattle range.” There the town herds were kept. Salem, like all other towns, for a time retained adjacent islands as common. Newtown,² or Cambridge, in 1635 was a compact settlement on the north bank of the Charles river, from which it was separated by a narrow marsh. The arable land of the town lay chiefly toward the north, the northeast, and the northwest. The village consisted of a market-place and house lots, the latter being distributed on three streets which extended back from the river and on two streets which ran nearly parallel to the river. Their intersections formed the village blocks or squares. A curved street extended around the village on its landward side, and outside of that lay the defences of the town. Somewhat remote from the village in the east lay marshes, while on the west, adjacent to the Menotomy river, lay the “great swamp.” Toward the marshes of the east lay “small lot hill,” while at the opposite extreme “west field” adjoined the great swamp. Nearer to the village lay the “cow common,” “pine swamp field,” the “ox pasture,” the “planting field,” the “little neck.” Roads and paths led out from the little village to each of the subdivisions of the town area. They were known as the “highway to the common pales,” “highway to the great swamp,” and by other similar names.

In the records of Cambridge the orders may be read which resulted in the division of these tracts. In February, 1634,

442

the planting ground in “the neck” was divided. In the following August a considerable number of lots in the “west field” were granted to individuals. Later, other lots in the field were granted, as well as lots in the “pine swamp.” In April, 1635, it was ordered that all the undivided meadow ground belonging to the town should be divided, and allotments followed accordingly. In February, 1636, an order was issued that the ground “lyeinge between Charles Towne path and the Comon Pales foremerly aponted to be measured as also Remaynder by watertowne” should be divided.¹ Thus in quick succession were the more available tracts divided, and the complaint of the inhabitants that their supply of land was inadequate soon led to the migration which gave rise to Hartford on the Connecticut.

At Hingham planting ground was assigned at about the same time with the house lots, and the first grants were near “bare cove.” It is likewise agreed upon, that they whose names are hereafter mentioned are to have their Planting ground near Pleasant Hill, in a manner and form as followeth: that is to say—Thomas Lincoln sen^r. is to have four acres for planting ground next the poynt, which lyeth against the open bay as we come from Weymouth, and is to have it for four acres, be it more or less.” The other grants follow in the same form. Planting ground was also laid out toward the west, on the way toward “turkey hill.” The first meadow lots were “in a sartayne marsh called the Home Meadow, next to the Cove.” John Otis, the ancestor of the Otis family, was the first in a list of six grantees of this meadow. Another tract, known as “broad cove meadow,” was laid out in thirteen lots, and among the grantees appear the names of the pastor, Rev. Peter Hobart, or Hubbard, and two of his family. In June, 1636, the”great lots” adjacent to Weymouth river and abutting on the home lots, were granted. There were eighteen of them, and they included from fourteen to twenty-four acres each. In the following year more grants were made in the Weymouth meadow. A variety of entries show that the “great lots” of grass and arable land varied in size from ten to thirty-five

443

acres. At the same time thirty-nine shares, each containing from half an acre to three acres of meadow, and from three and one-half to twenty acres of upland, were allotted at “Nantascus.” Twenty lots were also assigned in “crooked meadow,” “beyond the Playne,” this being fresh or upland meadow.¹ In 1670 occurred extensive divisions of meadow and upland at Cohasset, lying between the Plymouth line and Accord pond. Four “divisions” or ranges of lots, each containing seventy-eight or eighty-three lots, were surveyed and assigned in that region. By this policy the common land of the town was steadily reduced in quantity, but was by no means eliminated.

The town of Dedham, near the falls of the Charles river, early ordered that every twelve-acre lot of upland should have four acres of swamp added to it, besides what might be granted in later divisions of swamp land. Eight-acre lots should have a proportional addition of swamp. It was also the policy of the town to give to each grantee as many acres of meadow as he had of upland.² Owing to its inland location Dedham had no “neck,” but it had several “plains,”³ meadows, and swamps. These constituted at the outset its common lands, and from them grants to individuals and successive allotments were made. In 1652, 1656, and 1659 three important divisions of common land were made.⁴ One was the Five-Hundred-Acre Dividend; the second was of about the same size, while the third included two thousand acres which had previously been granted to the Indians of Natick. Each of these divisions, like all others which occurred, were made among those who had houses and lands in the town, and in proportion to their estates.

444

As Ipswich was laid out on the bank of a stream which runs in an easterly direction, it had its “north field” and “south field,” besides the other customary localities. Its early records abound in grants to individuals. A range of grants of six acres each was made near the upper end of “labour in vayne Creek.” Another range of six-acre lots for planting was laid out “on this side Muddy River.” The following April three men were chosen by the commoners, and confirmed by the selectmen, for surveying the fences on the north side of the river. Similar action repeatedly follows, not only in the annals of this town but in those of many others. When, in 1664, Ipswich divided “plumb island,” “hog island,” and “castle neck” among the commoners, their shares were determined by the amount which each paid in a single country rate.¹ In “plumb island” Newbury also had an interest, and we find in its records reference to a first and second division of this insular territory.

Old Newbury comprised a large area, even for one of the original New England towns, and it was settled successively at two different centres. In 1635² house lots, planting lots, and meadow lots were laid out on Parker river, a stream which finds its way to the ocean a short distance south of the mouth of the Merrimac. On or near the common or green which was there reserved, a meeting-house was built. A town government was fully organized, with its centre at this place. Although several families removed from this settlement to found Hampton, north of the Merrimac, and others helped to found Salisbury and Rowley, yet those who remained soon found that the supply of arable land near Parker river was inadequate. Therefore, in 1642, the majority of the townsmen decided to remove the centre of the town to the plains, three or four miles nearer the Merrimac river. The plan was vigorously opposed by a minority, and an appeal was taken to the general court. That body sustained the majority who favored removal, and the plan

445

was consummated without a division of the town. A considerable number of house lots and planting lots which had been granted on Parker river, were then resigned in exchange for others near the Merrimac. The former again became common land, or were regranted to the settlers who remained on Parker river. With the building of a meeting-house in the new settlement, on “a knowle of upland by Abraham Tappans barne,” the decision of the majority was confirmed beyond the possibility of reversal. But the “Old Green” still remains, and the outlines of the settlement which was first made on Parker river have never been obliterated.

Among the towns of the Connecticut valley, the records of Springfield are unusually explicit concerning the early assignment of lots.¹ The home lots were laid out in rectangles adjacent to the river. The wet meadow and the wood lots lay back of them, extending to the high ground on the east. The planting grounds lay in the west side of the Connecticut, near the lower course of the Agawam river. “We intend,” declared the first settlers on May 14, 1636, “that our town shall be composed of fourty families, or if we think meet after to alter our purpose yet not to exceede the number of fifty familys, rich and poore.” After requiring that every inhabitant should receive “a convenient proportion” for a house lot, they agree that each householder should receive a share of the cow pasture at the north end of the town, of the “hasokey Marish” adjacent to their lots, and of the woodland. Every one also should receive a share of the meadow opposite on the Agawam side of the river, as near as might be to his house lot. “The long² meddowe called Masacksic lyinge in the way to Dorchester” (Windsor) should also be distributed among all the settlers, unless better accommodation for the cattle or a part of them could be found elsewhere. The meadow and the pasture which lay on the Agawam side of the river, but about four miles to the north, should be laid out in four to six lots, and assigned to persons who would be likely to improve it as tillage and

446

pasture. Under this arrangement it was expected that some of the town herd would find pasture.

In the distribution of planting ground and meadow the settlers of Springfield followed the rule which was adopted by most towns, namely, that they would “regard chiefly persons who are most apt to use such ground: and in all meddowe and pasture to regard chiefly Cattell and estate, because estate is like to be imp’ved in cattell, and such ground is aptest for their use.” The minimum grant of mowing ground for those who had no cattle should be three acres. Two acres should be added for each cow, steer, or yearling, and four acres for each horse. Special grants of meadow at the north end were made to William Pynchon, John Burr, and Henry Smith, in recognition of their services in founding the plantation.

Hartford was located adjacent to the west bank of the Connecticut river, and on both the north and south banks of a small tributary called Little river. The two parts of the town were therefore called “sides,” the “north side,” and the “south side,” a usage which was in harmony with common European practice. The town also included a tract of land on the east bank of the Connecticut river, which was known as the “east side.” The settlers on the “north side” and the “south side” respectively had their separate meetings, called “side meetings,” in which they to an extent regulated the fences, the use of the common lands, the impounding of stray cattle and swine, and on one occasion voted a grant of land. Selectmen, constables, collectors, fence-viewers, pound-keepers, chimney viewers, haywards, surveyors were chosen in town meeting respectively for the “north side” and the “south side,” the members usually being equally divided between the two sections.¹ The “east side” had a similar organization, and this later was wholly separated from Hartford and became a distinct town.

Hartford was settled and its fields were subdivided according to the general plan which was followed in the parent towns of eastern Massachusetts. Among its early orders

447

appear certain of the regulations of Newtown, which were also widely reproduced by the other towns of the Puritan colonies. Their object was to insure the speedy settlement of lots and to keep under the control of the town the admission or the rejection of settlers. They were to the effect that no new inhabitant should be admitted or allowed to build a house in the town without the town’s approval; and that lots should be improved and settled within six months or a year from the time of their grant. Abandoned¹ lots and the lots of those who were removing out of town should return to the town for its further disposition.

Northampton and Hadley in Massachusetts were founded mainly by people from Hartford, Wethersfield, and Springfield, and they a second time reproduced the form of settlement which had developed in the towns near Boston. The sites which were chosen for Northampton and Hadley lay among the broad meadows of the Connecticut, and were near two sharp bends in that river. The site of Northampton was also adjacent to Mill river, a stream which enters the Connecticut at that point from a northwesterly direction. Though the town was laid out on both banks of Mill river, the parts were so unequal that the “sides” do not appear as they did in Hartford. Its original lots were² located in somewhat irregular fashion on two streets, which extended northward from Mill river toward the rising ground that was selected for the site of the meeting-house. As later settlers appeared home lots were assigned to them on three or four streets adjacent to the meeting-house, and on the south side of the Mill river. To the owner of each house lot were granted upland and meadow in tracts varying in extent from eight to fifty acres. The meadow lots were small, and several in different locations were granted to each individual. The rule adopted for the assignment of meadow was that twenty acres should be bestowed for every £100 of estate. Each head of a family was entitled to fifteen acres, and for each son three

448

acres should be added. The meadows where these grants were allotted were extensive, and they fell naturally into no less than twelve divisions, each of which had its peculiar name, like “old rainbow,” “young rainbow,” “venturer’s field,” and the like. Each of these divisions was separately laid out, and when divided gave rise to a distinct allotment. On the highlands back of the town lay the undivided forest and waste, used by all for wood, timber, and pasturage.

The location of Hadley on the level expanse of meadow adjacent to the east bank of the Connecticut made possible a very regular and simple¹ arrangement. The original house lots, which were less than fifty in number, were laid out on the opposite sides of a single street. The street extended north and south across a neck of land, and like the street of Wethersfield, whence the settlers had mainly come, it was twenty rods in width. From the street extended westward three “highways to the meadow,” and eastward three “highways to the woods.” The house lots, when of full size, were thirty rods in width and eighty rods in length, and extended back on one side of the street toward the river, and on the other side toward the woods. At the north end of the street lay the “little meadow,” at the south end, the “south meadow.” Beyond the “little meadow” was the “forty-acre meadow,” while the land between the house lots and the river was known as the “great meadow.” South of the village also lay “fort meadow” and “Hockanum meadow.” The farms of the early settlers consisted of the successive allotments which were made of the adjacent meadows. The “forty-acre meadow” went to the inhabitants of the northern part of the town, while the “fort meadow” was assigned to those who dwelt at the southern end of the street. The “great meadow” was divided into four parts, and was among the first land of the town to be allotted.

The original grant to Hadley lay in part on the west side of the river, its grantors being known as the “west side proprietors,” while the others were known as the “east side proprietors.” In the history of this town the “side” assumed unusual proportions. Allotments of land were made

449

among the “west side proprietors,” in the same way as among the dwellers on “the street.” In 1668 the “west siders” began a separate existence as the town of Hatfield.

Among the towns of New Haven colony the requirements of space forbid special reference to any except New Haven itself. It was distinguished by the regular and elaborate character of its plan.¹ The village itself was laid out in the form of a square, one-half mile in length on each side. It was cut into nine smaller squares by two parallel streets running east and west and two running north and south. Of these smaller, but equal, squares, the central one was reserved as a market-place. The others were subdivided into house lots. The land adjacent to them, where the farms in parts were allotted, were known as the “suburbs,” while the squares were known as “quarters.” The “quarters” were long distinguished by the names of prominent inhabitants who lived in them, as Mr. Eaton’s quarter, Mr. Newman’s quarter, Mr. Davenport’s quarter. The west-centre was allotted to colonists from Yorkshire, while the Herefordshire men occupied that on the southwest. So far as possible, the farms or out-lands of each quarter were located adjacent to the house lots. In order the better to effect this, land on the north side of the town plot, which was chiefly known as the “cow pasture,” the “ox pasture,” and “Beaver pond meadows,” was retained as unfenced common. Besides this tract and the market-place,—now New Haven Green,—three other tracts were reserved for the benefit of the town at urge. These were a tract on the “west creek,” another on the “east creek,” and a third still farther east, called “oyster-shell field.” The first two of these reservations were granted in small lots to individuals who were not proprietors, while the third was leased from year to year to those who desired to cultivate more land than they owned.

A necessary consequence of the method of allotting land which has just been described was, that the estate of each individual would consist of a number of small tracts located in different parts of the town plot. The terriers or lists of

450

holdings, which occupy much space in the proprietors” records of all the towns, show this to have been the case. One or two typical instances will suffice for illustration.¹ In Newtown, as recorded May 1, 1635, John White possessed the following estate: In “cowyard row” two small tracts of about three roods each, one containing his dwelling-house, with outhouses and gardens; three tracts, one of two acres and a half and the other two of one acre and a rood each, located in “old field”; about one acre on “long marsh hill” together with another piece of about three acres and a rood in “long marsh”; about thirteen and one-half acres in the “neck of land”; eleven acres in the “great marsh,” and about one acre in the “ox marsh.” Some estates were much larger than this, others were smaller. This estate, like others, might be enlarged and the number of small tracts composing it might be increased by later allotments.

The estate of Elder Edward Howe, of Watertown,² consisted of a homestead of forty acres, fourteen lots of upland, varying in size from three acres to two hundred acres, and four lots of meadow, the largest of which contained twenty-five acres. Three of the lots of upland are expressly described as ploughland.

In Wethersfield, Connecticut, Thomas Parke, in 1647, possessed two home lots, one abutting on “bell lane” and the other on “the way”; four pieces of land in the “great meadow,” containing from two to five acres each; a lot of one hundred acres east of the Connecticut river; a lot of eleven acres in the “west field,” another of twenty-two acres in the “west swamp”; a lot of twenty-four acres in the “south field”; two lots, one of eight acres and another of nine acres in the “dry swamp”; a piece of three acres between “beaver brook” and the “new fence”; a piece of eight acres in the “wet swamp,” and one of two acres in “beaver meadow.”³

451

The early lists of estates in all New England towns reveal a situation like that indicated by these examples. But before the towns had long been settled, a tendency toward consolidation of estates appears. Many exchanges of land were effected which had this as their object. Purchases and sales often had a similar effect. So did intermarriages and inheritance. The result of this process, operating through generations, has been to substitute for the early system of parcelled estates the consolidated farms of the present day.

Common fences and herds were characteristic accompaniments of the system of common fields and joint cultivation which were the basis of the town economy. They appear in all towns, and the devising and enforcement of regulations concerning them occupied much of the attention of officers and town meetings. As a rule, instead of fencing off by itself the allotment of each individual in a field or meadow, the entire field was surrounded by a common fence, and this was furnished with gates and approached by paths or highways. All grants of land were made subject to the right of the community to open highways through them. The earliest highways in many instances originated in paths to the common field, to the pastures and marshes, which lay within the limits of the town.¹ Of the common fences, each shareholder was bound to build and keep in repair the part which was adjacent to his lot or lots. Like the forts, which occasioned the officials of all the colonies so much trouble, the fences were continually exposed to decay. Every spring they had to be viewed and repaired, and orders for enforcing this duty were annually issued by the town authorities. On March 20, 1637, the town meeting of Salem ordered that all fences should be sufficiently repaired by the close o£ the month. They should be made of posts and rails, or in such other form and of such height as the surveyors of fences approved. The penalty for neglect was a fine.²

A typical order for the joint fencing of a field appears in

452

the records of Cambridge, under date of May 19, 1648.¹ “It was ordered by the townsmen that that part of the fence which belongs to the ould ox pasture on the south side of the High Way, Both against Charlestown feilde, & the High Way, should be measured, and proportioned to the severall proprietors, Beginning at Th. Danforths lott, and so ending at John Betts according to there number of acre therein & they whoe have more then there proportion of fence against the High Way to have soe much according to ther proportion deducted of ther end fence ag^st Charleston & they whoe have not there proportion of the fence ag^st the High Way according to ther number of acre to make soe much ages Charleston feilde. . . .”

Among the general orders of the town of Dorchester,² which were passed in October, 1633, was one that the fields already enclosed should be kept sufficiently fenced, and if, upon warning, any failed so to do, the officers who were appointed for the purpose should have the fence built, and its cost should be levied by distress, if necessary, from the goods of the delinquent. In 1650 the town of Rowley³ ordered that the fences of all the common fields within the town should be divided according to the proportion of land and meadow which belonged to each shareholder, and the fences should be marked with numbers accordingly. The entries for each field, distributed by rail-lengths, then follow in the records. On January 13, 1637-8, by the settlers of Newbury it was agreed that, where many planting lots were laid together, if the major part of their grantees agreed to fence them in, it should bind the rest to do the like, “both for manner and time.” It was also voted that a general fence should be made from the end of the town to “Egypt river”; also from the east end of the town on the way to “Jeffrey’s neck” from the fence of John Perkins to the end of “a creek in the marsh near the land of Wry Foster.” The fence should be built at the charge of all who had land within the said compass, and the labor spent upon it should be proportional to their respective shares.

453

This is a regulation which appears in all towns,¹ and repeats itself almost as often as a common fence is mentioned. In many orders the height of the fence is specified, also the fact that it should be built of posts and rails, the exact spot at which each shareholder should begin and end his work, and the location of the gates.

In 1648 the town of Ipswich ordered that the fence surrounding the common field on the north side of the river should be repaired, and that the two men who were hired by the town to do it should be paid out of forfeits levied upon the shareholders, and, if these should fall short, they should be paid by the commoners proportionally. At a meeting of the seven men—the selectmen—which was held in February, 1649, it was ordered that all commoners who had shares in the field on the south side of the river—the field in which “Heartbreak Hill” was situated—should meet at the house of Symon Tomson to consult and settle all² differences respecting the field and its fences.

The records of Hartford abound in orders³ for the fencing of various fields and meadows, and in full statements of the duties of fence-viewers and pound-keepers. In accordance with general practice Wethersfield, in February, 1648,⁴ assessed the inhabitants of “the plaine” toward making “the great fence.” The assessment was in proportion to the improvable land which each one held. The charge was 2s. 4d. per acre, and it ranged from 18s. to £6 per man. In January, 1660, it was voted that the meadow fence be divided by lot, and where men’s lots fell they should fence their proportions. All who had lands adjacent to the fence should be allowed a rod or two where they might make a gate through which to pass to their land. Gates were important, both from the standpoint of fences and of highways, and orders frequently appear for building them and keeping them in repair. Comprehensive orders, both respecting fences and gates,

454

were passed by the towns of New Haven colony. Guilford ordered that “all fence in the quarters of upland out lots, whether out-fence or division fence, shall be as well maintained as made by the acre proportionally-so many rods for every acre.”¹ At Milford the building of common fence on both sides of Mill river was apportioned according to the land which had been granted. When the fence had been built, each man should maintain the share which he himself had made. Gates in the common field about the town were to be built at the public² charge.

In Warwick, Rhode Island, the “front fence” which separated the homesteads from the large common that lay west of the village marked a most³ important line of division. Orders for its repair continually recur, and it was maintained both summer and winter. The fence at Conemecock point—which was set apart as a pasture for calves and lambs—and that of the “common on this side Coesset” were objects of frequent attention. A rate was sometimes levied for the building of a common fence.

The town herd and herdsmen figure in the local annals of all parts of New England. They had their origin in the system of common fields. From early spring until after the harvest had ended in the fall, the fields were⁴ regularly closed, and grazing in them was not permitted. When the crops had been removed, cattle were admitted to the fields under the charge of herdsmen. Milch cows, working oxen, and horses were pastured in tracts reserved for the purpose not far from the village. As a rule, these were daily driven to and fro. Young cattle and dry cows were turned into the remote pastures of the town in the spring and were kept there under the charge of herdsmen until the close of the season. Swine ⁵ were kept as far away from the cultivated

455

tracts as possible, and were generally required to be yoked or ringed. The records abound with orders for keeping them away from the enclosures, and with threats of fines for injuries which they had done or might do. The pound-keeper found his occupation in seizing stray hogs quite as much as stray cattle.

A resolution of the selectmen of Watertown¹ in 1669 illustrates not only the necessity which was felt for town herds and herdsmen, but also all important phases of the subject. Complaints had been made that the inhabitants had not been able to agree upon an orderly way of herding their cattle. Many employed private keepers for them. Others drove their cattle to pasture themselves. Still others turned them loose, knowing, however, that² they would trespass upon the lands of their neighbors across the line in Cambridge. Some who lived near the feeding place were unwilling to herd or pay a herdsman. Others were willing to contribute toward a herdsman for a part, but not the whole, of a season. To remedy this condition of things, the selectmen resolved that three herds should be kept in the town. The first should be the “mill herd,” which should include all the cattle from the house of William Bond, and should be driven by the mill to the house of Richard Cutting, and so over “beaver brook” at the bridge; and the limits of their range should be the river on the south and “prospect hill” on the north. The range of the second herd should be from the south side of “prospect hill” to the south side of “the great pond.” The third should be the “pond herd,” and its range should extend from the south side of “the greate pond” to Cambridge bounds.³ All the inhabitants of the town were required to put their cattle in one or another of these herds; if any continued to

456

employ private herdsmen, they should be fined the same as if they allowed their cattle to go without a keeper. Provision was finally made for calling meetings of those who were included in the respective herds, and in those meetings the majority were authorized to agree with a herdsman, and all should be bound by the contract they made. In towns where there was but one herd, or in which but one agreement was reached with herdsmen, their employment was usually one of the duties of the selectmen. Herdsmen were annually appointed, and commonly served from April till November. Upon stinted commons only a limited number of cattle could be driven, while of those which were unstinted the use was unrestricted.

In the assignment of town lots and the drafting of regulations for the use of the common lands a rigid numerical equality was occasionally maintained; each individual received just as many acres and just as much accommodation as any other, no more and no less. But in most instances an effort is discernible to make the grants proportional to what might be called the investment of the individual settler in the enterprise of founding the town. This assumed two forms, that of the expense or cost to which he was subjected and that of the ability which he contributed to the undertaking. The expense was incurred first, in the removal of colonists from Europe or from other towns in New England to the new place of settlement. In the case of companies like those which settled Dorchester in Massachusetts, the River Towns of Connecticut, the oldest towns of New Haven colony, this was considerable. In the case of the early towns of Connecticut and New Haven, and those especially on Narragansett bay, the cost, small though it was, of extinguishing the claims of the Indians had to be borne by the towns rather than the colony. The surveying and laying out of a town also involved some expense. In some cases a “great house,” or common house was built at the general expense and temporarily occupied. It thus appears that the founding of a plantation required in some form or other a joint stock, from which advances could be made. Those who met these expenses were proprietors and received their dividends in the form of lands.

457

The other element, of which account was taken, was the ability of the colonist to advance the interests of the plantation, when once it was founded. This depended in part on his wealth, but also on the number of heads in his family, and on the ability of the settler to use his resources for the advantage of all who were concerned. Express references to considerations of this kind appear in the orders for the allotment of lands in not a few of the towns. Sometimes it was roughly estimated by heads, as in the order of the Salem town meeting of December 25, 1637. This provided that, of the marsh and meadow which was about to be divided, one acre should go to those who had the largest families, half an acre to those who had the smallest, and three-quarters of an acre to those the members of whose families fell between the two extremes. Dedham made its allotments proportional to the number of persons in every family and also to its estate. Lancaster made the lots in its first division equal, but afterward they were proportional to estates.¹ Springfield early adopted the rule, in dividing planting ground, “to regard chiefly persons who are most apt to use such ground”; and in dividing meadow and pasture, “to regard chiefly cattell and estate, because estate is like to be improved in cattell, and such ground² is aptest for their use.”

The original contribution to the founding of the town by a natural transition developed into the town rate. That also furnished a rough index, year by year, of the ability of each settler to serve the interests of the town. It was levied on the same varieties of property as the country rate, and the two were pretty strictly proportional. Therefore we frequently find divisions of common land made proportional to the amount which was paid by each commoner in a single country rate. In 1664 two islands, together with “castle neck,” were divided among the commoners of Ipswich, the shares being proportioned to the amount which each paid toward a tax of this kind.

458

The colonists possessed the elements to which reference has just been made in varying proportion. Some had made no original investment; the investments of others were large. Some had large families, others small ones, others none at all. Some had considerable wealth in the form of cattle or in other forms. One man was a miller, another a blacksmith, another a carpenter. Other men had capacity to serve the town as selectmen, clerk, constable, captain of the watch. Above all there was the minister, whose services were always deemed worthy of the highest consideration. Some were merely inhabitants, and had no voice either as proprietors or in town meeting. Some had served out their indentures as servants, and in consequence of a small grant from their former masters or from the town had found a place among the class of cottagers. On the outskirts of the settlement, in the tracts which had early lain common as pasture, provision was usually made for families of this class.

Within the town tracts, with all their variety of soil and elevation, form and contour, provision had to be made for an equal variety of human conditions and needs. This was the problem that faced the administrative bodies which were intrusted with the duty of dividing town commons, and it involved, if accurately solved, a somewhat complicated process of averaging. It was a problem which could not be solved by simply counting heads and striving to make a mathematically equal division of lands. There was in these communities a demand for equality, though it was held in check by the aristocratic spirit of the leading families. Sylvester Judd, the historian of Hadley, writing from a wide knowledge of the original records, expressed the truth when he said, “In making allotments, no uniform rule was adopted; lands were variously distributed in different towns, and even in the same town.”¹

In 1647 the town of Milford, in New Haven colony, ordered that those who were “deducted” in their house lots should be considered in the quarter divisions. Two parties were to have one acre each added to their division in the quarter, because their house lots were small. These acts

459

were the result of a “fundamentall Agreement” of the previous year, that all lands, whether upland, meadow, or home lots, should be made equal; if the quality was inferior, it should be made up in quantity. Remote lots should be made larger in size than the others, or be exempted from taxes.¹ Provision was made in Hartford for small lots for poor men. In New Haven non-commoners were freely admitted to quotas of upland and meadow in the quarters. The fundamental agreement of the settlers of Guilford contained a provision against the engrossing of lots. The division of “nut plain” and “the rocks” by the same town in 1646 was made for the express purpose of providing accommodation for those who, as yet, had had no allotments, or whose grants were altogether inconvenient. In 1652 Warwick, in Rhode Island, laid out its meadow near the town, for the inhabitants who, as yet, had not been provided for.²

The poorer inhabitants of Boston and those who had no cattle received allotments at Muddy River, now Brookline.³ In 1657 the town of Dedham, in response to a petition of certain parties who considered themselves aggrieved by a recent division of land and stinting of commons, granted them additional rights of common for twenty-five cows and a proportional increase of their dividends of land.

In the proprietary records of Newbury, Massachusetts, we find that in December, 1679, it was voted that, if ever town commons be divided, every freeholder shall have a like share. But several dissented from this vote, and their dissents were recorded. In January, 1684, the question of dividing commons again came up, but the town could not agree upon the quantity which should go to each man. Two years later it was voted that every freeholder should receive five acres in the common nearest the town. Henry Short, who had been among the previous dissentients, demanded more than the specified share. Fifteen entered

460

their dissents against the vote for an equal division, but the measure was carried by a majority of five. By the same majority it was decided that twenty acres of upland in the “upper commons” should be laid out to every freeholder. But before the year was ended this majority vanished, and it was resolved, in the division of six thousand acres of the “upper commons” and eleven hundred acres of the “lower commons,” that only one-half should be divided equally among all, while the other half should be shared by the freeholders who, during the past two years, had paid rates, and in proportion to what each man had paid in the minister’s rate of 1685.¹ Such references as this show how the tendencies toward equality and inequality within the towns were balanced.

“In many towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut,” says Judd,² “some tracts were distributed equally to all the proprietors. Home lots were sometimes nearly equal. In a few towns the least share was half as much as the greatest, or the poorest man received half as much land as the richest. In others the smallest share was only one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth, or one-tenth as much as the largest. In some the inequality was much greater, a few individuals receiving very large allotments on account of large estates and disbursements.” Probably in many cases individuals were thus distinguished because of their wealth. But in many other instances it was due to what was considered the value of their public services. The towns, like the colonies, bestowed gratuities in the form of special grants of land. The minister was almost always so distinguished. Governors or magistrates who were inhabitants of a town were almost sure to receive such recognition. In addition such individuals were often permitted to select their land where they chose, or to draw the first share in an allotment. The history of New Haven, and of the other towns of that colony, furnish notable examples of this custom.

But it is evident that town officials in making allotments ere in the main controlled by a spirit of fairness and equity. They approached the problem in the same spirit as

461

that with which they levied taxes or, in most cases, administered justice. The system which they followed precluded the development of very large estates, while it insured to nearly every inhabitant a house lot and garden. The existence of large areas of common land greatly facilitated the access of all to the gifts of nature. Town records also abound in references to grants, the purpose of which was to equalize inequalities which had resulted from earlier allotments. Individual allotments were frequently eked out and inconveniences of location were removed in this way. If parties suffered from real grievances of this nature, a petition was almost sure to bring relief. As we have seen, the system of allotments resulted in giving each commoner a share of every variety of land which existed in the town. It was in these ways that the corporate instinct, or, stating it more broadly, the instinct of fellowship and neighborhood, worked itself out in the agrarian system of New England.

The question of the policy by which the New Englanders were guided in the distribution of lands is closely connected with the development of boards of commoners or proprietors. In the discussion of the land system of the towns on its administrative side this is a subject of prime importance. The land of the towns, their herds and fences, were subject to joint management. But the question arises, To what extent did this originate with the town meetings or how far did it proceed from distinct boards of proprietors?

By the commoners or proprietors is meant the original grantees or purchasers of the land of the town and their legal heirs, assigns, or successors, with such as from time to time they chose to add to their number. The original lists would closely agree with those of the early grantees of town lots. In every case they formed a de facto land company, as truly as did the companies which received the grants of the New England colonies. They were proprietors in the true sense of the term, and their functions might closely approximate, though on a much smaller scale, to those of Baltimore, Penn, or the Carolina grantees.

462

In a few towns, like Middleborough,¹ in Massachusetts, to which additions were made by purchases, we hear of distinct boards of proprietors for special tracts. The settlers upon a plain or other tract which was more or less remote from the original village in a town, were often designated as proprietors of that tract. Such a settlement might become a separate town, but, if it did not, its proprietors tended to become a part, or always were a part, of the general body of proprietors of the town.

When the original grant was made by the general court, the town and the proprietors or commoners were approximately the same. The town meeting was at the same time a meeting of proprietors, or might easily become such. In the early history of towns a very important part of the business of the town meetings consisted in making grants of land. When this business was in progress, the town meeting was acting as a board of proprietors. The selectmen, or special committees, acted as agents of the town in the surveying and allotting of land. But for a long time after the settlement of the colonies no records were kept, except those of the town meeting and selectmen. Allotments of land and regulations connected therewith were entered indiscriminately with other forms of town business. From a study of the early records alone, one would with difficulty discover that there was a body of proprietors distinct from the town.

In the town of Plymouth it was always a principle, which was reiterated in 1657, “that all lands or parcells of lands that shalbee granted to any within this township . . . shalbee granted in towne meeting. . . .”² Almost every page of the extant records of Salem bears evidence to the fact that the same rule was followed there, or that the power was temporarily intrusted to selectmen, committees, or layers out. The earliest printed record which we have of the

463

annual choice of layers out, is that of November 16, 1635.¹ In Boston the selectmen, under authority from the town, made allotments. In the early years the formula by which their powers were commonly expressed was, to “looke into and sett order for all the allotments within us, and for all Comers in unto us, as also for all other the occasions and businesses of this Towne, excepting matters of election for the Generall Courte.”² At times also special commissioners were appointed, as on the 18th of December, 1634, to divide and allot certain tracts of the town lands; but these bodies were usually composed mainly of town officers and colony magistrates. Special committees of this character, if not also the selectmen, were frequently called “allotters.” In Boston, as in many other towns, the power to prohibit the sale of lots to newcomers whom they did not approve was also exercised by the town itself or was bestowed on the allotters. In Duxbury, Hingham, Roxbury, Braintree, Dorchester, Muddy River, Watertown, Woburn, Lynn, Ipswich, Newbury, and Rowley³ the town meeting and its immediate appointees made or withheld all grants of land. The same rule obtained in the early towns of the Connecticut valley.⁴ Among the earliest town votes of Hartford are these: that the townsmen, that is, the selectmen, should not grant more than an acre or two of land to any inhabitant without the consent of the town, and that to satisfy a pressing necessity; that they should receive no inhabitant into the town without the approval of the body; that within a year after the grant of a house lot a house must be built upon it, and that abandoned lots and the lots of those who were removing out of town should return to the town for further disposition.⁵ The records of Wethersfield show that nearly all business relating to land was done in town meeting. In the towns of New Haven colony the same rule obtained, though proprietors

464

of special tracts frequently appear.¹ In Rhode Island, on the other hand, boards of proprietors of common lands appear at an early date in the towns of Providence and Warwick, though in Portsmouth the town lands were directly controlled by the town meeting.²

But in all towns, even from the outset, there were certain grantees of land who were not admitted to the body of proprietors. They might become freemen of the town and thus have a voice in town meeting, or even be freemen of the colony, and yet not find admission within the circle of the proprietors. The idea of freemanship was political in its nature, that of proprietorship was territorial. Individuals were admitted to the position of freemen by vote of the town, and only persons whom the town fellowship found acceptable attained to this privilege. They were also required to take a resident’s oath. Boston for a time restricted its admissions to those who became members of the local congregation. This practice, however, was not generally followed, though all towns insisted as strongly on moral qualifications as did Plymouth and Connecticut in their requirements for the colonial franchise. For this reason, especially in Massachusetts, the conditions of the town franchise differed from those of the colony, and were themselves never precisely defined. Those who were admitted to that franchise constituted the town meeting, and when they acted in that capacity they elected officers and transacted all town business.

In every town there were also certain cottagers who, in the language of the Hartford records, “were granted lotts to have onely at the towne’s courtesie, with liberty to fetch woode and keepe swine or cowes on the Common.”³ These were not even freemen, and their admission to the town was safeguarded in such way as, if possible, to prevent their adding to the number of the town poor. They were simply inhabitants. The freemen and the proprietors were inhabitants,

465

but they were something more. When it is stated in the records that a general meeting of the inhabitants of the town was held, the meaning is that a folkmoot had met, from which no males who were residents of the town were excluded. But the business in that meeting had been transacted by the freemen.

The nucleus of the body of freemen consisted of the proprietors. That body was perpetuated by gifts, sales, and inheritance of property. In later times the personnel of such boards consisted of the heirs and assigns, or successors, of their earlier members. They were kept together by their joint ownership of the common or unallotted land of the town. Admissions to the group usually ceased at an early date, leaving it a relatively small body and very likely to be dominated by narrow and selfish traditions. Around the nucleus of proprietors developed a fringe of freemen who were not proprietors. The nucleus and the fringe together made up the active part of the town meeting. For a long time the fringe was small and unimportant; the proprietors constituted a large majority and could easily control the town. Under these conditions, allotments of land could be easily and safely made, as well as other forms of business done, in town meeting. The proprietors and those who were simply freemen were not vividly conscious of their difference, and the records of their doings were freely intermingled.

But, as time passed, the distinction between the proprietors and those who were simply freemen became more evident. This was due to the increase in the number of the latter, and to the diminution of the supply of unoccupied lands. As the supply from which allotments could be made grew less, land became an increased object of desire, both to those who controlled it and to those who were seeking to possess it. In towns where the proprietors constituted a safe majority, they were able to maintain their control without serious difficulty. But in towns where the number of non-commoners came to equal that of the proprietors, struggles over the management of the town lands were very likely to occur. In the town meetings the non-commoners sought to carry through resolutions for division of the common lands

466

on the basis of equal shares for all. These were opposed by the proprietors, the latter in most cases being supported by the traditional sentiment of their towns and by the general court.

As we have seen, the earliest controversy of this kind developed in Providence; but toward the close of the seventeenth century, as the country filled up, collisions began to occur in some of the Massachusetts towns. As early as 1667, disputes over the use and the division of common lands of Woburn reached such proportions that they came under the notice of the general court. A committee was appointed which heard the questions in dispute. Its report upon the principles of settlement was accepted by the court, and presumably put into effect.¹ In this case there was apparently a question at issue between those who were entitled to a larger and those who could only claim a smaller share in the common land.

An order which was passed in Ipswich, in March, 1660, shows how the increase of population might arouse the fears of existing proprietors. The order declares, that it had been found by experience that the common lands were overburdened by the multiplying of dwelling-houses contrary to the interest and meaning of the first inhabitants in granting house lots and other lands.² To check this evil, it was ordered that no house, thereafter erected, should carry with it a right to common land, nor should the persons inhabiting houses use lands for timber, wood, or pasture, on pretence of title from such houses, without express leave of the town. Divisions of land were confined to commoners, but from time to time additions were made to that body.

In Haverhill, in 1699, the commoners began to deny applications for free grants of land and would only agree to sell it.³ There the question arose, to whom does ungranted land belong? Growing opposition appeared among the commoners to the non-commoners voting in the disposal of land. A committee was appointed to ascertain who the commoners, or proprietors, were, and it was ordered that no land should be rgranted till this point was settled. The

467

proprietors held that they were the heirs and assigns of the original purchasers. The original purchasers had come into possession of the entire town tract, and were its sole proprietors. Later grants by them or their heirs did not carry with them a share in the undivided lands. The non-commoners, or legal voters, took the ground that the land of the town had been granted to the inhabitants collectively and that to them all undivided land belonged. On these lines the conflict was waged in this town till far into the eighteenth century, the non-commoners usually holding the balance of power. In other towns, as Northampton, similar struggles occurred, in some cases extending over long periods of years. They brought into requisition town records, and made it necessary that proprietary records should be kept with greater care than had been customary in the seventeenth century. These local agrarian disputes, analogous as they were to many famous conflicts in ancient and mediæval towns, are an interesting feature of New England social history. But they belong to the eighteenth, rather than to the seventeenth, century, and they form a subject which still awaits the attention of an investigator.¹