HST296A: 26-January-2005 Reading Notes
Powell,
Sumner Chilton, Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England
Town
Central idea: "To emigrate from accustomed social institutions and
relationships to a
set of unfamiliar communities in the way in which Noyes and Ruddock
shifted from England to Sudbury, and the latter from Sudbury to
Marlborough, meant a startling transformation. The townsmen had to
change or abandon almost every formal institution which they had taken
for granted." (p. 142)
Introduction
The book explores the town of Sudbury in its earliest years. The author
suggests that even though the inhabitants came from England with
specific presuppositions about how their society should be organized,
the fact that they came from several areas (open-field manorial
village, incorporated borough, enclosed-farm East Anglian village),
each with its own distinct structures, led to the establishment of new
societies more complex than previously supposed. Interesting point: the
early settlers stated explicitly that they were interested in creating
new laws and social structures that did not conform to those they left
behind in England. The system was such that they could do this on a
town by town basis.
He proposes that the best way to study these towns is through a study
of the emigrants, specifically those in administrative areas.
1. The Web of
Open-field Life
We begin with Peter Noyes, appointed (and reappointed) to a variety
of roles in Sudbury. The laws (1638-1657, 132 town meetings, 650
orders) created by the selectmen indicate what were areas of conflict
and decision. Categories:
- land distribution: in England (Weyhill, Noyes' origination) land
was divided, but rights also existed to common areas (cooperative
farming: grazing/pasture, woods/nuts, commons). Information about land
and rights was "stored" by the owners. Taxes, etc. were levied in a
variety of ways as land was rented or changed hands. Noyes et. al.
divided the land in Sudbury in similar ways, granting differing amounts
to different people, but did not institute the taxation system (because
he had been burnt by that system in the past?).
- appointment of town officers: in Weyhill, courts for determining
land related abuses and for fining same for the "lord" based on local
by-laws. In Sudbury, Noyes had no court (no experience in same?). No
common bylaws from emigrants. However, the town repeatedly elected him
to the task of appointing officers.
- economic regulations and taxes: Noyes, no prior recorded
experience
- church affairs: Weyhill - inactive parish, little poor relief,
did not fulfill role of highway maintenance
- farming: Weyhill: cooperative, verbal, decisions on planting, etc.
- personal quarrels in the community: Noyes, no prior recorded
experience
- relations with other towns and institutions:
2. Land Hunger,
Borough Rights, and the Power to Tax
Edmund Rice, land acquisitor, representative, dissenter, pursued
independent land management/holding as opposed to cooperative system.
From Berkhamsted, market town, borough with written charter with
specific rights (most of rents and tolls of which were handed over to
church wardens - many of whom were the burgesses anyway). Much more
involved in national affairs. Church officers also regulated
individual's lives.
Taxation systems were ripe for abuse, though access to higher English
courts was possible. Of course, in Sudbury, Mass. such access would be
unrealistic.
3. The Secrets of
the Corporation of this Town of Sudbury
Edmund Brown, first minister, from the Puritan stronghold, Eastern
Counties, Sudbury, Suffolk. Also, John and Geoffrey Ruggles, capital
burgesses, and founders of Roxbury, Mass. Wool/trades/market town, two
parishes, more complex, more proscribed.
Elections: annual, with mayor chosen from/by alderman, rarely chosen
more than once, who then chose other officers. Thus, insiders, private,
not public, not answerable to public. When wool trade was in decline
the orders they made were determined among themselves, not in
conference with the people of the town. Ordinances like regulation of
hog behavior (!) were common. Usual process: recognize a problem (lack
of firewood for poor), determine a cause (brewers using too much),
propose a solution (brewers should use sea coal), determine a
punishment for infringement (fines), empower someone to
investigate/oversee.
(Re: house of correction for "disturbers of peace" (food thieves, fence
breakers, unwed mothers, fathers of bastards, runaways, drunkards),
corporal punishment, work.)
Conclusion: well-ordered, well-defined, explicit roles, a real sense of
those in control and those being controlled
4. "It Is Ordered
by the Court"
East Anglians invited by Subdury settlers. Different expectations:
farmers were independent landholders managing more in competition than
cooperation (p 60). (with some leftover feudal obligations)
Sundry run-ins with church authority prior to decisions to emigrate...
5. Watertown on
the Charles
No archdeacons or bishops, no landlords. Many East Anglians already
grabbing land, setting up individual (self-sufficient in terms of
tools) farms. Wanting to avoid money for support of poor, it was
already established that anyone who became a charge on the town could
be ordered to leave.(p 75) However, "no taxation without
representation" and more possibilities to speak out at town meetings.
Landless newcomers needed allotments of land, but the process by which
one obtained same was unorganized and changeable. Noyes, Pendleton
(Londoner, recently out of favor Watertown-er) and Brown (minister)
"petitioned the General Court of Massachusetts for a town grant below
Concord." 9p. 77) The area had plenty of pasture, some clearing already
done, some soil and predator challenges, and NE weather.
6. "It Is Ordered
and Agreed by This Town"
One respected experienced administrator (Pendleton), 3 open-filed
leaders (Noyes, Rice and Walter Haines) and a mixed group of settlers,
most used to open-field custom of sharing resources.
"...not enough attention has been paid to the fact that both the Bay
government and the town government were accomplishing a virtual
revolution in the systems of social and economic status of each
community. For the first time in their lives, the inhabitants of an
English town were assuming that each adult male would be granted some
land free and clear. . . Under the radical new social philosophy
[Noyes] was free to grant land either according to the number of
persons in a family, or according to an assessment of the wealth
and property each family had brought with them..." (p. 83)
Indication of desire for orderliness: large fine for straying hogs.
The people quickly moved to become a town. Land grants were not
sustained for those who would not settle in the town (absentee
landlords and speculators), taxes were to be determined and collected
by the town, decisions were to be made as a town, and common
lands/practices were to continue.
7.
"All Liberties as Other Towns Have"
The town government's development was an amalgamation of the
experiences of those elected to be in charge, with contributions from
all landholders through town meetings. Topics included (as above):
- land problems: 89% of total land held for "town use" (common
pasture/grazing, future grants) mostly wooded and used for cattle
rather than sheep. Most orders related to expanding, but keeping, the
open field system. Land was kept as originally alloted which worked
until population pressure came to bear.
- town government: "All male adult citizens, once sanctioned by a
town-meeting vote and given a grant of common land, were considered
free townsmen. For this privilege, they were expected to live in
Sudbury, pay all taxes, and be called on to serve in any town post
which the town meeting decided was necessary for that particular year."
(p. 100) And they did. "At least 39 different men, 52% of the male land
grantees, served as selectmen during the period 1639-1655."
- economic regulations--taxes: economic crisis of 1641 - wage
ceilings set. They instituted a property tax to cover town
expenses--salaries for marshall and pastor, bridge repairs, militia.
Apparently they collected taxes with few difficulties, not needing to
appeal for help to Bay gov't.
- Church affairs: Edmund Brown was paid by the town to be minister
but had far fewer responsibilities and power than in England. No tithe
collection, not even marriages. Most activities formerly controlled by
church were now controlled by town.
- quarrels in the community: "The explanation for the apparent
social harmony in the early years of Sudbury is that the townsmen were
doing everything possible to force group agreement by discussion." (p.
108) Drawing on Bible and interpretations, small courts passed
judgment. Worked up to a point.
- relations with neighboring towns: townsmen decided most of their
own problems, with little help or interference from the magistrates of
the Middlesex court." (p. 112)
- relations with the Indians and with the Colony: the town was
given pretty much complete authority to regulate itself, though it sent
representatives to the yearly colony meetings. However, in the area of
Indian affairs it had no experience: completely different rules of
warfare than England (trained bands, professionals, no fighting in
rain, winter or harvest, respect for women and children? etc.) Central
government established rules for military companies. Towns prepared for
warfare.
8. "We Shall be
Judged by Men of Our Own Choosing"
At its base the crisis was over power: old vs. young, conservative vs.
liberal. In its form it was about a building: would the meeting house
be enlarged or would a new one be built. If town land was opened up to
sons and others (and the young demanded such without regard to rank and
age) there would be enough to tax to build a new meeting house. They
packed town meeting to shift the vote. The two-mile grants. But they
wanted to build it on minister Brown's land. Was it his or theirs?
Meanwhile the youngers forced the vote for equal size land grants. The
elders acquiesced but then decided to "size the commons" which would
leave many youngers, who were without meadow land, no way to graze
their animals. Also Brown: his meadow had been reduced and sizing
commons would limit his cattle, but he didn't want young Ruddock to
split town between young and old. He tried to take back his land. Led
to split vote. Brown called in outside help. The town accused him
of being too secular. Ministers from other towns got involved.
Ruddock insisted it was a town matter only - not a church matter.
Ministers censure Ruddock. He petitions for new land grant and starts
new community to the west. So it begins.
9. "Interest in
this Town of Marlborough"
Ruddock and his townsmen were granted land that was still in
Indian control. After that was resolved they divided it up fairly
equally. Those with larger lots had larger responsibility to the town.
No one could get land if they did not also contribute to the town's
welfare.
10. The Origin and
Stability of a New England Town
Powell reiterates that, while specific origins are impossible to
determine and a single model of NE towns is overly simplistic,
exploring the social and cultural antecedents of the towns is
worthwhile. He admires their intrepidity in forming new social models
and sees the towns they created, at least initially, as bordering on
revolutionary. Second and subsequent generations did return to more
traditional forms: use of calendar, invocation of King's name,
reference to Common Law, are provided as examples.
"To emigrate from accustomed social institutions and relationships to a
set of unfamiliar communities in the way in which Noyes and Ruddock
shifted from England to Sudbury, and the latter from Sudbury to
Marlborough, meant a startling transformation. The townsmen had to
change or abandon almost every formal institution which they had taken
for granted." (p. 142)
"Bold leaders, the tacit and sometimes actual approval by the General
Court, concern for every inhabitant, and a deep faith were sufficient
for the first generation of Sudbury townsmen. One can argue that three
institutions gave a structure and a harmony to the community: the
open-field system of farming, the town meeting, and the town church."
(p. 144)
Questions:
Jackie proposes the following questions (e-mail, 24-Jan-2005)
As far as the discussion on Puritan Village - here are some ideas to
get us started. As we build our body of material during the course of
the semester, obviously discussion will become easier. Please also come
with your own questions and comments about the book (or related
material) that you would like to discuss.
1. What are the similarities and/or differences in the English
communities Powell covers?
- Weyhill: open-field/cooperative, loose administrative structures
- Berkhamstead: independent farming, tight integration of
church/town functions (overlap of personnel), more interaction with
national-level
- Sundbury town: more central (insider) management, social behavior
proscribed
- East Anglians: independent, individualists, desirable for ...?
2. Try to imagine not knowing anything about these towns and think
about
the town/village layouts. If you only look at the maps what types of
things might you determine or hypothesize about these communities?
- Weyhill: homes clustered around church and lodge at Penton.
Common fields between that and fairground/commons area. Several large
farms. No royal lands.
- Ashmore, Dorset: 2 commons, 3 fields, the rest is Lord's land:
fields, woods, pasture
- Sudbury: much more "town-like" shops, churches, inns, trades.
dense population
- Framlingham: town clustered around castle and church. While it
only highlights the property of Danforth and doesn't specify what the
land use was (pasture, woods, etc.), the patchwork nature of the map
shows how small properties could be acquired and amalgamated
3. We can discuss the role of local government and the church in
peoples lives? How did or didn't this carry over into the New England
colonies?
- different towns had different levels of complexity/integration of
church with town administration (or rather, in some cases no
differentiation at all)
- In NE, the separation of spiritual/pastoral from
secular/administrative became a problem: presuppositions of correct
role differed among emigrants so misinterpretation was unavoidable
4. What happened to the idea, function, and shape of "the community"
when its authority structure, spiritual institutions, and land and
goods distribution when people had the chance to start all over again
(i.e. in Sudbury MA)?
- dependant on expectations: open-field/communal vs. individual
farm/acquisitive
- could control who was part of community (keep out the rabble!) so
no need to worry about supporting non-productive members
- authority structure much more communal and inward-oriented: land
distribution to all adult males, town decisions made by town members
5. What was transferred intact and what was not?
- land management/farming practices (of multiple kinds)
- tax practices: taxes were seen as a way to raise funds for
community needs, but tax based on specific needs/events not on ongoing
basis (ex. annual)
- assumptions that there was "a" proper order (though the
definition of "a" varied), assumptions about social hierarchy (though
definitions changed)
- inability to disassociate church and state functions (though
again, this was challenging/challenged)
- pigs (eat anything! efficient), cows (eat anything, produce milk,
overgraze but while recognized as a potential problem it was not an
actual problem for several generations), sheep (not well suited to
Mass. climate. What about the ancillary production materials: carding
equip. spinning equip. looms etc.? how much did they bring? what was
the flax/wool ratio in 17th cent. NE?)
- ad hoc "organic" nature of planning: problem/need, find an
answer, institutionalize it, "custom of the country"
hope.greenberg@uvm.edu,
created/updated: 24-Jan-2005
Back to HST296a