Cow Common

Today, there are no fences around Cow Common to keep cattle from straying. And the lush meadow grass is long gone. But one can still walk, more than 350 years later, some of the original “common land” where settlers first set their cattle to graze.

Since cattle were the foundation of farming in early New England, men sought land grants that included good grassland to feed their animals. In 1638, when Peter Noyes, Edmund Browne, and Brian Pendleton of Watertown petitioned the General Court for “straitness of accommodation, and want of meadow,” they had chosen the Musketaquid, or Sudbury River Valley, ten miles west of Watertown. The Indian word Musketaquid meant “grassy ground,” which clearly described the meadow grasses that had attracted Sudbury proprietors. The petitioners were granted “five square miles astride the river,” approximately 3,000 acres, just upstream from Concord.

But Sudbury would be unlike Watertown where farms were kept individually. Sudbury’s proprietors established an open field, or communal system of farming whereby river meadow for harvesting hay was apportioned based on the number of persons in a family, or according to an assessment of the wealth and property each family had brought with them, or in relation to some combination of both of these. An investment could be for public service like the miller Thomas Cakebread, or for the Reverend Edmund Browne who also received a salary. Meadow rights entitled proprietors to a share in the common lands of the community–fields to raise crops and pasture to graze cattle. The first fifty families, or proprietors, had proprietors’ rights to common land use. To cover town expenses, families paid taxes based on the amount of river meadow they owned. Thus, the community’s largest investors had the most at risk and paid the highest tax.
Sumner Chilton Powell in Puritan Village: the Formation of a New England Town, stated “the committee did not distribute all of the available river meadow but kept the major part in reserve, as a type of town bank account, on which they later drew to ‘gratulate’ town officials for time and service rendered. Out of the estimated 3000 acres, the committee allotted only 848.”

For example, river meadow was allotted to Richard Sanger, a blacksmith who was persuaded to join the settlement in 1646. Sanger, eighteen years of age, came on the good ship “Confidence” in 1638 as the servant of Edmund Goodenow. Sanger set up a blacksmith shop not far from the gristmill. In 1649, he returned to Watertown.

Traditionally, the amount of river meadow which a farmer owned as a proprietor also determined how many animals he could graze on the cow common. But the common land was so extensive at the time, selectmen decided to wait until the herds grew too large for the area before enforcing “sizing” limits. The northern boundary of the original “cow common” approximates that of the northern boundary of today’s fields. A second cow common was opened on the west side of the river in 1647 to accommodate farmers living on that side.

Within a decade new settlers and a second generation of young men were without river meadow and some had no land. The town was growing fast and the limited availability of land and meadow became a very large issue. In 1649, Edmund Goodenow, deputy to the General Court, petitioned the Court for land for the town and Sudbury was granted a two-mile strip adjacent to Sudbury’s western boundary. But apportioning the new land soon divided the town. At a town meeting called in 1651 someone proposed a radical change–“When the two miles shall be laid out, that every man shall enjoy a like quantity of land.” The proposal was in exact opposition to the communal farming system established by Noyes, Pendleton and Browne. Individual ownership of land in the two-mile grant would take able-bodied young men away from work in the town’s six open fields and destroy the open-field system of communal farming. To the great surprise and disappointment of the town’s founders the proposal for division of the two-miles strip passed at that meeting.

Not surprisingly, the issue divided the town. For the next two years, from 1655-57, Sudbury’s policy toward the land caused violent town meeting disputes. Most proprietors had come from open-field communities in England and wanted to continue the practice. John Rudduck, also a proprietor, was the exception. He had been raised in an English town where men owned their own land individually. When the debate to divide the two-mile strip erupted, Rudduck abandoned his support for the open-field system he had bought into and became a strong proponent for change. Town meetings became so well attended during the debate that a motion was made to build a new, larger meetinghouse. Once again the town became divided over the issue. Selectmen and the more conservative faction in town believed the town could not afford to build a new meetinghouse and preferred adding to the old one. The debate continued for three years. The new group of “expansionists,” the same group who wanted the two-mile strip divided equally, pressed for a “yes” vote to build a new meetinghouse. They argued that if the two-mile strip were divided equally and farming begun in a competitive way, each citizen would have money to pay for a new meetinghouse. Said Sumner Chilton Powell “the social, political, and economic philosophy of Sudbury was at stake.”

Selectmen drew up a proposal designed to please everyone but maintain the basic concept of rank and proportion. The original meadow-grant list defined the social and economic status of town founders and selectmen were determined to maintain due respect. The selectmen’s proposal, however, was voted down. The following day the “expansionists” petitioned for another meeting and forced a “yes” or “no” vote–“to every man an equal portion in quantity.” The vote passed in the affirmative and selectmen were defeated again.

Selectmen still had control of the Cow Common, which required meadow rights. Rudduck as a proprietor could graze his cattle on the common. But few of the new land owners had rights. Where would they graze their cattle?
Peter Noyes, his son Thomas, Edmund Goodnow, and Walter Haines raised a new question for debate in January, 1655-56: “was the town herd of cattle too large for the Sudbury commons?” The men devised a formula:

“For every two acres of meadow–one beast: a cow, a bull a steer,
or heifer above a year old, a horse or a mare above a year old–each
was to be considered ‘one beast’, but all cattle under a year old were
to be allowed on the commons, without sizing until further reason doth
appear for sizing them.”

Rudduck opposed the sizing regulation because at least thirty-two young men would have no chance of grazing their animals on the common. He also argued that the cow common could support many more animals than proposed. The town became so bitterly divided on the issue that a committee had to be appointed by the General Court and a Puritan Church Council named to settle the argument. Their findings did not favor Rudduck and his group of “expansionist” young men. Shortly thereafter Rudduck left the settlement. He and Edmund Rice, Sudbury deputy to the General Court, petitioned the Court for another land grant. By 1656 they were discussing entrance requirements and citizenship rights for the new town of Marlborough, which was incorporated four years later.

Shaken by the loss of so many young townsmen and their families to Marlborough, Sudbury town officials set about dividing up the two-mile land grant equally. Each proprietor, regardless of his status in the community, received 130 acres. Slowly farmers cleared their land and moved their cattle from the common land to their own. By the early seventeen hundreds, most Sudbury families had made the transition to individual farms.
The sixty-five acres of the present Cow Common include the narrow lots of land bought by farmers on the opposite side of Old Sudbury Road (Route 27) when the common land was sold by the proprietors. These farmers had their arable land on the higher east side of the road and their meadow and grazing land close to the river on the west side. Ditch banks defined their property boundaries. If you have seen these long depressions in the fields, think now of why they were put there and how long ago they had to have been dug out. Ditch banks are currently being mapped using aerial photos of the land.

Cranberries

Could Sudbury settlers, who came to harvest the rich meadow hay of the Musketaquid Valley, have known that beneath their precious hay grew ruby-red cranberries? That small red fruit high in Vitamin C with a blossom that looks like a crane? Aren’t cranberries associated with Cape Cod? And didn’t their popularity arise from their place on the Thanksgiving table? Maybe. But, maybe not. “Ocean Spray” creates the image of “Cape Cod only.” And, Thanksgiving makes them appear a tradition. But cranberries had grown in many places for a much longer time. The truth is that cranberries did and do grow on the Cape. However, it isn’t just because the area is so well suited for their growth. It is because land owners have protected the bogs and marshes where cranberries like to grow. In the early 1800s, the bulk of the cranberry crop came from large natural inland meadows, much like those along the Sudbury River. In 1843, for example, a single twenty-five-acre bog in Franklin County reported a yield of 1,050 barrels of cranberries. But that was before most of the inland meadow land had been drained and filled. For Sudbury settlers, a surprise fruit crop hiding beneath the hay must have been a welcome delight. After the hay was harvested in late summer and early fall, whole families descended upon the meadows to pick the little fruits before the first frost turned them to mush. Where the fruit was thickest, farmers often didn’t mow at all, but just clipped off the top of the hay to facilitate picking. Or they did not mow as closely as in other places. Then, the fruit was raked before being gathered by hand. Cranberries became a reasonable source of income for local farmers as evidenced by the rake that was donated to the Historical Society by the Campbell family of Pelham Island Road.

It is doubtful, however, that Sudbury settlers, or other newcomers discovered cranberries. Or, that they ate the little fruits before being tested. Their testers and teachers were probably local Indians.

  © 2008 WaylandeNews.  All rights reserved.     Last updated:  Saturday May 03, 2008 12:39 PM. 
  Please be aware that many links on our site will take you from WaylandeNews.  We are not responsible for content on other websites.