266

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ENGRAVED PLATES AND THEIR VARIOUS ALTERATIONS.—THE COLONY BILLS AND THE OLD TENOR.¹

The number of bills of the colonial and of the provincial currency which have been preserved is so limited that if we were compelled to rely for details concerning them upon such specimens as can be found in our museums, cabinets, and private collections, we could tell but little as to the denominations which were in circulation, and sould have but slender grounds upon which to base a description of the plates used in some of the emissions.

The colony bills were, as appears from the records, and from Mather’s description of them, engraved on copper plates². A few of these engraved bills survive and no question as to the fact that the entire emission was printed from these plates could arise, except from the quasi-endorsement as a true bill given to a pen and

267

ink copy of one of them, by its reproduction in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for 1863. The copy is considerably larger than the genuine bills and the signatures thereto are apparently simulated. It is not probable, however, that there was any intention to deceive through the imitative character of the signatures. It is evident from the endorsement of the province treasurer which was reproduced in the copy, that the original bill was in circulation after 1692. It is not, in my judgment, conceivable that any committee of the late colony would at that time have assumed to act in its name.¹

In the original act of emission, it was provided that the denominations should not be under five shillings nor over five pounds, but in February, 1690-91, the range was altered, and the committee was authorized to emit bills from two shillings to ten pounds. These were probably in eight denominations: 2s, 2s. 6d, 5s, 10s, 20s, 60s, 100s, and 200s.² The selection of these denominations must at the beginning have been purely experimental. The enlargement of the range within a few weeks from the date of the first emission, shows that experience had already taught the committee something in this regard. The lowest limit then set stood the test for several years, but the ten pound note would seem to have been a mistake. From occasional reports made at

268

a later date by the treasurer, in connection with the burning of defaced province bills, it is evident that there could have been but little call for so large a bill at any time, and it does not appear to have been included within the range of any other series. Indeed the maximum of the new tenor bills was forty shillings.

The form of the bills approved in connection with the original emission, had a space reserved in the manuscript draft of the law submitted by the committee, which was surrounded with a scroll and marked “Indentment.” From repeated references as well as from specimens we know that the bills were actually indented.¹ They were signed by a committee appointed for the purpose three signatures being required upon each bill.² If we accept the two specimens in the Essex Institute and the Massachusetts Historical Society, as representative of the general character of the bills of this series, they were plain and unostentatious in appearance,³ and the engraving of the plates was rude and unskillful. The only attempt at embellishment consisted of a pattern resembling lathe work of a simple character at the top of the face of the bill; another of a similar description on the top of the back, and a rude representation of the colony seal in the lower left hand

269

corner. The words, “Come over and help us,” represented as issuing from the Indian’s mouth, are reversed in the bill, so that they become legible only through reflection in a mirror.¹ In this respect the seal differs from the form in which it is commonly presented, the phrase as a whole being in general inverted. Over the top of the bill the denomination is expressed by a numeral, while on the face of the bill the words indicating the amount are given in full. It is probable that this method of designating the denomination prevailed throughout the series, and that there were no prominent distinguishing features between the bills of different denominations.²

It has been seen that the province, as a temporary expedient, and probably in the hope that the necessity of issuing province bills might be avoided, continued for ten years to make use of the colony bills. Under the province laws authorizing these emissions, after December, 1693, the treasurer was required to endorse the bills before paying them out. Colony bills, endorsed by the province treasurer, may, therefore, be accepted as having performed double service, under colony and province.³ The numerous cases in which special provision was made after 1702, for the redemption, or rather the exchange

270

of unendorsed colony bills for province bills, show, either that the treasurer was negligent in the performance of his duty as endorser, or that many of the colony bills remained in circulation without endorsement long after they should naturally have been retired.

Before 1702, these bills must have become very much defaced and tattered; it is not surprising, therefore, to find that a proposition was made in the assembly in 1701, to print a new supply of them. The impossibility of procuring any signatures to the bills on the part of representatives of the colony, was probably the snag on which this scheme was wrecked.¹

No special legislation appears upon the statute books in reference to counterfeits of these bills. This was not because they were exempt. They were certainly altered by raising the denominations. In contemporary legislation “counterfeits” were spoken of, but as this word was then applied to altered bills, it is not certain that counterfeiters at that time resorted to imitations of the plates.² The fact that the denominations were altered may be accepted as evidence that there was no great difference in the appearance of the bills of the several denominations of this issue.³

271

The bills of the form which were afterwards known as “old tenor” were first issued in 1702. The form remained in constant use after that date down to the time that the province currency was withdrawn from circulation, although the designs adopted for the bills of the first series were superseded in 1713, and a new set of designs for all the bills in use was then adopted.¹ The original plates bore date 1702, but from time to time while these plates were in use, changes were made in the dates of some of the bills thereon.

It was specified in the act authorizing the first emission of the province bills that they should be indented.² So long as the bills remained perfect this might have served as a means for determining the authenticity of a bill, in case proper provision were made for marking and preserving the stub. As a practical safeguard, however, it is evident that it was worthless. The bills soon became ragged and tattered, and of course, any test of this sort must then have become impracticable.³ Moreover, the necessity of reinforcing the strength of the feeble paper upon which they were printed soon created a common

272

custom of pasting pieces of paper upon their backs, which must have interfered with the indent as a means of identification. These causes are perhaps adequate to make it clear that this provision of the law could not have been of any service, but if it be added that the bills were often halved and quartered, in making change, the futility of the process will be fully recognized.

The duty of selecting suitable “stamps” for the bills, was thrown upon the governor and council, and the devices engraved for this purpose were termed the “ escutcheons or stamps,”¹ the alternative phrase “ blazons “ being sometimes applied to them.² The signing of the bills was entrusted to a committee, the number of which was not fixed by the act, but it was specified that the bills must be signed by the committee “or any three of them.” The original committee was actually composed of five members,³ and the preparation of the plates seems to have been turned over to them. They caused six copper plates to be prepared, three of which were engraved.⁴ With the exception that the denominations of the bills were to be “in suitable sums from two shillings to five pounds,” the determination of the denominations and the distribution of the amount to be issued among them were apparently left to the committee. From repeated mention, we know that originally the bills were issued in eight denominations,⁵ and they were 2s., 2s. 6d., 5s., 10s., 20s., 40s., £3, and £5.⁶ In 1709, the

273

number of denominations was increased to ten, alterations being ordered in one of the plates which furnished 3s. and 3s. 6d. bills.¹ In a similar way, in 1710, through alterations in the plates then in use, a 4s. and a 50s. bill were added, thus bringing the number up to twelve.² Frequent references to each of the foregoing denominations are to be found in the reports of the committees appointed to oversee the burning of the bills.³

In a letter to the Lords of Trade, May 9, 1713, the postmasters general allege that loss arose in the postal service in the province through the fact that the nominal value of the lowest denomination of the public bills amounted to a crown. This statement was based upon information obviously erroneous, and Dummer, the agent of the province, on the 25th of June, informed the Lords of Trade that some of the bills were made for so small a sum as eighteen pence.⁴ Although no authority can be found, previous to the year 1713, for the emission of a bill of this denomination, we know that they were authorized that year, and specimens in existence, bearing that date, show that they were then put in circulation.⁵

The three plates which the committee caused to be engraved, were known as the large, sometimes also called the great, or the high plate, the middle plate, and the lowest plate, the classification being based upon the denominations of the bills on the several plates. It is evident from references that each plate was engraved so that an impression could be simultaneously taken of

274

four bills, and one such impression has been preserved.¹ The lowest plate at this time had two bills of 2s. and two bills of 2s. 6d.² The middle plate contained the 40s., 20s. 10s. and 5s. bills.³ The great plate must have contained the bill, the £3 bill, and two 20s. bills.⁴ The language used in the preamble of the act of 1710, “there were three plates engraven of the twenty shilling bill,”⁵ must be taken in connection with the report of the committee cited above, and probably means merely that there were three cuts of that bill. The committee had recommended in June that the two twenty shilling bills on the great plate be altered, thus locating two of these cuts.⁶ Full authority was conferred at that time to carry out this suggestion, and this act is to that extent a mere ratification of what the court had already authorized to be done. It goes one step further, however, in instructing the committee to change the date of the 20s. bill on “the third plate” to 1710.⁷ This can only refer to the cut of that bill on the middle plate. From the preamble of this act, we learn that the impressions taken from these three cuts of the twenty shilling bill could be readily distinguished from each other. There were, it was said, “some literal differences in the character each from the other,” and there were some variations not obvious without a curious inspection.”

The first discovery that any counterfeits upon the emission of 1702 had been put in circulation, took place in July, 1704. This was before any special legislation

275

had been made, declaring the commission of such an act to be a criminal offence. It was important, therefore, to convince the public that such acts were illegal, and that the government could find a way to punish the perpetrators. On the 24th of July, the governor by advice of the council, issued a proclamation calling in for inspection all the 20s. bills, this being the denomination which had been counterfeited. A reward of fifty pounds was offered for disclosures which would lead to the conviction of the persons who had committed the forgery, and indemnity was tendered to the informant in case he should be one of the conspirators.¹ The size of the reward led to treachery among the counterfeiters, and the next day four of them were arrested and their plate and press were seized. One of the gang, apparently the most criminal of the lot, escaped, and on the eighth of August, a proclamation was issued offering a reward of thirty pounds for his capture. This resulted in his arrest in Stonington, Connecticut, on the tenth . He was, however, an old hand in such matters, and managed to escape from his captors. He was next heard from in Philadelphia, where he was again arrested. While in custody, on the way to Boston, the vessel in which he was being transported suffered shipwreck, and he was for a while lodged in jail in New Jersey. Ultimately he was sent forward, in irons, but at Newport he again contrived to escape. He was, however, promptly recaptured and was sent to Boston, where he arrived in June, 1705, and was tried, convicted and imprisoned.² Between the time of the first arrest of the counterfeiters

276

and the trial of the “chief contriver and actor,” the governor had called the attention of the assembly to the fact that he was obliged to rely upon the common law for the power requisite for the punishment of the forgers of the bills of credit,¹ and it was in response to this suggestion that the first act against counterfeiting the province bills was passed, in 1704.² It will be seen that rewards amounting to eighty pounds were offered to secure the conviction of counterfeiters, who, it was well known at that time, had not succeeded in putting out £100 of the counterfeit bills. The earnest desire to protect the circulation did not stop with the payment of this relatively large reward. It was evidently thought that the mere existence of counterfeits might discredit the public bills, and the commissioners before whom the twenty shilling bills were ordered to be brought for inspection were authorized to receive the counterfeits from innocent holders, and exchange them for good bills to the extent of seventy pounds, it having in the meantime been ascertained that the whole amount of counterfeits uttered did not exceed that sum.³

This prompt action probably had a deterrent effect upon counterfeiters, but the field was too easily cultivable to remain long fallow. The bills then in use were easily susceptible of denominational alteration.⁴ There were no striking peculiarities to distinguish them from each other. Each denomination was independently engraved, so that the spacing of the words and the distances

277

between the lines were not exactly alike in any two of them. The main points of difference were to be found in the lettering of the opening words, “This Indented Bill,” for which some peculiar form was adopted in each bill. The royal arms of England, which were in every instance to be found in the lower left hand corner, were also presented in different ways, being either absolutely free from external decoration, as was the case with the twenty shilling bill, or surrounded by ornamental work of individual character, as in each of the other denominations. These points of difference were, however, none of them of a striking nature. It required more ,or less scrutiny to detect them and they did not offer adequate safeguards against alterations. The scroll work on the top of the back of each bill, was the same for all the bills on each plate, and could only have been of use in connection with the indent.

Furthermore the success of work in the nature of altering or imitating the currency was facilitated by the dilapidated condition in which many of the bills were permitted to circulate, and was favored by the lack of scrutiny on the part of the rural population.¹ The first thought seems to have been that some protection against counterfeiting might be derived from “stamps,” which were to be put on by “the Company of Stationers who have the sole making of paper in England,” and who apparently controlled the stamps proposed to be employed. A proposition to make use of a safe-guard of this nature was submitted in February, 1704-5, and paper was ordered from London of proper size for eight bills a sheet, “with eight separate stamps in every sheet

278

that may appear in the centre of the bill, each ten ream to have a different stamp.”¹ The only mark or stamp on any of these bills, which is to be found among the specimens in existence to-day, is the red monogram of the letters A.R. which appears in 1708 and 1710.² This may have been printed in England, but the strength of this conjecture is weakened by the fact that the bills bearing this red stamp had the scroll work on the back also in red.³

The proposition for a change in the distinguishing mark upon the bills with every ten reams of paper, discloses on the part of those seeking to introduce obstacles to counterfeiting, a curious tendency to multiply the forms in which the bills were to circulate. Apparently, no thought was given to the difficulties thereby imposed upon the public in recognizing the genuine bills, and no attention was paid to the fact that the counterfeiter could make his selection from any of these forms. The idea seemed to prevail that so long as the government officials had the means of determining what bills were genuine it was not of consequence, perhaps not desirable, that these means should be permanent or should be publicly known. Thus, in 1705, it was proposed that the governor and council might order and make alterations in the true bills of credit, and might appoint a person or persons to endorse or new sign the bills. These persons might put private marks to the bills, when and as

279

often as they should see occasion, and they were to keep an account of the marks that they should make for the better discovery of any false bills.¹ This extraordinary suggestion seemed to be acceptable to the council, and it was ordered by that body that a bill should be drawn to carry it into effect. The idea of permitting the governor and council to alter the bills was again embodied in a proposition submitted by a committee in 1706, although this time there were to be no private marks. This recommendation was that power should be given the governor and council “in the vacancy of the general assembly, and until the next session thereof, as occasion may require, to order any new mark, stamp, form or number to be made upon the bills; giving public notice thereof to the province by a proclamation.”² This was favorably received by the council, but rejected by the house. A few days after this report was brought before the assembly, they ordered a plate to be forthwith provided on which the eight several stamps or blazons affixed to the bills of credit were to be engraved. From this plate three thousand impressions were ordered to be printed which were to be distributed among the towns of the province proportionately to their contributions to the taxes. This was to be done it was said, for the better information of her Majesty’s good subjects as to the different forms of said stamps and the bills to which they belong. The figure denoting the denomination of the bill was to be placed in the middle of the stamp, in order to discourage ill meaning men from altering and increasing the bills.³ It is obvious from this that denominational changes had by this time been

280

fraudulently made, which were, however, so crude, that mere familiarity on the part of the public with the general appearance of the various plates would check their circulation. The order was carried out to the extent of printing 1,500 sheets “of the escutcheons or stamps of the eight several sorts of bills of credit,”¹ and the charge for engraving the plate was entered by the province treasurer under the item of the escutcheon to prevent fraud.”² The policy then inaugurated that familiarity on the part of the public with the forms of the bills was a better protection than private marks, did not, however, permanently prevail, for in 1708 it was ordered for the better discovery of counterfeit bills, if any there might be, that the committee that signed the bills should furnish the treasurer with an account of the order and method of their proceeding in that affair, that so the treasurer might be the better enabled to detect and find out any false bills.³ This may possibly refer to the use of different colored ink for the signatures.

In 1707, the committee on bills made a charge for “new graving one of ye plates.” Neither the specific amount of the charge, the date when the service was rendered, nor the description of the plate appear, but it was evidently a separate charge from the “escutcheon to prevent fraud.”⁴ No trace of a plate of this date shows itself among the bills which have survived, but twenty shilling bills were certainly emitted bearing date 1708, as appears from a document in the archives, in which twenty shilling bills of date 1708, imprinted

281

and put into the treasury” are spoken of.¹ The twenty shilling bill was then on the middle plate and associated with it was the forty shilling bill, of which we have a specimen preserved bearing date 1708.² It may be surmised that we have in these bills of 1708, traces of the hand which new graved “one of ye plates” in 1707. This conjecture will perhaps be permitted to stand until a bill bearing date 1707 shall turn up.

It was discovered in 1709 that another plate had been counterfeited, and that bills printed therefrom were in circulation. The house upon learning this fact was desirous of imposing the death penalty for counterfeiting, but the council referred the matter to the next session.³ This was in November, and doubtless the feelings of the representatives were aggravated by the discovery of these counterfeits, because they had in the previous June ordered steps to be taken which they evidently thought would greatly increase the mechanical difficulty of counterfeiting the bills, a vote having been passed on the tenth of that month, “that the thirty thousand pounds of bills of credit directed by the court to be imprinted, be made with the whole scrowle of red inke through the body of the bill the better to prevent counterfeiting.”⁴ For the purpose of illustrating the operation of this method of preventing counterfeits, the committee which recommended it, submitted a specimen sheet of bills printed from one of the plates, having the proposed red scroll imposed upon the bills as suggested.⁵ With laudable

282

economy they produced this result by making use for a scroll, of the pattern which had previously been printed in black upon the back of the same bills. It consisted of a net work of lines closely interlaced in an intricate manner, and in the specimen sheet it was superimposed upon the face of the bill in such a way as to cover and render somewhat obscure nearly one-half of the reading matter on each bill. Without materially adding to the mechanical difficulty of counterfeiting the bill, the confusion thus introduced must have played into the hands of the counterfeiters. While the order is positive that thirty thousand pounds should be printed with the red scroll upon the bills, and there is nothing in the records to indicate that it was not carried out, still there are evidences that the utter worthlessness of this proceeding as a protection was soon discovered. Indeed, in 1710, the committee to prevent counterfeiting the public bills, recommended that in printing the bills then about to be issued, “there be no red scroll in the body of the bills contained in the small plate.”¹

While considering the various denominations of the bills of the 1702 plates, the fact was alluded to that in 1710 two of the twenty shilling bills were changed on the plates to other denominations. The circumstances under which this step was taken remain to be considered. In 1710, the discovery that one of the twenty shilling bills had again been counterfeited brought the assembly face to face with the knowledge that the circulation of three distinct impressions of bills of this denomination, each varying slightly from the other, tended to facilitate the fraud, or as they themselves stated it, “the cheat was less perceptible and more difficultly

283

discovered by reason that there were then several impressions of the twenty shilling bill.”

The two twenty shilling bills on the great plate were therefore ordered to be altered by changing their denominations, and the one on the other plate by changing the date to 1710.¹ All 20s. bills of the date of 1702 were ordered to be brought in for exchange and the treasurer was forbidden to pay out any more of them.²

The next important step in connection with the plates was the preparation of an entire set in 1711 in which the grouping was arranged strictly according to the numerical sequence of the denominations expressed in shillings. Up to this time this system had not been entirely complied with. The 40s. bill was originally placed upon the middle plate, while the high plate contained two twenties. The various changes in the plates had left them in the following conditions: lowest plate, 2s., 2s. 6d., 3s., 3s. 6d.; middle plate, 5s., 10s. , 20s., 40s.; high plate, 4s., 50s., 60s., 100s. In the new plates the denominations on the lowest plate were not disturbed. The middle plate contained the 4s., 5s., 10s. and 20s; while the 40s., 50s., 60s. and 100s. bills were on the high plate.³ Nothing is said of the red scroll in connection with the new plates. In the absence of any knowledge concerning these plates, other than that above given relative to the denominations which they contained, we cannot say whether any changes were introduced at this time which tended in any way to thwart

284

the counterfeiters. It may be inferred, however, that such was not the case, since in 1713 and 1714, new plates were again prepared in which distinguishing features were introduced for the easy determination of the different denominations.

Prior to the time that the red scroll was ordered there is no direct order on record calling for the use of this color in printing the bills. Items in the accounts rendered in 1704 by the committee for printing bills show that the printer charged for charcoal, blacking and oil, but there is no material specifed which could have contributed a red color.¹ The use of red ink upon the face and back of the bills seems to have suggested the possibility of employing different colors for the signatures. The twenty shilling bill of 1710, in the Lenox Library, was signed by three of the committee and the middle signature was in red ink. A system of diverse-colored signatures was then introduced, and in some instances it is evident that the rules under which the colors were used by the signers of the bills were intended to be of an occult nature, so that the true bills could be detected by those in the secret. The counterfeiters being ignorant of these rules might violate them and thus betray

285

themselves to those who possessed the requisite knowledge.

In November, 1713, discovery was made of the existence of counterfeit ten shilling and three shilling and six pence bills. The further circulation of the true bills was forbidden and all outstanding bills of those denominations were ordered in. The treasurer was authorized to exchange those made off the “true plates” for like sums in other denominations.¹ To aid in the carrying out the foregoing, the committee having the preparation of bills of public credit in charge was enlarged by the addition of a new member, and was instructed to prepare two new plates, each to have four bills engraved thereon, of such denominations as the committee with the treasurer should think to be most convenient. From these new plates they were ordered to print ten thousand pounds of bills, each one of which was required to be signed by “four at least of the committee,” and the bills thus printed the treasurer was authorized to exchange for the ten shilling and three shilling and six pence bills which had been ordered in.² No specific statement is made in the records at this date of the denominations selected by the committee and treasurer for these two plates, but it appears by the preamble of an act passed in June, 1714, that the two plates were duly prepared by the committee under the authority given the previous year. An additional plate to contain the thirty, forty, sixty and one hundred shilling bills was then ordered to be prepared.³ In this preamble it is stated that the middle plate contained the twenty, ten, five and three shilling bills. It may

286

be inferred that the additional plate ordered in 1714, was for the purpose of completing the series and that in the exercise of the discretionary power conferred upon them, the committee and the treasurer selected for the plates prepared in 1713, the denominations of twenty shillings and under. The other plate prepared in the year 1713 must therefore have contained bills below three shillings. Through an account of worn and defaced bills unfit for further service, we learn that the following bills of that description were in circulation: one shilling, one shilling and six pence, two shillings and two shillings and six pence.¹ It is evident, therefore, that although the assembly by ordering a new high plate in 1714, restored the old method of designating the plates, the grouping of the bills on the plates was different and new denominations were introduced on the lowest plate.

The act referred to as passed in 1714, was for the purpose of furnishing a new supply of currency, and of forcing the old out of circulation. The 10s. and the 3s. 6d. bills had already been ordered in. All the 50 shilling and 20 shilling bills were also ordered in for exchange. All torn, lined, pasted, or otherwise defaced bills were treated in the same way. £10,000 had been ordered to be prepared in 1713, for these exchanges. £40,000 more were now ordered to be got ready. A fresh currency was thus to be furnished the province, and as a means of protecting it from some of the causes of degradation of that which was then in circulation it was ordered that none of the new bills should be pasted, lined or covered on the back.² The circulation of bills so treated was

287

positively forbidden. There still remained the counterfeit and altered bills to be considered. The assembly had in 1706 redeemed the counterfeits. They made no promises in 1714, but ordered all such bills to be brought in and deposited in the treasurer’s hands, and instructions were given that the names of the owners of the bills thus deposited should be indorsed on them, so that the court might take such order as it should think fit.¹

The committee to sign these bills consisted of six members, and the practice of requiring four signatures to each bill, which was established in 1713, was continued. Judge Sewall was one of this committee, and he has embodied the system adopted by the committee for the use of different colored inks for signatures, in some mnemonic lines or verses in Latin hexameter which he recorded in his diary.²

288

It was in this set of bills that the feature was introduced of enclosing the reading matter of each denomination in a separate and distinct geometrical figure, a protection against denominational alterations which must have proved effective. These plates continued in use so long as old tenor bills were emitted. All impressions from them bore date 1713 or 1714, according to the size of the bill, but it was the custom as successive emissions were thereafter made, to engrave somewhere upon the face of the plate the date of the emission. Thus the bills bore upon their face the record of the use of the plate.

In February, 1717-18, in consequence of the discovery of further counterfeits, among which were the £5 and £3 bills, and it being also observed that the public had neglected to comply with the orders of the government and exchange their bills of the first issue for those printed from the new plates, it was ordered that all bills of public credit, signed by three of the committee, should be brought in for exchange before November 1st, 1718, so that no bills should remain in circulation unless they were signed by four of the committee. After November 1st, 1718, the circulation of bills signed by three only of the committee was absolutely prohibited. The assembly neglected to provide the treasurer with enough bills signed by four of the committee to effect these exchanges, and in the middle of November, 1718, it was estimated that there were still outstanding £15,000, which, for this reason, he had been unable to

289

exchange.¹ The time for making exchange was therefore extended until April 1, 1719, after which date the bills signed by three were no longer to be available in payment of private debts, but the treasurer was permitted to receive them from the commissioners of the loan fund until the May session of the court.²

In December, 1727, it being found that there were many counterfeit ten shilling bills passing between man and man, whereby honest persons unable to distinguish between the good and the counterfeit bills were liable to be imposed on, it was resolved that from and after the first day of August next coming no person presume in any private payment to put off any ten shilling bills of credit of this province. Provision was made for the exchange of the genuine bills by the treasurer.

The most striking of the characteristics of the second series of old tenor bills would seem to have been the use of special forms within which to enclose the text of the inscriptions of the several denominations. The royal arms of England appeared on each bill in the lower left hand corner and apparently it was the intention that some specific method should be adopted for their representation upon each denomination. This rule was not, however, rigidly enforced. When we compare bills of the same denomination printed from different plates, we find that considerable latitude was allowed the engraver, as to the manner in which he should present the embellishments of the bill.³ The shilling bill had the words “one shilling” over the top of the truncated pyramid and the designation in pence by numerals twice at the top and twice at the bottom of this figure. On the

290

shilling plate that was used in 1740, these numerals were obliterated, although a close scrutiny will reveal traces of them.

Each bill of this issue had an ornamental band across the top and separate patterns for these bands were doubtless used for the several denominations. Here again the engraver was allowed great latitude. In three specimens of the shilling bill, evidently from separate plates, while the pattern of this band at the top is obviously the same, the presentation by the engraver is in each instance so individual that it might almost as well have been a different pattern.¹ There were also slight differences in the scroll work on the back of these bills.

The five shilling bill of 1713 had the words, “A Crown,” over the top, and on the face read, “This five shilling bill indented.” The back of this bill had an elaborate pattern in buff color. The eighteen pence bill had the words, “Eighteen Pence,” over the top—its value was defined on the face as one shilling and six pence—and this value was stated in figures at the four corners, as follows: 1s. 6d.²

A special emission as a substitute for copper money in making change was authorized in 1722. The several denominations, one penny, two pence and three pence were mere tokens, bearing neither a certificate of indebtedness nor a promise to pay by the province, and being without signature by committee or treasurer. They were printed on parchment, the penny being round, the two pence square, and the three pence hexagonal. The denominational value was printed in numerals and in type on the face of each piece, and the month and year of the emission. The title of the province also appeared

291

on each, but was given in an ascending scale of completeness according to the value of the denomination. The penny had only the word “Massachusetts”; the two pence, “Province of the Massachusetts”; and the three pence, “Province of the Massachusetts Bay, N.E.”¹

In February, 1727-28, the committee on bills, for some cause not specified in the order, was directed “to put some plain mark to distinguish the ten shilling bills which shall now be struck off from those already issued.”²

◄Volume I, Chapter XIII   Directory of Files   Volume I, Chapter XV►