Studies on John Hull, the Mint and the Economics of Massachusetts Coinage

by Louis Jordan

An expanded and substantially revised version of this October 2001 text was published as a book by The Colonial Coin Collectors Club in August 2002. The work is distributed by The University Press of New England and is available at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~upne/1-58465-292-6.html

The following studies are grouped by topics into four parts. Part one focuses on the Hull and Sanderson homesteads and the exact location of the mint. It begins with a discussion of the Hull family and homestead and continues with an investigation of Hull's shop and its relationship to the mint, followed by a brief study on the Sanderson homestead. The section continues with a discussion, transcription and commentary on the mint and goldsmith shop entries in the surviving portion of John Hull's personal ledger and then concludes with a brief notice on the various Massachusetts Bay colonists named John Hull. Part two deals with the economics of the mint beginning with an analysis of coin weight and minting fees as calculated from the information in Hull's ledger and continues with an explanation of the relationship between the value of British and Massachusetts silver. Part three concerns production related issues at the mint. First is a summary of the minting procedures in London in the 1660's followed by sections on how consignments were accepted at the Massachusetts mint and how that differed from the regulations in the 1652 mint act. This is followed by is a section on assaying and a section on some other production related issues where practice differed from the specifications in the mint act. Next is a section on the production steps followed at the Massachusetts mint and the changes in production that occurred with the introduction of screw press technology. I then give a summary of the consignments to the mint between 1671 and 1680 as found in Hull's ledger. These ledger entries are used to derive information on production runs and productivity at the mint, estimating the number of days per year the mint actually worked on processing consignments for coinage. Information on the length of production runs is used to estimate the turn around time, including length of time consignments were backlogged. This is followed by a section on the size of a melt at the Massachusetts mint and how that related to the size of production runs. Next is a discussion of the role Hull and Sanderson may have played in coinage production. The section is continued with an investigation of other individuals that have been mentioned in connection with the mint, namely John Mansfield and Joseph Jenks. Part four deals with the history and importance of the eight reales cob coinage. This section begins with the significance of eight reales in Massachusetts Bay followed by a discussion of the origin and intrinsic value of the eight reales. There is also a history of the value and use of Spanish silver coinage in England and a comparable study on Spanish silver coinage in Massachusetts Bay.

Part One - John Hull and the Massachusetts Mint

Regrettably, there are no surviving documents precisely locating the site of the Massachusetts mint. Our most specific information concerning the location of the mint is found in an announcement recorded in the minutes of the Massachusetts Bay General Court's mint committee meeting of June 22, 1652 which specified, "That the said mint howse shall be sett upon the land of the said John Hull." Clearly, to determine the location of the mint we must first ascertain the real estate holdings John Hull had acquired by June of 1652. Determining the property holdings of the 27 year old John Hull must begin with an investigation of the Hull family and homestead.

The family and homestead of Robert Hull

Robert Hull was a blacksmith from Market Hareborough in Leicestershire, England, who took the widow Elizabeth Storer as his wife. Elizabeth had a pre-teenage son named Richard from her previous marriage to the late Paul Storer. Robert and Elizabeth then had two children of their own. The elder son, named John, was born about December 18th in the year 1624. The date of the birth of their second son, Edward, is not known. However, according the records of the local parish church, Edward was baptized on July 25, 1628, thus we may assume he was a few years younger than John. In July of 1629 Robert Hull sent his stepson, Richard, to London to begin a ten years apprenticeship under the goldsmith James Fearne. Unfortunately, Richard was not able to complete his training as the entire Hull family departed England from Bristol on the ship George on September 28, 1635, arriving in Boston Harbor on November 7th.

During the early years of Massachusetts Bay, families newly arriving in Boston were usually given a house plot in the town and an allotment of farm land at Muddy River (now Brookline), which was about three miles to the southwest. The Boston town records state Robert Hull received his "great allotment" of farm land on December 12, 1636 (Appleton, Boston Records, p. 14). The allotments were parcels of land assigned to newcomers by an Allotment Committee with the stipulations that the grantee become a member of the Puritan Congregation (at the time the only church was the First Church of Boston) and that they construct a dwelling on their house plot before March 1st of the following year. The specific location of the Hull allotment was not mentioned; the record simply stated the members of the allocation committee agreed:

"that Edward Belchar, William Talmage, Thomas Snowe, and William Deninge, and John Aratt, the servants of William Brenton, shall have their great Allotments at Muddy Ryver, and also our brother Robert Hull and Thomas Wheelar." (Appleton, Boston Records, p. 14)

The records of several later allocations assist in determining the location of the Robert Hull house plot. The general location of the Hull residence can be determined from its proximity to other allocations, for example, a house plot was allocated to John Hurd on January 31, 1642, "betweene the howse plats of Robert Hull and William Plantayne" (Appleton, Boston Records, pp. 65-66). The specific location of these house plots is contained in a manuscript volume entitled, "Possessions of the Inhabitants of Boston" found in the Suffolk County Bureau of Records. The origin of this volume is unrecorded, however, an undated note referring to the work was made by the recorder of the General Court, Isaac Addington, who stated he had discovered the book in 1672 and frequently used it but that he, "alwaies was in doubt of the validity of it as a Record." The book lists each landowner with a description of the parcels of land they owned in the town of Boston, covering the period 1645-1648 with some supplemental updates extending the coverage up to 1652. During the October 1652 session of the General Court it was legislated that verbal agreements for the sale of land would no longer be recognized by the law, all transfers of land needed to be documented in writing with a deed that was validated by an official notary with the seal of the Commonwealth or the sale had to be acknowledged and recorded through the court (Shurtleff, vol. 3, p. 280). With the cessation of oral land transfers the Book of Possessions was replaced by the filing of written deeds.

The Book of Possessionsis in the handwriting of William Aspinwall, who had been appointed to the positions of both Recorder for the Suffolk County Court and Public Notary for Suffolk County by the General Court on November 13, 1644. His predecessor, Stephen Winthrop, who was a son of Governor John Winthrop, stepped down from the posts when he obtained permission to travel to England in September of 1644. Aspinwall wrote the majority of the text (pp. 1-111) by March of 1645. This has been determined because the book lists a parcel of land on School Street as belonging to Thomas Scottow, however a deed exists stating Scottow sold the land on March 31, 1645. Pages 112-149 amend and supplement the text by year, p. 112 for 1645, pp. 113-122 for 1646, pp. 123-134 for 1647, and pp. 135-149 for 1648, with marginal updates throughout covering up to 1652 (the final updates by Aspinwall are: Oct. 27, 1651 in item 35 and Nov. 11, 1651 in items 40 and 77; there is one addition by Edward Rawson, dated Jan. - Feb. 1652, which probably refers to 1653 in item 127). Aspinwall continued in his positions until 1651. In that year John Witherden brought charges against Aspinwall in the Sufflok County Court for overstepping his authority. The court upheld the charges and as a result Aspinwall was removed from his posts by the Massachusetts Bay General Court during the session of October 14, 1651. His two positions were divided among three people. In the October 14th session of the General Court Edward Rawson, who was Secretary of the Commonwealth, also assumed the duties as Suffolk County Recorder, while Jonathan Negroos took the title of the Clerk of Writs in Boston (Shurtleff, vol. 2, pp. 257-258). At the General Court session of October 26th Nathaniell Souther was appointed as public notary for Suffolk county (Whitmore, Aspinwall pp. i-x).

Item 96 in The Book of Possessions defined the Hull homestead as follows:

"Robert Hulls Possession in Boston. One house and garden bounded with John Hurd south; the high streete west: Job Judkin north: and Gamaliel Waite, east." (Appleton, The Book of Possessions, p. 36) [Note: In the original manuscript each item is a separate page. In the Appleton edition the original pages were treated as item numbers with page numbers referring to the pages in his edition.]

The location of the Hull homestead was determined in 1866 by William Appleton and William Whitmore who plotted each lot described in The Book of Possessions, onto a map; the Hull house was designated on their map as parcel F 60 (The Book of Possessions, p. 82 and map on p. 74). Since specific lot measurements are lacking, Appleton and Whitmore could only plot the lots based on the adjacencies described in The Book of Possessions and the references to known landmarks (such as streets, hills, ponds or streams). Thus, although the general location of each plot is fairly accurate relative to other named lots within a specifically described geographic location (such as a town block), without exact measurements for each plot, the precise location of any plot within a specific block is only an estimate. Realizing this limitation we can locate the Hull lot with some reliability, as it was located on a central thoroughfare known as the highway or High Street (by 1700 it was called Newbury Street), which is now Washington Street in downtown Boston. Moving south on Washington from the intersection of Washington and Summer Streets (Summer was then called Mill Street or Seven Star Lane) the Hull home was the third parcel of land on the east side of the street. After the Hull lot there were three other lots before reaching the intersection of Washington and Bedford Streets (Bedford Street was simply called the road to the Watering Place, because of the pond found there; by the 1670's it was referred to as the road to Wheeler's Pond and later Pond Street). The lot owners, on the east side of Washington Street moving from the intersection with Summer Street to the intersection with Bedford Street, were: Elizabeth Purton, Job Judkin, Robert Hull, John Hurd, William Blantaine (or Plantayne) and Thomas Wheeler (Appleton map, lots F 58 to F 63). This would put the Hull lot almost half of the way between Summer and Bedford Streets (due to recent redevelopment in downtown Boston as of the year 2000 Bedford Street stops a block east of Washington). The east side of Washington Street is the side where Macy's (formerly Jordan's) department store is now located.

John Hull is promised the homestead

John Hull's mother, Elizabeth (Storer) Hull, died on May 7, 1646. The widower Robert, then living with his 21 year old son John and his 17 year old son Edward, made a deed of gift to John on December 15, 1646, five months before John was to marry. The agreement stated that since John was, "now being upon his marriage, being about the one and twentieth yeare of his age" his father Robert Hull promised to give to John,

"My dwelling House & garden, with all the fruit trees and Appurtenances, bounded on the north, with the land of Job Judkin; on the south with the land of John Hurd; on the east with the Land of Gamaliel Waite; on the north west with the high way. As also my Lott of ground at mudy river, given to me by the towne of Boston, of about 36 or 38 ackras, bounded with Cambridg line on the North; upon the south, with the Land of Edward Belsher; on the East, partly: with the Land of Robert Turner; on the west, with the Lotts of Thomas Wheeler, Thomas Scottow & Isack Perry. As also a Lott of 21 ackras given by the town of Boston unto my sonn, Richard Storer, & by me purchased off him, Lieing at Brantree, by Manatticott river, between Mr. Francis Loyall & Mr Ting. Said property, Robert Hull gave to his son, John, reserving to himself during life, the full enjoyment of it."(Trask, "Abstracts," p. 323 and Howe, p. 40)

Richard Storer had been given an allotment of twelve acres in Braintree on November 25, 1639, said to be enough for "three heads" (Appleton, Boston Records, p. 43 and Clarke, Hull, pp. 30-31). Presumably he was married and had a child at the time. Storer subsequently acquired about nine additional acres but at some point before 1646 he sold the land to his stepfather and seems to have returned to England.

On May 11, 1647 the twenty two year old John Hull married Judith Quincy, daughter of Edmund and Judith Quincy. In his diary John Hull wrote that he had been married in his own house, his exact words were, "Mr. John Winthrop married me and my wife Judith, in my own house,..." (Hull, Private Diary, p. 143). From passing references to the Hull house in his diaries and letters and from later references to the house in the extensive diaries and letters of his son-in-law Samuel Sewall, we know the Hull house originally consisted of a single large room with a fireplace at one end. John Hull extended the structure, adding a room onto the other side of the fireplace, so that the hearth was now at the center of the house between two large rooms. At this time the original room was called the "Great Hall" or the "Old Hall" while John's addition was called the "Little Hall." John also extended the size of the kitchen (Clarke, Hull, p. 36 as well as p. 162 for later comments on the rooms made in reference to the marriage of Hull's daughter). When John Hull stated he had been married in his own house he was referring to the addition he had built onto his father's house. John's father continued to reside in the "Great Hall." Indeed, Robert Hull later remarried, taking as his second wife, Judith Paine, the widow of Edmund Quincy, that is, John's mother-in-law (through this marriage Judith's son Edmund Quincy, who had been John's brother-in-law, became his step brother). Thus, although the estate contained John Hull's residence and the land had been promised to him, it did not legally revert to John Hull's ownership until after the death of his father. Since his father was still alive when the updates to the information in The Book of Possessions ceased, there was no mention of John Hull in that book as an independent property owner. However, it is clear that in 1652, when the mint was constructed on Hull's property, the 27 year old John Hull and his wife of five years were settled on the Hull family homestead.

John Hull inherits the homestead

"I, Robert Hull, being in good memory of body and mind doe [do] give to sonne, John Hull, my part of this house which was first bylt [built], and the orchard or garden, with all oppurttynances to it, and on lotte at muddye river, of thurty Accores, which I promised to him at his marridge to give at my death, and doe make him my full executores of all oether goods, cattells [chattel] after my death, and to see this my will to be performed, that is to saye, I give to my sonne, Edmund Quinney [Quincy], that porsson [portion] which is due to me by my wife [the former Judith Quincy], that £20 in goods and corne, be it more or less, and to his sonne, John Quiney, on lote at brantrye which was my sonne, Richard Storer; to the oether childrens [Edmund's other children], 12 pence a peece. To Richard Storer, £9, to be payed before or after my death, and to sonne Edward Hull, that peece of ground at the water mile [mill] and three core [score] poundes in money or goods. [signed below] Robert Hull"(Trask, "Abstracts," p. 322-323 and Howe, p. 40)

Robert left the bulk of his estate to John, while offering far less to his son Edward and his stepson Richard. As we have seen, Richard had most likely returned to England by this date. Edward moved to Braintree in 1650 and by 1652 had married Elinor Newman. However, a few months after his marriage Edward set sail on a frigate owned by the family and joined Captain John Underhill in an expedition to seize Dutch ships, under the authority of a commission from the Rhode Island Assembly. Soon the sailors were not only raiding the Dutch but also preying on the French and any others they could overpower. Edward dragged the entire Hull family into a piracy charge, as both his father Robert and his brother John were listed with him as owners of the vessel. At the Essex County Court held in Salem on November 29, 1653 a Captain Kempo Seibada sued all the Hulls. The court record stated Seibada sued Robert and John along with Edward as they were all listed as partial owners of the frigate Swallow, "under the command of Edward Hull, pirate, for damages of his estate in taking out his house at Block Island by said Edward Hull, goods to the value of £96." (Dow,Records, vol. 1, p. 314). During the proceedings Robert and John produced several letters they had sent to Edward disapproving of his actions, Robert and John stated that they, "did endeavour to improve all the interest wee had in him to gaine him from that imployment by letters & by message..." (Dow,Records, vol. 1, p. 318). Robert and John were acquitted of any wrongdoing while Edward, who did not appear at the trial, seems to have fled to England. There are several letters from Edward written in the 1650's from London (Clarke, Hull, pp. 73-75 and Morison, p. 152).

Robert Hull died on July 28, 1666. On February 12, 1667 John was appointed executor of his father's estate, the document stated John was, "his Eldest & now only sonn." This clearly refers to natural sons, as Edmund Quincy was still living and probably Richard Storer was still alive in England. The inference is that Edward Hull had died by this date. On the same day John Hull was appointed executor of his father's estate, he filed a copy of his deed of gift from 1646. At this point John Hull became the sole owner of the Hull estate.

The homestead at the death of John Hull

When John Hull died on October 1, 1683 he owned numerous properties and was a partner in several businesses. Unfortunately, Hull died intestate, so there was no will detailing his holdings, but we have a document of almost equal value. An agreement was submitted to the court on March 12, 1684 for the division of John Hull's estate. The agreement was forwarded by the executors of the estate with the approval of John Hull's widow, Judith Hull, and the Hull's only daughter Hannah¹ along with Hannah's husband Samuel Sewall. The document contains some important details concerning the Hull residence, which reverted to his wife Judith. The residence was described as follows,

"the mansion house of the said Mr. Hull, wherein hee dyed, with all the land thereto adjoining and belonging; and all tenements, shop, out houseing and buildings whatsoever on any part of said land standing; with a small orchard or parcel of land thereto neer adjacent late purchased of Mr. Edward Rawson." (Hull, Diary, addenda, p. 258)

The 1684 agreement also stated that upon the death of Hull's wife Judith, the property would revert to Samuel Sewall. For an excellent discussion of Hull and Sewall references to this property see the article of Estes Howe cited in the bibliography.

The Boston properties of John Hull

From a variety of sources we know Hull acquired several properties during his career. His holdings in Rhode Island and New Hampshire as well as his Massachusetts real estate outside of Boston have never been proposed as locations for the Boston mint, hence I shall limit my remarks to Hull's various holdings within Boston (for holding outside of Boston see Clarke, Hull, pp. 84-92). It has sometimes been suggested the mint could have been located on any of Hull's Boston holdings. The central problem with this argument is that none of Hull's land acquisitions date back to the period of the construction of the mint in 1652 other than his father's gift of December 1646 promising John would inherit the family estate and granting John ownership of the part of the house wherein John and Judith resided. Since the mint was constructed in 1652 on land said to be owned by Hull, it seems clear that land acquired ten to thirty years after the mint was constructed could not be considered a likely location for the mint. The problem lies in that although many of Hull's land holdings are listed in the 1684 agreement for the division of his estate, no dates were given as to when Hull acquired the lands. It has sometimes been incorrectly assumed Hull held these lands from his earliest years. Indeed, the editor of the 1878 edition of Samuel Sewall's Diary mistakenly located the Hull residence (and thus also the Sewall residence) to Hull's land on Cotton Hill! Even though Estes Howe wrote an article in 1885 rectifying the numerous geographical errors in the 1878 edition, those using this source without recourse to Howe's article sometime perpetuate errors concerning Hull's properties.

Hull's acquisitions of Boston real estate first date from the mid 1660's. He purchased a house with some land from Seaborn Cotton on September 24, 1664 on Cotton Hill for £200. Cotton Hill was located off Tremont Street north of the corner of Tremont and School Streets (up to Pemberton Square). Later, on May 29, 1682, Hull expanded his holding in the area by purchasing the house and property originally owned by the Reverend John Cotton, after the house had gone through several owners (Appleton, The Book of Possessions, p. 3, item 9 and p. 111, item H 13; Howe, p. 316 and Clarke, Hull, pp. 86-87). Hull also acquired some land in 1665 from the family of his apprentice, Jeremiah Dummer. This property was a section of what had originally been Christopher Stanley's pasture located in the North End of Boston near Cobb's Hill. About 1711 Hull's heirs, Samuel and Hannah Sewall, conveyed the North End land to the town of Boston with the proviso that the road connecting that land to the main thoroughfare be called Hull Street. The town agreed and the road still retains that name to this day. (Appleton, The Book of Possessions, p. 16, item 43 and p. 119, item I 1 and Clarke, Hull, p. 87).

In the last decade of his life Hull seems to have gone on a buying spree, acquiring several nearby lots to add to the Hull estate. In November of 1676 John Hull purchased half of his neighbor's lot, acquiring the house and the south half of the lot (which was the portion that abutted the north end of his own property) from Samuel Judkin, the son of Job Judkin; the northern half of the Judkin lot was acquired by Christopher Morse (Howe, p. 313). In the agreement submitted to the court for the division of John Hull's estate following his death we learn among the properties Hull had purchased were:

"ye little orchard or parcel of land bought of Mr. Rawson neer adjacent to ye Mansion house; with the dwelling house and land on the other side of the street purchased of Robert Walker..." (Hull, Diary, Addenda, p. 259)

Further, in the agreement for the division of John Hull's estate there are numerous other Boston properties in which Hull had an interest including half interest in some warehouses and a wharf, a third interest in three dwellings that were then occupied by William Hoar, Hudson Leverett, and the widow of Richard Woodde. The division agreement also explained Hull's Muddy River property was, "in the tenure and occupation of Simon Gates." All of these properties were acquired long after the construction of the mint and could not be seriously considered as sites Hull could have selected in 1652 for the mint house.

In 1652 John Hull owned the section of the family home he had built for himself and his wife. John also had a signed promissory note from his father stating he was to receive the homestead upon the death of his father. This was the only real estate to which John Hull had a claim in 1652. Therefore, it seems quite probable the Hull homestead was the location referred to in the minutes of mint committee meeting of June 22, 1652 which stated, "That the said mint howse shall be sett upon the land of the said John Hull."

Hull's shop and its relationship to the mint

John Hull and his wife Judith continually improved and expanded the family homestead, living at that location until they died. The description of Hull's estate at the time of his death in 1683 mentions several buildings located on the homestead in addition to the "mansion house" as it details, "all tenements, shop, out houseing and buildings whatsoever on any part of said land standing" but it does not specifically name any buildings except the mansion residence and the shop. Hull's surviving ledger gives some further information on the buildings at the Hull estate (for details on the ledger see below, part one, section two). Among the numerous personal accounts in the ledger is an account for Hull's "dwelling house" detailing expenses Hull incurred in regard to his residence. In this account we find Hull incurred a debt of £18 on October 9, 1671 "To Building my little stone house of office" (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folios 24 verso - 25 recto). In addition to the construction of an office we find the "shop" was mentioned several times in the ledger as the location where his silversmith business took place. For example, there is an entry under the account of Mr. William Brimson from May 27, 1673 "To [be] paid ye shop for mending a pott & 3 spoons and silver added 10 · 6"[that is, 10s6d] (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folio 13 verso). There are also other accounts that refer to payments for items needed for the shop such as coal and charcoal. In the account of John Winchester and Dorman Muerson (?) of Muddy River (now Brookline) are several payments for coal delivered to the shop. On February 28, 1674 [listed in the old style dating as 1673 since the new year began in March] is an entry: "By money of the shop for coals - for John Winchester · · 1 / 10 /· ·" [that is, £1 10s]. Also, under November 17, 1674, "By money of the shop for 73 bushels 1/2 coal - for John Winchester · · 1 / · 4 /· 6" [that is, 73.5 bushels for £1 4s6d]. And finally under December 3 [1674], "For charcoal to ye shop whose money for Dorman Muerson (?) · · 2 / 17 / · 8" [that is, £2 17s8d] (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folio 40 recto). Clearly, the shop was the location where Hull and Sanderson kept their tools and made silver cups, bowls and other objects.

The ledger also contains an account relating to the shop. This is a three part listing beginning on folios 26 verso - 27 recto under the heading "Account of the shop..." (this account is fully transcribed below). Several entries clearly related to the coining operation and demonstrate Hull used the terms shop and mint interchangeably. The first entry specifically mentions silver sent to the shop, rather than the mint house, to be minted into coins. The entry, from October 18, 1671, stated, "To 417^oz. 1/2 sterling silver sent into y^e shop to be minted..." On the other hand, two of the following entries use the term mint house rather than shop. Under August 25, 1673 Hull wrote, "To Put into y^e mint house to be Coyned 265^oz. sterling at 6^s · 2d is £81 · 14 · 2" and again under December 12, 1674, "To Put into the mint house to Coyne 275^oz. 1/2 sterling at 6 · 2 ^d £84 · 19 · 0 " Other entries neglect to mention either the shop or the mint house as under October 24, 1671 which simply stated "To 208^oz. sterling sent in to be minted..." and under June 29, 1672 "To Put into Coyne 179^oz. 1/2." Although most of the entries in this section relate to sterling silver to be turned into coinage there are some entries specifically relating to silversmithing, for instance "4 Rings get in ye shop of mine. 1 · 12 · 74." [that is February 1, 1675]. There are also entries relating to the purchase of items that could be used both in goldsmithing and in minting, as an entry of December 26, 1671 concerning the purchase of 12 parcels of files. That this account was listed under the heading of "Account of the shop", indicates Hull considered both the coining operation and and silversmithing business to be activities of his shop. Hull listed mint expenses as shop expenses. Further, although he sometimes used the term mint house when referring to coining, at other times he use the word shop. Hull understood the General Court had authorized his silversmith shop to also function as a mint house and thus sometimes he used the more legally appropriate term mint house when referring to the location of the coining function while at other times simply used the term shop as that was the location where the minting was performed.

The Massachusetts Bay General Court mint documents of 1652 refer to a building on the Hull estate called a "mint house." These documents also mention the acquisition of the tools required for the melting and refining of silver as well as the tools needed for the stamping of the coins. It is clear the building constructed to house these items was the structure Hull and Sanderson used for all of their silversmith operations and was the structure they referred to as the "shop."

Contemporary references to the mint house

There are very few documents that actually describe the structure or structures where the Massachusetts silver coins were minted. The following discussion analyzes the specific terminology used to refer to the mint house in contemporary government documents to determine if they provide any further information concerning the mint building.

The earliest reference to a "mint house" is found in the undated draft legislation brought before the May 1652 session of the Massachusetts Bay General Court for establishing a mint. The legislation explained,

"That all persons what soeuer have liberty to bring in vnto the mint howse at Boston all bulljon plate or Spannish Cojne there to be melted & brought to the allay of sterling Silver by John Hull master of the sajd mint and his sworne officers, & by him to be Cojned into 12^d : 6^d & 3^d peeces" (Crosby p. 34)

"to Appoint the mint howse in some Convenjent place in Boston. to Give John Hull master of the mint the oath suiteable to his place. And to Approove of all other officers and determine what els shall Appeare to them as necessaryly to be donne for the Carrying an end of the whole order.

& That all other orders concerning the valuation or coining of money past this Court shallbe repealed:" (Crosby pp. 34-35)

Interestingly, the most detailed description of the mint house is not a description at all but rather reflects general building specifications issued by the mint committee dating to before the building was constructed! The reference is found in an undated and incomplete draft version of an action of the mint committee of the General Court which stated:

"ffor melting Refining & Coyning of Silver ... thire shall be an howse built at the Countryes Charge of sixteene foote square tenn foote high, substantially wrought and further also, provide all necessery tooles & Implements for the same at the Countrjes charge..." (Crosby p. 39)

"for melting Refyning and Coyning of silver... there shall be an howse built at the Countrjes charge, of sixteene ffoote square, ten foote high; substantially wrought; and further also, Provide all necessary tooles and Implements for the same, at the Countrjes charge..." (Crosby p. 40)

On June 22nd, the committee stated that, "there should be a mint howse & all tooles and Implements necessary thereto, built and procured At the Countrjes charge." To that end the committee stated a warrant had been issued to the Constables of Boston impressing Isacke Cullimore into the service of the state and another warrant had been issued to Cullimore allowing him to impress "other workemen Carpenters" to join him. Furthermore the document explained, "That the sajd mint howse shall be sett vppon the land of the sajd John Hull." This announcement is the first evidence we have that the committee had been negotiating an agreement with Hull on the use of his land for the mint house. The substance of that agreement is explained in a provision added to the announcement on the selection of the site. The provision explained if Hull ceased to hold the position of mintmaster, the Commonwealth had the option of purchasing the land from Hull or allowing Hull the option of purchasing "the sajd Howse" from the Commonwealth at a price determined by two impartial men, one of which would be selected by the Commonwealth and the other selected by Hull. (Crosby, p. 42).

From these documents we learn the mint was conceived to be housed in a single building erected on Hull's land where silver would be melted and refined into a sterling alloy and then stamped into coins. The Commonwealth impressed the carpenters and paid for the construction of the mint building as well as acquiring the tools necessary for refining silver and minting coins. Whether the building that Cullimore actually constructed varied from the specifications set forth in the memorandum of June 20th is unknown, as there is no similarly detailed description of the structure with specific dimensions from an eyewitness who actually saw the building. The June 20th statement predated the construction of the mint, it was intended as a general guide for the carpenters, explaining the kind of building the state anticipated would be required. However, it does seem quite probable the carpenters followed the committee's request as closely as possible, constructing a single structure with the intention that the building would be used for the entire process from melting and refining silver to stamping coins. Indeed, later General Court documents refer to a single structure called the "mint house."

Assuming Cullimore quickly found the additional carpenters required for the job and the necessary building materials were available, it is quite likely the mint building was completed by mid July. However, precisely when the mint was opened is unknown. We do know that Hull took his oath as an officer of the mint on June 10th or 11th while Sanderson waited until August 19, 1652. Clearly, the construction of the building was not the only task that needed to be completed before coins could be minted. Presumably, Hull had a hearth in which to melt silver as he worked as a silversmith before this time; although it is quite possible he had been using his father's hearth, as his father was a blacksmith. Minimally, some type of stone hearth would be required in the mint building. If Cullimore and the carpenters he impressed into service also built a hearth, or if a stonemason was later brought in to complete the structure, is unknown. Further, Hull would need a variety of equipment required for coin production (see part three, section one on production procedures for details). He may have needed a furnace or foundry to melt larger quantities of silver, although it is possible at first he only required a hearth. Hull would also need to acquire fine molding sand and set up a wet sand area to cast silver into thin sheets. Further, he would need to acquire of some type of rolling machine to shape the sheets to the desired coin thickness and heavy cutting shears to cut out the planchets for the NE coinage. He would also need punches for the NE and the denomination numerals, as well as other equipment required for coinage production such as crucibles or pots in which to melt the silver and ladles to remove the molten silver. Naturally, he would also need equipment for assaying silver, which he presumably owned as part of his silversmith supplies. The construction of the building was an important visible sign of the establishment of the mint, but coins could not be produced until the structure was completed with a working hearth and filled with the benches and all the tools and special equipment required for minting*.

It is quite likely minting did not begin until after Sanderson took his oath in mid August. The legislation of May 26/27 stated Massachusetts silver coins were to become current money as of September first. This probably reflects the date on which the mint was to officially open. On the other hand it may reflect the release date on which the first coins were to be distributed for circulation. If the latter option was the case then Hull may have started experimenting with minting in August. It is possible Sanderson did not take the oath earlier because he may have been out of town. We know Hull personally signed the undated mint committee draft of early June 1652 while Edward Rawson, the Secretary of the General Court and a member of the mint committee, added Sanderson's name to the document, indicating Sanderson may not have been available. In any event, it seems clear the NE coinage was in production before mid October. On October 19, 1652, legislation was passed changing the coin designed from a round planchet with NE one side and the date on the other to a more complex design with a rim inscription within a double ring and in the center a tree on one side and the date on the other. It is quite unlikely that a coining press was available on October 19th allowing the minters to immediately begin producing the new variety, now known as the Willow Tree coinage. It is more likely the production of the NE coinage continued until the minters could acquire the equipment needed to conform to the new regulations. It is possible NE coinage may have been produced until 1654. It seems some type of press was obtained by 1654 as there are some indications the mint was exploring the possibility of hiring a diecutter in that year. In 1654 Joseph Jenks of Hammersmith corresponded with John Hull's brother Edward Hull, who was in London, about bringing a diecutter to Massachsuetts Bay. In the same year John Mansfield petitioned the General Court for a position at the mint but neither initiative seems to have been successful (Morison, p. 152; Crosby, pp. 103-104 and below in part three, section six). That inquiries were made concerning a diecutter and that Mansfield, who had apprenticed in London as a goldsmith, applied for a position suggests Hull and Sanderson were seeking an experienced diecutter. Obviously, they would not have sought a diecutter unless they had acquired some type of press, probably some type of roller or rocker press, which required dies.

Unfortunately the pages in the account book of Richard Russell, Treasurer of Massachusetts Bay, relating to the period during the construction of the mint were excised from the surviving text at some point in the past and are now lost (Noe, Silver, p. 6). This source would have had a listing of the specific mint expenses incurred by the Commonwealth. However, although we have been deprived of the best source for financial information, we do have some verification that the expenses relating to the construction of the mint house had been paid by October; for in the October 1652 session of the General Court treasurer Russell summarized the expenses incurred by the Commonwealth since the May General Court meeting. Unfortunately he did not give a detailed itemized account, rather he included the mint expenses along with prison costs stating:

"To several sums paid on the charge, - prisons and prisoners and keeper and executioner and mint house. All is £395. 12s. 2d" (Hull, Diary, appendix, p. 289 and Shurtleff, vol. 4, pt. 1, p. 104)

Although the 1652 references mention only a single building, some later references, made after the mint building had been constructed but while the mint was still in operation, suggest there may have been more than one structure involved in the production of coinage. On October 16, 1660, the General Court established a second mint committee in the hope of obtaining more favorable terms for the Commonwealth. On June 6, 1661, the committee submitted a report stating they felt that, "the use of the mint & house required in justice some certaine part of the income received..." be paid to the government. The committee asked for 5% of the mint fee, however, Hull and Sanderson would not agree to give the Commonwealth an annual percentage of the fee but offered an annual payment of £10 as a free gift (Crosby, p. 72). The use of the ampersand for the conjunction "and" in the phrase "the mint & house" is imprecise. It should be remembered in early New England the word house not only referred to a home but was also used to refer to any building, thus we find the phrase, which we might consider to be a redundancy, namely, "dwelling House" used in Robert Hull's December 15, 1646 promissory deed of gift, alternatively we find the term "howse" and "mint howse" used in the General Court documents of June 20 and 22, 1652 to refer to a building for the mint. Based on the generic usage of the term "house" it is possible, in the present context, that the phrase "the mint & house" could refer to two separate structures, a mint building and a related building generically called a house. On the other hand the phrase could refer to a single edifice with multiple functions, namely a structure that functioned as a mint and had other unspecified uses as a house or building. Alternatively, the phrase could simply be an awkward method of referring to a single structure that was used solely as a mint house. A codicil to this report by William Torrey, the Clerk for the lower house of the court, the House of Deputies, stated that the Deputies felt the committee should accept the £10, "& what else they can gett by way of recompenc for the mint howse for the time past, & that¹ it be deliuered to the Treasurer to be bestowed in powder & oill,..." (Crosby, p. 72). This decision of the deputies was also added to the record of the General Court, backdated to the start of the court session on May 22nd, where the phrase referring to the structure was again transcribed as, "Recompence for the mint house" and stating the money would be used to acquire powder (that is, gunpowder) without mention of oil (Crosby, p. 72). Thus, although the reference made by the mint committee is unclear as to the number and uses of the building(s), it appears the General Court continued to refer to a single structure called the mint house.

Further references to the mint building are found in relation to a third mint committee appointed by the General Court on May 15, 1667 to obtain, "some allowance annually, or otherwise, for & in Consideration of the charge the Country hath binn at in erecting a mint house, & for the vse of it for so many years without any Considerable sattisfaction,..." (Crosby, p. 78). An agreement was reached with this third mint committee and a document was signed on October 4, 1667. The contract stated, "hauing duely weighed the Countrys Interest in the aediffices apperteyning to the sajd office, and Agitated the matter with mr. John Hull & mr. Robert Saunderson, the present mint masters..." that Hull and Sanderson agreed to pay £40 into the Commonwealth treasury within six months, "In Consideration of the Countrys disbursments in the said aediffices, & for Interest the Generall Court hath therein." Presumably this payment was to reimburse the government for construction costs and appears to have been made to acquire the rights to the government's interest in the buildings associated with the mint. Further, Hull and Sanderson agreed to pay £10 annually to the Commonwealth for the next seven years (Shurtleff, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 347 and Crosby, p. 78). That the 1667 agreement refers to "aediffices" in the pleural implies there was more that one structure taken into consideration. Also, by this one time payment of £40 it appears the mintmasters acquired whatever interest the Commonwealth had in the buildings.

Thus, the documents of 1652 refer to a single structure where the entire refining and minting process would take place, this structure was simply called a house or a mint house. In the references made after the mint had been in operation and had expanded through the acquisition of more sophisticated coining presses (evolving from simply using punches to a roller or rocker press and then to a screw press) we find the General Court continued to refer to a single structure called a mint house. However, the reports of mint committees, who actually investigated the matter and presumably viewed the mint facilities, do not use the standard phrase "mint house." The 1661 report uses the ambiguous phrase "the mint & house" while the 1667 contract uses the word "aediffices." As the 1667 document details a payment made by the mintmasters to acquire the government's interests in the structures I assume the wording was selected with more care than was the case in the document of 1661. Thus, it seems possible as Hull's businesses expanded the minting operation may have been carried out in more than one building.

The reference to multiple buildings may reflect a separation of minting operations. Probably the assays and the processing of the silver strips into blank planchets as well as the engraving of the dies may have been performed in the shop, where Hull conducted his silversmith business. It is also likely the shop contained a stone hearth at one end, as did most homes including the Hull residence. With the aid of a bellows, a hearth could reach temperatures hot enough to conduct assays, shape metal, granulate small quantities of silver plate and coins (see Lazarus Ercker's 1580 treatise, cited in the bibliography, for details on the granulation process, pp. 51-59) and then melt the granulated silver so that it could be refined to sterling and shaped into a small object such as a ring, cup or a bowl. A hearth would also be essential in several other silversmith related tasks such as baking wet clay to make an assay oven or baking cupels to be used in an assay, as well as keeping the staff warm during the winter months. It is possible a hearth may have been the only heat source Hull needed when the mint first opened. However, as the mint became more successful and moved from the hammer technology used on the NE coins to the more sophisticated machine press technology used for the later series, the production rates increased. This required more silver and larger melts. It is clear from Hull's ledger that large quantities of silver, sometimes over one hundred troy pounds, were consigned to the mint. Unlike most silversmiths who only melted small quantities of silver, Hull needed to melt much larger quantities of silver for coinage, often up to 25 troy pounds in a single melt. For melts of this magnitude he needed a large foundry furnace. Not as large as the furnace constructed in the late 1640's at the Hammersmith Ironworks, but certainly much larger than the hearths used in most silversmith and blacksmith shops. These larger foundry furnaces reached temperatures of up to 2000° Fahrenheit and were often found at mining sites, where they were used for extracting minerals from ore. The foundry furnace was usually located outside, frequently in an open structure that could be described as a lean-to, or what we might now call a car port, consisting of a back wall and a roof giving some protection from rain and snow. Sometimes this structure was attached to an outside wall of a building or was free standing in the proximity of a building (Agricola's treatise on metals contains several plates of large furnaces in operation, see pp. 474-482). Only the most advanced facilities, such as the London mint and a few large London goldsmith operations, had the financial means to construct special foundry rooms within the confines of a building. If the mint house was only sixteen feet square and ten feet high there may have been room for a wall hearth along with the work benches and other tools Hull needed but there would certainly not be room for a foundry furnace and the adjacent sand molds required to shape large quantities of molten silver into strips. Indeed, when such a furnace was in operation the heat would be so intense it would be difficult to remain nearby. Thus, it seems quite likely when a melting furnace was added to the operation it was not located inside the shop, although it may have been just outside the shop under a lean-to or in a nearby shed. Further, at least during the screw press period, and possibly earlier, it is likely the relatively noisy job of actual striking the planchets into coins may have been performed in another building where the coin press would have been kept.

It should be noted Michael Hodder and Richard Doty have shown the Willow and Oak series as well as most, if not all, "large planchet" Pine Tree varieties may have been stamped onto metal strips fed through a roller or rocker press, with the impressed coins then cut out from the strips. It is unknown if the mint was still using a roller or rocker press in 1667 or if they had already moved to a screw press. We do know the mint began producing Oak Tree twopence coins in 1662 and thus surmise at that date a roller or rocker press was still in use.

In conclusion it seems a mint building was erected on the Hull estate in 1652 and was called both "the shop" and "the mint house" by Hull. As the coining operation expanded with the acquisition of a foundry furnace to melt large quantities of silver, the furnace was probably not located inside the shop. Further, as newer and more sophisticated minting machinery was acquired, such as a roller press, and later with the acquisition of a screw press, mint production was probably distributed so that more than one building was used for the coining operation. Also, it appears in 1667 Hull and Sanderson made a payment of £40 to acquire the Commonwealth's interest in the physical facilities used in the operation of the mint.

Robert Sanderson and his homestead

Unlike John Hull who had immigrated to America as a ten years old child with no professional training, Robert Sanderson came to America as a fully trained adult. Indeed, Sanderson began an apprenticeship in the goldsmith trade a year before Hull was born. In the London register of the Goldsmith's guild is the following entry dated October 17, 1623:

"That I Robert Sanderson the sonne of Saundersonne of Higham doe put myselfe apprentize until William Rawlins Citizen & Goldsmith of London for the terme of nyne yeares." (Clarke, Hull, p. 57)

The location of Robert Sanderson's residence in Boston is not mentioned in The Book of Possessions, however we can estimate its general location from an entry in the town records. According to the Boston town records for June 29, 1657 Robert Sanderson was allowed to rent, "a Little 3 square strip of Land" from the Commonwealth for 18d per year, this land adjoined, "...the upper end of his owne Garden, Coming from the upper Corner of Tho. Munt's pailes [i.e., his boundry stakes] unto stile [the entrance steps] of the said Robert Sanderson," (Appleton, Boston Records, pp. 137-138). From The Book of Possessions we know the Thomas Munt house and lot was on the north side of what is now Essex Street (at that time it was part of a marshy creek area called the Cove or mill dam), just west of the intersection with what we now call South Street (then simply called the lane), located as lot F 24 on the Appleton map. Later, on January 23, 1663, Thomas and Elinor Munt sold Sanderson sixteen and a half rods of land in this area (Anderson, p. 1317). Robert Sanderson seems to have lived near the Munt property, probably on a portion of the large acreage listed as owned by William Teft (lot F 23 on the Appleton map), or possibly near the homestead listed as belonging to Jonathan Negroos in The Book of Possessions (lot F 25 on the Appleton map). About a block east of the Munt and Sanderson lots had been a windmill on a promontory overlooking the ocean, thus the main road connecting that area to High Street (i.e. Washington Street) was called Mill Street (now Summer Street). In 1642 permission was given to move the wind mill a few blocks east to the fort (see, Appleton, The Book of Possessions, p. 38, item 108b and p. 78, items F 23, 24, 25 and information on the mill in item 27, the fort was located on a hill overlooking the ocean in the area near what is now the Old Custom House).

Further evidence on the location of the Sanderson residence is found in the undated will of Thomas Munt where it stated, "to Clement Short, Husband to Faith Munt, Imp. a piece of land lyeing nigh the mill dam between Robert Sanderson and John Bracker, £30;" (Trask, William B. "Abstracts from the Earliest Wills on Record in the County of Suffolk, Mass.," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 16 (1862), p. 162). Faith was one of Thomas's three daughters. An inventory of the Thomas Munt estate was taken on July 6, 1664 and his will was executed on April 28, 1666 (see The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 12 (1858), p. 346 and Anderson, p. 1317). Additionally, in the agreement for the division of John Hull's property there is reference to a small pasture John Hull acquired that was described as, "a small close or pasture ground scituate in Boston adjoining upon Mr. Robert Sanderson formerly purchased of Sarah Phippen." (Hull, Diary, Addenda, p. 260 and mentioned again on p. 261). The precise location of the Phippen lot has not been determined. In the Boston Town Records for September 27, 1641 it stated "David Phippen is admitted to be a Townsman, and to have a howse lott, if it can be found" (Appleton, Boston Records, p. 63). David seems to have found some property near the mill creek (the Cove) for at the town meeting of April 28, 1645 the record reflected, "There is granted unto David Phippen liberty of wharfing before his property, neere the milne Creeke." (Appleton, Boston Records, p. 84). If this reflected the location of the land later sold to Hull by Sarah Phippen, then both the Munt and Pippen references locate the Sanderson lot to the area near the waterway called the Cove or mill dam (now Essex Street), just a few blocks east of the Hull estate. That Sanderson lived so close to Hull is a further indication their joint silversmith and minting operations were located on the Hull estate.

There are four large manuscript volumes written by John Hull now held at the New England Historic Genealogical Society in Boston, Massachusetts designated as Manuscript CB 110. According to a bookplate on the inside front cover of each volume, the set was donated to the society by Dr. Winslow Lewis of Boston on November 30, 1861; another bookplate in volume one states the volumes were bound on June 19, 1891. The microfilm of these manuscripts calls the volumes John Hull's Colony Journal. Actually, volume one is Hull's personal ledger from the 1670's while volumes two through four are the Massachusetts Bay accounts regarding all payments related to King Philip's War. Hull was treasurer of the War Committee therefore maintained the official record of all debts incurred and payments received by the Commonwealth relating to this conflict. The ledger was cited by Clarke on pp. 63-64 in his 1940 biography of Hull as being in the New England Historic Genealogical Society but he did not list a shelfmark. Clarke briefly perused the work but he did not attempt to analyze the contents and it appears since that time the numismatic information in the ledger has not been published.

The ledger was one of several varieties of accounting books described in Seventeenth century English merchant manuals. Since the later middle ages merchants and accountants had been advised to retain a variety of records. Among the most common records was the letter book, in which the merchant made copies of all the correspondence he sent out to others so he would have a record of what was sent should a controversy or misunderstanding arise. Also, there were various account books. One basic item was the journal or day book which included a listing of all transactions as they occurred arranged by day. Naturally, a journal would be cumbersome to use in settling an account with an individual, as payments to and from each client would be scattered throughout the journal. To alleviate that inconvenience a merchant would transfer his journal entries to a ledger (Seventeenth century spellings include leager and lieger), which grouped transactions by client, so one could easily discover the current and past balances for any client. The merchant might also have a factor book in which he recorded inventory, such as items he had imported for resale or items due to him and debts he owed as a partner in a specific trading venture. There were numerous other accounting options including a book recording petty expenses, a specie book containing the exchange rates for various coins, and a book called a memorial, used to record items that did not pertain to any of the other accounting books. Some merchants also kept a waste book, basically a notebook in which one recorded daily transactions as they occurred and then discarded the notes once the information was transferred into a journal at the end of the day, additionally some merchants kept a cash book as journal and ledger entries may not be up to date and there was a need to keep track of cash that was immediately available (Dafforne, pp. 4-5).

During the Seventeenth century, accounting practices in England were being streamlined, especially for smaller businesses. Because of the growth of paper receipts emphasis was placed on the ledger. One merchant manual explained:

"... If we should pay or receive any Monies, buy or sell any Commodities, remit or draw any Bills of Exchange, or otherwise receive any Bills, Invoices, Advice, Accounts, Certificates, Notes, from our Factors, Stewards, Correspondents, Friends, or others with whom we have to deal, either for matter of Money, as Exchanges, Principals and Charges, paid and laid out, or for Goods and Commodities as aforesaid bought or sold; then instead of a Journal or Memorial we take such Letters of advise, Accounts, Bills, Certificates, Invoices and Notes, and keep them from time to time in safe custody, until we may be conveniently at leasure (sic) to enter such original papers, one after another, very orderly and exactly into the Lieger..."   (Liset, unpaginated, on signature Q1^v)

"...(because their monies are laid up or locked in a Chest which they call Cash) they will therefore imagine this Cash to be a person whom they have trusted, and make the said Cash a Debitor for the Money they put into it; and when they pay out that money or any part thereof, they will make Cash Creditor, and that party to whom it was paid shall be made the Debitor, ..."   (Liset, unpaginated, on signature Q1^r)

"It is observable that a man negotiating in this world must trust and be trusted. He that is trusted with any Goods, monies or other moveable things, is therefore called a Debitor or Debtor unto the Party that trusteth him therewith, and he calleth that Party his Creditor, because he gave him Credit for the same;..."   (Liset, unpaginated, on signature Q1^v)

In Hull's ledger each account is read across a two page opening, consisting of a left hand page or verso and a right hand page or recto. The left hand page identified the specific account, listing the money, merchandise or services for which the account was indebted. On the opposite side of the opening, the right hand page, was a listing of the money, merchandise or services provided by the named account in payment of the debts, in other word the credits. Ideally the two sides of the account would be equal so the amount owed and the amount paid would cancel each other out, leaving a balance of zero. Simply stated the ledger was a balance sheet.

The majority of the entries in Hull's ledger were accounts with individuals, for example, in one opening on the left hand page, identified as folio 44 verso, is an account Hull had with his former apprentice Jeremiah Dummer under the heading, "Jerimiah Dummer as debtor" meaning Dummer as the debtor in his account with Hull, while on the right hand side of the opening, numbered as folio 45 recto, is the account of payments from Dummer to Hull entitled "Contra Creditor." Hull did not use a comma in this title, but from the standard merchant texts we know the phrase was "Contra, Creditor." In this context the Latin word "contra" means, on the contrary or on the other hand, in reference to the account name on the opposite page, thus the Latin could be paraphrased into English as, "On the other hand, Jeremiah Dummer as creditor."

Each two page opening in the Hull ledger averages four to six accounts. Most of the entries in the various accounts date from 1671 through 1679, but a few entries appear to represent transactions of earlier years that were post dated to this period while some other entries seem to have been added after 1679 and date to as late as 1683, the year John Hull died. Most of the accounts concern business dealing with specific individuals but some accounts refer to property income and expenses or corporate ventures in which Hull participated. A typical opening of individual accounts is the opening on folios 44 verso through 45 recto which contains the accounts of William East of Milford covering July 3, 1672 - May 6, 1675; Jeremiah Dummer covering July 3, 1672 - November 21, 1679; John Paine of Hogg Island covering July 2, 1672 - August 21, 1674 and Hull's cousin Captain Daniel Henchman covering August 27, 1672 - February 1, 1673. An interesting opening containing several property and corporate accounts is on folios 24 verso - 25 recto which includes the account for Hull's own "dwelling house" detailing three entries as follows: a debt of £203 19s10d brought over from folio 80 of ledger A; a debt incurred on October 9, 1671 "To Building my little stone house of office" at £18 and finally a debt incurred in November of 1672 "To John Dewey for claboarding £6 & nailes 40s" for a total of £8. Hull shows no payments against these debts. Other accounts on that opening are for lands and housing in Virginia detailing debts and payments from 1669 - 1681 (this account is post dated to the year without any month or day listed, for instance interest owed from 1669 - 1671 is combined as a single entry clearly added in 1671), the next account on that opening regards a house Hull purchased from the Cotton family detailing payments received and debts incurred from December 1, 1671 - June 1, 1683; following that is an account for shipments of goods to Virginia from 1671 - 1673, then the opening concludes with an account for Henry and Richard Williams from 1673.

Several accounts were carried forward from an earlier ledger, for example, as mentioned above, on f. 24 verso Hull began the account relating to his house, "To Brought from Leg^r A. fol. 80" and on f. 56 verso he began the account for John Plumb and Joseph Butler, "To Ballance Brought from Leager B. fol. 179." From these annotations we can surmise the surviving ledger had at least two earlier parts, called ledger A and ledger B. Sometimes the space allotted for a specific account was insufficient so Hull would continue the account on the next free page of the ledger giving a note as to where the next portion of that account could be found, for example on f. 48 recto he ends an account with his cousin Edward Hull of London (this is not his brother, who had also been named Edward), "By Ballance of this Account caried to fol. 78." The Edward Hull account is continued on the opening 77 verso - 78 recto and then carried forward again to folio 125. When all the spaces in the ledger had been allocated Hull began a new ledger. However, Hull did not waste paper, as long as there was some free space under a specific account he would continue to use that space. Thus, for an account with few transactions the allocated space in the surviving ledger might suffice for all entries until Hull's death in 1683, while for more active accounts the balance would be forwarded to subsequent ledgers. Therefore, some accounts in the surviving ledger continue to the year of Hull's death while others fill the allocated space and conclude with the note that the account was continued in another ledger. For example on f. 68 verso the account with Joseph David ends with, "Bal. carried to Leg^r D. fol. 153" while in other instances the allotted space was not used up until Hull had started a ledger E, thus he concluded some accounts, as the account with Daniel Smith of Rehoboth on f. 79 recto, with, "Balance is carried to Leg^r E fol. 11." From these various notes we can surmise the present ledger was designated as ledger C and there were at least two fully allocated ledgers that preceded it and at least one fully allocated ledger followed by another ledger called ledger E. It is unknown if ledger E was only partially or completely allocated at the time of Hull's death in 1683, or if there were any subsequent volumes. The designation of the surviving ledger as ledger C is confirmed in Hull's private diary. In the diary, below the entry for November 20, 1678, Hull added the comment:"James Elson was taken by the Algerines, where I lost only my eighth part of a ship; as see my ledger C, fol. 54, £113. 17s. 10d, through it might be worth more, £82. 2s. 2d" (Hull, Private Diary, p. 163). In the surviving ledger, on folio 54 recto, in his account for the ship called The Blessing Hull added the comment, "by Profit & loss for ball[ance] being taken by the turkes - 113 17 10" Clearly, this £113 17s 10d loss is the entry Hull referred to in his diary as being from ledger C.

Hull also seems to have had another series of accounts referred to as books rather than ledgers. In entries relating to shipments Hull occasionally refers to a Book H, which must have contained listings of shipping expenses. For example, on folio 24 verso under Voyages to Virginia, Hull mentioned this book three times, "To disbursements on the ketch Friendship & victualling as Book H. Fol. 33 · 34 --- £ 53 19s1d" and "To disbursements victualling & Goods as in Book H fol. 37 --- £ 110 11s7d" and "To disbursements victualling & Cargo as Book H fol. 39 --- £ 130 3s3d" and it is also mentioned in the entry for the ship Blessing on folio 53 verso, "To my 1/8 of disbursements on ship & Cargo as B. H fol. 55 --- £ 106 15s5d." It seems this book H was what accountants of the time called a factor book or a memorial.

0f special interest to numismatists is an account at the bottom of the opening on folios 26 verso through 27 recto which is continued on 133 verso - 134 recto and 170 verso - 171 recto, representing the account relating to the goldsmith shop and the mint house. Below is a transcription of the account with a commentary on each entry.

In these entries Hull specified the troy ounces of sterling silver deposited at the mint. Hull then calculated the return to the customer based on the customer receiving 74d (6s2d) in coins per troy ounce of silver. In June of 1675 the customer's return was increased to 75d (6s3d) per troy ounce and then by private agreement with his customers, the customer's return was increased again in 1677 and further increased in 1680. In his annotations Hull expressed the troy ounces of sterling giving the whole ounces followed by the abbreviation oz. and then added any fraction of an ounce as 255^oz. 1/4 for 255.25 troy ounces.

Clearly, Hull's personal ledger differs from a modern account book. We use an account book to record all debts or expenses related to a business and then balance expenses against credits or income to determine the profitability of the enterprise. For Hull the ledger was a method of recording debts and payments that were owed to him or that he owed to others. The goal was for Hull to be able to keep an account of all his transactions by client so he would know where he stood with each of his accounts, one contemporary accounting book called the ledger a mirror of ones true estate (Dafforne, unnumbered, signature O2^r).

Hull recorded debts and payments in the manner that was the easiest for him to understand and in the way it was most convenient for him to track his dealings. Although we may wish Hull would have focused his ledger on his coining business and included every mint and silversmith related expense in his shop account, that was not the case. Certainly the shop was important to Hull but it was only one of many ventures in which he was associated. Indeed, all the mint entries would fill only one opening, the equivalent of two pages, in the surviving 320 pages of this ledger! Because of his diverse activities, Hull found it useful to record some shop related expenses in other accounts. For example, John Winchester and Dorman Muerson of Muddy River (Brookline) rented sixteen acres of land from Hull for which they were required to make two payments per year, they were to pay £1 13s each March 25th and each September 29th. According to the debit side of their account with Hull this situation continued from 1672-1677, then the amount owned was recorded as a single annual payment of £3 6s due each March 25th from 1678-1681 (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folio 39 verso). On the credit side of this account we discover Winchester and Muerson sometimes paid their debt with deliveries of coal and in one case with 14 bushels of malt, at other times they paid in cash. As mentioned earlier, the coal was delivered for use at Hull's shop. For example, one entry in the account stated "1674 November 17 by money of the shop for 73 bushels 1/2 coal - for John Winchester · · 1 / · 4 /· 6" [that is, 73.5 bushels for £1 4s6d] (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folio 40 recto). In this instance Winchseter delivered the coal to the shop and Hull reimbursed himself, taking £1 4s6d in money from the shop account and then crediting Winchester with a payment of £1 4s6d against his annual rent due to Hull. Hull did not mention this delivery or payment in the shop account, rather it was simpler for him to keep track of the Winchester and Muerson payments in a separate personal account with these two men. Thus, payments for coal, which we would expect to be on debit side of the shop account, if one were intent of determining the profitability of the enterprise, are not even recorded in the shop account! It was easier for Hull to keep track of the Winchester/Muerson account as a single unit rather than record payments under the various enterprises for which the two provided goods or services.

Just as the expense of coal was not added to the shop account we have seen an instance where Hull neglected to add some shop income to the shop account. In Hull's account with Mr. William Brimson we saw that on May 27, 1673 Brimson incurred a debit to the shop 10s6d for the mending of a pot and three spoons. The cost included a charge for some silver that needed to be added to the pieces (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, folio 13 verso - 14 recto). This charge was only listed in Hull's personal account with Brimson, it was not mentioned in the account of the shop. In the shop account Hull appears to have been most meticulous in listing jewelry and bullion deposited in the shop and verifying the annual payment to the Commonwealth. Apparently, Brimson's pot and spoons were not deposited in the shop; probably the items were mended while the custom waited. If that was the case then there would be no debit to be added into the shop account, rather when the mending was completed the repaired items would be returned to Brimson and Brimson would then owe a debit to Hull. In these circumstances the debit would be included in the Brimson account, not the shop account, and would be cancelled when Brimson paid the charges, which would be indicated by adding the payment to the credit side of the Brimson account. In fact this is what happened. For the period up to May 27, 1673 Brimson had owed Hull a total of £88 11s4d and had paid Hull a total of £87 14s. Thus he owed Hull 18s 8d before the mending fee was incurred and with the 10s6d mending fee the total outstanding balance was £1 7s10d. The account shows that about ten days after the pot and spoons were mended Hull received a payment of £1 7s10d from John Newcomb on behalf of William Brimson. Hull added this payment to the Brimson account so that the total owed by Brimson of £89 1s10d was balanced by the total paid, which was also £89 1s10d.

Interestingly, in his shop account Hull sometimes included his mint fees as income while at other times he did not reveal his fees. In balancing the shop account Hull made sure there was enough income to pay expenses. If income was more than expenses Hull would take some of the income off the books and only carry over the amount required to balance the account. On the credit side of the shop account at the bottom of folio 134r Hull had a credit balance of £75 3s, while on the debit side of the account, at the bottom of folio 133v, there was debit of only £9 18s. Hull only carried £9 18s forward in the next credit entry of the account as that was all he needed to balance the debits. The remaining £65 5s was taken off the books as profit. Thus the ledger was used to record and verify when debits were incurred by the shop or when payments were made to the shop but it did not carry a record of profits paid out to Hull or Sanderson. In addition to verifying when outstanding debits had been paid, Hull used the ledger to verify that all specie left on deposit had been returned to the consignors and that the annual payment to Massachusetts Bay had been made. However, it is clear the shop account did not include a detailed listing of all the expenses or income related to the business.

The personal ledger of John Hull is a folio size volume. Any title page and preliminary material along with the first 11 leaves of the text are missing, the upper right corner is missing from folios 12-14 so the folio numbers are lost but the following folios, 15-171, have their original numbering in the hand of John Hull. Folio 171 verso ends abruptly in the middle of some accounts, showing the manuscript originally contained additional folios. The manuscript is deposited in The New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts, as MS CB 110, volume 1.

Note on the transcription - The original text is presented in columns without headings. I have presented the transcription as an HTML table composed of cells so this web presentation of the text will align in columns that are similar in appearance to the original. The shading was added to make it easier to isolate an individual entry. The title and the text (in the two lighter colors) are found in the original; the headings in darker shading, namely the top line with the designations: Year, Date, Text, Pounds, Shillings and Pence, are not found in the manuscript but have been added to make the chart easier to understand.

Shop ledger - text and commentary, section one: 26 verso - 27 recto

Folio 26 verso

Folio 27 recto

In the discussion below, debit and credit transactions for a specific entry are treated as a unit. A transcription of the entry is given in quotation marks, followed by an explanation or commentary. Each distinct entry is divided by a line of short dashes.

[26 verso] "Account of the shop as debtor"

[27 recto] "Contra Creditor"

Comment: These are the titles of the two sides of the account. Clearly, Hull considered the coining operation to be part of his goldsmith business and listed items relating to both enterprises under his shop account. On the verso Hull used the title of "Account of the shop as debtor." This side of the account included a description and the price of items purchased for the shop as well as a dated listing of items and bullion deposited in the shop. The text portion of the ledger contains numerous notes on inventory and other items related to the shop, while the sums added in the far right represented debts to be paid from the shop income.

On the recto side of the account, for which the partial Latin title may be parahprased as "On the other hand, the shop as creditor," Hull listed payments made to the shop. The text portion included numerous notes explaining the outcome of comments made on the other side of the account. For example, on the debit side Hull included the date on which an item was deposited in the shop, while on the credit side he noted when the item had been returned to the owner. In the far right column Hull listed sums paid into the shop but he did not list all income. Ideally Hull wanted the debit column on the verso and the credit column on the recto to balance. The credit column was not meant to show the shop's entire income, as not all the income was included in the far column. Rather this column was to show that the payments from the debit column had been paid out of the shop account. A zero balance between the verso with the debts of the shop and the recto with the shop income demonstrated all bills had been paid and all items left on deposit had been returned.

[26 verso] "1671 October · 18
To 417^oz. 1/2 sterling silver sent into y^e shop to be minted
To 111 ounces of plate
[These two lines are joined by a bracket] } sterling **is   £176               175 13 · ·"

[27 recto] "1671
November · 13   by mony received - - - - - - - - - £ · 170   · 13 · 0
                          by given to Daniel Quinsey - - - - - - - - 5   · 0 · 0
[the two above lines are joined by a bracket] } - - 175 · 13 · · "

Comment: As March was the first month of the new year, October was the eighth month, hence the abbreviation 8^br (see image of the document) is transcribed as October, so the silver was brought to the shop on October 18, 1671. The two entries under this date state 417.5 troy ounces of sterling silver and 111 troy ounces of plate (that is, household items as utensils, bowls or dishes) were sent to the shop to be minted into Massachusetts silver coins. English plate was regulated at sterling fineness and thus Hull did not always feel the need to state that plate was of sterling fineness. The two quantities came to a total of 528.5 troy ounces of sterling. On the credit side we see this consignment was completed on November 13. Generally Hull calculated the quantity of silver coinage due to the customer based on the quantity of silver deposited at the mint. The return to the customer was 74d per troy ounce of sterling until June of 1675 when it was raised to 75d. However, in this entry Hull calculated the yield using the full authorized rate of 80d (6s8d) per ounce. In no other case in the surviving records was this full rate used. This indicates Hull was producing the silver for himself or for the shop. Indeed, on the credit side Hull lists that £5 of the sum was given to Daniel Quincy. Daniel was the son of Edmund Quincy, who was the brother of Hull's wife. It is quite likely Daniel, who later became a goldsmith, apprenticed with Hull [for further details see the entry under November 1673 in the chronology].

At the full rate of 80d (6s8d) per ounce the total yield of this consignment equals £176 3s4d. Without calculating the fractional remaining half ounce, that is, using only 528 ounces, the total comes to £176, which is the total Hull calculated. In the far right column Hull subtracted 7s from the total to get £175 13s. In this example the wastage allowance at 1d per ounce is 44s for 528 ounces, so the 7s does not reflect the wastage allowance. Further, a half ounce of sterling equals 3s1d (37d) at the full 80d per ounce rate so the 7s cannot reflect a mistake of subtracting rather than adding a half ounce to the total. Exactly what the 7s deduction represents is unclear. On the credit side Hull stated £5 went to Quincy and £170 13s to the customer (in this case it appears Hull or the shop was the customer), thus accounting for the total yield.

[folio 26 verso] "24 October   To 208^oz. sterling sent in to be minted which was *** Trusdales - 64 · 3 · 0       · 64 · 3 · ·"

[folio 27 recto] "December 3   by mony for account Mr. Truesdall - - - 64 · 3 · 0           · 64 · 3 · ·"

Comment: In 1652 Hull's fee had been approved at 5d per ounce with an additional 1d for wastage. Based on the legislated rate of 80d in coinage per troy ounce of sterling, once Hull's fees had been subtracted the customer would receive 74d (6s2d) in Massachusetts coinage per ounce of sterling deposited with the mint. In this example the customer return on 208 troy ounces of sterling was £64 2s8d, which Hull rounded up by 4d to get £64 3s. If Hull produced coins at the precise legislated rate of 80d per ounce his total fees for this consignment would be £5 6s8d. However, the amount of coinage Hull retained as his fee depended on the actual face value of the coins minted, this, in turn, varied based on the average weight of the coins produced and the actual amount of silver lost as waste. These figures are unknown for this production run. However, in later entries Hull did include the total number of coins minted from specified amounts of sterling. Based on these later examples we know Hull averaged 80.44d in Massachusetts coins per troy ounce of sterling. Using the 80.44d in coins per ounce of sterling as an average production rate, this consignment would produce a total return of £69 14s 3.52d which, after paying the customer £64 3s would give Hull a return of £5 11s 3.52d or a fee of just under 6.77%.

Mr. Trusedall (also, Trusdall and several other variants) is Richard Truesdall, one of the earlier settlers of Boston. According to J. Wingate Thornton, "The Gilbert Family," New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 4 (October, 1850) 342, "in 1672 Mary the widow and sole execitrix of Richard Truesdall, lately deceased, had her will drawn by Mr. John Hull." The Trusedall's had an account with Hull that is found on folios 28 verso - 29 recto of the ledger.

[folio 26 verso] "26 December   To 12 papers of files for account Coz. Allin                   6 · 6 · ·"

[folio 27 recto] "by mony I think for the files - - - - - - - - 6 · 6 · 0           · · 6 · 6 · ·"

Comment: This entry from December 26, 1671 refers to the delivery of twelve parcels of files for the shop, purchased for £6 6s. Here a file does not refer to a paper file but rather to a small abrasive metal tool used to smooth wood or metal. According to the Essex County probate records the inventory of the possessions of Richard Mercer of Haverhill from April 14, 1671 listed a file at a value of 6d and the inventory of the possessions of Daniel Knight of Lynn from November 26, 1672 listed "4 old files, 18d" (Essex County Probate Records, vol. 2, pp. 245 and 305). These contemporary estimates price a used file in the range of 6d, down to 4.5d for an older file. Hull stated that he had acquired 12 papers of files. In this context "papers" refers to sheets of paper used as wrapping for small parcels (see the Oxford English Dictionary, volume P, page 437 under paper, definition 6b). Possibly a paper or parcel of files contained a dozen files, that would give a total of 144 files for a per unit cost of 10.5d for a brand new file. We do not know the size of the files, but assuming the size was similar to the examples in the Essex probate records, a price of 10.5d seems reasonable considering a used file was valued at 6d. In an undated entry on the credit side of the account, that was obviously added sometime before the next entry, which dated to February 6, 1672, Hull recorded the payment for the files. He stated that he thought the bill had been paid using money. Occasionally in his ledger some payments were made using barter, beaver skins or other money substitutes. The files had been acquired from Hull's cousin Daniel Allin of London. Under the account with Allin, Hull wrote that on December 21, 1671 he had sold Jeremiah Dummer 2 papers of files for £1 1s and had acquired 12 papers of files for the shop at a cost of £6 6s (New England Historic Genealogical Society, MS CB 110, vol. 1, ff. 30 verso - 31 recto).

[folio 26 verso] "2 · 11   To plate & money   119
                                                                                        136 1/4
[the two amounts are joined with a bracket] } 255^oz. 1/4                   · · ·   · ·   · ·"

[folio 27 recto] "February · 6   by 119 ounces
                                                                   136,
[the two amounts then joined by a bracket] } sterling 255 received - - - -   · · ·   · ·   · ·"

Comment: The date for this entry is January 2, 1672. The British did not begin the new year until March 25th, so January and February were considered to be the final two months of the previous year. Thus, on January 2, 1672 a consignment of 255.25 troy ounces of sterling was deposited at the shop. Hull stated this was "to plate and mony" which apparently meant part of the consignment went to coinage and part was used to make some household items such as bowls, dishes, cups or utensils. The consignment was ready for delivery on February 6, 1672. Hull did not calculate any return to the customer nor did he mention the quantity of coinage produced. As Hull usually kept close track of the customer's return it is quite likely this coinage was for Hull, thus he kept the entire yield. If the entire sum had been minted, the total yield at 80.44d per ounce would be £85 11s 1/4d.

[folio 26 verso] "1672 · 15 · 4     To money sent               · 20 · 8   · ·"

[folio 27 recto] "1672 June 26   by mony received for M^r Danforth   13 · 17 and more for self - - - 6 · 3 · 0 - - -   · 20   · ·   · ·"

Comment: On June 15, 1672 the shop agreed to pay out £20 8s, but the reason for the payment was unspecified. It appears £20 of this sum went to John Danforth and John Hull. On June 26th £13 17s was paid to Mr. Danforth and £6 3s went to Hull. The total paid out was £20, the remaining 8s of the shop's payment of £20 8s was carried to the following transaction. Mr. Danforth is probably John Danforth. Hull included an account for John and Mary Danforth in his ledger in 1677 on folios 138 verso - 139 recto.

[folio 26 verso] "21   4     To money sent                                 · 30 · ·   · ·"

[folio 27 recto] "July 12   by mony received - - - - - - - -   · 30 · 8 · · "

Comment: On June 21, 1672 the shop agreed to pay out £30, again the reason for the payment was not specified. On the credit side we learn on July 12, 1672 a payment of £30 8s in money was sent to the unspecified creditor.

[folio 26 verso] "29   4     To Put into Coyne 179^oz. 1/2"

[folio 27 recto] "August 23   by mony received in viz the final produce of 179 ounces sterling 1/2"

Comment: On June 29, 1672 a shipment of 179.5 troy ounces of sterling silver was deposited at the mint to be coined into Massachusetts silver. In the credit column Hull stated the coins were ready for pick up on August 23, 1672. However, Hull did not calculate the return to the customer nor did he mention the quantity of coinage produced. As Hull usually kept close track of the customer's return it is quite likely this coinage was for Hull thus he kept the entire yield. At 80.44d per troy ounce the silver would yield a total return of £60 3s3d.

[folio 26 verso] "1673 August 25     To Put into y^e mint house to be Coyned 265^oz. sterling at 6^s · 2d is £81 · 14 · 2"

[folio 27 recto] "1673 October · 25   by mony received in full of y^e 265 ounces sterling"

Comment: On August 25, 1673 a shipment of 265 ounces of sterling was deposited at the mint house to be coined. The consignment was ready to be picked up on October 25th. The customer's return at 74d (6s2d) per troy ounce was £81 14s2d, which was exactly what Hull calculated. Based on a total yield of 80.44d per troy ounce the consignment would produce £88 16s4.6d, leaving Hull with £7 2s2.6d.

[folio 26 verso] "September To sent to the Country mony as Leager B folio 144   · £ · 20   · ·   · ·"

Comment: The only date given was the month of September. This is one of the few entries lacking a specific day in the date area. Most likely this entry refers to 1673 as it follows an entry dated August 1673. The next entry is from December 17, 1674. This entry states Hull was to send £20 to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay. Often Hull did not include the word "be," in this case the text means - to be sent to the country. During this period individuals typically referred to the colony as their country. Hull explained the reason for this pay was listed in the previous ledger, called ledger B on folio 144 (the surviving ledger is ledger C). At first glance it seems the payment represented Hull's annual payment to the Commonwealth as it would be due in October. However in the contract renewal of October 4, 1667 the annual payment for the next seven years was stipulated at £10, thus it does not seem to represent an annual payment. Additionally, no annual payment is recorded under any other year in the ledger from 1671-1675. In the mint contract renewal of June 3, 1675 the contractual annual payment was increased to £20. Annual payments in compliance with that agreement are listed yearly in the ledger from 1676 through 1680 and each entry specifically stated it was the annual £20 due to the country "by y^e Agreement" and sometimes specifying, "as per Agreement June 3 · 1675" As the present entry does not mention an agreement but only states the reason for the payment is in a previous ledger from some years earlier, and no other year from this time indicates a payment to the country, it suggest the payment was not an annual contract renewal but rather was for some other purpose.

[folio 27 recto] "1674 · June 30   by mony received - - - - - - - -   £ · 10   · ·   · ·"

Comment: On the credit side we learn on June 30, 1674 a payment of £10 in money from an unspecified source was received in the shop.

[folio 26 verso] "1674 December 12   To Put into the mint house to Coyne 275^oz. 1/2 sterling at 6 · 2 ^d £84 · 19 · 0"

[folio 27 recto] "by received the produce of £275 ounces 1/2"

Comment: The date could be December 12th or 17th, I have considered the second numeral a 2 as it has a small stroke to the right at the bottom of the number, similar to a 2 whereas Hull's 7 ends with a straight downward stroke. On December 12, 1674 a shipment of 275.5 ounces of sterling silver was brought to the mint house to be coined. On the credit side an undated annotation was added following the entry for December 31, 1674, signifying the consignment was completed. At 74d per ounce this yielded a return for the customer of £84 18s11d, which Hull rounded up by 1d to £84 19s. At a total return of 80.44d per troy ounce the consignment would produce £92 6s9.22d, which would leave Hull £7 7s9.22d.

[folio 27 recto] "December 31   by mony received - - - - - - - - - -   · 10   · ·   · ·"

Comment: On the credit side we learn on December 31, 1674 a payment of £10 in money from an unspecified source was received in the shop.

[folio 26 verso] "4 Rings get in y^e shop of mine     1 · 12 · 74."

Comment: In this entry the date is added following the entry. Generally when writing dates numerically Hull gave the day followed by the month. Using this convention the date would be February 1st. The year is 1675, written in old style dating as 1674, as the new year did not begin until March 25th (the previous year was used in dates between January 1 and March 24). The entry simply records the deposit of the rings into the silversmith shop on February 1, 1675, there is no mention of valuation or explanation why the rings were deposited. In a later entry, on folio 170 verso, Hull mentioned the rings were still in the shop in early 1679.

[folio 26 verso] "1675 May · 8   To 369^oz. 1/2 sterling silver dollars into y^e mint house to be Coyned"

[folio 27 recto] "1675 May · 22   by received out of the shop the produce of 369 ounces 1/2 sterling"

Comment: On May 8, 1675 a total of 369.5 ounces of sterling dollars were deposited at the mint which was turned into coins and was ready for delivery on May 22nd. In Britain and the American colonies Spanish American eight reales were regularly assumed to be of sterling fineness, thus Hull's reference to sterling dollars refers to eight reales coins. This is the last ledger entry before the June agreement increasing the customer's return from 74d to 75d per ounce of sterling silver. In this entry the rate of return was not mentioned, nor was any payment specified in the credit column. As there are no annotations relating to a customer's return it is possible this consignment was produced for Hull. At the rate of 80.44d per ounce the consignment would yield a total return of £132 17s10.46d.

[folio 26 verso] "June 17   To 217^oz. sterling silver dollars into y^e mint House to be Coyned.   6 · 3 ^d · £67 · 16 · 3"

[folio 27 recto] "July · 8   by received out of the shop the produce of 217 ounces"

Comment: On June 17, 1675 a quantity of eight reales weighing 217 troy ounces was brought to the mint to be coined and was ready to be picked up on July 8th. This is first example in the ledger using the reduced mint fees established in the third contract renewal of June 3, 1675 which increased the customer yield to 75d (6s3d) per ounce. At 75d per troy ounce this yielded a return for the customer of £67 16s3d, which is exactly what Hull calculated. Estimating a total yield of 80.44d per ounce the consignment would produce £72 14s7.48d which would leave Hull a return of £4 18s4.48d.

[folio 26 verso] "July 17   To 12 Iron Potts & 3^lb Small Wyre       · · 5   · ·   · 6"

[folio 27 recto] "23   by mony received for Potts & wyre - - - -   · · 5   · ·   · 6"

Comment: On July 17, 1675 Hull purchased twelve iron pots and three pounds of "small" wire for £5 6d. I am not sure if "small" wire referred to several short lengths of wire or thin wire with a smaller than normal diameter. Iron pots were used in melting silver, see below part three, section four for some information on melting sterling at the mint. On the credit side of the account Hull stated payment was made six days later, on July 23, 1675. Hull stated "by mony received for Potts & wyre" meaning by money received out of the shop for payment of the goods, it is clear this was money taken out of the shop as the sum is included in the final column which listed the monies paid out and the value of the coinage returned to the clients from the silver the clients consigned to the mint.

[folio 26 verso] "1676 June 14   To 496^oz. 3/4 sterling dollars to be Coyned     //"

[folio 27 recto] "1676 July 12   by received of of [for out of] shop produce of 496 ounces 3/4

//"

Comment: This is the final entry in the first section of the shop account, specifying that 496.75 troy ounces of sterling dollars, that is, Spanish American eight reales, were deposited in the mint on June 14, 1676 to be turned into Massachusetts silver coinage. On the credit side of the account we see the consignment was ready for pick up on July 12, 1676. Hull did not include any calculations with this entry, which leads me to suspect the consignment was for Hull. Obviously for personal consignments there was no need for Hull to calculate the customer's return and subtract it from the remaining mint fee. Using a production average of 80.44d per troy ounce of sterling this consignment would produce a total yield of £166 9s10.57d.

The double slash // was used by Hull to show the end of the final entry in the space allotted for an account. Hull continued the shop account on folios 133 verso through 134 recto.

Shop ledger - text and commentary, section two: 133 verso - 134 recto

Folio 133 verso