University of Virginia Library

Thomas Hutchinson, then speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, was the architect of the Massachusetts currency reform adopted in 1749 and implemented in 1750. The colony used the Parliamentary reimbursement awarded the colony for their expenses in the Cape Breton expedition to call in and exchange the colony's paper money for silver, returning Massachusetts Bay to a silver standard. Hutchinson was also the author of The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, the most important contemporary history of the colony, and his account of the currency reform is one of the most interesting and informative we have. Hutchinson refers to himself in the third person in this passage, but the author of the account and the speaker of the house are one and the same. In reforming the currency, Hutchinson cooperated with Governor Shirley. Shirley's political enemies included many hard money merchants, whose distrust and dislike of Shirley led them, paradoxically, to oppose Hutchinson's plan. Douglass, author of the Discourse, was a spokesman for this faction.

Popular attitudes towards Hutchinson have fluctuated greatly over time. Because he served as the last royal Governor of Massachusetts, and thus became a symbol of royal authority, he went -in his own lifetime -from being one of the most admired men in the Bay colony to being one of the most despised. In the 19th century, Hutchinson was rehabilitated, as hard money historians looked upon him as a hero for his leadership in returning Massachusetts to a specie standard, and ending inflation in Massachusetts. Some 20th century historians have suggested that Hutchinson was involved in a disreputable scheme to profit from the currency reform. This innuendo has appeared in so many recent histories that it has displaced the 19th century view of Hutchinson as the hero of the episode. Having reviewed all the records, my opinion is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Hutchinson's complicity in any such scheme. The charge seems to have originated as a result of honest mistakes made by 20th century historians in the interpretation of contemporary documents.