No good Pommeys? 1594-95
Finding Nos. (copy and paste references into search box) - QM/SI/1595/1/4 QM/SI/1595/1/3 QM/SI/1595/1/2
" James Pommey of Lamberhurst, collier, Michael Pommey and John Pommey for breaking into the fish ponds of Lawr. Broker and taking 20 'Troutes' and 20 eels."
"Michael Pommey of Lamberhurst, collier, for breaking into the close of Lawr. Broker and damaging 3 rods of hedges."
"John Pommey of Lamberhurst, collier, for breaking into the close of Lawr. Broker at Lamberhurst and assaulting Robt. Crowher, his servant."
"Michael Pommey of Lamberhurst, collier, for breaking into the close of Lawr. Broker and damaging 3 rods of hedges."
"John Pommey of Lamberhurst, collier, for breaking into the close of Lawr. Broker at Lamberhurst and assaulting Robt. Crowher, his servant."
This post is about the Pommey family, in particular James, Michael and John Pommey: all colliers of Lamberhurst. I am making the assumption they are related due to the shared surname and place of residence, but have no idea of their relationship - brothers, father & sons, cousins? I think it is also worth saying this post is equally about Lawrence Broker, a fairly well off person, in that he owned a 'close', 'fish ponds', and had at least one servant - all of which were violated by the Pommeys. I can't help but feel a bit sorry for Mr. Broker as it would appear that the Pommeys really had it in for him. Or did they?
We have no further record of the trial or more crucially its result, so we can only speculate if they were guilty or not and this could even be a case of 'fitting up' the local Colliers as a convenient scapegoat? The indictments are from different dates on but, were all filed as 'indictments for Easter 1595', so the crimes may have happened at the same time or they may have been perpetrated at different times... if indeed the accusations are genuine?
As for the specific accusations, I can't help but wonder if they were caught with the fish they stole because I find it hard to imagine Broker knew, to the last fish, how many were in his pond: 20 'Troutes' and 20 eels is a specific number that implies someone counted how many they had, or maybe that's a convenient round number of fish to guess they might be able to catch/carry and they were never caught red handed. Another thing that strikes me is how practical is it to steal 40 fresh fish? In a pre-refrigeration age, how long would twenty fish keep? Assuming, or course, they have killed and bagged the fish rather than being able take the fish alive to another pond or similar place - Eels of course can survive out of water a lot longer than fish - It leads me to speculate if this may have been more of a malicious act of vandalism or revenge (if it ever happened) rather than a robbery for fiscal gain; mainly because the other two indictments are for vandalism and assault - namely damaging 3 rods (a rod is 5 1/2 yards) of hedges and assaulting Robert Crowher, Broker's servant.
Did the Pommeys have a bone to pick with Broker? Maybe he had stopped them charcoal making on his land? Maybe he just didn't like them and being around and he concocted the allegations to get rid of them? Or maybe they were no good thieving colliers attacking a poor honest upright citizen for no real reason? We just don't know but, it is fair to say that the Pommeys probably wouldn't have been invited around to Broker's house for a fish based supper any time soon!
We have no further record of the trial or more crucially its result, so we can only speculate if they were guilty or not and this could even be a case of 'fitting up' the local Colliers as a convenient scapegoat? The indictments are from different dates on but, were all filed as 'indictments for Easter 1595', so the crimes may have happened at the same time or they may have been perpetrated at different times... if indeed the accusations are genuine?
As for the specific accusations, I can't help but wonder if they were caught with the fish they stole because I find it hard to imagine Broker knew, to the last fish, how many were in his pond: 20 'Troutes' and 20 eels is a specific number that implies someone counted how many they had, or maybe that's a convenient round number of fish to guess they might be able to catch/carry and they were never caught red handed. Another thing that strikes me is how practical is it to steal 40 fresh fish? In a pre-refrigeration age, how long would twenty fish keep? Assuming, or course, they have killed and bagged the fish rather than being able take the fish alive to another pond or similar place - Eels of course can survive out of water a lot longer than fish - It leads me to speculate if this may have been more of a malicious act of vandalism or revenge (if it ever happened) rather than a robbery for fiscal gain; mainly because the other two indictments are for vandalism and assault - namely damaging 3 rods (a rod is 5 1/2 yards) of hedges and assaulting Robert Crowher, Broker's servant.
Did the Pommeys have a bone to pick with Broker? Maybe he had stopped them charcoal making on his land? Maybe he just didn't like them and being around and he concocted the allegations to get rid of them? Or maybe they were no good thieving colliers attacking a poor honest upright citizen for no real reason? We just don't know but, it is fair to say that the Pommeys probably wouldn't have been invited around to Broker's house for a fish based supper any time soon!
 |
| 'Ere mate... do you want to buy a fish? Fell off the back of a cart, honest! |
Illustraion a detail from 'A caveatt for the citty of London, or, A forewarninge of offences against penall lawes - Billingesgate' dated 1598
