Henry Pullen, Potter of Farnborough, died 1616

Page prepared by Peter Tipton

We have records of three potters with surname Pullen, Henry (d.1616 Farnborough), Thomas (d.1637 Cove) and Arthur (d.1656 Hawley), but are they related? If they are related they represent the trend for potter members of the same family to move outwards from Farnborough as the potteries expanded in the 17th century.

What evidence have we for the existence of these potters? Henry and Thomas left wills. Henry's inventory was valued at £123.92 (the second highest in our list) but Thomas's was only £40.08. Arthur left no will, and apparently no probate administration. The only record we have proving Arthur was a potter is from his burial record on 25 Jun 1656 at St Peter's Church Yateley, which also states his abode was in Hawley. Thomas's burial had been duly recorded on 10 Mar 1638 (new dates) but did not record his occupation, which we get from his will.

The Yateley parish records depict the lives of Arthur Pullen and his wife as rather grim. They baptised two babies with the name Arthur, in 1637 and 1639. The first Arthur did not survive the year. Arthur and his wife also buried an Alice, Joan, and a John, all of whom were presumably born before the Yateley registers were begun in 1636. The second child named Arthur was buried three years after his father in 1659 exactly 21 years, to the very day (September 15th), after his baptism. Arthur's wife Alice survived three more years. She was the last Pullen entry in the Yateley burial registers until modern times. Alice did not survive long enough to see two Pullen marriages, Margaret in 1664 to Richard Bannister and William to Anne Warner of Winchfield in 1666. There were no Pullens recorded in the Hawley, Cove or Farnborough Hearth Tax for 1665. This assessment recorded people too poor to pay, so we can conclude and remaining Pullens had left the parish. And so ended a short dynasty of Pullen potters.

But how did the family business start, and where? Of the 24 surnames of potters operating in the Blackwater Valley before 1700, 18 of those surnames occur in the parish registers of Farnham before 1600. Based on the archaeological evidence, Jacqui Pearce has suggested that the Blackwater Valley potters were augmented by an influx of potters from Farnham in Elizabeth's reign.

There were several Pullen families in Farnham, but only one Pullen in the 1585 Lay Subsidy for the whole of Hampshire. This was a Thomas Pullen of Kingsley, 5 miles SE of Alton. Hampshire Treasures informs us that there is a Potter's Field in Kingsley, so Kingsley cannot be discounted altogether. It seems more than likely however that the Blackwater potter Pullens originated in Farnham. Henry Pullen's will of 1616 states that the main beneficiary was his son Thomas, whom Elizabath Lewis concluded was the potter of Cove who died in 1638. Unfortunately the IGI gives a nil result for Thomas Pullen, son of Henry, in our date range. But other evidence supports Elizabeth Lewis' conclusion. In Thomas Pullen‘s own will his main beneficiary is his son Henry, and Thomas left 2s 6d 'to my mother at Farnham'.

There was a Henry Pullen baptised in Farnham 23 Jul 1565. I have conjectured elsewhere that a group of inter-related potters were all born around that date, and possibly all in Farnham. If I am correct then Henry's son Thomas should have been born around 1595, and married about 1625. None of Thomas's four children were of age when he died in 1638 so the arithmetic stands up, assuming 30 years between generations. Thomas married the daughter of Robert Hall d.1633 although he does not mention her by name in his will.

An Arthur Pullen was baptised in Farnham 12 Jun 1603 son of William Pullen. If this is the Arthur Pullen who buried so many children in Yateley - again the age arithmetic stands up. This means that Thomas and Arthur could have been cousins, but much more work must be done on Farnham wills and parish registers in order to prove that.

What happened to the potter Pullens? It is possible that Henry the son of Thomas did not survive into manhood. Perhaps one of his sisters married a potter who carried on working at the site in Cove using Thomas's kiln and kiln boards, and the business moved on down the female line. On the other hand the working life of operating kilns may have been terminated by the untimely deaths of their owners without immediate heirs to carry on the business. The continuity of kiln sites is an area we need to submit to further documentary research. The Pullen family requires more research for another reason: they may help to prove Jackie Pearce's theory that Farnham potters moved to Farnborough, and then on to Cove and Hawley as the potteries expanded. This brief analysis certainly lends additional credibility to the theory.

Click these links to read transcriptions of the Pullen wills and probate inventories:

Henry Pullen's Will

Henry Pullen's Inventory

Thomas Pullen's Will

Thomas Pullen's Inventory

Click the links below to navigate this site:

To return to the Borderware main page

Use the SideBar of Home Page to access the main menu, or

Use the back button on your browser to return to your previous page