It lasted till the eighteenth century. But nobody knew by that time that it was a pet name of Hamon, or Hamond; nay, few knew that the surname of Hammond had ever been a baptismal name at all:
“1620, Jan. 3. Buried Hamlet Rigby, Mr. Askew’s man.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.
“1620. Petition of Hamond Franklin.”—“Cal. S. P. Dom.,” 1619-1623.
It is curious to notice that Mr. Hovenden, in his “Canterbury Register,” published 1878, for the Harleian Society, has the following entries:—
“1627, Aprill 3. Christened Ham’on, the sonn of Richard Struggle.”
“1634. Jan. 18. Christened Damaris, daughter of Mr. Ham’on Leucknor.”
Turning to the index, the editor has styled them Hamilton Struggle and Hamilton Leucknor. Ham’on, of course, is Hammon, or Hammond. I may add that some ecclesiastic, a critic of my book on “English Surnames,” in the Guardian, rebuked me for supposing that Emmot could be from Emma, and calmly put it down as a form of Aymot! What can prove the effect of the Reformation on old English names as do such incidents as these?
An English monarch styled his favourite Peter Gaveston as “Piers,” a form that was sufficiently familiar to readers of history; but when an antiquary, some few years ago, found this same Gaveston described as “Perot,” it became a difficulty to not a few. The Perrots or Parratts of our London Directory might have told them of the old-fashioned diminutive that had been knocked on the head with a Hebrew Bible.
Collet, from Nicholas, used as a feminine name, died out also. The last instance I know of is—
“1629, Jan. 15. Married Thomas Woollard and Collatt Hargrave.”—St. Peter, Cornhill.