Contents |
"WILLIAM LAYTON, an Englishman, ...was one of the pioneer settlers of Middletown, New Jersey."[1]
"1688, Mch. 25. He had a patent for land granted to him which was surveyed June 9, 1688. Jan. 4, 1688, he recorded his cattle-mark. Apr. 30, 1703, John Stout, in a conveyance of land to his son Richard Stout, lying in Middletown, mentioned the lands of Richard Mount and William Layton as abutting properties."[1]
William is said to have married Violet Blackman. [citation needed] Violet Lawton was granted administration of his estate.
https://wwwnet-dos.state.nj.us/DOS_ArchivesDBPortal/EarlyLandRecords.aspx
as William Layton
"1702, Aug. 17-18, he made his will as William Lawton; proved June 28, 1708, in which he named his wife executrix, and she was probably the Violet Lawton to whom letters of administration were issued, and his six children."[1]
Abstract of will[2]
Sources for Research Notes. See this footnote: [3]
William Laiton was probably born by 1646. [4]. The first clearcut, contemporaneous records of William's existence are in the Old Middletown Town Book, and place him in the East New Jersey Colony of North America in about 1667 or 1668. William always made his mark rather than signing his name, and seems to have been indifferent to its spelling. "Laiton" was the most common spelling used in East New Jersey in his generation. The family name appears variously as Laten, Laton, Lattone, Layten, Layton, Laton, Laten, Leyton, Layten, or Luton in the 17th Century East New Jersey Colony; also it gets misread as Caten and Caton. Lawton appears in William's 1702 will, and Leighton appears later.
William Laiton is usually assumed to be English. Like many other early Monmouth County settlers he probably didn't arrive directly from Europe. [5] Portsmouth, Rhode Island or Gravesend, Long Island may have been layover points, but there's no records of him at either place. 19th Century history book authors assumed he was from Rhode Island [6] except for a Scottish author, James Steen, who thought he was Scottish [7] and for James Snell who thought the Laytons were Irish. [8] The Bedfordshire-to-Rhode Island Lawtons have no record of his existence and do not acknowledge him as family. [9]
Like the other early Middletownshippers, William Laiton must either have been a self-made man or have come from a family with money. From the first the English East Jersey Colony of Monmouth was pay to play, [10] although once they'd worked off their indentures, indentured servants were able to take part, perhaps with the help of mortgages. [11]
The organizers of Middletown had chosen a well-drained location a few miles inland and a safe 100 feet or so above sea level. [12] [13] [14] They probably entered the mouth of Waackaack Creek (on Raritan Bay) and came uphill until they found a good spot. Settlers who lived on Long Island or Staten Island could sail back and forth in sloops while they prepared their new homes in East New Jersey. [15]
William Laiton is not one of the original twelve men named in the Monmouth Patent on 8 Nov 1665. [16] William is not on a partial list of people from Rhode Island and Long Island who paid ahead to help buy land from Indians. [10] Salter's book counts him as a "townshipper," "among original settlers of Monmouth, 1667." [17] William is usually given credit for arriving in East New Jersey in 1667 because his name appeared on the list of 36 subscribers of the 1667 Middletown lot-drawing. The drawing was held on December 30 and 31 in 1667[18], and possibly took place in Shrewsbury in connection with the East New Jersey Colony's General Assembly which was meeting there that month. [19] Some subscribers were clearly not present and never moved in, but they were usually buying land for their sons, [20] whereas William himself soon took up residence. William had received town lot #14 and "feild" lot #30. [18] He may not have been able to move his family in until after James Grover had surveyed the town lots, which would have happened during 1668. [21] Salter puts William Layton on a list of settlers who probably arrived before the expiration of the three years' limit of the Patent, so presumably by 1668. [22]
The Middletown town lots were centered on an Indian path that would become King's Highway, [12] running west from its modern intersection with Route 35, until it comes to its western boundary about where Red Hill Road is today. There King's Highway bends to the north. William Laiton's town lot #14 was on the south side of the path, nearly facing today's Penelope Lane. [23] Off to the east, field lot #30 was at the SE corner of the "poplar feilds" where the land was becoming "montany," slanting towards the "upland" that would be called High Point and later Chapel Hill. [24][25][26][13] Lot #30 was almost across modern King's Highway East from where Woodgate Rd. joins King's Highway East from the southern side. [27] There is still an overgrown Layton or Layton-Shepherd burial ground at that location. [28]
Like most of the earliest Middletown settlers, William Laiton was a Baptist, and raised his children in the faith. Ellis wrote: [29] [30]
Since these 18 names (or their presumptive relative's names) are all among the 36 lot-subscribers from the 1667 Middletown drawing or on the list of those who paid ahead, it suggests that not enough time passed between the drawing and this sign-up sheet for many additional Baptists to have come to town, so the second event happened soon on the heels of the first. [22] Some history books date this church list to 1688, but by that time many more people had joined the colony and the list would surely have been longer. (No doubt a handwritten 6 was mistaken for an 8. See "Research Notes: Interpreting confusing dates in the Old Middletown Town Book.")
William Laiton registered his cattle "earemarkes" on or after 4 Jan 1669 (year adjusted for Gregorian Calendar), as did many other planters. [31] [32] The colony was coming alive as people brought their livestock and settled on their farms.
William Laiton collected more property over time, and the farm at lot #30 grew larger. The Middletown settlers were all eager for the Lords Proprietors to grant them more land parcels, which they could distribute to their growing families. [33]
William's will was written on 17-18 Aug 1702, with his name spelled "Lawton." [34] He died between then and 28 June 1708 when the will was proved at Shrewsbury. [35] Violet Lawton (presumably his wife) received letters of administration as executrix. The will mentioned "my loveing wife" but failed to name her as Violet or to clearly identify either Violet or "my loveing wife" as the mother of his children. [36] Violet received use of the home farm, which was to be divided between sons Andrew and John Layton at her convenience. The other children appear to have been grown up and settled already. William, Thomas, Samuel, and Mary are cut off with 3 shillings apiece, a legal formality, not a sign of rejection.
A less than usually abbreviated version of the will was provided by a Genforum correspondent Barbara Emery in 2000, presumably copied from Liber I, page 207, Monmouth Wills (Unrecorded Wills and Inventories. Monmouth County, New Jersey):
The inventory of William Laiton's personal estate (now he's "Laiton" again) was reported 19 Jun 1708 by Elisha Lawrence and Richard Stout, with the sum coming to £62.19.0. [37] Thus we can conclude he died by 19 Jun 1708.
Probably William and his wife (wives) are buried (without surviving gravestones) in the Layton Burial Ground (aka Layton Yard or Layton/Shepherd Cemetery) in Middletown, Monmouth County, up by Chapel Hill where the family farm was. [38]
The birthdates of William Laiton and his immediate children (and most of their marriage dates) are only ever calculated guesses. William's will evidently is the source of the familiar birth order that appears in Stillwell: William, Thomas, John, Andrew, Samuel, Mary. But the will also provides a different order for William's "sones" and a daughter: William, Thomas, Samuel, Mary; [39] then Andrew and John (or John and Andrew). [40] This order fits better with the order in which they were married and the order in which they died. Also the will treats Andrew and John differently from the others, which would make sense if they were still young boys in need of Violet's care. If Violet was a Scottish Covenanter and arrived in East New Jersey Colony in 1685, [41] she might have had to work off her indenture for four years and not been available for marriage until 1689. Hence Andrew and John could have been born about 1690. Certainly they were born before the will was written, in 1702.
William and wife #1 had (going by an order inferred from the will):
William and Violet had:
John Stillwell's 1906 printed version of the Old Middletown Town Book (1667-1700) actually has the earmark registration starting in January of 1668 (on page 7), but be aware that the person who transcribed the text from the book's original handwritten form to prepare for printing didn't update these Julian Calendar dates to the modern, Gregorian Calendar. As you read along in Stillwell's printed Town Book, [42] 31 Dec 1667 is followed by 6 Jan 1667 and you seem to be in a time warp till an event in April, 1668. 16 Dec 1668 is followed presently by 1 and 4 Feb 1668, then 17 Mar 1668-1669, and then 3 May 1669. Events happen in the right order (except for later earmarks that were squeezed into remaining blank spaces), but the dates look wrong to us. 25 March begins the new year, Julian-style. Great Britain did not switch to the Gregorian Calendar until 1752. [43] Thus THE CHANCES ARE ALMOST ONE IN FOUR that any random event you blindly pick out of the Town Book will have its date off by a year unless you think to adjust it.
Stillwell's Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Volume V) was published in 1932. Since Stillwell died in 1930, he may have had no chance to proofread for errors. Page 1 of the 1932 text has William Layton registering his cattle-mark on 4 Jan 1688, in disagreement with Stillwell's 1906 printed version of the Old Middletown Town Book, which wrote the date as Jan. 4, 1668. 1932 is too early for the editors to have been mislead by the modern digitalization flaw that can misread a 6 as an 8; however they may have looked at Stillwell's handwritten notes and mistaken a handwritten 6 for an 8. [44]
The Town Book follows up the earliest list of earmarks by having the then town clerk, Edward Tartt, declare in 1671 that he read off all the earmarks in public and made sure everyone agreed (page 9). Having the list of earmarks begin in 1688 and end in 1671 would be nonsense, so it must begin on 4 Jan 1668, except because of the Julian to Gregorian Calendar adjustment, it has to be 4 Jan 1669. Doubters should realize it's unlikely the Middletown settlers would have waited twenty years to record their earmarks.
Likewise the 1932 Miscellany has William Layton receiving a land patent on 25 Mar 1688 (the first day of the new year) and the land was surveyed by James Grover on 9 Jun 1688 (on page 1). This should surely be an event of 1668, in line with the procedure described in the Town Book on 31 Dec 1667 (on page 2), where James Grover is to survey the town lots that have just been assigned, and it's similar to the Town Book's description on 16 Dec 1668 (on page 7), where James Grover is to survey the meadow lots by the following June. James Grover the surveyor was dead by 1685. [45]
The Lewis Historical Publishers' unreliable History of Monmouth County, New Jersey, 1664-1920 in its printed version, published in 1922, has the Middletown lot-drawing occurring in 1677 (page 322), although twice it mentions that the Old Middletown Town Book started in 1667 (page 61, page 210). (The dates 1667-1700 actually appear in Stillwell's title.) The lot-drawing actually started on page one (in Stillwell's printed version from 1906) and is plainly dated Dec. 30, 1667. Another apparent error of the 1922 book is assigning to 1688 the list of members who "constituted" of the Middletown Baptist Church (on page 325-326) whereas Franklin Ellis's History of Monmouth County, New Jersey, placed it in 1668 (on pages 526-527), a date supported by evidence from the list itself. See "Research Notes: Biographical Text" in William Layton-9's WikiTree profile.
Digitalization into plain text can be blamed for many mistaken dates. Plaintext files may be easier on the eyes and easier to copy, but proof-reading against the original text is important. Text-reading software tends to turn 3's or 6's or even 0's into 8's. -- Pauline Layton, 4 Mar 2021.
William Layton may be the son of Thomas Lawton of Portsmouth, Rhode Island and his wife Elizabeth Salisbury[46][47] Research needed. (10 May 2017)
(In order to keep the William Layton-9 profile from becoming excessively long, I have created a Free Space page where speculations about William's origins can go on at length, namely https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Where_did_William_Layton_and_Violet_Lawton_come_from. It includes a critique of William Almond Layton. My addition to "Research Notes: The Rhode Island Lawtons" from 2021 can be seen there in its entirety. I'm leaving behind a couple of lines that predated my addition. -- Pauline Layton, 3 June 2023)
Thank you to Roger Wehr, Jennifer Justice, and others for their work on this profile.
Featured Eurovision connections: William is 31 degrees from Agnetha Fältskog, 25 degrees from Anni-Frid Synni Reuß, 26 degrees from Corry Brokken, 22 degrees from Céline Dion, 24 degrees from Françoise Dorin, 24 degrees from France Gall, 28 degrees from Lulu Kennedy-Cairns, 25 degrees from Lill-Babs Svensson, 20 degrees from Olivia Newton-John, 31 degrees from Henriette Nanette Paërl, 31 degrees from Annie Schmidt and 19 degrees from Moira Kennedy on our single family tree. Login to see how you relate to 33 million family members.
Categories: New Jersey Founders
Unfortunately, my cousins with William Layton-9's grandfather (back in England or maybe Scotland) as the closest common ancestor are surely over Ancestry.com's event horizon.
(see the discussion in G2G about the 2 Feb 2021 query: "Limited AncestryDNA usefulness.")
edited by Pauline Layton
Would like to suggest that Andrew is Layton-380.
By studying the records of land deals in and around early Middletown, and combining that information with a modern-day map and modern-day information about the location of the Layton family's early cemetery, the links between William Layton-9 and some later descendants are implied. We can infer that Andrew (father of John) is William's son. Common sense will be convinced, but we're not going to find the sort of proof that WikiTree prefers.
A will is usually the best source we are going to get for establishing relationships in this era of colonial NJ. It's not like there was another family with this unusual surname in Middletown in 1689.