 |
HMS Victory, June 1987 Photo available for reuse under this Creative Commons licence. |
 |
| William Layman by Sir Thomas Lawrence |
Layman was a protégé of Lord Nelson, with whom he served in three ships. It's said that Layman entered the navy in 1782 on board the Portland [HMS Portland (1770)], served for four years (1782–6) in the Myrmidon, and a year and a half (1786–8) in the Amphion [HMS Amphion (1780)] in the West Indies. "In the end of 1796 he was for a few months in the Isis [HMS Isis (1774)] in the North Sea." (To be able to consult these records would require a visit to The National Archives.)
"He seems then to have gone into the merchant service, and was especially employed in the East India and China trade." This is confirmed in the UK, Registers of Employees of the East India Company and the India Office, 1746-1939, wherein, in 1797-1799, William Layman, Residence India, is named as the Commander of the ship Britannia [British Merchant merchantman 'Britannia' (1794)], which although privately owned made voyages for the East India Company. Layman appears to have made one voyage for the EIC as commander of this Britannia, from China in 1796, reaching The Downs (off the east Kent coast) on 9 Feb 1797.
In 1800, William Layman returned to the navy under the patronage of Lord St. Vincent. "He passed his examination on 5 June 1800, when, according to his certificate, which agrees with other indications, he was thirty-two years of age." [Source] [1] (Unfortunately, I haven't seen the certificate, which again would require a visit to The National Archives.) He served for a few weeks in the Royal George [HMS Royal George (1788)], St. Vincent's flagship, in the blockade of Brest, and was promoted to be lieutenant of the Formidable [HMS Formidable (1777)] with Captain Thornbrough (Admiral Sir Edward Thornbrough) on 12 Sept. In December, at Lord Nelson's wish, he was appointed to the San Josef [HMS San Josef], and in February 1801 to the St. George [HMS St George (1785)]. "Nelson took up the cause of William Layman, who had been with him as a Lt. at Copenhagen" Battle of Copenhagen (1801) [Source]. In the battle of Copenhagen Layman was lent to the Isis, in command of a party of men sent from the St. George.
On the recommencement of hostilities, Lord Nelson nominated Mr. Layman to be lieutenant of the Victory - position he held between 4 April 1803 and 16 October 1803, dates which are confirmed in the Ship's Muster Record for Victory, but as an officer, it reads "Per Commission" in the column where, for other ranks, it would list their place of birth - in which ship he sailed with his Lordship for the Mediterranean in May, 1804. In the way out, the Victory retook the Ambuscade frigate, of which Mr. Layman was sent in charge; and on the passage to Gibraltar, captured a French ship and Dutch vessel.
Soon after, re-joining Lord Nelson off Toulon, he [Layman] was appointed, in October, by his Lordship, to the command of the Weazle [HMS Weazel (1799)]; in which vessel Captain Layman was immediately despatched to watch the enemy's cruisers, and protect the trade of the Straits, as well as keep open the conveyance of provisions from the coast of Barbary for the supply of the garrison of Gibraltar. In February, 1805, Lord Nelson wrote to Captain Layman, signifying his high approbation of the manner in which the service of the Gut had been executed, and hoping soon to be able to give him a better ship; but this commendation Captain Layman did not receive till after the Weazle had been unfortunately wrecked. [Source] (Weazle was wrecked on 1 March 1804 off Cabritta Point near Gibraltar with the loss of one man of her crew of 70.) [The service of the Gut of Gibraltar refers primarily to the pivotal naval engagements, particularly the First and Second Battles of Algeciras (July 1801) during the French Revolutionary Wars, where the Royal Navy used the strategic narrow strait to challenge French and Spanish fleets attempting to reinforce Egypt. It also signifies the ongoing strategic role of Gibraltar as a Royal Navy base, controlling the gateway between the Atlantic and Mediterranean for centuries, with regular naval patrols and operations ensuring shipping safety.]
Mainly in consequence of the representations of the merchants of Gibraltar, warmly backed up by Nelson, Layman was nevertheless promoted to the rank of commander on 8 May 1804, and appointed a few months later to the Raven sloop, British sloop 'Raven' (1804), in which he sailed on 21 Jan 1805, with despatches for Sir John Orde and Nelson. On the evening of the 28th he arrived at Orde's rendezvous off Cadiz, and, not seeing the squadron, lay to for the night, during which the ship was allowed to drift inside the Spanish squadron in the outer road of Cadiz. Layman's position thus became almost hopeless, and the next morning in trying to escape the ship was driven ashore near Fort Sta. Catalina. HMS Raven was wrecked in Cadiz Bay, on 30 Jan 1805. Raven was built at his father-in-law's yard (John Perry retired in 1803, a year before HMS Raven was ordered). The circumstances and details of the Court Martial, on 9 Mar 1805, are already covered at the Wikipedia pages for William Layman and HMS Raven and in the Royal Naval Biography of Layman, William compiled by John Marshall, so I won't repeat all of it, except to note that the court-martial minutes include a note by an Admiralty official that said, "Their Lordships are of the opinion that Captain Layman is not a fit person to be entrusted with the command of one of H.M.'s ships."
Would Layman have been at Trafalgar in the October, had he not been Court Martialled in the March? And if he had, would he have survived that battle? Is it probable that if Nelson had lived, he would have continued to defend his protégé and gained him further employment? We will never know.
It seems incongruous that one moment, Nelson is strongly commending an officer who appears to be highly competent, but who then, in the next moment, is shown to have acted with a lack of caution. Despite promoting him, Nelson too seems to have been of the opinion that Layman let his mouth run away with him and Nelson is even reported to have said that the worst thing that happened to Layman was that he learned to write. There was a huge volume of correspondence (longwinded and flowery, which may have simply been the style of the period) from Layman leading up to the commissioning of the Raven, then there were the constant 'ideas' he would send to the Admiralty after his Court Martial. If we add in the circumstances of his demise, I have to say (and I would stress that I'm no expert), but what I'm reading sounds like someone who today we would say was bipolar.
Among his copious output of writings was "the syllabus of a contemplated maritime history from the earliest times (including the building, plans and navigation of the ark, with notes on the weather experienced) to the termination of the second American War." And in his biography, is written: "Perhaps the syllabus may be considered as indicating even then an aberration of the intellect which caused him to 'terminate his existence' in 1826."
On 4 July 1810, William Layman was writing (to the Admiralty, with one of his 'ideas') from Haywood House (sic) near Cobham, Surrey (Heywood House - ACS International School Cobham). There is very little history of the house and nothing to indicate why Layman was there, although a Thomas Baker (1793–1871) was linked to Cobham with East India connections. Baker, became a captain of East India Company ships trading with India and China in the 1820s. He and his wife inherited the house called Owletts in Cobham in 1835. Baker doesn't seem to have any direct link to Heywood House, but he surely was the same Thomas Baker, Carpenter on HMS Raven.
On 22 Jan 1811, Layman wrote (regarding the loss of HMS Raven), from 9 Queens Buildings, Brompton (Chelsea). The location "9 Queens Buildings, Brompton" appears to refer to a historical address, as the entire road frontage known as "Queen's Buildings" was renumbered and renamed to Brompton Road, London SW3 (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) in 1864.
 |
| Captain William Layman's house at 34 Hans Place, centre of picture. |
The Times (May 27th 1826 page 3 column D) report of the coroner's inquest, held at The Swann Inn, Cheltenham, on 25 May 1826, into William Layman's death is reproduced in this thread (from 2006) at the forum, Admiral Lord Nelson & his Navy. That newspaper report details that Layman had killed himself on the previous Tuesday, which was 23 May 1826. He had been found in the bath, with his throat cut. Apparently, he had "undressed himself and had hung up his clothes in the greatest order." It confirms Layman's town residence as No.34 Hans Place, Sloane Street and that he had taken up residence at Woodland Cottage. The deceased is described as "about sixty years of age, a married man, without family." It seems he exhibited many strange behaviours in the lead up to his death. Not unsurprisingly, the Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of "Insanity".
Captain William Layman RN (the full title listed on the burial record), with abode listed as Cheltenham, was buried at Leckhampton (described as "a desirable, leafy suburb south of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire"), presumably at St Peter's Church, on 29 May 1826, with his burial, curiously, officiated by John Portis, Rector of Little Leighs, Essex. It was fortunate that he was not declared a Felo de se and given a "shameful burial" (at night with no clergy and no mourners), so I suspect that his and particularly his widow's social status had some bearing. His age at death was given as 61, which sounds like someone knew, rather than a guessed rounding to 60.
[1] It is immensely frustrating that none of the records I can access, and I'm not convinced that the ones at the National Archives at Kew would yield anything more, do not give any clues to Layman's origins. It was said that he is listed as having been 32 years old in 1800, which would calculate to a birth year of 1768, and that 'other indications' agree. Those other indications, I assume are other parts of his naval record. Here's what I think: the age on that 1800 certificate is most likely calculated from the age he said he was when he joined his first ship in 1782. If he had been born in 1768, that would have made him 14 then. In the 1870's, "Boys for the Navy must be over 15 and not above 16½ years of age ..." Prior to that, I know boys could join earlier, because I have a 2x great-grandfather who went to sea at 10, but maybe the upper limit existed earlier. If Layman was born in 1765, the birth year that calculates from his age at death, he would have been 17 in 1782, probably already too old to be taken on for training. He would be far from the first, nor the last, to massage his age to what he needed it be, so I'm more apt to believe that he will have lied about his age to the Navy. IF he was indeed born in 1765, there's a potential baptism of a William Layman, son of John Layman and Joan Salter, in Plymtree, Devon on 9 Apr 1765, but I would caution that I cannot see a way to definitively prove or disprove that being relevant.
What we do know is that William Layman must have had some education to be able to read and write. Otherwise, he could have come from 'nowhere' and achieve this career in the Navy. I'm less likely to believe that John Perry would be happy to allow his eldest daughter to marry someone who did not come from some sort of a decent background, but what that was, if it was more than just his naval connections, we shall probably never know.
William Layman's Will, written on 24 April 1817, is short and to the point, it reads, "I give and bequeath unto my dear wife Elizabeth Layman the lease of my house at 34 Hans Place together with the furniture and all the other effects therein at the time of my [decease] and also all other [of] my personal property whatsoever in [unreadable] she shall survive me and I make my said wife Executrix of this my Will and Testament ..." It was proved at London on 23 Jun 1826 by the Oath of Elizabeth Layman Widow and Relict the sole executrix to whom administration was granted.
Elizabeth Layman, 64, abode Chelsea, reputedly died at 34 Hans Place, on 14 Jan 1837 - which was the day before her 65th birthday - she was buried on 20 Jan 1837, at Poplar Chapel (St Matthias Old Church), where her parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were also buried.
There was never any doubt that this was Elizabeth Perry, daughter of John Perry, but this transcription of Elizabeth's will (as best I can, because a few words are indistinct), leaves absolutely no doubt as to who she was:
"This is the last Will and Testament of me Elizabeth Layman of Hans Place in Middlesex Widow. I give the sum of eight thousand pounds that per Cout Consolidated Bank Annuities [2] bequeathed to me by the Will of my late Brother Philip or the Storks Funds and Securities on which the same are now or at the time of my [death/demise] may be invested unto my Sister Charlotte Bonney and Louisa Perry in equal shares and whereas under the Will of my late Brother John Perry I have a power of disposition after my [decease] by any writing under my hand over the sum of six thousand pounds Sterling or are the Storks Funds and Securities upon which the same may be invested. [Unreadable] of such power and in exercise thereof I do by the writing under my hand appoint the said sum of six thousand pounds or the said last mentioned Stork Funds and Securities after my decease unto between and amongst all and every [...] the children of my late Brother Thomas Perry who may be living at the time of my decease and in equal shares and whereas under a Deed of Covenant dated the fifth day of March One Thousand Eight Hundred and made between my late father John Perry of the one part and my late husband William Layman and myself of the other part I have a power of appointment by my last Will and Testament duly executed over our ???? of a sum of four thousand pounds Sterling (which said four thousand pounds now invested in the sum of eight thousand five hundred and ninety pounds seventeen shillings and eight pence there by Cout Consolidated Bank Annuities in favour of such of my brothers and sisters as shall be living at my decease. Now by virtue of last mentioned power and in exercise thereof I do by this my last Will and Testament duly executed by me ????? Direct and appoint the said ???? Of the said sum of four thousand pounds or the Storks Funds and Securities whereon the same is now invested unto and to be equally divided amongst my four brothers and sisters George, Mary Ann, Charles and Amelia in equal shares and as to my house in Hans Place in which I now dwell and all other of my Real and Personal Estate whatsoever and wherever and all other Real or Personal Estate over which I may have any power of disposition I give and bequeath and appoint the same subject to the payment of my debts and funeral and testamentary expenses unto my brother Richard Perry executor of this my Will and hereby revoke all former Wills by me at any time heretofore made …. Etc. The Will was proved at London on 30 Jan 1837 by the oath of Richard Perry Esquire the Brother … (Note that Elizabeth makes no distinction between her full and half siblings.)
By my calculations Elizabeth was leaving funds worth at least £18,000 (about £2.5M today), plus the leasehold property in Hans Place, plus whatever else we don't even have a number for. A very considerable fortune.
[2] I assume Cout means Coutts & Company. Consolidated Bank Annuities, or "Consols," were perpetual British government bonds issued by the Bank of England starting in 1751, consolidating various debts into one perpetual stock with a fixed interest rate (initially 3%) and no maturity date, providing a reliable, if varying in value, income stream until the UK government redeemed the last outstanding consols in 2015, though the concept historically symbolized national debt management.