BEACH OF NEW HAVEN
A Critical Discussion of the English origins, parentage and relationships of RICHARD,
JOHN and THOMAS BEACH, early settlers of New Haven, Connecticut.
By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.
Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, Nos. 3 and 4 (Fall and Winter, 1993)
INTRODUCTION
Three men named Beach or Beech - Richard1, John1 and Thomas1 - settled in New Haven, Connecticut, within eight years after its founding in 1638. Their lives after that time are, for the most part, well documented. The nature of their relationship to each other, dates of birth, parentage and place of origin, however, are still debated questions.
Beginning in the late 19th century a number of writers put forth a variety of claims or admitted speculations pertaining to these issues. All such authors were undoubtedly sincere and well-intentioned, but good intentions are no guarantor of accuracy. More unfortunately, such speculative claims have proved as fecund and prolific as the Beach ancestors themselves: one author puts forth his personal belief based on certain scanty evidence; a second notes and repeats it as a reasonable surmise; a third is now able to cite two authorities for the thing, and so on, until at last it is presented as a well-documented and long established fact. Thus do genealogical errors have genealogies of their own, which are often as difficult to unravel as those of the personages they concern.
With this caution firmly in mind, it is proper that a discussion of the Beach family of New Haven begin with a brief review of the town's own history, in order that matters may be placed in their proper context. On April 25, 1637, some 500 Puritans, headed by John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, embarked on the ship "Hector" and one or more other vessels, sailing from England to arrive at Boston on June 26, 1637. Here they wintered until March 18, 1638, when the company sailed around to the south of Connecticut, to the old Indian grounds of Quinnipiac, which had been chosen as the site of the new settlement. Articles of government were drawn up, variously known as the "Fundamental Agreement," "Compact" or "Covenant," which made the Scriptures the supreme law of the colony. It was further provided that only full church members, i.e., "visible saints" allowed to receive communion, were to be admitted "freemen" and entitled to full civic privileges.
As part of or else accompanying the Davenport and Eaton settlers were a number under the leadership of the Reverend Peter Prudden. These were known as the "Hertford" group, after the English county from which they had been recruited. While Prudden's followers likewise came to New Haven in early 1638, they removed some eight miles west in 1639 to establish their own settlement, in what would become the town of Milford, See generally: Atwater, History of the Colony of New Haven. The significance of such facts to the origins and history of the Beach family will become more clear in the discussion which follows.
TWO, THREE OR FOUR BROTHERS?
It is now generally accepted that Richard Beach, John Beach and Thomas Beach were all brothers. It is certain that Richard and Thomas were so related, for in proceedings before the New Haven court on November 2, 1652, "Thomas Beech declareth that he went to Richard Sperries farme vpon some occasion betwixt his brother Richard Beech and himselfe;..." New Haven Historical Society, New Haven Town Records, 1649-1662, p. 151. While no such direct evidence exists that John Beach was likewise the brother of the other two, a variety of facts clearly suggest the existence of some such relationship between them. Both John Beach1 and Thomas Beach1 named sons after the other, and each likewise had daughters named Sarah. John Beach1 and Richard Beach1 likewise had sons named Benjamin, and all three had daughters named Mary. When Richard Beach1 became administrator of the estate of his "Cozn.," William Iles, John Beach1 agreed to act as his surety on February 1, 1647. Finally, when John Beach2, the eldest son of Thomas1, was left an orphan after 1670, he either went or was sent to live at Wallingford, Connecticut, where his "uncle" John Beach1 and several of his sons owned property and resided at various times.
It should be noted, however, that several early writers held somewhat different and conflicting views on this subject. R. R. Hinman, whose Catalogue of the Names of the First Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut was published in 1846, identified John Beach1 with John2, son of Thomas1. Given that John1 had two children of his own before John2, Thomas1 was born in 1655, however, Hinman's identification of the two men is clearly erroneous.
Deacon Lewis M. Norton, whose manuscript notes on the history of Goshen, Connecticut, date circa 1859 and contain much Beach family genealogy, held the view that there were actually two sets of brothers - John1 and Benjamin2, son of Richard1, forming one pair; Richard1 and Thomas1 forming the other, unrelated pair. Norton further assigned Thomas1, son of John1, to Thomas1; an unfortunate error given credence in family histories as late as 1912, See: Helen Beach, The Descendants of Thomas Beach of Milford, Connecticut, p. 4.
James Savage, author of the Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. 1, p. 144, published in 1860, does not mention the "fourth brother" theory, but does suggest that John Beach1 was the "s. of Richard, of New Haven, if he were not br. as seems prob."
Finally, Charles H. S. Davis, in his 1870 History of Wallingford, Connecticut, p. 636, adopted a modified form of the earlier Norton view, stating that "The probabilities seem to indicate that John, Benjamin and Richard,... and Thomas of Milford, were brothers." As noted, however, Benjamin2 was actually the son of Richard1; not his brother. This is but one example of Davis' many errors; the most notorious of which is identifying John Beach1, son of Thomas1, with John1, son of John1, which has and continues to cause untold confusion to the unwary.
DATES OF BIRTH AND BIRTH ORDER
It is also universally believed that, of the three brothers, Richard Beach was the oldest, John Beach the next oldest, and Thomas Beach the youngest. The basis for this assumption seems to be that Richard Beach first appears in the New Haven town records in 1639 and was married by 1642; John Beach first appears in the records in 1643 and was married by 1652; and Thomas Beach first appears in the records in 1646 and was married in 1652.
It may be argued, however, that the order and dates of their mention in the records need not depend on the brothers' relative ages, i.e., there in nothing to prevent a younger brother from having settled or come to public notice before an older brother. While the order and dates of their marriages are arguably more dependent on their relative ages, they do not seem more so than the order and dates of their deaths. Since there is no suggestion any of the three died of other than natural causes, i.e., age and/or disease, the death of Thomas Beach in 1662, John Beach in 1677 and Richard Beach in 1681 could be said to suggest a birth order exactly opposite that previously assumed. For such reasons, the relative ages of Richard, John and Thomas should, despite tradition, be considered an "open" question. Otherwise, the danger exists that new and valuable information on the question of their parentage may be rejected solely because it does not "square" with what is believed, but has yet to be proven as the proper order of their births.
One source relates that "Those who claim descent from Benjamin(2), John(1) say that our John was born in 1623. Others claim that he was born in 1620, but as no record has been found in England it seems the date of birth is mere conjecture unless it can be based on evidence not yet discovered by the writer," Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8. The 1623 date may well be based on the assumption that John Beach, who took the Oath of Fidelity in 1644, must have been at least 21 years old, i.e., the age of majority, at that time, so born not later than 1623. To this extent it is a reasonable approximation of the "latest possible" year of birth, but does not mean John Beach was not born earlier.
Applying this same analysis to Richard Beach, who affirmed the Covenant in 1639, yields a latest possible year of birth of 1618. In the case of Thomas Beach, who took the Oath of Fidelity in 1647, the latest possible year of birth is 1626. There is an independent tradition, however, which claims "It appears Richard was born about 1611,..." James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 43. See also: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7 ["In 1691 he (Richard) died in or near Morristown, N.J. age about 80 years," i.e. born in 1611]. The basis for this claim, like those which put John Beach's birth in 1620, is not known. Curiously, there appears to be no such tradition regarding the year of birth of Thomas Beach.
RICHARD BEACH OF WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS
Four years prior to the appearance of the brother Richard Beach in New Haven, a Richard Beach settled in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1635. There he had by his wife, Mary _____, a son John, born in 1636, but others say 1638. He soon removed to Watertown and had there a second child, Mary, born in 1641. His wife must have died soon afterward for he remarried Martha _____ and by her had Isaac, born in 1646; Martha, born in 1649/50; Abigail, born in 1653; Joseph, born in 1655; and Richard, born in 1657, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. According to one account this Richard Beach was so poor that the town granted him five pounds for a cow, Joseph P. Beach, A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family, p. 10. He reportedly died at Watertown on October 24, 1674, and his family is thought to have become extinct upon the death of his son, Isaac, in 1736, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5.
Despite several obvious discrepancies, some early authorities identified this Richard Beach of Watertown with Richard Beach of New Haven, e.g., Farmer, A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, p. 30 ["Beach, Richard, Cambridge 1635, Watertown 1639; may have removed to New-Haven where John, son of Richard Beach was b. 1639"]. Elmer T. Beach, author of Beach In America, says at pp. 134-135 that:
"Through the courtesy of Mr. W. G. Black,... in whose possession the document now is, I had the pleasure of examining and reading an autographic letter addressed to one Stephen C. Read of Hartford, bearing date Aug. 12, year not given, but containing internal evidence which places the date of writing probably about the time of Samuel Norton, perhaps 1720 or 1730. This old genealogist says: "Richard Beach came from London in June, 1635. Captain Rogers in - name of vessel undecipherable but looks like AWK., moving to Cambridge the same year, then to Wyam, and in 1639 to New Haven,..."
Bond, Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, makes the same identification, as does so comparatively recent an authority as Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732 ["BEACH, RICHARD (b. ca. 1620), from Eng. to Watertown, Mass., 1635, thence to New Haven Colony, and signer of the Compact of 1639;..."].
As Elmer T. Beach correctly noted, however, any such identification "... ignore[s] the four children of Richard Beach, born and of record in New Haven. One of them, Azariah, was born the same year as Isaac in Watertown, within a few weeks of each other," Beach In America, p. 135. Other obvious inconsistencies include the fact that Richard Beach of Watertown died there in 1674, while Richard Beach of New Haven would ultimately die in or near Morristown, New Jersey, in 1691. Thus, the majority of historians since Savage, in 1860, have correctly concluded the Richard Beach of Watertown to be an entirely different man than the Richard Beach of New Haven.
This is not to say the two men might not be otherwise related. If so, however, it was certainly not as father and son since, as noted, Richard the son of Richard Beach of Watertown was born in 1657, well after Richard Beach of New Haven first appears in the records there. Elmer T. Beach suggested a relationship of uncle and nephew; a claim which will be discussed in more detail below. For the moment it should be noted that while Richard Beach of Watertown is no longer directly identified with Richard Beach of New Haven, such an identification does continue to be made, albeit indirectly and unknowingly.
THE MYTH OF THE "ELIZABETH & ANN[E]"
In its discussion of the Beach Family of New Haven, the first issue of the Beach Family Magazine, published in 1926, refers to:
"... the statement recently received from Mary D. Beach of Binghampton, N.Y., that her uncle John of Lakewood, N.J., had made extensive research and had found in a book in the library of the First Congregational Church of Goshen, Conn. that the three Beach brothers came to New Haven in the same ship with the Rev. Peter Prudden in 1638... They came on the "Elizabeth and Anna" and arrived in New Haven about July, 1638."
Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5.
As evidence of the facts asserted this is the rankest form of hearsay within hearsay, being dependent upon a chain of communication from the Beach Family Magazine to Mary D. Beach to "Uncle John" to a certain unnamed "book in the library of the First Congregational Church of Goshen" which, in turn, was itself most likely only a secondary source. Unfortunately, this has not discouraged subsequent writers of the family's history from accepting this account at face value, e.g., James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 43 ["They came to New Haven, Connecticut, with the Reverend Peter Prudden on the ship, Elizabeth and Anna, arriving in New Haven about July, 1638"]. See also: the entry for William Augustus Beach in Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. I, p. 84, published in 1957 ["... a descendant of Thomas Beach, the youngest of three brothers who came to New Haven from England in the ship Elizabeth and Anna in June, 1638..."].
The identity of the mysterious "book" in the Goshen Church library has yet to be established. This author's own efforts to locate it in the early 1970's were futile. Seven years before publication of the Beach Family Magazine, however, there appeared in 1919 the American Historical Society's Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut, Vol. III, p. 91, wherein it is stated:
"There are three immigrants named Beach found in the records of the New Haven colony for 1639, Richard, John and Thomas, and the evidence that they were brothers appears conclusive. Richard Beach came from London in 1635 in the ship "Elizabeth and Ann" and settled in New Haven as early as 1639..."
Whether or not this is the "book" from which "Uncle John" obtained his information is not known, although it is certainly possible. There are, however, several interesting differences between the two accounts. In the version reported by "Uncle John" the ship is named "Elizabeth and Anna"; it arrived in New Haven in July, 1638; and transported all three Beach brothers together with the Reverend Peter Prudden. In the 1919 account the ship is named "Elizabeth and Ann"; arrived in the New World in 1635 [exact destination unstated]; and presumably transported only Richard Beach, no mention being made of John, Thomas nor the Reverend Prudden. The significance of these differences will become apparent when, with the addition of other facts, each version of this otherwise charming account is subjected to more critical analysis.
The identification of the early colonists with the vessels on which they arrived is notoriously difficult. Perhaps the leading authorities on this subject are Hotten, The Original Lists of Persons of Quality... who went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600-1700 ["Hotten's List"] and Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650. These establish that there was indeed a ship named the "Elizabeth & Ann" or "Elizabeth and Anne," under the command of Master Roger Cooper or Cowper. It further appears this vessel embarked passengers in April and May, 1635, for transport to New England. This is consistent with the July, 1635, arrival date given by the Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut noted above. Such being the case, however, it is clear that the voyage did not terminate in New Haven, as stated in the version of the story reported by "Uncle John" since that settlement would not exist for another three years. Rather, the "Elizabeth and Ann" undoubtedly docked and discharged her passengers at Boston. This is supported by the fact that, of a list of passengers given by one source, all arrived in 1635 and most settled in various Massachusetts communities, e.g., Alexander Baker, of Gloucester; John Eaton, of Watertown; Thomas Emerson, of Ipswich; Thomas Lord, of Cambridge, and John Whitney of Watertown, Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, pp. 730, 744, 756, 775.
It will now be recalled that Richard Beach of Watertown, Massachusetts, likewise first appeared in Boston and Cambridge in 1635. This immediately suggests that it was he, rather than Richard Beach(1) of New Haven, who in fact "... came from London in 1635 in the ship 'Elizabeth and Ann'..." It will also be recalled that the undated but apparently old letter quoted from by Elmer T. Beach claimed that Richard Beach of Watertown "... came from London in June, 1635. Captain Rogers in - name of vessel undecipherable but looks like AWK." Little imagination is required to conclude that "Captain Rogers" is actually Roger Cooper or Cowper, and that "AWK" may be a misreading of "Ann". The final piece of the puzzle is, however, unwittingly supplied by the Beach Family Magazine itself which, in its discussion of Richard Beach of Watertown, states that he "... came to Massachusetts on a vessel commanded by Captain Roger Cooper in 1635...," Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. As is now clear, however, that vessel was none other than the "Elizabeth and Ann," which is elsewhere mentioned on the same page of the same source in connection with the New Haven Beach family as related by "Uncle John".
It thus appears that the story of the "Elizabeth and Ann" is a relic of the otherwise now-discredited identification of Richard Beach of Watertown with Richard Beach(1) of New Haven. This suggests that the version given by the Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut is closest to the original; applying solely to Richard Beach with no mention of John or Thomas and preserving the 1635 date. Once the distinction between the two Richard Beaches became clear, however, the story required revision since, assuming it to refer to Richard Beach(1) of New Haven, the 1635 date would now be too early. The process of evolution was undoubtedly aided by the likely confusion of John Eaton, an "Elizabeth and Ann" passenger, with Theophilus Eaton, one of the leaders of the New Haven colony, who in turn may have evolved into the figure of the Reverend Peter Prudden, leader of the "Hertford" group and founder of Milford. Finally, at some point along the way, the brothers John(1) and Thomas(1) were added until the story, in the version as told by "Uncle John," was complete.
Unfortunately, the truth is that the vessel on which the three Beach brothers were transported to New England has not and may never be identified with certainty. Indeed, it is not all that clear that all three came together or were in New Haven by 1639. On the contrary, the fact that John Beach(1) and Thomas Beach(1) do not appear in the town records until 1643 and 1646, respectively, suggests they did not arrive until later. Recognizing this, some argue that while also present in 1639, both John and Thomas were too young to warrant notice in the public records for several years. It will be recalled, however, that the presumed relative ages of the three brothers is itself based, in part, upon these same dates of first mention in the town records. To this extent the argument that John and Thomas were "too young" to deserve mention between 1639 and 1646 is somewhat circular. Moreover, the April, 1641 New Haven tax roll shows Richard Beach(1) to be the sole member of his household; whereas it would be natural to expect John and/or Thomas, if present by that time, to be living with him. Finally, none of the older authorities claim or even imply that all three brothers arrived as early as 1639, suggesting that such a view is more the product of romantic imagination than hard fact.
CLAIMS AS TO "ENGLISH ORIGINS"
So far the discussion has focused upon issues relating to the three Beach brothers on this side of the Atlantic - their relation to each other, relative ages, and date and means of arrival in the New World. While many of these issues are still unresolved, there is at least some measure of facts and evidence with which to work. With respect to efforts to establish the so-called "English Origins" of the New Haven Beach family, however, facts and evidence give way to fantasy and self-delusion, as claim after claim has been advanced and, worse yet, uncritically accepted and repeated that Richard, John and Thomas Beach hailed from such and such a place in England or that so and so was their progenitor.
Nothing more tantalizes and simultaneously frustrates the genealogist than an ancestor whose own ancestry is unknown. This seems especially true where, as here, the connection sought to be made is between families of the Old and New Worlds. Having come so far it seems unimaginable further progress cannot be made. That the Beaches of New Haven came from England seems clear. That there were ancient Beach, Beech or Beche families in England from which Richard, John and Thomas might have descended is also clear. Under such circumstances, the desire to establish the "missing link" becomes so strong as to be self-fulfilling, such that the most speculative theories are taken as established truth solely because of an unquestioning need to believe them so. In sum, it may be fairly said that, in the search for the Beach family's English origins, common sense and critical analysis all-too-often have been left at the water's edge.
The simple but disappointing truth is that neither the parentage nor place of origin of Richard, John or Thomas Beach has yet been satisfactorily proven. With but two exceptions - discussed below - the presently known and available records in America are devoid of reliable clues. The early genealogists - Farmer, Hinman, Norton, Savage, etc. - ignore the issue completely; a silence which suggests the absence of any early tradition which might contain a germ of fact. Various claims nonetheless have been and continue to be made.
Kingston-upon-Hull Yorkshire
In the January, 1875 issue of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. VI, No. 1, p. 55, there appeared the following query:
"BEACH - Whom did Rev. Abraham Beach, D.D. marry? What were the names of his parents? He was a minister of Trinity church from 1784 to 1813. He was an Englishman and a slight sketch of his life is given in Berrian's History of Trinity Church. S.W.P."
In the July, 1875 issue, Vol. VI, No. 3, p. 157, a subsequent note was published:
"BEACH - I am indebted to the Rev. Abraham Beach Carter, D.D., of New York, for the following particulars respecting his grandfather, the Rev. Abraham Beach, D.D., ...
Dr. Beach was born in Cheshire, Conn., 9 Sept., 1740:... He was a son of Capt. Elnathan Beach, descended from the family who came from Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire, England, and settled in New Haven, Conn., in 1637... Can any of your readers help me to the parentage of Capt. Elnathan Beach and of his wife? What was the latter's Christian name? S.W.P.
This is an interesting and somewhat curious account. Captain Elnathan Beach(3) was the son of Isaac Beach2 and grandson of the immigrant brother John Beach(1), Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 39. Elnathan Beach, in turn, had eleven children; the last of whom was the Reverend Abraham Beach(4), the subject of S.W.P.'s initial query. Note, however, that S.W.P. originally believed Reverend Abraham Beach to be "an Englishman". Consequently, the claim that the Beach family came from Kingston-upon-Hull must have been a tradition in the Reverend Beach's family which was passed down to Reverend Carter, who in turn related it to S.W.P.
At the same time, however, it will be observed that S.W.P. ends his account with the query "Can any of your readers help me to the parentage of Capt. Elnathan Beach...?" From this it must be assumed that Reverend Carter did not know Elnathan Beach to be the son of Isaac(2), John(1), since otherwise he would have shared such information with S.W.P. It is equally obvious S.W.P. did not know such facts, since he asks for help in discovering them, even though Davis' History of Wallingford, Connecticut, had given an accurate genealogy of Elnathan Beach five years earlier, in 1870.
Given such apparent ignorance on the part of both Reverend Carter and S.W.P., the basis on which either could claim or believe the Beach family came from Yorkshire seems questionable. It is somehow odd to assert one knows the county and borough from which one's ancestor came, even though ignorant of such ancestor's identity and thus how and if one is related to him. Equally odd is the fact that no other authority, before or since, has ever offered the same claim or any variant of it. Were this an established tradition of this branch of the family, one would expect it to have been repeated, expanded upon or otherwise the subject of comment. Except for passing citation in the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5, however, no other family historian appears to have known of, much less vouched for the Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire claim.
In fairness it must be acknowledged that there were a number of early New Haven settlers from or with ties to Yorkshire. According to one account:
"In October [1638] the planters of Quinnipiac welcomed an accession to their number. Ezekiel Rogers, a much respected nonconforming minister in Yorkshire, having embarked at Hull, on the Humber, with a company who personally knew him and desired to enjoy his ministry, arrived in Boston late in the summer. Such representations were made to him by Davenport and Eaton, or their agents, that he engaged to come with his followers to Quinnipiac, and within eight weeks after his arrival in Massachusetts, a portion of his people came by water to the new settlement. The remainder of the company were expected to follow; but Rogers changed his mind and commenced a new settlement at Rowley, in Massachusetts. He sent a pinnace to bring back those of his people who had preceded him in his intended voyage, but some of them, refusing to return, became permanent residents at Quinnipiac."
Atwater, History of the Colony of New Haven, pp. 1-2.
This is supported by Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650, pp. 185-188, which identifies at least nine early New Haven settlers with connections to Yorkshire, including the Reverend Peter Prudden, of whom more later. Also from Yorkshire were John Johnson, one of seven others named with Richard Beach(1) as being admitted "planters" on June 4, 1639, Hoadly, Records of the Colony of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 12-13, and Francis Brown, who with Thomas Beach(1) was fined for a defective gun in 1646 and, in 1654, moved Thomas and his family to Milford, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12
Unfortunately, such facts are alone insufficient to prove that the three Beach brothers themselves came from Yorkshire. On the contrary, it may be the case that these very same facts suggested the Kingston-upon-Hull claim in the first place, in which event their citation as "evidence" would be a classic example of circular reasoning. There are, moreover, other facts to be discussed in more detail below which suggest it unlikely the three Beach brothers hailed from so northern an English county as Yorkshire. Thus, while perhaps deserving of note, the Kingston-upon-Hull claim must be regarded as questionable until further evidence is forthcoming.
Reverend John Beach of Derbyshire/Devonshire
Toward the latter part of the 19th century a second and utterly different claim began to be advanced, in various forms, that the three Beach brothers were the sons of a clergyman from Derbyshire or, in one version of the story, from Devonshire, England. The first proponent of this notion is uncertain. The Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 4-5, states that:
"In a manuscript furnished by F. H. Beach of New Jersey in 1890 it is said that John, one of the brothers, was born in Derbyshire, England;..."
Unfortunately, both the identity of this F. H. Beach and the source of his information is not given.
At or about the same time, however, family historian Joseph P. Beach, himself a descendant of John Beach(1) and son of the famous Moses Yale Beach, suggested something similar in an unpublished typescript entitled A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family; now part of the Beach family papers of the Connecticut State Library. Under the heading "English Origin of Ye Beach's," he candidly admits that "I have not been able to trace the vessels in which Richard, John & Thomas came to this country." In the next three paragraphs, however, he cites a single marriage record from Leek, Derbyshire, dated 1685 [well after the brothers' migration to New Haven], and on this basis concludes:
"The names of Thomas Beach, John Beach, William [sic] & others, would seem to indicate that the Beach's who came with Rev. John Davenport, may have originated in Derbyshire."
Precisely how or why such names would indicate any particular English county, much less Derbyshire, is unfortunately not further explained. It will be noted, however, that Joseph P. Beach's version of the claim expands on that of F. H. Beach by including all three brothers; not simply John Beach(1) alone.
Yet a third and possibly independent source of the Derbyshire claim was George Mason Beach, another well-known family historian. Elmer T. Beach, in his Beach In America, p. 28, wrote in 1923 that:
"It is not known who the father of the three sons was. The late Geo. Mason Beach of Chicago, believed him to have been a clergyman of Derbyshire, England. I do not know, but I find no evidence of our coming from Derbyshire."
Once again, a new element has been added, i.e., that the father of the three Beach brothers was supposedly a clergyman. Like the Derbyshire claim itself, however, the basis for George Mason Beach's belief with regard to the father's calling is not known.
Such uncertainty as to the origins of and evidence for these theories did not, however, prevent them from receiving wide circulation and unquestioning acceptance in print. As early as 1892, Munsell's American Ancestry, Vol. VII, p. 6, asserted "John Beach of Wallingford, Ct., b. prob. in Derbyshire, Eng." Ten years later, in 1902, Joseph Crayon's Rockaway Records of Morris County, New Jersey, p. 160, would give yet another version of the claim, changing some details while adding others:
"Three brothers, the sons of the Rev. John Beach, of Devonshire [sic], Eng., Richard, John and Thomas Beach, came from England to the New Haven Colony."
Thus, while the county is given as Devonshire rather than Derbyshire - an understandable confusion - George Mason Beach's clergyman now has a name, i.e., the Reverend John Beach. Finally, and by way of bringing the evolution of the story full circle, Virkus' Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732, declared that "John Beach (1623-77) son of Rev. John of Derbyshire". Based upon one or more of these various authorities, the claim has been taken up and repeated, in one or more of its various forms, in the biographies and genealogies of countless Beach family members ever since.
The problem has been and continues to be, however, that no one has yet proved the existence of any such "Reverend John Beach" in either Derbyshire or Devonshire. Neither has any evidence been put forward - other than Joseph P. Beach's questionable "name analysis" - that either county was otherwise the place of the three Beach brothers' nativity. Despite the availability of various church parish records, court papers and other documents for both Derbyshire and Devonshire from the 1500's onward, none of the sources given above cite so much as a single entry which might be independently consulted and researched to verify or refute the claim. This is not to suggest that the theory is inherently impossible, for when no facts are known one way or the other virtually anything is possible. It seems most curious, however, that on a matter of such interest and importance there should continue to be such a complete, utter lack of hard evidence.
St. Albans Hertfordshire
The first published and widely available genealogy of the Beach family appeared in 1898. This was the work entitled The Reverend John Beach and His Descendants, by Rebecca Donaldson Beach. It is interesting to speculate whether the title of this book may in some way be related to the claims concerning the "Reverend John Beach" of Derbyshire or Devonshire, which likewise first appeared at or about this time. Be that as it may, the subject of the title was actually the Reverend John Beach(3) of Newton, Connecticut, son of Isaac Beach(2), John Beach(1). An ordained Anglican priest, Reverend John Beach gain notoriety during the American Revolution for his refusal to cease offering prayers for the King, See: e.g., Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 2, pp. 269-270.
While nowhere claiming to give the parentage of the three Beach brothers of New Haven, this rather substantial volume did include a chapter entitled "Beach In England" which presented what the author candidly described as "notes and gatherings... for the benefit of the Anglo-maniac who may wish to pursue them further." These were, for the most part, references to the ancient De La Beche families of the 14th and 15th centuries. In a concluding paragraph, however, it was noted that:
"There were and are Beaches in Hertfordshire. A John and Richard born in St. Albans, brothers, 1590 and 1601, and another pair, similarly named and related, 1625 and 1627. The first are too early and the second are too late for our dates. Richard was already married in New Haven in 1640 (to the widow Hull), and although John might be made to fit, it is hardly probable that at 16 years of age he was a full-fledged freeman."
Beach, The Reverend John Beach and His Descendants, p. 127.
Such observations were and are sound and the paragraph, read as a whole and in context, nowhere claims these four men to be related to the Beach family of New Haven. Nevertheless, the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5 would later report that:
"Rebecca Donaldson Beach, who compiled the data contained in "Rev. John Beach and his Descendants," etc., was of the opinion that these three brothers were descended from John, born in St. Albans, Hertfordshire, England, in 1790 [sic]."
The first true proponent of the Hertfordshire claim, however, was Elmer T. Beach, author of Beach In America. At pages 133 through 139 of that work, in a chapter aptly entitled "A Guess or Two," he presented a lengthy argument that the John Beach, born in Hertfordshire in 1590, was the father of the three Beach brothers. It was further his opinion that Richard Beach, born in 1601, was thus uncle of the three brothers and the same man as Richard Beach of Watertown, Massachusetts. According to this theory the uncle, Richard Beach, brought his three nephews with him to Boston in 1635; which might explain the early genealogists' confusion of Richard of Watertown with Richard of New Haven. When the Reverend Peter Prudden's Hertfordshire group arrived in Boston in 1637, along with the Davenport and Eaton company, however, the three Beach brothers then joined with their former "neighbors" to relocate in New Haven, leaving "Uncle Richard" and his family behind in Watertown.
This argument is elegant, subtle and seemingly supported by various circumstantial evidence. For such reasons it has received the most credence and acceptance of any yet offered to explain the Beach family's English origins, See: e.g., New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. 112, July, 1958, p. 227 ["Richard Beach, came from St. Albans, England, and settled in New Haven, Conn., in 1639, ..."] Its proponents since Elmer T. Beach have sought to further buttress the claim by detailing any number of seemingly significant "connections" between the three Beach brothers and the Hertfordshire group. For example, the legend of the "Elizabeth and Ann" has evolved so as to become the ship which transported Reverend Peter Prudden and his followers, presumably including Richard, John and Thomas Beach. As noted before, however, the "Elizabeth and Ann" made only one known voyage to Boston in 1635 - two years before Reverend Prudden and his group arrived. Moreover, if the three brothers did sail from England with Reverend Prudden in 1637, then they obviously did not accompany their "Uncle Richard" to Boston in 1635, which was an essential part of Elmer T. Beach's original argument. Another frequently cited "connection" is Thomas Beach's marriage to Sarah Platt, daughter of Deacon Richard Platt, born at Ware, Hertfordshire. Some have gone so far as to suggested the couple knew each other while still in England, or else met on the voyage over to New England. Thomas Beach's move to Milford in 1654 is likewise construed as evidence of his association with the former residents of Hertfordshire who founded the town in 1639.
Unfortunately, the entire argument is ultimately flawed since it seeks to prove the very assumptions upon which it is based, i.e., that John and Richard Beach of St. Albans were the father and uncle of Richard, John and Thomas Beach of New Haven. That other facts are or seem consistent with such assumptions does not itself prove the assumptions to be true. As noted above, there are also facts which seem to support the view the three bothers came from Yorkshire, provided one accepts the Yorkshire claim in the first instance. What is lacking in each case, however, is any evidence for believing the initial assumptions. On this point all that Elmer T. Beach could offer was that there appeared to be "no further record in England" of the John Beach born in 1590 nor the Richard Beach born in 1601. Even this, however, now appears in doubt.
The various Hertfordshire church records have been transcribed and printed, including that entitled Parish Register of St. Albans Abby, 1558-1689 edited by William Brigg and published in 1897. From this it appears one Innocent Beach married Dorothie Carter on February 26, 1592, and had the following children: John, baptized February 10, 1593 (not 1590); Annes, baptized October 19, 1595; Janes, baptized April 1, 1599; Richard, baptized September 27, 1601; and Jean or Joan, baptized January 8, 1603. Despite the discrepancy in the year of John's birth or baptism, this is clearly the John and Richard assumed to be the father and uncle of the three Beach brothers.
The St. Albans records do not, however, reveal that this John Beach ever married nor that he had any children. On the contrary, there is a record for the burial of a John Beach on July 29, 1614, which might well be this same man. If so, then the possibility of his being the father of the three Beach brothers of New Haven is clearly foreclosed. Likewise, the parish register records the marriage of a Richard Beach to one Alice Griffige in 1638. If this is the Richard baptized in 1601, however, then he could not possibly be the Richard Beach who settled in Watertown, Massachusetts, as of 1635.
Perhaps recognizing these difficulties with the original theory, some now suggest the Beaches of New Haven descend from other early Beach/Beech families in Hertfordshire. One often-repeated claim is that the three brothers are the sons of Thomas Beech, b.c. 1595, and possibly the one buried September 8, 1636, who married Joan (or Jean) Hill at St. Albans on October 5, 1618. Their children included Katerine, baptized October 15, 1619, buried July 7, 1622; Thomas, baptized December 15, 1622; Richard, baptized February 25, 1624/5; John, baptized April 22, 1627 (but his mother's name is given as Elizabeth in the record); Henry, baptized August 29, 1630; and Martha, baptized July 28, 1633.
To find three brothers named Richard, John and Thomas Beach, born in England in the early 1600's, does, at first glance, look promising. On closer inspection, however, a number of subtle but significant problems emerge. Consider, for example, the likely date of birth of the Richard baptized in 1624/5. He could not have been more than five years old at the time since his parents were themselves married in October, 1618. Moreover, two siblings were baptized previously, i.e., Katerine in 1619 and Thomas in 1622. It is therefore probable the Richard baptized in 1624/5 was born not more than two years earlier, i.e., between 1622 and 1625.
Recall now, however, that Richard Beach of New Haven first appears in 1639 when he was admitted a planter and freeman, with full civic and church privileges. If identical with the Richard baptized in 1624/5, Richard Beach of New Haven would have been only 14 to 17 years old in 1639; still a minor under English law and too young to enjoy the legal rights and social status of a New Haven planter. Moreover, the Hertfordshire records suggest the Richard baptized in 1624/5 remained in England where he married, on December 27, 1647, a Mary Jewell. If so, then he could not possibly be the same as the Richard Beach who was by this time well established in New England. Since it documented that the Thomas and Richard of New Haven were brothers, it likewise follows that Thomas of New Haven could not be the Thomas baptized in 1622.
In summary, the theory that Richard, John and Thomas Beach of New Haven originally came from Hertfordshire or were the sons of any particular person there is precisely that - mere theory which so far has not been proven. That there were numerous Beach families in Hertfordshire in the early 17th century or that the names Richard, John or Thomas can be found among them cannot, by itself, prove any relationship between such families and the Beaches of New Haven. The fact is there were any number of persons named Beach or Beech in a number of the counties of England during this period; any one of whom could, with equal validity, be claimed as the parents of the New Haven brothers, absent evidence to the contrary. While there is certainly no harm in compiling and considering data on the Beach families of England, the answer to the questions of the American family's "English Origins" is unlikely to be found in this manner. Only by taking what is known about the three Beach brothers themselves and working backwards is success a realistic possibility.
Ellenore
Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire and St. Albans, Hertfordshire, are all real places in England and the claim that Richard, John and Thomas Beach were born there can, at least in theory, be either proven or refuted. It also appears, however, that the Beach family has its own version of the mythical "El Doredo," in the form of the so-called town or seat of "Ellenore, England"; whose location is not shown on any map.
The proponent of this "Ellenore" claim appears to have been George P. Beach of Spiceland, Indiana, in the early 1900's. Thus, in a letter from George M. Beach of Chicago to George P. Beach, dated March 17, 1911, it is stated:
"... the mail brought a letter replying to one I had written to a correspondent, who had previously sent me their line, and stated that the three originals of New Haven came from "Ellenore, England". I had replied asking where that information came from. The letter which I received stated that it came from Geo. P. Beach of Spiceland, Ind. I have 89 pages of Beche, Beech and Beach family history, so I left my reply and looked for a town "Ellenore" in England. It was not in my Beach items. The cars then took me up to the Newberry Library and I called for English Gazettes. No "Ellnore" [sic] could be found, nor any name like it except Ellesmere. Histories of that region disclosed no one named Beach in any form. The day was passed in that search. Now please inform me where you obtained that information."
Reprinted in Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 324-325
Unfortunately, George P. Beach's reply, if any, is unknown. If he did reply, however, his explanation apparently did not satisfy George M. Beach who, in another letter to Ella Lewis, declared "... nowhere do I find the birthplace of Richard, John and Thomas; nor do I find any town or seat in England named Ellenore, which is named as their birthplace," James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 31. Given that no one else has claimed to have found it either, it seems safe to assume that "Ellenore" does not now and has never existed, unless it be in the hopes and dreams of those who would solve the mystery of the Beach brothers' ancestry.
Beach Moss and Iles
It was noted earlier that Thomas Beach(1) is on record as declaring Richard Beach(1) to be his brother. This is the kind of "hard" evidence upon which any competent genealogy should be based. Indeed, a person's own declarations as to his close family relationships with others is considered sufficiently trustworthy as to be readily admissible in a court as evidence, although such statements are otherwise hearsay. It is therefore somewhat surprising that all of the early family historians appear to have overlooked or ignored other statements preserved in the early records which help establish the Beach brothers' relationships to other New Haven settlers or they to them. Not until 1926 did the noted genealogist, Donald Lines Jacobus, draw such statements and other evidence together into a theory which is undoubtedly the best hope for ever establishing the three Beach brothers' true parentage.
John Moss was an early settler in New Haven and was later instrumental in the founding of Wallingford, Connecticut, where he died in 1707 at the age of 103 years. He is said by one competent authority to have come from Catheridge parish, Wiltshire, which seems most likely, Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England 1620-1650. Others - noting that Moss appears to have suggested the name "Wallingford" for the Connecticut town - believe him to have come from the English village of the same name in Berkshire, See: e.g., Wallingford Tercentenary Celebration Committee, Founders and Descendants of Wallingford, Connecticut, pp. 24-25.
John Moss was among those who signed the "Fundamental Agreement" at New Haven on June 4, 1639, followed by John Charles, known to be Moss' brother-in-law, followed immediately by Richard Beach(1). These three names appear in precisely the same order in the list of persons and estates in New Haven in 1641, and a map of the town for that year shows them to have occupied adjoining lots, See: Atwater, History of the Colony of New Haven. On June 6, 1648, John Moss conveyed to Richard Beach over an acre of meadow. A few months later, both men together conveyed land to Matthew Moulthrop, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7; Jacobus, Mary (Royce) Beach, p. 8. Years later, when Thomas Beach's son, John Beach(2), was left an orphan, he either went or was sent to Wallingford to live with John Moss. Finally, on February 8, 1689/90, Moss conveyed to his "well beloved cousin," John Beach(2), Thomas(1), over 61 acres of land; the consideration being "naturall affection," Jacobus, Mary (Royce) Beach, p. 10.
William and Thomas Iles (Eyles) were also early New Haven settlers. William Iles died sometime prior to March, 1647, when Richard Beach(1) took charge of his estate. The inventory shows that Iles was somewhat indebted to Goodman Charles, John Moss' brother-in-law, and that Moss himself owed the estate a small amount. The records also reveal that John Beach(1) acted as surety for his brother Richard, so that the latter might retain the Iles estate in his custody during its administration. Finally, on May 4, 1647, Richard Beach(1) complained that one Mullyner had not settled an obligation which was owed to William Iles, whom Richard Beach described in the record as his "cozn.," Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7.
In his monograph entitled Mary (Royce) Beach, Donald Lines Jacobus reviewed such facts and concluded that:
"... the hypothesis seems reasonable that John Moss had two sisters, probably older than himself, of whom one may have been mother of Richard, John and Thomas Beach, and the other may have been mother of William and Thomas Iles. A third sister may have been wife of John Charles, though it is equally possible that Moss married a sister of Charles."
So far this theory, or any variant of it, has yet to be proven as established fact. If the question of the three Beach brother's ancestry is to be answered, however, it will most likely be through an examination of the available English records for evidence of the intermarriage of persons named Beach, Moss, Iles and possibly Charles. Even a cursory review of Wiltshire records discloses an abundance of persons named Moss or its variants, e.g., Mosse, Morse, Moryse, Moryce, Mouryce, Mourysee, Morsse, Morris, etc. Iles and its variants are likewise common, e.g., Isles, Ayle, Ellys, Eyles, Allies, Eales, etc. While the Beach name seems less common, it or its variants are also found, e.g., Beache, Becke, Beake, etc. There is even record of the marriage of a "Thomas Alye" to "Eyedeth Beach" at Salisbury, St. Edmund parish, Wiltshire, on May 26, 1561, although this seems too early to be of immediate interest.
CONCLUSION
For those hoping to find answers to the questions surrounding the origin of the Beach family of New Haven, the foregoing discussion has probably proved disappointing. All of the older explanations and claims have been shown wanting in one or more respects and - with the exception of the Moss-Iles connection - little new has been proposed. It is respectfully submitted, however, that if it has served no other purpose, this review should prompt present and future researchers to view the entire question anew, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, and to redirect their energies toward more promising areas of inquiry where the answers will one day, it is hoped, be found.
The author would welcome any comment, question or criticism of the foregoing discussion, including any information not cited above concerning the three Beach brothers' ancestry.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-----, Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, New York, 1957.
-----, Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut, The American Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts [also New York, New York and Chicago, Illinois], 1919.
Atwater, Edward E., History of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, The Journal Publishing Company, Meriden, Connecticut, 1912.
Banks, C. E., Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 1962 [Reprint of the 1929 edition].
Beach, Alfred H. and Beach, Cora M., editors, The Beach Family Magazine, Casper, Wyoming, and Flint, Michigan, 1926 to 1932 [publication ceased after Vol. IV, No. 1].
Beach, Elmer Taylor, Beach In America, Ihling Bros. and Evarand Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1923.
Beach, Helen, and Beach, Mary E., The Descendants of Thomas Beach of Milford, Connecticut, The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1912.
Beach, Joseph P., A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family, Cheshire, Connecticut, undated typescript. In the collection of the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut.
Beach, Rebecca Donaldson, The Reverend John Beach and His Descendants, The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1898.
Bond, Henry, Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, 2 volumes, 1860.
Brigg, William, Parish Register of St. Albans Abby, 1558-1689, 1897.
Crayon, J[oseph] Percy, Rockaway Records of Morris County, New Jersey, no publication data given, 1902.
Davis, Charles H. S., History of Wallingford, Connecticut, published by the author, Mount Tom Printing House, Wallingford, Connecticut, 1870.
Farmer, John, A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, Carter, Andrews & Company, Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1829.
Hinman, Royal R., A Catalogue of Names of the First Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, E. Gleason, printer, Hartford, Connecticut, 1846.
Hoadly, Charles J., editor, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649, Case, Tiffany & Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1857.
Hotten, John C., The Original Lists of Persons of Quality: Emigrants Etc. who went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600-1700, second edition, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 1962 [Reprint of 1880 edition].
Jacobus, Donald Lines, Mary (Royce) Beach, The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, New Haven, Connecticut, 1926 [Reprinted from the New England Historical and Genealogical Record for January, 1926, with additional data on the Beach and Royce families].
James, Alma Lewis, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, Blade Publishing Company, Fairbury, Illinois, 1936.
Munsel, Joel, et al, American Ancestry: Giving the Names and Descent in the Male Line of Americans Whose Ancestry Settled in the United States Previous to the Declaration of Independence A.D. 1776, in twelve volumes, Joel Munsell's Sons, 1887-1889 [Reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 1968].
New England Historic Genealogical Society, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 101 Newbury Street, Boston, Massachusetts.
New Haven Historical Society, New Haven Town Records, 1649-1662, New Haven, Connecticut.
New York Genealogical Biographical Society, New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, 122 East 58th Street, New York, New York.
Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, in four volumes, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1860-62.
Virkus, Frederick A., editor, Compendium of American Genealogy, in seven volumes, The Virkus Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1925-1942.
Wallingford Tercentenary Celebration Committee, Founders and Descendants of Wallingford, Connecticut, printed typescript, no publication data, Wallingford, Connecticut, 1970.