BOTTOM         BACK

NOTE:  See the ADDENDUM at the end of this account for a discussion of evidence that Richard Beach¹ died later than previously believed!

RICHARD BEACH¹ OF NEW HAVEN

A Biography By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.

Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring, 1994)

    Richard Beach¹, the "Immigrant" or "Pilgrim", first finds mention in the records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven on June 4, 1639. Nothing of his life prior to that time is known with certainty, although unsubstantiated claims abound. According to one source "It appears that Richard was born about 1611..."; presumably based on the belief that "In 1691 he died... age about 80 years", Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 5, 7. His place of birth and the identity of his parents have been the subject of much speculation, See: E. Beach, "Beach of New Haven", Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 31-37; Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 50-60, for a comprehensive discussion of various claims and theories concerning the origins and ancestry of the New Haven Beach family. Otherwise, it is established by the ancient records that he was (1) brother to Thomas Beach¹ of New Haven, (2) "cozn." [i.e. cousin] to William and Thomas Iles or Eyles, also of New Haven, and (3) was in some way related to John Moss, one of the founders of Wallingford, Connecticut. It also generally accepted that John Beach¹ of New Haven was yet another brother of both Richard and Thomas, although the evidence for this is largely circumstantial.

    Much confusion still persists because of earlier genealogists' mis-identification of Richard Beach of New Haven with one Richard Beach of Watertown, Massachusetts, 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..."]; Bond, Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, p. 679; Hinman, A Catalogue of the Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, pp. 163-164. While it is now clear the two men were separate and distinct, one still encounters claims that Richard Beach of New Haven came from England in 1638/39 on the ship "Elizabeth and Ann", when in fact that vessel was the one which transported Richard Beach of Watertown to Boston in 1635. Other sources, following the lead of Elmer T. Beach's Beach In America, published in 1923, recognize the distinction between the two Richard Beaches while still suggesting the existence of some relationship between them, such as uncle and nephew, but such theories have yet to be proven.

    Even the first record to Richard Beach at New Haven has generated a fair amount of confusion. The entry for June 4, 1639, reads:

"... John Clarke being absent when the couent w[as] made, doth now manefest his consent to itt, allso Richard Beach, Andrew Low, Goodmn Banister, Ar[thur] Halbidge, John Potter, Robt Hill, John Brockett and John Johnson, these persons being nott [ad]mitted planters when the couent was made doth now express their consent to itt."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 12-13.

In order that this reference may be properly understood, something must be said of the history of the New Haven colony generally.

On April 25, 1637, some 500 Puritans, headed by the Reverend 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. After providing for their immediate physical needs, the "planters" or "proprietors", i.e., those who had invested in the colony as stockholders, turned their attention to the question of "settling Ciuill Governmt". At the urging of Davenport a "plantation covenant" or agreement was reached in 1638 to make the Scriptures the supreme law of the community. Before this could be implemented, however, it was necessary to "gather" or organize the first church. A group of twelve were selected for this purpose who, after a suitable period of prayer and consideration, chose from among themselves the first seven church members. These seven, in turn, elected their church officers and established the qualifications by which others would be admitted to fellowship.

    This done, a committee was then appointed to organize the colony's government itself, culminating in a "general meetinge" of "all the free planters assembled together" on June 4, 1639. Here two questions were propounded and voted on, the first being "Whether the Scripturs doe holde a perfect rule for the directio: and gouernmt of all men in all duet(ies) wch they are to performe to God and men..." Not surprisingly, all expressed their assent to this principle. The second question concerned whether the assembled planters would reaffirm their earlier "plantation covenent," which again"... was assented vnto by all, and no man gainsaid itt,..." Taken together, these covenents and understandings were known as the "foundamentall agreemt", to which the assembled colonists signed their names; the signature of Richard Beach following those of his kinsman, John Moss, and Moss' brother-in-law, John Charles, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 17.

    As the entry first quoted above makes clear, however, eight of the New Haven freemen, including Richard Beach, were specifically asked to express their consent to the initial "planation covenent". In the case of John Clarke this was because of his "being absent when the couent was made..." Based on this Elmer T. Beach and others have suggested that Richard Beach was likewise absent when these preliminary agreements were reached in 1638. Thus:

"... it appears from the record itself that he was not present at the first meeting when the matter was first talked over. For some reason or other he had been absent at the first meeting, as was the case with six or seven others, possibly they had been out on military duty, for a guard of seven or eight was constantly on duty night and day, to prevent surprises by Indians."

Beach, Beach In America, p. 38.

This author's own reading of the entry, however, leads to a wholly different conclusion. Of the eight men seperately asked to affirm the plantation covenant, only Clarke is described as "absent" at the earlier meeting. As for Richard Beach and the others, the reason given for requiring their separate assent is that "these persons being nott [ad]mitted planters when the couent was made..." This suggests Richard Beach was in New Haven as early as 1638, but had either not paid in his share to become a "proprietor" [stockholder] and/or had yet to satisfy the requirements of church membership necessary to participate in the colony's civic life.

    The old New Haven records thereafter contain numerous entries related to Richard Beach. Many of these provide interesting insights into everyday life in the colony, including various disputes and controversies between the settlers themselves or with their new "theocratic" government. Consider, for example, the next reference:

"At a Court holden the 3d of Aprill, 1640 - Itt is ordered thatt John Mosse, Timothy Forde and Richard Beach shall pay each of them 1s fine for trees wch they did fall disorderly."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 31-32.

One can well imagine the scene - Richard Beach, his kinsman John Moss, and Timothy Ford setting out to fell trees, either for lumber or firewood. Most likely working with broad axes, they cut down more than they could use, or else left behind large piles of brush, perhaps blocking a path. Someone then complained to the authorities and all three found themselves hauled into court where each was docked a shilling, proving in the process that "visible sainthood" and status as a "free burgess" or "planter" did not guarantee the "orderly" felling of trees.

    Several months later, however, the situation was reversed, with Richard Beach giving testimony in a case against one Arthur Halbridge, accused of false measure in the sale of lime used in building the town mill. Thus, at a general court held November 4, 1640:

"Edward Adams testified vpon oath thatt the note of informaco: wch he had formrlly delivered into the court [concerning lime wch Arther Halbidg hath delivered to the mill] is true, wch when he had done, Arther Halbidge excepted against itt, thinking to prove the said Edward Adams a pjured pson. Butt Goodman Pigge, Rich: Beach and John Wakefield affirmed the truth of what Edward Adams had testified , [though the said Artur Holbidg did conceive they would have contradicted Edw: Adams his testimony], itt was therefore ordered thatt the said Arther should pay two folde for all the want of measure thatt is charged vpon him, and from henceforthe take noe worke by the great, nor burne any lime, to sell."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 46.

    Unfortunately, it appears that Richard Beach failed to profit by Arthur Halbridge's example since, two years later, at a court held August 5, 1642, we find:

"Richard Beach for nott perfor'ing covenant in the worke wch he undertooke to doe att the mill, wch he was to doe strongly and substantially, butt did itt weakely and sleightly as was proved by the testimony of John Wakefield the miller, himselfe allso nott denyinge itt; Itt was ordered that he should make good the damage butt because the damage is not justly known what itt is, Mr. Goodyear, and Mr. Gregson are to [ve]ew the worke, and consider off and sett downe the damage by his [defec]tive workmanship..."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 75.

We can forgive this dereliction of duty, however, since at the time he was likely preoccupied by matters more important than the mill work, i.e., his marriage to Catherine or Katherine Cook[e], the widow of Andrew Hull, and the birth of the couple's first child.

    The exact date for this event is not certain. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, p. 144, says "Richard, New Haven 1639,... m.a. 1640 the wid. of Andrew Hull,..." Hibbard's History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 418, says "m. in 1640-1, Catherine Cook;..." On the other hand, R. R. Hinman, in his Catalogue of the Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, p. 163, states "BEACH, RICHARD, a New Haven planter, and unmarried in 1643."

    The question is further complicated by a undated tax list for early New Haven, said by some to have been made in April, 1641, but appearing in the published records with entries for 1643, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 92. This list includes both Andrew Hull and Richard Beach, despite the fact Hull is said to have died in 1640. Hull's household is shown as containing four persons, presumably being himself, his wife Catherine, and their two daughters, with an estate valued at 40 pounds and including 35 acres of land. In contrast, Richard Beach's household is shown as containing only one person, presumably himself, with an estate valued at 20 pounds and including 12 acres of land. But in any case it is clear Richard Beach was married by late 1641, based on the fact the couple's first child, Mary, is said to have been born in June, 1642. Moreover, the town records for February 8, 1643/44, explicity state that "Richard Beach hath ingaged his house and lott to secure a former agreemt in reference to the children of Andrew Hull, late deceased," Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 124.

    Further references to Richard Beach in the old New Haven records are as follows: On January 4, 1643, he and several others were fined one shilling each "for late coming to trayne," i.e., military drill, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 122. The following year, on July 1, 1644, Richard Beach and all other planters signed the so-called "Oath of Fidelity", pledging loyalty to the colonial givernment, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 137-139. Thereafter, at a court held October 6, 1645, he was again the subject of a complaint by a fellow colonist:

"Michaell Palmer complayned that Richard Beech did promise to pay him a debt of 35s in beaver but had fayled.

Richard Beech acknowledged the debt & his promise to pay beaver, but professed he could not gett beaver.

The court ordered that Richard Beech should pay the debt in some other pay soe as it may equall beaver, to the said Palmers satisfaction (wth damadges for forbearance,) before the next court, or elce an execution [i.e., seizure of property] shall goe forth agaynst him."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 170.

Later that same year, at a court held December 3, 1645, he was witness in a claim by Stephen Medcalfe against one Francis Linley. The latter had sold Medcalfe his gun, representing it to have been recently repaired and in good shape, when in fact it had a defective breech. After losing an eye when the gun barrel exploded, Medcalfe brought suit for damages. In the course of the trial "Richard Beech affirmed that Francis offered him that gun to sell & demanded 20s, telling him to his best remmembrance that it had a new britch [i.e., breech]," Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 178. Since the accident might just as easily have been fatal, one wonders how history might have been changed had Richard Beach purchased the weapon instead of Medcalfe.

    As noted above, Richard Beach's marriage to the widow Hull was accompanied by an agreement between the couple, sanctioned if not required by the New Haven court, to guarantee Hull's two daughters their share of their father's estate. As security for his promises Richard Beach had pledged his house and lands. As the old town records reveal, however, this apparently caused considerable trouble and inconvenience, requiring him to appear several times before the authorities to explain his actions or else petition for relief. In January 1645/46, for example, it is recorded that:

"Richard Beech hath sould his owne howse to bro: Wm Pecke & whereas the said howse was sugadged for the securitye of the portions of the children of Andrew Hull, (whose widdow he marryed,) in liew thereof he hath now ingadged his howse, barne, cellar & well, vallewed at 40L wth the 7 acres of land on wch it stands, the howse, barne & celler being compleatly finished being built wth bricke & stonne as he promiseth & so kept in repaire & the land in hart for securitye of the portions of the said children."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 184

Adding to such difficulties was the fact his cousin, William Iles, had or would soon die, with Richard Beach serving as the administrator of his estate. Thus, at a court held February 2, 1646/47:

"Ricd Beech informed the court that his cozn Wm Iles had done some work for Mr. Mullyner, & several times he had desired to have had it issued but he hindered it, & now latly he refusseing to make payment for what was don, he had him warned to the court to answere it.

Mr. Mullyner told Ricd Beech, if he would prove the bargaine & pformance of it, he would pay him.

John England said he was to vnderpin his howse, make a back to a chimney, stone a well & get the stons, for three pownds; but to his knowledge he had no time set him for the doeing of it; he being at work at Mr. Shirmans, whose necesjtj was very great, he desired Wm Iles to get some boddy els to help hm, but in fiue severall times they came & things were not ready, & when they had don his howse & almost finished the well, insomuch that there was 20 inches water, 7 weeks after Michaelmas; after that, Jno England would have put a caske in the bottom, & dugg it deeper, but Mr. Mullyner would have pswaded him the spring were risen 2 foote in the well, when it was otherwayes in Goodmn Wards well, as was tryed, & he hath held them of [i.e., off] wth delayes, that it is yet vnfinished...

The centence of the court was, that Mr. Mullyner pay 55s vnto John England and Rich Beech, (and that he pay 5s) besids the chardges vnto them, Jno England finishing it."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 294.

Moreover, the need to post security as fiduciary of Isles' estate placed further burdens on Richard Beach's land holdings. Thus, at a court held March 2, 1646/47:

"Wm Iles his inventory was presented to the court, wherevpon the Gor propownded that Rich Beech give in securyty to the content of this court, or els pay into the treasurers hands the vallew of the inventory. Bro. Anthony Thompson and bro. Clarke are desired to view the land Rich Beech presents for securyty at home. Also orderd that the secretary wright a letter to the towne where Wm Iles lyved, vnto his brother, and that Richard Beech should bring into the court what chardges he hath bin at in gathering the inventory."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 300-301.

    A particularly interesting reference is that contained in the records of a court held the following week, on March 10, 1646/47. As students of early New England history are aware, seating in the church or "meetinghouse" was as formal an affair as admission to church membership itself. Seats were assigned by a committee, based on such factors as a member's social status, wealth and age; with the more prominent members sitting closer to the front. Thus, on this date, "The names of people as they were seated in the meetinghowse were read in court & it was ordered they should be recorded wch was as followeth:..." Not surprisingly, the first seats in the middle section were reserved for the governor, deputy governor and others of high station. A similar pattern was followed for the other two sections, described as "In the crosse seats at the end" and "On the other side of the dore." As the record discloses, Richard Beach was chosen to occupy the second row of seats "On the other side of the dore", consistent with what today might be called his solid "middle class" standing. In like fashion, "Goody Beach" occupied a corresponding seat in the sections set aside for female members, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 302-304.

    As noted above, Anthony Thompson was to inspect Richard Beach's land to determine its value as security for the Iles' estate. Thompson evidently liked what he saw, or else Richard Beach was in need of funds, for two months later, at a court held May 4, 1647, note was made of:

"An entry of 5 acr. 1/4, 12 rodd of land lyeing on the west side abutting eastward vpon a highway by the west meddow, westward vpon the second devizion of land on the west side, allyenated [alienated, i.e., transfered] from Richard Beech to Anthony Thompson."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 307.

On that same day it was also recorded:

"Rich: Beech propownded to the court for helpe, Mr. Mullyner not paying to hm what the court ordred hm to pay for his cozn , Wm Iles. The court propownded that hee would stay till another court, wch he inclyned to doe.

Further, whereas Anthony Thompson & John Clarke were to view some land of Rich Beeches for securjtie of Wm Iles his estate, they thinke the land is not securytye, therefore the court gave him time till the next court to provide sufficient securytye, or els to pay it into the treasurer."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 310.

The time allowed to post this security proved insufficient, however, for at a court held on December 7, 1647:

"Richard Beech dissiered of the courte that he might, till further order, retaine in his hands the estate of William Iles, deceased; but he being not fitted to give in sufficient securetie, it was respited till another courte."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 345.

Unfortunately, this further "respite" or adjournment likewise proved inadequate for, at the court held one month later, on January 4, 1647/48, it is recorded that Richard Beach, among others:

"... being all warned seasonably [i.e., timely notified], made no appearanc, thoughe the court satt a good space of time. The court gave order that they should be warned to the next courte, to answer for this neglecte."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 356.

But just when it might seem Richard Beach stood in danger of a charge of contempt, help came forward in the person of his brother, John Beach. Thus, at the court held February 1, 1647/48:

"Richard Beech dissiered of the courte that he might retayne the estate of William Iles in his hand till further order, wch is as apeares by the inventorie 13L: 17S: 00D: the courte tould hime vpon securetie he mighte; he offered himeselfe and 9L worthe of land, as it was valewed by Anthony Tompson & John Clarke as apeares in a note vnder there hands. The land is 22 acrs of vpland in the second devission, and 5 acrs of meddowe in the west meddowe, and 2 acrs of vpland in the quarter at his house, and for the other 5L John Beech becometh suretie wth hime, as the said John Beech declareth in courte, wch the courte accepted, wth this proviso, that if John Beech should dye or leaue the towne, Richard Beech put in other securitye to the courts satisfaction."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 364.

    Still, with his property now pledged to secure both the Iles' estate and the two Hull children's inheritance, Richard Beach apparently sought to acquire additional lands. The records for the court held June 6, 1648, reveal that:

"John Moss passeth ouer to Richard Beech 1 acr, 1 quarter & 14 rod of meddowe, lying in the west meddowe, one end abutting on the West River, the other end running into a cove in the vpland, betwixt the meddowe of Richard Beech & James Russell."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 384.

As noted above, John Moss is believed to have been related to the three Beach brothers, most likely their uncle, so it is possible this property was a gift. Years later, for example, Moss is on record as coveying to John Beach2, Thomas1, the nephew of Richard Beach, a parcel of land in Wallingford, Connecticut, in consideration of the "natural affection" he felt toward his "cousin".

    In addition to this acquisition from John Moss, Richard Beach also sought a grant of land from the colony itself. Thus, at a court held January 31, 1648/49:

"Richard Beech desired a small pec [piece] of meddow in a cove on ye west side next his owne, but it was said in ye court that it is lotted out allreadie."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 427-428.

Perhaps because this parcel was unavailable, Richard Beech chose instead to dispose of the piece of meadow he did own. The court held February 6, 1648/49 accordingly noted that:

"Richard Beech passeth ouer to Mathew Moulthrop one acr & a half of meddow lying, 1 acr of it in ye west meddow on this sid ye river, fronts vpon Mr. Lambertons vpland, ye reare to ye river, a highway through ye meddow to ye north, Mathew Molthrop on ye south, 1/2 acr in Sollatary Cove not laid out."

Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 430-431.

The foregoing is the last reference to Richard Beach in Charles Hoadly's Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, published in 1857. Based on this fact Elmer T. Beach would later write:

"A vail of partial obscurity covers his whereabouts and doings between 1648, when he disappears from the active records of New Haven Colony, and 1660."

Beach, Beach In America, p. 54

Elmer T. Beach further relied on this apparent final reference to support his theory that Richard Beach of New Haven and Richard Beach of Watertown, Massachusetts, were related; the former leaving Connecticut c. 1648 to stay with his "uncle" in Massachusetts until 1660, when he would return, See: Beach, Beach In America, pp. 138-139. It appears, however, that Elmer T. Beach was ignorant of or else did not have access to Franklin Bowditch Dexter's Ancient Town Records: New Haven Town Records, 1649-1662, published in 1917 by the New Haven Colony Historical Society and containing material not previously included by Hoadly. This source clearly shows Elmer T. Beach's basic assumption - that Richard Beach left New Haven c. 1648 - to be unfounded. On the contrary, he remained there at least until late 1657, as these further records reveal.

    At a court held April 1, 1651, the question of Andrew Hull's two children again arose:

"Richard Hull is to be warned to the next Court aboute his fence: and to give in security for Richard Beech for so much as his house and land is worth, wch was ingaged for the portions of ye children of Andrew Hull."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 69

While the record is somewhat obscure, Richard Hull is thought to have been a younger brother of Andrew. It further seems likely that, as uncle of the two Hull children, he served as surety for Richard Beach on the latter's pledge, much as John Beach had done earlier in connection with the estate of William Iles. If so, then this entry may mean Richard Beach had recently sold his house and land, requiring Richard Hull to post other security in its place.

    On the other hand, it is clear that Richard Beach had not yet moved totally from New Haven, but may have instead relocated to the "suburbs", for at a court held June 7, 1652, "It was propounded that new viewers for the fences might be chosen for the yeare ensuing, and accordingly it was done:...", with John Thomas and Richard Beach selected "... for the quarters from Millford highway to the sea side;...", Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 132. Responsible for seeing that all fences in his district were kept in good repair, to prevent livestock from running free and/or damaging crops, he lost little time in discharging his duties, for at a court held December 7, 1652:

"Richard Beech, one of the viewers for the suburbs quarter, complained that there is a parcell of fence in their quarter wch the old viewers informed them belonged to severall men, vizd. Edward Parker, William Peche, John Wakefield, Mathew Camfield; but they do not owne it. He was told the quarter must looke after it, and see it be issued; else it must come to the Court againe, and that will be chargeable to those that are found the offendors/"

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 156.

    It was also in this year that Richard Beach found himself a witness in the celebrated case of his brother, Thomas Beach, versus Edward Camp. According to the records of a court held November 2, 1652:

"Thomas Beech declareth that he went to Richard Sperries farme vpon some occasion betwixt his brother Richard Beech and himselfe, and found their Edward Camp, Ralph Lines, and Richard Beech: it seemes they were talking of him when he came in, for Edw: Camp said when he saw him, here hee comes;..."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 151-153.

After a heated argument between Camp and himself, Thomas Beach left to go home. Camp followed him into the woods, however, and assaulted Thomas Beach with a stick, causing injuries which the governor himself would later see and describe, "... Thom: Beech hauing showed him his arme, and the effeccts of them he found in his body, being sore beatten aboute ye backe." Although not witnessing the actual assault, Richard Beach and the others "... all testified that there was a quarrelling betwixt them in the house, and that after Thom: Beech was gone, Edward Camp eate some victuall and went out, saying he would goe fetch his gune wch he had left in the woods..." Ultimately Camp confessed, pleading in mitigation that "... he did it in a passion, but it was but wth a small sticke that he strucke him wth, that he thought would not hurt him." Curiously, Elmer T. Beach was aware of this incident between Thomas Beach and Edward Camp, Beach In America, p. 29, but was apparently ignorant of its date, since otherwise he would not have asserted Richard Beach "disappeared" from the New Haven records after 1648.

    We may assume the administration of William Iles' estate was, by this time, concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned. There are, in any event, no further references to it in any of the old town records as published. Such was still not the case, however, with Richard Beach's promises concerning his two step-daughters, children of Andrew Hull. Thus, at a court held June 6, 1654:

"The court being informed that Richard Beech is to goe away from this Towne, called him to show how he intended the two children his wife had before hee married her (wch was Andrew Hulls) should haue their portions paid, wch is fifteene pounds ten shillings a peece, as appears by Ingagment vnder his & his wiues hand before marriage: he said he intended the house he liued in and the land should be part, and two cowes & a steere of two yeres old, and desired the Court to appoint some to view the house and land, and he hoped he should propound that wch should giue the Court satisfaction: ..."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 214.

Perhaps because of this need to once more post security, Richard Beach again engaged in some land transactions at this same meeting, the court noting:

"James Russell passeth ouer to Richard Beech one acr, one third of meddow, in ye west meddow, on the further side of ye riuer, in a Cove, neere ye Club, in ye subuerbs quarter, betwixt the meddow of Mr Rutherford and the meddow of Richard Beech that he bought of John Moss:/"

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 214.

Try as he might, however, Richard Beach seemingly could not escape the burden which his pledge to his two step-children appears to have become. At a court held September 5, 1654, it is recorded that "The business of Richard Beech was againe presented...", Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 220-221. Once more he was told it was necessary to post additional security to insure that Andrew Hull's daughters would receive their share of their father's estate. Thereafter, at a court held February 6, 1654/55, we find him again disposing of part of his holdings:

"Richard Beech passeth ouer to John Wakefield (wth Peter Mallaries consent who bought the land wth him) fiue acrs of vpland in the subverbes qrt, ..."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 230

Still, it was not enough. Apparently now desperate, he petitioned for "a meeting of the perticuler court privately" where it was noted:

"Vpon the desire of Richard Beech, the Court mett at the Governors house, the 15th of December, 1654, to consider how the portions of the chilldren of Andrew Hull, Hannah and Sarah, should be paide; ..."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 228.

There it was decided that the house and lands which had belonged to Andrew Hull were not worth enough to pay each child the 15 pounds 10 shillings they were entitled to receive under the agreement between Richard Beach and his wife. Consequently, the court held that 5 pounds should be abated, with Hannah and Sarah Hull to instead receive 13 pounds each.

    Even this amount apparently proved difficult for Richard Beach to pay, however, requiring the sale of still more land. Thus, at a court held March 6, 1654/55, it is recorded:

"Richard Beech passeth ouer to Jervice Boykin six acrs of land in the subuerbs qrt, ... Jervice Boykin did engage before the Court to paye forty shillings that he owes to Richard Beech (the said Richard being present and consenting) to the Court at Michaelmas come twelve moneth, wch will be ye 29th of Septem: in ye yeare 1656, in good currant cuntry pay at cuntry price, for the vse of Sarah Hull, his wiues daughter:/"

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 231.

In other words, the proceeds of this sale were to be paid into court, in lieu of the land itself as security.

    Finally, at a court held November 3, 1657, Richard Beach is again mentioned in the ancient town records; this time as "attorney" for a Mr. Stendam or Steendam, a Dutchman, accused of failing to keep his fences in repair, allowing his livestock to enter a neighboring field and damage the crop growing there. In presenting the case:

"Richard Beech, attorney for Mr Stendam, said that Mr Stendam tooke notice of that fenc to be his, and knew it was defective, and had agreed wth men to make it new, and hath paid them all or part for it, but they neglected and did not performe according to promise,..."

Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 327-328.

The court held, however, that this was not a defense to the neighbor's claim, although it might provide the basis for Stendam to being his own suit against the workmen.

    This, then, is the last active reference to Richard Beach in the published records of the town. It may well be that he left New Haven soon after or simply that he managed to avoid further public notice. According to the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7, "It is said by some that Richard moved from New Haven to New London, but the records there do not disclose that he lived or had property." Elmer T. Beach, in his Beach In America, p. 54, offered the suggestion that "He may have resided in Wallingford, where he was one of the proprietors,..." but his purchase of land there was not until 1670 at the earliest. Whatever the case he does not find mention again until February 6, 1660, when he purchased of Thomas Wheeler "one house lot with all the buildings upon it" in the town of Stratford, Connecticut, Orcutt, A History of the Old Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 245.

    As suggested by the New Haven record for June 6, 1654, Richard Beach had probably considered this move for some time, perhaps in consultation with his brother John who likewise bought property at Stratford a few months later, on May 21, 1660. In 1662 Richard Beach acquired still more Stratford property, including one five acre piece "on west point of the Neck, butted south upon the meadow called Mills' Lordship," Orcutt, A History of the Old Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 245. By now in his mid-40's or more, he perhaps felt himself too old to actively farm, instead choosing to become the keeper of an "ordinary" or tavern. The Stratford records thus disclose:

"February 12, 1663 - At a lawful meeting Richard Beach demanded in consideration of keeping the ordinary, six acars of swamp at the wood end, and when his urgent ocasions in that imployment will not permitt, to be freed from trayning himselfe, to which proposition the towne by vote granted, provided he would keepe the said ordinary and provide for strangers entertaynment; they also granted he should have payd him backe 2 fines which were taken of him before this tyme."

Stratford Town Records, Vol. 1, p. 145, as quoted in Wilcoxson, History of Stratford, Connecticut, 1639-1939, p. 217.

    From this point onward, however, the chronology of his life again becomes somewhat confusing. It is claimed by some that Richard Beach acquired two lots in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, together with a nearby farm, as early as 1665, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7; Crayon, Rockaway Records of Morris County, New Jersey, p. 160. If so he probably did not move there immediately for on January 7, 1667, he served as witness to an agreement between the inhabitants of the town of Stamford, Connecticut, and two Indian "sagamores" or minor chiefs, i.e., Taphance son of Ponus and Powahay son of Onax, son of Ponus, confirming their fathers' earlier deed of land to the town in 1645, See: Huntington, History of Stamford, Connecticut, pp. 97-99, where this agreement is reproduced in full. How or why Richard Beach became involved in this transaction, and the precise role he played, remain something of a mystery. Family historian Joseph P. Beach is said to have believed that he served "... as a commissioner to meet the Indians on matters of the Colony...", Beach, Beach In America, p. 135, but the basis for this is unclear.

    Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. I, p. 144, states that Richard Beach "rem. [i.e., removed] to New London 1667", but as noted earlier the records of that town reportedly make no mention of him. Others assert he next moved to Wallingford, noting his purchase of land there. According to the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7, "... in 1670 it appears in the Wallingford Records that he drew lot 34, 6 acres across the street north of the present Congregational church..." This seems too early, however, since his name is not on the list of the town's original proprietors, Davis, History of Wallingford, pp. 85-86. Hibbard's History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 418, states simply that he was "in Wallingford, 1672" which is probably more accurate for the date of his purchase, but his actual residence there is doubtful. Instead, it is now believed the Wallingford property was bought either as an investment or as a home for his son Azariah, who in fact occupied the lot in 1673, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8.

    Meanwhile, one authority shows Richard Beach to have been a party to litigation in Long Island, New York, in 1669. Thus, in Bergen, Register of the Early Settlers of Kings ounty, Long Island, N.Y., pp. 24 and 235, it is stated:

"BEACH, RICHARD, was sued for debt May 4, 1669, in the court of sessions by John Rateo, as per Gd [i.e., Gravesend] rec."

"RATEO, JOHN. A suit was brought against him Apl. 4, 1669, in the court of sessions in Gd by Richard Beach for debt, as per Gd rec."

These two references - apparently unknown to any previous historian of the family - are somewhat confused. In one the month is April and Richard Beach is the plaintiff; in the other the month is May and he is the defendant. Contrary to Bergen's suggestion, however, neither is proof that Richard Beach was a "settler" or resident of Long Island at the time. Since King's County is but a short sail across Long Island Sound from Connecticut, it would not be unusual for a resident of New Haven, Stratford or other town near the coast to have had business dealings there. In this case, however, the deal between Richard Beach and John Rateo apparently went "sour", requiring one or the other to apply to the court in Gravesend for relief. Given that a New York tribunal would not ordinarily have jurisdiction over a Connecticut resident, the fact the proceedings were initiated there suggests that Richard Beach was most likely the aggreived party, bringing suit where Rateo himself lived. Further research is clearly required, however, before more can be said.

    Exactly when Richard Beach finally did move to New Jersey is, as noted, also uncertain. Hibbard, History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 418, says "in Elizabeth, N.J., 1673-74"; however, he does not appear on the Dutch census of the town in 1673. According to one old history of Elizabeth:

"His house-lot contained 13 acres, 13 by 14 chains, bounded , E., and W., by highways; N., by Crane's brook; and S., by Evan Salisbury. He had, also, 30 acres of upland, on Crane's brook, adjoining Barnabas Wines, and William Cramer; also, 50 acres of upland, on "Beaches brook," adjoining John Little, William Pardon, Nathaniel Tuthill, and Stephen Crane; also, 10 acres of meadow on the S. side of Thompson's Creek; in all, 102 acres. His house-lot he sold, Mar. 31, 1684, to Mary, the widow of James Mitchell; and Mar. 31, 1688, he sold all his lands in E. Town, to the widow Agatha White, who, 16 days later, resold them to William Darbie of E. Town. He removed, it is thought, to Morris Co., where many families, supposed to be his descendants, are now to be found."

Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, New Jersey, p. 169.

    Of his last days it is said:

"In 1691 he died in or near Morristown, N.J., age about 80 years. His son Azariah and nephew Zophar were at that time living at Newark not far from Elizabethtown and it would seem in his old age he might have moved there, but the records place him and his death as recorded at Morristown."

Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7.

The location of his grave site, if any, has yet to be found. It is likewise unknown when his wife, Catherine (Cook) Hull Beach, departed this life nor the place of her burial.

*** BUT SEE ADDENDUM BELOW ***

    As the foregoing account makes clear, there are many questions about Richard Beach which remain unanswered. At the same time, the amount of information which is known is considerable, especially for a person who lived and died more than three centuries ago. The temptation has therefore proven irresistable to characterize him in this or that way, placing his life in some sort of perspective. At the conclusion of its own account, for example, the Beach Family Magazine suggests "... it appears he was a thrifty person. He began by marrying a well-to-do widow and continued to accumulate property through a long life." As a closer examination of the New Haven records suggests, however, Richard Beach's marriage to the widow Hull in fact brought him a fair share of grief as he struggled, from 1643 to 1655, to guarantee the shares of her two daughters in their late father's estate. For his part, family historian Joseph P. Beach, in his typescript A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family, p. 1, ventured the opinion that "... Richard Beach was the best educated" of the three New Haven brothers. Certainly his services as fence viewer, attorney for Mr. Stendam, and witness in the Stamford Indian deed suggest some level of education, but this was true of most of the Puritans and its kind and degree are difficult to evaluate. Lastly, descendant Elmer T. Beach opined that "Richard appears to have been something of a rover, up to the time of settling in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and did not remain long in a place," Beach, Beach In America, p. 54. Given that he in fact resided in New Haven from 1639 to at least 1655, however, this judgment seems rather harsh. The number and frequency of his relocations does not differ greatly from those of his brothers, John and Thomas, nor the other early New Haven settlers generally. For such reasons it is perhaps better to let the records of his life, accomplishments and times speak for themselves, allowing each to form his or her own judgments as the facts may warrant.

           ISSUE:

i. MARY, b. Jun, 1642, at New Haven; bpt.1642 at New Haven; said by some to have married John Hull, of Derby.

ii. BENJAMIN, b. Oct, 1644, at New Haven; bpt. May 21, 1648 at New Haven; d. Apr, 1713; m. 1st, Mary Peacock, dau. of John Peacock; m. 2nd, Feb 1, 1678, at Stratford, Connecticut, Sarah Wells, dau. of John and Sarah (Curtis) Wells, b. Sep 28, 1659, at Stratford; m. 3rd, Dec 5, 1705, at Stratford, Mary Wheeler, the widow of Samuel Fairchilds.

iii. AZARIAH, b. Jul 6, 1646, at New Haven; bpt. May 21, 1648, at New Haven; d. 1696; m. Martha Ives, dau. of William and Hannah Ives, b.c. 1646.

iv. MERCY, bpt. May 21, 1648, at New Haven.

Bibliography

Beach, Alfred E. and Beach, Cora M., editors, The Beach Family Magazine, Casper, Wyoming and Flint, Michigan, 1926 to 1932 [publication ceased after Vol. IV, No. I].

Beach, Elmer Taylor, Beach In America, Ihling Bros. and Evarand Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1923.

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.

Bergen, Teunis G., Register in Alphabetical Order of the Early Settlers of Kings County, Long Island, N.Y., S. W. Green's Son, Printer, New York, New York, 1881.

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.

Dexter, Franklin Bowditch, editor, Ancient Town Records: New Haven Town Records, 1649-1662, New Haven Colony Historical Society, 1917, Vol. I.

Farmer, John, A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, Carter, Andrews & Company, Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1829.

Hatfield, Edwin F., History of Elizabeth, New Jersey, Carlton & Lanaham, New York, New York, 1868.

Hibbard, A. G., History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1897.

Hinman, Royal R., A Catalog of Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, Case, Tiffany and Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1852.

Hoadly, Charles J., editor, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649, Case, Tiffany & Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1857.

Huntington, E. B., History of Stamford, Connecticut, from its Settlement in 1641 to the Present Time, published by the author, Stamford, Connecticut, 1868.

Orcutt, Samuel, A History of the Old Town of Stratford and the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in two volumes, Fairfield County Historical Society, 1886.

Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, in four volumes, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1860-1862.

Wilcoxen, Wm. Howard, History of Stratford, 1639-1939, The Stratford Tercentenary Commission, Stratford, Connecticut, 1939.

ADDENDUM

The following was published in the
Beach Family Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 4, pp. 1241-1243 (Winter, 2000)

The "Clinker Lots" of Elizabethtown and Westfield, New Jersey:
New Information Which Suggests RICHARD BEACH¹
Died Much Later Than Previously Believed

By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.

It has long been believed that Richard Beach¹ died c. 1691 at or near Morristown, New Jersey, shortly after selling off his holdings in Elizabethtown, where he had lived for many years. One source, for example, notes that:

In its account of Richard Beach¹ the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7, likewise says that:

It appears, however, these previous authorities were unaware of the so-called "Clinker Lots" laid out by John Harriman in 1699-1700 to accomodate the growing population of Elizabethtown, with many of the resulting 174 parcels now forming part of modern Westfield, New Jersey. The records of Harriman's original survey reside at the Firestone Library at Princeton University, but a transcription has been posted to the Web by David E. Kane of San Leandro, California, at: http://www.westfieldnjhistory.com/files/lr18.htm.

Of particular interest are the descriptions of Lots 90 through 93, which read as follows:

As can be seen, lots 91 and 92 were expressly laid out for "Richard Beech", while the descriptions of lots 90 and 93 mention adjoining lands of "Richard Beech." That these references are to Richard Beach¹ seems certain. There was no Richard in the second generation of the New England family and the next of the name, i.e., Richard³, Azariah², Richard¹, was born, married and died in Connecticut, with no known residence in or connection to New Jersey [N.B. - In this regard the Beach Family Magazine above errs in claiming Azariah² was at Newark in 1691 for he had returned to Connecticut by 1669 when son Richard³ was born.].

As always, we invite any additional information bearing on these issues. Meanwhile, we are reminded once again how "new" evidence can suddenly and radically alter the "facts" which previous researchers viewed as firmly established.

TOP         BACK