H. Prescott Beach goes on to give a short but interesting account this Thomas Beeche, based on the available Dutch records:

Of how or when he came to New Amsterdam, we have no trace; presumably on some English vessel in the crew, or as a passenger. From whence he came we are given a hint in one sentence of the Dutch Records which briefly says that he and two others were "from Neerheert in Zomersetshire" See History of New Netherlands in E.B. O'Callaghan, p. 208 (note)...

A tragic life this Englishman led and a startlingly short one, if the unconvincing account in the Dutch Record be accepted. His wife, called Nanne (her real English name might have been Anne or Nancy, Annis or even Agnes) was of so quarrelsome and seemingly so wanton a disposition as to compel the belief that she must have been mentally afflicted. Certainly judged by any modern standards, she would have been placed in some institution for the care of mental cases. Of course, there was none such in those times in outlying colonies, and the sordid history shows that the ill-fated woman was victimized and ill-used by the hard drinking, brutal Dutch and English neighbors. Thomas sturdily took her part (both in fist fights and in court actions) against her defamers and all those who had flooded the little settlement with scandalous stories of her behavior.

The impression created by a careful review of the few and terse references in the early annals of New Amsterdam has compelled the writer to conclude that so many and so prominent members of the community had become involved in these escapades, that those in authority were eager to find some way out without besmirching too many names and raising too many family and official scandals. No good purpose would be served by including these stories here, whether true or otherwise. Reference to the items in "Index to Translations of Dutch Manuscripts" by Edmund Burke O'Callaghan, Albany, 1870, will suffice for any students who may be interested to pursue this phase of the case, viz: pp. 4, 5, 10, 17, 21, 27, 40, 42, 64, 65, 68, 72, 74, 80, 85, 89, 90, 100, 101, 105, 107.

H. Prescott Beach, "Thomas Beach of New Amsterdam, 1638-1640", New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. 68 (Apr, 1937), p. 107

Beach's article does, however, cite some of the unflattering references to Nanne/Anne Beeche found in another source, i.e., O'Callaghan's Calendar of New York Historical Mss., Vol. I (Dutch), 1630-1640. There are, for example, records of a proceeding on September 1, 1638, in which various witnesses attested "as to misbehavior of Thomas Bescher's wife and a sound drubbing she received from her husband in consequence;" to the "behavior of Mrs. Bescher at the house of one Peter Gerlyn;" and to the "conduct of Mrs. Bescher in the Mattetusjes Bay."

The article goes on to suggest that:

In 1640 Thomas Bescher, (or Beeche as we now know him to have been) took a series of steps that indicate his intention to relieve himself from what plainly had become an intolerable burden. He sold his plantations, made a very substantial settlement to provide for his minor daughter, Eva, whose guardian was Isaac Allerton, one of the most wealthy and active traders in the colonies... John Wood, one of the substantial English settlers among the Dutch, filed a bond as security for her care.

Then, Thomas Beeche disappeared. His wife, Nanne (his widow she preferred to call herself) became engaged to marry Thomas Smith, one of the English settlers. The Dutch authorities, no doubt to pave the way for the future marriage of Nanne to someone who would take the burden and responsibility of caring for her, conducted a hasty, not to say very sketchy, investigation into the alleged death of Thomas Bescher. The only evidence submitted, if it may be called evidence, was an affidavit made by a seaman, one Jan Peterson Van Housem, to the effect "that recently in the Bay (Gowanus Bay no doubt) he heard Thomas Bescher declare that in a fortnight or at most a month, he would not be living." Taking this flimsy story as a remarkable and inspired prophecy on the part of Bescher, he was presumed to be dead, and in a year or so the long-planned marriage to Thomas Smith took place.

H. Prescott Beach, "Thomas Beach of New Amsterdam, 1638-1640", New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. 68 (Apr, 1937), p. 107

References to Nanne (Beeche) Smith herself seems to disappear from the New Amsterdam records after 1642. On February 12, 1652, however, one "Anna Smits, an Anabaptist" was the subject of judicial proceedings at Fort Amsterdam, in which Dominy Johannes Megapolensis requested she "be retrained from using slanderous and calumniating expressions against God's words and his servants." The authorities ordered that "Anna Smit" appear to answer the changes the following week, but no record of any further proceedings has been found. H. Prescott Beach suggests that this Anna Smits/Smit is none other than Nanne (Beech) Smith, whose intemperate words of a more secular nature resulted in similar judicial proceedings over ten years previous. He further suggests she may have died or become totally deranged before another hearing could be held, thereby accounting for the lack of any further mention of her in the record.

Of course, this fleeting glimpse of an unhappy Englishman afflicted with an impossible wife, living among the Dutch, arouses the inevitable query as to whether or not he was the same man of that name who later appeared at New Haven, Connecticut in 1647 and settled in Milford, Connecticut, in 1654... Though entirely a matter of presumption, the writer feels the the evidence though wholly circumstantial points to their probable identity. Such a disappearance, as was reported, even though so poorly staged, was obviously the easiest way out, all things considered. Divorce was not known in the New York Colonies until some fifteen years later... Furthermore, such a disappearance would fit in very well with the unusual record of Thomas Beech, a man of capable age, residing, unmarried, in the New Haven Colony from 1646 to 1652, the year of his marriage to Sarah Platt... It was most unusual for single men of that period to remain in the colonies unmarried for that length of time (six years). Was Thomas Beech waiting for news of the granting of a divorce in England or of the death of Nanne Beech? In this connection, we are reminded of the coincidence that in February 1652, that same year, Anna Smits, the Anabaptist, was arrested for wild behavior and violent language against the Church. Did her madness culminate in a fatal fit? Or was she perhaps executed for blasphemy? The record is silent...

One naturally considers the probable age of the Thomas of New Amsterdam and how that would affect the likelihood or possibility of his being also the New Haven settler. One outstanding indiciation is the probable age of Eva, the only child, so far as can be learned, of the former. In the record as to the bond given by her guardian she is mentioned as the "minor little girl". This must refer to a child of tender years, not over six or eight years of age at most, and assuming that to be so her father was likely to be of from thirty to thirty-five years old. If thirty-five in 1640 he would have been aged about forty-two if it was he who came to New Haven in 1647. That would have made him forty-seven or thereabouts when he married Sarah Platt in 1652. In the ten years of their married life, five children were born, Zophar, the youngest, in 1662, the year of the father's death, and all that would be a natural series of events. Even if one were to suppose him to have been ten years older in New Amsterdam in 1640, there would be nothing impossible in his ages at their different stages.

H. Prescott Beach, "Thomas Beach of New Amsterdam, 1638-1640", New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. 68 (Apr, 1937), pp. 109-110

    Our first reaction to all of this is surprise that Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam appears to have received so little notice. This may be explained, in part, by the fact his name is spelled Bescher or Betts in most of the Dutch records and thus of no obvious interest to those looking to find persons named Beach, Beech, Beeche, etc. Since the publication of H. Prescott Beach's article 60 years ago, however, one would think his suggested identification of Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam with Thomas Beach¹ of New Haven and Milford would have generated considerable discussion. Compare: the attention given to other claims and theories about the New Haven family's origins, such as Jacobus' Beach-Moss-Iles theory; the various versions of the Hertfordshire claim, etc. Perhaps the suggestion Thomas Beeche/Bescher/Betts deserted his (first?) wife and child - even with apparent justification - is simply too scandalous for those who prefer to regard their ancestors' in a more positive (if often unrealistic) light.

    As for the merits of H. Prescott Beach's theory we begin by noting what he himself acknowledged, i.e., "... that there has not yet been found one line of record proof of identity" between Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam and Thomas Beach¹ New Haven. Similarity of name by itself does not constitute proof of identity of person and, as the old adage goes, "Wishing doesn't make it so." With this in mind we offer the following thoughts and comments.

    The central premise in H. Prescott Beach's entire argument is that Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam did not die in 1640-41, but instead simply "disappeared", only to resurface some seven years later in New Haven. This is not merely speculation in the absence of evidence, but the flat-out rejection of the available (even if questionable) evidence to the contrary. To be sure, Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam may have had ample reason to abandon his apparently troublesome spouse, but proof of "motive" cannot, by itself, prove the actual deed. His prediction of his own death two to four weeks before the fact, while admittedly unusual, is not necessarily evidence of a planned disappearance. It might be, for example, that he suffered from some terminal illness whose end he could readily foresee and went off to face alone. A more likely explanation might be suicide, to escape the unhappy marriage H. Prescott Beach describes in such dramatic terms. Both could account for the fact his body was apparently not found, prompting the need for what amounted to a coronor's inquest. In either case the sale of his lands and arrangements for his daughter's care might be no more than good estate planning. This would be especially true if he in fact took his own life, since suicide was a crime in the 17th century and often resulted in forfeiture of the deceased's estate, leaving the heirs with nothing. What better reason to see to his daughter's future (but apparently not that of the quarrelsome wife) before the fact? Death by suicide might also explain the seeming reluctance of the Dutch authorities to probe into the matter too deeply, to avoid embarrassment for all concerned.

    Perhaps the biggest objection to Thomas Beeche's "disappearance", however, is that it would require a conspiracy and "cover-up" worthy of Oliver Stone, involving not only Beeche, but Isaac Allerton, the Dutch authorities and others, with disingenuous testimony about Beeche predicting his supposed "death", the falsification of public records, tolerance of bigamy and the like. All of this seems a great deal of trouble merely to permit a man of no particular importance to escape an unhappy marriage. If Thomas Beeche meant to disappear, why not simply pick up and go, suddenly and without fanfare, as countless spouses have done, and continue to do to this day? Why make statements about one's supposed imminent death, which seem certain to raise questions after the fact? And what possible motive might the Dutch authorities have in assisting (or at least covering up for) Beeche's disappearance, which left them with the burden of dealing with the troublesome Nanne Beeche by themselves? It all seems too much to believe, unless of course one is already predisposed to accept that Thomas Beeche disappeared in the first place, in which case it is necessary to "explain away" the evidence he in fact died as recorded.

    Even if Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam did not die, but simply disappeared, this in no way means he is the same man as Thomas Beach¹. All H. Prescott Beach can offer on this point is the similarity in name and the fact Thomas Beach¹ did not marry until 1652 - the same year in which Anna Smits (whom he takes to be the same as Nanne Beeche Smith) is last mentioned in the New Amsterdam records. The implication is that Thomas¹ refrained from marrying because he still had a wife living. Such belated scrupples seem odd, however, for a man who - if this theory is correct - abandoned the spouse in the first place and was presumably aware, if she herself was not, of her own bigamous remarriage. To be sure the New England Puritans took a dim view of batchelors and spinsters alike. Unmarried men, in particular, were often forbidden to live alone, but were forced - by social convention if not by law - to reside with another family charged with responsibility for their spiritual and material welfare. At the same time, however, there could be any number of legitimate reasons why a man would not or could not marry as soon as he otherwise might wish, including legal disabilities such as bound servitude or the lack of means to support a wife and family. The fact Thomas Beach¹ seemingly married "late" need not mean he already had another wife still living.

    In sum, we find the evidence both too limited and too ambigious to support the conclusions H. Prescott Beach attempts to draw from it. That there was such a man as Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam seems clear. To suggest he is the same as Thomas Beach¹ of New Haven and Milford, however, requires not only speculation in the absence of evidence, but the rejection of the limited available evidence to the contrary.

    This does not mean, of course, that the Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam might not be related in some other fashion to Thomas Beach¹. As noted previously there is circumstantial evidence, albeit limited and inconclusive, that the New Haven family has some "Dutch connection". Our original thought was that this "connection" reached back to Holland itself, but New Amsterdam might make equal sense. We are also intrigued by the suggestion this Thomas Beeche reportedly came "from Neerheert in Zomersetshire." The latter we take to be a Dutch rendition of Somerset, a shire in southwest England. While we have been unable to identify any town call "Neerheert" (Newhart/Newheart?), we note that Somerset lies between Wiltshire - the ancient seat of the de la Beche family - and Devonshire, from which some claim the New Haven Beaches originally came. To suggest this is anything other than a coincidence would, of course, constitute impermissible speculation of our own. Suffice it to say we believe H. Prescott Beach's article deserves to be more widely known and the possibilities it raises the subject of further research.

Appendix: The Peter Garland Power Of Attorney

The following is the text of the power of attorney given Isaac Allerton, Esq. by Peter Garland to to collect a debt of thirty-three pounds owed by Thomas Beeche of New Amsterdam, as well as an additional six pounds Beeche had or would himself collect from other debtors on Garland's behalf:

To All to whom these presents shall come Greeting:

Whereas Thomas Beech now remayning att the Dutch Plantation standeth indebted unto me Peter Garland of New England, Mariner the summe of thirty three pounds foure shillings and six pence upon account between me and him in writing signed with my hand the day of the date of these presents and whereas there is due to me also divers other debts amounting to the summe of six pounds three shillings and nyne pence from sundry persons as by the particulars at the foot of the said account appeareth wch I have authorized the said Thomas Beech for me and in my name to collect and take up.

Now know yee that I have hereby appointed & in my place put my trusty ffriend Isaacke Allerton of New England mariner my lawful attorney for me & in my name to demand & recover the said summe of the said Thomas Beeche his executors and administrators and also for me to receive the said six pounds three shillings and nyne pence of the said Thomas Beech from whome the same is due to me, to my use; and acquittances sufficient in my place thereupon to make Ratefying and allowing whatever my said Attorney shall lawfully doe in the premises. In witnesse, &c. nrn.

Robto. Sedgwicke & mei. (ls)

Thomas Beech, I pray you pay unto my good ffriend Mr. Isaacke Allerton the abovesaid somme of thirty-three pounds foure shillings and six pence. And I further desire you to demand, recover and receive for me the abovesaid somme of 6 L. 3s 9d of the said partyes who owe the same unto me, and upon payment give them acquittances, wch when you have received pay over to my said ffriend Mr. Isaccke Allerton according to my Letter of Attorney to him made the Day of the Date hereof in that behalfe. Witness my hand the twenty-nynth day of March Anno Dni 1639.

REF: Thomas Lechford's Mss. Note Book, New England Historic Genealogical Society Library, Boston (Vol 7, Transactions of Am. Antiquarian Soc., Boston, 1885) as reprinted in H. Prescott Beach, "Thomas Beach of New Amsterdam, 1638-1640", New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. 68 (Apr, 1937), pp. 104-106.

 TOP    BACK