John Beach

• General Notes
  • !Camp Family Database:  http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genlady
    
    !SOURCE: Excerpts from "A Genealogy of the Beach Family Through Descendants of Richard, John and Thomas, Originally of New Haven, Conn.(The Beach Family Magazine). Published 1926-1932 by Alfred Holmes Beach and Cora M. Beach of Casper, Wyoming.
    
    The Beach family in England was De la Beche, originally from France atTours and came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066. Our line of descent is probably from three brothers, Richard, John and Thomas who arrived at New Haven, Conn., July 1638.
    There is supposed to be a book at the First Congregational Chruch,Goshen, Conn., stating that these three brothers came to New Haven on the same ship, "Elizabeth and Anna," with a Rev. Peter Prudence who was from yorkshire County. Other genealogical records say the three brothers were sons of a Rev. John Beach of Devonshire, England. Many genealogists and inveestigators have attempted to solve the origin of the family in England but so far no record of proof has been discovered.
    
    Richard was born about 1611 and John and Thomas were younger. Richard and John took the oath of freeman in 1644; Thomas took the oath in 1647. He probably was not old enough to take it with his brothers. Descendants of Richard moved to Virginia and the Carolinas. Not many were traced in the Beach Family Magazine. John and Thomas stayed in Conecticut. The first record of Thomas is at New Haven on 6 Apr 1646: "Thomas Beach, defective in his rest (gun) fined 6 d."
    
    In 1648 Thomas was a young man and unmarried and residing with his brother Richard at the corner of Meadow and Whiting Street in New Haven and his brother John had the adjoining lot. One Beach authority believes he was born about 1639. Another reference appears in town records 2 Nov1652: "Thomas Beach declareth he went to Richard Sperries farm, upon some occasion betwixt his brother Richard , Ed Camp was there, quarreled with him. Thomas started home. Camp followed and beat him with a stick. Camp fined."
    
    ***********************************************************
    
    John Beach, the "Immigrant" or "Pilgrim", first finds mention in the records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven in 1643. His life prior to that time is largely a mystery, although several claims have been made over the years concerning his date of birth and parentage. One source asserts he was born in 1623, "son of Rev. John, of Derbyshire.", Virkus,Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732. Charles C. McClaughry,author of Genealogy of the Beach Family of Connecticut, states at pages 34 and 36 of that John Beach was "Born 1620" and "Died 1681"; however,the latter is demonstrably wrong and the former is without any known basis. Mahlon W. Beach, in his Beach In Canada, p. 49, declares he "...was born presumably in 1619", but the authority for this is not given. According to the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8, "Those who claim descent from Benjamin (2) John (1) say that our John was born in England 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"; a conclusion with which few can disagree. For a further discussion of his alleged parentage, See: E. Beach, "Beach of New Haven <beach.htm>", BeachFamily Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 31-37; Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 50-60.
    The question of John Beach's relationship to the other Beaches of early New Haven has likewise been the subject of some speculation. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. I,p. 144, suggests he was "s. of Richard, of New Haven, if he were not br.as seems prob." On the other hand, R. R. Hinman, A Catalogue of the Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, opines he was the son of Thomas Beach, brother of Richard. Finally, Deacon Lewis M.Norton was of the belief that John Beach and a supposed brother, Benjamin Beach [actually the son of Richard1], were entirely unrelated to Richard Beach and/or his brother, Thomas Beach.
    
    Even the currently held view - that Richard, John and Thomas were all three brothers - is not without its critics who point to the lack of any"hard" evidence for such a relationship. Thus, while Thomas Beach is on record as the brother of Richard Beach, no similar documentary proof exists as to the relationship of John Beach to either. Still, the circumstantial case for such a relationship is strong. Both John Beach1and Thomas Beach1 had sons named for each other, and each likewise had daughters named Sarah. John Beach1 and Richard Beach1 each had sons named Benjamin, and all three had daughters named Mary. When Richard Beach 1 became administrator of the estate of his cousin, William Iles, John Beach1 agreed to act as his surety. Both Richard and John Beach likewise moved to Stratford, Connecticut, within a short time of each other.Finally, when John Beach 2, eldest son of Thomas 1 , was left an orphan after 1670, he either went or was sent to Wallingford, Connecticut, where his uncle John Beach 1 and several of his children resided or else owned property at various times.
    Almost without exception, the published accounts date John Beach's initial appearance in the New Haven town records as January 4, 1643, when he was fined for defects in his gun and "twice late coming" to milita training, e.g., Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8; Mahlon W. Beach, Beach In Canada, p. 49; Joseph P. Beach, A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family ["In the year 1643 John Beach is first mentioned... where he is fined for a defective gun.'] What all such authorities fail to consider, however, is the fact that, under the Julian calendar then in effect, the New Year began on March 25. This meant that January, February and March 1 through 24 comprised the last part of the year, rather than its beginning. For a more complete discussion of the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, See: e.g., Doane,Searching for Your Ancestors, pp. 138-142. Thus, the first true record of John Beach in New Haven is the entry usually regarded as the second mention, i.e., at "A Court held... the 7th of the 4th Moneth, 1643."Since March was considered the "First month" - notwithstanding the fact New Year's day was March 25th - this entry translates into June 7, 1643; not April 7 as the Beach Family Magazine and other published accounts erroneously report.
    
    What then of this initial record itself & #00063; For one whose descendants include a goodly number of notable judges and attorneys it is, appropriately enough, the transcript of a civil trial in which John Beach found himself the defendant, accused of negligence in the felling of a tree so as to cause the death of a cow belonging to one George Smith.Thus:
    "Joh. Beach, haveing killed a cow of George Smyths wth the falling of a tree, the said George required satisfaction, forasmuch as he conceiveth that  the said John did it through negligence, but he the said John Beach alleadged for himselfe, thatt he did nott doe itt negligently, forhe being falling a tree, there came some cowes about him, and the tree in falling did rest vpon the bowes of another tree that stoode neare, and then he left the tree, and drave away the cowes as he did conceive wthoutthe reach of the tree, and in the meane time some goates coming vnder thetree he retourned to drive them away allso, and then came in haste togive 3 or 4 chops att the tree to hasten the falling of itt before the cattell could come againe. Butt it was testifyed by brother Andrewes and brother Tompson (who were intreated to veiw the cow and the place,) thatt he had nott done whatt in reason he might, and ought to have done to prserve the cattell, and thatt if he had been as carefull as he might, nohurt need have be done, for the place was so hemmed in wth fallen treesas thatt there was little way open, (on thatt side wch he said he dravethe cowes) for them to come in att againe, so thatt he might have kept them from danger if he had beene as carefull as he ought to have beene, besides, they affirme thatt the cow was killed about a rod or 20 foote wthin the reach of the tree, moreouer itt was testifyed by brother Andrewes and Robt Campion, thatt he the said John Beach did affirme thatt when he was cutting the tree the last time, he saw the cowes come ingagaine, and he did throw sticks att them, butt confessed he did not goe to drive them as before, wch was noted to be a great neglect of him, and allthough he did alleadge in the Court thatt he did drive the cowes wthout the compasse of the fallen trees aforesaid, brother Tompson observed itt to be an vntruth, for he had tolde them att the first, whenthey went to view the cow, thatt he drave them to such a place, wch both he and brother Andrewes affirme was wthin the aforesaid compasse. Vponall wch testimony i[t] was ordered thatt the said John Beach shall make good the damage to the vallue of 5L wch price Georg Smyth sett vpon his cow wth much moderatio., though she was really worth more."
    
    Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp.88-89.
    In an earlier age this record may well have been viewed as somewhat embarrasing. Indeed, the version quoted in the Beach Family Magazine,Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9, as "furnished by the Rev. E. C. Beach", is highly edited. From today's perspective, however, it should be treasured and appreciated as an all-too-rare glimpse into the "everyday life" of 17th century colonial America. One can readily imagine a young John Beach, attempting to make his start in the New World, setting out to fell a tree, perhaps as timber for a home or else as firewood with which to heat one. Working alone, undoubtedly using the heavy broadax of that day, he succeeds in cutting through the trunk, but the prize does not fall cleanly; its top coming to rest "vpon the bowes of another tree". As if this were not enough, he now finds he must contend with free ranging livestock who, perhaps attracted by the sound of his ax, have wandered into harm's way. First cows, then goats, then cows again must be driven off, with a couple hasty "chops" with the ax in between. Under the circumstances it would not be surprising if a few choice words were hurled at the bothersome kine in addition to the "sticks" which he admitted throwing. All proved in vain, however, as the tree chose an inopportune time to complete its fall, killing George Smith's cow. As itseems likely John Beach had not yet acquired the resources to purchase his own livestock, much less pay the princely sum of 5 pounds as damages for the death of another's, he may be forgiven for attempting to put the events of that late-May/early-June day in the best light possible.
    
    The next mention of John Beach in the early New Haven records is that commonly, although erroneously, regarded as the first, i.e., "Att a Courtheld att Newhaven the 4th of January, 1643," or 1644 under modern Gregorian reckoning. Its significance lies in the fact that the colony perceived itself surrounded by potentially hostile forces; not just Indians, but French to the north, Dutch to the south, and pirates from the sea. Consequently, every adult male was not only expected, but required by law to own a firearm, maintain it in good repair, and report regularly for drill or training. A failure to do so was punished by asignificant fine, as the entry itself reveals:
    "Isaack Whitehead, Will Mecar, Thomas Powell, Tymothy Forde, Goodma.Hitchcock, Rich: Webb, Pillipp Leake, bro: Elsey, Jonathan Marsh, Ricd Beech, John Lawrenson, Robt Emery, Will. Iles, Hen: Gibbons, Tho Robinso., Nicholas Gennings, Tho: Yale, John Hill, bro Lamson, fined each 1s for late coming to trayne. And Rich: Newman, John Beach, and James Stewart fined each man 2s for twice late coming.
    Richard Newman, Peter Browne, Will Potter, John Beach, Goodma. Ward, John Benham, Isaack Whitehead, Robt Leay, Tho Blakeley, John Medcalfe, bro Lamson, fined each man 2s for defect. guns."
    
    The three Beach brothers were related in some manner to two other early immigrants to New Haven, William and Thomas Iles (Eyles). When WilliamIles died, Richard Beach served as his adminstrator and, on February 1,1647/48, petitioned the New Haven court to "retayne the estate... in hishand till further order." To guarantee the estate would not suffer loss as a result, the Court required Richard Beach to post sercurity equal toits value of 13 pounds, 17 shillings. Since Richard Beach's own lands had a value of only 9 pounds, however, the record reveals:
    
    "... and for the other 5L John Beech becometh suretie wth hime, as the said Joh 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 court's satisfaction."
    Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p.364.
    From this it would seem John Beach had by now himself amassed a respectable estate, sufficient to satisfy the court of his ability to make good a debt of five pounds, had that been necessary. Other records likewise attest to John Beach's success; for example, at a court held March 7, 1647/48, "Arther Halbich passeth ouer to John Beech his houseand home lott wth all his accommodations thereto belonging wthinNewhauen", Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven,1638-1649, p. 370. See also: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9,which quotes an entry for May 21, 1647, not indexed in Hoadly, "Due John Beach from estate of Edward Banister 0-5-11", i.e., five shillings, eleven pence.

Click here for details of John's family with Mary Royce (dau Of Jonathan)

Source/Citation "Jesse Braman and Nancy Ward", a story of their ancestors and descendants

---

This page is within a frameset. View the entire genealogy report of Beach families, or surname index of Beach pedigrees or report summary of Beach heritage from "Eden Family Genealogy".
Family Systems Therapy.

---

© 2006 GenoPro Inc. All Rights Reserved.