Richard Beach Immigrant

• General Notes
  • !Source: "Jesse Braman and Nancy Ward, A Story of Their Ancestors andTheir Descendants"  Compiled and printed for the Family by ThelmaRockwell, Nov. 1973
    
    !SOURCE: Excerpts from "A Genealogy of the Beach Family ThroughDescendats of Richard, John and Thomas, Originally of New Haven, Conn.(The Beach Family Magazine). Published 1926-1932 by Alfred Holmes Beachand 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 ofdescent is probably from three brothers, Richard, John and Thomas whoarrived at New Haven, Conn., July 1638.
    
    There is supposed to be a book at the First Congregational Church,Goshen, Conn., stating tht these three brothers came to New Haven on thesame ship, "Elizabeth and Anna," with a Rev. Peter Prudence who was fromyorkshire County. Other genealogical records say the three brothersweresons of a Rev. John Beach of Devonshire, England. Many genealogistsand investigators have attempted to solve the origin of the family inEngland but so far no record of proof has been discovered.
    
    Richard was born about 1611 and Johnand Thomas were younger. Richard andJohn took the oath of freeman in 1644; Thomas took the oath in 1647. Heprobably was not old enough to take it with his brothers. Descendants ofRichard moved to Virginia and the Carolinas. Not many were traced in theBeach Family Magazine.
    
    SOURCE; BEACH IN AMERICA: Richard, Planter of New Haven Colony, 1639 bornabout 1618 or 1620, perhaps in Hertfordshire, England, died after 1688.Married 1641 to Catherine (Cook) Hull, widow of Andrew Hull of New Havenby whom she had a family of two daughters. Richard was one of threeunmarried brothers (the other John and Thomas) among the firstinhabitants of New Haven Colony from 1639 to 1650. They were originalproprietors and grant owners in New Haven, Milford, Wallingford andStratford colonies as were their children and grandchildren inWallingford, Stratford, Killingworth, Hebron, Goshen, No. Haven,Cheshire, Newton, Torrington,and near by states. It is not known who thefather of these three sons was George Mason Beach of Chicago believed himto have been a clergyman, John, of Devonshire, England.
    
    N.Y. Biog. and Gen. Reg. Vol. 6, page 157, says the Beaches came fromKingston-upon- Hull, Yorkshire, England. In Hoare's "History ofWiltshire" we read that this family derives its descent from the ancientand respectable family of De la Beche, lords of Aldworth in the county ofBerks. Here are to be found the drawings of four knights of the family inthe parish church Aldsworth. Rebecca DonaldsonBeach , who compiled thedata contained in " Rev. John Beach and his Descendants," etc., was ofthe opinion that these three brothers were descended from John, born inSt. Albans, Herts. England in 1590. It had been recorded in a book in thelibrary of the First Congregational Church of Goshen, Conn. that thethree Beach brothers came to New Haven in the same ship with the Rev.Peter Prudden in 1638, the "Elizabeth and Anna" which arrived about July1638.
    
    There was a company of Kentish men from the diocese of Canterbury andanother companyfrom Kent, and a company of about forty headed by Rev.Peter Pruden from Hertfordshire, west part of England.The latterafterward withdrew from New Haven Colony to found the colony of Milfordfour and a half miles south of New Haven. Just at the last moment therewere heavy additions to the company, so many in fact, that they sould notall come on the two small boats they had chartered and aconsideraablenumber had to remain behind in England, and these came out two yearslater on the first boat sailing directly to New Haven, where they arrivedin 1639 bring men from Kent, Surry and Sussex. Among the proprietors ofthat first Company, RICHARD BEACH, appears as one of the originalstockholders of the company with twenty pounds sterling invested.
    
    RICHARD BEACH 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 therecords of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven on June 4, 1639.Nothing of his life prior to that time is known with certainty, althoughunsubstantiated claims abound. According to one source "It appears thatRichard was born about 1611..."; presumably based on the belief that "In1691 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 beenthe 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 concerningthe origins and ancestry of the New Haven Beach family. Otherwise, it isestablished by the ancient records that he was (1) brother to ThomasBeach1 of New Haven <thomas.htm>, (2) "cozn." [i.e. cousin] to Williamand Thomas Iles or Eyles, also of New Haven, and (3) was in some wayrelated to John Moss, one of the founders of Wallingford, Connecticut. Italso generally accepted that John Beach1 of New Haven <john.htm> was yetanother brother of both Richard and Thomas, although the evidence forthis is largely circumstantial.
    
    Much confusion still persists because of earlier genealogists'mis-identification of Richard Beach of New Haven with one Richard Beachof Watertown, Massachusetts, e.g., Farmer, A Genealogical Register of theFirst Settlers of New England, p. 30 ["Beach, Richard, Cambridge, 1635,Watertown, 1639; may have removed to New Haven..."]; Bond, Genealogies ofthe Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown,Massachusetts, p. 679; Hinman, A Catalogue of the Names of the EarlyPuritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, pp. 163-164. While it isnow clear the two men were separate and distinct, one still encountersclaims that Richard Beach of New Haven came from England in 1638/39 onthe ship "Elizabeth and Ann", when in fact that vessel was the one whichtransported Richard Beach of Watertown to Boston in 1635. Other sources,following the lead of Elmer T. Beach's Beach In America, published in1923, recognize the distinction between the two Richard Beaches whilestill suggesting the existence of some relationship between them, such asuncle and nephew, but such theories have yet to be proven.
    
    Even the first record to Richard Beach at New Haven has generated a fairamount of confusion. The entry for June 4, 1639, reads:
    "... John Clarke being absent when the couent w[as] made, doth nowmanefest his consent to itt, allso Richard Beach, Andrew Low, GoodmnBanister, Ar[thur] Halbidge, John Potter, Robt Hill, John Brockett andJohn Johnson, these persons being nott [ad]mitted planters when thecouent 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 mustbe said of the history of the New Haven colony generally.
    On April 25, 1637, some 500 Puritans, headed by the Reverend JohnDavenport and Theophilus Eaton, embarked on the ship "Hector" and one ormore other vessels, sailing from England to arrive at Boston on June 26,1637. Here they wintered until March 18, 1638, when the company sailedaround to the south of Connecticut, to the old Indian grounds ofQuinnipiac, 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 asstockholders, turned their attention to the question of "settling CiuillGovernmt". At the urging of Davenport a "plantation covenant" oragreement was reached in 1638 to make the Scriptures the supreme law ofthe community. Before this could be implemented, however, it wasnecessary to "gather" or organize the first church. A group of twelvewere selected for this purpose who, after a suitable period of prayer andconsideration, chose from among themselves the first seven churchmembers. These seven, in turn, elected their church officers andestablished the qualifications by which others would be admitted tofellowship.
    This done, a committee was then appointed to organize the colony'sgovernment itself, culminating in a "general meetinge" of "all the freeplanters assembled together" on June 4, 1639. Here two questions werepropounded and voted on, the first being "Whether the Scripturs doe holdea 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, allexpressed their assent to this principle. The second question concernedwhether the assembled planters would reaffirm their earlier "plantationcovenent," which again"... was assented unto by all, and no man gainsaiditt,..." Taken together, these covenents and understandings were known asthe "foundamentall agreemt", to which the assembled colonists signedtheir names; the signature of Richard Beach following those of hiskinsman, 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 NewHaven freemen, including Richard Beach, were specifically asked toexpress their consent to the initial "planation covenent". In the case ofJohn Clarke this was because of his "being absent when the couent wasmade..." Based on this Elmer T. Beach and others have suggested thatRichard Beach was likewise absent when these preliminary agreements werereached in 1638. Thus: "... it appears from the record itself that he wasnot 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 wasthe case with six or seven others, possibly they had been out on militaryduty, 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 whollydifferent conclusion. Of the eight men seperately asked to affirm theplantation covenant, only Clarke is described as "absent" at the earliermeeting. As for Richard Beach and the others, the reason given forrequiring their separate assent is that "these persons being nott[ad]mitted planters when the couent was made..." This suggests RichardBeach was in New Haven as early as 1638, but had either not paid in hisshare to become a "proprietor" [stockholder] and/or had yet to satisfythe requirements of church membership necessary to participate in thecolony's civic life.
    The old New Haven records thereafter contain numerous entries related toRichard Beach. Many of these provide interesting insights into everydaylife in the colony, including various disputes and controversies betweenthe 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 JohnMosse, Timothy Forde and Richard Beach shall pay each of them 1s fine fortrees 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 orfirewood. Most likely working with broad axes, they cut down more thanthey could use, or else left behind large piles of brush, perhapsblocking a path. Someone then complained to the authorities and all threefound themselves hauled into court where each was docked a shilling,proving in the process that "visible sainthood" and status as a "freeburgess" or "planter" did not guarantee the "orderly" felling of trees.
    Several months later, however, the situation was reversed, with RichardBeach giving testimony in a case against one Arthur Halbridge, accused offalse 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 hadformrlly delivered into the court [concerning lime wch Arther Halbidghath delivered to the mill] is true, wch when he had done, ArtherHalbidge excepted against itt, thinking to prove the said Edward Adams apjured pson. Butt Goodman Pigge, Rich: Beach and John Wakefield affirmedthe truth of what Edward Adams had testified , [though the said ArturHolbidg did conceive they would have contradicted Edw: Adams histestimony], itt was therefore ordered thatt the said Arther should paytwo folde for all the want of measure thatt is charged vpon him, and fromhenceforthe 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 ArthurHalbridge'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 heundertooke to doe att the mill, wch he was to doe strongly andsubstantially, butt did itt weakely and sleightly as was proved by thetestimony of John Wakefield the miller, himselfe allso nott denyinge itt;Itt was ordered that he should make good the damage butt because thedamage is not justly known what itt is, Mr. Goodyear, and Mr. Gregson areto [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 hewas likely preoccupied by matters more important than the mill work,i.e., his marriage to Catherine or Katherine Cook[e], the widow of AndrewHull, and the birth of the couple's first child.
    The exact date for this event is not certain. Savage, in his GenealogicalDictionary of the First Settlers of New England, p. 144, says "Richard,New Haven 1639,... m.a. 1640 the wid. of Andrew Hull,..." Hibbard'sHistory 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 ofthe 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 NewHaven, said by some to have been made in April, 1641, but appearing inthe published records with entries for 1643, Hoadly, Records of theColony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 92. This list includesboth Andrew Hull and Richard Beach, despite the fact Hull is said to havedied 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. Incontrast, Richard Beach's household is shown as containing only oneperson, presumably himself, with an estate valued at 20 pounds andincluding 12 acres of land. But in any case it is clear Richard Beach wasmarried 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 forFebruary 8, 1643/44, explicity state that "Richard Beach hath ingaged hishouse and lott to secure a former agreemt in reference to the children ofAndrew Hull, late deceased," Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantationof New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 124.
    Further references to Richard Beach in the old New Haven records are asfollows: On January 4, 1643, he and several others were fined oneshilling each "for late coming to trayne," i.e., military drill, Hoadly,Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 122. Thefollowing year, on July 1, 1644, Richard Beach and all other planterssigned the so-called "Oath of Fidelity", pledging loyalty to the colonialgivernment, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven,1638-1649, pp. 137-139. Thereafter, at a court held October 6, 1645, hewas again the subject of a complaint by a fellow colonist:
    "Michaell Palmer complayned that Richard Beech did promise to pay him adebt of 35s in beaver but had fayled.
    Richard Beech acknowledged the debt & his promise to pay beaver, butprofessed he could not gett beaver.
    The court ordered that Richard Beech should pay the debt in some otherpay soe as it may equall beaver, to the said Palmers satisfaction (wthdamadges 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 ina claim by Stephen Medcalfe against one Francis Linley. The latter hadsold Medcalfe his gun, representing it to have been recently repaired andin good shape, when in fact it had a defective breech. After losing aneye when the gun barrel exploded, Medcalfe brought suit for damages. Inthe course of the trial "Richard Beech affirmed that Francis offered himthat gun to sell & demanded 20s, telling him to his best remmembrancethat it had a new britch [i.e., breech]," Hoadly, Records of the Colonyand Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 178. Since the accident mightjust as easily have been fatal, one wonders how history might have beenchanged had Richard Beach purchased the weapon instead of Medcalfe.
    As noted above, Richard Beach's marriage to the widow Hull wasaccompanied by an agreement between the couple, sanctioned if notrequired by the New Haven court, to guarantee Hull's two daughters theirshare of their father's estate. As security for his promises RichardBeach 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 explainhis 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 thesaid howse was sugadged for the securitye of the portions of the childrenof Andrew Hull, (whose widdow he marryed,) in liew thereof he hath nowingadged his howse, barne, cellar & well, vallewed at 40L wth the 7 acresof land on wch it stands, the howse, barne & celler being compleatlyfinished being built wth bricke & stonne as he promiseth & so kept inrepaire & the land in hart for securitye of the portions of the saidchildren."
    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 orwould soon die, with Richard Beach serving as the administrator of hisestate. Thus, at a court held February 2, 1646/47:
    "Ricd Beech informed the court that his cozn Wm Iles had done some workfor Mr. Mullyner, & several times he had desired to have had it issuedbut he hindered it, & now latly he refusseing to make payment for whatwas don, he had him warned to the court to answere it.
    Mr. Mullyner told Ricd Beech, if he would prove the bargaine & pformanceof 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 hehad 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 someboddy els to help hm, but in fiue severall times they came & things werenot ready, & when they had don his howse & almost finished the well,insomuch that there was 20 inches water, 7 weeks after Michaelmas; afterthat, 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 inthe well, when it was otherwayes in Goodmn Wards well, as was tryed, & hehath 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 JohnEngland and Rich Beech, (and that he pay 5s) besids the chardges vntothem, 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 placedfurther burdens on Richard Beach's land holdings. Thus, at a court heldMarch 2, 1646/47:
    "Wm Iles his inventory was presented to the court, wherevpon the Gorpropownded 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 Beechpresents for securyty at home. Also orderd that the secretary wright aletter to the towne where Wm Iles lyved, vnto his brother, and thatRichard Beech should bring into the court what chardges he hath bin at ingathering 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 ofa court held the following week, on March 10, 1646/47. As students ofearly New England history are aware, seating in the church or"meetinghouse" was as formal an affair as admission to church membershipitself. Seats were assigned by a committee, based on such factors as amember's social status, wealth and age; with the more prominent memberssitting closer to the front. Thus, on this date, "The names of people asthey were seated in the meetinghowse were read in court & it was orderedthey should be recorded wch was as followeth:..." Not surprisingly, thefirst seats in the middle section were reserved for the governor, deputygovernor and others of high station. A similar pattern was followed forthe 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 Beachwas chosen to occupy the second row of seats "On the other side of thedore", consistent with what today might be called his solid "middleclass" standing. In like fashion, "Goody Beach" occupied a correspondingseat in the sections set aside for female members, Hoadly, Records of theColony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 302-304.
    As noted above, Anthony Thompson was to inspect Richard Beach's land todetermine its value as security for the Iles' estate. Thompson evidentlyliked what he saw, or else Richard Beach was in need of funds, for twomonths 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 abuttingeastward vpon a highway by the west meddow, westward vpon the seconddevizion 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 payingto hm what the court ordred hm to pay for his cozn , Wm Iles. The courtpropownded that hee would stay till another court, wch he inclyned todoe.
    Further, whereas Anthony Thompson & John Clarke were to view some land ofRich Beeches for securjtie of Wm Iles his estate, they thinke the land isnot securytye, therefore the court gave him time till the next court toprovide 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, forat 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 beingnot fitted to give in sufficient securetie, it was respited till anothercourte."
    Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p.345.
    Unfortunately, this further "respite" or adjournment likewise provedinadequate 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 noappearanc, thoughe the court satt a good space of time. The court gaveorder that they should be warned to the next courte, to answer for thisneglecte."
    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 ofcontempt, 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 estateof William Iles in his hand till further order, wch is as apeares by theinventorie 13L: 17S: 00D: the courte tould hime vpon securetie he mighte;he offered himeselfe and 9L worthe of land, as it was valewed by AnthonyTompson & John Clarke as apeares in a note vnder there hands. The land is22 acrs of vpland in the second devission, and 5 acrs of meddowe in thewest meddowe, and 2 acrs of vpland in the quarter at his house, and forthe other 5L John Beech becometh suretie wth hime, as the said John Beechdeclareth in courte, wch the courte accepted, wth this proviso, that ifJohn Beech should dye or leaue the towne, Richard Beech put in othersecuritye 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 andthe two Hull children's inheritance, Richard Beach apparently sought toacquire 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 ofmeddowe, 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 ofRichard 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 threeBeach brothers, most likely their uncle, so it is possible this propertywas a gift. Years later, for example, Moss is on record as coveying toJohn Beach2, Thomas1, the nephew of Richard Beach, a parcel of land inWallingford, Connecticut, in consideration of the "natural affection" hefelt toward his "cousin".
    In addition to this acquisition from John Moss, Richard Beach also soughta 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 westside next his owne, but it was said in ye court that it is lotted outallreadie."
    Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp.427-428.
    Perhaps because this parcel was unavailable, Richard Beech chose insteadto 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 ofmeddow lying, 1 acr of it in ye west meddow on this sid ye river, frontsvpon Mr. Lambertons vpland, ye reare to ye river, a highway through yemeddow to ye north, Mathew Molthrop on ye south, 1/2 acr in SollataryCove 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'sRecords of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, publishedin 1857. Based on this fact Elmer T. Beach would later write:
    "A vail of partial obscurity covers his whereabouts and doings between1648, when he disappears from the active records of New Haven Colony, and1660."
    Beach, Beach In America, p. 54
    Elmer T. Beach further relied on this apparent final reference to supporthis theory that Richard Beach of New Haven and Richard Beach ofWatertown, Massachusetts, were related; the former leaving Connecticut c.1648 to stay with his "uncle" in Massachusetts until 1660, when he wouldreturn, See: Beach, Beach In America, pp. 138-139. It appears, however,that Elmer T. Beach was ignorant of or else did not have access toFranklin Bowditch Dexter's Ancient Town Records: New Haven Town Records,1649-1662, published in 1917 by the New Haven Colony Historical Societyand containing material not previously included by Hoadly. This sourceclearly shows Elmer T. Beach's basic assumption - that Richard Beach leftNew Haven c. 1648 - to be unfounded. On the contrary, he remained thereat least until late 1657, as these further records reveal.
    At a court held April 1, 1651, the question of Andrew Hull's two childrenagain arose:
    "Richard Hull is to be warned to the next Court aboute his fence: and togive in security for Richard Beech for so much as his house and land isworth, 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 havebeen a younger brother of Andrew. It further seems likely that, as uncleof the two Hull children, he served as surety for Richard Beach on thelatter's pledge, much as John Beach had done earlier in connection withthe estate of William Iles. If so, then this entry may mean Richard Beachhad recently sold his house and land, requiring Richard Hull to postother security in its place.
    On the other hand, it is clear that Richard Beach had not yet movedtotally 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 forthe fences might be chosen for the yeare ensuing, and accordingly it wasdone:...", with John Thomas and Richard Beach selected "... for thequarters from Millford highway to the sea side;...", Dexter, Ancient TownRecords, Vol. I, p. 132. Responsible for seeing that all fences in hisdistrict were kept in good repair, to prevent livestock from running freeand/or damaging crops, he lost little time in discharging his duties, forat a court held December 7, 1652:
    "Richard Beech, one of the viewers for the suburbs quarter, complainedthat there is a parcell of fence in their quarter wch the old viewersinformed them belonged to severall men, vizd. Edward Parker, WilliamPeche, John Wakefield, Mathew Camfield; but they do not owne it. He wastold the quarter must looke after it, and see it be issued; else it mustcome to the Court againe, and that will be chargeable to those that arefound the offendors/"
    Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 156.
    It was also in this year that Richard Beach found himself a witness inthe 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 someoccasion betwixt his brother Richard Beech and himselfe, and found theirEdward Camp, Ralph Lines, and Richard Beech: it seemes they were talkingof him when he came in, for Edw: Camp said when he saw him, here heecomes;..."
    Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 151-153.
    After a heated argument between Camp and himself, Thomas Beach left to gohome. Camp followed him into the woods, however, and assaulted ThomasBeach with a stick, causing injuries which the governor himself wouldlater see and describe, "... Thom: Beech hauing showed him his arme, andthe effeccts of them he found in his body, being sore beatten aboute yebacke." Although not witnessing the actual assault, Richard Beach and theothers "... all testified that there was a quarrelling betwixt them inthe house, and that after Thom: Beech was gone, Edward Camp eate somevictuall and went out, saying he would goe fetch his gune wch he had leftin the woods..." Ultimately Camp confessed, pleading in mitigation that"... he did it in a passion, but it was but wth a small sticke that hestrucke 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, sinceotherwise he would not have asserted Richard Beach "disappeared" from theNew Haven records after 1648.
    We may assume the administration of William Iles' estate was, by thistime, concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned. There are, in anyevent, no further references to it in any of the old town records aspublished. Such was still not the case, however, with Richard Beach'spromises 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 thisTowne, called him to show how he intended the two children his wife hadbefore hee married her (wch was Andrew Hulls) should haue their portionspaid, wch is fifteene pounds ten shillings a peece, as appears byIngagment vnder his & his wiues hand before marriage: he said he intendedthe house he liued in and the land should be part, and two cowes & asteere of two yeres old, and desired the Court to appoint some to viewthe house and land, and he hoped he should propound that wch should giuethe Court satisfaction: ..."
    Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 214.
    Perhaps because of this need to once more post security, Richard Beachagain engaged in some land transactions at this same meeting, the courtnoting:
    "James Russell passeth ouer to Richard Beech one acr, one third ofmeddow, 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 MrRutherford 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 theburden 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 ofRichard Beech was againe presented...", Dexter, Ancient Town Records,Vol. I, pp. 220-221. Once more he was told it was necessary to postadditional security to insure that Andrew Hull's daughters would receivetheir share of their father's estate. Thereafter, at a court heldFebruary 6, 1654/55, we find him again disposing of part of his holdings:
    "Richard Beech passeth ouer to John Wakefield (wth Peter Mallariesconsent who bought the land wth him) fiue acrs of vpland in the subverbesqrt, ..."
    Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 230
    Still, it was not enough. Apparently now desperate, he petitioned for "ameeting 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 chilldrenof 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 toAndrew Hull were not worth enough to pay each child the 15 pounds 10shillings they were entitled to receive under the agreement betweenRichard Beach and his wife. Consequently, the court held that 5 poundsshould be abated, with Hannah and Sarah Hull to instead receive 13 poundseach.
    Even this amount apparently proved difficult for Richard Beach to pay,however, requiring the sale of still more land. Thus, at a court heldMarch 6, 1654/55, it is recorded:
    "Richard Beech passeth ouer to Jervice Boykin six acrs of land in thesubuerbs qrt, ... Jervice Boykin did engage before the Court to payeforty shillings that he owes to Richard Beech (the said Richard beingpresent and consenting) to the Court at Michaelmas come twelve moneth,wch will be ye 29th of Septem: in ye yeare 1656, in good currant cuntrypay 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, inlieu of the land itself as security.
    Finally, at a court held November 3, 1657, Richard Beach is againmentioned in the ancient town records; this time as "attorney" for a Mr.Stendam or Steendam, a Dutchman, accused of failing to keep his fences inrepair, allowing his livestock to enter a neighboring field and damagethe crop growing there. In presenting the case:
    "Richard Beech, attorney for Mr Stendam, said that Mr Stendam tookenotice of that fenc to be his, and knew it was defective, and had agreedwth men to make it new, and hath paid them all or part for it, but theyneglected 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'sclaim, although it might provide the basis for Stendam to being his ownsuit against the workmen.
    This, then, is the last active reference to Richard Beach in thepublished records of the town. It may well be that he left New Haven soonafter or simply that he managed to avoid further public notice. Accordingto the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7, "It is said by somethat Richard moved from New Haven to New London, but the records there donot disclose that he lived or had property." Elmer T. Beach, in his BeachIn America, p. 54, offered the suggestion that "He may have resided inWallingford, where he was one of the proprietors,..." but his purchase ofland there was not until 1670 at the earliest. Whatever the case he doesnot find mention again until February 6, 1660, when he purchased ofThomas Wheeler "one house lot with all the buildings upon it" in the townof Stratford, Connecticut, Orcutt, A History of the Old Town ofStratford, Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 245.
    As suggested by the New Haven record for June 6, 1654, Richard Beach hadprobably considered this move for some time, perhaps in consultation withhis brother John who likewise bought property at Stratford a few monthslater, on May 21, 1660. In 1662 Richard Beach acquired still moreStratford property, including one five acre piece "on west point of theNeck, butted south upon the meadow called Mills' Lordship," Orcutt, AHistory of the Old Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 245. Bynow in his mid-40's or more, he perhaps felt himself too old to activelyfarm, 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 inconsideration of keeping the ordinary, six acars of swamp at the woodend, and when his urgent ocasions in that imployment will not permitt, tobe freed from trayning himselfe, to which proposition the towne by votegranted, provided he would keepe the said ordinary and provide forstrangers entertaynment; they also granted he should have payd him backe2 fines which were taken of him before this tyme."
    Stratford Town Records, Vol. 1, p. 145, as quoted in Wilcoxson, Historyof Stratford, Connecticut, 1639-1939, p. 217.
    From this point onward, however, the chronology of his life again becomessomewhat confusing. It is claimed by some that Richard Beach acquired twolots in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, together with a nearby farm, as earlyas 1665, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7; Crayon, RockawayRecords of Morris County, New Jersey, p. 160. If so he probably did notmove there immediately for on January 7, 1667, he served as witness to anagreement between the inhabitants of the town of Stamford, Connecticut,and two Indian "sagamores" or minor chiefs, i.e., Taphance son of Ponusand Powahay son of Onax, son of Ponus, confirming their fathers' earlierdeed of land to the town in 1645, See: Huntington, History of Stamford,Connecticut, pp. 97-99, where this agreement is reproduced in full. Howor why Richard Beach became involved in this transaction, and the preciserole he played, remain something of a mystery. Family historian Joseph P.Beach is said to have believed that he served "... as a commissioner tomeet 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 NewEngland, Vol. I, p. 144, states that Richard Beach "rem. [i.e., removed]to New London 1667", but as noted earlier the records of that townreportedly make no mention of him. Others assert he next moved toWallingford, noting his purchase of land there. According to the BeachFamily Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7, "... in 1670 it appears in theWallingford Records that he drew lot 34, 6 acres across the street northof 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 Townof Goshen, Connecticut, p. 418, states simply that he was "inWallingford, 1672" which is probably more accurate for the date of hispurchase, but his actual residence there is doubtful. Instead, it is nowbelieved the Wallingford property was bought either as an investment oras 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 tolitigation in Long Island, New York, in 1669. Thus, in Bergen, Registerof 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 sessionsby John Rateo, as per Gd [i.e., Gravesend] rec."
    "RATEO, JOHN. A suit was brought against him Apl. 4, 1669, in the courtof sessions in Gd by Richard Beach for debt, as per Gd rec."
    These two references - apparently unknown to any previous historian ofthe family - are somewhat confused. In one the month is April and RichardBeach is the plaintiff; in the other the month is May and he is thedefendant. Contrary to Bergen's suggestion, however, neither is proofthat Richard Beach was a "settler" or resident of Long Island at thetime. Since King's County is but a short sail across Long Island Soundfrom Connecticut, it would not be unusual for a resident of New Haven,Stratford or other town near the coast to have had business dealingsthere. In this case, however, the deal between Richard Beach and JohnRateo apparently went "sour", requiring one or the other to apply to thecourt in Gravesend for relief. Given that a New York tribunal would notordinarily have jurisdiction over a Connecticut resident, the fact theproceedings were initiated there suggests that Richard Beach was mostlikely 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 onthe Dutch census of the town in 1673. According to one old history ofElizabeth:
    "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, andWilliam Cramer; also, 50 acres of upland, on "Beaches brook," adjoiningJohn 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 JamesMitchell; and Mar. 31, 1688, he sold all his lands in E. Town, to thewidow Agatha White, who, 16 days later, resold them to William Darbie ofE. 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 sonAzariah and nephew Zophar were at that time living at Newark not far fromElizabethtown 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 islikewise unknown when his wife, Catherine (Cook) Hull Beach, departedthis life nor the place of her burial.
    *** BUT SEE ADDENDUM BELOW ***
    As the foregoing account makes clear, there are many questions aboutRichard Beach which remain unanswered. At the same time, the amount ofinformation which is known is considerable, especially for a person wholived and died more than three centuries ago. The temptation hastherefore proven irresistable to characterize him in this or that way,placing his life in some sort of perspective. At the conclusion of itsown account, for example, the Beach Family Magazine suggests "... itappears he was a thrifty person. He began by marrying a well-to-do widowand continued to accumulate property through a long life." As a closerexamination of the New Haven records suggests, however, Richard Beach'smarriage to the widow Hull in fact brought him a fair share of grief ashe struggled, from 1643 to 1655, to guarantee the shares of her twodaughters in their late father's estate. For his part, family historianJoseph P. Beach, in his typescript A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of theBeach Family, p. 1, ventured the opinion that "... Richard Beach was thebest educated" of the three New Haven brothers. Certainly his services asfence viewer, attorney for Mr. Stendam, and witness in the StamfordIndian deed suggest some level of education, but this was true of most ofthe Puritans and its kind and degree are difficult to evaluate. Lastly,descendant Elmer T. Beach opined that "Richard appears to have beensomething of a rover, up to the time of settling in Elizabeth, NewJersey, 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 least1655, however, this judgment seems rather harsh. The number and frequencyof his relocations does not differ greatly from those of his brothers,John and Thomas, nor the other early New Haven settlers generally. Forsuch reasons it is perhaps better to let the records of his life,accomplishments and times speak for themselves, allowing each to form hisor her own judgments as the facts may warrant.
    ISSUE:
    i. MARY, b. Jun, 1642, at New Haven; bpt.1642 at New Haven; said by someto 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, atStratford, Mary Wheeler, the widow of Samuel Fairchilds.
    iii. AZARIAH, b. Jul 6, 1646, at New Haven; bpt. May 21, 1648, at NewHaven; 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 ceasedafter 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 theConnecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut.
    Bergen, Teunis G., Register in Alphabetical Order of the Early Settlersof 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, nopublication data given, 1902.
    Davis, Charles H. S., History of Wallingford, Connecticut, published bythe author, Mount Tom Printing House, Wallingford, Connecticut, 1870.
    Dexter, Franklin Bowditch, editor, Ancient Town Records: New Haven TownRecords, 1649-1662, New Haven Colony Historical Society, 1917, Vol. I.
    Farmer, John, A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of NewEngland, 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 theColony of Connecticut, Case, Tiffany and Company, Hartford, Connecticut,1852.
    Hoadly, Charles J., editor, Records of the Colony and Plantation of NewHaven from 1638 to 1649, Case, Tiffany & Company, Hartford, Connecticut,1857.
    Huntington, E. B., History of Stamford, Connecticut, from its Settlementin 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 ofBridgeport, Connecticut, in two volumes, Fairfield County HistoricalSociety, 1886.
    Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of NewEngland, in four volumes, Little, Brown and Company, Boston,Massachusetts, 1860-1862.
    Wilcoxen, Wm. Howard, History of Stratford, 1639-1939, The StratfordTercentenary 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: NewInformation Which Suggests RICHARD BEACH1 Died Much Later Than PreviouslyBelieved
    By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.
    It has long been believed that Richard Beach1 died c. 1691 at or nearMorristown, New Jersey, shortly after selling off his holdings inElizabethtown, where he had lived for many years. One source, forexample, notes that:
    His house-lot he sold, Mar. 31, 1684, to Mary, the widow of JamesMitchell; and Mar. 31, 1688, he sold all his lands in E. Town, to thewidow Agatha White... He removed, it is thought, to Morris Co., wheremany families, supposed to be his descendants, are now to be found.
    Edwin F. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, New Jersey, p. 169, quoted inBeach Family Journal, Vol. II, No. 1, p. 127.
    In its account of Richard Beach1 the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No.1, p. 7, likewise says that:
    In 1691 he died in or near Morristown, N.J., age about 80 years. His sonAzariah and nephew Zophar were at that time living at Newark not far fromElizabethtown 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.
    It appears, however, these previous authorities were unaware of theso-called "Clinker Lots" laid out by John Harriman in 1699-1700 toaccomodate the growing population of Elizabethtown, with many of theresulting 174 parcels now forming part of modern Westfield, New Jersey.The records of Harriman's original survey reside at the Firestone Libraryat Princeton University, but a transcription has been posted to the Webby David E. Kane of San Leandro, California, at:<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/5096/lr18.htm>.
    Of particular interest are the descriptions of Lots 90 through 93, whichread as follows:
    Number:90: for Nathaniel Bonnel Begining at a Small Red oake tre markt onfoure Sides from thence Runing Sou:East twenty five Chane to a smallwalnut tre markt on foure Sides thence Nor:East forty Chane thenceNor:west twenty five Chane thence forty Chane to the first mentionedplace Lying for one hundred acres be it more or Less Bounded on theNor:West by the Land of William Nicols Nor:East and Sou:west by LandLeaft for highwayes and on the Sou:East by the Land of Richard Beech.Laid out by me John harriman and Company Chosen for that Service, Januarythe 23 1699-700
    Number 91:92 for Richard Beech Begining at a Small walnut Tre markt onfoure Sides thence Sou:East fifty two Chane to a white oake tre markt onfoure sides thence Nor:East forty Chane thence Nor:West fifty two Chaneand from thence forty Chane to the first mentioned place Lying for twohundred acres be it more or Less Bounded on the Nor:West by the Land ofNathaniel Bounel Nor:East and Sou:west by Land Leaft for highwayes and onthe Sou: East by ye Land of Thomas Young Laid out by me John Harriman andCompany Chosen for that Service January the 25-1699-700
    Number 93: for Thomas Young Begining at white oake Tre markt on foureSides from thence Runing Sou:East twenty five Chane and a half Chane to aWhite oake tre markt on foure Sides thence Nor:East forty Chane thenceNor:west twenty five Chane and a half Chane and from thence forty Chaneto the first mentioned place Lying for one hundred acres Bounded on theNor:west by the Land of Richard Beech Nor:East Sou:East and Sou:west byLand Leaft for highwayes.
    As can be seen, lots 91 and 92 were expressly laid out for "RichardBeech", while the descriptions of lots 90 and 93 mention adjoining landsof "Richard Beech." That these references are to Richard Beach1 seemscertain. There was no Richard in the second generation of the New Englandfamily and the next of the name, i.e., Richard3, Azariah2, Richard1, wasborn, married and died in Connecticut, with no known residence in orconnection to New Jersey [N.B. - In this regard the Beach Family Magazineabove errs in claiming Azariah2 was at Newark in 1691 for he had returnedto Connecticut by 1669 when son Richard3 was born.].
    We have considered the possibility these lots were laid out and assignedto Richard Beach1 after his death, in recognition of a surviving right asan original planter at Elizabethtown. Note, however, that where suchposthumous rights were recognized, the Harriman survey notes plainlyindicate as much. Thus, lots 10 and 11 are recorded as having beensurveyed "upon the right of John Ogden of Elizabethtown deceast;" lots 33and 34 were surveyed for "Matthias Hetfield deceast;" and lots 85 and 86were surveyed "for John Woodroufe, deceast." In contrast, there isnothing in the references to Richard Beach1 to suggest his death. Thus-absent further evidence to the contrary - these surveys of the "ClinkerLots" indicate that Richard Beach1 was still very much alive and livingat or near Elizabethtown, New Jersey, as late as 1699/1700 - a good 8 or9 years after his supposed death at Morristown.
    We have yet to fully evaluate all the implications of this newinformation, but offer some preliminary observations. Consider, forexample, the commonly accepted claim that Richard1 was born c. 1611. Iftrue, this means he would have been 88 or 89 years old at the time theClinker Lots were surveyed. While such longevity was not unheard of, itwas likewise not common, making us wonder whether Richard Beach1 was bornlater than traditionally supposed. But in all events, since it now seemshe was alive and living at Elizabethtown in 1699/1700, when and where didhe finally die&#00063;
    As always, we invite any additional information bearing on these issues.Meanwhile, we are reminded once again how "new" evidence can suddenly andradically alter the "facts" which previous researchers viewed as firmlyestablished.