Theodosia, Lady Ivie or Ivy (1628–1697) was an aristocratic heiress and a figure of notoriety in the East End of London in the 17th century. Famed for her “wit, beauty and cunning in law above all others,” Lady Ivie claimed to own land stretching from Wapping to Ratcliff . Her claims led to a constant stream of litigation which ran for almost 75 years. At one particular trial, presided over by Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys (later called the Hanging Judge), accusations were made that Lady Ivie's land claims were based on forged deeds, which led to Jeffreys subsequently charging Lady Ivie with forgery.
Land disputes Born Theodosia Stepkin,The Stepkin Family of Tudor London , Karen Proudler, 2018 Lady Ivie inherited ancestral land in Wapping, on former marsh land drained by the Dutch engineer Cornelius Vanderdelf. Ivie's basis for challenging others over land titles rested largely on an act of Parliament (27 Hen. 8. c. 35) secured by her ancestors which stated that the family owned:
The land was located next to central London and the River Thames, and, as such, was prime for rapid development,Wapping 1600-1800: a social history of an early Modern London suburb, East London Historical Society, 2009. Also, Dr Michael J. Powers 1971 PhD dissertation The Urban Development of East London 1550-1700 expansion and shifting boundaries and subject to frequent disputes. By defending challenges to the boundaries of her land, as well as successfully challenging boundaries of adjacent properties, Lady Ivie built up a portfolio of properties in Wapping estimated at over 800 messuages – far in excess of her original inheritance.
In neighbouring Shadwell, where the projector Thomas NealeJ.H. Thomas ‘Thomas Neale, a seventeenth century projector’, PhD dissertation, University of Southampton, 1979. Also, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1660-90: Introductory Survey, Appendices, Constituencies, members A – B, Basil Duke Henning, 1983. Also, Thomas Levensen ‘Newton and the Counterfeiter’, p136 had transformed the area by making investments, Ivie claimed his entire development fell within her ancestral inheritance and succeeded in taking the land from him. Neale immediately launched a legal challenge against Lady Ivie and, in the following trial of 1684, he not only succeeded in getting his Shadwell land restored to him but, in the process, demonstrated to the court that Lady Ivie’s deeds – on which her title depended – were entirely false. Two specific deeds Ivie produced were self-evidently forged as they contained elementary and irrefutable errors. For instance, the styling of her deeds of 1555 referred to Philip and Mary as being King and Queen of Spain‘Renuncia de Carlos V en favor de Filip II de los reinos de Castilla’ pp 511-513 by E. Simancas on a date before that had even happened, when Philip and Mary were still Princes of Spain only.‘A Compendium of the Law of Evidence’ by Thomas Peake, Serjeant-at-Law, 1802 There was also a witness produced who claimed to have personally observed Lady Ivie working on the forgeries, scribing the initial, ornate opening letters on the deeds. At the conclusion of the trial, after Lady Ivie lost Shadwell and faced criminal charges, she took flight, escaping to the Whitefriars liberty where she was beyond the reach of the law.
Her accomplice Stephen Knowles, who inadvertently incriminated himself during the opening minutes of the trial, likewise fled, though in his case to the Liberty of the Mint in Southwark. Knowles, under close questioning from Judge Jeffreys, had wholeheartedly vouched for Ivie’s deeds and then had to watch, uncomfortably, as Ivie’s case unravelled before him as those same deeds were dramatically exposed as forgeries. Eventually, Lady Ivie (though not Knowles) came out of the liberty and she immediately set about pacifying her anxious creditors and tenants by publishing a document clarifying her land holding titles. The law quickly caught up with her and she was charged and faced a trial for forgery.Six Criminal Women by Elizabeth Jenkins, 1949 The verdict of the trial was a surprise, in one sense, because her deeds were obviously false, but she was found not guilty because it was impossible to bring the crime home to her personally.In respect of Theodosia Bryan alias Ivy, Records of the Court of King’s Bench, University of Houston ref KB29/345 “The jurors at the bar say that she is not guilty …” After all, any one of her ancestors could, in theory at least, have created the false deeds and she had simply taken them at face value. Only after Ivie’s not guilty verdict did Knowles leave the Mint. He was in no hurry to leave as, throughout his time there, he had been living with his family who had joined him, and his accommodation was being paid for by Lady Ivie.
The contest over Shadwell was the culmination of years of land disputes in Wapping between Ivie and Thomas Neale – Neale having interests in both parishes. Though Ivie did properly inherit many properties and parcels of land in Wapping, the disputes usually occurred with those holding land bordering hers – where there could be some argument about precise boundaries. Vague descriptions in old deeds, or the loss or moving of boundary markers over the years, meant constant challenges and disputes. In 1677 there was such a dispute over 22 acres of land, all of which Ivie claimed was hers by inheritance. The land was held by a certain Mr Bateman and, rather than go to court to challenge the title in the conventional manner, Lady Ivie purchased the lease on five acres of the disputed land via a third party and then simply held on to the land after the lease expired. The onus was then on the land owners to try and evict her. Having secured five acres, she then challenged for the remainder.Lady Ivie: Queen of Wapping, 2018, Karen Proudler Her opponents were called Bateman’s Creditors (and included Thomas Neale). One particular creditor was Sir John IretonGentlemans Magazine Dec. 1837, Sylvanus Urban – an eminent alderman, former mayor of London and brother of the regicide, Henry Ireton (son-in-law of Oliver Cromwell). Ireton engaged a solicitor called George Johnson, who was tasked with exposing as fraudulent the key lease Lady Ivie relied on to make her title claims (Glover’s Lease). This was no easy task when the lease had been endorsed by Sir John Bramston the Elder – former Lord Chief Justice of England,In Sir John Bramston (junior)’s autobiography he stated “The Lady Ivie was sued ….. in which the validity of Glover’s lease was the maine question; to which my father’s name and Richard Archbold’s name were endorsed as witnesses” The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston K.B. of Skreens in the Hundred of Chelmsford. Camden Society, 1845. who happened to be Lady Ivie’s great-uncle and protector of her family.
Johnson subornation Accounts vary as to what happened next. Lady Ivie claimed that solicitor Johnson offered £500 to anyone who had evidence that her deed was forged. When she discovered this, Ivie brought his fraudulent actions to the attention of the authorities and he was subsequently charged with subornation of perjury. At least two trials took place on aspects of his subornation: the first was King v Johnson which took place at the Guildhall in 1677-78 Hilary term, when Johnson was found guilty.Report of Cases Adjudged in the Court of King’s Bench, during the reigns of Charles II, James II and William III. Vol II, 1794 by Bartholomew Shower The second trial was held two years later in 1679 where not only was Johnson was found guilty again, but he was also struck off the attorneys' roll, fined 45 marks and forced to enter into sureties against his future good behaviour. Lady Ivie’s opponents interpreted events differently. Though they could not deny that Johnson had, indeed, been guilty of subornation, they believed that Ivie had enticed Johnson into entrapment. This is quite a compelling argument when it is considered that the person Johnson was liaising with and who gave him a confession that he had been forging for Ivie was her very own accomplice Thomas Duffett.Calendar of State Papers: CSPD, Car II, 393, No. 112 letter from Sir Robert Cotton to the King asking for a pardon for Thomas Duffett who had confessed to forging, so he could give evidence against Lady Ivie. CSPD. Duffett was the first of Ivie’s two accomplices. After confessing to forging, Duffett mysteriously vanished and gave no evidence against Ivie at Johnson’s trials. Her opponents claimed that Johnson was devastated by these verdicts against him as, now his career was over, his spirits sank low and he faded away, dying shortly afterwards. From Lady Ivie’s point of view, however, Johnson was justly punished by the courts for breaking the law.
Salkeld mortgage Thomas Duffett’s confession to forging documents for Lady Ivie throws light on an earlier incident of false documents which occurred in 1670. Ivie was living in the household of one of her trustees, Sir William Salkeld, a man who happened to die shortly after her arrival. Ivie then proceeded to present Salkeld’s widow with a mortgage deed for £1,500 and claimed the Salkeld house was now hers. Not only was her claim vehemently rejected by the Salkeld family but also another distinguished person residing there – Sir Charles Cotterell, Master of Ceremonies to both King Charles I and II. Cotterell later gave evidence against Lady Ivie in the 1684 trial where she was charged with forgery. The uproar which followed was only quelled when Lady Ivie surrendered her supposed mortgage to the Salkeld’s daughter, Lucy. Lady Ivie only escaped forgery charges by further conciliatory action by another of her trustees, Colonel Edward Grosvenor, who was obliged to enter into a £1,000 surety bond for Lady Ivie’s future good behaviour, and an assurance that she would never again meddle in the Salkeld family’s affairs. Grosvenor also acted as arbitrator in Ivie’s matrimonial separation from her husband. It is significant to note that the person Ivie surrendered the false mortgage to, Lucy Salkeld, was the wife of Ivie’s accomplice, Thomas Duffett. The Duffetts would later separate before Thomas fled the country to escape justice.Calendar of State Papers: CSPD, Car II, 393, No. 112 letter from Sir Robert Cotton to the King asking for a pardon for Thomas Duffett who had confessed to forging, so he could give evidence against Lady Ivie. CSPD, Car II, Vol 19, 1677-78, CSPD, Car II, 393, No. 112. W. Jones, 7 May 1677. Also, Lambeth Palace Library divorce records: LPL: CA, Case 2891 (1676) Eee6, f93v-94r and LPL: E 5/101 Duffett v Duffett, 1676 The quid pro quo between Ivie and Duffett was that, in return for Ivie promoting his career as a playwright,The influence of English Colonial Discourse on Early Irish Adaptations of Shakespeare 1674-1754, Liam O’Down, 2011. National University of Ireland, Maynooth, discusses Duffett’s influence on English/Irish relations. Also, see Frederick James Furnival’s Fresh Allusions to Shakespeare from 1594 to 1694 p242. 1886, he wrote out and altered deeds to help her win title claims. Critics have not been kind to his writing. The Dictionary of National Biography entry for Thomas Duffett calls him a “dramatist … who unfortunately took to play-writing … as literature, his productions are beneath criticism”. Duffett’s plays were bawdy burlesque, which was popular at the time, but the language used was sometimes so offensive that some audience members walked out during performances.Cited by Gerard Langborn of one of Duffett’s plays in Dublin
Family