The Lady Ivy having thought fit some short time before Easter-Term1687, to cause to
be printed and published a paper intituled, An Abstract of the title to the lands
in Wapping-Marsh ...
This material was created by the Text Creation Partnership in partnership with ProQuest's
Early English Books Online, Gale Cengage's Eighteenth Century Collections Online,
and Readex's Evans Early American Imprints.
HAving thought fit some short time before Easter-Term, 1687. to cause to be printed and published a Paper intituled, An Abstract of
the Title to the Lands in Wapping-Marsh, and other Places neer adjoyning, belonging to the Mannor of Stepney or Stebonheath, called Ewell, alias Tile-house, thereby making Title in general to more Ground (great part of it built) than the
City of London stands upon; but particularly to none of the Lands in question. She affirms, That
the 14th of June 1573. 15 Eliz. John Stepkins, one of her Ancestors, being indebted to the Queen as Surety for William Patent, in the 19th of Eliz. Stepkins's Lands were Extended, and that therein are exprest most of the Lands mentioned in
the Extent of 4 Eliz. taken out against Richard Hill's Lands, upon a Statute entred into by him 32 Hen. 8. being 113 Acres, and particularly all the Lands now in dispute; which is confidently
affirm'd, but very untrue: for in the Deed from Stepkins, to convey all his Lands to the Queens Trustees, and in the Extent 19 Eliz. and the Lease from the Queen to Alice Stepkins, and the Release from King James, 7 Jac. to John Stepkins, all the particulars of Stepkins's Lands are Enumerated, and the Tenants names, whereof there was but a few Acres
lying in the Marsh mentioned as convey'd to Trustees for the Queen, and fifty Acres
only Extended (being all they had) in Wapping-Marsh at that time, but not the least part of the Lands in dispute named, they being
all that time (and long before and ever since) in other mens possession, under whom
Sir Anthony Bateman, and the Trustees for Rebecca Whichcot, purchased.
And lest the World should by the said Paper be made to believe that the Lands in question
were (as part of the Land then belonging to Stepkins) assigned to the use of the Crown and there remained till 1609, and so must have
been Stepkins's Land at that time,
The Creditors of Sir Anthony Bateman have thought fit to print so much of their Title as remains on Record, to ten Acres
of Freehold, and twelve Acres of Copyhold-Land, as have also the Heirs of Rebecca Whichcot, to above three, and not exceeding four Acres, all lying in Wapping-Marsh, and desire the Readers to take notice of the Boundaries in the old Deeds by
which this Land is described, exactly answered by the Lands in dispute: And that
several of the Sales made (on Record) of the Freehold, and Surrenders (also on Record)
of the Copyhold, were made during the time that the Estate of the Stepkinses did remain in the Crown, and so cannot be reasonably thought to have been any part
of that Land.
The Creditors Title to Ten Acres of Freehold-Land.
JOhn Nelthorpe, and Elizabeth his Wife, Daughter and sole Heir of John Starkey,27 July, 10 Eliz. 1568. conveys by Deed enrolled to Richard Sleford and his Heirs, all those ten Acres of Marsh-ground, with its Appurtenances, in Wapping-Marsh in the County of Middlesex, between the Lands late of Jasper Hill, and Gravel-Lane, on every part.
These Lands lie butting on one side on Gravel-lane,Note. and on the Copyhold late Hill's on the other, Jasper Hill being the man that last surrendred the same, even to one of the Stepkinses, but the 4th of Eliz. before, as appears by Copy of Court-Roll on Record, 5 Eliz. 1563.
A Fine by Nelthorpe and his Wife, pursuant to the Deed.
Richard Sleford sells the same ten Acres to Henry Tailford,12 Oct. 24 Eliz. 1582. but butts it (as it did at that time) West on Gravel-lane, Eastward on Glascock's, and North on Stukeley's Land.
The Land late Hill's, was 23 Eliz. surrendred to Glascock, as appears by the Copy;Note. and that the North Buttal was on Stukeley's Land, appears by the Sale Stukeley made of Land lying North of it, 4 Jacobi enrolled.
6 Acres Sold to Thomas Eastfeild alias Lucas by John Stepk [...] in Elis N [...]w S.r Caen Iames his Land.
EAST
Sewer
Here lyes 4 Acres of Land down to the Thames through which Corarel Lane is made with
the Ground wherein here [...] was both a Pond and Island whereof the 3 upperm [...] Acres were Sold to Mr Weed [...] and the rest to Mrathbear 1656 both by deeds Inre [...]ed by Lady Ivy
Wa [...] Pond
Was now Ar lo ye Bl [...]w
[...] libears Land [...]
Island
New Crane Staires
ye River of Thames
New Gravel Lane
New Gravel Lane
Ratcliffe High W [...]
The Deanes Linches
Land Sold by Lady Ivy 1656 to Weed Buttins South on ye Sewwer that Devides it from Batemans Land
Sewer or Pond
7 Acres Co [...]y Hold late held by Hamm [...]n
22 Acres within the Red Line whereof to Butting all along West on Gravel Lane down
to the Prickt Lane East on Hills afterwards Glasecks and North on - Sh [...]keleys Land to Claimd as 10 Acres of Freehold as 12 Acres of Co [...]y hold that was late Mills in the 10th and Glas [...]ocks in the 24th Eliz
10 Acres Free Hold butting West on Old Gravell Lane
Here was a Rope Walk
5 Acres Co [...]y hold mixt ye Red and Prickt Line Lot by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams for [...] from 1630 And ye Lease thereof purchased by the Lady Ivy 1659 [...] thereby get the Possession
Note.There are two Gravel-lanes, one called Old Gravel-lane, the other New Gravel-lane (between which all the Land now in question does lie) but that Old Gravel-lane, on which these Lands Abutt West, was the Gravel-lane meant by these Deeds, is plain; for that New Gravel-lane was a Rope-Walk long since the memory of many alive, and sold by Lady Ivy her self, with the Land on each side of it, to Brian H [...]rrison, Trustee for William Word, by Deed enrolled, dated the first of July 1658. by the name of three Acres, heretofore used for a Rope-ground, and now converted
into a Street called New Gravel-lane.
Henry Tailford had a Daughter who was his Heir, and married John Crosse, who so became seized thereof.
34 & 35 Eliz. Trin. 43 Eliz. 1601. Hill. 9 Jac. 1611. 5 Aug. 13 Jac. 1615. 14 Aug. 1647.A Recovery per Crosse and his Wife.
Crosse and his Wife levied Fine to Bennet.
Richard Bennet and Lettice his Wife, levy a Fine to Richard Glover.
Richard Glover settles by his Will, these Lands, among others, on his Son Richard; who dying about 1646. left a Son whole name was also Richard.
Richard Glover the Grandson's Conveyance enrollod, to Sir Anthony Bateman and others of the premisses, among other things, in Trust to pay Debts; and a Lease
of five Acres, part of the Lands in question from Richard Glover, to Aaron Williams for fifty years, from 1630. at 20 l. yearly, recited in the Schedule to it, which Lease Lady Ivy purchased in 1659. for about 2000 l. and so got the possession of it. See her Answer to Sir Robert Cotton's Bill put in, in 1676.
Trin. Term. 1656.Smith, Harrington, Anthony Bateman, and Richard Glover the Grandson, levy a Fine to Tirrill and Harris, Trustees for Bateman.
15 July 1656.A Deed enrolled, reciting a Deed from the Parties to the aforesaid Fine, to Tirrill and Harris, the 20th of June last; whereby Tarrill and Harris convey the said Lands to Anthony Bateman and his Heirs, who held the possession thereof, and received the Rents till he failed
about 1666. and under whom Sir Robert Cotton, as Trustee for the Creditors, claims, and in Easter-Term 1686. after a full Hearing in the Kings-Bench, had a Verdict for this, and the twelve Acres Copyhold-Land.
Title to the Copyhold-Land.
5 Ed. 6. 1551.EDward Ascugh and his Wife, surrender twelve Acres in Wall and Wapping-Marsh, to Richard Hill.
5 Eliz. 1563.Copy whereby John Stepkins surrenders the twelve Acres to John Harding, and recites they had been Alwine's and Gibson's, and that he had them by Grant of the Lord of the Mannor, and Release of Jasper Hill.
Note.There is not known to be any but this twelve Acres Copyhold, in the whole Marsh.
13 Eliz. 1571.John Harding surrenders to John Osborne.
18 Eliz. 1576.John Osborne surrenders to Richard Wotton and Robert Harrell.
20 Eliz. 1576.John Osborne having forfeited for having Lett without License, the Lord of the Mannor admitted
Walthal and Finch.
23 Eliz. 1581.Walthal and Finch surrender to Jo. Glascock.
26 Eliz. 1584.Glascock surrenders to Tho. Cook and his Wife.
1 Jac. 1603. 1616.Cock and his Wife surrender to Richard Glover, Citizen and Pewterer of London.
Richard Glover dying, the Copyhold being Gavelkind, fell to his several Sons, who all after surrendred
to Richard the Eldest; who dying in 1646. his Son (after admittance) in 1647. surrendred to
Robert Smith and Anthony Bateman, who was (till he broke) in possession, and received the Rents.
Sir Robert Smith died 12 June, 21 Car. 2. so Sir Anthony was the Survivour.
Sir Anthony became a Bankrupt. See the Commission.
27 Nov. 25 Car. 2.The Commissioners Assignment of the ten Acres Freehold, and twelve Acres Copyhold
to Sir Robert Cotton, enrolled.
13 May, 26 C. 2 Easter-Term, 1686.Sir Robert Cotton admitted to the twelve Arcres Copyhold.
PEter Osborne conveys the Breach, &c. to Woodshaw,25 Eliz. 1583. by Estimation three (not exceeding four) Acres, butting East on a Sluce, South on the Thames, North on Wapping-Marsh, West on a piece of Ground, next a-butting and adjoyning on a certain Way or Lane there,
called Gravel-Lane. Enroll'd.
James Woodshaw conveys the same to Richard Glover. Livery and Seisin Endorsed.20 M. 3 Ja. 1604. 1616.
Richard Glover Devises, by general Words, Wapping-Land to Richard Glover his Son. Book of Wills.
The said Richard Glover conveys the same to Warren and his Heirs. Enroll'd.26 Mar. 1646.
The said Richard confirms the same to Warren. Enroll'd.28 Mar. 1646.
Richard Glover, the Grand-son, confirms the same.16 May 1646.
George Warren sells the same to Richard Lloyd and John Wicken. Enroll'd.19 Mar. 1646.
Richard Lloyd and John Wicken, by Lease and Release, sell to William Crowder,24 Apr. 1649. 25 Apr. 1649.Thomas Jorden, Thomas Horton, and John Jolliff, Trustees for Rebeca Whichcot, late Glover's Wife.
Crowder, Jorden, and Horton, Die before 1680, John Jolliff in 1680, being the surviving Trustee, and in William Jolliff, his Son and Heir, the Inheritance of these Lands remains, in Trust for the Heirs
of the said Rebecca Whichcot, to this Day: And,
Note, The Land now called Pruson's Island, (which name it assuredly took from having been long in possession of one
Pruson, under Glover's Title) is above three, and not four Acres; butted East on (a place where there was) a Sluce, South on the Thames, North on Wapping-Marsh, and West on Bridewel-Hospital-Land, heretofore a piece of Ground which butted and adjoyned upon Gravel-Lane; and was held under Glover's Title by Mrs Rebecca Whichcot, till outed by Lady Ivy, 1679.
And if Lady Ivy can shew what Land 'tis possible the ten Acres in Wapping-Marsh should be, but the Lands in question, butting West on Gravel-Lane, and where the twelve Acres of Copyhold in Wapping-Marsh should be, (that was late Hill's in the 10th, and Glascock's the 23d of Eliz.) and lying East of the last ten Acres, but the Lands in question, and which have been always enjoyed
by those the Creditors Claim under, by Copy of Court Roll, since Edw. the Sixth's time, and where there should be three, and not exceeding four Acres,
that butted East on a Sluce, South on the Thames, North on Wapping-Marsh, and West on a piece of Ground that butted on Gravel-Lane, unless the Ground now called Pruson's Island, which really does so a butt, they will then quit their Claim to these Lands,
which they otherwise hope will at sometime or other be allowed to be theirs.
As to what Lady Ivy is pleased to say concerning the several Verdicts she has had for her Title, the
Reader is hereby informed, That those Verdicts were got on producing of Deeds, which
are not mentioned in her printed Paper, nor yet to be found on Record.
And as to what she is pleased to suggest concerning the Conviction of her Adversaries
Attorney, one Johnson.
Note, There was one Duffet, a notorious common Forger of Deeds, and an intimate Acquaintance of my Lady's: He
first applied himself to Mr. Johnson as a Witness, without Johnson's seeking to him, and discovering his Treaty with Johnson, drew him into a snare, being, as supposed, employed by some-body else.
As for the Records and Deeds, which made up three parts of her Paper, they are most
of them such as were never made use of at any Tryal, and serve onely for a shew, and
an amusement, and when rightly considered, are nothing to the purpose at all.
And that the World may also see what Title, both on Record and otherwise, the Lady
Ivy has yet been pleased to produce for the Lands in question, with what may reasonably
be objected against it by Arguments, onely deduced from other Deeds on Records, the
same is incerted here, and if any mistake be made in't, it is not wilfully done, and
will be undoubtedly Answered by Lady Ivy's Direction, if there be any thing in it untrue, her Ladyship having already appeared
twice in Print in these matters, and thereby given occasion for the Printing of this.
The Lady Ivy's Title. THat Wapping-Marsh being one Hundred and Thirty Acres drowned Land, was, for a Moyty thereof, undertaken before the 27 Hen. 8. to be Inned and Drained by one Vanderdelfe, who sold his Moyty to one Richard Hill, on whom that Moyty was by Act of Parliament, 27 Hen. 8. setled.
The Answer to it. THe Act of Parliament was undoubtedly so, and onely shews there was a Hundred and
Thirty Acres to be Drained, and that Richard Hill having purchased Vanderdelfe's interest, was to have one Moyty of it.
2 Edw. 6.A Lease produced by which Richard Hill lets sixteen Acres to one Clayton, a Butcher, for five years, lying along Gravel-Lane.
This Lease (if really true) onely shews that Richard Hill had Land there; which it may be he had, and probably he or his Son Jasper might after sell it to John Starkey (under whom it is Claimed now) before they sold any to Stepkins at all.
23 March 5 Edw. 6th.A Deed whereby Richard Hill sells to Thomas Stepkins and his Heirs, for ever, sixteen Acres in Wapping-Marsh, in the Tenure of one Clayton, and fifteen Acrees and three Roods of Land in Wapping-Marsh, then in the possession of Richard Hill, lying by the Pond in the said Marsh, and all those his Messuages, Pond, Lands, and
Soil, in the Parishes of Stepney and St. Mary Matfellon, or elsewhere in the County of Middlesex; and were parcel of hundred and thirty Acres, formerly Drowned, but not of the fifty
three Acres that were Stepkins's before the Drowning. Note, The word is Drowning, and not Draining, in the Deed. See Lady Ivy's Answer to Dr. Whichcot's Bill, 1677.
This (if true) purports a most absolute sale of all the Lands Richard Hill had in the County of Middlesex; and yet the said Richard Hill, the 20 Oct. 6 Edw. 6. [...] last Will and Testament, settles the La [...] [...]e bought of Vanderdelfe (of which, by the Deed, this appears to be part) on his Son Jasper Hill, with several Remainders over in Taile, which 'tis not likely he would have done, had
he sold it away before; and as a very good Argument that it was so Entailed by Richard Hill's Will, there appears on Record, a Fine and Recovery suffered by Jasper Hill (Richard Hill's Son) to Machelin and John Stepkins, of twenty Acres of Land, and a hundred Acres of fresh Marsh in White-Chappel, Stepney, and Wapping, the 3d of Eliz. which had been needless had it not been so Entailed, and is an argument that Stepkins bought nothing of Hill till that time: And yet in Trinity-Term, 1684, in a Cause 'twixt the Dean of Saint Paul's, London, and Lady Ivy, about Shadwell Lands, a Deed was then given in Evidence, Dated 16 Apr. 6 Edw. 6. whereby Richard Hill sold twenty four Acres, and all the Lands he had in Stepney and Middlesex, to Thomas Stepkins: But this Deed having had the misfortune to be markt as found, and Sworn to be so,
with a long Lease of a hundred twenty eight Years, and other Deeds, among the Writings
of the Churches Lessee, it was not believed then, and one of the Witnesses that swore
to the so finding those Deeds, was Perjur'd upon't, and stood in the Pillory for it; and some of the said Deeds were then
left in Court; by Rule of which, Dated June 1687, upon an Information against Lady Ivy for it, a Tryal is ordered next Term.
12 Nov. 5 & 6, Phil. and Mary.A Deed whereby Jasper Hill, Son of Richard Hill, sells all his Lands about ninety two Acres, in the Marsh, and County of Middlesex, to Machelin and John Stepkins, and their Heirs; and is the Deed whereby Lady Ivy, in Easter-Term, 1686, Claimed these Lands, without producing the foregoing Deed of the 23d Mar. 5 Edw. 6. but in Easter and Trinity Term, 1687, Lady Ivy to make Title to these Lands, produced that of the 5th [Page 5] Edw. 6th, without bringing out this at all.
Note, Lady Ivy's Wapping-Estate, came intirely into her power to sell and dispose of it in 1655; and when
her Ladyship, in 1656, sold Land in Wapping to Mr. Arlibear, and in 1658, to Brian Harrison, Trustee for Mr. Wood, Copies of this Deed were given them; by which it appears (if they were rightly taken)
that Livery and Seisin was Endorsed on the back of that Deed the 20th of Nov. in the 5th and 6th year of Philip and Mary, and 'tis notoriously known that Queen Mary Died the Seventeenth of that Month, and [Page 5] that Queen Elizabeth was Proclaimed the same day.
3 Eliz. & 12 May, 4 Eliz.And that Jasper Hill by Fine and Recovery 3 Eliz. and by Deed 12th May 4 Eliz. conveyed twenty Acres of Land, and a hundred Acres of Marsh in White-Chappel, Stepney, and Wapping, to Macheline and John Stepkins and their Heirs.
This is not denied to be true, and is a great argument against the truth of the foregoing
Deeds, it being not credible that this Fine was levied in pursuance of either of those
Deeds, it being done so long after, and there being also a Deed by Lady Ivy's own shewing, dated the 12th of May following, 4 Eliz. to convey the Lands in that Fine comprized; but that Deed not naming the Lands in
question, was neither produced in Easter-Term 1686, nor in Easter nor Trinity-Term 1687, but was in a Tryal in Trinity-Term 1684, but 'twas in another cause, and the contents of it took at that time.
4 Eliz.Richard Hill, having the 3 Dec. 32 Henry the 8th, entred into a Statute to one Vivald, and Salvago, all the Lands which he was possest of after that time, being one hundred and thirteen
Acres were extended, and among them the Lands in question, and that that Extent was
purchased in by Stepkins.
This Extent was undoubtedly made, but affects not at all the Creditors nor Jolliff's Title, for the ten Acres of Freehold-Land that was Nelthrop's in right of his Wife, sole Heir of John Starkey, in the 10 Eliz. and Pruson's Island might have been (we do not say 'twas) Richard Hill's since the 32 Hen. 8. and yet no part of what was sold to Stepkins the 3 Eliz. and for the twelve Acres of Copyhold, 'tis plain it was Richard Hill's, and by his Son Jasper sold to John Stepkins, under whom the Creditors, by uninterrupted Surrenders, all along down on Record, do make out their Title to it.
14 Eliz.A Presentment of Sewer's finding twelve Acres in possession of Walthall and Woodcock, as the Freehold of Stepkins, and part of the Lands in question.
It seems to be very much, and in many places razed, and not legible; and is not produced
by the hands of the proper Officer.
14 June, 15 Eliz.John Stepkins, as Surety for William Patent, Convenanted to Pay to the Queen 7928 l. 7 s. 11 d. ½. and to secure it, levied a Fine, and conveyed an Estate to Trustees for the Queen: in which Conveyance, inter alia, is mentioned four Acres of Meadow, with a Pond and Island, in the possession of Alice Woodcock; which Lady Ivy's Council do say, is the Ground now called Pruson's Island. And the said John Stepkins at that time did give Bond to perform Covenants, which Bond being forfeited, in the 19 Eliz. the rest of his Estate was extended, and not released till 7 Jacobi, 1609, and then restored to the Stepkinses again. And Lady Ivy in her printed Paper affirms, that most of the Lands in the Extent 4 Eliz. are mentioned in this, and particularly all the Lands in dispute; and thence would
infer, that these were Stepkins's Lands at that time, and, if so, ought to be hers now.
That John Stepkins, as Surety for Patent, being in Debt to the Queen, made over his Estate to Trustees for her use, and that 'twas after Extended, and not released till 7 Jac. is true. But, Note, in the Conveyance to the Trustees for the use of the Queen, there is but a very few
Acres mentioned as lying in Wapping-Marsh; and in the extent and Lease to Alice Stepkins, by the Queen, 19 Eliz. fifty Acres in Wapping-Marsh onely are mentioned, which seems to make out that Stepkins had no more there at that time; and among those, none of the Lands now in question
are any way named or described: For, as for the four Acres of Meadow, with a Pond
& Island, in the possession, at that time, of Alice Woodcock, it may, with much more of reason, be taken to be the four Acres of Land, with the place where there was then both
a Pond and Island, lying East of Pruson's Island; whereof three Acres was sold to Brian Harrison, Trustee for William Wood, 1658; and the rest to Mr. Arlibear in 1656; both by Deeds enrolled by Lady Ivy her self. Besides, had these Lands now in question, been then so convey'd to the use
of the Queen, and extended, and so remained till 1609, 'tis not to be imagined that
they could during that time have been sold, as plain 'tis they were on Record, by Sleford to Tailford, the 24 Eliz. and by Cross to Bennet, the 43 Eliz. of whom Richard Glover bought; and several Surrenders were made of the Copyhold-Land in that time, and particularly that to Richard Glover (under whom the Creditors Claim) in 1603: As were also the Sales by Peter Osborne to Woodshaw, 25 Eliz. 1583. and by James Woodshaw to Richard Glover, 3 Jac. 1604; under which Pruson's Island was quietly enjoyed till 1679; and under which the Heirs of Rebecca now Claim.
To Answer the Possession, Lady Ivy says, That6 Novemb.14 Eliz. 1572. John Stepkins Demised twelve Acres and other Lands, of which these were part, with an Island and
Pond, to Anthony Walthall and John Woodcock, for 62 years: And that
If there was such a Lease as per contra made by John Stepkins to Walthall and Woodcock for sixty two years, from 1572. and that the same was made over to Richard Glover in 1602.
13 Nov.44 Eliz. 1602. Walthall and Woodcock mortgaged the same to Richard Glover. 1 Novemb. 1613.That Anthony Walthall and Thomas Woodcock, Son of John, surrendred and released to John Stepkins. 8 Septemb. 1619.That Richard Glover being in possession, under the Lease to Walthall and Woodcock, and one Pruson claiming some Interest under Glover, they both released to John Stepkins.
'Tis very strange, that the said Richard Glover, if he had no other Title but that Lease at that time, should presume to let Leases
of Lands therein comprized, as he really did to Pruson and Watts, for Terms that would not expire till long after that Lease, (and Enjoyment went with
them) and much stranger it is that they should accept of such Leases, and consider
his Title no better, it being Building-ground on which they laid out their Estates. Besides, if Walthall and Woodcock mortgaged the same to Richard Glover in 1602. and that he was in possession of it under that Lease in 1619. as the Surrender
made by Pruson and him of it, shews he was till that time, how came Anthony Walthall and Thomas Woodcock to have it to surrender or release to John Stepkins, 1 Nov. 1613. which Serjeant Francis Brampston swears was the date of that Release? And if Walthal and Woodcock had it to surrender, and did surrender it in 1613. to John Stepkins, how came Glover and Pruson to have it again to surrender in 1619? This is very strange, if true. Note, The Release dated in 1613. was produced when the following fifty six years Lease first
was in 1675. and the other Release not till some years after, when discovered, it
was that Richard Glover was possest of that Land all the time between 1613. and 1620. so that the first Release
was not late enough to justifie the making of the next Lease for fifty six years.
5 August 1620.John Stepkins demises the Premisses in question, inter alia, to Richard Glover for fifty six years, at a red Rose for the first ten years, and after that, at 20 l. yearly payable to Mr. Stepkins, his Executors, and Assignes; and the Rent being so reserved, and not to his Heirs,
the Council for Lady Ivy, says, It was not payable to his Heirs, and so ceased, but that 120 l. was paid for the first seven years, to Lady Ivy's Father, as did appear by Whitfield her Fathers Stewards Book of Accounts, which had been produced at a former Tryal,
and allowed as Evidence, but was since burnt in the Fire at Wapping. Sir John Brampston swore he believed 'twas his Fathers Hand that was set as a Witness to it; and Serjeant Brampston in his Deposition taken 1675. to perpetuate his Testimony, swears so too; and that about six or seven years before
his Examination in 1675. looking among Lady Ivy's Writings, left with him by his Brother Sir John, who was Executor to his Father, he did find a Deed with the name Richard Glover set thereto as a Party, but did not then read the same, but believes the Deed on which
he [Page 7] was examined (being the said fifty six years Lease) was the same Deed he so found,
and on the Suit with Bateman, did deliver many Writings and Evidences to Lady Ivy, and advised her to read them over, and that among them she told him she found this
fifty six years Lease; and in her Answer to Sir Robert Cotton's Bill, put in against her, 1675. she also swears she so found the said Lease in May 1675. and does acknowledge in that her said Answer, that she did not know of the said Lease,
nor of the Rent thereon received.
Against the probability of the truth of this Lease, Note, Likeness of Hands, and payment of Rent, no better proved than per contra, without any thing else, is but a slender Testimony to support a suspected Deed, which this may deserve to be, for the following Reasons. 'Tis not pretended 'twas known to Lady Ivy, till found by her, when wanted in 1675: and if it had been known, What is said as an excuse why the Rent was not paid, (being reserved to the Lessor,
his Executors, and not Heirs) is of no weight; for it might have been helpt in Chancery.
Besides, had that been the reason why the Rent was not asked nor paid, Note, Richard Glover (who Lady Ivy goes about to prove paid the first six years Rent) would never have paid any to her Father John Stepkins, he being the Son of that John Stepkins, who is supposed to have lett this Lease in 1620, and died in 1624. so that way no Rent had been
due at all. Richard Glover in 1616. died, and by his Will gave several of his Children 500 l. apiece, and particularly Mary; and if the Money was not paid accordingly by Richard Glover his Son, who is supposed to have taken this Lease, he devises his Wapping-Lands [Page 7] over to his said Children, and Mary's Portion being not paid, George Almery, her Husband, enters; and on payment of the said 500 l. in 1624. resettles (by Fine and Deed particularly naming these Lands) the same on Richard Glover again; whose thus accepting a Fine, had been a forfeiting the Lease, had he held it
by one at that time. Lady Ivy's Father's and Grandfather's Wills, enumerating all their Lands to very sm [...] [...]arcels, take no [...]ce at all of this Lease, nor of any Land in it comprized, but only as a Boundary to
their own.
And yet as A farther proof of this Lease (it having been sometime sworn that one Duffett said, he was making a Writing he called Glover's Lease about 1671.) Lady Ivy, to shew 'twas known in 1664. and if so, could not be made in or about 1671. does produce. A Deed wherein the said Lease is recited, being a Conveyance (executed by Sir Thomas Ivy and his Lady, of the Inheritance of five Acres of Land on which King-street in Wapping is built, to Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple, in Trust to secure 800 l. to Sir Thomas Ivy, by 100 l. yearly, till Principal and Interest paid, with a Covenant to levy a Fine. And to prove
this Deed, she produced Edward Burtbee himself, who swears very home to the matter, and says, he was Party to it, but the
Witnesses are all dead. A Fine was levied to Burtbee and Temple, of five Acres of Land in Stepney and Middlesex. And that under the Lease to Walthall and Woodcock for sixty two years, and this Lease thus taken of John Stepkins by Richard Glover for fifty six years. All the Possession of such as have claimed all along under him, has been. Several Verdicts, and in favour of the foregoing Title, are by Lady Ivy produced; and as a very great Argument of the truth of her Deeds, is alledged the
very great difficulty of making so many, as there must have been made, if any there be in her Case.
Note, There was a Lease lett by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams of the five Acres, being part of the twelve Acres of Copyhold-Land, on which Kingstreet in Wapping is built, for fifty years (with License from the Lord of the Mannor to lett for so
long) from 1630. at 20 l. yearly Rent; 'twas a building-Lease, and such part of it as Aaron Williams built not himself, he disposed of to others. And as 'tis something hard to imagine
that Richard Glover (who was a man of Repute) if he had but forty six years in it in 1630. should lett
it for fifty years, so 'tis very much harder to believe that Aaron Williams, (who was a great Builder in several places) and those under him, should accept of
a Lease (and build on it) for a longer term than Richard Glover could have lett, had he held it by this now produced Lease for fifty six years from
1620. which if true, could not have been but publickly known at that time; which very Lease so lett to Aaron Williams as aforesaid, Lady Ivy purchased in 1659. and gave about 2000 l. for it, and so got the possession of it, as she in her own Answer to Sir Robert Cotton's Bill in 1676. does confess, and is a great Argument she believed it a good Lease;
and that 20 l. yearly Rent was paid to Bateman for it, is plain, if the Answer of one Michael Oldsworth (of whom Lady Ivy purchased the said Lease) to a Bill put in against him by the Relations of one William Thomas (to whom Oldsworth was Executor, and so came possest of this Lease) for an Account of the Estate of the said William Thomas, may be believed, as it must in other cases, (though no Evidence in this, because it
being in another Cause, may not in this be read) That in the Account says thus: Paid Sir Anthony Bateman Arrears of Rent at Wapping, 20 l. per ann. 150 l. And the said Lady Ivy being so in possession of the five Acres, on which Kingstreet is built, by having got Aaron Williams his Lease into her own hands, brought an Ejectment about 1675. against the Creditors
of Sir Anthony Bateman, who then were possest of the other seventeen Acres, and they claiming under a Bankrupt,
who refused to assist them, and knowing not how to defend their Title, and Lady Ivy having the good fortune to make those Deeds against which so much is said in this
Paper, and especially the fifty six years Lease from 1620, to be believed as true Deeds, she got
a Verdict and Judgment then for the said seventeen Acres about 1676. and held the
same till a Verdict was given against her in Easter-Term 1686. for the whole twenty two Acres, upon the now Creditors Title, such Evidence being then given, as made this fifty six years Lease,
and other Deeds, not believed.
The Deed dated February 1664. setling the Inheritance of the five Acres of Land, on which King-street in Wapping is built, on one Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple, for the securing 800 l. by 100 l. yearly to Sir Thomas Ivy, in which the 56 years Lease is recited, [Page 8] seems to have been made for the sake of that very Recital, and cannot in reason be
true: for, Note, Lady Ivy having purchased Aaron Williams his Lease, as aforesaid, and that being in December 1664. mortgaged to Joseph Sabberton and Edward Simonds for 800 l. and Sir Thomas Ivy then offering to lay down that Money, so he might have it secured him out of the
said Lease, the same Lease was made over 26 Decemb. 1664. to Richard and John Estcourt, and Thomas Nevil, who the 25th of February 1665. assigned the same to Sir Robert Killigrew, Sir William Salkeild, and Benjamin Thornburgh, new Trustees for that purpose: but Sir Thomas not receiving the Rents, and his 800 l. remaining unpaid, and he differing with his Lady in 1671. put in a Bill against her
and Serjeant Brampston, about this very business, charging the Serjeant with Confederacy with his Wife: and
setting out the whole matter of the Security made him of that Lease, complain [...] the ill usage he had had, and desires relief, and yet says not one word of the Inheritance
now pretended to be made over to Burtbee and Temple for him, and to which Deed he himself, 'tis pretended, was Party. And Lady Ivy in her Answer to the said Bill, takes only notice of the Lease by her Purchased,
and so Mortgaged to Sabberton and Simonds, as aforesaid, and not one word of this Inheritance-Deed: Nor does a Bill exhibited
against Sir Thomas Ivy in Feb. 1669. by Sir Robert Killigrew, Sir William Salkeild, and Benjamin Thornburgh, the Trustees by Lady Ivy's direction, setting out also this Security thus made of the Lease (therein named
to be made by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams for fifty years from 1630.) for 800 l. by 100 l. yearly to Sir Thomas Ivy, nor Sir Thomas Ivy's Answer to it, (confessing the security was so made to him of the Lease) say any
thing at all of this Inheritance-Deed, nor take any notice of Edward Burtbee, but as one only who being authorized by the last-named Trustees, and Lady Ivy, to receive the Rents, did employ one Edward Temple, for some time, for that purpose, and that afterwards one Perrot was by Lady Ivy authorized and employed to receive those Rents. So that 'tis sence to believe that
Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple were no otherwise (with the knowledge of Sir Thomas Ivy) concern'd in this matter, but as Rent-gatherers only in manner aforesaid: and nonsence
it is to imagine there could be such an Inheritance-Deed made and assigned in Trust
for Sir Thomas to Burtbee and Temple at that time, and no notice in that Controversie be taken of it at all, considering
also that that Lease was at that time within nine years of expiring, and also not
worth any thing, had the fifty six years Lease been true.
And farther, to demonstrate that it cannot be with reason believed that the fifty
six years Lease from 1620. could be recited in a Deed made in 1664 that was perused
by Serjeant Brampston and he a Witness, and Lady Ivy a Party to it: Note, Serjeant Brampston, when examined for Lady Ivy in this Cause in 1675. to perpetuate his Testimony, being in the fourth Interrogatory
asked, When and how long it was since he FIRST saw the Counterpart of the Lease (explained
to be this fifty six years Lease in the second Interrogatory) and where and among
whose Evidences, Papers, and Writings, he did FIRST see the same; in answer deposeth,
That having several Boxes and Bags of Writings to him delivered by his Brother Sir
John, that were in the possession of Sir John Brampston his Father, at the time of his death, to be by him kept, he was desired by one Sir
Charles Stepkins, about six or seven years since, to search among the said Writings for the Counterpart
of a Lease made to one Bourne; and that upon this Deponents THEN searching, he did find a Deed with the name Richard Glover, as a Party set to it; but saith, he did not THEN read the same, and that these Bags
and Boxes of Writings, he after delivered to Lady Ivy, and among them she told him she found this Lease.
Now if Serjeant Brampston swears true, that the FIRST time he found (which in common Speech is as much as to
say he knew not of it before) a Deed under Glover's hand, (which might well be the Lease lett by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams, which Lady Ivy had purchased) were but six or seven years before 1675. how then was it possible
that it could be (by him) for so Burtbee swore 'twas) recited in a Deed made in 1664? And had it been so recited as now 'tis
pretended it was, in a Deed made in 1664. to which Lady Ivy was Party, it must have been known to her self; which in her Answer to Sir Robert Cotton's Bill, she swears it was not, but that it was by her found in May 1675. in an old Bag of Writings. And Serjeant Brampston's Deposition also says, That she at that time told him that she did find it so; so
that it is not hard to believe this Deed (never produced till Easter-Term 1686.) was made for the purpose aforesaid, since to support the truth of this
Deed, there is nothing more than barely the Oath of one Edward Burtbee, a man well known about Town, and that has been all a long employed by the Lady Ivy; and so not unlikely to have been in the Secret.
For the Fine, if the Deed of Uses be not true, it may be of any other five Acres:
But, Note, 'twas Levied two years after 1664. Just about the time that Sir Anthony Bateman failed, and when Lady Ivy set up to Claim the Inheritance of it, nor is it without some suspicion of having
been unduly levied (it may be) by passing the Offices without the knowledge of Sir
Tho. Ivy, and Lord Chief Justice, the Roll where the Caption of it, to which the Lord [Page 9] Chief Justices Hand should be in the Custos Bremium Office, being lost. And if that Fine was really levied by Sir Thomas Ivy, which is still to be doubted, for the reason aforesaid, 'tis not however to be wondred
at much, considering that he had covenanted to do any Act with the Land in that Lease,
his Lady should desire, so it might be no prejudice to the payment of his 800 l. as aforesaid. And it may be he was made believe at that time, that it was her Inheritance
by being showed the Deed of the 12 Nov. 5 and 6 Ph. and Mary, which was before that time made, and if any Deed there was made to Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple to lead the use of this Fine of five Acres, 'tis plain it could not be a Deed dated
in February 1664. reciting this fifty six years Lease for the reasons aforesaid; but must have
been some other Deed, after that time made and designed as this Fine se [...] [...] have been in future times to make out some Colourable T [...] to the [...] [...]vy held only by Aaron Williams his Lease, that [...]pired at [...] 1681. And that 'twa privately done, is plain: for neither the Fine nor the Deed was
ever in any Tryal produced, till Easter-Term, 1686.
All that is to be said to the Verdicts is, They were given at times when the Creditors
Title, and that to Pruson's Island, were not well made understood to the Court and Jury, and when Lady Ivy's Deeds were believed.
As for the difficulty of making of Deeds, a great many may as well be imagined to
be made, as one single Deed, where the ingenuity of the party concerned, and the nature
of the Title and place, afford good materials for it. And
The Reader is now desired to take Notice,
That Wapping-Marsh was one hundred and thirty Acres drowned Land in Henry the 8th's time, undertook to be Drained by one Vanderdelfe, and so setled by Parliament, that when Drained, it should be equally divided 'twixt
the Proprietors and Richard Hill, who had bought Vanderdelfe's half. And
That no Division (though undoubtedly one there was (it may be among themselves) made)
is now to be found on Record: And Jasper Hill, 3 Eliz. by Fine and Recovery having sold to Macheline and John Stepkins, 20 Acres of Land, and 100 Acres of Marsh in Stepney (that being the first Sale on Record.) 'Tis in the power of Lady Ivy (as Heir of Stepkins) to Claim any part of the Marsh by alledging, 'twas part of what her Ancestors purchased;
if to answer the Possession, there can any way Lease be se [...] and by [...] Lady [...] onely, in finding [...] Leases, since long Disputed have been [...] Prop [...]etors (no Division appearing) being able to make no Title, unless to the Copyhold,
before that purchased by Stepkins, 3 Eliz. By such Lease she may claim any parcel she will, though the Owners thereof have had
it ever since the Draining thereof; which could not be done in another place, and
makes it much easier to have been done, than it can be imagined here.
And to remember, That
The Title by which the Creditors claim the Ten Acres of Free-hold, and Twelve Acres
of Copy-hold Land, and whereby the Heirs of Whichcot do claim Pruson's Island, and under which those Lands were all quietly held and enjoyed, till after
Sir Anthony Bateman failed, is, by Copies of Court Roll, and Deeds on Record, against the truth of which
there has never yet been, nor ever can be the least sort of Pretence; And that
The Title whereby Lady Ivy Claims in particular any of the aforesaid Lands, and whereby she both Got and does
Hold the same, is by Deeds, not only not on Record, but most of them such, as first
have been Lost, and then Found, and that are lyable to more Exceptions by many, then
are herein before exprest, which will be made use of against them when occasion shall
serve.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
Page 2 for 20 Eliz. 1576. read 1578. Pag. 6. 25 line, for 7 read 6 years.