Quia Emptores

The following is a discussion of the Statute Quia Emptores, enacted under Edward I in 1290.

Overview of Statute Quia Emptores

The Statute of Quia Emptores (1290) (Medieval Latin, 'Because the buyers', the opening words of the document) was a statute passed by Edward I of England that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation. Quia Emptores, along with its companion statute of Quo Warranto, was intended to remedy land ownership disputes and consequent financial difficulties that had resulted from the decline of the traditional feudal system during the High Middle Ages.

As there had been no survey of land titles since the Domesday Book of William The Conqueror in 1086, outright title to land had become seriously clouded in many cases and was often in dispute. Furthermore, free tenants were able to grant away their land such that the Lords who held outright title of such land did not have any power over the sub-tenant to collect taxes or enforce feudal duties, a practice known as alienation. Quia Emptores mandated that when land was alienated, the grantee was required to assume all tax and feudal obligations of the original tenant, known as substitution. By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism per se in England, which again had already been on the decline for quite some time. Cash rents and outright sales of land increasingly took the place of direct feudal obligations that had been made impractical and outmoded by Quia Emptores. This gave rise to the practice of 'livery and maintenance' or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments. Such in turn was one of the underlying causes of the Wars of the Roses, the English civil wars fought by the House of York and House of Lancaster for control of the British Crown from 1455-1485. By the mid-fifteenth century the major nobility, particularly the Houses of York and Lancaster, were able to assemble vast estates, considerable sums of money and large private armies on retainer through post-Quia Emptores land management practices and direct sales of land. The two noble Houses thus grew more powerful than the Crown itself, with the consequent wars between the two Houses for control of the realm. Ultimately the statutes of Quia Emptores and Quo Warranto became the foundation of modern real estate and landlord/tenant relations law.

Background Leading to the Statute Quia Emptores

Prior to the Norman Invasion, the Anglo-Saxon rule of land law was allodial title. Tribal lands were held in perpetuity by the group as a whole. The Normans changed this system by mandating primogeniture inheritance (the inheritance by the eldest son, at the expense of the other sons). The exact nature of the allodialism as it existed in Anglo-Saxon England has been debated, but to no definitive end. On the one side, it has been argued that the Mark System, as it was called, claimed Saxon allodialism to be a highly idealistic socialist state. Arguing against this utopian view was Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges in his essay "The Origins of Property in Land", and Maitland who found it to be inconsistent with extant Anglo-Saxon documents from pre-Norman times.

In English law, the lordship remained a grantor after the grant of an estate in fee-simple. There was no land in England without its lord: "Nulle terre sans seigneur" was the feudal maxim. The principle incidents of a seignory were an oath of fealty, a quit or chief rent; a relief of one year's quit rent, and the right of escheat. In return, for these privileges the lord was liable to forfeit his rights if he neglected to protect and defend the tenant or did anything injurious to the feudal relation. After Quia Emptores, every existing seignory must have been created prior to the enactment of the statute.

At the time of the Conquest, William I granted fiefs to his lords in the manner of a continental benefice or feudal benefice which assured little beyond a life tenure. These grants were in turn subject to subinfeudation. Immediately after the Conquest, the English charters were careful to avoid saying the donee was to take the estate for life, or whether the heir was to have any rights. At this time, there is abundant evidence that lords refused to regrant on any terms to the deceased tenant's heirs. The practice of demanding a monetary payment for regranting of tenancy to the heirs quickly became the norm. In 1100, the Charter of Henry I contained the clause:

"If any of my earls, barons or other tenants in chief die, his heir shall not redeem his land as he did in the time of my brother (i.e. William II), but shall take it up with ajust and lawful relief. The men of my barons shall take up (relevabunt) their lands from their lords with a just and lawful relief." (See: Stubbs "Select Charters" and Robertson, "Laws of the Kings of England")

Relief had been set at a rate per fee in the Magna Carta.

The purpose of this charter was to establish the hereditary principle that the tenants in chief would have a superior status within the law as opposed to the sub-tenants. These overlords further subinfeudated those under them.

The intent of primogeniture inheritance was to keep large land holdings in the hands of a relatively few, trustworthy lords. In reality, the whole feudal structure was a patchwork of smaller land holders. The history of the major landholding lords is fairly well recorded. The nature of the smaller landholders has been difficult to reconstruct. By the time of Bracton it was settled law that the word "fee" connoted inheritability and the maximum of legal ownership. The word "fee" is associated with the Norman feudal system and is in contradistinction to the Anglo-Saxon allodial system. It became common practice to subinfeudate to the younger sons. There are cases from the time, in which a writ of the court was granted demanding that the eldest, inheriting son be forced to "accept in homage" the younger sons as a way of enforcing their subinfeudation.

The usage of land by tenants (serfs and peasants) was more difficult. Some families stayed on the land for generations. When the nominal head of the family died, it was usually of little consequence to the lord, or the owners of the title to the land. The practice of "Socage" whereby the peasants pledged a payment (either in agircultural goods or money) for the privilege to inhabit and farm the land became the standard practice. After the payment,the peasant was considered "soked", that is paid in full. It was disocvered that agricultural land would be more economically tended if the peasants were assured in inheritance of the land to their descendants. This right to inherit was wuickly followed by the right to alienation. i.e. the right to sell the inheritance to an outside party. Disputes arose when a family member wanted to leave inherited land to the Church, or wanted to sell the land to a thrid party. Questions concerning the rights of the overlord and the other family members were frequently heard in the courts prior ot Quia Emptores. In general, it was held that a donor should pay the other parties who had an interest to give them relief. However, the results were haphazard and the rulings of various courts were patchwork. There was little established stare decisis from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

This difficulty is illustrated in statements made by Ranulf de Glanvill (died 1190), the chief justicere of Henry II:

"Every freeman, therefore, who holds land can give a certain part in marriage with his daughter or any other woman whether he has an heir or not, and whether the heir is willing or not, and even against the opposition and claim of such an heir. Every man, moreover, can give a certain part of his free tenement to whomseover he iwll as a reward to his service, or in charity to a religious place, in such wise that if seisin has followed upon the gift it shall remain perpetually to the donee and his heirs if it were granted by hereditary right. But if seisin did not follow upon the gift it cannot be maintained after the donor's death against the will of the heir, for it is to be construed rather than a true promise of a gift. It is moreover generally lawful for a man to give during his lifetime a reasonable part of his land to whomsoever he will according to his fancy, but this does not apply to deathbed gifts, for the donor might then, (if such gifts were allowed) make an improvident distribution of his patrimony as a result of a sudden passion or failing reason, as frequently happens. However, a gift made to anyone in a last will can be sustained if it was made with the consent of the heir and confirmed by him." (Glanvill, vii, 1, restated in Plucknett p, 526)

It has been commented that this illustrates a deisre in Glanvill's time to formalize the practices of the day, in which som which someone having a tenancy could dispose of his land before death. While several problems wer eaddressed (land given in marriage, land given on whim, or on a death bead),the rules were still vague, when compared to similar cases in contemporaneous France. In the latter, strict rules had arisen defingin exact amounts which could be allottted in situations such as "alienation of one-third, or alienation of one-half" of a patrimony or conquest. Glanvill is imprecies, using terms such as "a reasonable amount" and "a certain part".

The Statute Quia Emptores

Quia Emptores was a kind of legislative afterthought meant to clear up confusing areas in tenure, frankalmoign, subinfeudation and petty serjeanty. It indirectly affected the practices of districtio, escheat, wardship, marriage and socage.

Statute Quia Emptores is but one of a long list of legislative acts from the reign of Edward I which had the purpose of concentrating power in the monarchy. England had a panoply of courts and varying legal traditions. Some direction toward order had been laid in the Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford and the scanty legislation of Simon de Montfort. Edward I set about to rationalize and modernize the law. He reigned for thirty-five years. Ther first period, from 1272-90 consisted of the enactment of Statutes of Westminster (1275) and the Statute of Gloucester (1278), and the incorporation of recently conquiered Wales into the realm. These were followed by the StatuteQuo Warranto and the Statute of Mortmain (1279). The latter was designed to stop the increasing amount of lands which were ending up in Church ownership. The Second Statute of Westminster (1285) contained the clause De Donis Conditionalibus which shpaed the system of entailing estates. The Statute of Winchester was passed in 1285. This was followed by the Statute Quia Emptores (1290), which was only about 500 words in length. It was menat to deal with various unsettled complications. It provided that subtenants could not be allowed to alienate land to other persons while retaining the nominal possession and feudal rights over it. The seller had to relinquish all rights and duties to the new buyer, and retained nothing. This was the end of subinfeudation. The effect was to make the transfer of land a completely commercial transaction, and not one of feudalism. There were no provisions placed upon the Crown.

Quia Emptores ended the ancient practice of frankalmoign whereby lands could be donated to a Church organization to be held in perpetuity. It created a tenure whereby the holder (the Church) was exempt from all services, except trinoda necessitas. Quia Emptores allowed no new tenure in frankalmoign, except by the Crown. (See Pollock and Maitland, vol. 1, p.218-230) The issues arising from frankalmoign had been addressed by the Statute of Mortmain. Quia Emptores took Mortmain one step further by banning outright, the formation of new tenures, except by the Corwn.

The question inevitably arises about the Statute Quia Emptores: was it proactive or reactive? Historians are still divided. But it is logical to conclude that Quia Emptores attempted to formalize practices of exchanging money for land, which had been going on for some centuries. There were other problems in inheritance which had festered since the time of William I. In a proclamation from 1066, William swept away the entire tradition of familial or allodial inheritance by claiming that "every child be his fahter's heir." The reorganization of the country along the lines of feudalims was both shocking and difficult.

Quia Emptores in Colonial America

References

 == External links ==

• Quia Emptores legal history
• Quia Emptores (Yale)
• Template:UK-SLD