I found this article rather... unsatisfactory. So the statute introduced the concept of "time immemorial". Except it sort of didn't, it just introduced a limit that later came to be referred to as "time immemorial". It also doesn't call it anything like "the barrier between that which we know and that which we don’t.", but indeed it does mark a point after which oral history is no longer enough. On page 100 in the linked translation:
> That in conveighing a Descent in a Writ of Right, none shall presume to declare of the Seisin of his Ancestor further, or beyond the Time of King Richard, Uncle to King Hentry, Father to the King that now is;
It then says the term "time immemorial" was actually introduced by the Prescription Act 1832 (and links to a different page than it is talking about) but that actually says:
> Whereas the expression “time immemorial, or time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,” is now by the Law of England in many cases considered to include and denote the whole period of time from the Reign of King Richard the First, whereby the title to matters that have been long enjoyed is sometimes defeated by shewing the commencement of such enjoyment, which is in many cases productive of inconvenience and injustice;
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this since it was written almost 200 years ago, but this reads like it is describing an existing term in use in the Law of England. A term supposedly introduced at some point between 1275 and 1831 to describe the limit introduced by the Statute of Westminster 1275.
The included history is interesting, but how this date turned into the concept of "time immemorial" remains unknown.
It wasn't terribly clear how rights became extinguished by time for Thomas Littleton, who published his "Tenures" in 1481 or 1482. In chapter 38 of the first Statute of Westminster (3 Edw. I, c. 38) of 1275, they put time limits on various writs.
"It is Provided, That in conveying a Descent in a Writ of Right, none shall [presume] to declare of the Seisin of his ancestor further, or beyond the time of King Richard, Uncle to King Henry [III], Father of the King that now is"
Which is to say, 1189, 86 years earlier. Other writs were limited to the voyage of King Henry III in Gascony (1230?), and others still to his coronation in 1216.
Now according to [1], other limitations were put under Henry VIII, until the act of 1832, where they made it clear that its limitations were the ones to use, and not the old standard of the reign of Richard I, from the Statute of Westminster.
I was struggling with it myself, but I think your reading of it is correct. The paragraph about the 1832 Prescription Act needs some work on its grammar.
I worked in the City (Citie) of London and have off and on taken an interest in the history.
Much of the special status of London was granted before 1189, and it retains its special because of time immemorial concept and English common law.
I won’t bore you with all the details but there’s loads of weird stuff like a mayor that only lasts a year, companies get the vote based on number of employees, separate police for from the rest of London etc etc. That’s barely scratching the surface.
Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
> companies get the vote based on number of employees
That is the result of recent legislation. Until about 20 years ago companies did not get votes. Individuals got votes by being freemen of the city, usually by being members of a livery company, the descendants of medieval guilds.
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”.
It can be changed by passing legislation.
I lived in the city (in the Barbican) in the early 2000s and loved it.
All businesses used to get votes in local elections in England and Wales (by virtue of being ratepayers) and boroughs/cities had separate Aldermen and (Common) Councilmen. The City of London (ie the square mile, not the metropolis) retained the old system when it was abolished elsewhere (in favour of only residents voting and a single type of councillor) because the number of residents in the City then was absolutely tiny by comparison to the number of people who use the City daily (after much of the residential population left, partly due to war damage during WW2).
What changed more recently was the allocation of which individual people get to exercise those votes - "business votes" became "workers votes".
The election of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs is separate though. This is still done at Common Hall (and the franchise is still Liverymen), but that election is very very rarely contested.
I also worked (and indeed lived) in the City a few years and fell down this rabbit hole for a spell. The more you dig into this the weirder it gets, but it's quite a fun rabbit hole indeed. :o)
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
It could pretty easily be changed by an Act of Parliament, but there's no real political will to do so. It doesn't do any harm and makes for some interesting tidbits to impress tourists with.
Multiple articles in the archives of The Guardian tell about the influence and the special status of The City and how it undercuts British democracy.
And to go one step further, I've read the idea that Brexit was instigated to prevent The City from being regulated by Brussels. It's a theory that might fit the facts.
People like to criticize stuff like this but England was and is one of the most well-governed countries in the world. It was perhaps the leading center of development, technologically as well as in terms of institutions, from 1650 until 1900 or 1950, during which time its legal system was even more archaic.
Respect for pre-existing rights and arrangement isn't really such a big deal and rigorously exterminating that kind of stuff doesn't seem to be a requirement or even an advantage to modernity or having an ordered society.
The article's remark about "...legal daftness..." is anachronistic and absurd.
Interestingly, about 10% of land in England and Wales still isn't actually registered with the land registry. Mainly because registration only became compulsory fully in 1990 and still only when the land was sold or mortgaged.
In Scotland only ~58% of land is in the registry - most of the rest is covered by a register of transactions but that can make it difficult to work out who owns what.
> Land ownership is quite a contentious issue in Scotland.
Yes, I saw an article recently that said that approx 50% of Scottish Land is owned by just 420 families. It's actually worse than England in that respect.
It surprised me how easy it was to read a law written in 1275. That was the Middle English period, which I usually cannot decipher without help. To be fair though, I haven’t read much from that period.
I found this article rather... unsatisfactory. So the statute introduced the concept of "time immemorial". Except it sort of didn't, it just introduced a limit that later came to be referred to as "time immemorial". It also doesn't call it anything like "the barrier between that which we know and that which we don’t.", but indeed it does mark a point after which oral history is no longer enough. On page 100 in the linked translation:
> That in conveighing a Descent in a Writ of Right, none shall presume to declare of the Seisin of his Ancestor further, or beyond the Time of King Richard, Uncle to King Hentry, Father to the King that now is;
It then says the term "time immemorial" was actually introduced by the Prescription Act 1832 (and links to a different page than it is talking about) but that actually says:
> Whereas the expression “time immemorial, or time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,” is now by the Law of England in many cases considered to include and denote the whole period of time from the Reign of King Richard the First, whereby the title to matters that have been long enjoyed is sometimes defeated by shewing the commencement of such enjoyment, which is in many cases productive of inconvenience and injustice;
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this since it was written almost 200 years ago, but this reads like it is describing an existing term in use in the Law of England. A term supposedly introduced at some point between 1275 and 1831 to describe the limit introduced by the Statute of Westminster 1275.
The included history is interesting, but how this date turned into the concept of "time immemorial" remains unknown.
It wasn't terribly clear how rights became extinguished by time for Thomas Littleton, who published his "Tenures" in 1481 or 1482. In chapter 38 of the first Statute of Westminster (3 Edw. I, c. 38) of 1275, they put time limits on various writs.
"It is Provided, That in conveying a Descent in a Writ of Right, none shall [presume] to declare of the Seisin of his ancestor further, or beyond the time of King Richard, Uncle to King Henry [III], Father of the King that now is"
Which is to say, 1189, 86 years earlier. Other writs were limited to the voyage of King Henry III in Gascony (1230?), and others still to his coronation in 1216.
Now according to [1], other limitations were put under Henry VIII, until the act of 1832, where they made it clear that its limitations were the ones to use, and not the old standard of the reign of Richard I, from the Statute of Westminster.
[1] https://welpartners.com/blog/2019/07/time-whereof-the-memory...
I was struggling with it myself, but I think your reading of it is correct. The paragraph about the 1832 Prescription Act needs some work on its grammar.
I worked in the City (Citie) of London and have off and on taken an interest in the history.
Much of the special status of London was granted before 1189, and it retains its special because of time immemorial concept and English common law.
I won’t bore you with all the details but there’s loads of weird stuff like a mayor that only lasts a year, companies get the vote based on number of employees, separate police for from the rest of London etc etc. That’s barely scratching the surface.
Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
> companies get the vote based on number of employees
That is the result of recent legislation. Until about 20 years ago companies did not get votes. Individuals got votes by being freemen of the city, usually by being members of a livery company, the descendants of medieval guilds.
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”.
It can be changed by passing legislation.
I lived in the city (in the Barbican) in the early 2000s and loved it.
All businesses used to get votes in local elections in England and Wales (by virtue of being ratepayers) and boroughs/cities had separate Aldermen and (Common) Councilmen. The City of London (ie the square mile, not the metropolis) retained the old system when it was abolished elsewhere (in favour of only residents voting and a single type of councillor) because the number of residents in the City then was absolutely tiny by comparison to the number of people who use the City daily (after much of the residential population left, partly due to war damage during WW2).
What changed more recently was the allocation of which individual people get to exercise those votes - "business votes" became "workers votes".
The election of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs is separate though. This is still done at Common Hall (and the franchise is still Liverymen), but that election is very very rarely contested.
This video by CGP Grey is an entertaining overview of some of the oddities of the City of London: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc&pp=ygUPY2dwIGdyZXk...
I also worked (and indeed lived) in the City a few years and fell down this rabbit hole for a spell. The more you dig into this the weirder it gets, but it's quite a fun rabbit hole indeed. :o)
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
It could pretty easily be changed by an Act of Parliament, but there's no real political will to do so. It doesn't do any harm and makes for some interesting tidbits to impress tourists with.
Multiple articles in the archives of The Guardian tell about the influence and the special status of The City and how it undercuts British democracy.
And to go one step further, I've read the idea that Brexit was instigated to prevent The City from being regulated by Brussels. It's a theory that might fit the facts.
People like to criticize stuff like this but England was and is one of the most well-governed countries in the world. It was perhaps the leading center of development, technologically as well as in terms of institutions, from 1650 until 1900 or 1950, during which time its legal system was even more archaic.
Respect for pre-existing rights and arrangement isn't really such a big deal and rigorously exterminating that kind of stuff doesn't seem to be a requirement or even an advantage to modernity or having an ordered society.
The article's remark about "...legal daftness..." is anachronistic and absurd.
Interestingly, about 10% of land in England and Wales still isn't actually registered with the land registry. Mainly because registration only became compulsory fully in 1990 and still only when the land was sold or mortgaged.
In Scotland only ~58% of land is in the registry - most of the rest is covered by a register of transactions but that can make it difficult to work out who owns what.
https://www.ros.gov.uk/performance/land-register-completion/...
Land ownership is quite a contentious issue in Scotland.
> Land ownership is quite a contentious issue in Scotland.
Yes, I saw an article recently that said that approx 50% of Scottish Land is owned by just 420 families. It's actually worse than England in that respect.
I can recommend the book "The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland (and How They Got It)" by Andy Wightman
It surprised me how easy it was to read a law written in 1275. That was the Middle English period, which I usually cannot decipher without help. To be fair though, I haven’t read much from that period.
Middle English is not hard to understand. Try reading the sounds.
I remember my grandfather telling me if his grandfather’s fondness for the song of the Yellowhammer.
A sweet remembrance of someone and a time of 120 or so years earlier.