lands. While this plan was acceptable to barons and other senior nobles, it required passing by the House of Commons. The large landowners in the Commons felt that it prohibited them from making secure wills, while the lawyers saw it as stripping valuable business away from them by simplifying such cases; with these groups making up the majority of Parliament, these plans came to nothing. The Parliament of 1532 saw another attempt by Henry to push the bill through, but it again met resistance; while the support of the nobility was valuable, it was useless in the Commons. Henry instead sought to appeal to one of the two opposition groups, and picked the lawyers. Many lawyers admitted that the uses made fraud easy and open, and in addition the lawyers of the common law were jealous of the Court of Chancery's equitable jurisdiction, and sought to strip it away. As a result, Henry decided to bring them over to his side by frightening them, listening to a petition against court procedure and lawyers' fees, and openly musing about putting a clause in the draft bills that would fix the amount they could charge; Holdsworth argues that this was the reason the lawyers chose to ally with Henry, and the reason for the Statute's passage. John Bean disagrees, arguing first that many lawyers were landowners, and would have lost more personally than any reduction in fees could have produced, and second that even if they had been convinced, it is unlikely that lawyers made up a majority of the Commons and could have pushed a bill through alone. Passage and text In 1535, three draft bills were presented to Parliament concerning uses and wills, along with one concerning Enrolments. It is from these bills that the Statute of Uses and the succeeding Statute of Enrolments came. The three bills on uses suggested two different ways to deal with the problem. The first proposed severely limiting the situation in which uses could arise, with uses having no legal effect apart from that expressed when they were created. No contract or bargain over land could change the use of that land; anyone who suffered from the breach of such a contract had limited remedies in the courts. While this scheme would have prevented most of the evils of uses, it would also have submitted property law to the common law and limited other,