The Statute ended the practice of creating uses in real property by changing the purely equitable title of beneficiaries of a use into absolute ownership with the right of seisin (possession).

Hence, the practice evolved of landowners creating a use of the land to enable it to pass to someone other than their legal heir upon their death, or simply to try and reduce the incidence of taxation.

[2] The King's initial attempt in 1529, which would have removed uses almost completely, were stymied in Parliament by members of the House of Commons, many of whom were landowners (who would lose money) and lawyers (who benefited in fees from the confusing law on uses).

The Statute invalidated all uses that did not impose an active duty on trustees, with beneficiaries of the use being held as the legal owners of the land, meaning they had to pay tax.

[5] With as many as 13 of such feoffees, there was much confusion over the title to land following a lord's death, as evidenced by the case of Sir John Fastolf, which lasted from 1459 to 1476.

The first, which took note of "grate trobull, vexacion, and unquietness amonges the kynges suggettes for tytyll of londes, tenements, and other heriditamentes as well by intayle as by uses and forgyng of false evidence", was a radical and "drastic" act bill that would have removed uses completely (unless registered at the Court of King's Bench or Court of Common Pleas) and abolished entails "so that all manner of possessions be in state of fee simple from this day forward for ever", although barons and above were allowed entails; in addition, nobody was allowed to buy such land without the king's license.

[7] These measures were to obtain the support of the nobility for the second bill, which gave the King wardship over all the land held by noble orphans.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[26] Academic assessment of the Statute was initially disparaging, with some saying that it added at most "three words to a conveyance", but it was understood to be important by lawyers of the time and in the modern era.

The repeal of the Statutes of Uses did not affect the operation thereof in regard to dealings taking effect before the commencement of the Law of Property Act 1925.