THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OWNERSHIP OF COMMON LAND IS THAT IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS EQUIVILENT TO AN ORDINARY FREEHOLD, SUBJECT ONLY TO RIGHTS OF COMMON GRANTED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIED BY THE OWNER OR HIS/HER PREDECESSORS, AND,STATUTORY ENACTMENTS WHICH WHICH EFFECT THE LAND.

Says Tony Barnett,

GERALD GADSDON WROTE BOOKS ON THE LAWS ON COMMON LANDS, HE ALSO HELD LECTURES AND ALSO WROTE PAPERS WHICH HAD STOOD CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS, BUT DO NOT FEATURE IN HIS BOOKS.

CASE HISTORY IS WHAT WAS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT AND LATER FOUND ITS WAY INTO LEGISLATION WHICH BECAME THE LAWS OF THIS LAND.

THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OWNERSHIP OF COMMON LAND IS THAT IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS EQUIVILENT TO AN ORDINARY FREEHOLD, SUBJECT ONLY TO RIGHTS OF COMMON GRANTED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIED BY THE OWNER OR HIS/HER PREDECESSORS, AND,STATUTORY ENACTMENTS WHICH WHICH EFFECT THE LAND.

IN THE WORDS OF THE JUDGES THE OWNER HAS " ENTIRE DOMINION OVER THE SOIL SUBJECT TO THE TENANTS RIGHTS OF COMMON"
( CASE HISTORY Doe d. LOWES-V- DAVIDSON 1813) AND" ALL THAT THE LORD HAS NOT GRANTED REMAINS IN HIM"( CASE HISTORY ARLETT-V-ELLIS 1827)

THE SAME REMARKS APPLY EVEN IN THE CASE OF "SOILE PASTURES" WHERE THE ENTIRE BENEFIT IN GRAZING HAS BEEN GRANTED AWAY ( FOR THE SOILE IS THE LORD'S AND HE HAS THE MINES, TREES, BUSHES ETC AND HE MAY DIG FOR TURFS.

TRADITIONALLY OWNERSHIP OF MOST OF THE COMMON LAND WAS VESTED IN THE LORD OF THE MANOR AND INDEED OVER MANY OF THE WASTES THIS IS STILL TODAY.

ON MANY OTHERS, HOWEVER, A VARIETY OF PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND TRUST ARE ENCOUNTERED AS CURRENT OWNERS, IN THE CASE OF REGULATED PASTURES THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE HAS A SPECIAL ROLE DEFENDED BY STATUTE, THE LAND MAY BE OWNED BY ANY PERSON CAPABLE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND IN GENERAL IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE LAND IS STILL OWNED BY THE LORD OF THE MANOR, EXCEPT IN CERTAIN STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHERE THE LORD APPEARS TO HAVE A ROLE DENIED TO OTHER OWNERS.( CASE HISTORY GLOVER -V- LANE 1789)

THE LORD AND THE OWNER OF THE SOIL MAY BE TREATED AS SYNONYMS EXCEPT WHERE PARTICULARY NOTED, IN OTHER CASES IT WAS ALMOST UNIVERSAL PRACTICE TO DESCRIBE THE OWNER AS LORD AND IN STATUTES IT IS ONLY RECENTLY THAT THE ALTERNATIVE OF LORDS AND OWNERS OF THE SOIL ARE MENTIONED.

IT FOLLOWS THAT IN CONSIDERING EARLIER CASES AND STATUTES IT IS NECCESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS ONLY LORDS OF THE MANORS TO WHOM REFERENCE IS INTENDED.

QUOTED STATEMENTS ON RIGHTS OF THE OWNER OF THE SOIL, AND ONE WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO THE PRINCIPELS OF CURRENT USE, IS THAT OF BAYLEY J. IN ARLETT-V-ELLIS 1827, KIRBY-V-SADGROVE 1797 THUS " THE LORD HAS RIGHTS OF HIS OWN RESERVED UPON THE WASTE, I DO NOT SAY SUBSERVIENT TO, BUT CONCURRENT WITH, THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMONERS AND WHEN IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE IS MORE COMMON THAN IS NECCESSARY FOR THE CATTLE OF THE COMMONERS, THE LORD, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, IS ENTITLED TO TAKE THAT FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES"

THE WAY IN WHICH THE SURPLUS MAY BE TAKEN DEPENDS UPON WHETHER IT IS SEASONAL OR PERMANENT, IF SEASONAL, IT MAY BE TAKEN BY THE LORD, OR HIS LICENSEE, AT THE TIME WHEN IT OCCURS; IF PERMANENT, BY THE PROCEDURE KNOWN AS APPROVMENT, ie BY ENCLOSURE OF THE SURPLUS LAND WITH EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS OVER THAT LAND.

THE RIGHT TO TAKE SEASONAL SURPLUS SURVIVES TODAY BUT THE RIGHT OF APPROVMENT IS REPEALED AND FURTHER APPROVEMENT/ENCLOSURE IS PROHIBITED.

THE MOST ELDERLY MANAGEMENT STATUTE STILL IN FORCE IS THE ENCLOSURE ACT 1773, NOW REPEALED, IT SHULD BE NOTED THAT, IN THIS ACT, IT IS ONLY THE LORD OR LADY OF A MANOR WHO IS EMPOWERED TO ACT AND NOT ANY OTHER OWNER OF THE SOIL.