Common of Pasture in Gross was unlike virtually any other right of common. It allowed almost anyone to use the waste. It could be claimed by producing evidence of an original grant or by long continued use of the waste[known as prescription see later post]. It differed from a simple leasing arrangement in that no money changed hands when the grant was made. COPG could be made to those living outside the manor whether or not they held land in the manor. The grant was often made to corporations such as the church, or the Mayor of a borough or the office of Overseers of the Poor and so on.
As it was attached to an individual, and was not attached to a particular land holding, it was considered to be neither appendant or appurtenant. In effect it stood alone although Halsbury believed that most common of pasture in gross had started life [as it were] by being a common of pasture appurtenant which, once severed from the land, attached itself [as it were] to the individual who held that right. It is not clear from Halsbury whether the right extended to animals other than those levant et couchant but as with all the other rights of pasturage it was limited in number to those levant et couchant.
Two other forms of common right, common in the soil and common of piscary were also considered to have been held as common in gross. In the legal classification described here they appeared to occupy an ambiguous position as they were often included in lists of appurtenant rights even though it was thought that they weren’t. Sometimes such classification appears to be an effort to get as many square pegs into round holes as possible.
Categories: In Depth
John Martin of Evershot 