Soil of rivers.

Island in a river.

(a) See Derby County Council v. Matlock Bath, etc Urban District, L896, A. C. 315.

(b) Set cases cited in note , (p), p.. 417, above.

(c) Above, pp. HO, 417.

As to what is the bed of a river, see Thames Conservators v. Smeed 1897, 2 Q. B. 334.

With reaped to the Legal results of a river changing its course see Carlisle Corpn. v. Graham L. R. 4 Ex. 361; Foster v. Wright, 4. C. P. D. 438; Hindson v. Ashby, 1896, 2 Ch. 1.

(e) Re Popple and Barratt's Contract, 25 W. R. 248.

(f) Lord v. Sydney Commrs., 12 Moo. P. C. 473; Micklethwaii v. lay Bridge Co., 33 Ch. D. 133; Cay, J., Tilbury v. Silva, 45 Ch. D. 98, 108. These pre-sumptions do not apply in the case of lands abutting on a canal, of which the surface soil belongs to other owners; Chamber Colliery Co . v. Rochdale Canal Co., 73 L. T.

(g) Devonshirt v. Pattinson, 20

Q. B. D. 263; above, p. 417.

27 (2)

Owner of several fishery presumed to be owner of the soil.

Soil of tidal rivers.

Public right of navigation.

Seashore. Foreshore.

(h) Great Torrington Commons Conservators v. Moore Stevens, 1903, 1 Ch. 347.

(i) See Marshall v. Ulleswater Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 3 B. & S. 732; A.-G. v. Emerson, 1891, A. C. 649: Hindson v. Ashby, 1896, 2 Ch. 1, 11, 20; Eckroyd v. Coulthard, 1897, 2 Ch. 554, 565, 570; Hanburyv. Jenkins, 1901, 2 Ch. 401, 411; Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908,2Ch. 139, 146,161.

(k) As to the meaning- of navi-gable, see Ilchester v. Raishleigh, 61 L. T. 477.

(l) Colchester Corpn. v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339, 374; Malcomson v. O'Dea, 10 H. L. C. 593, 618; Gann v. Free Fishers of Whit stable, 11 H. L. C. 192, 207; Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., 1 App. Cas. 662, 682; North Shore Ry. Co. v. Pion, 14 App. Cas. 612, 621; A.-G. v. Emerson, 1891, A. C. 649. 653; Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908, 2 Ch. 139, 146.

(m) See cases cited in previous note. Inland or non-tidal rivers may by immemorial user or by dedication be subject to a public right of navigation similar to a public right of way along a road: see Orr Ewing v. Colquhoun, 1 App. Cas. 839; Bourke v. Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110, 120 - 124: Smith v. Andrews, 1891, 2 Ch. 678, 689, n., 695 - 697; Simpson v. A.-G., 1904, A. C. 476.

(n) A.-G. v. Chambers, 4 De G. M. & G. 206; A.-G. v. Emerson, 1891, A. C. 649, 653. Where the sea gradually encroaches or recedes, the soil, over which the Crown title extends, is altered accordingly; but a sudden irruption or dereliction of the sea does not cause any change of title to the soil so submerged or left dry: 2 Black. Comm. 262; R. v. Tar-borough, 3 B. & C. 91, 2 Bligh, N. S. 147, 5 Bing. 163; Re Mall and Selby Ry., 5 M. & W. 32 7: Mercer v. Denne, 1905, 2 Ch. 538, 579, 582, 584; Wms. Real Prop. 330, 13th ed. (426, 21st ed.).

(o) Scratton v. Brown, 4 B. & C. 485, 495: Alderson, B., Re Hull and Selby Ry., 5 M. & W. 327, 332; A.-G. v. Emerson, 1891, A. C. 649, 653; Me/lor v. Wal-tnesley, 1905, 2 Ch. 164, 177 - 180.

(p) Mace v. Phileox, 15 C. B.

Several fishery over foreshore.

Land below low-water mark.

Foreshore, where a barrier against the sea.

Land bounded by the seashore.

Riparian owner's right of access to the sea.

No public right to walk on the foreshore.

N. S. 600; Llandudno Urban District v. Woods, 1899, 2 Ch. 705; Liverpool, etc. Steamship Co. v. Mersey Trading Co., Ltd., 1909, 1 Ch. 209: and see Scratton v. . . 1 B. & C. 485, 49.') sq

(q) Calmady v. Rowe, 6 C. B. 861; Beaufort v. Swansea, 3 Ex 413: A.-G. of Ireland v. Vande-leur, L907, A. C. 369, 370; Fitz-hardinfft v. Pureell, 1908, 2 Oh. L39.

(r) A.-d. v. Emerson, 1891, A. C. 649, 653

(a) A.-G. v. Emerson, Fitz-hardinge v. Pureell, ubi sup.

(t) See cases cited in note (l) to p. 420, above; The Swift, 1901, P. 168, 173.

(u) A.-G. v. Tomline, 14 Ch. D. 58, followed Musselburgh Estate Co., Ltd. v. Musselburgh [Provost), 190.5, A. C. 491.

Mellor v. Walmesley, 1905, 2 Ch. 164.

(y) Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., 1 App. Cas. 662; A.-G. of Straits Settlements v. Wemyss, 13 App. Cas. 192: North 8hore By. Co. v. Pion, 14 App. Cas. 612: Mellor v. Walmesley, 1905, 2 Ch. 164. 181.

Inland lake.

The owner of the land forming the bank of any natural river or stream has the right, as incident to such ownership and not as an easement (c), to have the water flow down in its natural state, neither increased nor diminished in quantity (save only so far as may be occasioned by the lawful uses of the owners higher up the stream) (d) and unpolluted (e). But the owner of any land higher up the stream may enjoy a prescriptive right in the nature of an easement to abstract from the stream a larger quantity of water than he is allowed as riparian owner to take for his own use (f'), or to discharge extraneous water or other matter into the stream (g). But any prescriptive right to discharge such matter into a stream does not absolve its owner from the necessity of observing the requirements of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (h). The right to the natural flow of water is confined to such water as flows in a known and defined stream or channel, and does not extend to .surface water not so flowing (i), or to underground water merely percolating through the strata in no known channels (k). If, however, a stream of water flow underground in a defined and known channel and afterwards emerge on to the surface, the owners of land lower down the stream will be entitled to the natural flow of the water down to them (l).

Water rights in natural rivers.

(z) Blundell v. Catterall, 5 B. & A. 268; Llandudno Urban District Councilv. Woods, 1899, 2 Ch. 705: Brinckman v. Matley, 1904, 2 Ch. 313; Fitzhardinge v. Purr,//, 1908, 2 Ch. 139, 165 sq. The foreshore may be subject through immemorial user to the right of the owners of fishing boats and other craft to fix moorings in the soil; A.-G. v. Wright, 1897, 2 Q. B. 318. And there may be a good custom for fishermen to dry their nets on land near the sea; Mercer v. Denne, 1904, 2 Ch. 531; 1905, 2 Ch. 538.