408 REPORT—1885. 
Loveland Loveland, of the Inner Temple, in 1875; and this work shows well the 
imperial character of the inquiry deputed to the British Association Committee on — 
the Erosion of the Sea Coasts of England and Wales. 
We are told in this essay, on p. 2, that ‘this dominion or ownership over the 
British seas, vested by our law in the king, is not confined to the mere usufruct of — 
the water and the maritime jurisdiction, but it includes the very fundum or soil at 
the bottom of the sea.’ 
The effect resultant on the frequent piercing of our sea littoral by estuaries, creeks, — 
and rivers is graphically described on p. 3, indicative of the extent of territory — 
involved. ‘This dominion not only extends over the open seas, but also over all 
creeks, arms of the sea, havens, ports, and tide rivers, as far as the reach of the tide, © 
around the coasts of the kingdom. All waters, in short, which communicate with 
the sea, and are within the flux and reflux of its tides, are part and parcel of the sea 
itself, and subject, in all respects, to the like ownership.’ 
‘Grants of the sea-shore by the king’ are treated on at p. 14, and ‘As to the 
claims of lords of manors to the sea-shore’ at p. 17. x 
‘As to digging for sand, &c.,’ we have, at p. 92, the following apposite opinion :— 
‘With regard to the “constant and usual fetching of sea-sand, seaweed, and gravel, 
between the high-water and low-water mark, and licensing others so to do; and 
embanking against the sea, and enjoyment of what is so imned ”—these, it must be 
admitted, are all acts likely to be done by the owners of the soil, and they afford 
colour that he who does such acts is the owner; but these acts may be usurpations or 
intrusions on the king’s ownership, and prima facie are so.’ 
The sea-coast margin is at p. 108 divided into three categories, the treatise saying 
that, ‘as to alluvion and derelict land, land gained from the sea is of three kinds: 
“Ist. Per alluvionem, alluvion, or land washed up by the sea. 
‘2nd. Per relictionem, derelict land, or land left dry by the shrinkage or retirement 
of the sea.’ 
And at p. 109 we read: ‘The law on this part of the subject is laid down by 
Blackstone in these words :—* As to lands gained from the sea, either by allwvion, i.e., 
by washing up of sand or earth, so as in time to make terra firma; or by dereliction, | 
as when the sea shrinks back below the usual water-mark, in these cases the law is 
held to be that, if this gain be by little and little, by small and imperceptible degrees, 
it shall go to the owner of the land adjoining, for ‘de minimis non curat lex ;’ but if 
the alluvion or dereliction be sudden and considerable, the land shall go the king, as 
lord of the seas.”’ 
The land gained from the sea in the third category would be that from which the 
waters had been excluded by artificial works of embanking and drainage, generally 
applicable to salt marshes of silty deposit gradually risen to the height of neap-tide 
flow, but only covered by spring tides. 
It is curious to find Blackstone and his commentators talking of these salt-slob 
lands, which, by their gradual accretion, have risen above the influence of all but great 
tides, as dereliction caused by the shrinkage of the sea below its usual level, whereas 
the converse is the case, the surface gradually rising and shutting out the tide by its 
own proper operation. The fact that O. D. is mean level of the sea is sufficient — 
tration of Blackstone’s physical inaccuracy in this special instance. 
As regards the wholesale removal of shingle and boulders from marine spits and 
moles, it is only necessary to refer to such cases as the quarrying of cement stones 
from the foreshores on either side of Harwich, from the Beacon cliff to the south- 
ward, and from the Felixstow cliffs to the northward, only stopped by the persistent 
efforts made by Captain Hewett’s successor in the North Sea Survey, the late 
Admiral Washington, and others. For illustration of this pernicious practice and the 
deplorable results frequently entailed this case suffices. Again, on the northern 
side, the indiscriminate removal of shingle from the northern breakwater of Harwich 
harbour (Landguard Point) for ballastage by the lord of the manor has been the 
fruitful source of litigation. Similar results from similar practices at Spurn Point, at 
the mouth of the Humber, have been entailed. In effect, this natural shingle mole, 
defending the entrance to the most important harbour on our eastern coast, was 
nearly breached in consequence. 
Next to the removal for ballastage, the most fertile cause is removal of materia 
for road-making and for building purposes, and when in the neighbourhood of a large 
town os becomes, from the enormous quantity removed in the seer eat sufficient 
