part of the realm of England, for thereon our courts of admiralty have jurisdiction; but he justly adds, that they are not subject to the common law. The reason which he gives for the supposed dominion over the high seas is insufficient; for the courts of admiralty of all nations have jurisdiction thereon as well as our own. The law of nations, as it is now established and understood, does not recognise in any nation a dominion over the high seas, which are the highway of all nations, and are governed, not by the jurisdiction of any prince or country, but by the public law of the whole civilised world. There can, indeed, be no pretence of right for the assertion of such a dominion. The sea is one of those things whereof the use is inexhaustible. No nation can assert that she is unable to derive the fullest benefit from navigation without the exclusion of others. The same wind which fills the sails of a single ship is sufficient to navigate all the fleets in the world. These reasons are sufficient to shew that the high seas must be intended (unlike other things which cannot be fully enjoyed without exclusive dominion) to remain free for the common benefit of mankind.1 But, however well recognised these principles may be at present, the rightfulness of exclusive dominion over the high seas was strenuously asserted by Selden, and denied

the crown, without any interposition of parliament, until the reign of James I."

1 V. Grotius, Mare liberum, per tot. Grot. Dr. de la Guerre et de la Paix, l. ii. c. iii. § 8 et seq.; 1. ii. c. ii. § 3. Pufendorf, Dr. des Gens, l. iv. c. v. § 3, 4, and § 7-9 note. Barbeyrac. Azuni, Dr. Marit. vol. i. c. i. Vatel, Dr. des G. L. c. xxiii. Bynkershoek de Domin. Maris Dissert. per tot. Vinnius ad Inst. 1. ii. tit. i. § 1. Voet ad Pand. L. 1. tit. viii. § 3; L. 9, ff. ad 1. Rhod. de jact., et ibi interp. et Bynkershoek de 1. Rhod. de jact. Wolfius Jus Gent. § 121,

127.

by Grotius; and England has long claimed such a right over the four seas surrounding the British Isles.1

Every nation, however, has a right to hold exclusive dominion over the sea within a certain distance of her shores. Such a right is necessary for her safety, and for the custody of her maritime boundaries. The same principle (with some additional reasons) applies to portions of the sea enclosed within the territories of a nation.2 The precise distance from the shore, to which that lawful dominion extends, cannot be absolutely settled by any general rules. It is decided in each case by the law of the country, by usage, and by sound discretion.3

The main sea is held by the law of England to begin at low-water mark; and between low-water mark and highwater mark, where the sea ebbs and flows, the common law and admiralty have a divided and alternate jurisdiction; one upon the land when it is left dry, and the other upon the water when it is full sea.4

The territory of England is liable to two divisions; the one ecclesiastical, and the other civil.5

1 V. Selden, Mare clausum. Alberic. Gentil. Mare claus. dows, Observ. concerning the Dominion, &c. of the Seas, 1689. Litt. p. 260, n. Butler.

Mea-
Co.

2 Grot. Dr. de la G. et de la P. 1. ii. c. iii. § 8. Azuni, Droit Marit. vol. i. c. i. art. iv. Wolfius, Jus Gent. § 128, 132.

3 Bynker. de Dom. Mar. c. ii. Azuni, D. Marit. vol. i. c. i. art. iv. § 5-11. Vatel, Dr. des Gens, l. i. c. xxiii. § 289.

4 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 111. In the Pandects the shore is thus defined at high-water mark: "Littus est quousque maximus fluctus hibernalis excurrit." L. 96, ff. de verb. signif. By the custom of Scotland the sea-shore is not held to extend beyond the point which the sea reaches in ordinary tides. Bell, Law Dict. Ersk. Inst. Cajus Aquilius Gallus, and Cicero Topic. c. vii. Vinn. ad Inst. 1. ii. t. i. § 3. 5 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 111. Co. Litt. 94 A.

The ecclesiastical division is primarily into two provinces, those of Canterbury and York, governed by two archbishops. Those provinces, or archiepiscopal districts, are subdivided into dioceses or sees of bishops; and of these, Canterbury until lately contained twenty-one, and York three, besides the bishopric of Man, which was annexed to the province of York by king Henry VIII.

But, by virtue of the statutes 6 and 7 W. IV. c. 77, the bishopric of Bristol has, by order in council, been united with that of Gloucester, and the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor are to be consolidated.

Two new bishoprics have, at the same time, been erected at Ripon and Manchester. Thus two bishoprics are taken from the province of Canterbury, and the same number added to that of York.

The bishops in each province are called the suffragans of the archbishop, who is also called a metropolitan.

Every diocese is divided into archdeaconries, governed under the bishop by the archdeacon; and the archdeaconries are again subdivided into rural deaneries, each of which is under the jurisdiction of a rural dean. The dioceses are also divided into parishes. A parish is that circuit of ground which is committed to the charge of one parson or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls. The division of parishes is a very ancient ecclesiastical institution, dating, according to Van Espen, as far back as the fourth century. St. Athanasius, at that time bishop of Alexandria, clearly refers to it (Apol. II.), where he says, "Mariotes is a country of Alexandria, and in that place there never was a bishop, nor even a suffragan, but all the churches of that country are subject to the

1 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 12.

bishop of Alexandria. Every district, however, has its own priest."

It is a matter of dispute at what time the division of parishes commenced in England. Blackstone informs us, that in the early ages of Christianity parishes were unknown, or signified what a diocese does now. The appropriation of ecclesiastical dues and tithes to particular churches was left to the free choice of the faithful, who were, however, not at liberty to withhold them entirely; but if unappropriated, they were distributed at the discretion of the bishop."

According to Camden, England was divided into parishes by Archbishop Honorius, about the year 630; but Sir H. Hobart attributes their erection to the council of Lateran, which was held in the year 1179. Blackstone, on the other hand, argues that the true date is probably between the periods assigned by those learned authorities; for, as that great writer observes, Selden has clearly shewn that the clergy lived in common, without any division of parishes, long after the time mentioned by Camden; and it appears, from the Saxon laws, that parishes existed much before the council of Lateran.

"We find," says Blackstone, "the distinction of parishes, nay even of mother-churches, so early as in the laws of king Edgar, about the year 970. Before that time, the consecration of tithes was in general arbitrary; that is, every man paid his own (as was before observed) to what church or parish he pleased. But this being attended with either fraud or at least caprice, in the persons paying, and with either jealousies or mean compliances in

1 Van Espen, tom. i. t. iii. p. 32.

2 Blackst. Com. loc. cit. Fleury, Inst. au Dr. Eccl. c. x. Seld. of Tith. 9. 4.

such as were competitors for receiving them, it was ordered by the law of king Edgar, that all tithes should be paid to the principal church to which the parish belonged.'

Thanes or great lords were, however, allowed to pay their tithes to their own private church or chapel, if they possessed one in their demesnes, provided it had a cemetery or consecrated place of burial. Thus we find that the appropriation of tithes to particular churches arose. from the inconveniences produced by the dependent situation in which the clergy were placed by the former system.

The division of parishes probably took place by degrees. The lords, as Christianity spread itself, built churches on their own demesnes or wastes, and endowed them by obliging their tenants to appropriate their tithes to the support of the priest; and these tracts of land, of which the tithes were so appropriated, formed distinct parishes. This accounts for the fact that a manor seldom spreads over more than one parish, though one parish often contains many manors. And thus much of the ecclesiastical division of the kingdom.

The civil division of the territory of England is into counties, of those counties into hundreds, of those hundreds into tithings or towns.

This division of the kingdom, instituted for the administration of justice, was not peculiar to England. In the early laws of France and Lombardy frequent mention is made of the hundred-court, and now and then of those petty village-magistrates who in England are called tithing-men. It has been usual to attribute the establishment of this system among the Anglo-Saxons to Alfred, on the authority of Ingulphus, a writer contem

1 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 113.