The principal rights enjoyed by riparian owners as such are the right of increase of property by means of alluvion and the right of use of the water.

Alluvion is the gradual and imperceptible increase of land by deposit; a sudden and violent changing of the course of a stream by a flood does not change the property. The addition to property by alluvion is occasionally of considerable practical importance. In the reign of Charles I. the estate of Lord Berkeley was increased by 300 acres left dry by the Severn. The land was claimed for Vie crown, but judgment was given in favour of Lord Berkeley. If an island be formed in the stream, it belongs to the proprietor to whose land it is nearest; if it be exactly in mid-stream, it belongs to the riparian proprietors equally. The r⅛ht of use of the water of a natural stream cannot be better described than in the words of Lord Kingsdown :—“By the general law applicable to running streams, every riparian proprietor has a right to what may be called the ordinary use of water flowing past his land,—for instance, to the reasonable use of the water for domestic purposes and for his cattle, and this without regard to the effect which such use may have in case of a deficiency upon proprietors lower down the st ream. But, further, he has a right to the use of it for auy purpose, or what may be deemed the extraordinary use of it, provided he does not thereby interfere with the rights of other proprietors, either above or below him. Subject to this condition, he may dam up a stream for the purposes of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to intercept tho regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes with the lawful use of the water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury,” (Miner®. Gilmour, 12 Moore's Privy Council Cases, 156). The rights of riparian proprietors where the flow of water is artificial rest on a different principle. As the artificial stream is made by a person for his own benefit, any right of another person as a riparian proprietor does not arise at common law, as in the case of a natural stream, but must be established by grant or prescription. The rights of a person nota riparian proprietor who uses land abutting on a river by the licence or grant of the riparian proprietor are not as full as though he were a riparian proprietor, for he cannot be imposed as a riparian proprietor upon the other proprietors without their consent. The effect of this appears to be that he is not entitled to sensibly affect their rights, even by the ordinary as distinguished from the extraordinary use of the water.

The limitations to which the right of the riparian proprietor is subject may be divided into those existing by common right, those imposed for public purposes, and those established against him by crown grant or by custom or prescription. Under the first head comes the public right of navigation, of anchorage and fishery from boats (in tidal waters), and of taking shell-fish (and probably other fish except royal fish) on the shore of tidal λvaters as far as any right of several fishery does not intervene. Under the second head would fall the right of eminent domain by which the state takes riparian rights for public purposes, compensating the proprietor, the restrictions upon the fishery rights of the proprietor, as by Acts forbidding the taking of fish in close time, and the restrictions on the ground of public health, as by the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876. The jurisdiction of the state over rivers in England may be exercised by officers of the crown, as by commissioners of sewers or by the Board of Trade under the Crown Lands Act, 1866. A bridge is erected and supported by the county authorities, and the riparian proprietor must bear any inconvenience resulting from it. An example of an adverse right by crown grant is a Ferry {q.v.) or a port. The crown, moreover, as the guardian of the realm, has jurisdiction to restrain the removal of the foreshore, the natural barrier of the sea, by its owner in case of apprehended danger to the coast. The rights established against a riparian proprietor by private persons must as a rule be based on prescription or custom, only on prescription where they are in the nature of profits a prendre (see Prescription). Among such rights are the right to bathe, to land, to discharge cargo, to tow, to dry nets, to beach boats, to take sand, shingle, or water, to have a sea-wall maintained, to pollute the water (subject to the Rivers Pollution Act). In some cases the validity of local riparian customs has been recognized by the legislature. The right to enter on lands adjoining tidal waters for the purpose of watching for and landing herrings, pilchards, and other sea-fish was confirmed to the fishermen of Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall by 1 Jac. I. c. 23. The digging of sand on the shore of tidal waters for use as manure on the land was granted to the inhabitants of Devon and Cornwall by 7 Jac. I. c. 18. The public right of taking or killing rabbits in the daytime on any sea bank or river bank in the county of Lincoln, so far as the tide extends, or within one furlong of such bank, was preserved by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 17. It should be noticed that rights of the public may be subject to private rights. Where the river is navigable, although the right of navigation is common to the subjects of the realm, it may be connected with a right to exclusive access to riparian land, the invasion of which may form the ground for legal proceedings by the riparian proprietor (see Lyon v. The Fishmongers’ Company, Law Reports—Appeal Cases, vol. i., 662).

A freshwater lake appears to be governed by the same law as a non-tidal river. The preponderance of authority is in favour of the right of the riparian proprietors as against the crown.

Unlawful and malicious injury to sea and river banks, towing paths, sluices, floodgates, milldams, &c., or poisoning fish is a crime under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97.

Scotland.— The law of Scotland is in general accordance with that of England. One of the principal differences is that in Scotland, if a charter state that the sea is the boundary of a grant, the foreshore is included in the grant, subject to the burden of crown rights for public purposes. Persons engaged in the herring fishery off the coast of Scotland have, by 11 Geo. III. c. 31, the right to use the shore for 100 yards from high-water mark for landing and drying nets, erecting huts, and curing fish. Similar powers were given to those engaged in any white fish fishery by 29 Geo. II. c. 23; but the section of the Act giving these powers was repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868.

United States.— In the United States the common law’ of England was originally adopted, the State succeeding to the right of the crown. This was no doubt sufficient in the thirteen original States, where rivers of the largest size do not occur, but was not generally followed in later times when it had become obvious that English law was insufficient to meet the case of the vast rivers and lakes of North America. “In Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iow ’ a, Mississippi, and Alabama, it has been determined that the common law ’ does not prevail, and that the ownership of the bed or soil of all rivers navigable for any useful purpose of trade or agriculture, whether tidal or fresh u r ater, is in the State” (Bouvier, Law Diet., s.υ. “River”). The supreme court of the United States in 1857 declared constitutional an Act of Congress of 1845, extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States to all public navigable rivers and lakes where commerce is earned on between different States or with foreign nations (The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard's Reports, 443). The right of eminent domain has been exercised to a much greater extent than in England in the acquisition of sites for mills under the powers of State legislation in encouragement of trade. Such a course has never been necessary in England (see Angell, Law of Watercourses, § 478). The law as to subterranean water seems to be still unsettled. Some State decisions have recognized a public right to moor vessels and place cargo on the shore. (J. W+.)

Although Riph’s works which are known are only two, the editions of one of these and the commentaries thereon are very numerous; we can only mention a few of them.

I. Hilekhoth Rab Al-phez. (1) With the Novellae of Rabbenu Nissimb. Reuben, the Decisions of R. Mordekhaib. Hillel (see Rosh), the Novellae of one of the disciples of Rabbenu Yonah, the commentaries of R. Yehonathan Hakkohen of Lunel and R. Yoseph Habibo (Constantinople, 1509, fol.). (2) The second edition we have already mentioned. (3) With the Strictures by R. Zerahyah Hallevi (author of the Maor) and Nachmanides’s defence called Milhamoth Adonai (see Ramban), &c. (Venice, 1552, fol.). Each subsequent edition contains additional matter.

II. Respοnsa, originally some, if not all of them, written in Arabic (Leghorn, 1781, and reprint, Vienna 1794, both in 4to).

For more literature by andon Riph see Terniτη De'irn in the collection Turn-math Yesharirn. (S. M. S.-S.)

It was during those years that there grew up in New England that form of thought or philosophy known as Transcendentalism—a name, as Emerson said, “given nobody knows by whom, or when it was applied.” Its growth was part of what Dr Holmes has termed the “intellectual or, if we may call it so, spiritual revival” which during the period from 1820 to 1840 was so strongly marked in the New England “churches, in politics, in philanthropy, in literature.” Ripley w τ as prominent, if not the leader, in all practical manifestations of the movement; and it was by his earnestness and practical energy that certain of its more tangible results were directed. The first meeting of the Transcendental Club was held at his house in September 1836. He was a founder and a chief supporter of the famous magazine The Dial, which was the organ of the school from 1840 to 1844. Most important of all, however, he was the originator and conductor of an experiment which was the most interesting practical result of the thought and tendencies of the time,—the foundation of “The Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture.” This project, in the words of its originator, was intended “to insure a more natural union between intellectual and manual labour than now exists; to combine the thinker and the worker, as far as possible, in the same individual; to guarantee the highest mental freedom by providing all with labour adapted to their tastes and talents, an<i securing to them the fruits of their industry; to do away with the necessity of menial services by opening the benefits of education and the profits of labour to all; and thus to prepare a society of liberal, intelligent, and cultivated persons w τ hose relations with each other w τ ould permit a more simple and wholesome life than can be led amidst the pressure of our competitive institutions.” In short, its aim was to bring about the best conditions for an ideal civilization, reducing to a minimum the labour necessary for mere existence, and by this and by the simplicity of its social machinery saving the maximum of time for mental and spiritual education and development. At a time when Emerson could write to Carlyle, “We are all a little wild here with numberless projects of social reform; not a reading man but has a draft of a new community in his waistcoat pocket,”—the Brook Farm project certainly did not appear as impossible a scheme as many others that were in the air. At all events it enlisted the co-operation of men whose subsequent careers show them to have been something more than visionaries. The association bought a tract of land in West Roxbury, some ten miles from Boston, and with about twenty members actually began its enterprise in the summer of 1841.

For three years the undertaking went on quietly and simply, subject to few outward troubles other than financial difficulties, the number of associates increasing to seventy or eighty. Pictures of the life they led have been preserved by many hands. It - was during this period that Hawthorne had his short experience of Brook Farm, of which so many suggestions appear in the Rlithedale Romance, though his preface to later editions effectually disposed of the idea—which gave him great pain—that he had either drawn his characters from persons there, or had meant to give any actual description of the colony. Emerson, though he refused in a kind and characteristic letter to join in the undertaking, and though he afterwards wrote of Brook Farm with not uncharitable humour as·“a perpetual picnic, a French Revolution in small, an age of reason in a patty-pan,” yet spoke of the design as “noble and generous,” and among its founders were many of his near friends.

In 1844 the growing need of a more scientific organization, and the influence which Fourier’s doctrines had gained in the minds of Ripley and many of his associates, combined to change the whole plan of the community. It was transformed, with the strong approval of all its chief members and the consent of the rest, into a Fourierist “phalanx” in 1845. There was an accession of new members, a momentary increase of prosperity, a brilliant new undertaking in the publication of a journal, The Harbinger, in which Ripley, Charles A. Dana, Francis G. Shaw, and John Dwight were the chief writers, and to which Lowell, Whittier, George William Curtis, Parke Godwin, Story, Channing, Higginson, Horace Greeley, and many more now and then contributed. But the individuality of the old Brook Farm was gone. The association was not rescued even from financial troubles by the change. With increasing difficulty it kept on till the spring of 1846, when a fire which destroyed its building or “phalanstery” brought losses which caused, or certainly gave the final ostensible reason for, its dissolution. Its failure left Ripley poor and feeling keenly the defeat of his project; but the event forced him at last to devote himself to that career of literary labour in which the real success of his life was achieved. He wrote for The Harbinger during the year of its continuance, but in 1849 he joined the staff of The Tribune, founded eight years before by Horace Greeley in New York, and in a short time became its literary editor. This position, which, through his steadiness, scholarly conservatism, and freedom from caprice as a critic, soon became one of great influence, he held until his death on July 4, 1880.

During the greater part of the time of his connexion with The Tribune, Ripley was also the adviser of a leading publishing house, an occasional contributor to the magazines, and a co-operator in several literary undertakings. The chief of these, and the most lasting work that bears his name, λvas the American Cyclopaedia. Begun under the editorship of Ripley and Charles A. Dana in 1857, the first edition was finished in 1862, under the title of the New American Cyclopaedia— distinguishing it from its only important American predecessor in the field, the small Encyclopaedia Americana of many years before, which Dr Francis Lieber had edited, and which had been largely an adaptation of Brockhaus’s Conversations-Lexikon. The new undertaking was upon a much larger scale, and enlisted a great number of well-known contributors. It proved exceedingly popular; and its commercial success led the publishers to undertake a complete revision of it ten years later—still under the same editors—the result of which, with the dropping of the word “new” from the title, was the American Cyclopaedia now before the public.

Ripley’s Life, written by the Rev. 0. β. Frothinghanι, forms one of the volumes of the series American Men of Letters.

The city is first mentioned under the name of Inhrypum in connexion with the establishment of a monastery in 660 by Abbot Eata of Melrose. A few years after it was bestowed on St Wilfrid, who was elevated to the see of Northumbria. After the division of the bishopric in 678, a see was erected at Ripon. The city suffered severely in connexion with the incursions of the Danes and the invasion of William the Conqueror, and was burnt by Robert Bruce in 1319 and 1323. During the Civil War it was for a time occupied by the Parliamentary forces, but it was retaken by the Royalists in 1643. It was first represented in parliament in the reign of Edward I. it lost one of its two members in 1868, and ceased to be separately represented in 1885. Surrounding the town is an extensive district called the liberty of Ripon, over which the archbishop of York at one time exercised special jurisdiction, not yet altogether annulled.