full view from the village, are the magnificent Jungfrau and several other remarkable peaks of the Bernese Alps. The visitors are the chief source of income to the inhabitants, who number from 1000 to 2000.

INTERLINEATIONS in a deed are additions or corrections written either on the margin or between the lines. In England, interlineations in a deed are not fatal, provided only it is proved that they were made before executing the deed. It is usual to put the parties' initials opposite the place where the interlineations occur, in proof of this, or at least by way of memorandum. In affidavits and other documents, the initials should also be put at the places interlined. In Scotland, if the interlineation is at all material, it ought to be signed by the parties, and the fact mentioned in the testing clause, otherwise it will be presumed that the interlineations were made after the execution, and will vitiate the deed.

INTERLOCUTOR, in Scotch Law, means a finding or judgment of a judge or court in a cause. In England, the word is not used.

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, means a judgment which is not final, but which is merely a step in the suit or action. So as to interlocutory decrees or

orders.

I'NTERLUDE, in Music, is a short melodious phrase played by the organist (generally extempore) between the verses of a psalm-tune. In the German Protestant Church, the interlude (or zwischenspiel) is generally played between each line of the verse, to give the congregation time to breathe. To accompany the chorale of the Lutheran Church with scientific and appropriate interludes, is reckoned in Germany the chief test of a good organist. INTERMA'RRIAGE. The intermarriage or intercourse of near relatives has been universally believed to entail degeneration upon the offspring,

and the act has been condemned and prohibited. The physical deformity and mental debasement of the Cagots of the Pyrenees, of the Marrons of Auvergne, of the Sarrasins of Dauphiné, of the Cretins of the Alps, and the gradual deterioration of the slave population of America, have been attributed to the consanguineous alliances which are unavoidable among these unfortunate peoples. More recently, the same opinion has been sup ported by the history of deaf-mutism and of idiocy. Of 235 deaf and dumb children whose parentage could be traced, 70, or nearly 30 per cent., were the offspring of the intermarriage of blood-relations. But in opposition to, and apparently destructive of such an hypothesis, may be adduced the unimpaired condition and symmetry of the Jews, of the small Mohammedan communities in India, of the isolated tribes in North America, among whom the repeated intermarriage of near relatives is compulsory. Moreover, this opinion does not hold in the Arabs can trace the pedigree of their most valuthe analogous cases among the inferior animals, as able horses to the time of Mohammed, whilst they record the ascendants of racers for 200 years, and avoid all crossing; the stud-books in this country shew the perpetuation of the qualities of strength, and weight, and fleetness by propagation within the endowed family, both Eclipse and Childers being descended from a horse the offspring of a parent and foal; and the descendants, again, of these horses, which still maintain the highest estimation, afford many instances of very close breeding; and lastly, the Durham ox and the Ditchely sheep were the result and triumph of breeding in and in. The present state of the controversy, as it has been recently conducted in France, may be summed up in the proposition, that consanguineous alliances are not necessarily hurtful to the offspring, provided the parents be healthy and robust; but the observations of Devay and Bemiss in America shew that such generalisations should be received with

caution. It should be added, that even were it established that mental disease generally followed such unions, the transmission might depend rather upon the increased certainty of reproducing hereditary tendencies, than upon the violation of any physiological law.-Steinau, Essay on Hereditary Diseases and Intermarriage; Devay, Du Danger des Mariages Consanguins (1862); Darwin, Animals and Plants under Domestinon (1869); and The Origin and Descent of Man, &c. (1870).

INTERMEDIATE HARMONIES, in Music, are the harmonies introduced between extreme nonrelated keys, while modulating from the one key to the other, which harmonies prepare the ear to receive the new key.

INTERMEZZO, a short dramatic comic scene, with singing, peculiar to the Italian stage, and introduced between the acts of an opera or play.

INTERMITTENT FEVER. See AGUE. INTERNATIONAL LAW is divided into public international law and private international law. 1. Public International Law, or the law of nations, consists of those rules which independent nations agree among themselves to be just and fair in regulating their dealings with each other in times of war and peace. The mode in which they arrive at this common understanding of what is just and fair, is by comparing the opinions of text-writers who profess to set forth and collect the general opinion of civilised nations, for all these writers appeal ultimately to the principles of natural reason and common sense, as the test of what they profess to be the proper rule. Treaties of peace, alliance, and commerce also define and modify the existing international law as between the contracting parties. The decisions of prize-courts, which profess to proceed on principles of natural justice, of universal application, are also declarations of this international law. The leading doctrines thus adopted are as follows: A sovereign state is one which governs itself independently of foreign powers. In the event of a civil war in one nation, other nations may remain indifferent spectators, and treat the ancient government as sovereign, and the government de facto as entitled to the rights of war against its enemy. If the foreign state profess neutrality, it is bound to allow impartially to both belligerent parties the free exercise of those rights which war gives to public enemies against each other, such as the right of blockade, and of capturing contraband and enemy's property. Where a colony or province asserts its independence, and has shewn its ability to maintain this independence, the recognition of its sovereignty by other foreign states is a question of policy and prudence only; but until acknowledged, courts of justice and private individuals are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unaltered. When a change occurs in the person of the sovereign, or in the internal constitution of a state, all treaties made by such state which were not personal to the former sovereign, continue to be binding on the succeeding sovereign.

All sovereign states are, in the eye of international law, on a footing of equality. Each state has the right to require the military service of its own people for purposes of self-defence, and to develop all its resources in the manner it thinks fit, so long as it does not interfere with the same equal rights of other nations. When, however, one state unduly aggrandises itself, and augments its military and naval forces beyond what all the other states consider proportioned to its position, then those other states have some ground to interfere. This, how ever, is considered a delicate business, and not to be attempted rashly; and it is difficult to define

what is a just ground of interference. The acquisi tion of colonies and dependencies has never been considered a just motive for such interference. According to Wheaton (International Law, 88, 6th ed.), interferences to preserve the balance of power have been generally confined to prevent a sovereign, already powerful, from incorporating conquered provinces into his territory, or increasing a dictatorial influence over the councils and conduct of other independent states. The aversion to interference has no doubt, in modern times, become stronger and stronger; and it may be taken to be now almost an axiom, that no foreign state has any just ground of interfering in what is merely an internal revolution of a state, or a mode of readjusting its own constitution; in short, each state ought to be allowed to manage its own internal affairs, and to choose whatever form of government best suits the people, for the exercise of this right can, in general, nowise affect other states.

Each state has the natural right to make its own laws regulating the property and status of all the subjects within its territory. On the high seas, both the public and private vessels of every nation are subject to the jurisdiction of the state to which they belong. Offences there committed against its own municipal laws give to the state to which the vessels belong jurisdiction; but no right of visitation and search belongs to a nation in time of peace, though piracy and other offences against the law of nations, being crimes not against any particular nation, but against all mankind, may be punished by any state in which the offenders can be found. The traffic in slaves is, however, not classed with piracy by the law of nations, though nations may declare it to be so as regards their own subjects; and they may also enter into a compact as to that matter, as has been done by Great Britain with other nations. With regard to crimes and their punishment, though each state will punish all crimes by whomsoever committed, if committed within its own territory, and also all crimes committed in its public and private vessels on the high seas, or in a foreign port; likewise all crimes, wherever committed, by one of its own subjects, yet it cannot arrest one of its own citizens if he is within the territory of another state; to do so would be an invasion of the municipal law of that state; hence it can only arrest its criminals in foreign states by the leave of such state, and such state is not bound to accede to such a request. Hence arises the expediency of two states entering into an extradition treaty, by which they bind themselves to give up to each other criminals who have committed certain specified offences.

There are certain usages or ceremonials of respect shewn by one nation to another in certain circumstances, and these are founded on the theory of the equality of sovereign states. As regards the right of precedence among kings, emperors, and princes, there is nothing settled and binding, except, perhaps, that Catholic powers concede the precedency to the pope. But as regards minor matters, it is the settled courtesy for one nation to salute by striking the flag or the sails, or by firing a certain number of guns on approaching a fleet or a ship of war, or entering a fortified port or harbour. Sometimes these ceremonials are regulated by express treaty, as, for example, as regards the maritime honours exacted by Denmark from vessels passing the Sound and Belts at the entrance of the Baltic Sea.

The rights of states in time of peace consist of the rights of legation and of negotiation. Every independent state has a right, in point of courtesy and usage, to send public ministers or representatives

When war is commenced between two countries, there are certain rights acknowledged to exist towards each other. Before war is proclaimed, intermediate methods are sometimes adopted, with a view to avoid that last necessity; these are laying an embargo on the ships or property of the offending state found in the territory of the offended state; also taking forcible possession of the thing in controversy, also retaliating and making reprisals. When war is once declared, the first step is to seize and confiscate all the enemy's property within the territory. It becomes unlawful for the subjects of each belligerent state to trade with the subjects of the other belligerent. The test of whether a person is a subject of either state is generally his domicile; so the character of ships depends on the national character of the owner, as ascertained by his domicile. As regards the conduct of one belligerent state against the other, some writers have laid it down, that everything is fair against an enemy, and that no means of punishment are too severe; but this rigid rule has been qualified by the more humane practice of modern times. Instead of putting prisoners of war to death, the practice is to exchange or discharge them on conditions. Instead of indiscriminate destruction of the enemy's property, temples, public edifices, monuments of art and science, are spared. The laws of war are more unsparing at sea than on land; the practice prevails of commissioning privateers to prey on the commerce of the enemy, the captor being in general entitled to the property. When property taken is recaptured, states differ as to the mede of dealing with the property recaptured. The validity of a capture at sea must be determined in a prize court of the captor's country or of an ally, and the prize court professes to act on universal principles applicable to all countries.

As regards neutrals in time of war, the leading doctrines are stated under the heads CONTRABAND; BLOCKADE; FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

At the Congress of Paris, 1856, the ambassadors of Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Turkey, and Sardinia, agreed to a joint declaration, modifying the state of the laws of war as follows: 1. To abolish privateering; 2. To adopt the maxim, 'free ships free goods'-i. e., an enemy's goods shall not be taken in a neutral ship unless they are contraband of war; 3. To allow a neutral's goods in an enemy's ship to be free except as to contraband; 4. To abolish blockades unless they are real, and kept up by an effective force. These declarations were not acceded to by America, because it objected to the abolition of privateering, so that though, in the event of war between the countries which agreed in the declaration, the above modifications will probably be adopted, this will not be the case in the event of America being at war with one or other of these parties. See Wheaton's International Law; Mackenzie's Studies in Roman Law; Macqueen's Chief Points in the Laws of War.

2. Private International Law is that collection of laws that regulates the mode in which ordinary courts of justice administer the remedies and give effect to the rights of parties where such rights were acquired partly or wholly in a foreign country, and where different remedies must otherwise have necessarily applied. In such cases, the court which administers the remedy, acting on what is called the courtesy of nations, or comitas gentium, endeavours to put the parties in the same position as if they were still bound by the foreign laws, and gives

law is, that each subject of a foreign independent state is entitled to have the protection of his own laws, so far as is compatible with the equal independence of the state whose courts administer the remedy, and hence, though a court can in general only administer the laws of its own state, it may, pro hac vice, incorporate part of the foreign laws as part of its own remedies. Accordingly, in carrying out this doctrine, certain fair and equitable rules are adopted in dealing with foreigners in certain situations, the chief of which arise out of the heads of marriage, death, intestacy, and remedies generally. This branch of the iaw has been long cultivated by the continental countries of Europe, where many learned jurists have discussed its principles. But probably owing to the insular position of the United Kingdom, little attention was given to it there; and indeed no work even incidentally treated of the subject until Mr Justice Story, an American judge, in 1834, first produced his celebrated treatise on the Conflict of Laws, and gave to British lawyers a methodical view of the results at which foreign jurists had arrived. In the United States, where each independent state had its own municipal laws, which often differed materially from those of the other federal states, it was natural and inevitable that some system should be adopted as to the way each state should deal with the rights of persons coming from the neighbouring states; and hence America preceded England in the development of this branch of the law. Story's work is still the standard authority in the United Kingdom. Since the laws of Scotland differ in many respects from those of England and Ireland, and each country has its own courts exercising independent jurisdiction, it is a matter of course that questions of conflict under these two codes of law should often arise. Not only do the courts of Scotland and England treat the laws of the other country as foreign laws, and deal with each other in much the same way as they would deal with France or any other foreign country, but the laws in other respects are materially different, and give rise to conflicts. On this particular branch of the law affecting England and Scotland, Mr Paterson's Compendium of English and Scotch Law contains a summary of all the material differences existing between the laws of these two countries, that are of the greatest practical importance to residents in the United Kingdom.

As regards marriage, the leading doctrine of the comitas gentium is, that it is immaterial in what part of the world a man is married provided he is married, and when once married according to the law of the place where he then is, such marriage will be held a valid marriage all the world over, and wherever he goes. This doctrine, however, is qualified in this way, that the ler loci contractus-i. e., the law of the place where the marriage was contracted-shall regulate the validity of the marriage only so far as any cere mony is essential to the institution of marriage; but it is not allowed to dictate who the parties are who may validly marry, nor to vary any essential part of the contract. The reason of the latter qualifications is, that there may be rules of policy in one country which may prohibit marriages between certain persons, or may prohibit certain consequences, and therefore the evasion of the native law by persons going abroad for such a purpose is not to be tolerated. For example, in Scotland marriage is treated as a mere contract, which requires no particular ceremony beyond mere mutual consent; whilst in England some ceremony