A Licence granted by a state to its own subjects, or to those or the enemy, is a dispensation on its own side of the Laws of War, as far as its terms can be fairly construed.  The adverse party may justly consider such licence as a ground of capture and confiscation per se; but the Prize Courts of the state, under whose authority they are issued, are bound to consider them as lawful relaxations of the ordinary state of war.  In the country which grants them, licences to carry on a pacific commerce are rigidly interpreted, as being exceptions to a general rule; though they are not to be construed with pedantic accuracy, nor will every small deviation be held to vitiate the fair effect of them.[111]

During the later period of the last century, and the earlier portion of this, licences were considered as privileges granted to individuals for their own benefit, and in which the nation at large was but little, or remotely, interested.  They were therefore held liable to the same strict construction with other similar grants.  Yet this rule was never held in a narrow captious manner; and if the apparent intention of Government was complied with, and there was no suspicion of fraud, a sufficient liberality was allowed in the construction.  When the extraordinary mode of warfare established by the Emperor Napoleon, (by an attempt at a general embargo) was carried on, new expedients were required to counteract its evils, and licences to a great extent were granted to relieve the stagnant trade of the country; and this measure, so highly beneficial, and even necessary, was facilitated by the adoption of a still more liberal mode of construction, and which, no doubt, will again guide these cases.[112]

[Sidenote:  Duties of Merchants using Licences]

In trading under a Licence, the merchant ought to follow the terms or it as strictly as possible; but if he is acting bona fides, some breaches of it will be permitted.  Being high acts of Sovranty, they are necessarily the creatures of that act of power, and must not be carried further than the intention of the great authority that grants them may be supposed to extend; not that they are to be construed with pedantic accuracy, nor that any small deviation should be held to vitiate the fair effect of them.  An excess in the quantity of goods permitted might not he considered noxious to any extent.  A variation in the quality or substance of the goods might be more significant, because a liberty assumed of trading in one species of goods, under a license to trade in another, might lead to very dangerous abuses.  The license must be looked to for the enumeration of goods that are to be protected by it.[113]

The principles on which courts act in treating licences is thus succinctly laid down by Sir William Scott.—­