ticular licence; otherwise, in the absence of all proof of such connection, there is a natural suspicion, a preponderance of probability, that the licence has been used before to cover an antecedent voyage, and against the lawful use of it upon the voyage in question. If it be sufficient for a party, at any time, to stand upon his mere possession of such a general licence, there can be no check whatever upon any indefinite abuse of them."

A general licence must be construed strictly, and will not extend to the protection of enemy's property. (The Josephine, 1 Acton, 313.)

A licence, which particularly specifies any flag, will protect even enemy's property. But in all cases the national character of the licence must be clearly established. (The Jonge Klassina, 5 Rob. 297.)

A licence granted by an ally in the war will, as to all innocent articles of commerce, protect the dealings of her subjects with the enemy, without any express permission from any of her allies; but in articles that are contraband of war the rule is otherwise, because the common cause may be directly and materially injured by such traffic. (Lord Stowell, in The Neptunus, 6 Rob. 403.)

A licence granted to trade with the enemy will cover the enemy's ship in which the goods licensed to be imported are transmitted. In Kensington v. Inglis (8 East, 273) it was held, on this principle, that where a certain trading with an alien enemy for specie and goods to be brought from the enemy's country in his ships into our colonial ports, was licensed by the king's authority, an insurance on the enemy's ship, as well as on the goods and specie put

name.

on board for the benefit of the British subjects, was incidentally legalized; and that it was competent for the British agent of both parties, in whose name the insurance was effected, to sue upon the policy in time of war; the trust not contravening any rule of law or of public policy, and there being no personal disability in the plaintiff on the record to sue. "The king's licence," however, Lord Ellenborough added, “ cannot have the effect of removing the personal disability of an alien enemy, so as to enable him to sue in his own But an alien, residing in this country with the king's permission, may, in such case, sue in his own name." In the case of Usparicha v. Noble (3 East, 332), it was held accordingly, that a native Spaniard, domiciled here in time of war between this country and Spain, having been licensed in general terms by the king to ship goods in a neutral vessel from hence to certain ports in Spain, such commerce was legalized for all purposes of its due and effectual prosecution, either for the benefit of the party himself, or of his correspondents, though residing in the enemy's country; and that he may insure such goods, either on his own account, or as agent for his correspondents, and recover upon such policy, in his own name, in case of loss.

A licence must be granted in a natural and intelligible form, so as not to keep the parties in the dark as to its extent. Thus, in The Juno (2 Rob. 117), Lord Stowell held a licence to the ports of the Vlie included Amsterdam, one of those ports. "I shall hold," said his lordship, " that if a licence is given to go through the Vlie, it is not substantially violated by going through another passage, unless it is shown to

me that it contained some specific prohibition as to other passages; supposing it to have been honestly obtained for Amsterdam through the Vlie, I shall not hold it to have been a material deviation to go another way, unless some special prohibition, or unless some special inconvenience, is shown which the party was bound to take notice of."

There are cases in which the court will deal with captured goods, as though a licence had been given, where the circumstances may be taken as virtually amounting to a licence, inasmuch as, if a licence had been applied for, it must have been granted. (The Madonna delle Grazie, 4 Rob. 195.) A licence, by its very nature, is calculated to subsist only during the continuance of the war in which it was granted. "Peace having been concluded," says Lord Stowell, in The Planters Wensch (5 Robinson, 22), "a licence is necessarily done away and destroyed, having no subject matter to act upon."

Dispensations from the general prohibition to trade with the enemy, that affect whole classes of cases, as dispensations by licence affect individuals, are granted from time to time, as the exigencies of the case shall require, by the sovereign, with the advice of the privy council, and are promulgated by proclamation, as orders in council. "The fundamental principle on which this new system of commercial policy is founded," said Lord Brougham in his great speech on Orders in Council and the Licence Trade (March 3, 1812), "has always professed itself to be a retaliating principle."

The power to make these orders of council, and to grant licences in pursuance of them, being derived

from special acts of parliament, is of a limited nature, and cannot be extended further than the acts themselves permit. The construction of licences granted by virtue of the King's prerogative will in general be applicable to licences founded on these statutes.

"It is the duty of this court," said Lord Stowell, in The Rose in Bloom (1 Dodson, 57), "to enforce the observation of the orders in council against all breaches whatever, and to apply them to every case of a commercial nature, without regard to the extent of the particular transaction, whether it be great or small, whether it comprises the whole or the part of a cargo, unless the amount in value shall appear to be so very trifling as to bring it within the maxim De minimis non curat lex. Carrying a part of a cargo only will afford no protection against the penalties enforced by this order; since the mischief would in that case be substantially, or at least eventually, the same, as if permission were granted to take whole cargos. The restrictions which it was the object of the order to impose upon the trade of the enemy would, in fact, be no restrictions at all, if such a laxity of interpretation were once admitted."

PRIZE.

No man

The right to all captures, from the earliest times, has vested primarily in the sovereign, and no individual can have any interest in a prize, whether made by a public or by a private armed vessel, except that which he receives from the bounty of the state. (Valin, Com. ii. 235; Bynk. c. 17; Sir L. Jenkins' Works, 714.) "Prize," said Lord Stowell, in The Elsebe (5 Rob. 181), " is altogether a creature of the crown. has, or can have, any interest, but what he takes as the mere gift of the crown; beyond the extent of that gift he has nothing. This is the principle of law on the subject and founded on the wisest reasons. The right of making war and peace is exclusively in the crown; the acquisitions of war belong to the crown; and the disposal of these acquisitions may be of the utmost importance for the purposes both of war and peace. This is no peculiar doctrine of our constitution; it is universally received as a necessary principle of public jurisprudence by all writers on the subject, bello parta cedunt reipublicæ. It is not to be supposed that this wise attribute of sovereignty is conferred without reason; it is given for the purpose assigned, that the power to whom it belongs to decide on peace or war, may use it in the most beneficial manner for the purposes of both. A general presumption arising from these considerations is, that the government does not mean to divest itself of this universal attribute of sovereignty, unless it is clearly and unequivocally so expressed. In conjunction with this universal presumption must be taken also the wise policy of our own