CHANGE OF NAME.
"B." inquires (No. 16. p. 246.) what is the use of the royal license for the change of a surname? He is referred to Mr. Markland's paper "On the Antiquity and Introduction of Surnames into England" (Archæologia, xviii. p. 111.). Mr. Markland says,—
"Sir Joseph Jekyll, when Master of the Rolls, in the year 1730, remarks—'I am satisfied the usage of passing Acts of Parliament for the taking upon one a surname is but modern; and that any one may take upon him what surname, and as many surnames, as he pleases, without an Act of Parliament.' The decree in the above case was reversed in the House of Lords."
Mr. Markland adds,—
"From the facts and deductions here stated, it would seem that the Master of the Rolls had good ground for making his decree. The law, as it stands, however, had grown out of the practice: and common prudence dictates, that the assumption of a new surname should now be accompanied by such an authority as may establish beyond all question the legality of the act."
It must also be remembered, that a testator often directs that a devisee shall procure the royal license or an Act of Parliament for the change of name, in order to entitle him to the testator's property. If this direction be neglected, could not the party next benefited sue for it on that ground, and with success?
S.D.D.
Change of Name (No. 16. p. 246.).—The doctrine, that a person may change his surname without any formality whatever, has long been "settled," and is by no means of so recent a date as your correspondent supposes, which will presently appear.
In Coke upon Littleton, after some observations as to the change of Christian name at confirmation, it is stated—
"And this doth agree with our ancient books, where it is holden that a man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers Christian names." (Vol. ii. p. 218. ed. 1818, by J.H. Thomas.)
Reference is made to Acc. 1 Com. Dig. 19, 20., "Abatement" (E. 18, 19.); Bac. Abr. "Misnomer," B.; Rex v. Billinghurst, 3 Maul. & S. 254.: but these passages throw no additional light upon our immediate subject.
Sir Joseph Jekyll, in the case of Barlow v. Bateman, in 1730, said,—
"I am satisfied the usage of passing Acts of Parliament for the taking upon one a surname is but modern, and that any one may take upon him what surname, and as many surnames, as he pleases, without an Act of Parliament." (3 Peere Williams, 65.)
The decision of the Master of the Rolls in this case was afterwards overruled by the House of Lords; but on a point not affecting the accuracy of the observations I have quoted.
Lord Eldon, in the case of Leigh v. Leigh, decided in 1808, made the following remarks:—
"An Act of Parliament, giving a new name, does not take away the former name: a legacy given by that name might be taken. In most of the Acts of Parliament for this purpose there is a special proviso to prevent the loss of the former name. The King's licence is nothing more than permission to take the name, and does not give it. A name, therefore, taken in that way is by voluntary assumption." (15 Ves. Jun., p. 100.)
This case decided that the assumption of a name by a person, by the King's license, would not entitle him to take under a limitation in a will "unto the first and nearest of my kindred, being male, and of my name and blood." The same rule would no doubt hold as to a change of name by Act of Parliament. (See Pyot v. Pyot, 1 Ves. Sen. 335.)
These extracts from the highest authorities will sufficiently show of how little use is an Act of Parliament, or the royal license, for effecting a change of name; indeed, the chief, perhaps I might almost say the only, advantage of these costly forms, except, of course, where they are required by the express terms of a will, is the facility they afford in case it should become necessary to prove that John White was ten years ago John Brown.
Arun.