“Desine fortunam miseris inimicaque fata
    Objicere, et casus velle putare deos. 
  Jactatur pius AEneas, jactatur Ulysses,
    Per mare, per terras, hic bonus, ille pius. 
  Crede mihi non sunt meritis sua praemia, casu
    Volvimur, haud malus est, cui mala proveniunt. 
  Sis miser, et nulli miserabilis, omnia quisquis
    A diis pro merito cuique venire putas.”

{337}

I should like to see the German verses your correspondent mentions, if he will be good enough to favour me, through your intervention, with an inspection of the volume containing them.

S.W.S.

March 12. 1850.

* * * * *

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” (Archaeologia, 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.