ASSUMPTION OF SURNAMES.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 127, 26 June 1863, Page 3

ASSUMPTION OF SURNAMES.

We extract the following from the report of the proceedings in the House of Commons by the Times of the 18th March : Mr. Roebuck, in moving for returns con-

nected with changes of name by Royal licence, said he wanted persons in office to understand that they had nothing to do with the law but to obey it, and that they were not to be allowed to interfere with the law or to make the law. He would state fairly what was the law upon this subject, and he would then ask the House to agree with him that it was important that it should be fairly carried out, and not abused for the gratification of individual spite. He was in hopes that the Attorney-General would be present, because he wanted to make the statement in his hearing, and to see whether the Attor-ney-General would gainsay it. He asserted broadly this was the law—that every man had a right to take any name he pleased, for any reason he pleased, excepting fraud. For a change of name he required no licence whatsoever. The Queen could give him power to walk the streets, but he had no power without the licence. So any man might take any name he pleased, and the Queen's licence gave him no power in addition to his own will. To make it clear, he would read a few sentences from a book of Mr. Falconer, who was now a judge in Wales, which really contained all the law upon the subject;— “That in the year 1735, when the question of the manner in which surnames could be changed was before the House of Lords, no notice was taken of any supposed privilege of the Crown to grant licences on such occasions. 2. That any person may take any surname, and that the law recognizes the new name when assumed publicly mid bond fide. (Chief Justice Tindal, Lord Stowell, &c.) 3. That a man may assume what surname and as many surnames as he pleases. (Sir Joseph Jekyll, M.R.) 4. That where both Christian and surname have been changed, the law will recognize the assumed names. (Lord Ellenborough and the Comet of King’s Bench ) 5. That no Act of Parliament or Eoyal licence is needed in order to sanction a change of name, unless a now name is directed by a donor of land or money, to be assumed by the donee, with such or some other particular sanction, and subject to forfeiture of the donation if the name should not bo assumed in the matter directed by the terms of such conditional donation. (Lord Chief Just ice Tenterden and the Court of King’s Bench.) 6. That when a name is assumed by Eoyal licence, it is so assumed by the act of the person taking the name, and the name is not conferred by the licence. (Lord Chancellor Eldon.) 7. Tffat the effect of a Royal licence is merely to give publicity or notoriety to the change of name. (Chief Justice Tindal.) 8. That when, by any Act of Parliament, judges have the control of a particular roll of names, they will, on a change of name, when the change is publicly and hand fide made, direct the new name to be added to the roll, though such name, when the name has been assumed without a Eoyal licence, and by the mere act of the person whose name is on the roll. (Court of Exchequer, &.c.) 9. That when any person has legally assumed a name has been assumed a name by his own act, it is compulsory on courts of law to recognize the legal act. (‘ The King v. the inhabitants of Billinghurst ’ and ‘Luscombo v. Yates.’)”