has been effected by the modern practice of billeting the troops on the occupiers of private houses. To do this in the least hateful fashion requires some machinery involving an inevitable liability, which, so long as it is impartially imposed, is cheerfully submitted to, because unaccompanied with superfluous irritation. The mode of billeting troops continued at the advent of William III. to be still one of the grievances of the people, and by proclamation in 1688, he again prohibited this being done without the consent of the owners, in all houses, except victualling houses and houses of public entertainment. A statute of William III. confirmed this prohibition, and enacted that, during the war, the constables and chief magistrates were to billet soldiers passing towards the sea coast on the inns and public houses, but not on any private house without the consent of the occupier, otherwise the occupier should have his remedy against the magistrate or officer.1 By another act of Anne2 the power of billeting was confined either to places within ten miles of the royal residence, or to garrisons where no sufficient barracks were provided, or to the marches of soldiers, and in the last cases for six days only at a time. The courts of law have justly viewed these statutes authorising billeting as infringements on the liberty of the subject, and have given liberal damages to those on whom a soldier was wrongfully billeted by an officer.3 The primary burden therefore of receiving billeted soldiers now lies on publicans, who keep victualling houses, and who, if they have not sufficient room, must find other good and sufficient quarters in the immediate neighbourhood. And it is expressly forbidden to billet soldiers in any private houses, or in the house of any shop-keeper, whose dealing is more in other goods and merchandise than in brandy and strong waters. And officers and constables 11 W. & M. Sess. 2, c. 4, § 17; 11 Parl. Hist. 1395-1409. 2 12 Anne, c. 13, § 21. 3 Parkhouse Foster, 1 L. Raym. 479; 2 Anne, c. 74, § 5. 4 Mutiny Act, 39 & 40 Vic. c. 8, § 63. 5 Ib. § 67. The victualling houses are described in the act, as "all inns, hotels, livery stables, ale-houses, and the houses of sellers of wine by retail, whether British or foreign, to be drunk in their own houses or places thereunto belonging, and all houses of persons selling brandy, spirits, strong waters, cider, or metheglin by retail." -39 & 40 Vic. c. 8, § 67. seeking to billet on persons not liable to it are severely fined.1 The Mutiny Act lays down minute regulations as to the kind of rations, which the innkeeper is bound to supply, down to the very pepper and salt, and the price he shall receive for the same; and also takes care that the charges be paid, if necessary, out of the pay of the officers and soldiers, or failing this, by the agent of the regiment. And at most this burden of billeting cannot extend to more than three days.3 At one time the publican was allowed to buy out the soldier at a fixed sum,4 and at another time he has refused to supply the soldiers with rations at the statutory rates.5 And again the justices have sometimes assessed the price of provisions at a rate higher than the statutory allowance. Ultimately the only right course was found to be to raise the allowance so as to prevent the public-houses being closed against the military altogether. A soldier when billeted can scarcely be said to pay anything for lodging; 8 but he cannot demand at pleasure what room in the house he thinks fit. The soldier's horses cannot be distrained for rent; 10 nor can the horses be quartered beyond a certain distance apart from the men.11 Compulsory knighthood.-It sounds singular to modern ears, that our ancestors should have been compelled against their will to be made knights at the call of the king. But as to become a knight was usually only another name for undertaking the obligation of furnishing a war-horse, or taking a share in the wars, and as the dignity also exempted one from the menial office of making beds, or waiting at table in the house of some great baron, our wonder lessens, that the knightly office should be in those times sometimes compelled and sometimes solicited. A statute of Edward II. made all who had forty pounds a year subject to distress, if they did not accept this honour.12 And Edward III. made frequent use of the same expedient for raising money; 2 Ibid. § 66. 3 Ibid. 48&9 1 39 & 40 Vic. c. 8, §§ 86, 87. Will. III. c. 13; 10 5 12 Com. J. 79, 148. c. 10; 14 Geo. II. c. 9. § 66. 13 Com. J. 309, 478; 11 Parl. Hist. 1413. 6 11 Parl. Hist. 1388, 1479; 13 Geo. II. 7 26 Com. J. 600. 8 Mutiny Act, 1876, His bed-candles and cooking cost only fourpence a day. 91 Clode, 570. 10 Ibid. 571. 12 1 Ed. II. Lib. Alb. b. iii. p. 1. C. H. 282. 11 Mut. Act, 1876, § 63. 13 Barr. Stat. 193; 2 Stubbs, 2 and so did Charles I. in his distresses.1 The Star Chamber moreover assumed to fine persons for not accepting knighthood. But at last a memorable statute was passed, by which thereafter no person was compellable to take the order of knighthood or pay a fine for not doing so,3 and thus ended the vexation of being encumbered with unsolicited honours. Compulsory attendance at church.-Compulsion was also used at the time of the Reformation to uphold the Protestant faith and keep people in the right way. Refusing to confess or receive the sacrament was first made subject to fine or imprisonment, and a second offence was felony and death, and involved forfeiture of lands and goods.4 Those who, having no lawful excuse, failed to attend the parish church in the time of Elizabeth were fined twelve pence-at that time a considerable sum.5 This penalty was afterwards altered to twenty pouuds per month, but those were exempted, who did not obstinately refuse. The penalty on all above sixteen who neglected to go for a month was abjuration of the realm; and to return to the realm thereafter was felony. And two-thirds of the rent of the offender's lands might also be seized, till he conformed.8 These laws were wholly repealed in 1844 and 1846.9 7 Restrictions as to names.-The law of most countries seems to have been little disturbed by any details as to the names which individuals bear, how they come to acquire and use them, and when they may change them. Human nature seems disposed to sit easily under the routine which habit engenders, parents bestowing and children taking and adopting their names without question or complaint, as 3 16 Ch. I. 1 Ant. Wood's Life, 19. 2 Burn's Star Chr. 85. 9 7 & 8 Vic. c. 102; 9 & 10 Vic. c. 59. To these impotent and falsely-conceived enactments we owe, so far as good can ever be indebted to evil, the immortal allegory of the Pilgrim's Progress, which was composed by Bunyan in Bedford Gaol when imprisoned by the justices of the day under this kind of legal authority. So late as 1789 Bishop Horsley, in the House of Lords, defended the above law as most proper and by no means severe, though he admitted that it should be allowed to be a reasonable excuse that the defendant attended some Dissenting chapel instead of his parish church.-28 Parl. Hist. 126. naturally as the rain falls or the sun shines. Some savage tribes, it is true, attribute a mysterious importance to names of their children, and proceed by rules which often interest the philologer, but can scarcely attract much notice from the lawyer. The importance and necessity of a name are most conspicuously shown in conveyances of property, in registers of marriage, in bequests, in wills, and in legal procedure; and when a mistake occurs in description serious difficulties arise, which are usually only overcome by an expensive array of evidence to vindicate the identity of person. The safety and security of all persons are obviously much enhanced by keeping and adhering to one distinctive name, and though it is no presumption of law, that a change of name is prima facie evidence of fraud, yet such a step almost always requires some explanation, and it is one of the artifices often resorted to for the concealment as well as the perpetration of crime. How names usually acquired.—Herodotus observed, that the Lycian children took their names from the mother, and not the father, and the mother's genealogy was alone counted.1 And the same custom was said by Polybius to prevail elsewhere; and modern travellers also find it in Indian races.2 In Formosa the husband passed into the wife's family, and in some countries the names were confined to families; in others they distinguished only persons.3 The earliest practice in this country was for a person to have a christian name and no surname, but merely to add the locality or place of residence, as John of Dale. And in the principality of Wales the simplicity as well as the confusion of earlier times in applying ancestral names have often been conspicuous.5 Though a christian name had been given in baptism, it used to be said, that if another christian name was given afterwards on confirmation, the latter should be recognised as the true name. The stage of confirmation was deemed at one time convenient for a change being made, since it was the practice once for the bishop to pronounce the person's name at the ceremony of 2 Lubbock's Orig. of Civ. 107. 1 Herod, b. i. 3 Montesq. b. xxiii. c. 4. 4 Barlow v Bateman, 3 P. Wms. 65; 2 Br. P. C. 272. 5 Lower's Patron. Brit. 22. confirmation, and Sir Francis Gawdy acquired a surname in that way.1 And it was once thought that though the surname might be changed, the christian name was indelible. But that delusion has been dispelled. The reason of the former impression may have been, that the surname was said to be often taken from the arts or locality, while the christian name was really deemed the distinctive name.3 But the essential thing now in the eye of the law is the name by which a person is commonly known, and whether he was baptised or not by such name. And hence, when a certain marriage act required the true christian and surname of the parties to be registered, it was held a compliance with that act to state the name by which the party had been usually known, rather than the baptismal name, if there had been a change, and even though the new name had been assumed by a deserter for purposes of concealment.5 Change of name how far competent.-Some difficulty has occurred from the wish which may naturally occur, for various reasons, to change the name which an individual has once borne. The law of England has not found it necessary to declare it to be a penal offence to change one's name, nor is any liability whatever incurred for the mere change, though there necessarily results some inconvenience in any sudden operation of that kind. During the civil war it is said to have been a frequent occurrence for persons to change their name for purposes of concealment." The only matter of doubt has been as to the proper mode of effecting the change; but the rule is, that any one can at any time change his name, if he choose deliberately Gawdy's Case, 1 Inst. 3; 2 Burn's Ecc. L. "Confirm.” 2 R. v Billinghurst, 3 M. & S. 254. 3 Ibid.; Button v Wrightman, Poph. 4 Walden v Holman, 6 Mod. 115; R. v Billinghurst, 3 M. 57. & S. 250. 5 R. v Burton-on-Trent, 3 M. & S. 537. The cases as to fraudulent use of names at marriage belong to the division of law intituled "Security of Marriage." Cases as to conditions annexed to devises or bequests, that the devisee or legatee shall use the name of the testator, belong to the division of law intituled "Security of Property." The law as to registration of births is stated post, Chap. ix. " Age." And the effect of mistakes in the name in legal procedure belongs to the division of the law intituled "Judicature." 6 Barr. Stat. 372. |