to do so and to act accordingly. And the Roman law also allowed the same liberty.1

There is no ceremony or legal act required, in order to effect a change of name, except only the declaration of a settled purpose and the adoption of some means of making it known. Any mode of telling one's neighbours and the public, that a new name has been and is intended to be adopted and recognised, is sufficient to constitute a change of name, and no deed need be executed, and no royal licence or act of parliament need be obtained for this purpose. These are only at best another means of publicity, and nothing more. Lord Eldon said the king's licence is nothing more than permission to take the name, but does not give it; and that a man taking such new name may take a legacy if left to him under the old name. And Tindal, C. J., said, "The royal sign manual is a mode which persons often have recourse to, because it gives a greater sanction to it, and makes it more notorious; but a man may, if he pleases, and if it is not for any fraudulent purpose, take a name, and work his way in the world with his new name as well as he can." And hence there was no real necessity for any person to apply for a royal signmanual to change the name. And Lord Tenterden said that a name assumed by the voluntary act of a young man at his outset into life, adopted by all who knew him, and by which he is constantly called, becomes for all purposes as much and effectually his name, as if he had obtained an act of parliament to confer it upon him. The general use and habit is everything, when the true name of a person at a particular time is required.5

Though any man may at discretion change his name by

1 Cod. b. ix. tit. 25. The Roman law was severe in case of a person who assumed a false name, for he was guilty of forgery (falsum), the punishment for which was banishment or crucifixion. -Dig. xlviii. 11, 13. In Lucca a person was fined for changing his name, and in case of nonpayment his tongue was cut off.-St. Lucc. c. 88; Barr. Stat. 372, 381. Pope Pius II. put to the rack Platina for instigating changes in people's names.-Platina's Popes by Ricaut, 409, 411.

2 Leigh v Leigh, 15 Ves. 100. 3 Davies v Lowndes, 1 Bing. N. C. 618. 4 Luscombe v Yates, 5 B. & Ald. 544; Barlow v Bateman, 3 P. Wms. 65. 5 Per L. Stowell, Frankland v Nicholson,

3 M. & S. 260.

adopting and using and making known such change, this is sometimes deeply resented by neighbours, who are slow to follow anything like another's caprice; and it is this difficulty in founding the reputation that has often driven persons to resort to an act of parliament,'a royal licence, or a deed enrolled in chancery, all of which are mere superfluous forms and nothing more, yet are deemed useful to precipitate more quickly the general acquiescence of the public in the change. The formality of a deed is indeed nothing more nor less than a solemn representation of a person's wish and intention,

For about 200 years it has been a practice for the Home Secretary, on application of parties, to obtain this royal licence on certain fees being paid; and testators often annex the obtaining of this royal licence as a condition to the enjoyment of property.1

2

When once it is satisfactorily shown that a new name has been permanently adopted, courts will give effect to it; and so far as it is useful they are sometimes required by parties to do so. Thus if a solicitor change his name, the High Court will order the roll to be amended accordingly. And where a justice of the peace changes his name, the Lord Chancellor will alter the commission of the peace accordingly.3 The reason of this usage can be no other than this, that if the change of name adds to a man's happiness or is of vital importance in his eyes, does no harm to others, and is obviously not used as a means of fraud, it is right that all official authorities should respect this resolution and give effect to it in every legitimate way.

Restrictions as to food.-One can scarcely imagine on what ground the law could ever have interfered with a matter so exclusively the affair of the individual person as the eating of food; and though the case of paupers and prisoners is as exceptional as that of a beleaguered garrison, their food being supplied at the expense of third parties, who naturally begrudge and stint it, the liberty of the

1 Per Sir G. Grey; Hans. P. Deb., Sess. 1863. A stamp duty is payable for royal licence of fifty pounds if under a will, of ten pounds if a voluntary application.

p. James, 9 C. B. 221, 5 Exch. 3 Re Herbert of Clytha, Parl.

2 Ex p. Daggett, 1 L. M. & P. 1; Ex 310; Ex p. Dearden, 5 Exch. 740. Pap. 96 (Sess. 1863). See Falconer on Surnames. VOL. I.

F F

rest of the community in this matter can scarcely in any contingency legitimately provoke legislative interference. But this view was not always taken, though it is equally true, that some collateral object, such as repressing luxury, or supporting religion, or helping to maintain some industry has generally been the ostensible motive of so minute a control over one's personal tastes. And ancient states seem usually to have professed some kindred object for this kind of legislation.1

Our own legislature had also for centuries very decided opinions as to the food that ought to be allowed. An ordinance of Edward III., in 1336, prohibited any man having more than two courses at any meal. Each mess was to have only two sorts of victuals, and it was prescribed how far one could mix sauce with his pottage, except on certain feast days, when three courses at most were allowable.2 The Statute of Diet of 1363 enjoined, that servants of lords should have once a day flesh or fish, and remnants of milk, butter, and cheese; and above all, ploughmen were to eat moderately. And the proclamations of Edward IV. and Henry VIII. used to restrain excess in eating and drinking. All previous statutes as to abstaining from

1 The Licinian law limited the quantity of meat to be used.-5 Univ. Hist. 12. The Orcian law limited the expense of a private entertainment and the number of guests (temp. Cato). And for like reasons the censors degraded a senator because ten pounds' weight of silver plate was found in his house.-Aul. Gell. b. iv. c. 8; Val. Max. b. ii. c. 9. Julius Cæsar attempted to reform the Roman people by the rigour of his sumptuary laws. He restrained certain classes from using litters, embroidered robes and jewels, limited the extent of feasts, and enabled his bailiffs to break into the houses of rich citizens and snatch the forbidden meats from off the tables. And we are told that the markets swarmed with informers, who profited by proving the guilt of all who bought and sold there.-Suet. in Jul. So in Carthage, a law was passed to restrain the exorbitant expenses of marriage feasts, it having been found that the great Hanno took occasion of his daughter's marriage to feast and corrupt the senate and the populace, and gained them over to his designs.— Justin. b. xxi.

The Vhennic Court established by Charlemagne in Westphalia put every Saxon to death who broke his fast during Lent.-Volt. Becc. c. 13. James II. of Arragon, in 1234, ordained that his subjects should not have more than two dishes, and each dressed in one way only, unless it was game of his own killing.-Montesq. b. vii. c. 5.

2 10 Ed. III. St. 3.

3 37 Ed. III. c 1.

meat and fasting were repealed in the time of Edward VI.; but by new enactments, and in order that fishermen may live, all persons were bound under a penalty not to eat flesh on Fridays or Saturdays, or in Lent, the old and the sick excepted.1 The penalty in Queen Elizabeth's time was no less than three pounds or three months' imprisonment; but it was at the same time added, that, whoever preached or taught, that eating of fish was of necessity for the saving of the soul of man, or was the service of God, was to be punished as a spreader of false news. And care was taken to announce, that the eating of fish was enforced, not out of superstition, but solely out of respect to the increase of fishermen and mariners.3 The exemption of the sick from these penalties was abolished by James I., and justices were authorised to enter victualling houses and search for and forfeit the meat found there. All these preposterous enactments have been swept away in the reign of Victoria.

2

Restrictions as to dress. Of all the petty subjects attracting the cognisance of the law none seems to have given more trouble to the ancient and medieval legislatures than that of dress. And this seems to have been mainly due to the confusion of ideas, the ignorance of trade, and of the elementary axioms of political economy, as well as of the province of the law itself, bearing on that subject. Subsequent experience and reflection have shown the folly and impotence of legislatures attempting to meddle with matters which are as unstable as water, and as irresistible as the tide. Yet views of morality, of repressing luxury and vice, of benefiting manufactures, of keeping all degrees of mankind in their proper places, have induced the legislature to interfere, where interference, in order to be thorough, would require to be as endless as it would be objectless. But as our own legislature was not behind its neighbours in this attempt to control what satirists and wits can do much better, it is useful to look back on some of these graver follies of the past.5

1 2 & 3 Ed: VI. c. 19. 2 5 Eliz. c. 5. 3 Ib. §§ 15, 37. 4 1 Jas. I: c. 29.

5 Solon prohibited women going out of the town with more than three dresses.-Plut. Solon. Zaleucus is said to have invented an ingenious method of circuitously putting down what he thought bad habits, namely, by prohibiting things with an exception, so that the

The views and objects of our legislature as to the general subject of dress, however preposterous in our eyes,

exception should, in the guise of an exemption, really carry the sting and operate as a deterrent. Thus, he forbade a woman to have more than one maid unless when she was drunk; he forbade her to wear jewels or embroidered robes, or go abroad at night, except she was a prostitute; he forbade all but panders to wear gold rings or fine cloth. And it was said he succeeded admirably in this legislation.-Diod. Sic. xii. 20. The Spartans had such a contempt for cowards, that those who fled in battle were compelled to wear a low dress of patches and shape, and moreover to wear a long beard half shaved, so that anyone meeting them might give them a stroke.Plut. Ages. The Oppian law at Rome restricted women in their dress and extravagance.-Tacit Ann. b. iii. c. 33. And the Roman knights had the privilege of wearing a gold ring.-Suet. Jul. Ces. The ancient Babylonians held it to be indecent to wear a walkingstick without an apple, a rose, or an eagle engraved on the top of it. -Herod. b. i. The first Inca of Peru is said to have made himself popular by allowing his people to wear ear-rings-a distinction formerly confined to the royal family.-14 Univ. Hist. 377. By the code of China the dress of the people was subject to minute regulation, and any transgression was punished with fifty blows of the bamboo. -Staunton's Code, 185. And he who omitted to go into mourning on the death of a relation, or laid it aside too soon, was similarly punished. Don Edward of Portugal, in 1434, passed a law to suppress luxury in dress and diet, and with his nobles set an example.-8 Univ. Mod. Hist. 432. In Florence a like law was passed in 1471. And in Venice laws regulated nearly all the expenses of families, in table, clothes, gaming, and travelling.-10 Univ. Mod. Hist. 276. A law of the Muscovites obliged the people to crop their beards and shorten their clothes.-Montesq. b. xix. c. 14. In Zurich a law prohibited all except strangers to use carriages; and in Basle no citizen or inhabitant was allowed to have a servant behind his carriage.-5 Pink. Voy. 666, 696. About 1294, Philip the Fair of France by edict ordered how many suits of clothes, and at what price, and how many dishes at table should be allowed, and that no woman should keep a cur.3 Guizot, Civ. Fr. Lect. 15.

The Irish laws, fifteen centuries before Christ, regulated the dress, and even its colours, according to the rank and station of the wearer. -3 O'Curry, 31. And the Brehon laws forbade men to wear brooches so long as to project and be dangerous to those passing near.— 3 O'Curry, 163. In Scotland a statute enacted that women should not come to kirk or market with their faces covered; and that they should dress according to their estate.-Jas. II. 1457. In the City of London, in the thirteenth century, women were not allowed to wear, in the highway or at market, a hood furred with other than lamb-skin or rabbit-skin.-Ril. Mem. Lond. 20. In the middle ages it was not unfrequent to compel prostitutes to wear a particular dress, so that they might not be mistaken for other women. And