CHAPTER VI

THE NEED FOR THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN SURNAMES

A very anomalous side of the law is to be found in connection with the use of surnames: their variation, their complete change, etc. John Smith may freely call himself John Montmorency or John Plantagenet, or any other name in keeping with his fancy. He may even go a step further, and call himself Baron Montmorency or Viscount, or Count, or Marquis or Duke, or whatever else he likes. So long as the name and title do not cause persons to give him credit which they would not give him as John Smith, he is comparatively immune from the meshes of the law. The whole question therefore evolves itself into a simple issue--_i.e._, is the assumption of the title or surname with a view to imposing on people, and does it in fact so impose upon them that they are led to part with goods or money on the strength of the success of the imposition?[22]

Many Jews and other aliens on becoming established in this country drop their patronymics, which may end with a “stein” a “berg” or a “ski” and call themselves instead, “Gordon,” or “Howard” or something else equally reassuring. That such a loose state of affairs should be permitted is an indirect incitement to fraud. Admittedly, “Cohen” or “Solomon” is not, perhaps, an incentive, _primâ facie_, to business relations, whereas “Harris” or “Langton” may be.

It is utterly iniquitous the way the family names of British peers have been seized upon by the sons of Israel. One finds some of the greatest names in the history of the country applied to the offspring of Whitechapel. Some legal check is needed to prevent this, even where no direct intention exists to commit a punishable fraud by means of the fiction. It is not suggested that those Jews who have reached power in England use their adopted appellations to carry on swindles. But it is improper that they should prosper under the great name of some English or Scottish ducal house, when they have never perhaps even so much as lent money to its members in the junior line! Several peculiarly flagrant instances of the kind suggest themselves to the mind. Great dignity has sometimes been bestowed on the scions of a Hebrew house whose adopted name has clashed unpleasantly with the noble name of an historic family. Why a name like “Sowinski” should be replaced by “Cavendish” one fails to see, particularly as a name carries with it definable or indefinable, conscious or unconscious, associations, which weigh.[23]

The offspring of the original “Sowinski” becomes “Charles,” or “Edward,” or “George”--“George Cavendish.” Obviously, such a person has reached a financial status far above interest in trivial fraud, though his name is a constant fraud of sorts on some one, particularly if he remains only a name--_invisible_! To descend to the lower branches of struggle for gain by imposture, we find “Claude Churchill” lending money, practically without interest, “Edwin Graham” giving bank notes away on mere notes of hand, and “Hubert Douglas” most eager to cash post-dated cheques, literally for nothing! It is incredible! How a “Lazarus” can become a “Scott,” an “Aarons” an “Ogilvie,” and a “Niemann” or a “Katz” a “Murray,” is far beyond reasonable process of deduction! It is a gross anomaly of the law that it should be tolerated. A High Court judge recently drew a limited parallel--the assumption of noble names by money-lenders. “What’s in a name?” may be asked by the illiterate or semi-illiterate man, and yet he is as promptly influenced by it as persons to whom a name admittedly suggests something tangible. In the case of “John Smith,” we have a name which is not distinctive, which, indeed, must be confusing and burdensome to its possessor. He may have a much larger banking account than an individual of distinguished name and lineage, and, if so, he is perfectly justified in using it to change his name to “Boggs,” or “Hoggs,” or “Noggs” or whatever other name exists in his maternal line. However lowly his origin, he should be compelled to choose a name associated with his parentage. He should not be allowed the option of assuming a high-sounding name to which he can lay no claim. His choice should be limited to the names of his ascendants. In this way, there would be some semblance of actual justification for discarding a commonplace patronymic. The candidate for change of name could effect his purpose by deed poll, an easy task involving no proof of pedigree or gentle birth. Affidavit should, however, be made that the name chosen, on the plan here suggested, was the name of such and such an ascendant of the person making the change. This would be an effort on the part of the law to reduce the system to order and method. In the case of Russians, Poles, aliens of suggestive and hideous surname, whatever change of name allowed to them, such change should conform with their foreign origin. Provision for the infliction of penalties for disobedience in this connection would help matters in the right direction. The whole question may seem trivial, but from the ramifications which spread out from the use of an _alias_ or fictitious surname, much deception, or fraud, or improper profit almost amounting to fraud, frequently, if not generally, results. This is stating the case in a very mild way.

Establishing the identity of an alien in this country should also be made easier by compelling every such person to produce documentary evidence of his (or her) identity on landing, and to make such person subject to interrogation or examination on the point at any subsequent time. This is a side-issue; still, it is linked to the main question here raised, namely, the chaotic laxity permitted, or, at any rate, not prevented, with regard to the change of a person’s name. The method of the deed poll, as at present applied, though preferable to the impromptu nomenclature adopted by the criminal classes, is certainly not above reproach. It allows too much license in the choice of a name. Change of surname should, as already pointed out, be restricted to cases where the claim to the new name is at least colourable, _i.e._, permissible only where the name desired is the name of an ascendant.[24] If some of these suggestions were carried out, there would be no more mad hunts for practically anonymous criminals like “Peter the Painter” and “Fritz,” the suspected murderers in the notorious Hounsditch fiasco. The wonder is that no one has apparently yet seized upon the feeble system or absence of system in checking the rightful names of the inhabitants of these islands. Legislation for the punishment of persons making an improper use of surnames would be distinctly useful. There would be fewer Polish “Harrises” and Russian “Montagues” or, indeed, “Montagus” (less the “e,” for in some cases this further audacity has been exhibited), in England than there are to-day. Even the descendants of these august impostors would tremble in their boots! “Solomon” or “Aaronstein” or “Samuel” would also become their appearance better in many cases! These remarks, though they obviously refer to Jews, are not intended to offend respectable Jews who courageously adhere to the ugly names of their ancestors. The Jew who says he is a Jew and passes under a name properly associated with the Jewish race calls for no rebuke, nor, indeed, for anything, very often, except genuine admiration. It is the impostor, great and little, criminal or merely falsely ambitious, who attracts hostile attention, with some substantial justification, be it confessed.

With regard to the small fry of the improper hyphen, there is nothing to be said. Thousands of persons use hyphens who, if they had any sense of proportion or self-respect, would hastily discard such a laughably inconsistent sham. Unless a hyphen expresses the legal joining of two surnames, thus bringing together the pedigrees of two houses, it conveys nothing but _bourgeois_ affectation and impudence. It is a feeble fraud at best, scarcely worth condemning. Different causes bring about the legal use of the hyphen. Sometimes, a rich father-in-law without heirs male directs by his will that his daughter’s husband shall, by Royal License, assume the additional surname, whatever it may be, which becomes extinct at his (the father-in-law’s) death, before or after his (the son-in-law’s) own name. In this way the hyphen comes into being, and the name which would have perished is duly kept alive. At other times, the additional surname of an ancestor, where that ancestor bore a distinguished name, in the maternal line, is revived by process of law on the voluntary initiative of the person desirous of possessing the name. Thus, a person representing in his blood an historic family through, for example, his father’s mother, may by Royal License assume his grandmother’s maiden name, the more justifiably if she was in the nature of an heiress or co-heiress of the house. The name, of course, may be joined to the existing surname, before or after, with a hyphen, or it may be taken alone in substitution for the existing surname.

Reference has been made to the freedom with which a man may call himself by any name, without legal formality, and to the equal freedom with which an alien may discard his own name and by deed poll assume the honoured name of a great English house. (Alas, the Royal Licence has been used in at least one glaring instance, too!) It has also been made obvious that such practices should be checked by definite legal means.[25]

The countries where conscription is customary are well protected against change of name abuses. Conscription would solve the difficulty here; but there are ways and means of putting down a most iniquitous practice, a criminal practice in its intent, more often than not, by ordinary legislation. Actors and actresses could be exempted because they do not appear to offend in the sense that the impostors condemned in the foregoing remarks offend.

It so happens that a further judicial allusion, as to the wrongful assumption of great names, has been made, and duly reported in the press. “As usual on Saturday,” says the report, “a number of short cause actions, generally of a money-lending character, came on for hearing, in Mr. Justice Darling’s Court in the King’s Bench Division yesterday. One of them involved considerable argument upon a point of law with reference to the passing, by a bank, of a cheque, which, it was alleged, had been altered by the addition of the word, ‘Limited,’ to the plaintiff company.

“Counsel: ‘But at the time the cheque was drawn the plaintiffs were not a limited company, and the title therefore was not their real title.’

“‘Oh,’ commented Mr. Justice Darling, ‘such a thing does not surprise me. I sit here on Saturday and hear all sorts of persons called Fortescue, Plantagenet, Egerton, and so on, but those are never their real names. You must not think that on Saturdays I expect people to give their real names here, because I don’t!’

“His lordship was obviously referring to certain money-lenders whose registered trade name, as distinct from the name of their parents, has already given rise to judicial comment.

“The decision eventually went in favour of the defendants, who had paid the cheque to one of the plaintiffs.

“There was considerable disturbance in the passage of the court when another case was called, some litigants leaving the court, and others hastening to the vacant seats.

“A witness named Fitz-Clarence was called in another case.

“‘Quite a Saturday name,’ observed counsel.

“‘All the Burkes and Debretts come here on Saturday,’ replied his lordship, amid laughter.”[26]

Casual mention has been made of actors. Of those well-known, Henry Irving was born Brodribb; Herbert Tree, Beerbohm; while George Alexander’s surname was Samson. In no one of these instances was a great family name improperly assumed, and it stands to the credit of these theatrical leaders that such is in fact the case. There are several persons on the English stage who are perfectly entitled to describe themselves by well-known names. Lord Rosslyn, Lord Yarmouth, Lord Dangan, Lady Constance Richardson, and the Hon. Helen Douglas-Scott-Montagu, are among the number. Mr. Adolphus Yane-Tempest, also distinguished in the theatrical world, is a Londonderry, while Mr. Cosmo Gordon-Lennox, one of the Richmonds, is another actor entitled to a distinguished name.

Constant use of a name is said to impart some element of right to the name so used, but unless the deed poll is brought into operation, one might reasonably suppose the name in question to be subject to attack as an _alias_. Writers are given to the assumption of the _nom de plume_. Beaumarchais, the hardy author of _Le Barbier de Seville_ and _Le Mariage de Figaro_, was originally Caron by name, but there is reason to believe that he became “De Beaumarchais” by legal process. Some people even suggest that “Shakespeare” was an _alias_ for Bacon! Many instances have occurred where writers, distinguished and otherwise, have adorned their work with fictitious names. Modern examples pass through one’s mind in dozens, but the persons forming them have not gone to the extremity of using their _noms de guerre_ in private life. Sometimes two people, prominent in different spheres, bear the same combination of names, where the names are not particularly commonplace. There is a novelist, of some reputation in America, who like the present Home Secretary, is known as Winston Churchill. As the Home Secretary’s “Winston” is derived from an ancestress who married into the house of Marlborough, it is difficult, without guidance, to see how the American novelist derived _his_ “Winston,” for “Winston” is said to be his name.

Juggling with names should be made a punishable deception. There are exceptional circumstances, already roughly outlined, which warrant the legitimate assumption of a name, justly celebrated, perhaps, where it is represented in the blood.[27] Cases of the kind do not come at all within the intention of these remarks, which are directed against foolish or fraudulent persons who have no colourable right to the names they assume. These offenders should be properly labelled by the law, and not by the vagaries of aspiring imaginations or criminal subterfuges.

FOOTNOTES

[22] “Application was made at Clerkenwell, to-day, for process against a man calling himself ‘Viscount Mackenzie,’ for deserting his wife and for obtaining credit by false pretences from his landlady, Mdme. Gabrielle Suffolk, of Ampthill Square, St. Pancras.

“It was stated that the man had represented himself to be ‘Viscount Mackenzie, of Mackenzie, in Ross-shire, Duke of St. Omars (a surgeon-general in H.M. Army).’

“Mr. Bros heard the wife first.

“‘Viscountess Mackenzie,’ as the landlady called her, said she was married to the man on January 7th, and he left her ‘four weeks to-day.’

“_Mr. Bros_: ‘Do you know his address?’--‘No, sir.’

“_Mr. Bros_: ‘Then I’m afraid I cannot help you.’

“The magistrate then called the landlady.

“She said she knew the man as ‘Viscount Mackenzie,’ and the wife as ‘the Duchess.’

“_Mr. Bros_: ‘You didn’t believe that, did you?’

“_The landlady_: ‘He said he was a surgeon-general in H.M. Army, and would get his pension at the end of the month.’

“It was stated that the ‘Viscount’ had left his will behind him, and the magistrate remarked that that did not help him.

“This will was produced in court the previous afternoon, when the wife summoned the landlady for detaining her property, and stated that her noble husband had induced her to part with all her money. The will gave and bequeathed to ‘the Viscountess’ £6,000 a year for life and ‘all the family plate.’

“On the sworn evidence of the landlady, a warrant was granted.”--_Evening newspaper._

[23] “Noblemen, and their children, carry about with them, in their very titles, a sufficient notification of their rank. Nay, their very names (and this applies also to the children of many untitled houses) are often, to the English ear, adequate exponents of high birth, or descent. Sackville, Manners, Fitzroy, Paulet, Cavendish, and scores of others, tell their own tale.... Such persons, therefore, find everywhere a due sense of their claims already established, except among those who are ignorant of the world, by virtue of their own obscurity.”--De Quincey, _Confessions of an Opium-Eater_.

[24] Or where the change is to be effected by Royal License, when the assumption of the name and arms might be prevented.

[25] A solicitor on the Rolls cannot change his name except by the leave of the Master of the Rolls, who requires either a Royal License or a deed poll enrolled plus advertisements. (A note by Mr. Cozens-Hardy, the well-known barrister, who is, of course, the son of the Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy.)

[26] Sunday newspaper.

[27] Mr. Samuel Beach Chester is the only child of the eldest (married) son, the late Captain Paul Townsend Jones, Jones’ Independent Battery, Pennsylvania Artillery, of the late Rev. Samuel Beach Jones, D.D., of Bridgeton, New Jersey, a trustee of Princeton University, and a graduate of Princeton and Yale, who married the eldest child (all daughters) of the Rev. John Chester, head of the Wethersfield branch of the Chesters of Blaby in Leicestershire. The Chesters of Wethersfield stood at the head of affairs in Connecticut in the 17th, 18th, and (early part of the) 19th centuries. By order of the New York Supreme Court, 1901, Mr. Chester assumed the maiden name of his grandmother, Sarah Ralston Chester. Mr. William Chester represents the junior male line and Mr. Beach Chester the senior female line, genealogically, at the present time. The Chesters of Wethersfield, Connecticut, are not related to any other family of the same name established in Connecticut or elsewhere in the United States.

##