Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 21, March 23, 1850», страница 4

REPLIES

LETTER ATTRIBUTED TO SIR ROBERT WALPOLE

I feel very confident that I once read the letter attributed to Sir R. Walpole (No. 19. p. 304.) in some magazine, long before I had ever seen Banks' Extinct and Dormant Peerage. My impression is, also, that I never believed the document to be authentic; and that opinion is confirmed by a reference to the Correspondence of Horace Walpole, vol. i. ed. 1840, and to the journals of the day. I find from these authorities, that the first of the memorable divisions which drove Sir Robert from the helm, took place on the 21st Jan. 1741-2, when Pulteney's motion for a secret committee was lost by three voices only. We are told that the speeches were very brilliant, and Sir R. Walpole particularly distinguished himself. He might have been tormented by his enemies, but not by the stone, (the excuse assigned in the letter for his inability to attend the king), for Horace left him at one o'clock in the morning, after the debate had terminated, "at supper all alive and in spirits," and he even boasted that he was younger than his son. The next struggle was on the 28th of Jan., on the Chippenham election, when the minister was defeated by one, and his friends advised him to resign; but it was not till after the 3rd of Feb., when the majority against him upon the renewal of the last question had increased to sixteen, that he intimated his intention to retire. These facts, coupled with the inferences drawn by your correspondent P.C.S.S. as to the suspicious style of the letter, and the imprudence of such a communication, go far to prove that it was a forgery: but the passage in Walpole's Reminiscences, vol. i. p. cviii. ed. 1840, with which I will now conclude my remarks, seems to set the question at rest:—

"Sir Robert, before he quitted the king, persuaded his Majesty to insist, as a preliminary to the change, that Mr. Pulteney should go into the House of Lords, his great credit lying in the other House: and I remember my father's action when he returned from Court, and told me what he had done; 'I have turned the key of the closet upon him,' making that motion with his hand."

Braybrooke.

Audley End, March 18. 1850.

PORTRAITS OF ULRICH OF HUTTEN

It is pleasant to see that an answer to a query can sometimes do more than satisfy a doubt, by accidentally touching an accordant note which awakens a responsive feeling. I am much pleased that my scanty information was acceptable to "R.G."; and wish it was in my power to give him more certain information respecting the portraits of Hutten, who is one of my heroes, although I am no "hero-worshipper."

The earliest woodcut portrait of him with which I am acquainted, is to be found in the very elegant volume containing the pieces relating to the murder of his cousin John, by Ulrich of Wirtemberg (the title too long for these pages), which, from the inscription at the end, appears to have been printed in the Castle of Stakelberg, in 1519. It is a half length, in a hat, under a kind of portico, with two shields at the upper corners: the inscription beneath is in white letters on a black ground. It occurs near the end of the volume; in which is another spirited woodcut, representing the murder.

The other two cotemporary portraits occur in the "Expostulatio," before noticed. The largest of these, at the end of the volume, is in armour, crowned with laurel, and holding a sword, looking toward the left. This is but indifferently copied, or rather followed, in Tobias Stimmer's rare and elegant little volume, Imagines Viror. Liter. Illust., published by Reusner and Jobinus, Argent. 1587, 12mo.

I have never seen a good modern representation of this remarkable man, who devoted the whole energies of his soul to the sacred cause of the truth and freedom, and the liberation of his country and mankind from the trammels of a corrupt and dissolute Church; and, be it remembered, that he and Reuchlin were precursors of Luther in the noble work, which entitles them to at least a share in our gratitude for the unspeakable benefit conferred by this glorious emancipation.

Ebernburg, the fortress of his friend, the noble and heroic Franz von Sickingen, Hutten called the Bulwark of Righteousness. I had long sought for a representation of Sickingen, and at length found a medal represented in the Sylloge Numismatum Elegantiorum of Luckius, fol. Argent, 1620, bearing the date 1522.

Hutten's life is full of romantic incident: it was one of toil and pain, for the most part; and he may well have compared his wanderings to those of Ulysses, as he seems to have done in the following verses, which accompany the portrait first above mentioned:

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

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" (Archæologia, 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.

Sir Joseph Jekyll, in the case of Barlow v. Bateman, in 1730, said,—

"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." (3 Peere Williams, 65.)

The decision of the Master of the Rolls in this case was afterwards overruled by the House of Lords; but on a point not affecting the accuracy of the observations I have quoted.

Lord Eldon, in the case of Leigh v. Leigh, decided in 1808, made the following remarks:—

"An Act of Parliament, giving a new name, does not take away the former name: a legacy given by that name might be taken. In most of the Acts of Parliament for this purpose there is a special proviso to prevent the loss of the former name. The King's licence is nothing more than permission to take the name, and does not give it. A name, therefore, taken in that way is by voluntary assumption." (15 Ves. Jun., p. 100.)

This case decided that the assumption of a name by a person, by the King's license, would not entitle him to take under a limitation in a will "unto the first and nearest of my kindred, being male, and of my name and blood." The same rule would no doubt hold as to a change of name by Act of Parliament. (See Pyot v. Pyot, 1 Ves. Sen. 335.)

These extracts from the highest authorities will sufficiently show of how little use is an Act of Parliament, or the royal license, for effecting a change of name; indeed, the chief, perhaps I might almost say the only, advantage of these costly forms, except, of course, where they are required by the express terms of a will, is the facility they afford in case it should become necessary to prove that John White was ten years ago John Brown.

Arun.