The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-18 00:00:00

in the world in the dffence and vindication
of the humblest State where tyranny runs riot, and
where oppression triumphs over the weak and
tramples on the poor. Opportunity is now given
to our authorities ; but, if they let it pass by un-
heeded, it may be long before they can retrieve the
injury to their own reputations, and redress the
wrong to their country that such carelessness may
cause and such indifference entail.

As whimsical a conversation—for the talk upon
the matter hardly once rose last evening above the
purely and simply conversational—as eccentric and
whimsical a conversation as any that has for a long
period enlivened the proceedings of the House of
Commons took its rise froin a bark or two from the
jaws of the good dog Tear'em. The honourable,
and learned member for Sheffield in other words
once more seized an opportunity for ventilating
the many months'-long subject of discussion
anent the legality or illegality of a gra-
tuitous Change " of Names the memorable
discussion originated by Lord •LLANOVE LI'S
altercation with Mr. JONES, otherwise Mr.
HERBERT (as he wished to call himself) of Clytha.
So succinctly and categorically did Mr. ROEBUCK
state the facts or incidents out of which the circum-
stance of that well-known altercation sprang into
existence, that it would hardly be possible to do
better than to summarise those particulars in this
place almost in the very words in which
they were epitomised by the honourable
and learned member for Sheffield. Several
years since, then, a gentleman died in Wales of
the name of JONES, He had three sons, but argued
Mr. ROEBUCK, he (the hon. member) had only to
do with two. The eldest of these two sons became
Mr. JONES of Llanarth, and the other Mr. JONES
of Clytha. Mr. JONES, of Llanerth, had a son.
The father afterwards died, and the son resolved
to marry a very charming person, the daughter of
Sir BENJAMIN HALL, and he wanted to take upon
himself the name of HERBERT, to which he believed
he had by succession a right. He got a
royal license to make that change of name. He
married the lady, and became Mr. HERBERT of
Llanarth. Now, Mr. JONES of Clytha also had
sons, and one of them wished to become a member
of the volunteers. However, the father wished him
not to become a volunteer until ho was of age, and
the father determined that, as his nephew had done,
he should take the name of HERBERT, to which he
had as much right as the nephew. The son ac-
cordingly determined to take the name of HERBERT,
and now he had to bring in the name of Lord LLAN,
OVER. Lord LLANOVER was lord-lieutenant of the
county, and when he was apprised of the fact
that the uncle of his son-in-law had taken the

name of HERBERT, he told the young gentleman
who wished to be aVolunteer that he could not permit
him to take that name, or be aVliunteer in the name
of HERBERT. Hinc—that is, from this refusal of
permission by the Lord-Lieutenant of the county
—ince lachrytnce—meaning, let us say, the tears of

indignant ink (both writing and printer's) shed
since then upon this, in most respects, frivolous,
though in some, really important theme.

Now that the facts—as echoed once more pretty
plainly only last evening within the walls of the
House of Commons—come very distinctly again
before th 6 calmer judgment of the people, we really
cannot for the life of us see that, in making his
refusal upon the spur of the moment, Lord LLAN-
OYER was acting otherwise then as the vast majority
of Lords-Lieutenant in the United Kingdom, it
similarly appealed to, would have acted under
precisely the like circumstances. At the first
blush either the license dispensed for certain fees
by the College of Heralds was to be regarded
as valuable or as valueless. Upon his own instant
responsibility noLord Lieutenant in the land would
have cared to give it impetuously and instantly as
his opinion that the acts of the Herald's College, or
College of Arms, as it is called, are in a matter like
ibis to be ignored and stultified. Lord LLANOVER

may have been mistaken, be wecannot but think,
been mistaken in adhering so very resolutely to his
own first not very surprising decision. Only upon
a careful examination of the authorities the singu-
lar fact comes more and more distinctly to light,
that so loose is the law in this pat ticular as regards

the legality of a Change of Names, that it is not in
any way extravagant to assert that only little by
latle did the general community, after reading the
arguments of the Press and the debates iu Parlin-

moat, as reported iu the newspapers, arrive gra-

dually and even a good part of it reluctantly to

.hat same conclusion.

Upon the surface of things it appeared only to
stand to reason that, without going through some
recognised and authorised forms, no man could

positively and actually, that is, legally Change his
Surname. More particularly such appeared to be
the probability, seeing that forms exactly of that

character there were—forms that could be gone
through, that occasionally were gone through, at a

recognised and ancient, though it must be allowed
for the most part, somewhat after-dated and almost

obsolete institution. Among unprofessional men,
such undoubtedly was the prevailing impression,
when first Lord LLANOVER decided upon declining
to recognise Mr. JONES of Clytha's right to change his
name to HERBERT, solely at his own free will and

pleasure. tolerate—thus it was argued by not a few
—tolerate this license in regard to the change of
names ; if one may venture upon any such mere
play upon words, this license to do away with
licenses;and the infamy attaching to any knave
well-kn well-known to the police by a string of aliases

would henceforth in a tnanner cease and deterrai,ne.

TURPIN, alias SYKES, otherwise SHEPHERD,

and so on through a series of conveniently
dropped and resumed surnames, would at once
almost respectably resolve himself into an

individual remarkable merely for an men-

,ric fluctuation or fitfulness in his variable taste

or names and his easy disgust with them,

So prevalent, however, heretofore has been the con-
viction that, without the purchase by heavy fees
paid down for a Royal License, no Change of Name
could be legally accomplished and legally
,recog-
nisable, that the hon. and learned member for

Sheffiold could assert, and assert truthfully, only