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:--