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.’