Three or four times did Sandilli send messengers to the hostile camp to sue for peace. Each time was the invariable answer returned-that nothing less than unconditional surrender could be accepted. This surprised and puzzled him, as he had on previous occasions been met with merciful promises. As he was unable to put trust in the intentions of his enemies, he resolved to hold out to the last, although his men were greatly disheartened, and supplies of food were getting short. The troops occasionally came across the dead bodies of Kaffirs who had evidently died of starvation. The besiegers continued daily to harass and hunt down the Kaffirs, gradually reducing their numbers. Many of the latter were forced to take to marauding to obtain food. At last, in an engagement at Isidengi, in the early part of June, both Sandilli and Dukwana, his best marksman, were killed, the body of the former being afterwards found and identified by Mr. Wright, who had been the resident magistrate with the late chief. The old chief dead, the Gaikas had lost the head around whom they could rally, and their defeat was now virtually accomplished. One by one the subordinate leaders were killed or fell into the hands of the forces arrayed against them. Seyolo was killed fighting against the volunteers; Tini Macomo, Somta and Edmund Sandilli, brother and son of the late chief, and Mapotis, Tini Macomo's brother, were captured, and incarcerated in prison to await their trial for sedition, as were also Gongabele and Umfanta; and Bisset, Sandilli's third son, voluntarily surrendered. Another chief, Stokwetyali, who had been reported as "disaffected," was attacked and taken prisoner by a force under Major Elliot. extent of his revolt may be gathered from the fact that, whilst the Kaffirs lost 60 men in the engagement, the only casualty on Major Elliot's side was one man wounded. Gradually the work of disarmament among their remaining divided and disorganised followers was carried on, and the Gaikas as a tribe may be said to have been utterly broken up. Without a chief they could not hope to retain their exclusive tribal character or hope to attain to any degree of independence. As they were disarmed, the natives were scattered about in different settled parts of the colony, to prevent the chance of their making any organised attempt at further disturbances. The troops and colonial forces were as rapidly as was consistent with the safety of the disturbed districts withdrawn and dispersed.

The

The campaign was being conducted in a similar way in the Transkei. The troops there traversed the country, occasionally meeting and dispersing small straggling bodies of the Galeka tribe. Information reached Ibeka in the middle of March that Kiva, VOL. CCXLIII. NO. 1774.

K K

Kreli's general, had taken refuge in one of Kreli's hiding places. Colonel Glyn, the officer in command, at once sent Commandant Prattle in pursuit, and the latter accomplished his commission in so short a time as to take the wily Galeka leader entirely by surprise, and to succeed in killing him, with his three brothers and two uncles. On receiving the news of his general's death, Kreli sent a messenger to Ibeka to say that he intended to surrender in a few days. His fear of the fate which would meet him prevented him from doing so, and up to the time of writing this no news has been received of his surrender or capture. The work of disarmament here has not proceeded so quickly as was the case with the Gaikas, and a considerable force has been maintained in the neighbourhood, and, according to a recent ministerial statement in the Cape Parliament, would probably continue to be maintained for some time yet. Still, on the whole, the "war" in this part of our South African dominions has come to an end, and by sheer force the native tribes have been stamped out and rendered powerless. Looking back over the whole course of the disturbance, much fault may be found with the policy or policies by which the action of the Government has been dictated. The war was caused by a dispute between two of the border tribes, aggravated by the restricted and insufficient space in which the one was confined, and the fact that the other was an intruder established in the country by the English. Had the Government maintained a neutral attitude in endeavouring to settle this quarrel, and seen that justice was rendered to the aggrieved tribe, instead of adopting warlike measures and espousing the cause of one of the parties to the dispute, the Galekas would not have been forced into fighting against the colonists. Their desire to remain on a peaceful footing with their powerful and aggressive neighbours is evidenced by their wishing for the return of the Residents, their consideration in removing the missionaries and traders to places of safety when actual hostilities were inevitable, and their subsequently forbearing to injure or destroy the white men's houses. Very different indeed was this conduct from the ruthless manner in which their invaders burnt down their villages and destroyed their provisions. The general result, however, seems to be an inevitable one wherever the English come across a fertile land peopled with savages they take possession, constantly interfere in the affairs of the natives, make war with them, and then, having by their superior weapons and organisation defeated them, appropriate their territory, and drive them to less fertile regions.

FREDERICK A, EDWARDS.

TH

THE LAW OF SURNAMES.

HE law of surnames may be concisely stated: there is none at all. But nevertheless, though there is no positive law on the subject, it may not be uninteresting to inquire into the usages which have arisen during the course of time, and which stand in the place of legal enactment. The use of surnames is an institution which has grown up so gradually, and has fulfilled its purpose so unobtrusively and well, that it has entirely escaped the attention of the legislature. There is one positive enactment only concerning the assumption of surnames, and it refers to a very limited district. In the fourth year of Edward IV. an Act was passed compelling every Irishman that lived within the English pale to "go like an Englishman in apparel and shaving of his beard above his mouth;" to "be within one year sworn liegeman of the king;" and "to take to him an English surname of a town, as Sutton, Chester, Trim, Skyrne, Corke, Kinsale; or colour, as White, Blacke, Browne; or art or sciences, as Smith, Carpenter; or office, as Cooke, Butler; and that he and his issue shall use this name under pain of forfeiting his goods yearly till the premises be done." With this exception, surnames originally were assumed by, or became attached to, individuals at their own pleasure, as soon as the insufficiency of the Christian name to mark a person's identity became recognised. In olden times the Christian name was all-important; surnames did not come into general use until the middle of the fourteenth century. In Wales, indeed, even until the seventeenth century many of the highest families retained a system of patronymics which formed a complete genealogy without containing any surname at all. The indexes to our old historical books, such as the Chronicles and Dugdale's "Monasticon," are by Christian names. This importance probably arose from the fact that it was the name conferred at the religious rite of baptism, while the surname was a chance designation which might be given on account of a great variety of reasons, and which might or might not prove permanent, and be handed down to a man's family. "Special heed," says Coke, "is to be taken to the name of baptism, as a man cannot have two, though he may have divers surnames." Camden

mentions the instance of a knight in Cheshire, William Belward, lord of Malpas in the time of Richard I., each of whose sons took different surnames, while their sons in turn also assumed names different from those of their fathers; in point of fact, in three generations from William Belward, his descendants had rejoiced in no fewer than ten different surnames, some taken from their estates, and others from their mental or bodily qualities. Many a man, indeed, had two or more names; one, it might be, taken from his possessions or habitation, another allotted to him on account of his appearance or employment, and another perhaps a mere nickname; in course of time one of them, which probably a matter of chance, became the hereditary surname of his family, and was handed down to his descendants. It is clear that no law regulated the matter; the name of the father was adopted by the son if he pleased, or he assumed or obtained a new name for himself.

This uncertainty was checked in some measure by a statute called the Statute of Additions, passed in the first year of Henry V., which enacted that not only the name of the individual should be inserted in every writ or indictment, but that his calling and the place also of his abode should be given. In course of time also Cromwell, the secretary to Henry VIII., established parish registers, which, by causing the name of every man to be entered at his baptism, marriage, and burial, served to perpetuate a surname in each family and to secure its transmission with regularity from father to son. When a new name was taken from any cause, it was the custom to retain the former name as an alias, and instances of this are frequently met with in early registers and documents of that period; even then it seems to be a matter of chance which name survived. At the present day surnames have become a far surer mark of identity than Christian names. Of the latter not more than six or seven hundred are in common use, while the London Directory contains at least 20,000 surnames. Still more accurately is an individual now described by the addition of a second or third Christian name, an usage that has sprung up in comparatively modern times. To our old law writers the possibility that a man could use two different Christian names as members of one appellation never seems to have occurred.

Though it has become universal in all civilised countries for children to take the name of their father, there is nothing in the law of England to prevent any man assuming any name he thinks fit. There is no penalty of any kind for so doing, except that in forsaking his old name difficulties may in some cases arise in proving his identity. There are numerous cases in the Law Reports to the effect

that if a man enters into a contract in any particular name, he may be sued in the name he used, whatever his real name may be; and to support the validity of any act it may be shown that about the same time he was known by the name he used, without regard to the name he was baptized in. All that the law looks to is the identity of the individual, and when that is clearly established, all acts done by him are binding. There is no legal right to a name. No one can find fault with a person for calling himself Plantagenet, or Howard, or anything else, but it does not follow that everybody will promptly recognise the new name. A man's name is that one which is given to him by general consent, without any regard to the mode in which he acquired it; he may shuffle off an old one he dislikes, and clothe himself with one more to his taste, if he can induce other people to acquiesce in the change. In France, however, it is otherwise. Laws were passed in the second and sixth years of the first Revolution forbidding any citizen to use any name or surname which was not entered in the register of his birth, or to add any surname to his proper name; and in 1858 another law was enacted against the assumption of additional names, under which proceedings have been taken and the penalty enforced. In America change of name requires an act of the State Legislature, though this requirement does not seem to extend to the translation of a surname into a word of similar import in another language, as Carpenter for Zimmerman, Pike for Snook, or Street for La Rue.

The Christian name has always been considered immutable; the law is that it must remain as it was given in baptism. In former times they might be changed at confirmation; for example, the name of Henry III. of France was changed at that rite from Edward Alexander. Laxity in this matter has gradually arisen, especially in America, where Christian name and surname are changed together by the Acts passed for the purpose, which are carried through the legislatures in a very perfunctory manner. In England, too, advertisements have from time to time appeared in the papers announcing change of both Christian name and surname, though, perhaps, there is no instance of a change of Christian name alone. Of a different character, of course, are names assumed for literary purposes or other professional reasons. With actors this proceeding is common; and many play their parts their real names becoming known to the public. frequently modified their names; Braham has been taken instead of Abraham, Slowman for Solomon, and Moss for Moses.

and die without Jews, too, have

Royal licenses for change of name were first granted in the reign of