It is utterly iniquitous the way the family names of British peers have been seized upon by the sons of Israel. One finds some of the greatest names in the history of the country applied to the offspring of Whitechapel. Some legal check is needed to prevent this, even where no direct intention exists to commit a punishable fraud by means of the fiction. It is not suggested that those Jews who have reached power in England use their adopted appellations to carry on swindles. But it is improper that they should prosper under the great name of some English or Scottish ducal house, when they have never perhaps even so much as lent money to its members in the junior line! Several peculiarly flagrant instances of the kind suggest themselves to the mind. Great dignity has sometimes been bestowed on the scions of a Hebrew house whose adopted name has clashed unpleasantly with the noble name of an historic family. Why a name like “Sowinski” should be replaced by “Cavendish” one fails to see, particularly as a name carries with it definable or indefinable, conscious or unconscious, associations, which weigh.[23] The offspring of the original “Sowinski” becomes “Charles,” or “Edward,” or “George”--“George Cavendish.” Obviously, such a person has reached a financial status far above interest in trivial fraud, though his name is a constant fraud of sorts on some one, particularly if he remains only a name--_invisible_! To descend to the lower branches of struggle for gain by imposture, we find “Claude Churchill” lending money, practically without interest, “Edwin Graham” giving bank notes away on mere notes of hand, and “Hubert Douglas” most eager to cash post-dated cheques, literally for nothing! It is incredible! How a “Lazarus” can become a “Scott,” an “Aarons” an “Ogilvie,” and a “Niemann” or a “Katz” a “Murray,” is far beyond reasonable process of deduction! It is a gross anomaly of the law that it should be tolerated. A High Court judge recently drew a limited parallel--the assumption of noble names by money-lenders. “What’s in a name?” may be asked by the illiterate or semi-illiterate man, and yet he is as promptly influenced by it as persons to whom a name admittedly suggests something tangible. In the case of “John Smith,” we have a name which is not distinctive, which, indeed, must be confusing and burdensome to its possessor. He may have a much larger banking account than an individual of distinguished name and lineage, and, if so, he is perfectly justified in using it to change his name to “Boggs,” or “Hoggs,” or “Noggs” or whatever other name exists in his maternal line. However lowly his origin, he should be compelled to choose a name associated with his parentage. He should not be allowed the option of assuming a high-sounding name to which he can lay no claim. His choice should be limited to the names of his ascendants. In this way, there would be some semblance of actual justification for discarding a commonplace patronymic.