The candidate for change of name could effect his purpose by deed poll, an easy task involving no proof of pedigree or gentle birth. Affidavit should, however, be made that the name chosen, on the plan here suggested, was the name of such and such an ascendant of the person making the change. This would be an effort on the part of the law to reduce the system to order and method. In the case of Russians, Poles, aliens of suggestive and hideous surname, whatever change of name allowed to them, such change should conform with their foreign origin. Provision for the infliction of penalties for disobedience in this connection would help matters in the right direction. The whole question may seem trivial, but from the ramifications which spread out from the use of an _alias_ or fictitious surname, much deception, or fraud, or improper profit almost amounting to fraud, frequently, if not generally, results. This is stating the case in a very mild way. Establishing the identity of an alien in this country should also be made easier by compelling every such person to produce documentary evidence of his (or her) identity on landing, and to make such person subject to interrogation or examination on the point at any subsequent time. This is a side-issue; still, it is linked to the main question here raised, namely, the chaotic laxity permitted, or, at any rate, not prevented, with regard to the change of a person’s name. The method of the deed poll, as at present applied, though preferable to the impromptu nomenclature adopted by the criminal classes, is certainly not above reproach. It allows too much license in the choice of a name. Change of surname should, as already pointed out, be restricted to cases where the claim to the new name is at least colourable, _i.e._, permissible only where the name desired is the name of an ascendant.[24] If some of these suggestions were carried out, there would be no more mad hunts for practically anonymous criminals like “Peter the Painter” and “Fritz,” the suspected murderers in the notorious Hounsditch fiasco. The wonder is that no one has apparently yet seized upon the feeble system or absence of system in checking the rightful names of the inhabitants of these islands. Legislation for the punishment of persons making an improper use of surnames would be distinctly useful. There would be fewer Polish “Harrises” and Russian “Montagues” or, indeed, “Montagus” (less the “e,” for in some cases this further audacity has been exhibited), in England than there are to-day. Even the descendants of these august impostors would tremble in their boots! “Solomon” or “Aaronstein” or “Samuel” would also become their appearance better in many cases! These remarks, though they obviously refer to Jews, are not intended to offend respectable Jews who courageously adhere to the ugly names of their ancestors. The Jew who says he is a Jew and passes under a name properly associated with