We might not exclude the thought of another favourite idea of some reformers which in a modified shape might be allowed to gradually take root. Since Spencer Wells familiarised the world with an operation for which he will always be remembered, hundreds of women have gladly improved their health by a safe treatment, which, if anything, threatened to become too fashionable. Every woman who was, as above, required to report her residence as being unfit, and being liable to heavy penalties on having children, should be offered the option of perfect freedom if she chose the operation. The marriage of such women, with men who were condemned as unfit, would entirely free both parties from reporting and inspection in future, and give the best prospect of happy lives to the weakest and less capable of the community, free from what would be only too truly "encumbrances" to such people. This course might give a permanently safe line of improvement, without any consequent stigma or hardship in the world around; and so gentle a change—beneficial to the individual as well as the community—seems not outside of future possibilities. At least such a course would be the more practicable form of such a proposed change. Of course, no such legislation would be complete in its action, and evasions would often occur. But if it checked even one half of the growth of bad stock it would be an enormous gain. We now turn to other lines of advance from the communal point of view. The old system of community, in which all the nations of northern Europe lived, was based on each man being his brother's keeper; every one was liable to fines if any relative committed a crime, in proportion to their closeness of relation. To this succeeded individual responsibility, both in property and in penalties. This raises the question whether it is possible to separate property and penalty in communism. At present the tendency is to a state communism, begun by heavy death duties and taxation (for a variety of purposes which the taxed do not use or require), amounting to a quarter of all property. If this system is extended, and property becomes more largely hypothecated to public purposes, then when a man is condemned in heavy damages or fines his neighbours will suffer by reduction of the rateable property. Will it not be thought more fair for his relatives to be responsible for the public loss? And if so, we indirectly revert to the payment by relatives of a share of all fines.