But the choice of a wet-nurse involves other considerations in addition to those just stated. A woman can safely be employed in this capacity only if her own confinement has taken place some little time before. By suckling the child of another the wet-nurse deprives her own child of its natural nourishment. The wet-nurse may be suffering from some infective disorder, and may transmit this disorder to her nursling. Conversely, the nursling may be suffering from congenital syphilis, or from tuberculosis, and may infect the nurse. It is very difficult in infants-in-arms to recognise syphilis with certainty. For these reasons it is only to healthy wet-nurses, for whose own children a proper provision can be made (for instance, when the wet-nurse’s child has already been suckled for six months, or when it has died), that the local authorities give permission to suckle the child of a stranger. This applies both to resident and to non-resident nurses. In the case of the latter, in view of the fact already mentioned, that they cannot be properly supervised by the child’s relatives, supervision by the local authority is indispensable. There are no physiological difficulties in the way of suckling two infants, either simultaneously or successively. The latter procedure is, however, to be preferred. In all civilised countries baby-farming has been subjected to legal regulations. Although these regulations vary greatly in different countries, they relate not only to infants, but also to older children. The age at which supervision of such children ceases is a very variable one. As an example may be mentioned the French law of the year 1874. This law deals with children boarded out by foundling hospitals, but only to those under two years of age received for a money payment. It is becoming obvious to-day to most persons that children boarded out by their relatives require official supervision, even if the children are received gratuitously.