in failure, and the general sentiment is that the law of irrevocable leases is one of the great bulwarks of the constitution. Those few who have succeeded in obtaining a release are generally looked on with suspicion and dislike.
It is curious to remark that, notwithstanding the obvious importance of exercising the utmost care and circumspection in selecting a life-long abode, the choice was often hurriedly made, and after a mere superficial inspection of the house. These hasty selections were, as may easily be conceived, often followed by leisurely repentance and regret, occasioned by the unsuitable character of the house chosen to the requirements of the chooser.
It occasionally happens that a covetous spirit will induce some one to insinuate himself into his neighbour's house during his absence, and attempt to oust him from it; but such offences are severely punished and the offender is held to be a reprobate of the vilest character. And yet such are the strange inconsistencies of society, that several persons were pointed out to me who were well known to have invaded their neighbours' houses, and who yet had never lost the consideration of their fellows nor been punished for their illegal proceedings; even though they retained possession of the houses from which they had ousted the legitimate possessors.
However, these were exceptional cases, and the delinquencies of the offenders were supposed not to be known, though every one knew them. The open and acknowledged possession of two houses, as a town house and a country house, is altogether unknown, and would not be permitted. When I observed that, in my country, people who possessed more than one
