fitted for his wants. It is, however, generally believed and held that to sanction anything of the sort would be to loosen the bonds of society, to sap the foundations of morality and to produce certain disastrous consequences not clearly defined but probably all the more dreaded on that account. All houses are, I was told, thus held for life; and though in particular cases great discomfort is thereby occasioned, on the whole, the law of life-tenancy is believed to act well, and no departure from it is allowed except in cases where, as sometimes happens, the house is destroyed by natural decay or some unforeseen catastrophe. It is only in the case of strangers that houses are assigned to them by the authorities, as in my case. As regards the inhabitants, when they come of age they are allowed to select any house that may be vacant at the time, provided they obtain the permission of the authorities. But once having made their choice they are bound to stick to it for life. Under certain circumstances, such as proof given that the house they have chosen and for which they have signed the lease is prejudicial to their health or incompatible with their employment, by a complicated and expensive legal process they can obtain a release from their engagement and be permitted to make a new selection. But instances of such a change of domicile are extremely rare, and it is generally felt that the lease is binding for life, and those who make an unfortunate choice have to make the best of a bad bargain.
Various attempts have been made to have the law altered and to render the leases terminable at will or after a series of years. But the conservative spirit is so strong, that these attempts have always hitherto ended
