The Norwegian report states, that “by law servants should never be hired for a shorter period than a twelvemonth. Employing labourers by the day, though often done in and about towns, is consequently illegal.” (p. 695.) Few day-labourers are to be met with. (p. 698.) The Gottenburgh, that “strictly speaking there are in Sweden few labourers on the same footing as in England.” (p. 387.) The Russian, that “the labourers are almost all slaves,” and that “the average quantity of land allowed by a proprietor to his slave is 15 acres.” (p. 334.) The Danish report, that “the day-labourers form in Zealand and the adjoining islands less than one-fifth, and in Sleswick Holstein less than one-third of the agricultural population.” (p. 300.) The Wurtemberg report states the labourers to amount to 41,913 (meaning of course heads of families, or about 210,000 individuals) out of a population of 1,518,147, being in fact less than 1-7th. (p. 514.) The Bavarian, that “in the country there are very few day-labourers, as almost every person has some ground of his own, and few are rich enough to hire labour.” (p. 556.) It is probable therefore that the class of persons who in the north of Europe and Germany would be exposed to the temptation of applying for public relief if it were granted on the same terms as in England, would be a small minority instead of a large majority, and would be perhaps a seventh, fifth, or at most a third instead of three-fourths, or even a larger proportion of the whole community. [Sidenote: 4. The situation of the pauper being made less eligible than that of the independent labourer.] 4. But the conditions on which parochial assistance is afforded in the countries in question, form perhaps the principal difference between their systems and that which we have adopted. In England, where the scale and the allowance system prevail, no condition whatever can be said to be imposed on the pauper. What he receives is a mere gratuitous addition to his income. Even where work is required, the hours are in general fewer, and the labour less severe than those of the independent labourer. And the workhouse, the most powerful of our instruments of repression, affords, in general, food, lodging, clothing and warmth, better than can be found in the cottage, _and may be quitted at a day’s notice_. But in all the countries which we have been considering, except the Canton de Berne and perhaps Denmark, the great object of pauper legislation, that of rendering the situation of the pauper less agreeable than that of the independent labourer, has been effectually attained.