Cobbett and Mill. 491 



missioners instead, contending that the education and experi- 

 ence of the former did not predispose them to impartiality and 

 justice. He had admitted that in exceptional cases, as for 

 instance, the parish of Rirgham, the management left nothing 

 to be desired, and that if all localities were thus impartially 

 governed no change would be necessary. 



Cobbett finds that the parson of this parish was a certain 

 Mr. Lawe, who was both a great payer of poor-rates and a 

 magistrate. His principle seems, according to Cobbett, to 

 have been to render rehef as irksome and disagreeable as 

 possible, so that none would consent to receive it who could 

 possibly do without it ; while at the same time it should come 

 in the shape of comfort and consolation to those, such as the 

 old, infirm, idiots and cripples, whom every benevolent man 

 would wish to succour. For this purpose a steady, cool-tem- 

 pered stranger was placed in charge of the workhouse ; the 

 husbands occupied one side, the waves the other, and the 

 children went into the schoolroom. The whole regime aimed 

 at comfort and cleanliness, but avoided luxury, and the result 

 was apparent in the increased efforts made by the able-bodied 

 to become self-dependent. 



Now the basis of this arrangement was the supposition that 

 the poor-rate system created an indisposition in the minds 

 of the able-bodied to find work, and secondly, that there was 

 su£6.cient work for all if the}^ would undertake it. This 

 Cobbett strenuously denied. He admitted that the adminis- 

 tration of the Poor Laws was bad, but contended that Acts 

 like that of Sturgess Bourne's, by placing fresh powers in the 

 hands of the rich, augmented the evil. 



Turning to the Bill then before Parliament, he proceeds to 

 examine the doctrines it was intended to promtdgate, as openly 

 expressed by the Lord Chancellor. 



These were — 



1, That all legal provision for the poor, in whatever shape, 

 or under whatever name, is injurious to the poor themselves. 



2. That the poor have no right to relief other than what is 

 given by Act of Parliament ; and that, of course, that which the 

 Parliament can give, the Parliament can take away. 



