moral development, amongst those whom it governs, it would be very
cautious of suppressing, or interfering with, any good thing which the
people would accomplish for themselves. The same with a private
individual, an employer of labour for instance, if he values the
independence of character and action in those whom he employs, he will be
careful in all his benevolent measures, to leave room for their energy to
work. What does he want to produce? Something vital, not something
mechanical. It is often a deficiency of benevolence, and not an
overflow, that makes people interfering in a bad sense. Frequently the
same spirit which would make a man a tyrant in government, would make him
a busy-body, a meddler, or a pedantic formalist, in the relations of
ordinary life. I have taken the instance of father and son, which might
be supposed by many as one in which extreme interference was not only
justifiable, but requisite. In stating how necessary it is even there to
be very careful as regards the extent and mode of interference, I leave
my readers to estimate how essential it must be in all other cases where
the relation is not of that closely connected character. I believe that
the parental relation will be found the best model on which to form the
duties of the employer to the employed; calling, as it does, for active
exertion, requiring the most watchful tenderness, and yet limited by the
strictest rules of prudence from intrenching on that freedom of thought
and action which is necessary for all spontaneous development.

CHAPTER IV.
SOURCES OF BENEVOLENCE.

There is a common phrase which is likely to become a most powerful
antagonist to any arguments that have been put forward in the foregoing
pages: and I think it would be good policy for me to commence the attack,
and endeavour to expose its weakness in the first instance. If you
propose any experiment for remedying an evil, it is nearly sure to be
observed that your plan is well enough in theory, but that it is not
practical. Under that insidious word "practical" lurk many meanings.
People are apt to think that a thing is not practical, unless it _has_
been tried, is immediate in its operation, or has some selfish end in
view. Many who do not include, either avowedly, or really, the two
latter meanings, incline, almost unconsciously perhaps, to adopt the
former, and think that a plan, of which the effects are not foreknown,
cannot be practical. Ever