Consider the difference of the cases. In the one case we behold
a child associated, in happy communion, with a society--a little
world--of its own age and feelings,--continually proving the
possibility of giving and imparting happiness by receiving
and exercising kindness to its companions--secured from every
danger--supplied with a constant variety of amusement, which is at
the same time instruction; and all this under the care of a master or
mistress; acting the part, not of a petulant school-dame, or a stern
pedagogue, but of a kind and judicious parent.

In the case of the child not thus befriended, we see it, either
exposed to the dangerous associations of the street, or to the
bad examples of its parents; to their unkindness and severity, or
misguided indulgence; and presented, moreover, with every facility, as
well as every temptation, to do wrong. Now, is it to be wondered at,
that, in the former case, kind, obedient, honest characters should
be the result; and in the latter, such as we have, in our preceding
examples, exhibited? Reason tells us such a consequence is likely, and
experience has shewn us that it really happens. I could enumerate a
thousand cases of honest principle in the infants who have been
under my own care; but I can only mention one or two circumstances
illustrative of the matter.

I once had, for example, two little boys to travel with me; their
assistance was extremely valuable in organizing schools. They were
often invited to accompany me at dinner; the guests generally gave
them presents. I have watched them under many tempting circumstances,
and never found them steal. It is my firm conviction that dishonesty
is chiefly the effect of neglect. No child can be _born_ a _thief_,