Questions on "On Liberty" and "The Doctrine of Liberty in Its Application to Morals"

Does Fitzjames-Stephens assertion that the laws subjugation of bastard children is moral mean that he holds the law to be morally correct or does he hold that the law is based upon a morality? And then, if he believes the law to be moral, how can he hold to be moral a law that he states is is unfair?
It appears that Stephens thinks the law is just, and it seems a direct conflict because he does entertain that the law presses harshly upon the child who was placed in a situation through no fault of his or her own. Stephens sidesteps the issue and does not justify the morality of the statement. It also does not follow that this punishment is being levied upon one who is already dead due to the nature of inheritance in the first place.

Mill and Stephens seem to follow the same line of reasoning as far as the education of individuals, though Mill presents this as allowing truth to always be challenged, so how do they reach such different conclusions on the role of government?
Stephens does not challenge the status quo, or is more content with the current role of government. Mill seeks to return to an ideal that existed when the state was a simpler entity. Mill wants to encourage individual development while Stephens seeks to further strengthen the current powerhouse.