The _Westminster Review_ for January, in an able and temperate
article, entitled _Employers and Employed_, delineates the progress of
the working power from the original condition of _serfdom_, through
that of _vassalage_, which prevailed in the middle ages, to the system
of simple contract in which we now find it in France and America. This
the writer regards as part of a universal progress towards a more and
more equalised condition of the various orders of men--'an equality,
not perhaps of wealth, or of mind, or of inherent power, but of social
condition, and of individual rights and freedom.' In England, however,
we are only in a state of transition from that relation of protection
on the one hand, and respect or loyalty on the other, which
constituted the system of vassalage, to the true democratic relation
which assumes a perfect equality and independence in the contracting
parties. 'The master cannot divest himself of the idea, that in virtue
of his rank he is entitled to deference and submission; and the
workman conceives that, in virtue of his comparative poverty, he is
entitled to assistance in difficulty, and to protection from the
consequences of his own folly and improvidence. Each party expects
from the other something more than is expressed or implied in the
covenant between them. The workman, asserting his equality and
independence, claims from his employer services which only inferiority
can legitimately demand; the master, tacitly and in his heart denying
this equality and independence, repudiates claims which only the
validity of this plea of equality and independence can effectually
nonsuit or liquidate.'
Arguing that 'the reciprocal duties of employers and employed, _as
such_, are comprised within the limits of their covenant,' the writer
goes on to say, that nevertheless there remains a relation of
'fellow-citizenship and of Christian _neighbourhood_,' by virtue of
which the employer owes service to his work-people, seeing that 'every
man owes service to every man whom he is in a position to serve.' Let
not the Pharisaic fundholder and lazy mortgagee suppose that the great
employers of labour are thus under a peculiar obligation from which
_they_ are exempt. The obligation is assumed to be equal upon all who
have power and means; and it only lies with special weight at the door
of the employer of multitudes, in as far as he is in a situation to
exercise influence over their character and conduct, and usually has
greater means of rendering aid suited to their particular necessities.
Before proceeding to expound the various duties thus imposed upon the
employer, the writer lays down a primary duty as essential to the due
performance of the rest--namely, he must see to making his business
succeed; and for this end he must possess a sufficient capital at
starting; and he must not, for any reasons of vanity or benevolence,
or through laxness, pay higher wages than the state of the
labour-market and the prospects of trade require. Of the secondary
duties which next come in course--and which, be it remembered, arise
not from the mastership, but from the neighbourship--the first is that
of 'making his factory, and the processes carried on there, as healthy
as care and sanitary science can render them.' 'This is the more
incumbent upon him, as it is little likely to be thought of or
demanded by his workmen. It is a topic on which his cultivated
intelligence is almost sure to place him far ahead of them; and out of
the superiority, as we have seen, springs the obligation.' Our
reviewer adds the remark, that, 'in the minor workshops, and
especially in the work-rooms of tailors and seamstresses, the
employers are still, for the most part, unawakened to the importance
and imperativeness of this class of obligations. The health of
thousands is sacrificed from pure ignorance and want of thought.'
One mode of serving those who work for him, which the circumstances
render appropriate, is to provide them with decent and comfortable
dwellings. Much has been done in this way. 'In almost all country
establishments, and in most of those in the smaller towns, the
employers have been careful to surround their mills with substantial
and well-built cottages, often with gardens attached to them,
containing four rooms--kitchen, scullery, and two bedrooms: cottages
which are let for rents which at once remunerate the owner and are
easy for the occupier.' Even in large towns, where there are great
local difficulties, something has been done by the building of Model
Lodging-houses, and by the efforts of Societies for improving the
Dwellings of the Poor. The writer specifies one of the greatest
difficulties as existing in the working-people themselves: when
provided with a variety of rooms for the separation of the various
members of their families, they are very apt to defeat the whole plan
by taking in lodgers, and contenting themselves with the filthy and
depraving huddlement out of which their benevolent superiors
endeavoured to rescue them. But it may be hoped that, by promoting
only a few of the more intelligent and better-disposed to such
improved dwellings, and thus setting up good examples, the multitude
might in time be trained to an appreciation of the decency and comfort
of ampler accommodation. Another wide field of usefulness is open to
the employers in the establishment of schools, reading-rooms, baths,
wash-houses, and the like.
It strikes us that the writer of this article is not true to his own
principle in his view of the duties of the employer. We readily grant
the duty of making his business prosperous and his workshops healthy.
To fail in the latter particular especially, were not merely to fail
in a duty, but to incur a heavy positive blame. But we cannot see how
it is incumbent on the employer to provide houses for the persons who
enter into the labour-contract with him, any more than to see that
they get their four-pound loaf of a certain quality or price. It may
be a graceful thing, a piece of noble benevolence, to enter into these
building schemes, but it is also to go back into that system of
vassalage out of which it is assumed that the relation of employer and
employed is passing. Either the new buildings will pay as
speculations, or they will not. If they are sure to pay, ordinary
speculators will be as ready to furnish them as bakers are to sell
bread. If the contrary be the case, why burden with the actual or
probable loss the party in a simple contract which involves no such
obligation? Clearly, there must be no great reason to expect a fair
return for capital laid out in this way, or we should see building
schemes for the working-classes taken up extensively by ordinary
speculators. For employers, then, to enter into such plans, must in
some degree be the result of benevolent feelings towards their men;
and, so far, we must hold there is an acknowledgment on both sides
that the system of vassalage is not yet extinct amongst us, and that
the time for its extinction is not yet come.
If we look, however, at the entire condition of the working-people of
England, we shall see that it acknowledges the same truth in some of
its broadest features. When a time of depression comes, and factories
do not require half of their usual number of hands, or even so many,
it is never expected, on any hand, that the superfluous labourers are
to maintain themselves till better times return. The employer is
expected to keep them in his service, at least on short time, and at a
reduced remuneration, although at a ruinous loss to himself. The
workmen, though well aware of the contingency, make little or no
provision against it, but calmly trust to the funds of their
employers, or the contributions of the class to which these belong.
Now, while such a practice exists, the relation of employer and
employed is not that of independent contractors, but so far that of
the feudal baron and his villeins, or of a chieftain and his
'following.' It is, in effect, a voluntarily maintained slavery on the
part of the operatives--a habit as incompatible with political liberty
as with moral dignity and progress, and therefore a sore evil in our
state. Obviously, to perfect the system of independent contract, the
workmen would need to redeem themselves from that condition of utter
_unprovidedness_ in which the great bulk of them are for the present
content to live. Instead of what we see so prevalent now--a sort of
hopelessness as to the benefits of saving--a dread to let it be known
or imagined of them that they possess any store, lest it lead to a
reduction of their wages (a foolish fallacy), or deprive them of a
claim on their employer's consideration in the event of a period of
depression (a mean and unworthy fear), we must see a dignified sense
of independence, resting on the possession of some kind of property,
before we can expect that even this stage in the Progress of Labour
shall be truly reached.
But is it not just one of the essential disadvantages attending the
contract system, or may we rather call it the system of weekly hire,
that while it prompts the employer to frugality, by the obvious
benefits to him of constant accumulation, it leaves the employed, as a
mass, without a sufficient motive to the same virtue, and thus insures
their being retained in that unprovidedness which forbids independence
and true social dignity? On this point, were we a workman, we should
be sorry to rest in an affirmative, or to allow it to slacken our
exertions or sap our self-denial; because if there is a higher
development of the labouring state in store for society, it can only
be attained by the more speedy perfection of the contract state in
_the entire independence of the workman_. The writer from whom we have
quoted thinks, and with his sentiments we entirely concur, that
'society, in its progress towards an ideal state, may have to undergo
modifications, compared with which all previous ones will seem
trifling and superficial. Of one thing only can we feel
secure--namely, that the loyal and punctual discharge of all the
obligations arising out of existing social relations will best hallow,
beautify, and elevate those relations, if they are destined to be
permanent; and will best prepare a peaceful and beneficent advent for
their successors, if, like so much that in its day seemed eternal,
they too are doomed to pass away.'