The relationship of a master and servant--or, to use the modern
phrase, employer and employed--is properly constituted by the
agreement of one individual to perform certain duties to another; that
is, instead of being guided solely by his own will, to submit himself
to perform in certain matters the will of another.
The extent of duty which is embraced in the contract may vary very
much. It may be only for the performance of one single act, or it may
be for almost the whole range of daily avocations and duties. There is
often a vagueness about the limit of duties, and we often find the
master inclined to exact more than the servant is inclined to give.
There are very good reasons why masters should not consider themselves
as having a right to a full command and power over their servants in
all things; nay, that in things not within the contract, they should
be inclined to admit a certain equality in the two parties. Masters
are too apt to regard themselves as the lords of their servants in all
respects and at all times. They exercise an authority and assume a
superiority in matters beyond the contract.
On their side, servants often grudgingly perform the duties they have
undertaken. These two causes of discontent produce the worst results.
The practical remedy seems to be, that masters ought more generally to
recognise and act on the principle, that the lordship they bargain for
is not of the whole man, but only in certain respects and duties; and
that it is only as regards those duties they can expect their servant
to surrender his will to the guidance of his master's: while it should
be equally impressed on the servant, that in those respects in which
he has agreed to submit to and execute the will of his master, that
submission and surrender of his will should be absolute, and without
the least reserve or limitation. Perfect obedience is a beautiful
fulfilment of duty, and defensible on the grounds of common-sense; for
as no one can serve two masters--that is, in the performance of any
particular duty--so no man can both obey his own inclination and
submit himself to his master's will in the performance of the same
act.
On moral grounds, it is improper that any one should attempt to
execute in all things the will, of any earthly master; for there is a
power, and, in most cases, several powers, superior to both master and
servant, to whom both owe duties; and therefore the servant cannot
legally, nor without failure in his higher duties, enter into any
contract which may hinder the performance of those duties. In matters
of the law, it is held that such a contract is not binding; and thus,
in the case of a moral law being contravened by a contract, a door of
escape is open to those who have entered into such contract, it being
in opposition to the will of a higher authority.
When a servant, therefore, is in duty bound to execute the will of his
master, his obedience should be perfect. All hesitation or murmuring
is a violation of his contract--a breaking of his promise and
agreement.
But the master and servant should equally learn, that in other
respects, and at other times, the parties are not necessarily in the
state of superior and inferior; but, unless from some other cause, are
to be regarded as on a footing of equality; and this is the true
interpretation of the doctrine of fraternity and equality, which has,
from not being properly understood, played such wild work among some
neighbouring nations. In this sense, however, it is safe and useful.
Not only, however, may the individuals who sometimes and in some
respects are master and servant, be at other times and in other
respects regarded as on a level, but they may with propriety, and
often do, change places. The servant becomes of right the master. For
if he should employ that master as his physician or lawyer, no matter
what may be considered the respective ranks of the parties, the
physician or lawyer must, to perform his duty, become the servant, and
submit his will in the business he is employed in to that of his
employer.
This way of regarding servitude is not a degrading one, but the
reverse. Nothing is so pleasant to a reasonable and truly noble mind
as to pay obedience to those to whom it is due; and if the
adaptability of the same individual to be both master and servant was
more practically carried out, our civilisation would work more
smoothly, and we should probably approach more to that desirable state
in which no one would have a stigma attached to him from his birth or
occupation, but only from the manner in which he performed his duty.
It would help considerably towards a proper understanding of the
relationship between employers and employed, if the employed would,
for their own sake, maintain that degree of self-respect which would
induce others to respect them. On this point we would speak kindly,
yet frankly, and cannot do better than quote a passage from a small
treatise on Political Economy, just published.[7] 'The true
relationship between employers and employed is that subsisting
between a purchaser and a seller. The employer buys; the employed
sells; and the thing sold is labour. Attaining a clear conviction on
this point, the connection between the two parties is that of mutual
independence. Thrown much together, however, a spirit of courtesy and
good-fellowship ought to temper the intercourse, and it will be the
better for all parties if this spirit prevails. In some situations,
however, there is shewn a disposition on the part of workmen to ask
favours of employers--as, for example, seeking to absent themselves on
holidays without a corresponding reduction in the amount of wages.
This seems to be as wrong as it would be for the employer to ask his
workmen to labour certain days for nothing. The rights and obligations
are distinctly mutual. One has no right to encroach on the other; and,
indeed, there can be no encroachment, no favour asked, on either side,
without a certain loss of independence. This feeling of independence
should be carefully cultivated and preserved, along with those habits
of courtesy which soften the general intercourse of society.'
We are happy to add, that, to all appearance, a great advance in all
these respects has been made within these few years--disagreements
respecting wages and other circumstances between employers and
employed, being conducted and finally adjusted in a spirit very
different from what used to be manifested a quarter of a century ago.