SERVICE, in Law, is a duty which a tenant, on account of his fee, owes to his lord.
There are many divisions of services; as, 1. Into personal, where something is to be done by the tenant in person, as homage and fealty. 2. Real, such as wards, marriages, &c. 3. Accidental, including heriots, reliefs, and the like. 4. Entire, where, on the alienation of any part of the lands by a tenant, the services become multiplied. 5. Frank-service, which was performed by freemen, who were not obliged to perform any base service, but only to find a man and horse to attend the lord into the army or to court. 6. Knight's service, by which lands were anciently held of the king, on paying homage, service in war, &c.
As in every free and well regulated society there must be a diversity of ranks, there must be a great number of persons employed in service, both in agriculture and domestic affairs. In this country, service is a contract into which the servant voluntarily enters; and the master's authority extends no farther than to the performance of that species of labour for which the agreement was made.
"The treatment of servants (says that respectable moralist Mr Pailey), as to diet, discipline, and accommodation, the kind and quantity of work to be required of them, the intermission, liberty, and indulgence to be allowed them, must be determined in a great measure by custom; for where the contract involves so many particulars, the contracting parties express a few perhaps of the principal, and by mutual understanding refer the rest to the known custom of the country in like cases.
"A servant is not bound to obey the unlawful commands of his master; to minister, for instance, to his unlawful pleasures; or to assist him in unlawful practices in his profession; as in smuggling or adulterating the articles which he deals in. For the servant is bound by nothing but his own promise; and the obligation of a promise extends not to things unlawful.
"For the same reason, the master's authority does not justify the servant in doing wrong; for the servant's own promise, upon which that authority is founded, would be none.
"Clerks and apprentices ought to be employed entirely in the profession or trade which they are intended to learn. Instruction is their wages; and to deprive them of the opportunities of instruction, by taking up their time with occupations foreign to their business, is to defraud them of their wages.
"The master is responsible for what a servant does in the ordinary course of his employment; for it is done under a general authority committed to him, which is in justice equivalent to a specific direction. Thus, if I pay money to a banker's clerk, the banker is accountable: but not if I had paid it to his butler or his footman, whose business it is not to receive money. Upon the same principle, if I once send a servant to take up goods upon credit, whatever goods he afterwards takes up at the same shop, so long as he continues in my service, are justly chargeable to my account.
"The law of this country goes great lengths in intending a kind of concurrence in the master, so as to charge him with the consequences of his servants conduct. If an innkeeper's servant rob his guests, the innkeeper must make restitution; if a farrier's servant lame your horse, the farrier must answer for the damage;
Service. mage; and still farther, if your coachman or carter drive over a passenger on the road, the passenger may recover from you a satisfaction for the hurt he suffers. But these determinations stand, I think, rather upon the authority of the law, than any principle of natural justice."
There is a grievance which has long and justly been complained of, the giving of good characters to bad servants. This is perhaps owing to carelessness, to a desire of getting rid of a bad servant, or to mistaken compassion. But such carelessness is inexcusable. When a man gives his sanction to the character of a bad servant, he ought to reflect on the nature and consequences of what he is doing. He is giving his name to a falsehood; he is deceiving the honest man who confides in his veracity; and he is deliberately giving a knave an opportunity of cheating an honest man. To endeavour to get quit of a bad servant in this way, is surely not less criminal than concealing the faults and disadvantages of an estate which is advertised for sale, and ascribing to it advantages which it does not possess. In this case, we know the sale would be reduced, and the advertiser disgraced. Many matters give characters to servants out of compassion; but it is to this mistaken compassion that the disorderly behaviour of servants is perhaps principally owing: for if the punishment of dishonesty be only a change of place (which may be a reward instead of a punishment), it ceases to be a servant's interest to be true to his trust.
We have said above that a master's authority over his servant extends no farther than the terms of contract; by which we meant, that a master could give no unreasonable orders to his servant, or such as was inconsistent with the terms of contract. But the relation between a master and servant is certainly closer than the mere terms of a contract: it is a moral as well as a legal relation. A master of a family ought to superintend the morals of his servants, and to restrain them from vices. This he may do by his example, by his influence, and authority. Indeed every man possessed of authority is guilty of criminal negligence if he does not exert his authority for promoting virtue in his inferiors; and no authority is so well adapted for this purpose as that of masters of families, because none operates with an influence so immediate and constant. It is wonderful how much good a nobleman or gentleman of fortune can do to his domestics by attending to their morals; and every master may be a blessing to individuals and to society, by exerting prudently that influence which his situation gives him over the conduct of his servant.