The Complete English Tradesman (1839 ed.) by Daniel Defoe

D >> Daniel Defoe >> The Complete English Tradesman (1839 ed.)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

Let your apprentice be in the business, but let the master be at the
head of the business at all times. There is a great deal of difference
between being diligent in the business _in_ the shop, and leading the
whole business _of_ the shop. An apprentice who is diligent may be
master of his business, but should never be master of the shop; the one
is to be useful to his master, the other is to be master of his master;
and, indeed, this shows the absolute necessity of diligence and
application in a tradesman, and how, for want of it, that very thing
which is the blessing of another tradesman's business is the ruin of
his.

Servants, especially apprentices, ought to be considered, as they really
are, in their moveable station, that they are here with you but seven
years, and that then they act or move in a sphere or station of their
own: their diligence is now for you, but ever after it is for
themselves; that the better servants they have been while they were with
you, the more dangerous they will be to you when you part; that,
therefore, though you are bound in justice to them to let them into your
business in every branch of it, yet you are not bound to give your
business away to them; the diligence, therefore, of a good servant in
the master's business, should be a spur to the master's diligence to
take care of himself.

There is a great deal of difference also between trusting a servant in
your business, and trusting him with your business: the first is leaving
your business with him, the other is leaving your business to him. He
that trusts a servant in his business, leaves his shop only to him; but
he that leaves his business to his servant, leaves his wife and children
at his disposal--in a word, such a trusting, or leaving the business to
the servant, is no less than a giving up all to him, abandoning the care
of his shop and all his affairs to him; and when such a servant is out
of his time, the master runs a terrible risk, such as, indeed, it is not
fit any tradesman should run--namely, of losing the best of his
business.

What I have been now saying, is of the tradesman leaving his business to
his apprentices and servants, when they prove good, when they are honest
and diligent, faithful, and industrious; and if there are dangers even
in trusting good servants, and such as do their duty perfectly well,
what, then, must it be when the business is left to idle, negligent, and
extravagant servants, who both neglect their masters' business and their
own, who neither learn their trade for themselves, nor regard it for the
interest of their masters? If the first are a blessing to their masters,
and may only be made dangerous by their carrying away the trade with
them when they go, these are made curses to their masters early, for
they lose the trade for themselves and their masters too. The first
carry the customers away with them, the last drive the customers away
before they go. 'What signifies going to such a shop?' say the ladies,
either speaking of a mercer or a draper, or any other trade; 'there is
nothing to be met with there but a crew of saucy boys, that are always
at play when you come in, and can hardly refrain it when you are there:
one hardly ever sees a master in the shop, and the young rude boys
hardly mind you when you are looking on their goods; they talk to you as
if they cared not whether you laid out your money or no, and as if they
had rather you were gone, that they might go to play again. I will go
there no more, not I.'

If this be not the case, then you are in danger of worse still, and that
is, that they are often thieves--idle ones are seldom honest ones--nay,
they cannot indeed be honest, in a strict sense, if they are idle: but
by dishonest, I mean downright thieves; and what is more dangerous than
for an apprentice, to whom the whole business, the cash, the books, and
all is committed, to be a thief?

For a tradesman, therefore, to commit his business thus into the hand of
a false, a negligent, and a thievish servant, is like a man that travels
a journey, and takes a highwayman into the coach with him: such a man is
sure to be robbed, and to be fully and effectually plundered, because he
discovers where he hides his treasure. Thus the tradesman places his
confidence in the thief, and how should he avoid being robbed?

It is answered, that, generally tradesmen, who have any considerable
trust to put into the hands of an apprentice, take security of them for
their honesty by their friends, when their indentures are signed; and it
is their fault then, if they are not secure. True, it is often so; but
in a retail business, if the servant be unfaithful, there are so many
ways to defraud a master, besides that of merely not balancing the cash,
that it is impossible to detect them; till the tradesman, declining
insensibly by the weight of the loss, is ruined and undone.

What need, then, has the tradesman to give a close attendance, and
preserve himself from plunder, by acquainting himself in and with his
business and servants, by which he makes it very difficult for them to
deceive him, and much easier to him to discover it if he suspects them.
But if the tradesman lives abroad, keeps at his country-house or
lodgings, and leaves his business thus in the hands of his servants,
committing his affairs to them, as is often the case; if they prove
thieves, negligent, careless, and idle, what is the consequence?--he is
insensibly wronged, his substance wasted, his business neglected; and
how shall a tradesman thrive under such circumstances? Nay, how is it
possible he should avoid ruin and destruction?--I mean, as to his
business; for, in short, every such servant has his hand in his master's
pocket, and may use him as he pleases.

Again, if they are not thieves, yet if they are idle and negligent, it
is, in some cases, the same thing; and I wish it were well recommended
to all such servants as call themselves honest, that it is as criminal
to neglect their master's business as to rob him; and he is as really a
thief who robs him of his time, as he that robs him of his money.

I know, as servants are now, this is a principle they will not allow,
neither does one servant in fifty act by it; but if the master be
absent, the servant is at his heels--that is to say, is as soon out of
doors as his master, and having none but his conscience to answer to, he
makes shift to compound with himself, like a bankrupt with his creditor,
to pay half the debt--that is to say, half the time to his master, and
half to himself, and think it good pay too.

The point of conscience, indeed, seems to be out of the question now,
between master and servant; and as few masters concern themselves with
the souls, nay, scarce with the morals of their servants, either to
instruct them, or inform them of their duty either to God or man, much
less to restrain them by force, or correct them, as was anciently
practised, so, few servants concern themselves in a conscientious
discharge of their duty to their masters--so that the great law of
subordination is destroyed, and the relative duties on both sides are
neglected; all which, as I take it, is owing to the exorbitant sums of
money which are now given with servants to the masters, as the present
or condition of their apprenticeship, which, as it is extravagant in
itself, so it gives the servant a kind of a different figure in the
family, places him above the ordinary class of servants hired for wages,
and exempts him from all the laws of family government, so that a master
seems now to have nothing to do with his apprentice, any other than in
what relates to his business.

And as the servant knows this, so he fails not to take the advantage of
it, and to pay no more service than he thinks is due; and the hours of
his shop business being run out, he claims all the rest for himself,
without the above restraint. Nor will the servants, in these times, bear
any examinations with respect to the disposing of their waste time, or
with respect to the company they keep, or the houses or places they go
to.

The use I make of it is this, and herein it is justly applicable to the
case in hand; by how much the apprentices and servants in this age are
loose, wild, and ungovernable, by so much the more should a master think
himself obliged not to depend upon them, much less to leave his business
to them, and dispense with his own attendance in it. If he does, he must
have much better luck then his neighbours, if he does not find himself
very much wronged and abused, seeing, as I said above, the servants and
apprentices of this age do very rarely act from a principle of
conscience in serving their master's interest, which, however, I do not
see they can be good Christians without.

I knew one very considerable tradesman in this city, and who had always
five or six servants in his business, apprentices and journeymen, who
lodged in his house; and having a little more the spirit of government
in him than most masters I now meet with, he took this method with them.
When he took apprentices, he told them beforehand the orders of his
family, and which he should oblige them to; particularly, that they
should none be absent from his business without leave, nor out of the
house after nine o'clock at night; and that he would not have it thought
hard, if he exacted three things of them:--

1. That, if they had been out, he should ask them where they had been,
and in what company? and that they should give him a true and direct
answer.

2. That, if he found reason to forbid them keeping company with any
particular person, or in any particular house or family, they should be
obliged to refrain from such company.

3. That, in breach of any of those two, after being positively charged
with it, he would, on their promising to amend it, forgive them, only
acquainting their friends of it; but the second time, he would dismiss
them his service, and not be obliged to return any of the money he had
with them. And to these he made their parents consent when they were
bound; and yet he had large sums of money with them too, not less than
L200 each, and sometimes more.

As to his journeymen, he conditioned with them as follows:--

1. They should never dine from home without leave asked and obtained,
and telling where, if required.

2. After the shutting in of the shop, they were at liberty to go where
they pleased, only not to be out of the house after nine o'clock at
night.

3. Never to be in drink, or to swear, on pain of being immediately
dismissed without the courtesy usual with such servants, namely, of a
month's warning.

These were excellent household laws; but the question is, how shall a
master see them punctually obeyed, for the life of all laws depends upon
their being well executed; and we are famous in England for being remiss
in that very point; and that we have the best laws the worst executed of
any nation in the world.

But my friend was a man who knew as well how to make his laws be well
executed, as he did how to make the laws themselves. His case was thus:
he kept a country-house about two miles from London, in the summer-time,
for the air of his wife and children, and there he maintained them very
comfortably: but it was a rule with him, that he who expects his
servants to obey his orders, must be always upon the spot with them to
see it done: to this purpose he confined himself to lie always at home,
though his family was in the country; and every afternoon he walked out
to see them, and to give himself the air too; but always so ordered his
diversions, that he was sure to be at home before nine at night, that he
might call over his family, and see that they observed orders, that is,
that they were all at home at their time, and all sober.

As this was, indeed, the only way to have good servants, and an orderly
family, so he had both; but it was owing much, if not all, to the
exactness of his government; and would all masters take the same method,
I doubt not they would have the like success; but what servants can a
man expect when he leaves them to their own government, not regarding
whether they serve God or the devil?

Now, though this man had a very regular family, and very good servants,
yet he had this particular qualification, too, for a good tradesman,
namely, that he never left his business entirely to them, nor could any
of them boast that they were trusted to more than another.

This is certainly the way to have regular servants and to have business
thrive; but this is not practised by one master to a thousand at this
time--if it were, we should soon see a change in the families of
tradesmen, and that very much for the better: nor, indeed, would this
family government be good for the tradesman only, but it would be the
servant's advantage too; and such a practice, we may say, would in time
reform all the next age, and make them ashamed of us that went before
them.

If, then, the morals of servants are thus loose and debauched, and that
it is a general and epidemic evil, how much less ought tradesmen of this
age to trust them, and still less to venture their all upon them, leave
their great design, the event of all their business with them, and go
into the country in pursuit of their pleasure.

The case of tradesmen differs extremely in this age from those in the
last, with respect to their apprentices and servants; and the difference
is all to the disadvantage of the present age, namely, in the last age,
that is to say, fifty or sixty years ago, for it is not less, servants
were infinitely more under subjection than they are now, and the
subordination of mankind extended effectually to them; they were content
to submit to family government; and the just regulations which masters
made in their houses were not scorned and contemned, as they are now;
family religion also had some sway upon them; and if their masters did
keep good orders, and preserve the worship of God in their houses, the
apprentices thought themselves obliged to attend at the usual hours for
such services; nay, it has been known, where such orders have been
observed, that if the master of the family has been sick, or indisposed,
or out of town, the eldest apprentice has read prayers to the family in
his place.

How ridiculous, to speak in the language of the present times, would it
be for any master to expect this of a servant in our days! and where is
the servant that would comply with it? Nay, it is but very rarely now
that masters themselves do it; it is rather thought now to be a low
step, and beneath the character of a man in business, as if worshipping
God were a disgrace, and not an honour, to a family, or to the master of
a family; and I doubt not but in a little while more, either the worship
of God will be quite banished out of families, or the better sort of
tradesmen, and such as have any regard to it, will keep chaplains, as
other persons of quality do. It is confessed, the first is most
probable, though the last, as I am informed, is already begun in the
city, in some houses, where the reader of the parish is allowed a small
additional salary to come once a-day, namely, every evening, to read
prayers in the house.

But I am not talking on this subject; I am not directing myself to
citizens or townsmen, as masters of families, but as heads of trade, and
masters in their business; the other part would indeed require a whole
book by itself, and would insensibly run me into a long satirical
discourse upon the loss of all family government among us; in which,
indeed, the practice of house-keepers and heads of families is grown not
remiss only in all serious things, but even scandalous in their own
morals, and in the personal examples they show to their servants, and
all about them.

But to come back to my subject, namely, that the case of tradesmen
differs extremely from what it was formerly: the second head of
difference is this; that whereas, in former times, the servants were
better and humbler than they are now, submitted more to family
government, and to the regulations made by their masters, and masters
were more moral, set better examples, and kept better order in their
houses, and, by consequence of it, all servants were soberer, and fitter
to be trusted, than they are now; yet, on the other hand,
notwithstanding all their sobriety, masters did not then so much depend
upon them, leave business to them, and commit the management of their
affairs so entirely to their servants, as they do now.

All that I meet with, which masters have to say to this, is contained in
two heads, and these, in my opinion, amount to very little.

I. That they have security for their servants' honesty, which in former
times they had not.

II. That they receive greater premiums, or present-money, now with their
apprentices, than they did formerly.

The first of these is of no moment; for, first, it does not appear that
apprentices in those former days gave no security to their masters for
their integrity, which, though perhaps not so generally as now, yet I
have good reason to know was then practised among tradesmen of note,
and is not now among inferior tradesmen: but, secondly, this security
extends to nothing, but to make the master satisfaction for any
misapplications or embezzlements which are discovered, and can be
proved, but extend to no secret concealed mischiefs: neither, thirdly,
do those securities reach to the negligence, idleness, or debaucheries
of servants; but, which is still more than all the rest, they do not
reach to the worst of robbery between the servant and his master, I mean
the loss of his time; so that still there is as much reason for the
master's inspection, both into his servants and their business, as ever.

But least of all does this security reach to make the master any
satisfaction for the loss of his business, the ill management of his
shop, the disreputation brought upon it by being committed to servants,
and those servants behaving ill, slighting, neglecting, or disobliging
customers; this does not relate to securities given or taken, nor can
the master make himself any amends upon his servant, or upon his
securities, for this irrecoverable damage. He, therefore, that will keep
up the reputation of his shop, or of his business, and preserve his
trade to his own advantage, must resolve to attend it himself, and not
leave it to servants, whether good or bad; if he leaves it to good
servants, they improve it for themselves, and carry the trade away with
them when they go; if to bad servants, they drive his customers away,
bring a scandal upon his shop, and destroy both their master and
themselves.

Secondly, As to the receiving great premiums with their apprentices,
which, indeed, is grown up to a strange height in this age, beyond
whatever it was before, it is an unaccountable excess, which is the ruin
of more servants at this time than all the other excesses they are
subject to, nay, in some respect it is the cause of it all; and, on the
contrary, is far from being an equivalent to their masters for the
defect of their service, but is an unanswerable reason why the master
should not leave his business to their management.

This premium was originally not a condition of indenture, but was a kind
of usual or customary present to the tradesman's wife to engage her to
be kind to the youth, and take a motherly care of him, being supposed to
be young when first put out.

By length of time this compliment or present became so customary as to
be made a debt, and to be conditioned for as a demand, but still was
kept within bounds, and thirty or forty pounds was sufficient to a very
good merchant, which now is run up to five hundred, nay, to a thousand
pounds with an apprentice; a thing which formerly would have been
thought monstrous, and not to be named.

The ill consequences of giving these large premiums are such and so
many, that it is not to be entered upon in such a small tract as this;
nor is it the design of this work: but it is thus far to the purpose
here--namely, as it shows that this sets up servants into a class of
gentlemen above their masters, and above their business; and they
neither have a sufficient regard to one or other, and consequently are
the less fit to be trusted by the master in the essential parts of his
business; and this brings it down to the case in hand.

Upon the whole, the present state of things between masters and servants
is such, that now more than ever the caution is needful and just, that
he that leaves his business to the management of his servants, it is ten
to one but he ruins his business and his servants too.

Ruining his business is, indeed, my present subject; but ruining his
servants also is a consideration that an honest, conscientious master
ought to think is of weight with him, and will concern himself about.
Servants out of government are like soldiers without an officer, fit for
nothing but to rob and plunder; without order, and without orders, they
neither know what to do, or are directed how to do it.

Besides, it is letting loose his apprentices to levity and liberty in
that particular critical time of life, when they have the most need of
government and restraint. When should laws and limits be useful to
mankind but in their youth, when unlimited liberty is most fatal to
them, and when they are least capable of governing themselves? To have
youth left without government, is leaving fire in a magazine of powder,
which will certainly blow it all up at last, and ruin all the houses
that are near it.

If there is any duty on the side of a master to his servant, any
obligation on him as a Christian, and as a trustee for his parents, it
lies here--to limit and restrain them, if possible, in the liberty of
doing evil; and this is certainly a debt due to the trust reposed in
masters by the parents of the youth committed to them. If he is let
loose here, he is undone, of course, and it may be said, indeed, he was
ruined by his master; and if the master is afterwards ruined by such a
servant, what can be said for it but this? He could expect no other.

To leave a youth without government is indeed unworthy of any honest
master; he cannot discharge himself as a master; for instead of taking
care of him he indeed casts him off, abandons him, and, to put it into
Scripture words, he leads him into temptation: nay, he goes farther, to
use another Scripture expression: he delivers him over to Satan.

It is confessed--and it is fatal both to masters and servants at this
time--that not only servants are made haughty, and above the government
of their masters, and think it below them to submit to any family
government, or any restraints of their masters, as to their morals and
religion; but masters also seem to have given up all family government,
and all care or concern for the morals and manners, as well as for the
religion of their servants, thinking themselves under no obligation to
meddle with those things, or to think any thing about them, so that
their business be but done, and their shop or warehouse duly looked
after.

But to bring it all home to the point in hand, if it is so with the
master and servant, there is the less room still for the master of such
servants to leave any considerable trust in the hands of such
apprentices, or to expect much from them, to leave the weight of their
affairs with them, and, living at their country lodgings, and taking
their own diversions, depend upon such servants for the success of their
business. This is indeed abandoning their business, throwing it away,
and committing themselves, families, and fortunes, to the conduct of
those, who, they have all the reason in the world to believe, have no
concern upon them for their good, or care one farthing what becomes of
them.

CHAPTER XIII

OF TRADESMEN MAKING COMPOSITION WITH DEBTORS, OR WITH CREDITORS

There is an alternative in the subject of this chapter, which places the
discourse in the two extremes of a tradesman's fortunes.

I. The _fortunate tradesman_, called upon by his poor unfortunate
neighbour, who is his debtor, and is become insolvent, to have
compassion on him, and to compound with him for part of his debt, and
accept his offer in discharge of the whole.

II. The _unfortunate tradesman_ become insolvent and bankrupt himself,
and applying himself to his creditor to accept of a composition, in
discharge of his debt.

I must confess, a tradesman, let his circumstances be what they will,
has the most reason to consider the disasters of the unfortunate, and be
compassionate to them under their pressures and disasters, of any other
men; because they know not--no, not the most prosperous of them--what
may be their own fate in the world. There is a Scripture proverb, if I
may call it so, very necessary to a tradesman in this case, 'Let him
that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.'

N.B. It is not said, let him that standeth take heed, but him _that
thinketh_ he standeth. Men in trade can but think they stand; and there
are so many incidents in a tradesman's circumstances, that sometimes
when he thinks himself most secure of standing, he is in most danger of
falling.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27