Principles of Morals and

190/Jeremy Bentham
either be one of the two parties just mentioned, or a third party: if one of
these two, it must be either the superior or the inferior. If the superior,
such superior is commonly called a master; and the inferior is termed
his servant: and the power may be termed a beneficial one. If it be for
the sake of the inferior that the power is established, the superior is
termed a guardian; and the inferior his ward: and the power, being thereby
coupled with a trust, may be termed a fiduciary one. If for the sake of a
third party, the superior may be termed a superintendent; and the infe-
rior his subordinate. This third party will either be an assignable indi-
vidual or set of individuals, or a set of unassignable individuals. In this
latter case the trust is either a public or a semi-public one: and the con-
dition which it constitutes is not of the domestic, but of the civil kind. In
the former case, this third party or principal, as he may be termed,
either has a beneficial power over the superintendent, or he has not: if he
has, the superintendent is his servant, and consequently so also is the
subordinate: if not, the superintendent is the master of the subordinate;
and all the advantage which the principal has over his superintendent, it
that of possessing a set of rights, uncorroborated by power; and there-
fore, as we have seen, not fit to constitute a condition of the domestic
kind. But be the condition what it may which is constituted by these
rights, of what nature can the obligations be, to which the superinten-
dent is capable of being subjected by means of them? They are neither
more nor less than those which a man is capable of being subjected to by
powers. It follows, therefore, that the functions of a principal and his
superintendent coincide with those of a master and his servant; and con-
sequently that the offences relative to the two former conditions will
coincide with the offences relative to the two latter.
XLI. Offences to which the condition of a master, like any other
kind of condition, is exposed, may, as hath been already intimated be
distinguished into such as concern the existence a of the condition itself,
and such as concern the performance of the functions of it, while sub-
sisting. First then, with regard to such as affect its existence. It is obvi-
ous enough that the services of one man may be a benefit to another: the
condition of a master may therefore be a beneficial one. It stands ex-
posed, therefore, to the offences of wrongful non-investment, wrongful
interception, usurpation, wrongful investment, and wrongful divestment.
But how should it stand exposed to the offences of wrongful abdication,
wrongful detrectation, and wrongful imposition? Certainly it cannot of
itself; for services, when a man has the power of exacting them or not,

---

Principles of Morals and Legislation/191
as he thinks fit, can never be a burthen. But if to the powers, by which
the condition of a master is constituted, the law thinks fit to annex any
obligation on the part of the master; for instance, that of affording main-
tenance, or giving wages, to the servant, or paying money to anybody
else; it is evident that in virtue of such obligation the condition may
become a burthen. In this case, however, the condition possessed by the
master will not properly speaking, be the pure and simple condition of a
master: it will be a kind of complex object, resolvable into the beneficial
condition of a master, and the burthensome obligation which is annexed
to it. Still however, if the nature of the obligation lies within a narrow
compass, and does not, in the manner of that which constitutes a trust,
interfere with the exercise of those powers by which the condition of the
superior is constituted, the latter, notwithstanding this foreign mixture,
will still retain the name of mastership. In this case therefore, but not
otherwise, the condition of a master may stand exposed to the offences
of  wrongful abdication, wrongful detrectation, and wrongful imposi-
tion. Next as to the behaviour of persons with reference to this condi-
tion, while considered as subsisting. In virtue of its being a benefit, it is
exposed to disturbance. This disturbance will either be the offence of a
stranger, or the offence of the servant himself. Where it is the offence of
a stranger, and is committed by taking the person of the servant, in
circumstances in which the taking of an object belonging to the class of
things would be an act of theft, or (what is scarcely worth distinguishing
from theft) an act of embezzlement: it may be termed servant-stealing.
Where it is the offence of the servant himself, it is styled breach of duty.
Now the most flagrant species of breach of duty, and that which in-
cludes indeed every other, is that which consists in the servant’s with-
drawing himself from the place in which the duty should be performed.
This species of breach of duty is termed elopement. Again, in virtue of
the power belonging to this condition, it is liable, on the part of the
master to abuse. But this power is not coupled with a trust. The condi-
tion of a master is therefore not exposed to any offence which is analo-
gous to breach of trust. Lastly, on account of its being exposed to abuse,
it may be conceived to stand, in point of possibility, exposed to  bribery.
But considering how few, and how insignificant, the persons are who
are liable to be subject to the power here in question, this is an offence
which, on account of the want of temptation, there will seldom be any
example of in practice. We may therefore reckon thirteen sorts of of-
fences to which the condition of a master is exposed; viz., 1. Wrongful

---