By a British statute, he who apprehends and prosecutes to conviction a criminal of a certain description, received amongst other rewards an exemption from parish offices, together with the privilege of transferring1g that exemption to another.
By other British statutes, persons who have borne arms for a certain length of time in the service of the state, were exempted from the obligation of those laws which, lest industry should be too common, forbade a man from working for his own benefit at a trade at which he had not worked seven years for the benefit of another.
There are various other exemptions of the same nature: but as the object here is not to give an exhaustive view of these several exemptions, but merely a few instances to servo by way of example, the above specimens may suffice.
One general observation applies to all cases of exemptions from general obligations imposed by law: it is---that the more severe the law, the more abundant, as drawn from this source, is the fund of reward.It may be created by a mere act of restitution by the rendering of justice: to some may be given what ought to be left for all: conditions may be annexed to what ought to be given gratuitously.The greater the mass of injustice inflicted, the greater the opportunity for generosity in detail.The oppressive government of one sovereign is a mine of gold to his successor.In the church, it is the good works of their predecessors---in the state, it is their bad works, that increase the treasure of their successors In Russia and in Poland, emancipation is a very distinguished reward.Atyrant may reward by doing less mischief.
One word on the last, article of reward--- Pleasures.
Punishment may be applied in all shapes to all persons.Pleasure, however, in the hands of the legislator, is not equally manageable: pleasure can be given only by giving the means by which it is purchased---that is to say, the matter of wealth which every one may employ in his own way.
Among certain barbarous or half-civilised nations, the services of their warriors have been rewarded by the favours of women.Helvetius appears to smile with approbation at this mode of exciting bravery.It was perhaps Montesquieu that led him into this error.In speaking of the Samnites, among whom the young man declared the most worthy selected whomsoever he pleased for his wife, he adds, that this custom was calculated to produce most beneficial effects.
Philosophers distinguished for their humanity---both of them good husbands and good fathers, both of them eloquent against slavery, how could they speak in praise of a law which supposes the slavery of the best half of the human species?---how could they have forgotten that favours not preceded by an uncontrouled choice, and which the heart perhaps repelled with disgust, afforded the spectacle rather of the degradation of woman than the rewarding a hero? The warrior, surrounded by palms of honour, could he descend to act the part of a ravisher? And if he disdained this barbarous right, was not his generosity a satire on the law?
Voltaire relates with great simplicity, that at the first representation of one of his tragedies, the audience, who saw the author in a box with an extremely beautiful young duchess, required that she should give him a kiss, by way of acknowledging the public gratitude.
The victim, a partaker in the general enthusiasm, felt apparently no repugnance to making the sacrifice: and, without the intervention of the magistrate, we may trust to the enthusiasm of the sex, and their passion for distinction, for preferences that may animate courage and genius in their career.
