Chapter 2

Comprehension I


1. Why was 'Monaco' called a 'toy kingdom'?

Answer: Monaco was called a "toy kingdom" because it was very small in size and population, almost like a miniature version of a real kingdom. Despite having only about 7,000 people, it still had all the formal elements of a monarchy—like a king (or prince), palace, ministers, an army (of just 60 men), and laws—but everything was on a tiny and somewhat humorous scale, making it seem more like a toy than a serious nation.

2. Name the commodities taxed in Monaco.

Answer: The commodities taxed in Monaco were:

  • Tobacco

  • Wine and spirits

  • Poll-tax (a tax that each person pays, regardless of income)

3. What was the source of the King's special revenue? Who were its beneficiaries?

Answer: The King's special revenue came from a gaming house (a casino) where people played roulette. Regardless of whether people won or lost, the casino keeper always took a percentage of the money, and out of that profit, he paid a large sum to the Prince of Monaco.

The beneficiaries of this special revenue were:

  • The Prince himself

  • His courtiers and officials, as the money was used to maintain the royal court and government expenses

4. Why did the Germans stop gaming houses in their country and how did it benefit Monaco?

Answer: The Germans stopped gaming houses in their country because they were causing great harm to people. Many gamblers would lose all their money, even gamble with borrowed money, and in despair, some would commit suicide. Due to these serious consequences, the German authorities forbade their rulers from making money through gambling.

This benefited Monaco because, after the closure of other gaming houses in Europe, Monaco's casino became the only one of its kind left. As a result, people from all over Europe came to Monaco to gamble, which increased the casino’s profits—and therefore the Prince’s revenue.

5. What was the punishment given to the murderer?

Answer: The murderer was originally sentenced to death by beheading, as per the law. However, since Monaco had no guillotine or executioner, and hiring one from France or Italy was too expensive, the government later changed the punishment to life imprisonment to save money.

6. The death sentence was converted into life imprisonment because

a. Monaco had abolished death penalty.

b. Carrying out death sentence was expensive.Too Dear!

Answer: b. Carrying out death sentence was expensive.Too Dear!

7. How much did the king spend annually on the criminal?

Answer: The king spent more than 600 francs a year on the criminal.

This amount covered the prisoner's food and the salary of the guard who watched over him.  

8. On what condition did the criminal agree to go away from the prison? How was his demand fulfilled?

Answer: The criminal agreed to go away from the prison on the condition that he would be paid a regular pension. He said he had nowhere to go, no job, and that his character had been ruined by the sentence.

To fulfill his demand, the Prince and his ministers offered him an annual pension of 600 francs. He accepted the offer, took one-third of the amount in advance, and left Monaco to settle across the border, where he started market gardening and lived peacefully.

Comprehension II

1. Though gambling is a dirty business, why does the king of Monaco resort to it?

Answer: The King of Monaco resorts to gambling because it is his main source of revenue. The kingdom is very small, with few people and limited land, so the taxes on tobacco, wine, and poll-tax are not enough to support the royal court and officials. Since gambling brings in a large profit—thanks to the casino where people lose money and the Prince receives a share—the King continues the business, even though he knows it is not morally right. He justifies it by saying, "He has to live."

2. Why did the king of Monaco keep changing his mind in dealing with the criminal?

Answer: The King of Monaco kept changing his mind because every option for punishing the criminal was too expensive for his small kingdom. At first, the criminal was sentenced to death, but since Monaco had no guillotine or executioner, hiring one from France or Italy was costly. So, the sentence was changed to life imprisonment. But keeping the prisoner—paying for food and a guard—also cost over 600 francs a year, which was too much. Each time the King realized the financial burden, he and his ministers had to rethink the plan to find a cheaper solution.

 3. Why was the criminal reluctant to go out of the prison?

Answer: The criminal was reluctant to leave the prison because he had nowhere to go and no way to earn a living. He said that the sentence had ruined his reputation, so no one would accept him. He also admitted that he had got out of the habit of working and had become used to being taken care of. Since he had not complained when his sentence was changed or when the guard was removed, he felt it was unfair to now expect him to leave. So, he refused to go unless he was paid.

4. How did the criminal lead his life after his release?

Answer: After his release, the criminal settled just across the border from Monaco. He bought a small piece of land and started market gardening. He lived comfortably and peacefully, receiving a regular pension of 600 francs a year from the Monaco government. From time to time, he visited the gaming tables, staked a few francs—sometimes won, sometimes lost—and then returned home to his quiet life. 

Comprehension III

1. You can't earn stone palaces by honest labour.' Justify with reference to the story.

Answer: This statement reflects the Prince of Monaco’s dependence on gambling revenue to sustain his royal lifestyle. In the story, Monaco is described as a tiny kingdom with very few people and little land, so ordinary taxes on tobacco, wine, and spirits were not enough to support the palace, courtiers, and officials.

To solve this, the Prince allowed a gambling house (casino) to operate in the kingdom. Although gambling is seen as a “dirty business,” it brought in huge profits, as people from other countries came to gamble. The Prince received a percentage of the casino’s earnings, which became his main source of income.

This shows that the luxury of stone palaces and a royal court could not be maintained by honest labour or regular taxes alone in such a small state—it was only possible through profiting from gambling, an unethical yet effective method of earning wealth. Thus, the quote highlights the moral compromise the Prince made to maintain his royal life. 

2. Though the trial and imprisonment of the criminal is depicted in a comic mode in this story, it does give rise to serious questions. What are they?

Answer: While the story uses humor and irony to describe the situation, it raises serious questions about justice, governance, and the value of human life. Some of the key issues include:

  1. Value of Human Life vs. Money:
    The Prince's decisions are driven not by justice or morality, but by financial convenience. The criminal's life is spared not out of mercy, but because execution would cost too much. This questions the ethics of a justice system based on economics rather than fairness.

  2. Lack of Preparedness in Governance:
    The kingdom has laws for capital punishment but no means to carry it out, showing a lack of practical infrastructure and a disconnect between law and reality.

  3. Bureaucratic Absurdity:
    The endless meetings, councils, and sub-committees reflect the inefficiency and absurdity of bureaucracy, where too much discussion leads to confusion rather than resolution.

  4. Rehabilitation vs. Punishment:
    The story also indirectly raises the question of rehabilitation. The criminal, once released with a small pension, chooses to live peacefully, suggesting that people can change if given a chance and some support.

  5. Responsibility of the State:
    The state’s responsibility toward criminals is questioned—should a government punish, reform, or simply get rid of the problem in the cheapest way possible?

So, despite its light tone, the story explores deep moral and social issues in a satirical and thought-provoking way.

3. Were there other ways of dealing with the criminal? Discuss in the light of the story.

Answer: Yes, the story suggests that there could have been more sensible and humane ways of dealing with the criminal from the beginning. Instead of sentencing him to death without the means to carry it out, or spending large sums trying to maintain a punishment, the kingdom could have:

  1. Considered Reform Over Revenge:
    The criminal could have been rehabilitated through community service or meaningful work, allowing him to contribute to society rather than be a burden on it.

  2. Used a Practical Sentence:
    Since Monaco lacked both an executioner and a proper prison, a practical sentence like supervised labour or banishment might have been less costly and more effective.

  3. Offered a Settlement Earlier:
    Eventually, the problem was solved by offering a small pension, which the criminal accepted and used to start a peaceful life. If this had been proposed earlier, the state could have avoided unnecessary expense and embarrassment.

  4. Sought Moral Guidance:
    Instead of relying only on economic calculations, the Prince and his ministers could have consulted ethical or moral advisors to arrive at a more just and compassionate decision.

In light of the story, it becomes clear that the lack of planning, moral clarity, and humane alternatives led to a comical yet embarrassing failure of justice, which could have been avoided with more thoughtful governance.