The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain (i can read with my eyes shut txt) 📕

mind, two hundred and twenty-three crimes were punishable by death!23 These facts are worth knowing⁠—and worth thinking about, too. Endnotes

Christ’s Hospital Costume⁠—It is most reasonable to regard the dress as copied from the costume of the citizens of London of that period, when long blue coats were the common habit of apprentices and serving-men, and yellow stockings were generally worn; the coat fits closely to the body, but has loose sleeves, and beneath is worn a sleeveless yellow undercoat; around the waist is a red leathern girdle; a clerical band around the neck, and a small flat black cap, about the size of a saucer, completes the costume. —⁠Timbs’ Curiosities of London ↩

It appears that Christ’s Hospital was not originally founded as a school; its object was to rescue children from the streets, to shelter, feed, clothe them. —⁠Timbs’ Curiosities of London ↩

The Duke of Norfolk’s Condemnation commanded⁠—The king was now approaching fast towards his end; and fearing lest Norfolk should escape him, he sent a message to the Commons, by which he desired them to hasten the Bill, on pretence that Norfolk enjoyed the dignity of Earl Marshal, and it was necessary to appoint another, who might officiate at the ensuing ceremony of installing his son Prince of Wales. —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 307 ↩

It was not till the end of this reign (Henry VIII) that any salads, carrots, turnips, or other edible roots were produced in England. The little of these vegetables that was used was formerly imported from Holland and Flanders. Queen Catherine, when she wanted a salad, was obliged to despatch a messenger thither on purpose. —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 314 ↩

Attainder of Norfolk⁠—The House of Peers, without examining the prisoner, without trial or evidence, passed a Bill of Attainder against him and sent it down to the Commons⁠ ⁠… The obsequious Commons obeyed his (the king’s) directions; and the king, having affixed the Royal assent to the Bill by commissioners, issued orders for the execution of Norfolk on the morning of January 29 (the next day). —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 306 ↩

The Loving-cup⁠—The loving-cup, and the peculiar ceremonies observed in drinking from it, are older than English history. It is thought that both are Danish importations. As far back as knowledge goes, the loving-cup has always been drunk at English banquets. Tradition explains the ceremonies in this way. In the rude ancient times it was deemed a wise precaution to have both hands of both drinkers employed, lest while the pledger pledged his love and fidelity to the pledgee, the pledgee take that opportunity to slip a dirk into him! ↩

The Duke of Norfolk’s narrow Escape⁠—Had Henry VIII survived a few hours longer, his order for the duke’s execution would have been carried into effect. “But news being carried to the Tower that the king himself had expired that night, the lieutenant deferred obeying the warrant; and it was not thought advisable by the Council to begin a new reign by the death of the greatest nobleman in the kingdom, who had been condemned by a sentence so unjust and tyrannical.” —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 307 ↩

He refers to the order of baronets, or baronettes; the barones minores, as distinct from the parliamentary barons⁠—not, it need hardly be said, to the baronets of later creation. ↩

The lords of kingsale, descendants of de Courcy, still enjoy this curious privilege. ↩

Hume. ↩

Hume. ↩

The Whipping-boy⁠—James I and Charles II had whipping-boys, when they were little fellows, to take their punishment for them when they fell short in their lessons; so I have ventured to furnish my small prince with one, for my own purposes. ↩

Character of Hertford⁠—The young king discovered an extreme attachment to his uncle, who was, in the main, a man of moderation and probity. —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 324.

But if he (the Protector) gave offence by assuming too much state, he deserves great praise on account of the laws passed this session, by which the rigor of former statutes was much mitigated, and some security given to the freedom of the constitution. All laws were repealed which extended the crime of treason beyond the statute of the twenty-fifth of Edward III; all laws enacted during the late reign extending the crime of felony; all the former laws against Lollardy or heresy, together with the statute of the Six Articles. None were to be accused for words, but within a month after they were spoken. By these repeals several of the most rigorous laws that ever had passed in England were annulled; and some dawn, both of civil and religious liberty, began to appear to the people. A repeal also passed of that law, the destruction of all laws, by which the king’s proclamation was made of equal force with a statute. —⁠Hume’s History of England, vol. iii p. 324.

Boiling to Death⁠—In the reign of Henry VIII poisoners were, by Act of Parliament, condemned to be boiled to death. This Act was repealed in the following reign.

In Germany, even in the seventeenth century, this horrible punishment was inflicted on coiners and counterfeiters. Taylor, the Water Poet, describes an execution he witnessed in Hamburg in 1616. The judgment pronounced against a coiner of false money was that he should “be boiled to death in oil; not thrown into the vessel at once, but with a pulley or rope to be hanged under the armpits, and then let down into the oil by degrees; first the feet,