PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS,

Otago Witness, Issue 2206, 11 June 1896, Page 51

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS,

A Barbaric Ceremony. The papers have told us of the coronation of the Czar and of the terrible logs of life connected with it, and of a bottle of wine sent to each of the bereft to drown their sorrow. But ib is not so muob. on the coronation lhat I am going to write as on one or two points that have suggested themselves. I dare say that many of you have noticed that some time has passed between tbs Czar's accession and the coronation, He sue. ceeded his father as Emperor of, all the Russiaß in November 1894, was married in the same month, bub ib is not until now that the coronation has taken place. Our Most Gracious Qaeen had a similar interval between her accession and coronation. She became sovereign in June 1837, but it wasn't until 12 months after than the crown was placed upon her head, and then not by herself— you may have noticed that the Czar crowned himself — but by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A coronation must be a magnificent and impressive sight. I have a book by me, " The Victorian Half Century," written nearly 10 years ago you will notice, which gives an account of the crowning of Queen Victoria. Imagine Westminster Abbey crowded with the hereditary nobility of Great Britain and the distinguished representatives of 10 foreign courts, and all in uniform ; then imagine the impreseiverjess of the scene when the Archbishop, turning the young Queen to the four oorners of the Abbey, in a dear ringing voice called out, "Sira, I here present unto you the undoubted Qaeen of this realm. Will ye all swear to do her homage ? " Then came the impressive anointing ceremonial — "Bethou anointed with holy oil, as kings, priests, and prophets are anointed," being repeated as the sign of the cross wad being made on forehead and hands. After these acts the Queen was enthroned in St. Edward's chair, sitting on the Stone of Destiny brought from Scone by Edward I, and there she received the homage of the lords, spiritual and temporal, each removing his coronet and with his hand on the Queen's head repeating the while — " Ido become your liegeman of life and limb and earthly worship; and faith and love will I bear unto you, to live and die against all manner of folks. So help me God." One versed in history can easily trace feudal times runniDg through the ceremonial. There was superb magnificence in the pageantry and ceremonial attendant on that coronation, but I don't think there was such a barbaric display as in the coronation which has just taken place. Aud this suggests another point. I read somewhere that the Russian Government has spent between seven and eight millions of pounds in connection with tbe coronation. No doubt the fountain of Moscow ran vodka and the moujiks became gloriously happy in their bestial fashion. When lamenting this squandering of money in i the presence of a friend, he remarked, " All the better for trade."' Was that common sense ? If so, hadn't we' better burn our houses down, or at any rate smash up and destroy all we can to make trade better? I am afraid many of us run away with tbe same idea as my friend has. Is it good for a country that things should be wasted so as to create things to take their place 1 The wealth of a country is decreased, not increased, by senseless expenditure. If the odd hundreds of thousands had be«Q sp*iat

on tha coronation and the eeven millions in works that would have raised the standard of comfort of the people, it would have been more to the purpose. And here conies another thought suggested by, but in no way connected with, tbe crowning of Nicholas 11, and that is The Unequal Distribution of Wealth in the United States. Figures at-all times are tedious, bnt if supplemented by diagrams they are often easily grasped. First I'll give the figures. Money is given in dollars. <*-■ If wwe3 c A«i2 c i t . Jl (^ Millionaires... -03 3,000,000 12,000,000,000 20 Rich 8-97 26,8t56 30,600,000,000 51 Prosperous .. 28 3,374 12,000,000 000 20 Mortaeed ... 11 1,718 2,400.000,U00 4 Houseless and Landless ... 52 45* 3,000,000.000 5 These figures show that three families out of every 10,000 are millionaires, and that C3OO in 10,000 are houseless and landless or mortgaged ; that less than one-eleventh control 71 per cent, of the wealth, and that 63-lOOlba, or considerably more than half, own less than one-tenth of it. Now let us represent these figures by diagrams —one representing total population, the other the total wealth. Draw two parallelograms each representing 100 squares, either 5 squares by 20, os 10 by 10, or 4 by 25. I'll take the first method.

Now divide one of the squares in I into 100 parts and take three of them—these three parts will represent the families of millionaires ; take 20 squares in ll—these represent the wealth of tbe millionaires, and to make the proportions more striking colour them red. Then take 52 of the squares in I and 5 in 11, to represent the homeless and landless families who do not average above about £90 a year, and colour thess blue, aud so on with the rich, prosperous, and mortgaged, colouring the equares as fancy dictates. Don't you really think that the wealth might be a little more eauitably distributed than that? I have given these diagrams not only to illustrate the families and wealth in the proportions existing in the United States, but because they may give some an idea how to represeafe figures by areas, so fcfaat proportions might be grasped more easily than by figures alone.