WHY DO WEALTHY MEN REFUSE TO MARRY ?

Otago Witness, Issue 2302, 14 April 1898, Page 49

WHY DO WEALTHY MEN REFUSE TO MARRY ?

Does Marriage Keep Men Poor? Has it ever struck you what a large number there is of wealthy and successful men who never marry 1 You can't take up a list of the Houses of Parliament or of any other .body of men who axe undoubtedly successful, and presumably rich, without noticing what a large percentage of them are unmarried.

The average young man when he Gtarts in life has, nine cases out of ten, one ruling idea, to secure himself a position and save enough money to enable him to marry the one whom tie regards as the dearest girl ia the world. Maybe, as time goes on, his consuming passion takes the form of a determination merely to make a name for himself ; but ia his very youthful ypars, at any rate, hie chief desire is centred in a cvife and a home. ■

It would really seem as if this feeling was not shared by those who find ready-made for themselves, bo to speak, all the advantages o£ money and position for which the ordinary young man has to struggle so hard.

T?.ke the case, for instance, of the Leader of the House of Commons. . As the son of a wealthy Scotch landowner and Lord Salisbury's nephew, Mr Balfour might easily have found dozens of nice girls ready and willing to nrary him any time since he reached his majority. YonKg mfcn with brains, money, and a spotless reputation are not bo common but that Me Balfour must have proved what romanfcic young ladies would call an eligible suitor. Yet, ac everyone is aware, he has steadfastly resisted all the blandishments of the fair sex for the last '26 years, and seems likely to remain % bachd^r to the end df-the chapter.

A still more, remarkable case i& Jhat of Mr Cfcil Rhodes. Unlit? Mr Balfour, Mr Rhodes wasa'c born with, a silver spoon in Ms mouth, and. has had to carve out! His, own way in life. Still, long before he had reached 30 r he had made enough money to support the most extravagant wife ; but the delights of matrimony have apparently never.had thtj slightest charm for him.

Mr Rhodes some years tgo in v speech gave what may posßibly be the explanation of the bachelorhood of so many wealthy men, " The first condition of success," he remarked, " is that a youcg man should make success in his particular trade, profes&ioo, or business the one and only object of hJs life. I shouldn't like to go so far as ia say that raairiage hampers a man in the struggle for fame ; but of this lam certain, that a young man who takes on himself the responsibility of a wife while he is still at the bottom rung of the ladder is never likely to reach tha top."

Nc doubt plenty of instances ccnld be quoted of men who bava owed '-heir propparity entirely to their wives ; but in alf probability, if we knew ths truth, we should find that they didn't possess the force of will and strength of character which are the main characteristics of nil really successful men. Their success depended on seme adventitious aid ; t'nay always needed a prop. Without the aid of a strong-minded wife or an influential friend, they would never have got beyond the bottom rung of the ladder.

Mr Rhodes's explanation will probably account for the majority of the eases of wealthy- bachelorhood, .the > list of Jshich could be indefinitely multiplied. The late Lord Leighton the. president of the Royal Academy, never married ; no more has Sir Edward Pointer. Mr Herbert Spencer is, a» everyone knows, a bachelor ; ia fact, a list of the men who, with everything to offer a wife, remain single^would fill this column twice over.

The fact cannot be disputed; how to account for it is a different matter. One reason, certainly, may be that a man, when he has acquired wealth and position, often begins to feel distrust in the power of his personal attractions, compared with those of bis purse — that; women welcome his attentions, in fact, not for what he is, but for what he has. Bat whatever the reason, it is after all very much open to doubt whether all the gratification of realised ambition can ever compensate for the loss of the love and sympathy of a good woman. — Answers.