FORTUNES, AND THOSE WHO MADE THEM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8413, 12 January 1899, Page 4

FORTUNES, AND THOSE WHO MADE THEM.

Ax interesting table lius recently been compiled which gives the fortunes left during the pasl decade by 1000 persons engaged in ten of tlie most lucrative businesses and prufessi<nis. Art and literature arc entirely excluded from the list, and the learned professions — law and medicine — arc placed al the bottom, while music .ird the drama are conspicuous by their absence. It appears (remarks a contributor to the Daily .Mail) that during the last ten years .'!8 foreign bankers and merchants have left behind them £19,4(i5,05.3, or the comfortable average of £312,578 each. Coalowners, ironmasters, and engineers to the number of 110 died possessed of the respectable sum of .t/240,457 apiece. Money-lenders run eoalowners very close, for !)3 of them died worth collectively t;i!),444,,575. while the 103 manufacturers only possessed £200. 0U3 each. The rank and file of the brewing trade: are comparatively poor ; II!) of them only left £19,048,837, but three-fifths of this was owned by seven individuals. Newspaper proprietors, printers, publishers, and news agents to the number of 109 died possessed of £100,G20 a head. The earnings of stockbrokers are not so large as is generally supposed ; at all events, S4 members of the Stock Exchange only left the moderate personality of £8,037,0- I >(i. ! \Vine and spirit, merchants and distillers to the number of 103 died possessed of £70,000 each, while 101 judges, barristers, and solicitors had collectively accumulated £H,'u3,'2'2~. The (17 wealthy physicians and surgeons only left .£3,001,1i>7. "Artists, actors, and men of letters do not leave sufficient, even the wealthiest of them," says the statistician, naively, "to lie brought within the purview of the compiler of great personalities." The moral of it all is that what we are pleased to term " brains " is the least lucrative of all the accomplishments, unless the owner also posses what is known as " commercial ability." The ability to make money as a general rule is unaccompanied by any other form of talent. The late Mr W. H. Smith made £1,700,000 out of selling newspapers, and it is questionable if there is a journalist in the world worth £50,000 made out of writing for papers. If he makes £1000 a year he is successful ; if he earns £1500 he is in the front rank, while if he receives an income of £2000 he 1 is among the half dozen lucky ones of the profession. A capital of £20 judiciously invested in fish, greens, or second-hand clothes, providing ihe neighbordood is a suitable one, , will bring in its owner a certain £250 per annum after all expenses are paid, with i ' the constant chance, providing thrift is j practised for a few years, of a first class ' shop and an income running into five ■ figures. Take London for instance. There is i scarcely a shopkeeper in Sloane street, : Bond street, Piciulilly, Regent street, or Oxford street who is in receipt of less, than i £2500 a year, v hile there are more in these localities in receipt of £20,000 and upwards , than there are journalists and artists earning £1000 per annum. ' Novelists and artists at the tip-top of , their profession certainly make money ; , but their recompense for leaving a legacy of beauty for the perpetual enjoyment of . mankind is not to be measured with that , of shopkeepers. Sir John Millais, the ! most successful artist of the day, was a : rich man, yet he only accumulated i £100,000 against an average of £211,450 • made by the disciples of the profession which Sir John Kirkwood was so distini guished an ornament. One hears a great deal of the high salaries of members of the dramatic profession, yet last year out of the 10,000 bonii fide actors and actresses in Great liritain, 1070 wore relieved by the actors' s benevolent fund, and less than 100 were ; 6teadily earning £1000 a year and upwards i so the chances are Hint one Thespian out I of every ten will have to solicit charity.