Evening journal., 1907-02-07
A FAMOUS
CANISTER

OF all the gentlemen gamblers at the
close Of the eighteenth century in Eng
land a single one is noted for the inn
mensity and the regularity of his win
nings. This was John Scott. VINO, be-
ginning as a penniless captain, wound
up his career as a millionaire general.
On the subject of the campaigns he
conducted history is silent, but CON
temporary London was full Of talk Of
his marvellous luck with dice and cards,
and the marital misfortunes Of his later
life gave more material for the gossips.
Writing to Richard Bentley from Ar
lington street on Feb. 25. 1855, Horace
Walpole says:
"The great event is the catastrophe
of Sir John Bland. who has fiirted
away his whole fortune at hazard. He
tother night lost i'm reckless play an
immense sum to a Captain Scott, who
at present has nothing but few debts
and his commission"
Sir John Bland. to conclude here the
history Of that luckless dicer. shot
himself dead, after losing the last Of
his fortune, in Klppax park.
Captain John Scott was Of that
branch Of the numerous Scott family
Of which Sir Walter was member
and his ancestor in the thirteenth cen
tury was that famous chemist, Michael
Scott, who won the name Of wizard. A
later Scott distinguished himself in the
time of Charles III. by marrying, when
he was himself only fourteen years
old, a lady who was three years his
junior. The bride was Mary, countess
of Buccleuch. in her own right the
richest heiress in Scotland. The mar
riage was a secret one, and none of the
friends and few Of her family were in
formed Of It until the day after. The
youthful bridegroom did not profit
greatly by this match, for his bride died
at thirteen. Her sister Anne, who sue
ceeded to her titles and estates, made
a marriage with the pet son Of Charles
H., Monmouth, and had a numerous
family.
1t was sixty years later, or about 100,
that young Scott. son Of the laird Of
Scotts Tarvet entered King Georges
army. Two years later he was in Lon
don and in the midst of the most reck-
less set Of spendthrifts. rakes and
gamesters that English society has ever
known. Sir John Bland was only one
OF a thousand rich young Englishmen
who threw away fortunes over the
fra f,1in faIfo ne XYbft,so rITt,o o-, lf.
toric loser Of that era was Charles
James Fox. Pitts rival Fox gambed
away, all told, no less than $1,000. 600.
Scott was the very antipodes of Fox.
When he died. at ripe old age, he left
a fortune as great as that with which
Fox had begun, and every penny Of it
had been won at the gaming table.
Fox was a ripe scholar. Scott was al
most illiterate. Fox said that losing
was the next greatest pleasure to win
ming. Scott never lost or so rarely that
II did not affect the serenity of his ca
reer as a winner. Fox would go home
in the morning after q night in which
he had gambled away 10000 or f2O,-
600 aud Immediately lose himself in a
study of Sophocles or Eschylus. Scott.
Ike the sensible fellow he was, would
button his coat over the portemonnaie
IN which he carried away winnings Of
an equal or even greater amount and
Immediately so to bed so as to be fresh
for play in the evening
When Scott found himself in London
and amid the wild young men of his
era. he determined that gaming was
his only chance of getting money.
When he engaged himself to throw a
series OF mains with Sir John Bland.
he bad, as Horace WalDole puts IL.
nothing "but few debts and his COM
mission" His shrewdness taught him
that there was nothing in diclng. at
which stupid man has as good
chance as a bright one. and so he
speedily gave up hazard and applied
himself TO whist. at which game for
tune fights ON the side Of the skillful
player Never IN the history of play
did men gamble for such high stakes
as Scott and bis victims did at Whites
between 1883 and 1850. Scotts system
was an exceedingly simple one He
gave himself the best Of II in every
possible way. He never went to the
gaming table unless his head and his
stomach were in the very best order.
He never lost his composure or his
good nature for an Instant He played