A FAMOUS HOAX

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 121, 19 November 1934, Page 16

A FAMOUS HOAX

JHE MAN IN THE BOTTLE

RIOT OF THE AUDIENCE

GTJAEDS CALLED OUT

' Among historic hoaxes a high place mist .always bo accorded to that of tho famous -"Man in thc> Bottle," which caused such a prodigious stir in London

in tho middlo of the eighteenth con-

T.ury. It has -indeed been classed •with , those of the Ireland Forgeries and the Cock Lano Ghost, to which might aU most bo added the South Sea Bubble— as exemplifying in the highest degree Hie extreme gullibility of that "age of reason," writes Hugh Scott in an overseas journal. It begaii with the following iidvert.isoinont in the "General Advertiser" and other papers of Wednesday, Juuuary 11, 1749:— At tho New -Theatre in the Hayniarkct, on Monday next, to be seen a Person who performs the several most surprising Things following, viz., First, he takes a common Walking Cane from ', any of tho Spectators and thereon play the Musick of every Instrument now in uso, and likewise sings to surprising Perfection. Secondly, lie presents you with a common Wine Bottlo, which any of the Spectators first examine; this Bottlo is placed on a Table in tho Middle of the Stage and he (without ;iny Equivocation) gets into''it in sight of all tho Spectators and sings in it; during his Stay in tho Bottle, any Porson may handle it and sco plainly that it docs not exceed a common Tavern Bottle. - "Those on the Stage or in the Boxes may come in masked, Habits (if agreeable to them) and tho Performer will inform them, if desired, who they are. St3ge, .7» Cd. Boxes, sf. Pit, 3s. " . Gallery, 2s. To begiii at Half an Hour afl.er Six o'clock. Tickets to bo had at, tho Theatre. The', Performance continues about Two Hours and a Half. ' A sufficiently enticing announcement, ii, must be agreed, though how many of Hiose who responded actually expected lo see that dojio which was promised'it would perhaps be difficult to say. r THE THEATRE PACKED. However this, may be, when the night arrived the theatre —forerunner of the existing Haymarkct,. . Theatre —was packed to the doors by an audience which included, the Duke of Cumberhind (second son of the' King) and hosts of other fashionablo folk, :ill keyed up, as we may well believe, to, a pitch of the highest expectation as the moment for the rising of the curtain drew near. But alas! for tho vanity of human wishes! Th«. performance which resulted was of a very different character i'roni that whicli had been promised, though a good deal more exciting than oven tho most hopeful could have anticipated.- But Jet v contemporary chronicler ("Genoral Advertiser," Tuesday, January 17, 173!)) tell the .story:— "Last Night a numerous Audience, :imong whom were several Persons of . Quality, was at the New Theatre in tho Hay-Market, in wonderful Expectation "■ of seeing the Miraculous Man creep into a Bottle and •do several other Miracles; but the only one- ho performed was that he rendered himself invisible (without any Equivocation), to the no small Disappointment of the gaping Multitude; who, being 'told from behind tho Curtain that the Performer had not yet appeared, ■, immediately grew Outragious and in a Quarter of an hour's time broke to pieces aH the boxes, benches, scenes, and everything that was in their power to destroy, leaving only tho shell of the house remaining." Another account ("Penny London Post") adds that a huge bonfire was made- of tho furniture of the theatre in the street outside, where people roll peacefully along/ in motor buses today, and .that a posse ■of the Guards was summoned to quell the. uproar, "but came time enough only to warn themselves round tho fire." Among tho "casualties" of .the, occasion the most amusing was tho loss of his sword by the Duke of Cumberland, who afterwards advertised for it, .offering 30 guineaas for its return "and no questions asked." But, of course, the affair had mote serious consequences also, not least for poor Mr. John Potter, the proprietor oJ' the theatre, who put forth a long statement explaining his position in. the matter. According to thiß, it was a Mr. "William Nieholls who had engaged ihe theatre, and his' suspicious had been ao far aroused beforehand by the character of the proposed performance -that ho had taken tho moat stringent precautions to protect both himself and the public against any imposture. WRECKED. Thus he had secured the rent of-the theatre in advance and had arranged ' further that one of lug on officials should hold the money taken and had been fully prepared to return it all if necessary; but these preparation had been completely . nullified ■by -the outrageous behaviour of the audience, who had not only wrecked the theatre but walked off with all the takings as well. Another who felt it necessary to explain his connection with the matter was the famous Samuel-Foote—comed-ian, playwright, mimic, and general buffoon—who indignantly repudiated the suggestion, that' he had been .'one of .the prim© movers in the affair, and ap- ■ parently with truth, although it was, in fact, just the sort of "rag." which might have been expected to appeal to his sardonic senso of humour.'';. "As lam accused, '\ he' wrote, "of being Accessory to tho Cheat imposed upon the town' on Monday night in the Haymarket, I hope the public will pardon, as my reputation and interest are so essentially engaged, my taking this method' to acquit myself of the least concern yin the transaction." Who, then, was actually responsible? So far as-,1 am. aware no one knows to this day; and this may bo1 accounted not the least remarkable feature of the whole affair. % , The "Mr. Nieholls" mentioned l>y Mr. Potter as having engaged tho theatre see,ni3 to have been unknown i,o anyone, and to Jhave successfully eluded all efforts to trace him, and unless some published statement has escaped me after a fairly exhaustive-study of the contemporary' records, tho actual per-' pctrator of this "bite on tho public" (as one^ of the papers styled it) was never discovered—or, at any rate, never made known to. the world at large. • What can have been his object in concocting such an amazing- imposti re it seems almost equally difficult to say, since in view of the arrangement made with Tegard to tho takings he could jiardly have hoped to make any money aut of it, while there is Mr. Potter's statement to the effect that he had paid in advance for<the rent of tho theatre. Perhaps he was a wealthy humorist who considered such a priceless joke well worth the outlay. Or possibly he was a cynical student of human nature who wished to ascertain precisely how far it was possible to gull'the public. In any event, he is certainly entitled to a modest place in history as the anonymous author of 'dne of the most astonishing hoaxes on record. , .

In the United States gangsters have been killed, iat the rate of one every twelve ■Sours-fop the. past seven years.