STORY OF FAMOUS HOAX

Taranaki Daily News, 24 November 1934, Page 22 (Supplement)

STORY OF FAMOUS HOAX

THE MAN IN THE BOTTLE RIOTING OF THE AUDIENCE. THE GUARDS CALLED OUT. Among historic hoaxes a high place must always be accorded to that of the famous “Man in the Bottle,” which caused such a prodigous stir in London in the middle of the eighteenth century. It has' indeed been classed with those of the Ireland Forgeries and the Cock Lane Ghost, to which might almost be added the South Sea Bubble—as exemplifying in the highest degree the extreme gullibility of that “age of reason,” writes Hugh Scott in an overseas journal.

It began with the following advertisement in the General Advertiser and other papers of Wednesday, January 11 1749:— At the New Theatre in the Haymarket, on Monday next, to be seen a Person who performs the several most surprising Things following, viz., First, he takes a common Walking Cante from any of the Spectators and thereon plays the Musick of every Instrument now in use, and likewise sings to surprising Perfection. Secondly, he presents you with a common Wine Bottle, which any of the Spectators first examine; this Bottle is placed on a Table in the Middle of the Stage and he (without any Equivocation) gets into it in sight of all the Spectators and sings in it; during his Stay in the Bottle, any Person may handle it and see plainly that it does not exceed a common Tavern Bottle. Those on the Stage or in the Boxes may come in masked Habits (if agreeable to them) and the Performer will inform them, if desired, who they are. Stage, 7s 6d. Boxes. ss. Pit, 3s. Gallery, 2s. To begin at Half ’ an Hour after Six o'clock. Tickets to be had at the Theatre. The Performance continues about . Two Hours and a Half. A sufficiently enticing announcement, it must be agreed, though how many of those who responded actually expected to see that done which was promised it would perhaps be difficult to say. THE THEATRE PACKED. However this may be, when the night arrived the theatre—forerunner of the existing Haymarket Theatre—was packed to the doors by an’ audience which included the Duke of Cumberland (second son of the King) and hosts of other* fashionable folk, all 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 the vanity of human wishes! The performance which resulted was of a very different character from that which had been promised, though a good deal more exciting than even the most hopeful could have anticipated. But let a contemporary chronicler (“General Advertiser,” Tuesday, January 17, 1739) tell the story:—

“Last Night a ’ numerous Audience among whom were several Persons of Quality, was at the New Theatre in the Hay-Market, in wonderful Expectation of seeing the Miraculous Man creep into a Bottle and do several other Miracles; but the only one he performed was that he rendered himself invisible (without any Equivocation), to the no small Disappointment of the gaping Multitude; who, being told from behind the Curtain that the Performer had not yet appeared, immediately grew Outragious and in a Quarter of an hour’s time broke to pieces all the boxes, benches, scenes, and everything that was in their power to destroy, leaving only the shell of the house remaining.” Another account (“Penny London Post”) adds that a huge bonfire was made of the furniture of the theatre in the street outside, where people roll peacefully along in motor buses to-day, and that a posse of the Guards was summoned to quell the uproar, “but came time enough only to warm themselves round the fire.”

Among the “casualties” of the occasion the most amusing was the loss of his siyord by the ■ Duke of Cumberland, who afterwards advertised for it, offering 30 guineas for its return, “and no questions asked.” But, of course, the affair had more serious consequences also, not least for poor Mr. John Potter, the proprietor of the theatre, who put forth a long statement explaining his position in the matter. According to this, it was a Mr. William Nicholls who had engaged the theatre, and his suspicions had been so far aroused beforehand by the character of the proposed pei-formance that he had taken the most 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 his own officials should hold the money taken and had been fully prepared to return it all if necessary; but these preparations had been completely nullified by the outrageous behaviour. of the audience, who had not only wrecked the theatre but walked off with the takings as.well. Another who felt. it. necessary to . explain his connection. with : the matter was the famous Samuel Foote—comedian, playwright, mimic, and general buffoon—who indignantly repudiated the suggestion that he had been one of the prime movers in the affair, and apparently with truth, although it was, in fact, iust the sort of “rag” which might have been expected to appeal to his sardonic sense of humour. “As I am- accused,” he wrote, “of being Accessory to the 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 in the transaction.” Who, then, was actually responsible? So far as I am aware no one knows to this day; and this may be accounted not the least remarkable feature of the whole affair.

The “Mr. Nicholls” mentioned by Mr. Potter as having engaged the theatre seems to have been unknown to anyone, and to have successfully eluded all efforts to trace h’im, and unless some published statement has escaped me after a fairly exhaustive study of the contempory records, the actual perpetrator of this “bite on the 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 imposture it seems almost equally difficult to say, since in view of' the arrangement made with regard to the takings he could hardly have hoped to make any money out of it, while there is Mr. Potter’s statement to the effect that he had paid in advance for the rent of the 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 one of the most astonishing hoaxes record. .. . .