Claire Parker
University of Stirling, Scotland
The `condition' of the peoplephysically, socially and morallywas increasingly a cause for concern in urban Britain during the first half of the nineteenth 1century. Disease epidemics, continual poor health and general squalor, awakened many to the negative consequences of urbanisation and industrialisation.2 This led to a wide ranging debate about public health and social order. The fear amongst middle class social reformers was that the plight of the urban poor would lead to a breakdown in social order. Social order, it was believed, could be maintained and improved only by educating the working classes into middle class social habits and values. The habit of personal cleanliness was believed to be an indicator of good social behaviour. As a consequence, social reformers lobbied hard to initiate changes, attempting to persuade both national and local government, that better basic civic amenities and sanitation provision would improve public and private health.3 Initially, government was slow to respond but eventually, a number of measures were undertaken to address these concerns.4 One of these was the 1846 Baths and Wash-Houses Act, a piece of permissive legislation which enabled those local authorities which wished to adopt the Act the opportunity to build baths and wash-houses. The 1846 Act was applicable only to England, and it was 1892 before Scotland had similar legislation, although the earlier 1867 Public Health (Scotland) Act did contain sections relating to the provision of water for bathing.5 Municipal public baths were not built in Scotland until 1878:6 evidence on the municipal provision of baths up to the 1870s is therefore given only for England, but evidence is drawn from Scotland on public baths provided by private baths companies, and in examining other issues, as the negative consequences of urbanisation and industrialisation had a similar impact on all British cities.
The purpose of this article is to analyse the role that the provision of public baths played in alleviating the twin concerns of public health and social order. To address these issues the article has been divided into four sections: (i) an examination of some of the concerns for health and hygiene in Victorian Britain; (ii) an overview of the sanitary reform process; (iii) an analysis of a number of towns and cities which used the permissive legislation to provide public baths and wash-houses and an assessment of the success of alternative forms of provision used by towns to provide similar facilities; (iv) an exploration of the nature and effectiveness of these early baths and wash-houses. The article concludes with an assessment of the extent to which public baths encouraged habits of cleanliness amongst the urban poor, and how far it improved the `condition' of the people.
Health and Hygiene in Victorian Britain
Health and hygiene became increasingly important issues in Victorian Britain.7 Health, as Hayley stated, in his key text on Victorian culture,
obsessed the Victorians. No topic more occupied the Victorian mind than health. In the name of health, Victorians flocked to the seaside, tramped about in the Alps, or Cotswolds, dieted, took pills, sweated themselves in Turkish baths, adopted this `system' of medicine or that.8
The quest for health `guided Victorian living habits, shaped educational goals, and sanctioned a mania for athletic sports'.9 The pursuit of health and mania for athletic sports became popular, however, only within upper and middle class society, where time and money were plentiful. The dominant concept for the Victorian intellectual was total health or wholeness, summed up in the phrase `mens sana in corpore sano', harmony of the mind and body.10 The urban poor were more directly affected by urban squalor, disease and poor health than their wealthier neighbours. However, for the majority of the working classes, time and money were scarce resources, spent on the struggle for survival, not on the pursuit of an elusive concept of health. The middle classes, however, were determined to educate the working man on the benefits of good health. Good health could not be achieved without personal cleanliness. With improved personal hygiene there was also a chance that there may be an improvement in moral behaviour. One was an indicator of the other, and social reformers believed implicitly that cleanliness was next to godliness. Edwin Chadwick, one of the most prominent social reformers, subscribed to this belief:
The removal of noxious physical circumstances, and the promotion of civic, household and personal cleanliness, are necessary to the improvement of the moral condition of the population; for that sound morality and refinement in manners and health are not long found co-existant with filthy habits amongst any class of the community.11
However, the negative consequences of the progress towards industrialisation and urbanisation were experienced by rich and poor alike. The rapid expansion of towns and cities,12 meant that houses were built quickly without thought to basic hygiene requirements. The new urban environment for most inhabitants meant poor housing, polluted air, open sewers and contaminated drinking water. In a description of the conditions existing in many new towns Hayley states:
During the first decades of Victoria's reign, baths were virtually unknown in the poorer districts and uncommon anywhere. Most house holds of all economic classes still used `privy-pails'; water closets were rare. Sewers had flat bottoms and because drains were made of stone, seepage was considerable. If, as was often the case in towns, streets were unpaved, they might remain ankle deep in mud for weeks. For new middle class homes in the growing manufacturing towns, elevated sites were usually chosen, with the result that sewage filtered or flowed down into the lower areas where the labouring populations dwelt.13
Standards of hygiene were understandably poor in such conditions. The supply of clean water to many towns was irregular. Even the more prosperous middle class homes could not guarantee clean water at all times, and sewage and drinking water were often mixed. Disease spread rapidly without the regular provision of uncontaminated drinking water and the means to keep clean. Nobody was certain of immunity. Deaths from contagious diseases were never far from most homes, with several major epidemics of cholera and typhus occurring during the second quarter of the century.14 However, as Flinn states, `so inured were the men of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century to the toll of disease, to the shortness of the span of urban human life' that any slight rise in death rate made little impact.15 But with each new epidemic, the pressure for sanitation reforms grew.16
The Sanitary Reform Process
The process of sanitary reform was not, however, an easy one, and government was initially slow to act. The first effective action was taken by the Poor Law Commissioners who, in May 1838, forwarded a memorandum to the Home Secretary pointing out the need for a code of health in towns and cities. A commission of enquiry was instituted to examine the causes of disease among the labouring classes across Britain. Its report, written by Edwin Chadwick,17 led to the enactment of the 1848 Public Health Act by which
For the first time, the British Government charged itself with a measure of responsibility for safeguarding the health of the population. Although an unconscionable time elapsed between the presentation of the Report and the passing of the Act...and though the early history of state action in the sphere of public health was to be chequered, to say the least, a beginning had been made.18
The chequered history of state action in sanitary reform saw the Government seeking a second judgement on Chadwick's findings. A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts was set up in 1843, and two reports were produced in 1844 and 1845. The key recommendation from all these sanitary reform reports was that new sewage and clean water supplies were an essential prerequisite of improved public health. These were prohibitively expensive to install, and many in government were fearful of supporting a Bill that would result in an increase in the rates. Consequently, the debate then focused on whether such key provision could be made by private companies. Ultimately, the laissez-faire attitude of the government towards public health ensured delay to most improvement schemes.
Both Chadwick's and the Royal Commission's reports also mentioned the importance of providing washing and bathing facilities for the poor. It had not, though, been a major recommendation in either, as the costs of providing these facilities were also seen as too expensive and not as pressing as the need for improved sewage and water supplies. However, the idea of providing public baths had been sown, and in 1846 a `Public Baths and Washhouses Act' was passed. Despite the 1846 Act not being seen as significant, in terms of public health reform, as the later 1848 Public Health Act,19 it did enable local authorities to provide facilities to improve personal hygiene standards and help relieve some urban squalor. The Act enabled local councils to erect public baths and washhouses. From the outset it was expected that the baths should pay for themselves. Loans were available from the Treasury to assist with the initial outlay, but these had to be repaid through the rates if insufficient income came from the baths themselves.20 Water for the baths, it was maintained, could be supplied at a cheap rate or free from local gas works managers.21 However, this proved rarely to be the case, and as a maximum charge of fourpence for admission to the baths was also imposed on councils by the Act, it effectively ensured that most baths were never able to cover their running costs.22 Later on power was given to councils to make a higher charge for baths of a superior kind,23 but the frequency of use of such baths could never defray the whole cost of upkeep for the remaining baths. Consequently, the number of local councils prepared to take up the ample powers provided within the Act were initially few. By 1852 just eight towns and cities had used the Act to build baths: London, Liverpool, Preston, Tynemouth, Bristol, Nottingham, Hull and Birmingham.24
Provision of Public Baths and Washhouses
The precise date and location of the first public baths have not been conclusively identified. Several towns, including Liverpool, Manchester, London and Glasgow, clearly had some form of public bathing facilities before the 1846 Act. Many contemporary reports often claimed their baths were the first,25 but these baths were often owned and run by private companies.26 One example of baths clearly having been provided long before government legislation is given in the 1816 Annuls of Glasgow.
it becomes desirable if not necessary in the interests of health, comfort and cleanliness that public baths should be established for the use of the operative classes of the community as well as the for the affluent.27
Also, in 1844 baths had been built at Glasshouse Yard near the docks in London. They had been promoted by the Association for Promoting Cleanliness among the People.28 Birmingham also endeavoured by voluntary effort to establish baths before the passing of the Act. In 1844 an association was formed for the promotion of baths and parks, and the sum of £4,000 was raised. In the hope of legislation taking place, the proceedings were suspended, although the subscription went on until it reached £6,000.29 Manchester also had public baths in 1845, after `a grand fancy dress ball held in the Free Trade Hall raised £440 and helped to provide Public Baths and Wash-houses in Miller Street'.30 The object of the baths was `to provide the poorer classes with the means of bathing themselves in tepid water'.31 However, most late nineteenth century historians32 support the later view of Payne, who states `the first public baths erected by a corporate body were those at St.George's Pier Head in Liverpool in 1828'.33 However, as Ellison and Howe state:
The building was built on treacherous foundations which in the long run was to cost the Corporation a great deal of money to maintain. On completion the baths were managed by a bath keeper and assistants.34
During the 1850s the first borough engineer for Liverpool, James Newlands, was forced to comment on the state of the baths thus: `the Pier Head Baths scarcely deserve the title public bathshaving fallen into disrepair'.35 Despite their poor construction and lack of maintenance, these Liverpool baths are generally acknowledged as being the first public municipal baths built in the UK. A more significant factor for the passing of the 1846 Act, however, was the first provision of clothes washing facilities for the poor. These facilities were also credited with having been provided in Liverpool first, initially by a labourer's wife, Kitty Wilkinson, who in the late eighteenth century lent `her copper for laundry work and her backyard for drying, out of sympathy for those worse off than herself'.36 A provident society recognised the value of the work she had initiated and undertook to carry it on, but on a more extensive scale, as Campbell states:
So eagerly did women avail themselves of the accommodation provided, that in 1842 the corporation of Liverpool took the matter in hand and erected the first public wash-house in the United Kingdom.37
These first joint public baths and washhouses were at Frederick Street in Liverpool:
They were opened on the 28th May 1842. However, by October 1842 the Council realised that the facilities were too small and that Upper Frederick baths would have to be extended or rebuilt to cope with the demand.38
Their success ensured two further premises were opened in quick succession in Liverpool, the Paul Street Baths in 1846 and the Cornwallis Street Baths in 1851.39 The public baths of Liverpool, according to the nineteenth century journalist Hugh Shimmin writing for the Liverpool Mercury in 1856,
reflect great honour on the town, bestow abundant credit on the council, are model sanitary purifiers and are hourly bestowing blessings, cheap, pure and healthful, on the toiling masses of this great community.40
He supported his statement by claiming that in one week, nearly 25,000 people bathed at the public baths at a cost to them of more than £500.41
Although Liverpool was the first to recognise the value of providing such premises, other places were not far behind. London, as already noted, had instituted a voluntary association for promoting the building of baths. Its efforts resulted not only in the building of several establishments in London, but also in extending its influence to encourage Parliament to pass the 1846 Act. The example of the Frederick Street Baths in Liverpool was given by the London Association to Parliament as a successful way of providing financially self-supporting facilities. The fact that the baths were not self-supporting, even when the prices charged for entry varied from 1d to 6d with even the cheap rate being too expensive for the very poorest of society, was overlooked by the London Association. They gave the impression that baths could be self-supporting, even when charging low prices.42 Despite the financial implications for local authorities, the number of towns and cities using the legislation to build baths grew steadily, with forty nine public baths built in England and Wales between 1846 and 1870.43 Sinclair and Henry stated later in 1893:
The advantages of the Act are now fully recognised and public baths are springing up in almost every town. Among the first erected were those at Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Maidstone, Bilston, Norwich, Hull, Oxford, Wolverhampton, Macclesfield, Nottingham, Bolton, Worcester, York, Hereford, Chester, Plymouth, Sunderland, Newcastle, Carlisle, Coventry, Belfast and Waterford.44
However, many cities and towns, despite the desirability and obvious need for baths and washhouses, rejected the whole idea of providing such facilities on financial grounds. Some also took so long to come to a decision that the costs had escalated beyond the reach of many smaller towns, in particular. The lack of direct financial support from government meant that some towns looked to other means of providing similar facilities. Bilsborough, in an examination of five northern towns, identified four key methods by which towns, quite independently, decided to build public baths.45 The relative success of each method was analysed, in terms of how quickly facilities were provided, how cost effective they were, and for how long each town was able to benefit from the baths' construction. Public subscription was perhaps the most successful method. Macclesfield used this method in 1850 to build an adequate set of baths and washhouses with a minimum of delay and unnecessary expense. Birmingham, as already noted, was also able to institute the provision of baths in 1844 via public subscription. The voluntary association had raised enough money to purchase land in Kent Street in 1846, but with the implementation of the Baths and Washhouses Act the land was transferred to the Corporation. The first stone was laid in 1849, with the baths open to the public on 12 May 1851.46 The least successful method proved to be through provision by private individuals. Warrington experienced the pleasure of its own baths during the 1840s and 1850s, but they were of poor quality and by 1860 the baths were closed for good, due to the financial drain of the upkeep on just a few individuals. This one example cannot be used to condemn all provision by private individuals: but, as Bilsborough concludes, `providing public baths by private means appears to have delayed the initiative of the town councils to build public baths'.47 A third initially successful method was through the setting up of private baths companies. Glasgow had three public baths provided by the Eastern Public Baths Company, from 1853 to 1870. All three baths were built well before any municipal public baths were provided in Scotland. Although low admission charges were offered to encourage the working classes to use the baths, they were poorly supported. There was insufficient income to meet running costs and satisfy shareholders, and, as a result, by 1884 all three had closed.48 Another example of this method of provision was the Bridgeman Street Baths and Assembly Rooms in Bolton. They were opened in May 1847 at a cost of £6,000. These facilities were used, as the name suggests, not only for bathing, but for balls and dances. The cost of maintaining such impressive buildings was considerable, even with the added income from the assembly rooms.49 The company tried to sell the baths to Bolton Corporation in 1886, but they declined, and it was 1902 before the Corporation opened its own baths.50 The private baths companies that did prosper were those that maintained an exclusive middle class clientele and could accordingly charge higher prices to cover the high cost of upkeep. To maintain their exclusivity many became a type of gentleman's club. This was particularly the case in Glasgow, which by the last quarter of the nineteenth century had five successful private baths clubs in the city.51
The most popular method of public bath provision, and in the long term the most successful, was the building of baths by town councils using legislation. The facilities built by this method were generally of a high standard and the prices for admission were set to enable even some of the poorest citizens access. One disadvantage was the time some councils took in coming to a decision on whether or not to build. However, this became less of a problem when the number of towns and cities with public baths increased, as any neighbouring towns without baths would endeavour to improve their town's local amenities, for the notion of `civic pride' was a forceful incentive in mid-Victorian Britain. Manchester Corporation was, for example, quite late in providing municipal baths: but when the Manchester Baths and Washhouses Committee of 1876 reported that Birmingham, Sheffield and Liverpool were all planning to add to their existing baths, despite the baths in all three cities incurring an annual loss to the city funds, Manchester quickly undertook measures to provide baths and washhouses for its citizens. In March 1878 the council had approved the building of baths in New Islington, Manchester.52
Some councils, though, were still reluctant to invest in public baths, as the legislation enabled councils only to borrow money from the government, and the Act specified that whatever number of baths were built, two thirds were to be of the cheapest class.53 Fearful of not being able to repay the loan or fund the upkeep of baths with admission money alone, and reluctant to raise the rates, some councils were still cautious of `taking the plunge', although in Birmingham, the Baths and Parks Committee of 1885 noted that `in twelve of the fourteen years from 1851 to 1864 the baths yielded a small profit, if interest on the capital outlay is left out of the account'. However, they went onto state that
The fees paid by bathers have long since ceased to cover the maintenance charges and if the total expenditure is taken, the average annual loss for the last ten years is more than £3,500. Practically the rate payers give away 21/4d.54
However, in a number of cases, after pressure from local people, often via the pages of the local press, public meetings were held, resulting in a baths committee being established to research the feasibility of such a venture. At these initial meetings local dignitaries, doctors and clergy voiced the strongly-held opinions and beliefs of the day, chief of which was that cleanliness was next to godliness. The medical profession, particularly the first appointed Medical Officers of Health (MOH), had significant influence.55 Their belief in the benefits to all of being able to keep clean were often enough to spur most councils into action. Manchester Baths and Washhouses Committee in 1876, for example, sought the opinion of both Manchester's and Liverpool's Medical Officers of Health on the provision of public baths. The MOH for Liverpool, Dr.J. Stopford Taylor stated:
Among the many sanitary measures which have had an important influence in reducing the death rate, the promotion of personal cleanliness by means of these establishments must have had some considerable effect...by degrees they acquire habits, which will not only benefit them immediately, but be of advantage to the whole community, in making men and women clean and healthy, and better able to resist those epidemic influences which at certain periods are sure to affect the dense populations of our towns.
The Manchester MOH, Dr. John Leigh, also believed in the great benefits to public health with the provision of public baths. His opinions extended, like those of many social reformers of the time, to a belief that the opportunity to improve personal habits of cleanliness enabled an improvement in social and moral behaviour to take place. He stated to the committee:
I have long been of opinion that the intemperate habits of the people have been much influenced by their social surroundings, and by their domestic condition. The old saying that `Cleanliness is next to Godliness' is true in every sense. If the home and person be clean, the mind rises to the improved condition. Cleanliness produces self respect; with purer air and clean surroundings, the mind is less depressed, and seeks less the excitement of drink. I should expect that greater temperance would follow on greater cleanliness _ that higher mental cultivation would be sought, and that improvement in physical and sanitary condition, however, slow, which it must always be, whatever social or sanitary measures are adopted, would inevitably attend the fulfilment of the benevolent object in view. In my official capacity as Medical Officer of Health for the city, I desire to express myself strongly in favour of the movement.56
The opinions of respected middle class social reformers, such as the MOHs, were often enough to persuade councils to build baths. However, from a first meeting, agreeing in principle, to the actual opening of baths often took several years. Kent Street Baths in Birmingham, for example, took seven years from an association being formed in 1844 to the opening of the baths in 1851: this despite strong local support and some money having already been raised. Large cities, however, after having seen the benefits of one facility often set about providing several more in the most needy districts. Like the earlier example from Liverpool, this often happened in quick succession. Birmingham, after the success of the Kent Street Baths in 1851, built baths in Woodcock Street in 1860 and Northwood Street in 1862.57 The success of the baths was evident by the number of bathers who used them. In 1851 when the first baths were opened in Birmingham, 78,715 people used the baths, at a time when the population of Birmingham borough stood at about 220,000.58 By 1862, when Birmingham had three public baths, 167,646 bathers were recorded as having used the facilities. 1862 was, however, the first year that Birmingham recorded a significant loss, of £356, in the running of the baths.59 A breakdown of the number of bathers, in terms of which baths they used, provides some idea of class usage, although the age and sex of the bathers is not given for these years. However, from the following descriptions of public baths, it is evident that the most popular facility was the cheapest bath for working class men. Women were poorly catered for, both in terms of individual private baths and access to swimming baths or plunge pools.
Description of Public Bathing Facilities
The reasoning behind the provision of public baths was essentially to provide facilities for the most needy. From the outset, however, it was realised that the revenue raised from providing just the basic amenities would not be enough to sustain even these facilities. The baths and wash-houses built in the mid-nineteenth century were quite extensive buildings, catering for both middle class as well as working class clientele, for whom separate facilities had to be provided. As the sexes also needed to be segregated, most public baths built at this time had at least a first and second class plunge pool, first and second class individual private baths for men and women and then a separate wash-house area for cleaning clothes. Many also provided a third class plunge pool for boys. Access for women to the first and second class plunge pools was severely restricted. Many baths set aside just a few hours per week for women, usually during the daytime and not at weekends.60 The following table gives some idea of the type of bathing facilities that were provided by local authorities, up to the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Table: Facilities in the three public baths in Birmingham up to 187461
Private baths Swimming baths Plunge baths
M1 M2 F1 F2 J M1 M2 M W
Kent Street 30 24 6 7 2 1 1 1 1
Woodcock 16 16 6 6 1 1 1
Northwood 12 13 6 6 1 1
Key
F Female
J Jewish
M Male
1 First class
2 Second class
A vivid description of a public bath and wash-house in the 1850s is provided by the writings of the nineteenth century Liverpool journalist Hugh Shimmin. In an article for the Liverpool Mercury in 1856, he described the Cornwallis Street Baths as
the largest, most modern, best frequented and [containing] the most recent improvements consisting of three large plunge baths - first, second and third class; sixty private warm baths of similar classes; together with shower, vapour and sitz baths; the whole being under the management of Mr. Andrew Clarke, the superintendentThe first thing that strikes the visitor to these baths is the scrupulous cleanliness everywhere observable, the order and regularity with which business is transacted62
He went on to describe the third class plunge pool which was mainly used by young boys and commonly called the `twopenny'. It was forty one feet long by twenty seven feet wide and five feet deep at one end , two and a half at the other, with a floor of asphalt and sides of stone. At the deep end was a springboard to `assist the lads in diving'. Around the edge of the pool were twenty four rooms or receiving boxes, none of which had doors on them. In these, the bathers placed what clothes they had, as Shimmin noted:
as many as ten or twelve boys at one time deposit their habiliments in one of these boxes .Poor little fellows! their clothes in most cases occupy little room The scene on entering this pool on a Saturday night is quite stupifying with upwards of a hundred boys, most of them in a state of nudity, ducking, diving, floundering, plunging, dousing, sousing, rolling, sprawling, tossing and tumbling in the water.
Many of these boys, because they did not have regular employment stayed in the baths for two to three hours at a time, occasionally going into their box to eat a little food and then back into the water. Most were apparently expert swimmers and divers and often provided amusement to the wealthier visitors to the baths and members of the Council's bath committee, who would throw coins into the pool for the boys to dive after.63
The fourpenny plunge bath was similar in appearance to the `twopenny', but according to Shimmin, as it was not used as much `the place does not have such a dingy appearance'. This bath was frequented more by middle aged and young men `who find it hard to stand the rollicking fun of the boys and therefore pay the additional twopence for the additional comfort'. The first class plunge bath is described by Shimmin as
a very beautiful building, with the bath being fifty seven feet long by forty one feet wide and three feet deep at one end and seven at the other, the sides are of titles and the floor Yorkshire flagstone. The bath is emptied and the floor thoroughly scoured with sandstone twice a week, giving the water a beautifully clean appearance. In the centre of the bath stands a fountain, in the form of a vase, from the edge of which the jets send forth the water. There are thirty three dressing rooms round the bath, but the bath is not frequented as much as expected, and mainly by young or middle aged men. A separate part of the building is devoted to private warm baths, where a first class bath costs one shilling, second class six pence and third class two pence. In addition private cold shower baths may be had in the third class for one penny.64
The descriptive accounts by Shimmin, provide some evidence of how and when public baths and wash-houses were used and by who, in the middle years of the nineteenth century. Evidence from one establishment cannot give a complete picture, and the Cornwallis Street Baths in Liverpool were unique, in that from their opening they provided only bathing and swimming facilities, not a wash house area. A wash house had originally been planned and built, but it was never opened and when the swimming pools proved so popular, the Baths Committee agreed to convert the wash house space into an additional bathing area.65 However, from Shimmins' descriptions and the Baths and Wash-house Committee Reports of other cities, it is evident that the most popular facility within the baths was the swimming or plunge pools. These provided a new recreational opportunity for the population, enabling swimming to take place for the first time, in warm, comfortable surroundings, and creating, as Cunningham later stated,
..huge demand for swimming, and the public baths and washhouses which were built to improve the health of the working class also had the effect of providing them with relatively cheap recreation.66
Individual private baths also continued to be popular until well into the twentieth century, when some private homes began to have bathrooms. The wash house, however, gradually became seen as a separate facility and was later often built away from any new baths.67 The provision of wash-houses was, according to Campbell, `much less widespread than the provision of public bathsattributed in part to the fact that wash-houses are essentially for the benefit of housewives, who are often intensely conservative'.68 When an amendment was made to the Baths and Wash-Houses Act in 1878, which empowered local authorities to provide covered swimming baths,69 the provision of public baths as a recreational facility for swimming was finally established.
Conclusions
The provision of public baths and wash-houses was just one measure, among several, that was undertaken by government and social reformers with the intention of improving the physical, social and moral condition of the population. The success of public baths in alleviating these concerns was, however, variable. First, as this article has illustrated, the nature of the provision of baths was patchy. Some councils, such as Birmingham with its three baths by 1852, responded vigorously to the opportunity to provide public baths. Other councils responded half-heartedly and were reluctant to commit to building such expensive facilities, until, in many cases, civic pride, a strong motivating force in Victorian Britain, would prompt a council into action, as was the case in Manchester. Where public baths were provided, it enabled a significant number of urban inhabitants to wash themselves and their clothes on a more regular basis than had previously been possible, with a consequent improvement in personal health. There is little evidence to suggest that an improvement in social or moral behaviour was a consequence of public baths provision. The class segregated facilities at the baths ensured there was little class sociability, and public baths almost from the beginning were adopted by the working classes as places for recreation and enjoyment, not as places to observe correct social behaviour. Also, as future research will examine, the middle and upper classes often established their own private baths clubs to segregate themselves from their social inferiors even further. Despite some evidence supporting the popularity of the baths by the working classes, many baths experienced severe financial difficulties and could continue only on receiving significant subsidies. More work is needed to uncover the actual take up of bathing by the working classes up to 1870s, to establish how popular a visit to the local baths really was in mid-Victorian Britain. However, the initial purpose of the baths to cleanse the great unwashed did ensure that bathing and swimming as a recreation, and later a sport, retained a reputation as working class pursuit and, as further research will examine, had a lasting impact on the development of swimming as a sport.
References
Bunce J.T., History of the Corporation of Birmingham, vols I-IV (Birmingham: Cornish Brothers, 1887, 1895, 1902, 1923)
Bilsborough, P., A Comparative Analysis of the Initial Provision of Public Bathing Facilities in a Selection of Northern Towns in England (M.Ed. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1977)
Bilsborough, P., The Development of Sport in Glasgow 1850_1914 (M.Litt. Dissertation, University of Stirling, 1983)
Brockington C. Fraser, A Short History of Public Health (London: J & A Churchill, 1966)
Campbell, A., Report on Public Baths and Wash-Houses in the United Kingdom (Edinburgh, The Carnegie Trust, 1918)
Chalmers, A.K., The Health of Glasgow (Glasgow: Bell and Bain, 1930)
Cunningham, H., Leisure in the Industrial Revolution: 1780_1880 (London: Croom Helm, 1980)
Davies, B., The Development of Patterns of Physical Recreation in Worcester and the West Midlands in the late Nineteenth Century (Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, 1987)
Ellison, P. and Howe, P., Talk of the Wash House (Liverpool, Picton Press, 1997)
Flinn, M.W. (ed.) Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain by Edwin Chadwick 1842 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965)
Hayley, B., The Healthy Body and Victorian Culture (London. Harvard University Press, 1978)
Jones, J.T., History of the Corporation of Birmingham, Vol. V 1915-1935 (Birmingham: Birmingham Corporation, 1940)
Manchester Council Proceedings (1847-8, 1875-6, 1877) Baths and Washhouses Committee Reports, Manchester Library.
Manchester Guardian, 16 February 1966.
Mann, W.M., The Baths: The Story of the Western Baths Hillhead 1876-1990 (Glasgow: John Watson, 1990)
Newsome, D., Godliness and Good Learning (London: John Murray, 1961)
Payne, E.H., Public Baths and Bathing Places (London: Southern Counties ASA, 1912)
Sinclair, A. and Henry, W. The Badminton Library: Swimming (London: Longmans Green & Co., 1893)
Walton, J.K. and Wilcox, A., Low Life and Moral Improvement in Mid-Victorian England (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991)
Notes
1 Through the 1830s and 1840s there were three massive waves of contagious disease. Hayley, 1978, p.6.
2 Chadwick, E (1842) Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain, Royal Commission Reports (1844 and 1845) Health of Towns and Populous Places.
3 Such as the 1846 Baths and Wash-houses Act and the 1848 Public Health Act
4 Campbell, 1918, p.5. This enabled Scotland to benefit, as this later legislation promoted the provision of swimming pools to swim in, not baths for washing
5 Glasgow however, did have a significant number of private baths clubs built from the 1870's.
6 Hayley, 1978 and Newsome, 1961 are the two key texts.
7 Hayley, 1978, p.3.
8 Hayley, 1978, fly cover.
9 Hayley, 1978, p.4.
10 Quoted in Flinn, 1965, p.424.
11 The 1851 census for England revealed population equally divide between town and country dwellers.
12 Hayley, 1978, p.9.
13 See Hayley, 1978, pp.6-8.
14 Flinn, 1965, p.17.
15 Flinn 1965 p.18.
16 Report of Inquiry into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain 1842.
17 Flinn, 1965, p.1.
18 The1846 Public Baths and Washhouses Act is rarely mentioned in histories of public health.
19 Davies, 1987, p.187.
20 Campbell, 1918, p.3.
21 Bunce, 1885, p.189.
22 Bunce, 1885, p.189.
23 Campbell, 1918, p.4.
24 Manchester Evening News 16th March 1983, had report which claimed Collier Street Baths , Salford were the first public baths.
25 Manchester had a public bath and washhouse from at least 1846, run by a private company which the council considered leasing in 1848 (Council Proceedings 1847-8). The Manchester and Salford Baths and Laundries Company also ran two public baths and washhouse establishments in 1876 (Council Proceedings, 1876, p.373).
26 Quoted in Campbell, 1918, p.3.
27 Campbell, 1918, p.3.
28 Bunce, 1885, p.188.
29 Manchester Guardian, 16 February 1966, `Looking Back' by Harold Howarth.
30 Ibid.
31 See Sinclair and Henry,1893; Bruce, 1885.
32 Payne, 1912, p.1.
33 Ellison and Howe, 1997, p.19.
34 Ibid.
35 Campbell, 1918, p.3.
36 Ibid.
37 Ellison and Howe, 1997, p.25.
38 Walton and Wilcox, 1991, p.211.
39 Quoted in ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Bilsborough, 1977, pp.21-5.
42 Campbell, 1918, p.4.
43 Sinclair and Henry 1893 p.414
44 Bilsborough, 1977.
45 Bunce, 1885, p.189.
46 Bilsborough, 1977, p.82.
47 Bilsborough 1983 p.314.
48 Ibid, p.69.
49 Ibid, p.68.
50 Mann 1990 p. 11. These private baths clubs were Arlington 1870, Western 1876, Victoria 1878, Pollokshields1883, Dennistoun 1884.
51 Manchester Council Proceedings, 1876, p.373, and 1877, p.160.
52 Campbell, 1918, p.3.
53 Quoted in Bunce, 1902, p.152.
54 The first MOH's were appointed in Liverpool in 1847 and London in 1848.
55 Manchester Council proceedings 1875-6, p.371, Baths and Washhouse Committee Report 27 September 1876.
56 Bunce, 1885, p.189.
57 Bunce, 1878, p.303.
58 Bunce, 1885, p.190.
59 Bunce, 1885, p.193. This situation was to continue for many decades . In 1882 the Birmingham Baths Committee noted the lack of separate accommodation for women and proposed an increase to three evenings per week. A year later they even proposed building a separate baths for women, but the proposal was deferred and not raised again.
60 Bunce, 1885, p.190.
61 Walton and Wilcox, 1991, p.212.
62 Ibid, pp.213-4.
63 Ibid, pp.216-7.
64 Ellison and Howe, 1997, p.27.
65 Cunningham, 1980, p.155.
66 Jones, 1940, p. 427.
67 Campbell, 1918, p.47.
68 Ibid, p.4.