The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-04-01 00:00:00

A BATHING QUESTION.

At the finesse held at Lewes, seventeen respectable young
mot—inhabitants of Chichester—were indicted for indecency
In bathing in the sea, close to a public footpath about two
miles from that city.

The prosecution, it was avowed, was instituted on
the part of a Mr. Stanford, a gentleman whose resi-
dence was about half a mile from the spot, and who
claimed th be the owner of the spot in question. The
case for the prosecution rested mainly on the fact that
the bathing was pra,tised close to a public footpath
frequented by women. It was stated by counsel that
the only object of the prosecution was to elicit the
expression of a judicial opinion as to the right to bathe
at the place in question. It was admitted that much
angry feeling had arisen between the prosecutor and
the bathing past of the inhabitants of Chichester on
the subject, and the controversy was all the more
bitter, perhaps, because he claimed to be the owner of
the spot where persons bathed. The objection, it was
stated, was not to the bathing itself, but rather to the
mode in which the bathing went on—without any kind
of screen, bathers running up and down the bank, over
the adjacent fields, &c.
Mr. Hawkins, in opening the case, cited the case of
"The King F. Crundon," 2 Campbtlis Reports, 89,
which was tried in the year 1809, and in which the
defendant was convicted on an indictment for indecency
in bathing in the sea at Brighton in full view of houses
which had been recently erected. It was true, he
said, that in the present case there were no houses in
view of the spot, but the existence of a public footpath
was the same, it was insisted, in point of principle ;
and it was stated that on one day as many as sixteen
women had been forced to turn back and abandon the
footpath in order to avoid the indecency imputed.

The Lord Chief Justice asked if it was imputed.that
any of these young men bad run up and down thebank
in a state of nudity. That would be a very different
thing indeed from mere bathing, for it would be un-
necessary to bathing.
- - -

Mr. Hawkins did not appear to impute that these
young men had run up and down, but he complained
that there was in some respects more exposure than
necessary, as they undressed and dressed on one side of
the path and bathed on the other, so that there was
passing and repassing. The prosecutor only desired
to elicit an expression of opinion as to the law.
The Lord Chief Justice said any declaration of
opinion as to the law must be based upon the facts as
they were shown in evidence, for the exact state of the
facts would make all the difference as to the law.

Evidence was then gone into. It appeared that the
bathing was practised at the mouth of the Levant (a
stream which flows from G xidwood through Chichester
to the sea), because the water was deeper there than
elsewhere on that part of the coast. There is a public
footpath along the bank, which is raised five or six feet
above the surrounding land, so that
_persons on the
bank could be seen at some distance. The bathers un-
dressed on the side of the bank next the fields, and
crossed and recrossed it in going to and from the sea.
The bathing occurred in the afternoon as well as in the
early morning or the evening, and when persons were
passing along the path, including women. Men were
naked on the path at the time women were passing.
As many as 18 women had passed in the course of a day.
It was impossible, it appeared, to dress and undress on
the sea-side of the bank, as it was a sea- wall, and the water
came up to the wall itself, so that there was no space
to stand on, and therefore the bathers dressed and un-
dressed on the land-side of the pathway. The path-
way is, it appears, one of the most pleasant sea-walks
round Chichester, and a good deal frequented by ladies;
and the prosecutor, Mr. Stanford, stated that from
some of the windows of his house and from his garden
(less than half •a-mile off) the men bathing could be
seen. It appeared that the authorities of Chichester
had proposed a shed at the place in dispute, and that
the prosecutor, on the other hand, desired that the
bathing should be elsewhere; but the other places
suggested were objected to as unfitted for the purpose
of bathing.

The Lord Chief Justice interposed to endeavour to
arninge the matter. It would, he said, be a great
pity that the inhabitants of Chichester should not
hare a bathing.place ; and, on the other hand, it could
not he endured that one of the most pleasant walks in
the neighbourhood should be rendered inaccesible by
a nuigauce of this nature. It was most deeira'ile that
the matter should be arranged,

However, as the prosecutor would not agree to the
right of bathing at the spot in question, and the other
side would not agree to relinquish it, the case went on.
The prosecut,r swore that his wife and the other female
inmates of his house could not frequent the path at any
time during the bathing season—that is, the beet part
of the year—on accountof the nuisance complained of.
Evidence was given that the pathway was one much
need by the public. On the other hand, it appeared
that the people of Chichester bad bathed at the place
in question for more than half a century, and that it
had only been complained of since the prosecutor, Mr.
Stanford purchased the property about two years ago.
It appeared that the former inmates of the house, who
were ladies, had not complained, and that the occupier
: of another house somewhat nearer, though a lady, had
, not complained. No new houses bad been lately
' erected near the apt, as in the Brighton case.
At this stage of the case,

The Lord Chief Justice again interposed, and con.
ferred with the learned counsel on both sides; after
which he said it was impossible the defendants could
resist a verdict against them. He had no hesitation,
upon this evidence, in declaring that there must be a
verdict against them upon this indictment. There was
a public footway, frequented in tine weather by the
inhabitants of Chichester, and which must be taken to
be an ancient and accustomed path. That being so,
t was clear that those who had a right to use it, tape.

daily those of the female sex, would be deterred from
using it by the existence of this nuisaAce. No one could
suppose that respectable women could irequent the foot.
wAy under such circumstances. It was dear, therefore,
that the practice of bathing at this j.lace, however
long it might have existed, was illegal, and could not
be upheld. It was impossible that it could be allow.
able thus to infest a public footpath; and there could
be no doubt, therefore, that the defendants were legally
liable to be convicted on this indictment. On the other
hand, it was desirable that the inhabitants should have
a bathing-place, and the place in question appeared
very suitable for the purpose. That being so, be had
been very anxious to arrange the matter, and it had
been agreed at his suggestion that a shed should be
erected within which the dressing and undreseing should
go on aud from which the bathing. should proceed.
Counsel on both sides expressed their assent to this
arrangement and their gratitude to the Lord Chief
Justice for suggesting it ; and the jury were accord-
ingly discharged.