The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-08-15
BATHS IN BRITAIN.
AS a Rule English Cities Maintain
Public Baths. ..... 4. II
MANY ARE SELF SUPPORTING
In Other Cases, the Advantages
More Than Offset Any
Deficit. @~ e.S r.. 90.

commodious public baths, admirably To-
Gated within a substantial building, Is
emphasized by consideration of the i'm
portance and popularity that public baths
nave attained in British cities. More than
100 towns and cities In England, Scotland
and ireland maintain public baths. Many
English cities have several bathing plants,
some have half dozen. MOT content with
plain, cold water, baths, the Briton has
demanded and secured hot baths, Turkish
baths, Russian baths aud even vapor
baths, from the municipal establishments.
Towns of 1000 inhabitants have not felt
themselves too poor to provide public
bathing facilities, and so far from getting
their public bath establishments without
expense, cities half the size Of Mime
apolis have not hesitated to invest in
such plants amounts ranging from $4,000
to $4,000. The rates charged patrons are
from 2 to 25 cents a person, according to
the nature of his wetting. -
Yet, elaborate as these public baths are
in Great Britain. several cities have made
them self supporting. In general, how
ever, a. deficit is cheerfully made good
from other income-best proof, that the
citizens are convinced that municipal
baths are we'll worth all they cost. =
Undoubtedly Minneapolis, which be-
lieves itself sufficiently progressive to Sc
cure all municipal improvements, is some
what DeQ1QO the tlLueS ID the mdLL0r Oh
public, baths. Although new baths are
being provided annually in England, most
Of the hundred towns and cities already
supplied have enjoyed their luxuries for
ten, twenty and thirty years. Liverpool,
the first Of English cities to provide pub
lie baths, has boosted of the honor since
1894 80 y 't
According to available statistics (for
the year 1899 public bath houses are
mo ioto iY,oS h1yp or1v ch
with population somewhat near that of
Minneapolis, that Is. between 100000 and
ESQ., 900. Two such lucky cities are re-
ported in Scotland and one in Ireland:
But ground for modification is afforded
by the fact that many, English towns that
would scarcely make one ward Of Mime
apolis have long supported public baths.
Such towns are Accrington, population
$4,000; Bailey, 32,oo0;. Burselem, Colches-
ter, Darwin, Dover, .Eccles and Maid
stone, each $4,000; Dewsbury. Folkestone,
Longton,% Richmond, .sStaybridge, Wood
Green, Chiswick, each 100000; Middleton,
Haywood, Kidderminster, $4,000; Glossop,
Stafford, 100000; Salisbury, Tunstall,
Bridgewater, Kendall, Wrexham, Cleck-
heaton, $4,000; Sowerby Bridge, Ashford,
$4,000; Teignmouth, 5000, and Tamworth.
1000.
The great cities have invested large
sums in their baths. . Manchester ex-
pended, in 1899, seSo,ooo, and Liverpool
s67o,000. Sheffield, With $4,000 in
habitants had spent 5000, GOO. But that
sum was exceeded by the s$265, 900 dis
bursed for public baths at Stafford, where
dwell about 100000 people. And Croydon
Population 124,00O) has baths that cost
$4,000; Cardiff (178000) has been willing
to pay $4,000. Hudders1eld, with a lit
tie over 100000 inhabftants has invested
s35, 900 in baths, and little Bury's 200
burghers taxed themselves $25o,ooo for
public baths as long To- Ago as 1881; 1884,
provided that either Bury, or Hanley
(also with =, a population Of 60,000) or
Rcchcdale 100000, will make glad its citi-
with vapor baths, with hot water Tubing
in private room or with cold water
plunging In public pool.
The lowest rate reported fc~ bathing
privilege is at Liverpool, where the school
boy may arp! zach distantly to godliness
for 1 cent an opportunity. The highest
rate is also to be paid at Liverpool, aud
COMPLICATIONS. Representative charges
are demanded at Preston population liz,
0O9), where tickets cost from to s c"ntf
each.
4 few towns make money BIZ selling
soap and water and leasing towels and 0p.
pOctunity. Thus Sheffield maintained itt
four bathing establishments at an exren'
diture,. in 1898, of $14,515. But its re.
ceip3s from the same. Institution were
s15,17I. Croydon reported I'll average
protiv of $120 at one of It's public bal h.
houses. Portsmouth expande1 Sc. leo enc
collected $1,000. Burnley paid oct s. $50
and reluctantly accepted $4,000.
A few towns deftly contrived to achieve
neither profit nor loss. At Bradford
for example, the expenditures were $13,'
900, and the receipts were practically the
same, to-wit, s12.7Oo. At Leicester thu
pecuniary product Of the bathing ticke
was $11,335, and the total cost Of main
tanning the baths was $12,170.
Ordinarily, however, a deficit was &C
cumulated.. Here Manchester proved tn
most successful, with a credit of $35,
900 and a, debit of $4,000. But Noting
ham, more apt at lace than figures, pait
out $4,000 to get back $4,000. The usua
excess CT expenses over receipts was fror
rs to SO per cent.
Plymouth, the ancient seaport, mo.tifle
! as the only English city of 100000 in
habitan.s that, like Minneapolis, has n
public baths worthy of she name Ye
Plym outn was the first city in all Britain
| to seourv a municipal walerworxs. And
as Saint George of the Dragon, contrar
| to romance and Imagination, was, in FACT
pork contractor for the Roman army
| 80 Sir Francis Drake, the dashing navi
gator, is recorded at Plymouth az tn
| first English contractor 10 make none
by installing city waterworks. -He bI.'
the plant 1T Plymouth so admirably tina
| IT. was ntvar ENLARGED d :ri1x the Sc