Turkish baths in Ireland

The Crescent Baths

This was one of the first Victorian Turkish baths to be established in Ireland, and seems to have been the first in the island not to have been set up directly under the aegis of Dr Barter.

But there is a slight problem in that, apart from the directory entries reproduced in the chronology above, very little is known about the establishment. In particular, it is not known exactly what type of hot air bath it was—even though it was originally called a 'Turkish' bath.

Neither do we know for certain whether Sir Arthur Clarke was the original proprietor, nor whether Miss Magee (M'Ghee, or MaGhee) was a joint proprietor from the beginning—though newspaper articles seem to suggest they were.

When the baths opened, presumably before the building work was completed, male and female bathers used them at different times, but within three months separate simultaneous provision was being made for each sex, and annual tickets were available at £6.0.0 for men and £5.0.0 for women.

Soon after they opened, the baths were visited by W B B Scriven, a mechanical engineer by profession, who described them as '... small but good' in an article published in 1860 in a homoeopathic journal. Initially, the establishment was probably modelled on Barter's 'Improved' Turkish bath in that the hot air was dry rather than humid. But as we don't know Scriven's views about the value, or otherwise, of humid air we cannot assume that he approved of the bath simply because the air was dry.

The doubt about whether this was a Barter-type Victorian Turkish bath arises from the conclusions drawn from an article in the Dublin University Magazine by an anonymous writer who claimed 'upwards of thirty years in the use of baths of this [?] kind'.

He described what he called the 'thermal bath' in use at this establishment and, summing up, he wrote:

The thermal bath, which is the safest and most agreeable to the sensations, is that in which the hot dry air of the common Turkish bath is modified by a jet d'eau descending in a fine shower in the centre of the bath, as seen in the bath establishment in Temple-street; where the medicated vapour bath, enclosing the patient under a canopy, is in use. By these arrangements, the greatest advantages without the slightest risk are obtained.

This would seem to indicate that amongst the facilities provided, there was a hot air bath which was at least humid. But whether this was in addition to a normal Victorian Turkish bath, or whether it was actually what the then manager, Hugh Gillis, called a Turkish bath, is not known.

Major Poore, close political colleague of David Urquhart and later to be the largest shareholder in the London & Provincial Turkish Bath Co Ltd, visited these baths in 1863, but unfortunately nothing has been found to indicate what he thought of them.

Once the initial curiosity aroused by the opening of the new baths had been satisfied, they do not appear to have been particularly successful after their first year. This despite offers of concessionary rates to members of the Mechanics' Institution and, later, those of the Dublin Athenæum. In 1861 the baths were visited by the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Carlisle, who 'took a Turkish bath, with which he was much pleased', though whether the presence of the English chief governor of Ireland added or detracted from the popularity of the baths is not known.

Another attempt to increase the number of bathers was the appointment of Dr Rayner, an erstwhile colleague of well-known Malvern hydropathist Dr Gully, as medical superintendent. According to a local paper,

…there is no doubt that the presence of a duly qualified physician will give confidence to those invalids who are desirous of testing the merits of the Turkish Bath, but who have hitherto hesitated to avail themselves of its advantages, without medical supervision.

Under Dr Rayner it was claimed that the baths were 'thoroughly revised in every department', though it seems more likely that this referred to the addition of facilities to allow more hydropathic treatments to be offered. A contemporary article noted the vapour room and a vapour cabinet in which the bather sat in a large wooden cabinet with only his head outside so that his skin could be exposed to substances such as iodine, mercury, or sulphur.

Of particular interest to the writer was douche bath which,

consists of a descending shower, cold or tepid, and a horizontal stream, which can also be administered at any temperature wished for. But the most curious feature of this bath is the 'ascending douche', by means of which a stream of water can be directed upon an inflamed part, no matter where situated or how limited in extent.

But even these facilities seemed to have had any positive impact on increasing the number of bathers, and Dr Rayner soon returned to Malvern where he later took over Dr James Wilson's hydropathic establishment.

Rayner's brief stay had another effect which would have brought the establishment to the public notice, though not, perhaps, in a positive manner. For the original manager of the baths, Hugh Gillis, took Miss Magee to court to obtain a contract to guarantee his pension if she left the baths or if they failed, alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed without one. Magee 'denied that she dismissed the petitioner at all, but alleged that he refused to serve with Dr Rayner, her late partner in the establishment'. The case was later dismissed on legal grounds due to 'the uncertainty of the agreement between the parties'.

Possibly more damaging to the reputation of the baths, even though Miss Magee won the case, was the claim for £200 damages by a house-painter and decorator, Mr T C Eakins. When he arrived at the baths the men's department was full and he was allowed to use the women's department which was empty at the time.

Mr Eakins being a gentleman of large frame, the ladies' couch on which he was put to be shampooed was much too small for him; the attendant, while rubbing him, turned his head aside to speak to some person in the room, and gave Mr Eakins a pull; the result was that the couch came down, Mr Eakins came down too, and, falling on the hot floor, his arms were burned, and for the following three weeks he was under medical treatment, and wholly unable to attend to his business.

But the case was not as clear-cut as it seemed. Dr Barter, who was interested in all Turkish bath establishments, was present at the time and had been told by Eakins that the accident was his own fault, evidence corroborated by an attendant named Rogers who had overheard the conversation between them.

Patrick Lyons, the shampooer, described the construction of the couch which was actually larger than the one he would have been on in the men's department. The hot marble slab, resting on a masonry support, was covered with a mattress to protect the bather from the heat. As he was being rubbed (massaged) he gave way to the shampooer's pressure instead of resisting it, and so rolled over the edge of the slab. However, he was caught on the shampooer's knee as he fell, when he put his hand on the slab blistering it. In fact Eakins never fell on the hot tiled floor at all.

Dr Barter testified that if he had fallen on the hot floor he would have been extensively burned all over, and said that however careful attendants and bathers were, accidents were just as likely to happen in the bath as anywhere else. This appears to have decided the jury in finding against Eakins.

Although Miss Magee was the daughter of an Irish churchman, she herself lived in England 'and kept the institution open for philanthropic motives…The bath scarcely paid its expenses'.

This was confirmed in 1870 when, shortly after she sold the baths to James Daly, there was a legal dispute over six unpaid rent dues on the baths. Miss Magee had initially agreed a deal with her landlord whereby the £300 annual rent on the lease was subject to a covenant. This stated that,

if any year the profits derivable out of the concerns [sic] did not amount to four times the rent, the [landlord], instead of getting £300, was to receive a fourth of the profits. It turned out, however, that there were no profits realised any year, except the first year.'

In such circumstances it is difficult to understand why Mr Daly would have bought the baths. And it also suggests that, despite the continued entries for the baths in Thom's Directory until 1880, it is doubtful without further corroboration that the baths survived for so long after their purchase.

This page published 27 November 2018