|
Although
one of the initial objects of the company was to erect Turkish baths, they
were not started until well after the swimming baths had been opened.
These occasions were marked with grand celebrations—that
for the men's pool on 31 May 1878, and that for the women's pool on 14 July the following
year. Next to be built and opened were what the company called
Private Baths. These comprised slipper baths, showers, and douches
for both men and women. By contrast, the Private Baths were opened
on 16 August 1880 with very little fanfare, though by the standards
of the day they were extremely well fitted out.1
Ample space had been
left for the Turkish Baths but there seemed to be a marked
disinclination to build them. And there is some evidence that the
company had to be persuaded to go ahead. The East Sussex
Medico-Chirurgical Society, for example, sent a memorial to the
company about the urgent need for Turkish baths in Hastings.2
But the company's
finances were not as good as had been expected due to the cost of
overcoming some of the difficulties arising from siting the baths
below ground level.
 |
|
The construction of
Turkish baths right on the sea front presented the company with a
major planning problem: how to clear the smoke and fumes from the
boiler needed to heat the baths when the building of a tall chimney in
such a position was quite unacceptable.
The solution adopted
was to build it right next to the side of the cliff, connecting it to the
Turkish baths by means of an underground tunnel 5'6" high and over
130 ft long. This was built underneath
the beachside road, the path on the other side, and the existing
premises on the seafront.
|
To facilitate this
unique construction, the company had to negotiate a passage for
the flue by a Deed of
Arrangement between itself on the one hand and Elias Coussens of
32 White Rock (the owner of the premises) and a baker, Walter Stride Addison (the lessee), on the other:
And Whereas
the Company are now constructing certain Baths and other
buildings on the sea-beach opposite the said messuage and premises but
separated therefrom by the public roadway and the site of the
said baths and buildings is about to be leased by the Corporation
of Hastings to the Company for a term of 500 years And Whereas
the Company require for the purposes of their said baths and
buildings a chimney shaft of considerable size and height and
being unable to erect such a shaft on the said beach they are
desirous of erecting the same at the rear or north west side of the
said messuage and premises and of connecting the same with the
boiler house in their said baths and buildings by a flue running
under the said Public roadway and under the said messuage and
premises.3
In
return for their agreement, Mr Coussens received 10 fully paid up
shares, £104 cash, and a further 5/- per year, while Mr Addison was
offered 15 shares, or £150 cash in total.
Click on image for
enlarged version
with key |
|
 |
|
Photo:
Helena Wojtczak |
Building the baths turned out to be the least of the company's problems.
Although the actual running of the baths was, from the start,
undertaken by a series of lessees, the company was never really free
from financial problems.
Twenty years after opening the Turkish
baths, the company was already trying to sell them.
In 1901, Hastings Councillors considered a letter dated 28
March from Mr Bailey, Secretary of the company. He indicated
that although the baths were running successfully, the company was
finding it difficult to repay their mortgage. They were considering the possibility of closing the baths
which, he claimed, would be a great
disadvantage to the citizens of Hastings. The letter continued,
it is
moreover obvious there are advantages in the Municipality having
control of such an establishment as the Baths and that if the Council
would agree to entertain the matter his Directors would be prepared
to negotiate on reasonable terms. 4
The matter
was referred to a subcommittee of seven who met some weeks later.
The Town Clerk was instructed to ask the Directors what sort of
offer they would consider. 5
Bailey
replied that they were looking for £40,000 (bearing in
mind that the baths had originally cost £60,000),
and that if
the Company's mortgagees so require, it would be one of the
conditions that the present mortgage of £13,000 at 4 ½% should not
be paid off for a period of seven years from the 29th June 1897.
The
Subcommittee was not prepared to recommend the purchase at such a high
price. 6
The
following year, on 22 January, the Council wrote with an offer of
£20,000, a sum which included £13,000 to cover the mortgage. This
was rejected, two months later, as being too large a
sacrifice for the Directors to be able to recommend it to their
shareholders. They would, however, be prepared to recommend £30,000,
pointing out that,
The average annual income of the last seven years after paying working
expenses was nearly £1,100 more than the sums required to pay 3% on
the money which the Council would have to borrow to purchase at that
price.
Further, they wished
to remind the Council,
of the
great public improvement which was made in the widening of the
esplanade towards the expenses of which the Corporation contributed
but a small sum.
It must be
admitted that in watering places such as Hastings and St Leonards,
public baths are a necessity. If the Baths now under offer,
'the finest in the United Kingdom', were not in existence
the Corporation would probably find it necessary to incur an
expenditure greatly in excess of that now proposed...
As a result, the Town
Clerk was instructed to submit a report on the provisions
of the Baths and Washhouses Acts as they might affect the proposed
acquisition, and the Borough Engineer was asked to provide a rough
plan showing what was included in the site. 7 The Town Clerk's report dealt mainly with the need
to ensure that the correct number of baths for specific classes
of bathers was provided, and that the various admission charges
complied with the acts. But the report concluded:
I may state that I find the Solicitors to the Municipal Corporations
Association expressed the opinion in 1899 that Turkish Baths are
outside the scope of the Baths and Washhouses Acts. 8
This
view, widely expressed by legal advisers to several local
authorities, arose from the omission of any mention of Turkish
baths in the original acts which pre-dated the building of the first
such bath in 1856.
Several authorities—Southampton, for example—had nevertheless built them,
avoiding any adverse reaction, perhaps, by calling them vapour
baths, which were permitted.
The
subcommittee visited the baths on 10 June, and at their next meeting were informed by the Borough Engineer that it would cost
£5,000-6,000 to put the baths into a proper state of repair. The
Members decided that the Chairman and the Town Clerk should interview
the Local Government Board to check on the implications of the Baths and
Washhouses Acts. 9
During this meeting they received
assurances that the letter of the law regarding classes and prices
need not necessarily be wholly binding. Accordingly, they
resolved to recommend the purchase of the baths at £25,000 after two
amendments offering £21,000 and £23,000 had been defeated. 10
More than a year elapsed, and another inspection of the baths by the Borough Engineer
(on 24 February 1904)
revealed that the condition of a number of roof girders made them
dangerous. The subcommittee asked for further negotiations on the price. 11
By June 1906 the company had repaired the girders
at a cost of over £500 and the Borough Engineer
was asked to examine the baths again. 12
This time he found that new girders and struts had been added to support the four
dangerous girders, and that the remaining girders had all been
strengthened. The new work was 'excessively strong' and he reported
that there was now 'no fear whatever as to the portion of the Baths
roof where the strengthening has taken place.'
13
All now
seemed set for the Council to purchase the baths, but this was not
to happen for some time.
Progress in the sale of the baths seems to have been affected by a
separate dispute (involving their respective solicitors) between the
Corporation and the baths company. The details need not concern us
here but problems had arisen over payments by the Corporation for
gas and rent for the town bandstand. This was built on the roof of
the baths, on land leased by the company from the Corporation.
Another dispute arose over of a fee, to be paid by the Corporation,
for the company to place chairs
around the bandstand on their behalf, for hire by the public.
Meanwhile the company's financial position continued to worsen.
1910
Excerpts from accounts for year ending 31 December 1909
| |
Receipts
|
|
£2,046. 6. 2 |
|
| |
Expenditure |
|
£1,914.
9.10
|
|
| |
Profit |
|
£ 131.16. 4 |
|
|
Expenditure |
Income |
| Wages &
management |
|
|
|
|
Bath receipts |
|
|
|
|
General |
650.17. 9 |
|
|
|
Gents' baths |
840. 4. 8 |
|
|
|
Sea water department |
10.11. 0 |
|
|
|
Ladies' baths |
419.13. 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
661. 8. 9 |
|
Season
tickets |
30. 9. 0 |
|
|
|
Fuel & lighting |
|
601.10. 0 |
|
School
tickets |
195. 6. 8 |
|
|
|
Renewal of
moveable plant, |
|
|
|
Swim
lessons |
113.10. 0 |
|
|
|
bathing dresses,
etc |
|
71. 7. 4 |
|
Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Repairs: premises,
fixtures |
|
121.10. 5 |
|
Sea water |
30.18. 9 |
|
|
|
Sundry
disbursements |
|
49. 2.10 |
|
Bathing dresses |
13. 6. 3 |
|
|
|
Printing,
stationery, advertising |
|
27. 4. 2 |
|
|
|
|
1,643. 8. 8 |
|
Rent, rates, taxes |
|
209. 0. 2 |
|
Advertising
space rental |
|
290.11.06 |
|
Fire,
boiler & general insurance |
|
21.16. 8 |
|
Entertainment
receipts |
|
16.19.01 |
|
Directors' fees |
|
85.14. 3 |
|
Turkish baths: |
|
|
|
Secretary's salary |
|
50. 0. 0 |
|
Receipts |
328.17.11 |
|
|
|
Auditor's fee |
|
15.15. 0 |
|
Less: |
|
|
|
|
Balance to profit & Loss |
|
131.16. 4 |
|
Wages, repairs |
233.11 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
95. 6.11 |
| |
£2,046. 6.2 |
|
|
|
£2,046. 6.2 |
The
situation was not helped when, in 1911, it became necessary to spend
over £650 on the installation of a new boiler. This was financed by
means of a temporary loan, but when this was not repaid, the
mortgagee sold the company's lease in June to a Mr A D Thorpe and
the baths were closed.
Hastings Corporation eventually bought the baths from Mr Thorpe in
1925 when work started on their reconstruction.
The company was dissolved in 1913. In 1935,
ten years after Mr Thorpe sold the baths to the Corporation, he became Chairman of the Hastings Baths Committee. 14
PRO:
BT31 2060/9077
(All
information is taken from this file unless specifically footnoted)
1875
Memorandum of Association: 1 January
Objects
include: Erecting and maintaining a Turkish Baths
Capital:
£30,000 divided into 3,000 shares of £10
Shareholders include:
Bagshawe,
Frederick (Physician)
Barkers
(trading as Beechings) (5 shares)
Brassey,
Thomas, MP (5 shares) (4 St George St, Westminster)
Chapman,
Jane (2 shares) Housemaid (54 Porchester Terrace, L)
Cross,
Alfred (20 shares) Architect
15
L James
Shuttleworth, MP, & Mary Shuttleworth, (5 shares)
Registered Office: 23 Havelock Road
Secretary: Henry George Baily
Articles
of Association: 1 June
Directors:
Baker, Henry
Moore (House agent)
Brown,
Joseph (Plumber)
Clement,
George (Gentleman)
Cridland,
John (Gentleman)
Gausden,
Charles Henry (Auctioneer)
Langham,
Frederic Adolphus (Solicitor)
Thorpe,
George Archibald (Boot Manufacturer)
1880
Capital increased to: £50,000 divided into 5,000 shares of £10
Average number of shareholders: 225, holding 4315 shares. The
largest shareholder was Major Thomas Brassey, MP with 1850, but the
next largest holding was 100 shares and most shareholders had 10
shares or less.
|
1881
Issue of Debentures: for £15,000 in Bonds of £50 each
1890
Directors include:
Thomas
Brassey, Baron, KCB
1893
Directors:
Baker, Henry
Moore
Brassey, The
Rt Hon Lord
Brown, W E
Langham,
Frederic Adolphus
Pearch, G H
Working, H
1910
Directors:
Brassey, The
Rt Hon Lord GCB (Ch)
Brown, W E
Northey, H
(Deputy Ch)
Pearch, G H
|
 |
|
Frederick Rosher's
Debenture No.36
|
|
1911
New boiler and fixing cost £653.14.0 (3 March)
Still owing
£393.1.6
To
preserve the Company's property agreed to temporarily borrow
£393.1.6 and costs of borrowing to carry interest at 4% secured by
1st mortgagee (Mr H V Bathurst).
1911
Lease sold by the mortgagee to Mr A D Thorpe in June
1912
Extract from letter from Henry E Baily, Late Secretary, to the
Registrar of Companies:
'When the
baths business was handed over on the sale by the Mortgagee last
June [ie, 1911], there was only sufficient to pay our debts by the
Directors forgoing a portion of their fees.'
1913
Company dissolved Clause 242(5) on 29 August
|
Page last modified:
11 November 2007 |
This page is
still being revised |
Footnotes
01.
'The baths at White
Rock: completion and opening of the Private Baths'
Hastings and St Leonards-on-Sea News (20
Aug 1880) p.3
Back
02.
Memorial from the East Sussex Medico-Chirurgical Society to the
Hastings Baths Company. Minutes. AMS6315/4/3
East Sussex Archives
Back
03. PRO:
BT31 2060/9077
Back
04.
Hastings. Council
Minutes (28 Mar 1901)
Back
05.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (10 Jun 1901)
Back
06.
Hastings. Sub-Committee
Minutes (29 Jul 1901)
Back
07.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (8 Apr 1902)
Back
08.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (9 May 1902)
Back
09.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (4 Jul 1902)
Back
10.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (22 Jul
1902)
Back
11.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (1 Mar 1904)
Back
12.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (18 Jun 1906)
Back
13.
Hastings. Sub-Committee Minutes (? 1906)
Back
14.
'Hastings Baths'
/ H Baker Baths and bath engineering (Jul 1935)
pp.149-152 Back
15.
Author of
Public baths and
wash-houses London : Batsford, 1906 Back |
