This is taken from my LONG Australian history, You Missed a Bit, which is much cheaper as an e-book.
Today, swimming is among Australia’s most popular pastimes,
but in the 19th century, ‘bathing’ as it was called was severely
restricted. When we read about our Victorian ancestors in neck-to-knee bathing
costumes, we assume that was the norm, but originally, public bathing was
banned between sunrise and sunset, simply because most people did away with “togs”
altogether.
Miles Franklin reflects this practice, even at the end of
the 19th century. On a hot day, she and a number of girl visitors “…went
for bogeys in a part of the river two miles distant…”
Aunt Helen…was the only one who bothered with a
bathing-dress. The rest of us reefed off our clothing, in our hurry sending
buttons in all directions, and plunged into the pleasant water. [i]
Confirming evidence comes from official announcements like
the one below, dated 4 October 1810. The key term is found in variants and
derivatives of the word ‘indecent’, which was the officials’ code word for ‘naked’.
This command was signed by the Governor’s secretary, J. T. Campbell:
A very indecent and improper custom having lately prevailed
of soldiers sailors and inhabitants of the town bathing themselves at all Hours
of the Day at the Government Wharf, and also in the Dock-yard, His Excellency
the Governor directs and commands that no person shall Bathe at either of those
Places in future, at any Hour of the Day; and the Sentinels, posted at the
Government Wharf and in the Dock-yard are to receive strict Orders to apprehend
and confine any Person transgressing this Order. [ii]
On the other hand, it was fully accepted that people would
go to a secluded place to bathe, as indicated by an 1817 warning in the Sydney Gazette, about dangerous places
near Farm Cove and Cockle Bay (Darling Harbour), where “coral” [in reality
tubeworms, Galeolaria] and oysters
lined the rocks:
Some of the accidents have been very serious, and in one
instance threatened the necessity of amputation. Parents will we trust benefit
by this caution, and admonish their children against the unnecessary hazard, as
there are retired situations much better adapted to the recreation of bathing. [iii]
In other words, the problem was not the act of bathing, or
being naked: it was being seen naked
that was the issue. Unobserved open-air nakedness was fine, all the best people
did it. At the end of 1821, wealthy parents could enrol their sons at the Sydney Academy, Macquarie-street, conducted by Isaac
Wood. The school-house was described as standing on a hill, next to the Domain,
in a healthy spot with excellent views.
This House has been erected at a
considerable expence, affording to the Pupils every accommodation, with
commodious apartments, &c. &c. Its contiguity to the Domain (where the
Pupils have a liberty of walking, and, in the season, bathing, &c. &c.)
renders it one of the most delightful situations possible. [iv]
There, young Gentlemen, of all ages,
would be “…received and educated in the several branches of useful and polite
literature, according to their destinations in life.” That said, there was only
one school-room, though each student had a separate bed, and would learn
English, plain and ornamental Writing, Arithmetic, Latin, French, Drawing,
Dancing, Music and Fencing.
Boarders paid £40 a year from the
age of ten upwards, and below that, £30—and even that amount was a shepherd’s
pay for a year, so these pupils were “upper crust”. Clearly, the habit of
bathing in a suitable place was normal for all ages and classes.
Indeed, in 1824, somebody writing as “An Independent Whig”
wrote to the liberal newspaper, the Australian, protesting at a sign which had
appeared, a fortnight earlier. The sign read:
NOTICE.—All Persons found Bathing, at the Military
Bathing-house, and which is fenced in, will be prosecuted with the utmost
rigour of the law. N. B.—A sentry is now posted to guard the ground and fence
and to secure all depredators. [v]
The writer was furious at this high-handed action by the
officers of the garrison,
…forbidding any persons bathing at the military
bathing-house, not only myself, but I presume the inhabitants generally, would
be much obliged by being informed, through the medium of your Independent
Paper, if the officers have any legal right to usurp to themselves exclusively,
a public place, for their own private use. [vi]
Here, there was no suggestion of indecency. But as the
population grew, secluded places became harder to find, and enclosures and
bathing machines began to appear. The first was in Hobart in 1829:
The public will be pleased to learn that Mr. Easton has
completed a bathing machine, and is well advanced with a second for the
accommodation of the inhabitants of Hobart town. [vii]
And it wasn’t only gentlemen who used Easton’s facilities,
given this, four weeks later:
We are happy to observe, that the laudable enterprise of Mr.
EASTON, in having erected bathing machines, for the accommodation of invalids
ordered sea-bathing, and those fond of that recreation, is likely to meet with
encouragement—daily remarking several groups of respectable females visiting
the same at Sullivan’s Cove. [viii]
In Sydney in 1833, things were apparently getting out of
hand, and the Sydney Gazette praised
the new orders about bathing:
Years ago we called attention to this. No gentleman could
take his wife, sister, daughter or female acquaintance, to any of the public
walks adjoining the harbour without keenly feeling the want of some regulation
like that which is now in force, and which, we trust, will be strictly
enforced. [ix]
Towards the end of the year, The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser reported that men
had been bathing openly at 1 pm on a Saturday on “the Domain side of the Cove”.
[x]
That was all very well, said the Sydney
Monitor the next month, but where were people to be allowed to bathe? The
relevant Act referred to Sydney Cove and Darling Harbour, but was Woolloomooloo
Bay included in the list? At that time, swimmers wanting a bathing spot within
three or four miles of the town either went through private property, or chose
Woolloomooloo Bay.
As a prevention of the indecencies that occurred in Sydney
Cove and Darling Harbour, the Police Act is considered an important benefit.
But if Woolloomoollo Bay be to be included in the restriction, it becomes a
public nuisance, which, however, might easily be rectified by a reservation to
a particular spot, and which, when known as a bathing-place, would be avoided
by females. [xi]
Perhaps the writer thought women would not wish to bathe,
but across the continent, even vice-regal ladies did it. In Perth in 1836, it
was announced that the Governor, Sir James Stirling and Lady Stirling and
family, would all be visiting Fremantle to go sea bathing.
Captain Scott, the Harbour Master, has a bathing machine in
readiness, and others no doubt will soon be prepared, when the number of
visitors attracted to this fashionable resort increase. [xii]
The term ‘bathing machine’ was fairly elastic. When a
hairdresser named Robinson established a bathing machine at Figtree Sands,
Woolloomooloo Bay in 1838, it was soon referred to as “floating baths”. It was “…sixty
feet in length, completely roofed in, and provided with dressing-rooms, and
other conveniences…”. [xiii]
These were clearly swimming baths, an enclosure off the
sea. By 1840, Robinson’s establishment was catering to both men and women, but
never at the same time and place.
HOT AND COLD BATHS. Robinson’s Australian Floating
Baths, adjoining the Domain and Woolloomoolloo Bay.—J. ROBINSON with great
pleasure announces to the Ladies and Gentlemen of Sydney, and its vicinity,
that his Baths have undergone a thorough repair and are now ready for use…The
great benefits derived from such a delightful recreation as Bathing are too
well known to need any comment from the proprietor of the Baths.—Terms Twelve
Months £2, Six ditto £1 5s, Three ditto 15s., One ditto 7s., single Bath 1s., warm
ditto ditto 2s. 6d. All subscriptions to be paid in advance. [xiv]
As an additional attraction, both baths offered Coffee,
Lemonade, Soda Water, Biscuits and Cigars, and Mrs Robinson also had bathing
dresses and oil skin caps for sale, though Mr Robinson offered no “bathing
dresses” for sale.
In March 1845, the earliest recorded swimming race took
place. The competitors were male, the races were around buoys in the harbour,
and they started at 6:30 a.m. and 6:45 a.m., suggesting that clothing was not
involved.
This noble and manly exercise is much practised by our
colonial youth; but the merit of bringing together some of our best swimmers to
compete for the honour of a prize, is due to Mr. Robinson, who has for some
years catered for the public comfort by establishing his baths in Woolloomooloo
Bay. [xv]
Over time, other cities became involved, and in 1854,
Adelaide was planning two plunging baths, “…that for gentlemen measuring 88
feet by 40 feet, and that for ladies 48 feet 6 inches by 28 feet; besides numerous
warm baths, dressing rooms, towel rooms, waiting-rooms, committee-room,
engine-houses, residence for bath keeper, &c., &c.” [xvi]
In 1861, Elizabeth Ramsay-Laye was full of praise for the
bathing facilities in Melbourne, something which she called one of the gems of
the city.
No places could be better adapted for the purpose. Gentlemen
have, at some distance from the shore, a bathing ship, from which they may jump
into the water and swim a certain distance, buoys being placed to prevent the
uninitiated from getting within reach of sharks. The ladies are equally cared
for, and the arrangements made for them are most comfortable. [xvii]
Other Melbourne ladies swam from the beach, and a letter to The Argus signed “DECENCY” sounded a
note of alarm which reveals in passing that while women wore “bathing dresses”,
those swimming at Brighton, if they had no private dressing-box, got changed in
the scrub.
A “well-known broker”, a married man, had been hiding in
the bushes to peep at the ladies in a state of undress, creeping up to them on
hands and knees. On one occasion, he ran off when he was detected, but he had
been recognised.
The same ladies met the same wretch near the same place the
following morning, and accused him of it, when he again made use of his legs to
the best advantage. And I may add, that this fellow, in the garb of a
gentleman, will be well ducked if he persist in it. [xviii]
Throughout the later 19th century, there were more and more reports of “indecency” charges, but the times were changing. In 1890, Dr E. G. Leger Erson delivered a scientific paper in Melbourne on “School hygiene.”
This was mainly about making children aware of the need
for good (diffused, not too bright nor too dim) lighting, sewerage, and
ventilation, and it also touched on posture, but Dr Erson also wanted to see
children taught to ride horses, shoot and swim.
While the writers at the Bendigo Advertiser thought the
horse riding part unnecessary, and said shooting was dangerous, they agreed
that all children should learn to swim, and offered helpful suggestions, like
adapting the dams scattered around the goldfield:
These could be levelled, and the bottom covered with gravel,
and a bit of hoarding would be sufficient to protect from the public gaze,
while modesty could still further be prevented from being shocked by the boys
wearing swimming pants. By this means a great benefit could be obtained at a
minimum cost. [xx]
Note how a concern for ‘decency’ has been replaced by a
desire for ‘modesty’. Two years later, in 1892, Port Fairy in Victoria proposed
to make mixed bathing legal, and the Portland
Guardian agreed with keeping up with the times, noting that “some estimable
persons will regard it as a very horrible and immodest course of proceeding…”
It would, said the paper be a very desirable one, and no more immodest than a
family game at tennis or rounders.
Judging by the pictures in the American papers, bathing
dresses may be very handsome and becoming costumes, and as to the modesty of
the attire—well, honi soit &c. They are Diana’s robes, compared to some of
the displays I have blushed to look upon in the theatres and public ball-rooms.
[xxi]
Mixed bathing became more popular in the 1890s, and all
Australian newspapers reported the Parliamentary debates in the other colonies.
One thing quickly becomes clear: in New South Wales, Newcastle had taken the
lead in matters of bathing, and they were keeping themselves informed, as a
report from Melbourne in the Newcastle
Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate shows.
In spite of police prudery and the cost of “neck-to-knee”
bathing costumes, the residents of Port Melbourne approved of mixed bathing in
the open. Their Mayor, Dr Malcolmson, headed a deputation to the Harbour Trust…
The chairman of the trust said they could not interfere with
the Police Offences Statute, but as a practical remedy suggested that the
residents of Port Melbourne, following the example of other suburbs, should
pack the Bench, and fine offenders 1d only instead of the customary 5s. [xxii]
There was debate in the NSW Legislative Council over bathing
at Newcastle, and the decision was made to legislate for the whole colony. [xxiii]
By August 1894, the battle had been fought, and won, with a Newcastle Borough
Council by-law, allowing daylight bathing (but banning mixed bathing).
“Bathing at the Beach: It shall be lawful for all persons,
whether male or female, to bathe in the sea at all times and at all hours of
the day at those parts or portions of the sea beach within the municipality
duly set apart and defined as male and female places. Provided such persons desirous
of bathing, being male or female, shall be clothed or covered from the neck and
shoulders to the knees with a suitable bathing dress or costume to prevent
exposure or indecency; such clothing or covering shall be approved of by the
council or other persons employed by the council as caretaker or caretakers.
That portion or part of the beach set apart for females or young children shall
not be encroached or trespassed upon by any male or males above the age of 7
years, nor shall the part or portion of the beach set apart for males be
encroached or trespassed upon by any female or females. Any person infringing
the provisions of this bylaw shall be liable on conviction to a penalty not
exceeding £1 nor less than 1s. [xxiv]
By 1900, swimming was an Olympic sport, and one Australian
swimmer went to the Olympic Games in Paris. While few Australians have heard of
him today, F. C. V. (Frederick) Lane won a gold medal for the 200 metres
freestyle in 2 minutes 25.25 and a second gold for winning a “200 metres
obstacle race”.
This race involved climbing up and down a pole, scrambling
over a row of boats and diving under another row of boats, as well as swimming
200 metres. He completed that race in a creditable 2 minutes 38.4 seconds. [xxv]
Notably, the race was held in the Seine, where the swimmers had to beat not
only the current but the sewage of Paris, which flowed into the river.
[i] Miles Franklin, My Brilliant
Career, ch 17.
[ii] The Sydney
Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 13 October 1810, 1, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/628098#pstart6682
[iii] The Sydney
Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 5 April 1817, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2177167
[iv] The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 29 December
1821, 4, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2180705
[v] The Australian (Sydney), 11
November 1821, 4, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37072524
[vi] The Australian
(Sydney), 25 November 1824, 4, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37071701
[vii] The Hobart Town
Crier, 17 January 1829, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4218444
[viii] Colonial Times
(Hobart), 13 February 1829, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8644113/666470
[ix] The Sydney
Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 28 February 1833, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2210938
[x] The Sydney
Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 15 October 1833, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2214382
[xi] The Sydney
Monitor, 20 November 1833, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/32145054
[xii] The Perth
Gazette and Western Australian Journal, 19 March, 1836, 670, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/640502
[xiii] The Australian,
24 July, 1838, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/36857967
[xiv] The Sydney
Herald, 13 October 1840, 1, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12866022
[xv] Sydney Morning
Herald, 3 March 1845, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12877795
[xvi] South Australian
Register, 18 October 1854, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49197848
[xvii] Elizabeth Ramsay-Laye, Social Life and Manners in Australia, 96 – 7.
[xviii] The Argus,
14 March, 1861, 7, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5698419
[xix] William Morrison Bell Other Countries, vol 1, 279, and E. E. Morris (ed.) Australia’s First Century, 75.
[xx] Bendigo
Advertiser, 14 January 1890, 2, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/88979480
[xxi] Portland
Guardian (Victoria), 11 March 1892, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/65390320
[xxii] Newcastle
Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 19 March 1894, 6, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/137177795
[xxiii] The Argus,
10 March 1894, 9, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8731262
[xxiv] Sydney Morning
Herald, 24 August 1894, 4, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13965281
[xxv] Sydney Morning
Herald, 15 August 1900, 7, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14330670
No comments:
Post a Comment