the next generation wonder at the stolid prejudice and folly of the present in its opposition to such an undoubted therapeutic agency as the Bath.

For the most part, however, the objections that have been urged against the Bath-as, indeed, against Hydropathic principles generally-are of a very frivolous character, and not overworthy of serious consideration; but a notice of them may be made useful, and prove satisfactory to those who desire full information on the subject, and who may still be inclined to think that an objection must have some reason in it because it is advanced by a member of the medical profession.

CHAPTER XV.

The animus of the senior members of the profession in opposing the Bath-The objections advanced by Sir Dominic Corrigan -His opinions valueless-They are based on theory and ignorance of what the Bath is, and opposed to Physiology and experience-Eminent authorities who have studied the Bath contradict his statements-Action of the Bath misrepresented -Desire to suppress the truth, and keep the profession and the public in ignorance.

REFERRING to the obstructive prejudices and jealousies with which some medical men received the revival of the Bath, Dr. Rayner, of Dublin, observes:-"It does not appear that experience has taught the senior members of the medical profession the folly and injustice of opposing a thing, merely because it is not exactly in accordance with their pre-conceived and stereotyped notions; for it is a melancholy fact, that nearly every improvement in the science of medicine has still to run the gauntlet of bigotry and intolerance; and although physicians now-a-days carry on a more quiet and dignified warfare than their brethren of old, their opposition is none the less determined and jealous.”—A Voice from the Thermæ, p. 4.

Among all the various objections that have been urged against The Bath we do not find one which is not directly referable to positive ignorance concerning its nature, or to prejudices arising from pre-conceived opinions. Objections of such a character can have no force or relevancy whatever with intelligent enquiring minds, but only serve to expose the ignorance and folly of those who make them. But many persons have not

an opportunity of investigating for themselves, and it is known that too many have had their minds disquieted by groundless. allegations against the Bath, while even some who derived manifest benefit from its use have been deterred from persevering in consequence of prejudicial statements having been made to

them.

The construction of the bath, as established by Dr. Barter, has been objected to as faulty. The pure Eastern Bath is alleged to consist of an atmosphere of hot-air and visible vapour, whereas the Irish Bath is stated to have an atmosphere of "dry parched air, contaminated with coke in a state of combustion." Sir Dominic (then plain "Dr.") Corrigan was the first who ventured to publish this statement, not as justified by the result of his own experience, for he appeared careless about instituting any personal investigation on his own behalf, but because he was told so by Dr. Madden, who ought to have known better, though he had seen a great deal of vapour in the Eastern Bath.

Dr. Madden visited one bath, and then considered himself justified in reporting that the atmosphere consisted of "parched air generated from the combustion of coke in furnaces, which communicate by passages extending under the flooring of the bath-rooms to them in various directions." On the faith of this report, without any personal knowledge whatever on the subject acquired by personal examination, or inquiry as to the mode of construction, or any personal experience at all of the effects produced by the atmosphere of the Bath in health or disease, Sir Dominic, with all the precipitancy and blundering of a medical theorist, published the following ·

"Every one almost, in his own person, has at one time or another experienced the difference between the impressions of hot dry air on an irritated or congested part, compared with the soothing effect of warm vapour arising from a fomentation or poultice. What is true of the external parts is equally true of the internal surfaces"—a physiology, by the way, not known to any standard authority, and not to to be found in any text-book!" and there can scarcely be imagined any effect more likely to be injurious than the action of hot dry air on the lining mucous membrane of the thousands of air tubes ramifying through the lungs, sweeping

along the internal surfaces of those tubes, robbing them of their natural moisture, and drawing the blood in unnatural quantities into the vessels encircling them, to supply more moisture in the place of that carried off, and which can only be supplied from the blood."-Dublin Hospital Gazette, January 16, 1860.

There is a good purpose to be served in noticing the errors contained in this passage, because it affords a fair sample of the physiological knowledge, and of the personal acquaintance with the subject, that Physic-Doctors, when they venture to appear in print, usually display concerning the Bath. They theorise first, and then manufacture facts to support their unphilosophic and conjectural assumptions.

The first error is in the assumption that there is any direct communication whatever between the furnaces by which the Bath is heated, and the atmosphere of the Bath-rooms. There is simply no such communication. Dr. Barter never constructed a Bath in which such a communication existed, and a moment's thought might have convinced these doctors that, if such a communication did exist, then, indeed, the bath-rooms would not be filled with "parched air" alone, but would necessarily be filled with smoke and colly-smut also, while the bathers would enjoy the pleasure of being smutched all over! The flues, as a matter of fact, are so constructed that they impart heat by transmission-they heat air-chambers which communicate with the atmosphere of the Bath, and, no matter what sort of fuel may be used in the furnaces, it is utterly impossible that its combustion could in any wise affect that atmosphere, and, as a plain matter of fact, it never does.

The second error lies in the assumption that the Bath in the East does consist, in its pure state, of an atmosphere of visible vapour and hot-air; it only does so when it becomes foul, after having been some hours in use, and is imperfectly administered. Then, indeed, the unwelcome presence of vapour, surcharged with a very deleterious amount of impurities, becomes rather unpleasantly evident to more senses than one, and the Bath merits the description given by Mr. Ellis of the one he visited

in China, where the "stench was excessive," and he thought it "the most disgusting cleansing apparatus he had ever seen."

Dr. Wollaston, who was on the medical staff of the British Army in the Crimea, and has had ample experience of the Bath in the East, says :

"I think Dr. Madden and others are led into errors in this way. The baths in the East- i.e., Constantinople, Cairo, Scutari, &c., are constructed to generate hot air by flues around the walls and under the chambers. If you go early the chambers contain nothing but hot-air, if you go some hours later, say in the afternoon or evening, you often find a hazy vapour, sometimes considerable. This arises from the hot chamber having some three or four, or even more recesses, fitted up with cocks of cold and hot water to wash the bathers, and from the splashing use of the water, a quantity falls on the hot floors, and becomes evaporated. In the course of a few hours this evaporation gives a hazy appearance to the atmosphere, but this is an accidental occurrence, and not a necessary nor a primary condition of the hot-air chamber. The Turkish Bath is, therefore, in essence an air bath, accidentally it may become a vapour bath. But inhalation of vapour is not a genial process nor a physiological purpose, and vapour rather obstructs a free exhalation of the cutaneous system,"-Dr.-Wollaston's Letter to Dr. Barter.

Thus the great excess of vapour in the Eastern Bath is clearly an impurity, and the bath would be much more healthful and pleasant were its place supplied by a constant flow of pure-heated air, fresh from the atmosphere, with sufficient humidity, as in the Irish Bath. As we have already observed, however, the bath in the East was not, until recently, used as a curative agent in the treatment of disease, but only as a prophylactic luxury; nor could it become so unless kept free from an excessive amount of vapour, because, for curative purposes, the higher temperatures must generally be employed; and, it would be the reverse of agreeable if not totally impossible, to use the higher temperatures in such a splashy, slovenly bath as Dr. Wollaston describes.

The third error is in assuming that the Irish Bath, or any of those established throughout the United Kingdom on its improved model, as consisting of "dry parched air." On the con