CHAPTER VII

FIREWORK MANUFACTURE

The manufacture of fireworks in this country, as an industry distinct from mere firework making, dates from the early part of the eighteenth century. Before that period displays appear to have been generally carried out by the military, or at any rate under the control of artillery or engineer officers. At that time the art was considered to have two distinct branches, civil and military pyrotechny, the latter class naturally attracting most attention during a period when Europe was almost continuously at war, and when firearms had made little progress from the early types.

As has been previously mentioned, Jones complains that when it was required to carry out a display of fireworks on a large scale, recourse was always had to foreigners to conduct it. One reason was that, apart from the actual making of the firework units, a display depends far more for its success on the experience and skill of the pyrotechnist in arranging and composing both the form and sequence of the pieces. The firework makers capable of carrying out a display on a large scale were very few; there were fewer, if any, in this country. The whole of the trade was illegal; under the statute of the 9th and 10th of William III it was illegal to make, sell, or let off fireworks:

“By the 9th and 10th of William, Chap. 7, it is enacted: That if any Person shall make or cause to be made, or sell, give, or utter, or offer, or expose to sale any Squibs, Rockets, Serpents, or other Fire-works, he shall forfeit Five Pounds. And that if any Person shall permit the same to be fired from his House or Premises, or shall cast or fire, or be aiding and assisting in casting or firing the same in any public Street, House, Shop, River, or Highway, he shall forfeit Twenty Shillings, or be committed to the House of Correction to hard Labour for one Month.”

This Act continued in force up to the passing of the Gunpowder Act in 1860. There were periods during which it was practically a dead letter, and again periods of sporadic activity.

The first restriction of the public use of fireworks appears to have been an order in council dated November 6th, 1685, which “For the preventing of Tumultuas Disorders” and with the object of “Disappointing the Evil Designs of Persons Disaffected to the Government, who commonly make use of such occasions to turn those Meetings into Riots and Tumults,” enacted that “No Person or Persons whatsoever, do presume to make or encourage the making of any Bonfires, or other Publick Fire Works—without particular permission Leave in Order—upon Pain of His Majesty’s Displeasure; and being Prosecuted with the utmost severity of the Law.”

A notice appeared in the press of November 1st, 1788, dated from the “Public Office, Bow Street,” warning the public against firing crackers in the street, and quoting the Act “that no Person may claim Ignorance thereof.” Again, in 1814, “The Times” has an account of a summons under the Act of a William Swift, “for exposing for sale, Squibs, Serpents, Crackers and Fireworks of other descriptions to the great danger and annoyance of the public and contrary to the Statute.” The report continues:

“Mr. Laws in opening the case observed, that this was a prosecution brought forward at the recommendation of the Magistrates of Union-Hall, who, however, did not by it seek to punish the defendant with severity but only to inform him and others acting like him, that the Act upon which the present indictment was founded and which so far back as the reign of William III, was passed for the protection of the public, though it had not lately been acted upon, was still in force. The defendant, it appeared, was a man of property and a respectable holder residing in Falcon-Court, where he had for some time past carried on the profession of a firework-maker. The officers of Union-Hall having heard, however, that he was in the habit of supplying boys or any person who applied indiscriminately with these dangerous commodities, they determined, if possible, to put a stop to this traffic, so dangerous to the public safety. For this purpose they sent a person, properly instructed, to purchase some; Goff, Bruce, and some other of the officers remaining near the door to detect him coming out; the purchase was made, and as the purchaser was quitting the house, the officers stopt him and forced their way in. They proceeded to search the premises, and concealed in closets and other parts, they discovered a vast quantity of fireworks of various sizes and descriptions, amounting to 19,600 and weighing upwards of 6 cwt., several of these, singly, were large enough to have spread ruin through the neighbourhood, had they by accident exploded. These the officers took away and deposited at the Office, where they still remained to the great annoyance of the Magistrates waiting the decision of this question.”

Hone, in his “Everyday Book,” records that at that time, 1825, “A Corporation notice was annually left at the house of every inhabitant in the City of London, previous to lord mayor’s day.” The following (delivered in St. Bride’s) is its form:

“_October the 11th, 1825._

Sir:

By Virtue of a Precept from my Lord Mayor, in order to prevent any Tumults and Riots that may happen on the Fifth of November, and the next ensuing Lord Mayor’s Day, you are required to charge all your Servants and Lodgers, that they neither make, nor cause to be made, any Squibs, Serpents, Fire Balloons, or other Fireworks, nor fire, fling, nor throw them out of your House, Shop or Warehouse, or in the Streets of this City, on the Penalties contained in an Act of Parliament made in the Tenth year of the late King William.

Note. The Act was made perpetual, and is not expired, as some ignorantly suppose.

C. Puckeridge, _Beadle_.

Taylor, Printer, Basinghall Street.”

During the period of the operation of the Act, that is from the end of the seventeenth to the middle of the nineteenth centuries, on the occasion of public rejoicing, the authorities were in the anomalous position of employing persons to break the law, both by manufacturing and displaying fireworks.

Although, as we have seen, this Act had very little effect on the quantity of fireworks manufactured, it had considerable adverse effect on the industry. As the whole thing was illegal, no regulations were framed to control the making, storage, or distribution of fireworks, or the safety of either workers or public. The manufacture was conducted on lines which, at the present time, appear inconceivably reckless. Several people working in one room in a crowded building, with loose composition and gunpowder, and a fire in an open grate round which finished or partially finished goods were put to dry, and this in a thickly populated area of London.

The result of this state of affairs, as might have been expected, was a continuous series of explosions of a more or less serious nature.

An early press account, dated 1722, relates to “Mr. Goodship of White Alley in Chancery Lane,” and continues, “as he was making some fireworks, the Gunpowder took fire and blew him up, by which means the House was fired, and that adjoining somewhat damaged. More Mischief had been done, but that there was timely help. The Man is so hurt that his life is despaired of.” Another account gives the man’s name as Goodsheaf.

The early part of the nineteenth century provided an extraordinary list of accidents.

In 1810 we find the following account of an accident at Bath:

“On Monday a dreadful accident happened at Bath to Mrs. Invetto, a firework-maker, and a young man her assistant. They were preparing sky-rockets, etc., for the Jubilee, when, by some means, an explosion took place of a considerable quantity of powder, some say upwards of two hundred barrels, which blew the house, and another adjoining, to atoms. The unfortunate woman was miserably burnt and bruised; and no hopes are entertained of her recovery. The poor fellow also lies in a shocking state at the Casualty Hospital at Bath.”

In 1814 two accidents are recorded to Mortram and Clithero. The former took place in the “Westminster Roade, near the Asylum”; a man and two boys were very badly burned, two succumbing to their injuries the same day. Clithero’s establishment was situated in Fleet Street Hill, Bethnal Green. The accident here was caused by fire from the steam engine reaching some fireworks. Three people were badly injured, and much glass was destroyed in the neighbourhood. Clithero appears to have had his works separate from the dwelling-house, an arrangement which appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Mortram’s premises were again destroyed in 1818, fortunately without loss of life.

A serious accident took place in 1815, in which five people lost their lives, the premises, and those on either side, being demolished, and nearly all windows destroyed within two hundred yards. The proprietor of the premises, which were situated at Wilkes Street, Spitalfields, was Lushalan.

In 1821 a third accident occurred at Mortram’s works, the newspaper account of which gives an illuminating glimpse of the extraordinary methods of the period:

“Tuesday morning an accident, which occasioned considerable alarm, and might have been attended with dangerous consequences, took place in the house of M. Mortram, firework-maker, in Westminster Road. It appears that one of the boys employed in making composition stars for rockets had placed a number of them on the fender before the fire to dry, and had set fire to one on the hob, which falling in amongst the others, the whole exploded, by which a little girl was much hurt in the back, and so frightened that she ran to the window of the first floor, but was prevented jumping out. The boy escaped up the area with his jacket on fire. The neighbours were now much alarmed, fearing that the fire might spread to more combustible matter in the house, and so on to the extensive workshops of Madame Hengler, the celebrated pyrotechnic to his Majesty; but, through the activity of the workmen, who ran into the adjoining house with buckets of water, further damage was happily prevented, or the consequences might have been dreadful. An accident of a shocking nature, it will be recollected, occurred about three years since in the same person’s repository, when two men were killed by the explosion.”

In 1825, in Bell’s “Weekly Messenger” of September 4th, appears the following account:

“DREADFUL EXPLOSION IN WHITECHAPEL.

“Yesterday morning, about half-past eight o’clock, Whitechapel Road, and the numerous streets that abound there, were thrown into the greatest state of agitation, by the inhabitants experiencing a most tremendous shock, as if caused by a volcano or an earthquake. The houses for a considerable distance were deserted by their inhabitants, and men, women, and children were seen running about in all directions, under the impression that the world was at an end. It was soon ascertained that their alarm was produced by the explosion of the factory of Mr. Brock, the artist in fireworks, at No. 11, Baker’s Row, Whitechapel Road, nearly opposite the London Hospital.

“The following particulars relative to this direful disaster have reached us:—Mr. Brock has resided for the last five years in Baker’s Row, and at the back of his dwelling-house is his repository for fireworks, where they are manufactured. This building is about 50 feet by 20 feet, and contains three magazines, which are lined with lead, and would be perfectly secure from fire, should it occur, on any of the adjoining premises. In these receptacles were deposited all the powder, composition, and, in fact, all the combustible matter, and Mr. B. was remarkable for the method he had taken to prevent any accident occurring on his premises. A few weeks since he had taken two boys out of the poor-house to instruct in the art of firework making and he kept them chiefly employed in filling and ramming the cases of the sky-rockets, serpents, squibs, etc. The latter part of this stage of the work is done by a funnel, or piece of tin made in the shape of an extinguisher, and a small piece of iron wire, about a foot long, which is used as a ramrod. The small end, or nipple, as it is called, of the extinguisher is introduced into one end of the rocket or squib, and the boys ram the powder and wadding down with the ramrod. Yesterday morning, at the time above stated, Mr. Brock and his men left the factory to go to breakfast, leaving the two boys engaged at the work-board, ramming the sky-rockets. They had scarcely sat down to their meal when they, as well as the inhabitants around them for some distance, heard a sort of rumbling noise as if of some distant thunder, and the next moment a tremendous and deafening explosion followed, and the air was illumined with lights of various descriptions, and accompanied by continued reports. The concussion thus occasioned was so great that the inmates in the different houses were shaken from their seats, many of whom were sitting at their breakfast, and the tables and tea-things were upset and broken to pieces. The window frames were all forced out, and the brickbats and materials were flying about in every direction. The roofs of Mr. Brock’s manufactory, and the factory of Mr. M’Devitt adjoining, were blown to a considerable height, and the falling materials did considerable mischief. After the agitation was somewhat subsided, an inquiry into the cause of the accident took place, when it appeared from the statement of the two boys (who were blown a considerable height and were much injured) that they were at work, ramming the rockets, when the ramrod struck against the funnel, and the friction caused a spark, which flew into the bowl of gunpowder that stood near them; this soon exploded, and ran like a train to all the other fireworks in the factory, and at length communicated to the magazines, which caused the disaster. Mr. Brock, however, declares that it could not have arisen in that way, as the nipple of the funnel was copper, therefore a friction would not cause a spark. One poor woman, sister to the beadle, who lives next door to Mr. Brock, was so dreadfully injured by the broken glass that she lies in the London Hospital without hopes of recovery. Ten houses were seriously damaged, and over sixty had their windows broken from top to bottom.”

It will be seen from the foregoing that Brock was in advance of his time as regards precautions against explosions, which, however, in this case proved to some extent ineffective.

An accident took place in 1838 at the premises of Cockerill, in Paradise Row, Lower Road, Islington. Three persons were killed, and the proprietor was so severely hurt in an attempt to rescue his family that he died later.

The following year an accident took place at 6 Edward Street, Bethnal Green, in which three persons were injured. The explosion was caused by a spark from the fire falling on a quantity of loose powder lying on the table, the flash from which was communicated to a barrel of powder near. The report continues: “The most miserable negligence was displayed by the persons engaged in the fabrication of the fireworks, as just previous to the accident one of the individuals was making a squib by the fire with a lighted pipe in his mouth.” The pyrotechnist’s name is not recorded.

An explosion took place in 1841 at 6 Hatfield Place, Westminster Road, Lambeth, at the works of Drewett. Considerable damage was done, but fortunately no one was injured.

In 1857 Darby’s factory at 98 Regent Street, Lambeth Walk, was destroyed. The upper part of the house was used as bedrooms, with the stock below; the whole of the premises and stock were destroyed, the occupants of the bedrooms, who were cut off, being rescued by the aid of ladders. On this occasion the gunpowder appears to have been stored in a magazine away from the house. The report adds that the same premises had suffered in a similar manner on one or two previous occasions, and subsequently, in November, 1873, a disastrous explosion at the same premises resulted in the loss of no fewer than eight lives. In 1858 a serious explosion took place at Madame Cotton’s factory in the Westminster Bridge Road.

The above-mentioned accidents do not comprise anything like a complete list, but tend to show the lines on which the manufacture of fireworks was conducted during the period covered.

The frequency of such occurrences and the danger entailed to third parties pointed to the necessity of action of some kind. The old Act might have been put into force, but by so doing the industry would be stamped out, an industry which found employment for a large number of workpeople, and besides giving amusement and entertainment to many, provided signal lights and rockets, the demand for which was steadily increasing.

There were at this time a considerable number of firework makers in London, particularly in the east and south of the Thames. Much of the work was given out to the workpeople’s families to make up in their own homes. Workmen now living can remember, as children, seeing crackers, squibs, and other small goods being manufactured in bed and living-rooms of tenement houses in crowded districts, with open fires in the grates and several pounds of powder in a corner of the room. The materials were either given out at the factory and a piecework rate paid for making up, or the workers bought their own materials at the local shops, which in these districts kept what was required, and sold them to the factory on completion. It was then a common practice for a maker who had completed a “frame” of quickmatch to take it round to the local bakehouse to be dried and called for in the morning.

Considered from the point of view of modern practice, the wonder is that there were not more accidents than actually took place.

The Gunpowder Act of 1860 was an attempt to place the manufacture and storage of explosives generally on a more satisfactory footing. It laid down regulations to be “observed with regard to the manufacture of loaded percussion caps, and the manufacture and keeping of ammunition, fireworks, fulminate of mercury, and any other preparation or composition of an explosive nature”; and makes it lawful for Justices of the Peace in Quarter Sessions to license places for the manufacture and storage of such articles, and to grant licenses to persons to sell fireworks.

It also provided for the installation of lightning conductors in explosive magazines.

This Act, although far from perfect, was a step in the right direction; it had the effect of bringing some makers out from the back streets of crowded districts, to construct properly arranged factories, or at any rate, factories planned with some regard to their use.

Four years after the passing of the Act, public attention was sharply drawn to the matter by an explosion on an unprecedented scale at Erith, where several of the gunpowder manufacturers had magazines. Enormous damage was done, and many lives lost, over an area ten miles in radius. Lieutenant-Colonel Boxer, R.A., Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, in his report on this explosion, draws attention to the need for a system of inspection of explosive establishments, with the result that he was himself authorised to make such inspection.

Lieutenant-Colonel Boxer was succeeded in 1870 by Captain (afterwards Colonel) Sir V. D. Majendie, K.C.B., who recommended the appointment of permanent Explosives Inspectors.

The late C. T. Brock, who commenced the long run of Crystal Palace displays in 1866, found his works insufficient for the large supply of material required for such displays, and commenced the construction of a factory on new lines at Nunhead. It was here in 1872 that the Royal Commission witnessed a series of experiments, the programme of which is here reproduced.

It was upon the results of these experiments that the provisions of the Explosives Act of 1875, in so far as they relate to fireworks, are based.

This Act is still in force, and is unlikely to be superseded for many years to come. There can have been few Acts which have, since their inception, proved so satisfactory to the industry controlled by them, either in the results achieved, or in the manner of their administration.

The Explosives Acts of 1860 and 1875 took the then proscribed art of pyrotechny from back streets and crowded districts, rehoused it in properly designed and conducted factories in rural or suburban districts, making it as healthy and safe an occupation as almost any in the country.

EXPERIMENTS WITH FIREWORKS AT NUNHEAD, (_In a Field near Messrs. C. T. Brock & Co.’s Firework Manufactory_,) On Thursday, April 4th, 1872.

THE OBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS ARE—

1. To determine if the distance between Firework Sheds, as at present laid down by law, viz. 20 yards, is amply sufficient to prevent an explosion in one shed communicating to other sheds situated at the statutory distance.

2. To determine the liability of Fireworks to ignite by concussion or friction.

3. To determine the liability of Fireworks to explode en masse if from any cause they should be accidentally ignited.

4. In the event of Fireworks exhibiting a liability to explode, to determine the area of destructive effect of such explosion.

5. To determine, with reference to the conclusions which may be arrived at as to points 3 and 4, the degree of danger which attends the transport of Fireworks by rail, barge or other public conveyance.

6. To determine at what distance from dwelling houses stores of Fireworks may be safely established.

PROGRAMME OF EXPERIMENTS.

1. Explode 30 lbs. of loose Firework Composition in a Shed, another Shed being 10 yards distant. Screen between.

2. Explode 30 lbs. _of Composition in Fireworks_ in a Shed, another Shed being 10 yards distant. Screen between.

3. Ignite a Box of ¼ cwt. of mixed Ordinary Fireworks in open air.

4. Ditto ditto ditto in contact with another Box of ditto.

5. Place a Box of ¼ cwt. of ditto in a bonfire.

6. No. 3 repeated, with mixed Fireworks bought over the Counter.

7. No. 4 ditto ditto.

8. No. 5 ditto ditto.

9. Hammer various sorts of Fireworks—Wood on Wood.

10. Ditto ditto Wood on Iron.

11. Ditto ditto Iron on Iron.

12. Run a Railway Truck over some of the different sorts.

13. Repeat such of above as may seem necessary with “Parlour Fireworks.”

V. D. MAJENDIE, Captain R. A.,

_H.M.’s Inspector of Gunpowder Works, &c._