[Illustration:
FEU D’ARTIFICE À VERSAILLES POUR LE MARIAGE DU DAUPHIN, 1735.
FROM A WATER-COLOUR DRAWING BY MOREL TORRÉ.
_Front Endpaper._]
PYROTECHNICS
[Illustration: Copyright. Brock. Sutton] [Frontispiece
Display at the Tercentenary Fetes, Quebec, July 23rd, 1908. The
largest display ever fired in the Western Hemisphere. From a
drawing by C. M. Padday.]
PYROTECHNICS:
THE HISTORY AND ART
OF FIREWORK MAKING
BY A. St. H. BROCK, A.R.I.B.A.
WITH NUMEROUS COLOURED
AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON: DANIEL O’CONNOR
90 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.1
MCMXXII
Dedicated
to the memory of
my brother
Wing-Commander
Frank Arthur Brock, R.N.A.S.
Killed at Zeebrugge
April 23rd, 1918
. . . . . . . . . . . be bright and busy
While hoaxed astronomers look up and stare
From tall observatories, dumb and dizzy,
To see a Squib in Cassiopeia’s Chair!
A Serpent wriggling into Charles’s Wain!
A Roman Candle lighting the Great Bear!
A Rocket tangled in Diana’s train,
And Crackers stuck in Berenice’s Hair!
Ode to Madame Hengler, Firework-maker to Vauxhall
By THOMAS HOOD.
CONTENTS
PART I
CHAPTER PAGE
Introduction xiii
I The Origin of Pyrotechny 3
II Pyrotechny in the East 6
III Pyrotechny in Europe 13
IV Pyrotechny in Europe (_continued_) 23
V London Pleasure Gardens 32
VI Fireworks in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 39
VII Firework Manufacture 57
VIII Modern Firework Manufacture 69
IX Firework Accidents 77
PART II
I Simple Fireworks, Rocket Class 91
II Simple Fireworks, Shell Class 103
III Simple Fireworks, Mine Class 110
IV Simple Fireworks, Saxon and Lance Classes 116
V Compound Fireworks 121
VI Compound Fireworks (_continued_) 131
VII Firework Compositions 136
VIII Modern Firework Compositions 144
IX Military Pyrotechny 152
X Military Pyrotechny in the Great War 164
XI The Civil Use of Fireworks 175
List of the Principal Ingredients used in Pyrotechny at the
present time 181
Pyrotechnic Bibliography 182
Index 187
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_To face page_
Firework Display at Quebec. From a drawing by C. M.
Padday _Frontispiece_
Six Coloured Japanese Prints of Fireworks manufactured
by Messrs. Hirayama of Yokohama 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
Facsimile Title Page of John Bate’s “Second Booke,” 1635 16
A Display of the Earliest Type (_c._ 1650) 18
Set Piece of the Scenic Type 20
Firework Display at Nuremberg, 1650 22
Great Firework Display near Stockholm, 1669 24
Fireworks on the Thames, 1688 28
Firework Display given by the Duke of Richmond, 1749 30
Firework Temple at Vauxhall, 1845 36
Fireworks at Versailles, 1855, from a drawing by Gustav Doré 44
The Grand Whim for Posterity to laugh at, 1749 46
A Full-size Picture of the Jumma Musjid in Fireworks at }
the Crystal Palace, 1892 }
Firework Display for the Coronation Durbar at Delhi, } 50
January 3rd, 1903 }
A Crystal Palace Set Piece at the time of the South African War 52
Panorama of the Aerial Effects in the National Display at
Hyde Park, 1919 56
The Explosion at Madame Cotton’s Firework Factory, 1858 66
Programme of Experiments with Fireworks at Nunhead, 1872 68
Modern Firework Tools 72
Types of Modern Fireworks 90
Cracker Making 92
Rocket Manufacture, from Frézier’s “Feu d’Artifice,” 1747 94
Manner of making and representing Flowers, etc., in the Chinese
Fireworks, from the “Universal Magazine” of 1764 100
An Old Firework Bill:—Programme of Mr. Brock’s Superior Fireworks
at Ipswich, 1818 114
Rocket Charging } 116
Filling Roman Candles }
Types of Compound Fireworks:—Lattice Poles, Chromatrope,
Lattice Diamond 128
A Display ready for Firing, Dresden, 1899 134
Diagram illustrating the evolution of Pyrotechnic Composition,
showing their periods of use 140
Roman Candles—illustrating brilliance of aluminium compositions 150
The Late Wing-Commander Brock, R.N.A.S. 166
Smoke Float in action 168
Crystal Palace—By the light of a Magnesium Shell 178
End Papers:—Feu d’artifice a Versailles pour le Mariage du Dauphin.
Two displays from the original watercolour drawings by Morel
Torré, 1735
INTRODUCTION
The word “fireworks” as a metaphor, used either to describe the higher
flights of oratory, of literature, or of human strife, whether it be
in Parliament or the Parish Hall, or merely descriptive of domestic
discord, is familiar, even threadbare.
Moreover, the metaphor has generally a humorous flavour; why is this?
Is there anything inherently comic about fireworks? It is true that for
a short season the less critical of the comic papers used the cracker
and squib as pegs upon which to hang the type of joke which depends for
its success on the atavistic human trait of laughing at the misfortune
or discomfort of others, but this is the lowest type of humour which
soon palls upon the mind.
The Stage also has its comedy and clown, yet the mention of the stage
is not a signal for mirth. Can any who have heard the long-drawn Ah-h!
of rapture from many thousand throats, at the bursting of a flight of
shell, or the darting up of the wonderfully tinted rays of the “Magical
Illumination” at the Crystal Palace, maintain that the most dramatic
moment on the stage is more affecting to the spectators?
Pyrotechny is possibly the only art which can compete with nature;
anyone who has seen a first-class firework display will admit that for
impressive grandeur, colour effects, and contrasts of light and shade,
pyrotechny is unapproached.
Pyrotechny paints on the canvas of the sky; and the results are at once
the joy and despair of the artist. Many artists have tried to record
their impressions, but the results have been generally disappointing.
Whistler came near success, but even his wonderful work conveys merely
the dying embers of passed glory. One feels that here has been a
magnificent display, but the scene in its full grandeur is not depicted.
One of the few black-and-white artists who can approach the subject
with some success is Mr. C. M. Padday, an example of whose work is
reproduced in the following pages. His success comes from a careful
study of the subject, both technically and from the point of view of
composition.
That fireworks are popular there is no doubt; no form of amusement is
capable of giving enjoyment to so many people at one time; there is
no entertainment which so appeals to youth and age of all classes and
tastes. And yet it is doubtful if there is an industry concerning which
the public at large is so profoundly ignorant.
To the average onlooker any firework which rises in the air is
a rocket, any that revolve are catherine wheels; both of these
assumptions are incorrect.
What is the average conception of a firework factory? A building, let
us say, in which workmen, with sleeves rolled up, are busily engaged in
shovelling heaps of gunpowder. How many know that a firework factory
consists of dozens of small buildings, the construction of which is
exactly defined by law, separated by spaces also specified by law; that
workmen may not roll up their sleeves in the danger buildings; or that
the amount of gunpowder in each building is strictly limited to a small
quantity? All of these restrictions being enforced with the view, of
course, of limiting the effects of any explosion that may occur.
So far as I am aware, no history of the art has yet been written. It is
true that during the nineteenth century many text-books on pyrotechny
were written, but the historical side of the subject has been generally
represented by a few disjointed remarks in the prefaces.
My object has not been to write a text-book on firework-making, but
rather to trace the art from earliest times, and to give a description
of the development and process of manufacture. For those interested
in the subject, and desiring fuller information, the list of MSS. and
books given in the Bibliography at the end of this volume may be found
useful.
My excuse for adding another volume to the literature of the art is
that I am of the eighth generation of a family of pyrotechnists, whose
work, I venture to claim, has not been without its effect. If I succeed
in interesting, and in some degree enlightening, my readers, I shall
feel I have not written in vain; if I fail, I shall know it is not in
my choice of subject but in my capacity for dealing with it.
A. St. H. BROCK.
Sutton,
_August, 1922_.
ERRATA
Page 117 line 13 for “filled” _read_ “fitted”
„ 133 „ 8 „ “and” „ “at”
„ 153 }
„ 154 } for “Hume” _read_ “Hime”
PART I
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF PYROTECHNY
Pyrotechny, or the Art of Firework-making, is of great antiquity, and
the date of its origin is quite unknown; indeed, it would be impossible
to define with any degree of exactitude what actually constitutes a
firework.
It is curious how universal is the belief that fireworks were dependent
upon the invention or discovery of gunpowder. Very little consideration
will prove the fallacy of this view; in fact, will show that the
reverse is probably the case. In India and China saltpetre (or nitrate
of potash) is found in large quantities, and was, no doubt, used by
the primitive inhabitants in far-off times for such purposes as curing
meat, cooking, etc. The dropping of a quantity in the camp fire may
have attracted the attention of some early inventor to the extent of
starting him on a series of what were probably the earliest chemical
experiments.
He would notice that the presence of saltpetre made the fire burn
brighter, and its use as a tinder maker would suggest itself by mixing
it with some substance which he knew to be combustible. The most common
fuel he knew of was wood, but it must be a powder to mix evenly with
saltpetre. Wood is not easily reduced to powder; saws had not been
invented, so that he could not add sawdust, and the nearest thing
he could get would be charcoal from the fire, which could easily be
reduced to powder. With this mixture he would be well on the way to
success in elementary pyrotechny.
The next step in his career as the first pyrotechnist is to utilise his
composition as an easy means of making fire. Gradually he gives up his
hitherto necessary tasks of hunting and trapping, as he receives the
fruits of other labours in return for his services as fire-maker to the
tribe.
The most important item in early social life is fire, the implements
for producing it the most valued property of the tribe; it was the
focus of religion and the centre of daily existence, so that any new
phenomenon connected with fire would be of the greatest interest to
primitive people, and any short cut to the production of fire would be
accorded more perseverance and care in its perfection than almost any
other invention.
Fire would be struck with a piece of iron pyrites on a flint, small
pieces of reguline particles of iron would be detached and fall on the
fire mixture unlit. Afterwards, when combustion of the mass of fire
mixture took place, these small pieces of metal would scintillate as do
the iron filings in a modern firework composition. This would give rise
to a further series of experiments, and gradually the composition known
as Chinese Fire would be evolved, which is known to have been in use in
the East from remote times.
Having arrived at a pyrotechnic composition, attempt to use it in
other ways besides fire-making would naturally follow, and sooner or
later the idea of filling the mixture into tubes would suggest itself,
especially as both in India and China (in one of which countries
pyrotechny undoubtedly originated) a serviceable tube—or to use the
modern term “case”—was ready to hand in any size or quantity in the
ubiquitous bamboo. The bamboo is in use for the purpose at the present
day in the East, and until recent times, when displaced by European
weapons, was used in the construction of ordnance of considerable size.
Mortars used for throwing firework shell up to six or more inches in
diameter are still in use in Japan and China, the barrel consisting of
a section of bamboo strengthened on the outside with a binding of
split cane.
[Illustration]
Having reached the point of charging composition into a tube, that is
to say confining it, a more or less violent explosion was likely or
rather certain to follow during the course of the experiments, which
might suggest the use of a tube as a means of discharging a projectile.
This would lead to research in the direction of the best composition
for the purpose and the evolution of gunpowder.
It must be remembered that the constituents of gunpowder must be
present in approximately exact proportion, whereas with primitive
pyrotechnic compositions, if the ingredients saltpetre and charcoal are
present, it is almost impossible to fail in getting some result.
The above suggestion must not be taken literally as a statement of
fact, but rather as an attempt on the part of the writer to trace the
stages by which pyrotechnic and explosive compositions came to be
evolved.
If one disabuses one’s mind of the curiously widespread belief that
all fireworks are composed chiefly of gunpowder, and that without the
invention of gunpowder fireworks could not have been constructed, it
seems far more likely that pyrotechny is based on the discovery of the
assistance given to combustion by saltpetre, than on the discovery of
gunpowder.
CHAPTER II
PYROTECHNY IN THE EAST
Pyrotechny undoubtedly had its genesis in the East, and for that reason
we will deal with its development there first. As he has intended
to convey, the writer is strongly of opinion that the discovery of
pyrotechnic compositions antedated that of gunpowder. In many cases
earlier writers have discovered passages which they consider prove the
use of firearms and gunpowder; in reality these refer to Greek-fire and
similar compositions, which were used as projectiles, being thrown from
machines or catapults, and not as propellants. Gunpowder as a mixture
of ingredients may have been known from remote times, as undoubtedly
were other simple pyrotechnic compositions, but all evidence goes to
show that its use as a propellant was not known until well into the
Christian Era.
The composition Greek-fire, known in ancient times as “naphtha,” was
a mixture of pitch, resin, and sulphur, with the addition in some
cases of crude saltpetre. It may be considered that in the absence of
the latter ingredient the mixture does not constitute a pyrotechnic
composition, but from the description of the use of “naphtha” in early
writings, it appears at least likely that it was generally present.
The fire was either enclosed in hollow stones or iron vessels, and
thrown from a catapult, or sometimes filled into the end of arrows and
assisted to propel them forward or sustain their flight.
Philostratus (170–250 A.D.), writing of the Indian Campaign of
Alexander the Great (B.C. 326), relates that the inhabitants of a
town on the river Hyphasis (Beas) “defended themselves by means
of lightning and thunder, which darted upon their besiegers.” This
has been considered as evidence of the use of firearms, but is more
probably the first reference to Greek-fire. Greek-fire or “naphtha” was
used at the defence of Constantinople between 660 and 667.
[Illustration]
At the siege of Pian-King Lo-Yang (1232), as mentioned in the Chinese
Annals, iron pots were thrown containing a burning substance which
could spread fire over half an acre, and described by the historians as
the “thunder which shakes heaven.”
The Mongolians attacking Bagdad in the year 1258 made use of similar
vessels, also fire arrows. Marco Polo, describing sieges of towns in
China 1268 to 1273, mentions the throwing of fire.
In most of the early records although noise is remarked upon, it is
apparently while the projectile is in the air or upon impact; this
disposes of the impression which many writers have formed that firearms
are referred to, there being no reference to an initial explosion.
Sir George Stanton, writing in 1798 of his embassy to the Emperor of
China, says that “nitre (saltpetre) is the daily produce of China and
India, and there accordingly the knowledge of gunpowder seems coeval
with that of the most distant historic events. Among the Chinese it has
been applied at all times to useful purposes ... and to amusement in
making a vast variety of fireworks—but its force had not been directed
through strong metallic tubes, as it was by Europeans soon after they
had discovered that composition.”
Although the place of origin of the art, pyrotechny has not developed
in the East as rapidly as in Europe, except in Japan.
Japanese pyrotechnists, with that wonderful capacity for careful
and exact manual work which is so characteristic of the race, have
developed aerial fireworks, that is to say, the shell, to a remarkable
degree of perfection. The compositions used are not to be compared with
European manufactures in point of colour or brilliance, but the effects
obtained are extraordinary. The stars, upon the bursting of the shell,
are thrown out in symmetrical patterns and designs, several examples of
which are given in the accompanying Japanese colour prints.
Daylight fireworks also originated in Japan. Instead of pyrotechnic
effects, the shell contains a grotesque balloon in the form of an
animal, human figure, or other form, which, being open and weighted
at the lower end, becomes inflated as it falls and remains in the air
for a considerable period. Other daylight effects are coloured clouds
formed by coloured powder, distributed by the bursting of the shell,
showers of streamers, confetti, and toys.
Chinese firework displays have often been enthusiastically described
by travellers in China. Whether it is that the glamour of the East
distorts the perceptions, or that these travellers have not seen a
European firework display, there is no doubt that such descriptions
are, to say the least, over coloured.
Chinese fire (a composition of saltpetre, iron filings, sulphur and
charcoal), a few simple colour compositions, and a large number of
Chinese crackers of varying sizes constitute a Chinese display; the
rest of the exhibition being eked out with lanterns, pictures, etc.,
which certainly do not come under the heading of pyrotechnics.
The writer once had an opportunity of witnessing a Chinese display of
some importance, lasting several hours, which produced the effect on
the mind of watching some performance or game of the rules of which one
was in entire ignorance. Pyrotechnically, only the crudest effects were
produced, the remainder of the display, consisting of such items as a
man slowly climbing a ladder carrying a lantern, was to the uninitiated
mystifying.
[Illustration]
The following is an account by a traveller in the early nineteenth
century of a Chinese display: “The fireworks, in some particulars,”
says he, “exceeded anything of the kind I had ever seen. In grandeur,
magnificence, and variety they were, I own, inferior to the Chinese
fireworks we had seen at Batavia, but infinitely superior in point of
novelty, neatness and ingenuity of contrivance. One piece of machinery
I greatly admired: a green chest, five feet square, was hoisted up by
a pulley fifty or sixty feet from the ground, the bottom of which was
so contrived as then suddenly to fall out, and make way for twenty
or thirty strings of lanterns, enclosed in a box, to descend from
it, unfolding themselves from one another by degrees, so as at last
to form a collection of full five hundred, each having a light of a
beautifully coloured flame burning brightly within it. This devolution
and development of lanterns was several times repeated, and at every
time exhibiting a difference of colour and figure. On each side was
a correspondence of smaller boxes, which opened in like manner as
the other, and let down an immense network of fire, with divisions
and compartments of various forms and dimensions, round and square,
hexagons, octagons, etc., which shone like the brightest burnished
copper, and flashed like prismatic lightnings, with every impulse of
the wind. The whole concluded with a volcano, or general explosion and
discharge of suns and stars, squibs, crackers, rockets and grenades,
which involved the gardens for an hour in a cloud of intolerable smoke.
The diversity of colour, with which the Chinese have the secret of
clothing their fire, seems one of the chief merits of their pyrotechny.”
It will be seen that lanterns play an important part in the exhibition,
and that when the fireworks proper are reached, the result is an
“intolerable smoke.”
Indian pyrotechnists are more advanced than their Chinese neighbours.
Firework displays carried out by them are nowadays more or less crude
attempts to reproduce European work.
The writer has seen a set piece evidently intended to follow a fire
picture seen in a European display carried out by small wicks burning
in oil instead of the “lances,” as the small fireworks used to outline
the pictures are called in this country.
In India as in China fireworks play a frequent part in religious and
civil ceremonies. In the former country, at certain festivals, a
primitive device for producing a series of reports is used. These are
called “adirvedis,” and consist of a series of short iron tubes fitted
to a wooden plank, charged with gunpowder and tamped with clay.
At weddings, crackers are largely used under a variety of names, such
as Vengagvedi, Gola, Pataka or Koroo. To-day these are simple crackers
filled with country-made gunpowder or the imported Chinese crackers.
Formerly almost the only composition used was chlorate of potash and
one of the sulphides of arsenic. A favourite form consisted of a small
quantity of the two ingredients put together unmixed into a piece of
rag with some small stones or grit and tied. The resulting fireworks
were similar to the “throw-down” crackers sold in this country.
Owing to the very large number of accidents caused by the casual
methods, both in manufacture and use, with this highly sensitive
composition, H.M. Chief Inspector of Explosives for India endeavoured,
in 1902, to secure its prohibition, as was done in this country in
1895, but it was not until 1910, when it had been established that
this composition was being used by anarchists, that it was finally
prohibited.
The most successful effect produced by Hindoo pyrotechnists is the
“Tubri.” The composition is here known as Chinese fire, a mixture of
charcoal, saltpetre, sulphur and iron dust, charged into either bamboo
tubes or earthen pots.
[Illustration]
It is a common practice to fix a pot at either end of a long bamboo,
which is whirled quickly about by a performer; the result produced is
quite good, but seems rather to come under the heading of juggling than
that of pyrotechnics proper. As the pots are theoretically the wrong
shape for such a purpose, that is to say, a large mass of composition
is burning through a narrow orifice, premature explosions are frequent.
This want of theoretical knowledge is noticeable throughout, but such
incidents seem to be appreciated as part of the show.
Another use of the earth pot is the “burusu,” a kind of red flare; the
composition used being sulphur, saltpetre, and nitrate of strontia.
Flare compositions are also used loose as in England, and are known as
“chandrajota” or “mahteb.”
Abusavanani or Hawai, that is to say, rockets, are now made similarly
to those manufactured in Europe except a bamboo case is most generally
used, but formerly chlorate of potash and orpiment seem to have been
employed for this purpose.
The firework shell under the name “out” is also manufactured very much
as in this country, except that the range of effects is very limited,
simple coloured stars being almost the only “garniture” used.
In Siam it is a custom, and one apparently of considerable antiquity,
to celebrate certain religious festivals with firework displays. These
displays take place in the day-time, and take the form of discharges of
rockets, some of which are of very large size; a writer giving their
length, exclusive of the stick, as from 8 ft. to 10 ft. The case is
composed of a section of bamboo bound with string. The composition
consists of coarse native powder, of which from 20 lbs. to 30 lbs. is
often used in one case. The rocket stick, which is of bamboo, varying
from 20 ft. to 40 ft. in length, is gaily decorated with coloured
paper and tinsel and fitted with bamboo whistles. A rough scaffold is
erected from which to fire the rockets, and according to those who have
witnessed such exhibitions, considerable altitudes are reached by the
rockets in flight. As may be expected with such crude methods, mishaps
are of frequent occurrence.
[Illustration]
CHAPTER III
PYROTECHNY IN EUROPE
Pyrotechnic compositions and gunpowder are inextricably mixed together
in early European records; for our inquiries it will serve no useful
purpose to disentangle them, the latter being only a particular case
of the former. We will therefore deal with them together, taking the
evidence of the knowledge of one as that of both, as until gunpowder
is specifically mentioned as being used as a propellant in a gun or
similar weapon, there is nothing to distinguish it from any other
pyrotechnic composition.
The earliest record of European pyrotechny is in Claudius’ account of
the public festivities during the consulate of Theodosius in the fourth
century A.D., in which he describes fire “which ran about in different
directions over the planks without burning or even charring them, and
which formed by their twisting and turning globes of fire.”
Leo VI, Emperor of the East, in a work written about A.D. 900, says:
“We have divers ways of destroying the enemies’ ships, as by means of
fire prepared in tubes, from which they issue with a sound of thunder,
and with a fiery smoke that burns the vessels on which they are hurled.
A tube of tin must be put on the front of the ship to hurl this from.”
The most interesting reference of an early date is supposed to have
been written by Marcus Graecus in his “Liber ignium ad comburendos
hostes” (Book of fires for burning up the enemy), in which he not only
gives the exact proportions of the compositions, but describes what
is virtually the modern cracker, and also a primitive form of rocket.
The case of the former was only partially filled, as with the jumping
cracker of to-day, and although the wording is not very explicit, it
was apparently bent in a similar way.
The date of this work is a subject of controversy; some writers place
it as early as the eighth century, and it can only be said with
certainty that it is not later than 1280. The latter date is fixed by
the death of Albertus Magnus, who, in his book “De miribilibus mundi,”
from internal evidence, is obviously plagiarising the Liber Ignium.
Friar Roger Bacon (1214–94), in two of his works, refers at least twice
to compositions containing saltpetre, powdered charcoal, and sulphur.
In one place he refers to fires that “shall burn at what distance we
please”; in another to “thunder and corruscations,” which references
seem to suggest that he is describing something of a pyrotechnic nature
rather than the simple effect of gunpowder. His description in no way
indicates that he claimed to be the inventor, but rather as something
well known before.
Dr. Jebb, in his preface to Bacon’s “Opus Majus,” refers to what seems
to be an early example of both the rocket and the cracker.
Dutens, in his “Inquiries into the Origin of the discoveries attributed
to the Moderns” (1790), makes reference to many early writers, which
are mostly so vague and exaggerated that no definite conclusion can be
drawn from them; most refer to the early uses of Greek-fire or similar
composition.
Don Pedro, Bishop of Leon, says that “in 1343, in a sea combat between
the King of Tunis and the Moorish King of Seville ... those of Tunis
had certain iron tubes or barrels wherewith they threw thunderbolts of
fire.”
This description, if accurate, may be thought to suggest the use of
cannons, but it is more likely to refer to the use of Greek-fire;
this composition will, in certain proportions, if charged into a
strong tube, give intermittent bursts, projecting blazing masses of
the mixture to a considerable distance. The writer has seen this
effect produced in a steel mortar of 5½ inches diameter, the masses of
composition being thrown a distance of upwards of a hundred yards, a
considerable range in the days of close warfare. Anyone who has seen
this phenomenon will at once realise that here probably is the true
solution of many obscure early references to explain which so much
ingenuity has been expended.
An interesting fact which seems to have escaped the notice of writers
on this subject is that Theresa, daughter of Alfonso V. King of Leon
and the Asturias (A.D. 999), when married to Abdallah, King of Toledo,
took for device on her coat of arms a mortar in which a powder is being
pounded. This powder is supposed to represent gunpowder, a supposition
which is supported by the motto, “Minima maxima fecit” (A little makes
much). If gunpowder is intended, this must be one of the earliest
references to its quality of exploding, and it is difficult to explain
the meaning otherwise.
Richard Cœur de Lion used Greek-fire on his galley at the siege of Acre
in 1191, and it is thought by many that it was introduced into Western
Europe by the Crusaders, who had learned its use in the East.
Alfonso Duke of Ferrara had as his coat of arms a bomb-shell in flight,
and Antoine de Lalaing, Count of Hooghstraeten, had a bomb-shell
exploding in water. The adoption of these two devices at about the same
time (1540) seems to indicate that this projectile was coming into use,
that is to say, for military purposes at least.
An early reference to shell appears in Stowe’s Chronicles (1565). He
mentions two foreigners, Peter Brand and Peter Van Cullen, a gunsmith,
in the employ of Henry VIII (A.D. 1546), who “caused to be made
certain mortar pieces being at the mouth eleven inches unto nineteen
inches wide, for the use whereof to be made certain hollow shot of
cast-iron, to be stuffed with firework or wild-fire, whereof the bigger
sort for the same had screws of iron to receive a match to carry fire
kindled, that the firework might be set on fire for to break in pieces
the same hollow shot, whereof the smallest piece hitting any man would
kill or spoil him.” The missile is to all intents the firework shell of
the present day, except that the modern shell has a papier-maché case.
The reference to “firework” without further explanation seems to
indicate that by this time the word was well established in use.
Shakespeare makes three references to fireworks. In “Love’s Labour’s
Lost,” Act V, Scene 1, Don Armado says: “The King would have me present
the Princess with some delightful entertainment, or show, or pageant,
or antic, or firework.” In “Henry VIII,” Act I, Scene 3, we read of
“fights and fireworks”; and again in “King John,” Act II, Scene 1:
“What cracker is this same that deafs our ears?”
However, nothing in the nature of a firework display appears to have
taken place, at least in this country, before the time of Elizabeth.
The use of fire for theatrical purposes, as in Mystery Plays to
represent the “gate of Hell,” has been taken by some to refer to
fireworks, but this seems doubtful as flames are mentioned, and it is
more probable that a torch or similar contrivance was used.
When, however, we read a description of a barge at the coronation of
Anne Boleyn, in 1538, carrying a dragon “casting forth wild fire—and
men casting fire,” the reference to some pyrotechnic effect, however
primitive, seems fairly obvious.
The men performers may be considered as early types of the “green
man” who made his appearance somewhat later. The office of this
performer was to head processions carrying “fire clubs” and scattering
“fireworks” (probably sparks) to clear the way.
One account of a procession to the Chester Races on St. George’s Day,
1610, commences as follows: “Two men in green ivy, set with work upon
their other habit, with black hair and black beards, very ugly to
behold, and garlands upon their heads, with great clubs in their hands,
with fireworks to scatter abroad to maintain the way for the rest of
the show.”
The fire clubs referred to are described in John Bate’s book, published
in 1635; the same writer illustrates a “green man” on the title page of
his work.
[Illustration: Facsimile Title-page of Bate’s Book, showing a
“Green Man.”]
Regarding the origin of the Green Man, it has been suggested that the
character was evolved from the wild men, satyrs, monsters, etc., which
appeared in the earlier exhibitions. This may or may not be so, but
another explanation suggested to the writer by an old Danish print of
the sixteenth century is at least plausible.
This print, which apparently represents a floating firework device of
the old scenic type, shows two figures carrying fire clubs wearing
leaves, and suggesting immediately the green man of a slightly later
date.
Behind them are two figures holding rockets, leaving no doubt that a
firework display is portrayed.
On the other hand, apart from the fact that normally they have no fire
issuing from their clubs, the supporters of the Danish royal arms might
be here depicted; a supposition which is borne out by the fact that
the figure surmounting the erection carries the crown and sceptre of
Denmark.
It seems quite within the bounds of possibility that these two figures
were introduced into Danish displays as a compliment to Royalty,
and that later they appeared in England, and became, as it were,
acclimatised. Colour is lent to this belief by the record of a display
given on a float by the King of Denmark in 1606 upon his departure from
this country, where he had been on a visit to his brother-in-law, James
I.
This exhibition seems to have given James a taste for fireworks, and
one at least of the Danish artists appears to have remained in this
country, as some months after James had a display carried out by “a
Dane, two Dutchmen, and Sir Thomas Challoner.”
In 1572 a firework display was given in the Temple Fields, Warwick, by
the Earl of Warwick, then Master-General of the Ordnance. The occasion
was a visit to the castle by Queen Elizabeth, who appears to have been
rather partial to such exhibitions.
The display consisted of a mimic battle, with two canvas forts for a
setting; noise was provided by the discharge of ordnance of various
sizes; the fireworks proper seem to have taken the form of flights of
rockets. The display was evidently conducted in a somewhat reckless
manner, some houses being set on fire, and some completely destroyed,
the two inhabitants of which are said in a contemporary report to have
been in bed and asleep, although how that could be with continuous
discharge from twenty pieces of ordnance, to say nothing of “qualivers
and harquebuses,” in the immediate neighbourhood, is to say the least
curious.
Two other displays attended by Elizabeth were those at Kenilworth in
1572 and at Elvetham in 1591.
[Illustration: A Display of the Earliest Type. From a contemporary
print (_c._ 1650).]
The first European people to make headway in the art of pyrotechny
proper appear to have been the Italians. Vanochio, an Italian, in
a work on artillery, dated 1572, attributes to the Florentines and
Viennese the honour of being the first who made fireworks on erections
of wood, decorated with statues and pictures raised to a great
height, some in Florence being forty ells, or seventy-two feet high.
He adds that these were illuminated so that they might be seen from a
distance, and that the statues threw out fire from the mouths and eyes.
He refers to the practice, which survived up to the end of the
eighteenth century, of constructing elaborate temples or palaces richly
decorated, with transparencies illuminated from inside, statuary,
gilding, floral and other decorations. On these erections the fireworks
proper were displayed, and which were then called artificial fireworks.
Nothing very large in the way of firework set-pieces seems to have been
attempted, but effect was gained by repetition of a small device over
the facade of the building.
Displays were given annually in Florence at the Feast of St. John and
the Assumption. This custom extended to Rome, where the festivals were
given on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and at the rejoicings on
the election of a Pope.
The towers and fortifications of the castle of St. Angelo furnished
suitable spots for these, being visible from the greater part of the
city of Rome, and what are described as braziers, firepots, and other
fires would be placed there, so as to give a great display without the
expense of a building.
Evelyn, the famous diarist, gives an account of one such display which
he witnessed in 1664.
In other towns that wished to imitate the festival of Rome, it was
arranged to place illuminations on the highest towers and steeples of
the towns, but as it was found that there was considerable danger of
fire from these, it was afterwards preferred to make suitable erections
in the great public squares, which were convenient for the exhibition
itself and also for the sightseers.
The Italians appear to have held the supremacy until the end of the
seventeenth century.
In the book of Artillery by Diego Ufano, written in 1610, we read that
only very simple fireworks were made in his time in Spain and Flanders,
consisting of wooden framework supporting pots of fire wrapped round
with cloth dipped in pitch, but that more than fifty years before
magnificent spectacles could be seen in Italy.
In 1615, on the occasion of the marriage of Louis XIII, a display was
given at Paris in the Place Royale, in which were included combats
between men carrying illuminated arms.
In 1606 the Duc de Sully gave a spectacle which depicted a battle
between savages and monsters, the former throwing darts and fire. A
similar display had previously been given on the occasion of the entry
of Henry II into Rheims, and it was repeated in 1612.
These spectacles, which are quoted as firework displays, cannot rightly
be considered as such, fireworks playing a comparatively secondary part
in the exhibitions.
A display of this nature to celebrate the capture of Rochelle was
conducted by Clariner of Nuremberg, a celebrated pyrotechnist of the
day.
During the reign of Louis XIV, 1638–1715, great advances were made in
pyrotechny in France; great displays were given on the return of the
King and Queen to Paris in 1660, on five consecutive days at Versailles
in 1676, also on the occasion of the birth of the Dauphin in 1682, in
Paris at the Louvre, Dijon, and Lyons.
A particularly fine display in celebration of the Peace of Riswick,
1669 (for which event displays took place in several countries), is
mentioned by Frézier, who wrote a treatise on pyrotechny (1747); it
was, he says, witnessing this display that inspired him to study the
art.
[Illustration: Set Piece of the Scenic Type.]
One of the chief causes of progress in France was the encouragement
given by Louis XV (1710–1774) to the pyrotechnists Morel Torré and the
Ruggieri brothers, the latter being Italians from Bologna who became
naturalised Frenchmen, and contributed very greatly to the development
of French pyrotechny. They were the first to rely chiefly on fireworks
for the effect, instead of using them merely to embellish a scenic or
architectural structure.
Louis XV expended large sums of money on displays, one of the finest
being that fired at Versailles in 1739 by Ruggieri, on the occasion
of the marriage of Madame La Première of France with Don Philippe of
Spain. Writing of this display in 1821, Ruggieri’s son says: “There
appeared for the first time the Salamander la Rosace and le Guilloche,
which are still admired to-day.” These are purely pyrotechnic pieces
and devices; similar or identical ones are used at the present day,
which seems to indicate that fireworks proper were making headway
against scenic effect.
Other displays in France during the eighteenth century were those on
the occasions of the birth of the Duke of Brittany, 1704; birth of the
Dauphin, 1730; the convalescence of the King, 1744; and the return of
the King to Paris, 1745. Also there is in existence a series of prints
which, but for the fact that they are described as fireworks, would be
taken to be scenic tableaux; whether the figures are human beings or
wax-works is not indicated. These were erected in celebration of the
following events:—The taking of Tournay, the taking of Chateau Grand,
Victory over the Allies, all dated 1745; the taking of Ypres, 1747,
all of which took place in Paris before the Hotel de Ville. Similar
displays were given in Lyons in 1765 to celebrate the taking of Fort
San Philippe, and at Soleure in 1777, in honour of the Swiss Guard.
Displays took place at Versailles (1751) on the occasion of the birth
of the Duke of Burgundy. In 1758–9 came a further series of victory
celebrations in honour of the victory of Lutzelberg, over the English
in America, and over the Allies at Bergheri, all of which appear to
have been of the “tableau” type mentioned above.
There were also displays for the peace celebrations on the Seine, 1763,
the birth of the Dauphin, 1782, in the Place de Geneve, and peace
rejoicings, 1783, before the Hotel de Ville.
Ruggieri, however, states in his book that the display fired on the
marriage of Louis XVI (or, as he then was, the Dauphin) was the only
display since the great fetes of 1739 which showed any considerable
advance in the art; he may, however, be in some degree biased as his
father was concerned in each of these displays.
[Illustration: Firework Display at Nuremberg, 1650. From a
contemporary engraving]
CHAPTER IV
PYROTECHNY IN EUROPE (_continued_)
During the later part of the seventeenth century, and subsequently,
many prints appeared depicting firework displays; their number seems
quite out of proportion to the total number of prints published in that
period.
Possibly this may be taken as some indication of the popularity of
firework displays at the time, or may give the measure of the favour in
which they were held by the artists of the day.
Many of these prints are of little value to the student of pyrotechny,
as they merely depict the more or less elaborate structure for
the display by daylight, and whatever may be their architectural
or artistic merit there is generally no indication of what actual
fireworks were to be used, or how they were to be displayed.
In some cases a list of the works is given under the engraving,
adding greatly to its value in the eyes of the pyrotechnist, and
some, although they are considerably in the minority, are intended to
represent the display in progress, although on the rather futuristic
method of showing everything going off at one time.
A series of prints published in Germany during the seventeenth century
are among the earliest in which a serious attempt is made to depict
pyrotechnic effects; the series includes “Swedish Fireworks,” dated
1650; “Fireworks at Nuremburg in celebration of Peace,” of the same
date; “Fireworks given at Pleissenburg by the Prince of Saxony,” 1666;
and the same year, “Fireworks at Vienna”; all three prints show a
good display of rockets, also bonfires, and there are indications
of primitive wheels. The same remarks apply to a very fine plate
published in 1669, depicting a display given at Stockholm in honour of
the investiture of Charles XI of Sweden with the Order of the Garter
by the British Ambassador. This engraving carries with it a feeling
of conviction that it is an actual representation of the scene, and
not—as is the case with earlier and with some later work—that the
artist is drawing on his imagination. In many of the earlier prints it
is difficult to judge if the artist is depicting what he imagined, or
monsters and scenic effects actually constructed for the display.
It is worthy of note that even in early times, speaking
pyrotechnically, the value of water in enhancing the effect of
fireworks seems to have been realised. The display at Stockholm we
have already mentioned appears to have taken place on the sea front.
Many of the larger French displays of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries were fired with a foreground of water; in those at Versailles
full advantage was taken of the wonderful fountains and ornamental
water, the display given in celebration of the entry of Louis XIV in
Paris after his marriage being given on the Seine, and many of the
early English displays took place on the Thames. Probably the earliest
contemporary account of any length of a firework display in England is
one headed “The Manner of Fire-Workes shewed up upon the Thames” in
celebration of the marriage of Prince Frederick (Elector Palatine) with
the daughter of James I in 1613. We read “many artificiall concusions
in Fire-Workes were upon the Thames performed.
“First, for a welcome to the beholders a peale of Ordnance like unto
a terrible thunder ratled in the ayre.... Secondly, followed a number
more of the same fashion, spredding so strangely with sparkling
blazes, that the skie seemed to be filled with fire.... After this,
in a most curious manner, an artificiall fire-worke with great wonder
was seen flying in the ayre, like unto a fiery Dragon, against which
another fierrie vision appeared flaming like to Saint George on
Horsebacke, brought in by a burning Inchanter, between which was then
fought a most strange battell continuing a quarter of an howre or more;
the dragon being vanquished, seemed to roar like thunder, and withall
burst in pieces, and so vanished; but the champion, with his flaming
horse, for a little time made a shew of a tryumphant conquest, and so
ceased.
[Illustration: Great Firework Display near Stockholm, July, 1669.
To celebrate the Investiture of Charles XI, King of Sweden, with
the Order of the Garter by King Charles II.]
“After this was heard another ratling sound of Cannons, almost covering
the ayre with fire and smoke, and forthwith appeared, out of a hill of
earth made upon the water, a very strange fire, flaming upright like
unto a blazing starre. After which flew forth a number of rockets so
high in the ayre, that we could not chose but approve by all reasons
that Arte hath exceeded Nature, so artificially were they performed.
And still as the Chambers and Culverines plaide upon the earth, the
fire-workes danced in the ayre, to the great delight of his Highnes and
the Princes.
“Out of the same mount or hill of earth flew another strange piece of
artificiall fire-worke, which was in the likenes of a hunted Harte,
running upon the water so swiftly, as it had been chaced by many
huntsmen.
“After the same, issued out of the mount a number of hunting-hounds
made of fire burning, pursuing the aforesaid Harte up and downe the
waters, making many rebounds and turnes with much strangenes; skipping
in the ayre as it had been a usual hunting upon land.
“These were the noble delights of Princes, and prompt were the wits of
men to contrive such princely pleasures. Where Kings commands be, Art
is stretcht to the true depth; as the performance of these Engineers
have been approved.
“But now again to our wished sports: when this fiery hunting was
extinguished, and that the Elements were a little cleared from fire and
smoke, there came sailing up, as it were upon the Seas, certaine ships
and gallies bravely rigged with top and top gallant, with their flagges
and streamers waving like Men of Warr, which represented a Christian
name opposed against the Turkes; where, after they had awhile hovered,
preparing as it were, to make an incursion into the Turkish country,
they were discovered by her Towers or Castles of defence, strongly
furnished to intercept all such invading purposes, so sending forth the
reports of a cannon, they were bravely answered with the like from the
gallies, banding fire and powder one from another, as if the God of
Battle had been there present.
“Here was the manner of a sea-fight rightly performed: First, by
assailing one another, all striving for victorie, and pursuing each
other with fire and sword: the Culverines merrily plaid betwixt them,
and made the ayre resound with thundering echoes; and at last to
represent the joyes of a victorie, the Castles were sacked, burned, and
ruinated, and the defenders of the same forced to escape with great
danger.”
The foregoing appears to be the only full account of a display in
England during the early part of the seventeenth century, but in the
first serious work on fireworks, “Pyrotechnia,” by John Babington,
“gunner and student of the mathematicks,” we find a proposed programme
for “a generall piece of fire-worke for land, for the pleasure of a
Prince or some great person.” The spectacle consists of two castles
with mechanical effects, but includes such devices as horizontal and
vertical wheels, flights of rockets, line rockets and “torches of
beautifull fire.” Babington also describes the St. George and Dragon
device, which is merely scenic, the figures being of wickerwork and
canvas with slight firework effects. At this time, according to a
“History of Colleges in and arround London,” there were “many men very
skilful in the art of pyrotechny and fireworks.”
In a book on fireworks, published in the same year, by John Bate,
the author concludes by saying: “I might have been infinite in the
describing of such like with Ships, Towers, Castles, Pyramides. But,
considering that it would but increase the price of the book and not
better your understanding, since all consist of the former workes,
which are so plainly described as that the most ignorant may easily
conceive thereof, and (if any whit ingenious) thence contrive others,
of what fashion they list.” From this it would appear that firework
displays were by that date a well-established institution.
Pepys, in his account of the coronation of Charles II, 1661, says:
“We staid upon the leads and below till it was late, expecting to see
the fireworks, but they were not performed to-night.” He seems to
have looked upon fireworks as a matter of course on such an occasion.
However, a display of considerable size did take place, conducted by
Sir Martin Beckman, later Firemaster to James II, who was responsible
for most of the important displays until 1706. One of the earliest
prints of an English firework display is that depicting the fireworks
on the Thames at Whitehall for the coronation of James II, 1685, in
which the artist appears to have drawn somewhat on his imagination.
Three years later an elaborate display was given on the Thames to
celebrate the birth of an heir to the throne, who was afterwards known
as the Old Pretender. In the same year we again see fireworks on the
Thames, this time to celebrate the reception of the Prince of Orange.
[Illustration: Fireworks on the Thames, June 17th, 1688. To
celebrate the birth of a son to King James II. known to fame first
as the Prince of Wales, and afterwards as the Old Pretender.]
In 1690 displays were given, again on the Thames, and in Covent Garden,
on the occasion of the King’s return from Ireland.
The taking of Namur, 1695, was celebrated by a display in St. James’s
Square, and on the same site two years later, the celebrations for
the Peace of Riswick. This latter is depicted in a fine engraving,
giving the following list of fireworks used on the occasion:—“1,000 Sky
Rockets, from four to six pounds weight; 200 Shell; 2,400 Pumps with
Starrs (Roman Candles); 1,000 Cones; 7,000 Reports; 15,000 Swarms; 400
Light Balls; 23 Rocket Chests, each containing 60 rockets from one to
four pounders.”
John Evelyn, in his “Diary,” says: “The evening concluded with
illuminations and fireworks of great expense.” The display cost £12,000.
There seem to have been no fireworks in London at the coronation of
either Anne or the first two Georges, although on the former occasion
rockets appear to have been fired from the Fleet at Spithead.
The Peace Rejoicings of 1713 were the occasion of another display
on the Thames off Whitehall, the erection being about 400 feet long
on barges chained together in the stream. A feature of this display
was the water fireworks, described as: “1,500 small and large water
Rockets; 5 large water Pyramids; 4 water fountains; 13 Pumps; 21
standing Rockets, with lights all swimming on the water; 84 of Coll
Borgards; large and small Bees swarms, half of which were set with
lights to swim on the water.”
The next event to be celebrated by firework displays on a large scale
was the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; these were given at Paris, The Hague,
London, and St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin. The Duke of Richmond was
responsible for a display on the Thames off Whitehall, the official
display taking place in Green Park, and was on a scale unequalled in
this country until well into the last century. It was conducted by the
famous pyrotechnist Gaetano Ruggieri, who came over from France for the
purpose, assisted by Gioseppe Sarti, under the direction of the Board
of Ordnance.
Following the practice of the period, an elaborate structure was
prepared. The following is taken from the official programme:
“A DESCRIPTION OF THE MACHINE FOR THE FIREWORKS, &c.
“The Machine is 114 feet high to the Top of His Majesty’s arms, and
is 410 feet long. It was invented and designed by the Chevalier
Servandoni and all the framing was performed by Mr. James Morris,
Master Carpenter to the Office of Ordnance.
“The Ornaments of this Machine are all in Relief, and it is adorned
with Frets, Gilding, Lustres, Artificial Flowers, Inscriptions,
Statues, Allegorical Pictures, etc.”
According to a contemporary newspaper report, the construction occupied
from November 7th until April 26th. It was composed of timber covered
with canvas, whitewashed and sized.
The display commenced about six o’clock, and continued until after
twelve; during the display the left wing caught fire, which prevented
the firing of some of the devices. Indeed, according to Walpole, the
Duke of Richmond’s display on the Thames a few weeks later consisted
largely of fireworks which had not been fired owing to this occurrence,
and which the noble duke had bought up cheap.
Among the items were included the following:—Regulated Pieces, Fixed
Suns, Stars of six Points, and between each point a Ray, a large
vertical Sun moved by double Fires, Cascades, Pyramids (40 feet high)
of Gerbs, etc., etc. The chief piece seems to be one “from whence Fire
issues out and retires within, twelve times alternately; when without,
it forms a Glory; when within, it composes a Star of eight Points, and
then changes to a Royal brilliant Wheel, whose Fire is thirty feet in
diameter, and is moved by twelve fires.”
The remainder of this century in England appears to be rather barren of
firework displays on a large scale.
A writer in the “St. James’s Chronicle,” under the date February 18th,
1764, in a letter advocating certain improvements in St. James’s Park,
evidently recalling the outcry over the 1749 display, observes: “We
had no fireworks at the peace last year, that will surely obviate any
argument preferred against the expense of the undertaking.”
Until nearly the end of the eighteenth century, according to Strutt,
writing at that time, it was customary “for the Train of Artillery to
display a grand fire-work on Tower Hill, on the King’s Birthday, but
owing to the disturbances that occurred, the inhabitants a few years
since petitioned against it.” There was, however, a great increase in
the number of displays. Fireworks became a feature of the programme of
the majority of the then fashionable tea and pleasure gardens.
Walpole describes a firework display given in 1763 by the notorious
Duchess of Kingston, who was thirteen years later tried by her peers on
a charge of bigamy.
The display appears to have taken place in Hyde Park, opposite the
residence of the Duchess, then at the height of her popularity. He
records that “the fireworks were fine and succeeded well.” One item
seems curious to modern ideas; it took the form of a cenotaph for the
Princess Elizabeth, a sister of the king, bearing the inscription: “All
honours the dead can receive.”
The sequel was even more extraordinary, as “about one in the morning
this Sarcophagus burst into crackers and guns.”
[Illustration: Firework Display given by the Duke of Richmond on
the Thames off Whitehall, May 15th, 1749, to celebrate the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle.]
Lieutenant Jones, who published a book on fireworks in 1765, in his
preface makes the following remarks:
“I own I cannot help reflecting with some kind of chagrin that whenever
we have had occasion for these sort of diversions to be exhibited in
England we have almost always had recourse to foreigners to execute
them; if this has been owing to the ignorance of our own people on this
subject I shall be very happy if it is in my power to correct it; if it
is only owing to that prevailing fondness we entertain for everything
foreign I know no remedy for that evil but time and experience.”
To a certain extent his complaint seems justified; as we have seen,
the Aix-la-Chapelle celebrations were conducted by foreigners—Ruggieri
and Sarti. Later in the century, Morel Torré, who, as previously
mentioned, collaborated with Ruggieri in pyrotechnic displays for Louis
XV, and several other pyrotechnists came to this country and conducted
displays. At the same time, however, there were undoubtedly many
capable pyrotechnists of English nationality, who found scope for their
abilities in the exhibitions given in the pleasure gardens of London
and the provinces in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
A history of pyrotechny would not be complete without a survey of these
popular places of amusement, and we propose in the following chapter to
give a brief summary of the better known places of resort.
CHAPTER V
THE LONDON PLEASURE GARDENS
During the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries the
Pleasure Gardens filled a position in the lives of a large proportion
of the public comparable with that of the Cinema to-day.
To the great mass of the public, the most general form of evening
relaxation was a visit to one or other of these places of resort.
Apart from meals of a more or less elaborate nature, and liquid
refreshments of various kinds, a great variety of entertainments were
provided, varying from displays of horsemanship to exhibitions of
paintings. Of these diversions none were more general than fireworks
and illuminations. At many gardens fireworks formed a regular feature
of the programme, at others, generally less ambitious undertakings,
displays were confined to occasions, such as the King’s Birthday.
Space will hardly permit of more than a glance at those resorts
situated in the provinces, but a description of those in the London
area may be taken as typical.
Captain Marryat, in “Peter Simple,” gives an account of a visit to
Postdown Fair, near Portsmouth, and an adjournment to the local
Ranelagh Gardens to “see the fireworks.” As the pyrotechnist was
behind time, Peter Simple and his friends took it upon themselves to
fire the display. “In about half a minute off they all went in the
most beautiful confusion; there were silver stars and golden stars,
blue lights and Catherine Wheels, Mines and Bombs, Grecian fires and
Roman Candles, Chinese Trees, rockets and illuminated mottoes, all
firing away, cracking, popping, and fizzing at the same time. It was
unanimously agreed that it was a great improvement on the intended
show.”
Undoubtedly the gardens best remembered at the present day are Vauxhall
and Ranelagh, neither of which were early in the field in presenting
firework displays to the public.
The first displays took place at Vauxhall about 1798, more than half a
century after their appearance at some of the less famous gardens, and
did not become a permanent feature of the programme until 1813. They
continued regularly until the final closing of the gardens in 1859, the
final item of the programme being “Farewell for Ever” in letters of
fire. In 1813 an item in the firework programme was the performance of
Madame Saqui, which was to slide down an inclined rope 350 feet long
from the top of a mast 60 feet high, erected on the firework platform,
enveloped in fireworks. So popular did this exhibition become that it
was repeated here by other performers, by Longueman in 1822, and later
by Blackmore.
The best-known pyrotechnists connected with Vauxhall were Southby,
Mortram, and Hengler, the first display being by an Italian named
Invetto.
Pyrotechnic displays at Ranelagh became a prominent feature of the
amusements about 1767. The pyrotechnists Angelo, father and son, during
that and the following years, helped to establish these displays in
popularity, followed by Clithero, Caillot, Brock, Rossi, and Tessier,
up to the closing of the gardens in 1805, after which date they appear
to have been opened from time to time on special occasions. “The
Morning Chronicle” of June 1st, 1812, announces that “By the Authority
of the Right Hon. the Lord Chamberlain” these gardens would be open “in
Honour of His Majesty’s Birthday, with a grand naval and military Fete,
and a superb exhibition of Fireworks.”
An interesting old advertisement, dated 1766: “For the Benefit of the
General Lying-in Hospital. The most superb and Magnificent Fireworks
ever exhibited at that Place, under the conduct and direction of Mr.
Angelo.” It would appear from this that fireworks had been fired at
Ranelagh earlier than 1766, but they could not have been a regular
feature before 1767.
Cupers Gardens, which stood on the south side of the river,
approximately on the site of the Waterloo Bridge approach, were for
a long period the scene of popular firework displays. Commencing
about 1741, these displays were as elaborate as any of this period.
The earlier displays appear to have been conducted by “the ingenious
Mr. Worman,” who seems to have relied to a considerable extent on
transparencies and scenery; in 1749 and 1750 he reproduced in miniature
the firework “machine” or Temple used in the respective official
displays in Green Park, and at The Hague for the Aix-la-Chapelle peace
celebrations. Other scenic effects were a view of the city of Rhodes
with a model of the Colossus; Neptune, issuing from a grotto below
drawn by sea-horses, set fire to a pyramid or an “Archimedan worm” and
returned.
Clithero was also associated with these displays, producing similar
scenic effects, including a naval engagement in 1755, which was the
last year of fireworks in these gardens.
The earlier displays at Marylebone Gardens took place about the middle
of the eighteenth century. In 1751 a display is announced to take place
at eleven o’clock, and “a large collection” of fireworks was advertised
in 1753. Some at least of these earlier displays were fired by Brock,
whose son, later on, worked here in conjunction with Torré. In 1769 the
displays were under the direction of Rossi and Clanfield. From 1772 to
1774 was the most successful period of the fireworks at these gardens;
they were then under the direction of Torré. A popular item, afterwards
copied by Marinari at Ranelagh, was the “Forge of Vulcan,” a scenic
display concluding with the eruption of Mount Etna.
On the occasion of Torré’s benefit, in 1772, there was a further
exhibition of this kind, representing Hercules delivering Theseus from
Hell.
During this period attempts were made by neighbouring residents to stop
the displays as a nuisance, but nothing came of it, and the fireworks
continued.
At the annual festival in 1772, the display included a temple of
“upwards of 10,000 cases of different fires, all lighted at the same
time.”
Other pyrotechnists firing at the gardens were Clithero and Caillot,
both of whom had conducted displays at Ranelagh, the latter being
responsible for the fireworks up to the closing of the gardens about
1778.
It is recorded that Dr. Johnson once visited the gardens on a firework
night, but unfortunately a wet one, and notice was given to the
handful of visitors that the fireworks were wet and the display would
be cancelled. The doctor, however, was of opinion that it was a “mere
excuse to save their crackers for a more profitable company,” and
suggested that a threat to break the lamps would result in the show
being forthcoming. Some young men standing by endeavoured, under his
direction, to ignite the pieces, but unsuccessfully.
The Mulberry Gardens, Clerkenwell, were among the earliest to make
fireworks a feature. Displays took place from the opening in 1742, and
ten years later Clanfield gave a display each evening.
Two neighbouring taverns, “Lord Cobham’s Head” and the “Sir John
Oldcastle,” had displays from 1744, and in 1751 “New fireworks in the
Chinese manner” were announced at the latter establishment.
The New Wells, in the same neighbourhood as the foregoing, had had
a display as early as 1740, but it appears to have been of a scenic
nature, representing the Siege of Portobello.
The “Star and Garter,” Chelsea, advertised displays by Signor Genovini
of Rome, in 1762, and “Jenny’s Whim,” in the same neighbourhood, had
displays somewhat earlier, the place having been established as a
pleasure resort by a pyrotechnist.
Cromwell Gardens, in the vicinity of the present Cromwell Road, had
what appears to have been a small display in 1784.
Rossi and Tessier, the pyrotechnists of Ranelagh, gave displays at
the Bermondsey Spa Gardens in 1792. A representation of the Siege of
Gibraltar was given, and on September 28th of that year, “by special
desire the Battle of the Fiery Dragons, and the line comet to come from
the Rock of Gibraltar and cause the Dragons to engage.” Brock also gave
displays here later.
Finch’s Grotto Gardens, whose site is now occupied by the headquarters
of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in Southwark, had occasional displays
of fireworks about 1770, as did the Temple of Flora in the Westminster
Bridge Road, about the same date. Clithero advertised a display of
fireworks at Jamaica House, Rotherhithe, in 1762.
A Peace Celebration display is announced for February 7th, 1749, to “be
play’d off this evening in the Field adjoining to the Tavern called
Bob’s Hall.”
In 1788 Astley senior advertises, to take place at the Royal Grove
and Astley’s Amphitheatre, Westminster Bridge, a “Double Display of
Fire-Works.... Numerous Devices prepared in the usual way from Powder,
etc., which will be alternatively played off with the new-invented
Philosophical Fire-Works, under the direction of Mons. Henry, the
inventor and Professor of Natural Philosophy from Paris.”
The same year he announces a display “on the Thames immediately after
Astley’s Exhibition in Honour of His Majesty’s Birth-day,” and
concludes by saying “the Fireworks are made under the Direction of Mr.
Astley, by Messrs. Cobonell & Son, who will let them off on the Thames
this evening at different signals from Mr. Astley, Sen., who will be
mounted on the Gibraltar Charger, placed in a Barge, in the Front of
the line of Fireworks.”
[Illustration: Firework Temple at Vauxhall, 1845. From a woodcut in
“The Illustrated London News.”]
The “Philosophical fireworks” above mentioned were evidently an
imitation of those exhibited at the Lyceum by Diller, which he
describes as “Philosophical Fireworks from Inflammable Air without
smell, smoke or Detonation.” These appear to have been nothing more
than gas jets arranged in patterns and designs, some revolving and some
stationary. Air was forced from a bladder through a sponge saturated
with ether. Movement and variation were produced by turning on and off
the gas from separate sets of holes. Two colours only appear to have
been produced—rose and green; these were by the addition of strontia
and baryta or copper.
A handbill is in existence advertising a similar display at Hull in
1804, by W. Clarke.
During the early part of the nineteenth century several gardens round
London made a feature of pyrotechnic displays. The Mermaid Gardens,
Hackney, in “The Morning Chronicle” of June 1st, 1812, announces “the
greatest feast for the eye ever exhibited is a superb firework by that
unparalleled artist, Mr. Brock, Engineer.”
The Yorkshire Stingo and Bayswater Tea Gardens in the west gave
displays up to the early forties. White Conduit House, in the Islington
district, had firework displays from 1824 up to shortly before the
closing of these gardens in 1849.
Rosherville Gardens, opened in 1837, the North Woolwich Gardens, the
Eagle, 1825–82, the Globe, Mile End, the Cremorne, 1843–77, all had
their firework displays. The best known, however, for this feature
were the Surrey Zoological Gardens, 1831–56, where Southby, of
Vauxhall, conducted displays for several years, producing pyrotechnic
and scenic displays there. In 1841 he gave a reproduction of the
fireworks of St. Angelo, and the Illumination of St. Peter’s, Rome,
which proved a great attraction to the gardens.
In the provinces the Belvue Gardens, Manchester, and the Clifton
Zoological Gardens, Bristol, have made a feature of firework displays
in their list of attractions, those at the latter being carried out in
1835 by Gyngell.
The famous Cremorne Gardens made a feature of pyrotechnic displays and
spectacles of the scenic type with more or less regularity from their
opening in 1846 down to the final closing owing to public petition in
1877. The earlier displays were carried out by Mortram and Duffel.
Firework displays of a somewhat more ambitious nature have been given
from time to time at the Alexandra Palace, no doubt in emulation of the
historic Crystal Palace displays, which are dealt with in the ensuing
chapter.
CHAPTER VI
FIREWORKS IN THE NINETEENTH & TWENTIETH CENTURIES
As we have seen, the commencement of the eighteenth century was marked
by great activity in the pyrotechnic art.
Firework displays were looked upon as a necessary item in the programme
of a place of public entertainment. So ambitious did these displays
become, owing to keen rivalry existing between the various resorts,
that any official display in celebration of peace or like event must of
necessity be on a scale of unexampled lavishness.
No official display of note appears to have been given in London during
the first thirteen years of the nineteenth century, or indeed since
the Aix-la-Chapelle peace display. The reason may have been the public
outcry on the score of waste on that occasion.
They were totally prohibited at the coronation of George III, and at
his jubilee in 1809 there were apparently no firework displays in
London, although more than forty towns about the country celebrated the
event pyrotechnically, and a fine display was given from the Fleet at
the Nore.
The largest public firework exhibition on this occasion was that given
at Bombay, where the celebration took place earlier in the year, the
date selected being June 4th, the King’s birthday, instead of October
25th, the actual anniversary of his accession.
The Peace of 1802, although no official display was given, was the
occasion of much private pyrotechnic enterprise, the fireworks and
illuminations in London lasting nearly a week.
The Peace of 1814 was signalised in London by several displays: the 1st
of August was chosen for the Peace Celebration, it being the centenary
of the accession of the House of Brunswick, and also the anniversary of
the Battle of the Nile.
The display in Hyde Park commenced with a naval engagement on the
Serpentine between model warships representing the English and the
combined French and American Fleets. This item, which lasted three
hours, was followed by a display of water fireworks. The display in
Green Park commenced at ten o’clock, one of the chief items being
the “grand metamorphosis of the Castle into the Temple of Concord.”
This change, says a writer in “The Times” of the period, “was made
with somewhat less celerity than those witnessed in our theatrical
pantomimes. It resembled rather the cautious removal of a screen than
the sudden leap into a new shape. When fully developed, however, it
presented a spectacle which excited general approbation.”
The Temple of Concord was an elaborate structure illuminated with
coloured lamps, and decorated with gilding, festoons, etc., and
transparent paintings. It was designed by Smirke, the paintings being
by Stodard, Howard, Hilton, and others, and represented such subjects
as “The Golden Age,” and “Peace restored to Earth.”
Charles Lamb, in a letter to William Wordsworth, dated August 9th,
1814, after describing the havoc wrought in the park by the crowds
and booths, remarks that: “After all the fireworks were splendent—the
Rockets in clusters, in trees and all shapes, spreading about like
young stars in the making floundering about in space (like unbroke
horses) till some of Newton’s calculations should fix them, but then
they went out. Anyone who could see ’em and the still finer showers of
gloomy rain fire that fell sulkily and angrily from ’em, and could go
to bed without dreaming of the Last Day, must be as hardened an Atheist
as ****.”
St. James’s Park was reserved for those who paid for admission. The
trees were illuminated with lamps, and a Chinese bridge, which had been
erected over the lake, was similarly treated. The use of gas on this
structure must be one of the earliest occasions of its being employed
for outdoor illuminations of this nature. Neither can the result be
considered altogether successful, as the building caught fire towards
the end of the firework display, and a lamplighter, who appears to
have been caught by the flames in an attempt to throw himself into the
water, was killed. Other men similarly employed were also severely
burned. These men, evidently through ignorance, had started lighting
the lower lamps first, working upwards on the structure, until they
found themselves in a position of intolerable heat with no means of
descending.
The pyrotechnic display consisted chiefly of aerial fireworks with
gerbs, roman candles, fountains, and wheels; there do not appear to
have been many devices of any size. “The Times” reporter complains that
“the repetition of these things, with occasional pauses, for more than
two hours became tedious to all.”
The coronation of George IV, in 1821, was celebrated by a display
in Hyde Park, including land and water fireworks, superintended by
Congreve. The displays on the coronation of William IV, in 1831, were
directed by Congreve’s successor, Sir Augustus Frazer, but appear to
have been of an insignificant character.
Queen Victoria’s coronation was celebrated by displays in Hyde Park
and Green Park, conducted by Southby and D’Ernst, which exhibitions
included a Temple on similar lines to that of 1814.
In France, during the first few years of the nineteenth century, there
were many pyrotechnic displays of importance. Napoleon is credited
with being extremely partial to such exhibitions. Displays took place
in Paris in the Champs Elysées, at the barriere Chaillot, before Les
Invalides in 1801 to celebrate the foundation of the Republic, and in
the following year in honour of Napoleon’s arrival in that city.
Major-General Lord Blayney, who was captured by Napoleon’s troops in
the Peninsula in 1810, travelled on parole across Spain and France on
his way to Verdun. His somewhat leisurely journey of nearly six months
enabled him to witness many celebrations of French victories in the
towns through which he passed. He records having seen fireworks and
illuminations among other places at Malaga and Orleans.
In 1804 a display was given by Napoleon before the Hotel de Ville,
Paris, on his assumption of the title of Emperor of the French. The
scenery provided for this display took the form of a representation
of Mount St. Bernard, with a figure symbolising Napoleon mounted on a
charger on the summit.
This display was repeated in 1810 on the occasion of his marriage with
Marie Louise; this time, however, the topmost feature was the Temple of
Hymen, with figures of Napoleon and his bride.
Other displays were given on the bridge of Louis XVI, which appears
to have been a popular position for such exhibitions, in 1800, 1804,
1806, 1820, and 1821. Another site frequently used for displays was the
garden of the Senate, where Ruggieri fired displays in the years 1801,
1806 (twice), and 1807.
Fireworks continued to be a national institution in France,
irrespective of the form of government. Louis Napoleon, like his uncle,
being fond of fireworks, or it may be, considering them a good means
of gaining popularity, made any public event an excuse for pyrotechnic
displays. Notable occasions were the Military Fetes, 1852, the Fete of
the Emperor, 1853, the visit of Queen Victoria to the Paris Exhibition
of 1855, in honour of which a most elaborate display was given at
Versailles, the Baptismal Fetes in 1856, the triumphal entry and the
Emperor’s birthday, 1859, and the visit of the King Consort of Spain in
1864.
The Entente Cordiale movement in 1868 was responsible for displays in
the Fleets on both sides of the Channel, those in France taking place
in Cherbourg, those in England at Spithead.
A previous event which had been celebrated pyrotechnically on a large
scale in both countries was the Peace Rejoicing at the conclusion of
the Crimean War.
This occasion was marked in London by four displays of fireworks on a
scale hitherto unprecedented. The sites chosen were Hyde Park, Green
Park, Primrose Hill, and Victoria Park. They were arranged thus with
the very sensible idea of splitting the crowds of sightseers into
sections and thus preventing dangerous crowding to one spot. The
fireworks were prepared for these displays in Woolwich Arsenal, under
the direction of Mr. Southby, the pyrotechnist of the Surrey Gardens,
who went there for this event.
The programmes of these displays were precisely similar, with the
exception of that at Primrose Hill, which consisted mainly of aerial
fireworks.
Tyrrell, in his “History of the War with Russia,” gives the following
account of the display in Green Park: “At the appointed signal there
was a continuous discharge of maroons, accompanied by brilliant
illuminations with white, red, green, and yellow fires.... Then for
two hours followed every conceivable design of elegant and dazzling
pyrotechnic art. Flights of rockets a hundred at a time; revolving
wheels, sun star and golden streamers, and fiery serpents chasing each
other through the air. Gerbs, Roman candles, tourbillions, shells, and
fixed pieces of the most fantastic designs and brilliant hues. The
eyes were dazzled by the intensity of the light.... It was strange to
believe that so fierce and ungovernable an element as fire could be
rendered so delicately obedient to the will of man.... The triumph,
however, of the entertainment was reserved for the close of it. This
was a tremendous bombardment, during which the air was constantly
filled with flights of rockets, and was intended as a representation of
the last grand attack upon Sebastopol—the blowing up of the magazines
and works, and general conflagration.
“As an introduction to this there were five fixed pieces, all of
complicated construction, the centre being an enormous one which, amid
all its fantastic blazing and revolving, exhibited the words ‘God Save
the Queen.’ Language fails to convey a vivid idea of the deafening,
roaring, crashing and grand appearance of the termination, during which
the proud fortifications of Sebastopol were supposed to succumb. Then
rose up into the blackness, rapidly one after another, six flights
of rockets, comprising altogether no less than ten thousand of these
beautiful and brilliant instruments.... It was such a spectacle as man
could not reasonably expect to witness more than once in a lifetime.”
This account appears to be somewhat highly coloured, as the official
programme makes no reference to the fall of Sebastopol, but it is
evident from it that the writer was greatly impressed with the display,
and contemporary prints indicate that he was voicing popular opinion.
It is worthy of note that these celebrations were the first occasion of
the kind in which the exhibitions consisted of veritable fireworks
without extraneous matter in the form of scenery and buildings. This
may account for the fact that there was, on this occasion, considerably
less of the usual outcry against the “waste” involved. It is curious
that on occasions of this kind there are always to be found certain
damp spirits who begin a clamour against the expenditure of money on
fireworks which might be applied to other objects. The Aix-la-Chapelle
display excited these gentlemen to a great pitch, probably on account
of the elaborate nature of the preparations, which, as we have already
seen, occupied over five months, thus providing them with plenty
of time to develop their theme, or an object lesson to prove their
statements.
[Illustration: Queen Victoria’s Visit to France, 1855. The
Fireworks at Versailles. From a drawing by Gustav Doré in “The
Illustrated London News.”]
Where, however, the display consists—as on the occasion under
consideration—solely of fireworks proper, a few days’ preparation on
the actual site is usually sufficient; the kill-joy has less time
to spread himself. It may be mentioned his season is over with the
display; generally the British public, having enjoyed itself, turns a
deaf ear to those who would convince it that it ought not to have done
so.
Other displays took place in various parts of the kingdom: in Edinburgh
on Arthur’s Seat, at Portsmouth on the Fleet, to mention two only.
An interesting event which took place on the 25th August was the
entertainment of 2,000 men of the Guards at the Surrey Gardens. This
resort was at the time the home of British pyrotechny, the displays
being conducted by Southby, who, as we have said, went into Woolwich
Arsenal to assist in the production of the fireworks for the official
displays. The amusements of the day concluded with an exhibition of
fireworks.
A further event connected with the foregoing celebration was the
festivities in Moscow on the occasion of the coronation of the Emperor
Alexander II, which concluded with a pyrotechnic display.
From this time until the end of the century the history of pyrotechny
in this country is practically the history of pyrotechny at the Crystal
Palace; it has been the Crystal Palace displays which have set the
pace, as it were, to pyrotechnists in this country, and has provided
the spur which has placed British pyrotechnists not only ahead but
markedly ahead of their competitors in other countries.
The Crystal Palace displays became a national institution, and any
public event worthy of such recognition was accorded a pyrotechnic
celebration there on a scale hitherto unattempted.
The credit for the original introduction of fireworks at the Crystal
Palace must belong to the late C. T. Brock, who succeeded in inducing
the Directors to institute a competition among pyrotechnists in 1865.
It may be interesting to give in his own words an account of the
matter, taken from an article written by him some few years later:
“It occurred to me that of all the places of public resort suitable
for the inauguration of a new era for pyrotechny, none offered
such glorious advantages as the Crystal Palace, then at the height
of its popularity. Its terraces, fountains and foliage offered
unrivalled advantages for the display of grand effects. The
Directors of the Crystal Palace Company, who had more than once
been applied to for permission to hold displays in the grounds,
feared that, inasmuch as fireworks had been recently associated
solely with gardens of the Cremorne class, the Palace itself would
be degraded to the same rank if consent were granted. I urged that
the Exhibition of 1862 had afforded no opportunity for competition
among firework makers—necessarily excluded by the nature of their
trade—although almost every other branch of manufactures were
embraced, that such a contest might with reason and advantage be
held at Sydenham, and that fireworks were really not of an immoral
tendency. I further agreed that in the event of the result being
unfavourable, either financially or from a social point of view,
no second display need take place, but if, as I felt confident,
there should be a large attendance of the better classes, then
other exhibitions might follow. The Directors, after many months of
delay, consented to make the experiment, and the favourable result
of the trial on July 12th, 1865, far exceeded my most sanguine
expectations.
“The result was an unlooked-for success, 20,000 people being
present on the occasion. Three more displays took place that year
upon a small scale, but always with successful results.
“The first display was produced jointly by my father and Mr.
Southby, the winner of the first prize, and continued to the end of
that season by my father alone under my management.
“The success of fireworks at the Crystal Palace having become
an accomplished fact, I built extensive works at Nunhead, and
commenced manufacturing on a scale never previously dreamt of in
the trade—the vast expanse of the locale of my displays obviously
necessitating extraordinary expenditure of material.
“By degrees the set pieces grew from twelve feet in diameter to 300
feet. Shells for which the Crystal Palace has been renowned grew to
one hundred times more than the ordinary shells of my early days,
and thousands of pounds weight of material was gradually introduced
to increase the effectiveness of these displays.”
[Illustration: “The GRAND WHIM for POSTERITY to Laugh at:
Being the Night View of the ROYAL FIREWORKS, as Exhibited in the
Green Park, St. _James’s_, with the Right Wing on Fire.”
Firework Display in the Green Park to celebrate the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1749.]
The Crystal Palace displays carried out by C. T. Brock and his
brother, Arthur Brock, who succeeded him in the business on March 25th,
1881, have since become proverbial. They continued up to 1910, when
the Crystal Palace was taken over by the promoters of the Pageant of
Empire. They have been revived in 1920, when the War Museum was opened,
and the attendance has proved that the public taste for fireworks is
very far from diminishing.
During the run of forty-five consecutive years an installation was
built up, method and technique were evolved unknown in any other place
of pyrotechnic exhibition.
While the firework terrace, with its magnificent background of park
and shrubberies, is unrivalled as a firing ground, it is at the same
time the most exacting. The huge building, its imposing position and
setting, the wonderful fountains, all demand pyrotechnic effects on a
corresponding scale.
The pictorial set pieces, originally introduced by C. T. Brock in 1875,
increased in size until a plant was arrived at capable of exhibiting a
picture ninety feet high and two hundred feet long on the main girder,
which length could be extended to even six hundred feet of frontage, as
on the occasion of the exhibition of a battle piece or similar subject.
During this period the subjects dealt with in the main set pieces have
covered a wide range. A favourite subject, and one lending itself
particularly well to pyrotechnic production, is the sea battle. Almost
every historic naval engagement of sufficient size to warrant its
adoption has been proved the subject for a fire picture.
Among the battle pictures produced are the following:—Bombardment of
Alexandria in 1882, Siege of Gibraltar in 1883, Battle of Trafalgar
in 1884; during 1885, two pictures representing the use of the
ironclads of the period and based on the Naval manœuvres, entitled
the “Attack on Dover,” and the Battle of Bantry Bay; the following
year another imaginary picture depicting an attack by torpedo boats on
the latest battleship, the “Colossus.” The Bombardment of Sebastopol
was reproduced in 1887, followed by the Jubilee Naval Review at
Spithead. In 1888 the defeat of the Spanish Armada was depicted;
in 1890 Trafalgar, followed in 1891 by the engagement between the
“Chesapeake” and the “Shannon,” together with a portrait of Admiral
Sir Provo Wallis, then aged one hundred, and another from an early
painting showing him at the time of the engagement when the command
of the English vessel devolved upon him owing to the casualties among
the senior officers. Later in that year the Battle of the Nile was
reproduced; 1893 saw the Bombardment of Canton; 1894 the Battle of the
First of June, and the Battle of the Yalu. The Battle of Manilla Bay
was produced in 1898, and on the centenary date the Battle of the Nile.
In 1889, H.M.S. “Implacable” was shown in action on the day on which
she was commissioned, followed in 1900 by the Bombardment of the Taku
Forts, and in 1901 by the immortal sea fight between the “Revenge”
and the “Fifty-three.” In 1904 the Russo-Japanese War gave subjects
in the various attacks on Port Arthur and the Battle of Tsu-Shima,
and the Battle of the Sea of Japan in the year following. The Battle
of Trafalgar was renewed that season, and in 1908 another imaginary
picture portraying modern naval warfare was produced, followed in 1909
by an imaginary encounter between the first Dreadnought and other craft.
The revival of the Crystal Palace displays in 1920 saw the reproduction
of the Battle of Jutland, of which the following appreciation appeared
in the Press:
“The chief set piece in the programme is a Fire Picture of the
Battle of Jutland, the most realistic spectacle ever produced
in fire; by ingenious devices the guns fire, shells burst in all
directions, gaping holes appear in the sides and upper works
of the ships engaged, until—when the din of battle has reached
its height—the German cruiser ‘Lutzow’ blows up and sinks. One
realises that here at least is one pictorial subject in which
the Cinematograph is hopelessly outdone; the variety of noises,
varying from the sharp bark of quick-firers to the boom of the
heavy guns, which are here so wonderfully reproduced, are quite
inadequately rendered by the conventional thumps on the big drum in
the orchestra.”
Before the resources of lance-work were fully understood, the
reproduction of famous buildings was a fruitful source of subjects;
those reproduced vary from the Crystal Palace itself to Worcester and
Salisbury Cathedrals, and from the Arc de Triomphe to the Mosque at
Delhi.
Natural catastrophes such as the Avalanche, the Eruption of Vesuvius,
and the Destruction of Pompeii have been portrayed. The Wreck of the
Eider in 1892, with the rescue of the passengers by the lifeboats,
formed the subject of a popular set piece; another successful scenic
showed a wreck with line-throwing rockets and transport of passengers
by the breeches buoy.
In 1879 portraits in fire were reproduced for the first time, and since
that date those executed have included almost all the Royal Personages
of the day, many of which have been fired electrically from the Royal
Box by the originals. Other eminent people reproduced range from King
Cetewayo in 1882, the Maori King in 1884, Li-Hung-Chang in 1896, to
Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford in 1920.
In 1887 what is known as the transformation set piece was introduced.
Upon lighting, the piece exhibits a floral design in colours, which,
after burning some time, becomes transformed into a portrait, the lines
of which are worked inconspicuously with those of the floral design,
and, to use a modern term, camouflaged by its colours, the colour of
the portrait being white.
[Illustration: A full-size picture of the Jumma Musjid in Fireworks
at the Crystal Palace, 1892.]
[Illustration: Firework Display for the Coronation Durbar at Delhi,
January 3rd, 1903. In the background is the Jumma Musjid.]
The first portrait to be so shown was Lord Beaconsfield, the floral
design being of primroses, and the occasion Primrose Day. This, for
the first example of its kind, was very successful, and later in the
year an enormous transformation picture, 200 feet long and 100 feet
high, was fired at the Jubilee display, changing to portraits of Queen
Victoria and members of the Royal Family.
A popular picture of this kind is the puzzle picture which transforms
from a jungle scene to animals.
Another most successful changing picture was entitled “The Seasons,”
first produced in 1889, and revived from time to time. A rural scene
changes from Spring to Summer, from Summer to Autumn, and finally to
Winter. The effect is produced by varying compositions in the lances,
and by employing lances of varying length, and requires very exact
manipulation and supervision.
Patriotic, congratulatory, and political cartoons and devices have been
exhibited in wonderful variety of design, sentiment, and language:
Chinese, Persian, and Maori, to mention only three of the latter.
Living Fireworks, invented and patented by C. T. Brock and Co., in
1888, have always been a favourite feature of the Crystal Palace
displays. The performer is clad in overalls of asbestos cloth, and on
the side nearest to the spectators wears a light wood framework, of
which the outline is “lanced” to depict the particular character to be
portrayed.
The first subject dealt with was the boxing match, which has enjoyed
continuous popularity up to the present day, and is possibly the most
successful.
Other favourites have been Blondin on the tight rope, inspired by the
appearance of the real Blondin on the firework terrace, surrounded by
firework effects, in 1871; dancers of various kinds, from the Sailor’s
Hornpipe to Salome; Cat fights; Cock fights; the Boxing Kangaroo in
1893, when that performance was attracting crowds to the old Aquarium;
an Indian Snake Charmer; a Fisherman; a Trapeze Artist, have all been
produced by living actors in fire.
In 1895 “The Village Blacksmith” was enacted, with horse, blacksmith,
assistant, and horse’s owner, with forge, bellows, anvil, and all
necessary “properties.” The following year a piece was exhibited
showing various members of the building trades at work. Then followed
the Fire Scene, in which a house is seen on fire, the motor fire engine
arrives, the men jump down, unroll the hose, and proceed to extinguish
the outbreak with a jet of fire. Another ambitious effort showed a
City policeman regulating the traffic. The most elaborate scene of the
kind yet attempted was to work living figures in connection with the
main set piece. The subject chosen was life in the Arctic Regions, and
opened with the open Polar Sea, with whaling vessels, spouting whale,
and launch of the whaling boat, which follows the whale and fires a
harpoon. The picture then changed to Arctic winter, ice forms, and
the vessel is frozen with the ice, sledging parties travel over the
ice, and the picture concluded with a man and bear fight in living
fireworks. The same year—1890—there was introduced into the Children’s
Fireworks, which form an annual feature of the Crystal Palace displays,
a living Jack and the Beanstalk picture.
In 1906 the then popular song, “I wouldn’t leave my little Wooden Hut
for You,” was the basis of what was described in the programme as a
Living Firework Drama. The popular songs of the day have provided
the subject for many successful set pieces, and form a class of picture
which derives much of its success from the band accompaniment and the
opportunity for vocal effort on the part of the crowd.
[Illustration: A Crystal Palace Set Piece at the time of the South
African War. (200 ft. long by 70 ft. high.)]
The origin of this type of picture is worth recording. In 1889 the Shah
of Persia visited the Crystal Palace, and fired a portrait of himself,
electrically, from the Royal Box. A popular song of the day, “Have you
seen the Shah?” was suggested to some musically inclined members of the
audience, who commenced to sing it, and were soon joined by the whole
of the spectators, numbering about 50,000.
The effect of this impromptu concert was so striking as to lead to
the production of the popular song whenever there happened to be one
suitable for pictorial rendering in fireworks.
In 1892 a mechanical Lottie Collins, 60 feet high, dancing to the then
popular strain of “Ta-ra-ra-bom-de-ay,” was enthusiastically received.
A series of patriotic and sentimental songs at the time of the South
African War, as “The Absent-minded Beggar” and “Good-bye, Dolly Grey,”
etc., were very successful. The “Honeysuckle and the Bee” provided the
subject for a transformation picture, a design of honeysuckle changing
to a girl’s head with a mechanical bee twelve feet long.
In 1908 three songs were included in one piece—“Bill Bailey,”
“Farewell, my Bluebell,” and “The Old Bull and Bush.”
The smaller mechanical pieces form a history of locomotion during the
half-century covered by the displays. Bicycles, motor cars, looping the
loop, aeroplanes, costers’ barrows, hansom cabs, fire engines, scooters
have all been represented, and in 1895, on the occasion of the visit of
the Railway Conference, two of the best mechanical pieces ever carried
out—full-sized representations of the “Rocket” and the latest type of
express engine with exact details and working parts.
An effective working device introduced as early as 1870 was a comet
travelling down a wire from one of the famous towers to the ground.
Later the comet was replaced by a dragon, Mother Goose, and in 1872 by
a “Fiery Bicycle,” a subject which seems somewhat out of place in such
a position. The next development of this feature was to introduce a
living man who, clad in shining armour and surrounded and illuminated
by a frame of fireworks, striking an impressive attitude, slid from the
summit of the tower to the terrace.
The name of this performer, no doubt in imitation of the Italian
artists who on a smaller scale carried out a similar feat at Vauxhall,
was given in the programme as Signor Gregorini. In private life or in
the works, however, he went by the name of Bill Gregory, and it is
recorded that, when on the first night he stuck half-way down and had
to remain in his airy position for the remainder of the display, his
remarks left no doubt as to the country of his origin.
It is characteristic of Mr. C. T. Brock that he who originated the idea
was the first to try the descent. The weight of the cable was very
considerable and the strain very heavy in order to keep it sufficiently
taut, and doubts were expressed as to the advisability of putting
such a stress on the structure, which led to the abandonment of the
performance.
It would be tedious to attempt to give anything like a description of
the many and varied moving and stationary devices used in the Crystal
Palace displays. The descriptions in the traditional somewhat flowery
language of the firework programmes would convey little without
illustration. One feature generally to be found in the programme is
that of the wheels. These are generally fired in a group of three in
the centre of the Terrace, the designs varying in form, movement and
colour from time to time, the fire of the centre or largest wheel
forming a circle one hundred feet in diameter.
The historical displays during this period include the displays given
in India in 1875–6, during the tour of King Edward, then Prince of
Wales, at Bombay, Madura, Colombo, Madras, and Jaipur, and a series of
enormous displays carried out at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition
in 1876, at one of which 250,000 people paid half-a-dollar admission,
and in 1877, the displays given at Calcutta and Delhi on the occasion
of the assumption by Queen Victoria of the title Empress of India.
The Jubilee and Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria produced enormous
activity in the manufacture of fireworks. Displays great and small took
place all over the United Kingdom, or rather, the Empire.
Among the displays fired on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee,
certainly not the least interesting, although comparatively small
in extent, was that given at Blantyre in the heart of the African
continent. This display, which included a portrait of Her late Majesty,
was carried up three hundred and sixty miles of the Zambesi, thence by
canoe over eighty miles of sandbanks and mud, and finally thirty miles
overland with a rise of 3,500 feet.
Other displays were the display on the Tagus in 1886 on the occasion
of the marriage of the late King of Portugal; the display fired from
Brooklyn Bridge for the Columbus Tercentenary in 1892; the Imperial
Fete on the Danube in 1903; the display fired from thirteen battleships
moored at a distance of a quarter of a mile from each other on the
occasion of the “Entente Cordiale” visit of the French Fleet in 1905;
the display celebrating the Tercentenary of the founding of Quebec in
1908; and the greatest display of fireworks ever fired—the official
Peace display in Hyde Park in 1919, in which some of the ground works
suffered from the rain which, unfortunately, started about five
o’clock, but the aerial work was on an unprecedented scale, shells
varying from sixteen inches down to 5½ inches in diameter being fired
in salvoes of twenty-five to one hundred.
Rockets of 1 lb. were fired in flights of one hundred, and a final
flight of three thousand; sets of Roman candles, each containing two
hundred; one hundred fiery jets, etc., etc. The “Fourth of June”
celebration at Eton has always been the occasion of a firework display,
and displays have taken place annually, with the exception of the
years of the Great War, from at least as early as the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Hone, in his “Everyday Book” (1831), speaks of the
fireworks as a well-established feature of the festival.
It is possible, and even probable, that they date from the reign of
George III, on whose birthday the event takes place.
[Illustration: PANORAMA OF SOME OF THE AERIAL EFFECTS IN THE
NATIONAL FIREWORK DISPLAY AT HYDE PARK, 19th JULY, 1919.]
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.
[Illustration: THE EXPLOSION AT MADAME COTON’S FIREWORK FACTORY,
WESTMINSTER ROAD.
From “The Illustrated London News,” 1858.]
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._
CHAPTER VIII
MODERN FIREWORK MANUFACTURE
Fireworks are now manufactured under the Explosives Act of 1875 and
Orders in Council No. 2 and No. 4 under that Act.
Order in Council No. 4 deals with small Firework Factories, the total
contents of which, either finished or in course of construction, do not
exceed 500 lbs. This class of factory presents little of interest for
consideration; and is governed by practically the same rules as are
the larger establishments of the kind, with such modifications as are
justified by the small quantity of explosive material involved.
Order in Council No. 2 sets out the general rules to be observed in
factories licensed under the Act, the leading points of which are as
follows:
The absence of iron or steel in any workshop, carriage, or boat;
cleanliness and absence of grit; care as to material liable to
spontaneous ignition; provision of lightning conductors on magazines;
tools and implements to be of soft metal; working clothes without
pockets; shoes without nails; searching or means to prevent the
introduction of matches or dangerous substances into the works;
materials and finished work to be removed from working buildings and
not allowed to accumulate when any particular process is completed;
no person under sixteen years to be employed or enter any danger
building. Every building to be provided with a set of these rules, and
a statement of the quantities of explosives and ingredients, and the
work to be carried on in it as allowed by the license.
The modern factory is generally situated in a rural district on
account of the fact that it is more easy to observe the statutary
distances from protected works. Protected works referred to in the
Act include other workshops and magazines in the factory, and also
dwelling-houses, factories, institutions, railways, highways, and
various undertakings and buildings, the distances to be observed
varying with the nature of the protected work from public highways to
palaces or houses of residence of the King, his heirs and successors.
In some cases, as with private dwelling-houses, the distance to be
observed is about half, if the consent of the occupier to the erection
of the factory building or magazine is obtained.
Firework factories, in fact all explosive factories, are constructed on
the principle of limiting the scope and effect of any explosion that
may take place to the smallest possible quantity of material and to the
smallest possible risk to human life.
The working buildings are constructed with a door at either end to
facilitate escape in case of danger; the quantity of chemicals and of
partially or wholly finished fireworks is strictly limited, as is the
number of persons employed in the building. This number varies with the
nature of the operation being carried out, from one in the case of the
most hazardous to six in some cases.
The working buildings are of light construction; the form most in use
is a timber framing lined with matched boarding and covered externally
with corrugated iron. No iron fittings are used, or iron nails left
exposed in the interior. The floor is covered with linoleum, which is
secured by copper tacks.
The distance separating working buildings is, generally speaking,
twenty-five yards, or if a suitable screen is placed between two such
buildings, this distance may be reduced to twelve yards.
The workpeople are provided with non-inflammable outer garments,
no pockets are allowed, and suitable overshoes of sewn leather or
indiarubber are provided.
All tools are of soft metal, such as brass or copper, or of wood.
The regulations refer, of course, only to those buildings in which
explosive work is carried on, that is to say, buildings in the danger
area as distinct from the non-danger area.
The buildings in the danger area are working buildings, drying-rooms,
expense and factory magazines. Expense magazines are those which are
licensed for a comparatively small quantity of explosives, and from
which explosive material is drawn as the work of the factory demands,
or into which is put partially or wholly finished work either awaiting
completion or transference to the main or factory magazines.
The non-danger area includes stores for chemicals, paper, and other
material, also case rolling and drying sheds, sawmill, wood-working and
paper-cutting shops, offices, and similar buildings.
The manufacture of fireworks begins with the making of the case or
container, which, with the exception of shells and Jacks-in-the-box,
are cylindrical in form.
What are known as “small goods” are “dry-rolled,” that is, the outer
edge of the paper only is pasted. They are then rolled up on a metal
former on a slate slab.
The larger cases, such as rockets, gerbs, and Roman candles, have
the paper pasted all over, which is rolled up on the former and
consolidated by repeated rolling between the slate slab and a board
provided with a handle.
There are two methods of introducing the composition into the
cases—filling and charging.
Filling is used where the composition does not have to be consolidated,
and is done with a wire and funnel, or as it was formerly called, a
“tun dish.” The funnel has its outlet of such a size as to fit the case
to be filled, the wire or rod is somewhat smaller than this outlet, and
is provided at the upper end with a knob for the hand. The end of the
funnel, which is filled with composition, is inserted in the upright
case. The wire is then drawn up, thus freeing a small quantity of the
composition which runs down into the case, the lowering of the wire
pushing it into position. In order to render the downward movement
more effective, the wire is often notched, but it is doubtful if this
actually increases the efficiency. This action is rapidly repeated
until the case is filled.
This method, although simple, is very effective, and in the hands of a
practised worker is exceedingly quick.
Charging is adopted where the contents have to be solidified in the
case. The composition is introduced in small quantities with a scoop of
suitable size and consolidated by repeated blows with a wooden mallet
on a “drift.” The drift is a cylindrical wooden tool of a size to fit
the case, and an enlargement at the upper end to receive the blow of
the mallet.
The methods of charging the various forms of fireworks will be dealt
with later under their separate headings.
The method of charging rockets in use in the sixteenth century are
those of to-day, and it is remarkable that no satisfactory alternative
to hand charging has yet been devised. Mechanical hammering and
hydraulic pressure have both been tried, but so far with limited
success.
Stars which are used in Roman candles and as garniture for rockets and
shells, are of many kinds and combinations, but with the exception
of some which are in effect complete miniature fireworks, they are
constructed on one of three methods—they are either “pumped,” “pinched”
or “charged.”
The pump used in the first of these operations consists of a short
metal tube, which fits exactly a short metal plunger provided with a
knob for the hand, and a small metal stud at the side. The tube has a
slot cut partially down the side to receive this stud.
[Illustration: Modern Firework Tools.
Gerb Tools
A1 Case.
A3 Drift.
A3 Nipple.
A4 Scoop.
B4 Mallet.
Rocket Tools
D1 Mould.
D2 Spindle.
D3 Mallet.
D4 Choking Tools.
D5 Choked Case.
D6 Scoop.
D7 Setting down Tool.
D8 Graduated Drifts.
Roman Candle Tools
B1 Bundle of Cases ready for filling.
B2 Drift.
B3 Topping Funnel and Drift.
B5 Powder Bowl and graduated Scoops.
C1 Shell Mould.
C2 Half Shell Case as taken from mould.
E Star Pump.
F Funnel and Wire.
The method of using the pump is as follows:—The plunger is drawn up
so that the stud rests on the top of the tube. The pump is pressed
into a heap of prepared composition, which action has the effect of
compressing the composition in the tube. The plunger is then turned
so that the stud engages with the slot, and pushed down, forcing the
star out of the tube. The composition is prepared for pumping by being
damped with methylated spirit or some other suitable solvent, and after
making, the stars are dried in specially constructed buildings.
Pinched stars are made by pinching the damped composition into a short
paper case, through which a short length of match is first passed.
Charged stars have generally a clay or cardboard bottom to the case,
and are usually matched. This form is generally used for Government
signal rockets, as the composition being only at one end of the case,
the time of burning is extended.
The mixing of compositions requires great care and thoroughness. Care
both on account of the necessity of exact adherence to the formula,
and to preclude the presence of any foreign body or chemical which,
apart from any effect it might have on the successful functioning of
the fireworks for which it happens to be used, might render it most
dangerous in manipulation.
Generally working buildings are licensed for mixing compositions, but
it is usual to set certain sheds apart for this purpose, especially if
the chemicals used are of a dusty nature, that is, very finely divided,
in which case the atmosphere becomes highly charged and dangerous.
Chlorate of potash, from the introduction of which into pyrotechny
modern effects and colours may be said to date, has at the same time
been responsible for many accidents. As will be seen in the later
chapters on firework compositions, for many years chlorate of potash
and sulphur were used freely in the same mixtures, and many as were the
accidents caused by so doing, yet it is incredible that they were not
far more numerous.
Most makers were well aware of the dangerous nature of this admixture,
but persisted in using it, as the colours so obtained were at that time
unapproached by other means; naturally no manufacturer wished to be
alone in the discontinuance of some of the most striking effects at the
time available, or to give competition the consequent advantage.
In August, 1893, a man was fatally burned whilst simply emptying a
small quantity of crimson stars from one tray to another; the slight
friction so caused was sufficient to ignite the stars and thus fire
the whole contents of the building. This unfortunate accident took
place at the works of C. T. Brock and Co., then at South Norwood, and
seems even more unfortunate when one learns that with the exception of
this particular crimson, they had practically eliminated chlorate and
sulphur colours.
The following year, by Order in Council No. 15, the admixture of
chlorate of potash and sulphur was made illegal.
Previous to this accident, during the same year and in the same works,
a serious accident involving the death of one workman and the injury of
another, was caused by a barrel of chlorate of potash being delivered
and marked nitrate of potash (saltpetre). Its use in a composition
containing sulphide of arsenic (orpiment) produced a mixture
approximately to that used in some fog signals and designed to fire by
percussion. The natural effect was the serious explosion that followed.
The late Sir Vivian D. Majendie, K.C.B., the then Chief Inspector of
Explosives, records in his report that “Messrs. Brock are extremely
careful to keep chlorate and non-chlorate mixing departments, and even
ingredients in separate buildings and under separate control,” and
while he considered that “some measure of blame is attributable to
them in respect of the defects of their system which rendered possible
the presence of a cask of chlorate of potash as “saltpetre” in the
saltpetre shed,” he adds: “It is only fair and proper that I should say
that our experience of the manner in which Messrs. Brock conduct their
large business generally is extremely satisfactory. This factory is
in many respects a model; they have always shown themselves ready to
discuss with us and adopt any suggestion tending to increase the safety
of the workpeople.”
These indications, if such were needed apart from the official
prohibition of the use of these two ingredients together, convinced
Mr. Arthur Brock that even greater care was necessary in dealing
with them. With this object in view, when the works were removed to
Sutton, Surrey, the two factories at South Norwood and Harold Wood,
Essex, being inadequate to deal with the business, the plan of the new
factory was arranged so as entirely to separate that portion of the
factory using chlorate of potash from the portion using sulphur. A road
running up the factory from the entrance gate divides it into what are
virtually two factories, known as the Colour and Bright Sides.
These works, which are easily the largest of the kind in the world,
cover an area of nearly 200 acres. They include about 60 magazines,
expense magazines, and drying rooms, with a total storage capacity of
1,300,000 lbs. of fireworks and 5 tons of gunpowder; 120 explosive
working buildings (mostly double), besides numerous stores,
non-explosive working buildings, saw-mills, and wood-working shops.
The buildings are connected by over four miles of tram-lines. The
average number of employees is 150 men and 200 women. During the late
war this number was increased to over 2,000 on the manufacture of
munitions.
CHAPTER IX
FIREWORK ACCIDENTS
The record of firework accidents until the date of the Explosives Act,
1875, is very meagre, not in subject matter, as reference to Chapter
VI will show, for the history of the industry up to that time appears
to have been one catalogue of accidents; the only cause for wonder
when one considers the conditions then prevailing is that there were
not more. But in detail, the only records are more or less sensational
reports of the event, and such explanation of the cause as the reporter
could pick up from some bystander.
In some cases where the workers were not killed the explanation was
found to be simple; as for instance, the accident at Mortram’s works
in 1821. Here a boy who was making stars in a room with several other
workers and other composition present, put some of his work to dry
before the open fire, and as if this was not a sufficiently reckless
proceeding, lit one on the hob, with the consequences that were to be
expected.
In most cases, however, the cause seems to have been obscure, and
little or no trouble appears to have been taken to discover the cause
with a view to prevention of a repetition.
Since the Explosives Act careful record is kept of all accidents; the
scene of the accident is inspected, and a report printed, setting out
the cause, so far as can be ascertained.
Until the introduction of chlorate of potash about 1830, if even
reasonable care had been used the chances of spontaneous ignition were
very small, and it is reasonable to suppose that such accidents as did
take place were in the majority due to such incidents as the above.
After that date, however, it is not too much to say that quite as large
a proportion of accidents were due to the admixture of chlorate of
potash and sulphur.
We are, of course, now speaking of accidents during manufacture,
although to the same cause may be attributed many of the numerous cases
of bursting mortars during displays which were so frequent until the
prohibition of this mixture in 1894 by Order in Council 15.
Dr. Browne, of Hull, a consulting chemist, published in 1884 a book
entitled, “Firework Accidents, their cause and prevention,” in which he
divides accidents into three classes: mechanical, chemical (spontaneous
combustion), and mechano-chemical.
Such a classification seems to the writer misleading, as all accidents
must of necessity be chemical; that is to say, for combustion chemical
action must take place; and with the exception of cases where ignition
has taken place quite spontaneously, that is where the composition
has ignited when lying perfectly undisturbed, all must be considered
mechanical.
Almost any composition used in pyrotechny, however stable, can
be ignited by a violent blow between two hard surfaces, but some
compositions are so unstable as to be ignited by very slight friction.
It is therefore a question of degree, or whether the mechanical factor
is most to blame or the chemical. A better classification would be:
I. Ignition caused by violence, friction or heat.
II. Accidents caused by the state, condition or quality of
the composition or ingredients.
If the accident be included in the class which gives the fundamental
cause of the accident, it will be found that the greatest number fall
in Class II, even though they may at first glance appear to belong to
the first class.
Class I includes accidents caused by the accidental presence of fire
and accidents caused by necessarily more or less violent action in
manufacture, that is to say, in charging.
Ignition during charging may be caused in two ways, either by a blow
on composition between the charging tool or drift and the spindle or
other hard surface, or by heat generated by repeated blows on the
consolidated composition.
In this class also should be put accidents, of which there are many,
caused by playing or scuffing by the workpeople, the absence of safety
overshoes, the presence of grit or iron or steel implements, in fact
those caused by misconduct or negligence on the part of the workers,
also the rare occasions where lightning has been the cause.
Accidents caused by slight friction have to a great extent ceased to
exist owing to the elimination of chlorate and sulphur compositions.
Where accidents arise owing to instability of the composition, they
most frequently at the present time fall within Class II, as the
instability of the composition is generally due to the presence of some
impurity in one or more of the ingredients.
Another source of accident of this class is the use of violence in
emergency with a composition which, although not sufficiently stable
for heavy charging, is quite safe for careful manipulation; as for
instance, where force is exerted to clear a funnel which has become
blocked with composition, or some similar action.
As regards the part played by heat in accidents of this class, a
study of the records clearly indicates how great is the influence of
weather. By far the greatest number of accidents take place in the
summer months; hot weather and a heavy atmosphere are the most likely
conditions to produce trouble for the pyrotechnist, although whether
the primary cause is heat or owing to an electrical condition of the
atmosphere it is difficult to say, probably it is the two conditions in
conjunction. Sulphur and shellac, two very important ingredients in the
art, are both capable of holding an electric charge, and it seems not
unlikely that they may be so charged in an electric atmosphere during
the process of mixing.
Accidents in Class II are generally less easily explained than those
in the former class and have occurred in many forms. As has been said,
during the period (about sixty-five years) from the introduction of
chlorate of potash to the Order in Council forbidding its use with
sulphur, numerous accidents occurred; spontaneous ignition, both whilst
drying during manufacture and even during mixing, ignition from very
slight friction, and for a time a frequent occurrence the detonation
of the contents of shell by the lifting charge. During the period
of seventeen years between the date of the Explosives Act and the
prohibition of chlorate sulphur mixture, twenty-eight accidents are
recorded, resulting in eleven deaths attributable to the use of such
mixtures.
The instability of chlorate sulphur compositions, however, does not
appear to be so much due to the presence of these two chemicals
themselves, but rather to the presence of impurity in conjunction with
them.
Commercial sulphur often contains free sulphurous acid, which acting
upon the chlorate produces chlorine tetroxide, which rapidly decomposes
and ignites the mass of the composition.
Other acids which produce decomposition of the chlorate are equally
likely to produce ignition. Of such cases, examples may be mentioned
of acid being present in the paste used for case and box-making, also
in gumwater which has been kept some time before using, and in starch
paste similarly treated. Spontaneous ignition has also been caused by
the contact of oil with finely divided carbon such as lampblack or
finely divided metals, such as magnesium and aluminium, which are so
largely used at the present time.
Another case of this nature is the heating up of cases after charging
with gerb composition, two of the ingredients of which are sulphur
and iron borings, this heating sometimes being sufficient to cause
combustion. The cause of this phenomenon is the combination of the iron
with sulphur to form sulphide of iron, this action being accompanied by
heat. In fact, it is the same as that producing the experiment known
as Lemery’s volcano. As far as the knowledge of the writer extends,
however, no occurrence of ignition has been definitely traced to this
phenomenon, although it seems highly probable that even if ignition of
the actual composition has not taken place, cases have occurred where
more sensitive compositions have been fired by heat so generated where
fireworks have been stored together.
The annual reports of H.M. Inspectors of Explosives published since
1876 form an interesting and instructive summary of accidents in
explosive trades, an examination of which throws considerable light on
our subject.
One is struck by the frequency with which explosions occur as a result
of ignorance, generally on the part of amateur firework makers. In many
cases, as where children are concerned, this ignorance is natural, but
the want of knowledge and even reasonable care displayed by individuals
whose occupation suggests at least some knowledge of the risk is indeed
often extraordinary.
Such a case occurred in 1884 in Devonshire, when a local chemist who
was illegally manufacturing coloured fire, instructed an assistant to
grind in an iron mortar a mixture containing chlorate of potash and
sulphur. The lad was killed in the resulting explosion.
Even more remarkable was an explosion which took place in a railway
carriage in 1893. This was due to the spontaneous ignition of a
quantity of chlorate and sulphur coloured fire, which was being carried
in an ordinary handbag by a gentleman whose occupation in life was that
of professor of chemistry.
An accident presenting considerable interest took place in 1885 at
Mitcham. The cause of this occurrence was quite simple. A man was
fixing the curved stick which forms the pivot upon which a tourbillion
rotates to one of those fireworks. The wire nail used for the purpose
penetrated the composition and fired it. The remaining goods in the
shed were ignited, and communicated to the neighbouring buildings, one
of which was a magazine containing 3,000 lbs. of partially manufactured
fireworks, including a number of rockets. These being without sticks
and becoming ignited flew in all directions, setting fire to other
buildings. The result was that ten buildings and an air drying rack
were totally destroyed, and three buildings and three racks partially
so.
This would seem a very serious matter as far as monetary damage is
concerned, but as regards the chief consideration in accidents of this
kind, that is to say damage to human life and limb, the result was
almost negligible; two persons were slightly injured.
This accident, which was the most extensive in any firework factory
since the Explosives Act came into operation, afforded striking proof
of the efficiency of the precautions instituted under that Act.
It is indeed extraordinary that in an explosive factory of considerable
size, employing many workpeople, during working hours it should be
possible to destroy more or less completely seventeen buildings and
only slightly injure two persons.
It may be contended that the number of buildings damaged was very high,
but it must be remembered that rockets without sticks take a most
erratic course in their flight, rendering the effective screening of
other buildings most difficult, if not impossible.
However, there is evidence that many rockets were stopped by the
screens, and that without their interposition the number of buildings
destroyed might have been many times greater.
The other Explosives Act requirements of which the efficiency was
demonstrated by this accident, are the dividing of sheds into
compartments with a limited number of workpeople in each, easy means of
escape from working buildings, and the value of uninflammable clothing.
It was also shown that a large quantity of fireworks might be burnt
in mass without causing a veritable explosion; as in the case of the
magazine containing 3,000 lbs.
Contrasting with this occurrence are the reports of accidents in
firework factories both on the Continent and in America.
The same year, at Civita Vecchia, ten persons were killed and twice
that number injured in one accident at a firework factory.
Four years later, in Paris, seven girls were killed out of the eighteen
employed in one compartment. The material being used was red phosphorus
and chlorate. In 1882 fourteen persons were killed and no fewer than
seventy injured at Chester, Pennsylvania.
From 1891 to 1894 eight accidents in the United States are reported,
resulting in a total of twenty-three deaths and injury to more than
fifty persons. In 1894, at New Haven, Con., damage to the extent of
125,000 dollars was done, and at Dallas a considerable part of the city
was destroyed.
These are, of course, not a complete list, but only such cases as are
brought to the notice of the English Home Office, but the extent of
these clearly illustrates the value of the restrictions in force in
this country.
During the same years the total of firework factory accidents in this
country was thirteen, in which three persons lost their lives, and in
no case was more than one person killed in any one accident. Indeed, in
one instance only since 1875 has the number of deaths resulting from
any accident exceeded two—on that occasion four deaths resulted.
An interesting type of accident, examples of which have taken place on
several occasions, is that in which two compositions, one containing
sulphur and the other chlorate of potash, are placed in contact in the
paper case of a firework, and produce spontaneous combustion.
In one case a lance containing white and green composition burst into
flame on the work bench. This provided an explanation to an explosion
at the same factory which had taken place ten days before in a magazine
containing between 6,000 and 7,000 lbs. of display fireworks.
An occurrence of a similar nature was observed at Brighton in 1903,
when some changing coloured lights which had been removed from a
building where a fire had taken place (the fireworks not being involved
in any way) ignited some days afterwards.
It is thought that the lights may have been wetted during the fire,
and upon drying out some days later the different compositions in
contact in the case or cases set up chemical action, which resulted
in spontaneous ignition. It was found on examination that a blue
containing sulphur was in contact with a green containing chlorate. It
may be noted here that mixtures which are damped during manufacture are
more liable to spontaneous ignition than those manipulated in a dry
state.
Many accidents and explosions are left unexplained, either because the
evidence is destroyed by the resulting fire or by the death of the
witness or witnesses, or because of the difficulty often experienced
in getting the workpeople to give a full and faithful account of what
occurred, fearing to cause trouble for themselves or others concerned.
There can be no doubt that the cause is frequently carelessness or
mistakes on the part of workers. In a large number of cases, however,
this explanation gives no help and the cause remains obscure. One such
may be mentioned:
In 1902 an explosion occurred in a store for non-explosive ingredients,
in which were kept the chemicals used in a firework factory. In the
building at the time was a workman who appears to have been engaged in
sifting chlorate of potash, and the technical manager of the factory
who seems to have been weighing out ingredients. There is no doubt that
he was a man of very considerable experience, and from his responsible
position unlikely either to take risks or be guilty of carelessness.
An explosion occurred in the building, killing both occupants, and of
so violent a nature as to sever the foot of the manager and to project
one of the sheets of corrugated iron with which the roof was covered a
distance of thirty yards.
No explanation of this occurrence was arrived at other than that
in some way some of the chemicals must have become mixed to form a
sensitive and violent explosive; so much is obvious, but how the
chemicals became so mixed remains a mystery, as no mixing was actually
done in the building. The ignition of such a mixture is less obscure
as magazine boots were not necessary in the building owing to the
non-hazardous nature of the work carried on there, and sufficient
friction would be produced to fire even a fairly sensitive mixture
between a nailed boot sole and a wood floor.
An occurrence of considerable interest in this direction took place in
a warehouse at Manchester in 1908. In the building were stored several
tons of chemicals, among which were twelve tons of chlorate of potash
and thirty-two of chlorate of soda.
A workman stepping down from a barrel struck fire, and saw a flame,
which he tried to extinguish by rubbing with his foot. This, however,
had the opposite effect. He then tried a bucket of water, which failed
to put it out; he left the building and heard an explosion, followed
by a second and a third, all apparently of a violent nature, all three
being heard nearly ten miles away, and glass broken throughout a
considerable area round the warehouse.
The cause appears to have been as follows: During the conveyance of the
chlorate into the building leakings took place, and a certain quantity
remained on the floor, this mixing with dust and other organic matter
would prove a highly sensitive composition. This was ignited by the
man’s foot and rapidly spread, probably a deposit which had accumulated
under the floor became involved. The woodwork of the building and the
wooden barrels then became ignited. The rapid decomposition of the
chlorate caused by the heat liberated large quantities of free oxygen,
which united with carbon in the smoke to form gas, which exploded upon
reaching the correct proportion for so doing.
The writer has chiefly confined himself to accidents in firework
factories; those occurring during the illegal manufacture of fireworks
in premises unlicensed for the purpose present no further interest, and
are generally caused by ignorance on the part of the participant of the
often extremely dangerous nature of the material he is handling. To
take an example:
Two boys were engaged in grinding in a mortar a “small quantity” of
chlorate of potash and sugar. An explosion resulted which blew out
the entire window frames of the room, destroyed the partition between
the room and the passage, considerably damaged the other wall, and
projected the pestle into the ceiling, where it remained embedded.
Accidents at displays are now happily rare; the most fruitful cause of
such happenings was the detonation of shell in the mortar, that is,
the detonation of the contents or “garniture” by the explosion of the
propellant charge.
The elimination of chlorate-sulphur composition has reduced the chances
of this to a minimum, and the compulsory burying of mortars up to
the muzzle has practically eliminated the danger to either firers or
spectators.
Apart from slight injuries caused by falling rocket sticks and mishaps
of a similar nature, accidents to the public at firework displays are
things of the past.
PART II
[Illustration: Types of Modern Fireworks.]
CHAPTER I
SIMPLE FIREWORKS—ROCKET CLASS
In the preceding chapters we have been dealing with displays of
fireworks, that is to say; fireworks in the mass. We will now turn our
attention to the firework units composing those displays, and endeavour
to trace their gradual evolution from the crude originals.
Fireworks may be divided into two classes, simple and compound.
The first of these include fireworks which are a complete item in
themselves, as the rocket, shell, or Roman candle; also the units
which, fitted on a framework, go to compose the set pieces and devices
of a display, and the small shop goods not used in displays. We will
consider this class first.
The two oldest forms of fireworks known are undoubtedly the cracker
and the rocket. As we have already noted, both of these—or at least
primitive forms—are mentioned by Marcus Graecus, Albertus, and Roger
Bacon. The description by the former is sufficiently clear to leave
no doubt in our minds that he is describing a rocket; although the
description of a cracker is not so explicit as to enable us to say
that he is actually describing a jumping cracker, yet his mention of
folding and tying would certainly give colour to that belief. In fact,
some writers have endeavoured to find a connection between the words
“Graecus” and “Cracker.”
Greene, in “Orlando Furioso” (1599), uses the words, “Yes, yes,
with squibs and crackers brauly.” John Bate, in his book previously
mentioned, under the somewhat misleading heading, “How to make
Crackers,” says: “It is well knowne that every boy can make these,
therefore I think it will be but labor lost, to bestow time to
describe their making.”
He also describes a kind of kite which he designates a “Fire Drake,”
to the tail of which he fastens “divers crackers” which are shown in
the illustration to be exactly like the jumping crackers of the present
day. Babington illustrates a cracker fixed to the top of a rocket.
Pepys makes the following entry in his diary for November 5th, 1661:
“Seeing the boys in the streets flying their crackers.”
The only practical difference between the cracker of 1635 and that
of to-day is in the difference of methods of manufacture, the early
practice being to fold the gunpowder in the paper, the modern, to
roll a paper case and fill the powder in through a funnel, afterwards
flattening it through a roller mill.
[Illustration: Cracker Making]
Curiously enough, although the cracker has been in use for centuries in
England, there appears to be no early reference to it on the Continent,
the word “petard” meaning a cracker in French, but more often being
applied to a firework with a single report, such as a maroon or cannon.
The _Dictionnaire National_ of 1852, however, describes the true
cracker as one of the meanings of “petard.”
The rocket is equal to the cracker in its claim to antiquity, and it is
extraordinary that these two fireworks should have changed so little in
form and composition.
John Babington gives illustrations of rocket-charging tools and
describes the manufacture of rockets, which are approximately those of
the present day. It is only in the proportion of the ingredients that
there is any considerable alteration.
The word “rocket” appears to be Italian in origin, and to be based on
the similarity in appearance of a rocket on its stick to the round
piece of wood used in the Middle Ages to cover the point of a lance in
mimic combat, and known as a “rockette,” from “rocca,” the Italian
word for a bobbin, a diminutive of distaff.
As a rocket is the most important unit in the art of pyrotechny, a
description of its manufacture will assist in the consideration of a
large number of other fireworks which are either modifications of or
based upon the underlying principles of the rocket, as well as the
several principles governing all fireworks.
The ingredients of rocket composition are those of gunpowder in
approximately similar proportions, but the resultant composition is not
gunpowder, the reason being that the ingredients are less intimately
mixed, with the result that the combustion is spread over a longer
interval of time. Instead of the whole mass deflagrating instantly,
only the exposed surface is consumed. It is the recoil produced by
the rush of gases, and partially consumed matter, from the violently
burning composition which projects the rocket forward. The obvious form
for the case containing the composition is cylindrical, both on account
of ease of construction and of charging. In order to get the greatest
possible reaction from the burning composition, the case of the rocket
is constricted or choked, so that the fire may issue as it were in the
form of a jet. This choke has one obvious disadvantage, it reduces the
surface of composition to the area of the opening, thus restricting
the initial burning surface at the time when the maximum of effort is
required to force the rocket into motion. This defect is overcome by
having a tapering hole up almost the entire length of the composition,
thus giving a large burning surface with a consequent discharge of gas
through a small orifice and a resultant powerful jet of fire and gas.
The rocket case is of stout paper rolled on a former consolidated by
rolling under a board. The choke is formed by inserting into the bore
of the rocket two wooden tools with rounded ends, the shorter tool
having a peg projecting which is equal in diameter to the bore of the
choke. The tools are of such length that when they are inserted the peg
takes up the position where the choke is to be formed. The case is then
constricted at this point by a strong pressure with a stout cord wound
round the case and soaped to allow it to slip round easily.
The case is then dried and charged by placing on a “spindle,” which
is a strong gun-metal base with a nipple fitting into the vent of
the rocket and having a tapering spindle which fits tightly in the
choke and projects up into the bore of the rocket. The composition
is poured in in small quantities measured in a scoop, each scoopful
being consolidated by blows with a wooden mallet or a wooden “drift”
hollowed to take the spindle. Before the first scoop of composition is
introduced, the rocket is “set down,” that is, several blows are given
on the drift to consolidate the paper at the choke and give it accurate
shape. Next, a scoop of ground dry clay is poured in and charged
firm as a protection to the paper of the choke. The charging is then
proceeded with as detailed above. Varying drifts are used in order that
the hole may approximately correspond with the diameter of the tapering
spindle as the composition rises in the case.
A short portion of the case above the spindle is charged solid; this is
referred to as the “heading,” and is usually about one and a half times
the bore in depth.
Large rockets are charged in a mould which fits tightly round the
outside of the case and prevents the case being split under the
pressure of the blows whilst being charged.
[Illustration: Rocket Manufacture, from Frézier’s “Feu d’Artifice,”
1747.]
In early times these moulds were used for all sizes and were of cast
metal, and it is from them that the classification of the sizes is
derived. Rockets are designated by the weight of a ball of lead which
fits the bore of the corresponding mould. Thus we have rockets
varying in size from ½ oz. to 6 lbs. and over, war rockets being made
up to 9 and 24 lbs., but their use is now almost extinct.
This classification, although it serves its purpose well enough, is
somewhat misleading, as the thickness of the case varies in practice,
at any rate under modern conditions. In the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries pyrotechnists seem to have had a standard proportion between
the case and bore, _i.e._, the thickness of the case was one-quarter
the internal diameter of the rocket.
In modern commercial practice a rocket—say for example of 1 lb.—is a
rocket rolled on a former whose diameter is that of the bore of a 1 lb.
rocket of standard thickness, but whose outside diameter is governed by
the strength of the paper employed in the case.
Several writers on pyrotechny, one Frézier writing in 1747 in
particular, have endeavoured to supersede this classification
of rockets by replacing it with a series of internal diameter
measurements, so far without success. It is hard to supersede the
traditions of centuries on a plea of mere rationalism.
Rocket compositions, although containing the same ingredients, namely,
saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal, have them in differing proportions.
Broadly speaking, the larger the rocket the greater the proportion of
charcoal and sulphur, the variations in proportion being considerable,
from the half-ounce rocket mixing of 13 saltpetre, 2 sulphur, and 5
charcoal to the 9 lb. and 24 lb. war rocket, with 13 saltpetre, 3
sulphur, and 4 charcoal approximately, and even higher proportions
of the second and third ingredients for special purposes. A larger
proportion of charcoal gives a larger tail—a desirable feature in
display and signal rockets. Some compositions have a proportion of
mealed gunpowder to produce fiercer burning.
Early makers appear to have used mealed gunpowder and added charcoal
and other ingredients to, as it were, dilute the powder and render
the deflagration less fierce. Babington (1635) adds charcoal in the
following proportion:
1 oz.—4 oz. rockets, 1 lb. of mealed powder to 2 oz. charcoal
4 oz.—10 oz. „ 1 lb. „ „ 2½ oz. „
10 oz.—1 lb. „ 1 lb. „ „ 3 oz. „
John Bate’s compositions are rather erratically arranged; in some cases
he adds the saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur, and a further addition is
“yron scales,” presumably to increase the effect of the tail, for which
purpose later pyrotechnists used iron filings.
The rocket having been charged to the top of the heading, clay is
charged in, forming a diaphragm above it. Earlier practice was to turn
down the top edge of the case on the heading composition to form a
diaphragm.
The best-known form of rocket is the sky rocket, which is fitted with
a stick held in position by having a dowelled end introduced into a
rolled paper or metal tube secured to the side of the rocket. The
object of the stick is to direct the flight of the rocket, and further
serves to hold it in position for firing, being passed through two
rings at a suitable distance one above the other on a stake, through
which it slides easily.
Sky rockets are fitted with a “cap” containing the “garniture” of
the rocket, which may take the form of “stars” or other pyrotechnic
effects, or a gun-cotton wad, or similar explosive to make a sound
signal, or small cases charged with picrate of potash, producing the
well-known “whistling rocket” effect.
The “cap” is either cylindrical or in the form of a truncated cone,
with a conical or other top. The cap is burst open and the contents
ignited by an opening charge of powder lighted through a hole bored in
the clay diaphragm above the heading, so that when the heading is burnt
through the fire may be communicated to the opening charge.
From earliest times the rocket has been the chief item in recreative
fireworks; either the sky rocket as we know it to-day or its many
modifications and derivatives was the chief constituent of the early
displays.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a display would contain
the following items—dragons or similar figures issuing from the scenic
castle provided for the display; these would be moved by line rockets.
A line rocket has no cap or garniture, the socket usually provided to
hold the stick being lengthened, and of sufficient diameter to allow it
to slide along a tightly stretched cord passed through it. Pieces of
a similar nature to the modern fountain and gerb would be represented
by “ground rockets.” This is a rocket less fiercely burning, charged
solid, fixed to a support so that it remains stationary whilst burning,
the fire being thrown out in a jet. Rockets would also be used to turn
such primitive wheels as were exhibited, and to actuate mechanical
scenic devices, which are in effect the “turning cases” of the present
day. Serpents of fiz-gigs were much used, both as a garniture for
rockets, and to give animation to wheels and similar pieces. These were
made on the rocket principle, similar to the squib, but slightly more
elaborate. A choke was formed between the composition and the “bounce”
or powder giving the report.
To-day the ground rocket has developed into the gerb or Chinese tree,
fountains of various kinds, the flower pot—of the larger kinds; and
among the smaller varieties, the squib with its variations, such as
Black Jack and Blue Devil, and the golden rain with its variations.
The modern, or rather more recent, method of heading the rocket with
a clay diaphragm evidently suggested that the choking of the case
might be dispensed with where the composition was less fierce, the
necessary reduction of the orifice being produced by a clay diaphragm
with a central hole of sufficient size. This method is followed with
the gerb, fountains, and flower pot, and in the firework known to
pyrotechnists as “fixt”; this unit is largely used in display work to
form the fringe frame or lattice effect of a set piece. “Fixt” are made
in 1 oz. and 2 oz. sizes, and contain a composition of approximately
one part of steel filings to four of mealed gunpowder and finish with a
bounce. The origin of the name is uncertain: it may refer to their use
on fixed pieces in contradistinction to one revolving, or—as is most
probable—was first used to distinguish between a fixed and a moving
rocket.
The time of the introduction of the clay choke is uncertain. Jones,
writing in 1765, although using clay in the heading of rockets, still
choked all cases, but Mortimer (1824) uses it, although Ruggieri
(1821), whilst doing the same, appears to think choking preferable.
The former gives instructions for charging the clay solid and boring
the central hole; Ruggieri, however, uses a nipple like a much
shortened rocket spindle, in which he agrees with the modern practice.
This method is also utilised at the present time for small-sized
rockets.
Of the fireworks of the fountain class, probably the first to develop
from the crude rocket form were the gerb and flower pot. The gerb, or
Chinese tree, contains a composition of saltpetre, sulphur, charcoal
and iron borings, with the addition—if more force is required, as
for instance to turn a device—of mealed gunpowder. Early makers used
mealed powder alone and “iron sand,” or cast-iron reduced to powder
by hammering. This composition is known as Chinese fire, and, as its
name implies, was introduced into Europe from the East. An interesting
article appeared in the “Universal Magazine” of 1764, written by
a Jesuit missionary on the subject of Chinese fireworks. In it he
describes the making of iron sand as follows:
“Old broken or useless pots serve generally for making this sand;
they are broken into pieces of the breadth of the hand, after
which, being made red-hot in the fire of a forge, they are thrown
in that condition into a trough filled with fresh water, where they
are left to cool. Thus calcined, the rust falls off in scales, and
they are easily reduced into sand, being first broken into parcels
of a finger’s breadth. The anvil and hammer used for this purpose
must be also of cast-iron, because steel flats the grains of sand.
It is necessary that the angles of those grains should be sharp, as
it is the angles that form the flowers.”
The word “gerb” is derived from the French word meaning a sheaf of
corn, and was first applied to water fountains.
The flower pot is charged with a composition formerly known as
“spur-fire,” from the resemblance in form of its coruscations to the
rowel of a spur. The effect produced is one of the most effective
when successful, but has the disadvantage for display work that the
effect is only appreciated at close quarters. The ingredients used are
lampblack, sulphur, red arsenic, saltpetre, with sometimes the addition
of charcoal and mealed gunpowder.
Of the smaller works of this division the squib and golden rain are
too well known to need description. The squib and its variations have
a choked case; the golden rain and similar works are left with an open
bore.
Squibs are generally filled with a composition of sulphur, saltpetre
and charcoal, sometimes steel filings, with a bounce of fine-grain
powder.
A curious firework, now almost obsolete, for which it is difficult to
find a class, is the five-pointed star. This work consisted of a case
having a diaphragm of plaster of paris or clay above the filling, below
which five holes are bored equidistant and at right angles to the axis.
The case is fired in the unusual position of horizontal with the end
towards the spectator, the fire playing all round the case, forming a
star. The composition used was mealed powder, sulphur, saltpetre, and
sulphuret of antimony. Ruggieri mentions this firework under the name
“Etoile fixé,” and it is mentioned by Jones, writing in 1765, but not
by Frézier.
It is hard to believe that this unit was successful, so many factors
militating against success, which depends upon the exactly similar
jet from each of the five holes. But it is possible that in large
geometrical pieces it was at least of use to give an additional effect
in what, owing to the lack of variety of the fireworks of the time,
must have been rather a monotonous repetition of a few effects. It
also would enable small blank spaces to be filled in on set pieces. In
a sun or star of the ordinary type, that is of radiating cases, the
commencement of the jets must be as far apart as the length of two of
the cases, which length is governed by the required time of burning.
This leaves a blank centre; the five-pointed star, however, if working
correctly, has the jets radiating from a point.
Many of the earlier writers classified fireworks under the
heads:—Fireworks for the ground, for the air, and for the water. Those
falling in the latter division are only variations of those for the
ground, that is to say, a gerb, fountain or other firework is fitted
with a float, such as a block of wood, and functions floating on
the surface of the water, the effect being greatly enhanced by the
reflection.
[Illustration: From “The Universal Magazine,” 1764.]
It is not proposed to deal separately in this work with aquatic
fireworks unless they have some essential difference from their
parallel type for land display.
One unit, of the rocket class, which is so distinct is the “skimmer.”
This is in effect a stickless rocket with the cap (which is empty)
fastened at an angle to the line of the main case. When fired the
skimmer, as its name implies, skims over the surface of the water, with
occasional dives under the surface in an erratic course. It requires
for its safe display a considerable area of water. These are known by
French pyrotechnists as “genouillères,” from their shape.
Ruggieri and Frézier describe what they call “plongeons.” These are
gerbs charged in the ordinary way, except that before each scoop of
composition a small quantity of mealed powder is added. This produces
a jerky burning, the recoil of each puff of powder driving the gerb
beneath the surface of the water; the jet of fire, of course, is
sufficient to prevent water entering the case while so submerged.
These, and other earlier writers, in their section devoted to aquatic
fireworks, give directions for firing ordinary land fireworks on the
water, which would almost appear to have been included with the idea
of filling space. One item which is generally included consists of
directions for firing rockets under water. Jones, under this heading,
gives the following directions:
“TO FIRE SKY ROCKETS UNDER WATER.
“You must have stands made as usual, only the rails must be placed
flat, instead of edgeways, and have holes in them for the rocket
sticks to go through; for if they were hung upon hooks, the motion
of the water would throw them off: the stands being made, if the
pond is deep enough, sink them at the sides so deep that when the
rockets are in their heads may just appear above the surface of the
water; to the mouth of each rocket fix a leader which put through
the hole with the stick; then a little above the water must be a
board, supported by the stand, and placed along one side of the
rockets; then the ends of the leaders are turned up through holes
made in this board, exactly opposite the rockets. By this means
you may fire them singly, or all at once. Rockets may be fired
by this method, in the middle of a pond, by a Neptune, a swan, a
water-wheel, or anything else you chuse.”
It will be seen that the rockets themselves are above the surface,
which seems more reasonable than the instructions of some writers,
who, to get the effect of a rocket rising from actually beneath the
surface, give themselves an infinite amount of trouble to render the
case and connections waterproof. The effect seen from a short distance
is identical.