John Wormald and the introduction of Fire
Sprinklers John Wormald and the introduction of Fire
Sprinklers
A site has been developed by Sir John's great grandson, David Drew-Smythe, for and with Marcel Boschi who lives in France. Initially, it was Marcel's ambition to tell the remarkable story of the engineering company Mather & Platt Ltd. and of the men who were instrumental in its history. This has now been achieved - thanks to a collaboration which crossed 12,000 miles in distance and almost two hundred years in history! These Mather & Platt Ltd. web pages have now been listed by the UNESCO archives.
Marcel began his working life with the French branch of this celebrated company and members of his family have been associated with it for many years.
In 1978 Wormald acquired Mather & Platt and is now Wormald Ansul (UK) Ltd., a leading provider of fire protection, safety systems and specialist control technology - engineering for all types of applications and industries. Its activities cover every aspect - design, manufacturing, installation, commissioning, service and maintenance. Today it is part of the Tyco International Ltd. group of companies.
To supply additional material, please contact M. Marcel Boschi. He would be delighted to hear from anyone with stories to tell or historical documents and items relating to the company and its former employees.
John Wormald had been a surveyor for the Mutual Fire Insurance Corporation of Bolton (England), the first insurance company officially to acknowledge that the automatic sprinkler was the answer to fire losses in cotton mills. He was one of the leading British insurance authorities on automatic sprinklers and elected to forsake the realms of insurance for the ranks of industry - at Mather & Platt - as one of the Directors of this growing enterprise.
Although the story of the invention and
development of the Automatic Sprinkler as a fire-fighting device
has so often been told, more particularly on the other side of
the Atlantic, few people realise that it was, after all, a
British invention. It was an Englishman - John Carey - who in
1806 conceived the idea of a heat-operated device by means of
which water was distributed through a system of perforated pipes
to extinguish a fire. In 1864 Major Stewart Harrison of the 1st
Engineer (London) Volunteers, gave to the world the first
Automatic Sprinkler Head, his design being as a matter of fact
superior to many that followed it. But, as so often happens, it
was not to the country of its birth that this epoch-making
invention owed its practical development, and it is to Henry
Parmelee, of Newhaven, Conn., and Frederick Grinnell, of
Providence, R.I., that the credit must be awarded for giving to
the Automatic Sprinkler its practical application and laying the
foundation of what is now a worldwide industry.
It is not my present purpose, however, to traverse the evolution
in America of the Automatic Sprinkler on either its mechanical or
commercial side, but to tell the story, as simply and as briefly
as I can, of its introduction to our own country and the
difficulties with which its pioneers were beset.
It was in the early days of 1881 that Mr George F Parmelee
arrived in Manchester from America, bringing with him the
Sprinkler invented by his brother Henry in 1874. The Parmelee
Sprinkler had already achieved a considerable amount of success
in the States, and the first demonstration of its working in this
country naturally aroused much interest. For this purpose, Mr
Parmelee erected in the Wholesale Market Square of Bolton a
wooden shed 20ft x 30ft which he fitted with six of his
Sprinklers.
The floor was strewed with a mass of chips,
shavings, tallow, cask shavings, barrels, etc, all well saturated
with paraffin oil, and to this combustible material light was set
in three places by Superintendent Philips of the Bolton Fire
Brigade. Immediately huge volumes of flames burst forth and drove
the spectators back some distance from the shed. In one minute
and twenty seconds the first Sprinkler opened, followed by two
others, and in a short time not a vestige of the fire remained.
My old Friend and partner, Mr John Taylor- then a very young man
- was a keenly interested spectator, and he well remembers the
deep impression made on his mind by the experiment.
One week later a second test was given in the same building, but
on this occasion the fuel consisted of "a large store of old
mule carriages, broken up and intermingled with wood shavings,
strewed down three sides and in the centre". According to a
report that appeared in the Bolton Evening News of 30 June 1881 -
"fire was set to this inflammable material in five places,
and in 58 seconds one of the caps had burst off and the Sprinkler
was at work. The flames had no sooner appeared to be getting
hold, and from the open doorway could be seen leaping to the
ceiling, then they were hidden to sight in a cloud of smoke, and
in three minutes the fire was practically quelled." It was
afterwards found that all the Sprinklers had been unsealed.
During the remainder of 1881 and the early months of 1882, Mr
Parmelee devoted himself to educating the Insurance Companies up
to an appreciation of the value of the Automatic Sprinkler as a
means of reducing the loss ratio. He realised that he could never
succeed in obtaining contracts from the mill owners necessitating
the expenditure of considerable amount of capital unless he could
at the same time ensure for them a reasonable return upon their
outlay in the shape of reduced premiums. In this connection he
was fortunate enough to enlist the sympathies of two men, both
possessed of considerable influence in the insurance world. The
first of these was the late Major Hesketh, who, in addition to
being a cotton spinner in a large business in Bolton, was
Chairman of the Bolton Cotton Trades Mutual Insurance Company; a
concern which had been founded some 10 years earlier by the Fine
Cotton Spinners of Bolton and the surrounding neighbourhood, to
undertake, on what were practically co-operative lines, the
insurance of mills belonging to its members. The Directors of
this Company and more particularly its Secretary, the late Peter
Kevan, C.A., took the keenest possible interest in Mr Parmelee's
early experiments, and eventually it was to Major Hesketh, its
Chairman, that Mr Parmelee owed his first order for the Sprinkler
Installations which were installed in the Cotton Spinning Mills
of John Stones & Co., at Astley Bridge, Bolton, to be
followed soon afterwards by the Alexandra Mills belonging to Mr
John Butler of the same town.
The Bolton Mutual Company was after all only a small local
concern (at least in those days), and they neither sought nor
accepted business even in the other cotton districts of
Lancashire. It was therefore very necessary that Mr Parmelee
should seek the support of a far wider influence, and this he
found in the late Mr James North Lane, the Manager of the Mutual
Fire Insurance Corporation of Manchester. This Company was
founded in 1870 by the Textile Manufacturers' Associations of
Lancashire and Yorkshire as a protest against the high rates of
Insurance then charged by the Fire Offices for their Mills, and
with the declared policy of encouraging risk improvement and more
particularly the adoption of the most up-to-date and scientific
apparatus for extinguishing fires. The Mutual Company's
operations were, however, not confined to an extensive business
with the Cotton Mills of the North, for it operated largely in
the wooled and worsted districts of Yorkshire, the West of
England and South of Scotland, in the jute and linen mills of
Dundee and the North of Ireland, and in fact in every description
of manufacturing risk throughout the country. It was then, very
natural that this automatic fire-fighting device, to which the
Americans had given the name of a "Sprinkler," should
attract Mr Lanes's keen interest.
It was at this Juncture - i.e the summer of 1881 - that my
connection with the Automatic Sprinkler began. After passing two
extremely useful and interesting years in the Cotton Mills of
Barlow & Jones Ltd of Bolton gaining much valuable
experience,
I obtained, in 1878, an appointment on the staff of Mr Lane's
Company in Manchester, and became its chief surveyor about the
time of Mr Parmelee's arrival in England. Mr Lane at once
introduced me to him with the request that I should take up the
study of this new system of fire extinction. It was not long
before I became most deeply interested in the Automatic
Sprinkler, not only on its scientific but its practical side, and
I threw myself with all available energy into the work of
pioneering the new invention.
About a year later Mr Parmelee decided that a more thorough test,
under conditions approximating to those of a Cotton Spinning
Mill, was needed to convince the Industrials of Lancashire of the
efficiency of his Automatic Sprinkler. In conjunction with the
Bolton Insurance Company, the bold step was taken of hiring the
Spa Mill in Bolton, an old cotton spinning factory of
non-fireproof construction, five stories in height, with wooden
boarded floors which were saturated with the oil of 50 years
work. The test was made on the 22 March 1882, and the Bolton
Evening News of the same date published the following report of
what took place:
"It will be remembered that, in June last, a trial was made
in a specially erected wooden building on the Wholesale Market,
and it was then considered that the contracted space condensed
the heat, and therefore the Sprinklers came into operation sooner
than would have been the case under less circumscribed
conditions. The present experiment was therefore arranged, and on
the fourth floor two pairs of spinning mules were erected.
Thirty-two Sprinklers were fixed in this room, and a similar
number in the top storey. A quantity of shavings and combustible
material was scattered around one pair of mules and a light
applied. Within a very short time the flames obtained complete
mastery and dense volumes of smoke filled the room; in fact, it
was all but impossible to breathe within two minutes after the
light was applied. At the expiration of a minute and a half the
first Sprinkler came into operation, and two others shortly
followed. Within three and a half minutes the fire was
extinguished and the spectators, who had made a hasty and
somewhat undignified exit, were able to return. It will,
therefore, be seen that the experiment was entirely satisfactory,
and furnishes the best recommendation for the general adoption of
the system. It is clear that a general stampede of the inmates
would have taken place before the fire was extinguished."
I attended, and assisted Mr Parmelee with this demonstration, the
complete success of which made a profound impression on the large
and influential company present. For a few brief moments after
the fire had got well alight I feared that nothing could save the
mill, and along with others rushed to the staircase to escape the
intense heat and dense smoke, only to find on returning that the
Sprinklers had done their work splendidly and performed all, and
even more than had been claimed for them.
But despite all our efforts it was slow and weary work getting
Sprinklers established in this country, and during 1882 and 1883
not more than a score of factories were protected by Mr Parmelee.
Nevertheless much valuable pioneering work was accomplished. The
old and immensely influential Tariff Insurance Companies were
still standing aloof, but the day of their conversion was at
hand.
The next chapter in our story is an extremely interesting one. Mr
(Sir William) Mather, the head of the old-established Engineering
firm of Mather and Platt, of Salford Iron Works, Manchester, who
was then a member of Parliament, had been appointed a member of
the Royal Commission on Technical Education, which, in the summer
of 1883, proceeded to America to gather evidence for their report
to our Government.
Whilst in the States, Mr Mather, during a visit to the Brown
University at Providence, met Mr Fredrick Grinnell, formerly the
chief mechanical engineer and general manager of the Jersey City
Locomotive Works, who, on his retirement from the Railway's
service, had purchased the Providence Steam and Gas Pipe
Company's plant and settled down in that town. Mr Grinnell had
already become associated with Mr Henry Parmelee, for whom he not
only manufactured the "Parmelee" Sprinkler, but
designed and erected the piping installations in which the
"Parmelee" Heads were fitted. Recognising the essential
importance of sensitiveness in any self-operated fire
extinguisher, Mr Grinnell-who was possessed of great mechanical
genius-set to work to improve upon Mr Parmelee's invention and
eventually evolved the well known "Grinnell" Sprinkler,
in which he secured greatly increased sensitiveness by removing
the fusible joint from all contact with the water, and, by the
ingenious method of seating a valve in the centre of a flexible
diaphragm, relieved the low fusing soldered joint of the strain
of water pressure or hammer. By this means the valve seat was
forced against the valve by the water pressure, producing a
self-closing action, so that the greater the water pressure, the
tighter the valve. The flexible diaphragm had a further and most
important function, viz; that it caused the valve and its seat to
move outwards simultaneously until the solder joint was
completely severed.
The invention of Mr Grinnell's which was
entirely novel in the field of Hydraulics, was destined to
revolutionize the whole sphere of fire protection. It appealed at
once to Mr Mather, who there and then secured the Patent rights
for the whole world outside the Continent of America. On his
return to England he proceeded to place the Grinnell Sprinkler on
the market, and not long afterwards the brothers parted with
their business both in America and England to the Grinnell
interests. With the Parmelee Head withdrawn in both America and
England, the way was left clear for Mr Grinnell's wonderful
invention.
The advent of such a well known firm as Mather and Platt to the
Fire Engineering field naturally gave the Sprinkler movement
considerable impetus at home and abroad, and when shortly
afterwards the British Tariff Insurance Companies decided to give
official recognition to the Grinnell and grant rebates of premium
for its installation, things commenced to go ahead.
At this point I wish to place on record the great debt which this
country owes to the late Mr J N Lane for the immensely important
part he played in the development of the Automatic Fire
Protection this side of the Atlantic. It was in fact due to his
sagacity and prescience that the Automatic Sprinkler obtained its
real foothold in this country. Mr Lane had long before Mr
Parmelee's days, been the first insurance manager to advocate and
encourage tangibly the adoption of fire-fighting devices, such as
hydrants, hose, steam fire pumps, private fire bridges, chemical
extincteurs, handpumps, etc., and it was his Company-the Mutual
Fire Corporation of Manchester-that published the first schedule
of discounts for non-automatic fire appliances by which their
insurers could obtain rebates from their premiums of two and a
half per cent to fifteen per cent, according to the value and
quality of the appliances provided.
It was but a natural step for Mr Lane, once he had gripped the
importance of the Automatic Sprinkler, to lead the way boldly by
offering for installations of Parmelee Sprinklers a discount of
twenty per cent over and above what his Company were allowing for
non-automatic appliances. Mr Lane's Company was not at that time
a member of the Fire Offices Committee; it was a non-tariff
office -in fact the only one of influence outside the tariff
fold, and his courageous action in recognising officially this
new and comparatively untried American device created at the time
quite a sensation in Insurance circles and was sternly reprobated
by many of his brothers managers.
During the next two years I was largely occupied in studying
methods of installation involving such vital factors as the areas
of pipes, the determination of water supplies, the capacities and
elevation of tanks, the provision of auxiliary pumps, etc. It had
always been the subject of surprise to Mr Lane and myself that,
with their much wider experience of Sprinkler practice, the
Insurance Companies in America or their Engineers had never
established their own rules. As nothing of the nature had
appeared, and with the feeling that it was high time that
regulations for the control of all Sprinkler work were provided,
I decided to try my hand, and so gain for my own country the
credit of being the pioneers in Sprinkler legislation. On October
22nd 1885, I copyrighted and published the first code of
Sprinkler Rules that had been given to the world, and these were
based on the data and experience provided by the previous three
years of experiment and practice. So saturated was my mind with
the subject in all it's detail that I well remember composing the
whole pamphlet on a Sunday afternoon without having to refer to
any notes. I did not expect that these regulation would find
general acceptance, but as a mater of fact not only were they
adopted by the British Tariff Companies, but in America they paid
us the compliment of taking them as the groundwork of their own
rules subsequently published. Many of the original provisions of
this first edition of Sprinkler Rules remain unaltered today
although nearly forty years have since elapsed.
The following introductory paragraphs to this first edition
provide interesting reading:-
"As the application of Automatic Sprinklers for the
protection of property against fire is daily becoming more
general, it seems desirable that there should be some official
record of the bases upon which our completed installations in
England and Scotland have been founded. It is therefore proposed
to set forth, within the briefest possible limits, the lines upon
which we have been working, with the view to such information
forming a groundwork for all future installations in which the
Corporation is interested.
Before going into details, it may be explained that in dealing
with the protection of risks with Sprinklers we lay down three
fundamental conditions, compliance with which we insist upon,
each and all being made a sine qua non to a perfect installation.
These are as follows:-
1. The provision of a duplicate water supply, automatic in its
action
2. Compliance as regards the areas of main and distributing feed
pipes, with the accepted sizes.
3. Protection of all non-fireproof portions of one hazard".
The interest excited by the appearance of these Rules both at
home and in America was so wide that within a few months (20
April 1886) I found it necessary to print a second and revised
edition, to which the following is the preface:-
"When we decided six months ago to publish a short pamphlet
on the subject of Automatic Sprinklers, it was not anticipated
that the demand for copies would have been so great. The first
issue has, however, already become exhausted, and to enable us to
comply with continued requests for the pamphlet, we have decided
to prepare a second edition which shall embody such alterations
and additions as have
been suggested by additional experience. We have also appended a
table showing the head of water required to give stated
pressures, together with the discharge of an Automatic Sprinkler
at such pressures. This table will be found useful in fixing the
capacity and height of water tanks.
It is particularly gratifying to us to note the headway now being
made by Automatic Sprinklers as a means of protection against
fire, more especially amongst the hazardous textile risks in the
North of England and Scotland, and it is not unreasonable to hope
that before long their application will be extended to general
risks and warehouses throughout the United Kingdom".
As was expected, the advent of the Automatic Sprinkler attracted
the attention of Fire Engineers who had hitherto been engaged in
the manufacture of non-automatic appliances, and in the
succeeding years there appeared on the British market numerous
types of new Sprinklers, each claiming to be an improvement on Mr
Grinnell's invention.
As these new and untried devices had to receive the endorsement
of my Company before being placed upon the market for sale, it
became necessary to establish a system of mechanical tests, and
in this work I received assistance of the utmost value from the
late Mr C J H Woodbury, of Boston, USA. A member of the Fire
Insurance profession like myself, Mr Woodbury held the office of
Chief Mechanical Engineer and Vice-President of the Boston
Manufacturers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association. Having to deal
with an avalanche of new Sprinkler Heads submitted for his
Company's endorsement, he instituted an elaborate system of tests
for determining not only the factors of discharge and
distribution, but what was of far greater importance, the
strength of the soldered joint. Mr Woodbury and I kept in close
touch with each other's work, and between us, I think we could
claim to have saved the public large sums of money in protecting
them from imposition of worthless devices. In the second edition
of the Sprinkler Rules (April 20 1886) I set forth the lines upon
which these tests were to be conducted. This declaration read as
follows:-
"CHOICE OF SPRINKLERS" - Whilst unwilling to express
any opinion as to the comparative merits of the various patterns
of Automatic Sprinklers now in the market, we shall be glad to
inform insurers what Sprinklers are accepted by the Corporation.
Only those which have stood the most exhaustive tests are passed
by us, particular attention having been paid to the following
points, viz. : strength, liability to leakage, action in slow
fires, sensitiveness, and simplicity of construction.
Exhibition fires in which large bodies of heat and flame are
generated almost instantaneously, are deceptive as tests, and a
true estimate of the reliability of an Automatic Sprinkler can
only be arrived at after very careful investigation."
Of the many devices submitted for examination three British
Sprinklers were deemed of sufficient merit to justify their
endorsement, viz.: the "Simplex" (Dowson & Taylor,
Bolton), the "Witter" (Witter & Son, Bolton), and
the "Titan" (J H Lynde and George Mills, Radcliffe).
The "Simplex" was a sealed or non-valve device of the
Parmelee type, though much more sensitive in its operation, and
had the great advantage of being placed on the market in
conjunction with the well-known Variable Pressure Alarm Valve
invented by John Taylor. This valve is operated by the flow of
the water, and is constructed so as to prevent false alarms being
given by any variations of pressure in the main supply pipes.
When the water pressure has achieved an equilibrium above and
below the valve, the clack, which is of differential area, drops
by its own weight upon a seating on which is grooved an annular
chamber with an outlet pipe to a small water motor, to the
spindle of which are attached revolving hammers that strike a
loud sounding gong. In practice the opening of a Sprinkler Head
reduces the pressure above the Valve, which is lifted by the
upward flow from the main supplies, and so long as this
continues, water passes to the motor and the gong sounds a
continuous alarm. In the clack of the Valve there is a small
compensating valve which takes up any violent Fluctuation of
pressure without lifting the valve itself, thus obviating false
alarms.
Next to Mr Grinnell's invention this ingenious valve of Mr
Taylor's remains the most important step in advance in the
development and practice of Automatic Fire Extinction. Previously
there was nothing better than a rude and clumsy clockwork
arrangement consisting of a copper cord wound around a drum with
a weight attached which, when released, caused a hammer to strike
a gong just as in an 8-day clock. When the weight reached the
ground the alarm ceased. Mr Taylor's new valve was speedily
adopted by Mr Grinnell himself and applied all over America. It
is still an integral part of every Sprinkler Installation.
The "Simplex" Sprinkler was superceded by the Grinnell
when Dowson & Taylor joined forces with Mather & Platt
early in 1888, but the "Witter" and the
"Titan" Sprinklers, in considerably modified forms, are
still on the market with other devices of later date.
There was one important point upon which my manager, Mr Lane, had
been most insistent from the very start of the Sprinkler Campaign
in this country - viz.: that the provision of a Sprinkler
Installation should not interfere with the maintenance, in the
highest possible state of efficiency, of ordinary fire
appliances. It was therefore at his request that, in the second
edition of the Rules, there appeared the following :-
"Automatic Sprinklers are not intended to take the place of
ordinary fire appliances, but are to be regarded as an additional
protection, and their introduction must not be considered a
reason for the displacement of other forms of fire apparatus, for
which separate and liberal discounts are conceded.
Insurers are, therefore, requested to give the same supervision
to their ordinary appliances as if there were no Sprinklers on
the premises".
It was also due to Mr Lane that Automatic Sprinklers were first
applied to the protection of non-manufacturing properties in this
country. Recognizing that 25 or 30 per cent discount would afford
no inducement to insurers to protect their low-rated risks, he
issued a circular in 1886 notifying that his company would be
willing to allow a discount of 50 per cent for Sprinklers in
risks rated at 6s. per cent or under, a bold step, but one that
showed the immense confidence he had in this new form of fire
protection.
Between 1885 and 1888 I published four revised and enlarged
editions of these Sprinkler rules, embodying the experience
gradually gained from an intimate knowledge of every Sprinkler
Installation that had previously been erected within the United
Kingdom. For example: the protection of Corn Mills was first
legislated for in the 4th edition of the Rules, issued in March
1888. Up to that time there had been considerable doubt as to
whether it was really practicable to give any adequate Sprinkler
Protection to Corn Mills, but some exhaustive tests made in 1886
and 1887 set at rest all doubts on the matter. The first Corn
Mill in England to be protected with Sprinklers was Barrow Flour
Mill, belonging to Messers Walmsley & Smith.
I superintended the designing of this equipment, and laid down
the rule, that in the protection of Flour Mills there must be at
least one Sprinkler for every 64 superficial feet of floor area,
instead of the usual 100 feet, and that in addition there must be
a Sprinkler fitted inside the box of every elevator head, placed
in such a position as to discharge water down both legs. The
experience of Insurance Companies in writing protected Flour Mill
risks has been unexpectedly favourable.
In this 4th Edition of the Sprinkler Rules (of which
unfortunately only one or two copies survive) is to be found some
interesting information. We find it stated in the preamble that
since their introduction to this country in 1883 Sprinklers had
operated in 15 fires, in every instance with marked success.
There is also given a classified list of installations completed,
or in course of completion, within the United Kingdom up to 1
January 1888, as follows:-
Cotton Mills in England 233
Cotton and Thread Mills in Scotland 29
Woollen Mills 14
Cotton Waste Warehouses 11
Flax and Jute Mills 6
Biscuit Works 2
Corn Mills 8
Saw Mills 8
Engineering Works 4
Paper Mills 1
Indiarubber Works 2
Sugar Refineries 2
Theatres 3
Warehouses 4
Large Drapers' Shop 3
Calico Printers 1
Floor Cloth and Linoleum Works 2
Newspaper Printing Works 1
Miscellaneous 4
Total 338
Not a very creditable showing considering that Mr George Parmelee
arrived in this country in 1881!
From this pamphlet we find that the first fire extinguished in
this country by Sprinklers was in the South Arthurlie Print
Works, Barrhead, Scotland, on 14 July 1883, when one Parmelee
Sprinkler extinguished with trifling damage an outbreak in a room
used for storing grey cloth after singeing. The second reported
fire was in July 1885, in the non-fireproof Alexandra Cotton
Mill, Bolton, which was a much more serious affair.
The outbreak occurred in the headstock of a Spinning Mule, and
the flames spread so rapidly that the Mill hands - after getting
to work with the fire hose and buckets - had to beat retreat,
overpowered by smoke and heat; 20 Parmelee Sprinklers came into
operation, a pair and a half of Mules were burnt, and the loss
paid by the Insurance Companies was £915. There is a footnote to
the report to the effect that the loss would have been much less
had not the Fire Brigade turned on the water again after the fire
had been completely extinguished. Usually it is the other way
about, and we find Fire Brigades turning the water off before the
fire is out!
It was early in 1888 that I was called in by the late Mr William
Whiteley, Universal Provider, of Weatborne Grove - to advise him
in regard to the protection of his immense premises. He had been
the victim of so many serious fires, involving the Insurance
Companies in enormous losses, that it was with difficulty that he
could get his property insured at all.
The Queen's Road block had just been completely burnt out so we
set to work to protect the older and very complicated premises in
Westborne Grove, extending the equipment to the Queen's Road
block after it was rebuilt. The work was completed in July 1888,
when I issued a detailed description of the whole equipment and
it's water supplies, pointing out the extraordinary precautions
that had been taken with a view to securing it against any
possible tampering. For example, the whole of the Main Stop
Valves controlling the water supplies were enclosed in a
specially built fireproof and burglarproof safe, whilst all the
supply pipes were from 20 per cent to 40 per cent above the
Insurance Schedule scale. There were 5609 Sprinkler Heads
comprised in the various installations, the water supplies to
which were in triplicate consisting of connections to the Grand
Junction Company's mains, a tank of 1350 gallons with its base
more than 20 feet above the highest Sprinkler, and a set of 10in.
triple ram pumps, with 80lbs. of steam guaranteed to be
maintained throughout the year. It is a significant fact that on
the completion of the Sprinkler Equipment, Mr Whiteley was able
to obtain all the Insurance Cover he required, my own Company
(the Mutual Fire Insurance Corporation of Manchester) taking the
lead with £50000. This was the first retail shop risk to be
fitted with Sprinklers outside America.
We have already noted that for a time following the introduction
of the Automatic Sprinkler to this country the Tariff Companies
stood aloof - some were incredulous, others preferred to wait and
see. A small minority were frankly opposed to any form of risk
improvement on the ground that it was no part of the business of
an underwriter to concern himself with such things, but to assess
risks as he found them, and after taking into account the moral
hazard, fix a rate of premium that would cover the risk and leave
him a reasonable profit. The economic factor was ruled out. This
view did not and could not prevail in an age of progress, and
when the Tariff Companies realised that our great Industrials had
been won over by those who were pioneering this new movement,
they abandoned their official imprimatur to the Automatic
Sprinkler. Already they had lost too much business to the
non-Tariff Companies who had from the beginning encouraged their
installation in manufacturing risks, and there followed a fight
which, by 1888, drove up the Sprinkler discount to 80 per cent
and even over.
Whatever may be the case today I do not think so high a rebate
was justified 35 years ago, having regard to our then limited
experience of the incidence of the Automatic Sprinkler on the
fire loss ratio. My own view is that Sprinklers have always been
deserving of a 50 per cent rebate, and that if every
Manufacturing Warehouse and Shop Risk in the country were to be
equipped with Sprinklers with the inducement that the annual fire
insurance bill was to be cut in two, the Offices would make far
larger profit than they have ever been able to show.
Here I think my story will end. The seven years 1881 to 1888
covered all that is worth the telling about the battle of the
Automatic Sprinkler in our own country. It was a thrilling
struggle carried on in good faith and temper, in which it was a
pleasure and privilege to have been a participant.
My work in pioneering the Automatic Sprinkler in foreign
countries and our own Colonies is another story, which one day I
may find the time to tell.
John Wormald