CHAPTER IX.

THE LOCK CONTROVERSY: DURING AND SINCE THE TIME OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION.

We next come to the remarkable year 1851, which produced so many unexpected results in connection with the industrial display in Hyde Park, and conferred a lasting benefit on the useful arts and manufactures of the United Kingdom, by bringing their products into contrast and competition with those of other nations. It was to be expected that such a trial as this would afford evidences of national failure as well as of success; but probably no one suspected before the trial, that English locks, so celebrated over the greater part of the world for skilful mechanical design, beauty of workmanship, and perfect inviolability, would readily yield to a well-arranged system of lock-picking. Such, however, was the case; and we are bound to admit that Mr. Hobbs, the author of this system, is a mechanician of great skill, and with a profound knowledge of the art of the locksmith.

The first step in the celebrated _lock controversy_ of 1851 was taken by Mr. Hobbs himself, who declared to a party of scientific men in the Crystal Palace, that all the locks made in this country up to that date admitted of being very easily picked; and in order to explain to these gentlemen the principle upon which this was to be done, Mr. Hobbs picked one of Chubb’s patent detector-locks in their presence in a few minutes.

The fairness of this experiment having been called in question by certain persons who were not present at the time when it was made, Mr. Hobbs, on July 21st, 1851, wrote a letter from the American department of the Great Exhibition, to Messrs. Chubb, simply announcing that an attempt would be made, on the next following day, to pick a lock manufactured by them, and which was at that time on the door of a strong room in a house named by Mr. Hobbs. Messrs. Chubb were invited to be present at the operation; but no member of the firm attended. What occurred on the day specified may best be given in the words of a letter written by those who witnessed the operation.

“London, July 22, 1851.

“We the undersigned hereby certify, that we attended, with the permission of Mr. Bell, of No. 34 Great George-street, Westminster, an invitation sent to us by A. C. Hobbs, of the City of New York, to witness an attempt to open a lock throwing three bolts and having six tumblers, affixed to the iron door of a strong-room or vault, built for the depository of valuable papers, and formerly occupied by the agents of the South-Eastern Railway; that we severally witnessed the operation, which Mr. Hobbs commenced at 35 minutes past 11 o’clock A.M., and opened the lock within 25 minutes. Mr. Hobbs having been requested to lock it again with his instruments, accomplished it in the short space of 7 minutes, without the slightest injury to the lock or door. We minutely examined the lock and door (having previously had the assurance of Mr. Bell that the keys had never been accessible to Mr. Hobbs, he having had permission to examine the key-hole only). We found a plate at the back of the door with the following inscription: ‘Chubb’s New Patent (No. 261,461), St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, Maker to Her Majesty.’”

This letter was signed with the names and addresses of the following gentlemen:--

Mr. Handley. Mr. T. Shanks. „ William Marshall. Colonel W. Clifton. „ W. Armstead. Mr. Elijah Galloway. „ G. R. Porter.[7] „ Paul R. Hodge. „ F. W. Wenham. „ Charles H. Peabody. „ A. Shanks.

[7] Late Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Several of these names are well and publicly known in England and the United States.

This event gave rise to much newspaper controversy; and attempts were made to shew that, as this was not a _test_ lock, prepared expressly for challenge, the picking proved nothing as regards the finest of the manufacturers’ locks. Two circumstances, however, have to be noticed--that the lock was of sufficient commercial importance to be placed on a door enclosing valuable papers, and that the makers had an opportunity to attend and witness, and comment on the trial, if they so chose. We may here remark, that one of the ingenious contrivances of the Chubb lock, the _detector_, excited some doubt no less than fifteen years ago, as will be seen from the following. The writer of the article “Lock” in Hebert’s _Engineers’ and Mechanics’ Encyclopædia_, while speaking with much commendation of Chubb’s locks, points out a curious feature, which seems to him to render somewhat doubtful the surety of the _detector_ apparatus. “In Barron’s and Bramah’s locks,” he observes, “the picker has no means of knowing whether the tumblers are lifted too high or not; but in Chubb’s he has only to put the detector _hors de combat_ in the first instance, by a correct thrust from the outside of the door (which might be accurately measured), so as to _fix_ it fast in its place; the detector then becomes a stopper to the undue ascent of the tumblers, and the extent of their range is thereby correctly ascertained. Thus, it appears to us, the _detector_ might be converted into a _director_ of the means for opening the lock.”

Much will depend on the view which is taken of the circumstance just noted. The object of the detector is, not to prevent the lock from being picked, but to shew that an attempt has been made to pick it; or, at least, to attain a given purpose by an indirect instead of a direct method. But if there be really any truth in the surmise, that the detector actually guides a skilful hand in determining how high the tumblers should be raised, the supposed advantage will be purchased at rather a dear rate. As we are here, however, speaking of facts and not of mere opinions, it is proper to say, that the lock opened by Mr. Hobbs had the detector apparatus, but that it was not disturbed by him in picking the lock.

But instead of reiterating opinions, we will state the method by which most of the tumbler-locks made in England, up to the date of the Great Exhibition, can be opened or picked.

Bearing in mind the principle on which the picking of locks is said to depend, namely, that “whenever the parts of a lock which come in contact with the key are affected by any pressure applied to the bolt, or to that portion of the lock by which the bolt is withdrawn, in such a manner as to indicate the points of resistance to the withdrawal of the bolt, such a lock can be picked,” the first step is to produce the requisite pressure.

If the end of the bolt were exposed, this pressure might be applied by some force tending to shoot back the bolt; but as the bolt, whenever it is shot, is buried in the jamb of the door, or otherwise concealed from view, the pressure can in general only be applied through the key-hole. In order, therefore, to apply this pressure, the operator provides himself with an instrument capable of reaching the talon of the bolt, which in the case of the Chubb lock was a pipe-key of the form shewn at _a b_, fig. 49, furnished at the pipe-end with that portion of the bit of the key _b c_ which moves the bolt (see fig. 32, page 57, where the step which acts on the bolt is called the terminal step). The other end of the pipe-key is made square, as at _a_, for the purpose of receiving the square eye _e_ of the lever _e f_, fig. 50, to the further end of which _f_ a weight _w_ is attached by means of a string _s_. Now it is evident that if this pipe be introduced into the lock as far as it will go, and be turned round as in the act of unlocking, and the lever and weight be attached to the end _a_, the bit _b c_ of the pipe-key will maintain a permanent pressure on the bolt, which, if the weight be sufficient, will throw back the bolt as soon as the tumblers are raised to the proper height to allow the stump to pass.

The next step in the operation is to raise the tumblers to the proper height. For this purpose a second pipe _m n_ is made to slide upon the first with an easy motion, and by means of the cross handle _h h_ can be turned round or slid backwards and forwards on the tube _a b_. This tube _m n_ is also furnished with a single projecting bit or step _n o_, corresponding with one of the six steps of the key, fig. 32, and made of the proper length for entering the key-hole.

Now for the operation of opening a tumbler-lock with this simple apparatus. Referring to fig. 31, page 56, it will be evident that if the pipe _a b_, fig. 49, be passed over the pin of the lock and turned round towards the left, and the weight be attached, there will be a tendency in the bolt to shoot back, which tendency will bring the stump _s_, fig. 31, up against the inner angle or shoulder of one or other of the tumblers, whichever happens to project, however slightly; or, as Mr. Hobbs expresses it, “one or more of the tumblers will bind.” By moving forward the pipe _m n_ and turning round the bit _n o_ in the lock, it is easy to ascertain, by delicate touch, which of the tumblers it is that binds. It may be found that all are free to move except one or two against which the stump is pressing with the force of the weight _w_, fig. 50. The bit _n o_ is therefore brought gently under the bellies of the tumblers which bind, and they are moved slightly upwards until they cease to bind. As soon as they are set free another tumbler will bind; that is, the bolt will move through a small space, so as to bring the stump into contact with that particular tumbler which now projects; this in its turn is relieved, another tumbler binds and is relieved, and so on until the tumblers are, one by one, raised to the proper height for the stump to pass. When the last binding tumbler is raised to the proper height, the weight _w_ being no longer resisted, shoots the bolt back, and the work is done.

Now it must be evident that in this operation the detector apparatus need not come into operation. But if, as has been proposed, a detector-spring be added to each tumbler, it may be converted into a friend or a foe according to the use that is made of it. If the tumblers are lifted _too high_, they will be detained or detected in that position, and the operator will have to release them by turning the bit round in the opposite direction before he can begin his work again. The same force, however, which detains the tumblers when they are lifted too high will obviously detain them when they are lifted only just high enough, and thus the detector-springs would really be of great assistance to the operator in picking such a tumbler-lock.

The apparatus which we have described for picking the tumbler-lock must be varied to suit the form of key employed in opening the lock; but it is not difficult, in the case of most locks, to ascertain this form through the key-hole, without examining the key itself.

It is but fair to state in this place, that since the above method of picking tumbler-locks was made known,[8] Mr. Chubb has added a series of teeth and notches to the stump and tumblers; the effect of which would evidently prevent the application of the above method of picking, because any permanent pressure applied to the bolt would send a tooth of the stump into a notch of the tumbler, and prevent all further motion. But recurring to the principle, that whenever the parts of a lock which come in contact with the key indicate the points of resistance when any pressure (_whether permanent or temporary_) is applied in attempting to withdraw the bolt, that lock can be picked, it follows, if this principle be admitted, that although the notches prevent the application of the form of instrument described, yet there is sufficient indication afforded by the pressure to enable a skilful operator, with proper instruments, to form a false key, as was done in the case of the lock referred to at page 104. We now proceed to the second stage in the lock controversy of 1851.

[8] We believe the method was first made publicly known at a special general meeting of the members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, held at the rooms of the Society of Arts, London, on the 30th June, 1851, when a paper was read by Mr. Paul R. Hodge “On the progress of improvements in locks in the United States of America.” A report of this paper, together with the discussion thereon, was published by Waterlow and Sons, London Wall, 1851. Plate 34 (figs. 9 and 10) of this report contains representations of the lock-picking apparatus, from which we have copied our figures.

Soon after the picking of the Chubb lock in Great George-street, and consequent on the excitement and discussion to which that operation led, a committee, consisting of Mr. G. Rennie, Professor Cowper,[9] and Dr. Black, agreed to superintend the arrangements for a more severe testing of Mr. Hobbs’s power to open locks. There had been for many years exhibited in the window of Messrs. Bramah’s shop, in Piccadilly, a padlock of great complexity and beauty; to which an announcement was affixed, that a reward of two hundred guineas would be given to any person who should succeed in picking that lock. This challenge was accepted by Mr. Hobbs; and the committee managed all the arrangements, as arbitrators between Mr. Hobbs on the one side and Messrs. Bramah on the other. The lock was removed to an upper room in Messrs. Bramah’s establishment; where it was placed between two boards, and so fixed and sealed, that no access could be obtained to any part of it except through the key-hole. The room was to be given up to Mr. Hobbs; he was not to be interrupted by the presence or entrance of any other persons; and he was allowed a period of thirty days for opening the lock. If the lock was not picked at the expiration of that period, Mr. Hobbs was to be considered as having failed in his attempt.

[9] In mentioning the name of the late Professor Edward Cowper, we cannot refrain from deploring the loss which mechanical science has suffered by his too-early death. The application of mechanical principles to manufactures was treated by him in his lectures and illustrations with a felicity which has been rarely equalled.

There was much negotiation and correspondence before and during Mr. Hobbs’s operation on this lock. On July 2, he, with a view to this enterprise, applied for permission to take wax impressions of the key-hole. This permission being given, and the parties having met to discuss the necessary arrangements, an agreement was signed on the 19th, reciting the terms of the challenge, and providing that thirty days should be allowed to Mr. Hobbs to effect his enterprise; that the lock should be secured in a certain specified way; and that the key should remain in the possession of Messrs. Bramah, who were to retain the right of using it in the lock when Mr. Hobbs was not at work. Messrs. Bramah subsequently relinquished this last-mentioned privilege, in order that the trial might be perfectly fair; and it was agreed that the key should be sealed up during the whole period, beyond the reach either of Mr. Hobbs or Messrs. Bramah; and that the key-hole should be secured by an iron band, sealed, when Mr. Hobbs was not at work. These and other conditions were embodied in the agreement noticed in the last paragraph.

Mr. Hobbs commenced his labours on July 24th. After a few visits to the lock, Messrs. Bramah wished to have the privilege of inspecting it, or else that such an inspection should be made by the arbitrators; and, during a correspondence which arose out of this request, the operations were suspended. Mr. Hobbs resumed his work on August 16. On the 23d, Messrs. Bramah drew the attention of the arbitrators to the challenge, that the reward of two hundred guineas was offered to the artist who should make an instrument that would pick or open the lock; that he was to be paid the money on the production of the instrument; and that, unless some person were present, it was impossible that any one could know that the lock had been opened by the instrument which might be produced. This letter was not allowed by the arbitrators to affect the arrangements made. We may now consistently give the “Report of the Arbitrators.”

“Whereas for many years past a padlock has been exhibited in the window of Messrs. Bramah’s shop, in Piccadilly, to which was appended a label with these words: ‘The artist who can make an instrument that will pick or open this lock shall receive two hundred guineas the moment it is produced;’ and Mr. Hobbs, of America, having obtained permission of Messrs. Bramah to make trial of his skill in opening the said lock, Messrs. Bramah and Mr. Hobbs severally agreed that George Rennie, Esq., F.R.S., of London; and Professor Cowper, of King’s College, London; and Dr. Black, of Kentucky; should act as arbitrators between the said parties.

“That the trial should be conducted according to the rules laid down by the arbitrators, and the reward of two hundred guineas be decided by them; in fine, that they should see fair play between the parties.

“On July 23 it was agreed that the lock should be enclosed in a block of wood, and screwed to a door, and the screws sealed, the key-hole and the hasp only being accessible to Mr. Hobbs; and, when he was not operating, the key-hole was to be covered with a band of iron and sealed by Mr. Hobbs, that no other person should have access to the key-hole. The key was also sealed up, and was not to be used until Mr. Hobbs had finished his operations. If Mr. Hobbs succeeded in picking or opening the lock, the key was to be tried; and if it locked and unlocked the padlock, it should be considered as a proof that Mr. Hobbs had not injured the lock, but had fairly picked or opened it, and was entitled to the two hundred guineas.

“On the same day, July 23, Messrs. Bramah gave notice to Mr. Hobbs that the lock was ready for his operations.

“On July 24 Mr. Hobbs commenced his operations; and on August 23 Mr. Hobbs exhibited the _lock opened_ to Dr. Black and Professor Cowper (Mr. Rennie being out of town). Dr. Black and Mr. Cowper then called in Mr. Edward Bramah and Mr. Bazalgette, and shewed them the lock opened; they [the last-named two gentlemen are of course meant] then withdrew, and Mr. Hobbs locked and unlocked the padlock in presence of Dr. Black and Mr. Cowper.

“Between July 24 and Aug. 23 Mr. Hobbs’s operations were for a time suspended; so that the number of days occupied by Mr. Hobbs was sixteen, and the number of hours he was actually in the room with the lock was fifty-one.

“On Friday, Aug. 29, Mr. Hobbs again locked and unlocked the padlock in presence of Mr. G. Rennie, Professor Cowper, Dr. Black, Mr. Edward Bramah, Mr. Bazalgette, and Mr. Abrahart.

“On Saturday, Aug. 30, the key was tried, and the padlock was locked and unlocked with the key, by Professor Cowper, Mr. Rennie, and Mr. Gilbertson; thus proving that Mr. Hobbs had fairly picked the lock without injuring it. Mr. Hobbs then formally produced the instruments with which he had opened the lock.

“We are, therefore, unanimously of opinion, that Messrs. Bramah have given Mr. Hobbs a fair opportunity of trying his skill, and that Mr. Hobbs has fairly picked or opened the lock; and we award that Messrs. Bramah and Co. do now pay to Mr. Hobbs the two hundred guineas.

GEORGE RENNIE, _Chairman_. EDWARD COWPER. J. R. BLACK.

Holland Street, Blackfriars, Sept. 2, 1851.”

It may be here stated, in reference to the space of time during which the operations were being conducted, that the actual opening of the lock occurred much earlier, so far as concerned the principle involved, though not in a way to meet the terms of the challenge. On his fifth visit, Mr. Hobbs succeeded in adjusting the slides and moving the barrel, preparatory to withdrawing the bolt; but the instrument with which the barrel was to be turned round, being too slight, slipped, and defeated the operation. Mr. Hobbs had then to readjust the barrel, and to make a new instrument to aid him; this new instrument, when completed, enabled him to open the lock in the space of an hour or two.

On the same day Messrs. Bramah addressed a letter to the arbitrators, stating the reasons which induced them to think that, though Mr. Hobbs had succeeded in opening the lock, the manner of doing so did not come within the meaning of the challenge originally made by them. The arbitrators, however, were unanimous in their award, and Messrs. Bramah bowed to it.

In an article written in one of the daily newspapers immediately after the opening of the lock, the following notice was given of the lock and its production: “We were surprised to find that the lock which has made so much noise in the world is a padlock of but 4 inches in width, the body of it 1¹⁄₄ inches thick, and its thickness over the boss 2³⁄₄ inches. Upon opening the outer case of the lock, the actual barrel enclosing the mechanism was found to be 2¹⁄₄ inches in length and 1¹⁄₂ inches in diameter. The small space in which the works were confined, and its snug, compact appearance was matter of astonishment to all present. The lock and key were made forty years since by the present head of the eminent firm of Messrs. Maudslay and Co., Mr. Maudslay being at that time a workman in the employ of Mr. Bramah.”

We may here remark, as indeed has been remarked in former pages, that the Bramah lock is, and will probably continue to be, deservedly celebrated for the amount of mechanism contained in a small space, as adverted to in the last paragraph. The cylindrical form is well calculated for this concentration of power within narrow limits; and the smallness of the key is a great merit.

The objections made by Messrs. Bramah to the award of the committee were embodied in the following letter to Mr. Rennie, dated 9th September:

“DEAR SIR,--We beg to acknowledge your letter of yesterday’s date, and will not trouble you to attend here to-morrow, but beg to hand you the 210_l._ awarded by the arbitrators to Mr. Hobbs. We need scarcely repeat that the decision at which the arbitrators have arrived has surprised us much; and we owe it to ourselves and the public to protest against it. We do so for the following reasons:

“1. Because the arbitrators, having been appointed to see fair-play, and that the lock was fairly operated upon, did not, although repeatedly requested in writing to do so, once inspect or allow any one to witness Mr. Hobbs’s operations during the sixteen days he had the sole custody of the lock and was engaged in the work.

“2. Because the arbitrators did not once exercise their right of using the key, although repeatedly requested in writing to do so, till after Mr. Hobbs had completed his operations; and then, instead of applying at once to prove that no damage had been done to the lock, allowed him twenty-four hours to repair any that might have occurred.

“3. Because the lock being opened by means of a fixed apparatus screwed to the wood-work in which the lock was enclosed for the purpose of experiment (which it is obvious could not have been applied to an iron door without discovery), and the addition of three or four other instruments, the spirit of the challenge has evidently not been complied with.

“4. Because from the course adopted an opportunity of some good scientific results has been taken from us; as neither arbitrators nor any one else saw the whole or even the most important instruments, by which it is said the lock was picked, actually applied in operation, either before or after the lock was presented open to the arbitrators.

“5. Because during the progress of Mr. Hobbs’s operations, and several days before their completion, we called the attention of the arbitrators to what we considered the interpretation of the challenge, begging at the same time that they would apply the key and appoint some one to be present during the residue of the experiment; feeling that whatever might be the result in a scientific point of view, the reward could not be awarded.

“We would add, that we think that several points which appear in your minutes should not have been mentioned in your award; more especially that Mr. Hobbs on the 2d of June took a wax-impression of the lock, and had made, as far as he could, instruments therefrom between that date and the commencement of his operations.

“We are, dear sir,

“Your obedient servants,

“BRAMAH AND CO.”

In order that the opinions of Messrs. Bramah and others may be given with as much fairness as possible, on a matter which they could not feel but otherwise than important to them, we may state, that among the letters to which the picking of the Bramah lock gave rise in the public journals, was the following addressed to the _Observer_ newspaper on 10th October:

“SIR,--This controversy having excited an unusual degree of public attention for some time past, perhaps you will be good enough to allow us to state in your journal, that the lock on which Mr. Hobbs operated had not been taken to pieces for many years, and it was only on examining it (after the award of the committee) that we discovered the startling fact, that in no less than three particulars it is inferior to those we have made for years past. The lock had remained so long in its resting-place in our window that the proposal of Mr. Hobbs somewhat surprised us. After his appearance, however, no alteration could of course be made without our incurring the risk of being charged with preparing a test-lock for the occasion; we were therefore bound in honour to let the lock remain as Mr. Hobbs found it when he accepted the challenge. No one inspected his operations during the sixteen days he had the sole custody of the lock and was engaged at the work. We are therefore compelled to advertise another 200 guineas, in order that we may see the lock operated upon and opened, if it be possible; and thus gain such information as would enable us to use means that would defy even the acknowledged skill of our American friends. We believe the Bramah lock to be impregnable; and we cannot open it ourselves, with the knowledge Mr. Hobbs has given us. We have fitted up the same lock with such improvements as we now use, and some trifling change suggested by the recent trial, and restored it with its challenge to our window. We have not done this in a vain, boasting spirit; on the contrary, we feel it rather hard that, from the way in which the former trial was conducted, we are driven to adopt this course. Had any one inspected Mr. Hobbs’s operations during that trial, it would not have been necessary.

“We are, sir, &c.,

“BRAMAH AND CO.”

Messrs. Bramah are well entitled to offer any explanation concerning the relative perfection of the lock in question, and of one that they could now produce with certain improvements in some parts of the working mechanism; but if these improvements do not involve any new invention, patented or otherwise,--that is, if the lock be really a carrying out of the contrivances already made public,--it is difficult to see why it should not yield to the same treatment as the other. It is true that, shortly after the decision of the arbitrators, Messrs. Bramah exhibited a new lock in their window, and repeated their challenge in the same terms as before, with the single addition, that applications were to be made in writing only. We have reason to know that an application was made, and that the consequence was the withdrawal of the challenge. In respect to the actual contest, however, the character and position of the arbitrators ought surely to hold Mr. Hobbs justified in his proceedings. They were not all Americans (supposing nationality to give a bias in the matter); two were Englishmen, both of distinguished rank in respect to mechanical knowledge; and as Mr. Hobbs was as much bound by their decision as Messrs. Bramah, he was entitled to claim any advantage resulting from a favourable decision.

The following is a description, so far as can be given in words, of the mode in which Mr. Hobbs operated on the Bramah lock. The first point to be attained was to free the sliders from the pressure of the spiral spring; the spring was very powerful, pressing with a force of between 30 and 40 lbs.; and until this was counteracted, the sliders could not be readily moved in their grooves. A thin steel rod, drilled at one end, and having two long projecting teeth, was introduced into the key-hole and pressed against the circular disc between the heads of the sliders; the disc and spring were pressed as far as they would go. In order to retain them in this position, a curved stanchion was screwed into the side of the boards surrounding the lock, and the end brought to press upon the steel rod, a thumb-screw passing through the drilled portion of the instrument and keeping it in its place. The sliders being thus freed from the action of the spring, operations commenced for ascertaining their proper relative positions. A plain steel needle, with a moderately fine point, was used for pushing in the sliders; while another with a small hook at the end, something like a crochet-needle, was used for drawing them back when pushed too far. By gently feeling along the edge of the slider, the notch was found and adjusted, and its exact position was then accurately measured by means of a thin and narrow plate of brass, the measurements being recorded on the brass for future reference. The operator was thus enabled, by this record, to commence each morning’s work at the point where he left off on the previous day. The lock having eighteen sliders, the process of finding the exact position of the notch in each was necessarily slow. Mr. Hobbs employed a small bent instrument to perform the part of the small lever or bit of the key; with this he kept constantly pressing on the cylinder which moved the bolt. He thus knew that if ever he got the slide-notches into the right place, the cylinder would rotate and the lock open. He could feel the varying resistance to which the sliders were subjected by this tendency of the cylinder to rotate; and he adjusted them one by one until the notch came opposite the steel plate. The false notches added, of course, much to his difficulty; for when he had _partially_ rotated the cylinder by means of the false notches, he had to begin again to find out the true ones.

This description accords pretty nearly with that given in a former page; but we reproduce it here to shew not merely what _might_ be the process adopted, but what really _has been_ done. One circumstance ought at least to be noted in these transactions--there is no mystery; the method adopted is the result of a process of reasoning candidly and openly explained.

In justice to Messrs. Bramah we thought it our duty to give them an opportunity of stating what improvements they had made in their locks since the date of the Great Exhibition; and accordingly, on the 28th April, 1853, our publisher addressed to Messrs. Bramah a note, stating that a _Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks_ was being prepared, and inviting them to contribute thereto. The following is a copy of their reply:

“124 Piccadilly, May 2d, 1853.

“SIR,--Pressure of business has prevented our sending an earlier reply to your favour of the 28th ult.

“The lock on which Mr. Hobbs operated during the Great Exhibition had been made nearly forty years, and when taken to pieces the sliders were found to be in iron, instead of steel; and the key-hole of the lock being three times larger than it ought to have been, enabled the operator to fix down the spring of the lock, and yet leave himself ample space to turn and bend the sliders (being in iron) at pleasure. The barrel of the lock in which the sliders act, instead of being whole length from front to back of padlock, was not quite half its proper length; a serious oversight in the workman who put the lock together, as the barrel being short, the sliders were necessarily so, which diminished the number of notches in the sliders full one-half, and to that extent diminished the security of the lock, and increased the facility of the operator.

“We send for your inspection a box of guards, which will shew you the barrel and sliders of our Bramah lock. You will observe several notches in each slider, only one of which will turn on the locking-plate, the others being what are termed false, or security ones. These notches being cut only the exact width of the locking-plate, require the most perfect accuracy to carry each down to its proper distance. In the lock on which Mr. Hobbs operated, in addition to the sliders being so short, and only half the number of security-notches in each, the notch which passed round the locking-plate was found to be cut twice the width it ought to have been. The whole of these defects have been corrected since the Exhibition.

“We are, Sir, yours respectfully,

“BRAMAH and Co.

“per J. SMYTH.

“To John Weale, Esq., 59 High Holborn.”

In the Jury Report of the Great Exhibition, Class XXII., are the following remarks: “On the comparative security afforded by the various locks which have come before the jury, they are not prepared to offer an opinion. They would merely express a doubt whether the circumstance that a lock has been picked under conditions which ordinarily could scarcely ever, if at all be obtained, can be assumed as a test of its insecurity.” [page 500]. The conditions here alluded to probably refer to the free access which Messrs. Bramah allowed Mr. Hobbs to have to their lock during a period of thirty days, and we are hence led to infer that the burglar is denied any such facilities. On this point we would refer to the opinion of a high authority. In a paper “on the History and Construction of Latches and Locks,” by Mr. Chubb, read before the Society of Arts, 22d January, 1851, the following graphic passage occurs:

“In order to shew the absolute necessity of secure locks and safe depositories for property, especially in banking establishments, it may not be out of place to trace the systematic care and great sagacity with which the large burglaries are planned. You will bear in mind that an unsuccessful attempt is seldom made where the booty is of any magnitude. The first-rate ‘cracksmen’ always know beforehand where to go, when to go, and what they are going for. When a ‘plant,’ as it is termed, is made upon a house or a bank, precise information is gained, if possible, as to the depository of the valuables; and if it is found that the safeguards are too strong in themselves, and that the locks are invulnerable, the affair is quietly dropped. But if otherwise, then no expenditure of time or misapplied ingenuity is spared to gain the desired end. The house is constantly watched, the habits of its inmates are observed, their ordinary times of going out and coming in are noted; the confidential servants are bribed or cajoled, and induced to leave the premises when their employers are absent, so that impressions may be taken from the locks, and false keys made. When all the keys required are made, one or two men who have not been previously initiated are generally called in, and receive their instructions to be ready at a certain hour on the following day to enter the house. A plan of the premises is put into their hands, they are cautioned to step over a certain creaking stair or plank, and the keys of the different doors are given them. The day or evening is chosen when it is known that the inmates will be from home--the servant, taking advantage of their absence, fulfils a long-standing engagement with his new and liberal friends--a signal is given--the two confederates enter--the so-called safe is swept of its contents, all the doors are carefully re-locked, and not until the bank is opened for business next morning is the robbery discovered.”

In an article in _Frazer’s Magazine_ for November 1852 the following observations were made on the Exhibition Jury Report on Locks: “This jury seems to have consisted of the only persons in England who did not hear of the famous ‘lock controversy’ of last year; for one can hardly imagine that, if they had heard of a matter of so much consequence to the subject they were appointed to investigate, they would have altogether abstained from saying any thing about it. They may be excused for not knowing, because very few people did know, fortunately for our safes and strong boxes, that the mode of picking Bramah’s and Chubb’s locks, by which the transatlantic Hobbs gained so much glory, was suggested and explained in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ nearly twenty years ago. But it does seem very strange that they, or at least their reporter, should not have known, long before the Report finally left his hands, that Hobbs had picked both of those locks, and taught every lock-picker in England how to do it, if he possesses the requisite tools and fingers. Of course, however, the reporter did not know it, as nobody could read any newspaper last autumn without knowing it. And this jury did exercise their judgment to the extent of declaring that Hobbs’s own lock (under the name of Day and Newell) ‘seems to be impregnable.’ Notwithstanding all which, they express their inability to ‘offer any opinion on the comparative security afforded by the various locks that have come before them.’ The only discrimination which they venture to make is, that the keys of Bramah’s and Chubb’s locks are of convenient size, while Hobbs’s is ponderous and bulky, and his lock complicated; and they might have added (without any very painful amount of investigation), enormously expensive, in consequence of its complication, and probably also more likely, on the same account, to get out of order and stick fast, and so become rather inconveniently impregnable--on the money door of a bank, for instance,--than the other two locks, especially Bramah’s.”

In relation to the opinion just given, it may be remarked that the American lock has shewn no tendencies to get out of order; if well constructed (and good construction is a _sine qua non_ in such mechanism), the parts work into and upon each other with very little friction. In respect to expense, and to the size of the key, a _bank_-lock is not one in which economy would be much studied, security being the great desideratum. No attempt is made to produce a parautoptic lock of small size or for cheap purposes. The lock, therefore, must be judged of with reference to what it undertakes to perform. And this brings us to notice the attempts made in England to pick the parautoptic or American bank-lock.

The following were the circumstances connected with Mr. Garbutt’s attempt to pick the American lock. It is of course known that a challenge was affixed to the American lock in the Great Exhibition, and it was this challenge which Mr. Garbutt accepted. Mr. Garbutt, it may be here observed, was a working locksmith and engineer; he had been entrusted by Messrs. Fox and Henderson with the care and adjustment of the metal check-tables at the pay-places of the Crystal Palace; he had at a previous period been in the employ of Messrs. Bramah. We mention these facts only on account of an erroneous rumour at the time that he was an agent of Messrs. Bramah in respect to the acceptance of the American challenge; whereas we believe he acted independently, by and for himself.

On Sept. 10th, 1851, Mr. A. H. Renton, Mr. E. H. Thomson, and Mr. W. F. Shattuck,--the first an engineer, and the other two American exhibitors,--were appointed arbitrators to superintend the arrangements, and they met Mr. Garbutt and Mr. Hobbs at the house No. 20 Knightsbridge. The following conditions were agreed to:--That a Newell lock should be selected, and should be screwed to a wooden box; that Mr. Garbutt should have access only to the key-hole of the lock, through which key-hole all his operations for picking the lock should be conducted; that Mr. Garbutt should have uninterrupted and exclusive access to the box, between the hours of nine in the morning and nine in the evening, for thirty days, beginning on the 11th of September, he having during that time the privilege of introducing one associate, and the arbitrators reserving to themselves the right of inspecting the seals placed by them on the box; that, in order to afford every information concerning the internal arrangement of the lock, the trial-lock should be taken to pieces in presence of all the parties; that it should be examined by Mr. Garbutt; that it should be locked and unlocked with the proper key by him and by Mr. Hobbs; that it should be fastened to a box, and the fastenings sealed by the arbitrators; that the key, when the lock was finally locked, should be sealed up by the arbitrators and delivered to Mr. Hobbs, who would retain it until required by the arbitrators to hand it over to them. That at the expiration of the thirty days, or earlier in case either of the success or the abandonment of the attempt, the arbitrators should examine the lock. And, finally, that if Mr. Garbutt should have succeeded in picking the lock (that is, in withdrawing the bolt without injuring the lock), the sum of 200_l._ should be paid to him by Mr. Hobbs.

In accordance with the above agreement, Mr. Hobbs produced a parautoptic lock, with ten tumblers, marked No. 8560. The key and the lock were examined by Mr. Garbutt. The lock was again put together, affixed to a box, and sealed. Mr. Hobbs set the bits of the key (ten in number) to an arrangement chosen by himself, and the lock was then locked by all parties in succession; the key, after the final locking, being sealed up and returned to Mr. Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs at the same time delivered to Mr. Garbutt a similar but smaller lock, which he was to be allowed to retain during the whole period of the trial, to assist in rendering him familiar with the construction of both locks.

On the 11th of October, the day on which the prescribed period expired, the arbitrators met at the house in question, when Mr. Garbutt delivered up to them the lock uninjured, but _unopened_. The award of the arbitrators was thereupon given in the following terms: “We therefore hereby certify that Mr. Garbutt having had uninterrupted and exclusive access to the lock during the period of thirty days, and, availing himself of the conditions of the agreement, had every facility for opening the lock that could be obtained without possession of the true key, has delivered up the same into our hands unopened and uninjured; and the said lock has been delivered by us to Mr. Hobbs.”

It will of course be understood that it was one condition of this enterprise, that the particular combination of bits in the key wherewith the lock was finally locked should not be seen by Mr. Garbutt. The key was in the first instance tried by Mr. Garbutt and by the members of the committee, and was found to turn readily in the lock; Mr. Hobbs then left the room, and re-arranged the bits of the key so as to produce a new combination; he then returned to the room, and locked the lock with the key in its altered form; he allowed all present to feel the key turn freely, and then, without allowing any one to see the combination, wrapped the key up in paper, in which it was sealed as above described. Whether Mr. Garbutt, or any one, could have succeeded better by a momentary glance at the arrangement of the key, was not at that moment the question: the terms of the challenge were that he should _not_ see it. What are the circumstances likely to occur if the operator really has access to the key (provided the bits are not very numerous) we may shortly explain.

It is necessary to draw a distinction between _picking of a lock_ and _ringing the changes on a permutating key_; otherwise some of the late occurrences connected with locks can hardly be understood. After the reading of a paper by Mr. Hobbs before the Society of Arts, a discussion arose, in which it was stated that the Newell lock had been picked in London. Mr. Hobbs deemed it necessary to refute this statement. The report was circulated in many of the London newspapers; and Mr. Jeremiah Smith, the operator in question, supported it by his own statement. Under these circumstances Mr. Hobbs, on April 2, 1852, addressed a letter to the editor of the _Observer_; of which the following paragraph was intended to point out the distinction above mentioned between “picking” and “ringing the changes:”

“Early last autumn I lent to Mr. Potter, of South Molton Street, one of my locks, for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to make himself acquainted with its principle and construction. After he had had the lock in his possession several weeks, a report reached me that one of Mr. Potter’s workmen had picked my lock. I immediately called on Mr. Potter to ascertain the fact. Mr. Potter informed me that for the purpose of testing the possibility of opening the lock by means of an impression taken, or a copy being made of the true key, Mr. Smith had made a copy of the key by means of a transfer instrument, which instrument he shewed me at the time. After the key was made, it was tried, and found to lock and unlock the lock as readily as the original key. Mr. Potter then sealed the screws of the lock, changed the combination of the key, and locked it. Mr. Smith then took the lock, and with the key that he had made by copying the original, hit the combination, and unlocked it. The lock was of the smallest size, having but six tumblers; the number of changes that could possibly be made were 720. The time occupied by Mr. Smith, according to his own statement, was six hours and fifty-five minutes; this, allowing one minute for each change, would give him time to have made 415 out of the 720 changes before hitting the right one. I asked Mr. Smith why he did not use the original key instead of making a copy? His answer was, that ‘he could change the one he made faster, as he did not have to screw the bits in.’ Any person will readily understand the difference between ringing the combination of a key and picking a lock.”

In other words, the process was this: the operator had the true key, and might have used either this or one which he made from it. This would have sufficed for opening almost any lock ever constructed instantly; but in the American lock he had to find out which of 720 combinations was the right one, and he was employed almost seven hours in doing this. The exploit shewed patience, but had little bearing on the practical subject of lock-picking.

In March 1852 Mr. Smith put forth an offer to accept the challenge made by Mr. Hobbs in respect to the Exhibition lock. Mr. Hobbs agreed to the offer, and chose, as arbitrators on his part, Mr. Hensman, Engineer to the Bank of England, and Mr. Appold, inventor of the centrifugal pump which attracted so much attention at the Great Exhibition. Mr. Hobbs requested Mr. Smith to appoint arbitrators on his side also; but this was not done. Mr. Smith, at a meeting held by the four persons named, expressed a wish that an ordinary commercial lock should be the one experimented on, instead of the more complicated test-lock which had been at the Great Exhibition. This was a departure from the terms of the original challenge; but Mr. Hobbs waived his objection on this point, and offered to substitute a bank-lock with ten tumblers for the Exhibition lock with fifteen, the former being similar in construction but less complex. Another meeting was agreed upon, but Mr. Smith did not attend; and the matter was, by himself, brought to a sudden termination.

To shew the effect of difference in the number of tumblers and key-bits, we may state that, while, at a minute per change, it would take twelve hours to go through all the combinations with a six-bitted key, it would require seven years with a ten-bitted, and 2,500,000 years with a fifteen-bitted key! So much for power of combination, in the arithmetical mode of picking.

We now proceed to notice the violability of sundry minor locks. It might at first appear that the _letter-lock_ is exceedingly difficult to pick; and so it unquestionably is, as long as we merely attend to the chance-medley trials by turning the rings round and round until we happen to hit upon the right combination. But there is another mode of solving the riddle, mechanical rather than arithmetical. A piece of common wire, bent in the form of the shackle, is put in between the ends of the lock; the spring or elasticity of the wire tends to force the ends apart; this causes the pins or studs on the rod to press against the inner edges of the rings. By trying all the rings in succession, some one of them will be found to bind or cling more than the others; this is turned round until the cessation of the bind shews that the notch in the ring has been brought into its right position relatively to the pin on the rod. Then another ring which binds more than the rest is treated in a similar way; until at length all the rings seem to be so far liberated as to indicate that the notches are in the right positions. In the dial-lock, similarly, when a pressure has been brought to bear upon the bolt in the right direction, a trial of the pointers will soon bring the notch in each wheel to the required position.

Some short time after the events in London connected with the lock controversy, Mr. William Brown of Liverpool described the letter-lock noticed in a former page, characterising it as a lock which he believed no one could pick. An incident in the history of this lock was thus narrated in one of the Liverpool newspapers. “Mr. Hobbs was taken by Mr. Milner to the office of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, and Co., and shewn this lock. The safe-door was closed and locked by the cashier at Mr. Brown’s request; and then Mr. Hobbs began to illustrate his views of the construction of the lock by manipulation and explanation, with which the subject of them appeared to sympathise so entirely and promptly that the door opened in a few minutes.”

In respect to the picking of the Egyptian lock, the main difficulty would be in obtaining any false key that would correspond with the pins of the lock; but this might be accomplished in a way analogous to that which is practised in many other cases. If a small piece of wax be laid on a blank key, the key inserted into the lock, and the blank pressed upwards against the pin-holes, there would be left an impression of those holes on the wax; this impression would furnish a guide to the fabrication of a false key. There is also very little difficulty in picking this lock by one of the ordinary instruments.

For the Yale lock, combining something like the pin-action of the Egyptian with the cylinder-action of the Bramah locks, the picking requires the use of an instrument that will fit between two of the pins, and to the outer end of which is attached a lever and weight; by this means a pressure is exerted upon the cylinder in the right direction for it to turn, and the pins are made to bind. Then, with another instrument, the pins are felt, and each one moved until it seems to be relieved from the bind: this indicates that the joint in the pin coincides with the joint between the two cylinders; and when all have been similarly treated, the weight acting on the inner cylinder will turn it. It is evident that this method is the same in principle as the one applicable to the Bramah lock.