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.
[Illustration: fig. 49.]
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.
[Illustration: fig. 50.]
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.