582

ON LOCKS AND KEYS.

from saying anything about it. They may be excused for notknowing, because very few people did know, fortunately for oursafes and strong boxes, that the mode of picking Bramah’s andChubb’s locks, by which the transatlantic Hobbs gained so muchglory, was suggested and explained in the Encyclopaedia Britannica nearly twenty years ago. But it does seem very strange that they,or at least their reporter, should not have known, long before thereport finally left his hands, that Hobbs had picked both of thoselocks, and taught every lock-picker in England how to do it, ifhe possesses the requisite tools and fingers. Of course, however,the reporter did not know it, as nobody could read any news-paper last autumn without knowing it. And this jury did exercisetheir judgment to the extent of declaring that Hobbs’ own lock(under the name of Day and Newell) ‘ seems to he impregnable.’Notwithstanding all which, they express their inability to ‘ olferany opinion on the comparative security afforded by the variouslocks that have come before them.’ The only discriminationwhich they venture to make is that the keys of Bramah’s andChubb’s locks are of convenient size, while Hobbs’ is ponderousand bulky, and his lock complicated ; and they might have added(without any very painful amount of investigation) enormouslyexpensive, in consequence of its complication, and probably alsomore likely, on the same account, to get out of order and stickfast, and so become rather inconveniently impregnable—on themoney-door of a bank, for instance—than the other two locks,especially Bramah’s.”