Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks

by A. C. Hobbs; George Dodd

“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.”