HISTORY&HERITAGE
SPONSORED BY SKS
< An engraving of
Harts lock from
George Price’s
1854 Treatise.
One such locksmith was Thomas
Hart, whose skill and efficiency in
fettling locks almost intuitively allowing
him to speculate and theorise on a
possible alternative to Chubb’s lock. His
speculation paid off when he came up
with a design idea. Like inventors before
him, he first needed to demonstrate
weaknesses in the Chubb design. So
around February 1832 he claimed that
the Chubb lock could be picked open and
proceeded to open a number of them
in public. This was, no doubt, based on
his practical, detailed knowledge of the
Chubb locks he was making for Richards.
Chubb was furious with Richards for
“being too free with Chubb secrets” and
refused any of his locks. Chubb responded
with a challenge and £10 reward.
Hart suspected that the challenge lock
was not the normal version. It was agreed
that should the trial lock be anything other
than a normal production version and
Hart failed, then a fee of £5 was to be paid
by Chubb. Hart several times left the site
during the trial to make adjustments or
modify his tools. With little under an hour
left for the trial Hart again left to adjust
his instruments. Chubb’s deliberately
misinterpreted his departure and put a
seal on the trial lock claiming victory. Both
Hart and witnesses protested but to no
avail. Chubb stated that since Hart had
‘conceded’ there was no need to inspect
the lock. Chubb naturally claimed victory
and even solicited Isombard Kingdom
Brunel to help denounce Harts lock.
Interestingly, history was to repeat itself
some 20 years later when Hobbs picked
Chubb’s locks - complete with claims and
counter claims.
Shortly after this affair Chubb completely
redesigned its detector lock, in 1833
introducing the New Patent. I wonder if
To read more, visit www.locksmithjournal.co.uk
^ Hart’s lock in the form of a 7” rim deadlock. Notice how the springs
answer both the lever and detector function. HoL collection.
this was in part a response to Hart’s public
claims. Certainly the new lock was a
simpler to produce.
Hart though had secured his name in
locksmithing history; he sold his idea to
Richards who commercially produced
his lock. Indeed other companies, such
as Mace, later made his design so it must
have gained some merit of purpose
despite Chubb’s claims.
My own theory is that whilst the Chubb
detector lock w ???a?????????????d?????)???????????????????????????????)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????)?????????????????????????????)????????????????????????????????)!???????????????????????????????)??????????????????????????????)Q?????e????????Q???????????????)???1???????????????????????????????()???5????????????1???????????????)
????????? ????????I????????????)?????????????]??????????????????)??????????
?????M?????????????????)?????Q?????!????????e???????????)??????e?????????????????????)???????????????????????
?????%?????)Y????????a???????d?????????????????)????????????????????????????????????)????????????????????????????)??????????????????A??????A??????)??????????????????????????????)?????????????????????????????????)???????L????????????????) ????5??????????????????!?????)
?????????????????????????????????)????????????????????????????????)???????????????????????? ??????????)??????????????????????????)??????????()Q!?M@?=
P?????%MMU)MA=9M=I? d?Y9
?-eL((??((0