But there is another point, and, to my mind, the most important one. Whatever opinions may be held as to the relative quality of this lock, whether it is better or worse than an English one, it is at least an honest article. It makes no pretensions to be any better than it is. It does not entrap the unwary purchaser by pretending to be a first-class article, when at the same time it may be a swindle.

I will now show you an ordinary 6 inch rim-lock of English manufacture. At a short distance it looks like a superior article; the follower and keyhole appear as if they were bushed with brass. But let us take it to pieces, and see what we can find. The follower is a rough casting, not turned at the bearings, and is in no sense a fit. The screw holes are not countersunk, but merely punched in; the key is of the roughest and worst fitting description; the inside is as rough and cheap as possible; the key is cut so as to deceive the purchaser into the belief that there are twice as many wards in the lock as is really the case, and the bushes prove to be thin plates of brass riveted on, and not bushes at all. In short, the whole article is a vile fraud, and the maker was a swindler. This is strong language, but I think you will agree with me when I maintain that it is not stronger than the circumstances warrant.

But there are still its defects of bad design and useless workmanship. The lock is of the usual form given to the English rim-lock, that is, it has a flange which requires to be let into the edge of the door. I have fixed hundreds of them, and have never yet been able to see a use for this flange. It is one great obstacle to the general introduction of a reversible lock; it adds to the labor of fixing without adding to the security of the door, for if the door is to be forced from the outside, the box staples give way first; if from the inside, the unscrewing of the box staple is all that is necessary to give egress; if the door requires easing, it effectually prevents it being done - in fact, it is a nuisance, and nothing but a nuisance. But our lockmakers do not appear to give these things a thought; their doctrine seems to be, "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be."

Again, notice that the edges of the iron which lie against the door and the sham bushes are ground bright. Here is labor wasted, for as soon as the lock is fixed these polished portions are hidden for ever. Next, take the box staple. As is usual, it is fearfully and wonderfully made up of sheet iron, square iron, and brass; the outcome of which is that the showy brass striking piece comes unriveted, the door comes unfastened, and the tenant's temper comes unhinged. Why, in the name of common sense, could they not substitute a neat malleable casting? In our own houses I have long since discarded the ordinary box staple for draw-back locks, and find it cheaper to buy a cast iron staple, and throw away the one supplied by the English lockmaker.

Bear in mind that I have shown neither of these locks as samples of high-class goods, but as samples of the furniture fixed in the houses of the working and middle classes of this country; and when I tell you that the American lock, fitted with the mineral furniture, is at least 25 per cent cheaper than the English abortion I have shown to you, you will begin to realize what our English markets have to fear from the Americans.

Here is a common, cheap English mortise lock, and you will naturally ask why the outside of this lock is ground bright, when it is buried in the door and never seen except it has to be taken out for repairs. I have asked the same question, and for 20 years have paused for a reply. This lock is not reversible, the follower is not bushed, and the inside is rough and cheap. Contrast it with this neat American lock, and notice again the bosses to receive the wear; notice also that the bolts are brass; the latch-bolt is, of course, reversible - I never saw an American lock which was not. The body of the lock is cast iron; and, seeing that there are no strains upon a mortise lock, it is quite as good as if it was of wrought iron. There is no unnecessary grinding, but the iron is japanned, and the japan is as much superior to the English compound as is the lacquer ware of the Japanese to that which is executed in Birmingham and palmed upon the ignorant buyer as Japanese work. In fact, as you can see for yourselves, the English japan looks almost like gas tar beside the American. This American lock is a two-lever, and there is no sham about the key, which is made of some kind of white metal and is small and neat. This lock is only 2½ per cent higher in price than the English.

Before leaving these locks, let me say a word or two upon the relative wear upon their different portions, and their relative safety. The English maker appears to ignore the fact that nineteen-twentieths of the wear of a lock is upon the latch, spindle, and follower; the amount of actual wear upon the rest of the lock is comparatively slight. Let any of you consider the number of times you open and close a door, compared with the times you lock it. Our drawbacks and large rim locks are used about once a day; the great bulk of our mortise locks are not used, except as latches, once a week. One argument used by our manufacturers against the American lock is that, being made by machinery, there is necessarily a great duplication of parts, and a consequent lowering of the standard of security; while their own locks, being made by hand, are not alike, and therefore cannot be so easily opened.

Let any of you put this argument to proof, by trying how many front doors you can open with one key in a row of workmen's dwellings such as are found in Manchester, ranging up to £25 rentals, and the result will astonish you. If our own manufacturers made their locks sufficiently well to give this security, there would be some force in what they say; but so far as security is concerned, they might as well make their locks by machinery as make them in the way they do.