with the great Shandur offshoot of the Hindu Kush except the narrow trough of the Kabul river, which cuts a deep waterway across where it makes its way from Dakka into the Peshawar plains. Strategically it is an important topographical feature, for it divides the basin of the Kabul river and the Khyber route from the valley of Kurram, leaving no practicable pass across its rugged crest to connect the two. Its western slopes, where it abuts on the mountain masses which dominate the Kabul plain, are forest-covered and picturesque, with deep glens intersecting them, and bold craggy ridges; the same may be said of the northern spurs which reach downward through the Shinwari country towards Gandamak and Ialalabad. Here the snow lies late and moisture is abundant-but on the southern sun-scorched cliffs but little vegetation is to be seen. Approaching the Peshawar plains the Safed Koh throws off long spurs eastward, and amongst the foothills of these eastern spurs the Afridi Tirah long remained hidden from European eyes.
SAFES, STRONG-ROOMS AND VAULTS. The term “safe,”
whilst really including any receptacle for the secure custody of
valuables provided with a lock or other device intended to
prevent any person except the owner or some person authorized
by him gaining access thereto, has gradually come to be confined
to such receptacles when fitted with a vertical door, as distinguished
from a lid, and of such a size that they can be moved
into position, by the use of proper appliances, in one piece. Such
receptacles, when so large as to require that their parts should be
assembled in situ, fall under the term “strong-rooms,” or in
the case of safe-deposits “vaults,” and when constructed with
hinged lids, as distinct from doors, under the terms “cash-box,”
“deed-box” and “coffer.” The term “coffer” is probably the
most ancient, and in earlier days included, as it still does in
France, what are now known as safes.
Although it is practically certain that boxes provided with locks
or coffers must have followed closely on the development of locks
(q.v.) and been in use in ancient Egypt, yet no examples remain
to us of earlier date than the middle ages. The earliest examples
extant were constructed of hard wood banded with hammered
iron, and subsequent development took place rather on artistic
than on practical lines up to the time of the introduction of
boxes entirely of iron. On the continent of Europe the iron box
was developed to a very high standard of artistic beauty and
craftsmanship, but with no real increase of security. Several
specimens of these coffers supposed to be of 17th-century workmanship
are preserved in the museum at Marlborough House.
Cast-iron chests seem to have been made in various parts of
Great Britain in the early part of the 19th century, but the use
of wrought iron was probably confined to London until 1820,
or thereabouts, when the trade spread to Wolverhampton.
Up to this time no attempt had been made to make coffers
fireproof, for though a patent for fireproofing had been taken out
in 1801 by Richard Scott, it does not appear to have been used.
In 1834, however, a patent was obtained by William Marr for
the application of non-conducting linings, followed about four
years later by a similar patent in the name of Charles Chubb.
The foundation, however, of the modern safe industry was laid
by Thomas Milner, originally a tinsmith of Sheffield, who after
a few years’ business in Manchester established, in 1830, works
at Liverpool for the manufacture of tinplate and sheet iron boxes
and who later made plate iron chests or coffers and, probably
the earliest, safes about the year 1846. To him is due the modern
system of fireproofing, which owes its merit to the use not of
non-conductors but of an absorbent material which in the case
of fire will be permeated with moisture present in it, either in the
form of liquid contained in tubes which burst or otherwise
discharge their contents when subjected to heat, or mixed with it
as water of crystallization in combination with an inorganic salt.
The patent he obtained in 1840 contains the following claim:
“Constructing, forming, or manufacturing boxes, safes, or other
depositories of an outer case of iron or other metal or material,
enclosing one, two, or more inner cases, with spaces or chambers
between them, containing an absorbent material or composition,
such as porous wood, dust of wood, dust of bones, or similar
substances, in which are distributed vessels, pipes or tubes
filled with an alkaline solution or any other liquid or matter
evolving steam or moisture, the tubes or vessels bursting or
otherwise discharging themselves on the exposure of the box or
other depository to heat or fire, into the surrounding absorbent
matter, which thus pervaded with moisture and rendered difficult
of destruction, protects the inner cases or boxes and their
contents.” In 1843, Edward Tann, Edward Tann, Junr., and
John Tann took out a patent for securing the presence of moisture
by means of a chemical salt. In their patent they give preference
to alum in combination with Austin’s cement or gypsum, but
they also claim“ any non-conductors of heat may be used, and
for alum may be substituted sulphate of potash, muriate of
ammonia, borax, impure potash, nitrate of soda, soda in cake,
pearlash, or any of the known alkalis.” Milner considered this
an infringement of his patent of 1840, and in an action before
Lord Campbell and a special jury in the Queen’s Bench, on the
3rd of June 1851, a verdict was given upholding his contention.
Fig. 1.
For some years no marked improvements in safes were made, although the manufacture had been taken up in various places by different firms. Safes had, however, been constructed of thicker materials, and some attention had been paid to the more secure attachment of the various parts; also, with the advent of the wrought-iron safe, as distinct from the coffer, the practice had developed of securing the door by a number of bolts operated by a handle and fastening them in the locked position by the lock proper, in order that a small key might be used (Charles Chubb’s patent, 1845).
Concurrently with the increase of strength in safes and probably with the increased value of articles preserved in safes, the skill of the professional thief had also increased, and this went on for some years until the Cornhill burglary of 1865 called general attention to the question. In 1860 a patent was taken out by Samuel Chatwood for a safe constructed of an outer and inner body with the intervening space filled with ferro-manganese or speigeleisen in a molten state, the total thickness being 2 in. (fig. 1). The drilling of conical holes in the inner surface of the outer plate as shown in the figure renders the use of drills of any materials at present known quite inoperative; as the drill, even if it could be made sufficiently hard to pierce the speigeleisen, would on meeting it be bedded in the soft steel and unable to free itself. The construction of such a safe was an expensive matter, and it was not till after the robbery above referred to that he was enabled to sell a single example; it is, however, still in demand for the preservation of diamonds, as probably the only
