have permitted, I suspect, a more complete
impression to be made of the Earth's whole
surface from one point of view. Perhaps,
however, that is a practical difficulty not to
be overcome. Then, secondly, I note a very
serious drawback upon perfection. Two
different scales are used in the construction of
the map, or model. On the surface, an inch
represents ten miles; but in elevation of the
hills and mountains, an inch represents one
mile only; so that of all heights there is a
tenfold exaggeration. The consequence is,
that as we have a fair notion of the heights of
mountains, and see on the model mountain
chains, the mind tacitly and inevitably adopts
them as the only standard of comparison, and
we form an idea of the Earth's magnitude ten
times too small. For this reason, the idea of
smallness was one of the first that struck me
when I was looking yonder at America. Nor
is this the only objection to the use of two
scales; there is another of much greater
moment. Anything like a model of the true
form of a mountain can obviously not be
attained, when its base is to cover a surface
ten times smaller than a due proportion to its
height requires. Carve a mountain out of
indian-rubber, and lay it upon the table.
Say it is now some elevation carefully
modelled on the scale of ten miles to an inch.
Now, when I tell you that such a mountain
to be suited to this map must have its base
remain unaltered in extent, while it is pulled
upward to ten times its original height, you
will perceive that the true features of a
mountainous country modelled on such a
principle can only be caricatured. Fancy a
sculptor's carving of a man nearly sixty feet
high, with body and limbs no thicker than
belong to ordinary mortals; fingers no larger
round than yours, dear Tomkins, only ten
times as long. Were such a piece of sculpture
shown in another planet as the model of a
man, it would convey just such a false notion
as we get out of these modelled mountains.—
Jones, you will make me discontented with
the model.—Tomkins, I don't wish to do that.
Mr. Wyld did wisely, I think, in adopting the
two scales. He was perplexed between a
choice of disadvantages, and chose, perhaps
the least. I only want to show how very,
very far a globe, or map, is from conveying a
true notion of the Earth we live upon—how
far from perfect this Globe is, although the
grandest, and in some points the most useful
ever yet constructed. A marking of snow-
peaks, an icy painting of the Arctic regions
and a lurid painting of the deserts, are as far
from representing all the marvels of scenery
whereof the world is full, as yonder expanse
of blue painted wall is from revealing all the
wonders of the. ocean.

Does not the ocean please you ? What a
quantity there is of it!—Why, Tomkins,
perhaps I 'm wrong in wishing for it; but I do
wish the painter's brush had indicated, as it
might so easily have done, the ocean currents.
These are not less fixed than rivers in
importance, more magnificent in extent, and
scarcely less beneficent in operation. I look
forward to the time when sea will no longer
be represented as a mere blank even in our
worst maps; and on this model, therefore, I
should have liked to see the path of ocean
rivers painted.

Now you have done objecting, I suppose?

No, I have not. I don't dwell much upon
my last want; but there is another obvious
defect in this model; the very great defect
hat it is in some places rather too perfect.

Go on, go on! Why, Jones, you are
absoutely an atrocious grumbler.

Look here, Tomkins, at this unexplored
region, modelled without any indication of the
fact that we know nothing, or nearly nothing,
of its features. Mr. Wyld seems to have solved
all problems in geography; at any rate, the
model bears no testimony to the fact that
problems still exist; and yonder highly
respectable-looking clergyman who pointed to
the Andes and asked what they were, is
informed by nothing on the model that there are
some portions of their geography about which
Europe is as ignorant as Alma Mater.—What
would you have done ? says Tomkins; would
you have the model spoilt ?— No, certainly, I
answer. What could be more easy than to
hang a cloud of gauze over those districts of
which I speak, making the cloud thicker or
thinner in proportion to the degree of
obscurity it means to indicate? But now, my
friend, is it not time to admire this work,
which is not, indeed, perfect, but which is,
intellectually speaking, of inestimable value?
It teaches many things that never have been
illustrated so efficiently before, and many
more things, certainly, it can and will be made
to teach with new force by a few simple
arrangements on the surface. Let me tell
you, my dear friend, the history of this Globe.
The original idea, which followed upon the
announcement of Prince Albert's Exhibition
scheme, was to construct a Globe, one hundred
feet in diameter, to be placed in the Great
Exhibition of All Nations, that all nations
there might see their homes. This Globe was
to have elevations and depressions modelled
on its surface, externally as usual, and galleries
were to run round it and over it, from which
it was to be seen. Practical difficulties
which suggested themselves at this stage
of the idea, were not to be overcome, and
the proposed Great Globe was of necessity
excluded from the Exhibition building. A
globe of this magnitude ceases to be a globe
in the sense applied to those smaller spheres,
comparatively speaking globules, commonly
in use. It is much rather a continuous set of
maps adjusted; and as you would not lay
a large map of Europe on the floor, and
walk over it, in order to see it naturally, so
the first notion of walking over and about
a large globe modelled externally, not only
involved a much larger expenditure of space