S C

R' GI
KY
E LO
. C
Mr LO .

DEDICATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

By WILLIAM CARPENTER ,
Author of " Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed by C Common Sense,'939
"Water, not Convex : Earth, not a Globe," " Wallace's Wonderful Water," etc.

"We have then by means ofthe round orange and the moving flies managed to
represent exactly what happens on the surface of the earth with ships." -LOCKYER.

" To reform and not chastise, I am afraid is impossible ; and the best
precepts, as well as the best laws, would prove of small use, if there
were no example to enforce them. To attack vices in the abstract
without touching persons may be safe fighting, indeed, but it is fighting
with shadows. My greatest comfort and encouragement to proceed, has
been to see that those who have no shame, and no fear of anything else,
have appeared touched by these satires." -POPE.

LONDON:

W. CARPENTER, LADYWELL PARK, LEWISHAM, S. E.

1876.
 ODD SCENES IN 1876 :
OR, JUSTICE AND THE SCHOOL BOARD.
By WILLIAM CARPENTER.
"Now, Mrs. Jones ! what meaneth this ? How dare you keep your child
Away from school so many weeks ? You want to make me wild!
I'll run you in' as sure as fate ! I'm on your track, you know!
To school she goes, or, soon or late, I'll have to make her go! "
66 But, sir, I do not understand-in fact, it grieves me sore-
The way you come and speak to me, and bluster at my door!
My husband is an Englishman ! I'm used to treatment kind ;
And this is England where we live, or, I'm beside my mind !
I tell you, sir, the reason plain-you see we've sickness had ;
God knows we want to do our best-though best, it seems, is bad !
We did not like to send the child amongst so many more ;
Thank God we've sense enough to know when danger's at the door ! "
66 Woman ! it matters not a bit ! To school the child must go:
Or you will have a summons sent, and that will let you know ! "
66 But, sir, my husband's never been before a magistrate !
And it would be a shocking thing were such to be his fate ! "
" I'll have him up : so now you know; p'rhaps that will make him mind:
To school, I say, the girl must go ; or, I will get him fined !
So mind your p's and q's, my dame ! or, ' twill be to your sorrow;
I'll make you mind what you're about ! I'll call again to-morrow !

"Well, Mrs. Brown, you see, my threats with you did not avail!
Here's half-a-crown and costs to pay; or else to Maidstone Jail
We'll have to send your husband quick ! so, better pay me now:
I know the place where ' tis he works ; but don't want any row!"
66' God bless you, sir, I have not got a half-a- crown, I'm sure ;
Or I would gladly pay it down, and send you from my door.
"Tis very hard, just now, you know, to find the children food ;
And, as for shoes, they go without ! (Jenny, now, don't be rude).
You see, I cannot send them out : there's six with naked feet!
But Susan's got a pair of boots : I'll take them down the street, -
They'll lend me, p'rhaps, enough on them this claim of yours to pay;
And we must look for better times,-(what, Susan, did you say ?)
I'll take them off ! " " Nay, woman, stop ! I've children of my own;
I'd rather cut this cursed job, than see this outrage done!
A fortnight longer I will give : just see what you can do.
You see, ' tis law ; it can't be helped ; I've told you so all through !
Sixty, already, in this place, to jail have been committed ;
God help you, woman ! I don't know-I think you're to be pitied!
I'll
" see you, then, a fortnight hence :-that is a fortnight's warning !
Fear not, but trust in Providence ; ' good morning, all ; good morning ! "

"Children ! my darlings ! what to do God knows I cannot think !

'Tis quite enough to drive us all into the way of drink !
God knows we've striven hard enough to keep you clean and tidy:
And now they've locked poor father up-a week ' twill be next Friday !
It breaks a mother's heart to think, the cruel wrong that's done us :
Would God I never had been born, than shame should come upon us !
'Shame '-' shame ! ' my children, did I say ? What pain's this in my head !
Jane, make for me a cup of tea : we haven't any bread !
I told them that poor father had no work, for weeks, to do ;
And that to school you could not go, without a bit of shoe !
Oh ! curse this country and her laws ! Nay: that is wrong to say:
But what am I to do or think ? God teach me, now, the way!
And send me patience : though 'tis most too much for one to bear :
To try to do the best we can, and-father to be there!
Oh ! has there ever been, on earth, a Christ to teach the way
That man should treat his fellow man, though poor, from day to day?
Yes ! children ! There, I'm better, now-just for a little while, -
This is our comfort and our boast ; 'twill take us through the trial :-
That we, at least, are conscious that we've tried our best to do ;
And father will not mind the week, because he knows it, too !
But, England ! Mind ! If e'er you let the mothers' curse be heard,
Where only blessing should be found, mark well a mother's word :-
Your fate is sealed ! your race is run ! The poor shall not be crushed !
The will of God must yet be done ! for, Justice can't be hushed ! "
Reprinted from the Figaro, for May 3, 1876.
 MR . LOCKYER'S LOGIC .

TEUM

‫پر‬
DEDICATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD .

By WILLIAM CARPENTER,
C
Author of " Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed by Common Sense,"
" Water, not Convex : Earth, not a Globe," " Wallace's Wonderful Water," etc.

"We have then by means ofthe round orange and the moving flies managed to
represent exactly what happens on the surface of the earth with ships." -LOCKYER.

"To reform and not chastise, I am afraid is impossible ; and the best precepts, as well
as the best laws, would prove of small use, if there were no example to enforce them.
To attack views in the abstract without touching persons may be safe fighting, indeed,
but it is fighting with shadows. My greatest comfort and encouragement to proceed, has
been to see, that those who have no shame, and no fear of anything else, have appeared
touched by these satires." -POPE.

LONDON:

W. CARPENTER, LADYWELL PARK, LEWISHAM, S. E.

1876,
 The Author of this Pamphlet

MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATES IT TO THE MEMBERS

of the

Confor School Boarf,

Pcause he feels it to be his duty to do so. The subject concerning which

this Pamphlet is especially taken up, namely, the Earth's true configuration,
was brought before the London School Board, a few months ago, by the
Author, in a pamphlet entitled " Proctor's ' Planet Earth ; ' " but, as this
attempt proved to be successful in a very small measure only, he is urged on,
by the sense of duty before-mentioned, to make a further effort. The success
alluded to is simply this : -" Proctor's Planet Earth' " received attention
at the hands of the " Books Committee," and, (other pamphlets having been
likewise forwarded) the Author had the honour of receiving the following
notification. " Victoria Embankment, W. C., 31st Jan., 1876. Sir, Your
"Pamphlets have been laid before the Books Committee, and I am desired
"to inform you that the books are not of such a character as the Board can
“ deal with. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, Geo . Frater, Store Supt.
"Mr. W. Carpenter, Ladywell Park, Lewisham . " It will be at once con-
ceded that this is, at least, a negative encouragement, inasmuch as there is
in it nothing to warrant the conclusion that another effort made in the same
direction would prove to be unavailing . The subject is so startling— and
it is fraught with such tremendous issues—that, were it to be dismissed by a
Public Body with reproach , it would not be surprising. But, it is not so :
and there is abundant evidence to show that the question is really beginning
to call forth the consideration which it so well deserves. The Author confi-
dently anticipates that each successive effort that he may be called upon to
make will diminish, considerably, the amount of disinclination which still
exists to give to the subject its due importance : and, therefore, most earnestly
and sincerely submits “ Mr. Lockyer's Logic" to the attention of the School
Board for London ; feeling assured that, whilst the QUANTITY of education
afforded in these times is calling forth so much anxiety and exertion, the
QUALITY of that education will receive a fair amount of consideration.

Note. It will be seen that the communication from the School Board Committee has
been taken in the sense which was, most likely, intended : for, certainly, the Committee
did not mean to say that the Board could not deal with " a character," but that it could
not deal with the Pamphlets ! But, what there is in the character of the Pamphlets
which renders them unfit for the consideration of the School Board, the Author would
like to know. At least, he ventures to assert that there cannot be found, throughout
MU
the whole of them, a sentence so ungrammatical as to be open-like the sentence
SE
under consideration-to as many distinct interpretations as there are days in a week !
UM
 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC .

AND who, it may be asked, is LoCKYER ! " Griffiths," the people are
often told, is " the safe man." But we do not think that Mr. Lockyer is
a " safe" man . J. Norman Lockyer, F.R.S. , is an astronomer, and the
author of one of the new Science Primers for Elementary Schools , edited
by Professor Huxley and other gentlemen. " Astronomy" is the title
of Mr. Lockyer's Primer. And Mr. Lockyer's logic illumines every
page. Nay, without Mr. Lockyer's peculiar logic, the student would be
utterly unable to find his way-to Mr. Lockyer's conclusions. But, we
have a little, unpretending light that has often helped us along a rough
road : and the lamp of " Common Sense" is again trimmed. We find,
then, that Mr. Lockyer takes his readers, very carefully, by the hand,
and leads them, step by step, in his introductory chapter, to the place
upon which his heart is fixed . No mother could lead her children more
tenderly ! From the " School" he leads them into the " Street ;" from
the street, to the " Parish ;" from the parish, to the " County ;" and,
so on, till he tells each one to " write down" as follows :-" the School,
66
Street, Parish, "" County, Country, Kingdom, Continent, Planet, in
"which you are." Did ever mortal find himself in a " Planet" reached
with such ease as this, before ? What a flood of light our " Lockyer"
throws upon the peopling of the planets ! And yet it is asked, " Are
the planets inhabited ?" Of course they are ! Have we not seen- -Have
not the very children in that " School," there, put it down on paper-
And is it not stamped into their little hearts-that they live in a planet ?
In a " Planet !" And, says Mr. Lockyer, by way of giving evidence,
The earth, taken as a whole, is a body which astronomers call a
planet." Children know that they live on the earth ; and it is their
nature to believe that they live on a planet," when their " Primers"
tell them that such is the case. What have they to do but to " call"
things as they find them called ? Poor children ! May the stern- the
"
inexorable logic of facts" come home to them, before long . We read
in the first section of the first chapter of Lockyer as follows :-" Now I
" have said that we are on a planet which we call The Earth, but what
" sort of thing is it ?" " On a planet which we call The Earth !" Oh !
This is Mr. Lockyer's logic ! Because we are on the Earth, which
(6
astronomers call a planet, " forsooth, we are on a planet which we call
The Earth !" What a beautiful thing is logic like this ! Oh , no,
Mr. Lockyer. We are on the Earth which you call " a planet ; " but it
does not follow that we are on a planet which we call The Earth ! Too
old to be caught with " chaff," we are not caught with your logic.
Besides : when a man tells us that he said a thing when he did not say
2 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

it, he simply says that which is untrue, though, very likely, a mistake ;
but, when he tells us that he said a thing which, we find , is not true or
not proven, and thereby gains an implied assent to that thing (which
would not have been gained had a straightforward mode of procedure
been adopted) , all we can say is, that the thing looks exceedingly ugly !
" But," you say, " what sort of thing is it ?" Well : do you think that
anyone would be so blind as not to see through your logic, were you to
say, for example, "What sort of man is this rogue ?" Would you
pretend to be anxious to find out the character of a man, when you had
first of all given us your decision respecting it ? It would, indeed , be
too glaring a pretence to be put on. Yet this is just what you do with
the subject you take in hand. " Is it flat or curved, square or round ?"
you continue. " Is it flat !" Is what flat ! Why, a thing which every-
one knows must be round ! Ifthe Earth BE such a thing, it must be
round, too, without any asking. But, how in the world you could talk
of a planet, in a primer for children, and ask, 66 Is it flat ?" and " Is it
square ?"-unless it was done with a sly wink, which, under the circum-
stances, would be severely reprehensible, —it is hard to conceive ! It is
quite certain, however, that the effect most likely to be produced in the
reader is that of being deceived ; for, of course, whether a planet be flat
or curved, square or round, may be dismissed as a question too absurd
to be entertained even by children : whereas, the true question to be put
is one which, evidently, finds no favour in your eyes. "What is the
shape of the Earth ?" is the question which must be answered . Is IT
" flat or curved, square or round ?" IS IT a planet, or, in other words,
a wandering, heavenly body, or is it , indeed , even as the Scriptures tell
us it is, " Stretched out" " above the waters ;" with foundations that
" cannot be moved. ” This question lies at the bottom of every astron-
omical work that with feverish haste has been driven through the press
during the past few years. And there it would lie if someone did not
drag it up. But, Mr. Lockyer, in your solicitude as to whether this
" Planet" of yours is square or flat, you ask, " How are we to find this
out ?" We will, with all the patience we can command, endeavour to
follow you. We read :-" If you look in any direction, if you are in a
66
hilly country, you see hills and valleys ; and if you walk over these
"
66 hills, more hills are generally found rising up, which limit the view to
a few miles ; if you are in a flat country, the trees and shrubs appear
" to meet the sky in every direction around you. We may travel to
"6
any place we like, still there is this line where the surface of the earth
"and the sky meet, so that for aught we could tell to the contrary in
" this way, the earth might be a nearly flat surface of large extent."
Now, if this be carefully thought over, we find it a most unmistakable
struggle to say something and to make much of it. The whole thing
is simply this :-Wherever we go, the earth seems to be flat : for its
surface appears to rise to a level with the eye ; and thus the view is
limited, all round the spectator. And it might have been made much
plainer (if plainness had been wanted) by stating the simple fact that
just in accordance with the elevation of the spectator, so is the extent of
surface which thus appears to rise all around him. And, again
(since every fact stated renders the case the clearer) , in accordance with
 PROVING ર A PLANET" TO BE 68 A PLANET !" 8

the height ofthe object, so will be the distance at which it is visible : the
higher the object, the greater the distance. And, further :-in accord-
ance with the height, so will be the time during which an object will
be visible on approaching it or receding from it : the higher the object,
the sooner will it become visible, and the longer will it remain so. And
hence it follows that the base of an elevated object, whatever that object
may be, disappears before the summit, as the distance is increased ; and
comes into view after the summit, as the distance between the object and
the observer is diminished . But, in the Primer before us, the earnest
student will observe that we now come to one of Mr. Lockyer's "C Buts."
And a very important " But" it is intended to be made : for, in the
place in which we find it, it can stand for nothing else than for the intro-
duction to something which will bring about an opposite conclusion.
Mr. Lockyer says :- :- But let us try where there are no rocks or trees,
"where the surface of the earth is unbroken and smooth ; let us try the
66
surface of the sea." Surely, now, we ought to find something grand
and decisive. It will never do for Mr. Lockyer to let his " Planet" go
away looking like " a nearly flat surface of large extent !" Perhaps he
will show us a downward view of the sea, as, indeed , the sea should
66
appear to us if we be on the top of a planet ! Let us see. These
are his words : " Watch the ships in the distance just coming into view,
" and you will find that only their masts are visible ; as they approach,
66 Now if
"c more and more of the hull appears, until it is quite visible.
you watch a ship going away from you the hull will disappear first."
Is not Mr. Lockyer's logic astonishing ? Where Mr. Lockyer should
have instituted a comparison between the surface of the land (which
shows the earth to be a plane) and the sea (which-" ought" to show
something else), he simply reminds us of certain facts which are the
result, as we have seen, of the apparent rise of the surface. The order
of facts must be the same whether the surface be land or water : and the
nature of the phenomena which naturally arise must also be the same :
the fact of there being, in the one case, ships, and, in the other, hill-
tops, trees, and towers, is a mere accident, and altogether outside the
question. What a poor, lame philosophy must that be which, for dear
life, seizes on such a dirty, old trick as this ! And in this way it is that
the people are taught, in " Science Primers," that the " Planet" is a planet !
Well, then everyone who is in the least degree acquainted with the
subject knows, at once, what an astronomer means when he speaks of
ships disappearing from view hull first. He means that the hull is down,
behind the water : indeed, in many astronomical works , we may read this ;
and, if it were but true, we should see it in the largest type that could be
used. But Mr. Lockyer knows better, now, than to put down in black
and white such a monstrous assertion as this ! We can nowhere find it,
even in the smallest type. And, yet, he means this, or he means nothing !
But he goes on to say :-" Now what does this mean ?" Mark the word,
"this!"-as though a fact mean anything ! No : it is Mr. Lockyer that
means- means to prove the Earth to be a globe at any price ; even as
Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace meant to prove the water of the Old Bedford
to be convex at any price ! (And poor Mr. Wallace has had to pay very
dearly " for his whistle !") But Mr. Lockyer continues, as follows :-
 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

"Let us make an experiment. Get a smooth table on which there are

66
66 two flies, let us say, and if the flies are not there, pretend that they are ;
and suppose them to be moving about. Now it is clear that the flies,
"(
66 as long as they keep on the surface of the table, will always be in full
"" view of each other. They will look smaller to each other when they
are furthest apart, and larger when nearer each other : but one part
" of the fly will not disappear, the other parts being left visible, as in
" the case of the ships. Therefore the surface of the sea is not flat like
" the surface of the table." And this specimen of Lockyer's logic is in
page 5 of the Primer for poor little children !
Englishmen ! If you intend, at any time, to spend five minutes in
the careful consideration of a question, and do not care to do it now, we
say to you, individually, For the benefit of your children, give your mind
the whip, and lash it into the mood : and, if we fail to show a strong case
against Mr. Lockyer's logic, why, then, bring the whip here, and use it
in a richly deserved chastisement ! Mr. Lockyer's flies, (pictured on an
orange, to illustrate a subsequent experiment) , are of the common house-
fly type ! Just look, now, at two house-flies, peering at each other, on a
table ; and a scientific man bent on illustrating, with such things as
66 will not
these, ships at sea ! " One part of the fly," says the man,
disappear, the other parts being left visible !" Would you not ask him
which is the one part, and where are the other parts ? Is there any part
above the eyes of a house-fly, as it stands on a table, either to appear or
to disappear ? Certainly not : it must be a mere joke-at the expense
of the poor children with the Science Primer ! Why did not Mr. Lockyer,
ifhe wanted to make the thing decently illustrative, " pretend" to have one
butterfly, at least, with wings erect, to be " the ship," and nobody could
1 then grumble at the fly, for being " the observer." But, we have two
house-flies ; and our teacher goes on to say that " they will look smaller
"to each other when they are furthest apart, and larger when nearer each
- " other." Why, Mr. Lockyer is here speaking of a mode of disappearance
which has never entered into the question at all, and which has no business
in it : applying (with certain modifications) to all objects, in relation to
an observer, and, invariably, to the case of two observers. The rule
will apply as well to two men on the most beautifully defined curve of
the earth that ever Newtonian philosopher conjured up in his imagina-
tion, as upon the most truly level plain that ever man trod. It is only
Mr. Lockyer's peculiar logic in vigorous exercise, throwing dust into the
eyes of the reader. But, Mr. Lockyer says, " It is clear that the flies,
66
as long as they keep on the surface of the table, will always be in full
"view of each other." 66 On the surface !" If the flies have no greater
U power of penetration than Mr. Lockyer, there is but little fear of their
going below ! But, the " full view" that they will have of each other is
the grand point. If Mr. Lockyer speak what he thinks, of course, this
is his opinion. And, it may very nicely be put forward, because of its
plausibility. It appears as though, to look at them, they would be in full
view of each other, because they are in full view of us ; and , a straight
line would connect the two. But, as the flies cannot inform us whether
this is the case or not, we must reason it out, and get our knowledge in
that way. Well, then :-Whatever the configuration of the surface of
 THE FLIES ON THE TABLE.
A

the earth may be, it appears to rise ; and, if an object be not sufficiently
high to be seen when it is beyond the radius of vision- the boundary
of which is a circumference about the spectator, it will be hid from
view in consequence of the apparent rise of the surface, which is as
obstructive as a real rise would be. But, we are told that the earth is a
globe ; and that its surface, in reality, goes down on all sides of the
observer, and is, in fact, convex : the spectator being at the top. A
convex surface, then, (which would, really, go down) , is TO BE TAKEN to
be the kind of surface which APPEARS, to us, to rise ; whilst the flat table,
(because it appears flat to us) , is TO BE CONSIDERED, in its relationship
with the flies, as NOT APPEARING to rise in the least ! Or, in other words,
Our Earth is not to be considered as being flat, ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS
TO RISE ; whereas, a Table is not to be considered as appearing to rise,
ALTHOUGH IT IS FLAT ! The fact is this :-The vision of the flies is to
be considered to be unlimited, that a proposition may be found on which
to base an argument ! But we see the utter fallacy of the proposition ;
and the little bit of Mr. Lockyer's logic in which this proposition is
taken to form the groundwork, and superstructure , and all, comes, most
piteously, to grief ! Common-sense will put arguments like this to the
blush, any day. It may be called striking an argument when it is down,
perhaps but we cannot resist the temptation to say, that Mr. Lockyer
may " Get a smooth table on which there are two flies," if he can find
such a happy combination of circumstances ; or, he may get a table on
which there are no flies, and " pretend" that there are two ; and, by so
doing, amuse himself to his heart's content : but, with all his pretence
and determination and dust, he will never succeed , from this time forth,
in perpetrating another argument on this question which shall be a patch
on that which he has already given us for its fallaciousness and its utter
absurdity ! Well, then : we say, as we waive the same old hat that we
have waived many times before, that the surface of the sea ( as nearly as
we can get at it by brushing off the flies, and clearing away the dust) is
flat and, if Mr. Lockyer will allow us to have a rough table, it shall be
" like the surface of the table."
But, we have not quite done with this matter. The flatness of the sea
may be easily demonstrated, with logical precision and force, by putting
our propositions in syllogistic form. But, there must be no ambiguity
in the terms we employ consequently, we must give an accurate and
unmistakable definition of them. And, first, we will just quote the
words of a well known " logician on this point. " If any one speaks
contemptuously of over- exactness' in fixing the precise sense in which
66
some term is used, of attending to minute aud subtle distinctions,
" &c., -you may reply that these minute distinctions are exactly those
" which call for careful attention ; since it is only through the neglect of
"these that Fallacies ever escape detection." Well, then : In the use of
the term " flat surfaces," it must be taken to refer to surfaces, on which
there are, or may be, sentient beings, whether flies or men, who are in
the position of observers : these observers bearing a comparatively
infinitesimal relationship, in point of size, to the surface on which they
exist and observe. This, of course, is just the fair and logical scope of
these matters in THIS question. First, then : Flat surfaces appear to
 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

rise to a level with the eye ; the surface of a table is a flat surface ;
therefore, the surface of a table appears to rise to a level with the eye.
Again : No surface which appears to rise to a level with the eye can be
convex ; the surface of the sea appears to rise to a level with the eye ;
therefore, the surface of the sea cannot be convex. And, again : The
surface of the sea must be either convex or flat ; but, we have seen that
it cannot be convex ; therefore, the surface ofthe sea is flat!
If, now, there is any fact that seems to warrant a repetition of the
statement of it, more, perhaps, than any other fact, it is this-and it
answers the question which the thoughtful student is very likely to ask,
namely, If the view ofthe base of an object is obstructed by something,
when we look, say, over the sea ; what is that "something" which hides
the object, if it is not that " hill of water" which some of our bold and
scientific men so plainly speak of?" -The apparent rise of the surface of
water or level land is just as much an obstruction to the view of things that
come within its influence as though it were an ABSOLUTE rise. And if,
indeed, this statement be disputed, the absurdity of the orthodox view
of the matter may be rendered clear beyond the shadow of a doubt. It
is found that there are those who will say, almost in the same breath,
that the Earth is of such vast extent that we cannot see its real figure,
-no, not even from a balloon,-and, that, in order to see, clearly, the
shape of the Earth, we have but to go to the sea-side and watch the
ships go down behind the water ! (As though the ships really did go
DOWN, and really did go BEHIND the water !) Yes : the Earth is so big
that you cannot tell what it is like, and it is so small that , before the
masts of that ship, yonder, have gone far enough off to disappear (like
the flies on Mr. Lockyer's table) through a diminution as to size, they
may be seen- positively ! -going round, and over, and DOWN ! Oh!
" COMMON SENSE," where art thou ?
We must now proceed with our examination of Mr. Lockyer's Primer.
In page 6, we read as follows :-" if Another experiment. We will take
66 an orange this time, and suppose
394 91 "a fly standing still at the top, say
"at A, and another fly at the bottom,
' at B. Now it is clear that the
flies cannot see each other, because
" the orange is between them. But
этопр
ing shouga suppose B moves towards A. When
it gets to O, A can just see the top
doi.
" of B's head over the edge of the
orange, and O can see the top of
" A's head over the edge. No more
66 can be seen yet , because the other
66 parts of each fly are still hidden
1
"by the orange as the whole was
" before. But when B gets still
nearer to A, each fly will be in full sight of the other. We have then
"by means of the round orange and the moving flies managed to repre-
CT sent exactly what happens on the surface of the earth with ships,
66 though we could not manage this on the flat table. Therefore the

་
 66 EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS." 7

"earth is like a ball or an orange, and not flat like a table." And thus
it is, Mr. Lockyer, that we have another of your " Therefores ." But,
it does not follow, because you have " managed" to do one thing and not
another, that the thing you have managed to do is the right thing ! Oh,
no. It does not follow, because you have " managed" to represent a
natural effect (or fact ) in a certain way, that that is the way in which the
effect is really brought about ! Not at all. What would you give, now,
Mr. Lockyer, to be able to tear this leaf out of your book ? How it
makes a sober man laugh, to be sure, when he thinks that false logic
"" Therefore," indeed ! And some very pretty
must come to the ground !
reasons we are getting why we should believe such a stupendous and
awe-inspiring proposition as that we live on a planet that is " supposed"
to be rushing through space at the rate of more than a thousand miles
in every minute ! Why, the " logic" that is being made to do the duty
of logic in the matter is like a halfpenny rushlight under the dome of
St. Paul's ! The breath of an echo would be too much for it. Would
that we could picture the poor, flickering thing to the eye : but, "logic,'
to be exposed, must be exposed to the ear. Patiently, then, we must go
on. Words can but follow one after another : for they cannot be flashed
into the mind. So, you " could not manage" to show what you wished
to show 66 on the flat table," and you have satisfied yourself with flies on
an orange ! This is where the people seem to be like children, altogether
-they cannot have the living babe, so they will hug to their craving,
panting hearts a doll- a " dolly !" Why, a thoughtful child could give
this " dolly" such a twist that-it would squeak again ! Look here,
Mr. Lockyer ! You aim at managing to do something which is absurd
upon the face of it. You want to represent a thing which CANNot be
represented ! All that can be done in this way is to put together a base
imitation of a thing which cannot so much as be imitated fairly ! Oh,
that orange, with those flies ! Have you, now, really, " managed to
represent EXACTLY what happens on the surface of the earth with
66
ships ?" Have you washed your " dolly, " and put it to bed ?
ENGLISHMEN ! we have not enough patience to go on talking to Mr.
Lockyer : we must talk with you. Do not be deceived . And do not
simply believe anything at all that your own common sense will lead you
to know. If it can be made known to you, know it. Look at that
orange- and those flies. It is expected of you that you will, of course,
as well as your children , believe that that orange fairly represents the
Earth. You are taught, you see, that your teacher himself is satisfied
on this point, inasmuch as that, so far as the ships go, it represents , by
the aid of the " moving flies," " exactly what happens on the surface of
the earth,”- in his opinion. Let us examine this matter. If we look
at the top of the orange-" the top ?"-stay ! How can this be ? Why,
the orange has sides— and an underneath part ! If this be exactly like
the Earth, then the Earth must have sides and an underneath surface.
But all the ships on the sea, and the people on the earth, are like the
fly on the top of the orange. There are none on sides , or— well, say, the
bottom : which is, certainly, the opposite of the top. The sides and the
bottom of the Earth ! Shade of Sir Isaac, help us for Lockyer can't.
But Mr. Lockyer speaks of " the bottom " of the orange : there must,
 8 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC .

therefore, according to Lockyer, be a bottom to the Earth. There is,

absolutely, no getting out of this sad pickle- for the astronomer. He
is in for the whole theory, or none. What should we think of ourselves ,
indeed, if we permitted him to play fool with us, and then to back out ?
Why, he and his craft will tell you that is, you may get it out of them
if you squeeze them tightly- that the representation only goes as far down
as the top ofthe orange : that's all ! And is not that enough for you ?-
we may almost hear the astronomer ask, with a chuckle. No it is not
enough for us. The book which LIES before us is a downright insult to
Common Sense. When we are told that the flies on the orange repre-
".
sent " exactly what happens on the surface of the earth with ships,
and that, THEREFORE, the Earth is like unto the orange ! —why, THEN,
: the one thing must be SOMEWHAT like the other, at all events : or, we are
bound, in justice to ourselves, to resist the comparison !
Well, then let us look at the flies on that orange ! And don't-
whatever you do- forget that, at all events, a fly is to represent a ship !
Very well. But, shall we say " exactly ?" No : we have not the least
wish to deal too hardly with Mr. Lockyer,-let the thing be in some
degree like unto the thing for which it stands. It is certain that if one
fly be not like a ship , the three flies will not be like three ships ; and,
let them " move" as cleverly as they may, they must fail to represent
"what happens on the surface of the earth with ships," or anything at
all like it. So long, then, as the fly be somewhat near the mark, it will
do for us. First, then, the circumference of the figure which represents
the orange is, as nearly as may be, four inches ; and the length of the
fly (in each case) , a quarter-of-an- inch. We have, then, a fair repre-
sentation of a small fly on a small orange. The small orange, again, is
made to represent the Earth, " which astronomers call a planet," and
which, therefore, may be imagined to be a large globe ; and the small fly
is made to represent, of course, a large ship ! Very well. The orange
and the fly are in exact proportion the one to the other. The " globe"
and the ship, which are represented by the orange and the fly, will also,
of course, bear a like proportion to each other, or the " representation"
will clearly be no representation at all. The circumference of the globe,
then, being known, the length of the ship may be told in a minute.
Astronomers assure us that the circumference of the " globe" is, as near
as may be, twenty-five thousand miles ; and, as sixteen flies placed head
to tail will reach round the orange, sixteen ships placed stem to stern
will reach round the " globe." The ship, then, is a ship, one thousand,
five hundred, and sixty-two miles long ! And our cousins, in a merry key,
would call that a pretty considerable, tarnation BIG ship !
The flies on Mr. Lockyer's orange, then, represent big ships ! And
it follows that these are just the kind of ships that would be necessary,
to carry masts big enough to be seen going round, and over, and down
the side of a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference ! Ships, 1500 miles .
long ! And yet, (simply because we take all these little matters for
granted, without giving them a thought) , we believe the monstrous and
cruel absurdity, presented to us by the astronomers, that we may stand
on the sea-shore and see the little bit of a mast of a little bit of a thing
called a ship come up or go down ! When shall we open our eyes to the
 LOOKING 66 OVER THE EDGE." 9

truth ? How long shall we, as a nation, go on hugging this astronomical

66
dolly" to our poor, simple hearts ? Well, then the flies on the orange
are outrageously disproportionate and deceptive, when they are put
there to represent a ship-the orange, at the same time, being supposed
to represent the earth. But, if Mr. Lockyer had drawn an orange twice
as large, the fly would have to be no larger than the two hundred
thousandth part of an inch in length, fairly to represent an ordinary
ship. And what, then, would become of the pretty thing that we have
had given us ? Where, then, would be Mr. Lockyer's fly- with its " head
over the edge of the orange !! " And where, now, is Mr. Lockyer's
"Therefore !" Is the Earth, " therefore,-like a ball or an orange !"
But, further if Mr. Lockyer's fly is so outrageous when it stands
for a ship, what are we to say when we come to notice the fact that it
stands, also, for some living thing, on the earth, with its head " over the
edge!!" What immense, antediluvian Sea-Lizard would approach it
in size ? " You will now easily understand," says Mr. Lockyer, " why
.66
we see the tops of ships first, and how it is that the higher we ascend
“ the further we see.” And then, in bolder type, it is printed :-" We
"look overthe edge of the earth in any case, and the higher we are above
" the surface, the further away is the edge we look over." So , it is “ we,"
then, who " look over the edge !" And the fly on the top ofthe orange is
made, very conveniently, to do duty for a ship which must be more than
fifteen hundred miles in length, and for a man whom we should feel
disposed to call " long," if he were much over six feet, and proportionally
thin ! But, it will be said, that it is not intended that the proportions of
the picture should be taken into consideration at all. This is a grand
mistake, on the very face of it. Professedly, an exact representation :
what more could possibly be said of the picture if it were accurately
drawn to scale. Besides, and notwithstanding this, its exaggeration
is its very essence : without it, it would have no reason to be ; it would
do nothing ; and it would answer no purpose. Who, then, will venture
to say that such a concurrence is undesigned : and, if not, what then !
And Mr. Lockyer concludes his first chapter as follows :- " You must
"not imagine from this that there is an edge that you can fall over ;
" since the earth is a globe, the apparent edge retreats as you advance.
" Think this out for yourselves by help of the orange and flies." And
we have thought a great deal, for ourselves, about this orange and these
flies. "6 Since the earth is a globe !" Oh, no : this is, really, too good
of Mr. Lockyer ! Has there been a chance of it being anything else
according to Lockyer ? Exposing, we must expose. It is all very well
for him to talk in this way; but we have made it clear that that is a
question which has not been brought forward at all. It has been taken
for granted from first to last ; and, now, we are to be made to believe
that the question of the shape ofthe Earth has been the ground of Mr.
Lockyer's solicitude all through the story ! Oh, no, indeed ! But look ,
again, at the orange, that it may not be said that we fail to think it out
for ourselves. The fly, in consequence of its grossly exaggerated size, is
made to appear to be looking over a considerable arc of the surface of
the globe ," and, in a downward direction. This, of course, is utterly
without analogy to any existing condition of things ; and simply forms
€10 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

a part of the grand delusion which we are bent on exposing. There is

not a shadow of a pretence that can be put forward that such a condition
of things exists. It is impossible, under any circumstances, to look down-
wards over the surface of the Earth ! And if the fly at the side of the
orange is thus, clearly, a misrepresentation, what shall be said of the fly
at the bottom ! But, so radical and deeply seated is the effect of early
education on the mind, that, at the present day, it is commonly believed
that people and ships are really situated at the sides and the bottom of
a " globe," and yet, notwithstanding this, that they are on the top ! It
is, indeed, a sad injury brought about by false teaching. Immensity in
point of size can make no possible difference in the common nature of
things ! We have but to think for a moment, to see this. Really, the
astronomers overthrow their own theory entirely, by asserting that, in
66
fact, although we live on a globe," its size is so immense that it is
all top ! It is sheer mental wandering to assert that we live on a globe
so big that it possesses just the characteristics of a plane surface. It
would be much better for people to say, at once, that they live on a
globe that is not a globe ! At least, then, they would see the absurdity
of the whole matter standing out clearly and boldly. We come, now,
however, to one of Mr. Lockyer's diagrams which throws considerable
light on this very
point. It is in the
first section of the
Primer ; and, as we
shall see, has been
left out in the cold,—not the slightest mention of it being made in the
text, the whole of which we have quoted. There is, however, a descrip-
tion of the diagram, in small type. It is as though the thing were shy :
but it will not be shy any more. Too beautiful to be allowed to blush
unseen,66 with Mr. Lockyer's kind permission, we beg leave to bring it
out. Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we
"6
explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do. At A the ship is 99
'
invisible, at B its topmasts begin to be seen, and at C it is in full sight."
It is " when we SUPPOSE the earth is round," then, that all the mischief
arises ! It is no wonder, then, that the whole thing is outrageous. It
is no wonder that the " globe" which cannot be a globe IS all " top."
Mr. Lockyer's diagram does not simply show how the thing really is,
but how we explain how it is when we suppose it to be something ! Why,
it is a mass of supposition from top to bottom. And it is a cruel wrong
that is done when the thing is palmed off to unsuspecting truth- seekers
as a sober reality. Mr. Lockyer treats us to another diagram, in this
same first section, which is unnoticed except in the small type that
accompanies it. And, surely, small type never had to accompany such
a diagram , before :-" Explaining how it is that the higher we go the
further we can see.” And, how is it ? Can we say more than this :—it is
one of the most glaring and self- evident adsurdities that ever disgraced
printed page, or cast its unenviable shadow over an author's reputation.
It would be a sin to spoil a piece of box-wood by reproducing this thing
as an illustrative woodcut. It is pretended that an elevated observer
looks downwards at the horizon, at an angle of at least forty-five degrees !
 MR. GLAISHER'S EXPERIENCE .

Forty-five degrees ! So much for Lockyer ! Perhaps the finest, and

most startling and conclusive, piece of evidence concerning this matter is
that afforded by the celebrated balloon ascent of Messrs. Coxwell and
Glaisher. " The horizon always appeared on a level with the car !" -says
Mr. Glaisher. And if ever a few words may be said to speak volumes,
this one line forms a complete Encyclopædia. Nothing more needs to
be said concerning the grand question : but who takes any notice of two
or three words ! Looking straight a-head is a very different piece of
business from looking down at an angle of forty-five degrees, neverthe-
less ! And that one line of Mr. Glaisher's would be cheap even though
it had cost the life of an aeronaut,—and it came very nearly to that
price. The higher Mr. Glaisher went, the further HE could see : but,
to look down at the horizon ! —Oh, Lockyer : tell us of a white black, or
of an honest rogue, at once ! It will be said, however, that, if we have
not had special reference made to this delusive diagram , we have, at all
events, been told that we may " easily understand" " how it is." Yes :
but we don't like to get information in that way. We like to have it
given to us fairly and honestly : not in that style which says, " There
--
you are take it and don't say, I gave it to you." The think-it -out-for-
yourself doctrine is only good so far as it goes : for the student requires,
first of all, to be put well on his feet, in the right road. And, before
we leave the flies to their fate, we have a task for a young student. On
a piece of smooth paper, describe a circle the circumference of which
shall measure eight inches ; and let this figure stand for the outline of
an orange which shall be supposed to represent the already " supposed"
shape of the earth. And let there be placed, at any part of this circle,
a mark of any kind (which shall be at the option of the experimenter),
which shall fairly represent the size of a ship. Remember, then, that, in
one inch, there must be found length enough for two hundred thousand of
such marks : or- to bring the figures down, -say, that, in the eighth-of-
an-inch, there must be room for five-and- twenty thousand ! And, then ,
let the experimenter try whether he be able to make a mark, with the
finest pointed pen that can be obtained, that shall be small enough to
represent the size of less than two thousand ships were they rolled into
one ! And this experiment, we will venture to assert, will be a suitable
introduction to that refined and highly interesting course of study which
is designated, by Mr. Lockyer, Thinking it out for yourselves with the
orange-AND FLIES !
We now come to the second section of the book before us. And, here,
Mr. Lockyer says :-" We have employed an orange to prove that the
earth is a globe .""" WELL ! well ! well ! 66 To prove that the earth is a
globe !" And we are bound to suppose that poor Mr. Lockyer really
imagines that this is what he has been doing, and, that he has done it !
If it were not so lamentable, how laughable would it be ! But, to think
of a Lockyer writing a Science Primer, and this Primer to be one of
a series of Primers " edited by PROFESSORS HUXLEY, ROSCOE, and
BALFOUR STEWART :" why, if ever indignation is indignation, surely, it
is its time, now, to be. And, says Mr. Lockyer, " Some of you may ask, ""
" Ifthe earth is round like an orange, is it also small like an orange ?'
Absurd ! The earth small like an orange ! What in the world can the
 122

LOGIC

.
LOCKYER'S
.
MR
man think of the condition of mind of the readers of his book, that one
reader could be found so foolish. And, moreover, says Mr. Lockyer :-
" Or again, Is it fair to use a smooth orange, while on the earth there
" are high mountains and all manner of roughnesses ?" " Thus we see
that questions of the most fantastical nature may be eagerly anticipated
and freely entered upon- when the ground is supposed to be safe, and
all doubts concerning the main question are supposed to be set at rest !
But, the way in which these supposititious questions are answered is,
indeed, a caution to all future Primer-writers. The whole science of
astronomy is, truly, in such a pitiable condition- so far as the whole of
its theoretical part is concerned , -that astronomers, as a body, are quite
unable to write on the subject, decently. They are all under a spell----
every man of them ! Even our own Professor Airy says : " Jupiter is
a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn? We
66
are very much alike in our general character." Just think of our
Astronomer Royal being made to ask, " Why do NOT we turn ?" We
give this one out of a thousand capital illustrations which we might put
forward. Because the Earth is called a planet ; and, Jupiter is a planet
that turns ; therefore,66 thinks our worthy Astronomer, there can be no
earthly reason why our little planet" should not turn ! And then,
after having been guilty of this piece of barbarous logic, he gets into a
muddle, and asks, Why DO NOT we turn ! But, this is Professor
Airy's logic and we have now to amuse ourselves with Mr. Lockyer's,
only. In the 8th page of the Primer, we find a diagram " Showing that
"the larger the earth is supposed to be, the further removed from us is the
<<
place at which the sky appears to touch the earth." -Which, of course, is
sheer nonsense . Mr. Lockyer did n't mean to say anything of the sort.
We all know that, suppose what we may, we cannot alter an appearance
that is presented to us. But it is the muddle which all these men have
tumbled into that causes the mischief ! However, what Mr. Lockyer
intended to say is plain enough ; and the mistake is of no consequence,
since what he has said is just as much to the purpose as that which he
would have said. It would be impossible for a genuine truth-seeker to
go through the arguments of Mr. Lockyer, without positive disgust :
but, unfortunately, the unsuspecting child at school experiences nothing
of the kind. We read, in the page now before us, " It is clear that if
" you are at the same distance above two globes, one large, the other
" small ,——" But we are not : and how in the world is it possible to
be ? But, here, again, we see, from the diagram, what the author means.
He intends to show that an observer, on a small globe, would have to look
downwards at the horizon, at an angle of forty-five degrees. (And this
looking horizontally downwards we will tolerate, for once, considering the
fact that many things outside common-sense may be found inside what
is called, mathematics !) Again : the diagram indicates the same thing
being done, on a much larger globe, with this difference in the result :
the observer does not have to look so far down - though further along-
to see his horizon . In fact, his line of sight comes fifty per cent. nearer
to the condition of being horizontal ! But, here, Mr. Lockyer takes the
reins of his logic, and pulls up ! He should have gone further on ; and
have shown that, as the pure horizontality is gained, the rotundity
 DANGEROUS GROUND. 13

(albeit, purely imaginary) is lost ! But we read,66now, of " the height of 99

the fly's eye above the orange." And if we say, Bother the fly's eyes,'
see if someone does n't cry, " Ah ! that's just where you can't touch
Lockyer !" Well, let him say so we say, advisedly, Bother the fly's
eyes ! And we come, then, to the conclusion of the matter : Mr. Lockyer
saying, " Now since, when you stand on the sea-shore, you can see some
" miles out to sea, it must be clear to you that the earth is very large."
Why did not our author put, " like an orange," at once ! But, we hear
of " miles," now, for the first time ! And " some" miles, too ! How is
it possible to arrive at a matter of miles, unless we have had, previously,
something to do with miles ? This is a case of fallacious reasoning that
would not deceive the logician for a moment. The conclusion is, that
"the earth is very large," because, in the minor premiss, some miles"
are spoken of ; whilst, in the major premiss, nothing whatever is said of
them ! We are bound just to make one exclamation :-Oh ! Lockyer :
with your " logic " But we must be considerate. It was dangerous
ground for poor Lockyer. If, we repeat, in consequence of an increase
of the size of the supposititious globes, we gradually acquire strictness
and purity in the " horizontal" view, the very idea of a " globe" vanishes
altogether ; and we are brought face to face with the frowning bit of
logic (not Lockyer's) that, if the surface of globes would appear to
go downwards, (the larger ones, in a less degree,) the surface of the
largest conceivable globe could not appear to go-upwards. Oh, no !
66
Upwards ?" Heavens ! we should not only have a " globe," all " top,”
but, one so big that its convexity would appear as a concavity ! -its very
nature turned inside out and upside down ! But, the surface of the
Earth appears to go upwards ; therefore, the Earth cannot be a globe.
This is so plain that it needs but the softest possible tones of the voice
to give it all the necessary expression . 66' This, then, answers the first
question :"-as Mr. Lockyer says where he tells us that " the earth is
very large !"
The question as to the earth's smoothness or roughness—“ like an
orange :"-Oh, dismiss it with contempt. We can see what it is doing :
taking up the student's attention ; and standing in the way. (And if
that child cries , any more, " That's just where you can't touch Lockyer,"
we shall have to be cross with him.) One point, however, must be taken
notice of. It may be seen in page 9. Mr. Lockyer speaks of what he
calls the " general level" of the surface of the supposed globe which, he
66
says, we call The Earth ; " and, in answer to his own question about
"roughness" and " smoothness." Would he speak of the " general
level" of the surface-of his orange ? It is an old trick, and, not at all
clever. The level of a convexity ! It is, (as in the case of the " miles") ,
> an importation of a novel and designing character. Look, well, after it.
It would never do to leave out the grand word, LEVEL, altogether : so,
bring it in, disguised, as a pretty, " convex" thing ! But, says Mr.
Lockyer : "We see then, it is only when the surface is level, as on a
66
great plain or on the sea, that we can judge by the eye as to the real
" form of the earth." Thus, we see, we may, with perfect safety, be left
to judge, now, by the eye, since we have been tutored into the belief that,
even though we should find it To BE level, it is a CONVEX level and not a
$14 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

FLAT one !! Is not this almost enough to make a child exclaim, “ Oh,
Lockyer : with your logic !"
Again, we read : " But even in the most rugged ground the curve is
there, though we may fail to notice it." And Mr. Lockyer might just
as well have continued, "" Even on the smoothest canal the curve is
there, though Mr. Wallace fails to show it." (And, cruel to relate ,
no one tries to help him. ) Again : " The curve, is a very gentle one,
"C
' because you can see the vessels at sea for many miles before they sink
" down out of sight." A " very gentle" curve ! Oh ! have we not seen
enough, and said enough, of such " science" as this ? Anything more
vague and visionary it is almost impossible to conceive . A " gentle❞—
a " very gentle"-curve ! Why, is Mr. Lockyer afraid-in consequence
of that unfortunate attempt. to show the " curvature" of the Old Bedford
canal- to state what the accredited rate of curvature is, on the supposi-
tion that the earth is a globe ? A child could understand it. We are
told, in the page before us, of the supposed diameter of this suppositi-
tious globe 8,000 miles,"-" from side to side through its centre."
Well, then, let us look at this " very gentle" curve. If the earth be a
globe, as the astronomers imagine, and of the supposed diameter which
we have had given to us, it is clear that the diameter would exist as well
from top to bottom as " from side to side" -through its centre. If, then,
we travel over the surface of this " globe" until we arrive half- way to
the other side- in fact, if we travel one-half of the way down ! —we
shall travel somewhat more than 6,000 miles, and go down 4,000 ! So
unused are we to hear the plain truth, it sounds very strangely. But,
if a scientific idea is presented to us, we must carry it out, or, give it up !
A quarter of the way round the " globe, " then, is one-half of the way
down and if that be a very gentle curve, it is useless to talk any longer
about it. Nothing is more simple to tell or more beautiful when told
than is the plain truth ; and nothing is more repulsive than error when
it stares one full in the face. But we have met this thing many times,
and here it is again. It is a gross error. Mr. Lockyer is afraid of it.
The whole army of astronomers, to a man, is afraid of it. It is not
very difficult to get at it, but it is so wretchedly ugly ! It is the theory
ofthe earth's " curvature !" Were it but true, how proudly should we
see it flaunted, This " curvature" is a hard and fast and unalterable
thing, if the earth BE a globe twenty-five thousand miles in circumference.
The curve, or fall, is not much, at the top ! In the first mile, it amounts
to eight inches ; but, to go on like this, would not take us down four
thousand miles in travelling six thousand ! No : the fall increases in
its rapidity (as we may call it) in proportion as the distance from us in-
creases,- -in fact, as the square of the distance. And this is the ghastly
thing that stares at the astronomer : sometimes, appearing like a huge
razor that is to cut his throat ! Six miles of this " curvature" overcame
poor Mr. Wallace, entirely. Six times six being thirty- six (the square),
and this multiplied by the eight inches, shows twenty-four feet to be the
fall of the surface at six miles from the top ! We are anxious, it must
now be clear, to give the astronomers every possible chance : but their
arguments fairly break down as we go along with them. It is impos-
sible for Mr. Lockyer to point out a real fall of the surface at six miles
 LOGIC WITH A VENGEANCE. 15

from the top, on the smoothest piece of water that can be found. The
surface of the Earth is, truly, all top : and that is, plainly, one of its
great beauties ; and there is no such thing, then, as either looking down
or going down any curve of its surface. Why, then, waste any more
time over it ? The curve is so very, very gentle as to be altogether
imperceptible. And this is the end of the argument, from " convexity."
În page 10, Mr. Lockyer says, of the earth, " Now is it at rest ? or
does it move ?" And this question is asked immediately after we are
told that it is a " great globe," that " hangs in space !" And the word
planet" is altogether forgotten . It is not to be seen in this section of
the book. We have been taught that the earth is a planet, or wandering
body and we are now coolly asked, " Does it move ?" Why, if it BE a
planet, it must move ! 66 Must," and there's an end of it. Poor Mr.
Lockyer would give a planet, if he had one, just to be able to say, in the
form of a syllogism, Planets move ; the Earth is a planet ; therefore,
the Earth moves. Mr. Lockyer must look at a syllogism and long for
it : his " science" will not allow him to have one. Mr. Lockyer says ,
now, "the line where the earth's surface and the sky meet"99 66 we must
henceforth call the horizon." And a beautiful word it is. Does not the
thing rise on and on, as we rise on ? But Mr. Lockyer's " science"
would n't let Mr. Lockyer think of the word when he was writing the
section specially devoted to the subject :-well, it would n't let him put
it in ! It would have caused too much commotion by half ! But it is
"all right," now- and , henceforth." And now we come, indeed , to the
most extraordinary matter in the whole business . Mr. Lockyer, with
his logic and his cleverness, does not attempt to give us a proof of the
astronomers' assertion that the Earth moves round the Sun- or that it moves
at all ! Englishmen ! we beg of you to refer to this Primer, and be sure
that we tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Section 3,
which we are now looking at, is devoted expressly to this fundamental
part of the Newtonian theory ; and it ends before it begins to touch the
thing ! Does the Earth move round the Sun, or , Does the Sun move
round the Earth ? Was Galileo right-or, was he wrong ? We do not
find the semblance of a proof ! The word " proof" occurs but once in
the section and Mr. Lockyer tells 66 us that " there is proof positive ”
that " the sun, stars, and moon ”- do move, or appear to move." As
though proof of such a thing were needed ! The poor child with the
Primer is told to imagine himself " to be the sun or a star," in the
performance of a delusive experiment ; yet Mr. Lockyer says to him,
with regard to the Earth, " Perhaps you will say that it does not move,
" because your school-house is where it always was ; that the houses or
" trees near to it are no further away or nearer than they were." Is it
not a shame to insult a child in this manner ?—and to offer no proofthat
the earth moves at all ? The section concludes thus :-" Hence the ap-
66
pearances connected with the rising and setting of the sun and stars,
may be due either to our earth being at rest and the sun and stars
"travelling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the sun
" and stars are at rest. The ancients thought that the earth was at rest,
"and that the sun and stars travelled round it . But we now know that
" it is the earth which moves." And this, too, at the end of a section
16 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

consisting of three pages with the heading, in bold type, " The Earth is
not at rest !" " The ancients thought," says Lockyer : but, " We know !"
It is clear, however, that " we" think we know, just as the ancients
thought they knew.
And Mr. Lockyer's Section 4 begins " thus : " You have then to take
it as proved that the earth moves.' Only to " take it as proved ! ""
This is neat, and modest. Some astronomers will dare to tell us that it
IS proved. But we read, in our Primer, concerning sun-rise and sun-
set, as follows : " How then can we explain the facts ? We can imagine
that the earth spins round as a top does." This is imagination propping-
up supposition : which is a capital idea. And we read, " Day and night
are the best proofs that the earth does really spin as I state that it
"does." Well : let us put forward a parallel case. We have a pair of
boots ; and we ask, " Who made them?" 66 I did, says a boot-maker :
" the fact oftheir existence- the fact that they are boots- is the best proof
"that I made them !" Poor, misguided son of St. Crispin ! Are there
none others, like unto thyself, able to make boots ? And, is there no
possible mode for a lamp to light -up a thing, than for the thing to turn
itself round to the lamp? " Because the sun seems to rise in the East
and set in the West, the earth really spins in the opposite direction."
This is what Mr. Lockyer tells us. And surely, by this time, we are
able to make a fair estimate of the value of every word ! And, in page
19, we read : " Without this spinning there could be no day and night,
" so that the regular succession of day and night is caused by this spin-
" ning." And this is put forward as a fact of which the reader is " now
probably convinced. " So that !-we call this, logic with a vengeance !
For, at once, we read : cr Here then we have fairly proved that the earth
has one motion.” "6 Fairly proved !" before the thing has been attempted ?.
If things that must be done are not to be done by fair means, in these
times, they must be done by other means. It is necessary for the very
life of the modern theoretical astronomer that the Earth shall go round
the Sun ! Has he not said that it does : and shall he recant ? Has he
not more pluck, now, than Galileo had, when he recanted ? Therefore,
round the Sun the Earth must go ! And if anything will get it round,
(after a fashion) , that thing is " logic," -as the man would call it ! A
farewell look, then, we will have at Mr. Lockyer's logic ; and, (at the
imminent risk of provoking the cry of that child) , we shall have done
with Mr. Lockyer. A proof of either the astronomer's " rotation” or his
“ revolution” of the Earth is not attempted. The object in view is not
to prove, but to " convince !" Mark, then, what we have already noticed,
namely, that the heavenly phenomena which we witness day after day 99
and night after night " MAY BE DUE either to our earth being at rest,'
or to " the earth itself turning." Presently, however, we read this :-
66
You can easily see that if there were no motion in the earth, half of
" its surface would never see the light at all, while the other half would
never be in darkness." Well ! that state of things would not do : so
the earth must move ! But, how comes it to pass that, now, the earth
must move, when, a few minutes ago, it needed not to move ? Why,
Mr. Lockyer has fixed the Sun, to be sure ! “ All this time," he tells us,
"the sun is shining steadily and fixedly in the sky." Oh, yes ! If
 THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN. 17

Mr. Lockyer can fix the Sun, he can make the Earth do all the business
that will, then, devolve upon her ! But we fix Lockyer in his monstrous
attempt ! Where are the words in his beautiful Primer that would dare
to suggest the calling for a proof? No : the Sun is fixed-by means of
Mr. Lockyer's bare assertion ! The Sun is fixed-on paper !—without the
aid of Reason or of Common- Sense ! And when things are done like
this they are foolishly done. If a thing cannot be backed up by means
of Reason, it is unreasonable. There is not a logician living that would
venture to uphold Lockyer with his logic ! There is not a reviewer
living who would dare to send forth to the world a laudatory review of
Mr. Lockyer's Primer upon logical grounds—not one ! And, therefore,
there is not a child living who should be permitted to study this Primer
-except as an illustration of the length to which an author will go in
his unreasonable attempts to bolster-up a rotten theory,-not one !
O, Reason : thou art a jewel in the crown that GOD has given us !
Let us not dare to come face to face with Nature, unadorned with
Reason. By so doing, we dishonour ourselves. Let us stand fast, then,
with our path illumined, and ourselves adorned. We have a right to
ask ; and we have a right to know. But we have no right to assume
that others take more pains to think for us than we feel disposed to
take in thinking for ourselves. If a thing is not presented to us clearly,
accurately, logically, and boldly, strongly suspect it. It matters not
that the thing is accepted by the many, and rejected by the few : the
few, think ; the many, don't. Take the subject before us and where
do we find but here and there a thinker who has to do with it ? He
who thinks, and, (consequently), knows that he lives not on a sphere-
a planet a heavenly body- but on the Earth, the " outstretched, "——
Oh ! that finger of scorn ! But, what signifies the finger of scorn save
the finger of the scorner - of one who disdains to think, yet essays to
speak ? Let us take it as an honour, then . The thinker wins, all the
world over . Let us exercise independent habits of thought : in fact, let
us be free men in thought, as well as in deed !
STUDENTS AND LOVERS OF NATURE that we must own ourselves to
be : let us venture to take an eager though a faint survey of Nature's
smiling face ! This is our birthright : and don't let us suffer ourselves
to be robbed of it. And, while we use the light of Reason on the one
hand, let us not ignore the light of Revelation that shines on the other.
Let Reason be our sun by day ; and, Revelation, our moon by night.
And let us mistrust as well an unfaithful " Reason" as an unreasonable
" Faith !" And what do we see if we see not that glorious horizon over
there where the heaven seems to bend down and kiss the earth ? But,
as we are on the earth, and merged into, and identified with, her face,
we cannot see what she does - or that she does anything . We must go
to some vantage- ground in a heavenward direction, or, put faith in those
who do. What, then , does the aeronaut see ? Oh ! he sees the heaven
bending no more down to earth than earth is rising to heaven ! He is
the observer-in- chief, and to him must we look. And the pictures that
he brings us down we must submit to the influence of our light, and let
it guide our decision respecting them . We shall see, then, that some of
these pictures have colours on them which must be rubbed off with an
18 MR. LOCKYER'S LOGIC.

unsparing hand : they are simply the result of previous, imperfect, and
erroneous tutoring. Here is one :-Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of the
extensive view from his balloon, says, in one place, " The view did not
seem natural !" Previous education had shown him the horizon NOT
" on a level with the car !" Oh, no. But he was face to face with
Nature, up there !—and it scarcely needs the light of Reason to show us
that that was " natural" enough! Never mind, friend Glaisher : thou
hast done us good service, and, well. We need no more than what
Mr. Glaisher has told us. One proof is as good as ten thousand. The
proof that must be accepted in the light of Reason- that the Earth Is
NOT A GLOBE, BUT A LEVEL, EXTENDED PLANE SURFACE- we have
from Mr. Glaisher, of Greenwich Royal Observatory fame. No matter
the height we attain, the HORIZON will, unfailingly, appear to rise to a
level with the eye ! Those who have been brought up to believe in the
earth's rotundity, think (as a rule) but little of this, and say less. We
make it, therefore, the proof for the occasion. And, after what has been
said on the subject, but very little more needs to be. Reason, unhesi-
tatingly, condemns the wild imagination that conjures up a globe and
peoples it with human beings to be hurled along and whirled around in
space a thousand miles an hour in this direction and eleven hundred
miles a minute in the other and retained upon its surface all the time
" like needles on a spherical loadstone !"
And what says Revelation ? According to the Rev. Dr. Brewer, in
his well -known work, Theology in Science, " Both revelation and science
66
agree as to the shape of the earth. The psalmist calls it the round
66
world, even when it was universally supposed to be a flat extended
plain." But THIS IS NOT TRUE . The Doctor painted with scientific
paint that must be washed off. " The psalmist" says nothing of the
kind. He only uses (so far as we can see) the word " round" four times
in his psalms and, in each case, it is " round about" something ! No :
Revelation smiles not on modern " science," and is not silent against it,
either ! The pictures-all of them , without exception- painted by the
sacred writers must put the scientists of the nineteenth century to shame,
indeed, with their execrable daubs. Sail we on, then, in the light of
Reason and of Revelation : fully assured of the guardianship of " HIM
that stretched out the earth above the waters," and by whom "the
earth is stablished that it cannot be moved ; "—of HIM who made " the
earth standing out of the water and in the water ,"—and of HIM who,
truly and unquestionably, created the " heavens above," the " earth
beneath," and " the water under the earth ;"-considering always that
the light of Reason is ours to watch and to trim : and that if we, through
negligence or waywardness, suffer its light to be extinguished when the
way to keep it burning and bright is pointed out to us, a measure of
responsibility hangs over our heads which was not there when we were the
innocent victims of the infatuated teachers of a plausible though truly
monstrous and unreasonable and unscriptural science !

LONDON :
Printed by WILLIAM CARPENTER, Ladywell Park, Lewisham, S. E.
May22, 1876.

11 JY 76

HUSEUM
 Illustrated, postage free for One Shilling's-worth of Stamps.

WATER, NOT CONVEX : THE EARTH, NOT A GLOBE.

Demonstrated by Alfred R. Wallace, Esq., F.R.G.S.
On the 5th of March, 1870, by Experiments at the Old Bedford Canal, in Norfolk.

By WILLIAM CARPENTER.
CONTENTS: Three hundred years ago.-Copernicus.-Science and Common Sense.
Chambers's Journal. -The accredited rate of Earth's " curvature."-Is the Earth a
heavenly body ?-Theory founded upon fiction. -The Zetetic philosophers of 1761.-
" Parallax."-The " Scientific Wager."-John Hampden, Esq.-A. R. Wallace, Esq.
undertakes to prove the " convexity" of the surface of standing water.- How will he do
it ? The agreement. The " Old Bedford " Canal.-The Experiment.-Three signals.-
The middle signal expected to be seen higher than the two end ones. It appears above
the furthest one only.-The near signal appears as much above the middle one. -The
three signals clearly in a straight line along the six miles of water. The same appear-
ance from both ends.-John Hampden wins.-Mr. Wallace's determination not to lose
(the money).-Crown Hotel.- Strange ticking noise heard by Mr. Wallace all the next
day. Although a Spiritualist, he heeds not the warning.- Scene at Dr. Coulcher's-
How the money is claimed. A comparison between two out of three signals, only, is
insisted upon !-Its absurdity : no middle" one of two.-The umpire, Mr. Walsh.-
His decision. The £ 1,000 paid over to Mr. Wallace, on the First of April !
The Southport Independent says :-This pamphlet " gives a graphic description of
what took place when the experiment was made, and of the after proceedings which
ultimately resulted in the paying over the £ 500. to Mr. Wallace. Mr. Carpenter
writes temperately, though in a trenchant style, and the pros and cons of the dispute
may be gathered from his pages."
The City Press says :--" This little work will be found very amusing. Those
who care to pursue the subject, and to extract from it what entertainment they may,
will find this latest contribution to the literature of the question a lively companion for
a spare half-hour."
The Derby Mercury says, concerning this pamphlet :-" A shilling will be ill-spent
in its purchase." [The Mercury is respectfully informed that the pamphlet has no
purchase. It has, however, a small sale : and, unless someone make haste about it,
the "will be ill- spent" shilling will have to be taken further ; and it may, possibly,
meet with a worse fate ! That shilling should, at all events, be looked after ! ]
The West Londoner says :-" This shilling book is worth reading. In the most con-
versational of styles, the author gives a full and particular account of the now celebrated
trials at Downham Market, in which Mr. John Hampden pitted his belief in the non-
rotundity of the earth against Mr. Alfred Wallace and all the philosophers. Those of
our readers who are anxious to know how Mr. Hampden comes to be so terribly in
earnest about his statements should peruse this book, and they will find therein quite
sufficient justification ."
The Sunday Times says :-" We have looked through Mr. Carpenter's book, but find,
as we feared, a great deal of abuse and ill-nature and very little reasoning or even
statement." [The Reviewer, in this case, may be a very clever fellow; but, judging
from this little bit of his writing, a six months' course of elementary education would
tend to wake up in his mind sundry important faculties, at present, in a sad state. ]
The Printers' Register says :-" All those who are interested in Astronomical Science
should read this pamphlet. It is a lively and interesting narrative, dealing with the
experiments and their results in a lucid, and, at the same time, a thoroughlyargument-
ative manner."
The Rock, in a review of this pamphlet, says : " Ifa start be made at any given point
on the earth, aud progress be made in a direct line, will the starter return to the spot
he
66 left? If so, the earth is round." [The Rock will kindly stand informed that
progress made in a direct line" is altogether incompatible with making a " return"
journey, a thing which necessarily involves a turning process of one kind or another.]

By the same author. Illustrated. Price Sixpence.

MAN'S BEST FOOD .
THIRD EDITION.

LONDON: W. CARPENTER, LADYWELL PARK, S. E.

 Illustrated, postage free for Sixpence, in stamps.

WALLACE'S

WONDERFUL
WATER !

By WILLIAM CARPENTER.

CONTENTS :-The " Old Bedford" Canal.-Alfred Russel Wallace, Esq., Grays, Essex.
-The Fifth of March, 1870.-Mr. Proctor and the Daily News.-The Experiment. -The
Parson ofthe Parish !-The Three points.-Hampden in Chelmsford Gaol.-What Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn says.-Mr. Walsh and his mistakes. Two more expeditions to
the "Old Bedford."-Wallace's bewilderment.-The Death-watch of Downham Market.
The English Mechanic.- Dr. Coulcher and his diagrams.-Alteration made in them, to
suit the popular theory.-The meaning ofthe word " rise," cannot be tofall.-Norfolk
Scientific demonstration by the aid of the policeman.-Conclusion.-Water is level :
the Earth, therefore, cannot be a globe ; and the Scriptures are literally true.
Public Opinion says :-It is "" a rat
rather smart essay."
The Greenwich and Deptford Chronicle says :-"Into the merits of the question we
cannot enter ; neither in its scientific nor personal phases could the matter be suitably
dealt with in these columns. We may, however, state that the pamphlet is well worth
reading, if only for its exceeding smartness. In his treatment ofthe main issue-which
was, we take it, whether Professor Wallace proved his case by fair means or by foul-
the author displays an ability, and an acquaintance with the scientific principles at
stake, that are surprising in one whom we suppose we ought to regard as a mere
amateur scientist only. Indeed, believers inthe accepted theory of the convexity of
water, and in that other theory, necessarily connected with it, the globular form of the
earth, will be considerably puzzled on reading this pamphlet: and we shall be surprised
if many of them, after doing so, do not confess that they have seldom or never before
seen the worse made to appear the better reason with more skill and acuteness. The
author's power of punning and his frequent bursts of sarcasm tend to save the discussion
from dulness, and render the pamphlet more entertaining than it would be without
them."-Extract from a lengthy Review, July 24, 1875.

Illustrated, postage free for Sixpence, in stamps,

PROCTOR'S " PLANET EARTH."

DEDICATED TO THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
By the same author.
CONTENTS :-Proctor's Lessons in Elementary Astronomy.- " Facts" based upon
reasoning !-Illustrations.-The " Planet Earth."-Common sense wanted. -The real
author of the Lessons. -The Devil.-Scripture quoted.- Professor Airy. An old trick.
" Reasons for believing."-The muddle ofthe points.-East and West.-A "s " supposed
globe." The " slanted axis."-The " level of the surface on which we live."-The cart
before the horse. The key to the Newtonian philosophy.-The two motions of the Sun
and Moon. The weight of the " Planet Earth."-Supposing.-" The most complete
proof."- Misrepresentations.-The Devil's Picture Gallery. The level of the sea.-
Perspective. The vanishing-point.-The Old Bedford Canal.-Proctor's supposed ex-
periment.-Cruel Deception.-A Scientific Fallacy.-Proof wanted before assertion.-
No Proof given.-All assumption and supposition.-The Zetetic philosophy.-Scott.
The West End News says :-""We strongly recommend our readers to judge for them-
selves in this matter, by reading the pamphlet we have thus brought before their notice.
It will be found to be entertaining and suggestive of serious thought at the same time."
Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper says :-" Proctor's Planet Earth" is an unbridled
abuse of Richard A. Proctor, which Mr. Carpenter carries a little too far, to our mind."
[ The reader will be able to learn, from this Review, that the " abuse" spoken of is of
such a nature that the wrong-if wrong there be- is not in carrying it on, but in taking
it " a little too far," with the certainty, into the bargain, that it is a matter of opinion
even as to that. The author has a letter from a Christian Minister, for instance, who,
in referring to this pamphlet and, also, to " Wallace's Wonderful Water," says, they
are splendid." The Author begs leave to thank all those who favor him by expressing
their candid opinion, publicly or privately, concerning these pamphlets. ]

LONDON: W. CARPENTER, LADYWELL PARK, S. E.