262 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



and in the second place an assembly more resembling in its 

 enthusiasms and mental action the footballer than the F.R.S. 

 Learned writers on " crowds " are not prevented by the width 

 of their definition from a very perceptible tendency to narrow 

 their notions. The natural associations of the word " crowd " 

 assert themselves as soon as the ink is dry on their definition 

 — they remember the footballer, forget the F.R.S., and their 

 deductions suffer accordingly. One illustration will show how 

 Sir Martin Conway, like most other writers on his subject, 

 attempts to squeeze the infinite variety of crowds, a variety 

 almost as infinite as that of individuals, within the limits of 

 a narrow generalisation. 



In his second chapter we learn " that a crowd has all the 

 emotions and no intellect. It can feel, but it cannot think." 

 The Royal Society has already sunk below the mental horizon. 

 It is, of course, the crowd-aspect of the Royal Society that is 

 in question — the collective mind or opinion, and not the indi- 

 vidual minds or sentiments. We may safely assume, however, 

 that Sir Martin Conway would hardly deny that the Royal 

 Society is quite capable of thinking out a solution to a scien- 

 tific problem. He has simply forgotten that it is a crowd. 



Forgotten data mean false conclusions, and both involve 

 false reasoning. " The fundamental reason why a collective 

 body of human beings differs toto caelo from so many indi- 

 viduals is because no two individuals can ever think alike, 

 whilst any number can feel alike." Two individuals can and 

 do think alike on one, two, or more separate points. It is 

 precisely because men do think alike in particular instances 

 that they become members of a crowd incorporating these 

 particular opinions. Protectionists all believe in protection. 

 Some of the Protection crowd may believe in Natural Selec- 

 tion and form a Darwinian Society ; others may believe that 

 Natural Selection " is not only dead but damned " and com- 

 bine into an anti-Darwinian movement. The " crowding " 

 follows the lines of agreement. If each single person held 

 opinions absolutely different from those of every other, a 

 supposition practically unthinkable, there would be no crowds 

 at all. Crowds are seldom composed of people who think 

 alike in all respects, but they are composed of men and women 

 who share common beliefs. Crowds, in fact, represent beliefs, 

 opinions, and sentiments common to a number of human 



