ere　aware　that　if　they　started　laughing　they　might　die。　In　a　few　minutes　a　second　note　was　handed　to　the　chairman。　He　announced　very　gravely；　〃A　second　doctor　is　wanted。〃　The　lecture　went　on　in　deeper　silence　than　ever。　All　the　audience　were　waiting　for　a　third　announcement。　It　came。　A　new　message　was　handed　to　the　chairman。　　He　rose　and　said；　〃If　Mr。　Murchison；　the　undertaker；　is　in　the　audience；　will　he　kindly　step　outside。〃
  That　man；　I　regret　to　say；　got　well。
  Disappointing　though　it　is　to　read　it；　he　recovered。　I　sent　back　next　morning　from　London　a　telegram　of　enquiry　（I　did　it　in　reality　so　as　to　have　a　proper　proof　of　his　death）　and　received　the　answer；　〃Patient　doing　well；　is　sitting　up　in　bed　and　reading　Lord　Haldane's　Relativity；　no　danger　of　relapse。〃
  X。Have　the　English　any　Sense　of　Humour？
  It　was　understood　that　the　main　object　of　my　trip　to　England　was　to　find　out　whether　the　British　people　have　any　sense　of　humour。　No　doubt　the　Geographical　Society　had　this　investigation　in　mind　in　not　paying　my　expenses。　Certainly　on　my　return　I　was　at　once　assailed　with　the　question　on　all　sides；　〃Have　they　got　a　sense　of　humour？　Even　if　it　is　only　a　rudimentary　sense；　have　they　got　it　or　have　they　not？〃　I　propose　therefore　to　address　myself　to　the　answer　to　this　question。
  A　peculiar　interest　always　attaches　to　humour。　There　is　no　quality　of　the　human　mind　about　which　its　possessor　is　more　sensitive　than　the　sense　of　humour。　A　man　will　freely　confess　that　he　has　no　ear　for　music；　or　no　taste　for　fiction；　or　even　no　interest　in　religion。　　But　I　have　yet　to　see　the　man　who　announces　that　he　has　no　sense　of　humour。　In　point　of　fact；　every　man　is　apt　to　think　himself　possessed　of　an　exceptional　gift　in　this　direction；　and　that　even　if　his　humour　does　not　express　itself　in　the　power　either　to　make　a　joke　or　to　laugh　at　one；　it　none　the　less　consists　in　a　peculiar　insight　or　inner　light　superior　to　that　of　other　people。
  The　same　thing　is　true　of　nations。　Each　thinks　its　own　humour　of　an　entirely　superior　kind；　and　either　refuses　to　admit；　or　admits　reluctantly；　the　humorous　quality　of　other　peoples。　The　Englishman　may　credit　the　Frenchman　with　a　certain　light　effervescence　of　mind　which　he　neither　emulates　nor　envies；　the　Frenchman　may　acknowledge　that　English　literature　shows　here　and　there　a　sort　of　heavy　playfulness；　but　neither　of　them　would　consider　that　the　humour　of　the　other　nation　could　stand　a　moment's　comparison　with　his　own。
  Yet；　oddly　enough；　American　humour　stands　as　a　conspicuous　exception　to　this　general　rule。　A　certain　vogue　clings　to　it。　Ever　since　the　spacious　days　of　Artemus　Ward　and　Mark　Twain　it　has　enjoyed　an　extraordinary　reputation；　and　this　not　only　on　our　own　continent；　but　in　England。　It　was　in　a　sense　the　English　who　〃discovered〃　Mark　Twain；　I　mean　it　was　they　who　first　clearly　recognised　him　as　a　man　of　letters　of　the　foremost　rank；　at　a　time　when　academic　Boston　still　tried　to　explain　him　away　as　a　mere　comic　man　of　the　West。　In　the　same　way　Artemus　Ward　is　still　held　in　affectionate　remembrance　in　London；　and；　of　the　later　generation；　Mr。　Dooley　at　least　is　a　household　word。
  This　is　so　much　the　case　that　a　sort　of　legend　has　grown　around　American　humour。　It　is　presumed　to　be　a　superior　article　and　to　enjoy　the　same　kind　of　pre…eminence　as　French　cooking；　the　Russian　ballet；　and　Italian　organ　grinding。　With　this　goes　the　converse　supposition　that　the　British　people　are　inferior　in　humour；　that　a　joke　reaches　them　only　with　great　difficulty；　and　that　a　British　audience　listens　to　humour　in　gloomy　and　unintelligent　silence。　Peoplc　still　love　to　repeat　the　famous　story　of　how　John　Bright　listened　attentively　to　Artemus　Ward's　lecture　in　London　and　then　said；　gravely；　that　he　〃doubted　many　of　the　young　man's　statements〃；　and　readers　still　remember　Mark　Twain's　famous　parody　of　the　discussion　of　his　book　by　a　wooden…headed　reviewer　of　an　English　review。
  But　the　legend　in　reality　is　only　a　legend。　If　the　English　are　inferior　to　Americans　in　humour；　I；　for　one；　am　at　a　loss　to　see　where　it　comes　in。　If　there　is　anything　on　our　continent　superior　in　humour　to　Punch　I　should　like　to　see　it。　If　we　have　any　more　humorous　writers　in　our　midst　than　E。　V。　Lucas　and　Charles　Graves　and　Owen　Seaman　I　should　like　to　read　what　they　write；　and　if　there　is　any　audience　capable　of　more　laughter　and　more　generous　appreciation　than　an　audience　in　London；　or　Bristol；　or　Aberdeen；　I　should　like　to　lecture　to　it。
  During　my　voyage　of　discovery　in　Great　Britain　I　had　very　exceptional　opportunities　for　testing　the　truth　of　these　comparisons。　It　was　my　good　fortune　to　appear　as　an　avowed　humourist　in　all　the　great　British　cities。　I　lectured　as　far　north　as　Aberdeen　and　as　far　south　as　Brighton　and　Bournemouth；　I　travelled　eastward　to　Ipswich　and　westward　into　Wales。　I　spoke　on　serious　subjects；　but　with　a　joke　or　two　in　loco；　at　the　universities；　at　business　gatherings；　and　at　London　dinners；　I　watched；　lost　in　admiration；　the　inspired　merriment　of　the　Savages　of　Adelphi　Terrace；　and　in　my　moments　of　leisure　I　observed；　with　a　scientific　eye；　the　gaieties　of　the　London　revues。　As　a　result　of　which　I　say　with　conviction　that；　speaking　by　and　large；　the　two　communities　are　on　the　same　level。　A　Harvard　audience；　as　I　have　reason　gratefully　to　acknowledge；　is　wonderful。　But　an　Oxford　audience　is　just　as　good。　A　gathering　of　business　men　in　a　textile　town　in　the　Midlands　is　just　as　heavy　as　a　gathering　of　business　men　in　Decatur；　Indiana；　but　no　heavier；　and　an　audience　of　English　schoolboys　as　at　Rugby　or　at　Clifton　is　capable　of　a　wild　and　sustained　merriment　not　to　be　outdone　from　Halifax　to　Los　Angeles。
  There　is；　however；　one　vital　difference　between　American　and　English　audiences　which　would　be　apt　to　discourage　at　the　outset　any　American　lecturer　who　might　go　to　England。　The　English　audiences；　from　the　nature　of　the　way　in　which　they　have　been　brought　together；　expect　more。　In　England　they　still　associate　lectures　with　information。　We　don't。　　Our　American　lecture　audiences　are；　in　nine　cases　out　of　ten；　organised　by　a　woman's　club　of　some　kind　and　drawn　not　from　the　working　class；　but　fromwhat　shall　we　call　it？the　class　that　doesn't　have　to　work；　or；　at　any　rate；　not　too　hard。　It　is　largely　a　social　audience；　well　educated　without　being　〃highbrow；〃　and　tolerant　and　kindly　to　a　degree。　In　fact；　what　the　people　mainly　want　is　to　see　the　lecturer。　They　have　heard　all　about　G。　K。　　Chesterton　and　Hugh　Walpole　and　John　Drinkwater；　and　so　when　these　gentlemen　come　to　town　the　woman's　club　want　to　have　a　look　at　them；　just　as　the　English　people；　who　are　all　crazy　about　animals；　flock　to　the　zoo　to　look　at　a　new　giraffe。　They　don't　expect　the　giraffe　to　do　anything　in　particular。　They　want　to　see　it；　that's　all。　So　with　the　American　woman's　club　audience。　After　they　have　seen　Mr。　Chesterton　they　ask　one　another　as　they　come　outjust　as　an　incidental　matter〃Did　you　understand　his　lecture？〃　and　the　answer　is；　〃I　can't　say　I　did。〃　But　there　is　no　malice　about　it。　They　can　now　go　and　say　that　they　have　seen　Mr。　Chesterton；　that's　worth　two　dollars　in　itself。　The　nearest　thing　to　this　attitude　of　mind　that　I　heard　of　in　England　was　at　the　City　Temple　in　London；　where　they　have　every　week　a　huge　gathering　of　about　two　thousand　people；　to　listen　to　a　（so…called）　popular　lecture。　When　I　was　there　I　was　told　that　the　person　who　had　preceded　me　was　Lord　Haldane；　who　had　lectured　on　Einstein's　Theory　of　Relativity。　I　said　to　the　chairman；　〃Surely　this　kind　of　audience　couldn't　understand　a　lecture　like　that！〃　He　shook　his　head。　〃No；〃　he　said；　〃they　didn't　understand　it；　but　they　all　enjoyed　it。〃
  I　don't　mean　to　imply　by　what　I　said　above　that　American　lecture　audiences　do　not　appreciate　good　things　or　that　the　English　lecturers　who　come　to　this　continent　are　all　giraffes。　On　the　contrary：　when　the　audience　finds　that　Chesterton　and　Walpole　and　Drinkwater；　in　addition　to　being　visible；　are　also　singularly　interesting　lecturers；　they　are　all　the　better　pleased。　But　this　doesn't　alter　the　fact　that　they　have　come　primarily　to　see　the　lecturer。
  Not　so　in　England。　Here　a　lecture　（outside　London）　is　organised　on　a　much　sterner　footing。　The　people　are　there　for　information。　The　lecture　is　organised　not　by　idle；　amiable；　charming　women；　but　by　a　body　called；　with　variations；　the　Philosophical　Society。　From　experience　I　should　define　an　English　Philosophical　Society　as　all　the　people　in　town　who　don't　know　anything　about　philosophy。　The　academic　and　university　classes　are　never　there。　The　audience　is　only　of　plainer　folk。　In　the　United　States　and　Canada　at　any　evening　lecture　a　large　sprinkling　of　the　audience　are　in　evening　dress。　　At　an　English　lecture　（outside　of　London）　none　of　them　are；　philosophy　is　not　to　be　wooed　in　such　a　garb。　Nor　are　there　the　same　commodious　premises；　the　same　bright　lights；　and　the　same　atmosphere　of　gaiety　as　at　a　society　lecture　in　America。　On　the　contrary；　the　setting　is　a　gloomy　one。　In　England；　in　winter；　night　begins　at　four　in　the　afternoon。　In　the　manufacturing　towns　of　the　Midlands　and　the　north　（which　is　where　the　philosophical　societies　flourish）　there　is　always　a　drizzling　rain　and　wet　slop