Knox’s response, November 22, 1912, To the Editor of The Morpeth Herald,
“Woman Suffrage Question” [italics below indicate Davison’s underlinings in the scrapbook text]

Sir, — I am extremely obliged to Miss E. Davison for drawing my attention to the medical evidence she quoted in a recent issue, although there was no need to throw at my head the old saw, ‘Convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still.’ Everyone, Miss Davison, runs the risk of having this applied to him, who, after what seems to him due examination and deliberation, has come to hold a certain set of opinions, and who, with his best endeavours, does not find any opposing views and arguments, any that can outbear his own. I rest content with my position, and it seems to me the only one open under the circumstances, for I fail to see the reasonableness of rejecting sound, good evidence that was ever vouchsafed to man.

Let me admit there was good evidence to support Miss Davison’s argument: but, on the other hand, there is as good—and I think better—to uphold mine, and in all matters of discordant opinions only one side can possibly be in the right. In establishing my theory against Miss Davison’s, let me quote some figures which speak for themselves; and, if I mistake not, will be more convincing than many arguments.

It may be presumed that if women are so well equipped as men in the size of brains, the average height of a group of women ought to be equal to the average group of men. But it is not so. Whatever the size chosen for comparison, the woman’s brain is always less than the man’s. Whether the observations be made in England, France, or Germany, the results are the same. From Boyd’s figures, taken in England, there can be picked out 102 men and 113 women between 64 and 66 inches high, averaging close on 64 inches for each group. But the brains of men average 46.9 ounces, while those of the women are only 41.9 which give the men the advantage of 12 per cent. There are 21 small men whose height average 62 inches, and there are 135 women of the same height. The brains of the men weigh 45.6 ounces, those of the women only 42.9 ounces, giving the men an advantage of 6.3 per cent. From the figures which Brocus gathered in Paris, there may be selected 54 men and 23 women whose heights were 1.61 metre, the average of women, however, being nearly half and inch more than that of the men; yet their brains were 9 per cent less than the men’s, the weights being 12.13 grammes for the females and 13.29 for the males.

It makes no difference if, instead of taking equal heights we take body weight. Bischoff figures, gathered in Bonn, will give us the data. There are 91 men and 116 women whose bodies were between 30 and 39 kilogrammes. The brains of the men weighted 13.48 grammes, and those of the women 12.06, which gives the men an excess of 11 percent. There were 206 men and 125 women whose body weights lay between 40 and 49 kilogrammes. The brains of the men averaged 13.62 grammes, those of the women only 12.15. Here the men have the advantage of 12 per cent. Between 50 and 59 kilogrammes there were 148 men and 50 women. The men’s brains averaged 13.70 grammes, the women’s only 12.45. The excess is 10 per cent. In favour of the men.

Taking our stand by these figures, we can safely form the opinion that when women and men are of equal height or equal weight, the men have something like 10 per cent more brains than the women. We might go further, and compare the weight of the brain with the height of the body. In that case man has the advantage. Boyd’s figures, taken at Marylebone Hospital, shows that man has .73 ounce of brain for every inch in his height, while woman has only .70. this gives him an excess of 4 per cent. Brocus figures in Paris gives by this method an excess of 6 ½ per cent. To the male brain.

Miss Davison will admit, I hope, that I have made ample amends for my apparent neglect in dealing with the medical evidence she quoted. It may be also hoped these figures will tell for something with her, and until they have been answered by other proofs as direct, I fear Miss Davison will fail in convincing me to the contrary. We cannot but yield allegiance to honest figures and these figures have been taken in places and at different times by men whose business it was to measure and weigh without regard to the conclusions. The lesson to be drawn from them is one that leaves but little room for doubt.

In dealing thus with quantity, I have by no means forgotten quality. There are no facts—at least not to my knowledge—to be procured in reference to quality, except such as arise out of the practical experience of every-day life. The question of relative quality is, therefore, one that is a matter of speculation. I have, moreover, from every-day life, endeavoured to show the quality in the male to be superior to that of the female; but Miss Davison over-rides my arguments by saying that I am tinged with a strong bias, and therefore no true philosopher. But whatever she may say and do, the excess of 10 per cent. of brain matter is no mere trifle, and not so easily brushed aside.

I take exception to the insulting remark attributed to me by Miss Davison about American women. I only stated what had been said by great American physicians, whose testimony can be borne out by every-day experience happening in that State. Although the climate may have something to do in oppressing American females more than English women, yet it is the physiological side that is at fault, and is engaging the attention of the American doctors.

Miss Davison does not dwell long on the physiological part of this discussion, and when I refer to it she passes it by with some brief comment. For of all the pricks against which it hard to kick, the hardest are those which are presented by nature in the form of facts, as a great scientist puts it. No amount of female education can overcome the natural and fundamental distinctions of sex. Women are women, and [here a vertical marginal line] they cannot choose but be women. This, Miss Davison, is not an empirical assertion, but a plain statement of physiological fact.

I have often wondered what is the future the new women are preparing for their own branch of the human race. Would it not happen that the strongest faculties of women are such, if exercised without social restraint, will most surely estrange them, if not from the feelings, from the habits and associations of the traditional female life. What number of new women will choose to become mothers, and what at best will be the maternal qualities of women [here a vertical marginal line] for whom maternity is no longer a primary object, but a possible incident of life? Would there not be one result of female emancipation, and that is, that in its full and final attainment, not only the power of love in women, but for either sex its possibility will have passed away?

These are only musings on my part, and I do not expect them to enter into this discussion. I could not resist the temptation to place them on paper, and from man’s standpoint of view they will be accepted as very interesting and deserving to be pondered over. –Yours, etc.,

A. KNOX
Bedlington Colliery

The Knox Correspondence Resumed November 15, 22 and December 15

Davison returns to her debate with A. Knox in the pages of The Morpeth Herald two weeks after his last letter. They exchange two more letters before the editor of the Herald puts an end to what has become a circular exchange, a round of “he said,” “she said.” It is worth noting, however, that Davison does have the last word in the exchange. The Morpeth Herald, Davison’s “home town” newspaper was not a supporter of her actions or of the suffrage movement in general. Suffrage news is hard to find in the weekly issues, while news of the Primrose League and of the Liberal Party men’s and women’s meetings is frequent and regular. News of Davison’s imprisonments is reported with little sympathy. But she is the one who wins the field in this debate.

November 15, 1912, To the Editor of The Morpeth Herald, “The Woman Suffrage Question”

Sir, — As I am in Wales for the moment, and did not receive the ‘Morpeth Herald’ till yesterday, I am hurrying to answer Mr. Knox’s latest effusion, trusting to be in time for your next issue.

Mr. A. Knox appears to be of the type to which the old saw ( brought aptly up to date) applies, ‘Convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still.’ The doctors’ or, rather, the scientists’ opinion, being too overwhelming for Mr. Knox’s empirical belief, he wisely confines himself to a mysterious hint that he could an’ he would (!) bring evidence to confute me, and unwisely shifts the ground (which he finds to be of the nature of a quagmire) to the, if anything, more insecure tenure of personal observation. Now we all know that personal observation, especially if tinged with a strong bias, is a very unreliable thing. It takes the wide-minded view of a true philosopher to make really useful criteria, and Mr. Knox is apparently no philosopher, for he refuses to face the facts.

Thus it is only that we can account for the glaring error which lies at the basis of all Mr. Knox’s special pleadings in that he seems to take it for granted that the volition and reasoning or judgment are identical functions of the brain, and form criteria of its value. These are, of course, quite distinct. Thus idiots are known to have the most intense will-power, and, indeed, it is that fact which makes them dangerous. Again, I have already mentioned that some of the heaviest brains in the world belong to idiots, all of which goes to show the futility of Mr. Knox’s arguments. It is not this or that faculty, or this or that comparison of size, which goes to prove the value of the brain. I was never maintaining that because nowadays it is a recognized fact that women have relatively equal brains, if not larger brains than men, therefore they are either equal or superior to men. If I did, I should be falling into an error, similar to that of Mr. Knox. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of making wild assumptions from special facts, and, above all, that Mother Nature (whom our anti-suffragist friends so slander and misrepresent) is so wise that even when for centuries man has sought to upset her law that man and woman, male and female, are both equally necessary, yet she has been quietly at work readjusting men’s follies.

So in his attempt to avoid one error, Mr. Knox has fallen into a greater one, the personal one. He accuses women of indecision of character and lack of will power. Why? The antitheses of these are the peculiarity of the so-called ‘new woman,’ or, as I prefer to dub her, ‘womanly woman,’ as she is beginning to realize her own possibilities. No man in his senses can seriously accuse us suffragettes of indecision or lack of will power and intensity of purpose. Again, as to the ancient bogies raised unchivalrously enough by me against the unfortunate ‘manly’ women (who are the result of men’s arrogant attempt to assume the role of creator and moulder) of hysteria and childishness, we ask a little too logically to please them, ‘a qui la faute?’ We do not hesitate nowadays to blame the parents for the faults of the children, and men have hitherto treated these women too much like children to be able to escape from a similar reproach.

Mr. Knox, who is apparently too fond of rushing into assumptions, says: ‘Miss Davison will probably tell us that, giving a woman the same education and the same social advantages as man, will enable her to rise in time to the level of men.’ Considering what women have done when held completely at a disadvantage, I sincerely believe that, given equality of opportunity (which, with all regard to Mr. Knox, is not necessarily ‘the same education’), they will, I hope, rise considerably above the present low level of men, and as a result drag the men up with them to a higher place.

As to Mr. Knox’s truly insulting remarks about American women, he is, of course, doing what he has done all along the line, making empirical assertions, which we must excuse on the ground of ignorance. In this case, for example, Mr. Knox is apparently ignorant of the important consideration of the effects of climate. It is amusing that Mr. Knox, having abandoned the evidence of the doctors when they do not suit his purpose, returns to them when convenient.

The last words of Mr. Knox prove conclusively what we suffragists (male and female) have found to be the bedrock feeling of ‘antis,’ namely, that women are not human beings equally with men, or, as I put it in one letter, they hold the fossilized theory that ‘man has a sex, but woman is a sex.’—Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, Nov. 7, 1912

Having been bested by Davison’s superior citations and trenchant response, A. Knox in

refers to “our womenfolk.”

Friday, Nov. 1, 1912, To the Editor of The Morpeth Herald, “The Woman Suffrage

Question”

Sir, –Miss Davison’s letter in your last issue will doubtless be read by many

with interest, for the opinion of a woman upon a subject which she has such

fine opportunities of judging cannot fail to command attention. She devotes

the main part of her letter to refuting the old theory that women’s brains are

smaller than men’s. Miss Davison’s contention carries with it some great names,

and is a weighty one, which not only impresses your readers with confidence,

but predisposes them to accept her arguments with something more than

acquiescence. But her weakness, as well as mine, lies in the fact that she relies

too much on doctors’ evidence, seeing that other medical authorities can be

brought to disprove it. Therefore, to the opinion I have already expressed, I still

adhere. And yet I cannot deny that if I had written in the light of the evidence

which Miss Davison has brought forward, I should have been less confident in

expressing it. For if doctors disagree, how can a poor layman be expected to

judge?

I am, however, pleased to see Miss Davison refuting the old theory

with all the evidence at her command. Let us for a moment waive all doctor’s

evidence, as it does not carry with it complete conviction, and trust a little to our

own observation. We naturally would ask ourselves that if a woman has, as Miss

Davison contends, larger brains than a man, would she not have in a greater

measure more will power? We think so: and yet it is not so. Do we not find in

the male that firm tenacity of purpose and determination to overcome obstacles

which are sadly lacking in the female mind? When a woman is urged to any

prolonged exercise of volition, the prompting cause may be found in the

emotional side of her nature; whereas, in a man, the intellectual is alone

sufficient to supply the needed motive. A similar deficiency may be noted in

close reading or studious thought. Women are usually less able to concentrate

their attention, their minds are more prone to wander, and they have not

specialized their studies or pursuits the same as man.

This comparative weakness of will is further manifested by indecision

of character. The ready firmness of decision in man is rarely to be met with in

women. It is no unusual thing to find among women indecision of character, so

habitual and pronounced, leading to timidity and diffidence in adopting almost

any line of conduct where important matters are concerned, and leaving them in

the condition of not knowing their own minds. And have we not observed that

women are almost always less under the control of the will than men, more apt

to break away from the restraint of reason, which sometimes takes the shape

of hysteria or childishness. These we recognize as feminine rather than as

masculine characteristics.

It would take too great a space to specify more of the failings of the

female; but we can draw our conclusions that where women are deficient in will

power, there must also be considered a deficiency in brain power. In justice, it

may be admitted that there are instances where women display better judgment

than men. But as a general rule that the judgment of women is inferior to that of

men has been a matter of universal recognition from the earliest times. The man

has always been regarded as the rightful lord of the woman to whom she is by

nature subject, as both mentally and physically the weaker vessel.

Miss Davison will probably tell us that giving a woman the same

education and the same social advantages as men will enable her to rise in time

to the level of man. As the movement for revolutionizing the education of women

in this country is of recent date, we are not able to speak from experience. But in

America woman has been subject for many years past to the same kind of

training as man in schools and in college. While advocates of woman suffrage

have borne favourable witness, American physicians are raising their voices in

warnings and protests. The girls have ambition: they succeed in running the

intellectual race set before them; but do they do it at the cost of their strength

and health, which often incapacitates them for the adequate performance of the

natural function of their sex. Without pretending to endorse these assertions I

may point out they are entitled to our consideration, for they come from

physicians of high popular standing, and they agree, moreover, with what

perhaps might have been feared on physiological grounds.

So long as the differences of physical power and organization between

man and woman are what they are, it does not seem possible that they should

have the same type of mental development. Women are entitled to have all

the mental culture and all the freedom necessary to their nature. But the

education, Miss Davison, should be in the development, not of manhood, but

of womanhood; so may women reach as high a grade of development as men,

though it be of a different type.

I have been told by many people who do me the honour to read me that

I under-rate women, that I do not recognize the political value and the capacity

of the fair sex. That is not so. Keeping apart from politics, I give in to no one in

respect for the virtues and commonsense which characterize our womenfolk, and

no one more clearly discerns and more ungrudgingly confesses their real merits.

–Yours, etc.,

A.KNOX

Bedlington Colliery