it without examination as part of James Watson’s stock.  I think it ought to be fought right through.  Under these circumstances I can only leave Mr. Watts to speak for himself, as we so utterly differ in opinion on this case that I cease to be his proper interpreter.  I have, therefore, already offered Mr. Watts the columns of the National Reformer, that he may put before the party his view of the case, which he does in another column.”—­C.  BRADLAUGH.

XIV.

Up to this time (January, 1877) Mr. Watts had acted as sub-editor of the National Reformer, and printer and publisher of the books and pamphlets issued by Mr. Bradlaugh and myself.  The continuance of this common work obviously became impossible after Mr. Watts had determined to surrender one of his publications under threat of prosecution.  We felt that for two main reasons we could no longer publicly associate ourselves with him:  (1) We could not retain on our publications the name of a man who had pleaded guilty to the publication of an obscene work; (2) Many of our writings were liable to prosecution for blasphemy, and it was necessary that we should have a publisher who could be relied on to stand firm in time of peril; we felt that if Mr. Watts surrendered one thing he would be likely to surrender others.  This feeling on my part was strengthened by the remembrance of a request of his made a few months before, that I would print my own name instead of his as publisher of a political song I had issued, on the ground that it might come within the law of seditious libel.  I had readily acceded at the time, but when absolute surrender under attack followed on timid precaution against attack, I felt that a bolder publisher was necessary to me.  No particular blame should be laid on persons who are constitutionally timid; they have their own line of usefulness, and are often pleasant and agreeable folk enough; but they are out of place in the front rank of a fighting movement, for their desertion in face of the enemy means added danger for those left to carry on the fight.  We therefore decided to sever ourselves from Mr. Watts; and Mr. Bradlaugh, in the National Reformer of January 28th, inserted the following statement: 

“The divergence of opinion between myself and Mr. Charles Watts is so complete on the Knowlton case, that he has already ceased to be sub-editor of this journal, and I have given him notice determining our connexion on and from March 25th.  My reasons for this course are as follows.  The Knowlton pamphlet is either decent or indecent.  If decent it ought to be defended; if indecent it should never have been published.  To judge it indecent is to condemn, with the most severe condemnation, James Watson whom I respected, and Austin Holyoake with whom I worked.  I hold the work to be defensible, and I deny the right of any one to interfere with the full and free discussion of social questions affecting the happiness of the