measures.  An International Freethought Congress, held in London, entailed fairly heavy work, and the science classes were ever with us.  Another written debate came with October, this time on the “Teachings of Christianity,” making the fifth of these set discussions held by me during the year.  This same month brought a change, painful but just:  I resigned my much-prized position as co-editor of the National Reformer, and the number for October 23rd bore Charles Bradlaugh’s name alone.  The change did not affect my work on the paper, but I became merely a subordinate, though remaining, of course, joint proprietor.  The reason cannot be more accurately given than in the paragraph penned at the time:  “For a considerable time past, and lately in increasing number, complaints have reached me from various quarters of the inconvenience and uncertainty that result from the divided editorial policy of this paper on the question of Socialism.  Some months ago I proposed to avoid this difficulty by resigning my share in the editorship; but my colleague, with characteristic liberality, asked me to let the proposal stand over and see if matters would not adjust themselves.  But the difficulty, instead of disappearing, has only become more pressing; and we both feel that our readers have a right to demand that it be solved.

“When I became co-editor of this paper I was not a Socialist; and, although I regard Socialism as the necessary and logical outcome of the Radicalism which for so many years the National Reformer has taught, still, as in avowing myself a Socialist I have taken a distinct step, the partial separation of my policy in labour questions from that of my colleague has been of my own making, and not of his, and it is, therefore, for me to go away.  Over by far the greater part of our sphere of action we are still substantially agreed, and are likely to remain so.  But since, as Socialism becomes more and more a question of practical politics, differences of theory tend to produce differences in conduct; and since a political paper must have a single editorial programme in practical politics, it would obviously be most inconvenient for me to retain my position as co-editor.  I therefore resume my former position as contributor only, thus clearing the National Reformer of all responsibility for the views I hold.”

To this Mr. Bradlaugh added the following:—­

“I need hardly add to this how very deeply I regret the necessity for Mrs. Besant’s resignation of the joint editorship of this Journal, and the real grief I feel in accepting this break in a position in which she has rendered such enormous service to the Freethought and Radical cause.  As a most valued contributor I trust the National Reformer may never lose the efficient aid of her brain and pen.  For thirteen years this paper has been richer for good by the measure of her never-ceasing and most useful work.  I agree with her that a journal must have a distinct editorial policy; and I think this distinctness the more necessary when, as in the present case, every contributor has the greatest freedom of expression.  I recognise in the fullest degree the spirit of self-sacrifice in which the lines, to which I add these words, have been penned by Mrs. Besant.  “CHARLES BRADLAUGH.”