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