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.