It will probably occur to every one, as it occurred to me, that it would be interesting to know what were the comments of the press upon this debate, and the abortive trial held upon the following day. I have looked through several London journals of that particular date, but have failed to find any comments whatever; the press was apparently in profound ignorance concerning this important matter, which so vitally affected its interests.[42] I did, however, find something in my search; I found that in the _Times_ report of the parliamentary debate upon the registration of newspapers which I have just alluded to, the name of the _National Reformer_ was actually omitted from Mr Ayrton's speech, although the suit against it was deemed of such importance as to require the services of the Attorney and the Solicitor-General, and a third counsel. I turned over the pages of the _Times_ and other papers, vainly seeking for some report of the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer--but there was not one line: to such pettiness did the leading journals of the day condescend. [Footnote 42: A few provincial papers condemned the prosecution, and later on the _Daily Telegraph_ announced a possible repeal of the Press Laws, and that in the meantime the Government had resolved not to press the objectionable clauses.] In concluding the account of this, the first prosecution of the _National Reformer_, I cannot pass over without notice the conduct of the Rev. John Page Hopps, who, with those other gentlemen whose names have already been mentioned, set up a brilliant exception to the usual manner in which Mr Bradlaugh was treated by the publicists of the day. He wrote to my father a hearty letter, saying that while of course differing from him in certain opinions, he thought the prosecution "both cowardly and mean," and wishing him "success and support," promised him whatever aid he could give.