Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1882-03-18 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

DEAR SHL—In your edition of March 4th, I notice a letter signed by "A lover of justice." lie Oak's up his line of argument, in coodidatium the Widen of toe majority of the House of Commons, suet also to endeavouring to prove the right of Charles itradlaugh to take his seat in Parliament. I may my that of all the letters I have ever read in CODlitetiOß with the Bradlaugh question, the one signed by A lover ot justice" is the one most devoid of Bens, and reason, and also the one most conspicuous by its absence of proof. It is something more than a miserable fuilure ; for in the theorem glue' era( fueietutunt he makes the following statement which beaativee his whole line of argument. Realise, "When Mr. Bradlaugti asked to tie allowed to affirm, they objected on the grounds that the affirmation wee only for members who beld rattan) religious opinions, and that the affirmation could not tie applied to hiss because he did not hold any religime opinioe." Judging how the general appearance of your correspond• ent's letter, it appears to me that he int intelligent enough to understand his own composition: still, however, the above argument is the knife with w..ich he hes cut his own throat. If the writer of the letter had not defeated himself with the shore statement, he wool have committed suicide a little further on when he maim the statement that "A faction of the House led by Sir Stafford Northcote bad also refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the oath on the alleged grounds that such a proceeding on his part would be a manifest profanation of its sacred character:' I will say no. thing with reference to the above, seeing that your correspondent wisely and cunningly refrains from commenting upon it. fie then goes on to say that the oath being a purely legal loran, all theological opinions nhould be put aside. How, I ask, in the name of cosmos pease, can a person put theological thoughts aside during the time he is using the words, "Su help me, God." Listen again to 'hat "A lover of justice" says : Mr. Bradlaugh le excluded from the House bemuse of certain °pintoes which iie holds, and which would be detrimental lon few of its members.' Sir, I also read Sir Stafford Nurthcote.e motion which exClosed the member for Nothampton, but, as tar as my memory 'WSW me, I copilot any that I remoraher seeing the words quoted by your oorrenpoudent. Again, even if such had been me ease, does it app. ter reasonable that (to use the wri tee's own phrase) few members could bold its sway the whole of um house of Commons, and also °tappet the members to rote on toe side of wrong and injustice? Semi a eopponitien is nonsensical in Ohs higtmet degi ee. 'hr. Brsallaugh,' says the writer, "was ohysited In simply 11100•1168 if he took hit mat be would seek SO open We eyes of his countrymen to the injwit. hes auuer which they labour." Any person wits &modicum of ordinary sense will aoknowledge that inch a statement is wit.,Out toundation, and is therefore entirely falee. Wilt your currespond.mt limn to the publio generally or move um state. bent that •• Sir Scaffold Bonin:me sad Mr. Nu wde. gate have impuited into the religious element lor the lur t..erance of their own purposes" 11 3001 correspondent NURes to bring imu play hie Nabilities as a theoinst let him make ISlALtslitlattl Chuob will bear being subjected to a chum of reasoning. I am, Yours, Damon, March 13th, 11582.