MR BIDDLECOMBE’S REPLY TO THE REV. L. ISITT AT BRADFORD.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 302, 7 May 1896, Page 11

MR BIDDLECOMBE’S REPLY TO THE REV. L. ISITT AT BRADFORD.

In our last issue we referred io the Rev. Leonard Isitt’s speech at Bradford, and intimated that in our next issue we would deal with Mr Biddlecombe’s reply to the ** reverend ” New Zealander. So far as we can gather from the report, as published in the Bradford Daily Argus of. March 4th, Mr Isitt boasted of the “ amazing charity ” he was prepared to bestow on Mr Biddlecombe, and the next moment designated his opponent as a hypocrite. Mr Biddlecombe, in his reply, refrained from all personalities, and in this respect adhered much more closely to the rules of debate than his reverend •pponent. Mr Isitt charged his opponent with being the author of the articles which had appeared in the Argus, hostile to Mr Isitt’s mission ; but the editor of the paper positively declared that Mr Biddlecombe had never written one single line, to the paper in connection with the mission, excepting a letter appearing over that gentleman’s signature. We are under the impression, judging from the tone of the debate, that had IMr Biddlecombe charged Mr Isitt with doihg certain things and a positive denial had been subsequently made/ that denial would have been accepted, followed by a graceful apology for having erroneously made the statement, but, to all appearance, the Rev. Mr Isitt and his Bradford opponent are built on different lines, and we think that those who desire to be classed as gentlemen, would prefer to be built on the Biddlecombe lines. Before the debate already indicated took place, it was insinuated that at one of the lectures delivered by the New Zealand cold water champion it was state J by a Mr Weldon that Mr Biddlecombe would not put in an appearance at the proposed debate, but it was subsequently shown that in no case had an engagement made by the party to which Mr Biddlecombe belongs been broken, whilst on the other hand it was proved to demonstration that the teetotal party had on some occasions failed to meet their opponents on a platat a duly convened meeting. One notable instance was cited as follows : —“ I can give an instance the other way, one in which, strange to say, Mr Biddlecombe was the speaker. The society in King’s Lynn, was having a debate on local option. On one side was Mr Kempstor, of the United Kingdom Alliance, but a speaker was wanted to oppose him. The local agent of the U K.A. advised that the Liberty and Defence League should be asked to furnish an opponent to Mr Kempstor. Ultimately it was arranged that Mr Biddlecombe should go to Lynn. His name, &c., was furnished, when Mr Kempstor wrote “ that he had an important engagement, and that the debate must be adjourned sine die.” Comment on this is needless, as it clearly shows where the fear to meet an’opponent came in. Coming back to Mr Biddlecombe’s reply, he made “ mince meat” of the assertion that the Armenian attrocities were the result of the indulgence in alcoholic liquors, and proved that they were directly traced to the action of the depraved teetotal demons, the Turks. He further quoted figures to show that whilst, in some cases, the consumption of drink had increased, cases of conviction had gradually but surely decreased, and the same proof applied to pauperism. He also quoted an American Goverment return of criminal statistics, showing that

in the year 1882 1,282 murders were committed by teetotallers against 1,267 by persons who had been convicted of drunkenness, or who were known to take drink. Thus there were .more teetotal murderers than drunken murderers. He effectively rebutted the statement that England was the most drunken nation in the world, and in support of his argument quoted Mulhall, and said that, with the exception of one or two small and feeble nations, England was one of the most sober nations on the face of the earth. (From the teetotallers —“ It’s a lie.” He further advised bis reverend opponent, seeing he knew so little about the subject, to go out to Turkey and remonstrate with his atrocious teetotal friends there, instead of going about the country trying to persuade respectable people like his audience to give up the moderate use of alcoholic beverages. After his effective reply, Mr Biddlecombe resumed his seat, and took a drink from a glass and afterwards from a bottle. Upon this a scene of indescribable confusion took place, the fanatics rising to their feet and crying “turn him out.” Mr Briddlecombe declared that he had only taken a drink from a preparation which was purely medicinal in its character. Taking the proceedings altogether, we do not think the New Zealand teetotallers have any reason to feel proud of their champion as he appeared at Bradford.