The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-01-27 00:00:00

TO TIIE REV. JAMES ASPINALL.

RevanEND Si have rend attentively the correspondence,
publisher) in the Journal of Saturday, between Mr.?. B. Hors-
..
fall and yourself: I commenced it five from any predisposition
either on the one sile or the other, slowly in an anxious s...trch
after truth, and a sincere desire of ascertaining to *Whom that
essential might belong:
In an investigation where so much depends upon the veracity
attached to the relative statements of Opposing parties, and
where the one or the other must Noressartly have averred that
which he knew to E! untrue, the inquiry cannot but be painful;
hut where truth is the object, wr must not suffer• ourselves to
he deterred (ruin the pursuit by the unpleasant nature of the
path whii:h may leinf to tt.•• •

Knowing nothing personally
.either of yourself or of Mr. T. B.
Horsfall, I have no feeling to bias, no erejudice to mislead me.
.My only anxiety was, M the first instance, to attach an equal
degree of credit to the assertions of each, and to abstain from
coining to any conclusion until I had attentively considered-the
circumstances, the prohabiiities, and the internal evidence of
the respeetiVe statements. That I may not he accused of too
hastily ur prematurely arriving at the result, I will state the
intermediate steps which lead Inc to it. 1 trust you will think
with me that, in the course I adopt. I am acting with fairness
and impartiality ; whether you may coutinue to think so, I
must leave to yourself after you have finished this letter.
Divested. of all extraneous matter, the point at issue lies in
very small compass. You have asserted that you had been
"introduced to Mr. 'l'. B. Hursfall as the editor of the STAN
CARD." lam not disposed to "harp or quibble," asyou term it,
3n the word " int reduction," Take'every advantage you please
of it, you can take none greater than Mr. Hon-fall him'self has
given you, who, so far from "quibbling or haiPing," or evipc-
•ing any desire of keeping ynu to its letter, has ektended its sig-
nification to the meaning, "even- the shOwing into a room."
You must, however, know that it is necessary we should have
Some defined point to start from. some course to which we may
confine onrsetves, otherwise the seine rambling and digression,
the same flying from point to point, which characterises your
previous 'cite's, might again be repeated.
You ere directly and specifically charged (not, however, in
the first instance imputing. any improper motives to
,you) with
having asserted to Mr. Wright, that "you had been introduced
to Mr. T. B. Horsfall as the editor of the STA sDAis o ;" and
this specific charge in your first letter (January 15th) you
evipce no disposition either to alter or evade. Your words are
"1 beg to re-assert the troth of what I stated to Mr. Alderman
Wright." Here we are fairly at issue. In your first letter, at
least, therels no quibbling. You follow up your "re-assertion"
by stating your reasons for believinist hat Mr. 'l'. B. Horsfall
was the editor of the graNnann, and so far I find no fault with
Your conduct. We are all of us liable to draw a false inference,
asul.p.artieularly when that infereucc.is supported, by• the exist-
ence uf preconceived ideas and long-standing prejudices. Let
me now, however, examine these reasons. Your own words, as
I read them in letter No. 4, will serve me better than any ether.
You ray that having walked into the Standard-Office, "you
asked to see the editor; you were desired by the. young man in
the shop to walk into the inner room; you found ?slr. Horgan ;
you stated your business to hips ,• you received an answer from
him." Well, what then ? Admitting every tittle you have
said, and for the sake of argument let me admit it most freely,
most fully—what does all this prove? Nothing—absolutely
nothing. •I
cannot, perhaps, more clearly show the utter'worth-
lessness of such proof than by an application direct to yourself.
What would you think, sir, were any stranger to walk into Saint
Luke's Church, and ask to see the minister: that he he desired
by the clerk, sexton, or pew-opener, to walk into the vestry,
that he there finds a gentleman writing, reading, or perhaps sit-
ting by the fire,—that he states-his business—his causeof grivv-
ance—whatever it might be—to that gentleman, who, probably
being in son-win:inner connected with the church, and under-
standing the subject on which the stranger applies to him, gives
him an answer ;—the stranger then !eaves the church, cells upon
a friend, Mr. Wales fur instance, tells him he has been intro-
duced, or "shown into the vestry," or ahythini else you please
to term it—to the minister; while,-alt this time, he had been
addressing himself to a totally different person, may be one of
the churchwardens, who happened to be in the vestry at the
time,—the clerk, sexton, or pew-opener, who introduced him
not having observ.el that the Rev. Mr. Aspinalt had left the
church just two minutes before.
I appeal to von, Sir, is not the• analogy complete? What
must we then think of the cogency of your reasons, when we
find that in a case precisely analogous, and coming more im-
mediately home to ourselves, they are utterly contemptible and
ridiculous. By the very same reasoning it would be just as easy
to prove that your friend Mr. Wales, or any one else who hap-
pened to have been in the vestry of your chUrch at the moment,
is the minister of St. Luke's, us that Mr. T. B. Horsfall is, or
was, the editor of 'the STANDARD. And yet, Sir, this is the
description of proof on which you venture to charge with false-
hood, and. to accuse of being "tricky, sliefifiiny, and evasive," a
gentleman of unsullied character and reputation. To borrow
your own language. and the words are now applied in their
proper place, " I pity you, from tny heart I pity you.P'
So far I have considered only the circumstances and proba-
bilities of the statenients.. I now gu a step further, and consi-
der the nature of the evidence brought forward by Mr. T. B.
Horsfall, I cannot say and yourself, for you have not one tittle
to offer.
Mr. T. B. Horsfall, in his letter No. 5. after repeating his
denial in the most unqualified terms, then he had ever been in-
troduced to you, or pointed out to yom, or spoke to you as editor
of the STANDARUS brings forward the •strongest testimony in
proof of the correctness of his assertions. Every person en-
gaged or employed in the Standard-office, at the time to which
von allude, unequivocally declare, that toMr.llursfall, as editor
f that paper, you had never by them, or any of them, been in-
troduced, named, or pointed nut. Now, sir, how is this evidence
met' by.you ? By other evidence. or by further contradiction ?
Neither the one nor the other. Entirely altering vour tactics,
'you write the letter dated the Nth January, quibble, and harp
ripen the word introduction—descend to the lowest scurrility
and most vulgar abuse—and, finally, feeling conscious that you
cannot further urge one syllable, either in extenuation of your
own conduCt. or against the confirmed statements of Mr. Hors-
fall, "beg leave to decline on y further correspondence." At an
earlier stage this might have been a wise determination, but
now, alas! so far as your own reputation is interested, it comes
too late to assist you.
Before I csonehrit—l -cannot refrain from obServinn upon the
affectation of regret with which you finish your first letter to
Mr. Horsfall, on the consequences "of the conscientious ex-
ercise of a privilege, given as a sacred trust for the good of our
common country." All this reads very fine. You must, how-
ever, surely have forgotten that volt had an equally "sacred
trust," confided to you " for the.good of our common" faith.
You must also have forgotten the many and reiterated declara-
tions of attachment to our "commou" church—made of your
own free will—first, when you matriculated at college—again,
when you took your degree--a third time, when admitted into
holy orders—and lastly, when ordained a priest —or you would not
have provoked a smile by asserting that " conscience" had any
part in the matter. You, however, arrogate too much to your-
self in supposing that any manner of exercising.'individtially,
the elective franchise could have the effect of either " breaking
up private friendship or sowing discord whete harmony should
reign." Mr. James Aspinall might have acted as best ',leased
him, however ridiculous or culpable, wit limit these effects follow-
ing :—lt is as a minister of the church of England that your
vote becomes of any importance and surely no one can be
blamed for attaching a stigma to the character of that man who
betrays what so repeatedly he had sworn to protect and defend.
Other motives, however, than those of "cmiscience" might
be assigned to eAkidate your conduct : their enumeration, how-
ever, I am willing to spare you, and shall refrain from express-
ing, unless you should be so ill-advised as to dare me to the
proof.
The really sacred duty to which you have been called, I would
hope and trust is more conscientiously performed than has been
that of the elective franchise, though I cannot help fearing that
the way in which you exercised that privilege is not more in-
compatible with your previous solemn declarations than are the
letters you have lately written inconsistent with the character
and profession of a sinister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am, reverend
Your obedientservant, a

Liverpool, ath Jan., 15:35.

THE COTTON TRADE.

We take the follnwingextraet from the last New York circular.
dated Dec. 31, 1834 :7

lu our circular of the 2:3d instant we noticed the increasing
firmness in the cotton market; and the receipt on the following
day of the adviers fiouc Livei pool by the George Washington
to the 24th ult. caused an immediate advance in price of le. to
to je. per lb., notwithstanding which a fair amount of business
was done till the end of the week. This week the transactions
have been more limited in extent, but prices are 1 cent per lb.
higher; and at this further advance, making altogether about 1
tent per lb. above the prices current oti the 23d instant, holders
are very firm. We quote Uplands 16 to 171 for very ordinary to
middling, 171 to I 8 for fair to quad Tennessees and A la-
baullik 16-1 to 1.7! cents; fine Mobiles, Louisianas, Rte. 18 to 19
and 20 cents per lb. The sales in eight days are estimated at
3,600 bales.

The accounts received from the cotton states in the last ten
days speak very decidedly—more so. we apprehend, than the
event will be found to ju,tify•—as to the detietehey of the crops
compared with those of the previous twasou. Believing these
accounts, we should be warranted in estimating the whole cot-
tqn crop of the United States fOr 1f,31-35 at little more than
1,000,0(X) bales; hut we feel satisfied that it will not fall very
touch short of 1,150,000. viz., 670,000 from the (hitt of Mexico,
and 480,000 from the Atlantic states; and, 'Movie-there he no
material variation from the estahlislnNl rates-here and in Europe
at the latest dates, its distribution will probably,be nearly as

For the continent of Europe 350,000
For home consumption in the United States... 220,
Leaving for Great Britain and Ireland

1,150,000
Of last year's crop the continent received about 310,000, and
there were consumed in the United States 190,000 bales.
The rates of freight to Liverpool for cotton are per lb.
in square, and id. per lb. in round bales ; turpentine 2s. per
hrl; ,
flaxseed is. to 6d. per tierce.—.'
Loudon for cotton
-
td, per lb.; naval stores `2s. 6d. to 35.3 d. per brl.— To Havre,
to I cent per lb. for cotton; 6 to 8 dollars per ton for ashes ;
-.lnd. 10 dollars per ton for rice.
The transactions in exchange on‘,l3ngland for this packet
have been very extensive at all priOit'from 1064 per Cent, at
which the market opened, up to 107 i, the closing rote,
of this day. The C. S. Bank doelines .selling at the present
rates, Bills on France, st. 32ie, to .51'. 30c.