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

,
enough. It has been resorted to, over and‘4er again-, by
some of the conductors of the Liverpool press, and by its
half-paid and .voluntary amateur writers, of
.whom Mr.
ASPNALI: is one, in order to intimidate the friends, well-
wishers, and supporters of this paper. The people who
have had recourse to this puerile and very contemptible
stratagem knew the charge to be false—they admitted it
in their personal and
.disgraceful attacks upon another
party—they admitted it in. at least an hundred personal
invectives during the last two years, none of which were
treated as they might have been, and as we are' pre-
pared to do, when necessary, by calling. the real authors
and responsible parties to account. Of those who knew
the charge to be false we impress Mr. ASPINAP.

How. does the reverend gentleman ap'ear as a witness,
or, rather, as an informer in his own case ? says that
he called at the Standard-office, asked for the editor, and
was shown to a hack room, where he found Mr. Hens-
FALL. This may or may not have occurred. We be-
lieve the initiatory part to be untrue altogether. No clerk.
or "young man" in the office would have shown Mr.
ASPINALL to the editor without the latter's assent. No
one in the otlice would have dared to do this ; and we
have the evidenCe of the publisher; the shopman, the
clerk, and every p; ;son on the establishment at the
time, that Mr. ASPINAI.L never made any such request,
and never received any such answer. Here, then, we
have very strong presumptive evidence that the reverend
gentleman is either troubled with a romantic memor:.,
making his wish " the father to the thought," or that he
has adopted fur himself, like some of his political
friends, a new science of ethics which he is determined
to turn to his own advantage.

Mr. HoRsFAu. stakes most distinctly that he never had
any conversation with Mr. ASPINALL of the nature describ-
ed by thelatter. It is impossible that Mr. lioasFuL could
have had such a conversation. Even if he, had been

editor, which he never was; Or'ilad the'power ofinserting
or rejecting aqiclA which he never poisessed, he could
not have promised Mr. ASPINALL the insertion of a letter
which he (Mr. HousvAtt) had never seen. The letter
was received by the accredited editor—it was read—it
was deemed frivolous, sore, egotistical, and, consequently,
inadmissible7—and if not returned, it was most certainly
committed to the flames. We quite forget what became
of it, but we know that Mr. HORSPALL never saw it,
never was consulted upon its merits, and, consequently,
could not give, as Mr. ASPINALL represents, an opinion,
favourable or otherwise. Most unquestionably he could
not promise its insertion. It is now near two years since
we, who write this, undertook the editorship of the
LIVERPOOL STANDARD, and if there be in Liverpool, or
elsewhere, any man who believes that we would under-
take such a responsibility under the censorship or con-
trol of any man or men breathing, he does us a foul
wrong. The editor 6f the LIVERPOOL STANDAuo—we
state it once for as perfectly independent now as
he has been during his whole life. No man can di'ctate

to him, or control him in the free expression of his senti-
ments.. He dreads no responsibility—he fears no conse-
quences which he is not ready to meet. There are a

"ew intemperate persons belonging to the expiring whip

faction who have sought a personal (panel on matters
connected frith the animadversions of this journal. These
empty threats'carry with them their own impotence. If
these• pistol and ball heroes desire to find their .real
assailant, they know where to find him. It is silly
vapouring to dance over- the fields in search of an
antagonist who they know cannot be found in the path
they take. If Mr. JAMES AIKIN, or Mr. JAMES BRANCKER,
or Mr. RUSHTON, or people of that stamp, be anxious to
prove their metal to be something more than " Sounding
brass," they need be at no loss to find the aggressive and
the only responsible party. 'Neither need they fear that
the person they might thus honour with their conimands is
of more ignoble blood than their own, or of inferior stand•
ing in society. Liberals and levellers should not be
particular in these matters.

But What do these appeals to the legitimate number of
footsteps prove—appeals made by men who should be
the last to court fame at so -great a litaard ? Whyt this,
that the cause mast be a rotten one, and its advocates in
desperate circumstances, or they would not have recourse
to -tho prnotituagof tlio bolly. They hare had for too
Many years the press of Liver:pool under their control,
and they cannot bear the infliction of being treated as
they have treated Miters. But we tell them they'
must' bear it. The ' same measure they have meted
to others will be meted.to them. They may storm, and
wince, and menace, but we shall follow the even tenour
of our way in utter disregard. of their threats or their
indignation.

But we return to our subject. We have shown that
the statement of the Reverend Mr. AsPINALL is false, and
we cannot, even Ori ,the, most charitable consideration,
come to any other conclusion than that it is wilfully so.
We regret the necessity of bringing so serious a charge
against a minister of the church of England. Lie, how-
ever, has compelled us to make it, and there is no mode of
escape from the charge of wilfulness but in the supposi-
tion that he draws upon his int,gination for his facts,
and adheres to the delusion from seine kind of instinctive
obstinacy. We state this in order to find some apology
for the reverend gentleman.

But we must reduce the matter in dispute to a narrow
compass. The Reverend JAMES ASPIKALL asserts one
thing. Mr. THOMAS BERRY HORSFALL asserts the con-
trary. The former rests his charges upon his own un-
supported authority ; the latter rests his contradictiim,
not upon his own credit and veracity alone, but upon the
best evidence which the circumstances of the case will
'permit. Here then is a disparity in the value of the evi-
dence, all the advantages of which are on the side of Mr.
HORSFALL.

But confident in the strength of Mr. HORSFALLS posi-
tion, we throw his corroborative evidence overboard. We
are willing to submit our case to any twelve gentleman
of Liverpool, and we call for their decision, without any
collateral evidence,. upon the value of tl:e respective
credibility of the disputants. This again ushers in a
painful subject. Mr.• ASPINALL is a clergyman of the
chUrch of England, and we are aware of the handle that
will be made 'of the exceptions we are imperiously
called upon to take to his veracity, his memory, or his
discernment. He, however, has forced this unpleasant
duty upon us, and we shrink not from its performance.

Mr. •THOMAS BERRY .1-foRSVALL is known to the in-
habitants of
.Liverpool ax a: gentleman whose honour
and integrity are as pure as human virtue ever em-
braced. We knew no man whose word Is more sa-
cred, or whose reputation is more 'unblemished. Mr.
HoasFALL is incapable of colouring a fact, or speaking
or countenancing an untruth. Under the guidance of

strong religious feelings, and of strict moral rectitude,
he would as soon commit murder as violate his word,
harbour a deceit, or utter a falsehood. A man more sen-
sitive on these subjects we never had the honoux of
knowing, and we feel persuaded that all who know hint
as well and bettor. than we do will answer fur the truth
of the opinion we have formed,.

Is it likely, therefore, that a man so fenced round,
with a character-so pure and noble, would be guilty of a
falsehood in order to screen himself from the impotent
attacks of Mr..ASI'INALL or the silly and ludicrous swag
tier of others I It is absurd.

On the other hand how stands, in public estimation,
the Rev. JAMES ASPINALL ? This' is a delicate question,
but it must be answered. Among the electors and the
respectable inhabitants of Liverpool is his character not
as well known and us duly appreciated as that of the Re-
verend Dr. WADE, Mr. DANIEL Wlltrittr. HARVEY, Sir
JOHN KEY, and other, equully bright patriots ? If his
credibility- be unexceptionable, let him, if he can, pro-
duce a member of his congregation to touch for it. lie

will understand us when we state that une most respec-
table member of his church has left it for reasons which he
formally assigned, but which it: is unnecessary to repeat.
It is unnecessary, and it would be distressing to enter
into details. The public can form an estimate of his cha-
racter without our direction. They have already formed
it, and upon that character we venture to ask whether
the word of the rev. gentleman can be taken in prefer-
ence to that .of. Mr. THOMAS BERRY HORSFALL ? OP