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

-'---- --

Co RESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOS. BERRY
HORSFALL, ESQ. AND THE REV. JAMES
ASPINA

TO THE EDI7'OR OP THE LIVERPOOL ST/INMIRD.

Sta,---From feelings of delicacy towards the Rev. My.
Aspinall, I had cause 1 the accompanYing correspondence to be
printed for circulation among; his friends and my own; but he
having thought proper to insert it iu the Lir oirpool Joternttl, I have
now to request that you will give publicity to it through the
medium of your paper, and, in so far as you are yourself con
cerned, I will thank you to confirm or refute any statemen.
ho or I have made.—l am, &c.,

THomAs B. HORSFALL.

Liverpool, 21st Jan., 18:35.

TO JOHN WRIGHT, ESQ.

. _
DEAR consequCnce of•your communication to me of
what the Rev. James Aspinall bad asserted, that he had be6n
introduced to me as the editor of the Standard, I beg to submit
to you the following correspondence, which has taken place be-
tween that gentleman and myself. lam induced to do this, net.
because I imagine you could have then, or 'can have iow, any
doubt as to the inaccuracy of the statement; but because the
assertion being persisted in, in the face of all the evidence such
a case admits of, I think myself justified, and indeed compelled,.
to set myself right with any of my friends. whom the same re-
port may have reached. •

I am, dear sir,
Yours very truly,.
TnomAs B. HORS-P.lp..

(No. 1.)

January 14th, 18.35.

SlR,—Having been informed by Mr. Alderman Wright
that you stated to him, that; upon' inquiring at the office of the
Liverpool Standard for the editor of that paper,.you were int*.
&iced to me as such, t have to request that you will inform rile
when and by whom Oat introduction took place.
I am, ley. sir,
Your most obedient servant,
Thomas B. FIoasPALL.

The Rev. James Aspinall.

(No. 2.)'
/armory 15th, 1635

Sre,--In• reply -to your note nfyesterday;• I beg-
to reassert the
truth of what I stated to 'Mr. Alderman Wright, on.the subject
of an interview which I had with you at the office of the Lire-
pool Standard. It is now some months since the circumstance
occurred. The exact day, of course, I.cannot remember, but
can mark it pretty closely by mentioning the 9bject for which I
called. Sir Thomas Brancker had stated in council (at the
period when.the corporation inquiry was either going on or im-
pending) than he, fur his part, had never been swayed by affoc•
tion or feeling towards his own connexions, but on a certain nc+
casion, when one of them offered himself as a candidate for
, Liverpool preferment, had voted against him. When this
little claim to superior purity appeared in the Standard, I wrote
to the editor a few lines, observing that this said purity wore
rather a questionable shape, since, on the occasion referred to,
although Sir'Thomas had, in truth, stifled the voice of nature
and voted against one connexion, he had, after all, voted for
another, passing over a third candidate, Mr. Hull, a gentleman
of splendid talents and high attainments. Upon the non-
appearance of this note in the columns of the Standard, I called
at the office of that paper, and then it was that, having asked to
see the editor, I was desired by the young man in the shop to
walk forward into the inner room where I should find him:
Upon entering that room, I . found you sitting at the desk, I
cannot say to my surprise, because it bad been before, as it has
been since, asserted by the' voice of common fame that -you
were in the habit of writing for the .Standard, and, if not the
actual, were, at least, a kind of amateur editor of that paper.
Upon my admission to you, I stated the object of my call,
namely, to obtain the insertion of the note in question, and from
you, after-some conversation, I received a promise that it should
appear. That this promise was not kept, I am willing to at-
tribute to matters of greater importance claiming attention.
Upon the grounds here assigned I have mentioned your name
to Mr. Wright and others as a party connected with the
Standard. No one can. more regret than I do, that the con-
scientious exercise of a privilege, given as a sacred trust for the
'good of our common country, should break up private friend.
ship and sow discord where• harmony Orel('
_reign. For ray
part, I claim no infallibility; I allow none; but I do claim for
myself, I do allow to others, the right of deciding according to
the host of their judgment, and acting upon that decision, with-
out the scowl rising on the countenance and the frown resting
on the brow of those who think differently. I will endeavour
to avoid this myself ; I seek no more from others. .

T. B. liorsfall, Eq.

•
•
THE LIVERPOOL! STANDARD.

I am, reverend eir,

" I am, sir,

(Signed)
" T. B. Horsfall, Esq."

(Signed)

snlf upon the anission I have made, that I sarviyou in the
uliire of the Standard. I never denied it. BUt Ido deny that
I was there introdriced to you, or pointed out to you, or.spoke to
yon, as the editor of that paper; and nn man with common
honesty, I am sure, eau assert that there was any attempt in my
last, either to "quibble or harp" upon the word "introduction."
I stated to you what I now repeat " that all the young men in
the Standard office, most positively deny ever having introduced
you to me, either in the way you describe, or in any other way, as
connected with that paper." Was it possible to -speak plainer?
I do not charge you, as you are pleased to state it, with giving
currency to "facts"—•l charge you with giving currency to
what was not true.

You seem to take credit to youTself, that you would not have
spokeh as you did had you had the slightest Idea that there was
auy "secret" in the matter. There was no secret. The ques-
tion was nut one of divulging a secret, but of proclaiming an
untruth. The accompanying docutnonts* will bear out what I
have stated.

I have no wish to bring before the public any correspondence
:which you may have considered private.. My desire is simply
iciset myself right .with the public, in contradiction of the re-
port to whiCh you have given circulation. It will be with
great pain to myself should I be Compelled to take such a step.

Your most obedient servant,
THOMAS B. HoitsFALL.

Tho Rev. Jas. Aspinall.
(11-aNcLost; RR S.)
" Liverpool, January 19th, 1835,

" Sia,—ln confirmation of what I stated to you, I beg to
land you the enclosed paper. I should imagine Mr. Aspinall
must be labouring under some mistake, as the room to which he
alludes was not the editor's room at all, nor was he in the hab
of sitting there.

" Yours respectfully,
" SAMUEL FRANCRYS.

' We the undersigned Publisher, and persons engaged in
the office of the Liverpool Stcindard at the period when the
;Corporation inquiry wax either yob'y on or impending,' do
"s4eMnly.declare, that we never did introdnce, qr n any way
point out, or mention Mr. T. 13. Fiona:l4
,to the Rev. James
Aspinall, or any other individual, as the editor of that paper,
nor could we have done so, knowing perfectly that such was
nut the fact..

SAM.-FRANCEYS,

" RICH. PATTISSON,

" EDW. GEIFPITHS,

" GEO. TYRE! LL.
" As far as regards myself, I may say, in addition to the above.
that the only occasion upon which i have any recollection of
ever speaking to the Rev. Jas. Aspinall was when he called at
the Standard office, for the purpose of requesting that some
sermons which he had publiihed might be reviewed, and I
recommended hint to send a copy to the editor, which he did.
(Signed)

EDWARD GI LPVITHS."