POSTSCRIPT.

_ SATURDAY NIGHT.

Instead of greater certainty, the utmost possible doubt is cast upon the actual state of the Corn-law question in the Cabinet. We shall lay the supplemental evidence before the reader. Last night, the Standard put forth the following counter-statement, very conspicuously- " ATROCIOUS FABRICATION BY THE TIMES.

"We are now, we rejoice to say, in a condition to give the most positive and direct contradiction to the statement of a proposed repeal of the Corn-laws, which appeared in yesterday's Times. The statement, it may be remembered, em- braced three propositions-

" First, that Parliament is to meet in the first week in January. "Second, that Ministers have resolved upon a repeal of the Corn-laws. "Third, that the projected repeal is to be announced in the opening Speech.

"EVERY ONE OF THESE THREE PROPOSITIONS IS FAISE.

" Parliament WILL NOT MEET IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, or much, if at all, before the usual time of meeting.

"THE CABINET HAS COME TO NO DECISION WHATEVER UPON THE SUB- JECT OF THE CORN-LAWS.

"It must be unnecessary to add, in the third place, that a resolution not formed can hardly have a place provided in the Queen's Speech. * • * Upon what we have written above, we stake the character of this journal."

This morning, the Herald quotes and adopts the foregoing statement, with a confirmatory assertion of its own- " Like our evening contemporary, we pledge the character of the journal in which we write, that on this 6th day of December 1845, it was not, and never had been, intended to summon Parliament for the first week of January, and that upon this same 6th of December no resolution whatever upon the subject of the Corn- laws has been adopted by the Cabinet. It must be seen in a very few weeks which is the liar, the Herald or the Times." The Herald apologizes for delaying this contradiction: "We could not, however, in such a case venture to act upon less than the most absolute certainty; and though we have that absolute certainty now, we had it not yesterday morning."

It will be observed that this contradiction is conveyed in a tone of special- pleading: the statement of the Times, if correct in the main, though not in each detail, might be contradicted in the terms used by the Standard and Herald, after a fashion that seems to disguise the want of specific distinct- ness, in vehemence. The Times, however, referring to the Standard—for of course the Herald had not yet reached Printing-house Square—sticks to its original statement. To understand what follows, it must be ex- plained that Punch has dubbed the Standard the "Mrs. Harris" of the press, and the Times has nicknamed the Herald the "Mrs. Gamp." It was announced yesterday by our early friend Mrs. (lamp, on the authority of her evening ally Mrs. Harris, that any contradiction of our intimation as to the intended repeal of the Corn-laws could only be obtained by the violation of Isis oath on the part of a Cabinet Minister. This violation seems to have been the work of four-and-twenty hours, if we are to believe Mrs. Harris; for the old woman herself achieved yesterday evening the following extraordinary announce- ment." [Here is quoted the Standard's counter-statement.] "Does the beldame mean that she too has succeeded in suborning a member of the Government? If THE TWINS, so aptly described by Mr. Bright at the Bath meeting, could not contradict us till they had persuaded a Minister to commit perjury, we must either infer that this immoral object has been achieved by the evil influence of Gemini, or that they have been made the dupes of some wag, who

delights in practising on their write credulity. *

"We have a very few words to say in reply to the contradiction that has been given to our statement; and these words are simply a reiteration of those that were used in our paper of Thursday. We adhere to our original announcement, that Parliament will meet early in January, and that a repeal of the Corn-laws will be proposed in one House by Sir Robert Peel, in the other by the Duke of Wellington. The result, of course, can only show who is right and who is wrong on the present occasion; but we would remind the public that this is not the first time of an authentic announcement in the Times being vehemently and errone- ously contradicted by some of its contemporaries. The determination of the pre- sent Premier and the Duke of Wellington to carry Catholic Emancipation was an- nounced as this intelligence respecting the Corn-laws is now announced, and was in the same way, in language almost as grossly scurrilous as that of THE TWINS now, declared to be a fabrication. The appointment of Sir H. Hardinge to India, the secession of Mr. Gladstone from the present Government, were facts announced by the Times, verified by events, and blunderingly or wilfully denied by the would-be organs of the Government. "We are prepared to stand by our announcement; and we do not anticipate that it will be falsified by any change in. the resolution that has been come to by the heads of the Government. They will not be overawed, we suspect, by the threat that what might have been their own Standard may be seen fluttering in the ranks of their enemies."

The Chronicle accepts the contradiction as undoubted—as readily as if it were welcome; and fires away once more at the Conservative Minister.

The Post displays a reverse process: it finds its incredulity begin to ooze from it, and is lost in perplexed hesitation betwixt belief and disbelief. "Until there be some authorized contradiction from the Government," "the opinion must needs prevail, to a very considerable extent, that such a measure is really contemplated and resolved upon by her Majesty's Ministers"; and although the Post "really cannot believe" that Government "could be guilty of so needless and so disgraceful an act of perfidy and inconsistency," on the other hand "it seems hardly credible that the Times should be guilty of the fraud and the folly of inventing and publishing so serious a falsehood." After all this is written, the journalist discovers the contradiction in the Standard, which is quoted without an expression of faith in it. Then again the original statement is spoken of doubtfully, as "true or false." But there is balm in Gilead—in Essex: a meeting is to be held at Cheltus- ford, next week, to petition Government "not to accede to the unjust and xnischievous demand of the Anti-Corn-law League."

On the present showing, we are fain to believe the Times, not only be- cause it is the better and pleasanter faith of the two, but because the reasons adduced in support of its probable authenticity are not to be dis- regarded. Meanwhile, the reversal of the strong hopes created would be disastrous and lamentable. It is true that the hopes are not untainted by fears. Timid agriculturists will be in trepidation: but their uneasiness can scarcely be increased beyond what it has been any time these two or three months, not to say two or three years or more; and it can only be finally set at rest by total removal of the point in dispute. It is true that the Funds have shown some" depression" in the City : but the obvious reasons for that are not incompatible with very hopeful prospects and feelings. Foremost, there is the Railway gambling and its reaction— an influence quite independent of the present question. Moreover, all "Ministerial crises" affect the money-market unfavourably, through the mere dread of change entertained by all capitalist classes: that rule is invariable. Then the first effect of the repeal on the money-market must be try- ing if not embarrassing: the earlier importations of corn, like all pre- vious unprepared importations, must be met by an exportation of bullion. The scarcity of itself would produce that effect; but the money-folks, who are more sensitive to immediate than to remotely prospective influences, now begin to know that there will be that inevitable exportation—they grasp their money a little harder, and the Funds are consequently "de- pressed." Even those who most desire the repeal, but take all its conse- quences into view, do not expect the measure to be free from initiatory difficulties: moneyed men of that class put a tighter hold on their purse- strings, and watch the hopeful result not without a little palpitation: it is the tremor of the patient who sees the knife bared for an operation that is to save his life. The news, we hope, is "too good to be false.

The Globe this evening discovers the probable solution of the puzzle, that two journals should so obstinately maintain seemingly opposite asser- tions: the Times did not assert that "thin decision of the Cabinet '• was taken at a formal assembly of the Cabinet, but that the determination "of the Cabinet" (meaning the chief and major part of the Cabinet) was no longer "a secret." The denial of the Standard may be understood to apply to a formal decision of the Cabinet in Council.

The Standard itself recurs to the subject; reiterating that the statement is false. But in pointing out that the Times has somewhat receded from its original position, the Standard lets escape some remarkable admissions on its own part: it seems tuiprepared to contradict the altered statement of the Times- " A few weeks will explain all; and at present it may be sufficient to remark, that though the Times pledges itself to stand by its announcement, it has already staggered from 'a decision of the Cabinet no longer a secret,' to a resolution come to by the heads if the Government; which resolution, as it intimates, may possibly be changed. • * • The Times was not at all unwilling to make a little mischief in the Cabinet if it could, and to bring the whole Cabinet under the suspicion of those to whom it owes its political existence—and who are its only firm supporters."

Another Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon. It sat an hour and three quarters.

Several of the Cabinet Ministers had interviews with Sir Robert Peel, at his residence in Whitehall Gardens, this morning.

The Standard states that the Queen will hold a Privy Council, at Wind- sor Castle, on Thursday or Friday next week ; when a proclamation will be agreed upon, appointing a day for the meeting of Parliament for the despatch of business.

Several reports are current as to differences in the Cabinet, probable re- signations, and so forth. We do not think them worth repeating.

The effect of the announcement by the Times at the Corn-Exchange yesterday, was immense surprise, not so much displeasure as might havt been expected, and an instant downward tendency in the price of grain.

Meetings to demand the opening of the ports have been held in the City Ward of Farringdon Without, at Bath, Bristol, Preston, and Warrington. The great announcement was received with general satisfaction. The temper of the London meeting cannot be better indicated than by de- scribing a formal part of the proceedings.

Mr. C. Wood moved this resolution—" That Sir Robert Peel, by not advising her Majesty immediately to assemble Parliament to consider the necessity of re- pealing the Corn-laws, had been guilty of a neglect of duty, and had rendered himself responsible to the country for the present deficiency in corn." Mr. Richard Taylor moved this other resolution as an amendment—" That this meeting ex- presses its satisfaction with Sir Robert Peel's course in reference to free trade; and begs that, since he has admitted the scarcity of food, he would advise her Majesty to repeal the Corn-laws, and thus merit the lasting gratitude of the people." The original resolution was withdrawn, and the amendment carried unanimou.sly.

At the Bristol meeting, the Chairman (Earl Dueie) took occasion to notice a remark made by some, that, let Sir Robert Peel do what he might, the credit of free trade would not be his, but Lord John Russell's: in the name of the League, Lord Ducie gave that proposition a flat denial; if Sir Robert Peel opened the ports or repealed the Corn-laws, the act would be received as emanating solely from him, the thanks solely due to him.

At Bath, however, and again at Bristol, Mr. Cobden, supposing that Sir Robert Peel must have made some bargain with his Protectionist coad- jutors, protested before hand against the smallest abatement of the thing demanded—total repeal of the Corn-laws: not a single shilling or farthing of duty should be imposed, without sound reason shown.