The Sun. — 1866-05-14 (London, England)

COUNTRY MARKETS.  NORWICH- SATURDAY.  The present state of the money market caused the wheat trade to be less buoyant than it probably would have been, as many buyers refrained from operating ; still in the transactions which took place au advance of is per qr was established for all good qualities. The weather has been very stormy during the week, with a low temperature for the season ; still vegetation is progressing favourably. • •  White wheat (weighing 641 b), 50s to 51s ; old red aitto (weighing 651 b), 48s to 50s ; new red ditto (weighing 601 b to 631 b), 42s to 47s ; best malting barley (weighing 521 b to 531 b), 36s to 38s ; runs ditto (weighing 511 b to 521 b), 34s to 36s ; distilling ditto (weighing 501 b to 521 b), 30s to 32s ; oats, 24s to 26s ; beans, 57s to 39s ; peas (maple), 365 to 38s per qr. Flour, 31s per sack.  with the rest of Europe had been paralysed. The pressure of this debt and the demands of the country for supplies from abroad, together with the spirit of speculation that revived with the return of peace, drained the country of a large amount of specie. Years of depression, revulsion, and intense suffering among the mass of the people followed as a natural consequence. Now, suppose England had possessed in 1815 the same amount of cotton we found, or that she had suddenly discovered three or four hundred millions in gold, which would have been the same thing, how easily, comparatively, she would have passed through her troubles." The New York Tribune, of April 28, says :—The New York Times saw fit, last Wednesday, to lay down the following fundamental basis of reconstruction :—‘, If there is anything fundamental in free institutions, it is the principle that all States and all people that are required to obey the laws shall be represented in the Congress which makes them. A Government which denies or discards this principle is a despotism—we care not what may be its form, nor under what pretext it may cloak its tyranny. Unless this is true, then the whole theory of free institutions, of self-government, of representative republics, is a cheat and a sham." Sincerely desirous of an early and complete restoration of the States lately in revolt to their former and proper relations to the Union and to the steadfastly loyal States, we hailed the above as wise and just, and offered to unite upon and abide by it, without cavil or reservati on. W e urged the Times, and those with whom it is in general accord, to unite with us on that basis, and put an end to the existing complication —closing with this question :—" Is the Times ready to pledge itself to a hearty and consistent support, without condition or reservation, of this great, comprehensive principle ?" The Times gives no response to this respectful inquiry, but has, instead thereof, a tirade against Mr. Wendell Phillips and what is termed " the Radical Programme," which is set forth as follows :—" We apprehend that, when they can get their courage up to the stickingpoint,' this is precisely the course which the Radicals in Congress will endeavour to pursue Universal negro suffrage' as the condition sine .qua non of the Restoration of the Union, is now, and has been from the beginning of the session, the grand goal and object of all their efforts. They have cloaked it more or less, partly from policy and partly from fear ; but the time is drawing nigh when they can cloak it no longer. . . . All the talk and all the excitement that has been raised about Constitutional Amepdmeats, equality of civil rights, status of the Rebel States, &c., has been simply dust thrown in the eyes of the public to cover the approach to the grand, fundamental, indispensable principle of universal negro suffrage, as the condition without which no Southern State should ever again be admitted to the Union. This is the secret of all the elaborate legal endeavours to prove that the Union is destroyed—that the States went out of it, and that they can get back only on such conditions as Congress may prescribe. This is the reason why Stevens proclaimed them conquered States, deprived of all rights, excluded from the protection of the Constitution, and to be dealt with as conquered subjects, at the sovereign will and pleasure of the conquerors. This was the object of Mr. Shellabarger's studied legal argument in support of the doctrine of State suicide, and of his more recent effort to prove that, even if the rebel States are in the Union, they may rightly be held to have forfeited all the rights of citizenship under the Constitution. The feebler but still more zealous efforts of Hart, Ward, Holmes, and other Radical members from this State, have all aimed at the same thing— namely, to lay a foundation for demanding, at the hands of the South, universal negro suffrage as the condition of restoration." We judge that the above is inspired by another mind and penned by another hand than those who so justly set forth, in the same editorial column, " the principle" " fundamental in free institutions," only two days before. Possibly, the two may somehow be reconciled ; if so, we would like to see the feat attempted by the subtle genius of the Times. Let us have a clear understanding of terms. If by " universal negro suffrage" is meant that every negro shall vote, we favour no such proposition. We do not deem it best that even every white male adult citizen shall vote ; then why every black one ? Felons, idiots, lunatics, and many other classes are, for good reasons, excluded from the electoral body. What we contemplate and advocate as impartial suffrage implies only that no black man shall be debarred fr3m voting for any reason that does not likewise disfranchise a white man. This is precisely what we demand and insist on. Does the Times assent to it? If ,so, there is no ground of substantial difference between us. If it does not, then its harping on " universal negro suffrage" is vague and misleading. There is a large proportion of the American people who have forfeited their political rights by rebellion and treason. There is another large portion who, having mainly been slaves till recently, have not yet been politically enfranchised. We propose that the political disabilities under which these two classes now labour shall be at once and absolutely removed, so that no man shall henceforth -be disfranchised in any State because of his colour or because he has been a rebel. Why is not this just, fair, wise, nay even generous ? If the Republic can wholly forgive and restore to every forfeited right those who desperately sought her life, why may she not treat with equal favour those whose only offence is their colour—who are poor and ignorant only because they have been