Hcre is some more Eugflisli evidence R8 to the benelieiont effect of tree trarte on the nener.il wea!th of tlie nation. Says S!r Kdward Sulliyim n h recent article in the London Post: Under free trade the masse raust getpoorer, l,v;, uso tliey gel Icss employineut. A welli.miwii statlstlcal work givesa cumparlBou of llie material progross of Franco under protectlnu and England under frce trade. If llu-iv ts any tl u tli in figures lt ouyht tQStarlle us Trom our free trade dream. The eenpari) m Is baed on the returns of Ickii'.v duty: In 18-26 Kngland was lOs. a head rlcher than Frunce. In law England was 19s. a head rlcher than Francr. In 1877 Englaud was 5s. a head poorer than Franoe. Franco has 57 per oent of her land under tl llage and lt la IncreaulnK every year. The United Kingdora has 30 per cent of land under tlllage, and lt Is iliinlnUlilnu every year; but tüe populatloa of Kngland Increases mueh more rapldly than the populatlou of France. The commeroe of England has lncreated 21 percent In teo year. The commarce of France has lucreased 3 per cent In ton yoars. The ooramerce of the United States has In" creaaed )¦ per oent In tn yearü. The commeroe of the whole world has lncreaijed X per cent in leu years. Sn miui-Ii lor the blasllug effect of free tradeThia is not (lio utteraiioe of a "robber baron,1' bccause robber burons ure, ua it woiild us belicve, tli creatlons f "au Inii(iiit(ii8 ystem of iirotectinn " it is the wuil of a vietim of free tralie.