was 'disgraceful to suffer' the Act of 1699 'to remain in the Statute Book' as circumstances had so much changed. This disproportion increased; and the 12,000 inhabitants of 1764-74 swelled to 17,000 in 1792, 20,000 in 1804, and 52,000 in 1822, without any corresponding increase on the part of those who appeared every spring and faded away every autumn, like leaves or flowers."[33] * * * * * FOOTNOTES: [30] Quoted in Egerton's "History of British Colonial Policy." [31] But see the end of the present chapter in regard to the character and fluctuations of the population. [32] For example, in 1745, 1746, 1757. [33] Rogers, _op. cit._, pp. 122-123, 137-138. CHAPTER VI THE ENGLISH COLONIAL SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS The War of American Independence forms a convenient point at which to examine for a moment in passing the English colonial system, of which Newfoundland was in some sense a victim. It may then at once be stated that in the English view, as in the Spanish view, a "plantation" was expected, directly or indirectly, to contribute to the wealth of the Mother Country. If it contributed much, it was a good colony; if little, its consequence was less. Hence the English legislation throttling colonial manufacturers in the supposed interests of English merchants, and confining colonial trade to English channels. Hence the disregard, persistent and unashamed, of Adam Smith's immortal saying: "To prohibit a great people from making all that they can of every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and industry in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." Long before Smith, the wisest of Englishmen had sounded a clear note of warning far in advance of his age. Bacon wrote in his essay on plantations: "Let there be freedom from custom, till the plantation be of strength: and not only freedom from custom, but freedom to carry their commodities where they make their best of them, except there be some special cause of caution."