“Unfortunately for the professors of the Catholic religion, by the force of circumstances which it is not necessary to detail, their religious persuasions became identified, in the public mind, with opposition to the principles of the revolution.  Their political disfranchisement was the consequence.  Charles Calvert, the deposed proprietary, shared the common fate of his Catholic brethren.  Sustained and protected by the crown in the enjoyment of his mere private rights, the general jealousy of Catholic power denied him the government of the province."[423]

A knowledge of the antecedents of the master-class will aid the reader to a more accurate conception of the character of the institution of slavery in the colony of Maryland.

It is not very pleasing for the student of history at this time to remember that the British colonies in North America received into their early life the worst poison of European society,—­the criminal element.  From the first the practice of transporting convicts into the colonies obtained.  And, during the reign of George I., statutes were passed “authorizing transportation as a commutation punishment for clergyable felonies.”  These convicts were transported by private shippers, and then sold into the colony; and thus it became a gainful enterprise.  From 1700 until 1760 this nefarious and pestiferous traffic greatly increased.  At length it became, as already indicated, the subject of a special impost tax.  Three or four hundred convicts were imported into the colony annually, and the people began to complain.[424] In “The Maryland Gazette” of the 30th of July, 1767, a writer attempted to show that the convict element was not to be despised, but was rather a desirable addition to the Province.  He says,—­

“I suppose that for these last thirty years, communibus annis, there have been at least 600 convicts per year imported into this province:  and these have probably gone into 400 families.”

After answering some objections to their importation because of the contagious diseases likely to be communicated by them, he further remarks,—­

“This makes at least 400 to one, that they do no injury to the country in the way complained of:  and the people’s continuing to buy and receive them so constantly, shows plainly the general sense of the country about the matter; notwithstanding a few gentlemen seem so angry that convicts are imported here at all, and would, if they could, by spreading this terror, prevent the people’s buying them.  I confess I am one, says he, who think a young country cannot be settled, cultivated, and improved, without people of some sort:  and that it is much better for the country to receive convicts than slaves.  The wicked and bad amongst them, that come into this province, mostly run away to the northward; mix with their people, and pass for honest men:  whilst those more innocent, and who came for very small offences, serve their times out here, behave well, and become useful people.”

This attempt to justify the convict trade elicited two able and spirited replies over the signatures of “Philanthropos” and “C.D.” appearing in “Green’s Gazette” of 20th of August, 1767, in which the writer of the first article is handled “with the gloves off.”