“His remarks [says Philanthropos] remind me of the observation of a great philosopher, who alleges that there is a certain race of men of so selfish a cast, that they would even set a neighbour’s house on fire, for the convenience of roasting an egg at the blaze.  That these are not the reveries of fanciful speculatists, the author now under consideration is in a great measure a proof; for who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit?  And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any sort eligible for peopling a young country?”

In another part of his reply he remarks,—­

“In confining the indignation because of their importation to a few, and representing that the general sense of the people is in favor of this vile importation, he is guilty of the most shameful misrepresentation and the grossest calumny upon the whole province.  What opinion must our mother country, and our sister colonies, entertain of our virtue, when they see it confidently asserted in the Maryland Gazette, that we are fond of peopling our country with the most abandoned profligates in the universe?  Is this the way to purge ourselves from that false and bitter reproach, so commonly thrown upon us, that we are the descendants of convicts? As far as it has lain in my way to be acquainted with the general sentiments of the people upon this subject, I solemnly declare, that the most discerning and judicious amongst them esteem it the greatest grievance imposed upon us by our mother country.”

The writer felt that a young country could not be settled “without people of some sort,” and that it was better to secure “convicts than slaves.”  Upon what grounds precisely this defender of buying convict labor based his conclusion that he would rather have “convicts than slaves” is not known.  It could not have been that he believed the convicts of England more industrious or skilful than Negro slaves?  Or, had he theoretical objections to slavery as a permanent institution?  Perhaps the writer had himself graduated from the criminal class!  But there were gentlemen who differed with him, and couched their objections to the convict system of importation in very vigorous English.  On the 20th of August, 1767, two articles appeared in “Greene’s Gazette.”  Says one of these writers,—­

“For who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit?  And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts