Yet this is not all. The same Charter of 1606 expressly provides: "that all and every the Persons being our subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies or Plantations, and every of their Children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of _England_, or any other of our said Dominions." Now, if the Popham Colony was composed of convicts, how enviable their condition! The sentence of the law did not touch them, except in words! They still had all the "Liberties" of the most innocent Englishman on his native soil! They were "subjects,"--"loving subjects," as the same class of "willing" emigrants were called in the Charter of 1609. What "convicts" ever had such "Franchises and Immunities" since the world began? Their state was nothing less than perfect freedom! They were, therefore, _no convicts at all_; and so could return home safely, and with "new hopes," just as soon as they deemed the change desirable. In double confirmation of this fact, we may go to the Charter of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, which speaks of the efforts made in divers years past, in the Northern Colony, by former grantees, who had "taken actual possession of the Continent," and had "settled already some of our People in Places agreeable to their Desires in those parts." This, certainly, is very far from sustaining the opinion, that the occupants of Sagadahoc were convicts. For they were settled in a place "agreeable to their Desires," until calamities darkened all their prospects. It is worth noting here, that Lord Campbell says nothing about Popham in connection with convicts and the colony. This omission is significant. A question is proposed, with an air of confidence, as if its answer must demolish the positions of my former article. It is this: "Will 'Sabino' please point out the 'law' under which James sent off a hundred convicts in 1619, that did not exist in 1606?" The demand is adroitly made, but not pertinently. To make it touch the point, it should have been 1607. My reply is readily given.