Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/66

34 Maryland after the Restoration. [1660-1715 of the outbreak was, however, ill-chosen. Hardly had it taken place when the news of the Restoration arrived ; and the Proprietor was able to re-establish his authority with nothing more than a show of force. The history of the colony under the restored Stewarts is uneventful, and it continued to develop a social and industrial life closely resembling that of Virginia. Its tranquillity was undisturbed save by boundary disputes, towards the end of the period, with the newly -founded colony of Pennsylvania and with Virginia. The Proprietor, Lord Baltimore, who had succeeded his father in 1675, also came into collision with the home government respecting a collector of customs appointed by the Crown, whom he first refused to assist and then illegally imprisoned, finally conniving, at least ex post facto, in his murder. For this action he was censured by the Privy Council. How completely the colony had separated itself from the creed of its founder was shown by its action at the Revolution of 1688. In every county save one the adherents of William and Mary asserted their authority unchallenged ; and a convention was established. There seems to have been no violence ; the Protestant majority and the adherents of the Proprietor both laid their case before the King. William and his advisers took the reasonable view that a settlement held by a Roman Catholic Proprietor in the very heart of the English colonial empire must be a source of danger. The political rights of the Proprietor were annulled, and Maryland was constituted a Crown colony, but without any prejudice to Baltimore's territorial position. In 1715 his son, the fourth Lord, became a Protestant. It was therefore held that his full rights revived. Such influence as that change had on the fortunes of the colony will come before us at a later stage. THE CAROLINAS. In 1629 Sir Robert, afterwards Chief Justice, Heath, obtained from the Crown a grant of land to the south of Virginia, to which, out of respect to the King, he gave the name of Carolina. Of this grant there came no practical result. In 1663 the whole land between Virginia and Florida was granted to eight patentees, among them Lord Albemarle, Sir Anthony Ashley (afterwards Lord Shaftesbury), and Sir William Berkeley. This grant not only gave to the Proprietors territorial rights and political authority, but, unlike any that had preceded it, it made provision, at least in an elementary form, for a constitution, since it provided for assemblies of freeholders with legislative powers. The settlement of Carolina was largely earned out by that indirect or, as one may call it, secondary process of colonisation which we have already seen at work in Connecticut. The colonists were drawn not solely, nor even mainly, from the mother-country, but from New England, Virginia and Barbados.