actment of a law whereby only those possessing freeholds of 50 acres, or other property worth £40, could claim the rights of suffrage. This created some little excitement, and at the same time the people were wrought up over the boundary dispute with Penn and the Navigation Act, which compelled the planters to sell their tobacco in English ports only. Moreover, the majority of the Protestants were members of the Church of England and bitter against the Puritans and other Dissenters as well as Catholics, and they thought the toleration act impious. The time was ripe therefore for a revolt, and Josiah Fendall, the former governor, took the lead in the matter. Having already had some experience in civil strife of this nature, he intrigued with a retired clergyman, John Coode, and obtained also the aid of some Virginians, but the proprietor hastened his return and shortly succeeded in putting an end to the insurrection. Fendall was then arrested, and upon his trial was found guilty of sedition and banished.*

The accession of James II. was by no means favorable to Baltimore. On the contrary, James was much disposed in favor of William Penn, and when Baltimore began his quarrel over the boundaries between Maryland and Pennsylvania, he compelled to yield to the claim

was

* Browne, Maryland, p. 132; Bancroft, vol. i., p. 439 et seq.

of Penn.* Shortly after this, the king exhibited further hostility to Baltimore, when despite his remonstrances and appeals, he issued a writ of quo warranto against the Maryland charter. In 1688, therefore, Baltimore went to England to defend his rights, but before the dispute had been settled, James II. abandoned the throne, and all colonial matters were on an entirely different basis.

The news of the accession of William and Mary reached Virginia first of all the colonies, but the Council were slow to act upon it, in spite of the wishes of the people who feared a Catholic dynasty, and it was not until May, 1689, that William and Mary were proclaimed the "lord and lady of Virginia." At the same time, there was considerable commotion in Maryland against the Roman Catholics. This afterward become known as the "Protestant Revolution." It had been rumored that those in authority had secretly combined with the Indians with whom a treaty of peace had been renewed in Marchto massacre all the Protestants,† and

For details of which see Browne, Maryland, pp. 133-144; The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., pp. 164-165.

Hildreth, vol. ii., p. 115. "The history of the Protestant revolution in 1689 has never yet been fully written. But there is evidence upon the records of the English government to show it was the result of a panic, produced by one of the most dishonorable falsehoods which has ever disgraced any religious or any political party by the story, in a few words, that the Roman Catholics had formed a conspiracy with the Indians to massacre the Protestants!" George L. L. Davis, Day-Star of American Freedom, p. 87.

-

in April, 1689, under the leadership

of John Coode, who had been associated with Fendall in his insurrection, organized the "Association for the Defence of the Protestant Religion." General dissatisfaction had been caused by the delay of the council in proclaiming William and Mary, and as this dissatisfaction grew and the longer the council delayed, the greater were Coode's chances of success. A convention called by Coode and his confederates met in August and proceeded to depose Lord Baltimore and to proclaim the new king and queen. They also adopted an address congratulating William and Mary, and as William seemed to favor the insurrectionists, Maryland for the next three years was forced to undergo all the hardships of a provincial government. As Chalmers says, "William did not reflect, because his mind was occupied only with schemes of influence and conquest; that in order to gain present

381

In

power, he gave his assent to transactions, which, while they deprived an individual of his rights contrary to law, engendered a spirit of revolt, that, in after times, would shake the throne on which he then sat."* 1691, the king declared Maryland under the government of the crown, but the proprietary rights of Charles, Lord Baltimore, were not disturbed. The king confirmed his "quit-rents, his ownership of vacant lands, his port duty of fourteen pence per ton on all foreign vessels trading to the province, and his one-half of the tobacco duty of two shillings per hogshead," thereby reducing Baltimore to a simple trader and landlord.

*Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, vol. i., p. 205. See also F. E. Sparks, Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689, in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series xiv., nos. xi.-xii.; Browne, Maryland, pp. 150-156; Fiske, Old Virginia, vol. ii., pp. 159-162; Doyle, English Colonies in America, vol. i., pp. 314-323; Hildreth, vol. ii., p. 117 et seq.

visions of the charter The "Grand Model

ists Governors of Carolina

caneers

Up to this time neither France nor Spain had succeeded in making any permanent settlements of value in the region now included in the States of

VOL. I.-25

North Carolina and South Carolina, although neither country had relinquished its claims to the territory. Small settlements had been made

here and there along the coast, but further than that no progress had been made. Raleigh and Gilbert had produced no permanent results by their efforts at colonization, nor did the patent which was granted by Charles I. in 1630 to Sir Robert Heath* for a tract to the southward of Virginia, to be called Carolana, lead to any permanent settlement. Subsequently the Heath patent was declared void by an order in council, August 12, 1663,† as the conditions under which it had been granted had not been fulfilled. During the next fifteen or twenty years various bands of emigrants settled in the region. In 1653 a number of people, suffering from the religious intolerance in Virginia, and under the leadership of Roger Greene, fled from that colony and settled on the banks of the Chowan, north of Albemarle Sound. Greene had obtained a grant of 10,000 acres for the first one hundred persons who should settle on Roanoke River, south of Chowan and 1,000 acres for himself, "as a reward for his own discovery and for his en

*North Carolina Records, vol. i., p. 5.

Shaftsbury Papers, Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, vol. v., p. 9. That the revocation of the Heath patent was illegal is evidenced by the facts that the claims of Daniel Coxe of New Jersey (who had come into possession of the rights existing under the patent) were twice acknowledged to be valid by the Board of Trade, and that in 1768 the heirs of Coxe, in settlement of their claims, received 100,000 acres in Tioga and Oneida counties, New York. North Carolina Records, vol. i., p. 519; New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii., p. 414.

couragement of the settlement."* This became the nucleus of North Carolina. In 1662 Greene was followed by George Durant (generally called a Quaker, although he evidently was not†) who began a settlement in the Perquimans precinct, just east of Chowan. About 1660 a party of adventurers from New England settled near the mouth of Cape Fear River, but as the land was not productive, and the neighboring Indians were not well disposed, in 1663 the greater part of these emigrants returned home. Upon departing they affixed to a post a "scandalous writ ing, the contents whereof tended not only to disparagement of the land about the said river, but also to the great discouragement of all such as should hereafter come into these parts to settle." Those who remained soon fell into great distress, and in 1667, upon representation of their condition to the Massachusetts colony, contributions of all kinds were sent to their relief.t

Shortly after the Restoration, a body of noblemen, among whom were Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon), George Monk (Duke of Albemarle), Lord John Berkeley, Lord Craven, Anthony Ashley Cooper (afterward

*The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., p. 414.

See Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery. p. 33.

Lawson, A Description of North Carolina, pp. 72-74; Bancroft, vol. i., p. 409; Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 260, footnote; Hawks, History of North Carolina, vol. ii., p. 72.

Earl of Shaftesbury), Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia, excited by "a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Gospel, begged a certain country in the parts of America not yet cultivated and planted, and only inhabited by some barbarous people, who have no knowledge of God." In March, 1663, Charles II. granted their petition for some territory south of the Chesapeake, and erected a province called Carolina, which embraced the region between 31° and 36° N. Lat., or from Albemarle Sound, southward to the St. John's River, and westward to the Pacific.† Under this charter the proprietaries were empowered to enact and publish any laws which they should judge necessary, with the assent, advice, and approbation of the freemen of the colony; to erect courts of judicature, and appoint civil judges, magistrates and officers; to erect forts, castles, cities and towns; to make war, and, in cases of necessity, to exercise martial law; to build harbors, make ports

* Of the original grantees, Colleton died in 1666, Albemarle in 1669, and Clarendon in 1674. John

Berkeley after five years took no interest in the affairs of the colony and Cooper seems to have been the only one who devoted himself seriously ao the work of colonization, and he for only a limited period. The Earl of Craven survived all the other grantees.― McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government, p. 268.

The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., p. 421. For text see Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. v., pp. 2743-2753; N. C. Col. Recs., vol. i., pp. 20-33. See also Appendix at the end of the present chapter.

383

and enjoy customs and subsidies, imposed with the consent of the freemen, on goods loaded and unloaded. One of the provisions of this charter deserves particular notice. The king authorized the proprietaries to allow the inhabitants of the province such indulgences and dispensations in religious affairs as they should think proper and reasonable; and no person to whom such liberty should. be granted was to be molested, punished, or called in question for opinions concerning religion, provided such person did not disturb the civil order and peace of the community.*

To those persons from New England and Virginia who had already settled in the territory, the proprietaries offered liberal terms as an inducement to stay, allowing 100 acres of land to every free settler, liberty of conscience and a share in the government. But the colony at Cape Fear, in spite of these liberal terms, did not prove successful, nor were further emigrants from New England attracted to the new province.

The territory which the Virginians had settled, together with the surrounding county, was named Albemarle, and as the Virginians were supposed to be somewhat more facile

*In 1665 the charter was recast, the only difference being that the limits of the territory were extended and more precisely defined.

Hildreth, vol. ii., p. 26. For text of the proposals of the Proprietors to settlers, see Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. v., pp. 27532756; N. C. Col. Recs., vol. i., pp. 43-46.

than the New Englanders, Berkeley received instructions to be somewhat less liberal in his concessions. The latter had been placed in command of the territory in 1664, and as he was better able to judge of the temper of the Virginians than the proprietaries, he deemed it expedient to act with extreme caution toward the Virginians. He therefore made the tenure of land as easy as possible, consistent with instructions from the proprietaries. To the governorship was appointed William Drummond Drummond (the same man who later participated in Bacon's rebellion) and thereafter Berkeley made no attempt to interfere with the concerns of the settlers. Regarding the spiritual interests of the colonists, the proprietaries made no provision, nor was any attempt made to convert the Indians, although the propagation of the Gospel had been one of the professed objects in asking a grant of territory.*

An agreement was now entered into between the proprietaries and some planters from Barbadoes, that the latter should remove to the Cape Fear River, near the settlement which had been neglected and abandoned by the New Englanders.† This territory was named Clarendon, and in May, 1665, Sir John Yeamans was appointed to the governorship of the

new district. Among his instructions was one to make things easy to the people of New England, from which the greatest emigrations were expected "; and so wisely did Yeamans carry out his instructions that the remains of the old settlement were soon incorporated with the Clarendon colony. Yeamans also opened a profitable trade in boards and shingles with Barbadoes, and conducted his affairs in relation to the colony with remarkable prudence and a fair measure of success. The settlement was afterward absorbed by that of the English at Charlestown, which finally grew into South Carolina.*

Upon receiving reports of conditions in Carolina, and upon further acquaintance with the geography of that region, the proprietaries became anxious to acquire still further territory. In June, 1665, therefore, they succeeded in obtaining a second chartert which extended the limits of Carolina southward two degrees and northward thirty minutes, and by an additional grant in 1667, the Bahama Islands were also conveyed to the same proprietaries. The settlement at Albemarle continued to receive accessions from Virginia and New England, and in 1669, under Samuel Stephens, who succeeded Drummond as governor, the first laws were en

See Doyle, English Colonies, vol. i., p. 351. See also John Lawson, Description of North Carolina; Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 411-412.

For text see Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. v., pp. 2761-2771; N. C. Col. Recs., vol. i., pp. 102-114.