not
calculated to detach the affections of the people from the royal
family. Their discontents were cherished, too, by the great number of
cavaliers who had fled to Virginia after the total defeat of their
party in England. Taking advantage of an interregnum occasioned by the
sudden death of governor Matthews, the people resolved to throw off
their forced allegiance to the commonwealth, and called on Sir William
Berkeley to resume the government. He required only their solemn
promise to venture their lives and fortunes with him in support of
their King. This being readily given, Charles II. was proclaimed in
Virginia, before intelligence had been received of the death of
Cromwell. His restoration was soon afterwards effected in England; and
this rash measure not only escaped chastisement, but became a
meritorious service of which Virginia long boasted, and which was not
entirely forgotten by the Prince.[43]

[Footnote 43: Robertson. Chalmer.]

At the restoration, the colony contained about thirty thousand
persons.

One of the causes which, during the government of Harvey, had
disquieted Virginia, was the diminution of territory occasioned by
grants of great tracts of country lying within the limits of the
colony. The most remarkable of these was the grant of Maryland to Lord
Baltimore.

[Sidenote: Maryland.]

In June 1632, Charles I. granted to that nobleman for ever, "that
region bounded by a line drawn from Watkin's Point on Chesapeak bay,
to the ocean on the east; thence, to that part of the estuary of
Delaware on the north, which lieth under the 40th degree, where New
England is terminated; thence, in a right line, by the degree
aforesaid, to the meridian of the fountain of the Potowmac; thence,
following its course, by the farther bank to its confluence." The
territory described in this grant was denominated Maryland, and was
separated entirely from Virginia. The proprietor was empowered, with
the assent of the freemen, or their delegates, whom he was required to
assemble for that purpose, to make all laws for the government of the
new colony, not inconsistent with the laws of England. Privileges, in
other respects analogous to those given to the other colonies, were
comprised in this charter; and it is remarkable that it contains no
clause obliging the proprietary to submit the laws which might be
enacted to the King, for his approbation or dissent; nor any
reservation of the right of the crown to in