The matter was referred by the king to the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations, who heard the complaint, and July 3, 1633, decided to "leave Lord Baltimore to his patent" and "the other partie to the course of the law."[8] This certainly meant a decision against the wholesale claim of Virginia to the ancient limits, and was deemed by Lord Baltimore as authorizing him to go on with his settlement; and his patent authorized a form of government entirely different from anything yet tried in America.
The English colonies of Virginia and Massachusetts were founded by joint-stock companies really or ostensibly for profit.

After the suppression of the London Company in 1624, the powers of government in Virginia devolved upon the king, and the government was called a crown government.

Had Charles been a Spanish or French king he would have appointed an absolute governor who would have tyrannized over the people.

But Charles, as an English king, admitted the colonists into a share of the government by permitting them to elect one of the branches of the law-making body.

This concession effectually secured the liberties of the people, for the House of Burgesses, possessing the sole right to originate laws, became in a short time the most influential factor of the government.
Baltimore's government for Maryland, on the other hand, was to be a palatinate similar to the bishopric of Durham, in England, which took its origin when border warfare with Scotland prevailed, and the king found it necessary to invest the bishop, as ruler of the county, with exceptionally high powers for the protection of the kingdom.