English law and did not affect the life or property of any
person. And to encourage "men well borne" to settle in
the colony he could "invest them with what titles and
dignities...as he shall thinke fit (so long as they be not
as are now used in England)."

   There were three main protections for the settlers
against the tyranny of such a prince. Only with the ad-
vice and consent of an assembly of freemen—in Avalon,
freeholders—could he pass a law, although the manner
of calling such an assembly was left to his will. The laws
were to be "as neere as conveniently may be agreeable
to the Laws, Statutes, Customes, and Rights of this our
Kingdome of England." Finally, the settlers were to be
considered English subjects with "all Liberties, Fran-
chises, and Privileges of this our Kingdome of
England." On the other hand, no appeal from the pro-
prietary courts or any crown review of colony laws was
provided, and any future doubts about the meaning of
any part of the charter were to be settled in the pro-
prietor's favor so long as the Christian religion and
allegiance to the crown were not prejudiced.

   By the time Lord Baltimore asked for the Maryland
grant, he had as one of his objectives the establishment
of a Catholic refuge in his new colony. Perhaps for this
reason he obtained changes for the Maryland charter
that further strengthened his position. First, a power
implied for the Avalon proprietor by the bishop of
Durham clause was made explicit in the Maryland
charter. This was the power to subgrant land to be held
of the proprietor, not the crown, with the privilege of
erecting manorial courts—that is, courts held in the
name of the landowner. The charter both specified these
powers and expressly exempted the proprietor from the
thirteenth-century statute that forbade them except in

                      [xv]