2. Sectarianism.—The Company is given the "Patronages and Advowsons" of "all" churches and chapells,—without even a restriction as to the customs of the Church of England (such as is found in the Baltimore charter). If this provision had been in the Massachusetts charter, Puritan historians would have found it certain proof of an intention to build a non-conformist state. The passage conferring authority to impose the oath of supremacy is copied from the charters of 1612 and 1629. No other sectarian restriction occurs.
3. Place of meeting.—The Company are to govern themselves and their settlement (as the Virginia Company of 1612 and the Massachusetts Bay Company) in four "General Courts" each year; but these courts are to be held "in any place or places by themselves to be appointed." (And, again, the Company is authorized to hold its courts "in any place or places convenient"). Surely, this disposes of the ancient argument that the omission of a specific place of meeting in the Massachusetts charter suggests an intention to establish some place out of England.
The facts as to a specific meeting place for a colonizing corporation in England seem to be as follows:
a. The charter of 1606 establishes two sub-companies, which necessarily are designated geographically to distinguish one from the other; and the charters of 1609, 1612, and 1620 use geographical designations, necessarily, to show to which one of those sub-companies they respectively apply.
b. But the "Plymouth Council" (charter of 1620) did not regard its geographical designation as fixing its place of meeting, or else it found it necessary to ignore the restriction. All its meetings were held, not at Plymouth, but in London.
c. The Massachusetts Bay Company was made up of two bodies of men, one from the east, one from the west of England. This fact, together with the experience of the Plymouth Council, probably made them unwilling to have a place of meeting fixed in their charter.
d. The Providence Isle charter carries this development, as suggested above, to its logical conclusion, permitting the Company itself to fix the places for its meetings. But this last Company certainly never expected to leave England. So the old argument from the omission of a specific place in the charter of the Massachusetts Company falls to the ground.
4. Law making.—In the General Courts the Company is empowered "to ordaine frames of Government, with all things thereto incident; and to make reasonable lawes ... not being contrarie to the Lawes of this our Realme of England ... for the Government of the Company ... and of all Collonyes which shall be planted ... in the said Islands ... and to appoint, by such title as they ... shall thinke good, such ... offices and officers ... for such Times and with such powers, as they shall thinke good, both for the Company here within our Realme of England and for the Collonies in the said Islands ... and the said Offices and Officers ... to alter ... and displace, and in their places, to appoint others ... and the said Lawes ... to put into execution."...
5. Admiralty jurisdiction conferred.
6. Local Government. Power to divide the territory into "Provinces, Counties ... Hundreds, Mannors," or other units, and to erect and fortify villages, etc., and to grant letters of incorporation to towns and burroughs, "with all Liberties and things unto Corporations requisite and usual within this our Realme of England"; and to set up markets; and to constitute and appoint magistrates and all manner of officers for all local units, with fit legislation for them.