We think we can readily divine what the motive was, when we read in more than one English writer what use that nation contrived to make of the fact that the discovery of the Hudson River was achieved by an Englishman. Peter Heylin, who wrote before the surrender of New Netherland in 1664, remarks: “With him [i. e. Hudson] the Hollanders, in 1609, compounded for his charts and maps; but they were hardly warm in their new Habitations,” when Argall, Governor of Virginia, disputed their title to this region, which was looked upon as part of Virginia territory. The latter advanced this ingenious argument in support of his claim; “that Hudson, under whose sale they claimed that country, being an Englishman and licensed to discover those northern parts by the King of England, could not alienate or dismember it (being but a part or province of Virginia) from the Crown thereof.” This matter of a “sale” by Hudson, which was illegal, and the subsequent “right” of the English to New Netherland, is brought out again in a book written nearly a century later, or long after the problem which was unsolved in Heylin’s time—how to get the Dutch out and the English in—had been solved by Colonel Nicolls in 1664. In this book, William Smith’s “History of New York” (1757), we read, scarcely without a smile: “Henry Hudson, an Englishman, _according to our authors_[13] in the year 1608 [sic], under a commission from the King, his master, discovered Long Island, New York, and the river which still bears his name; and afterwards sold the country, or rather his Right to the Dutch. Their writers contend that Hudson was sent out by the East India Company in 1609 to discover a northwest passage to China. It is said however, that there was a sale; and that the English objected to it, though they for some time neglected to oppose the Dutch settlement of the country.”