But as the Province was rest')red by the Dutch to England as a conquest under a treaty and a formal surrender of it pursuant to such treaty, the crown lawyers in England held that the Dutch I'econquest in 1673 terminated the Duke's Proprietorship; and that the renamed Province of New Netherland was vested anew in Charles the Second as King solely by the treaty of Westminster in 1674. Therefore a new Patent was granted by the King to the Duke on the 29th of June, 1674. It was almost in the same words as the first, vesting him again with the same sweeping and absolute rights and powers, but not mentioning the first Patent nor referring to it in any way. The object of this second Patent was to cure the defect in the first, that it was signed, sealed, and delivered, while the Dutch were in actual possession of the teiTitory it described, and therefore it was, by the law of England, void; and was not subsequently confirmed by Charles the Second after the title was really vested in him in 1677, by the treaty of Breda. Had Charles made such a confirmation, no second Patent would have been required.

The new Patent of 1674, on its face was an original grant, but in fact it simply revested the Duke with all the rights, powers, jurisdiction and territory he possessed under the Patent of 1664.

These facts are distinctly stated, because the validity of the confirmations of all Dutch groundbriefs, transports, and other grants, and all subsequent English grants during the Proprietorship of the Duke of York, and the later Royal Government, as well as those originally made by Connecticut authorities on Long Island, and subsequently confirmed by the Duke, rests upon them.