the recognition. England and France united in a declaration that they "engage, reciprocally, to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state, and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed." The government of the United States was invited to join in this declaration but declined under its general policy of avoiding complications with European powers.1

While these negotiations were having such a satisfactory conclusion, the fourth attempt at the overthrow of the island government was being made at Honolulu. The British consul, Mr. Charlton, who had been in controversy over certain claims which he was urging upon the government, left Honolulu without notice and laid his grievances before the commander of the nearest British vessel. Her Majesty's ship Carysfort, Lord George Paulet commanding, made her appearance in the harbor of Honolulu in February, 1843. Finding the king absent, Lord Paulet informed the governor of Oahu that he had come to ask reparation, for certain insults offered to her Majesty's representatives and for injuries to her subjects, and requested that the king be immediately notified to return. On his arrival an unsatisfactory correspondence ensued, which ended in a written demand being made upon the king for his immediate compliance with a series of stipulations, unjust in their nature and entirely subversive of his authority.

In view of the threatening attitude of the British commander and of the inability of the king to accede 1 Bingham, 606; For. Rel. 1894, App. ii. 64, 105.

to the stipulations, the latter, upon advice of his council, determined to cede temporarily the possession of the islands to the British commander, and appeal to the queen of Great Britain for the restoration of his rights. Thereupon Lord Paulet accepted the cession, took charge of the government under a commission nominated by himself, pulled down the Hawaiian flag and raised the British standard in its place over the forts and public buildings, and organized a native regiment, called the "Queen's Own," officered by British subjects and paid out of the Hawaiian treasury, but required to take an oath of allegiance to the queen.

The king sent letters to the queen of Great Britain and the President of the United States, appealing to them to restore him to his throne, and issued the following pathetic proclamation: "Where are you, chiefs, people, and commons from my ancestor, and people from foreign lands? Hear ye! Hear ye! I make known to you that I am in perplexity by reason of difficulties into which I have been brought without cause; therefore I have given away the life of our land, hear ye! But my rule over you, my people, and your privileges will continue, for I have hope that the life of the land will be restored when my conduct shall be justified."

The British occupation took place February 25, 1843, and early in July, Commodore Kearny, in command of the United States ship Constellation, anchored at Honolulu, en route to the United States from Canton, China, where he had rendered valuable service to his country. As soon as he had informed himself of the situation, he sent a vigorous protest to the authorities

against the cession, and every act and measure connected with it, and held them responsible for all injuries that might result therefrom to American citizens or their interests. Meanwhile the commander of the British naval forces in the Pacific, Admiral Thomas, having received intelligence of Paulet's action, reached the islands on July 26, and immediately upon becoming possessed of the facts, disavowed the act, and proceeded to make restoration. In order that the disavowal should be as public as possible, he arranged for a large military display, took the king with him in a carriage to the public square, and in the presence of the people restored him to power, supplanted the British with the Hawaiian flag, and caused it to be saluted by all the forts and vessels in the harbor.

For this act of justice so cordially rendered, Admiral Thomas has been held in high esteem by the Hawaiian people. As soon as the intelligence reached the British government, the act of annexation was publicly disavowed, and the British minister in Washington made the fact known to the Secretary of State in the most emphatic terms. On the return of the Hawaiian commissioners from Europe to the United States, on their way to the islands, they found that Congress had authorized the appointment of a diplomatic agent, that he had already repaired to his post, and had been received by Kamehameha III. Thus did it seem as if the Hawaiian government was at last established upon a stable basis, with the recognition and support of the great maritime powers of the world.1

1 For. Rel. 1894, App. ii. 9, 45-60; Bingham, 592; Hopkins, chaps. xviii. and xix.

young and

But there were trials yet in store for the feeble member of the family of nations. The treaty which the French naval commander had forced upon the king in 1839, at the cannon's mouth, contained two objectionable clauses- the first, that no Frenchman should be tried on a criminal charge except by a jury of foreigners proposed by the French consul; and the second, that all French goods should be admitted at a duty of not more than 5 The British govcent. per ernment having made demand in 1844 for like terms, the Hawaiian king was forced to grant them. It was most unfortunate that these two treaties, obtained by constraint, should be made the occasion of a serious disagreement with the diplomatic representative of the United States, whose coming had been hailed with so much satisfaction. A case of rape on the part of an American citizen arose, and Mr. Brown, the United States commissioner (diplomatic representative), intervened, and, under the terms of the treaty with France and Great Britain, claimed the right to demand a trial by a foreign jury, but the Hawaiian authorities proceeded without granting his demand. They were clearly in the wrong, and although justifying themselves on technical grounds, their action was undoubtedly provoked by Mr. Brown's domineering and insulting conduct. He was sustained by the Secretary of State, but at the request of the Hawaiian government he was recalled and a new commissioner appointed.1

This incident directed attention to the unsatisfactory state of the treaty relations with foreign powers. While both England and France had recognized the 1 For. Rel. 1894, App. ii. 11, 38, 65, 66.

independence of the government, their treaties placed it in a dependent or restrained position relative to judicial procedure, the tariff, and the temperance laws. No treaty had been made with the United States since the unratified agreement of 1826, which was still recognized as binding by the island government, but it was very imperfect in its provisions. The Secretary of State, therefore, addressed himself to the task of making a treaty which would in all respects place Hawaii on an equal footing with all other Christian powers. Authority was conferred upon the new commissioner of the United States, Mr. Ten Eyck, to negotiate, and a lengthy correspondence ensued with the Hawaiian foreign office, but as the American plenipotentiary insisted upon clauses similar to the objectionable ones in the British and French treaties, no agreement was reached. Meanwhile Mr. Ten Eyck, having become unacceptable to both his own government and that of Hawaii, was recalled, and the negotiations transferred to Washington, where a treaty was signed December 20, 1849, between Secretary Clayton and John J. Jarves, special commissioner of Hawaii. This treaty was free from the objectionable clauses referred to, and was similar in its provisions to those negotiated by the United States with other Christian nations. It remained in force during all the subsequent existence of the Hawaiian government, and its terms were ultimately accepted by Great Britain and France. Thus for a second time was the United States successful in its support of the claims of this new nation to complete autonomy.1

1 For. Rel. 1894, App. ii. 12, 13, 69, 79.