In 1843, the Hawaiian Kingdom stood as a strategically vital point in the Pacific, a nexus of imperial ambitions of competing British, French and American interests. Responding to a series of complaints from British residents and officials on the island chain, the Foreign Office dispatched George Paulet to investigate their grievances. The most prominent claim came from British consul, Richard Charlton, whose long standing claim to land on Honolulu had already strained relations between the British and Hawaiin governments. Charlton maintained that the lease he had negotiated with Chief Minister Kalanimoku in 1826 was legally binding, whereas the Hawaiian authorities rejected it under their own laws and annulled the agreement. To Charlton, this represented a violation of his rights; to the Hawaiian government, it was simply the proper enforcement of local legal principles. Although Paulet’s instructions from London were limited to inquiry and report, he aligned himself with Charlton’s position and chose to intervene directly. This decision set in motion a chain of events that would profoundly shape Hawaiian history.
On 25 February 1843, Paulet declared the Hawaiian archipelago a British protectorate. The Union Jack was raised over government buildings and the Hawaiian flag was removed. Cornered by Paulet’s demands, Kamehameha III reluctantly signed a cession document under clear duress. Although Paulet claimed to be protecting British subjects, the reality was the unlawful seizure of a sovereign nation. For the next five months, he administered the islands as if they were a formal British colony. Customs revenues were redirected, British statutes superseded Hawaiian law and Hawaiian officials were dismissed or marginalised. Missionaries, foreign residents and Native Hawaiians protested, but their objections carried little weight. Forced from Honolulu, Kamehameha III issued a declaration that would later become central to Hawaiian identity: Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono, meaning “The life of the land is preserved in righteousness”. The phrase captured the kingdom’s determination to preserve its sovereignty in the face of imperial pressure.
News of Paulet’s occupation alarmed officials in London, who had neither ordered nor desired the annexation of the islands. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Aberdeen, reaffirmed that Hawaii should remain an independent state with open trade to all nations. Paulet had acted far beyond his authority, and steps were taken to reverse the situation. Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas was sent to the islands and arrived in July 1843. After reviewing Paulet’s actions, Thomas declared the occupation unlawful and prepared to restore the kingdom’s independence. On 31 July, he formally returned authority to Kamehameha III. Before thousands of gathered Hawaiians, the Union Jack was lowered and the Hawaiian flag raised once more. Thomas issued a public apology on behalf of Britain. The event became known as Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea, or Restoration Day, which is still commemorated annually as a celebration of Hawaiian autonomy.
Although the occupation lasted only six months, the Paulet Affair had lasting consequences. For Britain, it highlighted the dangers inherent in granting officers wide discretion in distant territories, something demonstrated all too clearly by Paulet’s rash conduct. For Hawaii, the incident exposed the kingdom’s vulnerability and its precarious position in global politics. Kamehameha III recognised that survival depended on astute diplomacy rather than military force. After the restoration, he dispatched envoys to secure formal international recognition of Hawaiian independence. By November 1843, Britain and France had jointly recognised Hawaii as a sovereign state, and the United States followed soon afterwards. The kingdom’s endurance owed much to this strategic diplomatic engagement.
The episode also illustrates the tension between personal ambition and sound judgement among imperial officers of the era. Paulet’s seizure of the islands did not arise from strategic calculation; it was the product of pride, impatience and an exaggerated sense of authority. The Hawaiian Kingdom, by contrast, demonstrated that a small state, guided by diplomatic skill and principled leadership, could resist imperial pressure. Kamehameha III’s preference for negotiation over confrontation strengthened his legitimacy at home and enhanced the kingdom’s standing abroad. Paulet returned to Britain in disgrace, whereas Admiral Thomas was praised for his restraint and integrity.
Ultimately, the Paulet Affair was a moment of both danger and resilience. Britain’s sudden and heavy-handed intervention revealed the Hawaiian Kingdom’s fragility, yet the subsequent restoration demonstrated that careful diplomacy, reasoned negotiation and international support could safeguard independence. The legacy of 1843 endures not only in the continued celebration of Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea but also in the lasting importance of the principle articulated by Kamehameha III: that the life of the land is preserved in righteousness.
–
Kaʻiwakīloumoku – Hawaiian Cultural Center. “Paulet Episode, 1843.” https://kaiwakiloumoku.ksbe.edu/article/historical-snapshots-paulet-episode-1843
Hawaiʻi State Archives. “The Charlton Land Claim.” https://ags.hawaii.gov/archives/online-exhibitions/centennial-exhibit/kekauluohi/the-charlton-land-claim/
Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. “Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawai‘i.” https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1894app2/d2a
MoneyWeek. “25 February 1843: Hawaii Occupied During the Paulet Affair.” https://moneyweek.com/428138/25-february-1843-hawaii-occupied-during-the-paulet-affair
García, J. M. (2010). “Who Is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition?” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, University of Hawaiʻi. https://manoa.hawaii.edu/aplpj/wp-content/uploads/sites/120/2011/11/APLPJ_11.2_garcia.pdf