One event in Australian history that is almost invisible in Australian consciousness – is the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 and events that happened surrounding this treaty. One reason this treaty is of particular interest to me is because it is a potential source of part of the domestic terra nullius doctrine.

In a recent post about the right of preemption, I wrote;

 the British Crown then sat back and did next to nothing while the governors in continental New South Wales handed out stolen land titles

But this treaty, which happened before the Bourke Proclamation (1835), may put another perspective on this.

The British Crown may have not stolen the land titles, but acquired them by conquest of the Dutch colony.

Here is a timeline of some relevant events;

1824
17 March	Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824/Treaty of London. British agree to not enter into any treaties with rulers in any island south of the strait of Singapore
14 May	George Arthur took up post in Van Diemen’s Land (then a penal colony). Violence increased and Aboriginal people were driven out by the “Black Line” over the next decade.
14 August	Martial law declared by Governor Brisbane west of the Blue Mountains (vs. Wiradjuri. or vs. Dutch?)
24 August	Fort Dundas expedition leaves Port Jackson (Sydney)
21 October	Fort Dundas proclaimed
11 December	Martial law west of Blue Mountains repealed
1825
1 March	Property settlement date of 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty
16 July	NSW border moved westward from 135E to 129E to fit Fort Dundas (to the current WA border)
3 December	Van Diemen’s land proclaimed a colony
1827	Swan river colony explored, military garrison set up at Albany.  January 21, 1827, the whole of Australia was finally claimed as British territory when Major Lockyer formally annexed the western portion of the continent in a ceremony on King George Sound.
1828 November	Martial law declared in Van Diemen’s land (for 3 years). Martial law against Dutch claim?
1829	Swan river colony established.
1829 April	Fort Dundas abandoned

Just a bit of background for context…

When Cook proclaimed possession on Possession Island on 22 August 1770, he explicitly acknowledged the Dutch discovery claim on the remainder of New Holland.

Having satisfied myself of the great Probabillity of a Passage, thro’ which I intend going with the Ship and there^for may land no more upon this Western Eastern coast of New Holland   and on the Western side I can make no new discovery the honour of which belongs to the Dutch Navigators and as such they may lay claim to it as their property but the Eastern Coast from the Latitude of 38° South down to this place I am confident was never seen or viseted by any European before _^^{us and} therefore by the same Rule belongs to great Brittan Notwithstand I had in the Name of his Majesty taken posession of several places upon this coast I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took posession of the whole Eastern Coast from the above Latitude down to this place by the Name of New South _^^Wales together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the same ^said coast   after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number by ^from the Ship

Cook, James, Holograph Journal, Manuscript 1, 22 August 1770, National Library of Australia.

What is meant in Cook’s proclamation by “the whole Eastern Coast”? In the context, it would seem to be parts of New Holland that are not yet discovered by the Dutch.

We have a situation where the British have claimed a slither of undetermined proportion on the east coast, and the British gradually move in on Dutch territory to the point where eventually the whole continent including Tasmania and other adjacent islands is under British administration.

How large was this initial British slither exactly? I think it was probably measured as anywhere east of Dutch discovered lands. That would be east of Abel Tasman’s discoveries in Van Diemen’s land, and east of previously charted parts of New Holland. Tasman planted a flag on the east coast of Tasmania, so that would make this remainder Eastern Coast slither quite small. One interesting thing about Cook’s voyage is that it perfectly charted a section of the coastline that did not appear on Thevenot’s map of Dutch-charted New Holland. Cook’s landings ashore seemed also to be perfectly strategic – landing only on the mainland when he knew he was east of Tasman’s discoveries (with the exception of Trinity bay and Endeavour River which was purportedly for emergency repairs).

As a side note – the main early “proper” settlement in New South Wales was initially neatly snuggled in the 19 Counties (rough location marked in yellow on map above) which also lay perfectly east of Tasman’s discoveries. I measured it with using Google earth overlays. Tasman’s eastern-most longitudinal coordinates of discovery in Van Diemen’s land lines up within 3km of the western limit of the 19 Counties (a point at the junction of Belubula River and Lachlan River). It is as if the British were very conscious of this line, initial settlement limits were deliberately staying out of the Dutch zone.

How did this moving of the boundary between New Holland and New South Wales happen? A big chunk of it happened around the time of the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824.

Basics of the Treaty

The 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty is a foundational document of Singapore, so it is well known there. The treaty was to end long-running hostilities between the Dutch and the British in territories stretching from India to the East Indies.

In this treaty to settle ongoing territorial conflicts, the British got India and Singapore, and the Dutch got the East Indies. The line of division was the Straits of Singapore.

The treaty covered a very large geographical area. You can read the treaty text at this link here. Some articles of interest are quoted below.

His Netherland Majesty cedes to His Britannic Majesty all His establishments on the continent of India; and renounces all privileges and exemptions enjoyed or claimed in virtue of those establishments.

Article VIII

His Netherland Majesty withdraws the objections which have been made to the occupation of the island of Singapore, by the subjects of His Britannic Majesty.

His Britannic Majesty, however, engages, that no British establishment shall be made on the Carimon isles, or on the islands of Battam, Bintang, Lingin, or on any of the other islands south of the straits of Singapore, nor any Treaty concluded by British authority with the chiefs of those islands

Article XII

The British have agreed to withdraw from islands to the south of the straits of Singapore. This aligns with the current Indonesian border in that area of Singapore. Indonesia is the successor state to the Dutch East Indies.

There is no southern limit mentioned in this area of British surrender.

Neither is there a eastern limit, but presumably the eastern limit would lie at one of two points. First – the eastern extremity of the Dutch East Indies. This is approximately the longitude of 141 degrees east, which was the eastern extremity of the Sultanate of Tidore – whom which the Dutch had treaties with. Second – the other natural eastern limit candidate is the line of the Treaty of Saragossa (as the Dutch are successors to the Portuguese, of whom the treaty was the subject of). On the map I have above, the Treaty of Saragossa is marked as running through the Islas de las Velas, or the Mariana Islands/Guam, because that is the most likely location meant in the original treaty. Although there are other ideas of where the Saragossa line lies.

New Holland clearly lies south of the straits of Singapore, and south of the east indies generally. It is strange that New Holland, New Zealand and Van Diemen’s land were not mentioned in this treaty, even though they all places with contested British/Dutch claims. Abel Tasman even planted a flag on Van Diemen’s land.

Is New Holland an island?

If it is – then under this treaty, His Britannic Majesty is not permitted to establish in New Holland nor conduct any treaties with the chiefs of New Holland. This ties in with the puzzle of terra nullius, and may explain why the British Crown did no treaties with Aboriginal nations – because under this Treaty with the Dutch, they are not permitted to.

But if New Holland is not an island but a continent, then it’s not part of the treaty at all. So which is it?

Why do we (the English speaking world) usually say Australia is a continent? Perhaps because it bolsters the British claim against a potential Dutch claim. But Australia is not universally considered a continent. When I was travelling in Panama and learnt Spanish, I found they consider Australia as not being a continente, but a part of Oceania.

The Settlement date clause

The other article of interest in this treaty is this;

All the colonies, possessions, and establishments which are ceded by the preceding Articles, shall be delivered up to the officers of the respective Sovereigns on the 1st of March, 1825. The fortifications shall remain in the state in which they shall be at the period of the notification of this Treaty in India; but no claim shall be made, on either side, for ordnance, or stores of any description, either left or removed by the ceding Power, nor for any arrears of revenue, or any charge of administration whatever.

Article XIII

The settlement date of the treaty was on the 1 March 1825. Whatever colonies and establishments are held at that date are basically set. Theoretically, it means if New Holland is an island, then the British should withdraw all establishments.

But from the time the treaty was signed in March 1824 until the settlement date in March 1825, the British did the exact opposite. They expanded their territory further westward, and in a big way.

On 14 August 1824, Governor Brisbane proclaimed martial law for all territory west of the Mount York , purportedly because of the Bathurst Wars with the Wiradjuri. Mount York is on the western side of the Blue Mountains near Bathurst. Technically, the martial law applies all the way to the NSW western border at 135E (half the continent).

NOW THEREFORE by virtue of the Authority in me vested by HIS MAJESTY’s Royal Commission, I do declare in Order to restore Tranquility, MARTIAL LAW TO BE IN FORCE IN ALL THE COUNTRY WESTWARD OF MOUNT YORK

Just 10 days later after Governor Brisbane declared martial law, a ship was sent from Port Jackson to set up Fort Dundas on Melville Island. Melville Island is strategic – it is in the north west hugging the continent, and on the doorstep of the East Indies. Fort Dundas was set up and declared during the period of martial law. The fort was purportedly for trading with the Malay, however there wasn’t any trading.

This martial law was repealed later in December. I think one objective of the martial law proclamation was to get firm control over the official colonial settlement (the Counties) and an extension of the limits in time for the settlement date of the Anglo-Dutch treaty.

The European inhabitants of the fort sat there for 5 years enduring attacks by Tiwi Islanders, tropical storms and lack of food. The only reason the fort made sense was for it to be there was to expand British territorial claim as wide as possible.

The treaty settlement date in 1825 passed without challenge by the Dutch, and a few months later the colony of New South Wales was enlarged westward to 129E the current West Australian border to include Fort Dundas.

Van Diemen’s Land was proclaimed a colony in 1825 after the treaty settlement date. Before this time, it was a penal settlement with forts and prisons. In 1828, martial law was declared in Van Diemen’s land which lasted for 3 years. If this island were covered by the Treaty of 1824 and therefore legally Dutch, then this declaration of martial law could be seen as a declaration of war against the Dutch by the British. The Dutch were never physically present, so Britain won by pen and paper.

Around 1827, the Swan River colony (Perth, free settlement) and King George Sound penal colony (Albany) were being set up. The remainder of New Holland was formally annexed from King George Sound in 1827.

Why didn’t the Dutch contest?

Was there a gentleman’s side-agreement as part of the Anglo-Dutch treaty? It is strange that New Holland, New Zealand and Van Diemen’s land were not part of the treaty. Perhaps they were part of a gentlemen’s agreement – but the British proceeded with caution nevertheless knowing that gentlemen’s agreements are worth the paper they are written on.

Unlike proper British discovered states, the names “Western Australia”, “South Australia”, “Northern Territory” and “Tasmania” are not British names, nor do they allude to British royalty.

“Western Australia” may also has a double-meaning. The world was divided by the Pope into the eastern and western hemispheres by the Treaty of Tordesilla and the Treaty of Saragossa. “Western Australia” is, by this reckoning, as lying south of the Maluku Islands, in the far east of the world. To name it “Western Australia” may be a play to shift it into the western hemisphere of the world, joining it with the Terra Australis.

Something that has always intrigued me – is the heraldic symbols used by Australian states.

This allusion to the British Crown is also mirrored in the heraldry shields of the States. Only the east coast states connect to the British. The other states stand at a distance, using native animals instead.

Tasmania is a little different. It uses a single red lion passant – and it is a mystery why this is used, this website says “exact symbolism of the badge is unknown, other than to indicate historical ties with England.” But to me, it does not look like a English lion, it’s more of a generic royal European lion. This almost seems like a secret tribute to the shared bloodlines of European royalty which include both Dutch and British. The story is that European royal bloodlines all go back to the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Kings. The red lion or the red hand is the heraldic symbol of the Tribe of Judah.

Not all States are the same!

The consequence of all of this is that not all Australian states are equal. It may be the case that most of Australia is actually conquered New Holland, not conquered First Nations. First Nations are just collateral damage.

This kind of explains how the British Crown thinks it has sovereignty. It has sovereignty by either prescription, by gentlemen’s agreement, or by conquest of the Dutch. This also explains the lack of treaties, and also explains the British not upholding a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal people, because it is the Dutch crown that holds that duty as discoverer – not the British.

When there is talk about “the Crown”, and “Crown land”, there is an obfuscation. Perhaps most Crown land is land held in a complex three-tiered condominium. The Dutch Crown still holding a discoverer and fiduciary role, the British Crown holding a nominal base land title burdened by First Nations traditional use, and the Australian Crown (states) administering the land.

But this “Crown” condominium would apply differently on the far east coast where the British do hold real discovery rights – as was found in Mabo 2. It may apply differently again in Western Australia, if Australia is a continent and not an island.

Why does this matter?

It is of practical importance to get answers about which Crown did what, and which is responsible for what – especially if anyone wants reparations or accountability. The “Crown” is an entity with many heads – you have to know which one to go after depending on the purpose. And it also depends where you lie geographically, because not all states are the same. Even within a single state, the situation may be different.

I think about various court rulings such as Mabo 2 and Coe vs Commonwealth. Mabo 2 was cherry-picked. In the Coe vs Commonwealth(1993) (which I ironically link here on a Dutch law website!) the cases involved the Wiradjuri Tribe. The Wiradjuri Tribe/Nation boundary spans across “pure British discovered” areas, and areas that are possibly Dutch discovered. That may have an effect on the outcome. This is why this is important to understand, that it is not as simple as “the British discovered Australia”. That lie that many of us learnt in school was a lie on multiple levels.