Constructing Ionian identities: the Ionian Islands in British official ...

Maitland had ignored the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Paris and had intended to
impose a “despotic” regime of government in the Islands. This was in contrast to the
stipulation of the Treaty of Paris that Ionians were allowed, under the guarantee of
the British governor, to retain their existing form of government until a new
constitutional charter was drafted. Maitland’s first action, he noted, was to disband
the Senators who had assembled in Corfu to draft the Ionian constitution. His actions
violated a fundamental part of an international agreement. 6
The second line of Hume’s argument concerned powers given to Maitland
under the Constitution of 1817, which he characterised as “a mockery of freedom….
devolving the whole power into the hands” of Maitland. 7 Focusing on the mode of
election of members of the Ionian Parliament, the Assembly and the Senate, Hume
believed Maitland’s control over the list of all electoral candidates was a “farce of
representation…. nothing could be worse but the system of a Scotch borough”.
Hume criticised other powers the Constitution gave Maitland. The Lord High
Commissioner had the right to reject every measure the Legislature adopted. He
argued Maitland’s right to be present at any time the Assembly was in session
imposed an intimidating presence over a “supposedly” free legislature. Maitland had
the power to veto all decisions taken in the administration of the Ionian state as well
as the right to all appointments and dismissals. Maitland “was nothing less than a
Roman proconsul” Hume argued, and the Constitution of 1817 “was a complete
6 Ibid., p. 1129.
7 Ibid., p. 1132.
112