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

not be a benefit to them”. Secondly, he recommended the Ionian constitution be left
in operation for a little longer before “subverting it”. 20 Castlereagh’s warnings had
satisfactory effects for the British government. In the vote, the House was against the
Commission of Inquiry: Ayes 27, Noes 97. Although Maitland enjoyed the
confidence of the majority of MPs, the 27 people who did not trust Maitland
represented significant opposition. Among those who favoured a Commission of
Inquiry was Lord John Russell, who would later deal with the Ionian question as
Colonial Secretary between 1839 and 1841.
A year later, Hume again called attention to “the highly improper manner in
which the government of the Ionian Islands has been conducted” under British
protection. 21 This time he hoped the cost of Maitland’s administration to the British
taxpayer would catch the MPs’ attention. From 1817 to 1822, Britain had spent
“above one million sterling, every shilling of which might and ought to have been
left in the pockets of people of England”. 22 Hume argued much of this expense was
due to Maitland’s “profuse and extravagant government”, designed to “deprive the
Islanders of their rights and liberties”. 23 Hume again requested a Commission of
Inquiry be sent to the Islands and the House was again divided: Ayes 67, Noes 152.
Again, the opposition was not insignificant. It had more than doubled since the
previous vote in June 1821, showing Hume’s tireless campaigning was gaining
support.
20 Ibid., p. 1148.
21 Hansard T. C., Parliamentary debates, New Series, VII, 14 May 1822, p. 562.
22 Ibid., p. 566.
23 Ibid., p. 567.
118