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

elieved authoritarian government was the best form of colonial rule for the Greek
character, for Maitland that was a good enough argument to accept.
The British government, knowing the “Ionian sensibilities” towards their
Greek counterparts, were convinced any political feelings of resistance to British
authority should be put down by “exemplary punishment” of the offenders. The
discussions in the House of Commons in May 1822, however, allowed the
expression of differing opinions. The application of martial law in the Septinsula was
criticised by the radicals. Hume characterised it as an arbitrary act, a humiliating
process that had no place in British rule, which should advocate humanity, justice,
equality. 92 Hume believed Maitland used martial law to get rid of the “enemies
within” on the one hand and to “fill up to the brim the measure of that despotism and
oppression” on the other. 93
The martial law policy formed only part of a lengthy discussion instigated by
Hume. 94 Expressing his philhellene sympathies, Hume argued Britain should support
the Greek cause, not only because of the affiliation with Ionian Greeks, but also to
aid “fellow Christians, struggling to throw off the yoke of infidel Turks”. 95 He
accused the government of having a double standard in their foreign policy, noting
the events in Zante resulted from favouritism by British officials in the Islands and
92 Hansard T. C., Parliamentary debates, New Series, VII, 14 May 1822, p. 579.
93 Ibid., p. 582.
94 Ibid., p. 562.
95 Ibid., p. 579. See also Rosen F., Bentham, Byron, and Greece, Dakin D., British and American
Philhellenes during the War of Greek Independence, 1821-1833, (Thessaloniki, 1955); St Clair W.,
That Greece Might Still be Free: The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, (London, 1972).
139