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

The Colonial Office defended Storks’s, authoritarian rule on the Islands. For
Layard, the failure of British rule was the fault of the Ionians, who did not make
good use of their liberal institutions. 104 Fortescue claimed Storks’s prorogation of the
Assembly “was necessary” and Storks did not rule alone but in cooperation with the
Senate, “an eminent Ionians council” elected by the people and drawn from the
Assembly. 105
Debaters in 1863 were again critical of Storks but focused on his early removal
of two Ionian judges, Sir Georgio Marcoras and Sir Typaldo Xydras, who he
believed were radicals and could influence the decisions of other judges. Derby
argued Storks acted illegally and unconstitutionally regarding both the Ionian
constitution and British principles on the impartiality of judges. 106 Removing judges
of different political opinions could affect the impartiality of the judiciary and lead
Ionians to believe outcomes would always favour the government, causing further
conflict between the Ionians and their protectors. Derby believed Storks was a worse
despot than Maitland. In the Commons, the radical MP Roebuck accused Storks of
“bringing this country contempt and disgrace”: his policies and conduct were “not to
the honour of England”. 107 The Colonial Office defended Storks, describing him as
an able administrator duped by his Senate, a claim rejected by Stanley as “an
excuse”. 108 General Peel also defended Storks and believed it was hard to decide
whether he had performed his duties in the Islands with “greater advantage to the
104 Ibid., p. 1694.
105 Ibid., pp. 1708-1709.
106 Hansard T. C., Parliamentary debates, 3 rd Series, CLXX, 17 April 1863, pp. 290-296.
107 Hansard T. C., Parliamentary debates, 3 rd Series, CLXX, 12 May 1863, p. 1610.
108 Ibid., p. 1600.
341