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

of their island; proof, to Foster, that Ionian people could not be trusted with any
degree of autonomy regarding their own administration. Only under the strong hand
of British protection could the Islands prosper.
These two British politicians represented two opposing views regarding the
position of the Islands and their form of rule under the British Empire. Monck
argued colonial rule ought to vary according to the needs of different peoples and
places. Not all colonial territories were the same and, therefore, differing policies
should be applied. The Islands’ location determined they belonged within the scope
of Europe’s civilised nations and, thus, required representative forms of rule.
Geography was also a major argument for Foster, but it was their strategic position
that was critical to him. The government wanted political and military control of the
Southern Mediterranean under one comprehensive policy.
Monck’s voice was marginal; his motion of inquiry was opposed without
division. His argument that Britain had violated her promises of independence to the
Ionians failed to convince his parliamentary colleagues. Parliament found nothing
absurd or disturbing about the anomalous position in which the Islands were placed.
They were under British protection, an independent yet not quite independent state.
The view entertained by the government’s spokesman Foster was accepted by the
House of Commons, thus paving the way for British rule.
The following analysis of the colonial correspondence reveals the constant
British dialogue between various parties concerning the appropriate form of rule for
88