TOPIC:

A pair of German porcelain pipe bowls, with hand-coloured transfer prints of Presidents Kruger and Steyn.




..

Something a bit different: a porcelain parasol handle with portrait of Lord Kitchener. The photograph of "K" is one of a series taken by Alexander Bassano during a sitting in 1895.

See National Portrait Gallery NPG x96305







..

Neville_C wrote: This bust of de Wet was sculpted by Belgian artist Frans Joris, when the General visited Antwerp after the war. Reverse inscribed: "door den / beeldhouwer F. Joris, / 20 September 1902. / Antwerpen" [by the / sculptor F. Joris / 20 September 1902 / Antwerp] Side inscribed: "naar het leven" [from life].

With maker's mark for Porzellanfabrik Carl Schneider's Erben, Gräfenthal, a German factory that also made bisque figures for the UK market.

For anyone interested, one of these has surfaced on eBay. In my experience this is a scarce bust - this being only the second example I have seen in over forty-five years of collecting.

LINK: Anglo Boer War / General Christiaan de Wet / bisque bust - RARE

Ends 7 Dec 2024 (starting bid £120; or Best Offer)





FOR MORE INFO, SEE: Frans Joris bust of De Wet


..

The same vendor is selling this unusual version of the Hadley figure of Paul Kruger. The president's face is quite different from that on the example I have here. It is also unmarked, whereas the figure in my collection has "HADLEY'S / WORCESTER / ENGLAND / JH&S" on the base. Perhaps the face was remodelled during the height of the conflict, transforming the figure into an uglier caricature.

LINK: Boer War / President Paul Kruger / James Hadley Royal Worcester figure / RARE

Ends 7 Dec 2024 (starting bid £250; or Best Offer)







FOR MORE INFO, SEE: Paul Kruger by James Hadley


..

It is not immediately obvious that this Doulton stoneware jug has an association with the Anglo-Boer War. However, a quick search through newspapers of the time, reveals that these words were spoken during a spat between Chamberlain and the then German Chancellor, von Bülow, concerning the "methods of barbarism" being implemented by the British Army in South Africa.

Chamberlain made this statement after Count Bernhard von Bülow demanded an apology from the Colonial Secretary for suggesting that the German Army had used no less barbaric tactics during the Franco-Prussian War. Germans were deeply offended by the comparison of the supposedly barbarous British soldiers to their own army.

The gist of Chamberlain's 11th January speech was that he was not going to apologise for his remarks, and he would not take lessons from a German minister. The British public were delighted with the response and, for a time, the phrase "What I have said I have said. I withdraw nothing. I qualify nothing. I defend nothing", entered popular parlance.








Chamberlain's earlier speech of 25 October 1901, in which he sought to defend the British Army against press claims of barbarous anti-guerilla warfare and farm-burning, argued that even if the British Army were to scale up its fighting, it could find precedents in the conduct of war in "Poland, in the Caucasus, in Almeria, in Tongking, in Bosnia, in the Franco-German war". The suggestion that the German army was capable of conduct as barbarous as that being perpetrated by the the British in South Africa ignited Anglophobia in Germany which spilled over onto the streets.


Nottingham Evening Post, 21st November 1901

ANTI-CHAMBERLAIN DEMONSTRATIONS IN GERMANY.

REPLY FROM THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.

Mr Mauria Sasse, the London correspondent of the Vossische Zeitung, Berlin, having written to Mr Chamberlain suggesting that it would be well if he could see his way to send an explanatory message to the German people, which might put an end to the deplorable manifestations of enmity calculated to increase the unfortunate ill-feeling between two kindred nations, has received the following reply: –

Colonial Office, November 20th.

“Dear Sir, – I am desired by Mr Chamberlain to acknowledge your letter of the 16th inst. with thanks, and to inform you that in appealing to practices of all civilised nations to justify greater severities than those which have hitherto been adopted by us in the Boer war, there is no suggestion that these severities, authenticated by official histories, went beyond what was necessary. But what is right and proper in another nation cannot be barbarous and inhuman if it should be practised by Great Britain. – Yours faithfully, Oliver Howard”.



The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Chronicle says: – The childish and for the most part artificial demonstrations against Mr Chamberlain continue without intermission. Over twenty universities and high schools have held meetings, and passed resolutions against Mr Chamberlain’s “impudence”, “shamelessness”, and “falsehoods”. Every evening learned professors prove themselves in possession of a nice vocabulary of vituperation. From all parts of the country come accounts of protests against the hated Colonial Minister, from Veterans’ Associations, from Town Councils and indignant “Frauen und Jungfrauen”. They pass resolutions protesting against Mr Chamberlain’s allusions to the war of 1871, they send messages to “President” Kruger, and they now assert that although Mr Chamberlain’s words are deeply insulting, nothing coming from such a man can have the power to injure such an army as that of 1870-71.

The object of all these meetings it cannot be too often repeated is to embroil the Government with England, to compel Count von Bülow either now or when the Reichstag meets to place himself at the head of the Anglophobists. Although one or two apparently semi-official statements have been made to the effect that Count von Bülow will address the Reichstag on the subject, there is strong reason to believe that he will not allow himself to be drawn, more especially as it is an open secret that the Kaiser does not approve of the anti-English agitation. [In the event, von Bülow was drawn, leading to Chamberlain's 11 January rebuff].


Westminster Gazette, 23rd November 1901

Mr Chamberlain’s explanation seems to have added fresh fuel to the flames of German indignation.
The German Press and the German people appear to have so readily believed the reports of British outrage in South Africa that they regard Mr Chamberlain’s remarks as accusing the Germans of committing atrocities worse than the most evil story of British “barbarism” that they themselves have come to accept.

The Berlin correspondent of the Standard declares that von Bülow is said to be of the same opinion about Mr Chamberlain’s speech as the overwhelming majority of the German, and it is asserted that he will give frank expression of his views in the Reichstag.


Belfast Newsletter, 9th January 1902

In the Reichstag today the Financial Secretary stated that the economic position of the country had become even more favourable than had been foreseen. In the course of his speech Count Stolberg mentioned Mr Chamberlain’s recent reference to the German army, which had caused the greatest indignation among the German people. Count von Bülow, following, thought all sensible people would agree that when a Minister considered himself called upon to defend his policy he did well to leave foreign countries alone. Should he, however, desire to adduce examples from abroad he should proceed with great caution, otherwise he ran a great risk of being misunderstood, and hurting foreign feelings, even though unintentionally. This was all the more regrettable in the case of a Minister and country that had always hitherto maintained friendly relations. It was quite comprehensible that the German people should resent reflections on their national struggle for unity. The German army stood on too lofty a pinnacle to be affected by warped judgments. Anything of the kind was well answered in the words of Frederick the Great when told somebody had been attacking him and the Prussian army. “Let the man do what he likes”, said the King, “and do not excite yourselves. He is biting on granite”.




The full text of Chamberlain's 11th January speech is shown below.

The [Adelaide] Register, 18th February 1902

CHAMBERLAIN'S REPLY TO VON BÜL0W.

LONDON. January 17.

Everybody wondered, after reading the speech, of Count von Bülow, how the Colonial Secretary would on Saturday evening deal with the German Chancellor, or whether he would pass over his recent remarks and observe silence for the sake of expediency — for with our hands full in South Africa many wise old heads felt some anxiety at this disaffected exhibition between leading statesmen of two great Powers. When the report of Mr Chamberlain's reply was published on Monday morning it is not too much to say that the general feeling in the city was one of complete satisfaction. The chorus of approval that followed later showed that the city's endorsement was not a mistaken one. The occasion provided was that of the Birmingham jewellers and silversmiths' annual dinner, and, in response to the toast of 'His Majesty's Ministers', Mr Chamberlain said, after referring to other political topics of lesser importance:— I cannot appreciate the position of those who are influenced by party passion, and, not content with fighting the battle here at home on fair and reasonable lines, must go out of their way to impute methods of barbarism to our soldiers in the field — ('Shame') — to imply that His Majesty's Ministers, who are Britons like themselves, can by any possibility be guilty of deliberate cruelty and inhumanity, and who laud the Boers while they slander the Britons — (Hear, hear) — and then profess to be astonished and surprised at the growing hostility of foreign nations. (Cheers). They have helped to create the animosity which we all deplore. (Hear, hear). I am well aware that in some quarters this animosity is attributed to another cause. It is said to be due to the indiscreet oratory of the Colonial Secretary. (Laughter). Gentlemen, what I have said I have said. (Loud cheers). I withdraw nothing. (Great cheers). I qualify nothing. (Renewed cheers). I defend nothing. As I read history no British Minister has ever served his country faithfully and at the same time enjoyed popularity abroad. (Cheers). I make allowance, therefore, for foreign criticism. I will not follow an example that has been set to me; I do not want to give lessons to a foreign minister — (Hear, hear, and cheers) — I will not accept any at his hand’s. (Loud cheers). I am responsible only to my own Sovereign and to my own countrymen — (loud cheers) — but I am ready to meet that form of criticism which is made at home, which is manufactured here for export by the friends of every country but their own — (cheers) — and in reference to these I would ask you, gentlemen, how can it be due to a few words in a speech that was delivered only a few weeks ago that for months and for years — from the very beginning of this war — the foreign press has teemed with abuse of this country? (Cheers). How can the Colonial Secretary be made responsible for what Sir Edward Grey has called foul and filthy lies, for what Lord Rosebery has described as the vile and infamous falsehoods, which have been disseminated in foreign countries without a syllable of protest, without the slightest interference by the responsible authorities? (Cheers). No, gentlemen: my opponents must find some other scapegoat. (Cheers). They must look further for the causes of that feeling of hostility which I do not think we have deserved, but which has existed more or less for a century at least, which always comes to the surface when we are in any difficulty, but which I am glad to say has never done us any serious harm. (Hear, hear).











..