|
The outbreak of the war led to a crisis of loyalty at East London. There were many Germans living there who found it hard to support the Imperial cause, and this invoked the ire of the imperialist supporters. |
Despite the initial apathetic response at East London to the idea of a Town Guard, the South African War did foster a jingoistic attitude among many of the English residents at East London and some even regarded a neutral attitude as akin to downright disloyalty. That was particularly unfortunate because of the strong German element both at the port and in the Border region generally, and emotions were further roused by the German Government's call to its citizens for strict neutrality.
Although many of the Germans had already been resident in the Colony for over 30 years and had been assimilated into the general community, some believed themselves to be citizens of both the Cape and Germany but not of Britain. The South African War revealed the complexity of that issue and cast seeds of discord which bore the ingredients of a bitter dispute, except that the bulk of the East London population remained relatively indifferent to the war effort.
The episode which threatened to throw the cat among the pigeons was the relief of Kimberley in February 1900. East London celebrated the event by flying flags from most of the stores in the town. A noticeable exception was the building belonging to Hermann Malcomess, a German who had emigrated to East London in the mid-1860s. He had built a business empire at the port and the Malcomesses reputedly became one of the wealthiest families in the town.
In addition to that, he was also the German Consul and served as a member of the Municipal Council. His loyalties were therefore undoubtedly torn because, as councillor, he was forced to support the British war effort whereas, as Consul, he had been instructed to take a neutral stance. Nevertheless, several of the townspeople failed to appreciate his delicate position and were clearly incensed by his apparent lack of loyalty.
The incident was followed by a letter to the press from a correspondent who saw the need to defend the situation by explaining that Malcomess was the German Consul at East London and therefore could hardly be expected to raise the British flag above his firm. Another letter quickly followed from "John Aylward" who launched into a scathing attack not only at the supposed disloyalty of Malcomess but at the Germans generally. No-one expected Malcomess to raise the flag above his building, Aylward stated, but "if he had had one spark of sympathy" with the people among whom he had lived for so long ("and to whom he owes everything"), he would have done so.
The correspondent continued that he believed it was "an outward sign of a very dangerous feeling" which was growing in the Colony. The Germans, he wrote, had been welcomed and had been afforded "every privilege that men of British descent and British birth enjoy" but the result was that, at a time when the British were at war "with the Dutch", those same Germans had "the effrontery to express themselves in sympathy with, and do actually aid in every possible way the enemies of the Queen." Aylward concluded with an appeal to all "loyal citizens" to boycott the Germans "in every way and under any circumstances", and to force their resignation as members of all commercial, municipal and political institutions and "never again elect them to such positions".
Although Aylward was not the only person who resented Malcomess's action, his was the only letter which went so far as to condemn the Germans generally. There was, however, an almost complete lack of response from the Germans. With the exception of Malcomess himself, only a resident from King William's Town replied to the attack and expressed his abhorrence at the insinuations which, he wrote, were "both unjust and dangerous". Such a letter, he contended, was "apt to create bitter resentment" and the incident should have been dealt with as a purely personal matter.
Malcomess wrote a lengthy reply to the press in which he explained his position but refused to offer an apology. He identified himself as a German citizen and, although he had lived in the Colony for 34 years, he was not British. He recognised that he had done "moderately well" but most of his trade had been pioneered with the two Boer republics. Furthermore, he was merely complying with the German Government's call for neutrality by strictly adhering to that policy.
As a neutral person and as a citizen of South Africa, he wrote, he had "many dear friends in both sides of the camp" and he therefore "deeply deplored" the war. No threat of boycotts and no financial reasons would change him and he would not "sell his soul to money" nor were his spectacles coloured. "The only colour any human being could read in them," Malcomess concluded, "is the intense sorrow that such bloodshed should occur between two races destined to live together and to develop this unhappy country in the art of peace and civilization."
Although emotions were clearly charged over the incident, it was to the benefit of the town as a whole that the affair quickly blew over. Steady British gains led to East London becoming less concerned with the war and more interested in capitalizing on it through financial ventures. Malcomess himself resigned from the Council and left the country soon afterwards for a protracted visit to Europe, possibly to escape the untenable position in which he found himself and so, although no flag was flown above his firm at either the relief of Ladysmith or of Mafeking, he was not in town to be attacked directly.
The incidents, however, were resurrected a year later during the run-up to the municipal elections of February 1901. One of the candidates was William Goulden who stood against the incumbent, Arthur Lambart, in Ward 2. Goulden had the misfortune to have been nominated by Malcomess and that fact was used against him in a major advertising campaign just prior to the elections. Ostensibly the campaign was pro-Lambart but it was largely a smear against Malcomess and his candidate.
Goulden was nominated, an advert in the Dispatch proclaimed, by a person "who thought fit" on three different occasions not to join with his fellow townsmen "in rejoicing with British subjects on the success of British arms" during the war. Lambart, on the other hand, was "man enough" to expose the flag incident publicly. "Britishers and Loyalists," the advert exhorted, "stand shoulder to shoulder and punish this sort of treatment. Support the man who is not ashamed to expose unpatriotic actions."
It is not certain how much influence the anti-Malcomess campaign had on the election. It is true that Lambart defeated Goulden but the majority was small. Furthermore, the former had served his ward since 1893 and was therefore a seasoned councillor whereas Goulden had not yet won an election.
See also: |
The antipathy against the Malcomess family certainly wore off by 1907 when the younger Carl Malcomess was elected unopposed in Ward 4. Anti-German sentiment, on the other hand, remained dormant, to rear its head again in 1914 when Britain went to war against Germany itself and several Germans in East London were accused of sedition.
   |
Source Material:
|
