The first pontoon was provided by the British Kaffrarian Government in 1858, as a means of allowing the newly arrived German settlers to cross from Panmure on the east bank to East London on the west bank. In 1865, when British Kaffraria was annexed into the Cape Colony, the pontoon was taken over by the East London Divisional Council.

See also: Read more on this topic Ferry tokens Ferryman William Button German settlers Panmure East London

It was then bought by the East London Town Council in 1874, and would remain the only means for vehicles to cross the Buffalo River until the temporary railway bridge was constructed in 1907. A ferry was established at East London in 1876, so as to provide a more frequent river crossing for pedestrians. Ferry tokens were then introduced to obviate the necessity for carrying money.

Dr Keith Tankard

The original pontoon over the Buffalo River, joining the villages of East London (West Bank) and Panmure (East Bank) was provided by the British Kaffrarian Government and went into operation in February 1858. When British Kaffraria was annexed to the Cape Colony in 1866, however, the pontoon was placed in the hands of the East London Divisional Council. The pontoon was first brought to the attention of the East London Municipal Board in September 1873. The Divisional Council had proposed to raise the pontoon fares but Commissioner George Eirwood wished to protect the German farmers who were bringing their produce to the market on the West Bank, by allowing them to cross the river free of charge and so relieve some of the economic hardship under which they laboured. Commissioner Alfred Webb immediately seized the opportunity to raise the question of ownership of the pontoon.

Although the Pontoon Road was in the hands of the Divisional Council, he said, the Municipal Board was responsible for half the cost of repairs because it ran through the municipality. Webb predicted that that might amount to a £100 share during the following 12 months but municipal finances were in a "sorry state" with no money whatever in the kitty and little to come until the first rates could be collected or land sold. In the meantime, Webb argued, the Divisional Council was collecting all the pontoon revenue and was contributing little to the prosperity of the municipality. He believed, therefore, that the council should be approached to give the municipality a half-share in pontoon revenue so as to off-set the half-share responsibility in the repair of the Pontoon Road.

There was disagreement over the issue and John Gately wished to leave the matter well alone until the Divisional Council itself raised the question. Ultimately Gately's wish prevailed and the proposal was dropped. It was a pragmatic decision. Eirwood pointed out that a new pontoon would soon have to be procured because the existing one had only "a few sheets of copper" keeping it afloat and there was no knowing how soon it would sink. If that happened, it would have placed the municipality in an even worse financial position. Indeed, when the pontoon debate was again raised at the following meeting, it was generally agreed that it would be "unadvisable" to take it over "in its present unsafe state".

Almost a year was to pass before the pontoon issue was resurrected and it was then decided that it would be in the best interests of all concerned if the municipality did take it over and also accepted total responsibility for maintaining the Pontoon Road. In that way the ambiguous situation would be ended and the municipality would gain a new source of revenue. Agreement was reached between the Municipal Board and the Divisional Council and in August 1874 the transfer was authorised by the Government which also accepted the Municipal Board's proviso that, in view of the dilapidated condition of the pontoon, a new one would be provided as soon as possible.

The transfer took place in October 1874 with little mishap, apart from a minor altercation with the Divisional Council which refused to hand over the pontoon ropes. An examination of the boat itself revealed that it leaked heavily and the iron fastenings were almost totally rusted away but, despite that, it was felt it could last for some months if properly handled. In the meantime, minor repairs were authorised to keep it afloat until the new one arrived.

Although the pontoon was entered on the colonial estimates in August 1874, more than a year elapsed before it was built, despite repeated reminders from the Municipal Board. It went into service in September 1875, and not a moment too soon because the old pontoon finally gave up the ghost and sank. After repeated appeals by the Municipal Board that it be raised and repaired, the Government eventually declared in December that the boat was "utterly worthless" and did not warrant any further expense.

Despite its unseaworthy condition, the old pontoon had proved to be a lucrative source of revenue to the municipality. Its first month under municipal control brought in an income of £101 12s. 9d. and during January and February 1875 it earned £117 and £106 respectively. At a time when the municipality was suffering heavily from a shortage of funds, the decision to take over responsibility for the pontoon proved a wise one.

In April 1875, with the imminent arrival of the new pontoon, Commissioner William Bompas suggested that the old boat could be cut down to make it suitable to convey small vehicles and passengers across the river and so become an additional transport service. Commissioner Webb, inspired by that suggestion, proposed instead that an actual ferry be established at a spot below the pontoon, to be leased to someone who would work it under contract to the municipality. The Municipal Board accepted the idea and set a ferry fee of 3d. for anybody crossing between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., and 1s. for night crossings. (At a later date ferry tokens would be substituted for money.)

The lease of the ferry was duly sanctioned in July 1875 and was sold at only £10 per annum but the Municipal Board refused to accept the price because the sum was believed to be ridiculously low and would not even compensate the municipality for the loss of revenue which the establishment of the ferry would cause to the pontoon, estimated at about £10 per month. Even that was a conservative figure because a Government boat was already depriving the pontoon of a great deal of revenue by ferrying people across the river, a circumstance which the Municipal Board decided would be prohibited once the municipal ferry was in operation.

It was estimated that an annual income of at least £200 could be earned from the ferry. With that in mind, its lease could scarcely be accepted at a fee of less than £150 per annum but since such an offer was highly unlikely, it was decided to maintain the ferry in municipal hands and, instead, to employ a competent man as ferryman. In September 1875 William Button was appointed to the position.

Both the pontoon and ferry continued to be run under contract up until 1902 but, because of incessant complaints, the Council eventually decided to take over both services and run them departmentally. In March 1905 the pontoon was converted to electricity so as to increase efficiency but the adaptation also increased running costs. The ferry, in the meantime, proved a lucrative venture, with profits far exceeding expenditure. It was such a viable proposition that the Council decided in 1905 to inaugurate a second ferry which would cross the river mouth on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, as well as on holidays, and thought was given to extending the service to weekdays but the Harbour Board argued that shipping movements would make it far too dangerous.

The opening of the temporary bridge over the river in 1907, however, caused ferry revenue to slump considerably and saw the service go into the red for the first time in its history. It was therefore argued that the cost of collecting a fare was no longer practical but, in the interests of the West Bank residents, it was decided to inaugurate a free service between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m., although night journeys and use of the lower ferry would still cost 1d. as usual.

Dr Keith Tankard