The years between 1873 and 1890 saw the virtually unchecked manipulation of the Black community by the East London Town Council. The Council was able to do so because, apart from a few philanthropically-minded White advocates like Richard Rose-Innes of King William's Town, there was no educated body to watch over African interests. Unlike many of the other towns in the Eastern Cape, such as Grahamstown, Lovedale and Healdtown, which had long been centres of mission educational institutions, East London had none.

Reverend William Greenstock, an Anglican missionary, had made a brief start in 1858 but his conflict with the British Kaffrarian authorities over the baptism of three Black prisoners who had been convicted of the murder of his predecessor, Reverend Joseph Willson , had led to his rapid transfer to Keiskammahoek and all work had subsequently ceased. The Church of England ministers who succeeded Greenstock were singularly lacking in missionary zeal and so, by 1873, there was not even one Black school in existence.

The Africans had generally migrated to the port in the search of employment. Indeed, during East London's early years, people were only allowed to reside in the West Bank Location if they provided labour for the town or harbour, and the Fingo Location in Panmure had been founded as a residence for railway workers.

Only as late as 1878 did it become noticeable that Anglican and Wesleyan influences were beginning to play a stronger role in the Black community which resulted in the names"Wesleyan Location" and "Church of England Location" (Newsam's Town) being given to the two villages which replaced the Seaside Location in 1878 and 1879. Schools were established and an educated African population at last began to develop.

The decade of the 1880s therefore proved to be an embryonic stage at East London during which Black social and political consciousness gradually took shape and was born in 1890 with the traumatic forced removal of the East Bank locations and the spirited resistance to the creation of the New Location.

By 1890 several changes had taken shape on the political front of the Eastern Cape. The Colonial Government had long established its reputation as a non-segregated body whose criterion for full participation lay in "civilization". Once an African had attained a certain level of financial independence, he became legally "exempted" from various Acts of Parliament which applied to the locations. (The Cape's 1853 constitution granted the franchise to all male citizens over the age of 21, who either owned property valued in excess of £25, received an annual salary of £50 or received a salary of £25 plus free board and lodging.) He was recognised therefore as an equal to the members of the White community although, as Andre Odendaal points out, the Whites tended always to be "more equal".

Because education fostered economic advance, it therefore became the passport to a better life and, by the end of the Gcaleka War (1878), many Africans turned from resistance to co-operation with the idea of using the system to better their community's interests. During the 1880s, African political associations took root and between 1882 and 1886 the number of Black voters in several East Cape constituencies increased rapidly.

East London could not escape the evolution, especially once the dust had settled on the location-removal dispute. Indeed, the removal had two direct results. First, it created one large, fully integrated community of Xhosa, Mfengu and Khoikhoi residents who proved quite capable of ignoring their differences and living in peace. Second, it was essential for the Black community to present a united and organised front to resist further disruptive actions by the Town Council.

The attitude of the councillors varied with regard to the rise of the educated class of Black people. Some, like John Gately, applauded it as a welcome advance into western civilization and wished to do all in their power to foster the movement. Others, like Henry Willetts who lived in North End and therefore held property close to the locations, were opposed to it and wished to see a totally segregated community. Many of the latter seemed not to understand that the status of the "exempted" Blacks was protected by legislation and were quite happy to issue bye-laws which were at odds with the colonial constitution.

The major area of conflict was the White community at North End. That suburb had evolved out of one of the German acre settlements and, because of the lack of municipal regulations to govern the subdivision of plots, many of the erfs had been cut up and sold as sub-plots which resulted in overcrowding and a subsequent depreciation in the value of the property. That in turn led to a rapid degeneration of the suburb into a residential area of the lower socio-economic population.

Moreover, because of its position in relation to the Wesleyan Location, Newsam's Town and the later New Location, it became the ideal residential area for the wealthier "exempted" Africans who found the rents reasonable and the proximity to their friends and relatives in the locations useful. North End therefore became the major mixed community of East London.

Sporadic attempts were made to alter the situation. The first was in August 1884 when Councillor Willetts tried to have the Africans expelled to the locations. There were a large number of them living in the town, he said, and pointed out that the depression was a major factor in their drift to North End because landlords were prepared to lease to anybody who could pay.

Gately was quick to point out that there was nothing to prevent a Black person from hiring the best houses in town and expressed his desire to see them building "good houses of their own". Since that was impossible, he concluded, renting was "the next best thing". Such a liberal remark was a red cloth to several councillors who feared further depreciation of their property. Willetts summed up their attitude by protesting that the whole of North End "had better be set fire to" if that sort of thing were to be permitted.

The idea was occasionally resurrected. In his annual report of February 1896, Location Superintendent Percy Potter called for regulations which would remove the Africans from the town. He pointed to the increase in the numbers of those who resided within the area which, he said, was to be "deplored" as the majority did not contribute to the local revenue but caused an increase in municipal expenses. He did not explain how, and also overlooked the fact that, by paying rents to their landlords, the Blacks were indeed contributing to the annual rates.

In February 1901 his successor, Superintendent Charles Lloyd, again called for their removal. There were now "hundreds" in town, he claimed, and called for "stringent measures" to relocate them. Their demands were in vain, however, because there were too many watchdogs in both the legal profession and in Parliament to allow the Council to violate the status of the Black people in such a flagrant manner.

A major problem was how to identify the "exempted" Blacks from the majority who lived in the locations, particularly when the latter visited the town for the purpose of attending night schools to further their education. Municipal regulations which had been framed in 1878 and renewed in 1883 demanded that Blacks be out of town by 8 p.m., for which purpose a curfew bell was rung each evening. The only exceptions were the Africans who were "exempted" in terms of the Cape's constitution, as well as those who had a pass from their employers.

The attendance of evening classes was clearly an exceptional circumstance yet the Location Inspector, guided by the Council, treated the matter in a totally bureaucratic manner. There were schools in the locations for them to attend, the Inspector told the Council in October 1886, and he had therefore issued orders that the regulation be enforced and the culprits arrested if they lacked the necessary pass.

Councillor James Coutts quickly pointed out an anomaly which existed. Some of those people, he said, were "American Negroes" while others were "Hottentots", and there were no adequate schools in the locations to cater for them. Furthermore, the conductors of the night schools were doing "good work". He had personally investigated them, he explained, in order to see if there was "anything wanting the attention of the police" and had concluded that that was not the case. It was, moreover, not a question of "worthless characters" but simply one of who should issue the pass and how it should be worded.

Another acute problem was related to church attendance. Ministers of Religion who held services within the town after dark were continually frustrated to see members of their flock arrested for being on the streets without a pass. Reverend Walter Rubusana, a Congregational minister who would become a distinguished African political leader, wrote to the Council in 1888 to complain that some members of "a native place of worship" in North End had been "molested" by the police but his suggestion of an easy alternative, namely to allow ministers to issue passes, was rejected by the Council, possibly because many of the churchmen, like Rubusana, were Black.

There was initially little outward antagonism on the part of the Africans themselves towards the segregation-minded White community. Indeed, they were quick to applaud any measures which bettered their lot and their public response to racist councillors revealed control and was devoid of resentment. On the contrary, they pleaded for stricter control and improved sanitary services which would foster a more peaceful and healthier existence within the locations. Later they would turn their attention to countering racist regulations but always in response to growing prejudice on the part of the Whites.

A clear example of that early sentiment was revealed in 1890 in a reaction to new location regulations issued by the Council. The "Great Depression" of the 1880s had resulted in a loosening of control when the Council found that it was no longer possible to pay wages to two location inspectors as well as two streetkeepers. In October 1884 it had therefore resolved to combine all those offices into one. That system remained in force until 1890 when the creation of the new locations and the return of prosperity led to a rise in the number of Africans settling at East London. Reform in location administration was then felt to be a priority and in May 1890 the Council appointed Percy Potter as Superintendent of Locations and Commonage Ranger and he became the first Inspector to reside within the East Bank Location itself.

Mayor David Rees soon proclaimed that the new system of administration was an unqualified success and the Council could congratulate itself on the fact that the locations were at last under "complete control". Sectors of the African population also lauded the improvement in Black living conditions. Rubusana wrote to the East London Dispatch that those who had seen the East Bank Location lately were struck with the cleanliness of the houses, as well as the quietness and orderliness which at last prevailed, especially on Saturday nights when a "good number" of the labourers received their weekly wages and tended to come home "more or less drunk".

Seven or eight years previously, Rubusana stated, the locations had been a home "for the vagrant and all sorts of bad characters" but that had changed since Potter's appointment. The huts were now properly thatched and not covered on the top with old bags and paraffin tins "as of yore", and had been white-washed free of charge by the Council. The "Kafir-beer orgies" and the "blood-curdling night yells" had been successfully put down to the great comfort and happiness, he teased, "of our friend and easily offended town councillor, Mr Willetts", who was always tortured by those "wretched and most pernicious habits" because he lived so close to the locations.

Rubusana concluded by calling on the Council to keep up the control. The East Bank Location, he pointed out, was the resort for Black visitors from up-country who came down during the holidays "for a change of air". It was therefore important that it be kept "attractive" because those visitors contributed to the wealth of the East London merchants and to the revenue of the Council. The location people, he said, were "large contributors" to the revenue of the Council and the funds they paid should be spent on improving the locations.

Between 1873 and 1896, therefore, one can conclude that there was a marked rise in racist attitudes at East London, as the Town Council grew steadily more rigid in its attitude towards the Black population. At the same time, it is very clear from the documentation, that the Black populace itself was remarkably accepting of its lot in society, believing always that ultimately justice would prevail.

Dr Keith Tankard