West Bank Location
1873 - 1876

In April 1873 East London became a municipality. In doing so, the two White villages of East London on the western bank of the Buffalo River and Panmure on the eastern bank were united. The men who wrote the regulations to inaugurate the municipality presumed that the Black community on the western side of the town would naturally form part of the municipality, but they were soon to find out that this was not the case.

In May 1874 the Town Council made an attempt to bring the West Bank Location at least partially under its control. Chairman John Gately had heard that other municipalities were permitted to impose a hut-tax on their locations and yet, he pointed out to his committee, the Government was still collecting such tax from the Black residents on the East London commonage. The Board thereupon demanded a refund of the money collected since the establishment of municipality and insisted that the Government instruct its officers to cease collecting such tax in the future.

The problem was discussed with the Secretary for Crown Lands during his visit to East London in November 1874 but, to its dismay, the Council found that the dispute was linked to the entire commonage issue. The municipal regulations, it was explained, made it clear that the municipality consisted only of East London and Panmure, as well as the "unoccupied pasture land" within certain defined boundaries.

But therein lay the rub. The land on which the location was placed was, by its very nature, not "unoccupied pasture land" because Black people in fact occupied it. The locations were therefore, by definition, not part of the municipality at all. The Secretary for Crown Lands admitted that that was a contradiction and that the Government did not collect hut-tax from other locations which fell within municipal boundaries. Indeed, the situation formed "a very inconsistent state of affairs" but nothing could be done until the definition was settled and the municipal regulations were updated to include the location.

In the meantime, the Municipal Board had no control whatsoever over the Xhosa village which meant that the inhabitants lived in an ambiguous position. In effect, they were not a part of the municipality and yet the Board controlled the commonage and, since cattle and other animals had to be put to pasture, licences needed to be obtained from the municipal authorities. The Board in turn could grant permission for the establishment of or extension to a location but could not control it once it existed.

The Board's members nevertheless approached the problem with concern, particularly for those Black people who were already converts to Christianity or had absorbed western ideals. These people wished to use this situation as a reason for being treated separately from the non-Christian amaXhosa, and Town Council was eager to satisfy their wishes.

This was particularly true for members of religious denominations, who expressed a "strong objection" to mixing with the occupants of the established location and were therefore allowed to create their own communities adjacent to the existing one and so maintain their identity. Nevertheless, the Council's primary concern was to enable the White inhabitants to obtain a "superior class" of servant.

The Council's hands were tied, however, and no action could be taken until the commonage question was settled. Furthermore, the Government appeared to drag its feet because the vexing problem was solved only in July 1876. In the meantime, both Council and Xhosa people lived in a nebulous state, neither knowing for certain

See also: West Bank Location The township community East London Fingo Location

whose law must prevail: State or Town Council. For the Council, it was even more vexing because, in 1874, the Harbour authorities decided to create a location for the Fingo (Mfengu) people on the East Bank, and there was nothing the Council could do to stop it.

Dr Keith Tankard