Creating the
East Bank Location,
1888 - 1892

Despite the fact that, by 1888, all the eastern bank Black townships were comparatively new, the East London Town Council nevertheless took the decision that they all had to be moved to a site further from the town.

The deciding factor was undoubtedly their proximity to North End, whose ratepayers complained that the nearness of three "locations" (Newsam's Town, the Wesleyan Location and the location for the "elite") resulted in a lowering of property prices.

Desperate appeals by the township population for the municipal laws to be more closely supervised fell on deaf ears. Eventually the township residents sought legal aid and threatened the Council with court action.

This served to delay the move for a couple of years but advice from the Attorney General was clearly on the side of the municipality. By 1890, therefore, resistance collapsed and the East Bank Location became a reality.

Dr Keith Tankard

Creating the
East Bank Location
1888 - 1892

In 1882, the East London Town Council had shown a marked humanitarian sentiment in creating a township for the elite Africans, which gave the tenants 14 year quitrent lease of the land. In its day, this appeared to be a rare quality of progressive thought. And yet, in just over five years, the Council was already turning its back on these same people. In 1888, the decision was made that the elite location must go and, with it, Newsam's Town and the Wesleyan Location would also be destroyed.

The event that triggered this decision was an amazing piece of municipal bungling. A site between Newsam's Town and the Wesleyan Location had been granted to the Presbyterians so that they might erect a church and huts for their African congregation. In October, however, there was a deputation from the White residents of North End who presented a petition signed by 130 people setting forth that any extension of the Fingo (Mfengu) Location would devalue their property. The kloof at the foot of St Peter's Road, the petitioners stated, had become a "receptacle for filth" and they called on the Council to move every location to at least a mile from the populated part of the town for "sanitary and moral reasons".

For a period of four months the Council vacillated in its attempt to choose a suitable site for the Presbyterian Location. In December 1888 it was decided to place it on the western bank of First Creek, then another site was chosen to the north of Newsam's Town. Finally, in February 1889, a spot was selected to the west of Newsam's Town. The decision, however, caused a complete debacle when Mayor William Lance gave an oral interpretation of the site which confused "west of Newsam's Town" with "west of North End". His interpretation was endorsed by the Council and only later was it discovered that the new Presbyterian Location would be placed in the middle of the Queen's Park Botanical Garden. The resolution had therefore to be rescinded, with much acrimony about whether or not the Mayor had been responsible for the Council's folly. (It was eventually proved by a reading of the minutes that ex-Mayor Lance, who had by then moved to Johannesburg, had indeed made the faux pas.

The muddle gave Councillor Amelius Vincent the opportunity to move in April 1889 that the time had arrived to merge the existing East Bank locations into one and to select a totally new site. The motion was carried and a plan was produced in June to place the new location much further out of town, at a point to the east of the First Creek River.

Not only were the inhabitants of Newsam's Town to be relocated but the Fingo people of the new Wesleyan Location were to be moved once more, for the fourth time in 12 years. The elite location would also go. Notice was then given to the various religious denominations to select sites for their churches, with the proposal that the people would be located as far as possible in blocks below the church to which they belonged.

The Black people on the East Bank had always remained relatively subservient to the Town Council's demands but the unwanted relocation was viewed as blatantly unjust since the Whites had no concrete reasons for the resolution. The locations were well laid out and in accordance with municipal specifications, were relatively new and the Council could certainly not claim that lack of adequate supervision was the cause.

The councillors had simply bowed to the wishes of the North End residents who looked to the value of their properties which they felt was adversely affected by the close proximity of the two locations. It also upset their moral and sanitary sensibility and, as the East London Dispatch commented some years later, "the evensong of the natives, inspired by the mixed brew of Kaffir beer and vile spirits, was unappreciated by their White neighbours".

The township communities initially protested against the decision. In August they drew up a petition against the removal on several well-justified grounds. First, they appealed as fellow Christians who, because they worked in town, would be unable to attend worship since the distance to their churches would be doubled. They also pointed out the expense of removing the mission houses and churches. Not only would worship have to stop, they claimed, but those who attended night school in the White areas would no longer be able to continue.

Punctuality at work would also cease, they said, but of major concern was the question of accommodation. Since most of the people worked long hours, they believed it would be impossible to build new huts and, because it was still winter, grass and wattles were scarce.

They appealed to the Council, therefore, to impose a stricter and more effective control over the existing locations which, the petitioners claimed, would result "in much improvement" but the appeals fell on deaf ears. The Council merely informed the petitioners that it had taken all their reasons into consideration but saw no justification to alter its decision.

Having failed to persuade the Council on humanitarian grounds, certain of the educated Black residents decided to take legal advice and appointed Richard Rose-Innes, a King William's Town attorney, to defend their case. In October 1889 the Council was informed that its decision appeared illegal and that the Black residents had been instructed to refuse to move from their homes.

The majority of the residents, Rose-Innes wrote, were opposed to the re-location and many of them owned their houses through purchase from the municipality. The Council was therefore ordered to refrain from any further action until after the legality of the decision had been tested by court of law.

The resistance took the Council by surprise and it dithered for some months. Initially it denied that there was any "strong opposition" from the Black community but, on the contrary, a "very considerable number" had already moved to their selected sites.

That information was immediately contradicted by the Location Inspector who reported that only 13 huts were in course of construction. All work, he said, had ceased because of instructions from the attorney. The Council then argued that the removal had not been one of "caprice" but was "of absolute necessity" for "the health of the natives themselves", an excuse which had little validity in the light of the Location Inspector's positive reports on conditions within the locations.

The confusion was compounded when the Town Solicitor refused to act because he felt himself slighted by the Council which had not made use of his services in another case and he subsequently resigned because the Council offered him no apology. In December, therefore, the Council decided to appeal directly to the Attorney General for clarification of its powers under its Municipal Act and subsequent bye-laws, and to seek guidance as to its options in removing the location.

The Attorney General's lengthy reply was received early in the new year but unfortunately the contents are not revealed in the municipal minutes and a thorough search in the archives has failed to uncover the document. It is apparent, however, that he advised the Council that its actions were perfectly legal, probably in terms of the municipal regulations which gave it authority to move the locations whenever it was deemed necessary.

The communication certainly prompted the Council to continue on its decided course and in July 1890 the Location Inspector reported that everything was being arranged for a speedy removal to the new location. By October most of the residents had been relocated and in his minute of February 1891, the Mayor was able to report that, "after considerable trouble and no little opposition", the old locations on the East Bank were "a thing of the past". The "firm action" of the Council, he said, had brought about a "marked improvement". The new site not only held "great advantages" to the Black people themselves but was in such a position as would, he hoped, make it clear that the question of a further removal "need not be immediately considered".

Relocation was indeed temporarily a thing of the past. The next move would be the creation of Duncan Village in about 1930. But, in the meantime, the East London Town Council could give its full attention to even more racist schemes for its Black community.

Dr Keith Tankard