SUGARHOUSE CLOSE, CANONGATE, EDINBURGH

Sugar House Company - An Old-Time Edinburgh Industry
By W Forbes Gray
The Weekly Scotsman, Saturday May 15, 1926

There has recently been acquired for the Reference Department of Edinburgh Public Library two Manuscript volumes of folio size bound in stout calf, containing the minutes and accounts of the Edinburgh Sugar House Company, a manufacturing concern which flourished in the middle of the eighteenth century.
The Company had its headquarters in an old mansion (now gone) on the south side of Canongate, formerly belonging to the Earl of Dunkeld. The "Sugar Work House", the exact site of which is shown on Edgar's "Plan of Edinburgh" (1765), was situated in what came to be known, appropriately enough, as Sugar House Close. It comprised a square block of buildings immediately to the rear of that timber-fronted dwelling, opposite the Canongate Churchyard, which has for many years been designated (probably erroneously) Huntly House. The premises were bounded on the east by the property of the Incorporation of Hammermen of Canongate and on the west by Moray House.
The Company was formed on April 24, 1752, and a charter of confirmation was granted to the trustees on June 3, 1767. How long the Company carried on operations I have not been able to ascertain, but probably the concern existed into the nineteenth century. At all events, The Sugar House was burned on January 8, 1800, and there is mention of it in the Town Council minutes so late as May 20, 1807.
The minute book that has been preserved covers the first ten years of the Company's existence, and gives a detailed account of an episode in the economic history of Scotland which well repays study. The volume of accounts, on the other hand, records the transactions for the years 1758-59, when the Seven Years' War was raging, a circumstance which interfered considerably with the Company's importation of raw sugar from the West Indies.
Wavering Fortunes.
From the outset the Sugar House seems to have been carefully managed. There is ample evidence that its promoters were men of experience and enterprise, who, while keeping a watchful eye on the internal affairs of the Company, devoted their main energies to improving and cheapening the process of sugar manufacture as well as to securing fresh markets for their goods. Large supplies of raw sugar were imported which were refined at the premises in Canongate.
The first balance-sheet showed a profit of £739.12s.6d. In 1754 a dividend of 4 per cent was recommended, though the profits had fallen to £574.16s.3d. A special effort, however, was made to promote the sale of the Company's sugar, the shareholders being asked "to take the trouble to direct that no other be used in their family but that is the manufactory of the Company, and that they will recommend the same to their friends."
On June 15, 1757, the managers asked for powers to borrow a sum not exceeding £4000, which increased capital might, it was thought, "be of real benefit and forward their gains." But "the unsettled state of publick affairs" pressed hard on the Company.
In June 1762 a loss of £576.5s.9d on the year's working was reported. The Company's stock was "too small for the operations of the House, especially in time of war," and eventually the money for purchasing sugar was so reduced that supplies amounted to not more than a third of the quantity used in normal times.
As a result of the straitened circumstances, an attempt was made by the Company to impose a regulation which, in the opinion of the managers, created suspicion that in their purchases they promoted rather the interest of the Company's factors in London than the aims of promoters of raw sugar in Scotland. The managers contended that it was impossible to carry on the manufacture of sugar baking without a factor in London, the market there being on many accounts the most advantages of the Company. It afforded "three very essential requisites" - the greatest choice of muscovadoes; the opportunity of buying up the largest quantity; and the best assortments. The last mentioned were to be had when prices were at their lowest, whereas importation into Scotland was most precarious.
Extended Premises.
Three years after the Company was formed plans were prepared for the erection of a warehouse for storing "refined goods". In July 1758 the east gable of the Sugar House was reported to be "rent in many places." It was therefore decided to rebuild the premises as well as extend them 17½ feet eastwards in order to carry on the Company's affairs with more convenience than hitherto.
Before, however, the work could be undertaken permission had to be obtained from the Incorporation of Hammermen, which body assented to building operations on the foundation of "the mutual garden dyke belonging to the said Corporation, and this Company, but to go no further east therewith," provided that the Company agreed "to be at the sole expence of repairing the said mutuall wall from the Dutchess of Gordon's lodgings to the said new building." The Company was also to allow the Hammermen to build "ane tenement on the foundation of the said mutuall garden wall" at any point below the Sugar House.
In July 1761 Lord Kames proposed that, "as the new road at the back of the Canongate on the south side" would "encroach on the dyke at the foot of the garden belonging to the Company," the latter should be rebuilt at the Company's expense. Evidently Kames's proposal was given effect to, for on November 13 it was reported that the expense of "rebuilding the wall at the south side of the Company's property" which was "lately pulled down in order to widen the new road" (ie, South Back of Canongate) was estimated at £9.12s.6d.
Relations with Workpeople.
The Minute Book throws interesting sidelights upon the relations between the Company and its workpeople. In the first year of the Company's existence there is an entry ordering "a boll of malt to be got to brew small beer for the men," while another empowers the Clerk to "gett beds, blankets, and sheets for the men's beds" in the "most frugal manner," an instruction which suggests that the workmen slept at the Sugar House.
The methods employed by the managers to settle labour disputes were marked by an Arcadian simplicity. A troublesome employee was John Peat, who, dissatisfied with the rate of pay, did his best to foster a like spirit among his fellow workmen. In March 1756 Peat, having been offered another situation, demanded more wages. But his services were not rated so highly as he imagined, for the managers refused "to augment his salary" and gave him "free liberty" to go. If, however, he was "satisfied to stay and mind his business," they were "content to keep him."
Peat did remain with the Company, but only to make mischief, becoming the leading spirit at the Sugar House for a "down tools" policy. In short, the workpeople refused to serve the Company without an increase of wages. But the managers were not to be intimidated. They resolutely declined to comply with the men's demands, and informed them that they (the managers) did not choose "to keep them above a month, but if any wished to remain they were to inform the Clerk." Peat now submitted a petition "in vindication of himself in the men's affairs," in response to which the Clerk was instructed "to give him a rebuke, to be more careful thereafter."
Service Rewarded.
But if the managers dealt firmly with recalcitrant workmen they were not slow to recognise conscientious service; they could be generous as well as just. On August 16, 1756, there is this quaint entry :-
"The managers, being sensible of Mr Kemptie's attachment to the interests of the Company, and of his care, industry, and application in all their concerns, have resolved as an incitement to him to continue such good services, to give him what sugars he shall want for the use of his family, and therefore they allow him from time to time to take what sugars he wants for that purpose at the sight of the manager for the week, and to state what he takes under charges of management."
An even more novel form of recompense is suggested by the manager's approval of the action of their Clerk in inviting the boilerman to a neighbouring public-house, and giving him "a glass of punch," because of his having been "very carefull and working hard upstairs himself on account of two of the men being sick." Nor were the grocers who did business with the Sugar House forgotten. In December, 1756, they were invited to meet with the managers "to drink a glass with us in Richard Johnston's, vintner."
A Fire at the Sugar House.
Numerous entries indicate that the Company was not unmindful of the welfare of the inhabitants of Canongate. In January 1757 a donation of two guineas was voted for the relief of the poor "in this time of scarcity"; likewise 40s towards the cost of lighting a lamp for a whole winter," a burden which the Company undertook at the request of the Magistrates. In 1758 the funds of the burgh were still low, and the Magistrates asked the Company to "continue to favour them with defraying the expense of the lamp." The response was £20 Scots. A third appeal was made, and another donation was voted.
On August 28, 1758, a fire occurred at the Sugar House which caused damage to the extent of £351.16s.7d. Next day the Clerk was instructed "to invite the Gentlemen in Canongate that gave us their assistance yesterday to meet with us this evening to drink a glass in James Aitken's, and the Gentlemen in Town tomorrow evening in Richard Johnston's." Three guineas each were given to the "Town Guard, Firemen, and Watermen that attended at the fire."
Nor were the managers forgetful of the "hard labour and fatigue" of their own employees on the occasion, the Panman being given a crown and each of the other servants half a crown. "Mr Brown, the Company's boiler," who as a result of his exertions, was confined to bed for several days, was rewarded with a suit of clothes. Brown might choose any colour, but the cloth must not exceed 7s per yard.
Such are the few gleanings from the crowded pages of the Minute Book of the Edinburgh Sugar House Company. The last entry is dated March 26, 1763.

[By kind permission of the Scotsman Publications Library and Syndication Executive, Edinburgh, 2011.]

SUGARHOUSE CLOSE, CANONGATE, EDINBURGH

An Old Minute Book - The Edinburgh Sugarhouse Co, 1763 to 1773
By A C Cumming

Dr A C Cumming was an Australian by birth and, as well as being a Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh University and a Board Member of United Molasses, was on the Board of Macfie's for fourteen years and Managing Director until his retirement in 1937. In his notes he refers to the Liverpool branch of Macfie's as "the only one that survives", showing that his little book was written prior to its closure in 1938. His extracts from the [second] Minute Book are sandwiched between notes on the history of Macfie's.

Notes from the Minute Book - March 1763 to November 1773

Boiler, upstairsman and cooper all lived in sugarhouse or in rooms attached.
Weekly Managers meetings, every Monday, 5 regularly attended. In turn, one attended the sugarhouse each day and signed in for which they were paid 2/6 per week.
25 April 1763 - Selling prices had to be reduced to match London prices.
Innes & Hope, brokers, from whom raw sugar was purchased. Order placed for 90 hogsheads to be sent no more than 10 or 12 per ship as would not be insured at that time of year.
11 July 1763 - House boiling 15 hogsheads per week, 8-9 tons.
The clerk, Mr Komptie, visited London for instruction in London sugarhouse at the expense of the company.
Two skilled men were the boiler and the upstairsman. The boiler was responsible for boiling the sugar, the upstairsman for filling the moulds and drying and packing the loaves.
Loaves were usually packed in barrels, hence the need for a cooper.
24 December 1764 - Mr Gutzmer the boiler was unhappy with the standards of the upstairsman, David Tweedie. He asked for a replacement from London. Mr Innes was asked to consult Mr Ede and his boiler Mr Wirth.
Tweedie was taken before the magistrates for libelling the cooper ... false libel admitted and Tweedie left his job.
28 January 1765 - The clerk received a letter stating that Mr Ede had found a "proper" upstairsman Peter Saat, previously with Dandridge & Blount "one of the greatest sugarhouses in London", and that Mr Guzman was already well aquainted with him.
7 March 1765 - Peter Saat arrived on foot from South Shields where his ship put in owing to bad weather (102 miles).
1765 - A general shortage of water in the city was causing considerable problems.
1766 - The underclerk, William Strachan, in very poor health. When he dies the company to pay for very simple funeral.
1766 - Accounts showed sugarhouse in a poor state finacially, however 1767 and 1768 were OK at around £1000 profit each year.
1770 - Mr Guzmam left in disgrace and Peter Saat was made boiler but required 3 months training in London and the House stayed idle.
1770 - Mr Ede of London to be thanked for all his help over previous years. 10 dozen of best claret to be sent by ship to Mr Innes for delivery. [Chopin bottles mentioned here.]
1772 - The dwelling house in which the panman, James Morton, and his family lived fell down, all lost. Clerk gave him £40 to help as he'd been in their employ for 14 years.

Notes regarding Macfie's ownership of the refinery in Sugarhouse Close

In 1804 William Macfie built the Leith Sugarhouse on the site of the old Red Herring House.
It burnt down in 1822 and was immediately rebuilt on the 'fireproof' principle.
The 'fireproof', and thus uninsured, sugarhouse collapsed in 1829 as the result of a fire !
Straight away Macfie's purchased the idle sugarhouse in Sugarhouse Close, on Canongate, and had it working within 3 weeks.
Leith was rebuilt and worked into the 1840s, Sugarhouse Close closed in 1840 [?].

SUGARHOUSE CLOSE, CANONGATE, EDINBURGH

Carlier (Edinburgh Sugar House Co) v Begrie, 1785
(National Archives of Scotland - CS271/18465)

John CARLIER, cashier & clerk to The Edinburgh Sugar House Company, represented the Company at the Court of Sessions in a claim for incorrectly charged import duties on sugar into Edinburgh, 1785.