By the WESTGATE

I think this was the early one implied in the document referring to the messuage occupied by the partners of the sugarhouse. (See below)

Close
By the RIVER

1722-29 PINFOLD John
1729> The group of Bristol refiners
1768> COOPER James & Joseph
1794?-1802 ERCKS Henry

I think this is the main sugarhouse described in 1710 as having 4 storeys and attics. (See below)

Close
THE GLASSHOUSE

This is the location of the Glasshouse, round and purpose-built for glassmaking but at some stage probably used for sugar. (See below)

Close

GLOUCESTER

CLICK the for sugar houses in that street.

(For local directory of sugar houses, click here.)    (For UK directory of sugar houses, click here.)

Back to Locations Page

The length of this map represents 0.6ml / 1km.        

 

 

**************************************

 

Sugar refining in Gloucester ...

Gloucester gets no mention in 'Deerr' or 'Hutcheson' and maybe only served to process the excess Bristol imports that that city could not cope with, however it is surely worth mentioning here for there is evidence of small-scale refining for more than 100yrs.
Sugar refining, along with glassmaking, appears to have been confined to a small area called The Island, west of the city centre between the Foreign Bridge and the Westgate Bridge and abutting the River Severn.
In the late 17thC there were "one or two sugar refineries in the city".(1) In 1710 "standing by the riverside was a tall structure of four storeys and attics, possibly built as a sugar refinery" and this was still operating in 1722, however, in 1729, the refiner John Pinfold moved his business to Temple St, Bristol and a group of Bristol refiners took over the Gloucester premises for warehousing sugar destined for the Midlands.(1) It was William Barnes, George Daubeny, Edward Whitchurch, John Gifford, Michael Pope and Edward Curtis who took over the Gloucester premises at an annual rent of 6 on a lease of 42yrs. The contract was honoured for at least the next 21yrs even though some of the gentlemen fell by the wayside.(2) The sugarhouse was working 1750-60, but then again for sale, with suggestions that the Bristol refiners were once again involved in its closure. I.V.Hall, the late Bristol researcher, mentions in his unpublished research notes that J Hannington was unsuccessful with the Gloucester Sugar House in 1760 (6), however by 1777 he appears to have been making a success of refining in Barbados as his son was admitted to St John's College, Cambridge, having previously studied at Eton.(7) In 1768, Barnes and a Morgan Smith leased the sugarhouse formerly called Lower Glasshouse, "lately in possession of Daniel Ellis", to James and Joseph Cooper on the condition that "should they make and set up erect build raise or erect building structures for making baking refining selling bonding sugar for using exercising conveying on any branch of the trade or business of sugar baking or sugar refining" and it was mutually agreed by all that if the building was destroyed by fire the Coopers would pay 600 to Barnes & Smith.
There must have been a second sugarhouse, for two timber merchants "occupied a former sugar house beside the river in 1736".(1) This could well have been the sugarhouse mentioned in a document dated 1725 & 1735 regarding a messuage late in possession of the partners of a sugarhouse near to the Westgate involving lands belonging to St Bartholomew's Hospital.(4)
The VCH reads "Sugar refining was re-established in the Island by Henry Ercks before 1799, when his premises were devastated by fire. In 1801, Ercks found new partners but the partnership was dissolved the following year and he was later declared bankrupt. In 1808 a brewery for porter and strong beer was built on the site of the sugar house." The London Gazette shows Henry's bankruptcy in 1802 that was probably brought about by the death of banker Samuel Niblett, one of the three bankers who put up his mortgage of 1000 for land to the west of the sugarhouse in 1796. Niblett's estate insisted on 500, which Henry Ercks did not have, being made over to others assumedly to pay Niblett's debts. Henry's children Mary, Louis & Ambrose were also mentioned in the document even though Mary was only 21 and Ambrose 14, both bpt in Christ Church, Spitalfields, London.(5) Henry Ercks had sold his London business in Wentworth St in 1794, before moving to Gloucester ... he died in Liverpool in 1827 aged 72.

1. Gloucestershire Victoria County History vol 4
2. BGAS Transactions 1965 vol 84
3. Gloc RO GDR/K2/4
4. Gloc RO GBR/J/1/2018B etc
5. Gloc RO D3117/784
6. BRO 36772 Box-5
7. Admissions to College of St John Cambridge 1776-1780

 

The curious case of John Gardner's ledger ! ...

John Gardner was running the Cheltenham Original Brewery in about 1800. He used a very large ledger in which to record what appear to be small brewery accounts. Just who was John Gardner? Was this not his first business? Was he previously a sugar broker or was that possibly the trade of his family? Just why did John Gardner use a secondhand ledger for his brewery business and use it in such a way that would suggest every spare square inch of unused page was of great value??

This ledger is held at the Gloucester Record Office under reference D5130/6/1 and tucked in between the marbled front leaves is a short hand-written note dated 24 Sep 1953 from Peter Mathias of Jesus College, Cambridge, which begins, "This ledger has been used for two separate purposes. The original entries [double page folios] 1771-1778 are those of a Sugar Merchant's business, including actual sugar buying, selling, brokerage, interest charges etc; and an occasional cotton transaction. Superimposed on this, in double columns per page are the personal accounts of (doubtless) John Gardner's Brewery 1800-1807. These include many small trade accounts, bricklaying and so forth, and probably contain all private sales of beer for the years in question, though no sales to public houses. ... The question still remains over when Gardner was in the sugar business as well as brewer and banker, or his father before him."

Some of the names that head the double pages of the sugar entries read ... George Brucker, Turquand, John Walker, Goodhart & Wittich, Charles Cammeyer, Arney & Walker, Steilen & Doorman, George Deichman, Harman Samler, Helmken & Ratcliffe, Robert Walker, and Thornton & Watson. Not all the names, by far, but enough to show quite some portfolio of London's top refiners of the time as well as Thornton & Watson of Hull, not only dealing in sugar but also borrowing money.
Harman Samler purchased sugar 1771 - 847 and cash 1772-76 - 3802, paid off slowly, whilst he lent cash to the broker 1772 - 303 and 1778 - 4000.
Thornton & Watson dealt with him for only about 15 months - Feb 1771 to Apr 1772 - purchasing sugar for a total of just over 3600, and all paid for promptly.

So why is this ledger so peculiar? .... take the Thornton & Watson pages - beautifully headed Thornton & Watson; three columns to the left of the page used for month, day, item sold; four columns to the right used for a number, , s, d; with the central columns blank and using just over half the length of the page. However, this is now added to in a less tidy hand ... down those central columns are the accounts for 1806-7 of Mr Cotter at Barretts; and at the bottom of the page the accounts of Dr Cother 1806-7, Mr Neal at Llewellins 1802, Mr Chambers 1807 and Mr Rawlins the milkman 1812. The opposite page has added the accounts of Mr Eliker at Haywards 1806 and those of Mr Ingram the shoemaker 1801-3. Both pages are completely filled.

These tables summarize the sugar-related entries ...

Merchant - Total trade - Sugar purchased Money purchased - Sugar sold Money sold - Period
£ s. d. from broker from broker to broker to broker
Oswald Goodwin 83 . 10 . 6 83 . 10 . 6 1771
Vaughan, Horton & Brooksbank 606 . 13 . 6 606 . 13 . 6 1771
Robert Walker 381 . 16 . 6 381 . 16 . 6 1771
James Woodbridge 3230 . 19 . 6 3230 . 19 . 6 1771
Charles Broughton ~ 7515 . 8 . 6 988 . 10. 0 6516 . 13 . 0 1771-2
Richard & Warington 1255 . 16 . 7 1255 . 16 . 7 1771-2
William Hawys 2451 . 10 . 8 2451 . 10 . 8 1771-4
Hibbert, Turrier & Horton 1196 . 6 . 6 1095 . 17 . 0 1771-4
Long, Drake & Long 1621 . 13 . 1 1376 . 17 . 7 1771-4
Robert Udny & James 645 . 11 . 6 640 . 0 . 6 1771-4
Kilby & Symes 244 . 17 . 6 244 . 17 . 6 1773
Lane Son & Fraser 267 . 15 . 6 267 . 15 . 6 1773
Thomas Margetson 148 . 13 . 6 148 . 13 . 6 1773
Thomas McGhie 1176 . 12 . 6 1176 . 12 . 6 1773
George Eustace 283 . 18 . 3 283 . 18 . 3 1773-4
Morse & Smith 730 . 3 . 5 730 . 3 . 5 1773-4
John White 1929 . 12 . 11 1929 . 12 . 11 1773-4
William Snell 584 . 9 . 0 584 . 9 . 0 1773-5
Edie & Co 120 . 7 . 0 120 . 7 . 0 1774
Alexander Grant 329 . 18 . 6 329 . 18 . 6 1774

~ Charles Broughton purchased refined sugar from the broker.

 
Refiner - Total trade - Sugar purchased Money purchased - Sugar sold Money sold - Period
£ s. d. from broker from broker to broker to broker
Bauke & Davey 271 . 14 . 1 271 . 14 . 1 1771
Charles Cammeyer 470 . 6 . 7 470 . 6 . 7 1771
Robert Halliday 1362 . 12 . 10 1362 . 12 . 10 1771
Jaspers & Eggers 563 . 0 . 8 563 . 0 . 8 1771
Turner & Lindenburg 131 . 0 . 4 131 . 0 . 4 1771
Barnard Turner 414 . 5 . 0 414 . 5 . 0 1771
JC Turquand & Son 192 . 1 . 1 192 . 1 . 1 1771
JS Turquand 186 . 4 . 9 186 . 4 . 9 1771
Arney & Walker 75 . 13 . 0 74 . 8 . 0 1771-2
Robert Jenner 107 . 13 . 0 107 . 10 . 6 1771-2
Pell & Clinker 1173 . 0 . 5 1173 . 0 . 5 1771-2
Stielen & Doorman ~ 1956 . 8 . 11 1662 . 7 . 11 200 . 0 . 0 94 . 1 . 0 1771-2
Thornton & Watson 3664 . 18 . 0 3664 . 18 . 0 1771-2
James Moxham 334 . 9 . 11 334 . 9 . 11 1771-3
Beckman & Charleson 1448 . 13 . 0 1448 . 13 . 0 1772
George Brucker ~ 489 . 0 . 6 425 . 1 . 6 63 . 19 . 0 1772
Frampton & Sutton 855 . 0 . 0 855 . 0 . 0 1772
Thomas Jacomb 129 . 2 . 3 129 . 2 . 3 1772
Slack, Hawes & Co 503 . 5 . 0 503 . 5 . 0 1772
Smith, Nash Son & Kemble 2408 . 19 . 6 2408 . 19 . 6 1772
John Walker 327 . 10 . 4 327 . 10 . 4 1772
William Butt 625 . 17 . 3 625 . 17 . 3 1773
Chesmer & Ellertt 7892 . 3 . 4 7857 . 13 . 10 1773-4
Margaret Lear 1391 . 13 . 1 1391 . 13 . 1 1773-5
George Deichman 1354 . 16 . 0 1354 . 16 . 0 1774
Helmkin & Ratcliffe 550 . 6 . 0 548 . 15 . 0 1774

~ Stielen & Doorman sold refined sugar to the broker; and took a four month loan.
~ George Brucker - one sale , one purchase, both of refined sugar.

 
Refiner - Total trade - Sugar purchased Money purchased - Sugar sold Money sold - Period
£ s. d. from broker from broker to broker to broker
Harman Samler ~ 9735 . 12 . 1 847 . 0 . 1 3802 . 15 . 0 473 . 3 . 6 4303 . 0 . 0 1771-9

~ Harman Samler made three sugar purchases in 1771 and one sale in 1774; he borrowed large sums in 1774 and 1776 and neither was fully paid off until 1777; he lent the broker 4000 early in 1778 to assist his purchase of a 30yr annuity and it was not fully returned by mid-1779.

 

The ledger begins with two pages of Profit & Loss accounts for 1771 and 1772, but these appear, by my limited knowledge, to require other ledgers and journals from the brokers business for us to be able to understand how and where he was making his money. However ...

Page 85 of the ledger shows the trading of sugar between the merchants and the refiners, via the broker, for the five months Oct 1773 to Feb 1774. Sugar originated from Jamaica, Grenada, St Kitts, and Montserrat, and was sold to the broker by 16 different merchants, but purchased by only 4 refiners, Chesmer & Ellertt (18 purchases), Margaret Lear (3), Wm Butt (1) and Helmkin & Ratcliffe (1). The profit margins, in the region of 2%-6%, vary from deal to deal, but I can find no common mark-up for individual sellers, buyers, or for the origin of the sugar. During those 5 months, the broker traded 470 hogsheads of sugar for a total of 10423, making a profit of 455.

There appears to have been little activity, in sugar anyway, after 1774 ... only Samler's dealings are recorded. Was this because his business had folded or simply that he had concentrated on another commodity ?

 

... I'm sure John Gardner was not a sugar broker, so who was? ...

... after further research, here is one possibility ...

The ledger was clearly that of a London sugar broker. The period 1770-1778 was too early for the ledger to be attributed to John Gardner (d.1836) himself, however we do know that he was a banker and common brewer (1), was a sleeping partner in the County of Gloucester Bank in 1812 (2), and a partner in the firm of Pitt, Gardner & Co bankers in Cheltenham in 1830 (3). The common connection here is 'banker'.
Comparing the names of those involved in banking in Gloucester/Cheltenham at the time with names amongst London's merchants, Fendall was the only name to appear in both.

William Fendall (will proved 1813) was a barrister and banker in Gloucester, being a partner in the Old Bank (4) and an investor in the Bullo Pill Railway (5). His will shows that he and his siblings, John, Mary & Harriett, were recipients of annual payments from the High Court of Chancery under the terms of the case of 'Fendall v. Nash', which dealt with legacies left to minors by the will of a bankrupt (6). Separately named in the will are William's married sisters Mary Newton and Harriett Moultrie who both married at St Marylebone, London, in 1788 and 1799 respectively. There's an indication that Harriett was born at Matson, Gloucestershire, about 1769 (7) ... and Matson is where William was living when he wrote his will.
John Fendall (born 1729 in Gloucester, will proved 1791) of Gt Portland St, St Marylebone, London, named three children in his will (8), John, Mary & Harriett as well as his wife Sarah and his friend Edward Rogers of Gloucestershire for whom he had been the London agent (9). He left his property at Dudshill Court, Upper Sapey, Herefordshire, in trust for his wife and successive children for a term of 500 years, but little else. It was a very short will for a London gentleman, however that may, in the circumstances, be understandable for I believe that John Fendall was the father of those siblings mentioned by William Fendall and that bankruptcy proceedings were indeed begun against him in 1778 but would not be completed until after his death. He wrote his will in 1786 not knowing the outcome of his bankruptcy nor indeed that it would take the 'Fendall v. Nash' case to sort out his will.
The one-line obituary for John Fendall published in the Gentleman's Magazine 1791 I'm sure confirms he was the father of William and his siblings by simply stating "At his son's house in the City of Gloucester, John Fendall Esq."

John Fendall, referred to as 'Dr' in The Times (10) and listed as a surgeon in the 1763 (11), appears to have had money to invest in 1777. With the trading of commodities doing well, he chose to invest large sums of money in a partnership with James Lodge, a merchant, packer, dealer and chapman of Little St Helens in the City of London (12)(13). However, Fendall "... who knew nothing about the business ..." (10) made a grave error of judgement, for without Fendall's knowledge Lodge immediately paid off a number of personal debts using these new funds from the business - possibly 36,000 (14). In March 1778, bankruptcy proceedings began against Lodge & Fendall (12). "Lodge v Fendall, 1 Ves. Jr. 166" shows that Fendall considered himself a creditor of the business with Lodge's use of company money an act of fraud, but Lord Thurlow found otherwise - "that those who, being in partnership, are themselves, or some of them, debtors to the creditors of every class, cannot come in competition with the creditors" (15).

Correspondence (16) between Fendall's friends William Burford in London and Edward Rogers in Gloucester reflect their concern ...
1778 Mar 26 - "Mr Lodge has seen some of the creditors in Lancashire who were averse to the commission ... he is the most compleat villain - I'm sure there will be sufficient to hang him ... more than thirty thousand is sunk and passed to his private account ... villainous partner ... I wish I could tell you our friend's private fortune was secure - I fear it is not."
1778 Mar 31 - "First meeting at Guildhall this morning ... both there ... he [Lodge] will brazen it out, plead ignorance ... a bad man ... maybe a deficiency of fifteen to sixteen thousand pounds at the end of it."
1778 Oct 14 - "Saw Mr Fendall - very well as they all are."
1780 Jan 22 - "Friends from Gt Portland Street dined with me on Friday ... very well ... little Harriett in high spirits."

James Lodge was born in Little St Helens in 1738 son of John & Catherine Lodge who had married in Westminster Abbey in 1730. He appears to have married in mid-1760s and had eight children with wife Mary (7). The family firm had traded from Little St Helens since as early as 1735 (17) and Kent's Directories show them at 12 Little St Helens - 1759, Lodge John & Comp, Packers; 1769, Lodge John, James & John, Packers; 1771, Lodge, John, James and John, Packers; and in 1777 as Lodge & Fendall.

Just like the Tielhen trade books that have survived from 20 or so years earlier (17), this ledger may have survived because it was saved as evidence for the High Court hearings rather than simply being disposed of at the close of Lodge's business. If so, it probably remained with the Fendall banking family in Gloucester and John Gardner eventually took it to use for his minor brewery accounts.

*

My first (short) study of the ledger led to this research ... the bankruptcy of Lodge & Fendall appeared to coincide with the last entries in John Gardner's ledger and I was sure that the ledger represented the sugar-trading activity of James Lodge 1771-1778, however, after a second (thorough) study of the ledger I am now far less certain. There is just one set of initials JL in the ledger and the London/Gloucester connections are all sound, but I'm now wondering about Samler's loan ... would such a respected businessman actually lend 4000 to a person who was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, and if so why would Lodge record it in this ledger??
It is a pity that the trading records of the sugar merchants/refiners have not survived, otherwise we would be able to cross-check the entries.

*

1 His will TNA Prob 11/1864
2 http://www.friendsofpittville.org/docs/PittvilleMemories.pdf
3 Pigot's Directory 1830
4 VCH Gloc Vol 4
5 His will TNA Prob 11/1550
6 Fendall v Nash, V. 197, n.
7 IGI
8 His will TNA Prob 11/1204
9 Gloucester Record Office D269/F11/9-24
10 The Times 13 Aug 1813 (report of another case)
11 Mortimer's Universal Directory 1763
12 London Gazette 24 Mar 1778
13 Kent's London Directory 1777
14 bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F1/0001/0001.f1.0802.pdf (p.813)
15 Lodge v. Fendall, 1 Ves. Jr. 166 (1790??)
16 Gloucester Record Office D627/33
17 Warwickshire Record Office CR 611/877/2-6
18 www.mawer.clara.net/tielhen.html & TNA C104/211

**

 

 

 

HOME/DATABASE
SITE MAP