In early December last year we published a letter from artist Ms Bernadette Persaud who said that a few weeks previously the site of the Chateau Margot chimney had been closed off to the public and that the gates now carried two notices. The first of these indicated that this was the ‘Nadia Gardens Housing Development Inc Chateau Margot’, while the second informed passers-by that it was private property, and that trespassers would be prosecuted, etc.
The estate executor, Mr Roshan Khan was quick to respond, telling this newspaper that all the developmental plans for the land around the chimney included the preservation of the landmark. We quoted him as saying: “They have said they want to put a beautiful park around it and make it accessible for use by the public, but for now I’m just protecting it from vandals and thieves. I would never lend support to anything that would destroy my national heritage.” He went on to offer the assurance that, “I have been mandated to grant access to anyone wanting to do research, to any visitors, including school tours et cetera.”
That, of course, does not dispense with all Ms Persaud’s concerns, and in recent correspondence published in Stabroek News on February 2 this year, she itemised these. Among other things she enquired how much land would be reserved for the gardens, and most important, how building works would affect the structural stability of the chimney. She also asked about the height of the new buildings. It might be added that any buildings located in front of the chimney would obscure the vista to a greater or lesser degree, and one must assume that this development is designed to erect structures in front of it. Be that as it may, Ms Persaud touched on an issue which no official will be inclined to answer, namely, what guarantees exist that buyers now and in the future will continue to respect the chimney site. The short answer is of course that there are none, and there are no indications that either of our two major parties has an interest in the matter.
At the end of last year we published that the land at Chateau Margot had been purchased by the Idris Deen family from Bookers in 1959. The chimney itself, according to the National Trust, was built in 1889 by Buxton bricklayer Alemo Gordon, although the agency does not say whether the bricks were locally manufactured or not. An extant photograph of the sugar factory at Chateau Margot, probably dating from the late nineteenth century, actually shows three chimneys: the one which has survived behind the factory, a second smaller one somewhat further back, and a third which may be of a similar size to the familiar chimney off to the right near a group of buildings.
The National Trust writes that the chimney which we know served as a beacon to ships, and while that was no doubt so, for a time, at least, the chimney to the right must have also served the same purpose. It is possible that this structure as well as the back chimney predated the one we see today, and one of them at least might have been associated with an early factory. Perhaps these other chimneys were pulled down along with the 1880s factory, although the agency gives no date for when this particular demolition occurred.
What can be said is that according to the survey of plantations which was published by the Argosy newspaper in 1883, “A very fine new set of buildings was lately erected on modern lines,” so perhaps that was in the 1870s or even 1880-82 and presumably referred to a factory. One could speculate maybe that the chimney was erected for these “new buildings.” No one has done any research to find out when Bookers took over, and whether they used the same facilities and equipment as that which the Argosy reporter saw, or whether they made changes. The survey also mentioned, for example, that the estate had had the vacuum pan process for many years. In other words, no one, including the National Trust, knows much about the evolution of the site, despite the fact that although we have had hundreds of plantations over the centuries, this chimney (a windmill aside) is the only substantial pre-20th century survival associated with the processing of our sugar.
For those in charge of the conduct of our affairs, it might interest them as well to know that Chateau Margot, which in 1883 was owned by Messrs Daniels, employed 165 Creoles (that is to say, locally-born Africans), 80 people from other lands and 672 Indians. It was not, therefore a small operation.
It will surprise no one to learn that officialdom has been sullenly silent since Ms Persaud first wrote, and as for the Minister responsible for Culture, Dr George Norton, this newspaper was unsuccessful in its attempts to contact him. It is true that the political class has other things on its mind apart from sugar chimneys at the moment, but in all their promises about what will happen in the new oil era, none of its members has had anything to say about the preservation of our material heritage and matters related to it.
In October last year GuySuCo announced it had moved to turn some of its estates into a “cultural tourism product” where people would be able to experience estate operations first hand. The corporation’s Public Relations Officer Audreyanna Thomas was quoted as saying: “Cultural heritage tourism in the GuySuCo context will refer to the experience of places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people from the sugar industry in Guyana both past and present. It will include irreplaceable historic, cultural and natural resources in the sugar industry, both past and current.
Admittedly, the Chateau Margot chimney is not part of GuySuCo’s holdings, but it comes well within the corporation’s definition of cultural heritage as applied to sugar. What ideally one would like to see is a museum beside the chimney, perhaps reflecting the industrial development of our oldest surviving industry, with 19th and 20th century photographs of sugar technology and estates, and models of the earliest grinding and boiling techniques. It is probably not generally recognised that in the 19th century this country was famously innovative where this technology was concerned – not just some of the planters and their engineers, but also key workers like the pan-boilers. If such a vision were ever to become a reality – perhaps a forlorn hope − it would require the input of a sugar historian and museum specialists.
Mr Khan referred to beautiful gardens being planned for the site, and Ms Persaud looked forward to their creation which would be a fitting setting for a national monument and a much needed green space for the community. Although one might be accused of undue cynicism, one has to wonder whether the developers have it in mind to make the gardens accessible to the public, or whether they are intended just for residents. Mr Khan has not released the plans for the site – assuming these have been drawn up – but certainly one would not want to see a narrow pathway beside the housing scheme leading to a fenced off chimney which denies the viewer any perspective on the landmark. There is in any case the incongruity of a modern housing scheme cheek by jowl with a historical monument, even if the houses are more tasteful than these structures often are nowadays.
The Chateau Margot chimney is not a gazetted monument under the National Trust Act, although at an earlier stage the Trust had committed to maintaining it. As such, one would hope that a civil engineer has looked at, or will look at again, the durability of the chimney and how stable it is long before the developers send in their excavators. While it could be subject to a provisional preservation order, one presumes it would have to be gazetted first, and for that an administration would have to seek parliamentary approval. Nevertheless, this would seem to be a viable route to proceed for any government in the post-March 2 era. As Ms Persaud wrote, “Unless we find a way to permanently protect this monument, it will always stand threatened by the vagaries of what passes for ‘development.’”
