Old Government House

This report was commissioned by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) to record the building fabric as it was exposed during the conservation work of December 1994 to February 1995, known as Stage 4. This report also includes observations made on several short site visits during 1993 and 1994 during work on the Governor Hunter period part of Old Government House.

The locations covered by this report include the whole of the North Wing (Governor's Bedroom, Dressing Room, Small Lobby and Breakfast Room); the North Colonnade; the North Cross Hall and the north end of the South Cross Hall; and both levels of the Middle, or Staircase, Hall; as well as several minor works locations.

That the uncovered walls revealed more than a two phased scheme (one Hunter period, one Macquarie period) as previously held, would be an understatement. The time originally estimated for the archaeological recording, as a consequence of the richness of data uncovered, was unequal to the task. However one is aware that the opportunity for such study conditions may not be again repeated for perhaps a century, one may feel privileged to be part of the work. The resultant report is therefore considerably larger than originally envisioned.

The recording conditions of the site were lively. Recording had to keep ahead of the builders and plasterers: this was made possible with the co-operation

of the builder, John Wallis of Noel T Leach; Christopher Levins and Ian Stephenson of the National Trust; Linda Drew-Smith of Old Government House; and Clive Lucas of Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Associates (architects). Close contact was maintained with all these people throughout the process. Although recording is best done without distraction, it was found useful to organize recording times with an overlap of about two hours per day while the workmen were on site: this arrangement permitted an interchange of insights and practical arrangements to be made to facilitate recording. The arrangement worked very well.

I am grateful to Ian Stephenson for providing copies of site plans from early to recent times and some enlarged illustrations. In the light of the complex physical phasing uncovered, relating to a restricted period of a around twenty years (1799-1817/1819), detailed research is now required on the building minutiae of the period (Lumber Yard etc). Further archaeological work should take place to clarify the building phases and develop a sound basis for the future interpretation of the building and its relation to the site before, during and after the 1799-1819 period. The building and site relate directly to Parramatta Park as a whole and is part of a greater picture beyond those boundaries.

The intention of this report is to arrange the material in such a way so that people may draw conclusions from the presented data, independent of the conclusions presented here. However, one must relate a particular feature to the whole of the complex and not in isolation. Where pertinent, it will be explained in the text that there may be several ways of interpreting some features. Some of these features may be clarified in time by further archaeological investigation and research into primary source material; other features may always remain a topic of debate, (which is good). It must be kept in mind that Old Government House was virtually gutted in 1908 and what we have is basically a shell. Fortunately a small percentage of the timber work was returned but we have lost many features which would have clarified the physical phasing: (roof, flooring, plaster and render, parts of walls, nearly all the reveal areas and framing of windows and doors, the stone sills, practical services (kitchen, plumbing, water supply etc., features), nearly all of the underfloor deposits and even most of the landscaping. However, there are clues everywhere which can be made to talk and that is why the National Trust instigated a study of the exposed features, the subject of this report.

As far as possible, the data has been arranged both in illustrated and written form. To save cluttering up the text, the presence of features such as skirting and chair rail distribution are to be found on the elevations. Brick measurements are presented on plans of the respective areas.

Although archaeological analysis is ongoing, there are a number of benefits already evident which makes Old Government House a resource for the study of early architecture, building materials and constructional techniques; revelations regarding early trades, people and their origins---a glimpse into the workings of every day life during the founding years of the Australian nation. More specifically, there are features which will augment the interpretation of First Government House, Sydney as there are many parallels (drainage, building materials, construction techniques etc). One riddle has already been solved regarding early colonial flooring techniques, as the result of one small detail found upstairs. There is potential information on unexpected topics such as the Australian cattle industry (hair found in plaster from different periods). Mortar contains fragments of shells representative of the Sydney region (some from aboriginal middens) but also encapsulates plant material from the immediate vicinity. The present work at Old Government House has already sparked off renewed interest in the sphere of colonial interior decorating. Most of all, the new data provides us with an intimate look into the unwritten life in and around Old Government House. The evidence of a serious about-turn in the original plan for the North Wing, centred on the Breakfast Room, is as loud as any written account could say, "This is Macquarie speaking!

It should now be easier to pinpoint locations for future investigation.

Return

REPORT POST SCRIPT

In the first draft of this report an attempt was made to fit the various building phases of the main building, North Colonnade and the North Wing into one phasing system, starting with Governor Phillip. Because the physical phasing of the main building is so different from that of the North Wing, it was decided to present separate phasing systems for each of the three areas for the sake of clarity. These may be later incorporated into a comprehensive phasing scheme when the south side of the main building and the South Wing, including all foundation and roof areas, receive some further attention. A full phasing scheme requires, as far as possible, even treatment.

A second report is recommended which incorporates all areas (including the above) into a single phasing system, covering the years from 1790 to, say. the 1830s. The report should present the relevant data in the form of illustrations so that such data may be easily converted for use in future interpretation, promotion etc.

The recent Stage IV work done at Old Government House has not only raised our knowledge of the early development of the building, it has also increased the number of questions about the building and the site. Before the interest dies down, it might be a good timing to develop an excavation strategy based on some of the more significant questions which have arisen from the recent work.

This commission behind this report had very narrow parameters in so far that it was a simple recording commission at a time of low expectations of what might be found under the cement render. The stimulation of what actually emerged was sufficient to inspire me to go well beyond those initial parameters and hours allotted.

Dr Robert V J Varman

April 9, 1995

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

Ian Stephenson who drew my attention to the important work being undertaken at Old Government House in 1993 and 1994; and provided many an hour of stimulating conversation regarding OGH phasing and outbuildings and Parramatta in general. To Chris Levins for his interest in the archaeological work I was doing at related sites and helped overcome initial access difficulties etc.,

To Linda Drew-Smith who swept aside all access obstacles before me on a daily basis (even on weekends and after-hours), making work a pleasure at OGH. A tribute to all the guides I met and spoke to for their enthusiasm for knowledge, stimulating conversation and pleasantness.

To Clive Lucas for the stimulating site visits and telephone conversations. For sharing his great knowledge and experience of architectural furniture and observations of other sites he has worked on.

To the builder, John Wilkins of Noel T Leach, for being completely obliging and for co-operating to keep me ahead of the work being undertaken, opening up areas needing access etc. Also to the site workmen who helped me with the practicalities of the site, lighting etc., and friendly disposition.

To the National Trust of Australia (NSW) in general and particularly Robyn Pearson and Elsa Atkin who kept me informed (sometimes with great difficulty).

To Ralph Hawkins, historian, and his knowledge of tools, the early timber and cattle industry, early grants etc., and anecdotes relating to OGH. There are many others, also Alan Croker, architect, of Design 5, who worked on the site during the 1980s.

Return

S I T E P H A S I N G

The phasing in this report is designed as a means of organizing the archaeological evidence found on the site. The phasing deals with the physical changes made to Old Government House. As most of these changes occurred during the Macquarie period, the bulk of the phasing numbers will be found allotted to that era. Because, to date, very little has been identified of the period from 1790 to 1799, phase 1 has been allotted to account for that important era but may later be expanded by adding letters.

Until further research is carried out we must be satisfied with broad dates, though within a relatively tight chronological framework.

The phasing sequence is based on physical evidence of a succession of works and demolitions: it had to be determined which walls, plastering etc., were earlier and which later. The determining process for the main building was not difficult because older parts were tied into newer work. The case for the North Wing is not so simple because the bulk of the construction does not closely resemble the work done on the main building, though phases after the Macquarie period tie in nicely. Sub-phases have been used provisionally for the North Wing.

Historical sources for the information relating to the period, 1790 to 1800 are to be found in appendix I.

P H A S E 1, 1 7 9 0 . . . P H A S E 1, 1 7 9 0 . . .

Governor Phillip Governor Phillip . . .

No reliable evidence has been found of Phillip's house to date. Attempts have been made to fit parts of the Hunter building into Phillip's scheme but these have failed through lack of hard evidence. It will have to be faced that if anything survives of Phillip's building, these will need to be located through excavation based on very sound research and site comparisons of similar archaeological sites, for example, the 1788 and 1792 government houses on Norfolk Island, First Government House site at Sydney.

The only present example of phase 1 remains may be seen in the Archaeology Room and under the North Colonnade. These remains are brick footings of a fairly large outbuilding, most likely of timber framing. Being to the north of the axis of the present complex, it appears to be the building with a chimney shown in several illustrations dating before the Macquarie period. There are good reasons to suppose that it survived to see the first of the Macquarie building projects, a theory proposed by Ian Stephenson now confirmed by physical evidence.

Considering the nature of these footings and the historical record, there are some complications in placing the remains in 1790: Watkin Tench commented on the 'excellent out-houses and appurtenances' in November 1790. However, as the brickmaker Beckett did not arrive in Parramatta until (by) September 1790 and his first batch of bricks burned by mid to late November, it is unlikely that the main house and outbuildings had benefited from Parramatta bricks. The first bricks were found not to be durable and of a 'deep red' colour (obviously not thoroughly burned): these are not the bricks of the surviving footings. Yet, there were bricks at Parramatta for chimneys and a 'brick store' and house (brick and tile), bricklayers being present by July 1790. The earliest bricks and tiles had to come from Sydney.

It seems that Beckett, brickmaker from Birmingham, had been successful in the end and the extra-large bricks of the footings attributable to him, these being near to the mid to north English traditional large size. It is not unlikely that these large bricks had been made by Beckett in Sydney, all the other brickmakers (King, Wheeler and Bloodworth (builder/bricklayer)) came from the London area and used to making bricks conforming to the brick tax smaller sizes. Recalling Tench's comment on the 'excellent out-houses' and considering the lack of documentation supporting the construction of a new substantial outbuilding after 1790, we can conclude that the footings almost certainly date to 1790.

The large bricks are of a yellowish colour, fairly well formed but slightly brittle (underfired). These bricks are slop-moulded (relatively smooth surfaced) instead of the usual sand-moulded (note the Hunter bricks with a sandy surface and telltale tuck wrinkles). Slop-moulded bricks have been found in the earliest phase of the Dairy Cottage, Parramatta Park and at Old Government House (earliest Macquarie phases), so may represent an early Parramatta tradition. The (loamy clay) mortar used in the footing is very hard yet shows no sign of lime, an founding date indicator.

The tree stump in the Archaeology room predates the footings. No attempt was made to remove the tree when the footings were laid, in fact some of the bricks were deliberately reduced to accommodate a pre-existing root (internal south-west corner).

Indications are that the structure served, at least partly, as a kitchen.

Return

P H A S E 2, 1 7 9 9 . . .

Governor Hunter . . . speculative =

The east two levels, chimneys and cellars of the main building belong to this phase. The original west elevation (on both levels) were modified during the Macquarie period and later to receive new doors and windows. The Foyer, east and west walls, was modified during the construction of the portico or slightly after.

During 1908 most of the door and window reveals were demolished and rebuilt using dry press bricks: the areas above windows and doors were also rebuilt. The floors were replaced and strengthening pillars and walls built in the cellar and under the Foyer. During the same time the cellar entrances were totally reconstructed, as were the small ventilation windows. All of this work was done using drypress bricks and hard portland cement.

Collins wrote for November 1798 that the old house had been assessed after the roof fell during bad weather and found unrepairable. A gang of brickmakers was sent 'up there', presumably from Sydney (where Collins lived).

It would be interesting to know if the old house had survived until the new house had been built, as was the case on Norfolk Island, because it would mean that underground remains might yet be found. Intriguingly, the old house was not demolished until 1799 when it was listed in the works account for that year. Even so, the wording of the works done suggest that it was first demolished and perhaps some of the materials reused in the new house: 'pulled down all the woodwork of government house, and began it anew' and 'Pulled down and rebuilt Gov't House' (See Appendix I).

Sufficient bricks had been made by April of 1799 for the foundations (and hence, cellar) to have been established. Hunter wrote in June 1799 that the building was 'almost up' when a gale caused substantial damage. Collins confirmed the damage and mentioned that Government House, Parramatta, had been 'nearly finished'. There is some evidence under the Foyer that suggests a minor rebuilding or strengthening: the buttresses against the Foyer wall in the cellar may also be a consequence of the gale (but requires further investigation).

The 1798/1799 bricks are of a distinctly large size, reflecting Beckett's influence. However, the gang of brickmakers was sent from Sydney. As Beckett must still have been in the district, it is not unlikely that he would have headed this gang. The bricks were moulded via the sandstock method, in distinction to the slop-moulded bricks of the old footing and the earliest phases of the Macquarie period---perhaps a compromise between Beckett and the Sydney gang? In any event, the bricks were carelessly moulded even in consideration of that early period but were very well baked. The bricks appear to have been clamp burned (as was common for a long time).

Apart from the fireplaces, chimneys and external corners, the bricks were laid in the rarely seen header bond (Clive Lucas has seen this bond in Britain on some substantial country buildings). Builders were still not sure of the strength of their materials (especially mortar) up to that time and it seems that they employed this bond particularly because there was an upper floor to support. The construction technique was a form of bulk construction analogous to adobe construction. It was the lack of lime that forced builders to limit buildings to one level during the early colonial years, afraid that higher walls would not support their own weight. Stretchers were used at external corners. The chimneys were constructed in English bond, nicely done with closers to regulate the joints.

The mortar is of loamy soil and shell-lime mortar, perhaps mixed with some unknown (organic?) element which it might have in common with the limeless mortar of the 1790 footing. The lime content is fairly low, though large shell fragments may be seen.

No internal plaster has survived but early plaster has survived on the chimney stacks and the west wall of the Hunter building. Two plaster phases were noted.

DESCRIPTION OF FEATURES Return

I N T R O D U C T I O N

RECORDING CIRCUMSTANCES

The recording for this report took place as the cement render was progressively removed from the walls in the Stair Hall (ground and part upper floors), the north end of the South Cross Hall, the North Cross Hall, the North Colonnade and the North Wing. The removal of the render took place over a period from December 1994 to February 1995. The removal in any one area was not done at one time for several reasons, for example; in the Stair Hall, ground floor, most (but not all) of the render was removed in December 1994; the remainder and upper floor render was removed during February 1995. The replastering was also done in stages. This process made it difficult to pick out some of the trends in the brickwork at first.

Many diagnostic materials were removed during the rebuilding period of 1908/1909: floorboards, joists, bearers, nailing and brickwork associated with flooring; skirting and chair rail grounds; varying percentages of the reveals, architraves, skirting, doors, windows and internal shutters; wall and ceiling plasterwork; roofs; parts of the foundations and most of the foundation deposits etc (the latter in 1969). Sadly, nearly all of the head, sill and reveal areas of doorways and windows were replaced by new brickwork during 1908/1909. The replacement of sills and heads often involved rebuilding the surrounding brickwork, often from floor to ceiling. As seen in the elevations, entire walls or parts of walls were rebuilt in areas where they had become unstable.

Several of the recurring features shown in the elevations, such as grounds, scaffolding holes, 'closing' brickwork, seem unevenly distributed: this is largely due to alterations made in 1908/1909 and 1968, as outlined above. In the case of timber grounds for skirting and chair rails distribution, it is not so clear cut: some walls did not receive them (as indicated in the elevations and the body of this report). In several areas, the remains of the near floor level skirting grounds were difficult to trace because of past rebuilding phases (spillage and damage) and the 1994 drilling for damp-proofing. The latter work not only fractured the bricks but the chemicals used hardened and discoloured the mortar. Being set low, the brickwork also collected the spilled plaster, cement and paint from above.

Despite the loss of potential data, it was astonishing how rich the remains were in clues as to what had happened during the period from Hunter to Macquarie. Further work will be necessary in order to compare the data found with that of the rest of the Old Government House complex, particularly the southern half, the roofs, foundations and outbuildings.

M A I N B U I L D I N G

Return

STAIR HALL, NORTH AND SOUTH CROSS HALLS, NORTH COLONNADE

P H A S I N G

Four distinct phases are to be seen in the brickwork:

FIRST EXTENSION PHASE

OVERVIEW. This first extension is unlike the subsequent phases in that it transformed the house from a rectangular plan to a T-shaped plan, possibly as shown in the Lewin view. The ground plan outline of the extension was incorporated in subsequent extensions, accounting for the comparatively smallness of the Aide de Camp's room. The first extension was built between the Hunter chimneys and was composed of the Stair Hall, the Aide de Camp's Room (adjoining the Stair Hall to the south) and the north end of the South Cross Hall. The plan survives in the house as seen today but the apertures have changed.

FABRIC. Large, yellowish orange, slop-moulded bricks set in a reddish hue mortar. The brickwork is distinguished from all other phases by the mortar which is rich in shell lime, resulting in a white speckled appearance contrasting against the reddish hue of the earth matrix.

The brickwork survives to a maximum height of around 1300mm above floor level along the north, west and south elevations, as indicated. It can be traced below floor level along the east elevation. This brickwork also may be traced under the Aide de Camp's (south adjoining) room.

The brickwork forms the remains of an early extension to the Hunter building. The extension turned the house plan into a 'T'-shape. The work took place after the Hunter building had been completed and is distinct from it both in materials and method of construction. I suspect that the extension dates to the early Macquarie period, though to rule out a pre-Macquarie/post-Hunter date is premature.

Features of this phase included three windows facing westwards. The mid window was subsequently converted into a doorway (the present back door). The then 'back door' was apparently located on the south side, approximately in the location of the present mid South Cross Hall. There may have been a door located in the middle of the north wall of the Stair

Hall (where the fireplace of the Archaeology Room backs). Evidence of chair rails and skirting may be seen along the north and west walls, suggesting that was the scheme throughout.

There may have been a fireplace in the south adjoining room (Aide de Camp's) at this early stage. The early plans of the house show this fireplace in line with and backing the one in the Guardian's Room but this could be a mistake because they are slightly offset (see plans from 1908). The offset configuration could be a relict from this first phase.

This and the following phases would benefit from a thorough underfloor archaeological examination now that the above floor level sequences are known. The nature of the recent work to the walls left little time to record the underfloor areas, though several visits were made to confirm certain points made in the text of this report.

STAIRCASE. The Stair Hall has remained the same size from this phase to the present day but there have been changes to the apertures. There are good reasons to believe that the present staircase, in part at least, dates from the first extension. However, where was the staircase located?

The staircase had to have been built against a strong wall. The thickness of the north and west walls can be explained in that they were built as exterior walls. The south wall is only one brick thick and has shallow foundations (now partly above ground level): obviously built as an internal partition wall; note the brick closers at the west end, indicating that it was built to butt the west wall (not an uncommon practice) though of the same materials and workmanship. The pre-existing east wall of the Hunter period was actually doubled. The east, north and west walls could have supported a staircase but not the south wall with its short passage (now part of the South Cross Hall).

It is very unlikely that the Hunter staircase played any part in the new work, except that the new staircase may have been located partly in the same place. The Hunter staircase had to be external to the building, considering the archaeology and layout of the Hunter foyer, probably on analogy with the Sydney government house but not as substantial (perhaps a skillion). No trace of the Hunter stair arrangement has been detected. The brickwork of the first extension phase in no way relates to the Hunter phase, so has to be later than 1799.

Although it can be argued that the staircase has always been in the same position there are convincing clues to suggest that it was positioned against the north and east walls of the room during this phase:

(a) If the staircase was in its present position during this phase, the top landing would have been too far removed from the upper back door and in an awkward position in regard to the likely division of the upper rooms, if there were any upper rooms. If there were no upper rooms during this phase the top landing would have terminated in mid air.

It can't be said with any certainty what the arrangement was on the upper floor, unless the Lewin view is correct and is applicable to this phase. The answer will be found when a non-destructive way is found to record what is behind the mature Macquarie period (extension phase 4) upper east elevation wall.

(b) The staircase, approximately as it is now, can be fitted fairly neatly against the east and north walls so that the first step is near the hypothetical north doorway (area now backing the Archaeology Room fireplace), the mid landing in what was formerly the north-east corner of the room and the final upper step near the upper floor, central back, door of the Hunter building. The hypothetical north doorway is based on the missing brickwork down to floor level of this phase in the middle of the north wall. The north wall was then continuous to the east wall, before the North Cross Hall was built (note the absence of brick closers below the second phase brickwork).

Access to rooms on the upper floor of the Hunter building was via the central back door and the room which was similar to the ground floor foyer below. The Hunter staircase would have led directly to that back door. A door which must have been located in the north wall of the 'upper foyer' would have been bricked up during the mature Macquarie phase. The Watts plan records the mature phase.

APERTURES. In the Stair Hall there were two windows in the west wall, the south side window was later converted into a doorway (based on pictorial evidence = post-1840s-1870s?). The door into the Aide de Camp's Room may have been situated mid wall or slightly further west (further research required). There had to be a door at the south end of the (then) short hall located between the Aide de Camp's Room and the Hunter building (considering also that the present back door did not then exist). There may have been a doorway in the mid north wall of the Stair Hall which was demolished during the following phase.

HYPOTHETICAL DEMOLITION

We can not be sure how high the walls were built during this phase but there may be clues in the south adjoining room (Aide de Camp's), south wall around the chimney area.

Evidence for demolition is clearest in the Stair Hall, mid north elevation, where a ragged outline may be seen. The purpose for the demolition of the mid portion of the wall could have several explanations:

(a) There was a doorway located there which did not fit into the second extension phase scheme. This would indicate that the staircase was in a different location. See comments above on the staircase.

(b) The demolition was in preparation for the brickwork of a planned fireplace in the Archaeology Room, as it is precisely in the right location. However, this explanation does not tally in the light of what we know about the second phase brickwork: one does not put in timber chair rail grounds on walls backing a fireplace; and the fireplace seems to relate to the third phase.

(c) As for (b) but there was a change of mind about building a fireplace there until extension phase three. There is convincing evidence throughout Old Government House that the Macquarie phase could be characterized by sudden changes of mind.

(d) Replacement of faulty brickwork. Unlikely as the surviving first phase brickwork below the floor shows no sign of faulty workmanship.

As noted above, the north elevation wall of this phase continued in an eastward direction across the present entrance into the North Cross Hall and terminated at the south side of the Hunter chimney. Further analysis may determine whether the ashlar scribed, smooth finished plaster of the Hunter wall belonged to this phase or was pre-existing.

One naturally wonders why demolition was necessary, especially considering the high quality of the materials and workmanship. Also, the floor plan remained substantially the same for the Stair Hall and Aide de Camp's, though there were changes to apertures. A likely scenario might be as follows:

SCENARIO

The first phase brickwork had to be demolished because of the new plans for the upper storey , this required: the removal and resiting of the staircase to make room for the upper floor cross hall and stair area with access to the new rooms; the construction of the Archaeology Room and room above it; the construction of the Guardian's Room and room above it; the reconstruction of the Aide de Camp's Room and room above it; fireplaces to the latter four rooms; reconstruction of the south wall of the Stair Hall to support the wall above and the suspended W.C. room; opening up of the east end of the north Stair Hall wall to create the North Cross Hall etc. The number of changes required for the new work probably prompted the builders to take down all the walls to the levels as recently discovered and recorded. It wasn't until the third phase that this work was actually completed.

In summary, the scope of the new plans was so vast that it was considered easier to demolish most of the brickwork of the first extension phase. The work proposed to be done after the demolition was not necessarily the work that was actually done, as the second extension phase seems to suggest

SECOND EXTENSION PHASE Return

OVERVIEW. As far as has been ascertained to date, the construction work of this phase follows the ground floor plan of the mature Macquarie phase but the actual work does not extend to the upper floor. There is evidence to suggest that this phase represents a stage in which work was arrested and perhaps the walls given a temporary skillion, or single slope, roof: note the progressive lowering of the brickwork heights from the Hunter building westwards to the west wall. This might have been the stage where debate took place on whether to demolish the old house and start again (North Wing being the first of a new government house scheme: Clive Lucas theory).

FABRIC. The bricks of this phase are indistinguishable from that of the first extension phase but the mortar is totally different. The light grey hue mortar is of shell-lime in a matrix of loamy quartz sand. The shell-lime content is not as high as that of the first phase but is more thoroughly burned and powdered (sieved but not thoroughly, as pieces of shell and charcoal are to be seen). The mortar is not as hard as that of the first extension phase. The mortar of this phase is fairly identical to that of the third phase.

Though sharing the same type of brick with the first phase, the construction work clearly follows a different scheme. The differences may best be seen at the east end of the north wall in the Stair Hall, where a corner was built over what was previously a continuous wall; note the brick closers above the old work (partially obscured by twentieth century repairs). In the middle of this wall a demolition breach was made good, possibly the site of a doorway. It is significant that this new work included a chair rail ground because it indicates that there was no plan then to build a fireplace on the other side of the wall (in the Archaeology Room). The third phase wall of the upper storey does acknowledge the fire place on the other side of the wall; the chair rail ground does not extend across that specific location.

In the Archaeology room, south-west corner, this second phase extension work can be seen to butt what was once the exterior north side of the north-west first phase corner: note the brick closers in the second phase work but that the brickwork of the second phase knits above the first phase work.

The brickwork of this phase may be found in all rooms on the ground floor on the west side of the Hunter building. (The Guardian's room needs further investigation). The only major departure from the mature Macquarie scheme seems to be the fireplace in the Archaeology Room, which is phase three extension work--the fireplace butts the brickwork of the first and second phases. the same may yet be found to be the case in the Guardians' Room.

One of the outstanding features of the remains of the second phase extension work is the reduction of the height of walls from east to west. The brickwork is at ceiling height against the Hunter building wall (east) but is lower by several courses along the Cross Hall. The brickwork only reaches window head height along the west wall of the Stair Hall (actually about two courses below the window head). There seems to be a good case for a temporary sloping roof during a period of cessation of work but the suggested slope toward the west is not seen on the north and west walls of the Archaeology Room. Until there is further evidence from the southern rooms (render not removed), we must assume that the slope is an incidental outcome of demolition or a 'stop work' command.

STAIRCASE. If the extension had a temporary sloping roof, the staircase would have to have remained in the supposed first phase position, that is partially against the Hunter wall and a section of the roof raised above it. Another explanation could be that the walls preserve the height of a temporary (sloping) ceiling, except in the area above the higher part of the stair: in such a case the skillion roof would have sloped down from the Hunter roof (like seen in early side views of Sydney's government house but without the back central bay). In any event this phase is testament to a hiccup in building proceedings.

With the creation of the North Cross Hall, the staircase would have been shifted to its present position after the middle of the north wall was made good.

APERTURES: The east end of the north wall was demolished in order to create the North Cross Hall and access to the Archaeology Room. Whether there was a doorway in the north wall or not, the breach was bricked up. The three west windows remained. The construction of the Archaeology Room and Guardians' Room created two more windows on the west elevation. The South Cross Hall was extended to the present length nullifying the need for the first phase doorway. Arched and fanlight doorways were installed at the outer ends of the two Cross Halls. The exact location of the north window in the archaeology room may be calculated because of the survival of some of the brick closers (this area bricked up during the 1908/1909 work).

DEMOLITION

It is fairly certain that the north and south walls of the Stair Hall were substantially demolished. The, one brick thick, south wall seems to have been completely demolished, except at the very west end. The north wall was also demolished but only down to about 1200mm from the floor and leaving the east and west extremes (at the corners). The purpose for demolition in the latter case is clearly in connection with the construction of a fireplace in the Archaeology Room. The south wall was probably unstable and needed rebuilding to support the wall above. (The problem was with the shallow foundations, the rebuilt wall has since settled about 100mm at the eastern end).

It seems unlikely that the other walls of this phase were originally much higher and that the upper floor was demolished to the height as recorded because the first phase scheme is in accordance with the mature Macquarie phase. That the walls of this phase can not be traced beyond ceiling height requires explanation:

SCENARIO I

After the demolition of the first extension phase, a plan was approved much along the lines of the mature Macquarie phase. The ground floor had nearly been completed as we know it today, except for the fireplace in the Archaeology Room.

Macquarie ordered the work to stop when he realized that for a little extra expenditure (Macquarie's version of a 'little extra') he could build a grand new government house rather than try to patch, alter and improve on the building legacy of previous governors.

Work was begun on the North Wing (and perhaps the South Wing). The main house was left as it was and would have been demolished when the work on the Wing(s) had been completed. A convenient, up to date, main house would then have replaced the old one. Clive Lucas first proposed the new government house theory when he noticed that the doorway into the North Wing was not aligned with the north exit of the main house (which was built as an exterior door). The North Colonnade seemed to be sited as a compromise between the two doorways. The results of subsequent archaeological examination makes this theory plausible.

Macquarie had second thoughts, or was forced to have second thoughts. It seems that work was stopped on the North Wing and the work resumed on the main building. The north wall of the Stair Hall was then partly demolished so fireplaces could be built in the Archaeology Room and the room above it. Bricks from the same source as those intended for the North Wing were used to complete the work on the main building extensions. See third extension phase.

SCENARIO II

A dispute broke out along the lines of the Kitchen/Greenway dispute regarding St Matthews at Windsor. At Windsor the dispute regarding design, quality of the materials and workmanship resulted in the demolition of Kitchen's work. The dispute at Old Government House was resolved in favour of the existing regime. Only the supplier of bricks was changed.

SCENARIO III

A problem emerged with the builders and the plan for the proposed extensions. Work was stopped for a period of time while small changes were made to the plans. Work resumed with the partial demolition of the north wall in the Stair Hall, as outlined in scenario I.

Work on the North Wing had begun before work was recommenced on the main building. Work on the North Wing was halted for a while in favour of the completion of the main building, which takes us to the third extension phase.

THIRD EXTENSION PHASE Return

OVERVIEW. This is the main construction phase of the mature Macquarie period. The construction work is found above the second phase work and in the demolition breaches. The upper floor is almost entirely of this phase. The appearance of Old Government House, as seen now, is a result of this phase.

FABRIC. The bricks of this phase are sandstock, unlike the slop-moulded bricks of the previous two extension phases. The brickwork is of interest because the smaller sandstock bricks forced the bricklayers to increase the width of the joints, to keep the work in line with that of the previous phase. The contrast is best seen at the north and south walls of the Stair Hall. At the south wall the settling of the newer work has fractured the serrated edge of the second phase bricks (where they interlock); the south wall has settled by almost 100mm, at the east end, due to the very shallow foundations (some of it actually above ground since the 1969 deepening of the underfloor area). The bricks seem to be identical with those used in the mature phase of the North Wing but the mortar is very different.

The mortar used is indistinguishable from that of the previous phase. This suggests that the same builders or workmen were involved. That the same basic plan of the second phase was used suggests that there had been no change in the regime of builder/architect.

STAIRCASE. The staircase was finally established in its present position during this phase. The siting of the stairs actually belongs to the previous phase but since work on the upper part of the building had not been completed, the resiting of the stairs could not be said to be final. The stairs may have been partly dismantled when the fireplaces and stack were built in the Archaeology Room, (requiring partial demolition of the north wall of the Stair Hall: see second extension phase).

It does not require elaborate wall modifications to establish a staircase such as this one and it is fairly easy to dismantle and reassemble. Although many elements have been replaced over the years, a goodly percentage of its early elements survive (probably most of its internal construction which seems quite rough and ready in appearance to the modern eye). Some of the surviving early balusters show small differences in the finish of mouldings and may reflect the early shift in location. (It was noted that there were twentieth century replacements and modifications: the early balusters may be identified by traces of square-shafted nailing).

That the stairs obscure skirting and chair rail grounds should not be thought peculiar, as these were installed as a matter of course as the walls were constructed.

APERTURES. As per the previous phase. The upper floor window scheme reflect that of the ground floor.

MODIFICATIONS. Most of these occurred during the twentieth century, as illustrated. There is evidence that there was an overhaul of some of the plastering, skirting and chair rails, broadly, during the 1830s/1840s (possibly circa 1832) but seem confined to the North Colonnade, North Wing and isolated exterior areas.

A number of 1877 New South Wales Government Printer photographs show the front of Old Government House without a coating of plaster or render (note brick enders). The photographs imply that work was in progress. The plaster dump at the Crescent, to the west of Old Government House, may date to this time: no dry-press process bricks or portland cement mortar are to be seen mixed in with the dumped plaster (extensively used in the 1908/1909 work).

FOURTH EXTENSION PHASE Return

OVERVIEW. This represents the Macquarie finishing phase.

FABRIC. Characterized by well formed sandstock bricks, similar to those of the previous phase, except that the bricks seem to have been fired in a fully enclosed kiln with an oxygen-free atmosphere. The bricks have a muted or bleached colour and some have particularly well defined dark reddish flashes as a result of how they were stacked in the kiln. (The latter feature may be seen on other bricks but not quite so well defined).

Fourth extension phase brickwork may be found at the east and west elevations of the Hunter Foyer (Macquarie rebuild); the south doorway reveal of the upper floor Water Closet Room; and the two west chimney stacks in the roof area. Documentary evidence seems to suggest that the entrance portico was built slightly earlier than the fourth phase remodelling of the Hunter Foyer: note the configuration of the front doorway in the PRO ref. C.O. 201/133 plan, seems to owe more to the Hunter arrangement of the doorway than to the Macquarie arrangement, as seen in the Watts plan.

N O R T H C O L O N N A D E

OVERVIEW: The North Colonnade is composed of an east and west elevation, as existed to about 1908. Less than ten percent of the Macquarie walls survive above floor level. Though obscured by later work, most of the under floor level walls still survives. The north and south elevations belong to different building phases but will be dealt with here.

The surviving fragment of the Macquarie wall is to be found at the south end of the west elevation. Upon initial examination, I was of the opinion that the wall represented the remains of an earlier structure dating from the Hunter period to before the Macquarie period: this opinion was based on a cursory look at the mortar and an apparent alignment with the east footing of the Phillip period. As fate would have it, comparative fabric analysis and a study of the foundations placed the structure in a mid to late Macquarie time frame, (just after the completion of the major work on the main building and the North Wing!). In any event, the remains preserve a number of features not elsewhere so clearly illustrated. The most outstanding feature there is a second stage of (Macquarie or 1820s) brickwork from the 25th course up: this could be interpreted as a change in the Colonnade roofing from a single slope roof, as suggested in the Watts and de Freycinet elevations, to a pitched roof probably extending westward to shelter the North Wing cellar stairs (note columns in the Swertman plan of 1908---hence 'colonnade'?).

FABRIC. The bricks of the first Colonnade phase vary more than usually is the case (small sample though). It is possible that the bricks were made up from the leftovers of other projects. The bricks are all sandstock. The mortar most resembles that used in the finishing stages of the North Wing, being unusually dark because of the high loam content of the sandy matrix. The mortar of the second phase (from the 25th brick course) has a higher lime content and is of a lighter hue.

Plaster remains found on the surface of the brickwork represent the floating coat (the finishing coat has long since gone). Instead of cattle hair, various grasses have been used in the render mix to achieve the same end. The use of grass might suggest a shortage of hair but this could not have been the case during the Macquarie period. The plasterer was obviously in a hurry. An analogous situation was found at the Dairy Cottage where grass, straw etc., was used instead of cattle hair. This plaster post-dates the plaster of the south wall, or arch area. (See the next paragraph).

There are earlier plaster remains forming parts of the Colonnade: fragmented remains of the solid three layer 1800-1810? external plaster (scratch coat/floating coat and finishing coat) on the north-west corner of the Hunter building; and what seems to be the remains of a scratch coat and floating coat of a greyish hue (mixed with cattle hair) over the brickwork of the arch area of door 12. The Colonnade east and west walls butt both these earlier plaster remains.

Evidence of a distinctive replastering phase may be seen over both south and west wall elevations. The plaster is of a distinctive yellowish hue and relates to the period when the skirting and chair rail grounds were removed and bricked in. The work dates broadly to the 1830s/1840s but documentary evidence seems to place the work around 1832. As a caution for those studying the building in the future, attempts were made to reproduce this colour in some of the twentieth century (1969?) work done throughout the Old Government House complex.

CHAIR RAIL AND SKIRTING GROUNDS. It is surprising that a wall of one brick thick (about 220mm) should have been provided originally with skirting and chair rail grounds. The disadvantage must have been soon discovered because the chair rail and skirting grounds were removed and replaced by bricks, mortar and stone wedges during the 1830s/1840s (possibly around 1832). Similar remedial work took place during this early period in the North Wing but mainly in connection with the skirting, suggesting that the timber grounds had been rotting. In the case of the Colonnade, the wall initially would have been exposed to the elements on the western side. Elsewhere, the grounds were not removed until 1908; the resultant gaps were infilled with reused bricks and cement.

It is fairly certain that chair rails were installed during the first Colonnade phase otherwise chair rail grounds would not have been built into such a flimsy, hastily built, wall. (It is assumed that both the east and west elevations received them, on the basis of the one remaining section). The north and south elevations were built as exterior walls and so were not provided with chair rail or skirting grounds, plugs were used instead. However, note that the area of the skirting and chair rail grounds at the north elevation were rebuilt 1908/1909.

It seems that the North Wing, North Wing cellar and North Colonnade were overhauled during the yellow mortar phase, 1830s/1840s (probably circa 1832). In line with what we understand of the period, chair rails did not form a part of the new scheme.

APERTURES. The north and south doorways belong to the phasing of the North Wing and the main building respectively, these pre-date the North Colonnade. No trace of the original apertures survive, these having been demolished and rebuilt during 1908/1909. From the documentary evidence, there was a door in the centre of the west wall (not offset, as at present) and there were two windows in the east wall. At one stage the north end window was converted into a doorway.

At what stage the east side doorway was created is difficult to determine because there are no early remains. Clive Lucas is of the opinion that it was an early conversion: that could be the case but other likely periods could be during the overhaul of ca 1832 or when a separate entrance was made into the Small Lobby and Bedroom of the North Wing, sometime between the completion of the North Wing and ca 1832. Another possibility might be during the repairs of around 1877 but I also suspect that it was an early conversion. Excavation into recent deposits below the window/door proved unhelpful.

Everything about the North Colonnade suggests haste: indifferent materials and indifferent construction. The foundations are very shallow (in part now above ground level) and the wall buckles outward at the upper middle. Several factors suggest that the North Colonnade was built as an afterthought:

(a) The building materials relate most closely to a final phase in the construction of the North Wing.

(b) The east and west walls, down to foundation level, butt against the walls of the main building and the North Wing; note the brick closers at the south end of the West Wall.

(c) The south wall arched doorway (doorway 12) of the main building was built for exterior conditions, as was the north doorway and surrounding wall.

(d) The doorway into the North Wing is not aligned with the arched doorway of the main building or the Colonnade. This suggests that even when the North Wing was built, something other than a connecting covered way (Colonnade) was envisioned. Curiously, it would have been easier originally to align the North Wing door with that of the main building because the wall to the west of the doorway is built over the entrance of the cellar (it would have been of sounder construction principles to place the doorway over the cellar doorway rather than suspend the wall over the cellar entrance void). The doorway was originally even more out of alignment, as it was sited further eastward by about 200mm (note brick closers in the Breakfast Room.

(e) The original entrance into the cellar was from the west and predated the stair remains under the room of the Queen's Water-closet. The base landing area remained largely the same. The original concept required the doorway above (north doorway, later part of the Colonnade scheme, noted in (d)) to be sited eastward, otherwise a small bridge over the cellar entrance would have been required. This was entirely an exterior scheme, no thought of a covered way. The 'new' stairs seem to have been built soon after the completion of the Colonnade, probably when the Colonnade roof was altered to extend westward.

FOUNDATION AREA. The southern half of the west wall was built over the brick footings of an outbuilding dating to Governor Phillip (circa 1790). There seems to be a layer of Macquarie period demolition material and displaced soil between the two footings; this would suggest that the alignment of the two footings is coincidental, though not necessarily (requires further investigation).

A stone capped, brick drain runs under the North Colonnade terminating behind the cellar entrance wall. The drain seems to relate to the 1799 Hunter building, as it runs from just north of the Hunter period back door. The distance from the back door could suggest that it ran from the Hunter period hypothetical staircase addition. However, the bricks of the drain seem later than those used on site in 1799. The brick walls of the drain were not bonded with any kind of mortar so to allow seepage to enter (not an indicator of early technology). A complication regarding the date of the drain is that the first extension phase wall was modified after it was built to allow the drain to pass through (but that may have happened as the wall was going up and the builder rectified his oversight). It is to be wondered why the drain would be needed after the construction of the first phase extension. A similar drainage scheme has been found at First Government House, Sydney relating to the 1788/1789 phase.

The nature of the commission and the priority of the recording work did not leave much time to examine the under floor area in any detail.

T H E N O R T H W I N G Return

OVERVIEW. The North Wing ostensibly appears to be a very straight- forward building. It is part of a balanced architectural composition including the main building and the South Wing: Palladian logic. The layout as seen today agrees with the earliest surviving plans. So it all seemed until the render was taken off the walls.

The North Wing was built in stages, though further investigation is required to clarify aspects of the phasing sequence. Several features indicate that the North Wing was not built in one stage and with one intention:

(a) The cellar could be said to have a life independent of the rest of the North Wing. The north, south and east walls of the Breakfast Room conform to the cellar's dimensions but significantly, the west wall does not. There is a substantial west wall for the cellar and a substantial west wall for the Breakfast Room, the latter set only 610mm further westward. This is a wasteful arrangement and points to an early change of mind after building had commenced: in other words, someone said that the Breakfast Room had to be bigger than the size of the cellar. It will be argued that the North Wing was begun with the intention of it being the kitchen.

(b) There appear to be the remains of two early cellar stair arrangements under the North Colonnade.

(c) The earliest foundation remains do not knit with what is the west wall of the Breakfast Room and east wall of the Bedroom. The earliest foundation remains do seem to relate more directly to the position of the west wall of the cellar. Further investigation is recommended.

(d) The earliest foundations (partially demolished) demonstrate that there was a totally different scheme commenced before the Watts and PRO plans were drawn up. The earlier plan is, as indicated by the archaeology of the footings, the plan of the present South Wing reversed, or turned upside down.

(e) A partially completed doorway and partially completed windows in the west wall of the Bedroom and the south wall of the Dressing Room are testament to a drastic change of mind. These features are not recorded in Watts' or PRO plans, except possibly the window in the west wall of the Bedroom (as shown in the Watts plan). The Watts plan appears to indicate (faintly) a window but as all three apertures were bricked up before they were completed and all at the same time, some other explanation must be sought.

(f) There is some evidence to suggest that there was a hiccup during the construction of the walls of the existing scheme involving the Bedroom, Dressing Room and Small Lobby. There seems to have been a 'stop work', or pause in construction, when the walls reached course 33/34 of the brickwork. It is possible that the Breakfast room was completed and roofed before it was decided what to do with the west half of the structure (see the Lewin view).

(g) There were two last-minute changes, again to the west half of the building: the filling in of the gap in the east wall, south end of the Bedroom; and a change in the location of the wall/doorway between the Small Lobby and the Dressing Room. The latter may have occurred at the same time the Watts and PRO plans were being drawn up because these plans show a different position for the doorway: offset slightly northwards rather than in mid position.

FABRIC. The fabric of the North Wing seems to suggest that different builders or bricklayers were involved than those responsible for the various phases of the main building. The work has more in common with the North Colonnade. The bricks of the walls above floor level are from the same source as those of the major final phase of the main building. The bricks are of sandstock manufacture and probably burned in Scotch kilns (if not, clamps). The hues vary from reddish to salmon. In addition, there are three unusual but consistent brick types throughout the brickwork in both buildings, probably from the same kiln, that show signs of having been too close to the source of the heat (though not vitrified): brownish with spots; purple hue with spots; and pale salmon with a large charcoal smudge. The latter is due to intense initial burning which wasn't sustained. The spots of the former are due to the carbonization in the clay of organic matter during constant high temperature burning. The majority of the ordinary bricks came from cooler parts of the kiln and do not have the spots.

The mortars used in the construction of the North Wing do not relate to the phases of the main building, suggesting that different builders/bricklayers were involved, rather than suggesting a significant chronological gap. Surprisingly the mortars of the North Wing have more in common with the dark loam, shell lime mortar of the Hunter period than those of the main building of the Macquarie period. Does this mean a drop in standards during the mid to late Macquarie period? A similar reverse situation was found at the Dairy Cottage at Parramatta Park, the later mortar (ca1816-1823) was dark, soft and loamy in comparison to the early hard grey mortar. I have often noticed that high lime content mortar was used for exterior work (exposed brickwork) but low lime content loamy mortar for interior work or work to be rendered. However, that does not explain the differences found at Old Government House.

One trend observed in the North Wing was that, the later the phase, the darker the mortar found. The darkest was used for the 'last minute' alterations, (probably contemporary with the construction of the North Colonnade).

Although the brickwork was found to be indifferent, particularly in the construction of the internal partitions, a number of interesting features were noticed:

(a) The exterior brickwork on the north and east elevations were done in Flemish bond, the south and west walls were done in English bond.

The Flemish bond would indicate that there may have been a plan to expose the brickwork but the poor quality of the brickwork and low lime content of the mortar, it could be argued, suggest otherwise. The mortar joints were wide and uneven: in one place along the north exterior elevation, two bricklayers seem to have built in toward one point, out of sequence, resulting in the need to double up headers and stretchers along that meeting point. The untidiness of the jointing could have been corrected by proper tuck-pointing: that may have been the original intention. No tuck-pointing remains were found. Though the plaster/render may have been applied and removed three or four times over the years, the high lime content of this sort of work would have left some imprint on the bricks or mortar. Original construction period pointing (generally downstruck) has survived in several places despite extensive surface damage, including on the exterior of the Hunter building.

In any event, the Flemish bond on the two public-view sides of the building is testimony to an intention which was never realized. (Note the Clive Lucas new government house theory).

(b) Although easy to miss, it was noticed that three or four courses of brickwork above chair rail grounds had a slightly higher lime content than the surrounding courses, no doubt for extra strength. See (f).

(c) Although the brickwork was often careless (sometimes several courses with vertical joints one under the other), brick closers were found throughout the building to regulate the coursing at doors, windows and fireplaces. The remains of brick closers in damaged or rebuilt areas can often help to establish very accurately the former positions of doors and windows. Closers are generally placed the distance of a half a brick (about 110mm including mortar) from the edge of a window or doorway.

(d) In some cases stretchers had been introduced in header courses instead of the usual one quarter brick closers to regulated the vertical joints between bricks. See the west elevation of the Breakfast Room. Three quarter bricks were used occasionally.

(e) 'Stop work' levels were noticed at courses 33/34/35 (depending on the wall) in the Bedroom, Dressing Room and Small Lobby. At most walls the feature was represented by a change in the mortar colour to a darker hue. At the west wall of the Bedroom, the change was more dramatic because the mortar course was thick, particularly in the middle: it appears to correct a sag in the brickwork. The wall separating the Bedroom from the two smaller rooms was particularly amusing because it seemed that the bricklayer finished off on two header courses. The bricklayer was either distracted and accidently repeated the header course or he knew that work would be suspended for a while and so sealed off the work in the usual manner for the tops of walls (single brick thick walls at least)--with a row of headers (but usually on edge). Whether the work was stopped for a day, a month etc., was difficult to determine. It can not have been too long because there was no evidence to suggest that the old work had to be repaired after being exposed to the elements. The evidence was not clear at the east wall of the Bedroom (which would tally if the Breakfast Room was completed ahead of the other rooms). The question remains, what was going on in the Breakfast Room? Had it been completed and roofed, (so making sense of the Lewin view?)

Another possibility might be that the wall was not going to be higher than 33 or 34 courses.

(f) In (e) the change in mortar colour coincided with other features. Elsewhere changes in the composition of the mortar were also noted but the reason for the change was not altogether clear. A band of about four to six courses of bricks bonded with mortar of a higher lime content (lighter hue) was noted at the south wall of the Breakfast Room, courses 34 to 39. The occurrence of these bands of stronger mortar may be coincidental but they seem to be in association with areas requiring extra stability: above door heads and timber grounds. See (b). A change of mortar colour was also seen in the Stair Hall, east wall (and elsewhere), at the height of 2785mm but here the mortar was darker: in the absence of other evidence it seems that the mortar change was due to the mixing of a new batch with less lime.

Unfortunately, such changes in mortar colour may mean a lot or nothing at all. They are noted here in case similar patterns are observed in other buildings.

(g) Easy to overlook was the evidence of building scaffolding supports. It appeared that as the brickwork went up, timbers were inserted to provide the support for scaffolding planks on which the bricklayer could stand to build the next stage of work. The timbers were removed as the plastering was being completed. The holes suggest that the timbers were roughly 50mm by 70mm but the hole left was large enough to fill it with a quarter to a half brick in size. Almost invariably the hole was filled with a brick off-cut and packed in with the plaster mix used for the wall (note the cattle hair and lighter colour of the mix). Such holes have been found in all phases of construction throughout Old Government House. Unfortunately many of these holes were placed to either sides of doorways and windows and a lot of the evidence was lost when the reveal areas were rebuilt in 1908/1909. The surviving holes, where detected, have been plotted in on the elevations.

See the accompanying plans for brick sizes etc.

APERTURES. These have been dealt with in the phasing section below.

SKIRTING AND CHAIR RAILS. These were found in all of the North Wing rooms but not on all of the walls. See elevations. Chair rails were missing on the north walls of the Bedroom and the Breakfast Room but the traces of early plugs were found. The reason for the absence of chair rails along these walls may in part be explained in connection with the type of brick bonding employed: these walls have Flemish bond on the exterior sides and English bond on the interior sides but so does the east wall of the breakfast room. The absence of chair rail grounds in both the Breakfast Room and the Bedroom on the north walls seems deliberate. Perhaps the north side was considered the most unprotected against the weather. Chair rail grounds were not, as a rule, built along areas backing fireplaces, this is so for the North Wing. An exception is found in the Stair Hall, ground floor, but in that case the wall was built before the fireplace was constructed: note the absence of a chair rail ground along the same wall (of a later phase) on the upper floor.

That chair rails were intended is attested by the presence of them in the last minute changes made during the completion phase of the North Wing: at the blocked windows in the Dressing Room and the Bedroom; and the brick infill of the Bedroom, east wall.

ARCHITECTURAL FURNITURE/DECORATIVE ELEMENTS: Very little of this category of early fabric survives anywhere. I agree with Clive Lucas that efforts were made during the 1908/1909 period to replicate the existing early mouldings etc. Early forms of most of the replicated mouldings have survived, though exact provenance in a couple examples is problematic. In one case, I suspect that the model copied in 1908/1909 post-dated the Macquarie period, possibly 1830s. This is another area which requires further investigation.

The forms of the cornices remain in doubt but may be resolved by comparing the scratch coat plaster remains found on the walls with samples to be excavated from the plaster dump. The present (1969) Breakfast Room cornice is of larger dimensions than that of 1908/1909 (which was 180mm by 90mm).

Evidence of a stud wall built onto the east wall and perhaps north wall of the Breakfast Room seemed to be suggested by the surviving timbers around the windows and a discrepancy between the present and 1908/1909 room measurements (pers. comm., Clive Lucas). By the time these things had been noticed the walls had been replastered. Though my notes on the wall and photographs do not show any obvious signs on the brickwork, it should be remembered that the brickwork around the windows and part of the north wall were demolished during the work of 1908/1909. In addition, stud walls can be secured to floors and ceilings, both of which have been replaced.

NORTH WING PHASING Return

FIRST NORTH WING PHASE

The first phase relates to the foundations and cellar. Further work is required on the recording and analysis of the building fabric below the floor: the pace of the workmen and recording priorities left little time except for brief under floor visits. The initial examination of the under floor area was prompted by anomalies found when examining the walls of the rooms once the cement render had been removed.

The remains of several early walls were found below floor level which did not conform to the present scheme or as recorded in the earliest surviving plans of Old Government House. The early walls were traced and it was found that the plan was almost precisely the same as the one adopted for the south wing, except that it was established in a reversed position, or upside down. One significance of this is that the earliest surviving plans (Watts and PRO CO 201/133) post-date the initial construction of the North Wing, suggesting that the plans were a record of what was done rather than what was planned to happen.

There was obviously a radical change of mind.

SCENARIO.

Plans had been prepared, perhaps by John Watts for the North Wing and South Wings, one wing to serve as a kitchen, the other for personal/family living (bedroom, dressing room, breakfast room or for family dining). The North Wing was to become the kitchen quarters possibly because of the position of the pre-Macquarie kitchen outbuilding (on the site, at least in part, of the foundation remains in the Archaeology Room and North Colonnade). The cellar was excavated and brick walls built. At the same time or a little after, the foundation of the North Wing was built to approximately the present floor level.

Governor Macquarie visited the construction site and mused on the expansive views on the east, north and north-west sides of the North Wing (river, forest, rural scenes and town). Macquarie compared those views with those of the South Wing which had been proposed for the family rooms, and saw flat cleared paddocks, the Lumber Yard, cattle yards (and the town)--not to mention the dusty road right next to the proposed family quarters.

Governor Macquarie had spoken! The proposed functions of the two wings were swapped. The unwanted foundations of the North Wing were demolished and new ones commenced but it was too late to do anything about the cellar.

CHRONOLOGY. It is thought that the halt in construction may have been quite lengthy. There may have been an interplay between halts in the construction of the main building and the North Wing, depending on Macquarie's thoughts about building a new government house or enhancing the old. There were other factors involved such as building disputes, availability of a workforce, availability of building materials etc. A close examination of the documentary evidence is now clearly necessary.

The following phase was evidently a short one.

SECOND NORTH WING PHASE Return

This phase relates to early work done in the Dressing Room and the Governor's Bedroom above floor level. It could be argued that the work was part of the first phase scheme but no evidence was apparent of demolished partitions relating to the demolished foundations.

A partial outline was discovered of a window situated west of the present window in the Dressing Room. Though the position related to the smaller dimensions of the first phase room (mid positioning), no sign was found to suggest that the first phase wall ever reached the same height as the window, as suggested in the above paragraph.

Partial outlines of a door and window were found in the west wall of the Bedroom. The positioning of the door and window would have been suitable for either schemes because the dividing wall between the Bedroom and the Dressing Room remained the same for both.

The walls concerned had reached a height of almost one and a half metres when a 'stop work' must have been called. Thee was little difference in the mortar and no difference in the bricks used to fill the voids compared to the work above and below, so it is unlikely that construction was held up for any appreciable length of time. In other words, this phase must have been of short duration.

SCENARIO.

The bricklayers were aware of the changes to the internal walls of the North Wing but were not told that the apertures to the exterior south and west walls would be affected and so continued to build as previously instructed. The builder/architect (Watts?) inspected the site and saw the discrepancy between the two plans, ordering the bricklayers to brick up the door and window in the Bedroom, west wall. The Dressing Room still required a window but it needed to conform to the middle of the new room plan, not the old one: the first window was bricked up, allowing for a chair rail ground, and the new window was built a little further eastward.

This scenario could have taken place sometime after work was stopped on the first foundations and recommenced work using old instructions.

THIRD NORTH WING PHASE

This phase should probably be seen as part of the previous phase, after the corrections had been made, but is used as a convenient way of representing an implied 'stop work' period relating to the west half of the structure and the completion of the eastern half (Breakfast Room).

The walls of the west half of the North Wing were continued up to brick courses 33/34 (around 2630mm), in line with the Watts plan. Work seems to have stopped for a time. The break in the flow of the work is marked by a change in the mortar beginning with a thick mortar course and in another place commences above a double row of headers. The change is not seen on the wall dividing the Bedroom from the Breakfast Room or the Breakfast Room walls. As the Lewin view shows a truncated North Wing (north elevation) with door and decorative surround in the middle and chimney at the western end, this would be the phase most likely to offer such a view, though noting that it was a distant view.

To put a too heavy an emphasis on this interpretation would not be warranted by the evidence since, at best, it was a transitory phase. The 'stop work' features may just account for a brief break in the work to reassess the plans or wait for new materials, workforce etc. Further examination of the foundation and ceiling areas may be justifiable.

FOURTH NORTH WING PHASE Return

This phase accounts for last minute changes and finishing touches made to the building.

Before the interior of the Governor's Bedroom was plastered, it was decided to brick up the alcove situated at the south end of the east wall. The alcove was formed by the jutting out of the back of the Breakfast Room fireplace, forming a shallow alcove between it and the south wall of the room. See Governor's Bedroom, east elevation. On analogy with the Bedroom, an alcove was formed in the north side, west wall of the Breakfast Room. In the case of the latter, the alcove was turned into a blind doorway/cupboard(?) to balance the actual doorway leading into the Small Lobby (the fireplace being in the centre). This scheme would not work in the Bedroom because there was no doorway to balance and the room was smaller: the realization of this seems to have come late to the builder because the bricking up was done as an afterthought. The materials used in the bricking up are slightly different from the materials used for the main walls. When the work was done the walls had not yet been plastered. A moment of distraction is recorded in the brickwork by the repetition of a stretcher course a little below mid way: this threw out the pattern of the coursing with the neighbouring brick work (note the misalignment of the brick closers above the double row of stretchers). The brickwork was finished at the top with a double row of headers, just under the present cornice. The double row of headers can indicate two things: the original cornice had the same wall dimensions, or height, as the present and must have been installed before the walls were plastered; or it took the bricklayer that long before he discovered his mistake and corrected it by doubling the header course so that the coursing would finish at the top of the wall in line with the surrounding work.

The wall and doorway between the Small Lobby and the Dressing Room seem to knit in with the surrounding work (though the south side was rebuilt in 1908/1909). However, the foundation brickwork differs from the rest of the foundation brickwork in the North Wing. The brickwork and mortar have more in common with the North Colonnade (and perhaps the alcove fill). The bricks vary and the dark mortar is low in lime. The work is extremely crude, the base course varying by up to 100mm one brick from the next. The lowest brick is above present ground level and rests on a deposit of rubble, probably from the main construction period. Possible explanations:

(a) When the position of the wall between the two small rooms was altered from its original site, a little further west, the wall was suspended on flooring supports (as part of the south wall of the Breakfast Room is over the cellar entrance). Sagging was noticed and the wall was underpinned, as presently seen.

(b) When the North Wing plan was altered to the present configuration, the alterations occurred in stages, this being the last major change. The foundation was thrown together in a great hurry.

(c) The foundation is the only relict from a previous outbuilding, conveniently reused. Against this explanation is that the brickwork seems to butt the first North Wing phase walls and, more convincingly, the wall rests on top of a layer of building or demolition rubble. The rubble does not seem to relate to the Phillip period but further examination is required.

The internal walls were plastered. Fragments of the scratch coat (with cattle hair) survive in places along the walls and in scaffolding holes. The exterior was also plastered, much in the same way as the Hunter building and scribed in imitation of ashlar masonry. Remnants survive on the chimney stack in the roof. Similar plaster is also to be found near the cellar entrance but the scribing imitates larger blocks of stone than seen elsewhere. Direct evidence for this form of external wall treatment may yet be found around the building by excavation. Any plan for exposed brickwork in Flemish bond seems to have been scrapped by this phase.

THE WATTS AND PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE PLANS. Both plans and the Bonwick copy of the PRO plan, record the North Wing as of the completion of this phase. These plans do not show any knowledge of the bricked alcove, though show the alcove in the Breakfast Room, so the plans were drawn up after the walls were plastered. Of course the plans display not a trace of the first foundation configuration, a sure indication that the plans were drawn up quite a while after work first commenced on the North Wing.

FIFTH NORTH WING PHASE

Sometime between the completion of the fourth phase and the 1830s, a wall was built or begun to divide the Small Lobby into two. The idea behind this was to create a hallway from the yard into the Bedroom and Dressing Room, and presumably cut off access from the Breakfast Room. The south window would have been converted into a doorway.

A neat brick footing located just below ground level is the only survivor of this phase. The window/door was rebuilt and modified several times during this century. It seems that the work was reversed before 1908. This might have been the time when a doorway was created in the east wall of the North Colonnade.

SIXTH NORTH WING PHASE Return

The presence of yellow shell lime mortar and a large sized brick (120mm plus in length) are diagnostic of this phase. Judging by the distribution of these materials it may be observed that:

(a) The flooring was overhauled in the Bedroom, Dressing Room and perhaps the Small Lobby. The underfloor area was shallow at the time and rising damp seems to have been a serious problem. In contrast, the Breakfast Room floor was well ventilated because of the cellar. Minor modifications and repairs were made to the upper footings.

(b) A large percentage of the timber skirting grounds were removed and replaced by brick and mortar. In some places, slate or thin pieces of stone were used as wedges to add extra strength, not as damp proofing. (Note also the chair rail in the North Colonnade where sandstone wedges were used in conjunction with the same types of brick and mortar). By implication, the timber grounds had become rotten, destabilizing the walls. The remainder of the skirting rounds and the chair rail grounds were replaced 1908/1909.

Surviving against all odds, original timber skirting grounds remain at the north side of the doorway between the Small Lobby and the Dressing Room; and at the north wall of the Dressing Room, east end.

(d) The stone and brick benches were built along the east and west walls of the cellar, over the existing brick paving.

The broad date for this work, based on the materials, would be 1830s/1840s. Similar materials were found at the Dairy Cottage, Parramatta Park, which could be dated through documentation between 1823 and 1844. A works program was carried out at Government House ca 1832 and that would probably account for this distinctive phase. As noted under the North Colonnade heading, evidence of exterior repairs of this phase were found on the Hunter building (north-east corner).

The larger part of the modifications to the North Wing took place 1908/1909 and 1969, though there may have been some work done around 1877 (which requires further investigation).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T H E E A R L Y P L A N S Return

There are three early plans of Old Government House, Parramatta:

Watts Plan, ML Ref. D 337 (CY reel 1880)

The author of this plan is thought to have been John Cliffe Watts (1786-1873). The plan is usually given the date of 'circa 1817' but we really do not know for sure because the plan was not dated or signed. Just as the handwriting on the plan may give us a clue as to authorship, the inclusion or exclusion of features on the plan may eventually lead to the determination of a date. However, further documentary research may be undertaken later in the year.

The Watts plan is undoubtedly the most accurate of the early plans. The plan shows a detailed knowledge of the anatomy of Old Government House: note the alignment of the walls in relationship to the Hunter building, the varying sizes of the rooms etc.

See the following three annotated plans.

sorry!

Bonwick Transcript Plan, ML Box 36

This plan is a late nineteenth century copy of an original plan in the Public Records Office, London (PRO ref. C.O. 201/133). The plan is also not signed or dated but is usually given the date 'circa 1820'. The given date is a cautious guess, probably based on the knowledge that it originally formed part of the set of plans taken to Britain by Governor Macquarie.

The Bonwick plan is a clear copy of the Public Records Office original but differs in a few details:

---The front doorway and side lights are shown as recessed in the original but not in the transcript copy. The Hunter scheme? See the de Freycinet view of December 1819 which also seems to show the earlier scheme.

---The original shows horns at the ends of the railing of the North Wing stairs.

The Bonwick and PRO plans record some features not seen in the Watts plan. See the following.

Public Records Office Plan, PRO ref. C.O. 201/133

This is the original of the Bonwick plan, 'circa 1820'. A close comparison with the Watts plan reveals fundamental differences between the two plans, so much so that we can be sure that the two plans have separate origins. The PRO plan is not as accurate as the Watts plan because the author has rationalized many of the peculiarities. (See annotations). The PRO plan includes many details not shown in the Watts plan: for example, note the kitchen oven, the earlier stair arrangement into the North Wing cellar, the greater detail in the plan of the rotunda, and the inclusion of certain outbuildings. The Watts plan records information not in the PRO plan: stairs in the kitchen, the elevation of the rotunda, the upper floor of the main building, the portico etc. Neither plan is derivative of the other, as suggested by their respective exclusive features.

Some anomalies are difficult to explain. Note the inexplicable location of the doorway between the Small Lobby and the Dressing Room in both the PRO plan and the otherwise very accurate Watts plan, offset northward instead of as actually built in the centre of the dividing wall. The archaeology of the footings of this wall attests to a last minute change of some sort; perhaps a clue as to when the plans were prepared?

Despite the differences, it is possible that both plans could owe something to an earlier, now lost, plan and features were added such as the portico, stairs etc., as proposed at the time of drawing.

WHICH PLAN IS EARLIER?

The depiction of a baking oven and range in the PRO/Bonwick plan would suggest that the Watts plan was earlier because of the absence of such features (just a few scribbles indicating that decisions had yet to be made when the plan was drawn).

The evidence of the baking oven is not conclusive because we have no corroborative evidence to confirm that it was actually built like that, it might have been a proposal. (See portico below). The PRO/Bonwick plan need not be the later one. The PRO plan appears to incorporate at least one archaic feature (accidently simplified in the Bonwick copy): the front doorway and sidelights apparently owe more to the Hunter scheme than the mature Macquarie scheme (the Watts plan records the latter). Curiously, the de Freycinet elevation of the house also shows what seems to be the Hunter scheme of the doorway (behind the portico). The de Freycinet elevation can be dated to December 1819. Could it be that both works were based on earlier representations? Could it be that the doorway was not modified until after December 1819, despite the fact that the ca 1817 Watts plan shows the mature Macquarie period front doorway? The archaeology of the doorway indicates that it was one of the last areas to have been completed during the Macquarie period---after the completion of the back extensions.

Note; it must be kept in mind that the PRO author tended to rationalize and simplify, though this feature is an elaboration. De Freycinet tended to embellish, as seen particularly in his representation of the Hyde Park Barracks.

The Watts plan includes a very detailed inset plan and elevation of the portico which is repeated on the general plan and elevation of Old Government House: the repetition may suggest that the portico had not yet been built but the feature was added to the general plan and elevation anyway. However, the PRO/Bonwick plan also includes the portico. The PRO portico proportions are far too large in relation to the building and the details are schematic. The PRO author may have had a fleeting look at a plan for the portico or heard a description of it or perhaps the depiction might even have been an early version of what was proposed. It is my feeling that both plans were drawn up before the portico was built.

The archaeological investigation of the Stage IV work, involving the north half of Old Government House, has revealed that the plans date from after the commencement of the Macquarie extensions to the back of the Hunter house and the North Wing. The plans do not show that the North Wing was first partially built on a different floor plan from that indicated, or in other words the plans record what was built, well into the Macquarie period (though may incorporate elements, of the time, yet to be constructed).

A thorough examination of the South Wing and south side of the building (and outbuildings) should provide further clues.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return

DISTRIBUTION OF SKIRTING AND CHAIR RAIL GROUNDS

AND BRICK MEASUREMENTS

Although the significance of these are discussed in the text, they are here presented in detail on the plans relating to the main building, the Colonnade and the North Wing.

BRICKS

Two people measuring bricks in one specific area will never come up with the same measurements. There are several reasons for this:

(a) No two bricks, even from the same batch, will have the same measurements. This is due to the clays used, the individual moulding and handling, stacking position while drying, differential burning conditions in the kiln etc. The latter can result in a range of bricks of wildly differing sizes, colour and texture.

(b) No single manually produced brick will have the same measurements throughout length, breadth and width. Nearly all bricks are slightly concave on the scraper side (where the strike took off excess clay from the mould). Because of the various processes involved in manufacture, bricks can be slightly flattened, wedge shaped, rhomboid, trapezoid etc., on any side and in any combination. In other words, there can be several outcomes for measurements taken for length, breadth and width from the one brick.

(c) Some bricks have a flange along one or more sides due to the strike or the way they were expelled from the mould. This can add up to 3mm to a measurement.

(d) The difficulty of obtaining all three major measurements from the one brick; length, breadth and width. All three measurements can only be obtained at corners, the tops of walls and where the brickwork has been disturbed. Caution is needed because sometimes special bricks are selected for such places and may not typically represent the brickwork of a given area.

The above can be overcome by: being able to recognize (a) the range; (b) adopting the convention of taking mid-brick measurements; and (c) being aware of anomalies.

O L D G O V E R N M E N T H O U S E

P A R R A M A T T A

INITIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS 1799 FOYER

INTRODUCTION

The curator of Old Government House, Ian Stephenson (National Trust of New South Wales), kindly asked me if I would have a look at the exposed brick walls of the 1799 foyer, or entrance hall, after the removal of the 1908(?) plaster/render. The works schedule and other factors limited the time I had to make my observations: there was not time to make detailed scale drawings.

On a number of occasions in 1993, I was able to visit the site when the plaster/render was removed from the groundfloor north and south rooms of the 1799 portion of the building and from parts of the exterior walls. These visits gave me the opportunity to familiarise myself with the brickwork and make comparisons with other early structures I have examined over the years. At the time there was a controversy regarding the date of the earliest standing remains of the house and felt it necessary to review the documentation of the Parramatta Government House, 1790-1799 (See appended pages). I concluded that the earliest standing remains of the house date to 1799. My examination of the building materials (as seen to date) confirm the documentary conclusion.

There have been several additions and modifications made to the building since 1799 (requires further physical and documentary study). It is possible to say that the brickwork of the north and south rooms and the brickwork of the north and south walls of the foyer belong very substantially to the 1799 phase. There do seem to be early modifications in the underfloor area.

SUMMARY

The east and west walls of the foyer were demolished and rebuilt, in one phase, during the Macquarie period. The 1799 and Macquarie schemes included skirting and timber wainscot/dado. There was no evidence of a staircase, though the underfloor area needs a thorough examination. (Illustrations attached).

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................1

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS.....................................................2

THE PLASTER.......................................................................3

DETERMINING COLOUR SCHEMES AND SPECIFIC

LOCATIONS...........................................................................6

ELIMINATION OF PLASTER CATEGORIES....................7

PLASTER REMAINS UNCOVERED DURING THE 1994/

1995 STAGE IV WORK.........................................................8

ROOM TO ROOM SUMMARY OF PLASTER REMAINS..

..................................................................................................9

WALL SURFACES AND PAINT.......................................12

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................13

CHARTS OF COLOUR TYPES........................................14

APPENDIX I, SURVEY OF SPOIL HEAPS.................20

APPENDIX II, PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS........22

OLD GOVERNMENT HOUSE PLASTER/COLOUR SCHEMES REPORT Return

INTRODUCTION

This report reviews the evidence of the early plaster remains left on the walls at Old Government House, as found during stage IV work, December 1994 to February 1995. The remains found during stage IV have been compared with material excavated from the plaster dump at the top of the Crescent, west of Old Government House, during July 1995.

The results of the stage IV recording may be seen in my report entitled, Old Government House Parramatta, Archaeological Report of Building Fabric Exposed During Current Works January/February 1995. The results of the plaster dump excavation, by Edward Higginbotham, may be found in his forthcoming report. Material examined for this report includes the type series etc., of the Higginbotham excavation and material I collected from the excavation spoil heaps.

The aim of this report is to find evidence of the interior colour schemes of Old Government House as relate to the middle and north half of the building.

The chief obstacles toward accurate identifications of colour schemes to rooms are:

(a) Only fragments of the base layer (scratch coat) of the early plaster survived the 1908 and 1969 overhauls of Old Government House.

(b) Of the excavated plaster, only a small percentage has survived with all three layers intact.

(c) Due to the nature of the soil, the plaster from the dump has lost all original organic matter. Very little hair or plant matter (used to reinforce the plaster) has survived in the excavated material, whereas remnant scratch coat found in the various rooms nearly always contains hair or plant matter.

(d) Although the bulk of the plaster excavated dated to the various Macquarie phases, a significant percentage represented later phases. From my research, I know that the east exterior of the Hunter phase building was replastered during the 1870s, the North Colonnade was largely replastered during the 1830s/1840s and during the same time, extensive patching went on in the west rooms of the North Wing.

(e) The plaster dump material may represent every room of the house and very likely the outbuildings (interior and exterior). We only know the mortar and plaster sequences of a limited number of rooms (north half of the house). This has a number of implications: for example, the two Wings may share the same mortar and plaster sequences but not necessarily the same paint sequences.

Despite the limitations, some significant data did emerge from the mass of material examined, though perhaps not exactly what was hoped for.

The scope of this commission was limited in terms of time and funding (although the time limit was extended). The data will become more relevant as more of the standing structure, the below ground archaeology and the documentation become known.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

The most significant finding of this report is that the completed plaster walls were not painted for some years. WHY?: the plaster surfaces were ultra smooth and the hue of the finishing coat was attractive, so the walls did not require painting. From hundreds of samples examined, it was noticed that interior plaster rarely had more than one or two coats of paint, sometimes no paint at all. The one or two coats represent ninety two years or more of interior decorating: this seems very minimal to the modern mind.

The documentation for the period up to about 1820 remains potential rather than at hand, particularly in regard to the records of the Lumber Yard. There have been reports of painters at Old Government House in 1817 but what were they painting?: outhouses, the main house, exteriors, interiors, timber elements, walls?! Were the painters responsible for the finishing of the finishing coat? An initial finding suggests that the painters (1817) were engaged in the garden (pers. comm. Ralph Hawkins) but further work is required.

It is unlikely that this finding will be received with great enthusiasm. The decision regarding colour schemes will remain a historical process, reflecting the state of knowledge from many sources and the philosophy of the times.

No positive proof was found regarding wall paper, though it seems there is evidence of it from historical sources (pers. comm. Ian Stephenson). Some plaster samples showed signs of abrasion on the surface of the colour (could have many causes) but no signs of adhesive, or glue, were seen over the paint.

THE PLASTER

The plaster of Old Government House is typical of the plaster found in many early buildings of the colonial period. Although the formula for the plaster may differ in time and place, the technique remained much the same.

The process of plastering a wall is a highly skilled one, it was more so during the nineteenth century than at present. The principal difference, over time, is that the creation of the finishing coat gradually fell into decline and was eventually omitted altogether. It is no coincidence that the floating coat was done away with just as the use of paint for walls became more and more common. The creation of a finishing coat was the most difficult and expensive part of plastering a wall because of the materials and amount of skilled labour required to create a perfectly flat and smooth finish.

A good plastered wall, as evidenced at Old Government House, was applied in three layers, known as coats:

BRICKWORK

The coursing of the brickwork was usually 'down struck', [ ]. Sometimes excess mortar between coursing was smoothed over irregularities on the surface of the brickwork: this can often be mistaken for the scratch coat.

SCRATCH COAT

This was to cover the brickwork. The surface of the scratch coat was scored when drying, often creating a lozenge pattern, so that the next coat would adhere. Composed of a fairly high lime mortar.

FLOATING COAT

The floating coat was to bring the entire wall flush and so the thickness of the coat varies depending on irregularities in the brickwork and scratch coat. This is the final coat in good modern plastering (modern materials allow a fairly smooth surface and is 'finished' by a couple of coats of paint). The surface of early floating coats were given a slightly rough surface either by brushing or by dabbing the surface with the smoothing, or floating, tool to facilitate the adhesion of the finishing coat. Composed of a high lime mortar.

FINISHING COAT

Composed of a mixture of finely sieved lime and plaster of Paris (or similar). The coat is generally very thin, 1-3mm, unless if part of a moulding. The surface was worked up as smooth as possibly could be achieved, smoother than a brushed coat of paint. This was an expensive operation using expensive materials (during the earlier colonial years at least). The evidence seems to suggest that such a well finished wall would not need to be painted, the hue varying from bright white to shades of grey or cream.

One 'unpainted' plaster sample noted was from an edge (probably skirting) and seemed to suggest that a film of wash had been applied at a later time. This wash was was known as 'size' and was commonly composed of diluted glue. The size prevented the uneven absorption of the paint and prevented the lime in the plaster from reacting unfavourably with the paint mix.

Mortar and plaster at Government House between 1799 to circa 1850 was composed of shell lime. Mortar and plaster after this time was of rock lime and later of portland cement (to 1908 and later).

DETERMINING COLOUR SCHEMES AND SPECIFIC LOCATIONS

In order to determine the colour schemes and attempt to link them with specific areas of Old Government House, the most useful of the samples excavated had to be determined, priority given to the most promising categories and areas listed within the existing building that might potentially provide a useful match.

Grading criteria from most useful to useless:

(1) A prime specimen for the purpose of linking a plaster sample with a specific location would be one that has mortar from the brick coursing, a scratch coat, a floating coat, a finishing coat and paint or whitewash. Such complete specimens may be cross referenced with samples where only the finishing coat and the scratch coat have survived. The best key to a specific location is the mortar from the coursing and scratch coat on a given sample but very few plaster samples retain both the mortar and scratch coat. Very few plaster samples were found to have the entire range from coursing to finishing coat.

(2) Plaster sample of three coats but no mortar. Such a sample still has a direct application to the remains found on the walls in the various rooms because small remnants of the scratch coat have survived as outlined:

(a) Over some of the brickwork and in between the outer edges of the coursing. Only in one case did part of the floating course survive.

(b) Plaster used to plug scaffolding holes. The scaffolding timbers were built into the wall as the wall was going up. The timbers were later removed and the hole plugged with brick fragments and moist plaster.

(3) Plaster sample of two coats; the floating and finishing coats. This category accounts for the bulk of the excavated material. These samples have an indirect reference to what was found on the walls when cross-referenced with samples in categories (1) and (2).

(4) Plaster sample of one coat. Many samples examined are composed of a single coat (which have come away from the rest of the sample at some stage). Only the finishing coat would be of any use.

(5) Plaster samples in various combinations but missing the finishing coat. This category would be useless unless a fragment of scratch coat was found with traces of mortar from the coursing (this could then be cross-referenced with categories (1) and (2).

ELIMINATION OF PLASTER CATEGORIES

A tight time-frame required a certain amount of streamlining: side issues could not be explored. Categories not directly relevant to the paint schemes and the rooms to be painted were given lesser priority. This required the samples to be given broad dates. Samples considered of a lesser priority:

(1) Samples dating between the 1830s and 1908.

These were later reconsidered when it became evident that the plaster during the Macquarie period seemed not to have been painted. For example, what at first seemed to be evidence of the first layer of paint (therefore, on face value, 'original'), I found also on plaster that was obviously of an 1830s/1840s date! In other words, a paint sequence found on Macquarie plaster was found also on a sample belonging to a later repair, hence the sequence had to be post-Macquarie.

(2) Unpainted plaster from lath and plaster construction. Ceilings at Old Government House were lath and plastered. Ceilings are nearly always left unpainted or perhaps painted white when discoloured over time: hence not relevant to this study. Eaves were also lath and plastered but may be distinguished in future if there is ever to be any excavation around the house when fragments are sure to be found..

Plaster from lath and plaster construction is well represented in the collection. The greater proportion of this category was unpainted or painted white.

(3) Painted plaster from lath and plaster construction. These would originate from a lath and plaster wall (stud wall or partition).

As the upstairs WC Room had two stud walls (north and east) this category had to be reconsidered. The Breakfast room may have had a false (stud) wall, if Clive Lucas' theory concerning the east wall is correct. This category would be relevant if the colour sequence could be matched with plaster from the other walls in the room. Unfortunately, the bulk of the samples had missing the crucial scratch coat or the base of the scratch coat so that it was not always possible to determine whether the plaster was from lath and plaster or not.

(4) Exterior plaster. Exterior plaster could be recognized by samples with a carefully painted black band contained within a incised straight line (intended to imitate ashlar stonework).

Exterior plaster was first recognised well into the study because few pieces survived with the scribing. Exterior plaster is not well represented because it seems that a large percentage of the exterior plaster had been renewed before 1908. Only fragments of later plaster was found, suggesting that the more modern material was disposed of elsewhere.

Of interest is that the exterior plaster was found to have the greatest number of sequences of paint layers, about four, and yet the evidence irrefutably shows that the plaster was not at first painted (note the perfectly scribed plaster imitating ashlar coursing). A cement repair indicated that one or two of the paint layers dated within a few decades before 1908.

PLASTER REMAINS UNCOVERED DURING THE 1994/1995 STAGE IV WORK

For the purpose of this report , a list was made of samples I took of the base, or scratch, coat during the 1994/1995 work on the north half of Old Government House.

In summary, the destruction of the organic matter in the dumped plaster together with the fact that only a half of the main building could be surveyed for scratch coat remains, means that a positive identification could not be made linking the dumped plaster with a particular room.

Only traces of the scratch coat survived on walls up to the recent stage IV removal of 1908/1909 and 1969 render/plaster. Traces were found in the Stair Hall, WC Room (upstairs), the Cross Halls, North Colonnade and the rooms of the North Colonnade. The evidence was found over some of the bricks and mortar joints. An exception was the west wall of the North Colonnade (lower south end) where the remains of a scratch coat and floating coat were found (mixed with plant matter; grass, hay etc.,) dating to the first phase of the wall.

More problematic were the remains of plaster used to plug the scaffolding holes (mentioned previously). The holes were plugged with brick fragments and plaster , suggesting that the holes were plugged with material readily available, suggesting that the scaffolding was removed as the plastering was being completed. It would be reasonable to conclude that the plaster represented the floating coat, however it can not be known if the plaster came from another room in the process of being plastered. In any case, the plaster used would have been contemporary.

The plaster remains found over the brick may not represent the construction phase of the wall, some areas show evidence of extensive later replastering. One such example is the North Colonnade where the south and west walls were largely replastered during the 1830s or 1840s, (complicated by remnants from the original plastering of the west wall, exterior plastering of the south wall and the remains of the so-called Hunter plaster phase in the south-east corner). Patching, at least, occurred during the 1830s and 1840s throughout the North Wing, particularly the west half of the structure. The plaster excavated from the Plaster Dump is of course fragmentary in nature and is unlikely to contain single examples in one piece reflecting two phases (say, Macquarie with 1830s patching), though theoretically possible. No such example has been identified as yet.

ROOM TO ROOM SUMMARY OF PLASTER REMAINS

STAIR HALL

Remnants of a scratch coat, particularly at the west wall.

Scaffolding plugs of several phases.

SOUTH CROSS WALL

Scaffolding plugs.

NORTH CROSS WALL

Scaffolding plugs

NORTH COLONNADE

Wall construction phase plaster missing only the finishing coat (contains grass, hay etc., instead of hair)

Yellow plaster/mortar phase, 1830s/1840s. Replastering found on the south and west walls, done when the skirting and chair rail grounds were bricked (choked with slithers of stone). The east wall totally demolished around 1908.

Remnants of south wall plaster, predating the construction of the North Colonnade.

Remnants of the so-called Hunter plaster in the south-east corner, predating both the south wall and the North Colonnade.

NORTH WING

Remnants of the scratch coat in the Bedroom.

Scaffolding plugs.

Remnants of 1830s/1840s patching done when the timber skirting grounds were replaced with brick (and in some areas choked up with slate).

COMMENT

As can be seen from my January/February 1995 report, the mortars and bricks used throughout the house present a scenario of complex building phases and changes.

As few samples from the Plaster Dump had any remains of mortar, the complications need not receive a great amount of attention in this study.

WALL SURFACES AND PAINT

Exterior walls were carefully plastered with the usual three layers. The fact that the finishing coat was scribed, before setting, and carefully painted in black after drying to resemble portland stone blocks (ashlar) means that the exterior walls were not intended to be painted. No paint was found to go under the black lines along the scribing. One would have thought twice about painting over such a scheme. The walls were eventually painted. At least four layers have been noted, some of these colours were found on fragments of cement render patching belonging to the late nineteenth century.

There is also striking evidence that the interior walls were not intended to be painted until they became soiled in the normal course of events (including soot from fires, candles and oil lamps). The chief indication is that a large percentage of the plaster was either unpainted or had only one coat of paint. As some examples of plaster from the 1830s/1840s phase shared the same initial colour as with plaster from the Macquarie phases, it is concluded that the walls of rooms were not painted until the 1830s or later.

The painting of skirting, architraving etc., is another matter. There is documentary evidence of painters and paint(?) during the Macquarie period but it is not recorded what was specifically being painted or even if the painters were actually painting.

Reliable dating techniques for paint have not been successfully established, so it has always been assumed that the first layer of paint is the colour used at the time of construction. This does not seem to have been the case at Old Government House according to the samples from the Plaster Dump. Plaster examined from other early buildings seem to point in the same direction; that is, properly plastered rooms did not need painting until the walls became soiled or the owners decided to redecorate. It is difficult for the modern mind to divest itself of compounded assumptions about the past.

The surface of a good finishing coat would be smoother than paint and of pleasing light colour. The creation of a fine surface on a finishing coat was expensive to achieve in terms of workmanship and materials. It would have been a great waste to then paint that surface. It is no coincidence that with the increased use of paint in later years that the finishing coat began to decline, this is also reflected in later samples of plaster from the Plaster Dump.

CONCLUSIONS

Until more is known of the south side of the main building and outbuildings, the full potential of the Plaster Dump material will remain unrealized. Research into the Lumber Yard records is essential.

This report finds that the colour scheme of the walls during the Macquarie period, at least, was the colour of the surface of the finishing coat. The first major painting schemes seem to begin with the 1830s.

This report will become more useful when more is known of the whole of Old Government House and outbuildings. It was not possible to match plaster colours with particular rooms at this time, for reasons outlined in the body of this report, though is potentially possible:

(1) When the south half of the house and outbuildings are treated in the same way as the north half.

(2) If excavations around the house, outside doors and windows, are ever undertaken. It seems that the plaster removed from walls in 1908 were thrown through the nearest aperture.

The data extracted from the plaster samples is presented on the following pages. The colours have been matched as closely as possible to the large Burger and British Paints Specification Pack (ca1988). Plaster samples have been selected representing all the colours listed and are to be forwarded with this report for independent examination.

Return