Australia’s First Architectural Competitions, 1826–27

ABSTRACT

Architectural competitions have played a significant role in Australia’s development, yet their wider story is largely absent from its architectural histories. This paper foregrounds the topic by examining the origins, context, aims and outcomes of the nation’s first three competitions, held in Sydney from October 1826 to January 1827 during Governor Ralph Darling’s administration. Darling abolished the position of Colonial Architect—partly on the grounds it was uneconomic—and made the Engineer’s Office responsible for all public architectural works. The competitions were heralded by the actions of New South Wales’ first archdeacon, who brought with him the concept for a British church construction program. The competitions were ambitious undertakings that should have produced the city’s main Anglican church, a series of country churches and a new Government House at Sydney, but all failed when funding evaporated. The band of architectural practitioners of varying ability—including Francis Greenway—then operating were invited to compete to design what would be some of the colony’s most important buildings. However, mismanagement in the conceptualisation and running of the competitions, and even fraud—which overshadows the extraordinary Government House win by Darling’s wife—ultimately undermined their key objective of achieving architectural excellence.

Introduction

In his pioneering history of Australia’s architectural institutes, J.M. Freeland argued that competitions had done “far more damage to the architectural profession, its unity, its reputation and its advancement than any other single matter.”¹ The author was well-placed to draw his conclusions for his book was the first to examine the subject in any detail. Like Freeland, Philip Goad’s later and necessarily condensed entry in The Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture tracks the beginning of architectural competitions to the early days of each colony when, he states, “architectural talent was not always guaranteed from within government circles.” He adds that competitions in these periods were often used for three reasons: to gauge aptitude when practitioners were relatively unknown; to demonstrate that there was no bias or favour in the judging process; and to seek architectural excellence.² These propositions, however, are untested as there has been no substantive investigation of Australian architectural competitions of this or any other era—or by geographical region, architectural style or building typology. The one exception is a recent—non-academic—book by the author which relates the brief stories of a select 75 Australian house design competitions from 1827–1976, including one that is considered here.³

This paper examines Australia’s earliest architectural competitions. The first two were for a major Sydney church and a series of country churches, held in October 1826 by the Church and School Lands Corporation. The third was for Government House at Sydney, held three months later by the Corporation’s president, Governor Ralph Darling.⁴ All three failed to produce a completed building, and no entries have survived. The paper identifies the origins of these competitions—which were through the auspices of New South Wales’ first archdeacon—to demonstrate how they mimicked the policies of, and a building program introduced by, the British Parliament. The paper also analyses the context, aims and outcomes of the competitions in the way they were formulated and managed, and from the viewpoint of both promoter and entrant. It specifically considers the context and aims using the propositions in Goad’s framework. The paper argues that competitions were introduced when architectural talent did exist within government, even after Darling had abolished the position of Colonial Architect. It also contends that their main objective was to achieve architectural excellence, even when the winning candidates were predetermined. Finally, it reveals that while each competition suffered from flaws in how they were conceived and administered—in fact, that one was corrupt—their inability to deliver a completed building was due to a failure to secure funding.

Origins

By simple definition, an architectural competition involves “the simultaneous design of the same project by competing architects.”⁵ The occupation of architect, however, was not clearly defined in Australia’s early colonial period by qualifications, skills or experience, and a slow process of professionalisation would only begin with the establishment of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1834.⁶ The link with Britain is crucial as Australia’s first architects almost entirely came from there,⁷ backed by a long history of competition. This can be traced to at least 1664 when members of London’s carpenters’ guild—at a time when such craftsmen were skilled in building design—submitted plans in an internal competition for a new court room.⁸ In 1720, architects competed to rebuild the Church of St-Martin-in-the-Fields under a thwarted proposal to erect 50 new churches around the country, an intriguing precursor to the building program discussed below.⁹ By 1788, the Bank of England was holding a competition to appoint a practitioner who would design all of its building work. By the early nineteenth century, competitions were being mounted all over Britain for a wide range of what could be large commissions, such as art institutes, assembly rooms, hospitals, monuments, observatories, orphan asylums, schools and university buildings.¹⁰ Even Windsor Castle featured in 1823 when the Crown Architects were forced to compete against an outside architect to design extensions—and they lost. They competed against each other five years later for the State Paper Office.¹¹

These developments had been driven in part by the British Parliament. In 1815, a House of Commons committee called for the design of all major public buildings to be subject to competition, a motion later endorsed by a resolution of the full House. Competition was believed to “bring forth local talent and the best designs,” a philosophy that would underpin a massive public building program.¹² In 1818, Parliament passed the Church Building Act and allocated £1,000,000 to erect Anglican churches throughout the country. The preamble to the Act referred to “the need to provide free church accommodation for the poor,” but this was tacitly linked with “the education of the poor in the principles of the Established Church.” Following a second government grant, hundreds of churches—many chosen by competition, with some based on templated designs produced by the Crown Architects—were built leading up to the 1850s.¹³ The impact of these events could not have escaped Rector Thomas Hobbes Scott, whose church was rebuilt with the aid of a grant from the Church Commissioners.¹⁴

Scott previously had been secretary to his brother-in-law, John Thomas Bigge, who from 1819 was royal commissioner enquiring into the affairs of New South Wales at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl Bathurst.¹⁵ In line with Bathurst’s wish to consolidate the Church of England in Australia as the pre-eminent religious institution and educational provider, Scott proposed a body with responsibility for these developments—the Church and School Lands Corporation.¹⁶ In 1824, he was appointed first archdeacon of New South Wales with “almost complete control of ecclesiastical matters in the colony,” including as the Corporation’s administrator.¹⁷ He would chair its building committee which conceived Australia’s first two architectural competitions, and which had striking similarities with the operations of Britain’s Church Building Commission. Both involved government-created organisations deploying the same policy, in Britain implicitly and in Australia explicitly: the expansion of the influence of the Church of England in religious and educational affairs. They also used the same policy mechanism, again, in Britain implicitly and in Australia explicitly: the building of churches, many designs of which would be subject to competition, and included templated examples. This lead would be followed by the Corporation’s president, Governor Ralph Darling, when planning a new vice-regal residence for Sydney, the competition four years earlier for Windsor Castle having set a precedent.

The origins of Australia’s architectural competitions are clear, but it is also necessary to understand in what context they evolved. Were they prompted by uneven design talent that existed within government at that time? To investigate this, we must examine the Colonial Architect and Engineer’s Office which both provided public architectural services in New South Wales in the early nineteenth century.

Public Architectural Services in New South Wales

By 1826, New South Wales had hosted three Colonial Architects. The gifted Francis Greenway was the first to hold the position, producing many of the colony’s major buildings and structures, but he was dismissed in 1822 (See Figure 1).¹⁸ Standish Lawrence Harris spent most of his brief tenure as second Colonial Architect denouncing Governor Macquarie’s building program. He was sacked in 1824 for overcharging.¹⁹ George Cookney was appointed to the role in April 1825,²⁰ but the arrival of Governor Darling in December of that year signalled a new direction. Darling not only had read the reports of but also consulted the evidence collected by Commissioner Bigge.²¹ Bigge had recommended the appointment of an officer from the Corps of Engineers to superintend all public works and the abolition of the Colonial Architect position. But Bigge added a proviso: that a new Government House was the one building where retaining the services of the Colonial Architect was desirable.²²

Figure 1. Francis Greenway, between 1814 and 1837.

Artist: Unknown

Source: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales (832559)

Cookney—who apparently had a drinking problem—was dismissed six months before the first competitions, Darling concluding that he “was not considered eligible from his general habits for a public situation.”²³ But Darling also accepted the recommendation of a specially commissioned board to do away with the position, specifically that:

the employment of a Colonial Architect permanently on the Establishment of the Colony does not appear necessary … it would be more desirable to remunerate any architect, whom Government may employ, for each separate work on which his services may be required. With respect to the mode of remunerating the Colonial Architect at present in practice, is highly objectionable [sic].²⁴

Darling had laid the groundwork for one-off commissions—which theoretically could include competitions—as the most cost-effective way to procure for government the services previously provided by the Colonial Architect. This was the situation until the 1832 appointment of Ambrose Hallen as Colonial Architect by Darling’s successor, Governor Bourke.²⁵

The position in relation to the Engineer’s Office, however, is quite different. As Goad notes, engineers “played a critical role in the first 50 years of European settlement in Australia.”²⁶ Responsibility for the public works program of New South Wales from 1821 had vested in the Civil Engineer, a position held by Major John Ovens.²⁷ Ovens had “little time for architects,” had moved against Greenway and appointed Cookney to perform relatively menial work.²⁸ Ovens’ death just before Darling’s arrival provided the governor with the opportunity to reorganise the Engineer’s Office,²⁹ but it “retained overall control of public works,” charged with “‘the erection and repair of the Public Buildings and the preparation of plans and estimates for these undertakings’.”³⁰ And there is compelling evidence of its work. Prior to the creation of the Church and School Lands Corporation, Archdeacon Scott dealt exclusively with the Office for the design, construction and repair of all Anglican churches, parsonages, schoolhouses and associated buildings in New South Wales.³¹ This is not a situation in which talent could be perceived as lacking.

Having examined the origins and context of Australia’s first architectural competitions, we turn to their aims. To consider that one aim may have been to identify talent when many practitioners were unknown, we move from analysing the public to the private architects of New South Wales in the early nineteenth century.

Private Architectural Services in New South Wales

Freeland estimates that there were only around 20 architects practising in Sydney in the 30 years up to 1850.³² The colony’s supposed first trained architect, Daniel Dering Mathew, was nothing of the kind, although he was advertising his services in 1826.³³ He had been followed by Greenway who was still in practice, as is confirmed by a newspaper article praising his latest building.³⁴ His successor as Colonial Architect, Harris, had moved to Newcastle but had recently worked on Scots’ Church in Sydney.³⁵ Harris’ replacement, Cookney, had the 1825 design of a monument and grave to his name, and was on the scene.³⁶ All three must have been stained to some degree by dismissal from their government post, but this does not discount their participation in architectural competition. We must, however, exclude Greenway’s main rival, Henry Kitchen, who had died.³⁷

There were other architects at this time, or people working as builders-cum-architects, each with high degrees of success. Francis Lawless was an extremely competent “artisan builder” and also designer, including of the Benevolent Asylum at Sydney and convict barracks at Parramatta.³⁸ While his major work had been completed by 1824 and at this point he was a publican, an architectural competition may have tempted him back to the field.³⁹ James Smith was “not quite an architect, not quite a builder,” but whom Scott Ethan Hill has demonstrated was a very capable designer in his work for Corporation member, John Macarthur.⁴⁰ Henry Cooper was a proficient builder-architect who specialised in shops and houses—the latter also including for Macarthur—and worked with Governor Darling’s wife, Eliza, on a plan for the Sydney Free Public Grammar School.⁴¹ Although he withdrew from business for 15 months due to serious illness soon after the competitions were announced, he would have been a potential contender.⁴² The Hallen brothers had yet to arrive, as well as Mortimer Lewis and John Verge.⁴³ While no other architect or person claiming to be an architect was mentioned in the local press in 1826, other hitherto unidentified practitioners or those operating in kindred trades or professions—such as building, drafting, engineering or surveying—may have applied.⁴⁴ This presumably would include the staff of the Engineer’s Office, with whom Archdeacon Scott was dealing.

The promoters of all three competitions comprised individuals who were the leading figures of the day in their chosen fields and closely linked with Governor Darling’s administration—and included Darling himself. The membership of the Church and School Lands Corporation alone comprised: the governor; Legislative Council members; chief justice; attorney-general; solicitor-general; colonial secretary; Archdeacon Scott and nine senior chaplains.⁴⁵ It would seem reasonable to expect they would have been acquainted with the members of another “profession,” even one in its early evolution as Australian architecture, but especially when its numbers were so small, and at a time when, likely, each new building in a fledgling colony of less than 10,000 would have been noted.⁴⁶ One of the senior chaplains and a Corporation member, the Reverend Samuel Marsden, had arrived in 1794 and, while his architectural knowledge probably was limited, would have been direct witness over more than 30 years to Sydney’s development.⁴⁷

It is therefore logical to conclude that New South Wales’ private architectural practitioners of the time, even if they represented only a small pool of candidates, in the main would have been known by the competition promoters. To consider other aims within Goad’s framework, such as probity and architectural excellence, and associated matters, each competition will now be examined in detail.

Church and School Lands Corporation

The Church and School Lands Corporation had been created under letters patent and endowed with one-seventh of all land in New South Wales, to provide income from land leases and sales to erect and maintain churches, schools and associated structures, and pay the salaries of clergymen, schoolmasters and the like.⁴⁸ At its first meeting, the Corporation appointed an advisory committee whose work included initiating an ambitious building program. The committee comprised two churchmen, two lawyers and a Legislative Councillor, and was chaired by the archdeacon.⁴⁹ Scott was the only person with any direct experience as he had been managing the Church’s construction work to this point, and he also was the Corporation’s connection to Bathurst through Darling.⁵⁰ He certainly believed his involvement was vital; his colleagues, he informed the governor, were “scarcely qualified to look after a cabbage garden.”⁵¹ The Corporation’s records do not reveal the discussions that lay behind the decision to hold the competitions, but Scott had already warned Darling that an additional 12 chaplains were required in the colony.⁵²

On 25 October 1826, the Corporation placed the following advertisement:

NOTICE TO ARCHITECTS. — The Trustees of the Clergy and School Lands do hereby give Notice, that they are ready to receive Plans for a new Church in Sydney, to be built with Stone, near to the Site of the Church of Saint Philip, capable of containing Two Thousand Persons.

Thirty-five Pounds Sterling will be given for the Plan, approved by the Trustees, and Twenty Pounds for that decided to be the next in Preference.

The Trustees are also ready to receive Plans for Country Churches, capable of containing Two Hundred Persons for the present, and to be enlarged, at a future Time, as may be required.

A Premium of Fifteen Pounds Sterling, for the Plan approved for a Country Church, and of Ten Pounds for the next, will be granted.⁵³

These concurrent competitions are notable as winning one or both would provide an entree to the Corporation itself, with potential for appointment as chief architect to what likely would be (outside of the Crown) the largest landholder in the colony. For example, John Verge—one of New South Wales’ most significant colonial architects—carried out all of the Corporation’s architectural work from 1832–33, which two commentators have described as important to his career,⁵⁴ and designed iconic houses for Corporation members and staff.⁵⁵ And the relationship of Sir John Soane with the Bank of England—which spanned 45 years and began after he won the 1788 competition previously referred to—is a compelling predecessor.⁵⁶

As well, the proposed Sydney church for 2,000 people—not merely a church but the seat of the Anglican faith in Sydney, which would hold one-fifth of its population and nearly half of all Anglicans⁵⁷—very likely would be the largest and grandest building in the colony when completed. With this commission alone an emerging architect could make their name, or an established practitioner could bolster or cement their reputation. However, while the Sydney church clearly would require the technical and creative skills of a specialist, the country churches to hold only 200 people (with the potential for future expansion) were on a much lower scale. This competition will be appraised first.

Competition for New South Wales Country Churches

As noted, Archdeacon Scott had been dealing with the Engineer’s Office for the individual design and erection of churches across New South Wales. But he wished to follow the example set by the Church Commissioners in Britain, not only of competition but in relation to templated designs. The Corporation would seek a plan by an architect which could be reproduced. While the advertisement called for plans for country churches, it offered the premium “for the Plan approved for a Country Church.” As well, soon after its initial advertisement the Corporation also called for tenders from builders to erect three country parsonages, plans for which would be based on those “struck from the lithographic press”⁵⁸ (that is, from a pattern book of plans).⁵⁹ Scott had an eye to a simpler process for building country churches where a design, obtained through competition, could be replicated across the colony and thus erected quickly and using economies of scale. His approach was also in keeping with the ruling of Darling, the Corporation’s president, when he dispensed with the position of Colonial Architect.

As to the concept of “architectural excellence,” aside from Scott there is no evidence from the knowledge or experience of committee members that they were equipped to make such a judgement. Nevertheless, by not setting a budget and by making a direct call to architects, the Corporation was asserting that—even for a small church design that would be copied—it was seeking a level of artistry consonant with the high ideals of the Church of England. This would confirm not only the mother country’s commitment to the Church but also validate Governor Darling’s own fervent Anglicanism.⁶⁰ The month before the competitions were advertised, the Corporation had received plans from its in-house engineer for the Male Orphan School.⁶¹ Clearly this was a building for which practicality—not high religiosity—was the keynote. Thus, while efficiency in building construction was a key criterion in this competition, so was architectural excellence. These aims will now be studied further, together with that of probity, by examining the competition for the Sydney church.

Competition for Sydney Church

There was no budget specified for this church either, even though the plans would be bespoke for such a substantial structure and with a price tag to match, but the Corporation had every expectation of being one of the colony’s richest landowners. However, this competition would involve substantially more work for entrants than a country church and, even at this earliest evolutionary point in Australian architectural competitions, may have raised expectations about its management. These relate in part to matters of probity, where the promoter demonstrates through the processes it has established that the competition will be administered in way that is fair and unbiased. This had become a running sore in British architectural competitions—the 1819 imbroglio for the General Post Office is one such example⁶²—which was barely patched as they exploded in the Victorian era.⁶³ In 1838, the recently formed Royal Institute of British Architects established a committee to investigate competition abuses. Its conclusion: competitions were “so ‘loose and irregular’ as to ‘preclude the possibility of justice’.”⁶⁴ In 1826 in Australia, architects were still 25 years away from organising any kind of representative body, and this occurred first in Victoria.⁶⁵

It is impossible to conjecture whether New South Wales architects at this point were cognisant of matters of probity, but it is likely that any concerns were obviated by the prospect of winning the first such competition in New South Wales and for such a substantial building. Yet the advertisement revealed a distinct lack of information in relation to both church competitions. There was no closing date—a glaring omission—but also no guidelines as to how plans should be prepared (scale of drawings, number of elevations, size of paper, use of ink or colour, etc.), and no indication as to how entries would be judged, including by whom and using what criteria. There also was no reference to the use by competitors of a “motto,” or nom de guerre, to ensure confidentiality. While the advertisement stated that “Further Particulars may be known by Application at the Office of the Corporation,” the records of the committee reveal that no discussion of any issue other than the wording and placement of the advertisement occurred, and there is no record of any other printed material related to the competition.⁶⁶ This means that entrants would not receive identical additional information from the Corporation, another key element of probity.

Potentially more concerning was the advertisement’s stipulation that specifications and estimates would be required “from the Architects whose Plans may be approved, as a Part of the Performance for which the Premiums are offered.” If there was more than enough work for a country church for £15, it potentially meant weeks, even months, of labour by a single practitioner to design a major city church for the sum of £35. However, there also was no guarantee of superintending construction, which was a guard against the possibility of the plans being changed by the competition promoter, or by another architect or overseer brought in to supervise building, but also ensured that construction was to the designing architect’s standards. As well, supervising construction was a profitable component of an architectural commission. As will be seen in relation to the third competition, these were crucial issues for Francis Greenway. In 1824, he advertised his fees of 8% for his full work in designing and directing the erection of a building, with 3% allocated for construction.⁶⁷ He estimated that under contract work the cost of the stables he had built for Governor Macquarie would have been £9,000. Inflated as this figure very likely was, he potentially could have earned £720.⁶⁸ Therefore, the main church competition’s first prize of £35 was a pittance in contrast to the fees that could be charged, as well as the personal and professional satisfaction gained, by designing and seeing to completion the colony’s premier building.

Greenway may well have been the target of both competitions. Archdeacon Scott knew him from serving as secretary to Commissioner Bigge, who had clashed repeatedly with Greenway while enquiring into the affairs of New South Wales. In fact, Greenway had already designed a major Anglican church for Sydney—what was to be St Andrew’s—for which the foundations were partially laid before the project was abandoned on Bigge’s instructions due to its perceived extravagance.⁶⁹ But the architect had also been responsible for three of Sydney’s Anglican churches—St Matthew’s at Windsor, St Luke’s at Liverpool and St James’ in the city (See Figures 2, 3 and 4). These have been described by architectural historians as verging on, if not actual, masterpieces.⁷⁰ Representatives of the Church and School Lands Corporation which had been established to advance the Church of England—and who themselves were “communicant church members”⁷¹—everywhere confronted Greenway’s achievements which elevated the Anglican faith. He not only possessed architectural talent but was also devoutly religious; he was “an Anglican who saw himself as an agent of the divine ‘architect of the universe’.”⁷² However, Greenway’s arrogance, intemperateness and political naivety had led to his dismissal as Colonial Architect in 1822, and following this “his professional life was not successful.”⁷³ The Sydney church competition could be restitution for the lost opportunity of St Andrew’s, help resuscitate his professional reputation and potentially be a salve for his financial woes.

Figure 2. St Matthew’s Church, Windsor, 1906.

Photographer: Frank Walker

Source: Royal Australian Historical Society (10338478576)

Figure 3. St Luke’s Church, Liverpool, 1954.

Photographer: Max Dupain

Source: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales (9592800)

Figure 4. St James’ Church, Sydney, date unknown.

Photographer: Henry King

Source: Powerhouse Museum (85/1285-85)

It is not inconceivable that through the competitions Scott was attempting to exploit precisely these weaknesses. Greenway had partly built the foundations for St Andrew’s and may only have been paid for this work; possibly he retained the full plans. He could either submit these or draw up new ones, but instead of charging thousands of pounds in fees at a percentage he had made known publicly, the Corporation could secure his services at a discount rate. However, there is another more persuasive argument. While Governor Darling kept his horses in the stables designed by the architect, by July 1826 he was directing Greenway and his family to quit a government house he was claiming as his own.⁷⁴ The best-known and most brilliant architect of the period was, three months ahead of these competitions, very much out of favour with the Darling administration. On 19 October 1826, the announcement of Australia’s first two architectural competitions was made not to generate the best designs from an impressive field of contenders, for none could come close to Greenway’s breadth of experience and skills in the planning and building of churches. Rather, to try and make digestible under the shield of a formal process the handing of a prize commission to the one unpalatable but only substantive candidate. Architectural excellence thus played the most obvious role in these two competitions, but that of efficiency (in both time and money) cannot be overlooked. Probity, meanwhile, seems barely to have been understood by the promoter let alone applied.

It is significant that not one entry was submitted to either of the Corporation’s competitions.⁷⁵ The key issue with architects likely was not the lack of probity, although it may have raised concerns, but the premiums on offer. There would have been limited appeal in the first competition, which required the specifications and estimates for a vast church for the sum of £35, and without the promise of managing construction with the associated fee, whatever glory—professional and/or holy—attended the work. The same applies to the second competition which had an even smaller prize, and for a single design that would be copied. Nevertheless, the competitions may also have been stymied by the Corporation’s own troubles, for it was soon confronting the fact that the land upon which it relied for income had not been surveyed. Barely two months after its first advertisement and at a special general court, a resolution was passed that the Corporation “not being furnished with funds to proceed in the execution of their trust, desire to suspend the present Buildings.”⁷⁶ In February 1827, Darling noted that Earl Bathurst had declined to advance money for the building program to recommence.⁷⁷ Within three years, the functions of the Corporation had been suspended and by 1833 it had been abolished.⁷⁸

Sydney thus twice had the opportunity to build a major colonial church by its major Colonial Architect, Francis Greenway; St Andrew’s Cathedral would eventually be completed by Edmund Blacket.⁷⁹ The Church and School Lands Corporation had been a signal failure, and with it, Australia’s first two architectural competitions. But the idea had taken hold and would quickly lead to Australia’s third competition—a new residence for the Corporation’s president, Governor Ralph Darling.

Governor Ralph Darling

In June 1825, Bathurst had authorised Darling (See Figure 5) to build a new Government House at Sydney (as distinct from Parramatta), or consider converting Macquarie’s stables, if on arrival he found reports of the existing building’s dilapidated state to be true. Bathurst even waived the requirement that plans be submitted for prior approval but still requested an estimate.⁸⁰ Darling’s private secretary, Henry Dumaresq—the brother of Darling’s wife, Eliza—had been sent on ahead to renovate the residence before occupation. But Mrs Darling (See Figure 6) was dismayed and her husband even more so at what they found: “The present House is a perfect Hovel and in no respect suited to the situation.”⁸¹ Further repairs were ordered before the Darlings settled in in September 1826, with the Sydney Gazette noting: “We hope His Excellency will yet take possession of the contemplated new Government-house, for the erection of which every preparation is being made.”⁸²

Figure 5. Ralph Darling, 1825.

Artist: John Linnell

Source: National Library of Australia (134769948)

Figure 6. Eliza Darling, 1825.

Artist: John Linnell

Source: National Library of Australia (134769783)

Indeed, two days before Darling’s arrival it had been reported that a new Government House was planned. Henry Dumaresq was the source of this information. It would be at least two years before a start could be made, he stated, as the timbers would take this long to be seasoned.⁸³ It is intriguing that, three months later—and as a member of the board constituted to examine the role of the Colonial Architect—he would join in recommending to Darling to abolish the position when it was ideally suited to design what would be the colony’s most expensive and luxurious residence for its leading government figure. And, as noted, Darling accepted the recommendation though it contradicted Commissioner Bigge’s specific advice.

Competition for Government House, Sydney

A month after the Church and School Lands Corporation was forced to abort its competitions, the following notice appeared:

TO ARCHITECTSGOVERNMENT intending to commence the Building of a New Government House in Sydney; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Plans and Elevations for this Purpose, will be received at this Office, on the 1st of March next, at Twelve o’Clock, to be then submitted to the Consideration of a Committee, which will be appointed by the GOVERNOR.

A Premium of £50 will be paid for the Plan which will be approved of and carried into Effect; £30 will be paid for what shall be considered the second best Plan; and £20 for the third best.⁸⁴

The wording revealed a more sophisticated hand at work in contrast to that of the Corporation’s. While again targeting architects, the advertisement specified the submission not only of floor plans but also elevations. There was a closing date, too, although it allowed barely six weeks for entries to be submitted. The number of premiums had been increased to three and the total prize pool nearly tripled, but in a new twist the first prize of £50 was conditional on the building being completed. Once again, however, there was no provision that the winner would manage the construction work, to protect their intellectual property, ensure a quality build and earn income as a percentage of the total building cost. There was no budget either, but early estimates of the colony’s finances for the 1827 calendar year identified a surplus of just over £30,000.⁸⁵

In a seeming turnaround in relation to matters of probity, the governor had appointed a committee to examine the entries. This implied an arrangement to ensure the most informed—and impartial—advice would be provided. But the committee’s members were not identified so it was unclear if their skills and experience equipped them to read, interpret and pass judgement on architectural drawings, and to do so without bias. However, the advertisement stated that further information was available at the office of the Civil Engineer; at this time the position was temporarily held by William Dumaresq, Henry and Eliza’s brother.⁸⁶ As a military-trained engineer now responsible for administering the government’s building program, William Dumaresq would have been an obvious choice to head or be a member of the committee.⁸⁷ Yet Henry Dumaresq was not only Governor Darling’s private secretary (and who lived with the Darlings),⁸⁸ but had also been temporarily appointed Chief Engineer by Governor Brisbane for the purpose of refurbishing Government House before the Darlings’ arrival.⁸⁹ While it was obviously not a task at which Henry had excelled, Ralph Darling had to hand two men well-equipped to advise him in relation to the competition, and they were his brothers-in-law.

No records have come to light which explain the governor’s decision to hold the competition, how it would be run, the entries received or their assessment. Governor Darling, however, was singularly focussed as was reported two days after the first competition announcement: “Preparatory to the commencement of the building of a new government house, a quantity of stones for building purposes is being carted to the Mill-hill.”⁹⁰ In February, it was revealed that “several” candidates had already entered, and “it is said that Mrs. Darling has pencilled a plan.”⁹¹ There was no indication she had submitted the plan, and she was an amateur who had only pencilled a design, not inked one, and which possibly lacked elevations. Practitioners in the field may also have assumed she would ultimately absent herself given that, at the very least, her husband was the competition promoter, one brother was his private secretary and the other the competition contact. Alternatively, any perception of nepotism could have been dulled with the knowledge of the advisory committee, even if its members were to be appointed by the governor himself and were still not (and never would be) publicly identified.

Mrs Darling’s architectural interests were not unusual for governors’ wives in New South Wales. Elizabeth Macquarie was active in building and landscape design in the colony; Joan Kerr claims that her work “has been almost totally obliterated by Greenway’s posthumous reputation.”⁹² Like Mrs Macquarie, Eliza Darling was a talented illustrator, who had been taught to draw by Henry—himself a pupil of the celebrated watercolourist, John Varley.⁹³ She expanded Elizabeth Macquarie’s vision for Sydney harbour with the construction of a bathing house in the Governor’s Domain, but her main interest was houses.⁹⁴ With the help of pattern books (another popular reference tool used by Mrs Macquarie),⁹⁵ she had become an inveterate amateur house designer. She drew plans of colonial homes “complete with the verandah she considered essential.”⁹⁶ In a letter, she remonstrated with another brother about her architectural work: “I am affronted with you. You remark upon receiving my plans of Houses, that it is evident Henry has been improving them—now I beg to state that they are all my own.”⁹⁷

Eliza Darling was well-prepared for the competition. Ten months before, she had drawn up plans for a new Government House and, clearly impressed with her efforts, had them copied and sent to Mrs Arthur, the wife of the lieutenant-governor in Van Diemen’s Land.⁹⁸ The same month, Ralph Darling abolished the position of Colonial Architect. Eliza Darling could hardly have expected her plans to be commissioned or even seriously considered, but the competition announcement six months later by the Church and School Lands Corporation presented an opportunity. It is not inconceivable that she pressed her husband to follow the Corporation’s lead, with the advisory committee formulated to dampen potential claims of favouritism.

There may have been another contrivance by Mrs Darling which hints at a planned subterfuge. The Government House competition was contemporaneous with one more from the administration, for villas to be built at Woolloomooloo—and for which the governor would also ultimately approve the plans.⁹⁹ With both occurring concomitantly, this delivered a gubernatorial imprimatur to the concept of house design competition in New South Wales. But James Broadbent has also theorised that Eliza Darling—aided or advised by her brothers—may have been responsible for the villa project, including devising the conditions and, in reality, choosing the winning designs.¹⁰⁰ This raises the possibility that the Government House competition was conceived, designed, managed and adjudicated, not just within Ralph Darling’s government, but his own household. The governor regularly confronted claims that he had established a family cabal within his administration, but this related to Henry and William.¹⁰¹ It did not extend to his wife.

Three weeks after the competition closed, it was reported that:

Most of the preliminary arrangements for the commencement of the new Government House have been made. The building will be proceeded with forthwith. A plan has been accepted. We have not heard how many plans were tendored [sic], according to the advertisement. The one which obtained the first prize, and which is to become the model for the building, is the work of Mrs. Darling. An estimate of the cost has also been taken, and it is understood to be rated at thirty thousand pounds.¹⁰²

Eliza Darling, the amateur architect wife of the governor, had entered the competition and won. It was astonishing news, particularly as second and third prizes were not awarded, or at least not disclosed. As Broadbent has noted, the announcement “appears to have prompted no publicly expressed ill-will among the colony’s professional architects.”¹⁰³ Had the governor’s committee convinced them that there would be rigour and fairness in the assessment process? Within three days, however, it was revealed that the superintendence of the building was to be placed under Francis Greenway’s control. He would follow Mrs Darling’s plan with suggestions only for some “very slight or trifling alterations.” He had not entered the competition as the rules had not allowed the winner to superintend construction. In effect, this confirmed why he also snubbed the Church and School Lands Corporation competitions: “Any other architect or builder would have bungled the plan,” said Greenway, “when he came to put it into bricks and mortar.”¹⁰⁴

Whether Greenway inculcated himself with Mrs Darling or the governor as well—and how, given Greenway’s unpopularity—is unknown, but his efforts were in vain. Ralph Darling faced petitioning his colonial overseers for a sum equating roughly to one-eighth of the colony’s revenue and, by the end of 1827, the year’s projected surplus of just over £30,000 had become an actual debt of £20,000.¹⁰⁵ The plans for Government House were shelved a year later.¹⁰⁶ It would be another decade before building commenced under Governor Bourke, and it was to the design of English architect, Edward Blore.¹⁰⁷ Bourke may have re-established the role of Colonial Architect, but still requested for the project “some Eminent Architect in London.”¹⁰⁸

It is significant that the cost of building Mrs Darling’s design neatly dovetailed with the surplus the governor was expecting, raising the possibility that a budget had been set and advised to entrants who made enquiries. But without a Colonial Architect each estimate very likely would have been calculated by the government’s Civil Engineer—Eliza’s brother, William—potentially as a member of the committee reporting to the governor. Had all entries been rated as part of the assessment process because cost was one of the key criteria, or had the design been awarded first prize purely on the basis of “architectural excellence” and costed afterwards? In either scenario, what were the chances that any entrant—professional or otherwise—would produce a design that virtually matched the anticipated amount available, especially if a budget, after all, had not been released?

Another picture emerges with a letter to the editor of the Sydney Gazette, which declared that “in the midst of much competition” Eliza Darling’s entry was chosen “as most commodious, most classical in the exterior, and least expensive in the Colony.” The writer added that she drew “with great beauty and effect” and was “deeply skilled in the minutive [sic] of architectural embellishment.”¹⁰⁹ While the letter borders on the sycophantic, it offers plausible evidence to suggest that her entry was one of many and adjudged the winner on its merits. That it was the cheapest would suggest that all submissions were estimated at the beginning of the assessment process. This points to architectural excellence as the main criterion with cost being another key consideration.

However, it must be remembered that Eliza Darling had produced plans for Government House nearly a year earlier, and which likely she would have shown to her husband and brothers during development. Meanwhile, all other entrants had only six weeks’ notice and no chance to test their concepts with the competition promoter. It appears highly likely that Ralph Darling created his committee—whose operations or membership were never divulged, but the latter very likely included at least William Dumaresq—knowing his wife would apply, to create the impression of propriety in the judging process. As well, the mid-competition revelation that Mrs Darling had pencilled, not inked, a plan—and not formally entered—may have been leaked to the press to determine if there was any opposition from architects, and to lay the groundwork for her possible win. In this situation, the Sydney church competition’s “shield of a formal process” is applicable again, but this time to hand a prize commission to the one unexpected but only substantive candidate. Probity, or more precisely the perception of it, was necessary to safeguard the interests of the governor. However, probity correctly relates to protecting the rights of the architects who were competing, not concealing potential maladministration by the promoter.

It is possible that Mrs Darling’s entry genuinely was her original work, although how she pivoted from designing colonial houses with verandahs to classically styled mansions is unknown. Her entry also possibly was the best submitted in terms of design presentation, quality and cost, and was impartially and professionally judged as such. But the perception of propriety can be more telling than the reality, and there need only be one example of special advantage accorded to a single entrant to undermine a competition’s credibility. On the basis of multiple such instances, I contend that Mrs Darling’s victory was fraudulently gained.

Thus, the fundamental aim of Australia’s first three architectural competitions—to embrace architectural excellence—was undermined by poor conception, mismanagement and corruption.

Conclusion

Between 1833 and 1840, four further Australian colonies hosted their own first architectural competitions. Van Diemen’s Land produced what is now called Scots Memorial Uniting Church, and Western Australia also its St George’s Church, South Australia its Wesleyan Chapel and Victoria its Scots’ Church.¹¹⁰ As well, up to 1849, Van Diemen’s Land delivered another six houses of worship (including a synagogue) from six competitions,¹¹¹ while New South Wales had no further like contests in this period. How did the colony, when others were so successful, make such an ill-starred foray?

Archdeacon Scott transplanted to Sydney the idea for architectural competition from a well-established British church building program, but also unknowingly the dubious practices—inadequate guidelines and premiums, no guarantee of judging competence or fairness, and with the victor locked out from construction oversight—that had bedevilled so many of the mother country’s competitions. And which were still over a decade away from investigation by the profession there. Governor Darling borrowed the concept from the Church and School Lands Corporation, improving the prizes on offer (yet making first conditional on building) and seemingly the integrity with his advisory committee, although this was a ruse. Ironically, while the competitions were trying to attract as many applicants as possible, and were focussed on achieving the best outcome, it concealed the promoter’s real intent. For the main church competition, this was to instal Francis Greenway as winner; and for the Government House competition, Eliza Darling.

Whatever the flaws in the modelling, execution and integrity of the three competitions, it is not what doomed them. This occurred when the Corporation as an entity found itself unfunded and Whitehall refused to step in, and Darling’s budgetary calculations went seriously awry and could not be reconciled. Sydney’s major Anglican church and a series of templated country churches, and its Government House, could all have been built from the late 1820s and still be standing today. Importantly, this may have involved directly or indirectly the colony’s top architect, Francis Greenway. It may also have revived his career to the point where he was commissioned to produce further work. This is the ultimate tragedy of the failure of Australia’s first architectural competitions.

Author’s Note

This paper is based on research I carried out while a PhD candidate in the then School of Art, Architecture and Design at the University of South Australia. I acknowledge with gratitude my supervisory team: Adjunct Associate Research Professor Christine Garnaut, Dr Julie Collins and Dr Damian Madigan. I also thank Dr Louise Bird and Dr Paul Horrocks for reading drafts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. J.M. Freeland, The Making of a Profession: A History of the Growth and Work of the Architectural Institutes in Australia (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1971), 196.

2. P. Goad, “Competitions, Architectural,” in P. Goad & J. Willis, eds., The Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture (Port Melbourne, Vic.: Cambridge University Press, 2012) (EAA): 166.

3. T. Reeves, Winning Homes: 75 Australian House Design Competitions (Braddon, ACT: Halstead Press, 2020), 8–10.

4. These competitions have been identified based on a search of advertisements in relevant newspapers and government gazettes.

5. H. Lipstadt, “The Experimental Tradition,” in H. Lipstadt, ed., The Experimental Tradition: Essays on Competitions in Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1989): 9. I have therefore excluded from this paper the 1826 competition for a “floating chapel” (the refitting of a ship suitable for preaching to sailors in port), as the project involves interior design and building work more suited to a shipwright than an architect. See Sydney Gazette, 28 October 1826, 1; R. Kverndal, Seamen’s Missions: Their Origin and Early Growth (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1986), 186–187.

6. M. Crinson & J. Lubbock, Architecture — Art or Profession?: Three Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Britain (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1994), 41–42.

7. One exception is Henry Willey Reveley, who trained on the Continent and arrived via South Africa. See B. Reece, “Henry Willey Reveley: Swan River Colony’s First Architect,” Journal of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society, 14: 2 (2014): 198.

8. H. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1600–1840, 4th ed. (London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1119, 821.

9. M.H. Port, Six Hundred New Churches: The Church Building Commission, 1818–1856 (Reading, UK: Spire Books, 2006), 15–16.

10. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 962, 98, 391, 649–650, 474, 688, 554, 100, 813.

11. J.M. Crook & M.H. Port, The History of the King’s Works, Volume VI: 1782–1851 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1973), 373–393, 567–570.

12. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, 51.

13. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, 40, 15, 325–348.

14. K. Grose, “Thomas Hobbes Scott’s Background, 1783–1823,” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society (JRAHS), 68: 1 (June 1982): 57; Port, Six Hundred New Churches, 326.

15. See J. Ritchie, Punishment and Profit: The Reports of Commissioner John Bigge on the Colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, 1822–1823—Their Origins, Nature and Significance (Melbourne: Heinemann, [1970]).

16. K.L. Grose, “The Educational Experiment of the 1820s: A Study of the Origins, Development and Demise of the New South Wales Clergy and School Lands Corporation,” PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, 1974, 232, 63–65. (The Corporation was originally called the Clergy and School Lands Corporation, but is referred to by contemporary commentators as the Church and School Lands Corporation.)

17. R. Border, “Scott, Thomas Hobbes,” in D. Pike, ed., Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 2 (Carlton South, Vic.: Melbourne University Press, 1967) (ADB 2): 431–432.

18. A. McGregor, A Forger’s Progress: The Life of Francis Greenway (Sydney: NewSouth Publishing, 2014), 309.

19. McGregor, A Forger’s Progress, 315–316.

20. Cookney to Bathurst, [?] May 1827, Historical Records of Australia, series 1 (HRA 1), vol. 13 (Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1920), 528.

21. B.H. Fletcher, Ralph Darling: A Governor Maligned (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1984), 75.

22. M.H. Ellis, Francis Greenway: His Life and Times, 3rd ed. (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1978), 154; A. McMartin, Public Servants and Patronage: The Foundation and Rise of the New South Wales Public Service, 1786–1859 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1983), 99.

23. E. Duyker, “George Cookney (1799–1876): Colonial Architect,” Doryanthes, 4: 1 (2011): 16.

24. Darling to Goderich, 18 May 1826, HRA 1, vol. 13, 529.

25. Bourke to Goderich, 3 April 1832, HRA 1, vol. 16 (Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1923), 591–592.

26. P. Goad, “Engineers,” in EAA, 233.

27. E.W. Dunlop, “Ovens, John,” in ADB 2, 305.

28. McMartin, Public Servants and Patronage, 104.

29. Darling to Hay, 2 February 1826, HRA 1, vol. 12 (Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1919), 148–149.

30. Fletcher, Ralph Darling, 94.

31. Records of Clergy and School Lands Corporation (Corporation Records), 4/346–7, 37–41, 65–85, 87–90, State Archives and Records Authority of New South Wales, Sydney (SARANSW).

32. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 6.

33. T. Reeves, “Daniel Dering Mathew: A Reassessment of Australia’s ‘first trained architect,’” Journal of Australian Colonial History, 23 (2021): 103–128; Sydney Gazette, 16 March 1826, 1.

34. Sydney Gazette, 8 February 1826, 2.

35. N. Boyd, “Harris, Standish Lawrence,” in EAA, 315.

36. Duyker, “George Cookney,” 16.

37. Sydney Gazette, 12 April 1822, 2.

38. Lawless may also have designed St Peter’s Church at Campbelltown. See M. Herman, The Early Australian Architects and their Work, 1st ed. (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1954), 100–103.

39. Sydney Gazette, 25 February 1826, 1.

40. B. Dyster, Servant and Master: Building and Running the Grand Houses of Sydney, 1788–1850 (Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press, 1989), 117; S.E. Hill, “‘Paper Houses’: John Macarthur and the 30-year Design Process of Camden Park,” PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, 2016, vol. 1, 65–66, 306–310.

41. Hill, “‘Paper Houses’,” 338–376.

42. Australian, 21 March 1828, 2.

43. The earliest of them, Ambrose Hallen, came in November 1827. See Monitor, 5 November 1827, 3.

44. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 7–10.

45. Bathurst to Brisbane, 30 June 1825, HRA 1, vol. 11 (Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1917), 444–445.

46. Darling to Bathurst, 22 May 1826, HRA 1, vol. 12, 318.

47. A.T. Yarwood, “Marsden, Samuel,” in ADB 2, 207–212; James Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House: Architecture and Society in New South Wales, 1788–1842 (Potts Point, NSW: Hordern House, 1997), 67.

48. Bathurst to Brisbane, 30 June 1825, 434–454.

49. Corporation Records, 4/291, 28–29, SARANSW.

50. Darling to Bathurst, 24 May 1826, HRA 1, vol. 12, 324–326; Darling to Bathurst, 18 January 1827, HRA 1, vol. 13, 23–31.

51. Grose, “The Educational Experiment of the 1820s,” 131.

52. Corporation Records, 4/292, 101–102, SARANSW; Darling to Bathurst, 24 May 1826, 325.

53. Sydney Gazette, 25 October 1826, 1. The competitions were not advertised in Van Diemen’s Land.

54. W.G. Verge, John Verge, Early Australian Architect: His Ledger and his Clients (Sydney: Wentworth, 1962), 207; Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 191.

55. These are Camden Park for John Macarthur, Elizabeth Bay House for Alexander McLeay and Wivenhoe for Charles Cowper. See J. Broadbent, I. Evans & C. Lucas, The Golden Decade of Australian Architecture: The Work of John Verge (Hunters Hill, NSW: David Ell Press, 1978), 108–109, 44–49, 120–121.

56. Gillian Darley has described this as “the most important commission of his career.” See G. Darley, John Soane: An Accidental Romantic (London: Yale University Press, 1999), 90.

57. B. Fletcher, “The Anglican Ascendancy, 1788–1835,” in B. Kaye, ed., Anglicanism in Australia: A History (Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press, 2002): 23.

58. Sydney Gazette, 1 November 1826, 1; Corporation Records, 4/291, 28–29, 37, 4/292, 99, SARANSW.

59. M. Lewis, “Pattern Books,” in EAA, 531–532.

60. B.H. Fletcher, An English Church in Australian Soil: Anglicanism, Australian Society and the English Connection since 1788 (Canberra: Barton Books, 2015), 30.

61. Corporation Records, 4/291, 41–42, SARANSW.

62. Crook & Port, The History of the King’s Works, 430–432.

63. Roger H. Harper has identified over 2,500 architectural competitions in Victorian Britain and Ireland. Joan Bassin argues that such competitions “became one of the most characteristic features of the Victorian architectural scene, a feature so crucial that it directly influenced the development of both the architectural profession and the architectural styles of the period.” See R.H. Harper, Victorian Architectural Competitions: An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843–1900 (London: Mansell Publishing, 1983), xi; J. Bassin, Architectural Competitions in Nineteenth-Century England (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1984), xvii.

64. Bassin, Architectural Competitions in Nineteenth-Century England, 13.

65. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 21–24.

66. Corporation Records, 4/292, 99–102, SARANSW.

67. Sydney Gazette, 29 January 1824, 1.

68. Ellis, Francis Greenway, 194.

69. McGregor, A Forger’s Progress, 245–249.

70. M. Herman, “Greenway, Francis,” in D. Pike, ed., Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 1 (Carlton South, Vic.: Melbourne University Press, 1966) (ADB 1): 471; Herman, The Early Australian Architects and their Work, 51–52, 71; H. Tanner, “Francis Greenway,” in H. Tanner, ed., Architects of Australia (South Melbourne, Vic.: Macmillan, 1981): 13–14; J. Broadbent & J. Hughes, Francis Greenway Architect (Glebe, NSW: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, 1997), 58, 64, 73.

71. Fletcher, An English Church in Australian Soil, 30.

72. Fletcher, “The Anglican Ascendancy, 1788–1835,” 10.

73. C. Lucas, “Greenway, Francis,” in EAA, 297.

74. McGregor, A Forger’s Progress, 321.

75. The competitions were never referred to again in the Corporation’s proceedings of general courts or committees, and were never referenced in letters to and from architects and building tradespeople. See Corporation Records, 4/291–2, 4/346–7, SARANSW.

76. Corporation Records, 4/291, 76–77, SARANSW.

77. Darling to McLeay, 22 February 1827, HRA 1, vol. 13, 124.

78. K. Grose, “What Happened to the Clergy Reserves of New South Wales?,” JRAHS, 72: 2 (October 1986): 92–94.

79. J. Kerr, Our Great Victorian Architect Edmund Thomas Blacket, 1817–1883 (Sydney: National Trust of Australia (NSW), 1983), 45–47.

80. Bathurst to Darling, 30 June 1825, HRA 1, vol. 12, 9.

81. Fletcher, Ralph Darling, 207. See also Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 246.

82. Sydney Gazette, 13 September 1826, 2.

83. Sydney Gazette, 15 December 1825, 2.

84. Sydney Gazette, 18 January 1827, 1.

85. Darling to Bathurst, 9 February 1827, HRA 1, vol. 13, 94–95.

86. Sydney Gazette, 31 May 1826, 1.

87. N. Gray, “Dumaresq, Henry and William John,” in ADB 1, 333.

88. B. Fletcher, “Elizabeth Darling: Colonial Benefactress and Governor’s Lady,” JRAHS, 67: 4 (March 1982): 305.

89. D. Waterson, ed., The Dumaresq Letters: The Letters of Colonel Henry Dumaresq, 1815–1835 (Sydney: The St Mark’s Press, 1990): vi.

90. Australian, 20 January 1827, 3.

91. Australian, 17 February 1827, 3.

92. J. Kerr, “Elizabeth Henrietta Macquarie b. 13 June 1778,” Design & Art Australia Online, 2011, https://www.daao.org.au/bio/elizabeth-henrietta-macquarie/biography (14 December 2022).

93. B.H. Fletcher & J. Kerr, “Elizabeth Darling b. c. 10 November 1798,” Design & Art Australia Online, 2011, https://www.daao.org.au/bio/elizabeth-darling/biography (14 December 2022).

94. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 246.

95. M. Martin & S. Hill, “The Architectural Pattern Books of Elizabeth Macquarie,” Insites (Summer 2009/10): 9–10.

96. Fletcher & Kerr, “Elizabeth Darling.”

97. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 247. Emphasis in the original.

98. Fletcher, “Elizabeth Darling,” 309. There is no record of the plans.

99. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 165.

100. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 165–166.

101. Gray, “Dumaresq, Henry and William John,” 333. Fletcher argues that these claims essentially were baseless. See Fletcher, Ralph Darling, 100–101.

102. Australian, 24 March 1827, 3.

103. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 247.

104. Australian, 27 March 1827, 3.

105. Darling to Goderich, 8 January 1828, HRA 1, vol. 13, 687–688.

106. Fletcher, Ralph Darling, 207. (The correct date is March 1828, not 1829 as Fletcher states.)

107. K.J. Cable, “Government House, Sydney,” in Historic Houses (Beverley, SA: Finsbury Press, 1993), 45.

108. Broadbent, The Australian Colonial House, 334.

109. Sydney Gazette, 28 July 1829, 3.

110. Colonial Times, 26 November 1833, 1; Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal, 28 April 1838, 65; Southern Australian, 3 November 1838, 1; Port Philip Gazette, 22 January 1840, 4.

111. These are: St George’s Church, Hobart; Christ Church, Longford; Holy Trinity Church, Launceston; St Andrew’s Church, Evandale; Launceston Synagogue; and St Andrew’s Kirk, Launceston. See Hobart Town Courier, 9 October 1835, 3; Launceston Advertiser, 5 October 1837, 3, 12 March 1840, 2; Hobart Town Courier and Van Diemen’s Land Gazette, 29 May 1840, 3; Courier, 8 October 1844, 8; Launceston Examiner, 27 January 1849, 6.