two nineteenth century nurseries of the adelaide hills · two nineteenth century nurseries of the...

296 Valleys of Stone

CHAPTER 18

Two Nineteenth CenturyNurseries of the Adelaide Hills

Susan Piddock

N THE FLEDGLING COLONY of South Australia the opportunity existed for diverse businesses toI be set up and one of the earliest was the production and sale of nursery plants and trees to

colonists establishing homes in the new town of Adelaide. In the first edition of the South Australian

Gazette and Colonial Register published on 18 June 1836 in London before South Australia was

officially settled, Thomas Allen and Sons advertised their services:

… to Gentlemen Capitalists to select, enclose, layout and plant their gardens in the best manner, both for utility andornament, on the most reasonable terms, and with utmost dispatch.

Swinbourne 1982:1

This advertisement captures an important aspect of gardens in South Australia, they were being

created ‘from scratch’. There were no established plants or gardens as a guide to what would grow

in this new land and whilst ornamental gardens would give great pleasure, a priority of the colonists

was to provide food (Plowman 2000) and Thomas Allen, in later advertisements, offered: ‘a great

variety of Lettuce, Cabbage, and other plants. Also, all kinds of Vegetables on the most reasonable

Two nineteenth century nurseries 297

terms.’ (Swinbourne 1982:1). Allen established his nursery at the old Botanical Gardens near the

Aboriginal Station on the banks of the Torrens and in later years opened a covered stall at one of the

entrances to the Gilles Arcade (ibid.).

John Bailey, a nurseryman trained in England, had also established a business by 1840 and

advertised seed stocks for onion, leek, celery, melon – water and sweet, cabbages, broccoli and

cauliflower in the South Australian Register. While Bailey had been appointed to run a Botanic

Garden, this initiative had failed after a couple of years, largely because of the poor financial state

of the colony. In 1841 Bailey opened a nursery called ‘Bailey’s Garden’ (also known as the ‘Hackney

Nursery’) and sold date-palms, vines, damson, olive, fig and other trees brought out from England

as stock (ibid.:3). Bailey’s Garden appears to have operated here until 1859.

These new nurseries were vital for the colony as they provided both plants and local knowledge.

Although the earlier experiences of colonists from Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales were

available, the suitability of plants from these colonies for local conditions had yet to be determined.

As George McEwin observed in 1843 plants had to be ordered from Sydney or Van Diemen’s Land

where one relied on the judgement of a respectable nurseryman to send you those varieties best

suited to your part of the country. McEwin in his book The South Australian Vigneron, and Gardeners’

Manual published in 1843 was unable to identify a list of the varieties of fruits proper for a garden:

‘There are nevertheless, a great number of the finest varieties in the Colony, the greater part of

which remain to be identified, not having yet fruited’ (McEwin 1843:44). The nurseries being

established with materials collected at great expense would, he believed, solve this problem and

provide much needed knowledge about plants suitable for local conditions (McEwin 1843:44).

While Bailey was establishing his Hackney Nursery, Charles Giles was establishing his own

nursery at his property Grove Hill, just below Norton Summit, in 1846. Grove Hill was to become

famous for its diversity of plants and Giles planted many in his private garden. By this time colonial

gardens had moved beyond being purely productive and were becoming places of pleasure. Several

leading colonists had estates that encompassed both a pleasure garden and productive or

commercial plantings, examples of such estates include Highercombe owned by George Anstey, an

indefatigable collector of vines and fruit trees (Giles n.d.:2; Auhl 1993:58) and Arthur Hardy’s

extensive gardens around Mount Lofty House. Hardy also experimented with growing grape vines

on the slopes of Mount Lofty (Ward 1862:58).These men and others like them, as described by

Ebenezer Ward in his The Vineyards and Orchards of South Australia (1862), provided the

opportunity for the early nurserymen to establish their businesses.

By the 1860s Charles Newman was operating a nursery north of Adelaide at Anstey’s Hill just

below Houghton. Newman’s nursery appears to have reached its peak in the 1880s and 1890s but

unlike Grove Hill, which continued to operate successfully into the twentieth century, succumbed

to natural diasters and poor management in the early part of the twentieth century.

Charles Giles’ nursery and orchard at Grove Hill and Charles Newman’s ‘Model Nursery’ and its


associated landscape are the subject of this chapter. Both nurseries fall within the boundaries of the

Adelaide Hills Face Zone and represent differing cultural landscapes that reflect the different

approaches taken by Giles and Newman in adapting their knowledge to the conditions and

landscape they found in the new colony of South Australia.

CHARLES GILES AND GROVE HILL

Charles Giles arrived in the colony of South Australia in 1839 on the Recovery and built his first

home Bold Venture at Black Forest in the same year. Black Forest was at that time true to its name

and it was considered a haunt of bushrangers and horse stealers (Register 25 August 1926). Charles

Giles had trained as a horticulturist in Devon, England, and had served in the Royal Marines as an

officer, being wounded in the Battle of Navarino in October 1827 before coming to the colony of

South Australia. He spent his weekends exploring the hills looking for suitable land to start a

nursery and always carried a spade so he could test the suitability of soil for growing plants. He

initially purchased Section 1064 but sold this to James Cossins in August 1846; he went on to

purchase Sections 1061 and 1071 (82 acres) below Norton Summit in September 1846 for £1 an

acre (Hallack 1987:142, Hines 1996:6 – see footnote by G. Bishop). Giles set about creating his

home Grove Hill and establishing an orchard. He began by camping by an old gum tree while his

house was built, travelling up on Monday with provisions and returning home on Saturdays to

Bold Venture. Charles Giles Jr recalled that the orchard was soon established with five acres of

cherries, three to four of plums, and the remainder under apples and pears (Hallack 1987:155;

Register 25 August 1926).

Grove Hill house was a substantial two storey residence. A quarry near the cellar at Grove Hill

supplied slate for some of the building work including slate floors and the construction of storage

spaces under the driveway (pers. com. M. Giles). Giles was also an indefatigable collector of plants

and ordered his plants through catalogues which arrived weekly from England, France, Belgium and

Germany. In one year Giles spent £1,000 on plants from England (Register 25 August 1926).

His passion for plants was reflected across the Australian colonies and in Victorian England. In the

nineteenth century English nurserymen searched the world for new plants that could be claimed

by an individual nursery as being unique to their business. The Australian colonies were ripe

hunting grounds for new plants and these nurserymen cultivated relationships with leading

colonists with a keen interest in horticulture. Plants travelled across the oceans in both directions

as Australians also sought to display plants from across the world in their gardens. One such

relationship existed between Sir William Macarthur and Veitch and Son, proprietors of the Exotic

Nursery, Chelsea, London (Fox 2004:3, 8, 11). Macarthur supplied camellias to Charles Giles.

New discoveries and new hybrids were reported and often illustrated in the Gardeners’ Chronicle and

the Florist published in England and available to Australian horticulturists through subscriptions

(Fox 2004:39).


Essential to the development of the nursery trade between Australia and places such as

England was the invention of the Wardian Case. Around 1829 Dr Nathanial Bagshaw Ward, a

physician and botanist, made the discovery that was to have a profound effect on trade and the

collection of plants. Living in London, Ward found it impossible to grow ferns due to poisoning

from the polluted air drenched with sulfuric acid and coal smoke. But he noticed that in a lidded

bottle in which he kept sphinx moth cocoons and some mould a seedling fern and grass were

growing and thriving. Ward wrote in his book On the Growth of Plants in Closely Glazed Cases (1852)

that the plants thrived for nearly four years without watering, only dying during his absence as a

result of a rusted lid (Hershey 1998). Ward went on to experiment with closely-fitted glazed cases

constructed in a variety of sizes, and published his findings in 1834 in John Loudon’s Gardener’s

Magazine. While the scientific community studied Wardian cases, Ward shipped two specially-

constructed glazed cases filled with British ferns and grasses to Sydney in 1833. They arrived in

good condition as the cases had allowed them to be exposed to light but not the damaging sea

spray. The case was returned to Ward filled with native species that had survived temperatures

ranging from -7 to 49°C. Wardian cases were to become the accepted mode of transporting plants

and allowed tea plants to be smuggled out of China and into India establishing the tea plantations

of Assam. A rubber tree from Brazil was shipped to Kew in England and then on to Ceylon and

Malaya to start rubber plantations. Wardian cases were also to spark an interest in indoor

terrariums. The base of the case could be filled with soil or plant pots (Fox 2004:facing xv).

Modern Wardian cases come in a variety of sizes including 27 inches by 14 inches wide and 54

inches high and 18 inches by 10 inches wide and 45 inches high.

The house at Grove Hill was surrounded by a garden with forest and fruit trees, ornamental

shrubs, flowers, and a diversity of English trees including oaks, poplars, witch elms, mountain

ash, sycamores and horse chestnuts which most likely arrived in seedling form at Grove Hill

in such Wardian cases. A hawthorn hedge surrounded the garden (Hallack 1987:144; Hines

1996:7; East Torrens Heritage Survey 1994:57). Natural springs allowed the gardens to be well

watered, and Giles created a system of slate lined and roofed drains to move water through

the gardens. The waters of Third Creek also flowed through the slate irrigation system before

exiting Grove Hill to follow the Norton Summit Road to the Adelaide plains (pers. com. M. Giles).

The Grove Hill gardens covered sixty acres and attracted eager visitors on the weekends,

particularly after the Government Road extension along Forest Range ridge (Section 1064

to Section 104) was opened on 27 October 1859. To control the crowds Giles built a lodge

at the entrance to Grove Hill and required visitors to have a pass signed by the lodge keeper

(Hines 1996:8). Charles Giles was one of the first contributors to the fledgling Adelaide Botanic

Garden before it was officially opened to the public in September 1857 and he continued for

many years to sell and donate seeds and plants to the garden and receiving something new or

different in exchange (Smith 1998:9). A function of the Adelaide Botanic Garden was to experiment


with plant species new to the colony. Those found to thrive were then given away freely on the basis

that the recipient would report back on the suitability of location, climate, etc. and the overall

success of growing the plants. A problem for those managing nurseries, such as Charles Giles, was

that the Adelaide Botanic Garden was in direct competition. In 1871 the Gardens gave away no less

than 3,016 trees and shrubs to the public in exchange for animals for the zoological gardens and

seeds and plants (Smith 1998:9).

Interestingly, while Charles Giles was establishing a nursery business this commercial activity

did not diminish his status as a gentleman. As Samuel Davenport recorded in 1844, gentlemen

undertook all kinds of physical labour such as ploughing, sowing, threshing and could act as

shepherd and stockkeeper. These were not low occupations in the colony and formed part of the

great spirit of South Australia and many gentlemen undertook these activities and expected to

continue to do so (South Australiana 1967:92). Establishing a nursery business and orchard in the

colony was fraught with other problems as Charles Giles was to find out. Some ten years after

planting the orchard at Grove Hill a fire started by a neighbour ran out of control and sixty acres of

the orchards were destroyed with an estimated loss of £10,000 based on the crop prices of that year

(Hallack 1987:142). Giles was forced to replant and start again. In November of 1859 six of the

seven Wardian cases filled with plants, selected and packed in England, on board the City of Boston

were destroyed. Stored on the deck of the ship they were inundated by sea water and were then

thrown overboard. Giles sustained a loss of some £70 on this occasion. Interestingly The Farm and

Garden which published an account of the loss was most upset by the fact that these plants were

mostly new to the colony, including new species of rose and fuchsia (Swinbourne 1982:3-4). This

reflects a passion in the colony for new plants and also probably the links with England and Europe

reflected in having plants from this part of the world in one’s garden. The Gold Rush in Victoria at

this time also presented a problem, as it led to a shortage of labour and labourers were not available

to tend the orchards (Cyclopaedia Vol. 2 1909: 804).

Over time Giles added to his holdings by purchasing the adjoining land, including Sections

1151, 1184, 1114, and the closed road between Sections 1114 and 1185, extending the estate to 400

acres. He planted extensive commercial orchards which included 271 varieties of apples in 1871

(this was later expanded to 400 varieties) and 300 types of pear (‘A Pioneer Orchardist’ 2001:9). The

orchards also included cherries, plums, apricots, peaches, oranges and walnuts. Figs were tried but

proved to be too popular with the birds and the gully was replanted with apples, cherries and plums

(Hallack 1987:144). As Hallack records, Charles Giles and his son Charles Jr were constantly

experimenting, grafting and trying out plants with an eye to profitability; for example, there had

been three acres of almond trees but they had not borne nuts, and attempts to make cider with a

press bought from England by Charles Giles (which had produced three hundred hogsheads) had

proved a ‘dead loss’ (Hallack 1987:144 & 145; Register 25 August 1926). Disease was always a major

concern in the Adelaide Hills and was believed in some cases to be linked to climate; Giles favoured


London Pippin and Reinette du Canada (apples) as the most disease resistant and his yield from

these trees at Grove Hill was close to 1,000 bushels, with some trees yielding 20 bushels in a season

(Hallack 1987:144). At one point Giles employed 46 men to attend to the nursery and orchards and

he was to be a regular prize winner for his flowers and fruit, winning 85 prizes at the Royal Show of

1867 including a gold medal for fruit, and two silver medals for flowers and pot plants (Cyclopedia

Vol. 2 1909: 804). He also took an interest in the exportation of fruits from South Australia to

England but found that it was difficult to ensure the quality of the fruit on arrival. On one occasion

he sent over 200 cases of fruit suffering a ‘great loss’, and freight costs were also too high (Hallack

1987:144). However he had not given up on the possibilities of exporting fruit from South Australia

as crops in the colony could be exported for a further two weeks over those from Tasmania (Hallack

1987:144). Giles’ attention was focused primarily on apples and pears for the export trade. His son,

Charles Giles Jr, exported the first case of cherries to England with a return of £25; however, the

undertaking proved unprofitable as the cherries had to be packed in cork dust (The Mail Magazine

1940). Fruit was also exported to Ceylon and reflecting the problems facing exporters Charles Giles

Jr recalled having to take cases of fruit out on a lighter to the mail boat with errant waves sometimes

destroying the fruit before they could reach the boat (The Mail Magazine 1940).

Charles Giles had established a nursery at Grove Hill and imported glasshouses from England

for the propagation of plants. Giles did not sell plants from this nursery, instead he established the

‘Exotic Nursery’ near the Hackney Corner at Kent Town in 1857 from which he sold plants he had

propagated and imported from overseas. In 1861 he handed the nursery over to his son Charles

Giles Jr and his son-in-law John Pascoe to manage, assisted by himself. On 1 May 1868 Giles and

Pascoe’s General Catalogue of Trees, Plants, and Shrubs etc. was published and stated that the plants

were available from the Grove Hill Nursery, Third Creek and 12 Hindley Street, Adelaide. In the

catalogue they also stated that they had made considerable reductions in the price of plants as the

‘late unpropitious seasons’ had affected the trade. They offered plants from one year old to ten

years. Ornamental trees and shrubs were available as pot grown plants or soil grown. Plants offered

included: maple trees, horse chestnuts, sycamore, lemon scented verbena, hibiscus, japonicas,

flame trees, carob tree, laurels, 150 varieties of camellias; coniferae including Taxads; Herbaceous

plants, bulbs and tubers; plants suitable for hedges; pelargoniums and geraniums; roses; petunias;

hollyhocks; verbenas, fuchsias, amaryllis; fruit trees including apples, pears, cherry, and plums; and

grapevines, strawberries and herbs. A nursery for flowering plants was also established at Grove

Hill in the well-watered valley of Third Creek south of the house. This valley was also referred to as

the Reedbeds.

Charles Giles’ business interests were diversified later with the addition of a jam factory at

Fullarton which was supplied by thirty acres of orchard in the same suburb, and a pottery at

Magill which supplied Grove Hill with garden pots. Giles also bought large stores at the East

End Market to sell his produce.


Charles Giles established the ReedbedsNursery in a valley below Grove Hill (nowwithin the Horsnell Gully ConservationPark). The focus of the nursery was flowersand trees, with an orchard nearby. The menwho worked at the nursery lived with theirfamilies in cottages built by Charles Gilesalong Third Creek. The three attachedcottages were called ‘Faith’, ‘Hope’ and‘Charity’ and there was a free-standingcottage a little to the west.

Each attached cottage contained threerooms that are generally assumed to bedivided into separate cottages (see plan).One cottage consists of a single room atthe southern end of the building, while thesecond cottage appears to have two roomsas these rooms share an internal door. Thelack of a fireplace in the single room ispuzzling as the wall shared by the roomshas a fireplace and chimney on the side ofthe ‘two room cottage’. It would have beeneasy for the rooms to share the chimneyand for a hearth to be placed in bothrooms as can be seen in the Worker’scottage which is discussed below. Thus thepossibility that this was originally intendedto be one cottage has to be considered.The walls of the building are 470 mm thickand constructed of mortared, uneven-coursed stone and slate. The walls havebeen lime washed. A small brick lean-to hasbeen constructed against the northern endof the cottage and has a rough un-workedwood doorframe. A dry stone wall behindthe building defines the limit of theexcavated platform on which the structure

was built and may have supported a verandah(Reynolds 1989).

The second cottage is generally referredto as the ‘Worker’s cottage’ and consists oftwo small front rooms and a larger room atthe back. The walls are of random coursedconstruction using mostly slate with redbrick quoins and are 300 mm thick. Thefireplace in the eastern front room shares aflue with the fireplace in the back room. Thecottage has a front verandah which was builton a low retaining wall of dry course stone.This cottage is sited on Third Creek on thesouth side of the Heysen Trail. A number ofexotic trees can be found near the houseand a wooden bridge provided access to thegardens on the other side of the creek. Thebridge was constructed of wooden logsplaced across two larger wooden logs lyingacross the creek channel, although it has nowcollapsed.

Whilst there is no evidence of the plantbeds that would have formed an essentialpart of the nursery, a stone-lined waterchannel does remain. Similar to those atGrove Hill, it was built to control the courseof the small stream which drains into the lowswampy area of the Reedbeds. The drystonewalled channel had walls 500 mm high with abase of smaller stones approximately 7500mm wide (Reynolds 1989). Three hundredmetres of the channel was still visible in 1989but today the channel is heavily overgrownwith weeds making it inaccessible.

Plan of the attached cottages, Horsnell GullyConservation Park.

SOURCE Prepared by T. Ormsby

The Reedbeds Nursery, Giles Park

The attached cottages, Horsnell GullyConservation Park.

SOURCE HFZCHP 2002


Charles Giles died in 1887, and his son continued the business. In 1890 the nursery and

orchards of Grove Hill passed on to Charles Giles’s grandson, Charles William Wycliffe Giles when

he turned twenty-one and he was to continue the process of renewing the orchard trees and

maintaining the gardens established by his grandfather. He also followed in his father and

grandfather’s steps by sitting on the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society (Cyclopedia Vol. 2

1909: 804). Grove Hill continues to be owned by a descendant of Charles Giles and the buildings are

on the South Australian State Heritage Register.

The archaeological landscape of Grove Hill

The nursery complex at Grove Hill represents one of the best preserved nineteenth century

nurseries as the Giles family have sought to conserve and maintain the original stone buildings

and glass houses. The landscape of Grove Hill includes Grove Hill house, a coach house,

glasshouses, boiler room, a fernery, potting shed, stable, a workers cottage, a pisé de terre cottage,

extensive slate lined drains and a cellar.

Grove Hill house is a substantial two storey house of grey cut stone with an iron roof and

verandah. There is a permanent underground spring running under its front steps. The house

is surrounded by gardens and a coach house can be found across the driveway from the house.

The nursery glasshouses, two ferneries, cellar, boiler house, workers cottage and potting shed

are located in a complex together across the garden from Grove Hill house. Charles Giles operated

three glasshouses. These include the large temperate glasshouse, a smaller tropical glasshouse and a

Figure 18.2Cellar (rear), ferneries (centre) and temperate glasshouse (right).

SOURCE HFZCHP 2005


larger sub-tropical glasshouse which form a line

with the cellar along the hillside. Abutting the

temperate glasshouse are the two ferneries.

Behind the glasshouses are remains of the

workers cottage which was constructed of slate

using the drystone wall technique and built

adjacent to the hillside.

The ferneries were constructed of slate walls

as a means of controlling the internal

temperature; small high windows are placed

close to the roof which is constructed of glass.

The ferneries were two separate rooms each

with its own door. Housed in the one building,

Figure 18.3Stone water tank, temperate glasshouse,Grove Hill.

SOURCE HFZCHP 2005

Figure 18.4The temperate glasshouse.

SOURCE Photograph courtesy of M. Giles

they were separated by a dividing wall; the internal slate benches are still intact and the original

metal hangers for hanging baskets are still in place just below the roof line in both rooms. The floor

is slate lined. There is still evidence of plaster render on the walls.

There were two boilers, one provided heat for the ferneries and is located beneath the brick

chimney. The first boiler and a small room with a fireplace is located between the walls of the cellar

and the temperate glasshouse. The boiler is located next to the steps up into the fernery. The second

boiler located on a higher level above this room. Placed close to the cellar, it was bricked into place.

This boiler appears to have provided heat for all the glasshouses.

The small room between the cellar and the glasshouses was most likely a work place. Firewood

for the boiler was stored in the room and it is possible to see a recess in the wall where it was stored.

Directly behind the fernery is the temperate glasshouse and, like the fernery, it has substantially

slate walls for three quarters of its

height with the final quarter

constructed of large glass panes as is

the peaked roof. Stone steps across

the roof of the fernery allowed the

glass panes to be cleaned or possibly

white washed to protect plants from

the sun. The interior of the

glasshouse included three benches of

various lengths separated by two

aisles. These benches are supported

by brick columns. Iron pipes carried

hot water from the boiler just


underneath the benches so that the internal temperature of the glasshouses could be controlled.

Underneath the benches were two water tanks which allowed plants to be watered by dunking. A

similar tank can be found in the ferneries. A large reservoir tank in the temperate glasshouse

provided water for all the glasshouses, with rain water being collected to water the plants.

The sub-tropical and tropical glasshouses abut the temperate glasshouse. The smaller tropical

glasshouse featured a central bench. The bench is constructed of five layers of brick supported on

brick columns, while the external glasshouse wall was constructed using the drystone wall method.

The adjoining larger sub-tropical glasshouse was similar in design with a central brick platform.

Near the glasshouses there is a potting shed. This single room was constructed of stone with a

corrugated iron roof. The shed was used to store the gelignite used to blast the slate from the quarry

on the property as well as horticultural implements and pots (pers. com. M. Giles). Porcelain tags

were used in the nursery with numbers corresponding to the catalogue numbers, tin tags were also

used. These were stored in the shed as well (pers. com. M. Giles).

The stable at Grove Hill is a substantial building again constructed of stone using the dry stone

wall technique. Using the natural slope of the hillside it has two levels with the stable on the lower

level and a hayloft accessible from the other side of the building.

The other substantial building at Grove Hill is the cellar. Built of stone using mortar this

building has two storeys and was externally rendered. When constructing the cellar, Charles Giles

purchased the emigrant ship Grand Trianon to use as building material, and the upper floor was

constructed and fitted out with the ship’s timber. The building sits on a rock floor and deep drains

were constructed in the floor, the walls were limewashed, the floors steel lined and limewashed to

keep out vermin. Screens on the windows remain intact today (East Torrens Heritage Survey 1994:57;

pers. com. M. Giles). Timbers from the Grand Trianon were also used in the construction of a

cottage which is located beyond the main house in the orchards. Timbers supporting the verandah

roof retain the original bunk numbers. Small Eucalypts were used for the verandah posts in their

natural state and the walls were made using the pisé de terre technique. Interestingly while the

kitchen and bedrooms had windows, the living room did not, instead a skylight was used. The

living room was built into the side of the hill and windows were not practical. A large oak tree abuts

the house on one side and the cottage may have been deliberately built in its shade. In the gully

behind the cottage are some of the trees from the original orangery.

Near Grove Hill house, Charles Giles constructed three storage tunnels under the driveway and

coach house using local slate for the drystone walls. These tunnels stored the hundreds of terracotta

flowerpots needed for the nursery. The gardens at Grove Hill included a camellia grove with some

110 camellia trees which Charles Giles began planting in 1846. The camellia plants were imported

from New South Wales where William Macarthur was growing and hybridising camellias from

1831. Sixty-nine seedling camellias were named and introduced by Macarthur and many of these

can still be found at Grove Hill with some trees being over 150 years old (Australian Garden History


Society 1992:22).

Hallack records in his visit to Grove Hill in 1893 that the lower portion of the immense

orchard was drained underground by one central drain, three feet square, made of stone, and

others from the side gullies were connected with it. Consequently irrigation was not required

even for the oranges (Hallack 1987:144). Today this drain is still in place and manholes allow access

for cleaning.

Over the years the hillsides above Grove Hill have been adapted to suit modern horticultural

practices. The hillsides exhibit a gentle undulation on both sides of the valley which would have

made tending and harvesting easier. This undulation would support modern harvesting techniques

more than the terracing of hillsides which can be seen throughout the Adelaide Hills Face Zone.

CHARLES NEWMAN AND THE ‘MODEL NURSERY’

While Grove Hill presents one of the best preserved nurseries of the Adelaide Hills Face Zone,

Newman’s Nursery reflects the ravages of nature and neglect, surviving today as ruins, which can

primarily be interpreted from photographs and family recollections.

Located in Water Gully, Anstey’s Hill, Newman’s Nursery was established by Charles Newman,

who had come to South Australia with his parents, brother and sisters in 1844 or 1847 from

Hamburg, Germany; various sources give different dates for the arrival of the family (Fuller Letter

1972; Water Gully Leaflet). The family settled at Houghton, close to what was later to be called

Inglewood and on arrival Charles’ father, Carl Vincent Neumann, purchased 24 acres of Section

5516 adjoining Black Hill Road in 1850 and established an orchard (Fuller Letter 1972). Both Carl

Neumann and his son Charles were to anglicise their names and it is reported that Charles felt he

had no longer any connections with Germany, and as he was conducting business in an English

country he wanted to do so as an Englishman (Fuller Letter 1972).

Charles Newman, after being attracted like many to try his hand on the Victorian Goldfields,

returned to South Australia in 1854 and purchased his own land, a 68 acre section called Water

Gully, for £300. The gully was blessed with natural springs and was heavily timbered. Newman

cleared the property initially to lay out a garden and orchard (History of Water Gully). The Council

Records for 1851 show that Charles Newman had 68 acres of partly fenced land and by 1856 he had

built a cottage. He married Mary Ann Bales in 1857 at Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide. Mary was the

daughter of the licensees of the Tea Tree Gully Hotel and had been born in Adelaide (Fuller Letter

1972). Sometime between 1857 and 1871 Newman was to establish a nursery.

Over time Newman developed the property and increased the size of his holding. He had

purchased sections 5548 and 5608 on the steep southern side of Anstey’s Hill in 1866 in the name

of the Land and Gold Company. By the time other sections were added to the nursery it covered

nearly 500 acres (History of Water Gully). He had funded the land purchases and the building of the

nursery buildings by tendering successfully for building contracts around the district of Tea Tree


Gully (Middlemis 2003:14).

The manuscript ‘History of Water Gully’ provides an interesting description of Newman’s

Nursery:

His cottage was constructed of stone with an attic of slabs plastered with pug made from pom [sic] clay from the hillside.The main wall was built against the hillside and the point faced onto a creek. There was a thatched gable roof linedwith sacks sewn together and whitewashed with lime, which they burnt from stone quarried on the section. Most of thecooking was done in a camp oven, standing in a big fireplace at the end of the cottage.

Unfortunately there is no information about where this description comes from. The building

presently identified as the main house on the plan prepared by the Friends of Anstey’s Hill is not

next to a hillside. During the survey undertaken of the site as part of this project a ruin of a small

cottage was located approximately 100 m south of the nursery ruins and is closer to this

description. The manuscript goes on:

The rest of the property consisted of an office, a dining room, a sitting room and underneath, a big walk-in cellar whichcould be reached from the outside. There were two fern houses, there was a soil house, a shade house, and several wells.A cyclamen house was also on the property, and a palm house, with stables behind it and an apple house next to it. Aretaining wall reached beyond a terrace (from the house), the boiler room kept the hot house warm with another boilerto heat the glass houses. There was a chaff house to feed the horses, a dairy containing 30 cows, with a laundry alongside it.

A potato house, a workman’s sleeping room, packing shed, trolley shed and a six holed

toilet completed the buildings. The picture at the start of this chapter shows the nursery to be

a collection of buildings and it could be that the main house (centre of picture) with its separate

kitchen and pantry may have been built later or served the purpose of office, sitting room and

dining room which the description seems to indicate were separate rooms/buildings.

A large family of seventeen children could have called for the erection of a larger house for the

family. There is no identifiable structure that matches the description of the underground cellar. It

is possible that this description is a composite reflecting different periods of building use. A second

picture (Figure 18.5) shows the end stage of the development of the site in the 1880s.

Interestingly Newman’s Nursery became known as a hide-out for runaway sailors, who were

given food, shelter and pay for their work at the nursery, with one such sailor marrying one of the

Newman daughters and another staying after making a housemaid pregnant (History of Water

Gully; Fuller Letter 1972).

In 1875 Newman changed the name of his nursery to the ‘Model Nursery’. While Newman

had been exhibiting ‘exotic plants’ at horticultural shows from 1871, the name change may have

been a promotional exercise designed to highlight the specialised nature of some of the nursery’s

activities. The Newman’s Nursery activities focused on the provision of delicate and rare exotic

plants with six hothouses fed by hot pipes providing a home to 300 varieties of orchid, seven of

which were hybridised by Newman himself (History of Water Gully). The Nursery did not rely on

just these plants but also grew vegetables for market and provided cut flowers, bouquets, seedlings

and wreaths. Beth Brittle, whose great-grandfather was Charles Newman, recalled that dairy


produce was sold, and that the sheep, cattle and

pigs kept may also have provided actual income

for the large family (Fuller Letter 1972). An

account of the Model Nursery (probably from

the 1880s or 1890s) reported that there were

three shade houses built of stone covered with

stout battens, wrought and painted, enclosing

8,000 feet which were filled with ordinary

nursery stock of the best quality. There were

ferneries which held a diverse collection of

plants and the grounds included a rose garden

of nearly 400 varieties, bulb beds and 90 acres

of fruit trees, the scions of which were used for

Figure 18.5Newman’s Nursery looking towards WaterGully c.1880s.SOURCE Courtesy of State Library of South Australia B16017

budding and grafting the nursery stock. The nursery stock included 500,000 apple, plum, cherry

and other fruit trees; 100,000 orange trees, and 100,000 mostly muscatel vines (History of Water

Gully). There was also a walled garden which may have been used to exhibit plants grown

at the nursery. Some idea of the nursery can be obtained from a report of a Field Naturalists’

visit in 1898:

Newman met the party… [and] conducted them through the conservatories. Here were to be seen gay cinerarias, sweet-scented hyacinths, … lovely orchids from other climes surpassing in beauty even those already gathered in the field,fragrant gardenias … and many other choice blooms. Ferns, palms and decorative plants generally lent a pleasing settingto Flora’s many gems. In a shade house some camellia bushes of unusual height, and bearing many flowers, evokedmuch commendation.

Middlemis 2003:16

They also saw open air plantations of hundreds of daffodils in their many varieties and

plantations of hyacinths, with tulips to come (quoted in Middlemis 2003:16).

C.F. Newman & Son published catalogues of their plants, imported from overseas new plants

and supplied the local and intercolonial markets. They employed a landscape gardener to prepare

plans and estimates for the laying out and planting of new gardens or for re-laying old ones,

advertising this service in their 1894-5 catalogue along with their ability to build ferneries, rockeries

etc. (Middlemis 2003:16). They operated a shop at 17 Rundle Street, Adelaide in 1892 which

initially concentrated on seeds before diversifying its services to include the sale of cut flowers and

floral displays. Newman’s Nursery was also to be a major prize winner at the Horticultural and

Floricultural Exhibitions held in South Australia, with 116 prizes taken at one show including those

for floral designs, wreaths and bouquets, and for orchids (Register Research Programme 1981-82;

Auhl 1993:296). Mrs Newman was the force behind the floral arrangements and taught the

apprentices how to prepare them, while the family members were all employed at some stage in

the shop or at the nursery (Middlemis 2003:16).

In June 1899 Charles Newman was thrown from his horse and killed after attending a


Highercombe District Council Meeting. He left no will and it was decided after some disagreements

that his widow would continue the business during her lifetime assisted by her sixth son Frederick

Christoff Newman. Beth Brittle notes that Mary ran the business for thirty years but with age, her

control over the nursery lessened and the business declined. The business had been mortgaged to

purchase land in Western Australia and for the establishment of the Victoria Park Nursery in Perth

in the 1890s. In 1913 two flash floods, one in the spring and the other in the autumn swept down

Water Gully severely damaging the nursery (Fuller Letter). One disastrous rainstorm breaking over

Anstey’s Hill led to two inches of rain falling in an hour and a half, leading to a flash flood. The six

glass houses had their windows broken and the plants were swept away, a 10 ft wall protecting the

nursery was swept away along with the stock of fruit trees. Between 4,000 and 5,000 pot plants were

lost, the heating apparatus was damaged, and two houses flooded. A 400 gallon tank was washed

down the road (History of Water Gully). With damage estimated at £4,000 the business did not

have enough capital to renew its stock base and regain its standing. Frederick Newman left the

business to set up his own nursery in Tea Tree Gully in 1925, while Harry Newman continued the

Provided by Gerald Marsson (a descendant)

Original Newman recipes

Water Gully business, though poorly managing

it, until his mother’s death in 1932.

The Newman’s property was sold in 1932

and operated as a dairying and grazing

property until 1935 when the next owner

purchased it for sheep grazing and anything of

value was removed. This included the slate

slabs used in the ferneries, shade houses, and

potting shed, and even the seventy-year-old

trees that lined the driveway from Anstey’s Hill

Road to the homestead were cut down for case

and box making. The buildings were left as

walls and foundations. The remains of the

nursery’s plants and fruit trees were consumed

by the 1983 Ash Wednesday Bushfire (Water

Gully Leaflet).

The archaeological landscape ofNewman’s Nursery and Water Gully

Today the Model Nursery consists of a series

of ruins, but through plans and historic

photographs it is possible to reconstruct Water

Gully as a historic landscape. Middlemis

(2003:15) in her article provides a plan of the


nursery which was held by Beth Brittle and to

which she has added additional information

from Alwin Clements who knew the nursery in

the 1920s. It is likely that the identification of

the buildings on this plan is close to their

original use and these identifications will be

used in this discussion. The majority of the

building remains are stone and it is likely that

the stone came from local quarries.

As can be seen in the 1860 drawing of

Newman’s Nursery there were four substantial

glasshouses. These were constructed of brick or

stone walls topped with glass and a glass roof.

These were serviced by a boiler the chimney of

Figure 18.6Aerial photograph of the Newman’s Nurseryruins.

SOURCE Robert Keane, GIS consultant

Figure 18.7Newman’s Nursery kitchen (left) and mainhouse (right).

SOURCE HFZCHP 2004

which can be seen on the left hand side of the photograph, dated to the 1880s. Middlemis’ plan

indicates that three of these glasshouses were hot houses and one an orchid house, and it is

hypothesized that there may have been two further hothouses alongside these although no evidence

of them is visible at the present time. Of these buildings those parts remaining include the lower

parts of the walls and stone platforms. These would have provided shelves for the pots to stand on.

Brick lines are also evident within the hothouses and these may be the brick path edges that are still

visible today in the former glasshouse buildings.

Of particular interest are the wells that can be found among the hothouses. There are three

still intact. They are of stone construction. Some are freestanding while others can be found at

the end of large stone platforms or benches. These wells were probably used to supply water for

the plants or may have provided more humidity to the air. It is known that hot water was piped into

the hothouses.At the southern end of the hothouses was a

large tank that would have stored water for the

nursery’s use. In the drawing dating to 1860,

behind the hothouses on the left hand side, can

be seen the glass roof of another glasshouse.

The Middlemis plan indicates that it was used

for ferns and the remaining walls suggest that

this building was designed differently from the

other glasshouses. It had a single span glass

roof and stone walls, with three low set

windows. It is unclear whether any part of the


building other than the roof was glass.

Today all that remains is part of the wall showing the window placement. It is possible the

glasshouse was purposefully designed to suit the growing conditions of the plants housed inside.

On the right in the drawing dating to 1860 behind the hothouses is another building which on the

Middlemis plan is identified as a shade house. In the photograph dating to the 1880s the building

appears to have gone with only part of the wall remaining adjoining the stables which are in the

right foreground. The building is particularly interesting as all that remains of it are three lines of

shallow steps, some 450 mm wide that ran the entire length of the building. These may have been

used to separate the plants. There is no evidence of the stables remaining.

Between the glasshouse and the shade house is a tall building, but because of weed infestation

over the site there is no clear footprint of this building on the ground. In the photograph dating to

the 1880s the building is covered in a creeper and a rainwater tank is located against the building.

From Middlemis’ plan it appears that this may have been the seed propagation house and seed

storage area. It is not clear what the small stone building behind this building was, its lack of

windows and its metal roof (see centre of the 1880s photograph) suggest it was not used for plant

growing and may have been a shed. Again there is no evidence clearly visible on the ground of this

building. To the right of this building in the 1880s photograph can be seen another tall building.

Some parts of this remain today. From photographic evidence this building appears to have two

storeys. Only the ground floor part of the eastern wall remains intact. It has three evenly spaced

small windows which provided the only illumination. It appears from Middlemis’ plan that the

northern end of the building provided accommodation or some kind of living space for the men

working at the nursery. The southern end was a packing shed with an apple loft above. Behind this

building on the right of the 1880s photograph was the vehicle shop and the small building to the

right of it is the piggery. There is no evidence of these buildings today. In the bottom right corner of

the photograph is a small building which Middlemis identifies as a harness shed; parts of two walls

remain of this building forming an L-shape section.

Towards the back centre of the 1860 drawing is a building with a verandah – this was the main

house. It can be seen more clearly in the 1880s photograph. As discussed above the building does

not precisely fit with the description given in the History of Water Gully and may have been the

second house built. Certainly there is no evidence of a cellar. The remaining walls of the house

suggest that the house had several small rooms. The first room nearest the kitchen and pantry

building, which is external to the main house, has a fireplace on its northern external wall, the next

room has a window in place of a fireplace. The next room is slightly larger and may be the living

room. Across from the two small rooms appear to be other similar size rooms, these cannot be seen

clearly on the ground but are apparent from aerial photographs of the site. Both buildings were

built of stone, and then rendered. Reflecting the use of the building as a residence the windows have

brick surrounds and the doorways have decorative brick architraves. To the west of the main house


was a garden and a market garden, with a plantation of shrubs, palms, native trees, cypress and

Norfolk Island Pines. Today there is no evidence of this past use apart from the presence of a few

native plants: Firewheel Tree, Lilly Pilly, Umbrella Wattle, Common Magnolia, Arum Lilies and a

Plume Poppy (Friends of Anstey’s Hill).

Beyond the main house in the 1860 drawing can be seen a large building and next to it is a

smaller building partly hidden by the trees. These are to the north of the main nursery complex,

and separated from it by a creek and road. Of these two buildings, only one has survived. Of the

large building all that remains is a well similar to those seen in the hothouses. Middlemis indicates

that this was a fern house. Unlike the other plant houses it does not have a glass roof; rather it

appears to have been corrugated iron. The second building was a shade house containing the

camellias. This building is one of the most intact of the buildings remaining of Newman’s Nursery.

All four walls are intact, unfortunately it is not clear what type of roof would have completed the

structure. The walls are again stone which has been rendered internally; there is no evidence of

external rendering. There is a large central well for watering the plants.

From the photograph of the nursery dating to the 1880s this building appears to have had an

enclosed verandah with windows along its length on its south side. This probably was a plant

preparation area. On the east wall of the shade house are the remains of three cold frames. Other

cold frames are visible in the photograph across from the verandah.

Figure 18.8Glasshouse for ferns, Newman’s Nursery.

SOURCE Courtesy of State Library of South Australia B16022


The main complex of the Newman’s nursery was encompassed by a 10 ft high wall that was

destroyed when the floods occurred. Virtually the entire wall has gone apart from a small section

near the house. From the photographs it appears that the main gate to the nursery was near the

main house and that the wall was lower here before stepping up a short distance before the vehicle

shed. A two roomed cottage and a water tank were located to the south-east of the nursery complex

in a small gully. The cottage was so heavily overgrown with weeds that further details about its

construction cannot be recorded at the present time.

To the north of the nursery ruins lies Water Gully which was highly modified to suit the needs

of the Newmans. As can be seen in the centre right of the 1880s photograph (Figure 18.5) the floor of

Water Gully was to be home to beds of plants while regular lines of trees can be seen on the hillside.

Charles Newman was to artificially flatten the floor of Water Gully to allow the maximum space for

the beds. A comparison of the 1880s photograph and the present day valley floor suggests that at

some stage the valley floor has been further flattened to present the landscape visible today. In the

1880s photograph the valley floor rises up quite steeply, being at its lowest nearest the nursery

buildings which would have facilitated drainage away from the beds. The creek which had run down

the gully was diverted to the eastern side of the gully floor and the slate lined channel and drains

which carried the creek waters are still in place along the gully. The channel was constructed of

square masonry and parts remain intact while others have collapsed. On the eastern side of the

gully, the channel extends up the hillside for just under a kilometre. This extension controlled water

flowing from a creek that originated higher up the hill face.

As a consequence, all water coming down the artificially flattened valley floor was controlled. As

illustrated in Figure 18.10 the channel created by Newman extended for nearly six kilometres and

represented a substantial investment of time. While other areas of the hillside to the south-east,

south-west and west of the nursery buildings are terraced, as are the hillsides lining the valley, there

is no evidence of water management strategies in these areas. It seems likely that the water

management strategy of diverting the water flow along one side of the valley floor was intended to

protect the plant beds and allow the creation of plant beds that were of the most convenient size

possible, rather than being directly connected to the presence of terraced hillsides. The use of the

channel to control water would have presented problems for the Newmans as blockages are likely to

have occurred along with the build-up of sedimentation within the channel. The terracing of the

hillsides would have also presented problems as this would have led to a loss of top soil and high

levels of sedimentation. A series of dams on the creek directly west of the nursery buildings show

high levels of sedimentation from the eroding landscape which remains reasonably intact today

although the original plants planted by Newman have been destroyed by bushfires and the hillsides

have been recolonised by native plants. Drystone walls were used to support the terracing or to

create access pathways and at least eleven wells were located around the buildings to provide water.

Some of the exterior wells may have drawn on the channelled creek water.


Figure 18.9Valley floor of Water Gully. SOURCE HFZCHP 2004

The landscape reconstruction in Figure 18.10 allows us to see the various relationships between

the elements of the landscape including buildings and natural features such as creeks and

watercourses. From the GIS-generated aerial photograph it can be seen that the nursery buildings

were placed very close to two creeks. It is unclear why Charles Newman had chosen this particular

location for the nursery. The possibility of flooding does not appear to have been considered,

although from the limited documentation it would appear that the nursery stood for around 47

years without major problems from flooding. It is possible some level of flooding had occurred

previously that would have affected the economic viability of the nursery, though the description of

the flood damage of 1913 suggests that the business was doing well and this is supported by the

extensive catalogue of items being offered. The demise of the nursery in 1913 was not just due to the

extensive flood damage of that year but also because the nursery had been mortgaged to support

expansion into Western Australia, consequently there was no capital for rebuilding the business.

The substantial nature of buildings such as the shade house and the exterior wall may have served

as an additional defence against flood waters if they came. Certainly a ready supply of water would

be essential to support the production of the extensive catalogue of plants Newmans grew and this

may have dictated the placement of the nursery in this particular place.

Due to the constraints of the Adelaide Hills Face Zone Cultural Heritage Project which sought to

survey the entire Hills Face Zone within a three year period, the Newman’s Nursery buildings have

not been studied in detail. The site offers the opportunity to understand the layout in detail of a

nursery complex and of the main house. If the site were extensively cleared of weeds, it would be

possible better to identify the footprints of the buildings and the site could be mapped in detail.


The possibilities of excavation to clarify the use of the buildings are probably limited due to the

floods and bush fires that have swept Water Gully. The site is open and is actively disturbed by

people walking over the ruins. Similarly the cottage located south-east of the ruins warrants further

investigation as it is so heavily overgrown that little can be said about its design and past use.

TWO LANDSCAPES – GROVE HILL AND NEWMAN’S NURSERY

Grove Hill and Newman’s Nursery offer two different archaeological landscapes which do, however,

share common characteristics. The landscape of Grove Hill retains the characteristics of an estate,

while Newman’s Nursery was a working commercial nursery where other activities such as market

gardening and dairying were used to support the family and provide extra income. The focus of the

Grove Hill landscape was the three glasshouses and the store building, which are clustered together

with the worker’s cottage and potting shed. The nursery remained relatively small with the orchards

stretching across the landscape. Unfortunately there is no photographic evidence of where the plant

beds were at Grove Hill, but the catalogue of 1868 refers to soil grown plants as well as pot based

plants, so consequently somewhere on the Giles land there had to be beds. Today the land owned

by the Giles family is given over to vineyards and orchards.

Figure 18.10GIS map of Newman’s Nursery and Water Gully.

SOURCE Prepared by Robert Keane, GIS consultant


Newman’s nursery, as can be seen in the photographs and from the evidence of the remaining

buildings, was a large nursery with six hothouses, orchid and fern houses, and three or four shade

houses. The C.F. Newman & Son’s Descriptive and Illustrative General Catalogue of 1894-5 ran to

nearly 200 pages and includes extensive listing of orchids, new and rare plants, roses, flowering

plants, shrubs, trees, fruit trees, agricultural, vegetable and flower seeds. Unlike Grove Hill where

the orchards provided an alternate source of income, the nursery was the primary business of the

Newmans and this is reflected in the large number of buildings for plant growing.

Interestingly both Grove Hill and Newman’s Nursery share a common feature, the modification

of nearby water sources such as creeks and springs to supply the essential need of any nursery,

water. Grove Hill has an extensive slate drain system that removed water from the land. At

Newman’s the creek in Water Gully was diverted through a stone channel and probably served the

same purpose of irrigation to the plant beds on the gully floor and the trees on the hillside. Such

management of water sources appears to have been common in the Adelaide Hills as colonists

sought land on which to establish market gardens and orchards (see the chapter Dry stone walls and

water wheels, this volume).

The glasshouses and ferneries of Grove Hill and Newman’s Nursery also share common

design features. The glasshouses had a stone wall surmounted by glass walls and a glass roof,

while the ferneries employed glass roofs and limited light from the walls. Were these glasshouses

designed to suit the conditions of the South Australian climate? It appears that this may be true.

Two documents held by the State Library of South Australia were to discuss just this topic of

adaptation. H. Sewell in 1875 discussed bamboo and glasshouse gardening in South Australia,

while A. McDonald read a paper to the South Australian Gardeners’ Society in 1883. Although they

date from the period after the construction of the Grove Hill and Newman’s Nursery glasshouses,

they can be seen as reflecting a pool of knowledge that had been garnered from the experience of

those in the horticultural industries and from private gardening experiments. As McDonald

(1883:1) noted, much of that which had to be grown indoors in glasshouses in England could be

grown outdoors in South Australia, and shade houses could be used in place of glasshouses.

Newman’s nursery had three shade houses while a brush shade house was located near the semi-

tropical glasshouse at Grove Hill (pers. com. M. Giles). One of the exotics grown at Newman’s

Nursery was orchids and McDonald (1883:1) argues that they along with ferns, flowering and

ornamental foliage benefited in leaving the glasshouse for the shade house for three months during

summer. While Middlemis’ plan suggests that the shade houses at Newman’s Nursery were given

over to ferns and camellias, it is possible that they were used for orchids at some time in the past.

In McDonald’s view the primary function of glasshouses in the colony was for the propagation

and growing of stove plants (McDonald 1883:1). Sewell describes the stove house as being built as

close as possible, with a proper system of heating which he believed may only be needed in the

winter months with the internal temperature being maintained at 65°F, and never dropping below


60°F (Sewell 1875: 1). General glasshouses could be maintained at 75 to 85°F (McDonald 1883:2).

Sewell recommended that the stove house be like a glasshouse with a span roof rather than

constructed as a lean-to. While there were various methods of heating the house including gas, hot

stable manure, flues, hot water tanks or pipes, he preferred heated pipes above all other methods

(Sewell 1875:1). There is evidence that boilers were used to supply heated water underneath the

benches of the Grove Hill glasshouses and there was a boiler near the hothouses of Newman’s.

Sewell also recommended the provision: ‘of some vessel to contain the water standing in the house,

which will enable the watering of the plants with water of a corresponding temperature of the house

[sic]’ (Sewell 1875:1). There is clear evidence of several wells within the Newman’s Nursery

and of tanks below the benches at Grove Hill which would have been heated to the ambient air

temperature of the glasshouses. McDonald indicates that a second function of these water tanks

or wells was to equalise the temperature of the house and to provide a ‘little watery vapour’ when

the outside air was dry (McDonald 1883:2).

Both Sewell and McDonald paid particular attention to the placement of a glasshouse in terms

of the sun: ‘it should stand in a place where it would get mostly all the sun in winter, and as little as

possible in summer’ (McDonald 1883:2). What did this mean practically? Sewell recommended

that the house for flowers should face neither south nor west, a lean-to may face north or east but

north-east was preferable; an east-west arrangement was most economical as the sun would shine

equally throughout the glasshouse. Fern houses did very well if facing south or west with only the

front and roof glassed (Sewell 1875: 1). The glasshouses of Grove Hill and the hothouses of

Newman’s are on an approximately north-south axis. The flower houses then would receive the

western sun, even if they were not on the most economical axis. Interestingly it was recommended

that unheated glasshouses be placed on a east-west axis in England, suggesting that this was

possibly not an adaptation to light conditions in South Australia (Davidson 1907:15).With regard

to the ferneries, Giles’ faces in a westerly direction which fits with Sewell’s recommendation and has

a glass roof and windows in the front wall. Newman’s fern glasshouse received the southerly sun,

while his shade house for ferns faced north. The other large fern house was placed on a northeast-

southeast axis and unfortunately the historical photographic evidence is not clear about the light

received. In the 1860 drawing this building appears to have a glass roof but in the 1880s

photograph this appears to have been replaced with an iron roof, perhaps reflecting changes to its

use over time. A southeast orientation was functional for a fern house if the other aspect was not

achievable (Sewell 1875:1).

In other aspects the glasshouses meet Sewell’s recommendations. They have walls constructed

of stone topped by glass, and have opening windows in the roof and sides to allow air in that he

recommends. Both McDonald and Sewell recommended the stone walls to be three and a half feet

to four feet in height. The arrangement of benches suggested is of benches along the side with a

central bench giving two aisles, and this is found at Grove Hill and probably at Newman’s (Sewell


1875:1). Unfortunately the ruined nature of Newman’s Nursery and the angles used in the 1860

drawing mean that it is not easy to determine whether the ends of the hothouses were glass,

however, the historical photographs suggest a similar arrangement of benches as at Grove Hill.

Newman’s Nursery also had the slate tables recommended by McDonald as did Grove Hill (1883:2).

In the height of summer shade could be provided by whitening the glasshouse windows with

whitening and milk which would be carried off by the heavy rains of winter, an approach

recommended by both Sewell and McDonald. The steps evident on top of the fernery roof suggest

that this might have been done at Grove Hill as they made the western panes and roof accessible.

The placement of the buildings on a hillside meant that the eastern panes were easily accessible.

While both Sewell and McDonald suggested that glasshouses and ferneries could be dug into the

ground with the soil in the centre being used as a bench for plants, this was probably impractical at

both Grove Hill and Water Gully due to the nature of the landscape.

The glasshouses at Grove Hill and Water Gully were based on English/European designs and

adapted to suit the South Australian environment. The use of shade houses suggests that plants

were being grown outside the glasshouses utilising the South Australian climate to maximum

advantage.

CONCLUSION

Horticulture was both a passion and a practical necessity in the colony of South Australia during

the nineteenth century. While vegetable gardens provided food for many South Australians a

garden had also to include plants planted for pleasure. The Victorians were passionate about

plants and the expanding colonial empire and travel to remote areas of the world offered

opportunities for the discovery of new plants that could form the basis of anyone’s garden. The

nurseries of Grove Hill and Newman’s were to support this passion by providing not only familiar

plants and vegetables, but plants that fell into the more specialised and exotic categories.

The nurseries of Grove Hill and Newman’s reflect different aspects of the nursery business

in South Australia. Charles Giles established his nursery when much was still to be learnt about

plant growing in South Australia and experimentation was necessary to understand what plants

and trees would thrive and be disease resistant. Charles Newman’s nursery was established slightly

later and appears to have been run as a commercial nursery offering a large range of trees and

flowers with a later specialisation in orchids whose hybridisation was an interest of Charles

Newman. Archaeologically the two nurseries present similar landscapes with nursery buildings

remaining in different states of preservation with modified landscapes adapted to suit the planting

requirements of the nurseries and orchards, and water management schemes put in place to

provide for the irrigation needs of the nurseries.

Charles Giles and Charles Newman brought with them to South Australia knowledge of

horticultural practices based on European climatic and growing conditions. Their nurseries


became testing grounds where local and overseas plants were trialled, and with those that were

most suited to the local conditions finding a place in the catalogues they produced. As indicated

above their use of glasshouses and shade houses reflected adaptations to local plant growing

conditions and it is likely that the plant beds would have contained many plants usually grown

indoors, for part or the whole year, in Northern climates. Consequently, to be successful both Giles

and Newman had to expand and revise their knowledge of horticulture. At the same time they had

to enhance and modifiy water movement through their properties by re-landscaping their grounds

and building drainage systems to support the plants and trees grown. Both Grove Hill and

Newman’s Nursery represent highly modified cultural landscapes where significant physical

changes were made to the natural landscape to support commercial industries.

While most horticulturists, in particular the market gardeners, have left the Hills Face Zone

and moved to areas such as Virginia, Grove Hill remains a horticultural property with orchards and

vineyards which produce wine for sale at the Cellar Door established on the property. Its heritage

value has been maintained by the personal dedication of the Giles family, and in particular

Marguerite Giles who allowed us to view the estate and provide invaluable information for this

chapter. Grove Hill then retains much of its original nineteenth century landscape, in particular

the buildings associated with the nursery business and the gardens established by Charles Giles

himself. This valuing of the past has not occurred in many areas of the hills and the present

condition of the Newman’s Nursery is in sharp contrast to the preservation of Grove Hill.

Newman’s Nursery and its associated landscape represent both an example of a nineteenth century

commercial industry and the extent that nineteenth century colonists went to modify the

landscape to suit the horticultural practices they had bought with them from around the world.

The location of the Newman’s Nursery in a public park allows an invaluable opportunity for the

interpretation and maintenance of a valuable heritage site within the Hills Face Zone, an

opportunity which has not been taken up.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Marguerite Giles forallowing us to visit and record Grove Hill and for providinginformation about the history of the nursery. Without herassistance this chapter would not have been written. I alsowish to thank Tim Ormsby for providing informationabout the Reedbeds, Robert Keane for providing the GISaerial images and Roger Collier and the Friends of theAnstey Hill Recreation Park.

REFERENCES

Auhl, Ian 1993 From Settlement to City. A History of Tea TreeGully, 1836-1976, 1976-1993. Tea Tree Gully Council,Modbury, South Australia.

Australian Garden History Society 13th Annual NationalConference Proceedings 1992 ‘Grove Hill’. ConferenceProceedings, p.22. Australian Garden History Society,Adelaide.


Baldwin B. S. 1967 South Australiana Vol. VI (2) 1967: 71-116. Letters of Samuel Davenport Chiefly to his Father,George Davenport. Part II Jul-Sept 1844.

Cyclopedia of South Australia Vol. 2 1909.

Davidson, K. L. 1907 The Unheated Greenhouse. CountryLife Ltd, Covent Garden.

Fox, Paul 2004 Clearings. Six Colonial Gardeners and theirLandscapes. The Miegunyah Press, Carlton, Victoria.

Giles and Pascoe’s General Catalogue of Trees, Plants, andShrubs etc. 1 May 1868.

Hallack, E.H. 1987 Toilers of the Hills. Introduced andedited by G.C. Bishop. New edition, East TorrensHistorical Society Inc., Norton Summit, SouthAustralia.

Heritage survey of the District Council of East Torrens: areport on a heritage survey financed with theassistance of funds made available by theCommonwealth of Australia under the National EstateGrants Program and carried out by Rick BzowyArchitects for the District Council of East Torrens in1992-1994. Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Adelaide.

Hershey David R. 1998 Ward’s Accidental Discovery of theTerrarium. http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/84/ward/discover.htm

Hershey David R. 1998 Sea Transport of Plants by Terrarium.http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/84/ward/sea.htm

Hines, Lucy Maymon 1996 Environs of Norton Summit.Edited By Geoffrey C. Bishop. New edition, EastTorrens Historical Society Inc.. Norton Summit, SouthAustralia.

Mail Magazine – Fruit Supplement. 1940 pg. 24. ‘SummitOrchard is 94 years old’.

McDonald, A. 1883 Glass Houses for Plant Growing. Apaper read before the South Australian Gardeners’Society, on Saturday Evening, 18 October, 1883 byVice President Mr A. McDonald.

McEwin, George 1843 The South Australian Vigneron andGardeners’ Manual. James Allen, Adelaide, SouthAustralia.

Middlemis, Cas 2003 ‘C. F. Newman and Sons, AdelaideNurserymen.’ Australian Garden History Vol 14. No. 4,January/February: 14-17.

Ormsby, Tim 2002 Conservation and management ofhistoric remains in The Reedbeds, Horsnell GullyConservation Park. Undergraduate report for Cultural

Heritage Management project, Department ofArchaeology, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SouthAustralia.

Plowman, S. 2000 No Time for Pleasure Gardens.Australian Garden History,11 (5) March/April: 4-6.

Register 25 August 1926. A Pioneer Orchardist. Mr CharlesGiles Looks Back. (Reprinted in East Torrens HistoricalSociety Newsletter, 65, May 2001: 8-10).

Reynolds, Y. 1989 Historic remains, Horsnell Gully.Unpublished report for National Parks and Wildlife,South Australia, 13 September.

Sewell, H. 1875 Bamboo and Glasshouse Gardening in SouthAustralia. Adelaide.

Smith, Russell 1998 Charles Giles did not approve – andrightly so! East Torrens Historical Society Newsletter,51:9-10.

Swinbourne, Robert 1982 Years of Endeavour. SouthAustralian Association of Nurserymen, Adelaide.

Ward, Ebenezer 1862 Vineyards and Orchards of SouthAustralia. Adelaide.

Wardian case. Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardian_case

Water Gully. The Story of C.F. Newman and the ModelNursery. Leaflet prepared by Tea Tree Gully Library, TeaTree Gully, South Australia.

ARCHIVES

C.F. Newman & Son’s Descriptive and Illustrative GeneralCatalogue of 1894-5. Copy held by the Tea Tree GullyLibrary.

Giles, Edward n.d. History of Horticulture. Manuscript onmicrofilm held by the State Library of South Australia,dated to the 1870s by the Library.

History of Water Gully. Undated anonymous manuscript.Held by Black Hill Office of National Parks andWildlife, South Australia.

Letter to Mrs Colleen Fuller from Beth Brittle 19 April,1972. Brittle File, Tea Tree Gully Library Local HistoryCollection.

National Parks and Wildlife SA Horsnell’s GullyConservation Park Files.

Register Research Program 181/82 Historical Research:Newman’s Nursery, Anstey’s Hill. Held by Black HillOffice of National Parks and Wildlife, South Australia.

two nineteenth century nurseries of the adelaide hills · two nineteenth century nurseries of the...

Documents