The Rise and Challenges of Governor Macquarie
When Lachlan Macquarie arrived in London in July 1822, he was a man consumed by the desire for vindication. Having served as Governor of New South Wales from 1810 to 1821, he believed his policies had transformed a penal colony into a thriving settlement. Yet his tenure had been marked by fierce opposition, both from free settlers and colonial administrators who viewed his reforms as overly lenient toward convicts.
Macquarie’s vision for New South Wales was radical for its time. He sought to rehabilitate emancipated convicts—known as emancipists—by granting them land, positions of authority, and social standing. This approach clashed with the interests of wealthy free settlers like John Macarthur and Reverend Samuel Marsden, who saw convicts as a permanent underclass. The conflict came to a head in 1819 when British reformer Henry Bennet publicly condemned Macquarie’s administration, accusing it of corruption and arbitrary rule.
The Bigge Inquiry and Its Damning Reports
In response to growing criticism, the British government commissioned John Thomas Bigge, a former judge, to investigate conditions in New South Wales. Bigge’s reports, published between 1822 and 1823, were a turning point in colonial policy. While acknowledging Macquarie’s achievements in infrastructure and public works, Bigge rejected his rehabilitative approach to convicts.
Bigge argued that transportation must remain a feared punishment, not an opportunity for redemption. He criticized Macquarie’s ticket-of-leave system, which allowed well-behaved convicts early freedoms, and opposed land grants to emancipists without capital. Most damningly, Bigge recommended shifting the colony’s focus from penal reform to economic development, particularly wool production—a policy favored by free settlers.
Clash of Visions: Rehabilitation vs. Economic Exploitation
The fundamental divide between Macquarie and Bigge reflected broader debates about the purpose of New South Wales. Macquarie saw it as a society where convicts could rebuild their lives, while Bigge envisioned a profitable venture for free settlers.
Key differences included:
– Convict Labor: Macquarie assigned convicts to public works, believing labor could reform them. Bigge insisted they be sent to remote penal outposts like Moreton Bay to prevent mingling with free settlers.
– Emancipist Rights: Macquarie appointed former convicts as magistrates and landowners. Bigge argued this undermined social hierarchy.
– Economic Priorities: Macquarie supported local industries; Bigge prioritized wool exports to Britain.
These disagreements were not merely administrative but philosophical. Macquarie’s policies threatened the entrenched power of the colonial elite, who lobbied successfully for his removal.
The Personal Toll on Macquarie
Macquarie’s return to England was marked by humiliation. Despite his appeals to Earl Bathurst, Secretary of State for the Colonies, he received only faint praise for his “assiduity and integrity” rather than the full vindication he craved. Bathurst’s lukewarm response acknowledged Macquarie’s efforts but blamed the “rapid and unprecedented succession of convicts” for the colony’s challenges—a subtle rebuke of his policies.
Devastated, Macquarie penned a 42-page defense in 1823, detailing his achievements: building roads, establishing schools, and improving conditions for Aboriginal people. Yet his plea fell on deaf ears. By 1824, broken in health and spirit, he died in London, his legacy still contested.
Legacy: Reformist Visionary or Failed Autocrat?
Macquarie’s death did not end the debate over his rule. Supporters, including former convicts and progressive settlers, hailed him as the “father of Australia” for his urban planning and humanitarian reforms. Detractors, however, saw his administration as despotic and misguided.
The New South Wales Act of 1823, influenced by Bigge’s recommendations, cemented the colony’s shift toward free settlement and economic exploitation. Emancipist rights were curtailed, and Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) was established as a separate penal colony with harsher discipline.
Modern historians view Macquarie more sympathetically, recognizing his attempts to create an inclusive society amid brutal penal conditions. His story remains a poignant example of how visionary leaders can be undone by political resistance and changing priorities.
Conclusion: A Tragic Figure of Colonial History
Lachlan Macquarie’s struggle was not just for personal redemption but for the soul of Australia itself. His belief in rehabilitation clashed with an imperial system designed for punishment and profit. Though his reforms were rolled back, his influence endured in the streets of Sydney and the ideals of a fairer society. His life serves as a reminder that progress often comes at a personal cost—one Macquarie paid in full.