The Rise and Fall of a Governor’s Dream
When Commissioner John Thomas Bigge arrived in New South Wales in 1819, Governor Lachlan Macquarie’s ambitious plans for the colony were already under threat. Macquarie, who had governed since 1810, envisioned a society where emancipated convicts could rise to respectability through hard work and moral reform. His policies—such as appointing former convicts to public offices, investing in infrastructure, and promoting social cohesion—had transformed Sydney from a penal outpost into a functioning colonial settlement. Yet by the time Bigge disembarked, Macquarie’s focus had shifted from governance to defending his legacy against mounting criticism from London and colonial elites.
Bigge, a younger man with a legal background, had been sent by the British government to investigate Macquarie’s administration. His mission was to assess whether the colony’s resources were being used efficiently and whether convict labor was being properly managed. What followed was a clash not just of personalities but of fundamentally opposing visions for New South Wales: one that saw redemption and potential in emancipated convicts, and another that prioritized strict social hierarchy and economic utility.
The Conflict Over Convict Appointments
The tension between Macquarie and Bigge crystallized in their dispute over Dr. William Redfern, a former convict whom Macquarie had appointed as a magistrate. Redfern, a skilled surgeon and respected figure, symbolized Macquarie’s belief in rehabilitation. Bigge, however, saw his appointment as a dangerous precedent that undermined colonial authority.
On October 30, 1819, Bigge informed Macquarie that Redfern’s magistracy would likely be revoked in London. Macquarie, bound by personal honor and principle, refused to rescind the appointment. Their exchange grew increasingly heated, with Bigge warning that such appointments inflamed social tensions, while Macquarie argued that former convicts were the backbone of the colony’s prosperity.
This dispute revealed deeper ideological divides. Bigge viewed convicts as a labor force to be controlled, not integrated. Macquarie, by contrast, saw them as settlers who could contribute to a stable society. Their disagreement foreshadowed the broader conflict over the colony’s future.
The Broader Inquiry and Colonial Resentment
Bigge’s investigation extended beyond Redfern. He scrutinized Macquarie’s public works—such as Sydney’s grand stables—as wasteful extravagances. He criticized the lax supervision of female convicts at Parramatta and proposed redirecting convict labor to private settlers rather than government projects. His vision aligned with emerging pastoral interests, particularly wool growers like John Macarthur, who saw convicts as cheap labor for expanding estates.
Macquarie, meanwhile, grew increasingly isolated. His attempts to rally support—such as circulating a questionnaire to magistrates and clergy—were seen as interference with Bigge’s inquiry. By 1821, his authority was waning, and his once-bold reforms were being dismantled.
The Emancipist Revolt and Legal Battles
The conflict reached a climax in 1820-21 with the case of Edward Eagar, a former convict who sued Judge Barron Field for defamation. The court’s ruling—that emancipists had no legal rights unless granted a royal pardon—sparked outrage among former convicts who had built lives and businesses in the colony.
In January 1821, a large public meeting of emancipists, chaired by William Redfern, petitioned the Crown for equal rights. They argued that they constituted the majority of the colony’s free population and owned most of its property. Their plea highlighted the paradox of a system that relied on their labor yet denied them full citizenship.
The Departure of Macquarie and the Legacy of His Policies
By the time Macquarie left Sydney in 1822, his vision had been largely rejected. Bigge’s reports, published in 1822-23, recommended stricter convict discipline, reduced government spending, and greater power for wealthy settlers. The era of emancipist integration was over.
Yet Macquarie’s influence endured. His infrastructure projects—roads, schools, and hospitals—laid the foundation for modern Sydney. His belief in rehabilitation, though unpopular at the time, foreshadowed later penal reforms. And his clashes with Bigge highlighted the tension between punishment and redemption that would shape Australia’s identity.
Conclusion: A Colony at a Crossroads
The Macquarie-Bigge conflict was more than a bureaucratic dispute; it was a struggle over the soul of New South Wales. Would it remain a penal colony defined by hierarchy and control, or could it evolve into a society of opportunity?
Macquarie’s defeat marked a turn toward economic pragmatism, but his ideals never fully disappeared. Today, as Australia debates its colonial past, his legacy—flawed yet visionary—remains a touchstone for understanding the nation’s complex origins.