The Sinklers’ Last Laugh

There’s no Free Pardon mentioned on his convict record, or in other places where it should have been published; it’s completely absent from the historical record. And what about the prison riot? Elisha Sinkler was farming in rural Tasmania before his final return to England, so how did he come to intervene in a prison riot, and why wasn’t the incident reported anywhere?

We know for certain that Elisha Sinkler came back to England a second time, because he died here in Pateley Bridge in 1874, but once we accept the pardon isn’t a Free Pardon, we have to question the rest of the story. While absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, it is suggestive that there might not be a Free Pardon to find. Could there be more to this story than meets the eye?

Just how did Elisha Sinkler end up back home in Nidderdale? Well, the clue might well have been staring us in the face all along. Not only is there no record of a Free Pardon for Elisha, his Conditional Pardon has several areas of missing text. I thought that was odd from the get-go and set about trying to work out what was originally written there. After a bit of sleuthing, I managed to find an identical Conditional Pardon in an Australian archive, produced using the same template just 3 months after Elisha’s. Helpfully, this one is in rare pristine condition, with all text intact.

Now it’s not particularly surprising that Elisha Sinkler’s Conditional Pardon looks tatty and worn; convicts had to keep their pardons with them at all times, so they were folded up small and carried around in a sweaty pocket all day. With that said, the damaged areas of Elisha’s pardon seem oddly specific. It isn’t one big chunk of text missing down one side; it’s individual words in the middle of a sentence, scattered across the document.

I thought this seemed suspicious, so I transcribed both Elisha’s pardon and the nice clean one, and compared the two, which revealed exactly what text is missing and possibly why:

Every single reference to the condition not to return to the United Kingdom has been removed from Elisha Sinkler’s Conditional Pardon.

Further examination of the original document shows that the top surface of the paper has been scrubbed off. It looks a bit like a child’s exercise book, where somebody has been overzealous with an eraser and rubbed half the paper away.

The remaining sentences still make sense, but the meaning has been flipped. For example, Elisha’s pardon would have originally said “within all places in Her Majesty’s dominions except the said United Kingdom”, but the word “except” has been removed, so the sentence now reads directly opposite to its original meaning.

Specific words and phrases being worn off purely by chance, that just so happen to significantly alter the meaning of the document, seemed highly unlikely to me; my suspicion was the pardon had been intentionally tampered with. Nidderdale Museum kindly allowed me to have Elisha Sinkler’s Conditional Pardon examined by an expert from North Yorkshire Archives, who agreed that a) the damage was done “in antiquity” and b) couldn’t be attributed to normal wear & tear. The damage appears to be deliberate.

Well, there’s one obvious prime suspect: Elisha himself. But why? If he’d earned a Free Pardon, what possible reason could there be to tinker with his Conditional Pardon? Well, what if there never was a Free Pardon? In that context, the alterations suddenly make much more sense.

Elisha Sinkler, or someone on his behalf, doctored his Conditional Pardon to make it appear that it granted him the right to return to the United Kingdom. There’s no reason to do that if he really had a Free Pardon.

Perhaps Elisha’s brother, Jack Sinkler, had completed his own 15-year sentence and earned enough money to go home but didn’t want to leave Elisha behind in Australia. By 1853 convicts were no longer being sent to Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), and in 1868 convict transportation officially ended altogether. So maybe they thought there was a chance Elisha wouldn’t be sent back even if his scam was discovered. If Elisha wanted to end his days at home in Nidderdale, he may have thought it was a risk worth taking.

By removing a few key words from his Conditional pardon, they realised it could be made to look like a Free Pardon to the untrained eye. It looks legitimate because it is; it’s a bona fide official document, complete with the emblem and wax seal of Van Diemen’s Land, signed by the Governor, Sir Henry Edward Fox Young. It’s a real pardon, it just isn’t a Free Pardon!

Elisha had been transported for life though, so when he turned up in Pateley Bridge again, they were going to need some sort of explanation. That’s where the story of a prison riot comes in.

The most convincing lies often have an element of truth, and fortunately the Sinkler brothers had just the thing. They had both witnessed a real-life riot 20 years earlier, during their time as prisoners on Norfolk Island. What became known as The Cooking Pot Riot was a violent mutiny led by convict William Westwood (a bushranger also known as “Jackey Jackey”). Four men were killed during the uprising, and 12 convicts, including Westwood, were hanged for their murders.

Using their memories of this event, Jack and Elisha Sinkler would’ve been able to spin a plausible tale of heroics to explain why Elisha had been awarded his “Free Pardon” and returned home to Pateley.

Without any record of a Free Pardon, the creative alterations to the Conditional Pardon, and no evidence of a prison riot, I’m inclined to think the whole story was made up. I think the truth is Elisha Sinkler managed to escape Australia not once but twice, and he got away with it for over 150 years. It’s a bit of Victorian fraud that’s been hiding in plain sight. Despite all their run-ins with the law, maybe Jack & Elisha Sinkler got the last laugh after all.