Special order "CJM pattern" swords by Wilkinson
By Matt Easton

Students of Victorian military swords, as well as readers and viewers of my articles and videos, will be well aware that during this period in Britain there were a variety of 'non-regulation', or special order swords, being made by prominent sword making companies like Wilkinson, Garden, Pillin, Mole, Thurkle and others.

Outside of the common regulation patterns which make up the vast majority of Victorian officers' swords, we find certain non-regulation or special order swords cropping up occasionally. Some of these are more common than others, despite still being statistically rare compared to regulation models. For example the 'Patent Solid Hilt', or the 'Flat Solid' blade.

A group of swords that is exceptionally rare however, even within the realms of these non-regulation officers' swords, is what I have named the 'C. J. M. pattern group' after the term used in Wilkinson's own records. These swords are not identical, but do share certain similarities, and all seem to have derived from an individual recorded as 'C. J. M.'. My research to reveal this individual is contained below.

Some Victorian swordsmen, such as Brigadier-General John Jacob CB (shown above) and Sir Richard Francis Burton KCMG FRGS, wrote extensively on the design and use of swords in their times. Some of these swordsmen came to drastically different conclusions to each other, and so it follows that the various private purchase, non-regulation sword designs varied considerably also. We see a variety of blade types, sizes, different grip shapes and constructions, and various styles of guard being devised, outside of the regulation patterns. It should be reiterated though that these were expensive private purchases and most officers went for cheaper regulation designs.

Officers were allowed to wear non-regulation swords when on campaign (even adopting local swords like Indian tulwars), and even in full dress uniform, swords were only expected to look regulation from a distance, allowing for a variety of subtle changes to the hilt designs and some larger variations to the blade designs.

Not all of the people in this period with strong views on sword design were regular Army or Navy personnel - some were civilians. Prominent civilians with views on swords and swordsmanship included John Latham of Wilkinson (an avid fencer and student of the Angelo Academy of Arms) and Rowland Allanson-Winn, 5th Baron Headley. Others were part-time military volunteers in the Militias, Rifle Volunteers or Yeomanry, for example Cyril Matthey and George Chapman - both extremely influential in swordsmanship (the former an officer in the Rifle Volunteers and the latter in the Honourable Artillery Company). These civilians often played a part in influencing military training regimes and their influence should not be understated.

There were also influential civilians who had previously served in the regular military and, once settled into civilian life, continued to revel in the practice of swordsmanship, and in some cases also the design of swords. Alfred Hutton (late King's Dragoon Guards) and John Musgrave Waite (late 2nd Life Guards) are famous examples of the latter and both expressed precise details regarding their opinions on sword design in their publications.

Various committees were put together in the late-19th and early-20th centuries in order to design new patterns of sword for the military, and Alfred Hutton was involved with some of these. Generally it was the Army top brass, for example Colonel Sir George Malcolm Fox (see my article on the regulation infantry swords of the 1890s), who ruled the roost when it came to sword design decisions in Horse Guards. But Hutton and others certainly also played prominent roles, increasingly so in the 1890s and 1900s.

Alfred Hutton and friends, demonstrating fencing methods of bygone times, in 1890:
Over the last several years, I have been piecing together some information which relates to three known surviving swords (and there might be other examples out there waiting to be found), which I hereby call the 'CJM pattern group'. 

This family of swords all feature special custom blades, seemingly modelled after 18th century backswords or pallasches, as well as non-regulation symmetrical hilts.

One of this group (Wilkinson 23506) is in my possession and another one (Wilkinson 24205) I have now (April 2021) obtained new images of, thanks to Mr. Bob Hedger of Michael D Long Ltd. This latter sword was previously documented by me in an earlier version of this article in 2018.

The first of this group of swords to catch my attention (Wilkinson 24205), pictured below, came up in auction in 2014 and luckily Gordon Byrne (a fellow sword researcher) saved the photos from the auction listing and shared them with me. In April 2021 the same sword, now cleaned, appeared on the Michael D Long website, and I have included (with permission) some of those photos here also:
Every element of this sword is non-regulation and specially designed, having a double-fullered backsword-type blade, a so-called French pommel (instead of the more usual back piece found on most British swords of the period), a rare symmetrical 4-bar guard, and a grip which features a greater number of ridges and wire turns than is usual.

The grip and pommel are not so unusual, both being found on other Wilkinson special order swords of the period (I have a few examples of the French-style pommel cap in my own collection of Wilkinsons), and the symmetrical guard is occasionally found on other examples (though it is very rare). But the blade is highly unusual and as far as I currently know, is unique to this group. The combination of all these features together is unique to this group.

Turning to the Wilkinson proof book record for this sword, it records:
This is a copy of the Wilkinson blade proof record book page for 24205 and it shows that the blade was specifically of "C. J. M Pattern" and was 33 1/2 inches long by 1 1/8 inches wide. 

This is a relatively modest size for a cavalry officer's sword (which are typically 34.5 to 35.5 inches long and 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 inches wide), being of more typical size for an infantry officer's blade. In fact this particular sword has lost the very tip also, which has been reshaped, so it is now about an inch shorter (now around 32 inches) and the fuller runs out of the tip, which it would not have originally done. The sword in my possession (23506) pictured below shows how the tip would have originally appeared.

After again noting that the sword (the hilt as well as the blade) is of "C. J. M Pattern", it says "E. b. Lt Cavy". This is shorthand for 'Equi balanced light cavalry guard' - in other words, a symmetrically-barred guard. I discovered this terminology from a record we will look at below.

The 'embosser' (etching artist) was Rowe, whose name is found on hundreds of these records.

The buyer recorded appears to be Rolt Esq., which may or may not be John William Rolt of the Royal Gloucester Hussars (I doubt this, as the initials on the blade are H. R. or R. H. and the sword was sold in February, while John William Rolt was not commissioned until December 1881).

Unfortunately, these ledger entries were hand written hastily for internal reference and were never intended to be public records. Sometimes they are hard to decipher and very occasionally there are completely wrong! Nevertheless, they provide sword researchers with a hugely valuable and unique resource, unparalleled by any other sword making company. 

Having the symmetrical guard made this way not only adds to the protection offered to the inside of the hand, but also better balances the sword in the hand (hence the term 'equi balanced', which I have here uncovered). 

This is a feature that John Latham himself noted in his 1862 lecture on swords, where he noted (as had Colonel Marey-Monge before him) that asymmetrical hilts can lead to the sword turning in the hand during a cut (and therefore not cutting at all). Symmetry of mass, if not shape per se, was desirable in a sword for someone who really cared about the sword as an effective weapon. It was an inconvenience for wearing the sword, and came at an addition of weight and cost, which was why most regulation designs were not designed that way.
But what was the "C. J. M Pattern"? This was the start of the investigation, as no existing authority on swords, or prior written research, explained what the "C. J. M pattern" might refer to. I was starting almost from scratch.

The forte of the blade features two sets of initials on each side - C.J.M 1881 and what appears to be H.R. The sword was finished in February 1881. It was reasonable to assume at that point that C.J.M were the initials of a person, presumably related to the "C. J. M Pattern" and that the sword was ordered as a gift. The hunt to identify C. J. M. was on.

The next sword (Wilkinson 23506) in the group to come to light (pictured above) was in 2015 and happily I was able to add it to my collection in 2018, which motivated me to get to the bottom of the C. J. M mystery.

The hilt is the standard 1897 pattern for infantry officers, and not original to the blade. The sword was originally made and gifted in 1880, but in 1897 the then-owner elected to update the hilt to the new 1897 infantry pattern.

The blade, though not precisely the same as 24205, is extremely similar, being a double-fullered backsword blade with long double-edged spear tip. This blade has kept its original point and so shows us what 24205's blade would have originally looked like.

As with 24205,  this sword (23506) has two sets of initials, one on each side of the blade. The familiar C.J.M jumps straight out, with the prefix "From", showing that it was indeed a gift from them, in this case to "A.G".
The Wilkinson proof book page sheds more light on this sword and we're even lucky enough to get some notes about the exact blade design, which I can confirm do exactly match the surviving sword.

The purchaser is recorded as "Capt. Gordon". Interestingly there is no mention of C.J.M on this record, but that doesn't matter, because we have C.J.M on the blade.

Coupled with the previous sword, we know that this sword is related. We also know from the etching on the blade that Captain Gordon's first initial was A ("A. G") and that he must have held the rank of Captain, either in the regular Army or reserves, in 1880.

We cannot say with certainty that the Captain A. Gordon of 1880 was the same serving officer to update the blade with the new 1897 pattern hilt in 1897-1901 (the date of the hilt), but that potentially gives us another data point in the search. A lot of Captains who were serving in 1880 had left the Army before 1897.

Having spent many hours analysing the Army Lists, both for regular Army and volunteers, I consider the most likely candidate to be Alexander Evans Gordon of the Bengal Staff Corps and 12th Foot (first commissioned in 1865).

If Alexander Evans Gordon is our "A. G", then indeed it would have made sense for him to change his hilt in 1897 to the new infantry officer's pattern, both due to it meeting the new dress regulations better (though the previous hilt didn't at all meet dress regulations for an infantry officer), but also perhaps because it is simply a really good design for the hilt of a combat sword. In the 1895 Army List he is recorded as a 1st Grade Deputy Commissioner in Bengal, holding the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

Officers and men of the 15th Bengal Native Infantry in 1885:

The Wilkinson proof book tells us some details about the original hilt (before being replaced with the 1897 pattern hilt), as well as some very rare detailed drawings and description of the blade. I transcribe this as follows:

No. 23506 PROVED 3rd Feb 1880
[blade] 33 x 1 1/8 [inches]
Special [we know this to be the 'C. J. M pattern']
Mounted 20-02-1880
Equi balanced Lt [light] Cavalry [symmetrical in other words]
French ???? [back/neck?] checkered
Blade embossed 20/2/80 by Rowe
Sold to Capt Gordon

4 inch flat shoulder
a centre groove to point
& narrow groove under
back - ? back edge
17 inch point

[3 blade section labels]:
Shoulder
9 inches from shoulder
Point
This description seems to very closely match the hilt that we see on 24205 above. So we can conclude that prior to the replacement of the hilt on 23506 with the 1897 pattern, it would have looked extremely similar, practically identical, to 24205.

It is also worth noting that the 23506 record contains a precise detail which we do not see on the 24205 record, but which is on the 24205 sword - namely the checkering on the back of the French style pommel cap (shown below):

This data is extremely useful in explaining some of the terminology in each record, for example highlighting that "E. b. Lt Cav" refers to the "Equi balanced" light cavalry hilt, meaning the symmetrical guard bars on each side. Without cross-referencing the records like this, side by side with the surviving swords, it would be nigh impossible to make sense of some of this terminology and shorthand. 

The natural assumption from this hilt type would be that this sword was for a light cavalry or artillery officer, but in fact infantry officers in India did sometimes use cavalry styles of hilt (and even Highland infantry officers did sometimes), which they considered to offer better hand protection in an environment where they were more likely to get into close combat than a typical European officer.


In several period photos we can see officers of native infantry carrying swords with hilts that we normally associate with cavalry service. Of course it should also be mentioned that infantry officers might be spending considerable amounts of time on horseback anyway, which may or may not have played a part in their sword choices.

Given the detail by Wilkinson to put blade sectional diagrams and notes on their record for Gordon's sword No.23506 of 1880, we might speculate that this was the first blade made to order like this and so this was not yet known as the "C. J. M Pattern", while subsequent examples made would refer back to it. We know that this sword was given by "C. J. M" from the blade etching, after all. So far, no earlier example has come to light.


However, was this "C. J. M pattern" a blade, a hilt, or both? Or was it simply any sword designed by the mysterious "C. J. M"? This remains slightly obscure.


These two swords (23506 and 24205), by themselves, would probably not get us closer to who C. J. M was, but luckily other records and a final sword would fill in the missing pieces of the jigsaw.


The mysterious C. J. M revealed!

In the book 'Wilkinson Sword Patterns & Blade Rubs' by my acquaintance and legendary researcher Robert Wilkinson-Latham (also a descendant of John Latham, and former employee of the Wilkinson Sword Company), available through Pooley Sword, appears (p.16) a very particular sword numbered 16886, of non-regulation design, and dating to 1870 (ten years earlier than the previous swords discussed).


This sword was previously only known to researchers through this record from the Wilkinson Sword Company. However, in 2018 the actual sword itself came to light, having emerged in an auction in Norway. It is now in the possession of a fellow sword collector, who has kindly provided these photos below for this article.


Every part of the sword is non-regulation, having a symmetrical basket-hilt which is very clearly modelled on the 1788 pattern heavy cavalry sword hilt, a walnut chequered grip of a type associated with specially-order Indian service swords, and a blade which is based on the Highland officer's broadsword (known as claymore in this period) blade, but elongated and given a more acute point.


The pattern book drawings show that the hilt was originally fitted with a removable liner (and this is mentioned in the proof book), which filled the gaps between the lateral bars and tied, like a Highland claymore hilt, near the pommel.

This sword was purchased in 1870 by Captain Francis Dempster Hawkins of the Bengal Staff Corps, who was then in command of the 4th Punjab Cavalry (research credit to Dr. Jordan Pryce Lewis and Gordon Byrne on Swordforum International).


A postcard of the 4th Punjab Cavalry in 1855, by William Carpenter:

Also on the records (both the sales ledger and the pattern book) another person is mentioned - "C. J. Mitchell Esq, friend".


Furthermore, the Wilkinson records refer to 'C. J. Mitchell's pattern'.


So, our C. J. M was Mitchell! - he had been right there, hiding in plain sight all along. It seems that Mitchell was designing swords, and in some cases giving them as gifts, at least between 1870 and 1881 (though his involvement with Wilkinson seems to have been longer than that).

The Wilkinson proof book entry reads (my transcription, as best I can manage):


No. 16886 PROVED 14th June 1870

[Blade] 35 1/2 x 1 1/16 [inches]

Straight Claymore Pattern [blade]

Mounted 21-9-1870

See pattern books [vertical note with two hilt drawings)

Special Highland 1/2 basket hilted sword [hilt]

"C. J. Mitchel's" pattern with hilt lining.

3 part steel furniture wood scabbard covered with leather

& spare 2 part ditto

Sold to Captain Hawkins B.S.C [Bengal Staff Corps]

C. J. Mitchell Esq's friend


Robert Willkinson-Latham adds the footnote in 'Wilkinson Sword Patterns & Blade Rubs':


"C. J. Mitchell was an agent and customer of Wilkinsons and made numerous purchases etc., his name appearing on many a Proof Book stub. He was also a good friend to Wilkinsons and John Latham, loaning money to the company at various times in the period 1865 to 1885."


Our C. J. Mitchell was heavily involved with Wilkinsons, designing special swords, giving them as gifts, as well as being a friend to John Latham and, as it transpires, preventing the company from collapsing.


Turning to one of Robert Wilkinson-Latham's other books, 'Mr Wilkinson of Pall Mall, Volume One 1772-1899" (available through Pooley Sword), we can see various correspondences between John Latham and C. J. Mitchell and we find out that in February 1880 it was C. J. Mitchell's financial assistance that essentially saved the company when it was on the brink of financial ruin, due to the stipulations put in place on the company finances by Henry Wilkinson before his death.


Finally, in one reference we see Mitchell's full name given as Charles James Mitchell.


With this information I started my search, to see if as well as pulling these strands together I could add some new research. I can now for the first time give some more information about Mitchell himself for future researchers:




Charles James Mitchell

Charles James Mitchell, Esq, was born in 1815, the son of Peter Mitchell, Esq. and Sarah Mitchell, of Camberwell. He worked as a stock broker at the London Stock Exchange and clearly became very wealthy. He came to reside at 90 Queen's Gate, South Kensington, London.

As well as being financially successful, he obviously had an interest in the military and in October 1852 became a Lieutenant in the Royal London Regiment of Militia.

On 27 December 1855, Mitchell married at St. Pancras, Louisa Harriett, the second daughter of Reverend Edward Osborn, the Vicar of Asheldam in Essex.


In May 1860, Mitchell chose to resign from the Royal London Militia, in order to become an Ensign in Queen Victoria's Rifles. The Victoria Rifles, raised in 1860 and associated with the King's Royal Rifle Corps, were one of the first and most senior branches of the new Rifle Volunteer movement, which had started in 1859/1860.


Rifle Volunteers were generally considered as more elite than the militias - they had newer rifled firearms and uniforms based on those of the Rifle Brigade and King's Royal Rifle Corps, who were considered as elite infantry forces of their time.


In this context, Mitchell's decision to give up a higher rank in the militia, in order to join at the lowest officer rank in the Victoria Rifles, makes sense.

The Volunteer Rifles movement had exploded in 1859/1860 due to a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of invasion from France and the beginning of a period of reform in the British armed forces, in the wake of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny. One of the first officers of the Victoria Rifles was Captain Hans Busk, who had been a key lobbyer in encouraging the Government to raise the Volunteer Force.


In September 1863, Mitchell was promoted to Lieutenant in Queen Victoria's Rifles and in August 1864 he was promoted to Captain, as reported in the Army and Navy Gazette:



A contemporary officer in Queen Victoria's Rifles of 1862:

We know from the Wilkinson records, that during the period 1865-1884, Mitchell continued his financial business and provided financial support to John Latham and the Wilkinson company even after John Latham's death in December 1880.


It is also evident that Mitchell was designing, ordering and gifting swords to military officers during this period.


Some recipients of Mitchell's swords were probably family or friends, perhaps some were the sons of business associates or clients. It is easy to imagine how someone involved with finance, moving in his social circles, being enthusiastically involved with the Wilkinson company and also in the Volunteer movement, probably had any number of reasons to be giving swords as gifts.


Charles James Mitchell died on 14 April 1884 at 90 Queen's Gate, aged 69.


He left a widow, Louisa Harriett Mitchell, who herself died on 8 July 1887, also at 90 Queen's Gate.


Some other family notes:

  • Father: Peter Mitchell, Esq., North Terrace, Camberwell, d. 27 Oct 1850 (age 81)
  • Mother: Sarah Mitchell, North Terrace, Camberwell, d. 10 April 1863
  • Only Sister: Anna Mitchell, North Terrace, Camberwell, d. 12 July 1876
  • Eldest Brother: Peter Stanton Mitchell (b. 26 Dec 1805, d. 21 Aug 1879) - m1. Ellen (d. 7 Jan 1855, daughter of Stephen N Barber Esq, of Denmark Hill, Surrey), m2. Sophy (m. 18 June 1856, second daughter of Charles Edward Waller, Esq. of the Bank of England) - Resident of Clapham Park/Upper Clapton and later 100 Marina, St. Leonard's, engaged in charitable causes.
  • Son: Percy Mitchell of The Hall, Cranford, Northamptonshire, died age 39 on 17 December 1902, in Harbledown, Kent. Percy also held estates at Massbrook, County Mayo. He was J.P. High Sheriff of Northamptonshire from 1896.

Another curious feature on my own example (23506) appears in the decorative etching on the blade. There are no monarch's cypher or other usual symbols, but instead there appears a phoenix and an urn full of fruit on both sides of the blade (shown below).

My first thought was that these might relate to the crests of the giver and receiver, and indeed it does seem that there are phoenix crests associated with the Mitchell name. I have not however been able to establish what the urn represents, if anything. Perhaps it is simply alluding to the giving of a gift, or perhaps it has some specific personal reference. This aspect of my research requires some further work.


Conclusion


Hopefully with time we will find out more about Charles James Mitchell and, if we are lucky, some more of the swords associated with him will come to light. I feel that with his long association and keen interest, there must be others of his swords surviving out there.


It remains an open question as to what exactly the 'C. J. Mitchell pattern' was. Was it a type of blade, a type of hilt, the combination of a set of features, or was it simply any sword which he designed to give someone? Was it perhaps an evolving thing, and what Wilkinsons considered his pattern in 1870 was not the same as in 1881, after a series of developments?


It seems that in 1881 the Rolt sword more or less emulated the design set out in 1880 with the Gordon sword. But the earlier 1870 Hawkins sword is quite different, having an archaic 1788 pattern guard, a totally bespoke modern grip and distinct pommel, and a blade rather more like a contemporary claymore, but stretched into rapier-like proportions.


Despite the variations however, there are some common features, which tell us quite a bit about Mitchell's opinions on swords.


Clearly, he preferred straight blades with good thrusting capacity and spear-points. While not being entirely dedicated thrusting blades and retaining a reasonably good cutting ability, these were good tried and tested cut and thrust blade designs of the previous two centuries. Clearly, he liked double-edged points, either to make thrusting more effective or perhaps to increase the use of false-edge cuts.


Mitchell seems to have had a real penchant for swords which harked back to 18th century models. We should remember that he was born in 1815 and in his childhood 18th century swords were probably still around in abundance. Perhaps his father or grandfather had a favourite basket-hilted broadsword or backsword and this made an impression on him. With links to estates in Ireland, perhaps he grew up around antique swords and was inspired by them.


Notably, it is clear that Mitchell thought that guards should be symmetrical and very protective. The 1870 Hawkins sword, as well as being modelled on the 1788 basket guard, was even equipped with a leather liner originally, like a Highland officer's broadsword. For service in India this made a lot of sense and numerous authorities on swords and swordsmanship had spoken of the virtues of basket hilts.


The drawback of conventional Highland basket hilts was a degree of restriction to the hand (caused by the side bars joining the pommel), but Mitchell's designs that we can see here all avoid that issue, by having only one junction between the basket and the pommel (at the front knucklebow). Mitchell clearly had strong ideas and was well informed on sword design and use.


Having the side bars connecting to the front (knucklebow) of the guard leaves great grip mobility and means that the sword can still be used like a conventional sabre of the day.


It is also entirely possible that his views on symmetrical guards were related to cutting mechanics, as extolled by John Latham and Colonel Marey-Monge, as much as protectiveness.


The hunt for more information, both on Mitchell and his sword designs, continues.






Special thanks to Dr. Jordan Pryce Lewis and Gordon Byrne for sharing their resources, and to Bob Hedger of Michael D Long Ltd for allowing me to use his photos here.


Copyright Matt Easton 2021