Summary

A ceremonial sword and scabbard of the shamshir type (meaning lion’s claw or tail in Persian), which probably dates from the eighteenth century. The sword has a curved, plain, watered steel blade with a single cutting edge and a tubular, pistol-shaped hilt with an inverted L-shaped pommel in the form of a chased silver tiger’s head. A silver ring in the tiger’s mouth possibly once connected to a decorative feature, such as a chain. Turquoise stones are set in the tiger’s eyes and ears. A large stone that was once set on top of the tiger’s head, between the ears, is missing. A small circular ‘collar’ of turquoise and red stones, that are a combination of rubies and garnets, some of which are missing, joins the pommel and the hilt. The turquoise used throughout the object is likely to be Persian in origin and was a highly prized stone. The hilt is made of raised sheets of matted silver and decorated with flower shaped motifs and wavy lines of turquoise stones set in applied tubular silver settings. A diamond shaped plate at the base of the hilt forms the quillon. This is decorated with a central ‘flower’ with a mixture of ruby and garnet faceted stones, one of which is missing, and a central turquoise cabochon stone. Variation in the colour of the turquoise stones is due to natural discolouration. Foil backing is evident where the ruby and garnet stones are missing – a technique that was designed to make the stones sparkle and was popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The lower points of the hilt's diamond shaped plate form the langet. Chased silver tiger head finials sit on either side, which are smaller versions of the tiger’s head forming the pommel. Collars separate the finials from the diamond shaped plate and contain turquoise stones and a combination of rubies and garnets, many of which are missing on the finial on the lower side of the hilt. The scabbard is decorated all-over with turquoise stones in applied tubular silver settings laid on a background of sections of matted silver. The floral decoration is more loosely styled than on the hilt. Two pierced silver hanging mounts are fixed to the top edge of the scabbard. These possibly held a sash on which the sword was carried. Beneath each mount is an oval shaped decorative section containing turquoise and a combination of ruby and garnet stones. A silver hanging buckle is mounted on one side of the scabbard. At the top of the scabbard, at the junction with the langet, one side is unadorned silver, and the other side has two kidney shapes and two lines chased or stamped into the metal. These are possibly a maker's mark. A hardwood sheath sits inside the scabbard. Stones that are missing from the hilt and the scabbard are the result of time and usage. The sword and scabbard are shown in a nineteenth century display case. The base of the case is giltwood on bun feet, with a mirrored inset and a red velvet surround. Two shaped padded supports covered in silk (which is degraded) are bolted through the glass with four giltwood tiger head finals, which are based on the tiger’s head pommel of the sword. A bonded protective glass cover was added in 1961.

Full description

In Memoirs of the Lucys of Charlecote, written by Mary Elizabeth Lucy (1803-1890) in 1860, she recalls: ‘When the city of Lucknow was taken Pawlett got possession of the King of Lucknow’s dress sword, the most beautiful thing. The sheath an entire mass of turquoise and rubies, which he wore on state occasions. It was taken out of the Kaiser Bagh [Qaisarbagh] in March 1858 and it is now under a glass case in the Drawing Room, a present from Pawlett to Spencer’. [1] Henry Spencer Lucy (1830-1890) was the son of George Hammond (1789-1845) and Mary Elizabeth Lucy and he inherited Charlecote Park in 1847, after the death of his brother, William Fulke (1824-1847). Charles Powlett Lane (1826-1910) [2] joined the military in 1846 and spent much of his career in India, rising through the ranks to become Major General, Colonel of the 21st Regiment of Hussars. On 2 September 1857 he married Henry Spencer Lucy’s sister, Caroline (1828-1864), who was known as Carry, at Charlecote Parish Church. Their wedding certificate records his profession and rank as ‘Captain in the Bengal Cavalry’ and six weeks after their marriage ‘…he was obliged to join his regiment in India at the beginning of that fearful mutiny and war’.[3] The Indian Rebellion [4] was a watershed time for the British Empire in India and began when a group of sepoys, Indian infantrymen serving with the East India Company, were court-marshalled for refusing to use gun cartridges that were rumoured to be greased with animal fat and, as such, was abhorrent to soldiers of the Hindu and Muslim faiths. This gave rise to further and widespread unrest in Delhi, Agra, Kanpur and Lucknow, as sections of the Indian population began to rebel against the westernising policies of the East India Company. Lucknow was the capital of the kingdom of Awadh [5] and the seat of ‘the last king in India’ [6], Wajid Ali Shah (1822-1887). In February 1856, the kingdom was annexed by the British, on the grounds of alleged internal misrule, and Wajid Ali Shah was exiled to Calcutta. This was another catalyst for the Rebellion. By June 1857, the British authorities in Lucknow had retreated from the unrest into the Residency – a complex of buildings that served as the residence of the British Commissioner, Sir Henry Lawrence (1806-1857). An army, led by Sir Henry Havelock (1795-1857), was brought together and after two heavily engaged rescue attempts, they reached the Residency. It was evacuated in November 1857, leaving ‘…scarcely a square foot of if…not perforated with round-shot and shell’. [7] The rebels continued to hold Lucknow, but the British forces returned and took control of the city in March 1858. Captain Powlett Lane’s military record states that he was involved in the ‘Indian Mutiny campaign of 1858, including the siege and capture of Lucknow…’[8], and a letter sent by him in March 1858 records him as being ‘In Military Charge of 2d Brigade, 2d Division, Goorkha Force’. [9] During the Indian Rebellion, the help of Gurkha troops was provided to the British by the ruler of Nepal, Jung Bahadur (1817-1877), and his soldiers are recorded as being present, among other forces, at the frenzied raid on the Qaisarbagh [10] in Lucknow – a large palace complex built by Wajid Ali Shah. ‘Enormous quantities of plunder’ [11] were taken during the raid. Some of this was removed by British Army prize agents who were employed to collect goods as official ‘prizes of war’; the proceeds of which were later split between the troops who took part. This was known as The Lucknow Prize and as ‘British officers who were temporarily attached to the Goorkha force’ [12] were entitled to a share of this, it is likely that Powlett Lane was included in its distribution, but no record has been found confirming what he officially received. Government reports record that …’gold, jewels, shawls, dresses &c’ [13] were collected by prize agents from the royal palaces in Lucknow. Outside the prize system, taking objects from the scene of a conflict was not officially sanctioned, but there are numerous contemporary accounts of soldiers removing property from the royal palaces such as ‘caskets of jewels…and wooden boxes full of arms crusted with gold and precious stones’, and it was common that a place was ‘…looted first and drained by the prize agents afterwards’ and that this was ‘certainly the case at Lucknow’. [14] In July 1858, Powlett Lane was promoted to the rank of Brevet Major. He returned to Britain and his mother-in-law noted that he was not only ‘in perfect health and without a wound’ but that he also ‘kindly brought me five pearls, they were part of the loot taken at Lucknow’. [15] It, therefore, seems likely that Powlett Lane gave the sword to Henry Spencer Lucy at the same time and that his military career in India does explain the presence of this sword at Charlecote Park. Notes [1] Lucy, Mary Elizabeth, NT 3069122, Memoirs of the the Lucys of Charlecote, 1860, p. 117. [2] Some documents cite the name as Pawlett Lane, including in his mother-in-law’s memoirs and the first National Trust inventory compiled in 1946. [3] Lucy, Mary Elizabeth, Mistress of Charlecote, The Memoirs of Mary Elizabeth Lucy 1803-1889, Orion, 1985, p. 108. [4] The Indian Rebellion has also been called The Indian Mutiny and The Sepoy Mutiny, butthe term ‘mutiny’ is inadequate as it implies that only soldiers were involved, and the unrest was in fact more widespread. The conflict is also referred to as The Great Rebellion and The First War of Independence. [5] Alternative spellings were Oudh or Oude. Present-day spellings vary between Awadh and Avadh. [6] ‘The Last King of India’ is the title of a book about Wajid Ali Shah by Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, Hurst & Co, 2014. [7] The Life and Opinions of Major General Charles Metcalfe MacGregor, 1888, p. 78 https://electricscotland.com/history/scotreg/lifeopinionsofm01macg1.pdf [8] Hart’s Army List, 1870, p. 149, https://digital.nls.uk/british-military-lists/archive/104513762?mode=transcription, [9] Powlett Lane, Charles, ‘Despatch letter from Charles Powlett Lane to Captain Plowden’, Edinburgh Gazette, March 1858, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/Edinburgh/issue/6805/page/977/data.pdf [10] The palace is also referred to as the Qaiserbagh, Kaisarbagh and Kaiserbagh. [11] Aberigh-Mackay, James, From London to Lucknow, 1860, p. 441. [12] Letter from the Under Secretary of State of India, to the Secretary, Treasury, 27 March 1860. Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons, Vol. 50, p. 507. [13] Letter from the Under Secretary of State of India, to the Secretary, Treasury, 10 February 1860. Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons, Vol. 50, p. 437 [14] Campbell, George, Memoirs of my Indian Career, 1893, p. 6. [15] Lucy, Mary Elizabeth, Mistress of Charlecote, The Memoirs of Mary Elizabeth Lucy 1803-1889, Orion, 1985, p. 108.