Visiting the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A, which was known as the South Kensington Museum prior to 1899) recently I was interested to see a drawing of a Metropolitan (Met) Police Constable on duty in the Prince Consort Gallery. A notice nearby says it was made in about 1876 by John Watts.

This is about eighteen years since the Museum opened and a year after a Home Dept letter about Local Constables in London said there are about 540 including "some at the South Kensington museums". To be exact, Policemen at the V&A were regular Met employees and not Local Constables.

Before the Museum opened in 1857 the first Director, Henry Cole, had seen officers and men of the Royal Engineers at the Great Exhibition. Impressed by their efficiency he employed a small corp of officers and men from the first day.

On the 8th November 1858 however custody of the Museum was transferred to the Met "who continued to work at the Museum into the next century".

Writing about these men it was later said:

In the case of the V&A a description of a Museum Constable occurs in H G Wells novel "Love and Mr Lewisham". Wells studied science at premises near the Museum in 1884 and obviously visited the galleries.

The relevant passage describes a "portly museum policeman" who had been watching while Lewisham was studying a picture. Later Lewisham leaves the room and the Policeman "after some pensive moments strolled along down the gallery and came to a stop opposite the same picture".

A description as portly does not match the 1876 drawing but is perhaps a hint about some of the men on duty. Permanent posting to a duty indoors may have been given to long serving men with good records as a less onerous pre-retirement option. Constable Thomas Ansell for example who was there in 1901 was 56.

Elsewhere in the same book Wells mentions "the extinguishing policeman" at the Normal School of Science, (later the Royal College of Science) where he studied, "who came to the laboratory at 5" to turn out the lights.

Records about Police at the V&A from 1865 refer mostly to discussions about money between the Met, Treasury and the Science and Art Dept who were responsible for the Museum. Quite frequently the Treasury asks questions about the numbers of Policemen employed. Invariably the Commissioner or Museum management justify the situation as essential for security of the collections but they give a hint about long term changes.

In April 1865 the Museum Constables were aggrieved when they discovered their pay - 21/- per week was lagging by 2/- (10p) a week behind those on street duty.

Arrangements for policing were formalised by agreement with the Commissioner and these provide details of how many were at the Museum.

The amount of money involved increased as more Police were employed and in fact doubly so as Police pay rates increased.

For the V&A this gave a projected cost for 1878 of £7,406 6s 4d with another £2,168 for Bethnal Green.

On a lighter note, also in 1878 application was made, and approved, to purchase fifty-one pairs of slippers for three Sergeants and forty-eight Constables:

I was asked if these were "tartan or fluffy?" but the purchase order has not been kept.

The number of men increased year by year and this seems to have become a matter of concern to the Treasury.

In 1889 and 1897, Regulations and Instructions for Police Employed at the South Kensington Museum were printed. These include rules forbidding idling and gossiping on duty, an eight-hour shift pattern, actions to be taken in the event of fire and a requirement to parade at Walton Street twenty minutes before duty commenced. Beats inside the buildings were described in detail and "Tell Tale" clocks to be used by the patrolling Constable every hour were installed. Duties were arranged to provide twenty-four hour cover but fewer men were on night duty - 1 sergeant (of 3) and 17 (of 64), for example, on night duty in 1904.

Of these 109 men, two Sergeants and twenty Constables were not required on Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day. This was a significant point as payment by the Museum to the Commissioner was for actual time worked and not a fixed fee.

1909 was the year when the present building was opened and in December Sir Edward Henry of the Met wrote to the V&A to suggest "the whole matter of police warding be discussed" - and it was agreed to meet on 17th December 1909. At this meeting Sir Edward Henry said in respect of men at the Museum "no reduction could be made unless the hours are shortened during which the museum is open". In addition he thought "the Force must consist of police alone and not an a mixture of police with Commissionaires or others". At the same time the ex-Constables were mentioned who, for admin purposes, are under the control of the Inspector of Police.

In January 1910, the V&A discussed with the Treasury the annual estimates of Museum costs and emphasised - not for the first time - it was unfair to be compared with the British Museum (BM). Included in the argument was intersection of the premises by roads, having 142 public rooms, (48 at the BM) and 400,000 sq ft (BM - 240,000) of floor space. This did not make much difference though as, on 28th Feb 1910, the Treasury said "with respect to the police estimate the proposed expenditure (£16,600) appears to be excessive".

In the same month the Museum Police Inspector, G Bonnyman, asked about a pay increase as the new premises were much larger. However, he was told this was a matter for the Commissioner. On 2nd June 1910 the position was upgraded to Sub Divisional Inspector at an extra 1/10d per day.

Discussions between the Museum and Treasury continued. On 28th March 1910 - V&A to the Treasury implied the number of police was a matter for the Commissioner - "responsibility for the sums named is his and does not rest with the board".

Putting this subject aside for a moment, the question of saluting arose early in 1910. A senior member of staff raised with Superintendent Isaac at Walton Street impertinence by a Constable and guidance was sought on who was entitled to a salute. In the end this was not defined but it was suggested PC B472 was moved to ordinary duty.

On 13th May 1910 the Treasury replied to the V&A:

About a month later the V&A in a letter to the Treasury were "sticking to their guns" They were still in favour of "all police" and did not want "mixed responsibility". They believed they had two alternatives - "ask the police to do the work or organise a lay staff for the purpose". This had a significant rider - "to adopt the alternative (lay staff) would be to court disaster in a matter of national importance". "The Board could not face so grave a risk and entrusted full responsibility to the police". They then attempted to shift the problem to the Met by suggesting the matter be addressed to the Commissioner.

In August the Treasury again suggested a mixed force of fifty Policemen and sixty-seven Commissionaires pointing out similar arrangements at the British Museum. Again the Museum produced reasons to keep 'their' Policemen including the need for a power of arrest and thus "a sprinkling of police". Internal papers went as far as to say in the event of any theft the Director would be prepared to say he'd been forced to cut Police numbers by the Treasury.

More unwelcome news came on 15th Nov 1910 when new costs for Police were sent to the Museum. This was a result of Police being granted a weekly rest day and the cost estimate increased by £771 5s 4d per annum.

In early 1911, Sir Edward Henry said the police would accept no responsibility unless they had sole charge but "in general Sir Edward appeared to be quite indifferent on the point whether the police should be employed or not". "They have quite sufficient work to do". One view of the police policy was a tendency to aim for the utmost degree of safety irrespective of cost and completely incompatible with Treasury policy. Regardless of the stated preference for having Policemen steps were being made towards using their own staff of labourers for 'warding' duties. Exactly how and when this might happen was being discussed.

On 19th May 1911 after mentioning tasks like moving exhibits and cleaning someone said:

About this time discussions moved from the Treasury and senior staff from the Museum attended a Cabinet Committee on Estimates meeting. As an outcome from this an internal note says: "the police are to be reduced and we are to arrange something in this way immediately".

The Museum view on the question of employing warders included the following "there would be advantages in employing men directly under the control of the museum from the best class of old soldiers, ex navy men and pensioner policemen". Projected cost of new arrangements with forty-eight new warders was £16,448, a saving of about £4,000 per annum. In this scheme preference was given to existing permanent employees on a fixed wage in the 26/- to 31/- range. The existing arrangement with eight Commissionaires continued. Some of the savings in pay would be offset by costs of new window bars and shutters but only as a "one-off" amount of £1,200. Another meeting with Sir Edward Henry was discussed but this was declined as policing the Coronation took priority.

On 7th June 1911 the proposed V&A scheme was submitted to the Treasury. Even at this stage there was a final attempt at continuing as before:

Once the detail was worked out it was found seventy warders were needed working in four groups of seventeen at 31/- per week (supervisor) or 25/- per week with two 'spare' to cover absences. Police numbers came down from 109 to forty-nine. If approved the new arrangements were to start on 1st July 1911 with a two week transition provisionally agreed with the Met. The Treasury reply was dated 13th June 1911, the scheme was approved and they added the official nod for the cost of new shutters. In August new agreements with the Met were signed for the V&A and Bethnal Green - three Sergeants and two Constables.

Security at museums was mentioned in the Evening News of 2nd August 1911 following a theft at the Louvre. A correspondent who visited mentioned the new arrangements at the V&A and the difficulty of covering three miles of corridor. The officials he met were alert and attentive with a Policeman and two warders at the turnstile. In his view the chance of a thief escaping was impossible.

Initially Police and warders patrolled together but on 12 Sept 1911 Sir Edward Henry contacted the Museum authorities:

Internal notes made before a reply was sent mention the need to be very tactful. From their point of view they found some Constables did not like being with the new warders. Also, perhaps inevitably, the Constables were unhappy to think their job at the Museum might cease just before they retired. At about this time the possibility of enrolling men as Special Constables arose. Whoever replied said this had been considered at the time of the 1911 "strike riots" in August. He still had some oak batons and white armbands just over an inch wide marked "A & S D". (Art and Science Dept). This topic then "died a death".

Word of the changes spread beyond the Museum and was mentioned in two Parliamentary questions. On 30th June 1911 - is it proposed to employ attendants instead of police at the V&A? Reply - changes to a mixed force were for reasons of economy. Another at the end of July asked if Police had been replaced by 'porters' and if so will men moved to ordinary duty suffer any reduction in pay? (All paraphrased).

On 28th October 1911 the subject of police and warders patrolling together was reconsidered. Twice as much space could be covered by men working alone. Also when patrol routes and points were arranged supervisors should avoid places where two men could meet, stand and start conversations.

An internal document of 13th November 1911 mentions every part of the premises being checked twice per night. Inspector Bonnyman suggested some changes which would increase checks to three per night. The final comment on the document is "Mixed plan is working and should not be upset".

Cost figures for 1911 - 1912 and the estimate for 1912 - 1913 were £16,600 and £8,515. Exactly what the Treasury had been seeking.

In late 1911 the V&A was warned about the risk of attack by Suffragettes and all their warders were told to immediately detain anyone damaging exhibits. This cleared up earlier uncertainty about whether only the Police had the right to tackle criminals directly. Unofficially it was said a complaint about improper arrest would be easier to handle than questions about half hearted security. Fortunately the Treasury agreed to pay the cost of temporary employment of plain clothes police at South Kensington and Bethnal Green. Initially this was for three months but was extended until 31st March 1914. The only 'incident' was finding "Votes for Women" scratched in a handrail.

Sir Edward Henry wrote to the Directors on 31st January 1913. He said protection at night relying on the mixed force was unsatisfactory. "A dual control…lacks harmony…place both in a difficult position…might have serious consequences". He then suggested "advantage to all concerned if police were withdrawn from inside". Needless to say the Museum authorities did not like this idea and delayed their reply. The Met sent a 'reminder' letter in June and an internal note is on the lines of "this won’t go away" but "it is well worth trying the plan of working solely inside at night with warders". The Met wrote for the third time in October and the V&A replied in November - they did not think arrangements were unsatisfactory and wanted the trial to continue.

The start of war in 1914 brought new challenges for men at the Museum and detailed instructions were issued about air raid warnings and Zeppelin raids. In October 1917 the Policemen were issued with steel helmets.

In 1916, the Treasury urged the V&A to reduce expenditure, specifically at Bethnal Green. "No police should be needed to guard the building except during absence of the Resident Officer or his substitute. …the increased cost of police over which they have no control is…a reason why alternative methods of guarding should be carefully considered." At the same time Inspector Bonnyman suggested single patrols instead of a Constable and warder or attendant together. This would stop the men chatting and double the coverage on each shift.

In it's correspondence with the V&A dated 6th November 1916, the Treasury suggested enrolling the attendants as Special Constables. Internal correspondence on this was very much against the idea although it was looked at in some detail. Essentially it was thought the Treasury had no idea of the complications. Four hour tours of duty as Specials on top of a day's work was too much for anyone. They would need 434 volunteers to replace the existing staff and, simply put, the manpower demands of war made it impossible to enrol so many. New recruits would have to learn all the beats, they'd have no knowledge of local thieves and finally "regular police impress disorderly people as no other can". Fortunately the matter was dropped.

In 1916, five years since the major changes of 1911 (warden / attendants instead of Constables), there was an internal review. Included in this was a comparison with The National Gallery, British Museum and the Wallace Collection. The common feature was a trend towards replacing Police with wardens or attendants. It appears the V&A accepted the inevitable and justifying the expense of having "their own constables" lapsed.

Early in March 1917, the Met wrote to the V&A to say they would be reducing the Museum Police by one Inspector and twenty Constables. This was to take place by the 22nd or 29th April - but with a promise to reconsider it after the War. There was no suggestion in the Met's letter about this being discussed. This brought the numbers down to three Sergeants and twenty Constables.

About a year later - 25th April 1918 the Met wrote again. They were being pressed to provide men for the military and could only do so by reducing the numbers on special duties. They requested the earliest possible arrangements to dispense with their services. At the time there were seven Constables inside, two outside and three Sergeants. The V&A managed to retain three Constables for "special duty (possibly plain clothes) when the museum is open" but the rest were moved. They replaced these with six doorkeepers (some were ex-Police) at 28/- to 31/- per week and perhaps importantly the Treasury agreed in July without a lengthy debate. Inspector Bonnyman continued in a similar role but his duties now included supervision of men at the Science Museum and the Museum of Practical Geology.

At the same time there were four Constables who did duties at Bethnal Green "in their own time" for 5/- a day. These duties were however only on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day. This arrangement was set out in a formal Special Service agreement but seems to have escaped the Treasury's notice.

By this time very few Constables remained at the museums and are rarely mentioned in the archives. Thefts were listed in one report - there had been four since 1911. In 1914 a pewter plate was reported stolen but was found. In the most recent a student had hidden some etchings under his cape. He was caught and given twelve months.

The final references to V&A Policeman are in 1922 when 'strength' was reduced by two and by year 1923/4 when it was nil. This is in an internal file where someone has calculated costs at 1923 pay rates and 1910 Police numbers - £51,724. Enough to make the Treasury civil servants die of shock.

In addition to men of the Met, Police pensioners were also employed. A list of 121 hourly paid staff in 1891 at South Kensington and Bethnal Green branch of the V&A has the following names with a note "Ex PC".

In summary, 29 of the 121 hourly paid employees - a significant proportion of the security and public facing employees were Police pensioners. Whether these men had moved 'sideways' from working as Constables at the Museum to ex-Police roles is unclear. Application for these posts at the V&A was possible following discussion between the Museum, the Treasury and the Science and Arts Dept.

Letter of 17 December 1872 from the Dept of Science and Art to the Treasury (paraphrased):

In reply the Secretary of the Treasury said in a letter of 13 February 1874 -

This was announced in the London Gazette of 17 February 1874.

Pay for the attendants then amounted to £60 per annum on a scale rising by £2 2s (£2•10) per year to a maximum of £100 per annum with uniform provided. The annual rate was equal to 10d per hour (assuming an eight hour day) and the annual increase equal to a quarter of a penny per hour. (=1/960th of a £). This meagre amount was mentioned by employees in evidence to the Royal Commission on Civil Service in 1910 :

For the pensioned ex-Constables mediocre pay was offset by their Police pension. On the other hand their positions at the Museum were non-pensionable.

Applicants for work as Doorkeepers and Attendants (including ex-Police) had to pass a Civil Service examination including writing, copying, spelling and arithmetic. The fee for this - not refundable - was 2/6d.

Most of the Doorkeepers and Attendants were employed at South Kensington but some were at Bethnal Green. In a letter dated 6 March 1899 the writer mentions the need for police:

On a few occasions staff from the V&A went to the Geological Museum, the Normal School of Science or the National Art Training School. These were nearby and under the auspices of the Art and Science Dept.

In a letter to the Treasury dated 26 February 1894 an overall view of the standard of ex-Police staff was provided:

In 1910 a letter to the Board of Education raised the subject of four 'detectives' who served at the Museum:

The writer then says he has no wish to compel them to go at short notice but does mention checking the situation with the Inspector of Police who was in charge of all the Constables at the Museum. The letter continues with suggestions about finding something else appropriate for them in Whitehall but the writer concludes "if we cannot find work for them I am afraid they will have to go as we would hardly be justified in keeping men whose services are not in the least justified". For the 'Detectives' therefore it looked like the end of a good run but beyond this letter the trail goes cold.