Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the
Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its Collection
(1852 – 1932)
Ann Eatwell
‘The Loan Court still contains certain important loans occupying in each instance a number
of cases with more or less similar objects. But I have always felt that the whole policy of
extensive loans belongs rather to the earlier stages in a museum’s history, and of late years we
have been extremely chary of accepting fresh loans except in cases where the loan was
believed to be a preliminary stage towards a gift or bequest.’ 2
In 1932, apparently responding to the need for greater space for the permanent collections,
the Director of the V&A, Sir Eric Maclagan, circulated a memorandum, which suggested
disbanding the dedicated loans gallery. He stated that seeking loans was a phenomenon
common to the first phase in a museum’s history. Judging by the experience of the V&A that
statement would appear to be true. Loans had held a central position in the Museum’s display
strategy for the first eighty years of its existence. However, none of the public bodies set up as
repositories of art and antiquities in England before this Museum appear to have had an
interest in loans. In the early years of the British Museum (1753), the National Gallery (1824)
and the Museum of Practical Geology (1835) purchase, gift and bequest were almost
exclusively the sources of display material growth. The only loan held by the British Museum
throughout the nineteenth century was the Portland Va se. 3 The institutionalising of a public
system for loans from collectors must be considered to be the innovation of the Victoria and
Albert Museum.
Recent publications which specifically discuss the role of the V&A and its impact on the art
world have largely ignored this innovation. 4 The nature of the subject appears to be naturally
elusive due to the perceived difficulty of reconstructing the type and pattern of loaned
material but good records do exist. These give facts and figures which can reveal t he scale of
the activity. From the late 1860s to the early 1880s, in numerical terms, loans consistently
accounted for about one third of the gallery displays of the art collections 5 . In 1879, the
largest number of loan items was recorded at 18,866 from 4 37 lenders at a time when the
Museum owned only 30,441 objects. 6 Furthermore, some of these acquisitions would have
spent lengthy periods of time away from the Museum. In 1871 over 4,000 objects were lent out
to schools of art and colleges, considerably r educing the number of art objects owned by the
Museum that would have been on view at any given period. The scheme of lending from the
institution was, with the encouragement of loans in, part of the same plan of the early
administrators to expand their ac tivities and influence beyond the physical confines of the
actual museum building. They also hoped to spread their own ideas for creating lively
displays, by promoting local lending at regional centres, to assist in the formation of
museums 7 . Archive documents can also provide details of the collectors and the objects on
loan. In some cases photographs of loans exist and records can help identify which loans
became gifts, bequests or purchases. There is plenty of material evidence that loans and their
lenders helped to create the collections of the V&A. 8 The historical significance of the
loaning process which determined the perception of the Museum as well as its collections must
be explored to understand how the institution evolved, the full range of it s influence and how
it differed from comparable organisations.
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
The addition of loans to the newly opened rooms at Marlborough House, which were lent to
the Department of Practical Art to accommodate the Museum and Government School of
Design, was the first stage of the innovatory process. Borrowing from his friends amongst the
growing fraternity of collectors, dealers and manufacturers interested in historic art objects,
Henry Cole, the first Director, (fig. 2) used loans to round out the small collection which
formed the nucleus of the Museum. This core group consisted of purchases from the Great
Exhibition and the material that had been used for teaching by the Government School of
Design. The first displays were largely of modern manufacture and Cole im mediately set about
borrowing old to add to the new. In 1852, the Queen lent 44 pieces of eighteenth century
Sevres porcelain, the manufacturer, Herbert Minton lent 49 items of European and Chinese
pottery and porcelain from his factory museum. Other signi ficant lenders were Prince Albert
lending four German paintings on porcelain (including one described as “a picture by Sir
Edwin Landseer, made in Bavaria”), the dealer John Webb (wood carvings, oriental porcelain,
Sevres, Worcester porcelain and delft) an d wealthy philanthropist and collector Miss Burdett
Coutts who lent two Chelsea porcelain vases. 9 The change in the appearance of the Museum,
which began to resemble a collector’s cabinet, and the effect of the loaning policy was noted
in the Athenaeum. “ The principle of borrowing for temporary exhibition the fine works of Art
and virtu so profusely scattered throughout the rich mansions of our nobility, has been
eminently successful; constituting one of the most valuable features of the institution – a
constant succession of novelties.” 1 0 Until J.C. Robinson was appointed as the first curator in
1853, Cole who was an able and energetic administrator but no connoisseur, relied upon the
advice of his more knowledgeable friends for the acquisition of loan s and more permanent
additions to the collections. Apart from confirming the primary importance of loans 1 1 and
recommending that objects be loaned to the Museum before purchase, Cole has left us no
policy statements on the issue of loans. Robinson was mor e forthcoming.
Robinson and Cole did not have an easy relationship and fell out over many matters of
Museum practice but the idea of loans was supported very vigorously by Robinson. As early as
1854, he published a paper in which he emphasised the importan ce that the use of loans was
felt to play in the new institution’s strategy. “Finally, I would refer to the example already so
successfully set by the Department in the institution of special exhibitions, got together by
means of loans from private collec tors, and the practice, now well established, of adding to the
attractions of the permanent collections by this means. ” 1 2 Later in his life, he confirmed that
the initiative to encourage lending as a matter of policy was an innovation of the early
Museum. He listed what he described as “The principal extensions of the actions of Museums
brought about by South Kensington” beginning with the various types of lending to the
Museum but not forgetting the lending from the Museum by circulating exhibition to Art
Schools and Provincial Museums.
The following quotation comes from an article by J.C. Robinson published in The
Nineteenth Century in 1880:
“the essentially modern idea of temporary exhibitions, that of gathering together works of
art and general interest, on loan, taken hold of from the first at South Kensington, has
fructified and expanded to an extent, the importance of which it is impossible to overrate. In
addition to the formation from time to time of special exhibitions, practically it has been
found possible to supplement and illustrate the permanent art treasures of the State by a
standing collection, though composed of fluctuating and varying matter…...In this way the
enormous accumulation of works of art of all kinds, in the possession of the Crown, of
corporations, and societies, the ancestral gatherings of the nobles and gentry of the land, and
the rich collections of amateurs and connoisseurs, are made available for the delight and
instruction of everybody.” 1 3
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
Although Robinson did much to champion loans while he worked for the Museum, the
credit for the pioneering of this activity must go to Henry Cole. He would have been familiar
with the limited lending which took place in the late 1840s, from the small collections of the
Government School of Design to provincial establishments. He was comfortable with the
concept and practice of temporary exhibitions from the small scale of those of the Society of
Arts to the vast scale of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Crucially, he had also been respon sible
for the organisation of the first exhibition of historic decorative art for the Royal Society of
Arts in 1850. 1 4 The intention of the exhibition, as expressed in the catalogue, was to educate
the taste of the public and manufacturers for the product ion and consumption of well designed
modern goods rather than promoting antiquarianism. Cole’s use of loaned material in the
Museum was begun with the same purpose in mind. The experience of this first exhibition of
applied art would have taught Cole how t o deal with collectors and he would have begun to
appreciate the value of these wealthy and influential men (and a few women) as well as the
potential of their objects. Certainly the lenders to the exhibition were in due course called
upon to lend to the Museum. Sir Anthony Rothschild and Hollingsworth Magniac (who had
been on the committee) lent furniture to a display of cabinet work at Gore House in 1853
which formed the first temporary exhibition held by the Museum. Even A.W. Franks, the
secretary of the exhibition committee, who had joined the staff of the British Museum in 1851,
lent ceramics; Persian, Chinese, and British, “vase, old Staffordshire agate ware ” and a “
piece of enamelled earthenware frieze, by Luca della Robbia”. 1 5
What did the Museum gain from being a pioneer in the practice of temporary loans? The
obvious answer of objects is actually more complex than one might imagine. Certainly in the
early years, Cole needed to fill the exhibition spaces at Marlborough House to try and justify,
through adequate and relevant material, the status of the new Museum. The British Museum
which was founded with enormous collections of its own did not have this problem. Cole’s
new Museum had to compete as quickly as possible on equal terms with the existin g museums
and galleries and borrowing on a large scale was one way of achieving this. Later, Cole was to
use the pressure of loaned material to claim more space at South Kensington. Loans and
special exhibitions could spread the territory of the ornamental collections and they added to
the attractions of the permanent displays. Cole would have realised that he could not hope to
acquire a large number of objects through Government funded purchase. Money was always
tight. The cost of buying the objects was in creasing as the competition rose amongst collectors
and institutions to secure examples from the shrinking supply.
For a new museum short of material, the best option apart from borrowing, was to buy
ready assembled collections with good provenance from c ollectors who had an established
track record. Cole had some success with this policy. He acquired the Bandinel collection of
over 700 pieces of historic ceramics for the paltry sum of £250 in 1853. However, in 1855 the
important collection of mainly Frenc h and Italian Renaissance art owned by a Parisian lawyer,
Jules Soulages was brought to Cole’s attention by Herbert Minton 1 6 . A price of £ 11,000 for
the 749 objects was agreed but the Government refused to pay. Cole raised a subscription for
the collections’ purchase, brought it to England and displayed it at Marlborough House for two
months from December 1856. Over 48,000 visitors attested to the public’s interest in the
objects. It was sold to the committee organising the Manchester Art Treasures exhib ition in
1857. Only after this exhibition did Cole finally arrange for the Soulages Collection to be
bought for the Museum in instalments. (fig. 3) The last of these was not paid until 1865. Loans
must have seemed a better option when money for acquisition s was not forthcoming.
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
Loans were also flexible, not only in the sense that they could be expanded or contracted as
a type but from the variety of objects that could be borrowed. This was a bonus at a time when
the study of the decorative arts was in its infancy and potentially costly mistakes in attribution
that might result from a careless purchase could be avoided. It was far easier to borrow and
display objects that could be returned should advances in the study of the subject diminish the
importance of the items. The rapidly evolving nature of the interest in and knowledge about
the historic decorative arts at the time of the Museum’s foundation did indeed present Henry
Cole with a credibility gap in terms of becoming the first Museum of a newly create d subject.
A similar dilemma may have been at work at the British Museum which did not start to collect
in the area on any scale until the mid -1850s under A.W. Franks. The teapots, vases, bowls,
ornamental figures and dinnerware which had been used by the previous generation, had only
just begun to acquire a new status as art objects. A market for such material began in earnest
in the first half of the nineteenth century and collectors like Alexandre Du Sommerard (1779 1842) and the lawyer, Jules Soulages in France and William Beckford (1760 -1844 ), Ralph
Bernal M.P. (c.1783-1854 ), civil servant James Bandinel and the jeweller and silversmith,
Joseph Mayer in England, amassed some of the earliest significant collections. These were
accrued without the assistance of authoritative publications or exhibitions. In the 1850s and
1860s publications had begun to appear and exhibitions such as that held at the Society of Arts
in 1850 and the Manchester Art Treasures exhibition of 1857 increased the understanding of
the subject and promoted its legitimacy within the hierarchy of the arts and in polite society.
Cole, of course, had through the careful manipulation of the loan system always had the
advantage that the status of his lenders alone bestowed credibility to the objects lent.
The lenders themselves were almost as important to the Museum as their objects in terms of
prestige, in assisting with the authentication of taste and as a magnet to draw the public in.
People wanted to come and look at what the celebrit ies of their society owned. Although
loaned objects were dispersed amongst the collections at Marlborough House, the status and
identity of the lender had a real importance and lenders were named on the labels
accompanying their objects. “ The pieces belo nging to Her Majesty have been distinguished
by a crown placed above the numbers.”. 1 7 There was also a strong perception that in England,
as opposed to the continent, the wealth of the nation was hidden from view in the great houses
of the country. De Quincy wrote in 1796, shortly after the opening of the Louvre; “ England
has no centralised, dominant collection despite all the acquisitions made by its private citizens
who have naturally retained them for their private enjoyment. What is the result? These riches
are scattered through every country house: you have to travel through every county over
hundreds of miles to see these fragmented collections….” 1 8 By putting these treasures on
show and by encouraging lenders to come forward in great numbers to ta ke part in a scheme
for the benefit of the nation, Cole was winning a great public relations victory for the
Museum.
The same idea of unlocking private collections became one of the aims of the first club for
collectors of the historic applied arts which Robinson dreamed up and started with the
assistance of the sculptor, Baron Charles Marochetti and the Sardinian Minister, Marchese
d’Azeglio in 1857. 1 9 Robinson would have needed the support of Cole, his superior, in order
to use the resources of the Muse um to run the club. The advantages of such an idea to the
Museum must have been obvious to both men. The association would allow closer ties to form
between the Museum, its staff and collectors, creating a
community of
art -loving
connoisseurs who would pursue the Museum’s interests. For example, collectors could be
encouraged to collect to fill the gaps in the public collections. There were other less obvious
but significant advantages. The move to South Kensington in 1857 gave the Museum greater
potential for expansion but with the knowledge about the objects which might be acquired still
evolving it was able to call on knowledgeable collectors through the club contacts for
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
supplementary advice. 2 0 The dialogue between collectors and Museum had many direc t
benefits. For example in the Museum’s report to the Government for 1865 the assistance of
collectors in revising the art inventory was highlighted. Some, such as C.D. Fortnum, even
wrote authoritative official publications. 2 1 Their wider influence on the creation of an identity
for the Museum has yet to be fully explored.
The original club membership of ninety connoisseurs, collectors and curators grew to over
two hundred by 1860 and links with the Museum were strengthened by the evening
conversazione that were held on the premises, by member’s loans, but most especially by the
Special Loan Exhibition of 1862. This was to be the club’s finest hour. Organised by J.C.
Robinson with members serving on the committee and lending generously (between nine and
ten thousand items from five hundred and fifty -three lenders) the exhibition was a huge
popular and commercial success. There were almost nine hundred thousand visitors to the
displays of historic material which rivalled the attendance at the International E xhibition of
modern manufactures that took place at the same time. The exhibition became a respectable
provenance for objects through the enhancing effect of the credibility of the collectors and
curators involved in the selection process. An annotated cop y of the original catalogue in the
National Art Library reveals that a number of items are now in the Museum’s collection. Some
objects were acquired as gifts soon after, and as a result of the exhibition, while others passed
through the possession of several collectors. For example a Limoges painted enamel tablet was
shown by the Duke of Hamilton, sold at the Hamilton Palace sale in 1882, bought by George
Salting and bequeathed to the Museum with his collection in 1910. 2 2
Apart from starting a club for co llectors, the Museum encouraged the lenders support by a
variety of other means. Lenders were sometimes paid to display. This often took the form of a
percentage, described as a rental in the official documents, of the agreed value of the items
lent. It was partly a ruse to secure objects prior to purchase although it was also a means of
paying dealers and less wealthy collectors for the loan of their objects. A document in the
archives of the Museum (now at the Archive of Art and Design, Blythe House) give s an insight
into the official dealings with collectors. In 1867 an administrator wrote: “ It was proposed
that Mr Webb’s Greek glass should be hired for one year at 5% on £1705. This was approved
by the Duke of Marlborough.” 2 3 The lending of objects be fore acquisition was also a
pragmatic attempt by Cole to wrest money from the government. By demonstrating the interest
taken in some of the loans he could summon more support for his purchasing plans. The
Gherardini collection of models in wax and terraco tta was exhibited for a month to test the
waters and then acquired. 2 4
The prominent position of loans within the Museum displays would have formed a major
incentive for lenders who welcomed exposure for themselves and their objects. 2 5 Although at
Marlborough House and in the early years at South Kensington, loans were displayed in the
same rooms as the Museum’s collections, with the completion of the North and South Courts,
large and grandly decorated spaces had become available for differentiated display s. (fig. 4)
As early as 1856, Robinson had advocated a policy of privileging loans.
“ It is, however, greatly to be desired that the system of loans should be continued, and
indeed in every respect more completely developed: with this view I would sugges t, that when
increased space can be obtained, a distinct area with the requisite fittings should be set apart
for objects exhibited on this footing, so that they should no longer be placed in indiscriminate
juxta-position with permanently acquired specimen s.” 2 6
An exhibition of loaned material opened the North Court and the Special Loan Exhibition of
1862 was the first display in the South Court (now an exhibition space). By 1871, the Museum
had 18,302 objects of its own but 10,026 on loan with the number of lenders each year
averaging about 400 during the next 15 years. With over a third of the exhibits from lenders,
the numerical dominance of loans, apart from the importance of the objects and the status of
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
their owners, must have encouraged the Museum a uthorities to seek special display solutions.
A series of guides produced for the public in the late 1860s give a detailed account of the
displays which, with the few surviving contemporary photographs, give some idea of how the
Loan court must have looked. Objects were grouped according to the lender, rather then by
material, as in the main collections. A collection might merit several cases. “ A large and
varied collection of Italian Porcelain of the eighteenth century, belonging to the Marquess
d’Azeglio, the Italian ambassador in England, fills three cases.” 2 7 Lending to the Museum
could be seen at this time as rather fashionable in certain circles and the list of lenders
encompassed some of the leading figures in Victorian society from wealthy connoiss eurs such
as Lady Charlotte Schrieber, (a collection of English pottery and porcelain, from 1866 -1873)
to busy politicians like W.E. Gladstone (ceramics in 1867, jewellery in 1871, ivories in
1875). An alphabetical list of lenders in 1874 occupied eleven pages and included, the Queen,
the Prince of Wales, Lords and Ladies, Viscounts and countesses, officers, clergymen,
collectors, dealers, designers and manufacturers. Women lenders made up a greater proportion
of the total than might be expected. The mater ial lent was diverse but largely followed the
areas of interest in the applied arts formulated by the Museum. 2 8
Entire collections of objects from individual collectors swelled the numbers and spread the
displays to other parts of the Museum complex. C aptain A.W.H. Meyrick loaned an important
collection of arms and armour assembled by his cousin Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick (1783 -1848)
from 1868-71. This was shown in the exhibition galleries which stood on the site of the
Science Museum. The dealer Isaac Fal cke lent 921 pieces including ivories, bronzes, Chinese
and European ceramics, particularly Wedgwood. 2 9 This collection was displayed at Bethnal
Green in 1875. The principal loan of 1878 was the Schliemann collection of 4,420 items,
excavated in Turkey an d believed to come from Troy, with drawings and photos. Though
perhaps more appropriate to the British Museum, since it did not mount temporary exhibitions,
the collection could not be shown there. 3 0 Loans continued to occupy their own distinct area
within the South Court until the end of the century and for many years, its position, at the
entrance to the Museum, provided a conspicuous arena for loan display. Another repository for
loans became the new out station at Bethnal Green which opened in 1872. A. W. Franks’
collection of Oriental porcelain was shown here from 1876 -1884 and Sir Richard Wallace’s
pictures and furniture were displayed at this museum for three years while Hertford House was
being prepared. From 1909, the loans continued to be privilege d, in terms of space and
location in Sir Aston Webb’s large, newly built octagon shaped court which became known as
the Loan Court (now the costume gallery). Great care was taken over the well being of the
loans. A Board of Education report of 1912 -13 recorded that the ceramics galleries, the Salting
Bequest and the Loan Court had been closed for some time because of fears of attack from
suffragettes. Loans remained in the court until 1932 when Maclagan proposed that loans be
restricted and re-integrated in the permanent collections.
The wealth of documentation about loans, which the Museum produced, would have
convinced a lender that the scheme was taken very seriously by the officials. From the first
government report of 1853, loans were discussed in an in dividual section and from 1870
separate reports on loans were issued every year until the late 1880s when they became less
frequent. The facts and figures reveal the number of objects on loan, the names of the lenders,
with detailed label information on ea ch new loan displayed in that year. Registers of lenders
give names, addresses and dates of loans entering and leaving the Museum. Loans had reached
their maximum level in 1879 of over 18,000 objects but in the same year the Museum only
acquired twenty pieces of silversmiths’ work at a cost of £362. This was a good year for
silver. Sometimes only one object was acquired.
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
It is, therefore, easy to see why loans were particularly important to the Museum’s displays
of silver. The collection remained small thr oughout the nineteenth century and was not at all
comprehensive. The bias towards ornamental German pieces of the heavily embossed type and
sixteenth century Spanish silver reflected Robinson’s own inclinations. The foundations of the
important collection of English silver was laid in spite of him. Robinson was known to have a
distaste for what he termed ‘merely usable plate’ which he said could not be considered as art
nor did he appreciate goldsmiths work of a later period than the 17th century. Although the
collecting of English plate was already established and knowledge of the subject disseminated
by the antiquary Octavius Morgan and the dealer William Chaffers, Robinson was prevented
by his prejudice from taking advantage of the published work in this field.
In 1864, the Museum was offered the Sterne Cup but Robinson condemned the purchase as
not being an example of art. In his report he added ‘I think it extremely unlikely that so
common a specimen of usable English plate could ever have been a Royal gift.’ The Museum
finally bought it in 1925. Cole, aided and abetted by William Chaffers did occasionally
manage to buy a worthwhile piece. A chinoiserie sugar -box entered the collection in 1865.
Robinson left the Museum in 1867 and was replaced as Art Ref eree by Sir Matthew Digby
Wyatt who had excellent paper qualifications but no eye. His principal aim was to find the
Museum bargains rather than stars. After his death in 1877, Sir Wilfred Cripps, a leading
authority on English plate was appointed and a mo re promising era for the silver collections
ensued with important purchases such as the Mostyn plate and bequests of the significance of
the Calverley toilet service.
With the Museum under greater pressure to provide a more comprehensive display of the
decorative arts as information improved and the public’s appetite grew, loans were the obvious
answer. Acquisitions in ceramics had largely followed the fashionable preference for Italian
maiolica, Hispano Moresque ware, Sèvres and other continental porcel ains. The Museum’s
collection of English pottery and porcelain was small and unfavourably compared by critics
with those at the Museum of Practical Geology and in regional museums. Sir Arthur Church
(1834-1915) who became an advisor for the ceramic collect ions and was the author of two of
the South Kensington Handbooks on English Pottery and Porcelain, wrote to the President of
the Science and Art Department in 1881 deploring the inadequate representation of English
ceramics. In the 1860s and 1870s a large number of collectors including Henry Willett, Mrs
Palliser and especially Lady Charlotte Schreiber and her husband Charles contributed to
improving the displays. The Schreibers lent 224 pieces of English porcelain from 1869 -73,
many of which were later to form part of the Schreiber gift. 3 1 In terms of silver, important
loans in the nineteenth century were the continental collection lent by G. Moffatt in 1863, the
320 pieces of largely English silver of J. Dunn Gardner (from 1870 -1901) and the Bond
Collection. Joseph Bond first lent to the Museum in 1865 and in 1884 lent largely neo classical silver which became a bequest.
Loans now make up a tiny proportion of the Museum’s permanent collections of almost 4 1 / 2
million objects with just over 4,000 objects f rom over 500 lenders. The Metalwork Department
has the largest number of lenders, currently 140 who lend 819 objects in total. This is in part
due to the large loan collection of church plate, the result of a conscious effort by the Museum
authorities to increase their collections of this type of material and to provide a safe repository
for an important part of the country’s heritage that they thought was at risk. A circular to that
effect was drafted in 1917 after consultation with senior figures in the church. It had the effect
not only of increasing the displays in the Museum but also of stimulating the clergy to make
inventories of their plate and to consider how it should be cared for if it was no longer in use.
Some of the Museum’s loans reflect the long and mutually beneficial association between the
institution and the lenders and their families. The Raphael cartoons have been on loan from the
Queen since 1865 while the Outram Shield, made in 1862 -3, and designed by Armstead for
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
Hunt and Roskell with scenes from Sir James Outram’s career in India, was first lent by the
family to the Museum in 1864. It has been redisplayed this year in the Museum’s newly
opened gallery Silver 1800-2000. (fig. 5)
But long term lending was never the aim of either the Mu seum or its lenders. Most of the
loans were short term and lasted for two or three years at most. Quite often the lender
maintained a continuing relationship with the Museum by changing the objects on loan or
lending to a specific temporary exhibition such as the special loan exhibition of Spanish and
Portuguese Ornamental Art in 1881. Sir Richard Wallace and Lady Charlotte Schreiber were
both lenders to this exhibition. (fig. 1). Ultimately, the Museum hoped to fill gaps in the
collections through lenders generosity. The large and exemplary collection of English pottery,
porcelain and enamels amounting to nearly 2,000 pieces donated by Lady Charlotte Schreiber
was one of the most important gifts the Museum received in the nineteenth century. George
Salting’s bequest of Renaissance and Medieval art, on loan from 1874, was a further example
of a lender who became a significant donor. These symbiotic relationships continue to this
day. In the Metalwork Department, one of the most recent conversions from a loan was the
collection of Victor Morley Lawson. For over twenty years Morley Lawson collected English
silver, from the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth century, with the guidance of the
Museum’s staff. His collection was lent to the Museum from 1968 un til his death in 1988 when
the Commissioners from the Inland Revenue accepted his collection in lieu of tax and
allocated a small group of important pieces to the Museum.
The character of the V&A today; the shape of its collections, the continuing temporar y loan
exhibitions and the close relationship with specialist societies, reflect the experiments by Cole
and Robinson in the 1850s which became practice and policy. Borrowing from collectors was
an important element in those early plans, which survives to this day, and it is interesting to
see that the number of lenders is almost identical to that of the heyday of lending in the 1870s
and 1880s. The activity has a much lower profile in the displays today, but in the past, it
provided a stimulating and ever changing environment through the Loans Court, the large
individual loans and the special exhibitions. “There is always something new in the Museum,
and if this lead(s) to such constant change in the arrangements that it is sometimes difficult to
find what is wanted, it has the advantage of assuring visitors that they can scarcely go too
often.” 3 2 This populist approach, where lenders and visitors appear to be privileged above the
objects, in terms of display, had its critics who complained that the collec tions gathered in
South Kensington were too diverse and not focused enough. Others felt that the Museum could
no longer fulfil its objective by providing clear models for designers and workmen. Despite
this criticism and the deliberations of the Committee of Rearrangement in 1908, which led to a
re-evaluation and change in the method of displaying the accessioned collections, the Loan
Court remained a separate and vital area for many years. Some curators were in no doubt of
the value of establishing good li nks with collectors, to which the lending activity had
contributed. Writing of the formation of the ceramics collection in 1957, Arthur Lane
commented; “ The collection has taken just over a hundred years to form. A great deal of
intelligence has been exercised on it, and a great deal of money spent. But comparatively little
of either the intelligence or the money was provided by the Museum staff or their masters at
the Treasury. Indeed one has only to look attentively at the labels in case after case to
recognise that the real builders of the collection have been the private citizens who chose to
put their experience and resources at the disposal of the Nation.” 3 3
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
Ann Eatwell is an Assistant Curator in the Metalwork Department at the Victoria and Albert
Museum. Her most recent project has been the successful completion of the second phase of
the Silver Galleries at the V&A. She has published widely in the field of ceramic history and
collecting history, including Susie Cooper Productions (1987), the metalwork chapter, cowritten with Tony North, in Pugin, a Gothic Passion (1994) and contributed a number of
sections in the V&A publication accompanying the new silver gallery, Silver (1996) edited by
Phillipa Glanville.
NOTES
1.
This article is based on a paper given at a sessi on organised by C live Wainwright on the history of the collections of
the Victoria and Albert Museu m at the Art Historians conference in 1995. I shou ld like t o thank Anthony Burton and
Elizab eth James for their help with this paper.
2.
Sir Eric Maclagan’s m emorandum, January,1932 ( Ed 84/114 Minutes of the Ad visory Council ) quoted in John
Ph ysick, The Victoria and Albert Museum, The History of its Building , London, 1982, p.267 -8.
3.
It was not until 1911 that a Board of Education r eport noted that French Museums were beginning to explore the
idea of loans. Board of Education Report for the Year 1909 on the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Bethnal Green
Museum, 1911, p. 15.
4.
Malcolm Baker and Brenda Richardson ( eds ), A Grand Design: The Art of the Victoria and Albert Museum , New
York and Baltimore, 1998 and Anthon y Burton , Vision and Accident, The Story of the Victoria and Albert Museum ,
London, 1999.
5.
The South Kensington site was also hom e to a number of other misc ellaneou s collecti ons including the Patent
Museum, the Educational Museum and the Food Museum. E ven C ole desc ribed the venture as a “refuge for d estitute
collections”. From 1872, loans were a ls o shown at the Bethnal Green Museum.
6.
The tota l for Museum acquisit ions has been ca lculated t ogether from fi gures supplied in c ontempora ry reports
and inventori es.
7.
J.C. Robinson, Catalogue of the Circulating Collection of Works of Art , London, July 1860. For example, the
Museum of Sci ence and Art, Edinburgh, founded in 1854 followed the V&A m odel in encouraging individual local
lenders as the su rviving Loan Regist ers att est.
8.
A recent survey of the peri od contextualis es th e importance of c ollectors for th e V&A. “ Few National Museums,
indeed can have had such an in timate and mutually influential relationship with the community of c ollectors that
help ed sustain it. ” Arthur MacGregor, “ Collectors, C onnoisseurs and Curators in the Victorian Age ”, A.W. F ranks
Nineteenth Century Collecting and the British Museum , edit ed by Marjorie Ca ygi ll and John Cherry, London,1997,
p.26.
9.
A Catalogue of the Museum of Ornamental Art , 5th Edition, May 1853. John Webb, a retired Bond Street
dealer as sisted Cole with his early purchases and loans of historic objects. He remained a fri end of the Museum until
his death in 1880 and a purchase fund left b y him continues his association.
10.
Athenaeum, 1st October, 1853, p.1162.
11.
“The rec eption of obj ects on loan, from th e first a recognised action of the d epartmen t …” Henry Cole, Eleventh
Science and Art Department Report , 1864, p.xiii.
12.
J.C. Robinson, An Introductory Lecture on the Museum of Ornamental Art of the Department , Board of Trad e,
Departm ent of Sci ence and Art , London, 1854, p.29 -30.
13.
J.C. Robinson, Our National Art C ollections and Provincial Art Museums, The Nineteenth Century , June 1880,
p.990 -991.
14.
Catalogue of Works of Ancient and Medieval Art, Exhibited at the Hous e of the Societ y of Arts, London,1850.
15.
First Report of the Department of Science and Art , Lond on, 1854, p.285. See als o Aileen Da ws on, Franks and
European Ceramics, Glass and Enamels, p. 201& 216, A.W. Franks, Nineteenth -Century Collecting and The British
Museum, edited by Marjori e Caygi ll and John Cherry. Da ws on speculat es that a fri eze b y Della R obbia shown at the
exhibition in 1850 may have been bequeathed to th e British Museum by Franks in 1897. It ma y be th e sam e piec e
shown by Franks at Marlborough Hous e in 1853.
16.
Ann Eatwell, Henry Cole a nd Herbert Minton: Collecting for th e Nation, Journal of the Northern Ceramic Society ,
Vol. 12, 1995,p.151 -174.
17.
First Report of the Department of Science and Art , London, 1854, p.289
18.
Quatrem ere d e Quincy, quot ed from the translation in Francis Haskell, The British as Collectors, The
Treasure Houses of Britain. Five Hundred Years of Private Patronage and Art Collecting , National Ga llery of Art,
Washington, DC, 1985, p.50.
19.
Ann Eat well, The Collect ors ’ or Fine Arts Club 1857 -1874: The First Societ y for Collectors of the Dec orative
Arts, Journal of the Decorative Arts Society , 18, 1994 p. 25 -30.
20.
While Robinson provided exp ertis e of a high standard over many areas of th e collection, he had som e notable
blind spots, of which silver wa s one.
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG
21.
A fri end of Cole and financially independent, For tnum travelled through Europ e and the near East acquiring
objects for the Museum and writing two catalogu es; Maiolica (1873) and Bronzes of Europea n Origin (1876).
22.
George Sa lting, a wealth y c onnoisseur c ollect ed single mi ndedly for man y yea rs. His ba ch elor apartment was sma ll
and he lent his growing collection of ori ental p orc elain, and medieval and Renaissance a rt to th e South Kensington
Museum from 1874.
23.
E.D. 84/414 Loans to the Museum, Statement showing proc edure, regulations etc from the year 1 861. The Duke of
Marlborough was a Governm en t minister at the time.
24.
Second Report of the Department of Practical Art , 1854, p.178 -85.
25.
Other advantages for collectors and dealers loaning to museums, such as the financial incentives of safe, cheap
storage and an improved provenance for loans that are la ter s old, seem not to have been the factors dri ving the
relationship of collect ors and the Museum in the 19th century. While rec ognis ed as important in the 20th century,
there are few referenc es to th ese c onsiderations in the Museum’s early years. Anthon y Burton quotes on e reference in
Vision and Accident , p. 124. The critical maga zine Truth lambasted the Museum’s rea diness to offer aristocratic
owners a “ a safe and inexpensive resting -plac e for their t rea sures.”
26.
Third Report of the Department of Science and Art , 1856, p. 68 -9. I am grat efu l t o E liza beth James for dra wing m y
attention to this.
27.
A Guide to the Art Collections of the South Kensington Museum , London, 1868, p.16.
28.
Wom en accounted for 68 of the names on the list of 407. List of Objects in the Art Division, South Kensington
Museum, Lent during the year 1873 , London, 1874.
29.
A collection of 500 pieces of Wed gwood was given to the British Museum by Isaac Fa lck e in 1909.
30.
The justification for showin g som e of the groups of loans; such as the Schliemann collection; or the Pitt Rivers
collection of anthropology (exhibited at Bethnal Green from 1873 before transfer to South Kensington prior to the
opening of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford in 1885) within the context of an Art Collection ma y s eem untenable now
but were p erhaps attempts to offer the broad est perspective of art and design to the new audience. Indeed Cole had
praised the design of African objects at a Missionary exhib ition in Manchester in the 1870s.
31.
A. W. Franks recomm ended that Lad y Charlotte Schreiber give her collection of 2,000 piec es of English pottery,
porcelain and enamels to th e V&A. However, h e was d eterred from pres enting a collection of continental porc elain of
his own b y “ disparaging rema rks ” made b y the Museum staff about the Schreib er gift. “ Thei r pres ent aim s eems to
be to obtain specimens that are us efu l as m odels t o Art Industry for which they c ons ider that what I ma y ca ll
documentary sp ecimens are not so important.” A. W. Franks, The Ap ology of m y Li fe, about 1893, quoted in
A.W.Franks, Nineteenth Century Collecting and the British Museum , Edited by Marjori e Caygi ll and John Cherry,
London, 1997.
32.
“Gossip in the S outh Kensington Museum ”, Builder, 19th Septemb er, 1868, p. 685, quoted in Anthon y
Burton, Vision and Accident, The Story of the Victoria and Albert Museum , London, 1999 p.87.
33.
Arthur Lane, Th e English Ceramic Collections in the Victoria and Alb ert Museum, The English Ceramic Circl e
Transactions, Vol. 4, 1957 -9, p.20.
Borrowing from Collectors: The role of the Loan in the Formation of the Victoria and Albert Museum and its
Collection (1852 – 1932)
The Decorative Arts Society, P O Box 844, Lewes East Sussex BN7 3NG