NPG wrongly frames art dealer for slave links
Descendant accuses gallery of pursuing an ‘agenda’ after helping to clear ancestor’s name
THE National Portrait Gallery is under attack after wrongly claiming that an art dealer built his career using money from slavery.
The London gallery claimed next to a portrait of Edward Fox White that a compensation pay-out his father-in-law received for freeing slaves was used to “establish and sustain” his career.
However, curators have been forced to admit there is “no evidence” for the link after it was spotted by Mr White’s great-great-grandson, Donald Gajadhar.
They have now removed any mention of slavery from the caption, but Mr Gajadhar is asking for a public retraction of the slur on his ancestor. “The claim simply isn’t true,” he told
The Telegraph. “They had no evidence that his father-in-law Moses Gomes Silva gave him any money from his slave compensation. It seems to me that it was put there to tick some boxes, but that’s not right, they should have done their due diligence.
“It made me feel that they are sloppy, that they have an agenda which is more important to them than the facts.
“I want them to issue a public retraction and to apologise. I want them to tell the truth and to do their job properly.”
The oil painting, by French artist James Tissot, was sold by Mr Gajadhar’s grandmother to Christie’s in 1988 and is currently on loan to the National Portrait Gallery.
Mr Gajadhar, who runs Fox-white and Associates, an art appraisal company first founded by Mr White, noticed the caption when he visited the gallery last summer.
It read: “White’s first marriage linked him to a wealthy Sephardic Portuguese Jewish family who had owned Jamaican sugar plantations. Following Abolition in 1836, White’s future father-in-law received a ‘large amount’ of compensation for 28 enslaved Africans – money that would later help establish and sustain White’s career.”
In a letter to The Telegraph, Mr Gajadhar said the claim “did not align with my knowledge of our family history, which revealed no such transaction”.
He added: “[As] a descendant of slaves myself, I felt compelled to seek clarification”, and said he wrote to the gallery in December asking staff to provide the source of their claims.
Mr Gajadhar, who is of English, West Indian and Indian descent, noted that, as the firm he runs from New York is now “black-owned”, it is “not good to claim it is founded on the backs of slavery compensation”.
The gallery told him that staff had committed to “exploring multiple and diverse narratives of British history” including “stories of empire and colonialism, which are woven through the interpretation at the National Portrait Gallery to provide global context to the people and portraits on display, and to explore their legacies”.
It admitted that “while it is not easily demonstrable (and not having access to the relevant historic accounts) that there is a direct link” between the compensation Mr Gomes Silva received for freeing enslaved Africans and the inheritance he later left for his daughter, there was “nevertheless a possibility” that she and her husband may have benefitted from the money.
The gallery did not reveal the source of its claim. However, the caption was then updated to remove the inaccurate statement that Mr Gomes Silva was Portuguese. It was also tweaked to reduce the number of slaves he sold to 20, along with a note to say it was “not clear” whether Mr White received any money from the slavery transaction.
A Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed that the gallery was basing its claim on research done by Mr Gajadhar’s own family.
It showed that in 1836 Mr Silva received £367 compensation for 20 enslaved Africans – approximately £50,000 in today’s money – which it is believed he used to relocate his family from Jamaica to the UK.
When he died 22 years later, his daughter Julia inherited a portion of his estate. Mr White had established his business as an art dealer several years before his father-in-law’s death.
The gallery admitted in response that there was “insufficient direct evidence” to support the claim.
‘It seems to me it was put there to tick some boxes, but they should have done their due diligence’
SIR – A visit last summer to the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) offered a chance to connect with family history. On prominent display was a James Tissot portrait of my greatgreat-grandfather, Edward Fox White, the founder of Fox-white and Associates, an art appraisal service I oversee today. However, the label next to the painting raised concerns.
It said that Edward, a son of a shoemaker, was an art dealer who benefited from financial compensation awarded after the abolition of slavery: “White’s first marriage linked him to a wealthy Sephardic Portuguese Jewish family who had owned Jamaican sugar plantations. Following Abolition in 1836, White’s future father-in-law received a ‘large amount’ of compensation for 28 enslaved Africans – money that would later help establish and sustain White’s career.”
While acknowledging the importance of exploring historical context, this claim did not align with my knowledge of our family history, which revealed no such transaction. As a descendant of slaves myself, I felt compelled to seek clarification.
Initial adjustments were planned for the caption, but the tarnishing claim remained unresolved. Further inquiries, requesting supporting evidence, elicited a statement on the NPG’S commitment to “exploring people and portraiture in the context of slavery”. I inquired into the source of this misinformation, and with it requested a public retraction.
Eventually, through a Freedom of Information request, the origin of the claim came to light. It was conjecture based on research conducted by my own family. Conflated research – in short, a fabrication.
This exposes the NPG’S flawed approach: “well-meaning initiatives”, a cultural commitment to exploring a certain narrative, undermined by a lack of scholarly rigour.
Museums like the NPG can benefit from collaboration with families with first-hand knowledge of their ancestors’ lives. By prioritising factual accuracy and clear communication, trust and understanding can be built.
The NPG has now relented, months later, agreeing to revise the label, but it maintains there is “no direct evidence”, leaving the door ajar. As for a public retraction or apology, it remains silent. Donald Gajadhar
Sudbury, Suffolk