by The National Portrait Gallery is under fire after wrongly claiming an art dealer built his career using money from slavery.
A London gallery next to a portrait of Edward Fox White has claimed that a reparation payment his father-in-law received for freeing slaves was used to “establish and sustain” his career.
However, conservationists have been forced to admit there is “no evidence” for the link after Donald Gajadhar, Mr White’s grandfather, saw it.
They have now removed any mention of slavery from the caption, but Mr Gajadhar wants the mob about his ancestors to be publicly withdrawn.
“The claim is simply not true,” he told the Telegraph. “They had no evidence that his father-in-law, Moses Gomes Silva, had given him any money for the compensation of his slaves.
“It seems to me that he was put there to tick some boxes, but that’s not right, they should have done their due diligence.
“I got the feeling that they are sloppy, that they have an agenda that is more important to them than the facts.
“I’m asking them to issue a public retraction and apologize. I want to tell the truth and 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 founded by Mr. White, noticed the caption when he visited the gallery last summer.
It read: “White’s first marriage connected him to a wealthy Portuguese Sephardic Jewish family who owned Jamaican sugar plantations.
“After Abolition in 1836, White’s future father-in-law received a ‘large sum’ of reparations 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 “was inconsistent with my knowledge of our family history, which indicated that there was no such transaction”.
He said: “[As] descended from 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.
‘Exploring different stories’
Mr Gajadhar, who is of English, West Indian and Indian descent, noted that since the firm he runs from New York is now “black-owned”, it is no good claiming he was founded for compensation for slavery.
The gallery added that the team was committed to “exploring the many different narratives of British history” including “stories of empire and colonialism, which are interwoven through the interpretation at the National Portrait Gallery to give a global context provide the people and portraits on display, and explore their legacies”.
They admitted that “although it is not readily apparent (and without having access to the relevant historical accounts) there is a direct link” between the compensation Mr. Gomes Silva received for freeing enslaved Africans and the legacy that he later left to his daughter, “however it is possible” that she and her husband may have benefited from the money.
The gallery did not reveal the source of its claims.
However, the caption was then updated to remove the inaccurate statement that Mr Gomes Silva was Portuguese. It was also amended to reduce the number of slaves he sold to 20, along with a note saying it was “not clear” whether Mr. White received any money from the slave transaction.
A subsequent freedom of information request revealed that the gallery was basing its claim on research carried out by Mr Gajadhar’s own family.
It showed that Mr Silva received compensation of £367 in 1836 for 20 enslaved Africans – around £50,000 in today’s money – which he is believed to have used to relocate his family from Jamaica to the UK.
When he died 22 years later, his daughter Julia inherited part of his estate. Mr. White established his business as an art dealer several years before his father-in-law’s death.
The family’s research did not mention the slavery reparations that financed that business or their lives.
‘Insufficient direct evidence’
Mr Gajadhar told the gallery: “I understand, more than most, that it is necessary to address painful legacies, but such efforts cannot come at the expense of individual truth.
“Edward Fox White deserves more than to be cast as the beneficiary of a system that clearly has not benefited him.
“Instead, his portrait should stand as a testament to his own talent and commitment, to his own worth of his contribution to the world of art, not to the sins of others.”
The gallery in response admitted there was “insufficient direct evidence” to support the claim and said curators would remove it “as soon as possible”.
The third iteration of the caption now on display does not mention slavery but the gallery has not responded to Mr Gajadhar’s calls for a public retraction.
A spokesman for the gallery said: “After hearing Mr Gajadhar’s concerns, the gallery accepted that there was insufficient direct evidence to show that the compensation money received by his father-in-law benefited White’s financial situation and business.
“Following the correspondence with Mr. Gajadhar, we have amended the label, which is publicly visible next to the portrait.
“We have thanked him for his feedback and would be very happy to continue to discuss the matter with Mr Gajadhar, if there are further concerns.”
