APPENDIX 



NOTE I 



PORTRAITS OF THE DARWIN FAMILY 



PORTRAITS of the more immediate .ancestors of Charles Darwin and Francis Gallon 

 exist at Creskeld Hall, the seat of Francis Darwin, Esq., and at Newnham Grange, 

 Cambridge, formerly the home of Sir Georuv Howard Darwin. Of the pictureo at 

 Creskeld, the most noteworthy are those of Robert Darwin (16821754) supposed to 

 be by Richardson about 1717, and of his three sons: William Alvey Darwin (1726 

 1783) by Wright of Derby, Robert Waring Darwin (1724 181(i) aged .">!, painted by 

 John Borridge, 1775, and Erasmus Darwin (1731 1802), painted by Wright also. See 

 our Plates VI, VI 1 "" and VP". I have heartily to thank Colonel C. W. Darwin for 

 photographs of the pictures of the elder and younger Robert, and Mr William Erasmus 

 Darwin for a photograph of that of William Alvey Darwin. The general resemlilann- 

 to Erasmus of these portraits is striking. 



Some of the Darwin portraits at Elston Hall were sold by William Brown Darwin, 

 and in part have been repurchased by members of the family. Sir Francis Sacheverell 

 Darwin had a copy made of the portrait of his grandfather, Robert Darwin, and he 

 further purchased, about 1850, from a dealer in Newark, a Darwin portrait with which 

 he had been familiar in his youth as part of the Elston collection. These two portrait- 

 descended to his grandson, Sacheverell Darwin, by whom they were left to Sir George 

 Howard Darwin. They passed for many years traditionally as those of Rolwrt Darwin 

 (16821754), and of his father, William Darwin (16551682), and photographs of 

 them formerly in the possession of Sir Francis Galton are so entitled. An examination 

 of the photographs convinced me, however, that the portrait of the so-called William 

 Darwin must be of a later date than that of Robert Darwin, and could not possibly 

 represent his father. By the kindness of Lady Darwin I was enabled to examine both 

 pictures at Newnham Grange, and also to see various correspondence concerning them. 

 Sir George Darwin, I then learnt, had himself felt in doubt as to the William Darwin 

 portrait. The Robert Darwin portrait is rightly ascribed and its ascription agrees 

 with that of the original at Creskeld; the copyist has, however, lost something of tin- 

 delicacy of the original. The history of the "William Darwin" picture is very definite : 

 it includes a written statement by Reginald Darwin' as to liis father. Sir Franri-. 

 finding the picture at Newark, and its being then identified as "William Darwin. ' Tin- 

 Director of the National Portrait Gallery has most kindly examined a photograph of this 



1 Letter to George Howard Darwin, Esq., Nov. 5, 1890, and also a footnote to a 

 MS. memoir of the Darwins in the possession of the Rev. Darwin Wilmot. 



:; i _' 



