My dear Sir

I have seen M^r William Farrer to-day on the subject of the settlement to be made on his niece’s intended marriage.¹ I informed him that you were prepared to settle upon your son Horace the same amount as you had settled on your daughter and your son Francis on their marriages—viz—£5000.² He remarked that he thought this inadequate. He stated that his niece is entitled to about £6000 under her parents settlement,—subject to her fathers life interest:—and that her father is prepared either to take over this interest substituting for it £10000 of his own, or his engagement for the payment of £10,000 at his death,—or to make up the difference between the £6000 and £10,000 at his own death. He said that he, M^r William Farrer had not fully obtained his brothers views as to the immediate allowance he would make (and secure) to his daughter until the £10,000 came into possession: but that he had no doubt his brother would pay £250 per annum, perhaps £300 per annum.

M^r William Farrer intimated that he thought more should be settled on the part of your son than was settled on the part of Miss Farrer. But it was impliedly admitted that an equal settlement on your sons behalf would be accepted.— It was not asked that you should do more than engage that at your decease your son Horace should have, with the £5000 you are willing to give, £10,000 in all: & that until this sum comes into possession you should secure, by engagement, an allowance, in addition to the increase of the £5000, sufficient to give an income the same as that to be secured by the Ladys Father.

The scheme of which the above is the Substance was the outcome of a good deal of talk: and I hope that you will find the scheme generally intelligible. But I shall be glad to explain it further in any respect: and to receive your view respecting it. The nature of the settlement-trusts were talked over and no departure was proposed from the usual arrangements. Each party to the proposed marriage could have the first life interest in his or her own future, with remainder to the other on death. The whole should be divisible amongst issue by the joint appointment of the husband & wife or by the sole appointment of the survivor. In default of appointment the whole fortune should go to children equally at 21 or (as to daughters) at marriage. And in default of children each party’s fortune should subject to the life-interests revert to his or her marriage. M^r William Farrer thinks the powers of investment should be fairly large:—that powers to invest in the purchase of land are not desirable:—but he assented to a suggestion that it might be well to give power to buy a house ^&c.

I have not much to remark on the views expressed by M^r William Farrer. And indeed there is little to say about them,—if you are willing to engage that your son Horace shall at your death take (plus the £5000 you are willing at once to settle) another £5000 of capital:—and to engage that until that £5000 comes into possession, the income it will eventually give, shall be paid to the Trustees for the purpose of the settlement.

If you should think fit to insist that the period of payment of the £5000 shall be extended until the expiration of the life of the survivor of M^rs Darwin & yourself I think that this would not be objected to,—provided the allowance by you, or from your estate of an income should be secured up to the payment of the £5000.

Of course M^r William Farrer’s line was that an equality of settlement was to be carried out. His tone was considerate and civil. And I need scarcely say that the interview began & ended smoothly.

I am writing in some haste to save a post. | & I am | My dear Sir | Yours very truly | W^m. M Hacon

Charles R. Darwin Esq^re.

Down | Beckenham | Kent