During his time as an M.P. (representing Lincoln in 1818-20, Rochester in 1820-41, Weymouth and Melcombe Regis in 1842-47, and Rochester once again in 1847-52), Bernal was a vocal opponent of rapid emancipation.¹¹ Bernal joined the standing committee of the West India Committee, a key group resisting movement towards emancipation, in March 1823. He argued repeatedly in defence of West Indian slave owners (of whom he was of course one) - including their piecemeal efforts to 'ameliorate' the condition of enslaved people, rather than emancipate them entirely - and spoke about the supposed perils of immediate emancipation.¹¹

​

​

Interventions in the House of Commons between 1823 and 1830

 

Bernal made many interventions on the subject of enslavement in Parliament. Between 1823 and 1830 alone, he spoke on the following instances.

 

15th May, 1823 - Bernal defended the practice of slavery and drew attention to efforts at amelioration in Jamaica.¹¹ He complained that public opinion had been poisoned against the 'unfortunate West-India planters', and insisted upon the necessity of compensation for slave owners if enslaved people were emancipated, arguing that 'the legislature of this country is bound to give to the planter, the fullest and most adequate remuneration for any deprivation of, or change in, his right of property'.¹²

 

15th June, 1824 - Bernal defended the treatment of enslaved people in Jamaica, after public outcry about the fate of John Smith, a Methodist missionary in Demerara, who had died in prison after being charged with promoting discontent among enslaved people in British Guiana (prior to the Demerara rebellion of 1823).¹¹

 

19th May, 1826 - Bernal delivered a major speech, in which he highlighted the rights of the slave owners, emphasised the apparent progress of amelioration in Jamaica, and insisted that longer-term educational and religious 'improvement' would be required amongst enslaved people before they could be emancipated.¹¹

​

6th March, 1828 - Bernal again argued that the continuation of enslavement in the British West Indies was necessary, and warned proponents of emancipation that 'the West-Indians might be a weak body; but if driven and forced together, it might be found that they could muster both strength, and courage to resist those opposed to them, and who attempted to destroy their just rights'.¹³

 

23rd November 1830 - Bernal redoubled his defence of 'the sacred and recognised rights of property in the West-Indies', and declared that West Indian slave owners merely wanted an 'honest, impartial, and liberal inquiry into the actual condition of the slaves and of the colonies'.¹⁴

​

13th December 1830 - Bernal endorsed a petition from the West India Committee to Parliament defending slave owners' right to their property. Moreover, he claimed that the interests of enslaved people were likewise menaced by the prospect of immediate emancipation. They 'could not be let loose like paupers' he reminded the House. For, after all, 'there was no Poor-law in the West Indies; and if the slaves were removed from the authority and control of their masters, whose interest and duty [was it] to make them comfortable, what would they do?'¹⁵

 

This list is by no means comprehensive: Bernal spoke in the House of Commons about enslavement on various other occasions. Bernal also found himself in the peculiar position of having to present anti-slavery petitions on behalf of his Rochester constituents in March, 1826 and July, 1828.¹¹

 

 

19th May 1826 Speech

​

Bernal's speech in May 1826 is generally regarded as his most important and characteristic public intervention on the subject.¹⁶ It was published shortly afterwards, and circulated as a pamphlet by the opponents of emancipation.¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸

 

Bernal first criticises the 'indiscreet haste' of the parliamentary advocates of emancipation. His preference was for 'real amelioration' of the condition of enslaved people, 'traced out slowly and cautiously'.¹⁹ The real victims of the entire situation, Bernal suggests, were the 'West Indian Proprietors', against whom 'the public mind and feeling' of Britain had been 'unfairly and unkindly directed'.¹⁹

 

After digressions criticising the rhetoric of pro-emancipation petitions, and claiming that personal slavery technically existed in Scotland until 1775, Bernal argues that 'ultra-enthusiasts' were driving emancipation too rapidly for Britain's West Indian colonies to bear.²⁰

 

Bernal focuses repeatedly on 'the important difference of facts, and alteration of sentiments' concerning enslavement in Jamaica: in his view, appropriately gradual changes in attitudes and conditions had been underway over the past 20 years.²¹ Emblematic changes, suggests Bernal, included that punishments for enslaved people were now nominally limited to 'thirty-nine lashes', and that rates of baptism and church attendance by enslaved people had increased noticeably. Financial obstacles to manumission had been eliminated, and the 'number of executions on capital convictions' of enslaved people 'had very considerably diminished'.²²

 

After a detailed account of various ameliorative acts passed by the Assembly of Jamaica, Bernal repudiates the 'great degree of ignorance' he perceived in Britain about 'the actual condition' of the enslaved population. From his experience, many enslaved people possessed furniture, houses, and livestock, and some even had 'considerable sums of money in hard cash'.²³ Altogether, 'great alterations and improvements had been advancing' in Jamaica, and the condition of enslaved people could warrant 'no serious complaint'.²³ The advance of 'sound religious instruction' amongst enslaved people further signalled the benevolence of the 'West Indian Proprietors'.²⁴

 

Bernal obliquely criticises the advocates of emancipation: though many were 'guided by honest and praiseworthy motives', he suggests, they were often simply mistaken, 'overpowered by the full tide of their enthusiasm'.²⁴

 

Again, by Bernal's account, West Indian slave owners were the real victims: pamphlets circulated by the Anti-Slavery Society unfairly heaped 'the obloquy of the public' on their heads.²⁴ So victimised by political agitation were Bernal's 'West Indian friends', that he could only trust in their 'manliness and dignity' as sources of strength to rise above their 'unfortunate position'.²⁵

 

Having earlier invoked the 'just and necessary principle of compensation' for slave owners,²⁰ Bernal ends his speech by returning to the 'question of property'.²⁵ He dismisses any question of interrogating precisely how enslaved people were acquired: regardless of 'current popular feeling', enslaved people were like 'any other species of property'.²⁵ 'Proprietors' such as Bernal were entitled to 'justice' from Parliament, regardless of the abstract propositions of those without 'property vested in the Colonies'.²⁵

 

Once again, the slave owners deserved the sympathy of Parliament and the public: their 'very existence' depended on the 'preservation of that property'. 'Imperturbable calmness' was 'not so easy' for slave owners like himself, when schemes for emancipation put their livelihoods at risk.²⁵ Bernal's driving line of argument is clear: anything more than gradual amelioration - orchestrated by West Indian slave owners and legislators themselves - required compensation for slave owners.

​

​

Hannah Young's article, published in February 2022, '‘The perfection of his taste’: Ralph Bernal, collecting and slave-ownership in nineteenth-century Britain', is a valuable study of Bernal, and is well worth reading. It examines how Bernal's 'prodigious collecting' was 'part of the process of self-fashioning, enabling him to construct an identity for himself that was far removed from the distant reaches of the plantation societies of the Caribbean', even while he continued 'to defend, and profit from, his Jamaican interests'.²⁶

​

An extensive study of Ralph Bernal, his collecting, and the pair of silver candlesticks he donated to the College was also created by Leah Wild as part of the 2021 Legacies of Enslavement Project.

 

​

​