CHAPMAN, Aaron (1771-1850), of Highbury Park, Mdx.; 50 Tavistock Square, London; later of 14 Montague Place, Edgware Road, London

As the first MP for Whitby, which was enfranchised in 1832 ‘to reinforce the interests of the shipping industry’1N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 24., Chapman, a London shipowner and stalwart Conservative, robustly defended its interests at Westminster, where he was ‘the undeviating advocate... not only of protection, but preference, to British ships and British men in British trades’.2Gent. Mag. (1851), i. 316. He was one of only two Conservatives to be returned for a newly enfranchised borough in 1832.3R. Stewart, The foundation of the Conservative party 1830-1867 (1978), 85. Of ‘pleasing and unassuming manners and exterior, accompanied with sound sense and judgment’4The Standard, 7 Jan. 1851., he came from a ‘very numerous and very opulent family which has flourished in the town of Whitby for more than four centuries’.5Gent. Mag. (1851), i. 316. The youngest surviving son of John Chapman, ‘one of the most extensive shipowners in England’, at an early age he took command of one of his father’s ships, demonstrating ‘great nautical skill and activity’, and ‘stood deservedly high with the merchants and underwriters at Lloyd’s’. He retired from seafaring at the beginning of the French revolutionary wars, when he assumed the London management of his family’s maritime interests.6The Standard, 7 Jan. 1851. In 1809 he became an elder brother of Trinity House, where his services ‘commanded the esteem and gratitude of the mercantile community’.7Morning Post, 1 Jan. 1851; Gent. Mag. (1851), i. 316. An East India proprietor, Chapman also served as a director of the London Assurance Company, the London Docks Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, among others.8Dod’s parliamentary companion (1833), 100; The Post-Office London directory for 1825 (1825), 4, 511; The Post-Office London directory for 1836 (1836), 712. He gave expert evidence on pilotage to the select committee on foreign trade in 1823.9PP 1824 (416), vi. 18. He took a leading role in the formation of the General Shipowners’ Society in 1831,10The Standard, 10 June 1831. Chapman had been appointed in 1828 to the committee which led to the society’s formation: The Standard, 11 Apr. 1828. and was a prominent presence at meetings of London merchants and shipowners, such as that of February 1831 which voiced alarm at government proposals to alter the timber, wine and cotton duties.11The Times, 19 Feb. 1831. He was involved with charitable endeavours for the benefit of seafarers, including the Seamen’s Hospital, the Merchant Seamen’s Orphan Asylum and the Royal National Institution for the Preservation of Lives from Shipwreck (later the RNLI).12The Times, 13 Apr. 1821, 5 June 1838; The Standard, 10 Mar. 1834.

Although a London resident, Chapman’s prominence in the shipping industry and his family connections made him a strong choice to represent his native borough, and he announced his candidature in May 1831.13Hull Packet, 3 May 1831. While his opponent, Richard Moorsom, had been a prominent advocate of reform, Chapman had signed a declaration of London merchants against the reform bill, although he claimed that once Whitby had been included in the bill of April 1831, he had rallied to its support.14York Herald, 28 May 1831; A. Chapman, A letter on the shipping industry: addressed to Thomas Fishburn, Esq. in answer to Mr. Moorsom’s letter to William Richmond, Esq. (1832). Chapman endeavoured to win favour with charitable donations, including to the Whitby Marine Society, Whitby museum and local schools.15Hull Packet, 13 Mar. 1832, 26 June 1832. He also backed the campaign to bring the railway to Whitby.16York Herald, 5 Nov. 1831. Contrasting Moorsom’s possession ‘of a fine portion of acres without any necessity for the exercise of his own industry’ with his own endeavours, Chapman observed that ‘I was not born to possess all these advantages, nor has the benefit of one day’s enjoyment in the sports of the field ever been allotted to me. Exertion was obliged to be my portion’.17Chapman, Letter on the shipping industry. He mounted a robust defence of protection, decrying Moorsom’s support for a moderate fixed duty on corn and for the reciprocity treaties, which he condemned as ‘vile’ and ‘impolitic’.18York Herald, 28 May 1831, 22 Dec. 1832. He appeared on a blacklist of candidates who were unlikely to support the immediate abolition of slavery.19Bristol Mercury, 8 Sept. 1832. Despite a lacklustre performance on the hustings, where it was noted that he had a ‘nervous, agitated, unstable carriage’ and spoke in ‘so extremely low a tone, that the reporter could not catch any thing, save a few sentences’, Chapman triumphed at the poll.20York Herald, 22 Dec. 1832. His opponents complained that his supporters had used ‘threats and promises, tampering and cajoling’,21Ibid. and also lodged a protest with the returning officer alleging that Chapman should be disqualified as a government contractor.22York Herald, 15 Dec. 1832. However, no petition was forthcoming. In addition to his own campaign at Whitby, Chapman endorsed the candidature of his fellow shipowner George Lyall for the city of London in 1832 and at a by-election in 1833.23Morning Post, 9 Nov. 1832, 12 Feb. 1833.

Chapman never again faced a contest at Whitby, being re-elected without trouble in 1835, 1837 and 1841. It was reported in October 1834, when he personally visited every elector, that ‘such has been his urbanity, and willingness to render every service to all who needed it, whether supporters or not, that many of his most violent opponents have been disarmed of their hostility’.24Hull Packet, 24 Oct. 1834. He continued his local benevolence, making periodic distributions of coal to the poor25York Herald, 14 Jan. 1837, 15 Feb. 1845., and holding lavish election balls to celebrate his unopposed returns.26Hull Packet, 16 Jan. 1835, 4 Aug. 1837; York Herald, 10 July 1841. He served as the (largely absentee) president of the Whitby agricultural association, supported Whitby regatta, and incurred personal losses as a major shareholder in the Whitby and Pickering railway.27York Herald, 28 Aug. 1847; Hull Packet, 15 Sept. 1843; York Herald, 6 Sept. 1845.

At Westminster, Chapman generally divided with the Conservatives, but was also prepared to chart his own course. He consistently opposed Whig ministers on the Irish church question, but voted for Althorp’s proposals to replace church rates with funds from the land tax, 21 Apr. 1834. He was in the minority for Sir Andrew Agnew’s Sabbath observance bill, 18 May 1836, and again supported this cause, 20 June 1838. He routinely divided against the ballot and other electoral reforms. He opposed radical motions such as Hume’s for the abolition of military sinecures, 14 Feb. 1833, although he was in the minority with Attwood for an inquiry into the causes of distress, 24 Apr. 1833. He voted against Hume’s motion for a low fixed duty on corn, 7 Mar. 1834, and although he divided in support of Peel’s sliding scale on corn, 9 Mar. 1842, he remained a committed protectionist, opposing repeal of the corn laws, 15 May 1846. He had also opposed Peel on the Maynooth grant, 18 Apr., 21 May 1845. In his final session he divided against Catholic relief, 24 Feb. 1847, but supported a ten hour factory day, 17 Mar. 1847, for which he had also voted, 18 Mar. 1844. His attendance appears to have waned later in his career, being present for only 18 out of 109 divisions in the 1841 session, when he was almost 70, and he is not known to have spoken in either the 1845 or 1847 sessions, in contrast with his earlier activity.28Leeds Mercury, 10 July 1841.

Chapman paid assiduous attention to questions relating to shipping, and it was said that ‘his well known good sense and close acquaintance with maritime subjects made even party men defer to his opinions when they did not militate too strongly against their own selfish or absurd theories’.29The Standard, 7 Jan. 1851. He served with ‘unwearied diligence and conscientious rectitude’ on innumerable select committees on matters ranging from the regulation of pilotage in the Cinque ports to the establishment of a pension fund for merchant seamen.30Gent. Mag. (1851), i. 316; PP 1833 (636), vii. 524; PP 1840 (617), xiii. 2; PP 1844 (431), viii. 280; PP 1845 (422), xii. 612. Among the other shipping-related inquiries on which Chapman served were those on the coal trade; the city of London’s petition on the colonisation of New Zealand; and the 1843 coalwhippers’ bill: PP 1836 (522), xi. 170; PP 1840 (582), vii. 448; PP 1843 (532), xi. 25. He also served on the committees on victualling house licences in Holborn; the Coventry, Stirlingshire and Kerry election petitions; and railway subscription lists: PP 1833 (585), xv. 262; PP 1833 (188), viii. 2; The Times, 27 Apr. 1838; Morning Post, 21 Mar. 1838; PP 1837 (226), xviii. Pt 1. 2. He also made regular but generally terse contributions to debate on the subject. He was strongly committed to the maintenance of a strong navy, which he considered ‘the best defence of the empire’, 6 Apr. 1835, and did not hesitate to praise Whig ministers for their efforts in this respect, 17 Feb. 1834, 2 Mar. 1840. He was keen to do away with the necessity for impressment, ‘so great an interference with the merchant service’31Hansard, 1 Mar. 1841, vol. 56, c. 1198., and supported measures to encourage the voluntary enlistment of merchant seamen in the navy, 17 Mar. 1835, 8 July 1835.

From the plethora of issues pertinent to the shipping interest on which Chapman contributed, two key themes emerge: maritime safety, and protective duties. As an elder brother of Trinity House he sat on and gave evidence to the 1834 select committee on lighthouses.32PP 1834 (590), xii. 2, 294. He supported Hume’s efforts to implement the committee’s recommendations by consolidating all lighthouses under Trinity House’s management, 25 Mar. 1835, although he warned against any attempt to curtail the pensions paid by that body, an obvious target for advocates of retrenchment. He endorsed the successful government bill to the same end in the following session, when he again defended Trinity House pensions from attack by Hume, 12 July 1836.33For speeches on other issues by Chapman as a spokesman for Trinity House, see Hansard, 4 July 1836, vol. 34, c. 1171; 7 Aug. 1840, vol. 55, cc. 1394-5. He later sat on the committee which assessed the effects of this legislation.34PP 1845 (607), ix. 2. The extension of Trinity House’s powers and jurisdiction was also one of the key recommendations of the royal commission on the laws of pilotage, to which Chapman was appointed in 1835.35The Times, 15 Apr. 1835; PP 1836 [56], xxviii. 3. Usually an opponent of extra financial burdens on British shipping, he defended the Danish government’s imposition of the Sound dues as necessary ‘to furnish light-houses and other safe-guards to navigation in those dangerous seas’, 2 May 1839.

Chapman served on select committees on the causes of shipwrecks in 1836, 1839 and 1843.^{36PP 1836 (567), xvii. 374; PP 1839 (333), ix. 224; PP 1843 (549), ix. 2.} When James Silk Buckingham, who had also served on the 1836 committee, attempted to legislate for tighter regulation of the mercantile marine, Chapman expressed support for some of his proposals, such as preventing overloading of ships, but warned the House not ‘to be carried into precipitate legislation by the personal attachment of hon. Members to Quixotic views’, 9 Mar. 1837. With ministers also expressing concern about the details of this bill, Chapman and his fellow shipowner, George Young, easily secured its defeat, 7 June 1837. He did, however, support other attempts to improve maritime safety, seconding Captain Fitzroy’s proposals for a bill to require all masters and chief mates of merchant vessels to pass examinations, 28 July 1842. Chapman was a natural choice to serve on the 1836 committee on harbours of refuge (which considered Whitby, among other ports), to which he also gave evidence, supporting a passing toll on the coal trade to fund harbour improvements.37PP 1836 (334), xx. 388, 459. He had earlier served on an inquiry into the harbours of Leith and Newhaven: PP 1835 (370), xx. 576. He paid careful attention to harbour bills in the House, backing the second reading of the Bridlington harbour bill, 8 May 1837, as ‘it was for the interests of the public and of humanity that a harbour of refuge should be established on such a dangerous line of coast’.38See also his intervention on the Fishguard harbour bill: Hansard, 12 Mar. 1838, vol. 41, c. 764. While serving on the royal commission on tidal harbours in 1845, he inspected several harbours in the north-east, and recalled his own experiences of entering Sunderland harbour half a century earlier when transporting the duke of York’s army back from Holland.39PP 1845 [665], xvi. 271; PP 1846 [692], xviii. Pt. 1. 3; Morning Post, 5 Nov. 1845. Chapman also served on a variety of other inquiries relating to navigation, ranging from the committee which recommended a £5,000 reward to Captain Ross for his efforts to find the North West passage to that on the Thames conservancy bill in 1847.40PP 1834 (250), xviii. 44; PP 1847 (504), xii. 154. Chapman also served on the committee on the navigation of the Shannon: PP 1834 (532), xvii. 142.

The evils of reciprocity had been one of the key themes of Chapman’s 1832 election campaign, and it was thus unsurprising that he backed Young’s (unsuccessful) motion to repeal the Reciprocity of Duties Act (passed in 1823 as part of William Huskisson’s moves towards free trade), 5 June 1834. With an eye to his own trading interests, he endorsed calls for equalisation of the duties on East India produce, notably sugar, 25 Mar. 1836.41See also Hansard, 25 Feb. 1840, vol. 52, c. 600. He took a keen interest in all matters relating to tariffs, supporting proposals to allow foreign corn held in bonded warehouses to be ground into flour and re-exported, as he believed this would benefit the shipping interest without harming the agricultural interest, 14 Apr. 1836, 20 Mar. 1838, and testified to this effect before a select committee.42PP 1840 (472), vi. 40. However, he opposed the extension of the privilege of bonding to inland towns, 28 July 1838, and was in the minority against the inland warehousing bill, 19 July 1839. He sat on several select committees on commercial questions, including the 1833 inquiry into the state of manufactures, commerce and shipping and the 1835 inquiry on the timber duties,43PP 1833 (690), vi. 2; PP 1835 (519), xix. 2. and was one of the Conservative minority on the 1840 select committee on import duties. Although he ‘attended irregularly’, he was present to divide against its recommendations for an overhaul of the tariff system, after a failed attempt to postpone its deliberations to the following session.44PP 1840 (601), v. 100; Hull Packet, 29 Jan. 1841; L. Brown, ‘The Board of Trade and the tariff problem, 1840-2’, EHR, 68 (1953), 402, 413. He spoke against proposed alterations in the timber and sugar duties on several occasions in 1840 and 1841.45Hansard, 1 June 1840, vol. 54, c. 803; 25 June 1840, vol. 55, c. 95; 30 Apr. 1841, vol. 57, c. 1351. In an uncharacteristically lengthy speech, 13 May 1841, he declared that as well as reflecting the views of shipowners in London, Liverpool, South Shields and of his constituents, his opposition to reductions in sugar duty was conscientious, not wishing to encourage slave-grown sugar. He also warned that the revised timber duties would result in ‘the annihilation of the British mercantile marine’. He spoke in support of an inquiry into the state of British shipping, 4 June 1844, and sat on the ensuing select committee.46PP 1844 (545), viii. 1; PP 1845 (583), xii. 2. His last significant contribution to debate was to reiterate his concerns that ending preferential treatment for colonial timber would adversely affect the shipping interest, 20 Mar. 1846.47For his earlier comments on this question, see Hansard, 27 May 1842, vol. 63, c. 900-1. The need for protection was the key theme of his speech at a meeting of the Shipowners’ Society that August, when he described himself as ‘an Englishman and an old sailor’.48Morning Post, 13 Aug. 1846.

It had been reported in July 1845 that Chapman would not offer again at the dissolution, and he duly retired in 1847, on grounds of ‘advanced age’.49Newcastle Courant, 11 July 1845; Hull Packet, 11 June 1847. In 1848 he subscribed 5 guineas to a testimonial in memory of his fellow protectionist stalwart Lord George Bentinck.50The Times, 27 Oct. 1848. Chapman died at his Highbury Park residence in December 1850, and was buried at Hornsey parish church. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Joseph Barker Chapman (1799-1872). Another son, Edward Henry Chapman, was a director of the Bank of England.51Gent. Mag. (1851), i. 315-16. Although none of Chapman’s sons attempted to enter Parliament, his nephew Thomas, the chairman of Lloyd’s Register, offered unsuccessfully for a vacancy at Whitby in 1859. The North Yorkshire County Record Office holds papers relating to the Chapman family.