3rdly. No goods could be carried coastwise from one part of the United Kingdom to another in any but British ships. 4thly. No goods could be exported from the United Kingdom to any of the British possessions in Asia, Africa, or America (with some exceptions with regard to India), in any but British ships. 5thly. No goods could be carried from any one British possession in Asia, Africa, or America to another, nor from one part of such possession to another part of the same in any but British ships. 6thly. No goods could be imported into any British possession in Asia, Africa, or America, in any but British ships, or in ships of the country of which the goods were the produce, provided, also, in such case, that such ships brought the goods from that country. 7thly. No foreign ships were allowed to trade with any of the British possessions unless they had been specially authorised to do so by Order in Council; and 8thly. Powers were given to the Queen in Council which enabled her to impose differential duties on the ships of any foreign country which did the same with reference to British ships; and also to place restrictions on importations from any foreign countries which placed restrictions on British importations into such countries. It will be remarked, that in the regulations respecting the trade of Europe the restrictions only applied to _imports_. Exports were not affected; in fact, so far as the Navigation Act was concerned, foreign ships might export any goods from this country. British manufacturers had naturally required that no impediment should be placed upon the exportation of British goods. This was perhaps the only sensible clause in the whole paraphernalia of these laws.[54] FOOTNOTES: [37] I daresay at that time Lord Russell had not studied the question sufficiently. I arrive at this conclusion from a note I received from his Lordship in the present year (1875), in which he says, referring to the repeal of the Navigation Laws:—“I felt convinced by the reasoning of all writers, of whom the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, was one of the most able, that the Navigation Laws ought to be repealed. I was not frightened by Lord Derby’s sinister predictions, and events have proved me right.” Sir Stafford Northcote at the time was, I think, private secretary to Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade under Lord John Russell’s Administration, and it is curious to learn that his Lordship, then the Prime Minister and leader of the great Whig party, should have been made a convert to the necessity of _further_ progress by the young Conservative. Of course these writings could not have been read by Lord Russell at the time when he made the “declaration” to which I refer in the text. [38] It seems worth while to give here in a note the dates of the several steps taken in the repeal of the Navigation Laws, with the references to _Hansard_, where the several speeches can be consulted:—