The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-08 00:00:00

REPORT ON PORTERAGE.

The TOWN-CLERK commenced proceedings by reading
the report of the special committee appointed to
inquire into the present system of porterage, and any
abuses which may exist therein :
The report began by stating, that though the committee
think some modifications may be made in the present
system, they are unanimously of opinion that the system
is in itself not only more expeditious and less expensive
than the former one, but that, with the exception of some
few instances which have been brought before them, the
goods have been discharged and loaded off the quay with
at least as much care as under the former system. The
committee recommend that the original intention of giv-
ing to the firm having the largest amount of produce the
nomination of master porter should be strictly adhered to,
whereby the practice of canvassing would be entirely
abolished. The committee think that the goods are not
in all instances weighed with that degree of accuracy on
the quay which is necessary, attributable chiefly to a
relaxed attention on the part of the Customs in the dis-
charge of free goods, and they recommend that no porter
should be thus employed who has not received a certificate
of competency and character. The report condemns the
keeping by master porters of lodging houses, beer houses,
or any shop where the principle of the truck system may
be carried out, and recommends merchants, brokers, &c.,
to institute a searching inquiry into the course pursued
in this respect by the warehousemen to whom they
entrust the employment and payment of their porters.
The committee concur in the desirableness of appointing a
superintendent to each deck to overlook the master pos-
ters, as well as to hear any complaints, and to report them
to the Dock Committee. They repeat the suggestion
of providing a stand at each dock for porters
and labourers where they can be found when unemployed.
Although the new system has led to the employment of
fewer hands, and the establishment of a lower rate of por-
terage, they do not believe that the employment of the
operative porter will be to that extent diminished, as the
increased facilities and lower rates of the new system must
tend to increase the trade of the port. Whilst the com-
mittee feel that much of the distress among the porters
arises from a general depression of trade, and a redundant
population. they:think that much injustice has been done
by the employment, at a low rate of wages, of inexperi-
enced hands. They have no wish to interfere, even in
appearance with the price of labour, yet they filmic
that, as the book of rates was calculated on tl:e basis
of 3s. Gd. per day, the difference between that rate
and 2s. to 2s. Gd. per day, which has not unfrequently
been paid, is an injustice to the experienced operative por-
ter, and they therefore recommend that no porter, not
permanently engaged by the week or year, should havealess
amount of wages than 3s. 6d. per day, which would have
the effect not only of giving protection to the able and
experienced porter, but would obviate the temptation
at present existing of employing inexperienced men, and
thus afford additional security to the proper handling of
the goods when loaded. The committee think that, though
the book of rates is very accurately calculated, there are
a few articles in it which require revision.
Mr. HUGH HORNBY, in moving the adoption of this
report, said that the committee had devoted a great deal of
attention to the subject, and that they had consulted par-
ties connected with every interest in the town, from whom
any information could be obtained. They had been ani-
mated by a desire to come to some conclusion which
would promote the interests of the operative porters, but
it was the unanimous opinion of the committee that a
recurrence to the unsatisfactory and vexatious system of
porterage adopted previously to the present arrangement
coming into operation would not have that effect, but
that, on the contrary, it would result in positive injury to
the operative porter. At the same time, they were of
opinion that several modifications in the present system
were desirable, and that some of these would have a ten-
dency to remove many of the grievances complained of.
He then referred to the modifications referred to in the
report, and said that if the report were adopted a more
respectable class of porters would in future be employed,
instead of the raw, inexperienced hands who had been
hitherto engaged, and who had caused a very considerable
amount of damage by their unskilled labour. He con-
cluded by expressing the thanks of the committee to the
mayor, for his kindness in having presided over the prin-
cipal part of the committee's investigations, notwithstand-
ing the arduous duties which, as chief magistrate of the
town, lie bad had to attend to during the late disturbances.
Mr. ROBINSON seconded the adoption of the report.
He admitted that he had entered on the recent inquiry
with a predisposition in favour of the old system, but
that after having heard the evidence, be conceived the
present system to be advantageous to various interests of
the port.
Mr. PARKER said Ile was unwilling to detract from the
credit which was due to the committee, but in his opinion
the report did not go far enough. He highly approved of
the principle it enunciated, but he was desirous that the
operative porter should enjoy the full remuneration for
his services. He understood that the master porter re-
ceived his amount of charge, agreeably to a certain scale
of labour, but that an enormous per centage was deducted
from the operative porter by the warehouseman. Now,
he (Mr. Parker) was for giving a fair day's wages for a
`fair day's work, and, therefore, he was opposed to the
warehouseman pocketing, in some instances, the shilling
a day which of right belonged to the porter. He wished
to remedy the system, by preventing the warehouseman
from engaging and paying the porter, and by endeavour.
ing to have the porter engaged by the merchant and paid
in the merchant's office.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE said that he was not, until that
moment, aware of the contents of the report, and that he
was desirous of making some observations upon it before
the discussion proceeded further. In the first place, it
was superfluous for the committee to recommend that no
master-porter should be connected with any beer-house,
because in the list of master-porters there was not a sin-
gle one of them connected with any beer-house in Liver-
pool. That list had some time ago been carefully gone
through by the Dock Committee, and the only man on it
who was, supposed to have a connexion with a beer-house
was struck off. He objected to the appointment of su-
perintendents by the Dock Committee, upon the ground
that that would entail a very heavy annual expenditure
upon the estate ; and, with reference to this point, he
reminded the Council that the Dock Committee derived
no benefit whatever from the new system of por-
terage, and that their services in the matter were
perfectly gratuitous. They certainly acted as the
executive ; they executed the bonds for the master-
porters; but the Estate did not derive a single shilling in
the shape of advantage for all this trouble, and therefore
it would be going too far now to saddle it with the sala-
ries of superintendents. The Report went on to say that
a great deal of damage had been done to cargoes by the
employment of inexperienced hands ; but the complaints
on this head had been exceedingly few, probably about 3
or 4, and then they were dealt with in a very summary
manner. Nothing would rejoice him more than to see
the operative porters getting their 3s. 6d. a-day, as re-
commended in the Report, hut be could not help remind-
ing the Council that the difficulty of legislating for the
price of labour was exceedingly great. Tt was a dulusion
and an impossibility that the Council votdd fix a rate of
wages, because labour, like everything else, was regulated
by supply and demand. (Hear, hear.) They might as
well fix it at ss. as at 3s. Gd., because they had just
as much power to enforce it in the one case as
in the other; and besides, it ought to be borne in mind,
that some men were better worth Gs. a day than others
were worth ls. Gd. or 2s. (Hear.) He knew not how
the system of canvassing for the discharge of vessels, al-
luded to in the report, could be obviated : and, with re-
spect to the present mode of appointin„a the master por-
ters by the parties owning-two thirds of a cargo, he could
only say that that was an arrangement made by consult-
ing with the merchants and consignees. With reference
to the stand for porters, he had no objection to that per-
sonally, but he knew that a very great objection to it ex-
isted in the minds of the men themselves, and also of the
consignees. He assured the Council that he offered
these remarks in the best possible spirit, aild that the
Dock Committee were extremely willing to make such
general arrangements on the subject of porterage as would
be for the mutual advantage of all parties.
Mr. RATIMONE said he felt so strongly upon the impo-
licy of fixing the rate of wages that he had drawn up the
following amendment,--" That the recommendation fix-
ing the rate of wages at 3s. 6d. a-day would he practically
' inoperative, and opposed to the principle that supply and
demand should alone regulate that rate, and that the
wages clause be omitted from the report." He believed
that the Council understood the principles of Political
Economy better than the French people, and that they
would, by adopting this amendment, not fall into the er-
ror of their continental neighbours. He hoped the porters
would not consider him their enemy for having made this
proposition, for he could assure them that he was as much
opposed as Mr. Parker was to any system of fraud by the
warehousemen, and quite as anxious that every man
should have a fair day's wages for a fair day's work.
Mr. EVANS remarked that the report found fault with
a redundant population ; but how, he asked, was such a
population to be obviated ? Then, with reference to its
enunciations about gains upon labour, why there was not
a manufacturer in the country who did not derive his
capital from gain upon labour. He conceived that the.
club laws of this country ba I invariably worked a very
great injury, because they had compelled the payment of
the unskilful equally high with the good workman; and
nothing was more unjust than this, or more hostile to 'the
real interests of trade and of the country at large. In his
opinion, absolute free trade in labour was as requisite as
in any other department, and that it would be quite Hew
in England for a man to be told that unless lie got 3s. Gd. a
day lie must not work for 2s. Gd. (Hear.)
The MAYOR expressed a hope that he might be permit-
ted, having taken some interest in this question, to make
an observation or two on what had fallen from Mr. Moore
and other members. He regretted that Mr. Moore should
have said that he had only just become acquainted with
the contents of the report, because that report had been
now before the Council ten days, and, had he read it
before, in all probability he would not have made the ob-
servations to which lie had given utterance. One of his
remarks was, that the Dock Committee derived no benefit
from dock porterage, and that therefore they ought not
to be called upon to appoint superintendents ; but if Mr.
Moore had read the evidence he would have found that
the Dock Committee did derive a great deal of benefit
from the system, *for' if a vessel was discharged and re-
loaded in one-third of thotime now that she was formerly
then the system must be of very considerable advantage. He
considered it very important to put an end to canvassing.
It was a general complaint of the merchants that they did
not wish to be canvassed, and that by a slight alteration
suggested in the report, a proper master porter,would in-
variably be appointed. lie thought the amendment did

tot come very well from Mr. Rathbone, who was himself
a master porter. The report stated that the book of rates
was calculated at 3s. 6d. a-day as between the merchant
and the master porter ; and what the committee contended
was, that the master porter should be compelled to pay to
the labouring porter that which the master porter received
from the merchant. (Applause.) They bad reason to
believe that there was a great deal of underhand work
between the warehouseman and the porter on the quay,
and that the former did, in some way or other, receive a
portion of that money which ought to go into the hands of
the latter. The committee had endeavoured to find out
such cases, but they had failed in establishing them, be-
cause parties were unwilling to come forward ; but they
had no doubt that very large sums of money went into the
hands of the warehouseman instead of into the hands of
the porters. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. new. said it appeared manifest enough that there
was no power upon the part of the Council to punish any
master-porter who paid a less sum than 3s. 6d. a day.
The MAYOR.—None whatever ; it is a mere recommen-
dation.

Mr. Nicol observed that such a recommendation would
be ridiculed, and that no man could be expected to become
a master-porter if he were compelled to pay the operative
porter all the money he received. The Dock Committee
had undertaken a very thankless office in interfering about
the porterage ; but now that the sharp end of the wedge
had been inserted, it was rather too much to endeavour to
drive in the broad end, by compelling the committee to
pay the wages of superintendents.
Mr. MANN contended t hat the appointnient of superin-
tendents would only entail useless expense, and that in
case of appeals, there was a committee already sitting who
were perfectly able and willing to afford redress.
Mr. S, HOLME was decidedly of opinion that the Coun-
cil were about to fall into the great error which the vari-
ous trades of England had already fallen into—that of
trying to do that which was an absolute impossibility, the
fixing of a rate of wages. He had never known an in-
stance yet in which a good workman was without ereplcy-
ment ; and he cautioned the Council to pause, and, by
not interfering between those who wanted labour and
those who had it to sell, to leave it free as air.
Mr. ATKIN .seconded the amendment, and in doing
so said that however excellent and admirable the language
of the report might be, it was quite out of the question to
fix the rate of wages at 3s. 6d. He agreed with Mr.
Hornby in saying whatever advantage was derived from
this report would almost wholly be attributable to the
Mayor, and he admitted that if the master porters en-
abled the vessels to be despatched with greater speed
than formerly, it. would be a decided benefit to the Dock
estate. _

In reply to Mr. Harbord,
Mr. MOORE observed that lodging-house keepers as
well as beer-house keepers were excluded from practising
as master porters.
After a few remarks from Mr. BENN and Mr. HEN DER-
SON,
Mr. H. HORNBY replied. There were only two material
objections to the Report. One was, with regard to the
appointment of superintendents at the docks, and the
other with regard to the fixing of the rate of wages. He
feared that many of the gentlemen who had addressed the
Council, could not have read the voluminous evidence
taken by the Committee, because the East Indian and
China Association had spoken at length of the great
benefits to be derived from the appointment of superin-
tendents, and the rate of 3s. 6d. a day had been enumer-
ated in the rules and scales originally published for the
porters.
Mr. PARKER inquired whether master porters were at
liberty to vote in a division ? _ _

The MAYOR, acting under the instructions of the
Town-Clerk, replied that they were not; but the vote
would be taken, leaving it to the consciences of gentlemen
interested to act as they might think proper.
The Council divided, when there appeared :
For Mr. Rathbone's amendment.... 20

Against it
The amendment was consequently carried. The fol-
lowing gentlemen voted in the division :
For it :—Messrs. W. Walthew, J. Woodruff, W. Rath-
bone, E. Evans, J. Aikin, J. Rogers, S. Holme, G.
Booker, T. Kaye, J. B. Lloyd, J. Plumpton, G. H. Law-
rence, J. Booker, Thos. Lloyd, R. Benn, W. Mann, John
Holmes, W. Nicol, J. Bramley-Moore, and J. H. Turner.
Against it :—Messrs. T. Littledale, jun., G. H. Hors-
fall, H. Hornby, J. A. Tinne, R. S. Henderson, T. Ro-
binson, Thos. Rimmer, T. Royden, H. G. llarbord, J.
A. Tobin, C. W. Reade, W. Earle, J. Parker, J. Cooper,
J. Procter, and the Mayor.
The report was adopted, with the exception of the
wages clause, which was referred back to the committee.

ATTACK ON MR. PARKER.
Mr. PARKER said it would be recollected that Mr.
Cooper. upon the last day, had accused him of squan-
dering thousands of the public money.
The MAYOR.—Nobody, I am sure,' would accuse Mr.
Parker of anything of the kind.
Mr. PARKER.— What Mr. Cooper may say, sir, may be
of very little weight, but I call upon him to substantiate
what he has said, or I shall move for a committee to in-
quire and report. I shall not have my private character
taken away, because a worthy and bulky alderman
(loud laughter) may choose to attack me ; and I call
upon him to retract, or I shall move for a committee to
investigate.
Mr. COOPER.—I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, to
cast any reflection on Mr. Parker, for every one knows
that he has done all in his power to press down expendi-
ture ; but I was under the impression that the street
cleansing contract might have been taken for £2,000 or
£3,000 less. I hrve no hesitation in saying that I made
no charge against Mr. Parker. He did the best for the
•public, and with the very best motives. (Hear.)
The MAyott.—l do not think that Mr. Cooper imputed
the slightest improper motives. (Hear, hear.)

THE RATING OF THE DOCES AND CORPORATE ESTATE.

The TOWN-CLERK read the report of the Special Com-
mittee on local rates. The following are the principal
features :

" That it appeared tothe Committee from the statements
of the deputation. of the Select Vestry, that the Poor-rate
then in course of collection for the parish of Liverpool was
three shillings in the pound, and the Church-rate one
penny, and that upon the whole assessment about 75 per
cent. is collected, but that no attemptis made, except un-
der special eircumstances, to recover the rates upon pro-
perty valued at and under £l2 per annum.
" That of the local rates levied by the Council and col-
lected by their own officers, about the same per centage
upon the whole assessment is collected.
" The Committee make the following recommenda-
tions to the Council :

" 1. That all private property should bear its fair pro-
portion of the local taxation, and, to effect this object,
that the owners of all such property should be rated, care
being taken, by suitable provisions, to preserve the elec-
tive franchise, where that franchise depends upon rating
and payment of rates.
" 2. That the principle of rating the property of Muni-
cipal Corporations has been already recognised by the Le-
gislature by the passing of the General Act, 4th and sth
Victoria, cap. 48, and that, in the opinion of the com-
mittee, no sufficient reason exists in this borough for the
application of the proviso contained in that act, containing
the exemption from rateability of municipal property
within the parish of Liverpool. That all municipal pro-
perty should, in the opinion of this coinroittee, be liable to
local rates so long as the corporate income is more than
sufficient to meet the obligatory expenditure.
" 3. That in the opinion of the committee, all property
vested in the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks, or used,
Or occupied by them, should likewise be rated to and pay
local taxation.
" 4. That in the opinion of this committee, application
should be made to Parliament in the next session, for the •
purpose of SecuriTg the foregoing objects ; and that the
necessary bill or bills should be promoted at the joint ex-
pense of the Council, and of the parochial authorities.
within the borough.
"5. That in the bill or bills so to be promoted, pro-
vision should be made for correcting and adjusting seve-
ral objections and difficulties which have arisen, relative
to the various powers contained in the existing general
and local acts, for laying and recovering rates.
" That should these recommendations be approved by
the Council, a committee be appointed for the purpose of
conferring with the several parochial authorities, and pre-
paring the necessary bill or bills to be submitted to Par-
liament in the next session.

" WILLIAM EARLE,_Chairman.7

The TOWN-CLERK also read memorials from the Select
Vestry and the National:Confederation, praying that paro-
chial rates might be imposed on the Corporate and Dock
Estates, and also from the Houscowners Guardian So-
ciety, praying that parochial rates might not be imposed
upon the owners of cottage property.

Mr. EAnLE moved the adoption of the report. He held
in.his hand a return of the amount of taxation imposed
upon different towns in the kingdom. Information had
been sought from 55' towns. 29 of these had replied,
and 13 of them were higher than Liverpool. The higher
towns were Bridgenorth, Blackburn, Cheltenham, Brad-
ford, Leeds, Preston, London, Whitechapel, Spitalfie:ds,
Mile End, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and Bow. The rates
in Carlisle, Lancaster, Stockport, and Sheffield, were
within 2d. of those of Liverpool—so that, notwithstand-
ing all that was said about local rates, we were not worse
off here than our neighbours, and the inhabitants had not
much reason to complain.
• Mr, PARKKER seconded the adoption of the report. He
believed it was the law of the British constitution that
every portion of the state should pay towards the support
of that state. It was the law in all the parishes of the
United Kingdom that all the property within those pa-
rishes should be chargable to the local rates; and in advo-
cating this view 99 out of every 100 of the inhabitants of
Liverpool were on his side, and eventually the object
must be obtained. He asked why tradesmen employed
on one side of the dock estate should be compelled to
support the parochial burdens, and why Mr. Hartley and
others who were employed on the other side of it should
be exempted ? 'Was this fair ? Was it justice ? (Hear,
hear.) Why pay rates upon the dock property at Run-
corn, and upon the markets of Liverpool, and why refuse
to pay rates upon the docks of Liverpool, and upon the
corporate property situated in the various directions of the
town ?

Mr. G, H. LAWRENCE expressed a hope that he would
not lay himself open to the charge of advocating anything
like selfish interests when he opposed the motion, and
protested against the reception of the report. He objected
to it on two grounds. On account of its merits, or rather
of its demerits, and also because it involved the necessity
of another application to parliament.. He assured the
Council that more money had been spent since the pass-
ing of the Municipal Act, in opposing and promoting Acts
of Parliament, than St. George's Hall had cost.; and he
asked whether it was not far more advisable to carry out
the Municipal Act than to proceed, session after session,
for private local acts? (Hear.) The first recommenda-
tion of the report was, that all descriptions of property
should be taxed alike. Now the cottage proprietor op-
posed this, nor was ita matter of surprise.that he should.
In legislating upon such a subject there was great difficutly

in preserving the franchise to the occupier if the owner paid
the rates, because if the occupier's name were erased
from the books, and the owner's inserted, then nine-
tenths of the public would stand a chance of being dis-
franchised. Besides, a fatal blow would be struck at the
independence of the voter, who then would be placed at
the influence of the landlord. This was his objection to
the first proposition. The next was, to subject_the Cor-
poration revenue or town dues of every class a corporate
property to the burden of the parochial rates; and he
asked them on what grounds could they possibly have
arrived at such a conclusion as this, to go tb Parliament
to disable themselves, to tie their hands behind them, and
confess that they were unable, in the words of the Muni-
cipal Act, "to spend their money for the u,nesal
benefit of the inhabitants and the good of the bo-
rough." To consent to this would be to reduce them-
selves to the level. of the Select Vestry, cud to pre-
vent themselves from being able to meet any emergency.
If they had any money to spare, let them relieve the inha-
bitants fiom the pressure of the general rate, but let
them not commit such an unjust, absurd, and impolitic
act as to devote their funds to the payment of parochial
rates. He admitted that the markets paid poor rates, in
the same manner as a landlord paid those rates for his
tenant, but he would ever oppose the taxation of the
baths and washhouses of the Town hall. He also admitted
that the Corporation property at Runcorn paid.
taxes ; but then he contended that there was a wide dif-
ference between property beyond and within the precincts
of the borough. He was as much opposed to the, rating
of the docks as he was to the rating of any other portion
of the corporate estate; and he thought the Council ought
to be the last parties to come there and tax their own
property in any shape. (Hear.) It had been decided
over and over again, by the Court of Queen's Bench,
that where there was no beneficial interest no rates
should be imposed. If, then, they were now to tax every
ship, and cargo, and passenger, they would be establishing
something like a second Custom-house, and doing more
than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever attempted,
for he had never taxed every commodity. The policy now
proposed to be pursued was most short-sighted. It was
an attempt to plunder and rob the commerce of the coun-
try, for the Dock property did not belong to the people
alone, but appertained to the community at large. He
concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the Report
be met by a direct negative.

Mr. ERAMLEY-MOORE seconded the amendment. He
asked why seek to tax the dock estate now when that
estate had from time immemorial been exempted from
rates ? He expected to hear some arguments in support
of the motion, but the-observations made on the subject
had convinced him more than ever of the non-necessity of
the measure. He observed that so far as the Dock Estate
was concerned there could be no surplus income, because,
any surplus income which happened to arise, went in re-
duction of the dock dues. During the last 10 years the
public had enjoyed this reduction to the extent of
£400,000 ; and last year alone there had been a reduction
of £40,000. Had not this conferred benefit upon
Liverpool ? Would it not confer enormous benefit
upon the town if all dock rates were abolished? Whence
came the source of 'all their wealth ? From the Mersey
and the docks of Liverpool, because the Mersey could not
accommodate the trade of the port without the docks.
Why had the port .of Bristol been in a state of decadence
Compared with Liverpool? Because Englishmen were
treated there as aliens, and because 3s. a ton had to be
paid for what only was charged ls. 3d. in Liverpool. He
warned the Council, then against increasing the dock
rates, and said that before any increase were made
the Dock bondholders had aright to be consulted, because
they had lent their money on the security of the existing
laws. He believed that if they went to Parliament to
impose additional rates on the Estate they would be de-
feated, and that any such attempt would be the signal for
transferring the trust to the bondholders.
After an ineffectual attempt upon the part of Mr.
Procter to adjourn the debate, in order that the public
might be afforded time to peruse it, -
Mr. H. Hoaxn defended the committee, and con-
tended that they were fully justified in submitting the
report.
Mr. EVANS and Mr. ATKIN strongly opposed the recep-
tion of the report, and said that no time ought be lost in
lost in rejecting it.
Mr. S. HOLM opposed the rating of cottage and coy..
porate property, but was of opinion that the dock property
ought to be rated.
Mr. WOODROOFF thought that corporate and dock pro-
perty ought to be rated, and that cottage property ought
to be exempted.
Mr. J. B. LLOYD strongly supported the amendment,
upon the ground that his own interests, and those of the
public at large, were dependent upon the commerce of the
port.
Ater a few words from Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Cooper,
and Mr. Harbord,
Mr. . EARLE replied.
. _ _ _ _

The Council divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it....
The amendment was, consequently, carried. The follow-
ing gentlemen voted in the division :
For it :—Messrs. W. Rathbone, Eyre Evans, G. H.
Horsfall, J. Aikin , Thos. Rimmer, T. Royden, J. A. Tobin,
J. B. Lloyd, J. Plumpton, G. H. Lawrence, R. Benn, W.
Mann, W: Nicol, J. Bramley-Moore, E. Molyneux, J. H.
Turner, T. Chilton, the Mayor.—Total, 18.
Against it :—Messrs. W. Walthew, J. Thomson, J.
Woodruff, T. Littledale, jun., J. A. Tinne, R. S. Hender-
son, T. Robinson, G. H. Ha:•bord. J. Rogers, S. Holme,
W. Earle, J. Parker, W. Watson, Thos Lloyd, J. Cooper,
J. Procter.—Total, 16.
Mr. TINNE and Mr. WOODRUFF both wished to move
amendments, but
The MAYOR intimated that, as Mr. Lawrence's amend-
ment had been carried. no further amendments could be
put, and that the whole of the report of the committee
was now rejected.