March 8, 1907, after a first place on the orders of the day and a five hours' discussion with no demonstration of any kind in the Gallery, the reason given in the Lobby and by the Press was that the question having got beyond the academic stage and into the region of practical politics, the Speaker felt it to be impossible to allow the closure to be moved on such an important change in the British Constitution.
Mr. Dickenson, who was in charge of the Bill, made a profound impression, upon a very full House, and it was universally admitted that the tone of the debate was higher than on any previous occasion. The scornful flippancy which had marred so many discussions was kept well in abeyance, thanks to the high standard set by the many genuine supporters whom we fully trust and who merit our deep gratitude for their untiring efforts to muster a friendly House.
But the failure to reach a division has come as a bolt from the blue upon veteran and novice alike. Every one had counted upon a division and a huge favourable majority. A defeat would have been preferable to no division. It would have enabled us to gauge our friends, but by this device friend and foe have alike eluded us.
After forty years in the wilderness of agitation, under many successive leaderships, after the question has been nearly a score of times discussed in the House, after two amendments on the question have been moved in Committees on Reform Bills, we are practically told that up to the present session Parliament has merely toyed with the measure.
