d victories which made no great impression.

[2] Besides Joseph Arch, such men as John Burns and J. Keir Hardie.

The real upheaval came in the General Election of 1906. That contest
wrought a silent revolution. Up to that date, with very few
exceptions, the wealthy class was the only one which had been
represented in the House of Commons. Furthermore, it cost a good deal
of money for any candidate to get into the House, and as members drew
no pay, it cost a good deal more money to remain there.

In 1906 the Liberal Party and the Labor Party gained a sweeping
victory over the Conservative Party, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman,
the Liberal Prime Minister, came into power, 1906-1908. Out of the
six hundred and seventy members who had been elected to the House of
Commons, fifty-four came from the ranks of the workingmen,--those to
whom life means an unending struggle to live.[3] The combined Labor
voters sent these men to represent them in Parliament, and then raised
a fund to meet the expense of keeping them there.[4]

[3] John Burns, who was one of the earliest workingmen to enter
Parliament as a Labor leader, said of himself, "Came into the world
with a struggle, struggling now, with prospects of continuing it."
[4] But later, the Court of Appeal (S588) decided that the Labor Party
could not legally compel any member of the Labor Union to contribute
to this fund against his will. Now (1911) Parliament pays all members
of the Commons (see S591).

These "Laborites," as they are popularly called, claim that their
influence secured the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act (1908), for
the relief of the aged and deserving poor; the Act for Feeding
Destitute School Children; and the Act establishing Labor Exchanges
(1909) throughout the country to help those who are looking for work.

The entrance of the working class and of the Socialists into
Parliament marks the transference of power from the House of Commons
directly to the mass of the people. Public opinion is now the real
active force in legislation, and the lawmakers are eager to know what
"the man in the street" and the "man with the hoe" are thinking.

This closeness of touch between Parliament and People has evident
advantages, but it also has at least one serious drawback. In times
of great public excitement it might lead to hasty legislation, unless
the House of Lords should be able to interpose and procure the further
consideration of questions of