of party government in England, which in certain noteworthy particulars is quite different from our own. Parliament is the legislating body; and legislation on public questions is very completely under the control of the Cabinet. That body, which differs essentially from the Cabinet of an American President, is composed of the King's Ministers, chosen from the dominant party in Parliament. It performs a threefold function: it leads its party, controls legislation in the House of Commons, and administers the executive functions of the Government. In its legislative capacity the power of the Cabinet is wellnigh absolute so long as it commands a majority in the Commons. In fact, a prominent authority on the government of England has said: "To say that at present the Cabinet legislates with the advice and consent of Parliament would hardly be an exaggeration. . . . It does not follow that the action of the Cabinet is arbitrary; that it springs from personal judgment divorced from all dependence, on popular or Parliamentary opinion. The Cabinet has its finger always on the pulse of the House of Commons, and especially of its own majority there, and it is ever on the watch for expressions of public feeling outside. Its function is in large part to sum up and formulate the desires of its supporters, but the majority must accept its conclusions, and in carrying them out becomes well-nigh automatic."

It follows, from the function of the Cabinet as the real legislative body and from the principle of party government, that a Ministry which has been defeated in the House of Commons on any but the most unimportant measures cannot continue in office. In the contingency of an adverse vote in the Commons, two alternatives are before the Cabinet. It may resign, when the Crown must select some statesman, generally of the opposite party, to form a new Cabinet; or it may dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country at a general election.

Parliamentary elections (which are the only elections in England except those for purely local purposes) are held, then, not at stated intervals,1 but whenever a Ministry loses the support of the House

1 Except in the rare case that a Parliament has expired by statutory limitation at the end of seven years.

of Commons and decides, as a consequence, to appeal to the country.

It is the support of the House of Commons, be it noted, that determines the status of the Cabinet, and therein lies the anomaly of the present crisis. "A Cabinet," says Lowell in his "The Government of England," "never thinks of resigning on account of the hostility of the Lords; nor is its position directly affected by their action."

The

So it has been in the past. But so it was not in the year of grace 1909. action of the House of Lords very directly affected the position of the Cabinet; and while the hostility of the hereditary chamber did not make the Ministry "think of resigning," it did make it appeal to the country. A Financial Bill (otherwise Budget) stands on a very different footing from other bills. If it be not enacted, the sources of the country's revenue are dried up. Taxation, the very breath of life to a government, in large measure ceases, and a continued failure to enact a Finance Bill would quickly produce chaos. A Cabinet which cannot pass its Budget must either give way to its opponents or secure from the country a mandate which its opponents cannot ignore.

This is the first time in hundreds of years, if not in the history of England, chat the House of Lords has rejected a Budget. The situation brought about by its action could have but one outcomedissolution and a general election-for the Cabinet, with a majority of 230 in the Commons, could not resign. The course adopted by the Lords, therefore, set up two contentions, from both of which the Liberal party dissented: First, the right of the House of Lords to interfere in financial legislation; secondly, the right of the House of Lords to force a dissolution of Parliament and an appeal to the electors.

The Liberal party, therefore, went before the people on two questions, one fiscal, the other constitutional: Shall the principles of taxation embodied in the Budget-the increased taxation of property and the wealth that comes from natural resources-be adopted by the nation? Shall the right of the House of Lords to share in the control of the nation's finance and to force at its pleasure a dissolution

The first question the Conservative party has met with a negative and with an alternative policy, Tariff Reform, otherwise Protection. To the second it has also said No, but less loudly and less insistently. In a controversy over the constitutional question the Conservatives have all to lose and little to gain. The status quo is plenty good enough for them. The Lords have made use of the powers which the Liberals would deny them, and it is better for the Conservatives to unite

than in the negative defense of the acts of the hereditary chamber. Or so it seems to the observer seeking impressions.

The Liberal battle-cries, then, may be said to be, "The Budget and Social Reform," and (to put it a little brusquely) "Down with the Lords;" the Conservative slogans, "Tariff Reform and Prosperity for All," and "A Strong Second Chamber to Check Radical Extravagance."

London.

N°

OT long ago a report reached the Attorney-General of the United States that the conditions were bad in the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania at Allegheny, where were confined twenty-one Federal prisoners. Immediately he despatched an inspector of the Department of Justice to investigate. The inspector recommended the prompt removal of the eight Federal prisoners whose terms did not soon expire to the Federal Penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Four of these prisoners, among them a millionaire ex-banker, were at once transferred to Fort Leavenworth. The other four, on their own request, were allowed to remain at least for the time being in the Pennsylvania institution. This was the official result of the investigation. Its unofficial result was to fan into new life a vigorous press discussion of the conditions in this penitentiary which had earlier been started by an investigation made by the Board of Charities of the State.

The charges contained in the report of the inspector of the Department of Jus tice were briefly as follows:

First: Owing to the State law regulating and limiting prison labor, approximately one-half the prisoners were idle.

Second: The inspector said, "The day before my arrival, when one of the Board

of Inspectors of the institution was in the dining-room during the noon meal, the prisoners arose in a body and hurled their food, plates, etc., at the Inspector and called upon him to witness the quality of their food.”

Third: "Several of the higher-class prisoners, men of good education and former high standing, expressed dissatisfaction because they were compelled to eat at the general mess."

Fourth Almost without exception the prisoners complained of vermin in the cells.

Fifth: "The warden, deputy warden, physician, chaplain, and clerk, admitted to me that tuberculosis, chiefly in pulmonary but also in other forms, is prevalent in the institution."

Sixth: "The institution is overcrowded, and the warden says it will be more so when the fall terms of the courts begin. The population August 31, 1909, was 1,301. More than one-half the number are confined two in a cell."

I was commissioned by The Outlook to investigate these charges. By way of securing a standard of comparison, I first visited the short-term penitentiary on Blackwell's Island (where, by the way, the atrociously small and dark cells are a disgrace to New York State), and then the Maryland Penitentiary at Baltimore,

whence I went to Pittsburgh. Resolving to beard the lion in his den, I went direct to the office of Mr. William J. Diehl, a former Mayor of Pittsburgh and now the President of the Board of Inspectors of the Western Penitentiary. As a result of the newspaper attacks upon the prison I found Mr. Diehl, to put it mildly, in a sensitive state of mind and not inclined to welcome further publicity. He accused the papers of lying about the conditions, and I later found he had some reasonable grounds for this accusation. When I had assured him that I wanted nothing but the truth-the truth which should be a healthful antidote to the lies which rankled in his mind—he relented and discussed the situation freely and frankly. I left his office with a letter of introduction to Warden John Francies.

It

The next morning I boarded a car and set out for Allegheny and the much-discussed Western Penitentiary. Allegheny is a part of the greater Pittsburgh. bears the same relation to Pittsburgh as does Brooklyn to New York. It is the smokiest and grimiest part of the "smoky city." Even the houses of the rich, "the homes of luxury and alimony," as Mr. Dooley calls them, are covered with grime and soot like the railway stations in ordinary cities. I can imagine no more fitting preparation for a penitentiary mood than that cheerless car ride from Pittsburgh across the Ohio River and along the monotonous river front districts of Allegheny. Along the whole route is a never-ending succession of smoke-blackened factories and freight yards, little low-browed wooden stores, and brick and wooden tenements vying one with another in monotonous ugliness. The only bit of color in the whole dreary scene was the ubiquitous saloon with its gaudy gilded sign. Two frequently reappearing theatrical bill-posters struck my attention. One represented "Dare Devil Dan" shooting his revolver with one hand while supporting the prostrate form of his fainting sweetheart with the other. The other showed "The Thief,” striped and manacled and glaring with an expression of malignant hate from behind the bars of his cell. Later I was not surprised to learn that the Penitentiary recruited a goodly number of its inmates from the neighborhood.

The great prison, flanking the river on what must have been originally low-lying marsh land, rises into view from amid its squalid surroundings with a kind of grim beauty. Along both sides and the rear extend huge stone walls on which at intervals rise turrets in which armed guards are always stationed. As I was walking along the front of the prison toward the entrance I first noticed the extreme dampness of the air. It was such as I had seldom before felt except in low-lying cellars. As I approached the door I noticed two ingenuously boastful signs which threw light on this. The first, as high, perhaps, on the front wall as the middle step of the steps leading to the entrance door, read, "High-water mark in 1884." The second, almost on a level with the top step, read, "High-water mark in 1907." As I read it I thought of the consumptive prisoners.

The present warden, John Francies, has ruled within these forbidding walls since June 26, 1909, only. I met him wandering apparently vaguely around the great entrance rotunda. He is a small, unimposing-looking man. My first impression was that he did not know exactly what he was doing. How completely I right-aboutfaced on this impression my later observations will show. When I had shown him my letter and stated my mission, he proceeded to give me the freedom of the prison as completely as ever a distinguished guest was given the freedom of a city. To my surprise, he brushed aside for my benefit the rules restricting the activities of visitors. itors. I could go anywhere, see anything, talk with anybody-even the prisoners. If I don't know what went on in that prison during the next three days, it is not the fault of the warden.

Since the Federal inspector spent only a day at the prison, was there a month earlier, and confined his attention exclusively to matters affecting Federal prisoners, it is not surprising that my observations should not agree with his in all respects. It is significant that they should agree in essentials, with but one exception. As Federal prisoners are merely boarders at State institutions, the question, "Who is to blame?" did not concern the Government inspector.

Just as economic conditions underlie