old fruitless and already rejected constitutional methods.  The suggestions for reform, consequently, came principally from those who were on friendly terms with the Boer party and believed themselves to carry some weight.  They have by this time learned that nobody carries weight with President Kruger unless he has power to back his suggestions.  Many years before, the late Mr. W.Y.  Campbell as spokesman of a deputation from Johannesburg, addressing President Kruger, stated in the course of his remarks that the people of Johannesburg ‘protested’ against a certain measure.  The President jumped up in one of his characteristic moods and said:  ’Protest!  Protest!! what is the good of protesting?  You have not got the guns!  I have.’  And Mr. Campbell, in reporting this in Johannesburg, remarked:  ’That man is sensible; he knows the position.  I claim to be sensible also, and I know he is right:  you can take my name off any other deputations, for we’ll get nothing by asking.’

It is stated, and the statement comes from one who claims to have been the father of the suggestion, that the President was induced to appoint a commission of inquiry by the argument that if, as he believed, the wretched state of affairs in Johannesburg was due not to the action of the Government but to the greed, machinations, and mismanagement of the capitalists, nothing could suit the latter worse than to be taken at their word and to have a commission appointed to take evidence on oath and to publicly inquire into the state of affairs; in fact to copy the Westminster inquiry.  It is conceivable that the resolute refusal to investigate matters or to listen to complaints or explanations which the President had throughout maintained may have been the means of preserving a blissful faith in the strength of his own case and the rottenness of the Uitlanders’; at any rate, it seems to be an undoubted fact that the Industrial Commission of Inquiry, which was appointed by the Executive at the request of the President, was appointed in the confident belief that it would shift the burden of responsibility from his shoulders to those of the capitalists.  This construction of his motives may appear to be severe and perhaps even unfair, but it is entirely borne out by the manner in which he dealt with the report of the Industrial Commission, fighting against its acceptance, ignoring the recommendations of relief, and even imposing fresh burdens.  There is, nevertheless, one thing to be deduced which is in a manner to Mr. Kruger’s credit, and that is that he really must have believed that the case would—­from his point of view—­bear inquiring into.