believed in family circles to be the real author of some of his
supreme measures. The naturally retiring disposition of the Statesman
in question, and his inviolable reticence in respect of any matter
concerning himself, made it difficult to arrive at the truth.
Doubtless the stupendous event--the possible consequences of which
on European affairs Time will work out--would have remained for ever
hidden but for the ruthless action of "the London Correspondents of
various provincial papers, who gave in their London letters more or
less inaccurate reports of the event." How they came to know anything
about it admits of only one conclusion. _The SULTAN must have told
them_. The event was too important to be left to this haphazard kind
of record, and, accordingly, the _Speaker_ has been favoured with a
narrative of what took place, the signature disclosing the fact that
the other party to the interview was the SHAH LEFEVRE.

The SHAH's account, regarded as a record of a historical event,
is manifestly hampered by that modest and insatiable desire for
self-effacement which marks this eminent man. We see anonymous
"persons who had access to the SULTAN approaching" the SHAH, and
"suggesting to him that he ought to apply for an audience." We see him
"declining to do so on the ground that, having taken an active part in
the agitation in England on the subject of the Bulgarian atrocities
in 1877, it would not be right that I should thrust myself on the
attention of the SULTAN." It is generally thought at Stamboul and
elsewhere that Mr. GLADSTONE was chiefly responsible for the memorable
agitation referred to. But the SHAH is not the man to hide the truth.
Also, "I wished to be free to say what I thought about the condition
of Turkey on my return to England." That was only fair to waiting
England. No use the SULTAN trying to "nobble" this relentless man. So
it came to pass that he went to the Palace, reluctant, but "feeling we