was done.

Lord Stanhope had "very great reason to doubt" the authenticity of the History, and considered it as "falsely ascribed to Swift." What this "very great reason" was, his lordship nowhere stated.

Macaulay, in a pencilled note in a copy of Orrery's "Remarks" (now in the British Museum) describes the History as "Wretched stuff; and I firmly believe not Swift's." But Macaulay could scarcely have had much ground for his note, since he took a description of Somers from the History, and embodied it in his own work as a specimen of what Somers's enemies said of him. If the History were a forgery, what object was gained in quoting from it, and who were the enemies who wrote it?

When, in 1873, Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, made a speech at Glasgow, in which he quoted from the History and spoke of the words as by Swift, a correspondent in the "Times" criticised him for his ignorance in so doing. But the discussion which followed in the columns of that periodical left the matter just where it was, and, indeed, justified Beaconsfield. The matter was taken up by Mr. Edward Solly in "Notes and Queries;" but that writer threw no new light whatever on the subject.

But the positive evidence in favour of the authenticity is so strong, that one wonders how there could have been any doubt as to whether Swift did or did not write the History.

In the first place we know that Swift was largely indebted for his facts to Bolingbroke, when that statesman was the War Secretary of Queen Anne. A comparison of those portions of Swift's History which contain the facts with the Bolingbroke Correspondence, in which the same facts are embodied, will amply prove that Swift obtained them from this source, and as Swift was the one man of the time to whom such a favour was given, the argument in favour of Swift's authorship obtains an added emphasis.

In the second place, a careful reading of the correspondence between Swift and his friends on the subject of the publication of the History enables us to identify the references to the History itself. The "characters" are there; Sir Thomas Hanmer's Representation is also there, and all the points raised by Erasmus Lewis may be told off, one by one.

In the third place, Dr. Birch, the careful collector, had, in 1742, access to what he considered to be the genuine manuscript. This was three years before Swift's death. He made an abstract of this manuscript at the time, and this abstract is now preserved in the British Museum. Comparing the abstract with the edition published in 1758, there is no doubt that the learned doctor had copied from a manuscript which, if it were not genuine, was certainly the text of the work published in 1758 as "The History of the Four Last Years." But Dr. Birch's language suggests that he believed the manuscript he examined to be in Swift's own handwriting. If that be so, there is no doubt whatever of the authenticity. Birch was a very careful person, and had he had any doubts he could easily have settled them by applying to the many friends of the Dean, if not to the Dean himself. Moreover, it is absurd to believe that a forged manuscript of Swift's would be shown about during Swift's lifetime without it being known as a forgery. Mrs. Whiteway alone would have put a stop to its circulation had she suspected of the existence of such a manuscript.

Finally, it must be remembered that when the History was published in 1758, Lord Orrery was still living. If the work were a forgery, why did not Lord Orrery expose it? Nothing would have pleased him more. He had read the manuscript referred to in the Correspondence. He had carried it to Oxford and given it to King, at Swift's request. He knew all about it, and he said nothing.

These considerations, both negative and positive, lead us to the final conclusion that the History published in 1758 is practically the History referred to in Swift's Correspondence, and therefore the authentic work of Swift himself. We say practically, because there are some differences between it and the text published here. The differences have been recorded from a comparison between Lucas's version and the transcript of a manuscript discovered in Dublin in 1857, and made by Mr. Percy Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald found that this manuscript contained many corrections in Swift's own handwriting. At the time he came across it the manuscript was in the possession of two old ladies named Greene, grand-daughters of Mrs. Whiteway, and grand-nieces of Swift himself. On the title-page there was the following note:

"This is the originall manuscript of the History, corrected by me, and given into the custody of Mrs. Martha Whiteway by me Jonathan Swift, June 15, 1737. seven.

"I send a fair copy of this History by the Earl of Orrery to be printed in England.

"JONATH. SWIFT."

Mr. Fitzgerald was permitted to make a collation of this manuscript, and his collation he sent to the late John Forster. It is now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington.[2]

[Footnote 2: I regret that I have been unable to trace the existence of this manuscript of Swift's "History." Mr. Fitzgerald himself has no recollection of having made the collation. "Forty-five years ago," he writes, "is a long time to look back to," and he cannot recall the fact.]

If this manuscript be what, on the face of it, it claims to be, then the question of authenticity is for ever settled. As we have no doubt on this point, the corrections and variations between this manuscript, as collated by Mr. Percy Fitzgerald and the Lucas version, have been noted in the present edition.

In 1752 Lord Orrery issued his "Remarks" on the life and character of Swift. The work obtained for him a certain notoriety, and brought down upon him some severe censure from the friends of Swift who were still alive. But, whatever may have been Orrery's private opinion of Swift, that should not invalidate any information as to fact of which he had the knowledge to speak. Writing in that book of the History, he says: "Dr. Swift left behind him few manuscripts. Not one of any consequence, except an account of the peace of Utrecht, which he called 'An History of the four last Years of Queen Anne.' The title of an history is too pompous for such a performance. In the historical style, it wants dignity and candour: but as a pamphlet it will appear the best defence of Lord Oxford's administration, and the clearest account of the Treaty of Utrecht, that has hitherto been written."[3]

[Footnote 3: Second edition, pp. 206-207.]

The most ardent and devoted of Swift's admirers could hardly find a juster criticism of the work. It should satisfy any unprejudiced reader of the printed History as we now have it, and to that extent emphasize the authenticity.

An interesting sidelight on Swift's History is thrown by Chesterfield in a letter he wrote to Dr. Chenevix, Bishop of Waterford, on May 23rd, 1758. We must believe that the noble lord wrote in good faith and certainly in the full belief that the work he was criticising was the work of Swift. Chesterfield's criticism points directly to Swift as the author, since his justification for Bolingbroke's story is to be found in the work as Lucas printed it in 1758. Speaking of the History, Chesterfield calls it "a party pamphlet, founded on the lie of the day, which, as lord Bolingbroke who had read it often assured me, was coined and delivered out to him, to write Examiners, and other political papers upon. That spirit remarkably runs through it. Macarteney, for instance, murdered duke Hamilton;[4] nothing is falser, for though Macarteney was very capable of the vilest actions, he was guiltless of that, as I myself can testify, who was at his trial on the king's bench, when he came over voluntarily to take it, in the