BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY
THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT
VOL. X
[Illustration: _Jonathan Swift on the bust by Rouldiac in Trinity
College Dublin]
THE PROSE WORKS
OF
JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.
EDITED BY
TEMPLE SCOTT
VOL. X
HISTORICAL WRITINGS
1902
INTRODUCTION
Of late years, that is to say, within the last thirty odd years, there
has existed a certain amount of doubt as to whether or no the work known
to us as "The History of the Four Last Years of the Queen," was really
the product of Swift's pen. That a work of this nature had occupied
Swift during his retirement at Windsor in 1713, is undoubted. That the
work here reprinted from the edition given to the world in 1758, "by an
anonymous editor from a copy surreptitiously taken by an anonymous
friend" (to use Mr. Churton Collins's summary), is the actual work upon
which Swift was engaged at Windsor, is not so certain. Let us for a
moment trace the history of what is known of what Swift did write, and
then we shall be in a better position to judge of the authenticity of
what we have before us.
All that we know of this work is gathered from Swift's correspondence,
as published by Sir Walter Scott in his edition of Swift's Works issued
in 1824. The first reference there made is in a note from Dr. William
King to Mrs. Whiteway, from which we gather that Swift, towards the end
of the year 1736, was meditating the publication of what he had written
in 1713. "As to the History," writes King, "the Dean may be assured I
will take care to supply the dates that are wanting, and which can
easily be done in an hour or two. The tracts, if he pleases, may be
printed by way of appendix. This will be indeed less trouble than the
interweaving them in the body of the history, and will do the author as
much honour, and answer the purpose full as well."
This was written from Paris, under date November 9th, O.S., 1736. It can
easily be gathered from this that the tracts referred to are the tracts
on the same period which Swift wrote at the time in defence of the
Oxford ministry. They are given in the fifth volume of this edition.
On December 7th, 1736, King was in London, and he immediately writes to
Swift himself on the matter of the History. "I arrived here yesterday,"
he says, "and I am now ready to obey your commands. I hope you are come
to a positive resolution concerning the History. You need not hesitate
about the dates, or the references which are to be made to any public
papers; for I can supply them without the least trouble. As well as I
remember, there is but one of those public pieces which you determined
should be inserted at length; I mean Sir Thomas Hanmer's Representation;
this I have now by me. If you incline to publish the two tracts as an
Appendix to the History, you will be pleased to see if the character
given of the Earl of Oxford in the pamphlet of 1715 agrees with the
character given of the same person in the History.[1] Perhaps on a
review you may think proper to leave one of them quite out. You have (I
think) barely mentioned the attempt of Guiscard, and the quarrel between
Rechteren and Mesnager. But as these are facts which are probably now
forgot or unknown, it would not be amiss if they were related at large
in the notes; which may be done from the gazettes, or any other
newspapers of those times. This is all I have to offer to your
consideration...."
[Footnote 1: See note on page 95 of this volume.]
There is thus no doubt left as to which were the tracts referred to by
King, and as to the desire of Swift to include Sir Thomas Hanmer's
Representation--two points that are important as evidence for the
authenticity of the edition issued by Lucas in 1758.
Towards the middle of 1737, it must have become common knowledge among
Swift's friends in London, that he was preparing for publication his
"History of the Four Last Years of Queen Anne's Reign." Possibly King
may have dropped a hint of it; possibly Swift may have written to others
for information and assistance. Be that as it may, on April 7th, 1737,
the Earl of Oxford (son of Swift's old friend) wrote to Swift as
follows:
"... One reason of my writing to you now is, (next to my asking
your forgiveness) this: I am told that you have given leave and
liberty to some one or more of your friends to print a history
of the last four years of Queen Anne's reign, wrote by you.
"As I am most truly sensible of your constant regard and sincere
friendship for my father, even to partiality, (if I may say so,)
I am very sensible of the share and part he must bear in such a
history; and as I remember, when I read over that history of
yours, I can recollect that there seemed to me a want of some
papers to make it more complete, which was not in our power to
obtain; besides there were some severe things said, which might
have been very currently talked of; but now will want a proper
evidence to support; for these reasons it is that I do entreat
the favour of you, and make it my earnest request, that you will
give your positive directions, that this history be not printed
and published, until I have had an opportunity of seeing it;
with a liberty of showing it to some family friends, whom I
would consult upon this occasion. I beg pardon for this; I hope
you will be so good as to grant my request: I do it with great
deference to you. If I had the pleasure of seeing you, I would
soon say something to you that would convince you I am not
wrong: they are not proper for a letter as you will easily
guess...."
It is evident that Swift had gone so far as to consult with Faulkner on
the matter of the printing of the "History," because he was present when
Oxford's letter arrived, and he tells us that Swift answered the letter
immediately, and made him read the answer, the purport of which was:
"That although he loved his lordship's father more than he ever did any
man; yet, as a human creature, he had his faults, and therefore, as an
impartial writer, he could not conceal them."
On the 4th of June, 1737, Swift wrote at length to Oxford a letter in
which he details the circumstances and the reasons which moved him to
write the History. The letter is important, and runs as follows:
"MY LORD,
"I had the honour of a letter from your lordship, dated April
the 7th, which I was not prepared to answer until this time.
Your lordship must needs have known, that the History you
mention, of the Four last Years of the Queen's Reign, was
written at Windsor, just upon finishing the peace; at which
time, your father and my Lord Bolingbroke had a misunderstanding
with each other, that was attended with very bad consequences.
When I came to Ireland to take this deanery (after the peace was
made) I could not stay here above a fortnight, being recalled by
a hundred letters to hasten back, and to use my endeavours in
reconciling those ministers. I left them the history you
mention, which I finished at Windsor, to the time of the peace.
When I returned to England, I found their quarrels and coldness
increased. I laboured to reconcile them as much as I was able: I
contrived to bring them to my Lord Masham's, at St. James's. My
Lord and Lady Masham left us together. I expostulated with them
both, but could not find any good consequences. I was to go to
Windsor next day with my lord-treasurer; I pretended business
that prevented me, expecting they would come to some
[agreement?]. But I followed them to Windsor; where my Lord
Bolingbroke told me, that my scheme had come to nothing. Things
went on at the same rate; they grew more estranged every day. My
lord-treasurer found his credit daily declining. In May before
the Queen died, I had my last meeting with them at my Lord
Masham's. He left us together; and therefore I spoke very freely
to them both; and told them, 'I would retire, for I found all
was gone'. Lord Bolingbroke whispered me, 'I was in the right'.
Your father said, 'All would do well'. I told him, 'That I would
go to Oxford on Monday, since I found it was impossible to be of
any use'. I took coach to Oxford on Monday, went to a friend in
Berkshire, there stayed until the Queen's death, and then to my
station here, where I stayed twelve years, and never saw my lord
your father afterward. They could not agree about printing the
History of the Four last Years and therefore I have kept it to
this time, when I determine to publish it in London, to the
confusion of all those rascals who have accused the queen and
that ministry of making a bad peace, to which that party
entirely owes the Protestant succession. I was then in the
greatest trust and confidence with your father the
lord-treasurer, as well as with my Lord Bolingbroke, and all
others who had part in the administration I had all the letters
from the secretary's office, during the treaty of peace out of
those, and what I learned from the ministry, I formed that
History, which I am now going to publish for the information of
posterity, and to control the most impudent falsehoods which
have been published since. I wanted no kind of materials. I knew
your father better than you could at that time, and I do
impartially think him the most virtuous minister, and the most
able, that ever I remember to have read of. If your lordship has
any particular circumstances that may fortify what I have said
in the History, such as letters or materials, I am content they
should be printed at the end, by way of appendix. I loved my
lord your father better than any other man in the world,
although I had no obligation to him on the score of preferment,
having been driven to this wretched kingdom, to which I was
almost a stranger, by his want of power to keep me in what I
ought to call my own country, although I happened to be dropped
here, and was a year old before I left it, and to my sorrow did
not die before I came back to it again. As to the History, it
is only of affairs which I know very well and had all the
advantages possible to know, when you were in some sort but a
lad. One great design of it is, to do justice to the ministry at
that time, and to refute all the objections against them, as if
they had a design of bringing in Popery and the Pretender: and
farther to demonstrate, that the present settlement of the crown
was chiefly owing to my lord your father...."
The Earl of Oxford had failed to extract the manuscript from Swift for
the purpose he had expressed in his letter. But his friend and Swift's
old friend, Erasmus Lewis, who had been Under-Secretary of State during
Lord Oxford's administration, came to the Earl's assistance. He had not
written to Swift for many years, but on June 30th, 1737, he took
occasion to renew the correspondence and referred to the proposal for
publishing the History in a manner which leaves no doubt as to who
suggested to him to write:
" ... Now I name him, I mean Lord Oxford, let me ask you if it
be true, that you are going to print a History of the Four Last
Years of the Queen? if it is, will not you let me see it before
you send it to the press? Is it not possible that I may suggest
some things that you may have omitted, and give you reasons for
leaving out others? The scene is changed since that period of
time: the conditions of the peace of Utrecht have been applauded
by most part of mankind, even in the two Houses of Parliament:
should not matters rest here, at least for some time? I presume
your great end is to do justice to truth; the second point may
perhaps be to make a compliment to the Oxford family: permit me
to say as to the first, that though you know perhaps more than
any one man, I may possibly contribute a mite; and, with the
alteration of one word, viz. by inserting _parva_ instead of
_magna_, apply to myself that passage of Virgil, _et quorum pars
parva fui_. As to the second point, I do not conceive your
compliment to Lord Oxford to be so perfect as it might be,
unless you lay the manuscript before him, that it may be
considered here."
On the 4th of July, 1737, Oxford replied to Swift's letter of the 4th of
June (referring to it as of the 14th of June), and emphasizes his
earnest wish to see the manuscript. He also asks that it may be
permitted him to show it to some friends:
"GOOD MR. DEAN,
"Your letter of June 14th, in answer to mine of the 7th of
April, is come to my hands; and it is with no small concern that
I have read it, and to find that you seem to have formed a
resolution to put the History of the Four last Years of the
Queen to the press; a resolution taken without giving your
friends, and those that are greatly concerned, some notice, or
suffering them to have time and opportunity to read the papers
over, and to consider them. I hope it is not too late yet, and
that you will be so good as to let some friends see them, before
they are put to the press; and, as you propose to have the work
printed here, it will be easy to give directions to whom you
will please to give the liberty of seeing them; I beg I may be
one: this request I again repeat to you, and I hope you will
grant it. I do not doubt that there are many who will persuade
you to publish it; but they are not proper judges: their reasons
may be of different kinds, and their motives to press on this
work may be quite different, and perhaps concealed from you.
"I am extremely sensible of the firm love and regard you had for
my father, and have for his memory; and upon that account it is
that I now renew my request, that you would at least defer this
printing until you have had the advice of friends. You have
forgot that you lent me the History to read when you were in
England, since my father died; I do remember it well. I would
ask your pardon for giving you this trouble; but upon this
affair I am so nearly concerned, that, if I did not my utmost to
prevent it, I should never forgive myself."
While this correspondence was in progress, Swift had given the
manuscript to Lord Orrery to hand over to Dr. King. On June 24th, 1737,
King wrote to Swift stating that he had received a letter from Mrs.
Whiteway in which he was told to expect the manuscript from the hands of
Lord Orrery. To Mrs. Whiteway he replied, on the same day, that he would
wait on Lord Orrery to receive the papers. On July 23rd, 1737, Lord
Orrery wrote to Swift informing him that "Dr. King has his cargo."
With the knowledge that the manuscript was on its way to King, Swift
wrote the following reply to Lewis's letter:
July 23, 1737.
"DEAR FRIEND,
"While any of those who used to write to me were alive, I always
inquired after you. But, since your secretaryship in the queen's
time, I believed you were so glutted with the office, that you
had not patience to venture on a letter to an absent useless
acquaintance; and I find I owe yours to my Lord Oxford. The
History you mention was written above a year before the queen's
death. I left it with the treasurer and Lord Bolingbroke, when I
first came over to take this deanery. I returned in less than a
month; but the ministry could not agree about printing it. It
was to conclude with the peace. I staid in London above nine
months; but not being able to reconcile the quarrels between
those two, I went to a friend in Berkshire, and, on the queen's
death, came hither for good and all. I am confident you read
that History; as this Lord Oxford did, as he owns in his two
letters, the last of which reached me not above ten days ago.
You know, on the queen's death, how the peace and all
proceedings were universally condemned. This I knew would be
done; and the chief cause of my writing was, not to let such a
queen and ministry lie under such a load of infamy, or posterity
be so ill-informed, &c. Lord Oxford is in the wrong to be in
pain about his father's character, or his proceedings in his
ministry; which is so drawn, that his greatest admirers will
rather censure me for partiality; neither can he tell me
anything material out of his papers, which I was not then
informed of; nor do I know anybody but yourself who could give
me more light than what I then received; for I remember I often
consulted with you, and took memorials of many important
particulars which you told me, as I did of others, for four
years together. I can find no way to have the original delivered
to Lord Oxford, or to you; for the person who has it will not
trust it out of his hands; but, I believe, would be contented to
let it be read to either of you, if it could be done without
letting it out of his hands, although, perhaps, that may be too
late."
Swift is evidently about to accede to the desires of his two friends,
and Lewis, in his reply, takes it for granted that the manuscript will
soon be in his possession for perusal and examination:
London, Aug. 4, 1737.
"I assure you, my dear Dean, 'twas matter of joy to me to
receive a letter from you, and I hope 'tis an earnest of many
more I may have hereafter, before you and I leave this world;
though I must tell you, that if you and I revive our former
Correspondence, you must indulge me the liberty of making use of
another hand; for whether it be owing to age, or writing
formerly whole nights by candle-light, or to both those causes,
my sight is so far impaired, that I am not able, without much
pain, to scratch out a letter.
"I do not remember ever to have read your History. I own my
memory is much decayed; but still I think I could not have
forgotten a matter of so much consequence, and which must have
given me so great a pleasure. It is fresh in my mind, that Lord
Oxford and the Auditor desired you to confer with me upon the
subject matter of it; that we accordingly did so; and that the
conclusion was, you would bury everything in oblivion. We
reported this to those two, I mean to his lordship and his
uncle, and they acquiesced in it. Now I find you have finished
that piece. I ask nothing but what you grant in your letter of
July 23d, viz. That your friend shall read it to me, and forbear
sending it to the press, till you have considered the
objections, if any should be made.
"In the meantime, I shall only observe to you in general, that
three and twenty years, for so long it is since the death of
Queen Anne, having made a great alteration in the world, and
that what was sense and reason then, is not so now; besides, I
am told you have treated some people's characters with a
severity which the present times will not bear, and may possibly
bring the author into much trouble, which would be matter of
great uneasiness to his friends. I know very well it is your
intention to do honour to the then treasurer. Lord Oxford knows
it; all his family and friends know it; but it is to be done
with great circumspection. It is now too late to publish a
pamphlet, and too early to publish a History.
"It was always my opinion, that the best way of doing honour to
the treasurer, was to write a History of the Peace of Utrecht,
beginning with a short preamble concerning the calamitous state
of our debt, and ending with the breaking our army, and
restoring the civil power; that these great things were
completed under the administration of the Earl of Oxford, and
this should be his epitaph. Lord Bolingbroke is undoubtedly
writing a History, but I believe will not live to finish it,
because he takes it up too high, viz. from the Restoration. In
all probability he'll cut and slash Lord Oxford. This is only my
guess. I don't know it...."
King must have taken the manuscript to Lord Oxford and Lewis,
and been present at its reading. When that reading actually took
place is not ascertainable; but there is no doubt that before
March 15th, 1738, King was aware of the criticisms made on it.
On that day he writes to Mr. Deane Swift, explaining that he has
been obliged to defer the publication until he has received
Swift's answers to the objections made by the friends who read
it. On April 25th, 1738, King wrote again to Mr. Deane Swift,
regretting that he could not see him, "because I might have
talked over with you all the affair of this History, about which
I have been much condemned: and no wonder, since the Dean has
continually expressed his dissatisfaction that I have so long
delayed the publication of it. However, I have been in no fault:
on the contrary, I have consulted the Dean's honour, and the
safety of his person. In a word, the publication of this work,
as excellent as it is, would involve the printer, publisher,
author, and everyone concerned, in the greatest difficulties, if
not in a certain ruin; and therefore it will be absolutely
necessary to omit some of the characters...."
From which we gather that Lewis and the friends had been able to show
King the extreme inadvisability of publishing the work. Swift knew
nothing of this at the time, but Lewis did not long keep him in doubt,
and the letter Lewis wrote Swift on April 8th, 1738, sets forth at
length the objections and criticisms which had so changed King's
attitude.
"London, April 8, 1738.
"I can now acquaint you, my dear Dean, that I have at last had
the pleasure of reading your History, in the presence of Lord
O------d, and two or three more, who think, in all political
matters, just as you do, and are as zealous for your fame and
safety as any persons in the world. That part of it which
relates to the negotiations of peace, whether at London or at
Utrecht, they admire exceedingly, and declare they never yet saw
that, or any other transaction, drawn up with so much
perspicuity, or in a style so entertaining and instructive to
the reader, in every respect; but I should be wanting to the
sincerity of a friend, if I did not tell you plainly, that it
was the unanimous opinion of the company a great deal of the
first part should be retrenched, and many things altered.
"1st, They conceive the first establishment of the South Sea
Company is not rightly stated, for no part of the debt then
unprovided for was paid: however the advantages arising to the
public were very considerable; for, instead of paying for all
provisions cent. per cent. dearer than the common market-price,
as we did in Lord Godolphin's times, the credit of the public
was immediately restored, and, by means of this scheme, put upon
as good a footing as the best private security.
"2d, They think the transactions with Mr. Buys might have been
represented in a more advantageous light, and more to the honour
of that administration; and, undoubtedly they would have been so
by your pen, had you been master of all the facts.
"3d, The D---- of M----'s courage not to be called in question.
"4th, The projected design of an assassination they believe
true, but that a matter of so high a nature ought not to be
asserted without exhibiting the proofs.
"5th, The present ministers, who are the rump of those whose
characters you have painted, shew too plainly that they have not
acted upon republican, or, indeed, any other principles, than
those of interest and ambition.
"6th, Now I have mentioned characters, I must tell you they were
clearly of opinion, that if those you have drawn should be
published as they now stand, nothing could save the author's
printer and publishers from some grievous punishment. As we have
no traces of liberty now left but the freedom of the press, it
is the most earnest desire of your friends that you would strike
out all that you have said on that subject.
"Thus, my dear Dean, I have laid before you, in a plain manner
the sentiments of those who were present when your History was
read; if I have mistaken in anything, I ask pardon of you and
them.
"I am not at liberty to name those who were present, excepting
only the E---- of O----d, who has charged me to return you his
thanks for what you have said of his father.
"What I have to say from myself is, that there were persons in
the company to whose judgment I should pay entire deference. I
had no opportunity of paying any on this occasion, for I
concurred in the same opinion with them, from the bottom of my
heart, and therefore conjure you as you value your own fame as
an author, and the honour of those who were actors in the
important affairs that make the subject of your History, and as
you would preserve the liberty of your person, and enjoyment of
your fortune, you will not suffer this work to go to the press
without making some, or all the amendments proposed. I am, my
dear Dean, most sincerely and affectionately yours,
"E.L.
"I thank you for your kind mention of me in your letter to Lord
Oxford.
"I had almost forgot to tell you, you have mistaken the case of
the D---- of S----, which, in truth, was this, that his grace
appearing at court, in the chamber next to the council-chamber,
it was apprehended he would come into the cabinet-council; and
therefore the intended meeting was put off: whereas one would
judge, by your manner of stating it, that the council had met,
and adjourned abruptly upon his taking his place there.
"I must add, that if you would so far yield to the opinions of
your friends, as to publish what you have writ concerning the
peace, and leave out everything that savours of acrimony and
resentment, it would, even now, be of great service to this
nation in general, and to them in particular, nothing having
been yet published on the peace of Utrecht in such a beautiful
and strong manner as you have done it. Once more, my dear Dean,
adieu; let me hear from you."
It is to be presumed that Swift was again persuaded to abandon the
publication of his History. Nothing further is heard of it, except a
slight reference by Pope in a letter he wrote to Swift, under date May
17th, 1739, in which Pope informed him that Bolingbroke (who is writing
his History of his own Time) has expressed his intention of differing
from Swift's version, as he remembers it when he read the History in
1727. The variation would relate in particular to the conduct of the
Earl of Oxford.
Slight as this reference is, there is yet enough in it to suggest
another reason why Swift should withhold the publication of his work. It
might be that this expressed intention of Bolingbroke's to animadvert on
his dear friend's conduct, would just move Swift to a final rejection of
his intention, and so, possibly, prevent Bolingbroke from publishing his
own statement. However, the manuscript must have been returned, for
nothing more was heard of it during Swift's lifetime.
Swift died in 1745, and thirteen years later appeared the anonymously
edited "History of the Four Last Years." Is this the work which Swift
wrote in 1713, which he permitted Pope and Bolingbroke to read in 1727,
and which he prepared for publication in 1737?
In 1758 there was no doubt whatever raised, although there were at least
two persons alive then--Lord Orrery and Dr. William King--who could
easily have proved any forgery, had there been one.
The first suspicion cast on the work came from Dr. Johnson. Writing, in
his life of Swift, of the published version, he remarks, "that it seemed
by no means to correspond with the notions that I had formed of it from
a conversation that I once heard between the Earl of Orrery and old Mr.
Lewis." In what particulars this want of correspondence was made evident
Johnson does not say. In any case, his suspicion cannot be received with
much consideration, since the conversation he heard must have taken
place at least twenty years before he wrote the poet's life, and his
recollection of such a conversation must at least have been very hazy.
Johnson's opinion is further deprived of weight when we read what he
wrote of the History in the "Idler," in 1759, the year after its
publication, that "the history had perished had not a straggling
transcript fallen into busy hands." If the straggling manuscript were
worth anything, it must have had some claims to authenticity; and if it
had, then Johnson's recollection of what he heard Orrery and Lewis say,
twenty years or more after they had said it, goes for very little.
Sir Walter Scott concludes, from the fact that Swift sent the manuscript
to Oxford and Lewis, that it was afterwards altered in accordance with
Lewis's suggestions. But a comparison of Lucas's text with Lewis's
letter shows that nothing of the kind 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 late king's time. There did not
appear even the least ground for a suspicion of it; nor did Hamilton,
who appeared in court, pretend to tax him with it, which would have been
in truth accusing himself of the utmost baseness, in letting the
murderer of his friend go off from the field of battle, without either
resentment, pursuit, or even accusation, till three days afterwards.
This _lie_ was invented to inflame the Scotch nation against the Whigs;
as the other, that prince Eugene intended to murder lord Oxford, by
employing a set of people called Mohocks, which society, by the way,
never existed, was calculated to inflame the mob of London. Swift took
those hints _de la meilleure foi du monde_, and thought them materials
for history. So far he is blameless."[5]
[Footnote 4: See page 178 of this volume.]
[Footnote 5: "Chesterfield's Works," pp. 498-499.]
Ignoring Chesterfield's indignation, we must believe that the references
made by him to Macartney and Eugene, must have been in the manuscript
Bolingbroke read; else how could Bolingbroke tell Chesterfield of their
meaning? If this be so, we have a still further warrant for a strong
presumption in favour of authenticity. There can really be very little
doubt on the matter.
What we may doubt, however, is not the authenticity, but the value of
the History as an historical document. Without question, Swift wrote in
good faith; but he also wrote as a partisan, and a partisan with an
affectionate leaning for the principal character in the drama he was
describing. Orrery was right when he called it "a pamphlet," and "the
best defence of Lord Oxford's administration." As a pamphlet and as a
defence it has some claim on our attention. As a contribution to the
history of the treaty of Utrecht it is of little account. Swift could
not, had he even known everything, write the true story of the
negotiations for publication at the time. In the first place, he would
never have attempted it--the facts would have been demoralizing; and in
the second place, had he accomplished it, its publication would have
been a matter for much more serious consideration than was given even to
the story he did write. For Swift's purpose, it was much better that he
did not know the full extent of the ministry's perfidy. His affection
for Oxford and his admiration for Bolingbroke would have received a
great shock. He knew their weaknesses of character, though not their
infidelity to honour. There can be no defence of the Oxford
administration, for the manner in which it separated England from its
allies and treated with a monarch who was well known to it as a
political chicaner. The result brought a treaty by which Louis XIV.
gained and the allies lost, and this in spite of the offers previously
made by the bankrupt monarch at Gertruydenberg.
The further contents of this volume deal with what might better be
called Swiftiana. They include a collection of very interesting
annotations made by Swift in his copies of Macky's "Characters,"
Clarendon's "History of the Rebellion," Burnet's "History of his Own
Time," and Addison's "Freeholder." The notes to Clarendon and Burnet
have always found an important place in the many editions of these
well-known works which have been issued from time to time. As here
reprinted, however, they have in all cases been compared with the
originals themselves. It will be found that very many additions have
been made, the result of careful comparison and collation with the
originals in Swift's handwriting.
My obligations are again due to Mr. W. Spencer Jackson for very valuable
assistance in the collation of texts; to Mr. George Ravenscroft Dennis
for several important suggestions; to Mr. Percy Fitzgerald for the use I
have made of his transcriptions; and to Mr. Strickland of the National
Gallery of Ireland for his help in the matter of Swift portraits.
I am greatly indebted to Mr. C. Litton Falkiner of Killiney, co.
Wicklow, for his untiring assistance to me during my stay in Dublin; to
the Very Rev. the Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral for permission to
consult the Marsh collection; and to the Rev. Newport J.D. White, the
courteous librarian of the Marsh Library, for enthusiastic aid in my
researches. I also owe very hearty thanks to Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole for
introductions to the librarians of Trinity College and the Royal Irish
Academy.
The portrait prefixed to this volume is a reproduction of the bust by
Roubiliac in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.
TEMPLE SCOTT.
DUBLIN,
_August 14th_, 1902.
CONTENTS
THE HISTORY OF THE FOUR LAST YEARS OF THE QUEEN
AN ABSTRACT OF THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND:
From the invasion of it by Julius Caesar to the Reign of Henry the Second
REMARKS ON THE CHARACTERS OF THE COURT OF QUEEN ANNE
REMARKS ON LORD CLARENDON'S "HISTORY OF THE REBELLION"
REMARKS ON BISHOP BURNET'S "HISTORY OF HIS OWN TIME"
NOTES ON THE "FREEHOLDER"
INDEX
THE HISTORY OF
THE FOUR LAST YEARS
OF THE QUEEN.
By the late
JONATHAN SWIFT,
D.D. D.S.P.D.
Published from the
Last MANUSCRIPT Copy, Corrected and
Enlarged by the Author's OWN HAND.
LONDON:
Printed for A. MILLAR, in the Strand:
MDCCLVIII.
_ADVERTISEMENT_
_PREFIXED TO THE EDITION OF_ 1758.[1]
[Footnote 1: This advertisement was written by the editor, Dr. Charles
Lucas of Dublin. This Lucas was the patriot who created such a stir in
Irish politics between the years 1743 and 1750. Lord Townshend, in a
letter to the Marquis of Granby, called him "the Wilkes of Ireland." As
an author he seems to have been very prolific, though of no polish in
his writings. Lucas's disclaimers of sympathy with the opinions
contained in the work he edited are somewhat over-stated, and his
criticisms are petty. A full account of this hot-headed physician may be
found in the Dictionary of National Biography. It was Dr. Johnson, in
his life of Swift, who first published the information that Lucas edited
this "History." [T.S.]]
_Thus, the long wished for_ History of the Four Last Years of the
Queen's Reign _is at length brought to light, in spite of all attempts
to suppress it_!
As this publication is not made under the sanction of the name, or
names, which the author and the world had a right to expect; it is fit
some account of the works appearing in this manner should be here given.
Long before the Dean's apparent decline, some of his intimate friends,
with concern, foresaw the impending fate of his fortune and his works.
To this it is owing, that these sheets, which the world now despaired of
ever seeing, are rescued from obscurity, perhaps from destruction.
For this, the public is indebted to a gentleman, now in Ireland, of the
greatest probity and worth, with whom the Dean long lived in perfect
intimacy. To this gentleman's hands the Dean entrusted a copy of his
History, desiring him to peruse and give his judgment of it, with the
last corrections and amendments the author had given it, in his own
hand.
His friend read, admired, and approved. And from a dread of so valuable
and so interesting a work's being by any_ _accident lost or effaced, as
was probable by its not being intended to be published in the author's
lifetime; he resolved to keep this copy, till the author should press
him for it; but with a determined purpose, it should never see the
light, while there was any hopes of the author's own copy being
published, or even preserved.
This resolution he inviolably kept, till he and the world had full
assurance, that the Dean's executors, or those into whose hands the
original copy fell, were so far from intending to publish it, that it
was actually suppressed, perhaps destroyed.
Then, he thought himself not only at liberty, but judged it his duty to
his departed friend, and to the public, to let this copy, which he had
now kept many years most secretly, see the light.
Thus it has at length fallen into the hands of a person, who publishes
it for the satisfaction of the public, abstracted from all private
regards; which are never to be permitted to come in competition with the
common good.
Every judicious eye will see, that the author of these sheets wrote with
strong passions, but with stronger prepossessions and prejudices in
favour of a party. These, it may be imagined, the editor, in some
measure, may have adopted, and published this work as a kind of support
of that party, or some surviving remnant thereof.
It is but just to undeceive the reader, and inform him from what kind of
hand he has received this work. A man may regard a good piece of
painting, while he despises the subject; if the subject be ever so
despicable, the masterly strokes of the painter may demand our
admiration, while he, in other respects, is entitled to no portion of
our regard.
In poetry, we carry our admiration still farther; and like the poet,
while we actually contemn the man. Historians share the like fate; hence
some, who have no regard to propriety or truth, are yet admired for
diction, style, manner, and the like.
The editor considers this work in another light. He long knew the
author, and was no stranger to his politics, connections, tendencies,
passions, and the whole economy of his life. He has long been hardily
singular in condemning this great man's conduct amid the admiring
multitude, nor ever could have thought of making an interest in a man,
_whose principles and manners he could by no rule of reason or honour
approve, however he might have admired his parts and wit_.
_Such was judged the disposition of the man, whose history of the most
interesting period of time in the annals of Britain are now, herein,
offered to the reader. He may well ask from what motives? The answer is
easily, simply given_.
_The causes assigned for delaying the publication of this history were
principally these:_[2] _That the manuscript fell into the hands of men,
who, whatever they might have been by the generality deemed, were by the
Dean believed to be of his party, though they did not, after his death,
judge it prudent to avow his principles, more than to deny them in his
lifetime. These men, having got their beavers, tobacco-boxes, and other
trifling remembrances of former friendship, by the Dean's will, did not
choose publicly to avow principles, that had marred their friend's
promotion, and might probably put a stop to theirs. Therefore, they gave
the inquisitive world to understand, that there was something too strong
against many great men, as well as the succeeding system of public
affairs in general, in the Dean's_ History of the Four Last Years of the
Queen's Reign, _to admit of a publication, in our times; and, with this
poor insinuation, excused themselves, and satisfied the weakly
well-affected, in suppressing the manifestation of displeasing truths,
of however great importance to society_.
[Footnote 2: The causes for the delay in the publication of the
"History" are given at length by the present editor in the Introduction.
[T.S.]]
_This manuscript has now fallen into the hands of a man, who never could
associate with, or even approve, any of the parties or factions, that
have differently distracted, it might be said disgraced, these kingdoms;
because he has as yet known none, whose motives or rules of action were
truth and the public good alone; of one, who judges, that perjured
magistrates of all denominations, and their most exalted minions, may be
exposed, deprived, or cut off, by the fundamental laws of his country;
and who, upon these principles, from his heart approves and glories in
the virtues of his predecessors, who revived the true spirit of the
British polity, in laying aside a priest-ridden, an hen-pecked,
tyrannical tool, who had overturned the political constitution of his
country, and in reinstituting the dissolved body politic, by a
revolution supported by the laws of nature and the realm, as the only
means of preserving the natural and legal, the civil and religious
liberties of the members of the commonwealth_.
_Truth, in this man's estimation, can hurt no good cause. And falsehood
and fraud, in religion and politics, are ever to be detected, to be
exploded_.
_Insinuations, that this History contained something injurious to the
present establishment, and therefore necessary to be suppressed, serve
better the purposes of mistaken or insidious malcontents than the real
publication can. And, if any thing were by this, or any other, History
to be shown essentially erroneous in our politics, who, that calls
himself a Briton, can be deemed such an impious slave, as to conceal the
destructive evil? The editor of this work disdains and abhors the
servile thought, and wishes to live no longer than he dares to think,
speak, write, and, in all things, to act worthy of a Briton_.
_From this regard to truth and to his country, the editor of this
History was glad of an opportunity of rescuing such a writing from those
who meant to suppress it. The common cause, in his estimation, required
and demanded it should be done; and the sooner it is published, he
judged, the better: for, if the conduct of the Queen and her ministers
does not deserve the obloquy that has been long industriously cast upon
it, what is more just than to vindicate it? What more reasonable than
that this should be done, while living witnesses may yet be called, to
prove or disprove the several allegations and assertions; since, in a
few years more, such witnesses may be as much wanting as to prevent a
canonization, which is therefore prudently procrastinated for above an
age? Let us then coolly hear what is to be said on this side the
question, and judge like Britons._
