any 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 empha