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.