Chapter I: 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._

_The editor would not be thought to justify the author of this History, in all points, or even to attempt to acquit him of unbecoming prejudices and partiality. Without being deeply versed in history or politics, he can see his author, in many instances, blinded with passions that disgrace the historian; and blending, with phrases worthy of a Caesar or a Cicero, expressions not to be justified by truth, reason, or common sense, yet think him a most powerful orator, and a great historian._

_No unprejudiced person will blame the Dean for doing all that is consistent with truth and decency to vindicate the government of the Queen, and to exculpate the conduct of her ministers and her last general; all good men would rejoice at such a vindication. But, if he meant no more than this, his work would ill deserve the title of an History. That he generally tells truths, and founds his most material assertions upon fact, will, I think be found very evident. But there is room to suspect, that, while he tells no more than the truth, he does not tell the whole truth. However, he makes it very clear, that the Queen's allies, especially our worthy friends the Dutch, were much to blame for the now generally condemned conduct of the Queen, with regard to the prosecution of the war and the bringing about the peace_.

_The authors drawings of characters are confessedly partial: for he tells us openly, he means not to give characters entire, but such parts of each man's particular passions, acquirements, and habits, as he was most likely to transfer into his political schemes. What writing, what sentence, what character, can stand this torture?--What extreme perversion may not, let me say, does not, this produce? Yet thus does he choose to treat all men, that were not favourers of the latest measures of the Queen, when the best that has been said for her, shows no more than that she was blindfolded and held in leading-strings by her ministers_.

_He does not spare a man, confessed by all the world to have discharged the duties of his function like a soldier, like an hero. But charges Prince Eugene with raising and keeping up a most horrible mob, with intent to assassinate Harley. For all which odious charges he offers not one individual point of proof_.

_He is not content with laying open again the many faults already publicly proved upon the late Duke of Marlborough, but insinuates a new crime, by seeming to attempt to acquit him of aspiring at the throne. But this is done in a manner peculiar to this author_.

_On the other hand, he extols the ministers, and minions of the Queen, in the highest terms; and while he robs their antagonists of every good quality, generally gives those wisdom and every virtue that can adorn human nature_.

_He is not ashamed to attempt to justify, what all thinking good men must condemn, the Queen's making twelve peers at once, to serve a particular turn_.

_All these may be ascribed to the strength of his passions, and to the prejudices, early imbibed, in favour of his indulgent royal mistress and her favourites and servants.[3] The judicious will look through the elegant clothing, and dispassionately consider these as mere human errors, to which no well-informed mind can assent. The editor thinks himself bound to protest against them_.

[Footnote 3: That Swift should have a strong partiality to Harley and St. John, by whom he was respected and trusted to a most uncommon degree, is natural and obvious; but upon what ground Queen Anne, who disliked his person, and obstructed his preferment, is here termed his _indulgent_ mistress, the author of this preface ought to have condescended to explain. [S.]]

_He makes a few lapses on the other side, without being as clear as an impartial historian would choose to appear. He more than hints at the Queen's displeasure at its being moved in Parliament, that the Prince Elector should be invited to reside in England, to whose crown he was by law declared presumptive heir, but is always open upon the Queen's insisting on the Pretender's being sent out of France.--It is easy to see how incompatible these things appear. Nothing could tend more to secure the Hanover succession, and to enlarge its benefits to Britain, than the bringing over the successor, who should, in every country, be well instructed in the language, customs, manners, religion, and laws of his future subjects, before he comes to hold the reins of government. And our author does not take the proper care to inform us how far the French thought fit to comply with banishing the Pretender their dominions, since many still live in doubt, that if he was sent out of France, he was sent into England_.

_But there is one expression of our author too perverse, too grossly abused, to admit of any apology, of any palliation. It is not to be supposed, that he was ignorant of any word in the English language. And least of all can he be supposed ignorant of the meaning of a word, which, had it been ever so doubtful before, had a certain meaning impressed upon it by the authority of Parliament, of which no sensible subject can be ignorant_.

_Notwithstanding this, where our author speaks of the late King James, he calls him the_ abdicated King, _and gives the same epithet even to his family. Though this weak, ill-advised, and ill-fated prince, in every sense of the word, with Romans and English, and to all intents and purposes_, abdicated, _yet can he, in no sense, be called_ abdicated; _unless the people's asserting their rights, and defending themselves against a king, who broke his compact with his subjects, and overturned their government, can be called_ abdication _in them; which no man in his senses can be hardy enough to support upon any principle of reason or the laws of England. Let the reader judge which this is most likely to be, error or design_.

_These exceptions the editor thought himself bound to make to some parts of this work, to keep clear of the disagreeable imputations of being of a party, of whatsoever denomination, in opposition to truth and the rights and liberties of the subject._

_These laid aside, the work will be found to have many beauties, many excellencies. Some have of late affected to depreciate this History, from an insinuation, made only since the author's death, to wit, that he was never admitted into the secrets of the administration, but made to believe he was a confident, only to engage him in the list of the ministerial writers of that reign_.

_The falsehood of this will readily appear upon perusal of the work. This shows he knew the most secret springs of every movement in the whole complicated machine. That he states facts, too well known to be contested, in elegant simplicity, and reasons upon them with the talents of the greatest historian. And thus makes an History, composed rather of negotiations than actions, most entertaining, affecting, and interesting, instead of being, as might be expected, heavy, dull, and disagreeable_.

_It is now fit to apologize for some errors, which the judicious must discover upon a perusal of this work. It is for this, among other reasons, much to be lamented, that this History was not published under the author's own inspection. It is next to impossible to copy or print any work without faults, and most so where the author's eye is wanting_.

_It is not to be imagined, that even our author, however accurate, however great, was yet strictly and perfectly correct in his writings. Yet, where some seeming inaccuracies in style or expression have been discovered, the deference due to the author made any alteration too presumptuous a task for the editor. These are, therefore, left to the amending hand of every sensible and polite reader; while the editor hopes it will suffice, that he should point out some of those errors, which are to be ascribed either to transcribers or the press, and which may be rectified in the manner following, in reading the work._[4]

[Footnote 4: Here follows list of _errata_. (These errors have been corrected in the present edition.)]

_And thus; with these and perhaps some few such like corrections, it is hoped this work will be found completely correct._

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.[1]

[Footnote 1: The time when it was written does not appear; but it was probably many years after the Queen's death. [N.] First published in 1765. [W.S.J.]]

Having written the following History at Windsor, in the happy reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, of ever glorious, blessed, and immortal memory; I resolved to publish it, for the satisfaction of my fellow-subjects, in the year 1713; but, being under a necessity of going to Ireland, to take possession of the deanery of St. Patrick's, Dublin, I left the original with the ministers; and having stayed in that kingdom not above a fortnight, I found, at my return, that my Lord Treasurer Oxford, and the secretary my Lord Bolingbroke, who were then unhappily upon very ill terms with each other, could not agree upon publishing it, without some alterations which I would not submit to. Whereupon I kept it by me until Her Majesty's death, which happened about a year after.

I have ever since preserved the original very safely; too well knowing what a turn the world would take upon the German family's succeeding to the crown; which indeed was their undoubted right, having been established solemnly by the act of an undisputed Parliament, brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Harley, who was then Speaker.

But, as I have said in another discourse,[2] it was very well understood, some years before Her Majesty's death, how the new King would act, immediately upon his entrance, in the choice of those (and those alone) whom he resolved to trust; and consequently what reports would industriously be raised, as well as spread, to expose the proceedings of Her Majesty herself, as well as of her servants; who have been ever since blasted as enemies to the present establishment, by the most ignorant and malicious among mankind.

[Footnote 2: "Memoirs relating to the Change in the Queen's Ministry." See vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

Therefore, as it was my lot to have been daily conversant with the persons then in power; never absent in times of business or conversation, until a few weeks before Her Majesty's death; and a witness of almost every step they made in the course of their administration; I must have been very unfortunate not to be better informed than those miserable pamphleteers, or their patrons, could pretend to. At the same time, I freely confess, it appeared necessary, as well as natural, upon such a mighty change as the death of a sovereign, that those who were to be in power upon the succession, and resolved to act in every part by a direct contrary system of politics, should load their predecessors with as much infamy as the most inveterate malice and envy could suggest, or the most stupid ignorance and credulity in their underlings could swallow.

Therefore, as I pretend to write with the utmost impartiality, the following History of the Four Last Years of her Majesty's Reign, in order to undeceive prejudiced persons at present, as well as posterity; I am persuaded in my own mind, as likewise by the advice of my oldest and wisest friends, that I am doing my duty to God and man, by endeavouring to set future ages right in their judgment of that happy reign; and, as a faithful historian, I cannot suffer falsehoods to run on any longer, not only against all appearance of truth as well as probability, but even against those happy events, which owe their success to the very measures then fixed in the general peace.

The materials for this History, besides what I have already mentioned, I mean the confidence reposed in me for those four years, by the chief persons in power, were extracted out of many hundred letters written by our ambassadors abroad, and from the answers as well as instructions sent them by our secretaries of state, or by the first minister the Earl of Oxford. The former were all originals, and the latter copies entered into books in the secretaries' office, out of both which I collected all that I thought convenient; not to mention several Memorials given me by the ministers at home. Further, I was a constant witness and observer of all that passed; and entered every particular of any consequence upon paper.

I was so far from having any obligation to the crown, that, on the contrary, Her Majesty issued a proclamation, offering three hundred pounds to any person who would discover the author of a certain short treatise,[3] which the Queen well knew to have been written by me. I never received one shilling from the minister, or any other present, except that of a few books; nor did I want their assistance to support me. I very often dined indeed with the treasurer and secretary; but, in those days, that was not reckoned a bribe, whatever it may have been at any time since. I absolutely refused to be chaplain to the Lord Treasurer; because I thought it would ill become me to be in a state of dependence.

[Footnote 3: "The Public Spirit of the Whigs." [D.S.]]

I say this, to shew that I had no other bias than my own opinion of persons and affairs. I preserved several of the opposite party in their employments, who were persons of wit and learning, particularly Mr. Addison and Mr. Congreve, neither of whom were ever in any danger from the treasurer, who much esteemed them both; and, by his lordship's commands, I brought the latter to dine with him. Mr. Steele might have been safe enough, if his continually repeated indiscretions, and a zeal mingled with scurrilities, had not forfeited all title to lenity.[4]

[Footnote 4: A full account of the severance of the friendly relations between Swift and Steele is given in the fifth volume of the present edition (see pp. 276-282). [T.S.]]

I know very well the numberless prejudices of weak and deceived people, as well as the malice of those, who, to serve their own interest or ambition, have cast off all religion, morality, justice, and common decency. However, although perhaps I may not be believed in the present age, yet I hope to be so in the next, by all who will bear any regard for the honour and liberty of England, if either of these shall then subsist or not.

I have no interest or inclination to palliate the mistakes, or omissions, or want of steadiness, or unhappy misunderstandings, among a few of those who then presided in affairs.

Nothing is more common than the virulence of superficial and ill informed writers, against the conduct of those who are now called prime ministers: And, since factions appear at present to be at a greater height than in any former times, although perhaps not so equally poised; it may probably concern those who are now in their height, if they have any regard for their own memories in future ages, to be less warm against others, who humbly differ from them in some state opinions. Old persons remember, at least by tradition, the horrible prejudices that prevailed against the first Earl of Clarendon, whose character, as it now stands, might be a pattern for all ministers; although even Bishop Burnet of Sarum, whose principles, veracity, and manner of writing, are so little esteemed upon many accounts, hath been at the pains to vindicate him.

Upon that irreparable breach between the treasurer and secretary Bolingbroke, after my utmost endeavours, for above two years, to reconcile them, I retired to a friend in Berkshire, where I stayed until Her Majesty's death;[5] and then immediately returned to my station in Dublin, where I continued about twelve years without once seeing England. I there often reviewed the following Memoirs; neither changing nor adding, further than by correcting the style: And, if I have been guilty of any mistakes, they must be of small moment; for it was hardly possible I could be wrong informed, with all the advantages I have already mentioned.

[Footnote 5: See vol. v. of the present edition--the notes on pp. 390, 393-394, 420, 421, and 426. [T.S.]]

I shall not be very uneasy under the obloquy that may, perhaps, be cast upon me by the violent leaders and followers of the present prevailing party. And yet I cannot find the least inconsistence with conscience or honour, upon the death of so excellent a princess as her late Majesty, for a wise and good man to submit, with a true and loyal heart, to her lawful Protestant successor; whose hereditary title was confirmed by the Queen and both Houses of Parliament, with the greatest unanimity, after it had been made an article in the treaty, that every prince in our alliance should be a guarantee of that succession. Nay, I will venture to go one step farther; that, if the negotiators of that peace had been chosen out of the most professed zealots for the interests of the Hanover family, they could not have bound up the French king, or the Hollanders, more strictly than the Queen's plenipotentiaries did, in confirming the present succession; which was in them so much a greater mark of virtue and loyalty, because they perfectly well knew, that they should never receive the least mark of favour, when the succession had taken place.

THE HISTORY OF THE FOUR LAST
YEARS OF THE QUEEN.