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,