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