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