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the History as an historical document.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