writer. He was, however, at least bound to show some conformity in style,
which he does not attempt. On the other hand, we have the positive denial
of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son (Kippis's _Biog. Brit._, vol.
iii., addenda to vol. ii.), which, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, seems to be quite sufficient.

In a letter signed C.H., _Gent. Mag._, vol. vii. p. 317., written
immediately on the appearance of the work, the writer observes:--

"I should have been very glad to have seen the author's name prefixed
to it: however, I am of opinion that it its very nearly related to no
less a hand than that which has so often, under borrowed names,
employed itself to amuse and trifle mankind, in their own taste, out of
their folly and vices."

This appears to point at Swift; but it is quite clear that he could not be
the author, for very obvious reasons.

A correspondent of the _Gent. Mag._, who signs his initials W.H. (vol. lv.
part 2. p. 757), states "on very good authority" that the author was--

"Barrington, a Catholic priest, who had chambers in Gray's Inn, in
which he was keeper of a library for the use of the Romish clergy. Mr.
Barrington wrote it for amusement, in a fit of the gout. He began it
without any plan, and did not know what he should write about when be
put pen to paper. He was author of several pamphlets, chiefly
anonymous, particularly the controversy with Julius Bate on Elohim."

Of this circumstantial and sufficiently positive attribution, which is
dated October, 1785, no contradiction ever appeared that I am aware of. The