The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D., Vol. X. | Page 9

In the historical style, it
wants dignity and candour: but as a pamphlet it will appear the best
defence of Lord Oxford's administration, and the clearest account of the
Treaty of Utrecht, that has hitherto been written."[3]
[Footnote 3: Second edition, pp. 206-207.]
The most ardent and devoted of Swift's admirers could hardly find a
juster criticism of the work. It should satisfy any unprejudiced reader of
the printed History as we now have it, and to that extent emphasize the
authenticity.
An interesting sidelight on Swift's History is thrown by Chesterfield in
a letter he wrote to Dr. Chenevix, Bishop of Waterford, on May 23rd,
1758. We must believe that the noble lord wrote in good faith and
certainly in the full belief that the work he was criticising was the work
of Swift. Chesterfield's criticism points directly to Swift as the author,
since his justification for Bolingbroke's story is to be found in the work
as Lucas printed it in 1758. Speaking of the History, Chesterfield calls
it "a party pamphlet, founded on the lie of the day, which, as lord
Bolingbroke who had read it often assured me, was coined and
delivered out to him, to write Examiners, and other political papers
upon. That spirit remarkably runs through it. Macarteney, for instance,
murdered duke Hamilton;[4] nothing is falser, for though Macarteney
was very capable of the vilest actions, he was guiltless of that, as I
myself can testify, who was at his trial on the king's bench, when he
came over voluntarily to take it, in the late king's time. There did not
appear even the least ground for a suspicion of it; nor did Hamilton,
who appeared in court, pretend to tax him with it, which would have
been in truth accusing himself of the utmost baseness, in letting the

murderer of his friend go off from the field of battle, without either
resentment, pursuit, or even accusation, till three days afterwards. This
lie was invented to inflame the Scotch nation against the Whigs; as the
other, that prince Eugene intended to murder lord Oxford, by
employing a set of people called Mohocks, which society, by the way,
never existed, was calculated to inflame the mob of London. Swift took
those hints _de la meilleure foi du monde_, and thought them materials
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
infidelity to honour. There can be no defence of the Oxford
administration, for the manner in which it separated England from its
allies and treated with a monarch who was well known to it as a
political chicaner. The result brought a treaty by which Louis XIV.

gained and the allies lost, and this in spite of the offers previously made
by the bankrupt monarch at Gertruydenberg.
The further contents of this volume deal with what might better be
called Swiftiana. They include a collection of very interesting
annotations made by Swift in his copies of Macky's "Characters,"
Clarendon's "History of the Rebellion," Burnet's "History of his Own
Time," and Addison's "Freeholder." The notes to Clarendon and Burnet
have always found an important place in the many editions