If the History were a forgery, what object was gained in quoting from it, and who were the enemies who wrote it?
When, in 1873, Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr.Disraeli, made a speech at Glasgow, in which he quoted from the History and spoke of the words as by Swift, a correspondent in the "Times" criticised him for his ignorance in so doing.

But the discussion which followed in the columns of that periodical left the matter just where it was, and, indeed, justified Beaconsfield.

The matter was taken up by Mr.Edward Solly in "Notes and Queries;" but that writer threw no new light whatever on the subject.
But the positive evidence in favour of the authenticity is so strong, that one wonders how there could have been any doubt as to whether Swift did or did not write the History.
In the first place we know that Swift was largely indebted for his facts to Bolingbroke, when that statesman was the War Secretary of Queen Anne.
A comparison of those portions of Swift's History which contain the facts with the Bolingbroke Correspondence, in which the same facts are embodied, will amply prove that Swift obtained them from this source, 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.