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.