Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Historic Doubts On The Birth-Place Of Celebrated Men;
stein : " An entry in the baptismal registry , that the party was born on a day therein mentioned , is not evidence of that fact . " ( 6 Garrington and Payne ' s Reports , p . 690 . ) Similarly Lord Chancellor Erskine , in commenting upon such testimony , observed , that " while the feudal tenures prevailed with the ancient institutionsas inquisitions jwostf
mortemop-, , portunities of establishing descents were afforded much superior to the modem means by the register of births and baptisms . " ( Vowles v . Young , 13 Vesey ' s Ch , Cas . p . 143 . ) Consequently , it is clear that , as entries in parochial registers , unless such entries be supported by corroborative testimony , are not to be held as conclusive evidenceit followsthat the
, , entry in the registry of St . Peter ' s Church cannot be said to prove that the late Duke of Wellington was born in the month of April * As regards the inference which that worthy functionary , " the Chairman of the Town Commissioners of Trim , " wishes to be drawn from the circumstance of Arthur Wesley ( and a
snug family party of his connections ) having been admitted into the corporation of Trim , viz ., that he must necessarily have been born in the county of Meath , the proposition is , in our opinion , too romantic to require a momentary attempt to refute . As regards , however , the most important feature of this inquiry , namely , the birth-place of the late Duke of
Wellington , we feel that w e are justified in concluding that it was Dublin , for we have shown that it is so recorded in The Dublin Mercury , and it is also recorded in The Dublin Freeman ' s Journal , as well as in The Dublin Gazette of May the 2 nd , 1769 . All of these publications are , in our estimation , of far greater weight as evidence on such matters , than
those privately and negligently kept documents , the old " parish registers , " inasmuch as the former were open to the observation and comment of all the world , and if an error happened to occur therein , it was more certain to be detected and corrected than in the latter ; independently of which , we have the general current of public repute for a long period , in favour of Dublin having been the late Duke ' s birth-place . To the correctness of the statement , moreover , we have the
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Historic Doubts On The Birth-Place Of Celebrated Men;
stein : " An entry in the baptismal registry , that the party was born on a day therein mentioned , is not evidence of that fact . " ( 6 Garrington and Payne ' s Reports , p . 690 . ) Similarly Lord Chancellor Erskine , in commenting upon such testimony , observed , that " while the feudal tenures prevailed with the ancient institutionsas inquisitions jwostf
mortemop-, , portunities of establishing descents were afforded much superior to the modem means by the register of births and baptisms . " ( Vowles v . Young , 13 Vesey ' s Ch , Cas . p . 143 . ) Consequently , it is clear that , as entries in parochial registers , unless such entries be supported by corroborative testimony , are not to be held as conclusive evidenceit followsthat the
, , entry in the registry of St . Peter ' s Church cannot be said to prove that the late Duke of Wellington was born in the month of April * As regards the inference which that worthy functionary , " the Chairman of the Town Commissioners of Trim , " wishes to be drawn from the circumstance of Arthur Wesley ( and a
snug family party of his connections ) having been admitted into the corporation of Trim , viz ., that he must necessarily have been born in the county of Meath , the proposition is , in our opinion , too romantic to require a momentary attempt to refute . As regards , however , the most important feature of this inquiry , namely , the birth-place of the late Duke of
Wellington , we feel that w e are justified in concluding that it was Dublin , for we have shown that it is so recorded in The Dublin Mercury , and it is also recorded in The Dublin Freeman ' s Journal , as well as in The Dublin Gazette of May the 2 nd , 1769 . All of these publications are , in our estimation , of far greater weight as evidence on such matters , than
those privately and negligently kept documents , the old " parish registers , " inasmuch as the former were open to the observation and comment of all the world , and if an error happened to occur therein , it was more certain to be detected and corrected than in the latter ; independently of which , we have the general current of public repute for a long period , in favour of Dublin having been the late Duke ' s birth-place . To the correctness of the statement , moreover , we have the