Star.
London, England, 1830-10-22 00:00:00

POPULATION OF LARGE TOWNS.

Now that an Act of Parliament is passed for taking a new census,
v.artoas roujectures have been formed as to which of the large towns has
luercased most in population since the last census. The following,
from one of Dr. Cleland of Glasgow's Statistical Works, chows the
amount of population in the large towns in 1821:

THREE or THE LAROEST TOWNS IN
England—London ... .. ... 1,274,800'
Manchester ... ... 133,788 I,
Liverpool 1... ... .. 118,872
Wales --Swansea .. ... .. 10,007
Canuarthen .... ... 8,906
Holy well .. . • 8,309
Scotland—Glasgow .. .. .. 147,043
Edinburgh ... ... ... 138,235
Paisley ... ... ... 47,003'
I rel..nd-- Dublin .. .. . . 186,2761
Cork ... .. ... 100,535
Limerick ... ... .. 66,042
Fl Ali re --Paris ... .. •• • 720,0001
Lyons .. ... 115,000
Niarseilles ... .. ... 102,000'
Isle of Man--Douglas ... ... 6,054
Island of litionsty—Port of St. Peter ... 11,173
I slnna of Jersey—Town and parish of St. Helier 10,118
ENGLAND—CENSUS Or THE TEAR 1377.

1,527,560

27,222

332,281

937,000

Asa matter Of historical curiosity, the population of the principal
i'owns of England, in 1377, is here given, from an Enumeration made
uu account of a Poll Tax :
imndon - 35,000
York - - - 11,000

Bristol
Plymouth -
Coventry -
Norwich -
Lincoln -
Sarin,' 'Wilt:Mi.

- 9,000
. 7,000
- 7,000
- 9,000
- b,OOO
5,000

Colchester -
Canterbury

- 4,500

- 4;000

Beverley - 4,000
Newcastle-on-Tyne - 4,000
Oxford . 3,500
Bury (Suffolk).. - 3,500
Gloucester F arh some-
Leicester

.•(11111 ( _ { aosttuore } 3,000
Lynn - - - - 5,0001 Shrewsbury than
In that remote age, the total population of England was 2,900,000,
but the proportion of town population was tar smaller than at present,
since the number of towns containing above 3,000 inhabitants, was
only 18.
It is a curious fact that, in 1821, the population of the City of Lou-
t:fan, within the walls, was 58,400, so that, during the perioid of 444
years, the population increased only 0,400.
The population of London, 1821, was made up as follows :
City of London, within the walls .. ... 58,400
City of London, without the walls ... ... 72.000
City and Liberties of Westminster .. ... 188,400
Out Parishes, within the Bills of Mortality .. 730,700
Parishes not within the Bills of Mortality ... 224,300

Total

... 1,27-1,800

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—TituaspAy,

(Sittings after Trinity Tern), before the CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special
Jury.)
STANNARD V. CLARKS.

By this action the plaintiff; a coachman, sought redress for injury
sustained by him in consequence of defamatory words spoken of him
by the duleudant, u gentleman of fortune, in whose service he formerly
was.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, Counsel for the plaintiff, in his statement
to the Jury, described this case as one of considerable interest and tin-
pot taper to the public. inasmuch as it related to the question of what
extent of discretion individuals were justified in using when called upon
to describe the characters of their servants ? The plaintiff,"it appeared,
alter !caving theserviceof the defendant,in which he had given satifaction
as fir as the performance of his duties was concerned, heard theta gentle.
man, named Brown, wanted a coachman, and he applied for the situation.
If c acquainted Mr. Brown with the cause of his having left the defendant's
serriee, which wai, that he (the plaintiff) had fallen into a little indis-
cretion. and been fattnred with a child by a servant girl at Dulwich.
lie then confidently referred 3lr. B. to the defendant for a testimonial
of his efficiency to till the situation, and left hint with an under.
standing that he would be engaged if the defendant should make
no other exception to his character, than that which he had him-
self admitted. Mr. Brown applied to the defendant, who admit.
ted Iris efficiency as a coachman, but said that "he was a man
who ought not to be admitted into a family ; for, besides having
had a child by a girl at Dulwich, he had debauched another young
woman ut Worthing." In consequence of this slanderous addition to
the plaintiff's offence, for which there was not the slightest foundation
b•ynnd the idle assertion of the beadle of Dulwich, Mr. Brown re-
fused to engage the plaintiff. This was the injury complained of. Dlr.
Brown would be called, and would prove the allegation ; and the false-
hood of the charge with respect to the young woman at Worthing,
would be shown by the produetion of the young woman in the witness-
box.

Mr. Brown was then called, when he unequivocally declared that
there was no uneerstamling on his pan that the plaintiff was to be en-
gaged as his coachman in the event of a certain character being given of
him by the defendant ; and that, after he had inquired of the defendant
one day that they met accidentally at their Bean:, respecting the plain-
tiff's character, the defendant spoke very fairly of him, but on a subse-
quent occasion imparted to him some particulars, the precise nature of
which he could not recollect, but they were of such a nature that
be could never have thought of sending the plaintiff to his (the
witness's) wife, by whom alone his servants were always engaged. He
never entertained an intention of engaging him.
After this evidence his Lordship directed that the plaintiff should be
nonsuited.

(Before a Common Jury.)
11.11.16 V. HOPKINS

This action was brought by a person named Ellis, formerly a baker
at Harwich, against the defendant, Mrs. Hopkins, as the executrix of
her husband, to recover the sum of '9Olll and 1301. with interest
thereon, at four per cent. from April 1827, the same being money lent
by the plaintiff to the testator.
According to the ease made out, it appeared that in the year 1827,
two sums, amounting to 9001. were deposited by the plaintiff in the
heads of the testator, a retired member of the medical proles.inn, who
had filled the office of Mayor of Harwich for several succrsave years.
and who was a highly respectable man ; but for this money the plaintiff
had no other security than a note of band, on a piece of unatamped
paper. For the sum of 1301. he held a proper stamped receipt, and this
money the defendant had paid into Court; but with respect to tbe 9001.
it was denied ever to have been received by the testator. and the note of
baud was averred not to be a genuine document. This plea having
failld in evidence, the Statute of Limitations was pleaded, under an al.
legation that the money, if lent at all, tau lent in the year 1021; but
the evidence not supporting it, the case went to the Jury, who found
for the plaintiff.