Verge of the Palace, Whitehall, and Privy Gardens,
The Close of the Church of St. Peter

596

The following statement of the Parishes in Middlesex, contiguous to London, may enable our readers to form an estimate of the immense concentration of inhabitants, by comparing the population of some of the principal provincial towns to those of the parishes. By such a reference, we find Mary-le-bone to exceed Birmingham by more than 5000 inhabitants; Shoreditch is equal in number to Bath; Bethnal Green to Nottingham; St. Pancras has 10,000 more persons than Sheffield; Kensington is equal to Cambridge; Islington has nearly the population of Canterbury; and St. Giles's only 1,200 less than Leeds:

The town of Birmingham, exclusive of the hamlets, contains 70,037 persons; being an increase of upwards of 9,000 persons in 10 years.

Liverpool, exclusive of 7,000 seamen, and the hamlets, contains 94,376 persons, being an increase of about 17,000 in ten years; and the increase of houses in that period is 4,143.

The city of Worcester, exclusive of the suburbs, has increased in its population since 1801, 2420 souls. Its present number of inhabitants is 13,611. The females are 1811 more than the males.

Bath (1801)-31,111 (1811)—37,557.

The population of Cambridge is ascertained to be 4604 males, 5688 females. Total 10,292.

The population of Norwich is 37,026, being 3025 less than in 1786: the females exceed the males by 6000.

LAW REPORTS.

Court of Session, Edinburgh.-FIRST DIVISION. July 11.

SIR F. BURDETT 7. WM. SCOTT, ESQ.

MR. Jeffrey, for the pursuer, stated, that this was a very short and common case on the part of his client, Sir Francis Burdett, who was sueing Mr. Scott upon a bond for 50001. of borrowed money: that Mr. Scott had put in long and special defences, every syllable of which was denied by Sir F. Burdett; but besides this positive and general denial, Sir Francis objected to the relevancy of the defence. Sir F. Burdett positively denied that any trust, of any sort or kind, was ever reposed in Mr. Scott: that the defence against the present action was in these words—

'A lady, whose name it is unnecessary to mention, having been debauched

G 3

bauched by Sir F. Burdett, became pregnant by him, and the parties were reduced to a state of the greatest distress and embarrassment. It became the duty of the defender to protect this female and her child, and to obtain from Sir Francis some provision for the latter, to be used as future exigencies might require, as it was then uncertain to what extent a provision might be necessary. In spring, 1801, Sir Francis granted his bond, in the English form, to the defender, for the sum of 40,000l. defeasible upon payment of 20,0001. within six months from the date thereof. It was understood that the defender was to use this bond according to his discretion, for the purpose already alluded to.

Soon after the bond was granted, Sir F. agreed to pay to the defender the sum of 10,0001. in part of the bond; but not having the whole of that sum at his command, he paid 5,000l. only, and the defender indorsed the said payment of 5,0001. upon the bond.

Sir Francis, as well as the lady, had apprehended an immediate public disclosure and disgrace; but as this very luckily for them did not follow, the defender, in the exercise of his discretion, and under the circumstances of the case, did not think it necessary to call upon Sir Francis for any farther payments upon his bond. But he thought it proper to retain the bond in his custody; and, to provide against any bad consequences that might happen in case of his own death, he made a will, by which he bequeathed the 5,000l. he had received from Sir Francis as a legacy to the child; and, by his will, he appointed as his executor, with the same powers over Sir Francis's bond that he himself had, Charles Warren, Esq. barrister at law, who was well acquainted with all the circumstances of the transaction; and he shewed the will to Mr. Warren, and informed him of his motives for making it.

During the autumn of 1805, and the spring of 1806, the pursuer and defender had some differences with respect to the pursuer's bond, and the payment of 5,000l. which the pursuer, for reasons best known to himself, demanded back from the defender; but the defender positively insisted upon retaining the 5,000l. for the benefit of the said child; and the pursuer was at last obliged to desist from his demands, and either was, or pretended to be, perfectly satisfied with the defender's conduct in the business.

At this time, however, the defender was informed, by the said Charles Warren, that the pursuer felt extremely uneasy, that this bond for 20,0001. was standing out against him; that if the defender thought, under the circumstances of the case, the 5,000l. already paid was enough, Sir Francis requested that the 20,0001. bond might be discharged. Upon which the defender informed Mr. Warren, that he had no objection whatever to discharge the pursuer of the 15,0001. remaining due upon the bond. And, besides doing this, the defender offered, of himself, to execute a bond for the 5,0001. payable in five years, to be deposited in the hands of Mr. Warren, as the defender's obligation for the money to Sir Francis, and to be delivered to Sir Francis in case the child should die. But if the child should be alive at the end of five years, then the pursuer was to discharge the defender's bond in the same manner that the defender was to discharge the pursuer's bond. The defender was afterwards informed by Mr. Warren, that the pursuer had agreed to these terms.

Thereafter, the defender shewed Mr. Warren that he had disposed of part of the interest of the 5,000l. to the mother of the child, and the remainder not so disposed of, computing interest upon interest, had accumulated in his hand to the amount of 7501. For which reason, he executed a bond of 5,7501. which he delivered to Mr. Warren, along with a letter, expressing that the terms or conditions abovementioned were those upon

which

which he had executed the bond. In his letter to Mr. Warren, the de fender, in order to avoid mentioning the said child in writing, alludes to the condition of his bond being discharged, in the event of the child's being alive, in these words:" If circumstances should require it.”

'It will be proved, that at this time the defender held the bond of the pursuer undischarged; and, therefore, unless the conditions and agreement upon which he executed his own hond are complied with, the consequence Wil be, that it was granted without any consideration whatever.

Warren afterwards called upon the defender, and informed him, that the pursuer had seen what the defender had done, and had agreed to all the terms and conditions upon which the defender had granted his own bond, and proposed to discharge the bond of the pursuer; and Mr. Warren then advised the defender, instead of entering a discharge upon the bond, and keeping it as evidence of the transaction, to return it cancelled to the pursuer, whereby the defender would have no power over it as evidence; and this Mr. Warren advised, for the purpose of removing any apprehension or jealousy that might be in the pursuer's mind respecting the defender's intention.

At the same time, Mr. Warren assured the defender that he might rely tpen the pursuer's honour, which was pledged, that the transaction should ebe misrepresented, or at all transpire; and he stated, that the pur

under too much obligation to the defender ever to attempt any violation of the condition upon which this bond was to be returned.

Ultimately, the transaction was concluded by defender's giving up the pursuer's bond to be cancelled and returned to him, he having before deposited with Mr. Warren the bond now in question, upon the conditions already mentioned.

It would appear that the pursuer was successful in impetrating from Mr. Warren this bond even before the expiry of the five years, during which time Mr. Warren was to retain it in his custody; and although the said child is yet alive, and the defender is bound to keep the money received from Sir Francis for the benefit of the said child, Sir Francis has thought proper to raise the present action for payment of the bond; in doing which, he seems to have totally forgotten every circumstance relating to the transaction, its meaning and object, and the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties at entering into it.

The defence against the present action, therefore, is, that the defender is not liable to pay the contents of the said bond; and that he ought to be assoilzied with full expences.'

Mr. Jeffrey stated that the whole of the defence was false and calumnious; that Sir Francis denied that he ever had a child except by his own wife; and that he had only read the defence, merely to argue against the relevancy of it in point of law.

Mr. Jeffrey then entered into a long argument to shew, that the ground of action being a bond in the English form, was a clear liquid ground of. debt, which could not be set aside by such irrelevant matter as that stated in the defence.

Lord Meadowbank stated, that he was quite clear the defences were relevant: that the ground of debt was one on which no execution could follow in this country, without the authority of a decree of the proper court in Scotland. Even if the bond had been a Scotch bond, with clause of registration, upon which Mr. Scott might have been summarily charged for payment, his Lordship would have suspended the charge upon caution, until the facts were investigated; and he was therefore inclined to direct, that Mr. Warren should be examined upon interrogatories to be framed by this

court, and that a special condescendence of such interrogatories should be given in.

Mr. Cathcart stated, that he hoped his Lordship was not serious in considering these defences as relevant; for if he did, it would be his duty to submit the interlocutor to the review of the court. Sir Francis Burdett denied every syllable in these defences, and Mr. Cathcart stated, that if his Lordship persisted in his opinion that the defences were relevant, he would crave that Mr. Scott might be ordered instantly to consign the money, with the interest of it, which he acknowledged was in his hands.

Lord Meadowbank said the only pretence for consignment would be, if Mr. Scott was vergens ad inopiam. His Lordship repeated, that he would appoint Mr. Warren to be examined.

Mr. Scott then came forward, and stated, that he was the defender in this action, and that he found himself without the assistance of either of his council, whom he had instructed to plead this cause, not from any fault of theirs, but from the manner in which business was conducted before the court. That Mr. Gillies had been called away from his Lordship's bar, and was now speaking, as he was informed, in the first division of the court, and Mr. Clerk was speaking in the other division.

That he did not presume to trust himself in matters relating to the forms of proceeding in this court: and it was very possible he might have formed erroneous notions of his Lordship's judgment: that it seemed to him that it might be precluded, under the pretended judgment, from any other evidence than that of Mr. Warren: that although Sir Francis Burdett had come forward with a positive denial of every syllable of these defences, yet it was in Mr. Scott's power to prove the falsehood of this denial, under Sir Francis Burdett's own hand, and by a variety of evidence which he insisted upon being allowed to advance, that he might be able to keep himself right and safe in this infamous business.

Lord Meadowbank said, that Mr. Scott should not be precluded from the assistance of his counsel; that he would call the cause again as soon as they were ready, and that he did not think that Mr. Scott should be confined to the evidence of Mr. Warren alone.

Mr. Clerk having come to the bar, the cause was called again.

The Lord Ordinary then recapitulated to Mr. Clerk what had passed. Mr. Clerk then observed, that Sir Francis Burdett brought this action against his client, without any notice whatever, and had recourse to the most rigid and outrageous proceedings against him. That Mr. Scott came forward immediately with his defences. The cause was inrolled, and his counsel came ready to debate it about six weeks ago: what course did Sir Francis then take? He told his Lordship that he was not then prepared to meet the defence, and craved a delay. Mr. Clerk stated, that it was his duty to mark this proceeding, which he did accordingly; and, although he might have insisted upon an absolvitur, he did not oppose Sir Francis being allowed a reasonable time to prepare. The cause was not inrolled again by Sir Francis till the last day of this Session, and now he came forward with an objection to the relevancy of the defence.

Lord Meadowbank said, and a denial also of the facts stated in it.' Mr. Clerk continued, that he would avoid as much as possible mentioning names, or saying any thing that might be unpleasant to the feelings of any party.

That Sir Francis Burdett had got himself into a situation of great diffi culty and embarrassment-Could this be denied?

Lord Meadowbank again said all was denied, and declared to be absolutely false,

Mr.