ENGLAND’S BIG TOWNS IN FIGURES.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 683, 11 November 1921, Page 3

ENGLAND’S BIG TOWNS IN FIGURES.

The census figures of 1921 establish Birmingham definitely as the second town in England and Wales. With a population of 919,435* v she ig beaten only by London, 9hggOW, and Calcutta within the Empire, and perhaps by not many more than a score of cities in the whole world. Yet twenty years ago we reckoned Birmingham was but fourth among the English towns, with little more than half a million people. Birmingham’s jump, a decade ago, past Liverpool and! Manchester, to near the million mark was achieved, of course, by a discreet extension of boundaries, and not by a sudden great increase in the number of people. Still, there has been a very fair increase within the Newer Birmingham to the tune of 79,000 during the past ten years. This is only the biggest actual increase m any town in England except London, but also the biggest percentage increase in the larger towns. And Birmingham, having beaten Liverpool and Manchester in thtt population race, looks to be growing so healthily that in another generation she may even beat Glasgow and! become th,3 second city in the Empire. The present census leaves Liverpool and Manchester in the places they occupied at the last. Liverpool, wjjth 803,118, comes a good third aljter London and Birmingham, and has a comfortable lead over Manchester, with**' 730,551. And as the increase in Liverpool during the ten years was 49,000 and the increase in Manchester- only 16,000. Liverpool seems secure in the third place for some time ,to come. But the great difference of 3,000,000 between Greater London (7,400,000) and the County of London (4,400,000) shows that the census figures are not always a true index to the size of a town.

Judge Liverpool as /the urban area on both sides of the Mersey and throw into Manchester Salford and one or two other places that are practically indistinguishable from her, and you have in each case a population of over a million, far bigger than Birmingham’s and a,t least as big as Glasgow’s. And so it is always open to a good Liverpudlian or a good Manchester man to claim that his city is second not only in England but in the Empire as well.

At the last census Sheffield got just ahead of Leeds. Now, \ with 490,000 against 458,000, Sheffield seems to be running away from her Wesjt Riding rival, and there is no doubt as to which is the fifth city in the country. And Bristol keeps the seventh place easily with 377,000 againsjt West Ham’s 300,000.. Bujt Bradford (285,000), long the despair of those who like to see a good birthrate, has fallen from the ninth place to the tenth having been overtaken by Hull (287000). Newcastle-on-Tyne (274,000) and Nottingham (262,000) remain 11 and 12, but Portsmouth (247,0u0), has gone up to 13 above Stoke-on-Trent (240,000). Leicester (234,190), establishes a bare lead of 40 over Salford (234,150), after being--4000 behind at |the last census. Fiymoulih keeps the sevententh place with 209,000', an d Cardiff comes up to the eighteenth _ ,town with over 200,000 inhabitants, though the excess here i,s only 262. and Dublin and Belfast added to the English cities, and to Cardiff we have in the British Isles 22 m all, wdth a population of over 200,000. Eut do we see our provincial towns as big as they really are ? Because jthey lack a metropolitan status, we rarely give £hem credit' for being, as is the case, much bigger than most of the capitals of the world. We compare them with London and nev with .the cities of other countries, and so we see them dwarfed. —D.M.