To The Editor Of The Time...
The Times, 1824-02-21T00:00:00

Sir,-It appears in your pa this day, by your report of the proceedings in the 'ouse of Gommons last night, that Lord Al- thotp obta-ned leave to bring in a bill "' to prevent delays and ex. pense in the proceedings of County Cour-ts, and for the iaore speedy recovery of small debts in England and 'tValea." It is not generally known, that the provisions of the bill is not to extend to the county of Middlesex or the cities of London and Westminster, as appears by the following extract of a clause in the bill-" That this act shall not extend to the county of Middlesex or the cty of London or the dty and liberty of Westminster and that part of the Dtchls of Lan- caster which adjoineth thereto, or his AMajesty's Tower ot London, or the several parishes, liberties, &c. within the Tower.hamlets, un- less the Justices of the Peace for anv such county or district, having a separate commission of the peace, shall think it advisable to adopt the provisSons of this act within anv such county or district, oc." The dlause then provides, that in Case such Justices shall take such proceedings as are pointed out by the act for establishing such Court, and after "' an order in council shall be obtained for establishing uithix such county or district a court for the recover1 of small debts according to the provisions of this act, suc'h court shal1 be establisbed accordinzly." Now I cannot divine why the act should not extend to Ml iddlesex, London, and Westminster, and the other excepted places, in the first instance, without leaving it to the discretionary power of magistrates, and the sanction of an orderin council, which maynot be easily obtained. Lord Althorp, on moving to obtain leave to bring in the bill, stated, as reported in your paper, '- thet the evil which the bill was intended to remedy was of a very oppressive nature; the expense of rccovering debts under 101. was so heavy as to render them in most cssea scarcely worth recovering; and in some trades the debts *lue to the parties engaged in them seldom amounte4 to more than 101.; it was evident that to them the expense amounted almost to a denial of justice, and compelled them to trust entirely to the honour and honesty of their debtors."' Is there not the same expense to reco. ver debts in Middlesex and Lonslon as in any other couaty ? There are the same fees to the different officers of the court (which, by the by, forms the greater part of the expense in ordinary cases), the same staipps, court-fees, &c., in the one case as the other. In tlset, an action cannot be tried in either of the *uperior Courts in Middlesex or London, at a less expense to tbhplalatiff-than 301. or 401., which of crourse he mav recover of the defend.- ant, if he is able to pay: such would be the amount of costs to recover anv debt above 40s. in Middlesex, and above 51. in Lon- don ; and a defendant can put a plaintiff to this exTense at a very t4ifling expense to himself, shoald he be disposed to delay and ha, rass the plaintifF. If a defendant shiould not appear to an actioa, on being served with process it will cost a plaintiff 141. or 161. before he can com- plete his juognent against defendant. Is it not, then, as much a denial ef justice to the inhabitants of MIJiddlerex and the metropolis, as to those of other parts of the country that suitors should incur so heavy an expense in recover- ing sma. debts ? Thinking the subject of this letter iituportant to the inlhabitants of Mliddlesex and the metrorolis, more especially to the trading classes, my object is, thatthey mav be acquainted, througlh the means of your widely circulated paper, that the bill now before Parliament does not extend to them; this is the more necessary, becau.se a gient *nany persons in trade are deceived in this reK pect. I have no doubt they will take rteps to endeavour to get the bill to extend to then. r --moin Rir vnulr -- n. s nhrdipnt lmhtmhle servant. z Feb. 1M. 1824. TO THg RDITOR OF TAE TIlIfES.