An instance was related to me of a Brazilian who owed an English house eleven hundred pounds, and, being pressed for a settlement, he disputed the delivery of a quantity of crockery-ware, amounting to nine hundred pounds, but which, from their great bulk, and the circumstances attending his receipt of them, afforded ample proof of the justness of the charge. In the course of the law-process he demanded the production of the plaintiff’s books, in which case every leaf of each book is stamped, and pays a duty to government. The books afforded the clearest testimony of the sale and delivery. The defendant then put in a document, suggesting that the plaintiff might have two sets of books, and this might be a false one; upon this the defendant was ordered to produce his own books, for it is usual for this class of Brazilian dealers to keep a receiving-book, in which all goods are entered when delivered at their shops. He however evaded this order, by replying, that he kept no books, but wrote the receipt of all goods upon the back of the merchants’ invoices, and that he had never received the one in question. This subterfuge produced an immediate _despatch_ in favour of the plaintiff, which the defendant may perhaps yet frustrate, by the dishonest proceedings mentioned. Hence, the laws appear to be rather a temptation to fraud than a preventive. The appointment of an English judge conservator, who is indeed a respectable man, and disposed to act with promptitude and justice, appears to be perfectly nugatory in cases of importance; and, although his decisions may have some influence with the other courts, they are by no means final or effectual; and the same delay takes place, under such circumstances as have been described, as if this office did not exist. The privilege of having a judge, whose salary of £500 a year is paid out of the contribution fund, would appear to be conceded to the English, without its producing any adequate advantage to them.