please your Lordship, on behalf of the Bar I wish to thank you for what you have said, having had the advantage as my friends Mr. Bro-wert and Mr. Ellis, the oldest members of the Bar here now, and later Mr. Platt, and others have had, and which as your Lordship says you had not a full opportunity of enjoying, namely, that of hearing Mr. Drummond as an advocate at what probably was his very best. Mr. Drummond was a distinguished ad vocate practising here with most dis tinguished men, among whom shone, and as your Lordship says. probably in the conduct of the case in Court outshone them all. On of his partners was Sir Richard Rennie, Chief Justice later of this Court. Another was Mr. Leach later, Mr. Justice Leach of the Straits. Another was Mr. Sharp, x.c., of Hongkong, and we can all emember the time when his past partners and his present partners now in this room enjoyed working with him and had the advantage of his mastering intellect. It was not only in Shanghai that Mr. Drummond was leading advocate, but also in Hongkong, where he was asked to go specially more often, T think, than any barrister who has -ver practised in the Court. He had two great qualities as far as I am able to judge and experienced them, which do not often go togethqualities of the greatest use to his clients and the Court. The first was the power of careful pre-aration of his case before he came into Court. No part of the evid.nce as he knew it was left unthought of. Nothing in the way of law that could be looked up was left un-cared for. He hada plan. He came into Court knowing his case thoroughly and well; yet he had that other power which if men have they usually rely on and neglect to a certain extent careful pre pai ation; that is, be could in Court on his legs, at a suggestion from the Bench, something said on the other side, something admitted, at some question from the jury, he could take up immediately some new point and probably win on that as his principal point, though to his mind before he came into Court it had been regarded merely as a side issue, "If Lam not wearying the Court, I would like to mention one of the most striking instances. It was a collision case. The question was whether his client's ship had been at anchor or not. The question, of course, was whether the sails were up or down, as to whether they were made fast or not. It turned out in the course of the case that one of the sails of the ship at an; rate, when it was recovered, w aloft. No one, I think, but Mr. Drummond, either here or at home, could have taken that point up and successfully contended that the sails were down. He said: 'Yes, the sails were down. They had not been made fast. But the main-sail probably went up as the.ship sank, being carried up to a certain extent by the water.' His system of dealing with the jury was wonderful and most effective. We all know and we all feel when appearing before a Court and jury our principal task is to lift in some way barrier of the past which is always closing down behind us from day to day, so that the Court and jury may have before them what really happened as regards the cts in dispute. Some tried simply to lift that barrier for a moment as though it had faded. Not so Drummond. Carefully and slowly he would piece together, like pieces of glass—you could ear them being put together in his clear tone—his view as to how one fact fitted in with another—and at the end of the case he would invite (l= Court to look through that he had made. He would tal jury not once but twice. twice, over it, and make them ".e the case as he had seen and usually with success.
Ohinese Affairs and Settlement, "Heving been asked to advise the Chinese, especially the local authorities and the Viceroy at Nanking, on the various difficult matters that arose in the adminis-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.