had been restored.

Strange were the coincidences which careful thought would suggest. Thus we read, that many of the chief of the fathers, who were ancient men that had seen the first house when the foundation of the new house was laid before their eyes, shouted aloud for joy,"" and so on-the occasion being "carefully improved" in all ways. One main object, however, of most of the occasional pastors, in obedience to the tone prescribed in high quarters, was to show how it was perfectly consistent to introduce pompous worship into the church, without incurring the suspicion of a taint of the "Puseyism" which was then dividing and rending the ecclesiastical world. The country parson, who would have had every groat of his Easter offering cut off by angry parishioners had he there broached the abhorred doctrines of chanting a gloria and decorating the communion-table, here expounded how the compromise might be well effected by wisdom, and ability, and good intentions; how pure Protestantism might still flourish though men-singers and boy-singers took part in the services, and elegance and ornament prevailed in the sacred edifice.

The Benchers, however, at the outset of the services in the restored church, had, on one occasion at least, to hear some "home truths." At the conclusion of one eloquent sermon, they were told pointedly how they "might gild their church and carve their altar, adorn their walls and revel in the richness of their display, be lavish in their ecclesiastical pageantry and pomp, and yet forget that God looked into the hearts of men, however great they might fancy themselves; He spied out vanity and ostentation however masked, and, penetrating true motives, accepted only the homage of His pure and humble servants." The masters of the bench, doubtless, on this occasion felt cruelly the truth of Sir William Follett's remark, that "to a sermon there was no reply."

The sermons, indeed, at the Temple Church have not of late been so much prized, as possibly they ought to be. So much so has this been the case, that many persons with bad taste were wont to escape therefrom at the conclusion of the anthem. To meet this evil, a terrible notice was affixed to a pillar in the fol

lowing words:"No one can leave the church after the first lesson," thus enjoining a "permanent sitting and a fixed congregation." An equally intelligent and grammatical placard was wont to be put up outside the church after the long vacation, viz. : "Service in the church will begin the first Sunday in November, and continue till further notice."

The musical services deserve some remarks. The choir labours under the great disadvantages of meeting together only on Sundays. There are no rehearsals, and it is only a marvel when new music is attempted, that they don't altogether break-down,1 an event which would infallibly often happen, were it not for the dexterity and ability of the accompanist; consequently there is a tendency to repeat the old chants, anthems, and services over and over again, till the regular attendants are somewhat tired. Moreover, the taste of the rulers of the houses has to be consulted; and they, not having any extended or cultivated knowledge of music, prefer the few old pieces up to which they have been educated, and with which they are acquainted. Sometimes an admirer of "Mozart" seems in the ascendant, and then "Plead thou my cause "is repeated ad nauseam: for there is not a little musical taste at the bar. We know of two additions to the music of the church made by members of the Temple. The responses to the commandments, adapted by Mr. Meymott from the "Elijah," is one, and a very happy one too. It happened unfortunately to take the fancy of the choir committee, and in consequence was so hackneyed that at last it became intolerable. The other is an adaptation of one of Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte to Bishop Heber's hymn, "Brightest and best of the sons of the morning." This again so smote their taste, that,

3

2

1 We lately heard a horrid collapse in Mendelssohn's service; common professional pride would have suggested a rehearsal of such music, we should have thought.

* This, though no doubt splendid music, is most vilely adapted to English from the well known Twelfth Mass; the order of the choruses and solo parts being inverted to suit the necessity of the psalm. At other times other favourite anthems are, or at least were, repeated like the tunes on a barrel

organ.

There is now among the masters of the bench, one highly accomplished in musical learning, from whom we hope some reform may be obtained.

though an Epiphany hymn, they would order it for all seasons till every one of the congregation was sick of it. That these adaptations, however happy, are false in principle, we have no doubt; and glad were we to hear that the gentleman who had devised that to Bishop Heber's hymn, became disgusted with the indiscriminate popularity and childish furor which it produced, and further reconsidered the propriety of adaptation at all; and so, repenting him of the evil he had done, refused to finish any more of those he was preparing.

We must not fail here to refer to the merits of the organist, Mr. E. J. Hopkins.1 He was appointed at the institution of the choral service at the Temple, and has ever since filled his office with great zeal and increased ability. His service in A is to our minds the best modern service we know. A composer of such ability as he is, ought to have every encouragement given him for writing sacred music, and having it performed at the Temple Church, as in the days of old the Benchers would have done. To him is the musical training of the boys consigned, and he is very successful in making capital choristers and wellgrounded musicians. Their chanting is brilliant, clear, and articulate, standing in great contrast to what one frequently hears on week-days in cathedrals, when it is either gabbled over in a slovenly and coarse manner, or drawled in a vulgar sing-song fashion. For while, on the one hand, the infrequency of the meeting together of the Temple choir is a disadvantage; yet, on the other, there is great monotony felt in going through the service at the cathedrals to a scanty congregation, day after day throughout the year, and it is undeniable that all sorts of lazy and bad habits are thus acquired by the singers of the cathedral choirs.

We have spoken of the Temple organ as it existed before the restoration of the church; and we may here remind our readers

1 This clever musician must not be confounded with many other persons of the same name, who also are well known as organists. We happened to be at Rochester cathedral recently, and found there a Mr. Hopkins at the organ; and a few Sundays before we had inquired who was the skilful performer at Trinity College, Cambridge, and found it was also a Mr. Hopkins. A nice field this for Notes and Queries in the next century.

that this organ has a history of its own, which has recently been given in a pretty little book,1 a copy of which we have had the opportunity of seeing. Many members of the Middle Temple also have a pecuniary interest in the instrument, inasmuch as they have paid on their call £2 for "organ and lucidaries." We never saw a lucidary, so far as we are aware; but others may have done so. How the proper proportion of this item was laid out on the organ we are equally ignorant. In the interesting little volume above referred to, which is entitled "A few Notes on the Temple Organ," the ancient history of this instrument is detailed, with curious and fresh matter collected by the writer. "Father Smith," as he is called in England, was the builder. His name was, in truth, Bernhardt Schmidt; and he came over to England from Germany with his nephews, Gerard and Bernhardt (or Christian), in the reign of King Charles II. The organ in Whitehall Chapel was his first undertaking in England. Pepys, in July, 1660, entered in his diary the following

note:

"8th (Lord's Day).—To Whitehall Chapel, where I got in with ease by going before the Lord Chancellor with Mr. Kipps. Here I heard very good musique, the first time that ever I remember to have heard the organs, and singing men in surplices, in my life."

2

Schmidt soon gained great fame and much employment. Westminster Abbey, St. Margaret's, and many other churches, were enriched with organs from his hand. One stop of Smith's has often sufficed to give a reputation to an instrument. The beauty and sweetness of his tone has been always unrivalled. But Father Smith (we must accept the Anglicism) had his mechanical defects; and the action, packing, and general arrangement was bad even for his own day, and now would not be tolerated. Even his pipes were, externally, ill-finished. When he was remon

1 A Few Notes on the Temple Organ, 1859. Printed at the Private Press of Duncairn.

2 Pepys is right in using the plural; for what is commonly called "an organ," generally consists of a combination of a great organ, a choir organ, a swell organ, and pedal organ.

strated with in respect of the latter incompleteness, he is reported to have replied, "I do not care if ze pipe looks like von teufel; I shall make him schpeak like von engel." Smith's great rivals were Harris, and his son Renatus Harris; and this led to the "battle of the organs" at the Temple, of which the following is the amusing account now presented to us :-

"About the end of the reign of King Charles II., the societies of the Temple, being determined to have erected in their church an organ as complete as possible, had been in treaty with Smith for that purpose, when Harris was introduced to their notice; and both of these eminent artists were backed by the recommendation of such an equal number of powerful friends and celebrated organists, that the Benchers were unable to determine among themselves which to employ. They therefore (as appears by an order in the books of the Temple, dated February, 1682) proposed, that if each of these excellent artists would set up an organ in one of the halls belonging to either of the Societies, they would have erected in their church that which, in the greatest number of excellencies, deserved the preference.' Smith and Harris agreeing to this proposal, a committee, composed of Masters of the Bench of both Societies, was appointed in May, 1683, to decide upon the instrument to be retained for the use of the Temple Church; and, in about a year or fourteen months after, each competitor, with the utmost exertion of his abilities, had an instrument ready for trial. When Harris had completed his instrument, he presented a petition to the Benchers of the Inner Temple, stating that his organ was ready for trial, and praying that he might be permitted to set it up in the church on the south side of the communion table. An order was accordingly made by the Benchers, granting the permission he sought. This petition of Harris is dated 26th May, 1684; and thereby the date of the completion of his instrument is established. It is almost certain that Smith's organ was ready previous to the above date, and that for some reason (possibly to avoid the necessity of re-voicing if he should be the successful competitor) he had A Few Remarks, &c., p. 8.

I