have been unknown;" and that "if £500 had been offered to any individual
to perform a solo, fewer candidates would have entered the lists than if
the like premium had been offered for flying from Salisbury steeple over
Old Sarum without a balloon." For ourselves, we do not hesitate to
acknowledge that, in our opinion, the services of these patriarchs of
the English school surpass the great majority of similar productions by
our later masters. They may, indeed, suffer when compared with the
masses of the great continental masters; but they nevertheless possess a
certain degree of simple majesty, well suited to the primitive character
of the ritual of that church which disdains the use of ornament, and on
_principle_ declines to avail herself of any appeal to the senses as an
auxiliary to devotion. We have been the more particular in our notice of
these early masters, because, long without any rivals, their church
music even now stamps the public taste, and is still held in the highest
esteem by many among whom their names alone suffice to hold the judgment
captive.

It is needless to advert to Humphrey and other composers, some of whose
productions are still in vogue; enough has been said to show with what
reason the _absolute_ correctness of English taste in sacred music, in
which we suppose ourselves so peculiarly to excel, may be called in
question.

We proceed to sketch the history of the other branches of the art in
England, and commence at once with Henry Purcell, the greatest of our
native masters, previously to whom music is said to have been manifestly
on the decline during the seventeenth century. It has been often
remarked of Purcell, that he had "devancé son siêcle." Many of his
faults, defects, or crudities, may undoubtedly be attributed to the age
which he adorned. The tide of public approbation has of late set