# The Early English Organ Builders and their work/Quarrel

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE QUARREL BETWEEN SMITH AND HARRIS.
FOUNDED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED DOCUMENTS.
Of Father Smith's settlement in this country at the Restoration, and of Harris's arrival from France soon after that event, all that could be gleaned at this distance of time I have told in my "History of the Organ."
The first organ erected by Smith in this country was at the Chapel Royal of Whitehall. If it was the organ alluded to by Pepys, it must have been put up before July 8, 1660, when the gossiping old diarist speaks of having heard service performed in the royal chapel, "with the organs and singing men in surplices." That Smith enjoyed the patronage of royalty is a question beyond dispute. He was appointed "organ-maker in ordinary" to the king, and at one time occupied apartments in Whitehall, called, in an old plan, "the organ-builder's work-house."
​The origin of the quarrel between this old worthy and Renatus Harris arose, probably, through the famous contest, or "battle of the organs" as it was termed, at the Temple Church, in which, as is well-known, the former gained the day. That a bitter enmity afterwards existed between these two builders, we may infer from the documents I am now about to produce for the first time. But first, of the circumstances connected with the dispute concerning the Temple organ.
When engaged in collecting materials for my notice of Father Smith, I was very desirous of obtaining some authentic particulars concerning this memorable dispute from the books of the Societies of the Temple; but, after several interviews with the Treasurer and other authorities, I was told that nothing could be discovered among the records—the matter was evidently of too trivial a nature to induce the slightest research. This is now the less to be regretted, since a gentleman connected with the Temple, Edmund Macrory, Esq., M.A., has succeeded in bringing to light the documents that I was in search of, and has given them to the world in a charming little brochure, entitled, "A Few Notes on the Temple Organ." From the new ​information furnished by these discoveries, I avail myself of the following particulars.
In the latter part of the year 1682, the treasurers of the Societies of the Temple had some conversation with Smith respecting the erection of an organ in their church. Subsequently Harris (who had some warm supporters among the Benchers of the Inner Temple) was introduced to their notice, and both these eminent artiste were backed by the recommendations 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, believing that he had received the order for the organ, felt, of course, much annoyed at the introduction of Harris on the scene. He accordingly obtained from five of the tradesmen in the employment of the Temple a memorial or memorandum, which was presented to the Benchers of the Middle Temple, and is as follows:
"Memorandum, That I, W$^m$. Cleave, of the Parish of the Savoy in y$^e$ Strand, Surveyor, ​togeather with divers other workmenn whose names are herevnder also subscribed, was present and did heare S$^r$ Francis Whitens, Knt., and then Treasurer of the Middel Tempell, London, and S$^r$ Thomas Robinson, then also Treasurer of the Inner Tempell, both of them being in the Tempell Church together, in the month of September last, give full ordre and directions vnto Mr. Bernard Smith, the King's Organ Maker, to make an organ for the Tempell Church, and then also gave ordres to the said Smith to take care of and give directions for the setting up of the Organ Loft in the Tempell Church as the said Smith should judg most convenient, and accordingly the said Smith did give directions how and in what manner the said Organ Loft should be made, and the same was made and sett vpp accordingly, and that then neither Reny Harris, nor any other person whatsoever, was ever mentioned to have any Ordres or Directions to make any Organ for the Tempell Church, or in the least mentioned to stand in competition with the said Smith for or about making of the same, and this wee, whose Names are herevnto subscribed, shall be at all times ready to attest vpon oath, when that there shall be occasion, as witness our hands this eight day of May In the year of our Lord one thousand Six hundred Eighty and three."
"The above memorandum," says Mr. Macrory, "had not the effect which Smith desired, for 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 the 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 revoicing, if he should be the successful competitor) he had obtained leave to depart from the order of February, 1682, so far as to place his organ in the Church, and this suggested to Harris the propriety of adopting the same expedient."
The musical reader is aware how Dr. Blow, and the celebrated Henry Purcell, were engaged to exhibit the powers of Smith's organ upon appointed days; and how Harris employed Baptist Draghi, one of the royal organists (not Baptist Lully as Burney says) for the same ​purpose. The circumstance of Harris's challenge to Smith to make certain additional stops is also well known and need not be dwelt upon here.
The contention now became tedious and disagreeable, at least to the Benchers of the Middle Temple, who first made choice of Smith's organ, as appears by the following extract from the books of that Society:
   "June 2, 1685. The Masters of the Bench at this Parliament taking into their Consideration the tedious Competition betweene the two Organ-makers about their fitting an Organ to the Temple Church, and having in several Termes and at severall Times compared both the Organs now standing in the said Church, as they have played severall Sundays one after the other, and as they have lately played the same Sunday together alternately at the same service. Now at the Suite of several Masters of the Barr and Students of this Society pressing to have a speedy determination of the said controversie; and in Justice to the said "Workmen as well as for the freeing themselves from any Complaints concerning the same, doe unanimously in full Parliam$^t$ resolve and declare the Organ in the said Church made by Bernard Smith to bee in their Judgments, both for sweetnes and fulnes of Sound (besides y$^e$ extraordinary Stopps, quarter Notes, and other Rarityes therein) beyond comparison preferrable before the other of the said Organs made—by Harris, and that ​the same is more ornamentall and substantiall, and bothe for Depthe of Sound and Strengthe fitter for the use of the said Church; And therefore upon account of the Excellency and Perfection of the said Organ made by Smith, and for that hee was the Workeman first treated with and employed by the Tre$^{ors}$ of both Societyes for the providing his Organ; and for that the Organ made by the said Harris is disernably too low and too weak for the said Church, their Ma$^r$pp$^{es}$ see not any Cause of further Delay or need of any reference to Musicians or others to determine the difference; But doe for their parts unanimously make choise of the said Organ made by Smith for the Use of these Societyes—and Mr. Tre$^{or}$ is desired to acquainte the Tre$^{or}$ and Masters of the Bench of the Inner Temple with this Declaration of their Judgments wth all respect desiring their Concurrence herein."
So far so well, but the Benchers of the Inner Temple were not disposed to rest satisfied with the dictum of their brethren of the Middle Temple. Accordingly on the 22nd June, 1685, they made an order, in which, after expressing their dissatisfaction that such a resolution and determination should be made by the Benchers of the Middle Temple in a matter which equally concerned both houses, without a conference being first had with them, they declared:—
   "That it is high time, and appears to be ​absolutely necessary, that impartiall Judges (and such as are the best Judges of Musick) be forthwith nominated by both Houses, to determine the Controversie betweene the two Organ-makers, whose Instrument is the best, which this Society are ready to doe, and desire their Mastershippes of the Middle Temple to join with them therein, in order to the speedy putting an end to so troublesome a Difference,"
and appointed a Committee, of five members of their body, with instructions that they:—
   "or any three of them doe at a Conference deliver the answer above mentioned, and they are hereby empowered to enter into a Treaty with a like number of the Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple, in order to the speedy settling this Affair."
"The Committee thus appointed"' says Mr. Macrory, "appear to have entered upon their duties immediately, and to have fully considered the subject of the organs, not only with respect to the appointment of the 'impartiall Judges,' but also the respective prices and number of pipes in each instrument, for, two days afterwards, an answer was sent from the Middle Temple, from which the following extracts are taken":—
   "June 24th, 1685.—The Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple now say:—
   "1. That they cannot imagine how the Masters of the Inner Temple can pretend any ill ​Usage or Disrespect offered towards them, either tending to a Breach of Correspondence or Common Civility by the Act of Parliament of the Middle Temple, of the second of this Instant June, for that the Masters of the Middle Temple thereby only on their own parts, with the Concurrence of the Barristers and Students, declare their Judgments and Choise of Smith's Organ (not imposing but requesting) the Concurrence of the Inner Temple therein with all respect.
   "2. As to the Matter of having the two Organs referred to the Judgment of impartiall Musicians, There yet appears not any Difference betweene the two Societyes concerning the same, the Masters of the Bench of the Inner Temple having not as yet in Parliament declared their Judgments and Choise of the other Organ, which if in their Judgments they shall think fit to doe, whereby a Difference shall appear betweene the two Societyes, then their said Mastershippes believe the Society of the Middle Temple will find some other expedient for the determination of the said Difference.
   "3. As to the Price of the Organs, Smith the Organ-Maker, absolutely refuseth to set any Price upon his Organ, but offers to submit the same to the Judgment of the Treasures of both Societyes, or to such Artists as they shall choose, which their mastershippes cannot but think reasonable.
   ​"4. As to the Numbering the organ Pipes and Stops, their Mastershippes think it below them to trouble themselves therein, because the Proposal can have no other ground than a Supposition of such Fraud in the Artist as is inconsistent with the credit of his Profession."
These strange proceedings on the part of the Benchers of the two Temples do not reflect much credit upon the body. It were needless to carry on further this account of their petty disputes to determine which was the best organ.
"At length," says Burney, "the decision was left to Lord Chief Justice Jefferies, afterwards King James the Second's pliant Chancellor, who was of that Society [the Inner Temple], and he terminated the controversy in favour of Smith; so that Harris's organ was taken away without loss of reputation, having so long pleased and puzzled better judges than Jefferies."
"I have not," says Mr. Macrory, "been able to find anything in the Books of either Society to corroborate this statement, derived by Burney from a letter written by Dr. Tudway to his son, and it is not probable, if the decision had been left to Jefferies, that there would not have been some record either of his appointment, or of the decision. It is, however, certain that Jefferies was not ‘Lord Chief Justice’ at the time of the decision, as he became Lord Chancellor in 1686, and continued until 1690 in that ​office. It may be that the Middle Temple succeeded in their desire to have him decide ‘the matter in difference,’ or as suggested in a note to the above account in Dr. Rimbault's ‘History of the Organ,’ page 77, ‘that the contest was decided by vote. Jefferies happened to be "of the house," and it fell to his lot to give the casting vote.’ Many other writers have ascribed the decision to Jefferies, but I presume they all derived their information from the same source as did Burney."
The exact date of the termination of this celebrated "battle of the organs" does not appear, but it may fairly be stated as being about the end of 1687, or beginning of 1688. The original deed of sale bears date, June 20, 1688, and is still preserved in the Middle Temple. It read as follows:
"June 21, 1688.
Mr. Bernard Smythe's Bargaine and Sale of ye Organ in ye Temple Church to both ye Societys of ye Temple.
"Know all men by these presents, That I, Bernard Smyth, of London, Gent., for and in consideration of one thousand pounds of lawfull money of England to me paid (to wit) Five hundred pounds, parte thereof, by the Treasurer of the Society of the Middle Temple London, and the other moiety by the Treasurer of the ​Society of the Inner Temple London, for w$^{ch}$ I have given severall former acquittances, and in consideration of twenty shillings now paid to nice by the Hono$^{ble}$ Roger North and Oliver Montague, Esq$^{rs}$, Benchers, and William Powlett, Esq$^r$ now Treasurer of the s$^d$ society of the Middle Temple, and by S$^r$ Robert Sawyer, Knt., now Treasurer, and Charles Holloway and Richard Edwards, Esq$^{rs}$, Benchers of s$^d$ Society of the Inner Temple, Have granted bargained and sold and doe hereby fully and absolutely grant bargaine and sell vnto tho s$^d$ Roger North, Oliver Montague, and William Powlett, and the said S$^r$ Robert Sawyer, Charles Holloway, and Richard Edwards, Esq$^{rs}$, all that organ which is now sett up and standing in the organ-loft in the Temple Church belonging to the said two Societyes; and all stops and pipes and other partes and appurtenances of the said organ, and particularly the stops and pipes in the Schedule hereunder written mencioned, and alsoe the curtaine rods and curtaines—and all other goods and chattles being in or belonging to the said organ and organ-loft. To hold to the said Roger North, Oliver Montague, and William Powlett, and the said S$^r$ Robert Sawyer, Charles Holloway, and Richard Edwards, Esq$^{rs}$, their Exec$^{rs}$ and Adm$^{rs}$ In trust for and to the use of both the said Societyes of the Middle and Inner Temples. In witness whereof I the said Bernard Smyth have in these P$^r$sents ​(a duplicate whereof I am to seale to the said Treasurer and Benchers of the Society of the Inner Temple) have sett my hand and scale this one and twentieth day of June one thousand six hundred eighty eight."
"THE SCHEDULE.
"Great Organ. :
| | | PIPES. | FOOTE TONE. |
| 1. | Prestand of Mettle … | 61 | 12 |
| 2. | Holflute of Wood and Mettle … | 61 | 12 |
| 3. | Principall of Mettle … | 61 | 06 |
| 4. | Quinta of Mettle … | 61 | 04 |
| 5. | Super Octavo … | 61 | 03 |
| 6. | Cornette of Mettle … | 112 | 02 |
| 7. | Resquialtera of Mettle … | 183 | 03 |
| 8. | Gedackt of Wainscot … | 61 | 06 |
| 9. | Mixture of Mettle … | 226 | 03 |
| 10. | Trumpett of Mettle … | 61 | 12 |
| | | 948 |
| "Choir Organ. ||||
| 11. | Gedackt Wainscott … | 61 | 12 |
| 12. | Holflute of Mettle … | 61 | 06 |
| 13. | A Sadt of Mettle … | 61 | 06 |
| 14. | Spitts Flute of Mettle … | 61 | 03 |
| 15. | A Violl and Violin of Mettle … | 61 | 12 |
| 16. | Voice humane of Mettle … | 61 | 12 |
| | | 366 ​ |
| "Ecchos. ||||
| 17. | Godackt of Wood … | 61 | 00 |
| 18. | Super Octave of Mottle … | 61 | 03 |
| 19. | Godackt of Wood … | 29 |
| 20. | Flute of Mottle … | 29 |
| 21. | Cornett of Mettle … | 87 |
| 22. | Sesquialtera … | 105 |
| 23. | Trumpett … | 29 |
| | | 401 |
"With 3 full setts of keys and quarter notes.
Ber. Smith (L. S.)
"Sealed and delivered in the presence of Geo. Miniett, Tho. Griffin, Richard Cooke."
Without doubt, after the termination of this affair, considerable jealousy existed on the part of Harris towards his successful rival. The "quarter tones" in the Temple Organ, which gained Smith great reputation, appear to have been a sore subject with Harris. The following interesting advertisements, which are quite new features in the lives of these distinguished artists, are here reprinted for the first time. The first is from "The Post Boy," April 12, 1698:
   "Whereas the Division of half a Note (upon an Organ) into 50 Gradual and distinguishable parts has been declar'd by Mr. Smith, as also by the generality of Masters, to be impracticable: All Organists, Masters, and Artists of the ​Faculty, are together with the said Mr. Smith, invited to Mr. Harris's house in Wine Office Court, Fleet Street, on Easter Munday next at Two of the Clock in the Afternoon, to hear and see the same demonstrated."
Again, in the same paper, April 30, the following appeared:
   "Whereas the Division of half a note (upon an Organ in 50 Gradual and Distinguishable parts, was performed by Mr. Harris on Easter Munday to the full satisfaction of the Persons of Quality and Masters that were present: And Whereas the said. Mr. Harris intends a further Division of half a Note, viz. into One Hundred parts (and this, as before, not Mathematically, but purely by the Ear), all Masters and others of curious and Nice Ears, are invited to the said Mr. Harris's House in Wyne Office Court, Fleet Street, on the 10th of May at Three of the Clock in the Afternoon, to hear and see the Performance, and to be informed (if any doubt) of its Usefulness."
It would be interesting to know more of these trials, but nothing appears on record.
Harris had again cause to feel annoyed at the appointment of his rival to build the organ for St. Paul's Cathedral. The following highly interesting broadside, hitherto unknown, I discovered in the British Museum, and it is here reprinted for the first time. There can be little doubt that it emanated from Harris, or some of his partizans.
"Queries about St. Paul's Organ."
I. Whether Sir Christopher Wren would not have been well pleas'd to have received such a Proposal from the Organ-builder of St. Paul's, as shou'd have erected an Organ, so as to have seperated 20 Foot in the Middle, as low as the Gallery, and thereby given a full and airy Prospect of the whole length of the Church, and Six Fronts with Towers as high as requisite?
II. Whether the difficulty this Organ-builder finds in making Pipes to speak, whose bodies are but 16 Foot long, does not prove how much harder it would have been for him, to have made Pipes of 22 Foot speak, as those at Exeter; or 32 Foot as several Organs beyond Sea? And whether he has reason to complain of want of height, or room in the case for higher, and larger Pipes, since those of a common size, have put him to a Non-plus? And whether he has not the greater reason because he gave the Dimensions of the Case himself?
III. Whether the double Bases of the Diapasons in St. Paul's Organ speak quick, bold and strong, with a firm, plump and spreading ​Tone, or on the contrary, slow, soft and only buzzing, when touch'd singly? And whether they may not more properly be called Mutes than speaking Pipes?
IV. Whether the Organ be not too soft for the Quire now 'tis inclosed? And if so, what will it be when laid open to the Cupolo, and Body of the Church? And what further Addition of Strength, and Lowdness will it require to display its Harmony quite through the large Concave of the Building, and answer the service of the Quire, which is the noblest for Eccho and Sound, and consequently of the greatest advantage to an Instrument, of any in Europe?
V. Whether the Sound-boards, and Foundation of the Instrument, as well as Contrivance and Disposition of the whole Work, will admit of more Stops to render the Organ in Proportion, five times as Lowd as now it is?
VI. Whether if 12 Stops (supposing there were so many in the great Organ) were plaid in full Chorus, 'twould not make St. Paul's Organ vibrate and faint? And if so how can it be render'd lowder by the Addition of Stops since the Wind that does not well supply 12, must of necessity worse supply 13, and so onward?
​VII. Whether 'tis possible to make an Organ lowder, that has all the Strength it can contain already?
VIII. Whether there been't Organs in the City lowder, sweeter, and of more variety than St. Paul's (which cost not one third of the Price) and particularly, whether Smith, at the Temple, has not out-done Smith of St. Paul's? And whether St. Andrew's Undershaft, has not outdone them both?
IX. Whether the open Diapason of Metal that speaks on the lower set of keys at St. Andrew Undershaft, be not a Stop of extraordinary Use and Variety, and such as neither St. Paul's has, or can have?
X. Whether Depth in the Case gives not Liberty for containing the greater Quantity and Variety of Work? And if so, why should not St. Paul's have as great Variety as other Organs, and the order of the Work be as well contrived, and disposed for Tuning and other Conveniences, since its case is near double the Depth to any in England?
XI. Whether the great Organ-builder will ​condescend to submit his Organ to the same Scrutiny, which, all Artists of the same Profession do in all Countries? And if it be deny'd whether it will not give the World, and particular the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's reason to fear, that this Noli-me-tangere proceeds from some secret Cause? And to Question—
XII. Whether the Cupolo, or the Organ at St. Paul's, will be first finished?
* ↑ At what time Smith was appointed royal organ-builder, I have not been able to discover. Among the records preserved in the Rolls Chapel is a grant "to Sir James Fane, organ-maker," of the fee of £20 per annum, dated April, 1661 This is another new name in the history of organ-building.
* ↑ First printed (anonymously) "at the private press of Duncairn," 1859; and afterwards, with fresh documentary matter, by Bell & Daldy, 1861. Both editions are charming little quartos of true Roxburgh-like appearance.
* ↑ Built by Harris at a cost of £1400, and opened May 31st, 1696.
* ↑ The organ was opened with divine service, on the thanksgiving for the Peace of Ryswick, Dec. 2, 1697; but the Cathedral was not entirely finished until 1715.