In spite of the fact, then, that England has no distinctive _national_ school of the instrument, still there is probably no country where so much interest is taken in organs and organ-playing as in the England of to-day. Her prominent organists are solidly founded on the German school; but while they execute these great works in a masterly manner, their _repertoire_ extends over a far wider range and variety of compositions than the German school alone can supply. This seems to me to be praiseworthy, for although the practice of this theory may be carried too far, and it is certain that _everything_ cannot even approximately be played upon the organ; yet, in view of the vast improvements of the last twenty years, all tending to assist the players in producing effects impossible heretofore, why should the use of these means be ignored? The English organists, to this end, have made a vast number of arrangements and adaptations from works not originally composed for the organ. Very many of these are just as effective as if originally composed for the instrument, and so far form a welcome addition to organ literature; inasmuch as they generally embody the use of the new improvements and facilities referred to. On the other hand, many of these go too far, and attempt transcriptions of compositions totally opposed to the genius of the organ. The careful student will, however, easily be able to recognize and avoid such, if he has had the proper foundation laid before attempting works of this class. There are those, however (and their opinions are entitled to respect), who claim that such free treatment of the organ is improper. These persons would, with little or no exception, limit the _repertoire_ to such works as have been originally written for the organ; and when they got outside fugue or canon, would still remain carefully within the limits of purely contrapuntal orthodoxy. Any other treatment is styled "_illegitimate_." I had hoped to avoid this terrible word,--the great bugbear among conscientious students of the organ,--nor do I propose to enter into any analysis of what the "legitimate" may or may not consist in. The fact is, we should all retain our original opinions very much according to our early education, natural tastes, and impressions. There has been much controversy on this point, and I do not think it necessary to contribute to that. In any case, where the subject under discussion cannot be considered as a _positive_ right or wrong, but largely as a matter of taste or preference, there will always be a difference of opinion. Froude, the historian, says in one of his published lectures: "Controversy has kept alive a certain quantity of bitterness; and that, I suspect, is all that it would accomplish if continued till the day of judgment.... Each polemic writes for his _own partisans_, and makes no impression on his adversary." So it would be in this case.