MUSICLOVING LONDON.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2038, 25 March 1907, Page 1

MUSICLOVING LONDON.

Though London is the Mecca of I musicians, it has conic to ho accepted as a truism Unit tlio Londoner, and I for that matter the Englishman, is not musical. When M. Andre Mos- I songor, the composer of “Voronique” I among other operas, went to London I many years ago from Paris to take up t'lio direction of music at Covent I Garden, his friends wore horrified. I ‘Blit they understand no music at I all, tlioso English,” they cried, “they 1 neither understand, nor do they love I it.” But now that M. Messenger I has come to know London, and has j left to take up the highest' position musical France ran offer him, the di- !

rectorship of the Paris Opera House, he declares that the average ideas ] levalcnt on the Continent about English musical taste are erroneous.

Ho it deeply grieved at having to leave London, and he declares that there are. few, if any, nations, who are heartier and more genuine musiclovers than the English. “I do not say that London has a larger number o- musical experts than, say, Paris or Berlin, but I do say that Londoners love music more whole-heartedly than either Parisians or Berliners. There is no country in the world whore people gather round the piano io naturally and so often as they do in London. Ido not say that the I songs and ballads sung in every house- I hold alter dinner are invariably mas-1

terpioces of art; but they are loved and they are played and sung, and that, after all, is the principal thing.” Londoners, says M. Mcsesngor, go to the opera and to concerts much more than Parisians do; it is a matter ol genuine taste. In theatrical matters lonorally M. Messenger believes that Ihe English are hy no means so far behind the French as critics think. Frenchmen write better plays, and the acting of most of the principals is better in Paris, but English management is far superior to anything on the French side of the Channel. The English chorus girls ho particularly admires. “The one thing that is wanted here (Paris) is the chorus material. “Unfortunately, the ladies ol the chorus in Franco arc not of the same quality as those we get in London. There they are intelligent, I

fairly educated ladies. Here ” M. Mcsscnegr threw out his hand expressively and shook his head. “And there is no discipline in Franco either in the theatre or anywhere else. Discipline is foreign to the French character.” AN INDISCREET MINISTER. Though Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Pliillimore declined to commit Mr. John Burns for contempt of Court on the application of the “Standard,” they expressed in the strongest terms their disapproval of his utterances. The “Standard” commented severely on the London County Council's policy of tramways, and twelve members of the Council issued writs for libel. On the following day Mr. Burns, at the Progressive meeting at Queen’s Ilall, said; “What is this charge against those twelve councillors? I know it to be, as we all know it to be, unfounded, unfair, and untrue. The “Standard” 1

"brought to legal issue before March 2nd, and it skulks behind that fact. But there is a court—a tribunal that can try this issue straightway, and at once (cheers). It sits at Whitehall—it is the Local Government Beard (loud cheers).” He went on to declare that the “Standard” had no defence to the libel action, and spoke of “this organised mendacity, this profesioiuil slander.” Their Lordships’ judgments were very interesting. Mr. Justice Darling said ho did not remember a case in which a Minister of the Crown had thought it consistent with his duty to take a side in a litigation in which his own department night be called in to give a decision. The speech was one of “‘oxtraordpnry indiscretion and impropriety,” and showed “a very slight regard for the administration of justice by the Courts of the King,” but its very violence and grotesquencss prevented it from being contempt of Court. Such a speech could not bo expected to influence the minds of the jury. If other speeches of a similar kind were to be made, there was strong reason for thinking that their cumulative .effect on the minds of the jury might be prejudicial to the course of justice, but upder the circumstances he could not make an order. His Lordship wished it to he clearly understood that the ruling did not give freedom of discussion in cases pending before the GourtKi each case would be tried on it's merits. Mr. Justice Pliillimore, who agreed with these remarks, said ho thought the world had gone mad on the subject of contempt- of Court. “My friend John Jones is accused of disgraceful conduct, and he is bringing an action for libel. Meanwhile, I say that I believe that he is not guilty of this disgraceful conduct and I still believe in my friend, and 1 am going to he prevented from saying that, because the action for libel cannot he tried for some months.” ft would, said His Lordship; take long tb convince him that he was guilty of contempt of Court in such a case.