“A Crewe Vicar and his
Organist.”
What is the procedure of church music?
His Honour Judge R. Brown, K.C., and a jury, were engaged the whole of yesterday at Crewe in hearing a case brought by William H. Caunt, late organist of S. John’s Church, Crewe, against the Rev. W. Bidlake, vicar of the parish, for three months’ salary in lieu of notice.
The Plaintiff conducted his own case, and in addressing the jury said there had never been a case before any English court of law quite analogous to the present one. His case came under three distinct heads, viz., breach of contract on the part of the vicar; contravention of a contract and agreement made by mutual consent between himself, the vicar, and his curate in respect of a matter of procedure in the conduct and direction of the music of the church; and, further, that he was subjected to undue interference on the part of the defendant’s curate during his duties as organist and choirmaster. The trouble, the plaintiff alleged, seemed to have been entirely due to some strong personal feeling and antipathy towards him on the part of the defendant’s curate. This he could not define unless it sprung from his (the plaintiff’s) own enthusiastic desire and endeavour to be scrupulously thorough in all and every obligation which devolved upon him through, and in, his official duties in the house of God. He contended that when he was engaged he was given full control of the musical part of the service, and that was the mutual agreement between him and the vicar. He considered it essential, in the interests of the music, that the organist should play one verse of the hymn before it was sung by the congregation. This the curate objected to, arguing that the first two lines of the hymn were sufficient. This the plaintiff considered vulgar and slovenly, unmusicianly, and contrary to the reverent spirit and orderly conduct of the Divine service. He, therefore, declined, and was then informed by the vicar that he must obey his conditions. The plaintiff sent in his resignation, but it was only accepted on the understanding that during the three months he would be loyal to the vicar’s instructions. This he declined to do, and sent to the vicar the keys of the organ and a letter, in which he said that he could not act in any other way than he had hitherto acted.
The defence was that the vicar had a perfect right to say how the music in his church should be conducted.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant with costs. — Liverpool Echo, Dec. 22nd, 1910.
We have been asked to give an opinion on this case and we are sorry that it is not in favour of the organist. According to law, the organist is the servant of the vicar and must do as he desires. In all probability the organist would have done so, if the vicar had been a little considerate and expressed his wishes in a nice way; the trouble appears to have arisen through the interference of the curate who is probably young and inexperienced. Certainly it is more artistic and according to the usual custom for an organist to play the Hymn Tune through. We do not think the matter of sufficient importance to have caused a breach such as has taken place.- Ed.
(The Organist & Choirmaster, Jan. 1911)