The wages which he received varied considerably.  The churchwardens’ accounts reveal the amounts paid the holders of the office at different periods.  At St. Mary’s, Reading, there are the items in 1557: 

“Imprimis the Rent of the Clerke’s
howse . . . . . .                             vi s. viii d.”

     “Paid to Marshall (the clerk) for parcell of
     his wages that he was unpaide . . v s.”

In 1561 the clerk’s wages were 40 s., in 1586 only 20 s.  At St. Giles’s, Reading, in 1520, he received 26 s. 8 d., as the following entry shows: 

     “Paid to Harry Water Clerk for his
     wage for a yere ended at thannacon
     (the Annunciation) of Our Lady. xxvi s. viii.”

The clerk at St. Lawrence, Reading, received 20 s. for his services in 1547.  Owing to the decrease in the value of money the wages gradually rose in town churches, but in the eighteenth century in many country places 10 s. was deemed sufficient.  The sum of L10 is not an unusual wage at the present time for a village clerk.

The dismissal of a parish clerk was a somewhat difficult and dangerous task.  In the eyes of the law he is no menial servant—­no labourer who can be discharged if he fail to please his master.  The law regards him as an officer for life, and one who has a freehold in his place.  Sixty years ago no ecclesiastical court could deprive him of his office, but he could be censured for his faults and misdemeanours, though not discharged.  Several cases have appeared in the law courts which have decided that as long as a clerk behaves himself well, he has a good right and title to continue in his office.  Thus in Rex v. Erasmus Warren (16 Geo. III) it was shown that the clerk became bankrupt, had been guilty of many omissions in his office, was actually in prison at the time of his amoval, and had appointed a deputy who was totally unfit for the office.  Against which it was insisted that the office of parish clerk was a temporal office during life, that the parson could not remove him, and that he had a right to appoint a deputy.  One of the judges stated that though the minister might have power of removing the clerk on a good and sufficient cause, he could never be the sole judge and remove him at pleasure, without being subject to the control of the court.  No misbehaviour of consequence was proved against him, and the clerk was restored to his office.

In a more recent case the clerk had conducted himself on several occasions by designedly irreverent and ridiculous behaviour in his performance of his duty.  He had appeared in church drunk, and had indecently disturbed the congregation during the administration of Holy Communion.  He had been repeatedly reproved by the vicar, and finally removed from his office.  But the court decided that because the clerk had not been summoned to answer for his conduct before his removal, a mandamus should be issued for his restoration to his office[90].