Part 23 (2/2)

For great Corses uncoffined . . . ii s. o d.

For Chrisomers and such like coffined . i s. iiii d.

And uncoffined . . . . . xij d.

For tolling the pa.s.sing bell and houre . i s.

For ringing the sermon bell an houre . i s. 0 d.

To the Clarke for carrying the beere . iiij d.

If it be fetched . . . . . ij d.

”Item for funerals the Minister is to have the mourning pullpit Cloth and the Clarke the herst Cloth.

”Item the Minister hathe ever chosen the parishe Clarke and one of the Churchwardens and bothe the Sydemen.

”Item if they bring a beere or poles with the corps the Clarke is to have them.

”If any Corps goe out of the parish they are to pay double dutyes and to have leave.

”If any Corps come out of another parish to be buryed here, they are to pay double dutyes besides breakinge the ground; which is xiij s. 4 d. in the church, and vi s. viii d. in the churchyard.

”For marryage by licence double fees both to the Minister and Clarke[89].”

[Footnote 89: _Suss.e.x Archaeological Collections_, 1873, vol. xxv. p.

154.]

In addition to the fees to which the clerk is ent.i.tled by long-established custom, he receives wages, which he can recover by law if he be unjustly deprived of them. Churchwardens who in the old days neglected to levy a church rate in order to pay the expenses of the parish and the salary of the clerk, have been compelled by law to do so, in order to satisfy the clerk's claims.

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 10 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 t.i.tle 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].

[Footnote 90: _Ecclesiastical Law_, Sir R. Phillimore, p. 1907.]

No deputy clerk when removed can claim to be restored. It will be gathered, therefore, that an inc.u.mbent is compelled by law to restore a clerk removed by him without just cause, that the justice of the cause is not determined in the law courts by an _ex-parte_ statement of the inc.u.mbent, and that an accused clerk must have an opportunity of answering the charges made against him. If a man performs the duties of the office for one year he gains a settlement, and cannot afterwards be removed without just cause.

An important Act was pa.s.sed in 1844, to which I have already referred, for the better regulating the office of lecturers and parish clerks.

Sections 5 and 6 of this Act bear directly on the method of removal of a clerk who may be guilty of neglect or misbehaviour. I will endeavour to divest the wording of the Act from legal technicalities, and write it in ”plain English.”

<script>