THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY.
i62
In Art. 11 the lodge is
be kept pure accordingly; and Art. 39
recognised as the seat of justice,
over his own fellows and it is
expressly grants the master power to hold a general court
instance, as
first
it
were, was that of the master of every lodge.
and ordered
to
;
evident from the whole tenor of the Statutes, over them only. These courts were probably
but it is stipulated that one shall be held at least every three months
held whenever
required,
His jurisdiction is also limited as to extent, for if the offence be serious he is to call
From this and Arts. 41 and 42,
to his aid two other masters of the neighbourhood (Art. 40).
we
conclude that he exercised summary justice in all matters of lodge discipline, bad
(Art. 42).
may
work, quarrels and bickerings amongst his workmen, and that as far as he was able he
settled all differences between employers and workmen, and only when he did not succeed
in so doing
was the
have been
to
loss
which merely
competent judge, and
The master,
case reserved for a higher court.
entailed a
in cases
a
upon himself, appears
pecuniary
For
decided the amount of the fine on his own resjDonsibility (Arts. 57, 62, and 104).
offences that were self-evident and required no proof, and the fine for which was legally fixed,
have been also the case (Arts. 50, 51, 69 to 72, 85, and 93). In the latter
instance it may be supposed that no formaKties were observed, but that the fine was levied
then and there, and to a great extent the warden would appear to have exercised the privileges
this
would appear
to
and 64). But whenever a disputed case arose, it is quite clear,
the master presided and proclaimed the verdict, yet he was assisted in his
that although
deliberations by the whole body of fellows ; a custom which was so inherent in the German
of the master (Arts. 51, 52, 56,
nationalities that
we cannot expect
to find it absent here
;
and indeed, it
is
very fairly indicated
But under no circumstance could punishment be inflicted, except
with the concurrence of the master not even by mutual consent amongst the fellows (Arts.
78 to 80). Nor were they allowed to punish the master in any way this was reserved for a
in Arts. 43, 44, 76,
and
77.
;
— strike
—
higher court, but they might leave his employment in fact
was not permissible until after the master had been convicted
;
(Art. 15)
;
and even
this
(Ai't. XIX.).
Besides the master's jurisdiction over his fellows, he was also the treasurer of the craft
funds.
He was the keeper of a box in which the fellows placed their weekly contributions,
and such other
fines
as
were not levied
master, but for the benefit of the guild.
the use of their particular lodge, or of the
was, however, in no sense the almoner of the
for
He
(Art. XXXIL), to whom
b
guild
that he had power to disburse some
account annually. It is, nevertheless, perfectly evident
part of these funds in furthering a travelling brother to the next works.
Ascending in rank, we find the district court presided over by a master to whom was
;
this
duty was reserved
for Ins
he had to
immediate superior
who
"
a book
"
they are
the masters at the head of any large building likely to be many years in progress, such as a
cathedral.
They were to be the presiding judges in their districts, and in conjunction with
entrusted a Brother-book.
Art.
XXIII.
defines those
are entitled to
;
neighbouring masters were to rule and govern the craft in their immediate neighbourhoods (See
All offences involving a limitation of the right to exercise the
also Arts. XXI. and XXII.).
variously described as reviling, casting out, proscribing, holding for no true man, etc.,
could only be tried before this master and two others of a like degree that is to say, three
book masters (Art. XXIX.) and any complaint against a master was also to be tried in the
craft,
;
;
district court.
Courts were held annually on an appointed day the presence of the fellows,
was evidently necessary to complete the tribunal and in case of
or their representatives,
;
;