History | Page 184

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, ; ;