Mark Coleman Wallace PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

contravene the regulation which stated that freemasons “will never be a Stupid
Atheist, nor an Irreligious Libertine.” 95 Furthermore, the espousal of Paine’s
theology was in direct opposition to the masonic charge that masons were
“never to be concern’d in Plots against the state” or implicated in “Rebellion
against the state.” 96
It is possible, as Gray argues, that as “Masonic ritual was not standarised
then as it is today, probably No. 264 members carried out their ceremonies in a
different manner to those of No. 14, who being the older lodge, would feel that
the young upstart lodge should fall into line and do as their elders and betters
did.” 97 However, it is more likely that McAdam believed that Royal Arch
Maybole was “promoting the aims and objects of the French Revolution, not to
mention that of the intended Irish Revolution, under the mantle of
Freemasonry.” 98 Gray’s conclusion only addresses the issues of lodge rivalry
and jealousy. If No. 264 was citing Paine – whose text was the symbol of
British revolutionary politics – this was an obvious sign of genuine
revolutionary views and a very clear attempt by the Maybole lodge to accuse
No. 264 of radical political sentiments. The writings of Paine were so invidious
to the defenders of British conservatism that the radical leader was tried and
convicted of treason, branded as a traitor, and publishers of Rights of Man were
fined and imprisoned. No. 264 faced similar penalties, as the government
stipulated that the “leaders of associations formed for the purpose of promoting
95
Anderson, Constitutions, 143.
96
Ibid 144.
97
James T. Gray, Freemasonry in Maybole, Carrick’s Capital: Fact, Fiction and Folks (Ayr,
1972), 279-287.
98 Wartski, “Secret Societies,” 64.
212