Mark Coleman Wallace PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

lodge “had obtained [its] Charter by unconstitutional and Illicit means.” 114
Grand Lodge minutes failed to mention any of these proceedings, and it also
omitted the fact that “Certificates from the Provincial Masters of the four
Lodges in Air held on the 25 th October 1798” were submitted as evidence
attesting to the good character and conduct of the members of No. 264. 115 It is
quite possible that as Provincial Grand Masters were appointed by the Grand
Lodge, this piece of information was conveniently excluded from the trial so as
to place the burden of proof on those masons not directly affiliated with the
Grand Lodge. As it wanted to remain impartial, the admission of the
testimonies of the Provincial Grand Masters would suggest that it supported No.
264.
The charge of illegally obtaining a charter differed significantly from the
allegations of sedition. Clearly, the Grand Lodge wanted to resolve any
questions over the warrant, as it had so quickly granted it to Royal Arch
Maybole. It is likely that the Grand Lodge only defended No. 264 insofar as it
did not find any of the Grand Officers guilty of seditious or illegal activities. As
Wartski says, “Grand Lodge decided to sit on the fence, and to be all things to
all men.” 116 This is evident in the final verdict. After handing down its
judgment of not guilty and having urged both lodges to reconcile their
differences, Brother Lawrie maintains that
the Grand Lodge of Scotland Sanctioned the three great orders of
Masonry and these alone of Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason
being the Ancient order of St John, But understanding that other
114
No. 198 Royal Arch Maybole Lodge Minutes, 7 August 1799.
115
Ibid, 26 May 1800.
116
Wartski, “Secret Societies,” 68.
217