How I Spent My Five Weeks' Leave.

very summit . We ride to it across the plain , and clamber up by a rough , steep , zigzag path , getting fine views as we mount . The hill itself is very pretty , old ruins , caverns , etc ., being smothered by wild thickets of holm oak , which are covered

with honeysuckle and half buried by the gigantic thistles which grow hereabouts ten or twelve feet hi gh . Mountain Cistus , and other wild flowers , dot the ground wherever there is an open space . ( To le continued . ' )

Masonic Notes And Queries.

MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES .

GLASGOW CATHEDEAI . Bro . Buchan ' s reasons for the date of 1556 not being correct and genuine amount really to nothing . 1 . There is no reason whatever why the operative Masonic guild of that date should not have carved that date . There are much older dates relative to

'buildings than 1556 . 2- Bro . Buchan gives no reason at all why it is more likely to be no older than the first half of the 18 th century . " If the date be correct , Bro . Buehan . s theory is hopelessly destroyed . 3 . The fact of other names and initials , clearly modern , also existing , is in itself a strong proof of the

older date . Surely there must be some competent person in Glasgow who can tell us what is , arehajologically , the date of tbe figures as then used . Any clumsy imitation , two centuries later , of figures said to be cut in 1556 can at once be seen by a skilled and practised eye . —A MASOKIC STUDENT .

BBO . Hl'DE CliAEK . A " Correspondent" is mistaken . Tbe first five lines of Bro . Hyde Clark ' s communication , " Origin of Freemasonry , " Freemason ' s Magazine , Feb . 25 th , 1865 , are as follows : — " The origin of the modern form of Freemasonry cannot be attributed to Bro .

Christopher Wren , because the evidence of tbe present century shows that it had already taken the organi sation of a craft of Masons , and that the assemblies were held at Masons' Hall , in the City of London . '' —CHAELES PUETOK COOPEE .

THE TEHPIAES AX 13 FEEEMASOlfET . I am obliged to " Lupus" for his friendly remarks . I bad seen the form of secret reception to which he alludes some little time back , but was not and am not satisfied at all as to its genuineness or authenticity . With regard to the Monastic questionI would just

_ , say this—there is actual evidence to prove that an operative lodgeof Freemasons was attaehedto more than one of our great monastic bodies , as at Canterbury and York we have reason to believe that it was generally so . The writer of the Masonic poem is a monk , and alludes to other ceremonies he has witnessed and

other MSS . he has seeu . Bro . Findel in his history of our Order alludes to a ritual under " benediction " sanction . If "Lupus" will carefully look back to " Notes and Queries , " he will find Mr . Winthrop ' s words exactly as I gave them . I have mislaid my

own reference , but I alluded to them at the time in the " Magazinp . " I agree with " Lupus" that , so far , we have no evidence of any secret ritual among the Knights of St . John , whereas as regards tbe Templars , in Bymer ' s "Fffidera . '' among the depositions occurs one in respect of a Yorkshire preceptory , in which it

is distinctly said that the reception took place by night , aud was in secret , none but Knights being able to be present or witness tbe ceremonies . It is some time ago since I looked into Kymer , but if "Lupus " will do so he will find many curious details . —A MASONIC STUDEXT .

THE MASON ' S WOED . We have heard a great deal of " the Mason's word . " Now , in our Freemasonry of to-day , elaborated since 1717 , we have many words ; ergo , the question rises , is "tbe Mason ' s word" used by the 17 th century Masons included among our present words , and if so , what is it ? For my part I cannot assert that I know it . —W . P . B .

BITES OE EREEJIASOXET . I have perused the excellent sketch of the " Bites of Freemasonry , by Bro . LI . W . L ., with much pleasure . The writer ' s remarks concerning " Pure Antient Freemasonry" are to the point , and certainly express the views of many Craft Masons who , like

myself , revere the ancient system of Three Degrees . I write now , however , to suggest that " A . D . 1770 " ia much too late a period to set down as the origin of the Eoyal Arcb . Bro . Dr . Bell , an authority well known to Bro . W , in bis admirable " chart ' 'places tbe date at some thirty years earlier ; and I have a

copy of a Masonic work by Dr . Dassigny , dated 1774 , which refers to the Eoyal Avch . I have also , in the "History of the Lodges at Banff , '' Scotland , quoted records still existing , some years before 1770 , which speak of the degree being worked A . D . 176-1 . Besides which , a mass of evidence is presented in Bro . Dr .

Oliver ' s " History of the Eoyal Arch , " published by Bro . Spencer , London , which , to my mind , settles the question , aud connects the origin of the degree with the secession of A . D . 1739 . Bro . W says the Ancient and Accepted Eite was established 1700 . I know of no authority for this statement . —W . T . HUGHAN .

TOLERATION . Toleration iu religion is dear to all true Freemasons . Upon this point , the perusal of a small work , " The Church under the Tudors , " by Durham Dunlop , Esq ., M . E . I . A ., published by Messrs . Moffat and Co ., 34 , Southampton-street , Strand , Loudon , W . C , is highly worthy of perusal . — PICTTJS .

THE TEltPLAES AKD EEEEMASOXET ( page 506 ) . I know of no reason for supposing that there existed any nearer relationship between the 12 th , 13 th , and 14 th century Templars and the Masons or Freemasons than what existed between the said Templars and the members or freemen of carpenters ' smiths ' glaziers '

, , or painters ' , & c , societies or trades . A Knight Temp lar—when Knights Templar were in existence—was just as likely to join some other co-existent craft as tbe Masous ; but as there were no Kni ghts Templar in existence in the 17 th century , and the Masonic degree of Knight Templar was not fabricated until