158 



EENEST W. GCENEY MASTERMAN^ ON 



manner they differed from those of Sir Charles Wilson ; and, of 

 course, when his paper arrived, it had to be submitted to Sir Charles 

 Wilson for his comments thereon. We have both these communi- 

 cations here and they will be read this evening. 



The following communications were then read : — 



Jerusalem, 



Septemher 22, 1902. 



To Professor Hull, F.R.S. 

 My dear Sir, 



Thank you for your kindly note. When I first received your 

 suggestion to write my all-too-late remarks, I more than hesitated. 

 I decided not to do so, because I felt a criticism in one volume of a 

 paper which had appeared in a previous volume would be of little 

 interest. When, however, I came to talk over the subject of Sir 

 Charles Wilson's paper with others here who had read it, I found 

 that the views I have now written are those generally held, and 

 there can be little doubt but that Sir Charles Wilson is mistaken. 



As the work has now continued nearly a year, and if only comjyleied 

 (many parts of the pipes are even now not properly supported, 

 and the greater part ought to be buried), I cannot see why it 

 should not continue for long. I venture to send you a very 

 amateur paper of mine which was published last February in an 

 American magazine, as it may be of interest to Sir Charles Wilson's 

 learned address. If you think what I have written of any use, then 

 read it and print it, but if you feel it is of no use, discard it, or, if 

 you will, cut it down — I may be unnecessarily prolix. 

 With kind regards, 

 I remain, 



Sincerely yours, 



Ernest W. Gurney Masterman. 



SIR CHAELES WILSON", in a learned and most interesting 

 paper read before the Victoria Institute on May 26th, 

 1902, has described the water supply of Jerusalem, with a 

 knowledge and authority which no one, I imagine, could rival. 

 With the greater part of his paper it would be a liberty for me, 



