T Diffent from the Report above, in that part only 
which recommends that each conductor fhould 
terminate in a point. 
My reafon for diffenting is, that fuch conductors 
are, in my opinion, lefs fafe than thofe which are not 
pointed. 
Every point, as fuch, I confider as folliciting the 
lightning, and, by that means, not only contributing 
to increafe the quantity of every aCtual difcharge, 
but alfo frequently occafioning a difcharge where it 
might not otherwife have happened. 
If, therefore, we invite the lightning, while we 
are ignorant what the quantity, or the effeCts of 
it, may be, we may be promoting the very mifchief 
we mean to prevent. 
Whereas if, inftead of pointed, we make ufe of 
blunted condu-dors, thofe will as effectually anfwer 
the purpofe of conveying away the lightning fafely , 
without that tendency to increafe or invite it. 
My further reafons for difapproving of points , in all 
-.cafes, where conductors are judged neceffary, are 
contained in a letter addreffed to the Marquis of 
Rockingham, and publifhed in the Philofophical 
TranfaCtions, Vol. LIV. p. 247. 
There are other reafons alio, which I have to 
offer, for rejecting points on this particular occafion ; 
and which, were mentioned at the committee . Thofe I 
ihall lay before the Royal Society at another oppor- 
tunity, for the benefit of the publick. 
.Royal Scc:-;ty Houfe, 
Auguft 2.1, 17.7A 
Bern. Wilfon. 
IX. Obfer- 
