9 Nov. ’71. Dear friend, Enclosed the few alterations, some of them merely printers’ errors. Of some importance are the alterations to p. 192, p. 201, p. 288, note 205a and p. 376, because here the content is partly at issue. It would be superfluous to wait for the revision of Chapter I, since for months my time has been so taken up (and for the near future, too, there is little prospect of improvement in this respect) that I don’t get to my theoretical works at all. Certainly, I shall one fine morning put an xxx a stop to all this, but there are circumstances where you are in duty bound to occupy yourselves with things much less attractive than theoretical study and research. My warmest thanks for all the kindness I have met with on your part. The writings of Ehrlieb I am partly acquainted with. I compare him as a writer to Lessing and Diderot. I have received some curious numbers of the Moscow Gazette. Yours truly A. Williams

p. 68, note 52, line 2 from bottom, read “ne pouvant” instead of “ne pouvant pas”.  
p. 83, note 62, line 6 from bottom, read “specie” instead of “species”.  
p. 192, line 3 from top, read “Der jährliche Umsatz” instead of “Das jährliche Einkommen”.  
ibid., line 7 from top, read “Von den 23/23” instead of “Von diesen 23/23 Arbeitsstunden”, so that the sentence now runs: “Von den 23/23, die das Ganze der 115,000 Pfd. Sterling bilden” etc.  
ibid., after note 32, p. 192, the following is to be inserted: “Author’s addition to Note 32: Senior’s presentation is confused, quite apart from its content. What he intends to say is this: The manufacturer employs the workers daily for 11½ or 23/2 hours. Like the single working day, so the working year consists of 23/2 hours (i.e. of 23/2 working hours multiplied by the number of working days in the whole year). This presupposed, 23/2 working hours produce the total product of £115,000. ½ working hour produces 1/23 × £115,000. 23/2 working hours produce 23/23 × £115,000 = £115,000. 20/2 working hours produce 20/23 × £115,000 = £100,000, hence merely replace the capital advanced of £100,000. The remaining 3/2 working hours produce 3/23 × £115,000 = £15,000, i.e. the gross profit. Of these 3/2 working hours, ½ working hour produces 1/23 × £115,000 = £5,000, i.e. merely the replacement for wear and tear of the factory and machinery. The last remaining 2/2 working hours, i.e. the last working hour, produce the last 2/23 of the product, i.e. 2/23 × £115,000 = £10,000, i.e. the net profit. Q. e. d. In the text, however, Senior says: ‘The remaining 2/23, i.e. the last two half hours of each day, produce the net profit of 10%.’ He thus suddenly confuses the 23rds ~~wonach~~ worin he has divided the product ~~eintheilt~~ getheilt with the ½ hours into which he has divided the working day.”  
p. 201, line 7 et sqq. from bottom, read: “Consumirst du sie aber in 10 Jahren, so zahlst du mir täglich 1/10,950 statt 1/3,650 ihres Gesammtwerths, also nur ⅓ ihres täglichen Werths, und bestiehlst mich daher täglich um ⅔ des Werths meiner Waare.”  
p. 288, note 205a, read: “Die in der modernen Chemie angewandte, von Laurent und Gerhardt zuerst wissenschaftlich entwickelte Molekulartheorie beruht auf ~~einem~~ keinem anderen Gesetze”, i.e. omitting the words: “angebahnte, von Prof. Wurtz in Paris etc.”  
p. 307, line 8 from top, read: “animal spirits” instead of “animal spirit”.  
p. 309, note 15, line 4 from top, read “le poisson” instead of “le poison”.  
p. 319, note 26, line 9 from bottom, read “dévider” instead of “divider”. Line 6 from bottom: “ces services (?)” read “dévidenses” instead of “dividenses” and “teinturiers” instead of “teinturieurs”.  
p. 376, line 20 from top, read: “Je weniger Werth abgebend” instead of “Je weniger Werth bildend”.  
p. 593, note 60, line 16 from bottom, read “ces services” instead of “ses services”.  
p. 658, line 17 from bottom, read: “2 Silbergroschen, 6 Pfennige” instead of “1 Silbergroschen, 8 Pfennige”.