As a matter of fact, I never saw his book till after my return to England, when I read it with interest and admiration.

His doctrines with regard to the _entrepreneur_ is, so far as it goes, fundamentally identical with the main argument of this volume.

My criticism of him would be that he does not give to this particular part of his doctrine the foremost place which logically belongs to it; and that though attributing to the _entrepreneur_ some special productive faculty distinct from labour, he starts his work with re-enumerating the old doctrine that labour, capital, and law are the only factors in production.
[20] For example, the silk factory at Derby, erected by Lombe, in the reign of George II., the machinery of which comprised 26,000 wheels.
[21] These figures represent less than the truth.

They are merely given in order to indicate the general character of the situation to-day, as compared with that of an earlier, but still comparatively recent period.
To go into details minutely would involve extensive and here needless discussion.
[22] A letter was sent me by a friend in America, from a writer who, commenting on my late addresses in that country, said that in the main he entirely agreed with my arguments, as against socialism; but that he could not divest himself of the belief that labour as a whole got less than it produced, and was thus as a whole suffering a chronic wrong.

He suggested, however, a method, fundamentally analogous to that set forth in the text, of computing what labour, as such, does produce in reality.
He gave his own opinion as to actual facts, as an impression merely; but how misleading impressions may be can be seen from his statements "that all _very great_ fortunes, at all events, must be derived from the underpayment of labour." Had he only considered the case in detail, he would have seen that labour received the highest wages from some of the richest employers.