Further to the resolution passed by the Chemical Section of the BAAS , ET wants WW's opinion 'respecting the mode of employing chemical symbols so as to establish a uniform system of notation. It would have been very gratifying to me could I have consulted the British chemists prior to introducing symbols into my Elements of Chemistry ; but having been deprived of that adavantage by circumstances, I was led to employ such a system as seemed least objectionable'. Could WW reflect firstly, on ET's leading principle - 'that British chemists should not depart from the usage of foreign chemists without strong grounds for doing so. Influenced by this principle I adopted without any variation the symbols proposed by Beizelius as at page 235 of my Elements'. ET has secondly 'inferred that Beizelius in originally framing his notation put together symbols to denote compounds by purely algebraic signs...I propose that it should be continued by us. When chemical notation is used instead of ordinary diagrams to explain chemical changes, the algebraic notation, where admissible without confusion, appears useful, as pointedly fixing the students attention on all the elements concerned in a given change'. Does WW see any objections to such a practice? Thirdly, 'Beizelius, from the awkwardness of applying strictly algebraic formula to complex compounds, has proposed several abbreviations which are now in general use on the Continent, and which from practically feeling the difficulty of dispensing with them, I have adopted'. Fourthly, if WW agrees 'to comply with the usage of foreign chemists in the preceding cases which involve the principles of notation, will it not be better to extend the same to mineralogy'. Fifthly, does WW 'see any objection to the practice of always placing the electro-positive element of a compound on the same side of the formula in relation to the other element'. Lastly, does WW have any suggestions in improving the Berzelian system of notation.