the ring, instead of drawing bills for them upon futurity. For that the money-lenders whose pockets are filled, while everybody else's are emptied, by recent military finance, should occultly exercise irresistible influence, not only on the development of our--according to your contributor--daily more harmless armaments, but also on the deliberation of Cabinets, and passions of the populace, is inevitable under present circumstances; and the exercise of such influence, however advantageous to contractors and projectors, can scarcely be held consistent either with the honor of a Senate or the safety of a State. I am, Sir, Your faithful servant, J. RUSKIN. P.S.--I wish I could get a broad approximate estimate of the expenditure in money, and loss of men by France and Prussia in the respective years of Jena and Sedan, and by France and Austria in the respective years of Arcola and Solferino. FOOTNOTES: [29] "Remarks on Modern Warfare." By a Military Officer. The article was signed "P. S. C." [30] See the tables given in this letter (pp. 30 and 31). [31] "The proportion of killed and wounded," wrote P. S. C., "was far greater with the old-fashioned weapons than it is at the present day." LETTERS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY. THE DEPRECIATION OF GOLD. 1863. THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND. 1864. (Three letters: October 26 and 29, and November 2.) MR. RUSKIN AND PROFESSOR HODGSON. 1873. (Two letters: November 8 and 15.) STRIKES _v._ ARBITRATION. 1865. WORK AND WAGES. 1865. (Five letters: April 20, 22, and 29, and May 4 and 20.) THE STANDARD OF WAGES. 1867. HOW THE RICH SPEND THEIR MONEY. 1873. (Three letters: January 23, 28, and 30.) COMMERCIAL MORALITY. 1875. THE DEFINITION OF WEALTH. 1875. THE PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTY. 1877. ON COÖPERATION. (Two letters.) 1879-80. LETTERS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY. [From "The Times," October 8, 1863.] _THE DEPRECIATION OF GOLD._ _To the Editor of "The Times."_ SIR: Being out of the way of my letters, I did not, till now, see your excellent article of the 23d September on the depreciation of gold.[32] Will you allow me, thus late, a very few words in confirmation of your statement of the insufficiency of the evidence hitherto offered on that subject?