In truth, the merit of the French organisation was altogether more on paper than in reality. It looked very coherent and beautifully divided, but its distinctions and divisions answered to no natural classifications in the work to be done. For instance, to make the Sword responsible for fitting out the ships and yet to leave the control of the dockyards to the Pen was simply to provide for incessant conflicts of authority between the two, and to divide the responsibility. The English system of putting a retired naval officer at the head of the dockyard as Commissioner was incomparably simpler and better. It is needless to point out that nothing could be more fatal to the independence of character of an officer commanding a fleet than the presence of the _Intendant des armées navales_. But the spirit of the _Ordonnance_ is best shown by the article which forbade the captain to make any kind of changes in the armament of his ship. It was no doubt necessary to guard against mere eccentricity, but if such a regulation as this had been enforced in the English Navy it might never have had the carronade, and would certainly have had to do without the many improvements in gunnery introduced by Sir Charles Douglas in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The _Ordonnance_ was full of that over-regulation which is the ruin of all independence of character and originality of mind. Other faults the French Navy had which arose out of the social condition of France. The officers were one of the many privileged corps which ended by destroying the French monarchy. They stood much on their rights, and were above all extremely jealous of the admission of colleagues who were not of noble birth.