“If we carried our investigation no further than this we should naturally conclude that, with such a numerical superiority, sufficient in itself to form a very respectable armament for a second-rate power, England has very little to fear from the marine of France. We must not forget, however, that quality as well as numbers must be considered in estimating the strength of a Fleet. When we take this element into our calculations, we shall find the balance very soon turned in favour of France. We perceive, then, that while the English list comprises every individual sail the country possesses, whether fit for commission or altogether antiquated and past service (and some, like the _Victory_, built towards the close of the last or the beginning of this century), the French Navy, as we have observed, scarcely contains a single ship built prior to the year 1840; so that nearly all are less than twenty years old. This is a fact of the greatest importance, and indicates an immense preponderance in favour of France. Though many of England’s oldest craft figure in the ‘Navy List’ as seaworthy and fit for active service, we have no less an authority than that of Sir Charles Napier (in his Letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1849) that some are mere lumber, and many others cannot be reckoned upon to add any appreciable strength to a Fleet in case of need. Independently, too, of the introduction of the screw, such fundamental changes have been introduced, within the last fifty years, both into the principles of naval architecture and of gunnery, that a modern 120-gun ship, built with due regard to recent improvements, and carrying guns of the calibre now in ordinary use, would in a very short space of time put _ten_ ships like the _Victory_ _hors de combat_, with, at the same time, little chance of injury to herself.