It is not unimportant to have thus shown the warfare of chivalry in its true light. For it is the delusion with regard to it, which more than anything else keeps alive those romantic notions about war and warriors that are the most fatal hindrance to removing both from the face of the earth. We clearly drive militarism to its last defences, if we deprive it of every period and of almost every name on which it is wont to rely as entitling it to our admiration or esteem. CHAPTER III. NAVAL WARFARE. _Una et ea vetus causa bellandi est profunda cupido imperii et divitiarum._--SALLUST. Robbery the first object of maritime warfare--The piratical origin of European navies--Merciless character of wars at sea--Fortunes made by privateering in England--Privateers commissioned by the State--Privateers defended by the publicists--Distinction between privateering and piracy--Failure of the State to regulate privateering--Privateering condemned by Lord Nelson--Privateering abolished by the Declaration of Paris in 1856--Modern feeling against seizure of private property at sea--Naval warfare in days of wooden ships--Unlawful methods of maritime war--The Emperor Leo VI.’s ‘Treatise on Tactics’--The use of fire-ships--Death the penalty for serving in fire-ships--Torpedoes originally regarded as ‘bad’ war--English and French doctrine of rights of neutrals--Enemy’s property under neutral flag secured by Treaty of Paris--Shortcomings of the Treaty of Paris with regard to:--(1) A definition of what is contraband; (2) The right of search of vessels under convoy; (3) The practice of embargoes; (4) The _jus angariæ_--The International Marine Code of the future. The first striking difference between military and naval warfare is that, while--in theory, at least--the military forces of a country confine their attacks to the persons and power of their enemy, the naval forces devote themselves primarily to the plunder of his property and commerce. If on land the theory of modern war exempts from spoliation all of an enemy’s goods that do not contribute to his military strength, on sea such spoliation is the professed object of maritime warfare. And the difference, we are told, is ‘the necessary consequence of the state of war, which places the citizens or subject of the belligerent states in hostility to each other, and prohibits all intercourse between them,’[64] although the very reason for the immunity of private property on land is that war is a condition of hostility between the military forces of two countries, and not between their respective inhabitants.[64]