The best diplomatist will usually be found to be a man of good birth, sometimes a knight trained to the profession of arms, and it has occasionally been found that a good general officer has served with success as an ambassador, especially at a time when the military affairs of either state were prominent subjects of negotiation. But diplomacy is not to be regarded as linked with war, for, although war arises out of policy, it is to be regarded as nothing more than a means to an end in itself. Therefore the ambassador should be a man of peace; for in most cases, and certainly wherever the foreign court is inclined towards peace, it is best to send a diplomatist who works by persuasion and is an adept in winning the good graces of those around him. In either case it will be observed that the public interests will be best served by appointing a professional diplomatist who by long experience has acquired a high aptitude for the peculiar office of diplomacy. Neither the soldier nor the courtier can hope to discharge the duties of diplomacy with success unless they have taken pains to instruct themselves in public policy, and in all that region of knowledge which I have already described as necessary for the negotiator. [Sidenote: _Lawyer Diplomats._] It is true that sometimes a lawyer diplomat has made a great success of negotiation, especially in countries where the final responsibility for public policy lay with public assemblies which could be moved by adroit speech, but in general the training of a lawyer breeds habits and dispositions of mind which are not favourable to the practice of diplomacy. And though it be true that success in the law-courts depends largely upon a knowledge of human nature and an ability to exploit it--both of which are factors in diplomacy--it is none the less true that the occupation of the lawyer, which is to split hairs about nothing, is not a good preparation for the treatment of grave public affairs in the region of diplomacy. If this be true of the advocate or barrister, it is still more true of the magistrate and judge. The habit of mind engendered by presiding over a court of law, in which the judge himself is supreme, tends to exclude those faculties of suppleness and adaptability which are necessary in diplomacy, and the almost ludicrous assumption of dignity by a judge would certainly appear as arrogance in diplomatic circles. I do not say that there have not been great lawyers and great judges who were endowed with high diplomatic qualities, but again I place these considerations before my readers in the belief that the more closely they are observed the more surely will they lead to efficiency in the diplomatic profession. [Sidenote: _Diplomacy demands Professional Training._]