Sir Thomas Acland, in an interesting address delivered on occasion
of distributing the prizes to the Science and Art classes at Ilfracombe, on November 30th in last year, which has just been published, insists on the fact that agriculture as an art had, in England, till lately, very far outstripped the science of agriculture, which is even now considerably in arrear of the practical art, though rapidly gaining upon it. "A very considerable chemist, whom we have lately lost, the second Sir Benjamin Brodie, remarked to me, a quarter of a century ago, that the farming of England was a long way ahead of the science of agricultural chemistry ; and that it would take half a century for the science to catch the practice. Well, one quarter of a century has passed, and although certainly science is gaining on its predecessor, yet I am not sure that it will win the race before the half-century is over." Sir Thomas, if we mistake not, does not think that the South Kensington teaching of scientific agriculture is as yet very efficient, though he tells us of a class of farmers' sons, in North Devon, who are learn.
Ting to some advantage what agricultural chemistry in its 'present condition can teach them. That, however, as Sir Thomas Acland thinks, is not much, when compared with the unreasoned or half-reasoned traditions of the best agricultural practice. " The fact is, agriculture is a most complicated and uncertain art. The sciences from which agriculture seeks help are many ; no practical man can master them all. To turn their clearest lessons to good account requires a well-trained mind, and what is more, a sound judgment." If that be so, good farming may even suffer to some extent from the dogmatism of the very inadequate theories which are broached in connection with it, just as practical morality has suffered often enough from the dogmatism of the very inadequate theories of ethical obligation.
Previous page
