196 RURAL RECONSTRUCTION 



profession well enough, but their forte lay in writing, reviewing and 

 theorising. Like Saint Paul they were " sent, not to baptise but to 

 preach." Some of them undoubtedly did -excellent service to 

 agriculture, by which those whose forte lay in practice greatly 

 profited. A general stafE is not useless because it does not itself 

 fight, but only directs others how to win battles. 



My point is that, to make a good thing out of practical agriculture, 

 be it large or small, special aptitude to be got by natural disposition 

 as well as by technical training is indispensable, and that you cannot 

 look for success to le premier venu. The small farmer, like the large, 

 requires such special aptitude, if he is to make a good thing of his 

 farming. We have seen more than one of our cherished and — as 

 was thought — well laid schemes miscarry, just because, however 

 promising the scheme might have been, those who were expected 

 to carry it into execution failed in their qualifications. For the small 

 holder, indeed, qualification and aptitude are likely to prove of even 

 greater value than for the large, who can, after all, with a generous 

 landlord above him, jog on in the old inherited loppaty-loppaty way. 

 For small agriculture is quite necessarily developing, more and more, 

 into a sort of market gardening or the pursuit of some special culti- 

 vation, of fruit or otherwise, which special lines call for all the more 

 meticulous care, a good eye, a practised hand, a sound judgment and 

 special training. Our old-world squires and farmers, who croakingly 

 protest that profitable small cultivation is impossible, really provide 

 very acceptable evidence bearing on the point, because their ideas 

 do not evidently rise above the old-fashioned corn and beef farming, 

 at which on his small holding the small cultivator, especially if he 

 is left isolated, is at a hopeless disadvantage. We must, neverthe- 

 less, have him on social grounds. But we must have him on other 

 grounds no less. 



The natural, inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this, is that 

 he must lay himself out for some more remunerative, one might call 

 it more scientific, form of cultivation, calling for very much more 

 labour, and also for more intellect and greater expert knowledge, 

 which is only to be acquired by learning. The difference about his 

 case and that of the large farmer, is not one of quantity of learning, 

 but of difference in the kind of learning to be acquired. If to him less 

 theoretical knowledge, less knowledge of the general principles of 

 agriculture is necessary, there is not a little more of specific knowledge 

 regarding his fruit trees or bush fruit, his tomatoes, cabbages, peas, 

 his glass and so on, whatever it may be, called for. In all this 

 branch of cultivation it is the knowledge of little things which 



