Permanent Annual Money Rerits. 63 



itself in the diminution of substantial and wealthy ryots. The follow- 

 ing table drawn from the accounts of thirty three villages in the Kang- 

 yam talook in the Coimbatore province will shew the effect of the sys- 

 tem when combined with the practice of forced cultivation: — 



Years. 



Total numb 

 of Ryots. 



Ryots paying- from 

 50 to 500 Rupees. 



Ryots paying from 

 30 to 50 Rupees. 



Ryots pay- 

 ing from 1 to 

 35 Rupees. 



In 1801 



1778 



78 or 



709 or 



971 







1 in 23 



nearly one half 





In 1S16 



3449 



34 or 



1231 or 



2234 







1 in 100 



about one third 





In 1831 



5031 



28 or 



1396 or 



3607 







1 in 180 



about one fourth 





The whole of the increase it is of importance to notice in the years 

 from 1816 to 1831 ig in the smaller holdings, and chiefly in the pauper 

 tenements from 1 to 35 rupees— whilst the wealthy ryots, in lieu of 

 increasing under our rule, have diminished in number from 78 to 28» 

 A similar result after making the necessary allowance for the practice of 

 wealthy ryots subdividing their lands nominally, by entering them in the 

 names of their dependents, is exhibited in a statement from the Caroor 

 talook. And personal enquiry, tended to establish the fact, that for- 

 merly a larger proportion of the occupants of the soil, were substantial 

 ryots ; whilst it is apparent that ■\t present the great mass or more than 

 three-tifths are in this favoured ryotwar district little better than pauper 

 labourers, occupying for the most part tenements at a rent of trifling 

 amount, which they pay with difficulty in seasons at all unfavour- 

 able. 



Ryotwar authorities, are in the habit of ascribing this increase of small, 

 or, pauper proprietors, to the usages of the people alone, especially 

 to their law of inheritance. They do not appear sufficiently to advert 

 to the fact, that the same law and usages have existed for ages, and 

 that this sudden, and rapid augmentation of small proprietors within 

 the last twenty years, cannot well therefore be the result of a long 

 prevalent usage, but must have its origin in some more immediate 

 cause. The augmentation is no doubt, in part, the effect of the greater 

 security of property and person under British dominion ; but there 

 is little reason also to doubt, that it must chiefly be ascribed to the 

 revenue system in force. 



The extreme subdivision of property, and the rise of this large class 

 of pauper landholders, have also been advocated as beneficial to the 



