1. Henry Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor; a Cyclopedia of the Condition and Earnings of Those that Will work, Those That Cannot Work, and Those that Will Not Work (London: Griffen, Bohn, and Co., 1861), 1:2–3. Quoted in Catherine Gallagher, “The Body Versus the Social Body in the Works of Thomas Malthus and Henry Mayhew,” in Thomas Laqueur and Catherine Gallagher, eds., The Making of the Modern Body: Sexuality and Society in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 90.

2. Gallagher, “Body Versus the Social Body,” 97.

3. Ibid, 99.

4. Cuniliffe to BOR, 30 July 1855, MCR, vol. 5514, TNSA.

5. Crole, Chingleput, 177.

6. A masula boat was a kind of “boat used for crossing the surf on the Madras coast; it is usually from 30 to 40 feet long by 6 broad and 8 deep, flat bottomed, and having the planks sown together with writhes of straw between each plank; it has ten rowers, and can carry twenty passengers.” Wilson, Glossary, 334.

7. Orme, Transactions, 3:406, 409–10, quoted in Crole, Chingleput, 117.

8. Crole, Chingleput, 117.

9. I have been aided in my thinking by Catherine Gallagher, The Industrial Reformation of English Fiction: Social Discourse and the Narrative Form 1832–67 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 6–10. She argues that those who opposed the abolition of the slave system and those who sought to reform labor conditions in the factories of early nineteenth-century Britain came together over the common use of the word “emancipation.” The anti-abolitionists argued that the condition of the slaves was better than the condition of British factory workers and that essentially the latter should be attended to first. Cobbett in particular criticized William Wilberforce for not concerning himself with the grant of freedom allowed to workers in British factories.

10. Reverend Andrew Mearns, The Bitter Cry of Outcaste London: An Inquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor (London: James Clarke and Co., 1883). This pamphlet and the accompanying sensationalist writings by a journalist named W. T. Stead in the Pall Mall Gazette particularly on 16 October 1883 and 23 October 1883 “caused,” in Stead’s words, “the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor, from which modern social legislation may almost be said to date.” F. Whyte, The Life of W. T. Stead (London: 1925), 1:105, quoted in Anthony S. Wohl, “Introduction,” The Bitter Cry of Outcast London (New York: Humanities Press, 1970), n. 70.

11. K. S. Inglis, Churches and the Working Classes in Victorian England (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), 67.

12. How the Poor Live and Horrible London (London: Chatto and Windus, 1889). Inglis has also noted that the influence of Bitter Cry was a result of what he calls “its exploitation” by Stead in the Pall Mall Gazette as well as a result of its timing. Inglis says that Bitter Cry “expressed exactly that mood of corporate guilt and apprehension which stirred some members of the comfortable classes after 1880 to lend a hand to their poorer brothers.” Stead, says Inglis, “knew exactly how to and when to strike his readers. He took up Bitter Cry at a moment when the condition of the poor, and especially their housing, was being discussed in the monthly reviews, and threw the subject to the middle-class public at large, among whom many were prepared to feel uneasy about the plight of the outcast.” Inglis, Churches, 69.

13. Charles Kingsley, “Great Cities and their Influence for Good and Evil,” in Miscellanies (London: 1860), 2:342, quoted in Wohl, Bitter Cry, n. 45.

14. How the Poor Live, 44, quoted in Wohl, Bitter Cry, n. 51.

15. “General” William Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out (London: International Headquarters of the Salvation Army, 1890); Henry Morton Stanley, In Darkest Africa; or, The quest, rescue and retreat of Emin, governor of Equatoria (London: S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, 1890).

16. Booth, Darkest, ii (unnumbered).

17. Ibid., 11–12.

18. Ibid., 13.

19. Ibid., 14.

20. “The Equatorial Forest was, after all, a mere corner of one quarter of the world. In the knowledge of the light outside, in the confidence begotten by past experience of successful endeavour, he pressed forward; and when the 160 days’ struggle was over, he and his men came out into a pleasant place where the land smiled with peace and plenty, and their hardships and hunger were forgotten in the joy of a great deliverance.” Ibid., 15.

21. These included Mayhew, London Labour; Bernard Bosanquet, Aspects of the Social Problem (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1895); C. F. G. Masterman, ed., The Heart of the Empire: Discussions of Problems of Modern City Life in England (1901; reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973).

22. Some of the earliest Victorian documents using this technique were by Edwin Chadwick, Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1843).

23. Charles Booth, ed., Life and Labour of the People of London (1889; reprint, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969) 1:6.

24. Booth, Darkest, 17.

25. Ibid., 18.

26. Ibid., 18–19.

27. John R. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 52.

28. Dadabhai Naoroji, “Poverty of India” (1873), in Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (New Delhi: Publications Division, 1962). He quoted British statistics and opinions of British members of the Indian Civil Service to substantiate his argument. For instance, he quoted among others the opinion of George Campbell who, referring to the land system in Madras in 1869, said, “The bulk of the people are paupers. They can just pay their cesses in a good year and fail altogether when the season is bad” (p. 42).

29. Dadabhai Naoroji, Essays, speeches, and writings, ed. C. L. Parikh (Bombay, 1887), 134–35, quoted in Bipan Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership, 1880–1905 (New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1966), 2.

30. Ibid., 16.

31. William Digby, India for the Indians—and for England (London: Talbot Brothers, 1885). For an account of the relations between Digby and the Indian National Congress, see McLane, Indian Nationalism, 125–27.

32. J. Seymour Keay, “The Spoliation of India,” The Nineteenth Century 14 (July–December 1883), 1–22, and 15 (January–June 1884), 559–618.

33. Samuel Smith, MP, My Life Work (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 197. See Samuel Smith, “India Revisited,” Contemporary Review 49 (January–June 1886): 794–819.

34. Smith, Life Work, 198.

35. Ibid., 199–200.

36. Smith, “India Revisited,” 806.

37. Smith, Life Work, 206.

38. Smith, “India Revisited,” 811–12.

39. Dadabhai Naoroji, “Sir M. E. Grant Duff’s Views about India,” Contemporary Review 52 (August 1887): 222.

40. Gauri Visvanathan, Masks of Power: Literary Study and British Rule in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 136–40.

41. McLane, Indian Nationalism, 29.

42. Speech of W. S. Caine, M. P., about the Indian Famine Commission Report, 3 February 1902. Quoted in Smith, Life Work, 200.

43. See the discussion about authoring in Fox, Gandhian Utopia, 84–90.

44. William Digby, The Famine Campaign in Southern India (Madras and Bombay Presidencies and province of Mysore) 1876–1878 (London: Longmans, Green, 1878).

45. Digby, Famine Campaign, 2:2.

46. See Dadabhai Naoroji’s lecture before the Plumstead Radical Club on 27 July 1900 in Poverty and Un-British Rule, 577, quoted in Chandra, Economic Nationalism, 8.

47. Quoted in Chandra, Economic Nationalism, 15.

48. See the table reproduced in Chandra, Economic Nationalism, 18n, which compares, among others, the annual per capita income of the population in England, Russia, Turkey, Ireland, the United States, and India.

49. In his last chapter of “The Wealth of India,” Moreland concluded that “the lower classes, including very nearly all the productive elements, lived even more hardly [at the time of Akbar] than they live now.” W. H. Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar: An Economic Study (1920; reprint, Delhi: Atma Ram and Sons, 1962), 274.

Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar said that “in July 1890, Lord Connemara entrusted to me the task of examining whether the economic condition of the Madras Presidency has, on the whole, improved or deteriorated during the last 40 or 50 years of British administration.” S. Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar, Memorandum on the Progress of the Madras Presidency during the Last Forty Years of British Administration (Madras: Superintendent, Government Press, 1893), v. Raghavaiyangar was inspector-general of registration in Madras at the time he wrote his work. His biography, written by Kē. Cuntara Rākavaṉ and Kē. Ranka Rākavaṉ, is Tivāṉ Pahatūr śrīnivāsarākavaiyā;aznkār (N.p., n.d.). Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar’s work was also the basis of Barrington Moore’s generalizations on Madras presidency in his Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 364–65

50. M. E. Grant-Duff, “India: A Reply to Mr. Samuel Smith, M. P.,” Contemporary Review 51 (January–June 1887), 8–31, 181–95.

51. They appeared in the Contemporary Review in 1887 as a rebuttal. Chandra, Economic Nationalism, 23.

52. Grant-Duff, “Reply to Samuel Smith,” 11.

53. Grant-Duff, “Reply to Smith,” 12.

54. Ibid. In another place, Grant-Duff said, “They want comfortable livelihoods out of a Government in which Englishmen shall have less and less part, but which shall be maintained by English soldiers to the great inconvenience to England, for their benefit.” Ibid., p. 31.

55. Grant-Duff, “Reply to Smith,” 14. When Grant-Duff was governor of Madras he deliberately encouraged the development of a movement against brahmans. See Irschick, Politics and Social Conflict in South India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).

56. Grant-Duff, “India; Reply to Smith,” p. 25.

57. Quoted in Naoroji, “Views about India,” 211.

58. Quoted in Naoroji, “Views about India,” 212.

59. Naoroji, “Views about India,” reprinted in Naoroji, Poverty and Un-British Rule, 305–40.

60. Quoted in ibid.

61. Quoted in ibid., 213.

62. Ibid.

63. This was in Naoroji’s paper called “The Poverty of India,” which, Naoroji says, was “placed before the Select Committee on Indian Finance in 1873. They were taken, but not published with the Report, as…[it] did not suit the views of the Chairman (Mr. Ayrton), and I was led to suppose, also of Sir Grant Duff, who was then Under-Secretary of State for India.” Poverty and Un-British Rule, 1n.

64. Quoted in ibid.

65. Ibid., 217.

66. Francis Henry Skrine, Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1901), 394–95.

67. Resolution of the Govt. of India, Circular No. 96 F/6–59 dated 19 October 1888 (Famine Proceedings, no. 19, December 1888), quoted in Chandra, Economic Nationalism, 14.

68. In his paper, Reverend Andrew said that the paraiyars as a class were in a “wretched condition and forced to labor by their masters under a system which may be termed as semi-slavery.” Andrew wrote that the chief secretary of the Madras government, Price, said that he “knew well where the agitation started from—from Chingleput [town]—through a paper I submitted to the sub-collector in 1889 which eventually came before the Gov[ernmen]t.” Andrew Note, 4 February 1892, UFCSM, MSS 7846, NLS.

69. The idea of the “poverty of the soil” of the Chingleput district being the main cause of its present decayed state was possibly introduced into this dialogic activity by Crole, when he wrote his account of the decline of the mirasi system. Crole had written in a note about the mirasi system that “the soil of the district is generally of inferior quality and easily exhausted.” BORP, 25 May 1875, no. 1415, TNSA. The source from which the under secretary’s staff probably got this idea was, however, Crole’s Chingleput Manual, in which he had written that the soil of the district was too poor to be able to withstand the effects of bad farming. Crole, Chingleput, 65. Then it was used by the under secretary of India to counter questions of Samuel Smith. His information probably came from the Scottish Free Church missionaries in Chingleput, who had gotten their information, in turn, from Tremenheere, the collector. So, essentially, Smith, the Scottish missionaries, and Tremenheere were being fed Crole’s argument. It was Crole’s ideas about the infertility of the soil in Chingleput that appeared in “Condition of the People—Papers laid on the table on 21st June 1889,” which stated that “owing to its infertile soil and to certain accidents of tenure, [it] was among the most backward parts of Madras Presidency.” Quoted in Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

70. BORP, RSLRA, 27 February 1888, no. 49, TNSA.

71. This was important in the discussion of Maṟaimalaiyaạikaḷ, Vēḷāḷar Nākarikam [Vellala civilization] (Madras: Teṉintiya caivacittānta nūrpatipu kaḻakam, 1975), 24. The ideas for this book were formulated in the 1920s.

72. See the account of the attempts by South Indian missionaries and others to change the position of the paraiyars in The Times (London), 13 July 1891.

73. J. Lee Warner, Collector of Chingleput to Secretary to the Commissions of Land Revenue, 17 August 1889, included in BORP, LR, no. 617, 6 September 1889, TNSA.

74. C. Mullaly, Sub-collector of Chingleput to Collector of Chingleput, no. 884, 25 July 1889, in no. 617, 6 September 1889, BORP, LR, TNSA. Naoroji wrote two articles in the Contemporary Review in response to an 1886 article written by M. E. Grant-Duff, former governor of Madras. Dadabhai Naoroji, Speeches and Writings (Madras, n.d.), 583.

75. Mullaly’s superior, J. H. A. Tremenheere, collector of Chingleput, spoke of writers to the Madras press who signed their letters “Poor Ryot.” This “Poor Ryot” was generally, he said, “a mirasidar or some other superior landholder who has sometimes never seen his land and does not even know the names of the different varieties of rice. He is perhaps an attorney, perhaps an official, often a school-boy whom Government is preparing at great expense to take a University degree; but he is very seldom a ryot in more than name.…Sometimes indeed he has farm labourers of his own, who live in styles and know kindness neither from God or man, but he mounts a Madras platform and is eloquent on the subject of the Indian Nation, seeing no inconsistency in demanding equal rights for all.” J. H. A. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs,” Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

76. A. K. Ramanujan, The Interior Landscape (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975), 107.

77. Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, 732.

78. Hugh Cleghorn, The Forests and Gardens of South India (London: W. H. Allen, 1861), 197, 205, quoted in Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, 732. Cleghorn had also written in another context that prickly pear “excludes the air, and harbours destructive vermin and venomous reptiles. Cultivators object to it, because it spreads, cannot be kept within bounds, and impoverishes the land.” He also pointed out that, “The bandicoot rat…, a most destructive animal, is partial to hedges of the Opuntia [prickly pear]…, burrows under them to a great depth, and roots up the seeds of garden plants sown near its haunts.” Hugh Cleghorn, “On the Hedge Plants of India, and conditions which adapt them for special purposes and particular localities,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d ser., no. 34 (October 1850): 239–40.

79. Madras Presidency, The Manual of the Administration of Madras Presidency (Madras: E. Keys, 1885–93), 3:720. This manual also gives specific instructions on how to destroy prickly pear. “If left on the ground it very soon begins to grow again, and must therefore be destroyed by water or fire; for destroying by water put it into a rather shallow pool and sink it to the bottom, with stones. In 24 hours the water will begin to get thick and muddy, in two days it smells sour, on the third day a scum rises and the whole substance of the prickly-pear is decomposed. It then makes good manure and will not grow or vegetate; for destroying by fire, cut a number of the shrubby plants that usually accompany it, spread these over the ground to the height of a foot or two, lay the prickly-pear on the top, and leave the pile to dry for some days, then set fire to the heap; if too much of the prickly-pear be piled up, it will require a second firing; potash may be prepared from the ashes.” Ibid.

80. Madras Times, 31 January 1891.

81. J. H. A. Tremenheere, the acting collector, held a meeting at Chingleput with the subcollector and the Tahsildars in the middle of a scarcity in Chingleput. At that meeting, Tremenheere said that digging wells would be best but that other minor irrigation and clearing sites of prickly pear were also important. Madras Times, 4 February 1891.

82. This alternative was in accordance with his superior Collector Lee Warner’s letter and with Stokes’s views. BORP, no. 2377, 19 October 1881, TNSA.

83. BORP, no. 1547, 7 July 1886, TNSA. This was the case of the petition of Rangya Naidu and other Mirasidars of Nemalacheri village, in the Saidapet taluk, in 1886, the dismissal of which by Collector C. J. Galton was later upheld by the Board of Revenue on appeal. The Mirasidars in this context were angry about sixteen Christian paraiyar Padiyals. The biographer of William Goudie called this decision by Galton “the ‘Magna Carta’ for the lower castes of south India.” J. Lewis, William Goudie (London: Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, 1923), 58.

84. C. Mullaly, Sub-collector of Chingleput to Collector of Chingleput, BORP, LR, no. 884, 25 July 1889, in no. 617, 6 September 1889, TNSA.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Madras Times, 24 December 1890.

89. Madras Times, 25 April 1891.

90. Madras Times, 5 August 1891.

91. Madras Times, 19 January 1891.

92. In 1891, Commissioner Booth-Tucker, heading a Salvation Army deputation to India, wrote that “in districts which are as the very Paradise of India, [there are] thousands of cases of chronic destitution (especially in certain parts of the year) such as ought to be sufficient to melt even a heart of stone.” Booth-Tucker, Darkest India (Bombay: n.p., 1891), 2.

93. J. H. A. Tremenheere, Collector of Chingleput, to Sec. to the Commissioner of Revenue Settlement and Director of the Department of Land Records and Agriculture, 5 March 1891, BORP, 10 March 1891, no. 132, TNSA.

94. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs,” Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

95. Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA. It was written some time in August or early September 1891, to the secretary to the commissioner of revenue settlement and the director of the department of land records and agriculture in Madras and bears the date 5 October 1891 and the number 1290.

96. Cited in Ibid. The following discussion is based upon that report unless otherwise noted.

97. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs.”

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid.

101. One of the cases to which Tremenheere obviously referred was that over the way in which mirasi holdings were sold in the area of Nungambakkam in 1801. In that case, despite a compact among Mirasidars to not sell any of their rights to non-Mirasidars, one of their number did decide to sell to a “well-to-do Tamil Brahmin, a retired head writer in the Paymaster’s Department.” The delinquent Mirasidar claimed that mirasi holdings had been sold to outsiders in the 1790s and that he was very much in debt. In opposition to this particular sale, the other Mirasidars of the village claimed that the new purchaser said that “he would spend some thousands of pagodas to purchase the wholevillage and ruin your petitioners utterly.” In judging the case, the Board of Revenue decided to uphold the general right of the Mirasidars to “control as a body both the disposal of village land and mirasi rights and the entry of strangers into the village.” In addition, the board ordered the defiant but poverty-struck Mirasidar to either keep his own share or to sell it to other Mirasidars in the village. At the same time, the board “opened the way for future sales of mirasi rights to outsiders by permitting this if the mirasidars of a village refused to buy at a fair price the shares offered by their fellow landowners.” Finally, the board “resolved to uphold the usages of the country, and cannot sanction the purchases, but [have] determined the lands shall be first offered to the other meerasedars at a reasonable price, which if they do not purchase, he will then be at liberty to sell.” Susan Neild-Basu, from whose work these excerpts have been taken, showed, however, that despite the fact that Mirasidars within the boundaries of Madras were afraid that their rights would be abrogated by purchasers, this never occurred. “Mirasi shares were not the most desirable form of landed property, at least at this time.” Petition to Governor of Madras and Minute of the BOR, 19 March 1801, BORP, quoted in Neild-Basu, “Madras,” 104–6. Another one of these cases occurred in the village of Tondiarpet, again within the boundaries of Madras. That case, heard in 1808, concerned a group of Mirasidars who complained that they had been “arbitrarily removed from their rights.” In the mid-1790s, when Place was collector of the Jagir, Tondiarpet fell within his jurisdiction (Tondiarpet was only made part of Madras formally in 1798). The case itself concerned the respective rights of a group of Ulkkudi Payirkkaris or tenants who had fixity of tenure. These tenants were Shanars or Gramanis who tapped toddy as a profession. From the 1770s, when a substantial conflict had developed between the Shanars or Gramanis and the Mirasidars (who were nel vellalas) over whether the tenants had the right to sell their land without the consent of the Mirasidars. In 1793, the Court of Recorder—the Mayor’s Court—sustained the right of the Shanars or Gramanis to sell the property, a decision later confirmed by the governor and his council. Place was then forced to deal with the situation in 1794. But he “astounded the mirasidars and even other officials by expelling the mirasidars from Tondiarpet and recognizing the Shanars as the new mirasidars of the village.” At that time, of course, Place had other goals in mind. Fourteen years later, the vellalas whose mirasi rights had been transferred by Place to the gramani Ulkkudi Payirkkaris, were able to get the case heard before the Supreme Court, the successor to the Mayor’s Court. On several occasions during that time, the vellalas “attacked the Shanars and destroyed some of their houses in the village; with a mob of Paraiyars [Pannaiyals and Padiyals] in the Black Town, they accosted a notable Indian figure whom they suspected of recommending the Shanars as mirasdars to Place; they refused to obey orders coming from the Collector and threatened peons sent by Place.” However, by the time this case came before the Supreme Court, Place had, of course, changed his mind and the whole movement of the government was, in fact, to support Mirasidars. It was therefore not surprising that they doubted the legality of Place’s decisions and declared that the vellalas were the “rightful proprietors of the village.” Though the vellalas won legal recognition for their rights as Mirasidars, their victory “was an empty one because all the property in the village had by 1808 been sold. Everything in the village is proved to have since changed hands. Its constitution appears to be changed; the Meerassee privileges are all done away; and a new order of things, and a different set of proprietors must be taken to have succeeded.” Thomas L. Strange, Cases in the Court of Recorder and the Supreme Court at Madras (Madras: Asylum Press, 1816), 1:319. Quoted in Neild-Basu, “Madras,” 102.

102. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs.”

103. Ibid.

104. In an editorial of the Madras Times on 5 August 1891, the editor wrote, “Under the old system of agrestic slavery, they were the personal property of their masters…and Pariah slaves of that time received kindnesses from the higher castes.…By the bestowment of freedom the Pariahs were placed in a relation to their masters, which was more independent but also more distant than the old one, and on account of this it became possible for the mirasidars to become more pitiless, and this is precisely what has happened. Government has loosened the obligation of the Mirasidar to protect the Pariah, loosened the bond and relieved the mirasidar.…It [the government] has separated the Pariah and left him helpless, only it has told him that he is free.”

105. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs.”

106. Ibid.

107. William Goudie, “The Pariahs and the Land,” Harvest Field (15 July 1894): 493.

108. Ibid.

109. F. W. Ellis, Appendix.

110. According to a village study of a group of untouchables in the Chingleput taluk during the 1970s, Moffatt found that, at least in the village that he studied, several important changes in behavior had taken place over the previous half century. Moffatt showed that, by the 1960s in the Chingleput district generally though 50 percent of the upper castes owned land, 30 percent of the untouchables also did so. This, he felt, has locked many of the rural untouchables “into a modern peasant adaptation, tending to foster political conservatism.” Moffatt, An Untouchable Community, 46, 49.

111. Margaret Trawick, “Spirits and Voices in Tamil Songs,” American Ethnologist 15, no. 2 (May 1988): 203, 205, 207–8, 212.

112. Ellis, in 1816, had written that the paraiyars sometimes “claim miras or hereditary private property” and that “it is generally allowed to them and their descendants on proving their former residence in the village, however long they may have been absent.” Quoted in the Minute of the Board of Revenue, 5 January 1818, BOR Misc., vol. 257A, TNSA.

113. Place, 1795 Report, para. 36, quoted in BOR Note, Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

114. Ellis, Appendix, quoted in BOR Minute, Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

115. Crole, Chingleput, 213–14, quoted by the board, Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

116. Tremenheere, “Note on the Pariahs.”

117. Ibid.

118. BOR Minute, Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Revenue, GO, nos. 1010, 1010A, 30 September 1892, TNSA.

122. Baden-Powell, Land Systems, 121–22.

123. Place, 1799 Report, paras. 62–63.