Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/163

 SOUTH 1NDiAN ECOOMI08 151 But Mr. Madeley is of opinion that they are of about equal efficiency, and do not involve any greater waste of muscular effort. But next notice that partly wet and partly dry. little produces three crops a tile land of Sollth India is Of the wet land very year, some two crops a year, but most only one crop. Oll one crop land agricnltural operations tre practically confined t.o abollt foltr months in the year, on two crop lands to about seven months in the year; on dry lands to about six months in the year. Taking the land of South India &11 round it may be said that on the average there is aiclll.nr.aJ work for the agriculturist for about five- twelfths of his possible working time. For the rest of the year there is nothing for him to do. As a rnle there are no subsidiary industries in which t. he agriculturist can be profitably employed when his work is llOt wanted on the land.. Now in my old studies in English economic history I came ,to the conclusion that the chief cause of the deplorable deterioration ill the economic condition of the English agricultural laborer towards the end of the eighteenth centairy was the fact that the industry of handspinning, which had been a subsidiary industry killed by machine suect that there of the agricultllral classes, was competition. I alii tilelined to nay have been in more recent years a serious deterioration of prosperity of the agricultural classes of South India for the same reason, though ig may have been counterbalanced or more than counterbalanced by other causes operating to the benefit of th agriculturist, as improved communications, better demand, etc. Notice that a persistence of weaving, when lhe weavers use. machine spun yarn, does not fulfil he same purpose. The weaver commonly is a weaver only, and the .ordinary agricultural man cannot occupy idle day by king to the loom. But when bandslinnin$