MALAY LAND TENURE. 91 



not incompatible with the rights of the owner of the proprie- 

 tary right, for he did not claim an allodial right to the soil, 

 but merely the right to appropriate and keep for himself as 

 much land as he had the power ( usaha ) to clear and keep in 

 cultivation. There was no necessity, from his point of view, 

 to ask in whom the absolute property in the soil was vested ; 

 he did not claim more than a usufruct, continuous as long as 

 he chose it to be so, and terminable on abandonment.* 



That the soil of a Malay State is vested in the Raja is a 

 doctrine not now to be questioned, though it may have origi- 

 nated in confusion of thought, the exercise of the rights to 

 collect the tenth and to dispose of abandoned land being 

 assumed to imply the existence of a superior right of property 

 in the soil, to which the rights of proprietorship were subor- 



* " In the times of the early Hindu village communities, proprietary rights, 

 " as denned by powers to alienate, existed to a very trifling extent. In the 

 " more ancient form of community, as has been said, tenures had no market 

 " value ; and in the later and more democratic communities where rights 

 " were more decided, the land was not an individual but a common property, 

 " and one man could not without the consent of the others sell to a stranger. 

 " Still transactions occurred in the latter case among the members of the 

 " community themselves, which showed an individual ownership within that 

 " limit. Sales were not common, and mortgages were usually not foreclos- 

 " able for a very long period ; but the latter existed in abundance, showing a 

 " certain value in individual ownership of landed property. Individual pro- 

 " perty in land sprung up earlier than elsewhere in the districts on the west- 

 " ern coast, probably owing to the political circumstances which rendered 

 " the Government authority weak and the State demands light. The attitude 

 " of the Hindu rajahs with regard to the soil has been much discussed. It 

 " probably varied entirely with the circumstances of times and places. The 

 " object of Government is to obtain revenues for Government purposes. If it 

 " found communities so organized as to be able to farm the villages properly 

 " and to render the proper State dues, the Government would not interfere 

 " in the direction of the disposal of the lands claimed by the community. 

 " If it found an imperfect organization it would be forced to interfere 

 " in the disposal of the lands, especially of the waste lands, with a view to 

 " the proper development of the country and realization of the revenue. 

 " The tendency probably was for the villagers to lean more and more on the 

 " Government in these matters, and hence in many parts of the country the 

 " State interference became a regular institution. Still there is no evidence 

 " that any Hindu government ever took the step of ejecting an occupier ; 

 " even if they failed to obtain their dues from him they limited their repri- 

 " sals to personal torture or sale of moveable property. The sale law is not 

 " a native institution. The discussion whether the Indian governments are 

 " ' proprietors of the soil, ' or not, seems to be little more than a dispute 

 " about words." — Standing Information, Madras, p. 78. 



