— xli— 209 



Dutch, one clay in seven ; and though it might seem unreasonable 

 in England that one person should acquire an indefeasible title to 

 occupy the land of another by felling his forest and ploughing the 

 land, I think that, in the circumstances of these countries, it is nei- 

 ther unreasonable nor impolitic for the sovereign power to offer 

 such terms to persons willing to reclaim .and cultivate its waste 

 lands. But it is too late to question its reasonableness, after a 

 long and continuous recognition, amounting virtually to an offer of 

 forest land to all who chose to clear it, on the terms of the custom. 



The Portuguese, while they held Malacca, and, after them, the 

 Dutch, left the Malay custom or lex non scrip fa in force. That it 

 was in force when this Settlement was ceded to the Crown appears 

 to be beyond dispute ; and that the cession left the law unaltered 

 is equally plain on general principles. (Campbell v. Hall, Covvp. 

 204, 209.) It was held in this Court by Sir John Claiudu-e, in 

 1829, to be then in full force* ; artd although it was decided by Sir 

 B. Malkin" in 1834,f in conformity with what had been held in 

 India, that the law of England had been introduced into the Set- 

 tlement by the Charter which created the Supreme Court, it seems 

 to me clear that the law so introduced would no more supersede the 

 custom in question, than it supersedes local customs in England. 

 Further, the custom has always been recognised by the Govern- 

 ment ; down to the present time tenths are collected, both in kind 

 and in money, from the holders of land acquired under the custom ; 

 and from 1838 to 1853, commutations of the tenths into money 

 payments were frequently made by deeds between the East India 

 Company and the tenants, in which it was recited that the Com- 

 pany " possessed the right of taking for the use of the Government 

 " one-tenth of the produce of all lands in the Settlement of Malac- 

 " ca." The Malacca Land Act of 1881 plainly refers to and recog- 

 nises the same customary tenure, when it " declares " that "all 

 " cultivators and resident tenants of lands " (the sovereign or quasi- 

 manorial rights of which had been granted^ away by the Dutch 

 Government) "who hold their title by prescription, are, and shall 

 " be subject to the payment of one-tentli of the produce thereof to 

 "Government," either in kind or in money fixed in commutation. 



That the 12th Section of the Act of 1839 % would be justly ap- 



* See the case of Abdullah v. Mahomed Meera Lebe, supra, p xxxvii. 



f See Judgment of Sir B. H. Malkin ; In the goods of Abdullah de- 

 ceased. — Morton's Decisions, p. 19. 



% Section 12 of Act XVI of 1839 is as follows : — " And it is hereby provided 

 "that nothing- in this Act contained shall apply to such cultivators and resi- 

 " dent tenants of Malacca as hold their lands by prescription, subject only to a 

 "payment to Government of one-tenth part of the produce thereof, whether 

 " such payment be made in kind or in the form of a sum of money received by 

 " the Government in commutation of the payment in kind." 



