210 — xlii— 



plieable to these customary tenants, can admit of little doubt, when 

 it is considered thnt that Act made all persons, in general terms, 

 holding lands in these Settlements otherwise than under Govern- 

 ment grants, liable to assessment "in such manner, at such rate, 

 " and under such conditions " as the Collector, under instructions 

 from Government, chose to impose; and authorised the Collector to 

 eject all those who declined to " engage for ' (that is, I suppose, to 

 accept the terms of the Government), "or remove from the land" 

 in their occupation. These provisions, suitable enough to new Set- 

 tlements like Singapore and Penang, where neither custom nor 

 even prescription had had time to spring up, could not, without 

 manifest injustice, have been applied to persons in Malacca, who had 

 already a good title to their land by the law or custom of the place; 

 it was to be expected that provision should be made for excepting 

 such a numerous aud important class of persons from their opera- 

 tion, and it seems to me that provision was made for that purpose 

 by the 12th section, the Legislature using the word "prescription," 

 not in its technical meaning, in which it would be insensible, haviug 

 regard to the circumstances of the Settlement, but in the sense of 

 local custom, usage or law, with which it is readily confounded. 



If this be so, it is plain that the plaintiff: was not liable to 

 ejectment by the Collector for declining " to take out the proper 

 "title" for the land in his occupation, under the Act of 1839. It 

 was forest and uncultivated land when he cleared it in 1829, and 

 he paid tenths to the Government from that time until 1853, when 

 he was appointed Penghulu. This appointment he held until 1868, 

 and during his tenure of it he was, as is usual, exempted from pay- 

 ment. He was deprived of the appointment in 1868, and he paid 

 tenths again in 1869. He is, therefore, plaiuly one of the customary 

 tenants protected by the 12th section of the Act ot 1839. 



The only remaining question, then, is as to the damages. The 

 plaintiff claims three hundred dollars. It seems to me that a serious 

 wrong was done him, and that he sustained serious injury when he 

 was expelled from his home and from his land. He had lived there 

 for forty years, and I shall not conceal that I have some sympathy 

 for the feelings of the Malay peasant, driven from his cottage, from 

 the orchard which he planted and the field which he reclaimed — 

 from his home, in a word, and from the fruits of his labour — be- 

 cause he would not give up his good title for one which he was not 

 bound to accept, and nobody had the right to impose on him. But 

 further, the injury was done by or under the orders of an officer, or 

 officers, invested with certain powers, and under the colour of those 



