Page:The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 2.djvu/253

Rh even forfeits his estate, if found guilty of treason or similar crimes, though his sons and grandsons are living who have not connived at his guilt. In case of default on his part in the discharge of revenue payable to Government from the estate, he is subjected to the privation of that property by public sale under the authority of Government. He is, in fact, under these and many other circumstances, actually and virtually acknowledged to be the lawful and perfect owner of his estate; a sale or gigift [sic] by him of his property must therefore stand valid or unquestionable. Sacred writings although they prohibit such a sale or gift as may distress the family, by limiting their means of subsistence, cannot alter the fact nor do they nullify what has been effectually done. I have already pointed out in the 37th paragraph the sense in which prohibitions of a similar nature should be taken, according to the authority of Munoo, which the reader is requested not to lose sight of. Mr. Colebrooke judiciously quotes (page 32) the observation made by (the celebrated modern expounder of law in Bengal) on the above passage of the Dayubhagu, (“A fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts,”) which is as follows: “If a Brahmun be slain, the precept ‘Slay not a Brahmun’ does not annul the murder: nor does it render the killing of a Brahmun impossible. What then? It declares the sin.” Admitting for a moment that this sacred text (quoted in the Mitakshura also) be interpreted conformably to its apparent language and spirit, it would be equally opposed to the argument of our adversaries, who allow a father to be possessed of power over his self-acquired property; since the text absolutely denies to the father an independent power even over his self-acquired 16