The word abbot, or abbat, as it has been sometimes written, comes from abbatis, the genitive of abbas, which is the Greek and Latin form of the Syriac abba, of which the original is the Hebrew ab, father. It is, therefore, merely an epithet of respect and reverence, and appears to have been at first applied to any member of the clerical order, just as the French 'père,' and the English father,' which have the same signification, still are in the Roman Catholic church. In the earliest age of monastic institutions, however, the monks were not priests; they were merely holy persons who retired from the world to live in common, and the abbot was that one of their number whom they chose to preside over the association. The general regulations for monasteries, monks, and abbots (Hegumeni) of the Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century, are contained in the Fifth Novel. In regard to general ecclesiastical discipline, all these communities were at this time subject to the bishop of the diocese, and even to the pastor of the parochial district within the bounds of which they were established. At length it began to be usual for the abbot, or, as he was called in the Greek Church, the Archimandrite (that is, the chief monk), or the Hegumenos (that is, the leader), to be in orders; and since the sixth century monks generally have been priests. In point of dignity an abbot is considered to stand next to a bishop; but there have been many abbots in different countries who have claimed almost an equality in rank with the episcopal order. A minute and learned account of the different descriptions of abbots may be found in Du Cange's Glossary, and in Carpentier's Supplement to that work. In England, according to Coke, there used to be twenty-six abbots (Fuller says twenty-seven), and two priors, who were lords of parliament, and sat in the House of Peers. These, sometimes designated Sovereigns, or General abbots, wore the mitre (though not exactly the same in fashion with that of the bishops), carried the crozier (but in their right hands, while the bishops carried theirs in their left), and assumed the episcopal style of lord. Some croziered

abbots, again, were not mitred, and others who were mitred were not croziered. Abbots who presided over establishments that had sent out several branches were styled cardinal-abbots. There were likewise in Germany prince-abbots, as well as prince-bishops. In early times we read of field-abbots (in Latin, Abbates Milites), and abbot-counts (Abba-Comites, or Abbi-Comites). These were secular persons, upon whom the prince had bestowed certain abbeys, for which they were obliged to render military service as for common fiefs. A remnant of this practice appears to have subsisted in our own country long after it had been discontinued on the Continent. Thus, in Scotland, James Stuart, the natural son of James V., more celebrated as the Regent Murray, was, at the time of the Reformation, prior of St. Andrew's, although a secular person. And the secularization of some of the German ecclesiastic dignities has since occasioned something like a renewal of the ancient usage. We have in our day seen a prince of the House of Brunswick (the late Duke of York) at the same time commander-inchief of the British army and Bishop of Osnabrück. The efforts of the abbots to throw off the authority of their diocesans long disturbed the church, and called forth severe denunciations from several of the early councils. Some abbeys, however, obtained special charters, which recognized their independence; a boon which, although acquired at first with the consent of the bishop, was usually defended against his successors with the most jealous punctiliousness. Many of the abbots lived in the enjoyment of great power and state. In ancient times they possessed nearly absolute authority in their monasteries. "Before the time of Charlemagne," says Gibbon, “the abbots indulged themselves in mutilating their monks, or putting out their eyes; a punishment much less cruel than the tremendous vade in pace (the subterraneous dungeon or sepulchre), which was afterwards invented." The picture which this writer draws of what he calls" the abject slavery of the monastic discipline" is very striking. "The actions of a monk, his words, and even his thoughts, were

determined by an inflexible rule, or a capricious superior: the slightest offences were corrected by disgrace or confinement, extraordinary fasts, or bloody flagellation; and disobedience, murmur, or delay, were ranked in the catalogue of the most heinous sins." The external pomp and splendour with which an abbot was in many cases surrounded, corresponded to the extensive authority which he enjoyed within his abbey, and throughout his domains. St. Bernard is thought to refer to the celebrated Luger, abbot of St. Denis, in the beginning of the twelfth century, when he speaks, in one of his writings, of having seen an abbot at the head of more than 600 horsemen, who served him as a cortege. 66 By the pomp which these dignitaries exhibit," adds the saint, "you would take them, not for superiors of monasteries, but for the lords of castles,-not for the directors of consciences, but for the governors of provinces." This illustrates a remark which Gibbon makes in one of his notes:-"I have somewhere heard or read the frank confession of a Benedictine abbot:-' My vow of poverty has given me 100,000 crowns a year, my vow of obedience has raised me to the rank of a sovereign prince." Even in the unreformed parts of the Continent, however, and long before the French Revolution, the powers of the heads of monasteries, as well as those of other ecclesiastical persons, had been reduced to comparatively narrow limits; and the power both of abbots and bishops had been subjected in all material points to the civil authority. The former became merely guardians of the rule of their order, and superintendents of the internal discipline which it prescribed. In France this salutary change was greatly facilitated by the concordat made by Francis I. with Pope Leo X. in 1516, which gave to the king the right of nominating the abbots of nearly every monastery in his dominions. The only exceptions were some of the principal and most ancient houses, which retained the privilege of electing their superiors. The title of abbot has also been borne by the civil authorities in some places, especially among the Genoese, one of whose chief magistrates used to be called the Abbot

of the People. Nor must we forget another application of the term which was once famous in our own and other countries. In many of the French towns there used, of old, to be annually elected from among the burgesses, by the magistrates, an Abbé de Liesse (in Latin, Abbas Lætitiæ), that is, an Abbot of Joy, who acted for the year as a sort of master of the revels, presiding over and directing all their public shows. Among the retainers of some great families in England was an officer of a similar description, styled the Abbot of Misrule; and in Scotland the Abbot of Unreason was, before the Reformation, a personage who acted a principal part in the diversions of the populace, and one of those whom the zeal of the reforming divines was most eager in proscribing.

ABDICATION (from the Latin abdicatio), in general is the act of renouncing and giving up an office by the voluntary act of the party who holds it. The term is now generally applied to the giving up of the kingly office; and in some countries a king can abdicate, in the proper sense of that term, whenever he pleases. But the King of England cannot abdicate, except with the consent of the two Houses of Parliament, in any constitutional form; for a proper abdication would be a divesting himself of his regal powers by his own will, and such an abdication is inconsistent with the nature of his kingly office. It is, however, established by a precedent that he does abdicate, or an abdication may be presumed, if he does acts which are inconsistent with and subversive of that system of government of which he forms a part. In Blackstone's 'Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 210-212, and iv. p. 78, mention is made of the resolution of both Houses, in 1688, that

66

King James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people; and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom; has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant." Thus it appears that the Houses

of Lords and Commons assumed the doc- | trine of an original contract between the king and the people as the foundation of their declaration that James II. had abdicated the throne; and Blackstone, in arguing upon this declaration, assumes, what is contrary to the evidence of history, that the powers of the King of England were originally delegated to him by the nation.

It appears, by the parliamentary debates at that period, that in the conference between the two Houses of Parliament, previous to the passing of the statute which settled the crown upon William III., it was disputed whether the word 'abdicated,' or 'deserted,' should be the term used, to denote in the Journals the conduct of James II. in quitting the country. It was then resolved that the word abdicate' should be used, as including in it the mal-administration of his government. But in coming to this resolution the Houses gave a new meaning to the word.

Among the Romans the term Abdicatio signified generally a rejection or giving up of a thing, and a magistrate was said to abdicate who for any reason gave up his office before the term was expired.

The term Resignation, according to English usage, has a different meaning 'from abdication; though it is stated that these words are sometimes confounded. [RESIGNATION.]

ABDUCTION (from the Latin word abductio, which is from the verb abducere, to lead or carry off) is an unlawful taking away of the person of another, whether of child, wife, ward, heiress, or women generally.

ABDUCTION of child. [KIDNAPPING.] ABDUCTION of wife may be either by open violence, or by fraud and persuasion, though the law in both cases supposes force and constraint. The remedy given to the husband in such a case is an action, by which he may recover, not the possession of his wife, but damages for taking her away; and also, by statute of 3 Edward I. c. 13, the offender shall be imprisoned for two years, and fined at the pleasure of the king. The husband is also entitled to recover damages against such as persuade and entice the wife to

live separate from him without sufficient

cause.

ABDUCTION of ward. A guardian is entitled to an action if his ward be taken from him, but for the damages recovered in such action he must account to his ward when the ward comes of age. This action is now nearly superseded by a more speedy and summary method of redressing all complaints relative to guardians and wards, namely, by application to the Court of Chancery.

ABDUCTION of heiress.

By 9 George IV. c. 31, § 19, when any woman shall have any interest, legal or equitable, present or future, in any estate real or personal, or shall be heiress presumptive, or next of kin to any one having such interest, any person who from motives of lucre shall take or detain her against her will for the purpose of her being married or defiled, and all counsellors, aiders, and abettors of such offences are declared guilty of felony, and punishable by transportation for life, or not less than seven years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour. The taking of any unmarried girl under sixteen out of the possession of a parent or guardian is declared a misdemeanor, and is punishable by fine and imprisonment (§ 20). The marriage, when obtained by means of force, may be set aside on that ground. In this case, as in many others, fraud is legally considered as equivalent to force; and, consequently, in a case where both the abduction and marriage were voluntary in fact, they were held in law to be forcible, the consent to both having been obtained by fraud. (See the case of the King v. Edward Gibbon Wakefield.)

ABDUCTION of women generally. The forcible abduction and marriage of women is a felony. Here, and in the case of stealing an heiress, the usual rule that a wife shall not give evidence for or against her husband is departed from, for in such case the woman can with no propriety be reckoned a wife where a main ingredient, her consent, was wanting to the contract of marriage; besides which there is another rule of law, that "a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong," which would obviously be done here, if he who carries off a woman could, by

forcibly marrying her, prevent her from being evidence against him, when she was perhaps the only witness to the fact. By 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, § 11, charges of abduction of women and girls cannot be tried by justices at sessions, but must take place in a superior court.

ABEYANCE is a legal term, derived from the French bayer, which, says Richelet, means to "look at anything with mouth wide open." Coke (Co. Litt. 342, b.) explains the term thus, "En abeiance, that is, in expectation, of the French bayer to expect. For when a parson dieth, we say that the freehold is in abeyance, because a successor is in expectation to take it; and here note the necessity of the true interpretation of words. If tenant pur terme d'autre vie dieth, the freehold is said to be in abeyance until the occupant entereth. If a man makes a lease for life, the remainder to the right heirs of J. S., the fee-simple is in abeyance until J. S. dieth. And so in the case of the parson, the fee and right is in abeyance, that is in expectation, in remembrance, entendment or consideration of law, in consideratione sive intelligentia legis; because it is not in any man living; and the right that is in abeyance is said to be in nubibus, in the clouds, and therein hath a qualitie of fame whereof the poet speaketh:

'Ingrediturque solo et caput inter nubila condit.'"

Such is a specimen of the ridiculous absurdity with which Coke seeks to relieve the dryness of legal learning.

The expression that the freehold or the inheritance of an estate is in abeyance means that there is no person in whom the freehold or the inheritance is then vested, and that the ownership of the freehold or of the inheritance is waiting or expecting for an owner who is to be ascertained. This doctrine of the suspense of the freehold or of the inheritance is repugnant to the general principles of the tenure of land in England. By the old law, it was always necessary that some person should be in existence as the representative of the fee or freehold for the discharge of the feudal duties, and to answer the actions which might be brought for the fief; and thus the maxim

arose that the freehold of lands could never be in abeyance. Still it was admitted that both the inheritance and the freehold might in some cases be in abeyance. Thus, in the case of glebe lands belonging to parsons, and of lands held by bishops and other corporations sole, it is said that the inheritance must always be in abeyance, as no one can, under any circumstances, be entitled to more than an estate for life in these lands; and during a vacancy of the church, it is said that the freehold is in abeyance, for there is then no parson to have it, and it is said that the freehold cannot be in the patron, who, though he possesses a right to present to the benefice, has no direct interest in the land annexed to it. This subject is further considered under TENURE.

But whatever may be the true doctrine of abeyance in the case just mentioned, it is certain that such an abeyance cannot be created by the voluntary acts of parties. Therefore if a man grant land in such a manner that the immediate freehold would, if the deed were allowed to operate, be in abeyance, it is a rule of law that the deed by which such a grant is made, is void; and if the grant be so framed that the inheritance would be in abeyance, it is a rule of law that the inheritance shall remain in the person who makes the grant. The object of this rule of law is to prevent the possibility of the freehold subsisting for a time without an owner. Also, "When a remainder of inheritance is limited in contingency by way of use or devise, the inheritance in the mean time, if not otherwise disposed of, remains in the grantor and his heirs, or, in the heirs of the testator, until the contingency happens to take it out of them." (Fearne, Contingent Remainders, p. 513, 4th edit.)

Titles of Honour are also sometimes said to be in abeyance, which occurs when the persons next in inheritance to the last possessor are several females or co-parceners. In this case the title is not extinet, but is in abeyance; and may be revived at any time by the king. Several instances of the exercise of this prerogative are on record both in ancient and modern times. (Coke upon Littleton, 165, a.)

Among the Romans an hereditas, of which the heres was not yet ascertained, was said 'jacere;' and this is a case which corresponds to the abeyance of the English law. When the heres was ascertained, his rights as heres were considered to commence from the time of the death of the testator or the intestate. During the interval between the death and the ascertainment of the heres, the hereditas was sometimes spoken of as a person; and sometimes it was viewed as representing the defunct. These two modes of viewing the hereditas in this intermediate time express the same thing, the legal capacity of the defunct. The reason for this fiction was peculiar to the Roman law, and it had no other object than to facilitate certain acquisitions of property by means of slaves who were a part of the hereditas. A slave could in many cases acquire for his master; but in the case of an hereditas jacens, the slave could only acquire for the benefit of the hereditas by virtue of a fiction that he had still an owner of proper legal capacity. The fiction accordingly made the acquisition of the slave valid by reference to the legal capacity of his defunct owner, which was known, and not to the condition of the unascertained heres, who might not have the necessary legal capacity. Thus, if a Roman, who had a legal capacity to make a will, died intestate, and one of the intestate's slaves was appointed his heres by another person, the slave could take as heres for the benefit of the hereditas to which he belonged, by virtue of the fiction which gave to this hereditas the legal capacity of the defunct intestate. (Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, ii. 363.)

ABILITY; CAPACITY, LEGAL. [AGE; WIFE.]

ABJURATION (of the Realm) signifies a sworn banishment, or the taking of an oath to renounce and depart from the realm for ever. By the ancient common law of England, if a person guilty of any felony, excepting sacrilege, fled to a parish church or churchyard for sanctuary, he might, within forty days afterwards, go clothed in sackcloth before the coroner, confess the full particulars of his guilt, and take an oath to abjure the king

dom for ever, and not to return without the king's licence. Upon making his confession and taking this oath, he became attainted of the felony; he had forty days from the day of his appearance before the coroner to prepare for his departure, and the coroner assigned him such port as he chose for his embarkation, to which he was bound to repair immediately with a cross in his hand, and to embark with all convenient speed. If he did not go immediately out of the kingdom, or if he afterwards returned into England without licence, he was condemned to be hanged, unless he happened to be a clerk, in which case he was allowed the benefit of clergy. This practice, which has obvious marks of a religious origin, was, by several regulations in the reign of Henry VIII., in a great measure discontinued, and at length by the statute 21 James I. c. 28, all privilege of sanctuary and abjuration consequent upon it were entirely abolished. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, however, amongst other severities then enacted against Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters convicted of having refused to attend the divine service of the Church of England, they were by statute (35 Eliz. c. 1) required to abjure the realm in open court, and if they refused to swear, or returned to England without licence after their departure, they were to be adjudged felons, and to suffer death without benefit of clergy. Thus the punishment of abjuration inflicted by this Act of Parliament was far more severe than abjuration for felony at the common law: in the latter case, the felon had the benefit of clergy; in the former, it was expressly taken away. Protestant Dissenters are expressly exempted from this severe enactment by the Toleration Act; but Popish recusants convict were liable to be called upon to abjure the realm for their recusancy, until a statute, passed in the 31 Geo. III. (1791), relieved them from that and many other penal restrictions upon their taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration.

ABJURATION (Oath of). This is an oath asserting the title of the present royal family to the crown of England. It is imposed by 13 Will. III. c. 6; 1 Geo. I. c. 13; and 6 Geo. III. c. 53. By this