New volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica > Volume 30, K-MOR

LIBELLATICI
by the law, e.g., papers published under the authority
of Parliament. A qualified or partial privilege arises on
occasions where the law considers it for the public benefit
that freedom of publication should be permitted, provided
that freedom is only used for the purpose for which it was
given, e.g., an answer to an inquiry as to the character of
a servant. For the plaintiff to succeed in an action where
it is apparent that publication is under this qualified
privilege, it is necessary that he should prove express
malice or an intention to injure, departing from the
general rule in ordinary libels, where the absence of
express or actual malice is no defence save in mitigation
of damages. To constitute express malice there must be
something in the act of the person to show that he
published the libel, not with a view of doing that which
was right or to punish a person because he deserved to
be punished as an act of justice, but dishonourably and
with a bye-motive of doing him an injury {Capital and
Counties Bank v. Henty, Grove, J., 5 C.P.D.).
Both absolute and qualified privilege are given to news¬
paper reports under certain conditions by the Law of
Libel Amendment Act, 1888. The reports must, however,
be published in a newspaper as defined in the Newspaper
Libel and Registration Act, 1881. Under this Act a
newspaper must be published “ at intervals not exceeding
twenty-six days.”
By section 3 of the Act of 1888 fair and accurate reports of
judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged provided that the
report is published contemporaneously with the proceedings, and
no blasphemous or indecent matter is contained therein. By
section 4 a limited privilege is given to fair and accurate reports
(1) of the proceedings of a bond fide public meeting lawfully held
for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance and discussion of any
matter of public concern, even when the admission thereto is
restricted ; (2) of any meeting, open either to the public or to a
reporter, of a vestry, town council, school board, board of guardians,
board of local authority, formed or constituted under the pro¬
visions of any Act of Parliament, or of any committee appointed
by any of these bodies ; or of any meeting of any commissioners
authorized to act by letters patent, Act of Parliament, warrant
under royal sign manual, or other lawful warrant or authority,
select committees of either House of Parliament, justices of the
peace in quarter sessions assembled for administrative or deliber¬
ative purposes ; (3) of the publication of any notice or report
issued for the information of the public by any Government office
or department, officer of state, commissioner of police or chief
constable, and published at their request. But the privilege
given in section 4 does not authorize the publication of any
blasphemous or indecent matter ; nor is the protection available
as a defence if it be proved that the reports or notices were
published maliciously, in the legal sense of the word, or the
defendant has been requested to insert in the newspaper in which
the report was issued a reasonable letter or statement by way of
contradiction or explanation, and has refused or neglected to do
so. _ Moreover, nothing in section 4 is to interfere with any
privilege then existing, or to protect the publication of any matter
not of public concern, or in cases where publication is not for the
public benefit.
An alteration has also been made by the same Act in
regard to criminal libel as affecting newspapers. As criminal
proceedings for libel rest on the likelihood that a breach of
the peace will result from the libel, no criminal prosecution
should be commenced where the interests of the public
are not affected. By the Law of Libel Amendment Act,
1888, sec. 8, no criminal prosecution for libel is to be
commenced against any newspaper proprietor, publisher,
or editor unless the order of a judge at chambers has
been first obtained. This protection does not cover the
actual writer of the alleged libel.
The law of slander has also been changed. In the
ormer article it was shown that, save in a few cases, it is
necessary in a slander action to prove special damage; in
other words, that substantial or real damage has been
caused to the plaintiff by the defendant’s statement. The
exceptions to this rule were the imputation of a criminal
offence, of certain infectious disorders, or of incompetence
209
in a trade, profession, or employment. Here damage is
presumed as in libel. A fourth exception has been
added, for by the Slander of Women Act, 1891, it is not
necessary to prove special damage to support an action
for slander where a woman has been accused of un¬
chastity. (H. s. s.)
Libellatici was the name given to a class of persons
who, during the persecution of Decius, a.d. 250, evaded
the consequences of their Christian belief by procuring
documents which certified that they had satisfied the
authorities of their orthodoxy (i.e., as heathens), and which
thus exempted them from punishment. As thirty-eight
years had elapsed since the last period of persecution, the
Churches had become in many ways lax, and the number
of those who failed to hold out under the persecution was
very great. On the other hand, the procedure of the
courts which had cognizance of the matter was by no
means strict, and the judges and subordinate officials were
often not ill-disposed towards Christians, so that evasion
in one way or another was fairly easy. Many of those who
could not hold out were able to secure certificates which gave
them immunity without actually renouncing the faith, just as
“ Parliamentary certificates ” of conformity used to be given
in England without any pretext of fact. It is to the per¬
sons who received such certificates that the name belonged.
To calculate their number would be impossible, but we
know from the writings of Cyprian and other contem¬
poraries that they were a numerous class, and that they
were to be found in Italy, in Egypt, and in Africa, and
amongst both clergy and laity. Archbishop Benson is
probably right in thinking that “ there was no systematic
and regular procedure in the matter,” and that the libelli,
as the documents in question were called, may have been
of very different kinds. They must, however, as a general
rule, have consisted of a certificate from the authorities to
the effect that the accused person had satisfied them.
[The name libellus has also been applied to another kind
of document—to the letters which were given by con¬
fessors, or by those who were about to suffer martyrdom,
to persons who had fallen, to be used to secure forgiveness
for them from the authorities of the Church. With such
libelli we are not here concerned.] The subject has acquired
a fresh interest from the fact that two of these actual libelli
have been recovered, in 1893 and 1894 respectively, both
from Egypt: one is now in the Brugsch Pasha collection in
the Berlin Museum ; the other is in the collection of papyri
belonging to the Archduke Rainer. The former is on a
papyrus leaf about 8 by 3 inches, the latter on mere frag¬
ments of papyrus which have been pieced together. The
former was first deciphered and described by Dr Fritz Krebs,
the latter by Dr K. Wessely : both are given and commented
upon by Dr Benson. There is a remarkable similarity
between them: in each the form is that N. “was ever
constant in sacrificing to the gods ”; and that he now,
in the presence of the commissioners of the sacrifices (ot
rjp-rjpivoL tmv Overltov), has both sacrificed and drunk [or
has poured libations], and has tasted of the victims, in
witness whereof he begs them to sign this certificate.
Then follows the signature, with attestations. The former
of the two is dated, and the date must fall in the year
250. It is, of course, impossible to prove that either of
the two actually refers to Christians : they may have been
given to pagans who had been accused and had cleared
themselves, or to former Christians who had apostatized.
But no doubt libelli in this same form were delivered, in
Egypt at least, to Christians who secured immunity with¬
out actual apostasy; and the form in Italy and Africa
probably did not differ widely from this.
See Archbishop Benson. Cyprian, London, 1897 ; Theol. Liter-
aturzeitung, 20th January and 17th March 1894. (w. E. Co.)
s VI. —27