Chapter VII: Front Matter (7)

+-----+------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+
| | S. W. England and Midlands. | Yorkshire. | Ammonite Zones.* | Divisions according to |
| | | | | A. de Lapparent.** |
+-----+------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+
| U L | Midford Sands (passage beds) | Alum shale |_Am. jurensis_ \ | (Including the _opalinus_ zone|
| p i | | | | | of the Inferior Oolite.) |
| p a | Clays with Cement-stones | Jet Rock | " _communis_ > U. | Toarcien. |
| e s | Limestones and Clays | Grey Shale | " _serpentinus_ / | |
| r . | | | " _annulatus_ \ | |
+-----+------------------------------+-------------------+------------------- | ---+-------------------------------+
| M | | | | | |
| i L | Marlstone and Sands | Ironstone Series |_Am. spinatus_ | | |
| d i | (Rock Bed and Ironstones) | | | | |
| d a | Micaceous Clays and Sands | Sandy Series | " _margaritatus_ | | |
| l s | | | | | |
| e . | | | > M. | |
+-----+------------------------------+------------------ +------------------- | | Charmouthien. | and
| | Clays with occasional bands | Upper Series with |_Am. capricornus_ | | |
| | of Limestone | Ironstone nodules| " _Jamesoni_ | | |
| L L | | | and | | |
| o i | | | " _armatus_ / | |
| w a | | | +-------------------------------+
| e s | Limestones and Clays | Lower Series with | " _oxynotus_ \ | |
| r . | | Sandy and Marly | " _Bucklandi_ > L. | Sinémourien. |
| | | Beds | " _angulatus_ | | Hettangien including "White |
| | | | " _planorbis_ / | Lias." |
+-----+------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+
| | | | | Rhétien. |
+-----+------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+
* The brackets indicate the divisions made by R. Tate and J. F. Blake.
** _Traité de géologie_ (5th ed., Paris, 1906).

The economic products of the Lias are of considerable importance. In
the Lower Lias of Lincolnshire and the Middle Lias of Oxfordshire,
Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Yorkshire the beds
of ironstone are of great value. Most of these ores are limestones
that have been converted into iron carbonate with some admixture of
silicates; they weather near the surface into hydrated peroxide. At
Frodingham in Lincolnshire the oolitic iron ore reaches 30 ft. in
thickness, of which 12 ft. are workable. In Gloucestershire the top
beds of the Lower Lias and lower beds of the Middle division are the
most ferruginous; the best ores near Woodstock and Banbury and between
Market Harborough and Leicester are at the summit of the Middle Lias
in the Marlstone or Rock bed. The ironstone of Fawler is sometimes
known as Blenheim ore. The ores of the Cleveland district in Yorkshire
have a great reputation; the main seam is 11 ft. thick at Eston, where
it rests directly upon the Pecten Seam, the two together aggregating
15 ft. 6 in. Similar iron ores of this age are worked at
Meurthe-et-Moselle, Villerupt, Marbache, Longuy, Champagneulles, &c.
Some of the Liassic limestones are used as building stones, the more
important ones being the Lower Lias Sutton stone of Glamorganshire and
Middle Lias Hornton stone, the best of the Lias building stones, from
Edge Hill. The limestones are often used for paving. The limestones of
the Lower Lias are much used for the production of hydraulic cement
and "Blue Lias" lime at Rugby, Barrow-on-Soar, Barnstone, Lyme Regis,
Abertham and many other places. Roman cement has been made from the
nodules in the Upper Lias of Yorkshire; alum is obtained from the same
horizon. A considerable trade was formerly done in jet, the best
quality being obtained from the "Serpentinus" beds, but "bastard" or
soft jet is found in many of the other strata in the Yorkshire Lias.
Both Lower and Upper Lias clays have been used in making bricks and
tiles.

Fossils are abundant in the Lias; Lyme Regis, Shepton Mallet, Rugby,
Robin Hood's Bay, Ilminster, Whitby and Golden Cap near Charmouth are
well-known localities. The saurian reptiles, _Ichthyosaurus_ and
_Plesiosaurus_, are found in excellent preservation along with the
Pterodactyl. Among the fishes are _Hybodus_, _Dapedius_,
_Pholidophorus_, _Acrodus_. The crinoids, _Pentacrinus_ and
_Extracrinus_ are locally abundant. Insect remains are very abundant
in certain beds. Many ammonites occur in this formation in addition to
the forms used as zonal indexes mentioned in the table. _Lima
gigantea_, _Posidonomya Bronni_, _Inoceramus dubius_, _Gryphaea
cymbium_ and _G. arcuata_ are common pelecypods. _Amberleya
capitanea_, _Pleurotomaria anglica_ are Lias gasteropods. _Leptaena_,
_Spiriferina_, _Terebratella_ and _Rhynchonella tetrahedra_ and _R.
variabilis_ are among the brachiopods.

Certain dark limestones with regular bedding which occur in the
Carboniferous System are sometimes called "Black Lias" by quarrymen.

See "The Lias of England and Wales" (Yorkshire excepted), by H. B.
Woodward, _Geol. Survey Memoir_ (London, 1893); and, for Yorkshire,
"The Jurassic Rocks of Britain," vol. i., "Yorkshire," by C.
Fox-Strangways, _Geol. Survey Memoir_. See also JURASSIC.
(J. A. H.)

LIBANIUS (A.D. 314-393), Greek sophist and rhetorician, was born at Antioch, the capital of Syria. He studied at Athens, and spent most of his earlier manhood in Constantinople and Nicomedia. His private classes at Constantinople were much more popular than those of the public professors, who had him expelled in 346 (or earlier) on the charge of studying magic. He removed his school to Nicomedia, where he remained five years. After another attempt to settle in Constantinople, he finally retired to Antioch (354). Though a pagan, he enjoyed the favour of the Christian emperors. When Julian, his special patron, restored paganism as the state religion, Libanius showed no intolerance. Among his pupils he numbered John Chrysostom, Basil (bishop of Caesarea) and Ammianus Marcellinus. His works, consisting chiefly of orations (including his autobiography), declamations on set topics, letters, life of Demosthenes, and arguments to all his orations are voluminous. He devoted much time to the classical Greek writers, and had a thorough contempt for Rome and all things Roman. His speeches and letters throw considerable light on the political and literary history of the age. The letters number 1607 in the Greek original; with these were formerly included some 400 in Latin, purporting to be a translation, but now proved to be a forgery by the Italian humanist F. Zambeccari (15th century).

Editions: Orations and declamations, J. J. Reiske (1791-1797);
letters, J. C. Wolf (1738); two additional declamations, R. Förster
(_Hermes_, ix. 22, xii. 217), who in 1903 began the publication of a
complete edition; _Apologia Socratis_, Y. H. Rogge (1891). See also E.
Monnier, _Histoire de Libanius_ (1866); L. Petit, _Essai sur la vie et
la correspondance du sophiste Libanius_ (1866); G. R. Sievers, _Das
Leben des Libanius_ (1868); R. Förster, _F. Zambeccari und die Briefe
des Libanius_ (1878). Some letters from the emperor Julian to Libanius
will be found in R. Hercher, _Epistolographi Graeci_ (1873). Sixteen
letters to Julian have been translated by J. Duncombe (_The Works of
the Emperor Julian_, i. 303-332, 3rd ed., London, 1798). The oration
on the emperor Julian is translated by C. W. King (in Bohn's
"Classical Library," London, 1888), and that in Defence of the Temples
of the Heathen by Dr Lardner (in a volume of translations by Thomas
Taylor, from Celsus and others, 1830). See further J. E. Sandys,
_Hist. of Classical Scholarship_, i. (1906), and A. Harrent, _Les
Écoles d'Antioche_ (1898).

LIBATION (Lat. _libatio_, from _libare_, to take a portion of something, to taste, hence to pour out as an offering to a deity, &c.; cf. Gr. [Greek: leibein]), a drink offering, the pouring out of a small quantity of wine, milk or other liquid as a ceremonial act. Such an act was performed in honour of the dead (Gr. [Greek: choai], Lat. _profusiones_), in making of treaties (Gr. [Greek: spondê, spendein] = _libare_, whence [Greek: spondai], treaty), and particularly in honour of the gods (Gr. [Greek: loibê], Lat. _libatio_, _libamentum_, _libamen_). Such libations to the gods were made as part of the daily ritual of domestic worship, or at banquets or feasts to the Lares, or to special deities, as by the Greeks to Hermes, the god of sleep, when going to rest.

LIBAU (Lettish, _Leepaya_), a seaport of Russia, in the government of Courland, 145 m. by rail S.W. of Riga, at the northern extremity of a narrow sandy peninsula which separates Lake Libau (12 m. long and 2 m. wide) from the Baltic Sea. Its population has more than doubled since 1881 (30,000), being 64,505 in 1897. The town is well built of stone, with good gardens, and has a naval cathedral (1903). The harbour was 2 m. S. of the town until a canal was dug through the peninsula in 1697; it is now deepened to 23 ft., and is mostly free from ice throughout the year. Since being brought, in 1872, into railway connexion with Moscow, Orel and Kharkov, Libau has become an important port. New Libau possesses large factories for colours, explosives, machinery belts, sails and ropes, tobacco, furniture, matches, as well as iron works, agricultural machinery works, tin-plate works, soap works, saw-mills, breweries, oil-mills, cork and linoleum factories and flour-mills. The exports reach the annual value of £3,250,000 to £5,500,000, oats being the chief export, with flour, wheat, rye, butter, eggs, spirits, flax, linseed, oilcake, pork, timber, horses and petroleum. The imports average £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 annually. Shipbuilding, including steamers for open-sea navigation, is on the increase. North of the commercial harbour and enclosing it the Russian government made (1893-1906) a very extensive fortified naval port, protected by moles and breakwaters. Libau is visited for sea-bathing in summer.

The port of Libau, _Lyra portus_, is mentioned as early as 1263; it then belonged to the Livonian Order or Brothers of the Sword. In 1418 it was burnt by the Lithuanians, and in 1560 it was mortgaged by the grandmaster of the Teutonic Order, to which it had passed, to the Prussian duke Albert. In 1701 it was captured by Charles XII. of Sweden, and was annexed to Russia in 1795.

See Wegner, _Geschichte der Stadt Libau_ (Libau, 1898).

LIBEL and SLANDER, the terms employed in English law to denote injurious attacks upon a man's reputation or character by words written or spoken, or by equivalent signs. In most early systems of law verbal injuries are treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, the essence of the injury lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for--a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the XII. Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offences of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of _injuria_, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved contumely or insult. In the later Roman jurisprudence, which has, on this point, exercised considerable influence over modern systems of law, verbal injuries are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (_convicium contra bonos mores_). In this case the essence of the offence lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offence lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defence, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of _injuria_. The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal injuries was long confined to a civil action for a money penalty, which was estimated according to the gravity of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the _libri_ or _libelli famosi_, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as peculiarly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.

The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I. There was no distinction drawn between words written and spoken. When no pecuniary penalty was involved such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which was only finally abolished in the 19th century. It seems, to say the least, uncertain whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The crime of _scandalum magnatum_, spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm, was established by statutes, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the star chamber in the reign of James I. In that case no English authorities are cited except a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources, with the insertion that libels tended to a breach of the peace; and it seems probable that that not very scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the _libelli famosi_ without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation, and the law with regard to each at the present time may now be considered.

_Civil Law._--The first important distinction encountered is that between slander and libel, between the oral and written promulgation of defamatory statements. In the former case the remedy is limited. The law will not take notice of every kind of abusive or defamatory language. It must be shown either that the plaintiff has suffered actual damage as a direct consequence of the slander, or that the imputation is of such a nature that we are entitled to infer damage as a necessary consequence. The special damage on which an action is founded for slanderous words must be of the nature of pecuniary loss. Loss of reputation or of position in society, or even illness, however clearly it may be traced to the slander, is insufficient. When we cannot prove special damage, the action for slander is only allowed upon certain strictly defined grounds. These are the imputation of a crime or misdemeanour which is punishable corporeally, e.g. by imprisonment; the imputation of a contagious or infectious disease; statements which tend to the disherison of an apparent heir (other cases of slander of title when the party is in possession requiring the allegation of special damage); the accusing a woman of unchastity (Slander of Women Act 1891); and, lastly, slanders directed against a man's professional or business character, which tend directly to prejudice him in his trade, profession, or means of livelihood. In the latter case the words must either be directly aimed at a man in his business or official character, or they must be such as necessarily to imply unfitness for his particular office or occupation. Thus words which merely reflect generally upon the moral character of a tradesman or professional man are not actionable, but they are actionable if directed against his dealings in the course of his trade or profession. But, in the case of a merchant or trader, an allegation which affects his credit generally is enough, and it has been held that statements are actionable which affect the ability or moral characters of persons who hold offices, or exercise occupation which require a high degree of ability, or infer peculiar confidence. In every case the plaintiff must have been at the time of the slander in the actual exercise of the occupation or enjoyment of the office with reference to which the slander is supposed to have affected him.

The action for libel is not restricted in the same way as that for slander. Originally there appears to have been no essential distinction between them, but the establishment of libel as a criminal offence had probably considerable influence, and it soon became settled that written defamatory statements, or pictures and other signs which bore a defamatory meaning, implied greater malice and deliberation, and were generally fraught with greater injury than those made by word of mouth. The result has been that the action for libel is not limited to special grounds, or by the necessity of proving special damage. It may be founded on any statement which disparages a man's private or professional character, or which tends to hold him up to hatred, contempt or ridicule. In one of the leading cases, for example, the plaintiff obtained damages because it was said of him that he was a hypocrite, and had used the cloak of religion for unworthy purposes. In another case a charge of ingratitude was held sufficient. In civil cases the libel must be published by being brought by the defendant under the notice of a third party; it has been held that it is sufficient if this has been done by gross carelessness, without deliberate intention to publish. Every person is liable to an action who is concerned in the publication of a libel, whether he be the author, printer or publisher; and the extent and manner of the publication, although not affecting the ground of the action, is a material element in estimating the damages.

It is not necessary that the defamatory character of the words or writing complained of should be apparent on their face. They may be couched in the form of an insinuation, or may derive their sting from a reference to circumstances understood by the persons to whom they are addressed. In such a case the plaintiff must make the injurious sense clear by an averment called an innuendo, and it is for the jury to say whether the words bore the meaning thus ascribed to them.

In all civil actions for slander and libel the falsity of the injurious statements is an essential element, so that the defendant is always entitled to justify his statements by their truth; but when the statements are in themselves defamatory, their falsity is presumed, and the burden of proving their truth is laid upon the defendant. There are however a large class of false defamatory statements, commonly called privileged, which are not actionable on account of the particular circumstances in which they are made. The general theory of law with regard to these cases is this. It is assumed that in every case of defamation intention is a necessary element; but in the ordinary case, when a statement is false and defamatory, the law presumes that it has been made or published with an evil intent, and will not allow this presumption to be rebutted by evidence or submitted as matter of fact to a jury. But there are certain circumstances in which the natural presumption is quite the other way. There are certain natural and proper occasions on which statements may be made which are in themselves defamatory, and which may be false, but which naturally suggest that the statements may have been made from a perfectly proper motive and with entire belief in their truth. In the cases of this kind which are recognized by law, the presumption is reversed. It lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by what is called _express malice_, by an intention to do harm, and in this case the question is not one of legal inference for the court, but a matter of fact to be decided by the jury. Although, however, the theory of the law seems to rest entirely upon natural presumption of intention, it is pretty clear that in determining the limits of privilege the courts have been almost wholly guided by considerations of public or general expediency.

In some cases the privilege is absolute, so that we cannot have an action for defamation even although we prove express malice. Thus no action of this kind can be maintained for statements made in judicial proceedings if they are in any sense relevant to the matter in hand. In the same way no statements or publications are actionable which are made in the ordinary course of parliamentary proceedings. Papers published under the authority of parliament are protected by a special act, 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9, 1840, which was passed after a decree of the law courts adverse to the privilege claimed. The reports of judicial and parliamentary proceedings stand in a somewhat different position, which has only been attained after a long and interesting conflict. The general rule now is that all reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings are privileged in so far as they are honest and impartial. Even _ex parte_ proceedings, in so far as they take place in public, now fall within the same rule. But if the report is garbled, or if part of it only is published, the party who is injured in consequence is entitled to maintain an action, and to have the question of malice submitted to a jury.

Both absolute and qualified privilege are given to newspaper 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 s. 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 s. 4 a limited privilege is
given to fair and accurate reports (1) of the proceedings of a _bona
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 provisions 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 deliberative
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 s. 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 s. 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. Consequently no criminal prosecution should be
commenced where the interests of the public are not affected. By the
Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, s. 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.

In private life a large number of statements are privileged so long as they remain matters of strictly private communication. It is difficult to define the limits of private privilege without extensive reference to concrete cases; but generally it may be said that it includes all communications made in performance of a duty not merely legal but moral or social, answers to _bona fide_ inquiries, communications made by persons in confidential relations regarding matters in which one or both are interested, and even statements made within proper limits by persons in the _bona fide_ prosecution of their own interest. Common examples of this kind of privilege are to be found in answer to inquiries as to the character of servants or the solvency of a trader, warnings to a friend, communications between persons who are jointly interested in some matters of business. But in every case care must be taken not to exceed the limits of publication required by the occasion, or otherwise the privilege is lost. Thus defamatory statements may be privileged when made to a meeting of shareholders, but not when published to others who have no immediate concern in the business.

In a few instances in which an action cannot be maintained even by the averment of malice, the plaintiff may maintain an action by averring not only malice but also want of reasonable and probable cause. The most common instances of this kind are malicious charges made in the ordinary course of justice and malicious prosecutions. In such cases it would be contrary to public policy to punish or prevent every charge which was made from a purely malicious motive, but there is no reason for protecting accusations which are not only malicious, but destitute of all reasonable probability.

_Criminal Law._--Publications which are blasphemous, immoral or seditious are frequently termed libels, and are punishable both at common law and by various statutes. The matter, however, which constitutes the offence in these publications lies beyond our present scope. Libels upon individuals may be prosecuted by criminal information or indictment, but there can be no criminal prosecution for slander. So far as concerns the definition of libel, and its limitation by the necessity of proving in certain cases express malice, there is no substantial difference between the rules which apply to criminal prosecutions and to civil actions, with the one important exception (now considerably modified) that the falsity of a libel is not in criminal law an essential element of the offence. If the matter alleged were in itself defamatory, the court would not permit inquiry into its truth. The sweeping application of this rule seems chiefly due to the indiscriminate use, in earlier cases, of a rule in Roman law which was only applicable to certain modes of publication, but has been supported by various reasons of general policy, and especially by the view that one main reason for punishing a libel was its tendency to provoke a breach of the peace.

An important dispute about the powers of the jury in cases of libel arose during the 19th century in connexion with some well-known trials for seditious libels. The point is familiar to readers of Macaulay in connexion with the trial of the seven bishops, but the cases in which it was brought most prominently forward, and which led to its final settlement, were those against Woodfall (the printer of _Junius_), Wilkes and others, and especially the case against Shipley, the dean of St Asaph (21 St. Tr. 925), in which the question was fought by Lord Erskine with extraordinary energy and ability. The controversy turned upon the question whether the jury were to be strictly confined to matters of fact which required to be proved by evidence, or whether in every case they were entitled to form their own opinion upon the libellous character of the publication and the intention of the author. The jury, if they pleased, had it in their power to return a general verdict of guilty or not guilty, but both in theory and practice they were subject in law to the directions of the court, and had to be informed by it as to what they were to take into consideration in determining upon their verdict. There is no difficulty about the general application of this principle in criminal trials. If the crime is one which is inferred by law from certain facts, the jury are only concerned with these facts, and must accept the construction put upon them by law. Applying these principles to the case of libel, juries were directed that it was for the court to determine whether the publication fell within the definition of libel, and whether the case was one in which malice was to be inferred by construction of law. If the case were one in which malice was inferred by law, the only facts left to the jury were the fact of publication and the meaning averred by innuendoes; they could not go into the question of intention, unless the case were one of privilege, in which express malice had to be proved. In general principle, therefore, the decisions of the court were in accordance with the ordinary principles of criminal law. But there were undoubtedly some peculiarities in the case of libel. The sense of words, the inferences to be drawn from them, and the effect which they produce are not so easily defined as gross matters of fact. They seem to belong to those cases in which the impression made upon a jury is more to be trusted than the decision of a judge. Further, owing to the mode of procedure, the defendant was often punished before the question of law was determined. But, nevertheless, the question would scarcely have been raised had the libels related merely to private matters. The real ground of dispute was the liberty to be accorded to political discussion. Had the judges taken as wide a view of privilege in discussing matters of public interest as they do now, the question could scarcely have arisen; for Erskine's whole contention really amounted to this, that the jury were entitled to take into consideration the good or bad intent of the authors, which is precisely the question which would now be put before them in any matter which concerned the public. But at that time the notion of a special privilege attaching to political discussion had scarcely arisen, or was confined within very narrow limits, and the cause of free political discussion seemed to be more safely entrusted to juries than to courts. The question was finally settled by the Libel Act 1792, by which the jury were entitled to give a general verdict on the whole matter put in issue.

_Scots Law._--In Scots law there were originally three remedies for
defamation. It might be prosecuted by or with the concurrence of the
lord advocate before the court of justiciary; or, secondly, a criminal
remedy might be obtained in the commissary (ecclesiastical) courts,
which originally dealt with the defender by public retractation or
penance, but subsequently made use of fines payable to their own
procurator or to the party injured, these latter being regarded as
solatium to his feelings; or, lastly, an action of damages was
competent before the court of session, which was strictly civil in its
character and aimed at the reparation of patrimonial loss. The first
remedy has fallen into disuse; the second and third (the commissary
courts being now abolished) are represented by the present action for
damages or solatium. Originally the action before the court of session
was strictly for damages--founded, not upon the _animus injuriandi_,
but upon culpa, and could be defended by proving the truth of the
statements. But in time the court of session began to assume the
original jurisdiction of the commissary courts, and entertained
actions for solatium in which the _animus injuriandi_ was a necessary
element, and to which, as in Roman law, the truth was not necessarily
a defence. Ultimately the two actions got very much confused. We find
continual disputes as to the necessity for the _animus injuriandi_ and
the applicability of the plea of _veritas convicii_, which arose from
the fact that the courts were not always conscious that they were
dealing with two actions, to one of which these notions were
applicable, and to the other not. On the introduction of the jury
court, presided over by an English lawyer, it was quite natural that
he, finding no very clear distinction maintained between damage and
solatium, applied the English plea of truth as a justification to
every case, and retained the _animus injuriandi_ both in ordinary
cases and cases of privilege in the same shape as the English
conception of malice. The leading and almost only differences between
the English and Scots law now are that the latter makes no essential
distinction between oral and written defamation, that it practically
gives an action for every case of defamation, oral or written, upon
which in England a civil action might be maintained for libel, and
that it possesses no criminal remedy. In consequence of the latter
defect and the indiscriminate application of the plea of veritas to
every case both of damages and solatium, there appears to be no remedy
in Scotland even for the widest and most needless publication of
offensive statements if only they are true.

_American Law._--American law scarcely if at all differs from that of
England. In so far indeed as the common law is concerned, they may be
said to be substantially identical. The principal statutes which have
altered the English criminal law are represented by equivalent
legislation in most American states.

See generally W. B. Odgers, _Libel and Slander_; Fraser, _Law of Libel
and Slander_.

LIBELLATICI, 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 (_libelli_) which certified that they had satisfied the authorities of their submission to the edict requiring them to offer incense or sacrifice to the imperial gods. 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. The procedure of the courts which had cognizance of the matter was, however, by no means strict, and the judges and subordinate officials were often not ill-disposed towards Christians, so that evasion was fairly easy. Many of those who could not hold out were able to secure certificates which gave them immunity from punishment 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 persons who received such certificates that the name _libellatici_ belonged (those who actually fulfilled the edict being called _thurificati_ or _sacrificati_). To calculate their number would be impossible, but we know from the writings of Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria and other contemporaries, that they were a numerous class, and that they were to be found in Italy, in Egypt and in Africa, and among 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_ 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 given by confessors, 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 in., the latter on mere fragments 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 ([Greek: hoi hêrêmenoi tôn thysôn]), 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 impossible to prove that either of the documents 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 without actual apostasy; and the form in Italy and Africa probably did not differ widely from this. The practice gave rise to complicated problems of ecclesiastical discipline, which are reflected in the correspondence of Cyprian and especially in the Novatian controversy.

See E. W. Benson, _Cyprian_ (London, 1897); _Theol. Literaturzeitung_,
20th of January and 17th of March 1894. (W. E. Co.)

LIBER and LIBERA, in Roman mythology, deities, male and female, identified with the Greek Dionysus and Persephone. In honour of Liber (also called Liber Pater and Bacchus) two festivals were celebrated. In the country feast of the vintage, held at the time of the gathering of the grapes, and the city festival of March 17th called _Liberalia_ (Ovid, _Fasti_, iii. 711) we find purely Italian ceremonial unaffected by Greek religion. The country festival was a great merry-making, where the first-fruits of the new must were offered to the gods. It was characterized by the grossest symbolism, in honour of the fertility of nature. In the city festival, growing civilization had impressed a new character on the primitive religion, and connected it with the framework of society. At this time the youths laid aside the boy's _toga praetexta_ and assumed the man's _toga libera_ or _virilis_ (_Fasti_, iii. 771). Cakes of meal, honey and oil were offered to the two deities at this festival. Liber was originally an old Italian god of the productivity of nature, especially of the vine. His name indicated the free, unrestrained character of his worship. When, at an early period, the Hellenic religion of Demeter spread to Rome, Liber and Libera were identified with Dionysus and Persephone, and associated with another Italian goddess Ceres, who was identified with Demeter. By order of the Sibylline books, a temple was built to these three deities near the Circus Flaminius; the whole cultus was borrowed from the Greeks, down even to the terminology, and priestesses were brought from the Greek cities.

LIBERAL PARTY, in Great Britain, the name given to and accepted by the successors of the old Whig party (see WHIG AND TORY), representing the political party opposed to Toryism or Conservatism, and claiming to be the originators and champions of political reform and progressive legislation. The term came into general use definitely as the name of one of the two great parties in the state when Mr Gladstone became its leader, but before this it had already become current coin, as a political appellation, through a natural association with the use of such phrases as "liberal ideas," in the sense of "favourable to change," or "in support of political freedom and democracy." In this respect it was the outcome of the French Revolution, and in the early years of the 19th century the term was used in a French form; thus Southey in 1816 wrote about the "British _Liberales_." But the Reform Act and the work of Bentham and Mill resulted in the crystallization of the term. In Leigh Hunt's autobiography (1850) we read of "newer and more thorough-going Whigs ... known by the name of Radicals ... since called Liberals"; and J. S. Mill in 1865 wrote (from his own Liberal point of view), "A Liberal is he who looks forward for his principles of government; a Tory looks backward." The gradual adoption of the term for one of the great parties, superseding "Whig," was helped by the transition period of "Liberal Conservatism," describing the position of the later Peelites; and Mr Gladstone's own career is the best instance of its changing signification; moreover the adjective "liberal" came meanwhile into common use in other spheres than that of parliamentary politics, e.g. in religion, as meaning "intellectually advanced" and free from the trammels of tradition. Broadly speaking, the Liberal party stands for progressive legislation in accordance with freedom of social development and advanced ethical ideas. It claims to represent government by the people, by means of trust in the people, in a sense which denies genuine popular sympathy to its opponents. Being largely composed of dissenters, it has identified itself with opposition to the vested interests of the Church of England; and, being apt to be thwarted by the House of Lords, with attempts to override the veto of that house. Its old watchword, "Peace, retrenchment and reform," indicated its tendency to avoidance of a "spirited" foreign policy, and to parsimony in expenditure. But throughout its career the Liberal party has always been pushed forward by its extreme Radical wing, and economy in the spending of public money is no longer cherished by those who chiefly represent the non-taxpaying classes. The party organization lends itself to the influence of new forces. In 1861 a central organization was started in the "Liberal Registration Association," composed "of gentlemen of known Liberal opinions"; and a number of "Liberal Associations" soon rose throughout the country. Of these, that at Birmingham became, under Mr J. Chamberlain and his active supporter Mr Schnadhorst, particularly active in the 'seventies; and it was due to Mr Schnadhorst that in 1877 a conference was held at Birmingham which resulted in the formation of the "National Federation of Liberal Associations," or "National Liberal Federation," representing a system of organization which was dubbed by Lord Beaconsfield "the Caucus." The Birmingham Caucus and the Central Liberal Association thus coexisted, the first as an independent democratic institution, the second as the official body representing the whips of the party, the first more advanced and "Radical," the second inclined to Whiggishness. Friction naturally resulted, but the 1880 elections confirmed the success of the Caucus and consolidated its power. And in spite of the Home Rule crisis in 1886, resulting in the splitting off of the Liberal Unionists--"dissentient Liberals," as Mr Gladstone called them--from the Liberal party, the organization of the National Liberal Federation remained, in the dark days of the party, its main support. Its headquarters were, however, removed to London, and under Mr Schnadhorst it was practically amalgamated with the old Central Association.

It is impossible here to write in detail the later history of the Liberal party, but the salient facts will be found in such articles as those on Mr Gladstone, Mr J. Chamberlain, Lord Rosebery, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr H. H. Asquith and Mr David Lloyd George.

See, apart from general histories of the period, M. Ostrogorski's
_Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties_ (Eng. trans.
1902).

LIBER DIURNUS ROMANORUM PONTIFICUM, or "Journal of the Roman Pontiffs," the name given to a collection of formulae used in the papal chancellery in preparing official documents, such as the installation of a pope, the bestowal of the pallium and the grant of papal privileges. It was compiled between 685 and 751, and was constantly employed until the 11th century, when, owing to the changed circumstances of the Church, it fell into disuse, and was soon forgotten and lost. During the 17th century a manuscript of the _Liber_ was discovered in Rome by the humanist, Lucas Holstenius, who prepared an edition for publication; for politic reasons, however, the papal authorities would not allow this to appear, as the book asserted the superiority of a general council over the pope. It was, however, published in France by the Jesuit, Jean Garnier, in 1680, and other editions quickly followed.

The best modern editions are one by Eugène de Rozière (Paris, 1869)
and another by T. E. von Sichel (Vienna, 1889), both of which contain
critical introductions. The two existing manuscripts of the _Liber_
are in the Vatican library, Rome, and in the library of St Ambrose at
Milan.

LIBERIA, a negro republic in West Africa, extending along the coast of northern Guinea about 300 m., between the British colony of Sierra Leone on the N.W. and the French colony of the Ivory Coast on the S.E. The westernmost point of Liberia (at the mouth of the river Mano) lies in about 6° 55´ N. and 11° 32´ W. The southernmost point of Liberia, and at the same time almost its most eastern extension, is at the mouth of the Cavalla, beyond Cape Palmas, only 4° 22´ N. of the equator, and in about 7° 33´ W. The width of Liberia inland varies very considerably; it is greatest, about 200 m., from N.E. to S.W. The Liberia-Sierra Leone boundary was determined by a frontier commission in 1903. Commencing at the mouth of the river Mano, it follows the Mano up stream till that river cuts 10° 40´ W. It then followed this line of longitude to its intersection with N. latitude 9° 6´, but by the Franco-Liberian understanding of 1907 the frontier on this side was withdrawn to 8° 25´ N., where the river Makona crosses 10° 40' W. The Liberian frontier with the adjacent French possessions was defined by the Franco-Liberian treaty of 1892, but as the definition therein given was found to be very difficult of reconciliation with geographical features (for in 1892 the whole of the Liberian interior was unmapped) further negotiations were set on foot. In 1905 Liberia proposed to France that the boundary line should follow the river Moa from the British frontier of Sierra Leone up stream to near the source of the Moa (or Makona), and that from this point the boundary should run eastwards along the line of water-parting between the system of the Niger on the north and that of the coast rivers (Moa, Lofa, St Paul's) on the south, until the 8th degree of N. latitude was reached, thence following this 8th degree eastwards to where it cuts the head stream of the Cavalla river. From this point the boundary between France and Liberia would be the course of the Cavalla river from near its source to the sea. Within the limits above described Liberia would possess a total area of about 43,000 to 45,000 sq. m. But after deliberation and as the result of certain "frontier incidents" France modified her counter-proposals in 1907, and the actual definition of the northern and eastern frontiers of Liberia is as follows:--

Starting from the point on the frontier of the British colony of
Sierra Leone where the river Moa or Makona crosses that frontier, the
Franco-Liberian frontier shall follow the left bank of the river
Makona up stream to a point 5 kilometres to the south of the town of
Bofosso. From this point the frontier shall leave the line of the
Makona and be carried in a south-easterly direction to the source of
the most north-westerly affluent of the Nuon river or Western Cavalla.
This line shall be so drawn as to leave on the French side of the
boundary the following towns: Kutumai, Kisi Kurumai, Sundibú, Zuapa,
Nzibila, Koiama, Bangwedu and Lola. From the north-westernmost source
of the Nuon the boundary shall follow the right bank of the said Nuon
river down stream to its presumed confluence with the Cavalla, and
thenceforward the right bank of the river Cavalla down to the sea. If
the ultimate destination of the Nuon is not the Cavalla river, then
the boundary shall follow the right bank of the Nuon down stream as
far as the town of Tuleplan. A line shall then be drawn from the
southern outskirts of the town of Tuleplan due E. to the Cavalla
river, and thence shall follow the right bank of the Cavalla river to
the sea.

(The delimitation commission proved that the Nuon does not flow into
the Cavalla, but about 6° 30´ N. it flows very near the
north-westernmost bend of that river. Tuleplan is in about lat. 6° 50´
N. The river Makona takes a much more northerly course than had been
estimated. The river Nuon also is situated 20 or 30 m. farther to the
east than had been supposed. Consequently the territory of Liberia as
thus demarcated is rather larger than it would appear on the
uncorrected English maps of 1907--about 41,000 sq. m.)

It is at the southern extremity of Liberia, Cape Palmas, that the West African coast from Morocco to the southernmost extremity of Guinea turns somewhat abruptly eastwards and northwards and faces the Gulf of Guinea. As the whole coastline of Liberia thus fronts the sea route from Europe to South Africa it is always likely to possess a certain degree of strategical importance. The coast, however, is unprovided with a single good harbour. The anchorage at Monrovia is safe, and with some expenditure of money a smooth harbour could be made in front of Grand Basa.

_Coast Features._--The coast is a good deal indented, almost all the
headlands projecting from north-east to south-west. A good deal of
the seaboard is dangerous by reason of the sharp rocks which lie near
the surface. As most of the rivers have rapids or falls actually at
the sea coast or close to it, they are, with the exception of the
Cavalla, useless for penetrating far inland, and the whole of this
part of Africa from Cape Palmas north-west to the Senegal suggests a
sunken land. In all probability the western projection of Africa was
connected by a land bridge with the opposite land of Brazil as late as
the Eocene period of the Tertiary epoch. The Liberian coast has few
lagoons compared with the adjoining littoral of Sierra Leone or that
of the Ivory Coast. The coast, in fact, rises in some places rather
abruptly from the sea. Cape Mount (on the northern side of which is a
large lagoon--Fisherman Lake) at its highest point is 1050 ft. above
sea level. Cape Mesurado is about 350 ft., Cape Palmas about 200 ft.
above the sea. There is a salt lake or lagoon between the Cape Palmas
river and the vicinity of the Cavalla. Although very little of the
coast belt is actually swampy, a kind of natural canalization connects
many of the rivers at their mouths with each other, though some of
these connecting creeks are as yet unmarked on maps.

_Mountains._--Although there are patches of marsh--generally the
swampy bottoms of valleys--the whole surface of Liberia inclines to be
hilly or even mountainous at a short distance inland from the coast.
In the north-east, French explorers have computed the altitudes of
some mountains at figures which would make them the highest land
surfaces of the western projection of Africa--from 6000 to 9000 ft.
But these altitudes are largely matters of conjecture. The same
mountains have been sighted by English explorers coming up from the
south and are pronounced to be "very high." It is possible that they
may reach to 6000 ft. in some places. Between the western bend of the
Cavalla river and the coast there is a somewhat broken mountain range
with altitudes of from 2000 to 5000 ft. (approximate). The Po range to
the west of the St Paul's river may reach in places to 3000 ft.