Definition
De copia libelli deliberanda (Latin: "for delivering a copy of the libel") is an ancient common law writ directed to the judge of an ecclesiastical or spiritual court, commanding that judge to furnish the defendant in a pending proceeding with a copy of the libel — that is, the formal written complaint or charge — filed against him in that court. The writ functioned as a procedural safeguard, ensuring that a defendant had notice of the specific allegations he was required to answer.
In practice, the writ was addressed to the judge of the relevant spiritual court, most notably the Dean of the Arches and his commissary, the principal ecclesiastical court of the Province of Canterbury. Its purpose was to compel disclosure of the initiating pleading, not to adjudicate the underlying dispute.
Common Confusion
The term "libel" here does not mean defamation. In ecclesiastical and civil law procedure, a libel (libellus) was simply the formal written statement of a plaintiff's claim — the equivalent of a complaint or declaration in common law pleading. Researchers encountering this writ in historical sources should not conflate it with the tort of libel or with any action sounding in defamation. The writ de copia libelli deliberanda had nothing to do with false or injurious publications; it was a procedural instrument concerned entirely with access to pleadings.
Why It Matters in Research
This is a highly specialized writ of purely historical significance, encountered almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English ecclesiastical court records and early common law registers. Several navigational points matter for corpus researchers:
First, the writ presupposes a dual-court structure — the coexistence of common law courts and ecclesiastical courts exercising jurisdiction over matters such as marriage, probate, tithes, and clerical discipline. Researchers must understand that structure to interpret any document referencing this writ.
Second, the term "libel" will appear throughout ecclesiastical court records in its procedural sense, entirely divorced from its defamation meaning. Failing to recognize this distinction will systematically misread the documentary record. Cross-referencing the term "libel" in its civil and ecclesiastical law usage is essential before drawing any conclusions from source documents.
Third, the writ is traceable to Registrum Omnium Brevium (the Register of Writs), one of the foundational compilations of English common law writs. References to "Reg. Orig." in historical sources point to this register. Researchers should note that the Register survives in multiple printed editions, and citations to it in older dictionaries and treatises may not specify edition or page consistently.
Fourth, this writ effectively ceased to have practical relevance following the Ecclesiastical Courts Act 1813 and the more comprehensive reforms culminating in the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which restructured and ultimately absorbed much of English ecclesiastical civil jurisdiction. Any research touching on the period after those reforms will not encounter this writ as a living instrument.
Fifth, because the writ operated as a supervisory mechanism — common law courts commanding ecclesiastical judges — it belongs to a family of prerogative and supervisory writs. Researchers tracing the history of procedural due notice, access to pleadings, or the common law's supervisory relationship over inferior and non-common-law courts will find this writ contextually relevant, even if rarely encountered in isolation.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the only definition among the Law Mind shelf sources and is correspondingly brief: "Writ for delivering the copy of a libel. An ancient writ directed to the judge of a spiritual court, commanding him to deliver to a defendant a copy of the libel filed against him in such court. Reg. Orig. 58. The writ in the register is directed to the Dean of the Arches, and his commissary."
Black's entry is accurate as far as it goes but thin on context. It does not situate the writ within the broader relationship between common law and ecclesiastical courts, does not explain the procedural role of the libel as a pleading, and does not flag the critical semantic distinction between "libel" in this procedural sense and "libel" as defamation. For a term this archaic, Black's citation to Reg. Orig. 58 is the most useful navigational element in the entry, pointing researchers directly to the primary source in the Register of Writs.
No other Law Mind shelf sources include this term, which itself reflects the writ's narrow scope and obsolescence. Researchers requiring deeper treatment should consult Blackstone's Commentaries on the treatment of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the prerogative writs, as well as Ayliffe's Parergon Juris Canonici Anglicani (1726) for ecclesiastical procedure.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was specific to English law and the structure of ecclesiastical courts in England and Wales. It has no recognized counterpart in American law, where ecclesiastical courts exercising civil jurisdiction were never established. Scottish ecclesiastical court procedure followed a separate development. Researchers working in American historical legal materials will not encounter this writ.