Definition
Malveis procurors (Law French: "evil procurers" or "wicked procurers") is an archaic legal term denoting persons who engaged in the corrupt practice of jury packing — that is, manipulating the composition of a jury through improper nomination or other illicit means, whether acting on behalf of a plaintiff, defendant, or through independent corrupt practice. The term appears in early English legal texts in connection with statutory provisions aimed at preserving the integrity of jury selection.
---
Common Confusion
Malveis procurors addresses the corruption of jury selection — the composition of the panel before trial. This is distinct from embracery, which involves corrupt approaches to jurors already impaneled. Researchers working in historical materials on jury corruption should be careful to distinguish between offenses targeting selection (malveis procurors, jury packing) and those targeting deliberation (embracery, bribery of seated jurors). Modern sources may use "jury tampering" loosely to cover both, obscuring a distinction that historical legal texts treat as meaningful.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily encountered in medieval and early modern English legal materials and is functionally obsolete in modern practice. Researchers will most likely encounter it when working with:
— Early treatises and commentaries on jury procedure, particularly texts deriving from or citing the Articuli super Cartas (Articles upon the Charters), a statutory instrument of Edward I's reign addressing abuses of legal process. Rapalje & Lawrence cite this source directly (Art. super Chart. c. x.), and researchers should treat this as the primary textual anchor for the term.
— The works of John Cowell, particularly The Interpreter (1607), which all four source dictionaries cite as authority. Cowell is the proximate source through which all historical dictionary definitions of this term flow. Researchers relying on this term in secondary sources should trace back to Cowell rather than treating the dictionary entries as independent authority.
— Historical materials on jury corruption more broadly. The practice described — jury packing by nomination — sits at the intersection of procedure, corruption, and constitutional history of the jury. The term should be read alongside contemporaneous provisions against maintenance, embracery, and other jury-tampering offenses.
The definition is remarkably stable across all four source dictionaries, with near-identical language in each. This uniformity indicates that Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence are all drawing from Cowell without independent investigation. Treat this as a single-source chain, not corroboration. Researchers should not assume the consistency reflects broad usage — it may simply reflect copying.
Note also the Rapalje & Lawrence entry, which appends a definition of MALVEISA (a warlike engine used to batter walls) immediately following the malveis procurors entry. These are entirely unrelated terms sharing only a common root syllable. The proximity in the dictionary is alphabetical coincidence, not conceptual connection.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four dictionaries reproduce essentially the same text: "Such as used to pack juries, by the nomination of either party in a cause, or other practice." No dictionary expands substantively beyond this formulation, and all trace the definition to Cowell's Interpreter.
The Law French form of the term is consistent with usage patterns in medieval English legal texts where French remained the language of pleading and formal legal discourse. The term reflects a period when jury selection was susceptible to manipulation by powerful parties who could influence which names were put forward for jury service — a concern serious enough to attract statutory attention.
No historical dictionary offers guidance on how the term was applied in practice, what remedies attached to the conduct, or how it related to contemporary offenses like embracery (direct corruption of jurors after impanelment) or maintenance (unlawful support of another's litigation). This is a gap in the historical record as preserved in the dictionary tradition, not merely an editorial omission.
---