Definition
A ceremonial method of selecting sheriffs in England by which the sovereign, upon receiving the annual list of nominees for the office of sheriff, uses a pin to mark one name per county. The name thus selected — by the physical act of pressing a pin into the parchment — becomes sheriff for the ensuing year. The procedure was said to ensure impartiality by introducing an element of apparent chance into the selection, removing any suspicion of deliberate royal preference. The sovereign reviewed a list of three nominated persons for each county, and the pin's point determined the appointee.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost entirely a historical curiosity rather than a living legal concept, and researchers are unlikely to encounter it outside of English legal history, constitutional history, or the law of public officers. Its significance in the Law Mind corpus is primarily taxonomic: it illustrates the formal, often highly ritualized procedures that governed royal prerogative appointments in pre-modern English administration.
Researchers working on the history of the shrievalty — the office of sheriff — will find this term clustered with related concepts governing nomination, appointment, and removal of sheriffs under the Crown. The procedure was associated with a formal nomination process in which the judiciary and Privy Council played roles, and the sovereign's "pricking" was the final act in a layered selection system, not a freestanding arbitrary choice.
A key research trap: the word "impartiality" in the source definitions should not be read in the modern administrative law sense. The claim of impartiality was conventional justification for a royal ceremonial act, not a legal standard subject to review. The procedure's actual fairness was incidental to its constitutional symbolism — that the Crown, not Parliament or the counties, retained the formal power of appointment.
Historical sources referencing Atkinson on Sheriffs (cited in Black's as "Atk. Sher. 18") are the primary specialist treatment. Researchers citing Black's first or second edition should note that the second edition entry appears truncated in the surviving text, cutting off mid-sentence. The complete procedural account is better preserved in the first edition entry.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's editions agree on the core procedure: annual nomination list, sovereign's use of a pin, appointment of the person so marked. The first edition attributes the practice to Atkinson's treatise on sheriffs and frames it explicitly as a royal act performed by the queen, reflecting the edition's Victorian-era publication context. The second edition generalizes to "the sovereign," a minor but telling editorial adjustment toward gender neutrality in the description of royal office.
Neither edition situates the practice within the broader constitutional framework of the shrievalty — the involvement of the judges of the Queen's Bench in nominating candidates, or the role of the Lord Chancellor and Privy Council in the process. Black's treatment is purely descriptive and anecdotal. Researchers needing institutional context should look beyond Black's to English constitutional historians and specialist treatises on the office of sheriff.
What the historical dictionaries do well: they preserve the term's procedural specificity with enough color to identify it reliably in primary sources. What they miss: any analysis of whether the practice remained operative, when or whether it fell into disuse, and its relationship to statutory reforms of local government in the nineteenth century.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This practice is specific to England and has no American counterpart. In the United States, sheriffs are elected officers in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, a structural departure rooted in republican rejection of Crown appointment procedures. The term has no operational meaning in American law.
---