482 'ADVENTZfS VICECOMITUM 1258-72 October particular year, and contains a review of the position with regard to that sheriff's account. The exact date of the sheriff's atten- dance and the years, if more than one, for which the account was rendered, are given at the beginning of each Compotus, together with the name of the county. Finally the Adventus Vicecomitum shows what sheriffs attended at the lower exchequer to make their payments at Easter and Michaelmas, and how much they paid in at each of the two terms. The Pipe Rolls, on which all the sheriffs' accounts were entered, have been used in many cases to check the Memoranda Roll entries, especially those in the Compoti Comitatuum. From these sources it is possible to compile tables showing (1) what sheriffs attended at the upper exchequer for account, (2) at the lower exchequer to make payments, and (3) the actual amount of such payments. The analysis of the Pipe and Memoranda Rolls along these lines affords an interesting, and at the same time impartial, view of the relations between the sheriffs and the exchequer at a time when we know the exchequer's resources were being strained to breaking point. Because the records which we are about to examine were drawn up for financial purposes alone, they are without intentional political bias. The sheriffs, it is true, were changed in accordance with the views of the dominant party, but the same records were kept at the exchequer, whether the officials were followers of Earl Simon or of the king. 1 Before this analysis can be attempted, it is necessary, however, to ascertain the normal attendance of sheriffs at the exchequer. Did the sheriffs in the reign of Henry III account annually in practice as well as in theory ? Were there any abnormal shires, and, if so, how many sheriffs were obliged to attend regularly ? In order to find an answer to these questions, the Surrey and Sussex entries on the Pipe Rolls have been examined up to and including the thirteenth year of Edward Ill's reign. The sheriff of these two counties usually answered annually, but on eight occasions he answered for two years together, and, if the period at present under consideration (1258-72) is omitted, only once for more than two years at one time. 2 A less elaborate investigation was undertaken in the case of several other counties, while a general study of the Pipe Rolls of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries confirms the view that in practice as in 1 For the changes of sheriffs by the dominant party see Tout in the Political History of England, iii. 103, 119, 128. 2 This statement is based on a list compiled from the entries under the ferm of the county at the beginning of each Surrey entry on the Pipe Rolls. If the sheriff failed to answer in any given year, there is no entry for the county in that year, but the fact is noted in the succeeding roll. Before 1258 he accounts only twice for two years together, in 3 Hen. Ill and in 38 Hen. III. The Pipe Rolls for 15 John and 1 Hen. Ill are missing.
