sembling those of France that one step
more--and that a very short one--would have made England a kingdom
exhibiting all the most dangerous features of French feudalism.

For, notwithstanding certain advantages,[2] feudalism had this great
evil: that the chief nobles often became in time more powerful than
the King. This danger now menaced England. For convenience Canute
the Dane had divided the realm into four earldoms. The holders of
these vast estates had grown so mighty that they scorned royal
authority. Edward the Confessor did not dare resist them. The
ambition of each earl was to get the supreme mastery. This threatened
to bring on civil war, and to split the kingdom into fragments.
Fortunately for the welfare of the nation, William, Duke of Normandy,
by his invasion and conquest of England, 1066, put an effectual stop
to the selfish schemes of these four rival nobles.

[2] On the Advantages of Feudalism, see S87.

6. William the Conqueror and his Work.

After William's victory at Hastings and march on London (SS74, 107),
the National Council chose him sovereign,--they would not have dared
to refuse,--and he was crowned by the Archbishop of York in
Westminster Abbey. This coronation made him the legal successor of
the line of English kings. In form, therefore, there was no break in
the order of government; for though William had forced himself upon
the throne, he had done so according to law and custom, and not
directly by the sword.

Great changed followed the conquest, but they were not violent. The
King abolished the four great earldoms (S64), and restored national
unity. He gradually dispossessed the chief English landholders of
their lands, and bestowed them, under strict feudal laws, on his
Norman followers. He likewise gave all the highest positions in the
Church to Norman bishops and abbots. The National Council now changed
its character. It became simply a body of Norman barons, who were
bound by feudal custom to meet with the King. But they did not
restrain his authority; for William would brook no interference with
his will from any one, not even from the Pope himself (S118).

But though the Conqueror had a tyrant's power, he rarely used it like
a tyrant. We have seen[1] that the great excellence of the early
English government lay in the fact that the towns, hundreds, and
shires were self-governing in all local matters; the drawback to this
system was its lack of unity and of a s