the Conquest, but subsisted even through the reigns of William Rufus and
Henry I, to be reformed and reconstituted under Henry II; and in each
reign it gave proof of its strength and faithfulness. The _witenagemot_
itself retained the ancient form, the bishops and abbots formed a chief
part of it, instead of being, as in Normandy, so insignificant an
element that their very participation in deliberation has been doubted.
The king sat crowned three times in the year in the old royal towns of
Westminster, Winchester, and Gloucester, hearing the complaints of his
people, and executing such justice as his knowledge of their law and
language and his own imperious will allowed. In all this there is no
violent innovation, only such gradual essential changes as twenty
eventful years of new actors and new principles must bring, however
insensibly the people themselves--passing away and being replaced by
their children--may be educated to endurance.

It would be wrong to impute to the Conqueror any intention of deceiving
the nation by maintaining its official forms while introducing new
principles and a new race of administrators. What he saw required change
he changed with a high hand. But not the less surely did the change of
administrators involve a change of custom, both in the church and in the
state. The bishops, ealdormen, and sheriffs of English birth were
replaced by Normans; not unreasonably, perhaps, considering the
necessity of preserving the balance of the state. With the change of
officials came a sort of amalgamation or duplication of titles; the
ealdorman or earl became the _comes_ or count; the sheriff became the
_vicecomes_; the office in each case receiving the name of that which
corresponded most closely with it in Normandy itself. With the
amalgamation of titles came an importation of new principles and
possibly new functions; for the Norman count and viscount had not
exactly the same customs as the earls and sheriffs. And this ran up into