his old subjects to show himself among them in his new character;
and his absence might pass as a sign of the trust he put in his new
subjects. But the means which he took to secure their obedience
brought out his one weak point. We cannot believe that he really
wished to goad the people into rebellion; yet the choice of his
lieutenants might seem almost like it. He was led astray by
partiality for his brother and for his dearest friend. To Bishop
Ode of Bayeux, and to William Fitz-Osbern, the son of his early
guardian, he gave earldoms, that of Kent to Odo, that of Hereford
to William. The Conqueror was determined before all things that
his kingdom should be united and obedient; England should not be
split up like Gaul and Germany; he would have no man in England
whose formal homage should carry with it as little of practical
obedience as his own homage to the King of the French. A Norman
earl of all Wessex or all Mercia might strive after such a
position. William therefore forsook the old practice of dividing
the whole kingdom into earldoms. In the peaceful central shires he
would himself rule through his sheriffs and other immediate
officers; he would appoint earls only in dangerous border districts
where they were needed as military commanders. All William's earls
were in fact marquesses, guardians of a march or frontier. Ode had
to keep Kent against attacks from the continent; William Fitz-
Osbern had to keep Herefordshire against the Welsh and the
independent English. This last shire had its own local warfare.
William's authority did not yet reach over all the shires beyond
London and Hereford; but Harold had allowed some of Edward's Norman
favourites to keep power there. Hereford then and part of its
shire formed an isolated part of William's dominions, while the
lands around remained unsubdued. William Fitz-Osbern had to guard
this dangerous land as earl. But during the King's absence both he