allegiance a few months later.  Oswulf must have held out in some marked way.  It was William’s policy to act as king even where he had no means of carrying out his kingly orders.  He therefore in February 1067 granted the Bernician earldom to an Englishman named Copsige, who had acted as Tostig’s lieutenant.  This implies the formal deprivation of Oswulf.  But William sent no force with the new earl, who had to take possession as he could.  That is to say, of two parties in a local quarrel, one hoped to strengthen itself by making use of William’s name.  And William thought that it would strengthen his position to let at least his name be heard in every corner of the kingdom.  The rest of the story stands rather aloof from the main history.  Copsige got possession of the earldom for a moment.  He was then killed by Oswulf and his partisans, and Oswulf himself was killed in the course of the year by a common robber.  At Christmas, 1067, William again granted or sold the earldom to another of the local chiefs, Gospatric.  But he made no attempt to exercise direct authority in those parts till the beginning of the year 1069.

All this illustrates William’s general course.  Crowned king over the land, he would first strengthen himself in that part of the kingdom which he actually held.  Of the passive disobedience of other parts he would take no present notice.  In northern and central England William could exercise no authority; but those lands were not in arms against him, nor did they acknowledge any other king.  Their earls, now his earls, were his favoured courtiers.  He could afford to be satisfied with this nominal kingship, till a fit opportunity came to make it real.  He could afford to lend his name to the local enterprise of Copsige.  It would at least be another count against the men of Bernicia that they had killed the earl whom King William gave them.

Meanwhile William was taking very practical possession in the shires where late events had given him real authority.  His policy was to assert his rights in the strongest form, but to show his mildness and good will by refraining from carrying them out to the uttermost.  By right of conquest William claimed nothing.  He had come to take his crown, and he had unluckily met with some opposition in taking it.  The crown lands of King Edward passed of course to his successor.  As for the lands of other men, in William’s theory all was forfeited to the crown.  The lawful heir had been driven to seek his kingdom in arms; no Englishman had helped him; many Englishmen had fought against him.  All then were directly or indirectly traitors.  The King might lawfully deal with the lands of all as his own.  But in the greater part of the kingdom it was impossible, in no part was it prudent, to carry out this doctrine in its fulness.  A passage in Domesday, compared with a passage in the English Chronicles, shows that, soon after William’s coronation, the English as a body, within the lands