Anglo-Saxon Institutions. 449-1066 71
Ethelred II., this policy resulted in a marked decentralisa-
tion; each earl regulated the affairs of his locality to suit
himself, concerted action was destroyed, and a situation
created that made possible the conquest of England by
the Danes. Under the strong Cnute, the earls were kept
under control, but the system of local powers, as estab-
lished by Edgar, was not rooted out; and under Edward
the Confessor a few great earls attained a power unknown
before. Since the Danish invasion of Alfred's time, a
racial distinction had existed between northern and
southern England. This division was now intensified by
coinciding roughly with the territories controlled by great
families of earls. The existence of a north and south
England and the final bitter jealousy between the houses
of Leofric and Godwin constituted an important negative
cause of the Norman Conquest. Apparently too great a
strain had been placed upon the Anglo-Saxon central
government; that which served in Northumbria, Mercia,
or even Wessex, did not suffice for all England, especially
in time of war and rapidly changing economic conditions.
The central government was not in a healthy condition in
the eleventh century, and perhaps England was due to
pass through a further stage of feudal decentralisation
when she was rescued by the extraordinary results of the
Norman Conquest. But what needs especial emphasis in
conclusion is that there was yet a healthy if primitive
local government. It was healthy because the mass of
the English population was still neither too high nor too
low to be the ones to work it, and because it was the cus-
tom of the country to expect most of the governing—most
of what served roughly to protect people's lives and
property—to be done not by officials or even the land-
lords, but by the people themselves.