lord, or else intolerant despotism. He usually chose the
latter, and sought to secure his power by force of arms. He cared
little for the wants or needs of his people. He did not associate with
them on terms of equality, and only came in contact with them as a
master meets a servant. Consulting his own selfish interest, he made
his rule despotic, and all opposition was suppressed with a high hand.
The only check upon this despotism was the warlike attitude of other
similar despotic lords, who always sought to advance their own
interests by the force of arms. Feudalism in form of government was
the antithesis of imperialism, yet in effect something the same. It
substituted a horde of petty despots for one and it developed a petty
local tyranny in the place of a general despotism.

_Lack of Central Authority in Feudal Society_.--So many feudal lords,
each master of his own domain, contending with one {302} another for
the mastery, each resting his course on the hereditary gift of his
ancestors, or, more probably, on his force of armed men and the
strength of his castle, made it impossible that there should be any
recognized authority in government, or any legal determination of the
rights of the ruler and his subjects. Feudal law was the law of force;
feudal justice the right of might. Among all of these feudal lords
there was not one to force by will all others into submission, and thus
create a central authority. There was no permanent legislative body,
no permanent judicial machinery, no standing army, no uniform and
regular system of taxation. There could be no guaranty to permanent
political power under such circumstances.

There was little progress in social order under the rule of feudalism.
Although we recognize that it was an essential form of government
necessary to control the excesses of individualism; although we realize
that a monarchy was impossible until it was created by an evolutionary
process, that a republic could not exist under the irregularity of
political forces, yet it must be maintained that social progress did
not exist under the feudal regime. There was no unity of social
action, no co-operation of classes in government. The line between the
governed and the governing, though clearly marked at times, was an
irregular, wavering line. Outside of the family life--which was
limited in scope--and of the power of the church--which failed to unify
society--there was no vital social grow