all kinds to the port. FitzStephen wrote that London was able to supply twenty thousand horse and sixty thousand foot when King Stephen called for a muster of the citizens. He described with pride the schools of London and the amusements of the Londoners. The wealthy indulged in hawking and hunting, pastimes of kings and lords. He wrote that the dwellers in London were called barons, not citizens. So great prosperity had followed from the protection of inland trade.

Both the Chronicler and FitzStephen appear to have been guilty of some exaggeration. It is certain that in many parts of England there was prosperity during Stephen's reign. It is known that during these nineteen years more abbeys were built than during the preceding century, and that these buildings were distinguished by the grace and exquisite beauty of their architecture. This was the period when the Cistercians came to England and covered Yorkshire with sheep farms. These monks were the greatest of sheep farmers, and the wool they produced became the most important part of England's chief export. In this reign also an Anglo-Flemish fleet sailed from Dartmouth to co-operate with the forces which marched overland on the Second Crusade in 1147. This fleet failed to reach the Mediterranean, but its sailors did some service by driving the Moors from Lisbon and helping to found the kingdom of Portugal. But, when the narratives are discounted, the strength of London and the weakness of the country districts are yet most marked features of Stephen's reign, and although London suffered from a great fire in 1136, it enjoyed

such prosperity that not long after Stephen's death it was described by a contemporary writer as one of the most flourishing towns in Christendom. The pride of London's citizens contrasts strangely with the meekness of the conquered peasantry of England. She claimed and maintained the right of making and unmaking kings. In London the fusion of Norman, Dane, and Saxon into Englishmen was being rapidly accomplished. She was an oasis of freedom in a conquered land, and the secret of her power, that which made her even stronger than the Church, was her wise protective policy which kept the home trade for her citizens.

VI

BECKET'S FIGHT FOR ENGLISH FREEDOM

1154-1189

HENRY II. devoted the first years of his reign to re-establishing the royal power in England. The royal lands, which Stephen had given to his Flemish supporters, were resumed by the Crown, and the foreign soldiers were expelled. The unlawful castles were demolished. Once more the King of Scotland and Prince of Wales became close allies, if not the actual vassals of England's King, and served in his army when he tried to annex Toulouse. From his father Henry inherited Anjou, and his marriage with Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine, made him ruler of lands which stretched to the Pyrenees, and were separated from the Mediterranean by the country of Toulouse, which he attacked in 1159.

Had he become master of Toulouse, Henry would have owned a through way to the East by Bordeaux and the Garonne. Louis VII. of France, however, came to the aid of the threatened county, and Henry abandoned his scheme.

This cautious policy was probably a wise one. Count Thierry of Flanders was Henry's friend. He

had recently entrusted the guardianship of Flanders and of his young son to Henry when he paid a visit to the Flemish settlements in the East. In 1157 Flanders fought with Holland over a trade dispute; and the Flemish would have felt the opening of a new trade route to the Mediterranean. An open breach with Flanders and France was avoided for some years, which gave Henry time to consolidate and increase his possessions in Western France and in the British Isles. Brittany was drawn into his sphere of influence, and a papal bull was obtained which authorised the conquest of Ireland. In the full tide of his success the King determined to limit the freedom of the Church of England, and in 1162 he made Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, believing that he could rely upon one who had faithfully served him as Chancellor. But the new Archbishop was the son of Gilbert Becket, formerly portreeve of London, and in a Londoner born and bred the greatest monarch of Western Europe found the man who made him miss his destiny.

Henry summoned a Great Council, and the bishops and barons accepted a code of laws called the Constitutions of Clarendon, which, amongst other provisions, would have enabled the King to shield the greater barons and royal servants from excommunication, would have empowered the civil courts to punish the clergy, and would have prevented the son of a serf from becoming a priest without his lord's consent. Becket was the first of the new English to rise to the dignity of Archbishop of Canterbury. His colleagues came from the class whose ancestors had subdued England. They were ready to obey the King's will,

and the Englishman was deserted and alone. For a moment Becket faltered. Then, supported only by the love of the poor of England, he began the fight which ended with his murder in 1170. Becket fled from England in 1164, but he maintained his cause in poverty and exile. There was at the time a schism in the papacy, and Pope Alexander, who was acknowledged by the West, was also a fugitive in France. Becket's quarrel embarrassed Alexander, and the Archbishop obtained very lukewarm support from his Pope. But Becket resolutely trod the path of duty to the English serfs who had been entrusted to his care. The path had a glorious ending when the four Norman knights murdered the unarmed English Archbishop in the Cathedral of Canterbury. Becket's ancestors were possibly as foreign as those of his murderers, but London had taught him to die for English rights and liberty. The modern reader is tempted to misunderstand the great issue for which Becket lived and died. The principles for which he fought-the freedom of the clergy from the law of the State and the right of appeal to Rome-continued to exist long after they ceased to be of service to the English. In time both principles became anachronisms and abuses. There is, therefore, a temptation to regard Henry as the originator of reform and Becket as its opponent. But this view finds little support in the verdict pronounced by the English in the twelfth century. They regarded Becket as the champion of the rights of the poor against the tyranny of the rich. In London, the centre of English freedom, St. Thomas the Martyr was greatly honoured. For many years after his death it was the custom of