The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of King George the Fi | Page 5

incorporated them among his own
forces.[2]
While the higher classes repaired with their dependants to the support
of the king, the call of the parliament was cheerfully obeyed by the
yeomanry in the country, and by the merchants and tradesmen in the
towns. All these had felt the oppression of monopolies and ship-money;
to the patriots they were indebted for their freedom from such
grievances; and, as to them they looked up with gratitude for past
benefits,
[Footnote 1: In proof of the existence of such a faction, an appeal has
been made to a letter from Lord Spencer to his wife.--Sidney Papers, ii.
667. Whether the cipher 243 is correctly rendered "papists," I know not.
It is not unlikely that Lord Spencer may have been in the habit of
applying the term to the party supposed to possess the royal confidence,
of which party he was the professed adversary. But when it became at
last necessary to point out the heads of this popish faction, it appeared
that, with one exception, they were Protestants--the earls of Bristol,
Cumberland, Newcastle, Carnarvon, and Rivers, secretary Nicholas,
Endymion Porter, Edward Hyde, the duke of Richmond, and the
viscounts Newark and Falkland.--Rushworth, v. 16. May, 163. Colonel
Endymion Porter was a Catholic.--Also Baillie, i. 416, 430; ii. 75.]
[Footnote 2: Rushworth, iv. 772; v. 49, 50, 80. Clarendon, ii. 41. On

September 23, 1642, Charles wrote from Shrewsbury, to the earl of
Newcastle: "This rebellion is growen to that height, that I must not
looke to what opinion men are, who at this tyme are willing and able to
serve me. Therefore I doe not only permit, but command you, to make
use of all my loving subjects' services, without examining ther
contienses (more than there loyalty to me) as you shall fynde most to
conduce to the upholding of my just regall power."--Ellis, iii. 291.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1642 August 10.]
so they trusted to their wisdom for the present defence of their liberties.
Nor was this the only motive; to political must be added religious
enthusiasm. The opponents of episcopacy, under the self-given
denomination of the godly, sought to distinguish themselves by the real
or affected severity of their morals; they looked down with contempt
on all others, as men of dissolute or irreligious habits; and many among
them, in the belief that the reformed religion was in danger, deemed it a
conscientious duty to risk their lives and fortunes in the quarrel.[1]
Thus were brought into collision some of the most powerful motives
which can agitate the human breast,--loyalty, and liberty, and religion;
the conflict elevated the minds of the combatants above their ordinary
level, and in many instances produced a spirit of heroism, and
self-devoted-ness, and endurance, which demands our admiration and
sympathy. Both parties soon distinguished their adversaries by
particular appellations. The royalists were denominated Cavaliers; a
word which, though applied to them at first in allusion to their quality,
soon lost its original acceptation, and was taken to be synonymous with
papist, atheist, and voluptuary; and they on their part gave to their
enemies the name of Roundheads, because they cropped their hair short,
dividing "it into so many little peaks as was something ridiculous to
behold."[2]
Each army in its composition resembled the other. Commissions were
given, not to persons the most fit to
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 76.]
[Footnote 2: Life of Colonel Hutchinson, p. 100. "The godly of those

days, when the colonel embraced their party, would not allow him to be
religious, because his hair was not in their cut, nor his words in their
phrase."--Ibid. The names were first given a little before the king left
Whitehall.--Clarendon, i. 339.]
command, but to those who were most willing and able to raise men;
and the men themselves, who were generally ill paid, and who
considered their services as voluntary, often defeated the best-concerted
plans, by their refusal to march from their homes, or their repugnance
to obey some particular officer, or their disapproval of the projected
expedition. To enforce discipline was dangerous; and both the king and
the parliament found themselves compelled to entreat or connive,
where they ought to have employed authority and punishment. The
command of the royal army was intrusted to the earl of Lindsey, of the
parliamentary forces to the earl of Essex, each of whom owed the
distinction to the experience which he was supposed to have acquired
in foreign service. But such experience afforded little benefit. The
passions of the combatants despised the cool calculations of military
prudence; a new system of warfare was necessarily generated; and men
of talents and ambition quickly acquired that knowledge which was
best adapted to the quality of the troops and to the nature of the contest.
Charles, having left Nottingham, proceeded to Shrewsbury,