112

HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

chap, has fully proved that the voluntary liberality of individuals,

-even in times of the greatest excitement, is a poor financial

resource when compared with severe and methodical taxation,which presses on the willing and unwilling alike.

Charles, however, had one advantage, which, if he hadused it well, would have more than compensated for the wantof stores and money, and which, notwithstanding his mis-management, gave him, during some months, a superiority inthe war. His troops at first fought much better than those ofthe Parliament. Both armies, it is true, were almost entirelycomposed of men who had never seen a field of battle. Never-theless, the difference was great. The parliamentary rankswere filled with hirelings whom want and idleness had inducedto enlist. Hampden’s regiment was regarded as one of thebest; and even Hampden’s regiment was described by Crom-well as a mere rabble of tapsters and serving men out ofplace. The royal army, on the other hand, consisted in greatpart of gentlemen, high spirited, ardent, accustomed to con-sider dishonour as more terrible than death, accustomed tofencing, to the use of fire arms, to bold riding, and to manlyand perilous sport, which has been well called the image ofwar. Such gentlemen, mounted on their favourite horses,and commanding little bands, composed of their youngerbrothers, grooms, gamekeepers and huntsmen, were, fromthe very first day on which they took the field, qualified toplay their part with credit in a skirmish. The steadiness, theprompt obedience, the mechanical precision of movement,which are characteristic of the regular soldier, these gallantvolunteers never attained. But they were at first opposed toenemies as undisciplined as themselves, and far less active,athletic, and daring. For a time, therefore, the Cavalierswere successful in almost every encounter.

The Houses had also been unfortunate in the choice of ageneral. The rank and wealth of the Earl of Essex made