When the crisis came, most of the Devonshire members seem to have supported the Parliament, guided, no doubt, to some extent by the wonderful influence of 'King' Pym. Pym sat for Tavistock; 'his colleague was a son of the House of Russell. William Strode sat for Buralston, and his elder brother for Plympton.' Northcote was slightly connected with the Strodes, and when war broke out he followed the Earl of Bedford. In September, 1642, Sir Hugh Pollard wrote to the Earl of Bath: 'The Earl of Bedford is now at Taunton, in want of men and money; he hath sent to his friends Chudleigh, Bampfield, and Northcote, for a supply of both, whose oratory cannot get one trained man to move, nor above eight volunteers.' The letter receives a curious comment from the succeeding ones. At that very time the Earl of Bedford was issuing orders for the arrest of Sir Hugh Pollard, and four days afterwards Sir George Chudleigh and Sir John Northcote wrote to Major Carey, expressing their approval of Captain Dewett's conduct in capturing the Earl of Bath. Sir John was now at the head of a regiment of twelve hundred men, and seems to have held the command during the first two years of the Civil War. He took an active part in the defence of Plymouth, and in 1643 at Modbury a victory was won by the forces under Lieutenant-General Ruthen, Sir J. Bampfield, and Sir John Northcote, over Lord Hopton's troops. Many of the Parliamentarian gentlemen were anxious for peace, and just after this skirmish tried to arrange an 'association' or neutrality between Devon and Cornwall; but the idea was quashed by Commissioners from London. A few months later Clarendon mentions that Sir John was sent by the Earl of Bedford, the Parliamentary General of Horse, to negotiate a treaty with the Marquis of Hertford. Sir John was elected to the Parliament of 1656, and showed himself a constant lover of liberty. He inveighed against the powers granted to Cromwell's House of Peers. 'It was minded you ... that no law was rightly made but by King, Lords, and Commons. I am sure this law was not made so.' He lays stress on the point that the old House of Lords ventured all that they had, and protests against their being superseded by new-comers. 'That they should be excluded and these advanced is not just nor reasonable.' A little later he spoke again on the same subject: 'We thought in the long Parliament we might restrain the inordinate power of the Chief Magistrate. That was the ground of our quarrel in the late war; but ... it seems we cannot bound these Lords' exorbitant powers.... I did fight against an exorbitant power in the King's hands, and _I will fight against it again to the last drop of blood_, if his Highness command me, whenever such power shall be set up, if it be to-morrow, and in whatever hands it be.'