A Kind of Peace.

On Tuesday, April 4th - Easter Tuesday - Prince Rupert marched from Birming-ham to Walsall; on Wednesday, the 5th, he reached Cannock. He halted there until Saturday the 8th, when he marched on to Lichfield.

Rupert at once summoned the city to surrender. Colonel Russell, the governor, sent back the following answer: "I have heard there is a man who goes by the name of Rupert, who has burnt near four score houses at Birm-ingham, an act not becoming a gentleman, a Christian, or Englishman, much less a Prince, and that that man has not in all the King's dominion so much as a thatched house; and if this be the same man, I do not intend to deliver the King's places of strength unto him, let him pretend what authority he pleases for the having thereof."

Accordingly, Rupert began the siege, and after a week's work, on Sunday, April 16th, the breaches were considered practicable. Rupert assaulted the place and took it, by means of a mine that blew up part of the wall of the Close. Once this had taken place the Parliamentarians surrendered on terms; they were allowed to march out with bag and baggage, and sent under a convoy to Coventry.

Having completed his task Rupert now took steps to return to Oxford. He did not stay at Lichfield, and set out for home the day after the surrender. He was back in Oxford by Monday the 24th.

The King intended that he should march to relieve Reading, but before he could set out, the Royalist governor had surrendered to Parliament, so giving Parliament effective control of the Thames Valley. Given that Essex and Waller could join forces, Oxford itself could be assaulted. Rupert's new task was to prevent this, and it entailed him marching to the West of England.

The protagonists of the Battle of Birmingham were Prince Rupert and Captain Graves. The problem which faces the historian trying to understand the motives and behaviour of these men, is rendered doubly difficult, because the accounts which survive are so thick with party feeling that it is difficult to get to the heart of the matter. On the one side, there is exaggeration to render the character of Prince Rupert more odious than is necessarily the case. On the other, matters are stated neither fairly nor fully. If it was indeed Prince Rupert's desire to save the town from pillage, he went about it in a very odd way.

It seems obvious now, that Rupert came attempting to be peaceful - the question is how honest were his motives? No doubt he did want to take the town peacefully, but one is inclined to wonder what his behaviour would have been had he spent a night there without having to fight for possession.

In 1933, Burman's 'Gleanings from Warwickshire History' argued that Rupert's "brutal harshness" was the result of two factors. First, the resistance of the town to a force many times the size of its own. And second, the death of the Earl of Denbigh. The first disturbed the equanimity of Rupert's cavalry on the way to their "main task" at Lichfield: the second disturbed the balance of power in the West Midland counties very drastically. (Basil, the second Earl, possibly did as much as anyone to aid the Parliamentarian course in the counties of Worcester, Warwick, Stafford and Salop, of which he was appointed General).

Probably, however, Wi1kinson "Prince Rupert" pub. in 1934 gets c1osest to the truth - a truth which the Walsall gentleman endeavoured to whitewash in a letter to Oxford - when he said that although there have been many charges of ruthlessness and cruelty made against Prince Rupert, there are few specific instances. "But the point is that when he found it necessary to burn a few houses he would do it with a cold, professional thoroughness, without giving a thought to the feelings of the unfortunate English peasants who had lost their homes. It would never occur to him to apologise for any act which was a military necessity."

And so, perhaps it is more important to argue whether or not the sacking of Birmingham was a military necessity. Birmingham certainly produced arms for the Roundheads and refused to sell to the Royalists. It was staunchly Puritan and bitterly anti-Royalist, to the extent that it helped Coventry in 1642 and sacked the King's baggage train when he passed through on his way from Shrewsbury to Edgehill. It had constantly interfered with the Royalist communications route from Oxford to the north. And finally, when Rupert had attempted to march through, it had fought back. In the eyes of Rupert, these were no doubt adequate reasons for sacking the city.

Graves is a more enigmatic character. F.A.Bates*, says (in 'Graves Memoirs of the Civil War' pub.1927) that he was: "a soldier who exercised a far greater influence on events than has hitherto been recognised by the authoritative historians dealing with the period". He continues: "There has been a certain mystery about him due to confusion of his identity, while some of the phases of the war in which he figures promin-ently are those most obscured by the veil of time." Whatever the reasons are for the sketchy nature of the material on Graves, and Bates' book is by no means as enlightening as at first glance it appears, for he likewise suffers from a severe lack of material, the man is a fascinating enigma. It will be shown below how one of the consequences of his defence of Birmingham, was to encourage the growth of fortified houses, as a means of defending the area. Bates remarks that frequently the accounts of what Graves did are apt to be confused because of his name, (spelt variously Graves, Greaves, Greves, Grevis), and the fact that there were other Parliamentarian officers with very similar names. But Bates has pieced together, from all available sources, what will probably remain the limit of our knowledge of the career of this enigmatic figure.

"Can a more dramatic career be imagined than to win fame by holding up Prince Rupert's Horse at Birmingham, to command first Lod Essex's Own Regiment of Horse, and then a regiment in Sir Thomas Fairfax's New Army; to be the ser-vant of the King as Commander of his Guard at Holmby House, and become involved in a plot for his restoration in 1647; to be driven by the Cromwell faction, a fugitive, to Holland; to become Groom of the Chamber to Charles II and accompany him to Scotland; finally to fall into Cromwell's hands a pris-oner at the battle of Worcester? Such, in brief, was the part played by Colonel Graves, who fought in the first Civil War as a Parliamentarian, but then became a staunch Royalist and anti-Cromwellian through the influence of Charles I, during their association at Holmby"

After his release on bail in 1651, Graves retired to his country home at Moseley in Worcestershire, where he married, became a J.P., and died in 1671, having spent the post-war years in as much obscurity as the rest of his life.

For several months after the departure of Prince Rupert, the town licked its wounds. Houses needed rebuilding, as did a sword-mill. Later in the year, and in 1644, Prince Rupert passed very close to the town, giving its inhabitants great cause for alarm. Two or three consequences of this affair were to have considerable bearing on the course of the war (or lack of it) in this area.

A principal factor in holding off Prince Rupert's cavalry was Graves' use of fortified houses. Had there been more such houses spread around the town in a strategic fashion, it is reasonable to assume that the Royalists would have been forced to by-pass the town. Moreover, if the very valuable trade of the town and district (particularly on the Worcestershire side), it's manufacture of sword blades and pike heads, was to continue, some means of protecting the mills had to be found.

It was therefore decided, probably by Graves and the second Earl Denbigh, to fortify several houses in the area. D.R.Guttery {in "The Great Civil War in Midland Parishes" pub 1951} remarked that "the holding of substantially built...country houses as forts by either side was a unique feature of the war". He continues: "Here, within a twelve-mile square, Rushall Hall, Dudley Castle, Edgbaston Hall, Hawkesley House, Hartlebury Castle, Stourton Castle and Patshull House, were all garrisoned, while, within a few miles of the sides of that square, there were garrisons also at Lichfield Close, Lapley House, Apley Park, Shifnal, Chillington, Brewood, Swynnerton, Tong and two at Wolverhampton. There were fights at Dudley, Stourbridge, Birmingham, King's Norton, Kidderminster, Bewdley and Tipton."

Undoubtedly, these fortified houses played a valuable part - one has only to read an account of the fighting which took place in and around them in l644-6, to realise their value. {see "A Civil War Parliament Soldier : Tinker Fox" by J.W.Willis-Bund pub.1922} Edgbaston Hall, for example (owned by the Catholic family of Middlemore) was seized and garrisoned by Parliamentary Troops, under the command of "Tinker Fox". In fact the garrison seems to have been little more than a band of highwaymen, held firmly together by the personality of Fox. At any rate, in 1644, he wrote to Lord Denbigh:"I cannot leave my men to wait on your lordship, for fear of mutiny and general departure."

In 1643 the garrisoning of Edgbaston Hall seems to have been a success, and constant raids were made from it, either on Royalist houses within 10 or 12 miles, which were taken and plundered, or on Royalist troops on the march, who were stopped and plundered.

It is at this point that the siege of Aston Hall should be considered. In December 1643, Sir Thomas Holte, Lord of the Hall sent to Colonel Leveson, Governor of Dudley Castle, for a guard of soldiers, and on the 18th of that month, 40 musketeers were permitted to take up quarters in the Hall {they were placed in servant's quarters at the very top of the house and the 'Armoury' as it was called, may still be inspected}. They were a week early. On the 26th, a mass of 1200 Parliamentarians attacked the hall. The marks of their bombardment are still clearly visible both within and without the house. Of the 1200, only a tiny number could have been regular troops. An army of 1200 would have made short work of the small gar-rison that consisted of forty musketeers and the household. At the same time, there must have been some regular troops, because the laying of the artillery shows a degree of professionalism, which townspeople would not have possessed. (Gunmaking as a trade in Birmingham did not exist until 1686, so that one cannot even claim this basis of knowledge for the townspeople.)

The attack continued on the 27th, and the 28th, on which day, the garrison, having lost twelve men, surrendered - but not before they had inflicted a loss of sixty on the enemy. Immediately it had been surrendered, the Hall was sacked.

There is little evidence - but the reasons might be as follows: Shortly before Aston Hall was reinforced by musketeers from Dudley Castle, Edgbaston Hall was occupied for Parliament by 'Tinker' Fox and a party of men from Walsall (all were dismissed contemptuously as "tinkers" by a Royalist news-sheet). The towns-people had already shown themselves pre-pared to resist Royalists - and the reprisals of Rupert may well have alienated more of the people to Parliament. The town had been sacked by Royalists - and yet there was Aston Hall, not fifteen years old, a Royalist mansion that had once sheltered the King. Moreover, it was thinly defended - Sir Thomas Holte's eldest son was fighting with the King, and it would be surprising if he had left without one or two able-bodied men. At Edgbaston Hall Fox com-manded a detachment of men little better than cut-throats and highwaymen - but they had the backing of Parliament. One of Fox's orders was to assault and pillage Royalist houses in the area, to prevent them resisting the rule of Parliament. And militarily, to leave Aston Hall, high on its hill, as a possible fortress for the Royalists should they need it, was bad tactics.

One can now understand the position. A small detachment of troops, a large volunteer army of townspeople keen for revenge, a sound military reason for attacking a house rich with plunder and poorly defended - all adds up to give Fox an easy victory.

Whether or not this was the thinking behind the siege, it is clear that the assault was not part of a campaign. It was made by an irregular body, although with some regular backing, and the main motive was to gain booty under the pretext of serving the Parliamentary cause. Nevertheless accounts suggest that the assault was finally made because it was believed the King was in resi-dence there. There is no foundation in fact for this, but it would have been a useful method of stirring up the townspeople, and it would provide a good reason, in their eyes, for the sudden reinforcements from Dudley Castle.

Whether or not this was the case, Fox certainly had the histrionic ability to carry off such a rabble-rousing role: "As a specimen of the religious mili-tary fanatic he is hard to beat; he was one of those men who really won the War for Parliament, who.. sincerely believed, that they were specially sent by the Lord to avenge his saints, and root out what they called tyranny and idolatry."

By the end of February 1644, Fox had recruited a garrison of about 200 that was said to "rob and pillage very sufficiently" {'Mercurius Aulicus 18th-24th Feb.1643}, and he was commissioned Colonel by the Earl of Denbigh, to command six troops of horse, and two comp-anies of dragoons. In June 1644, he was given full possession of Edgbaston Hall and manor, and of other revenues of the Middlemore family, in order to support the garrison. The owner, Richard Middlemore (c.1589-1647), was a Roman Catholic serving with the King's Forces. In October 1644, Fox resisted an attempt to retake the Hall, and in the course of the year, planted garrisons at Stourton Castle (Staffs.), and Hawkesley House (King's Norton), another property of the Middlemores. He also captured Bewdley, together with its Royalist governor.

Fox and his soldiers were still at Edgbaston Hall in November 1646, but had left by the following February, under pressure from the Warwickshire County Committee, which accused Fox of misappropriating funds placed at his disposal. {"B.M.I. Some Civil War Letter Relating to Birmingham"}{Quite what happened to Fox after this is unknown, but Willis Bund concludes his essay on a suitably dramatic note by adducing evidence which suggests that Fox was one of "Those two persons….who being disguised by frocks and vizards did appear upon the scaffold erected before Whitehall" on Jan 30th 1648 - at the execution of Charles I.}

Although the best known, the sack of Birmingham in 1643 was not the only occasion on which Birmingham was pillaged by Royalist troops. Prince Rupert was there again in April 1644 "to the utter undoing of and impover-ishing of the inhabitants" and a year later Prince Maurice occupied the town shortly before his defeat at Sherborne, 22nd April l645 {Weekly Accounts 16-23 April 1645 : 17 April}. Royalist soldiers were again quartered in the town in May 1645, and a Parliamentarian chronicler commented on their expertise in seeking out every scrap of plunder in the town. Undoubtedly this Royalist fury was a consequence of the continued survival of Birmingham as a symbol of resistance.

Little is known of the history of Birmingham during the Interregnum, but the Restoration was accomplished without serious local incident.

One piece of evidence survives which suggests the way in which Royalists in the area were treated. In the early 1870's four papers relating to the Civil War in Birmingham were found among those of Whitehall Dod, Esq. of Llanerch, St. Asaph. They include one official document and three letters, and were discussed by J.A. Langford in 1873.

They all relate to the Dod or Dodd family, then of Claverly in Shrop-shire, and of Lea Hall, Yardley, Worcestershire. {Lea Hall is now the name of a housing estate in Yardley parish of Birmingham.} The family were earnest and active Royalists, and their zeal in the King's cause brought them into conflict with the local Parliamentarian authorities. Our evidence for this is the following "order": "July 21st,1643. At the Comittee for Safty of the County of Warr. and the Citty and County of Coventry. It is ordered by the comittee that upon payment of Thirtie Pounds by Mr. Charles Dod to the comittee and enturinge into bond yt hereafter the sayd Mr. Dodd and his sone shall carrie themselves well to the Parlyament and shall not hereafter beare armes against the Parlymt, the sayd Mr. Dodd and his sone shall be discharged and enlarged out of the Provost Marshall's custodie. Signed ABRAHAM BOURNE, Clerke to the Comittee."

It is quite apparent from the terms of this document that although the crimes of the Dodds have not been great, they have been sufficient to draw them to the attention of other interested people. At any rate, they appear to have kept their bond, but at the same time preserved their loyalty to the Stuarts. The Dodds enter the story again in 1660.

On the basis of the fragments of information available, it is reason-able to assume that during the Interregnum life in the town was quiet. There was a strong record of nonconformity and industry, as well as few enough Royalists in the area to give open cause for trouble.