In the skirmish, a company of Parliamentarians from the Lichfield garrison with the support of some of the local townsmen, approximately 300 men, attempted to stop a detachment of 1,400 Royalists under the command of Prince Rupert from passing through the unfortified parliamentary town of Birmingham.

The Parliamentarians put up a surprisingly stout resistance and, according to the Royalists, shot at them from houses as the small Parliamentary force was driven out of town and back towards Lichfield.

At the start of the Civil War the area that would become known as the Black Country in North-West Worcestershire and Birmingham was one of the few places in England that could produce the various military stores of which King Charles I was in dire need.

The numerous small forges which then existed on every brook in the north of the County turned out successive supplies of sword blades and pike heads.

[5] During the first campaign of the war, while marching from Shrewsbury to engage parliamentarian forces at the Battle of Edgehill on 17 October 1642, Charles passed through Birmingham.

[6][7] Historian John Willis-Bund, said that one characteristic of Charles were the small acts of vengeance in which he indulged and so among the orders given to Prince Rupert for the Lichfield expedition was that he should teach Birmingham a lesson for their disloyalty, especially for the insults they had put on the King in October, 1642, before the Battle of Edgehill, when they plundered the Royal Coach.

[8] Clarendon adds that Birmingham was then:[b] A town of as great fame for hearty, wilful affected disloyalty to the King as any place in England.Rupert's mission was, therefore, threefold.

[8] Clarendon says: [Birmingham] was never made a garrison by direction of Parliament, being built in such a form as was hardly capable of being fortified, yet they had so great a desire to distinguish themselves from the King's good subjects, that they cast up little slight works at both ends of the town, and barricadoed the rest, and voluntarily engaged themselves not to admit any intercourse with the King's forces.So Rupert found it when, on 3 April, he marched there from Henley-in-Arden.

But they had not consciences good enough to believe him, and absolutely refused to let him quarter in the town, and from their little works, with mettle equal to their malice, discharged their shot upon him.It was about three in the afternoon that Rupert, to his surprise, found that "the sturdy sons of freedom",[15] as the local historians Hutton and Guest called them, were determined to fight.

This determination was opposed to the opinion of the Parliamentarians—not only of the military, but also of the civilians—the ministers of Birmingham, and the leading men of the town; but the "middle and inferior sort" of people, especially those that bore arms, insisted on resisting, so at last they all resolved to fight.

Captain Richard Greaves rallied his troop of horse, and drawing them up at the further (the Lichfield) end of the town, wheeled them round, and charged the scattered Royalists.

[16] The historian John Willis-Bund states that nothing could show better the feelings of both parties, and it may or may not have been in accordance with the laws of war to have cut down a preacher making disloyal speeches, but to kill in cold blood a man who had in his pocket a journal with doubtful entries was a disgrace even to those wild times.

Prince Rupert's headquarters on the afternoon of the battle, the "Old Ship" public-house according to local tradition, survived into the nineteenth century and has been preserved only by photographs.

[20] John Willis-Bund states that the battle of Camp Hill was remarkable from the fact that an armed mob—they were nothing more—twice repulsed assaults of the best troops in the Royalist army, who attacked them in overwhelming numbers.

That less than 300 men should keep some 1,800 at bay, even for a short time, was an act that deserved to be recorded; that they, an untrained mob, should have checked the dreaded Royalist cavalry, was a still greater achievement.

Captain Greaves, probably a local man, a member of the family that lived at King's Norton, who commanded the Parliament troops, might well be proud of his men's achievement.

[22] Trevor Royal writing in 2004 draws the same conclusions as Bund, and says "By laying waste to the town and setting fire to many of its houses, Rupert's force provided parliament with a propaganda coup ... Charles rebuked Rupert for his men's behaviour — the prince had in fact done his best to curb his men ... but the damage was done: Birmingham had paid the price for supporting parliament and being seen to profit from it".

[25] Clarendon says that Rupert took not that vengeance upon them they deserved, but made them expiate their transgressions by paying a less mulct than might have been expected from their wealth if their wickedness had been less.Clarendon then justifies the death of the clergyman: He was killed at the entering of the town, after he had not only refused quarter, but provoked the soldier by the most odious revilings and reproaches of the person and honour of the King that can be imagined, and renouncing all allegiance to him; in whose pockets were found several papers of memorials of his own scurrilous behaviour, in such loose expressions as modest ears cannot endure.

So full a qualification was a heightened measure of malice and disloyalty for the service that it weighed down the infamy of any other vicious behaviour.Clarendon adds that if it had not been for the death of the Earl of Denbigh he should not "have mentioned an action of so little moment as this of Birmingham".

The Royalist organs rejoiced at the just judgment which had befallen the disloyal town, and the punishment it had pleased the Lord to inflict on the inhabitants for their rebellious views.

3, 1643, he marcht with 2000 horse and foot, 4 Drakes, and 2 Sakers; where after two houres fight (being twice beaten off by the Townsmen, in all but 140 Musqueteers) he entered, put divers to the Sword, and burnt about 80 Houses to ashes, suffering no man to carry away his goods, or quench the fire, and making no difference between friend or foe; yet by God's providence the greatest losse fell on the malignants of the Town.

The pamphlet contains two reports, one signed "R. P.", who, it is usually said, was Robert Porter, the sword-cutler mentioned in the Prelude, whose mill was burnt by the Royalists for his refusal to sell swords to the King.

The small Strength which Birmingham had to maintaine their defence, the Names of their men slaine; the number of houses burned, and persons thereby destitute of habitation ; with divers other considerable passages.

Published at the request of the Committee at Coventry, that the Kingdom may timely take notice what is generally to be expected if the Cavaliers insolencies be not speedily crushed.