Civil War in Cheshire 1643 – Beeston, Barthomley & Nantwich
The English Civil War in Cheshire over the winter of 1643/44 was not simply a provincial sideshow. It was a key moment in the widening conflict of the British Civil Wars. An army from Ireland entered the war in England, bringing with it a harder, more brutal approach to warfare. It came as a counter to Scottish, Calvinist invasion.
Three key incidents mark the Civil War in Cheshire that winter. The first was the capture of Beeston Castle on the 13th of December 1643 by just nine men. The second was the massacre at Barthomley on the 23rd of December 1643. These were precursors to the Siege and Battle of Nantwich, 10th to 25th of January 1644.
This page aims to provide historical notes to accompany FIRELOCK, a novella by Charles Cordell. The notes follow in order roughly matching the text. They cover the English Civil War in Cheshire in the winter of 1643/44.
This website also includes notes on a range of Civil War battles, as well as background articles on The General Crisis of the 17th Century, the English Revolution and Pike and Shot Warfare.
Solemn League & Covenant – threat of Scottish invasion
John Pym, the architect of the Parliamentary cause, died of cancer on the 8th of December 1643. Perhaps his greatest legacy and achievement was the Solemn League and Covenant agreed between the Kirk of Scotland and English Parliament on the 25th of September 1643.
This pivotal treaty between the two nations consented to the “extirpation of popery [Catholicism] and prelacy [bishops]” across England, Scotland and Ireland. It also invited and funded a Scots Covenanter army to enter the war in England, against the King, in coalition with the armies of Parliament.
That army was to cross the River Tweed into England on the 19th of January 1644. It would lay siege to Newcastle and York. And, with the armies of the Parliamentary Eastern and Northern associations, it would defeat Prince Rupert at the Battle of Marston Moor.
An Army from Ireland – ‘a cure for the Scots’
In parallel with the Solemn League and Covenant, the King negotiated a cessation of the war against the Catholic Irish Confederation, for one year from the 15th of September 1643. This acceded control of most of Ireland to the Irish rebels and freed them to prosecute their war on the Scots Covenanter army that was already fighting in Ulster.
More importantly for the King, the ‘Cessation’ in Ireland, released the bulk of his English Army of Leinster to return to England to fight against Parliament. Regiments of that army began returning via the key ports of Bristol and Chester from November 1643.
This policy became increasingly urgent with the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, and Scottish preparations of an army to invade the royalist north of England. The King needed the Army of Leinster troops to counter a Scottish invasion if he was to retain control of the North of England. Arthur Trevor wrote from Oxford in November 1643.
“The expectation of English Irish aides is the daily prayers, and almost the daily bread of them that love the King and his business, and is put into the dispensary and medicine book of state as a cure for the Scots.”
Army of Leinster – The King’s English army in Ireland
Parliamentary propaganda described the Army of Leinster as a Papist Irish army. Some troops, including Robert Byron’s Regiment, were recruited from amongst Protestant plantation farmers in Ireland. However, the vast majority were from the North West of England and North Wales. They had gone to Ireland to fight against the Irish Confederate rebellion that broke out across Ulster, Leinster and Munster in 1641.
Parliament also tried to intercept any troops crossing from Ireland. A number of armed merchantmen operated out of Liverpool as the Parliamentary navy’s “Irish Guard”. Royalist ships such as the Swan and the Providence ran a loop between Dublin and Chester, avoiding the Parliamentary patrols as best they could.
In 1643, the Parliamentary Lord High Admiral, the Earl of Warwick, ordered the navy to execute any soldiers captured crossing from Ireland to England or Wales.
In one incident, on St George’s Day 1644, seventy soldiers and two women were tied back-to-back and thrown overboard to drown, “under the name of Irish rebels”. Anthony Willoughby’s Regiment did recruit men from Connaught, but they were not Irish rebels. They were troops fighting against the rebellion.
The first contingent of the Army of Leinster landed at Mostyn on the North Wales coast on the 20th of November 1643, after a difficult crossing. This included waiting aboard ship in Dublin Harbour for five days, for a break in the weather and Parliamentary blockade. The ships spent a further two days at anchor off the North Wales coast riding out a gale.
Once landed, the first regiments of the Army of Leinster marched to Chester. They were experienced troops, used to campaigning and hardened by a brutal war. However, many were in rags, with their pay badly in arrears. They arrived:
“In very evil equipage to Chester, and looked as if they had been used hardship, not having either money, hose or shoes. … faint, weary and out of clothing”.
Chester – sleeping on the streets, shoes, clothes, pay & pox
Initially, Chester treated these returning veterans and their families badly. For a week, many sleep rough on the streets, in November. Others were lodged in “extreme poverty and infection of the pox”. The mayor told the town to “trust no soldier beyond one meal”, effectively denying the soldiers any credit.
There were warnings that this treatment would lead to desertion. Some were verging on mutiny. Although they had fought for the King against the Irish rebellion, their loyalty to the royalist cause in England was not a given. Some did desert, returning to their homes in Cheshire and North Wales. Others threatened to accept an offer of pay made by Sir William Brereton to fight for Parliament. Lord Byron expressed his concerns:
“The English there in Leinster being most Welsh and Cheshiremen, are very subject to be corrupted in their own countries.”
In a sudden change of approach, a collection of civilian clothing and shoes was organised. More importantly, the soldiers were paid:
“A month’s entertainment; for every common soldier half-a-crown, a suit of clothes, shoes and stockings … the men have had free quarters and 12d. a week, which is more than they ever had in Ireland.”
However, complaints about the soldiers’ behaviour continued. Some sold their new clothes, others sold cattle taken on their march to Chester. No doubt there were incidents of drinking, gambling, whoring and fighting. These were troops who had recently returned from a brutal conflict. Some would have been suffering from PTSD.
Perhaps most telling, Chester accused the Irish wives and camp followers that accompanied these troops of abusing its women. One townswoman said, “if Purgatory was anywhere it was at Chester”.
Lord Byron – Field-Marshal of Cheshire, Lancashire & North Wales
Lord John Byron arrived from Oxford, on the 21st of November 1643, to assume command of royalist forces in Cheshire, Lancashire and North Wales. This included those troops of the King’s Army of Leinster that had recently returned from Ireland.
With the continuing complaints of Chester and the imperative of imminent Scottish invasion, possibly aimed at Chester, Lord Byron quickly launched a winter campaign. The aim was to clear Cheshire of Parliamentary forces, before the Scots entered the war in England.
As a precursor, Hawarden Castle was summoned. It surrendered on the 5th of December 1643 to a force that included Captain Sandford’s Company of Firelocks. On the 12th of December, Lord Byron marched from Chester with the full royalist forces of Cheshire.
Royalist Forces in Cheshire – foot, firelocks & cavaliers
Lord Byron’s royalist force in Cheshire included four foot regiments of the Army of Leinster. These provided the core of his army.
Sir Michael Ernle’s green-coated regiment had been raised in 1640 and served in the garrison of Dublin in 1641. Approximately 400 men returned to England, landing at Mostyn in November 1643. A significant number of these were to be lost at Nantwich.
Colonel Richard Gibson’s Regiment of Foot was raised by Sir Simon Harcourt in 1640, arriving in Ireland in 1641. Richard Gibson assumed command in 1642 when the regiment was serving with the garrison of Dublin. It retuned some 700 strong.
Colonel Henry Warren’s Regiment of Foot was also raised in 1640 for service in Ireland as the Lord Lieutenant’s Regiment. George Monck, who was later instrumental in the restoration of Charles II, commanded the regiment in Cheshire as its lieutenant-colonel.
Colonel Robert Byron was a younger brother of Lord Byron. Serving in Ireland in March 1643, he recruited a regiment of 1,000 musketeers from across the Army of Leinster. However, this new regiment was based primarily on Sir Henry Tichbourne’s red-coated foot, an Anglo-Irish regiment raised at Drogheda.
A weak regiment under Sir Fulke Huncks also marched with Lord Byron. This appears to be a local Cheshire regiment. Finally, Sir Francis Gamull’s Chester town guard participated in the taking of Beeston Castle. However, it did not fight at Nantwich.
With these foot regiments marched two companies of firelocks, Captain Thomas Sandford’s and Captain Francis Langley’s. These were independent companies.
Lord Byron’s horse included his own black-coated regiment, Sir Thomas Tyldesley’s Lancashire Horse and the Chester Horse of Colonel John Marrow, totalling approximately 1,000 cavaliers. Lord Byron also drew on royalist garrisons across the North West. These included Colonel Ralph Sneyd’s Staffordshire Horse based at Betley.
Captain Thomas Sandford and his Company of Firelocks
Thomas Sandford was a younger son of Robert Sandford of Sandford Manor near Oswestry in Shropshire. His mother was Isabel, daughter of William Egerton of Betley. He served as a quartermaster with the Earl of Northumberland’s Regiment of Foot during the First Bishops’ War before raising his company of firelocks for service in Ireland.
A colourful character, one of his letters, addressed to the garrison of Hawarden Castle, began with the line that he was the harbinger of death. It also suggested that his firelocks would not offer or accept surrender.
“Behold the messenger of death, Sandford and his firelocks, who neither use to give, nor take quarter.”
When originally raised the company had a strength of about sixty men. The majority were probably came from Shropshire, Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire. They arrived in Dublin in 1642 and served under the Earl of Ormonde, the King’s Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
On the 15th of April 1642, they helped lead the assault on the Confederate forces at the Battle of Kilrush. On its return to England in November 1643, the company numbered fifty. This would have included recruits from amongst the Protestant planters of Leinster.
The company operated as an independent company. It did not belong to a larger regiment. Independent companies in general, and firelock companies in particular, often performed what today would be termed special operations tasks. As such, they tended to gain a reputation of elite troops.
The rank and file were all armed with firelocks. (There was no division of pikemen as normally found in a foot company.) The firelock was an early form of flintlock musket. As such, it did not need a burning match to fire it.
Beeston Castle – captured, 13th of December 1643
The principal target of Lord Byron’s campaign was to seize Nantwich. However, he first needed to seize a number of outposts. This was essential to mounting an effective siege of the town. The first of these was Beeston Castle. This was a strategic position, on a steep crag, it commanded the road between Chester, Nantwich and London.
Captain Thomas Steele – ‘a rough-hewn man; no soldier’
In January 1643, Sir William Brereton took command of the Cheshire army of Parliament. The next month, February 1643, he occupied Beeston Castle. Brereton gave orders for repairing the fortress. Breaches in the outer ward wall were to be filled with “mud walls, the well of the outer ward to be cleansed, and a dew room erected”.
Despite its importance, Brereton seems to have struggled to find a suitable governor to command Beeston.
“A captain or two being wearied out of charge of such a prison, it was committed to Captain [Thomas] Steele (a rough-hewn man; no soldier) whose care was more to see it repaired, victualled and live quietly there, than the safe custody of it.”
Captain Thomas Steele of Weston was by trade a cheese factor. (In the 17th Century, there was a significant trade in the hard Cheshire cheese.) Steele commanded a garrison of sixty men. These were probably a company of Sir William Brereton’s own regiment of foot.
Archaeological evidence suggests that the garrison occupied the lower ward, building soldiers’ quarters, stabling for horses and general store houses. The governor’s quarters were established in the outer gateway tower. Rudimentary earthworks and a new wooden gate strengthened the gateway.
Critically however, Captain Steele seems to have left the castle and upper ward unoccupied. It would seem that he thought it impregnable on its crag. A contemporary account described the upper ward as “nothing but stones and a good prospect”.
Sir Charles Compton – ‘but nine men’ to ‘dare the Devil’
Captain Thomas Sandford is often credited with the capture of Beeston Castle. However, the true hero, the initiator and leader of the coup de main was Sir Charles Compton. The History of Parliament acknowledges it as his most notable achievement. This is all the more telling amongst a long list of brave acts as lieutenant-colonel of the Earl of Northampton’s Regiment of Horse.
The Ladye Shakerley: Being the Record of the Life of a Good and Noble Woman, suggests that Sir Charles Compton proposed a plan to Lord Byron to take Beeston Castle with a small force of “but nine men”. He spent the night as a guest at Beeston Hall before going to “dare the devil” with just eight other men, including Captain Thomas Sandford.
The taking of Beeston Castle involved a feint by Sir Francis Gamull’s Regiment of Chester volunteers outside the east wall and gatehouse. This allowed Colonel Sir Charles Compton, Captain Sandford and seven of his firelocks to gain entry to the upper ward of the castle.
The route they took up the crag remains a mystery. However, a climb of the north-eastern slope seems the most plausible. Randall Holme a Chester royalist wrote in his account that:
“Between moonset and dawn Colonel Gamal with the assistance of captain Sandford and his firelocks, in the midst of a dark night surprised the innermost ward of Beeston castle and garrisoned it for the king”.
Ultimately, the Parliamentary governor, Captain Thomas Steele surrendered shortly after dawn. He and his garrison were allowed to march away to join their garrison at Nantwich.
However, at Nantwich, Thomas Steele was gaoled, tried and shot for high treachery. He was accused of entertaining Captain Sandford in his chambers in the lower ward of Beeston Castle and of sending ale up to the firelocks in the upper ward.
Massacre at Barthomley – 23rd of December 1643
On the day before Christmas Eve 1643, Major John Connock and a troop of Colonel Ralph Sneyd’s royalist Staffordshire Horse arrived in the village of Barthomley. What followed remains uncertain. However, one trooper and twelve villagers were killed. Four of the villagers were relatives of Captain Thomas Steele, the governor of Beeston Castle.
The incident was described by Parliamentary sources as a massacre of innocent villagers. It was to have been cited at the trial of Charles I, had he pleaded. Some of the Parliamentary accounts transmuted John Connock’s name to “Major Connaught” and implied that he and his troopers were Irish. However, other accounts tell a different story.
Moorlanders – Parliamentary militiamen
It is likely that the villagers killed at Barthomley were Parliamentary moorlander militiamen. Sir William Brereton had called a muster of the moorlanders to join his army at Sandbach. The account book of Controller Brerehurst of Balterley, in Barthomley parish, gives details.
“Item a Rendezvous at Sandbach the 22th day of December 1643 under command of Sir William Brereton as by his warrant appeareth where I had but 10 troopers & had some foot at Leek [Staffordshire] & was forth 10 days.”
In theory, this militia included all able-bodied men between the ages of sixteen and sixty years. We know that at least four of those killed at Barthomley were in their fifties. They were probably unfit to make the march to Sandbach in harsh winter weather.
At least one of those killed was armed with a firearm. Two were relatively newly married. Two more were under the age of twenty-one and at least one (perhaps three boys) is thought to have survived the killing. Perhaps, they represent a group of older men and boys left behind in Barthomley.
Burghall’s Diary & Malbon’s Account – ‘Providence improved’
Edward Burghall was the Puritan minister of Acton outside Nantwich. His diary was printed in 1778 under the title Providence Improved. Thomas Malbon’s often cited Parliamentary account of the massacre at Barthomley, written in 1651, drew heavily on Burghall.
“The enemy, now drawing nearer to the town [Nantwich] … and on Saturday they came to Barthomley; as they marched they set upon the church, which had in it about twenty neighbours, that had gone in for safety; but the lord Byron’s troop, and Connought, a major to Colonel Sneyd, set upon them, and won the church;
“the men fled into the steeple, but the enemy burning the forms, rushes, mats, &c, made such a smoke, that being almost stifled, they called for quarter, which was granted by Connought; but when they had them in their power, they stripped them all naked, and most cruelly murdered twelve of them, contrary to the laws of arms, nature, and nations.
“Connought cut the throat of Mr. John Fowler, a hopeful young man, and a minor, and only three of them escaped miraculously, the rest being cruelly wounded. Christmas-day, and the day after, they plundered Barthomley, Crewe, Haslington, and Sandbach, of goods and clothes, and stripped naked both men and women.”
Lord Byron’s own account confirms the killing:
“The Rebels had possessed themselves of a Church at Barthomley, but we presently beat them forth of it, and put them all to the sword; which I find to be the best way to proceed with these kind of people, for mercy to them is cruelty.”
However, the term “possessed” suggests a more military occupation, rather than a seeking of refuge. The intimation is that they resisted and that Major Connock had to “beat them” from it. In other words, he was forced to attack, or storm the church.
Daniel Stringer’s Account – an eyewitness survivor’s tale
A diary of 1839 records the account of one of the survivors of the massacre, as told by his great-grandson one Daniel Stringer born in Barthomley in 1743. It gives a slightly different account. It clearly states that the incident started with the shooting of a royalist trooper.
This diary entry and piece of oral history was published in The Reverend Edward Hinchcliffe’s, Barthomley in Letters from a Former Rector to his Eldest Son, London 1856.
“April 19th. Walked to Daniel Stringer’s, who informed me of a historical fact relating to my village. … The son of the Rector fired from the steeple upon the troops marching past, and killed one of them; this so irritated the others, that they revenged his death by butchering many within the church.”
Edward Highcliffe goes on to give some background to Daniel Stringer’s account:
“Our conversation had been of days of “auld lang syne,” of which he was fond of talking; and, in the course of it, I happened to advert to this massacre, expressing my surprise and horror at an atrocity “so unprovoked and wanton, this drew from him the explanation given, which, he stated, he had received from his father, whose grandfather was one of those very men who escaped from the slaughter.
“1743 was the year of this old man’s birth – 1643 the year of the massacre; a period of 100 years, easily filled up by the three generations. As an additional strength to Daniel’s tradition, I may mention, that he had never heard of Burghall’s Diary, nor did he know the name of the Rector whose son fired upon the troops.”
It is perhaps worth noting that this is not a royalist account. Daniel Stringer’s great-grandfather was one of those who resisted Major Connock.
17th Century War & the Law – laws of God, nations & arms
The incident at Barthomley was probably a clash between a troop of royalist horse led by an experienced officer, Major John Connock, and a band of local moorlander militia. This may have resulted from differing interpretations of the law.
The 17th Century was governed by legal concepts of the “laws of God, of man, of nature, of nations and of arms”. All aimed to maintain order against chaos. However, each had differing codes of conduct, norms, precedents and accepted behaviours.
Unfortunately, in a civil war, there could be confusion as to which form of law – civil or military – presided over jurisdiction. The moorlanders at Barthomley may well have thought they were right to defend their church and property with force. Major Connock and his troopers would have acted with what they saw as military justice.
Concepts of surrender and quarter were key to 17th Century law of arms, as were acceptable actions in hot blood. There were two distinct forms of surrender. “Surrender to Quarter” guaranteed life. The subsequent treatment of prisoners depended on agreed articles. “Surrender to Mercy” left life at the victor’s discretion. Some might be killed as an example.
Critically, those who refused an offer of quarter could only surrender to mercy later. This was generally seen during a siege. Defenders that refused to surrender and forced an attacker to storm their defences lost any guarantee of life. It was accepted that some would be killed in hot blood. Others would be executed later. Often, whole towns suffered in this way.
Barthomley & the Law – quarter, Ireland & King Charles’ trial
Perceptions of what happened at Barthomley are clouded by interpretations of which laws held jurisdiction. They also depend upon whether or not the defenders of St Bertoline’s Church surrendered to quarter or mercy. If it is true that the defenders fired first, killing a royalist trooper, they may have forfeited any guarantee of life under the law of arms.
One other factor adds complication to interpretation. Parliament painted Major Connock and his troopers as Irish. To Englishmen in the 1640s, the war in Ireland was different. It was a foreign war. More importantly, it was a colonial war – a war against Papist rebels – a racist, religious war of retribution. As such, more brutal military behaviour was accepted.
The massacre at Barthomley was to be cited at the trial of Charles I. It was to be used as evidence that the King was a “man of blood” in league with Irish Catholic rebels and Scottish Engagers. The King refused to enter a plea – refusing to accept the court’s jurisdiction and right to try him. However, the court proceeded as if he had pleaded guilty. As such, no case for the prosecution was needed and Barthomley was not presented as evidence.
Finally, Major John Connock had served in Ireland. In 1654, he was tried in a civil court and hanged at Broughton in Cheshire for the murder of John Fowler. He accepted a number of other crimes but denied the charge of murder. The presiding judge at the Chester assizes was one John Bradshaw, the President of the High Court of Justice at the trial of Charles I.
The Death Toll at Barthomley – 23 December 1643
The first to be killed at Barthomley on the 23rd of December 1643 was an unnamed royalist trooper of Colonel Ralph Sneyd’s Regiment of Horse. He was probably a young man from Staffordshire, possibly recruited from near Keele Hall.
John Fowler was the son of Reverend Richard Fowler. He was the schoolmaster of the school built on the edge of the graveyard at Barthomley. A “minor”, he was probably under the age of 21 years. His younger brother Henry Fowler was also killed at Barthomley.
Four relatives of Captain Thomas Steele, the governor of Beeston Castle, were amongst those killed at Barthomley. Richard Steele, his cousin was aged about 50 years. His sons, Richard and William were also killed.
Richard Steele, of Walnut Tree Farm, was aged 30. William Steele, of the Hatch, had married Joan Galley in 1637. Their uncle, James Boughey was married to Anne Steele and was aged 52. The Steeles may have all been motivated by the recent surrender of Beeston.
Thomas Elcock was almost certainly born in 1590. He was the 54-year-old son of a former rector of Barthomley. Thomas Hollins was probably baptised in 1587, aged 56 in 1643.
Randall Hassall is believed to have left a young wife expecting a child. We know comparatively little about James Butler and Richard Cawell. They were possibly herdsmen, employed by others in Barthomley.
The accounts of the incident at Barthomley suggest that at least three of the defenders of St Bertoline’s survived. One of those was the great-grandfather of Daniel Stringer who was born at Barthomley in 1743.
Siege of Nantwich – 10th to 25th of January 1644
We know a good deal about the Siege of Nantwich, much of it through the exceptional work of the Cheshire Civil War Centre at Nantwich Museum. The close siege itself started on the 10th of January 1644.
Prior to this, Lord Byron defeated Brereton at the Second Battle of Middlewich on the 26th of December, St Stephen’s Day. Over two hundred lay dead on the town’s streets. Byron had already seized Beeston Castle. He now took Crewe Hall and Doddington Hall, leaving Nantwich isolated.
The siege began with a summons to surrender. It was refused. Bombardment followed. Heated shot fired from the grounds of Dorfold House set fire to buildings in the town, including Townsend House. A washerwoman named Brett led others in fighting the fires under bombardment. Margery, the daughter of John Davenport was killed at Welsh Row.
Over the next week, a series of probing attacks and sallies marked a tightening siege. In one sally, a woman was captured with twenty half-crowns in her pockets. She was probably a prostitute. Outlying barns and cottages were burned to deny shelter to Lord Byron’s troops. Musket fire, including from Henhull Lane, harassed guards on the walls.
Resupply & Rescue – powder, food & Fairfax
Further afield, on the 12th of January, a royalist convoy carrying arms and ammunition to Lord Byron was ambushed at Ellesmere in Shropshire. Sir Nicholas Byron, the Governor of Chester and Sir Richard Willis, Sergeant-Major-General of Horse, were captured.
At the same time, the crew of a ship carrying arms and ammunition from Bristol mutinied. They forced their ship to “tack about” to land at Liverpool instead of Chester.
Meanwhile, Nantwich had not held a market for six weeks. Food was running short in the town.
Critically, Parliament issued orders for Sir Thomas Fairfax to relieve Nantwich. ‘Black Tom’ Fairfax set out from Lincolnshire on the 29th of December. He marched via Leicester in the depths of an extremely harsh winter to join Brereton at Stafford on the 12th of January 1644. The next day, Byron’s cavalry encountered his outpost at Ashton-under-Lynne.
Storming of Nantwich – assault, 18th January 1644
On the 16th of January, with news of the gathering of the combined forces of Sir William Brereton and Sir Thomas Fairfax at Manchester, Lord Byron issued a second and final summons. Again, it was refused. Again, bombardment followed. This time involving some ninety-six cannon balls fired against the town over the next day.
At dawn the next morning, the 18th of January 1644, the royalists assaulted the town defences in five locations: at Wall Lane End, Crewe Road, Hospital Street, Pillory Street End and at Wickstead’s Sconce. The first four were gateways to the town guarded by defensive works, as was Welsh Row End.
The Parliamentary defenders’ account states that what they called “the Red Regiment” assaulted Wall Lane End. This was probably Robert Byron’s Regiment of Anglo-Irish musketeers. They failed to breach the defences. Lieutenant Colonel Bolton, a Captain and “the prime of their soldiers” were left dead.
“The Green Regiment” attacked at Pillory Streel End. This was almost certainly Sir Michael Ernle’s Regiment of Foot. It left behind a captain, two lieutenants, two ensigns and seventeen other ranks killed. Again, they failed to break through.
At Crewe Road, another captain and fifteen soldiers lay dead. And outside Hospital Street, another two lieutenants, and thirteen soldiers lay in the snow. These were men of Colonel Richard Gibson’s and Henry Warren’s regiments of foot thrown back from the walls.
Wickstead’s Sconce – Sandford’s firelocks storm
Wickstead’s Sconce stood just beyond the end of Little Wood Street, behind what was Mr Wickstead’s House. This was a defensive work guarding any approach from Henhull or along the River Weaver. It was almost certainly a projection from the mud wall that ran along the back of Welsh Row, rather than a separate outlying sconce.
Today, we can still trace the outline of what is probably Wickstead’s Sconce on the ground. It marks the boundary between the rough area at the end of Second Wood Street and the gardens of numbers 12, 15, 16 and 17 Holland Walk. Archaeological investigation is needed to confirm what could be a rare survival of Civil War town defences.
At dawn on the 18th of January 1644, Captain Thomas Sandford and his company of firelocks stormed Wickstead’s Sconce. As with the other assaults, they failed to breach the defences. Captain Thomas Sandford, his lieutenant and a number of his firelocks died in the assault. A fifteen-year-old boy fired the shot that killed Sandford.
It is perhaps noteworthy that a single, depleted company, rather than a full battalion, conducted the attack on Wiskstead’s Sconce. Perhaps Thomas Sandford was over confident. However, it may be that his firelocks – without burning match-cord – expected to surprise the sconce from close quarters along the river in their dawn attack.
Battle of Nantwich – Holly Holy – 25th January 1644
The arrival of Sir William Brereton and Sir Thomas Fairfax to the west of the River Weaver on Thursday the 25th of January 1644 raised the Siege of Nantwich. They had set out from Manchester on the 21st in heavy snow.
A sudden thaw in the weather caused melting snow to sweep away the crossing at Beam Bridge. The royalist regiments on the east bank of the Weaver had to march to join Byron via Shewbridge a good way to the south.
They arrived at Acton in a snowstorm, lacking powder and match, only for the Nantwich garrison to force their right flank. In a difficult and confused fight amongst the enclosures of Acton and Henhull, the royalist centre collapsed. Lord Byron, his cavaliers and left flank retreated to Chester leaving behind their artillery and baggage train.
Some, including the remnants of Captain Sandford’s firelocks defended Acton Church through the night. The church today still bears the scars of bullet strikes around its windows. However, Colonel Gibson surrendered all those inside next morning.
Nantwich ‘March of Shame’ – treatment of camp followers
Some fifteen-hundred royalists were imprisoned in St Mary’s Church in Nantwich. Conditions were foul. Almost half of these prisoners accepted to change sides and fight for Parliament. Most were veterans of the King’s Army of Leinster.
These included George Monck, who became a general in the New Model Army. They also included the entire remaining company of what was Captain Sandford’s firelocks. They stayed together and served as a company in Sir William Brereton’s Regiment of Dragoons.
Saturday the 27th of January was a day of celebration in Nantwich. The town held a service of thanksgiving in the Crown Inn. They brought into the town twenty-two royalist colours, six cannon, “diverse wagons” and twenty captured carriages.
Perhaps more striking, the victors paraded one-hundred-and-twenty royalist women camp followers through the town in a “march of shame”. The townswomen of Nantwich stripped them of their better clothes before turning them loose out of town – to shift for themselves in the winter.
Many, if not most, of these women would have been soldiers’ wives. Every 17th Century army was accompanied by its women. They were essential to washing the soldiers’ clothes, combating lice, infection and disease. With them would have been their children.
Execution of Captain Thomas Steele – 29th January 1644
Captain Thomas Steele, the governor of Beeston Castle, was tried by court martial and found guilty of treachery. He was executed on Monday the 19th of January 1644. Two soldiers shot him to death in the Crofts or churchyard of St Mary’s Church, Nantwich.
“Upon Monday Jan. 29 [1643-4], Tho. Steel, late Governor of Beeston-Castle, who before had judgment to dye was shot to death in Tinkers-Croft [Nantwich] by two soldiers, who shot him one in the belly and t’other in the throat, who was immediately put into a coffin and buried in the churchyard.”
At his execution, Thomas Steele made a confession. He denied high treachery but confessed to a sinful extramarital affair with a maid at a local inn. He stated that God had taken away his courage at Beeston Castle, forcing him to surrender and face execution as punishment for his sinful life.
The Autobiography of Henry Newcomb MA provides us with a good account of this confession. It also states that one of those present was a “Mr. Stringer”.
It is not clear whether this was Daniel Stringer’s great-grandfather, the survivor of the massacre at Barthomley, or any other relative. However, we do know that at least one of the survivors reached Nantwich on or about Christmas Day 1643.
Siege of Newcastle – burning of Sandgate – February 1644
The Army of the Solemn League and Covenant crossed the River Tweed into England on the 19th of January 1644. Initially, the Marquis of Newcastle’s royalist Northern Army kept them in check. However, on Saturday the 3rd of February, they laid siege to Newcastle.
The defenders set fire to the poor suburb of Sandgate in order to deny the Scots Covenanters its cover. The houses of Sandgate continued to burn throughout the Sunday and Monday. At the same time, heavy snow fell across England. It snowed continuously for eight days, from the 31st of January to the 7th of February 1644.
The Marquis of Newcastle’s army had to abandon the north after the Battle of Marston Moor, fought outside York on the 2nd of July 1644. However, the city of Newcastle clung on, despite a sustained and desperate siege involving mining, bombardment, breach and storm. Finally, the last defenders surrendered the Castle Keep on the 27thof October 1644.
More English Civil War historical notes & maps
I hope you found these notes on the Battle of Roundway Down in 1643 useful. If you are planning to visit the locations in these notes, please do also check out the resources on the Battlefields Hub. The Battlefields Trust, a volunteer organisation dedicated to protecting and promoting Britain’s battlefields, run this site. Their guided battlefield walks are excellent.
You may also want to check out more of my English Civil War notes on the website. These include articles on the Battle of Lansdown Hill, the Siege of Devizes and the Storming of Bristol.
You can also read about 17th Century Military Theory. This article explains the clash between Dutch and Swedish military doctrines at the Battle of Edgehill in 1642. More articles on The General Crisis, the Wars of Religion and The Thirty Years War are also at English Civil War Notes & Maps.
FIRELOCK: Cheshire 1643 – English Civil War novella
These historical notes accompany the text of FIRELOCK, a Divided Kingdom novella by Charles Cordell. The story opens with the capture of Beeston Castle and closes with the execution of is governor. It includes accounts of the massacre at Barthomley and the Siege of Nantwich.
The Divided Kingdom books take a fresh approach. They are not based on a single hero. They do not take sides. Their voices – ordinary men and women – face each other in the chaos of Britain in civil war. They are both relatable and sharply relevant today. They are also as historically accurate as is possible.
Please do check out some of the writing at Divided Kingdom Books, including book tasters and a FREE ebook short story.
See More – social media & the Divided Kingdom Readers’ Club
Finally, please check out the posts on Early Modern Life and the British Civil Wars. These include a post on Re-enacting the Battle of Edgehill in 2022. I hope they are of interest.
Alternatively, visit Facebook, Instagram or Twitter for more posts on my historical research, Living History and English Civil War fiction. These include upcoming events and opportunities to meet. Just follow on social media at #DividedKingdomBooks on:
If you want even more, why not join us in the Divided Kingdom Readers’ Club. You will receive a monthly email direct from me in which I share more notes from my research. If you think this is for you, click the link and join the Clubmen.
Spread the Word & Share
If you think others will like what you see, please share via email or your social media: