SALWEY, Richard (1615-85), of Stanford-on-Teme, Worcs., London, Wychwood Forest, Oxon. and Richard’s Castle, Salop.

Richard Salwey was the fourth son and sixth child of Humphrey Salwey* of Stanford-on-Teme, Worcestershire, where the family had been long settled. The Salweys had strong London connections, despite the remoteness of their country seat. Richard Salwey’s grandfathers were both at home in the capital: Arthur Salwey was an exchequer clerk, and Thomas Serle was a merchant. There were several of the latter name in the Company of Grocers, which would explain why Richard Salwey and his younger brother, Thomas, were apprenticed to freemen of the company.48LMA, MS 11593/1 ff. 30v, 83v; MS 11592A for many of the name Serle apprenticed in the co.

Richard’s master was Richard Wareing of St Leonard Eastcheap, a man active in City government and evidently of a radical persuasion. The Wareings were originally from Staffordshire, where the Salweys had strong family ties; this west midlands link between the families may have been significant in their pairing as master and apprentice.49Vis. London 1633, 1634, 1635 (Harl. Soc. xvi-xvii) ii. 324; Staffs. Pedigrees 1663-4 (Harl. Soc. lxiii), 23; Vis. Staffs. 1614, 1663-64 ed. Grazebrook, 323. Wareing was a common councilman from 1638 to 1647, the warden of his company in 1646 and a city alderman in 1649, suggesting that he approved of radical change.50BDBR iii. 139; Beaven, Aldermen of London, i. 102; ii, 70. The Grocers’ Company included in its membership many who were later noted radicals, and among Richard Salwey’s contemporaries as apprentices were Maximilian Petty and William Walwyn, future Levellers. It is thus unnecessary to speculate on Salwey’s possible role as a co-ordinator of apprentice unrest, reported in a hostile source of 1660, in order to establish that his working environment in the early 1640s exposed him to radical influence.51LMA, MS 11593 ff. 46v, 57; M. Noble, Lives of the English Regicides, ii. 158, probably quoting The Mystery of the Good Old Cause (1660), 30.

Grocer and activist in London, 1640-5

Salwey completed his apprenticeship in September 1640, and cemented his relationship with Richard Wareing in 1641 by marrying his former master’s daughter.52London Mar. Lics. 1180. Both Wareing and his son-in-law were enthusiastic contributors to the Company of Adventurers to Ireland; Salwey contributed £1,000 between April and July 1642, which must have been a massive investment for one who had only become free of his company not two years previously.53CSP Ire. Adv. pp. 77, 341; Bottigheimer, Eng. Money and Irish Land, 190, 194, 212. This commitment of capital can provide a motive for Salwey’s interests in Irish affairs – specifically, in securing a victory for Parliament there – in the later 1640s. Other members of his family were active in the cause of Parliament. By 1641, his father was denouncing innovations in religion in the House of Commons; his brother, John, was in the lifeguard of the 3rd earl of Essex (Robert Devereux).54CJ iii. 377b. He was surely the ‘Richard Silloway’ admitted to the Honourable Artillery Company in September 1642, and by the end of 1643 was serving as major in the London horse regiment of Col. Richard Turner. Salwey retained the title of major for the rest of his political career.55SP28/132, pt.1, f. 2.

More important to the development of his political career than military service were his connections in the City and with Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, which must have developed when the projected Adventurers’ army, which never in fact sailed for Ireland, was put under the command of Wharton as colonel-general.56G.F.T. Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton (Sydney, 1967), 46. If the radical activist John Lilburne is to be believed, Salwey played an important part in a meeting at the Windmill Tavern in London very soon after the fall of Leicester to the king on 30 May 1645. The loss of Leicester caused consternation in the City, and the advice of Salwey, ‘one that is reputed a wise and moderate man’, included the despatch of ministers from the Westminster Assembly of divines to the region of the Eastern Association in order to mobilize support for Parliament and the New Model army. Salwey, whose own brother, Arthur, was an assembly member, claimed that some in the assembly were themselves in favour of this.57J. Lilburne, Innocency and Truth Justified (1646), 5 (E.314.21); D. Como, Radical Parliamentarians and the English Civil War (Oxford, 2018), 319-20.

On 10 June, soon after the meeting at the Windmill Tavern, Salwey gave evidence at the Committee of Both Kingdoms in the case of James Cranford, a London Presbyterian minister who at the Royal Exchange had spread word of alleged double-dealing by the Independent political leadership with the disgraced 2nd Baron Savile (Sir Thomas Savile†). Cranford had been relaying reports initially given credence by the Scots, and if true, would have exposed the parliamentary investigation into Savile’s conduct as a sham. Salwey’s evidence was intended to expose Cranford as a rumour-monger who lacked credibility, and confirms Salwey as a significant figure in London political Independent circles.58Harl. 166, f. 218; LJ vii. 424b. His election for Appleby in November 1645 was attributed by a hostile source to owe everything to the influence of Lord Wharton, and there seems every reason to believe that this was so, as in October and November, Wharton was directing military operations from Appleby Castle.59A. and O.; John Musgrave, A Fourth Word to the Wise (1647), 2, 4 (E.319.9); SP28/138 pt. 4, f. 15. Salwey himself certainly had no estate or interest in the north of England.

London was Salwey’s political milieu. Because of his family relationship with Richard Wareing, he enjoyed good connections among London’s ‘interloping’ merchants and also at Goldsmiths’ Hall, where Wareing served as joint treasurer of the Committee for Compounding.60Supra, ‘Committee for Compounding’. In the unsettled circumstances of the civil war, it is unlikely that Salwey ever traded on his own account, but again his closeness to Richard Wareing ensured that he had interests in trade with Turkey, first manifested in a Commons committee appointment in September 1646 to investigate complaints by the Levant Company about the over-mighty Sir Sackville Crowe.61CJ iv. 671a. As one identified with the outlook of the interloping merchants, it was natural also that earlier that year (16 Mar.) he should be named to committees on foreign plantations.62CJ iv. 476a, 477b. In his first year in the Commons, he was associated with his father, Humphrey, on committees dealing with the sensitive question of relations with the Scots, and the thorny topic of exclusions from the sacrament: the latter the product of the Westminster Assembly, where his father and brother, Arthur, had laboured long.63CJ iv. 491a, 540a, 560b, 562b. These many concerns in London did not mean that his roots in Worcestershire were completely severed. Like his father, he acted as a link between the Committee of Both Kingdoms and the Worcester county committee in its task of bringing the royalist garrisons there to heel, and made an appearance at the final negotiations for the surrender of Worcester to Parliament in July 1646, where he was commended by Hugh Peters for his ‘wisdom and faithfulness in many ways’.64CJ iv. 498b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 323, 324; Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend ed. Porter, Roberts, Roy (Worcs. Hist. Soc. n.s. xxv), 265; Mr Peters Last Report (1646), 4 (E.351.12). A less favourable assessment of his role there was made by Richard Baxter, who thought Salwey was behind the replacement of Col. Edward Whalley* by Thomas Rainborowe* as commander of the parliamentarian troops; done, the minister thought, ‘to gratify the sectaries’.65Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), i. 55-6.

Ireland and Westminster, 1646-9

Salwey’s early enthusiastic commitment to the cause of reducing Ireland to submission was not forgotten, and these early assignments were but curtain-raisers to his appointment as a commissioner on Parliament’s behalf to the marquess of Ormond [I] (James Butler), Charles I’s embattled lord lieutenant in Ireland. The link between Salwey and this mission was probably Lord Wharton, the former putative general of the Adventurers’ army, Salwey’s patron at Appleby, and the brother of Sir Thomas Wharton. Sir Thomas Wharton was a former associate of Ormond’s, who had switched allegiance to Parliament in 1644, and who joined Salwey as a commissioner to Dublin. Another possible reason for Salwey’s involvement was his standing in the Goldsmiths’ Hall committee, which was ordered by the Commons, through Humphrey Salwey and his brother-in-law, Richard Knightley*, to provide the funds for the mission.66CCC 47. Of the commissioners, Wharton, Sir John Clotworthy* and Sir Robert King could be regarded as sympathetic to Ormond; Sir Robert Meredith and Salwey, as Independents, were in favour with the new Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs which sent them; and Salwey must be considered an Independent also.

The commissioners sailed for Ireland on 26 October 1646 with instructions given them on the 17th which were far less favourable to Ormond than his own original propositions to Parliament had been.67CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 741; Bodl. Carte 19, f. 210; PA, BRY/57/37. Talks with Ormond quickly ran into difficulties, as exceptions taken by the marquess to details of the commissioners’ proposals culminated in the final sticking-point that the commissioners did not have the king’s approval for Ormond’s resigning the lieutenancy.68PA, BRY/46/ 58, 60-1, 63-7, 69-71; BRY/19/430, 434. The mission to Ormond had encountered problems over provisioning and the mutiny of its intended accompanying guard; the account which Wharton and Salwey provided the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs dwelt on the problems they had encountered all along the way.69PA, BRY/57/37, 47/20. On 22 November the talks collapsed, and the following day, Wharton, Salwey and his colleagues left Dublin.70PA, BRY/46/92; SP63/262, f. 192. Salwey’s letters to Ormond and to his father, with other papers on the Irish negotiations, were read in the House on 1 December.71CJ iv. 734a.

From Parliament’s perspective, there was no further purpose in treating with Ormond, but as on previous occasions the initiative for resuming discussions came from the lord lieutenant. On 5 February 1647, his council approved the resumption of contacts with Parliament, and on the 6th, Ormond wrote to Wharton and Salwey, and separately to Meredith, King and Clotworthy, asking for their co-operation.72Bodl. Carte 20, ff. 256, 258-9. Wharton wrote to acknowledge that Ormond’s approach to them had arrived on the 19th, and promised to lobby the Irish committees of Parliament. The following day, Ormond’s letter to Wharton and Salwey was read in the House, after which the Commons added Salwey to both to the Star Chamber and Derby House Committees of Irish Affairs, a mark both of how successful he was personally perceived to have been in the abortive negotiations and of his potential importance in future ones.73Bodl. Carte 20, f. 347; CJ v. 91b, 92a. The Commons, on this occasion, did not seek the Lords’ concurrence in making these additions – it apparently acted unilaterally, and Salwey began attending the Derby House committee almost immediately (although the Lords would confirm his appointment in April).74SP21/26, p. 11; LJ ix. 127b. As Ormond had wished, Parliament was willing to restart talks with him again, and on 1 March a new set of commissioners was appointed, in which Salwey, Wharton and Clotworthy, despite having been re-nominated, were replaced by a group in which Arthur Annesley*, Ormond’s friend, was prominent.75CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 733-4.

The Presbyterians had come to dominate the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs, and Salwey’s attendances there, frequent when he was appointed in February 1647, tailed off sharply in April.76CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 730. Salwey’s interests seem to have switched to the problem of despatching units of the New Model to Ireland; he, Clotworthy and Sir William Waller* were despatched to visit the commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax*. This appointment sits uneasily with the interpretation that Salwey was an ardent Independent, but the explanation may again be the patronage of Lord Wharton, initially chosen to head the discussions with Fairfax.77CJ v. 127ab; SP21/26, pp. 35, 79. Salwey and Sir Thomas Wharton continued to interest themselves in the rapprochement with Ormond, acting together in the summer and autumn of 1647 to secure Ormond’s pension from the Goldsmiths’ Hall Committee.78Bodl. Carte 21, ff. 323, 329, 474. Ormond’s London agent confessed to his master in June that he had been

extremely much beholden to Major Richard Salwey for obtaining of my despatch, who if he had not laboured the committee men close and got them together when they had no great mind to it, I might have stayed longer for it.79Bodl. Carte 21, f. 302v.

In the spring and summer of 1647, as tensions in the Commons between Presbyterians and Independents mounted, Salwey, like Lord Wharton, seems to have been working across the opening divide between Parliament and army, and evidently believed that a deal with Ormond was not only practicable but also desirable. Salwey’s pattern of attendance at the Commons and his absence with permission at the end of May mirrors that of Wharton in the Lords, further confirming that the two worked closely together.80Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton, 108-9. Like Wharton’s, Salwey’s committee work in the House was slight between April and July, and the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs (with its sub-committees) was probably Salwey’s main sphere of influence and activity, especially in June and July. Richard Baxter’s view that Salwey was in the pocket of Sir Henry Vane II* at this time may be the minister’s retrospective conflation of the late 1640s with events of the following decade.81Reliquiae Baxterianae, i. 63.

Salwey was certainly associated with the Independents, however, and with his father probably fled to the army on 22 July 1647 in the face of the Presbyterian coup, having been last in the House for certain on the 17th. An element of doubt about this remains, as the Salweys are mentioned in only one of the lists of withdrawing MPs, with ‘query’ beside their names.82CJ v. 248ab, 249a; HMC Egmont, i. 440. It is also possible that they spent the summer in Stanford-on-Teme, to some extent isolated from national political events, as Richard Salwey’s mother, Anne, was buried there on 31 August. The disturbances in Parliament and the City in 1647 did not deflect Salwey from his interests in Ireland. In October, he and Annesley were still viewed as friends of Ormond’s at Goldsmiths’ Hall, and in March 1648 he was appointed a commissioner to visit Munster to settle unrest among the soldiers of Baron Inchiquin [I] (Murrough O’Brien) there.83Bodl. Carte 21, f. 474; SP21/26 p. 144; CJ v. 522a; Whitelocke, Mems. ii. 290; CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 715. In the event, despite advanced preparations for the voyage, this deputation never sailed for Ireland, as by 14 April Salwey was required to attend the House, and his activity in the House itself remained modest.84CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 776; CJ v. 530b. When the Independents and their allies re-opened discussions on negotiations with the king, Salwey was named with Hesilrige and others to a committee to produce propositions, but was not named to the successor committees which produced the ‘Four Bills’ to be put to Charles.85CJ v. 327b; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 87-8. By December 1647, however, Salwey was benefiting from the tightened grip of the Independents on the House, and he was named to the important executive committees for Indemnity and for Plundered Ministers.86CJ v. 388a, 390b, 407a; LJ ix. 599a. The following month he was reported as speaking in the House in favour of the Vote of No Addresses.87‘Boys Diary’, 156.

London still provided Salwey his main sphere of influence. In March 1648, he was entrusted with managing the committee hearing conflicting statements from the customs commissioners and the surveyor-general. Dissatisfaction with customs administration later produced an act improving the accountability of the commissioners, and the re-modelling of officials in the London and provincial customs houses.88CJ v. 480a, 523a; M. Ashley, Financial and Commercial Policy under the Cromwellian Protectorate (1962), 51. Also in March, he was named with Francis Allein* to a committee to nominate collectors of arrears of assessments in London wards, and in August was reporting amendments to the House on an ordinance to enable the committee for the London militia to raise troops.89CJ v. 511a, 630a, 682b. Salwey seems to have been closer to John Wylde* in 1648 than he had been in previous years. With Wylde, he served on the committee to begin negotiations with the Scots, and in November he went, perhaps substituting for his aged father, with Wylde to Worcestershire to collect arrears of the assessment there.90CJ v. 643b; vi. 88a. On 18 December, Salwey replaced Wylde, appointed chief baron of the exchequer, on the Committee for Sequestrations, and was required to assume the role of reporter from the Committee to the House. Salwey was first mentioned in the Journal on 13 December, a week after Pride’s Purge, and was thus perfectly content with the forcing of the House.91CJ vi. 96a, 99a; LJ x. 632b.

Active republican, 1649-53

There is ample evidence that Salwey approved of the premises on which the trial of the king in January 1649 was based. In the House of Lords – where Richard Salwey’s brother Arthur led prayers on 28 occasions between 4 November 1648 and 5 February 1649 – the ordinance to establish the high court of justice to try the king was rejected on 2 January. On the following day, in the Commons, the Lords’ action was reported and the ordinance committed after two readings.92LJ x. 641b, 642a; CJ vi. 109b, 110b. On 4 January 1649, Salwey, with 13 others, including Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Lisle, Miles Corbett and Thomas Chaloner, prepared a declaration, enunciated in the House the same day, that the people under God were the origin of all authority, and that the Commons, chosen by the people, held supreme power. This blow against monarchy and revenge against the Lords was, after adoption by the House, re-committed to its authorial committee for dissemination.93CJ vi. 111a.

It was probably this closeness to Wylde which accounted for the nomination of both Richard and Humphrey Salwey to the commission to try Charles I; and, enthusiastic Rumper though he appeared to be in early January 1649, like his father, Wylde and Wylde’s relatives, Salwey did not act.94A. and O. Family and regional loyalties may have stimulated the caution which inhibited Salwey from embracing the regicide actively. It was not until 14 May that Salwey appeared again in the House, having had to apply to the committee for absent Members; and of those re-admitted so late, he alone can be regarded as a full-time MP.95CJ vi. 208b; Worden, Rump Parliament, 71. In this sluggish reappearance he was it seems, at odds with his father, who was in the House as early as 3 February. It is possible that Richard Salwey had begun to suffer the ill-health which was later thought likely to prove fatal and which hindered him from public duties.96‘Inedited Letters’ ed. Mayer, 188; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 410. Nevertheless, on 27 June from the Goldsmiths’ Hall Committee he brought a recommendation that those compounding for delinquency be given more time to pay, suggesting that he was not an uncompromising republican.97Univ. of London, Goldsmiths’ Library, folio vol. Acts and Proclamations 1649-50, ‘Die Mercurii, 27 Junii. 1649: Mr Salwey reports’. The day after his re-admission, Salwey was named to the committee to consider the succession of future parliaments and elections. The same month he took positions of influence as a link between the House and the important executive committees of penal taxation at Goldsmiths’ and Haberdashers’ Halls, and with his father sat on the Committee of Navy and Customs and the committee for excise.98CJ vi. 210a, 211a, 215a, 218a, 218b, 219b; CCC 142. On all these appointments he was designated ‘Major’ Salwey, and the ‘Mr’ Salwey, who on 9 June acted as teller for those blocking the putting of the question that returning Members must first explicitly acknowledge the authority of the House in trying and judging the regicide, is as likely to be the father, Humphrey, as the son.99CJ vi. 228a; Worden, Rump Parliament, 200.

Salwey was evidently an important manager of sequestration business at Goldsmiths’ Hall, serving on an important sub-committee charged with re-structuring the regime for collecting rents. In March 1650, with Sir Arthur Hesilrige, he was responsible for presenting the names of those suggested as the first commissioners for compounding, when the business of sequestrations passed from the direct control of MPs.100CCC 144, 188. His special admission to the Inner Temple at this time probably speaks to his growing importance in sequestration business. At the committee for removing obstructions into sales of dean and chapter lands (22 Aug.), he was asked to take special care of the review of the figures suggested as sale values.101CJ vi. 458a. Salwey’s continued prominence in this area of business, dominated by the merchant community, suggests that his standing in the City was undiminished. In 1649 he was elected a common councilman for his home district of Bridge Ward Within, the only civic office he ever held, in the same year that his father-in-law Wareing became an alderman.102BDBR iii. 139-40.

On behalf of the ‘interloping’ merchants, lobbying for free trade against what were perceived as the restrictive practices of sections of the East India, Levant and Eastland Companies, Salwey and Thomas Chaloner* were asked in January 1650 to prepare a bill for a standing council on trade.103CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 477; CJ vi. 347a. The second reading of their bill took place on 16 March, when it was resolved that the new council should have 15 members, two of whom should be MPs: Chaloner and Salwey were selected for the role.104CJ vi. 383ab. The principal achievement of the new council was to provide a convoy for the Turkey merchants, for which much of the credit must go to Chaloner.105‘Thomas Chaloner’, supra. In a further service to the London business community, Salwey steered through Parliament a bill to settle Richmond New Park, Surrey, on the City: probably in recognition of this he was given his freedom of the City, belatedly.106CJ vi. 247a, 263a; LMA, COL/CA/01/01/063/461/b.

Beyond his particular interests in trade and penal taxation, Salwey served on a wide variety of committees during the second half of 1649 and in 1650. He maintained his association with his father, weakening though it was as old age overtook Humphrey Salwey. With him he sat on committees to maintain preaching ministers (15 Mar. 1650), to suppress Ranters (14 June) and to review the poor laws (9 Oct.)107CJ vi. 382b, 423b, 481a. It was his Worcestershire knowledge which suggested him (28 Nov. 1649) as the investigator into the estates of Sir John Pakington*, disabled from sitting for that county, whose Buckinghamshire properties in Aylesbury were bestowed on the inhabitants there.108CJ vi. 327a, 331a; CCC 1195. In a ballot on 18 July 1650 among MPs for the positions of commissioners of excise, Salwey came sixth out of a field of 12 candidates, perhaps some indication of his standing at this time.109CJ vi. 443a. Taxation matters were of growing interest to him; in August 1650, he was with Francis Allein, a regular collaborator of his, to take special responsibility for finding ways of increasing public revenue, and on 3 September 1650 brought in a detailed composite report from various revenue committees on the current position: it took him into the following day to complete his delivery.110CJ vi. 459b, 461a - 462b; 463a; Worden, Rump Parliament, 31.

In October 1650, he was chosen by the council of state, whose members presumably recalled his reported effectiveness in the 1647 mission to Ormond, to be one of the commissioners to Ireland. He, John Jones I* and John Weaver* were to receive £1,000 each as an allowance. On 20 November, however, at Salwey’s own request, he was excused the service, and Miles Corbett replaced him.111CJ vi. 480a, 486ab, 499b, 501b; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 339, 369, 423, 344, 376, 397, 434, 436, 442; Ludlow, Mems. i. 249, 257. The most likely explanation for his withdrawal was ill-health, rather than disaffection or lack of interest: on 20 December he was invited to consider legislation to help the interests of the Adventurers. In any case, his reputation was undamaged by his withdrawal. In the elections for the third council of state on 10 February 1651, Salwey was first named in the list of those who had the greatest number of votes, and was appointed for a year.112CJ vi. 532b; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 44. His attendance in the House declined in inverse proportion to his commitment to the work of the council. He attended nine of its ten meetings in February, when among his concerns were the planting of sea-ports in Ireland and sequestration matters, in which he strengthened his links with Allein.113CSP Dom. 1651, pp. xxxv; 56; CJ vi. 540a, 541b. He sat on the council’s committees for trade and foreign affairs, ordnance, examinations, militia, security at Whitehall, foreign and inland posts and, crucially, the committee for Irish and Scottish affairs.114CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 50, 66, 67, 134, 158, 450, 455; 1651-2, p. 67.

Salwey’s appointment as a commissioner to oversee the enforced union between England and Scotland originated in the council of state’s Irish and Scottish affairs committee and demonstrated that his understanding and experience of Anglo-Scottish relations were recognized. These went back to March 1646 when he was one of 15 from the Commons who represented Parliament in negotiations with the Scots commissioners.115CJ iv. 491a. In May 1646, Salwey had been one of the committee examining John Chieslie, who in the summer of 1650 became one of the organisers of the Western Association army of Covenanters, the Remonstrants, which opposed Charles Stuart and which maintained a distance from both the English army under Oliver Cromwell* and the Scottish Committee of Estates.116CJ iv. 540a; Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 9. In July 1648, Salwey had been given special responsibility in producing a statement on behalf of Parliament in response to the Committee of Estates’ adoption of the Engagement between Charles I and Scottish political groups critical of the kirk party.117CJ v. 643b. In August 1650, Salwey reported from a committee charged with responding to publications of Charles Stuart’s party in Edinburgh, and helped produce both the official account of the battle of Dunbar of September, and a subsequent declaration of public thanksgiving.118CJ vi. 460a, 465a, 517a.

A year later, Salwey was with Cromwell’s army in the English midlands, sending back reports about the imminent final confrontation with the Scots, and again produced the official accounts of the battle. He was responsible also for the legislation compensating Worcester citizens and rewarding those who had shown conspicuous support there for Parliament.119CJ vii. 7a, 8a, 10b, 11b, 12a, 12b, 13a, 13b, 15a, 15b, 18b, 20a, 22a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 352, 355, 375, 387, 403, 412, 426, 431. It is clear from all of these appointments that Salwey was well equipped to represent Parliament against the Scots, and there is little to suggest that he was sympathetic to their aspirations. His appointment as a commissioner to Scotland, on the nomination of the council and confirmed less than two months after the battle of Worcester, would have done nothing to dispel the impression that the purpose of the commissioners, composed equally of civilians and soldiers, was to impose a forced incorporation of Scotland into the conquering nation.120CJ vii. 30b; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 489; Ludlow, Mems. i. 298.

Instructions to the Scottish commissioners were debated at length in the House between 4 and 11 December 1651 despite the council’s instruction in October to them to be ready for imminent departure. On 25 December they finally set out and arrived at Dalkeith, their headquarters, on 15 January 1652.121CSP Dom. 1651, p. 495; 1651-2, p. 48; CJ vii. 49b, 53a; Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 32. Part of the delay was the result of the secrecy surrounding publication of A Declaration of the Parliament ... concerning the Settlement of Scotland, the manifesto the commissioners were required to implement. Abandoning the policy of annexation, the government was instead opting for a scheme of incorporation, of transplanting elements of English polity into Scotland. Widely trailed though it had been, the Declaration was first made public from the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh on 12 February. Summonses to deputies from shires and burghs had been issued, and when they assembled at Dalkeith they were presented with the Declaration and the commissioners’ own ‘Explanation’ of it. The Tender of Incorporation, which the deputies were asked to accept, found favour with deputies of 28 of the 30 shires and 44 of the 58 burghs, a measure of the commissioners’ success in speedily presenting them with a plan to which they had little choice but to accept. Scottish reluctance to accept the proposals was manifested not in armed revolt, but in the slowness of constituencies to confirm their acceptance, which wrecked the commissioners’ timetable.122This para. based on Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 36-46.

On 18 March the House of Commons debated the Tender of Incorporation, and resolved to produce an act to put it into effect. The council of state was to draft a declaration, which was reported on 25 March and ordered to be printed.123CJ vii. 107a, 110b, 111a. It specified how elections of deputies in Scotland, for discussions with the English Parliament, were to take place. On 30 March, the commissioners in Scotland were ordered to implement the Declaration, and then return home. 124CJ vii. 112a. At the end of April the commissioners left Dalkeith and made their last report to Parliament on 14 May, through Salwey, who had evidently been working on the details of penal taxation as it would affect the Scots.125CJ vii. 132ab.

Salwey was back in the House and active again in the council of state from 9 July, when lands of £300 were settled on him in recognition of his service.126CJ vii. 152ab; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 324. In the council, he was immediately on his return appointed to its admiralty committee, and was active in the sphere of military administration, particularly on the issue of the balance between land and sea forces.127CJ vii. 152a, 153b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 319, 323-4. In August he was re-appointed to the council’s committee for foreign affairs, which enabled him to resume his interests in promoting free trade.128CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 371. The focus of naval administration in 1652 was the war with the Dutch, which was proceeding indecisively until the sea battle of Dungeness on 10 November, in which the English fleet was badly mauled by Tromp.129B. Capp, Cromwell’s Navy (Oxford, 1989), 79. In the sober re-assessment of English naval effectiveness afterwards, Parliament agreed to supply £120,000 a month to the navy, and the admiralty committee of the council was replaced by navy commissioners, a group of MPs, councillors and non-MPs, meeting with the generals-at-sea. Salwey, with Sir Henry Vane II* and John Carew* worked together to represent Parliament.130CJ vii. 225b.

As well as recent service on the admiralty committee of the council, Salwey had been working on public finance since his return to English domestic politics. On 27 July 1652 he had been asked to take care of a review of the relations between the treasury and the admiralty, and reported on discussions in committee to simplify the revenue structure. On 1 October he reported from the Council to the House on the ‘distracted’ state of the treasury, and requested that progress on a reform bill be resumed. An important if unresolved issue in the ensuing debate was how far reform should be in the hands of non-MPs and how far under the direct control of the House.131CJ vii. 159a, 160a, 188ab. On 24 November, when elections for the fifth council of state were held, Salwey came to the House after balloting had begun; whether this was a deliberate tactic to avoid being nominated when there was a volatile mood in the House working generally against radicals is unclear, but when the debate on the report of the Committee of Navy and Customs took place ten days later, Salwey was an unencumbered candidate for a navy commissionership. Another old ally of Salwey’s, Francis Allein, was appointed around the same time as a finance commissioner to bring the separate treasuries under one body.132CJ vii. 220a; A. and O. ii. 652-3, 688-90; Worden, Rump Parliament, 314-5.

As one who now had conduct of the war with the Dutch under his indirect control, Salwey was at the end of 1652 enjoying the peak of his political influence. He and his colleagues were perceived to be successful in their re-organisation, ‘sitting both early and late’ according to Salwey’s colleague George Thomson. They could certainly work late; Salwey wrote to his colleagues from Chatham ‘at midnight, my bed’ in February 1653, and certainly the Rump considered them a success, rewarding Salwey in February 1653 with thanks for his ‘great service’. A modern authority on the navy does not demur.133CJ vii. 258a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 191; Capp, Cromwell’s Navy, 80; V.A. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1970), 183-4. According to Edmund Ludlowe II* they made great improvements in arrangements for ship repairs and supply, improved the quality of officers and laid down 30 ships on the stocks. Salwey was fully involved in the detail; he received recommendations for captaincies and clerkships, gave orders on victualling and supply, and liaised with merchants, the main beneficiaries of the navy’s work, on supply and convoys.134CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 139, 144, 145, 289, 501, 507, 510, 527, 528, 546, 568, 578, 592, 594, 610, 612.

Ludlowe’s analysis goes beyond an assessment of the commissioners’ effectiveness, however; he regarded them as forming a counterweight to Cromwell’s political ambitions, making the navy a check upon Cromwell’s powerful interest in the army. The commissioners achieved this partly by persuading Parliament, ‘whose ear they had upon all occasions’ to detail troops from the army to the navy, a strategy Salwey had been engaged upon in the council’s admiralty committee since his return from Scotland, and which he was still doing in February 1653. Ludlowe’s picture may be rather over drawn, in that with hindsight it exaggerates the gulf between the Admiralty Commissioners and the lord general, but Salwey was powerful enough to persuade a council meeting to reconvene at 7pm after dispersing, and could by-pass the impatient council and secure Cromwell’s agreement to a troop allocation by personal means.135Ludlow, Mems. i. 347; CJ vii. 152a. Besides, Salwey maintained a political life separate from his work as an Admiralty Commissioner. In September 1652, Salwey was a member of the committee to meet the Scots deputies, who were to be told what the Rump intended from the union, and in November he and Lisle were asked to prepare a bill for sequestrations in Scotland. In February 1653, he was nominated to consider exceptions to the Act of Oblivion being prepared for Scotland.136CJ vii. 189a, 189b; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 507; Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 48-9.

In the closing months of the Rump, Salwey was involved in the discussions on the new Parliament or ‘representative’, which were complex and are sometimes difficult to clarify. On 13 August 1652, Salwey had been first-named, with Cromwell second, on the committee of the House to consider the petition of the army officers.137CJ vii. 164b. On 14 September it made its report through its chairman, John Carew, and was instructed to reconsider the matter. Cromwell tried through a series of meetings from October 1652 to April 1653 between the council of officers and MPs to reach agreement on a bill, and it was at one of these that Salwey is reported by Ludlowe to have asked the army officers what they would have instead of the Parliament, and to have been told that they would get rid of it and ask that question afterwards.138Ludlow, Mems. i. 351. It is a convincing story, probably given to Ludlowe by Salwey himself, and was an indication that Salwey was becoming opposed to the army’s political pretensions. From the same source comes the account of Cromwell’s summoning Salwey and John Carew immediately after the dissolution of the Rump to ask their advice on a new constitution, as public affairs weighed heavily on him. Salwey’s rather self-righteous response was said to be

The way, sir, to free you from this temptation is for you not to look upon your self to be under it, but to rest persuaded that the power of the nation is in the good people of England, as formerly it was.

Even allowing for the later doctoring of Ludlowe’s Memoirs, the general drift of Salwey’s answer is consistent with his statement of the origin of political power on 4 January 1649.139Ludlow, Mems. i. 358; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 105.

Critic of the protectorate, 1653-59

Salwey was reported in the press to be among those MPs first reconciled to the dissolution of the Rump and to the still undetermined new form of government, and sat on the interim council which held power until it was settled.140Clarke Pprs. iii. 2, 4. It was at a council of army officers, to which Salwey was specially invited, that the idea of a nominated assembly emerged, and according to Ludlowe this meeting was triggered by Salwey’s robust response to Cromwell’s request that Salwey, Carew, Oliver St John* and John Selden* prepare an instrument of government.141Ludlow, Mems. i. 358; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 105, 108. Cromwell evidently sought to keep Salwey well affected, and for his part, Salwey allowed himself not only to be nominated on 9 July to the new council of state, but also later to serve for Worcestershire in the new assembly. Subsequently Salwey attended no meetings of either the House or the council, so must be considered to have had strong misgivings about the basis of the new regime. Nominally he continued to serve as an admiralty commissioner, but gradually ran down his involvement with the navy.142Bodl. Rawl. A.227, f. 70; Capp, Cromwell’s Navy, 123. Many of the godly, including those in the navy, welcomed the new regime; Salwey’s motives for not doing so may have owed something to his pugnacious outlook in foreign policy matters, where his merchant background predisposed him against the Dutch, England’s commercial rivals, with whom Cromwell strongly sought peace.143TSP i. 571. Sweden was another country which would have formed part of the pan-Protestant alliance. When Cromwell tried again to court Salwey, in August 1653, with an invitation to go with Walter Strickland* as an ambassador to Sweden, Salwey declined, pleading ill-health and ‘want of freedom of spirit’: a plain, if polite, rebuff and an indication that he was out of sympathy with the entire project.144HMC 10th Rep. IV, 410; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 277-84.

The protectorate of Oliver Cromwell was even less to Salwey’s liking, and he retired from national politics altogether. He was given a place in the commission of the peace in Worcestershire, Shropshire and Oxfordshire, places where he had property interests, a further indication that he remained acceptable to the government.145C231/6 pp. 268, 271. His abilities were recognised by the Levant Company, who sought him as an ambassador to Constantinople, and with whom he had enjoyed good relations through his father-in-law, the merchant and Levant Company assistant. There was animosity between the resident ambassador, Sir Thomas Bendish, and Richard Laurence, the Levant Company’s agent, who was accredited by the government in August 1653, but who was unable to take up his diplomatic duties because of Bendish’s intransigent opposition. By August 1654 the approval of the lord protector had been given for Salwey’s appointment as ambassador. The departure of the unco-operative Salwey for Turkey might well have appealed to Cromwell for domestic political reasons. Although it was a brief which might have been refused because it was inherently difficult, Salwey excused himself in February 1656 on the grounds that the administration of a friend’s estate had fallen to him.146CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 215, 340, 364, 371; 1655, 66, 141; TSP iv. 518-9; G.M. Bell, Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives 1509-1688 (1990), 285-6; A.C. Wood, Hist. of the Levant Co. (Oxford, 1935), 93-4; Beaven, Aldermen of London, ii. 70.

By this time, Salwey was being courted by interests hostile to the protectorate. In the Kildare and Wicklow election of 2 August 1654, He and Oliver St John* had been promoted as candidates by Dublin Independents in their absence. At the election they secured ‘about thirty’ votes against a dismal showing by Ludlowe and Adjutant-General Allen.147HMC Egmont, i. 553; ‘Anthony Morgan’ supra. The successful candidates were Anthony Morgan and William Meredith, who represented the Old Protestant interest, working with Henry Cromwell* on his arrival as lord deputy in the summer of 1655. The re-appearance of the old Rumpers, albeit not in person, in this way must have contributed to Henry Cromwell’s distaste for Salwey. In February 1656, he wrote to Secretary John Thurloe* to complain of the activities in England of Sir Henry Vane II*, who he had been told was trying to turn the sectaries against the government. The appearance in May 1656 of Vane’s A Healing Question would have confirmed that view. Its argument, that divisions among republicans would only be healed by the subordination of the army to a sovereign body based on the support of the people, would have been endorsed by Salwey. Henry Cromwell hoped that men such as Vane would not be sent to Ireland in government service, and deplored the rumour that Salwey’s name had been mentioned in that context.148TSP iv. 509.

Salwey’s was a name to be conjured with in England as well as in Ireland. The lieutenant of the Tower of London wrote to Thurloe in August 1656 that he was listed with other Rumpers, ‘dissatisfied persons’, as candidates for the forthcoming Parliament. In the event Salwey does not seem to have become involved, but the rumoured candidatures of John Bradshawe*, Ludlowe, Thomas Harrison I*, Salwey and Nathaniel Rich* incensed the protector, and Vane and Salwey were summoned to Whitehall to explain themselves.149TSP v. 304; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 67; Clarke Pprs. iii. 68. The idea that these men were regarded as so disaffected that Cromwell made Salwey give bail to his local major-general seems implausible, since the government was quite happy to have him act as ranger – head of security – of the former crown estate of Wychwood Forest in Oxfordshire, but the government was certainly wary of them.150CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 151; 1657-8, p. 373. Salwey resisted attempts by his supporters to woo him back to public life. When in June 1657 Robert Tichborne*, mayor of London, approached him to act as a commissioner in Ireland, to secure the lands there which had been granted the London companies, he declined, pleading ill-health and family commitments. His attitude to Irish affairs may be gauged from his surrendering the whole of his interest as an Adventurer the following year. He had evidently decided to rid himself of what he saw as an incumbrance which could only yield diminishing returns.151HMC 10th Rep. IV, 411.

Last efforts for a republic, and aftermath, 1659-85

In the elections for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament, Salwey’s critics, Henry Cromwell and Thurloe, were relieved that he and Sir Henry Vane II were not returned.152TSP vii. 594. The failure of the Cromwellian interest to work productively with the army led to a dissolution on 21 April 1659. On the 29th a meeting of the Wallingford House grandees of the army, including John Lambert*, James Berry* and John Jones I* with Vane, Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, Salwey and Ludlowe was a recognition that the army’s best hopes for a radical settlement lay with an elected assembly. In a four or five hour discussion, the officers were finally persuaded that their agenda of indemnity, reform of the law and clergy, government by a representative of the people and a select senate, and provision for Richard Cromwell, would be best met, at least in the short-term, by a recall of the Rump. The two sides met again shortly afterwards, on 5 May, and the return of the Parliament was assured. Ignoring Speaker Lenthall’s reluctance to summon them, the Members went into the chamber at noon on 7 May, and elected a committee of safety of army officers and MPs, including Salwey, that day.153CJ vii. 646a; Clarke Pprs. iv. 6, 8; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 74-6, 78-9, 80. A week later, Salwey was fifth-named in the list of successful candidates for a place on the council of state. He was named also to the committees appointed to implement the programme sought by the army: on indemnity, pension for Richard Cromwell, and to assess the political situation. On 26 May, he recovered his place as a commissioner for the admiralty and navy.154CJ vii. 654a, 654b, 661a, 665a, 666b; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 81, 84. A satirist of May 1659 made Salwey say in an imagined politician’s card-game that he, but a ‘stander-by’, could see that the cards were ‘filthy foul already’. Salwey would have been more sanguine about the restored Rump’s chances, and of his own place in it.155Shufling, Cutting and Dealing in a Game at Picquet (1659), 5 (E.983.9).

As the summer wore on, Salwey was recovering more of the power he had wielded in 1652-3. He sat on the committee for public revenue, charged with bringing in bills for assessments and customs and excise arrears, and in June was the senior of the two MPs appointed as revenue commissioners.156CJ vii. 662a, 676b, 684b, 687a, 689a, 690a. He played a major part in preparing the oaths to be taken by law officers, suggesting that he was a leader of the internal management of the House as well as a key figure in government policy-making.157CJ vii. 672ab, 689b, 691a. Work on the indemnity bill was progressing in July, and a committee including Salwey was given the task of perfecting its clauses after a grand committee report, but security issues began to distract the leaders of the Rump from its legislative programme.158CJ vii. 707b; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 374; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 86. Salwey was busy in the council, dealing with the rising of Sir George Boothe*, and with Vane and Hesilrige examining Boothe himself in the Tower.159CJ vii. 741b, 742a, 754a, 764b, 766b, 767b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 155; Clarke Pprs. iv. 48.

As in 1651, Salwey became more active in council and less in the House. On the council’s foreign affairs committee, he was involved in diplomacy with Sweden and the Dutch in August, and played a crucial role as intermediary between the council and the Wallingford House army leaders, with whom he was anxious to keep negotiating. Splits within the parliamentary leadership emerged over attitudes to the army, and an observer noted in July that Vane and Salwey had a party of only ‘16 or 17 that can give concurrent votes’.160CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 98, 101, 111, 144; TSP vii. 704. Their power base in the council was counterbalanced by Hesilrige’s in the House. In June a clause in a bill placing army commissions in the hands of Parliament stipulated that the Speaker’s hand must endorse every appointment, to which the army leaders objected. Vane, Salwey and Ludlowe were in favour of dropping the clause in the interests of preserving the working arrangement with the army, but Hesilrige, Henry Neville and Algernon Sydney persuaded a majority in the House to stick with it.161Ludlow, Mems. ii. 89.

On 15 September, the council elected Salwey to be its president.162CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 198. He was kept busy with the routine of affairs of state from then until the Parliament was prevented from sitting by Lambert on 13 October, but must have been aware that the assembly’s days were numbered. Like Oliver Cromwell after the dismissal of the Rump for the first time, the Wallingford House grandees saw in Salwey a link between themselves and a future form of government, and on 17 October the council of officers nominated him to serve on an interim executive ‘to carry on the affairs and government’. Salwey seems at first to have reacted badly to their invitation, firing off a point-blank refusal to their letter of the 27th.163Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 366; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 411, letters misdated; A True Narrative of the Procs. in Parl. 41. In their similar invitation to Whitelocke, the officers flattered him that he was selected to act as a foil to Salwey and Vane, whom they suspected of wishing to overthrow magistracy and ministry. The allegation was absurd, and such bad faith boded ill for the future.164Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 367.

Superficially, a truce was made up between Ludlowe, Vane and the army council, and it was probably Vane’s ‘interest’ with Lambert which brought over Salwey to join them.165Ludlow, Mems. ii, 131, 143. Appointed on 26 October to the commonwealth’s new supreme executive the committee of safety, he was nominated by this body on 1 November, along with Charles Fleetwood, Bulstrode Whitelocke, Vane, Tichborne and Ludlowe, as a committee to consider the future form of government. The outlook was inauspicious. Ludlowe felt he was under suspicion by both the parliamentary republicans and by the army for his willingness to work with both groups, while Hesilrige for his part refused steadfastly to co-operate with the army. Ludlowe then declined to attend the committee of safety. Vane and Salwey did attend, and retained their posts as navy commissioners, but the council was said to be ‘sorry and troubled’, with Salwey and Vane less than energetic.166Clarke Pprs. iv, 93. On 19 November, nine of the old council of state wrote to George Monck* to assure him of their goodwill towards him; Salwey and Vane were not among them.167Baker, Chronicle, 673. On 6 December, commissioners were selected to agree terms for a new Parliament, and Fleetwood, Vane and Salwey represented the army officers in the discussions. There was too much mutual suspicion for the talks to have succeeded. According to Ludlowe, the officers would not stay to talk about forms of government, and Salwey was driven to ask them ironically whether Richard Cromwell might not be brought back. When Fleetwood denied this was possible, Salwey went further, asking him whether it was not possible that Charles Stuart might return.168Ludlow, Mems. ii, 159, 164.

Ludlowe claimed to have broken the impasse with his proposal for a group of 21 ‘conservators of liberty’, in which the army officers were given a prominent place, but on which Vane and Salwey were to serve because of his strategem. The officers would not accept Hesilrige and his party, and Ludlowe decided to throw in his hand and sail for Ireland.169Ludlow, Mems. ii. 172-4. On 14 December 1659, he, Vane and Salwey went to the officers in Whitehall, where they were in confusion following the revolt of the fleet in favour of the Rump. Salwey and Vane were asked by the officers to quell the fleet and assured them that they were ready to recall the Rump for a second time. On the 17th, Salwey and the sick Vane began several days of talks with Admiral Lawson, who received them favourably. Lawson at this point held all the cards, and insisted on the submission of the army to Parliament. Problems arose over the naming of commissioners, half from the navy, half from the army to meet to recall the Rump. Lawson put forward Vane, Salwey, Scot and himself as navy representatives. Vane and Salwey were sceptical of the value of another session of the Rump, and Thomas Scot I took exception to them as men too close to the army, which showed how isolated Salwey and Vane were becoming. Lawson prevailed with his plan to recall the Rump, through ‘prudence and moderation’, but hostile commentators were wondering whether Salwey and Vane were on the point of quitting politics altogether.170Ludlow, Mems. ii. 180; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg ed. Sachse (Cam. Soc. 3rd ser. xci), 18, 24; TSP iv. 211, CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 280.

When the Rump re-assembled on 26 December 1659, its leaders were set on revenge against those they saw as traitors. Vane was sent from London, but Salwey’s case was debated on 17 January. He was in the House, and stood up to repent of his behaviour since Parliament was kept from sitting by Lambert. He doubted whether he had said some words which were imputed to him, but ‘craved pity and pardon’. A victim of republicans like Thomas Chaloner and Richard Darley*, Salwey was ordered to the Tower to await the pleasure of the House.171CJ vii. 813b, 814a; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 201. Through his abject apology to the House, and through his plea of ill-health, he managed first to delay his imprisonment, so that he was still free on the 20th; the following day the order to imprison him was set aside, and on the 30th he was allowed to return to Wychwood. A royalist commentator was disgusted at Salwey’s conduct

His tears, sighs, supplications, confessions of all secret practices, and humbling his mouth in the dust, mitigating in some measure his eager prosecution; so abject a person in misfortune this age hath not seen, nor any other so insolent in authority.172Clarendon SP, iii. 654, quoted in Ludlow, Mems. ii. 201; CJ vii. 818a; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, 32.

It was at Wychwood that on 17 March 1660 Salwey received the summons to resume his place in the restored Long Parliament, but is unlikely, given Monck’s denunciation of Vane, Ludlowe and other colleagues of his, to have attended to see the final destruction of his political ambitions.173HMC 10th Rep. IV, 411; Baker, Chronicle, 686. His political career was over, and after the Restoration he was largely left alone with his sons to take up the Levant trading interests he had not been able to develop because of his political activities. Sporadically, he was monitored by the government, and continued until his death to be among the suspects immediately associated with any rising, real or imagined. In July 1662, he was arrested at Richard’s Castle, and later released with the king’s consent.174CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 449, 457. In October 1663 he was arrested again and brought to the Tower, where he was permitted to petition Charles II. There was nothing to suggest that Salwey knew anything about the so-called Farnley Wood plot, and he was released on 4 February 1664.175CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 318, 324, 325, 330, 334, 346, 355, 392, 444, 461, 466. According to Lucy Hutchinson, he was released early, when John Hutchinson* and Henry Neville* were detained longer, because he ingratiated himself with the monarchy, and acknowledged the Book of Common Prayer. As a friend in the 1670s of Sir Thomas Rous*, Salwey was unlikely to have been a sectary, and if he was indeed reconciled to the usages of the Church of England, the searching for him in conventicles by his Worcestershire tormentors was singularly ill-informed.176Mems. of Col. Hutchinson ed. Firth ii. 311-2; PROB11/361, f. 218; CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 346. One of his enemies caught up with him in 1664, when he was summoned to give evidence in the case of Sir John Pakington*, who was trying to regain his Buckinghamshire estates. Salwey had helped bestow these on the townsmen of Aylesbury in 1650.177CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 540, 541. He was arrested by the Shropshire magistrates for the last time in June 1685, at the time of Monmouth’s Rising, but was released after examination.178HMC 10th Rep. IV, 415. He made what seems to have been a nuncupative will on 9 December 1685, and probably died very soon afterwards.179PROB11/391, f. 185. He was buried at Richard’s Castle, but is memorialized at Ludlow church. A monument there to his grandson records how Salwey ‘sacrificed all and every thing in his power in support of public liberty and in opposition to arbitrary power’.180T. Wright, Hist. of Ludlow and its Neighbourhood (Ludlow, 1852), 467.