SANDS (SANDES, SANDIS, SANDYS), Thomas (c.1600-58), of Randalls, Leatherhead, Surr., and the Middle Temple, London.

Descended from a Cumberland and Lancashire family, Sands’s ancestor Sir William Sands established himself in Surrey in the early sixteenth century. Several generations of local marriages gave the Sands family extensive kinship connections throughout the county and helped the MP’s grandfather, Robert, to complete the acquisition of the manor of Randalls in 1587.21Trans. Leatherhead and District Loc. Hist. Soc. ii. 78-9. Although he succeeded his father to the estate in 1625, the MP continued his career as a lawyer, being called to the bar the same year.22Trans. Leatherhead and District Loc. Hist. Soc. ii. 81; MTR ii. 700. His first two marriages, which broadened his geographical connections, produced only one surviving daughter, but he also had step-children, for whom his second wife made provision in a will drafted in 1630.23PROB11/196/485.

It is not known who promoted Sands’s candidature in the elections in autumn 1640 for the constituency of Gatton, seven miles from his home, but one likely patron is Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Nottingham, one of the county’s lords lieutenant, to whose will Sands was a witness.24Surr. Arch. Coll. ix. 430. He was evidently promoted at least partly because of dissatisfaction with Edmund Saunders*, who had sat in the Short Parliament. Two returns were made, both naming veteran Member Samuel Owfeild*, but while one declared Sands also elected with eight voices, the other named Saunders with 14. Complex questions of voter eligibility contributed to a delay in resolving the dispute and it was not until 3 November 1641 that John Maynard* reported the recommendation of the privileges committee in favour of Saunders, whose supporters included non-resident freeholders. However, ensuing debate decided for Sands, chosen by inhabitants and burgesses, despite the fact that one was a convicted recusant.25CJ ii. 303b.

Sands joined a near-namesake, Samuel Sandys* of Worcestershire, in the House, and for the next few months it is sometimes difficult to be certain which Sands, Sandis or Sandys is referred to in the Commons Journal. However, since the youthful Member for Droitwich had previously made little contribution to proceedings, the more frequent appearance of the name is likely to be attributable to the Surrey man. Samuel was not a lawyer, so it seems that the Surrey Sands was meant in the lawyer-dominated lists of nominees to committees related to the impeachment trials of the eleven bishops and of Attorney General Sir Edward Herbert I* (13 Nov. 1641, 22 Feb., 23 Apr 1642).26CJ ii. 314b, 449a, 539b. He was certainly the MP included on at least one of three committees relating to private land settlements (10 Feb., 31 Mar., 2 May), probably the Member on those refining the details of bills (25 Mar., 19 Apr., 13 May), and perhaps the recipient of other nominations (28 Feb., 13, 28 Apr.).27CJ ii. 423b, 461a, 533b, 498a, 505b, 545a, 553b, 570b. Although at first this hardly made him busy, the potential workload increased from February 1642. Retrospectively, it would suggest that his supporters had expected him to bring legal expertise to prosecuting those identified with the perceived excesses of the personal rule as well as to discharging the routine business of the House.

As political divisions widened, Sands – in contrast to his Worcestershire namesake, disabled as a royalist on 20 August – was close to leading local parliamentarians.28CJ ii. 729a. On 26 March he informed the House that the earl of Nottingham had approved two new deputy lieutenants for Surrey and recommended the excusal of others.29CJ ii. 498b. Two months later he was again the conduit for information from Nottingham, this time that Sir Edward Gresham had resigned and Sir Robert Parkhurst* was a suitable replacement, a recommendation that Sands then took to the Lords for their approval.30CJ ii. 584a. On 10 June he promised a horse for the defence of Surrey for Parliament and five weeks later appears to have been himself appointed as a deputy lieutenant.31PJ iii. 474; CJ ii. 671a. He was in town in mid-August, when he was one of the lawyers appointed to deal with a sensitive matter concerning John Bastwick, the celebrated sufferer at the hands of the court of high commission and was among Surrey MPs who prepared an order to adjourn the assizes from Kingston-upon-Thames to the safer and more amenable location of Dorking.32CJ ii. 712b, 716b. As royalist troops approached the environs of London after the battle of Edgehill, Sands was the Surrey representative who – the day after Nottingham’s death – wrote to Parliament’s lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, asking him to order the mobilisation of the Kent militia to come to the aid of its neighbour (25 Aug.).33CJ ii. 738a.

For the next two months, while the royalists occupied parts of Surrey, Sands was probably largely taken up by affairs around his home. Disquieting experience doubtless lay behind his endorsement on 31 October of Sir William Waller’s* motion to have the House turned into a grand committee to consider peace.34Add. 18777, f. 47a. He next appeared in the Journal on 2 November, when with local grandees Sir John Evelyn* of Surrey and Sir Richard Onslow* he was ordered to recommend deputy lieutenants for east Surrey and to devise sanctions against those who refused to serve Parliament beyond county borders.35CJ ii. 831a. It seems, however, that he had himself overlooked some of his obligations: the same day he was enjoined to detail to the commissary in London the horse which he had promised.36CJ ii. 832a. Having on 10 November given information of royalist plans for a rendezvous at Kingston-on-Thames, a week later he was sent with Alexander Rigby I* to collect testimonies from the inhabitants of nearby Brentford, concerning the actions there of Prince Rupert’s troops.37Add. 18777, f. 54b; CJ ii. 854a. Dissatisfied, according to Laurence Whitaker*, with their report two days later, the Commons ‘required them to perfect it’, but the criticism cannot have gone deep.38Add. 31116, p. 20; cf. CJ ii. 856b.

Over the winter and early spring Sands received further committee nominations seemingly predicated on successful discharge of previous business: to the committee chaired by his Middle Temple contemporary and friend Bulstrode Whitelocke which prepared a counter-declaration to royal proclamations against those serving Parliament and promising reparations to those plundered by royalist troops (1 Dec.); to work on the act for confirming the liberty of the subject (7 Jan. 1643); and to discuss with the Lords the adjournment of assizes (25 Feb.).39CJ ii. 870a, 870b, 918b, 979b. On 31 December he promised a rather modest £20 towards the maintenance of the army: a comment he made in debate on 21 February 1643 over the association of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire may be read as indicating that he preferred to rely on more local organisation centred on the county militia.40Add. 18777, ff. 109b, 160a. Reprising the connection with Essex, he was despatched on 3 April to inform the lord general of the duplicate levies imposed on Surrey by different parliamentarian authorities.41CJ iii. 28b; Harl. 164, f. 353. Meanwhile, in early March he reported from the committee which ten months previously had begun to address Sir John Blagrave’s private settlement.42CJ ii. 987a, 988b.

There are signs that Sands – like other Surrey activists and also like Whitelocke (who that year was supposed to have endangered his delicate health by eating trout at Sands’s Leatherhead house) – wavered in his commitment to Parliament during and after a summer of military defeats.43W. Lilly, Hist. of his Life (1715), 44. He had no further committee nominations until late December, although he was named to local commissions.44A. and O. He took the oath to Essex as lord general promptly on 6 June, but hesitated until 19 October to take the Solemn League and Covenant.45CJ iii. 118a, 259b, 262a, 281b. His two nominations during the winter related to the specific goal of prosecuting the war in the south east with the help of London militia and the association set up under Sir William Waller* (22 Dec.; 30 Jan. 1644).46CJ iii. 349a, 383b. In this regard he may well have been one of the Surrey moderates associated with Sir Richard Onslow who were at odds with more militant elements on the divided county committee.47J. Gurney, ‘George Wither and Surrey politics’, Southern Hist. xix. 75-87.

As local power struggles continued, Sands was invisible at Westminster for prolonged periods. His next appearances, in the early summer of 1644, more or less coincided with his appointments to the association of Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent on 15 July and to a commission of oyer and terminer on 4 July.48A. and O. On 17 May he was deputed with fellow Middle Templar Robert Reynolds* to prepare an ordinance for the improvement of sequestration proceedings, while on 3 July he was named to discuss another designed to authorise local prosecution of papists and delinquents.49CJ iii. 497b, 550b. He was included with other lawyers in a committee to report on problems in legal proceedings (28 June) and with Whitelocke worked on an ordinance to provide fuel for London by cutting peat and turf (29 June).50CJ iii. 544a, 546b.

There was then almost no sign of him in the House for nearly a year – the exception being his addition on 22 March 1645, perhaps as a Presbyterian nominee, to the committee for northern affairs in connection with the remodelling of the Newcastle corporation.51CJ iv. 87a. That he exhibited at least some engagement with this is suggested by his nomination 18 months later to the committee for elections in Newcastle.52CJ iv. 666b. His eight appointments between mid-June and early December 1645 related either to issues in which he had a recurrent involvement, such as sequestration of papists and delinquents (16, 18 June) and the London militia (4 Dec.), or to politically-charged but sometimes temporary concerns, such as the punishment of those who had alleged that Speaker William Lenthall* had had covert communications with the royalist headquarters at Oxford (15 Sept.).53CJ iv. 176a, 178b, 263b, 274a, 335b, 350b, 351a, 365a. This suggests that he was regarded as a useful lieutenant by some of the more prominent Members and raises the possibility that behind the scenes he may have been more active than indicated by his appearances in the Journal.

Sands next surfaced against a backdrop of Sir Thomas Fairfax’s* victories in the south west and the prospect of an end to war, being placed on the committee considering how those who had adhered to Parliament and their families might be compensated for their sufferings (23 Feb. 1646).54CJ iv. 452a. By 13 March he had emerged as the chairman of the committee considering the London militia: on that day he reported the desire of the City to be consulted before conclusions were reached.55CJ iv. 473b. Three days later his rising profile in the House was revealed when he received another important appointment, to the chair of the committee investigating Members’ tenure of administrative and military office such as might breach the terms of the Self-Denying Ordinance.56CJ iv. 477a. Once again, he is likely to have been promoted by Presbyterian leaders, and to have been sustained by them as the committee’s life was prolonged and its remit extended to consider recipients of confiscated lands. After an initial report in September 1646, the business came to the fore again in December and in January 1647. 57CJ iv. 659a; v. 32b, 43b, 44b, 45a, 61a; Add. 31116, p. 592; Add. 37344, f. 75. However, it seems that finally Sands ran out of time and support to complete his reports to the House. In June 1647 Presbyterian activist Clement Walker* complained that the ‘committee ... to certify all pensions, sequestrations, offices, employments of advantage and profits conferred by the Parliament upon any their members, in which ... Mr Sands holdeth the chair’ was ‘merely a formality to blind the eyes of the world and fool the expectations of some losing Members’ keen to know how much their colleagues had profited. It was ‘now let fall, no reports demanded of Mr Sands’, and even when information from the committee did emerge, those who wished to thwart it ‘are not unprovided of a means to make it fruitless, by putting every particular to debate, well knowing that no man’ would be prepared to name names in the chamber or debate their merits.58C. Walker, The mysterie of the two iunto’s (1647), 7 (E.393.29). Walker did not state his opinion of Sands, although given his caustic propensities the absence of criticism might indicate he did not blame this MP. The ‘committee where Mr Sands is chair’ was ordered to be revived in November 1647, but by the time this order was repeated in July 1648 responsibility was shared with John Bulkeley*.59CJ v. 354b, 619b.

In the meantime Sands continued periodically to receive miscellaneous but not unimportant appointments. In 1646, his busiest year, nominations to committees included those relating to the law (notably: regulating court proceedings, 21 Oct.; winding up the court of wards, 30 Oct.), politically sensitive matters (reviewing the imprisonment of John Lilburne, 9 July; nominating new sheriffs and magistrates, 30 Oct.), Surrey affairs (investigating allegations from George Wither about Sir Richard Onslow and others, 18 May) and the ordinance for printing the Septuagint bible (16 Oct.).60CJ iv. 550a, 611b, 695a, 701b, 709a, 709b, 710a. Once again, he was a member of committees dealing with questions arising from claims on and tenancy in the lands of delinquents (19 Mar., 10 June, 17 July).61CJ iv. 480b, 571a, 620a.

Experience in sequestration business at least partly prepared him for the role of chairman when the House constituted itself a grand committee to consider the ordinance for the sale of episcopal lands. He presided over this on nine days between 20 October and 2 November and, accompanied by the rest of the Commons, carried the ordinance to the Lords on the 3rd.62CJ iv. 689b, 701a, 701b, 702a, 703b, 704a, 711a, 712a, 713a; Add. 31116, pp. 572-5. Although in 1648 he was nominated to the committees following up this act (9 Feb.), addressing the abolition of deans and chapters and disposal of their lands (16 June) and further regulating the sequestered estates of papists and delinquents (20 July), he was not again so prominent in this area.63CJ v. 460b, 602a, 641b.

What seems to have been in 1646 a newly-apparent religious commitment – expressed in relation to the Septuagint bible – was carried over into appointments in 1647 and 1648. There is insufficient evidence to characterize this categorically as religious Presbyterianism: his belated nomination as an elder in the Dorking classis in 1648 did little to mark him out from other Surrey gentlemen.64Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii. 435. In February 1647 Sands was named first to committees preparing ordinances for admission to a church living and for curbing meat-eating in Lent.65CJ v. 84b, 86a. A year later he was placed on the committee seeking to improve the payment of tithes to London ministers (9 Feb. 1648).66CJ v. 460b.

Apart from two appointments in May to committees dealing with private petitions, there was very little sign of Sands in the House between February 1647 and February 1648; his role, if any, in the coup and counter-coup of the summer is unknown.67CJ v. 170b, 181b. Nonetheless, he may have been both present and active in the Commons. On 1 December 1647 he signalled that he was still interested in the question of the militia, acting as a teller with Sir Robert Pye I* for the Presbyterian-led minority who failed to block Independent-inspired changes.68CJ v. 374b. In March 1648, as ‘Whitelocke’s kind friend’, he wrote to the latter from Westminster with news of his appointment as a commissioner of the great seal.69Whitelocke, Diary, 207–8. When in the summer the militia again became a matter of fierce contention, he was on hand to promote it as an alternative force to the New Model and to take on the third important chairmanship of his career. At the height of the royalist insurgency he presided over the discussions on uniting London and Westminster militias and took to the Lords orders for raising horse in Surrey and Hampshire (10 July).70CJ v. 630a, b, 631a. The committee was still at work after the middle of August and Sands’ chairmanship was among its aspects ‘presented to public view for common safety’.71CJ v. 638b, 639b, 671b, 672a; Designs Unmasqued (1648, E.462.12).

Sands was among the lawyers on the committee deputed on 27 October to turn into bills the peace propositions to which the king had consented during negotiations on the Isle of Wight.72CJ vi. 62b. On 25 November he was named to the committee chaired by Presbyterians William Prynne* and Sir John Maynard* which reviewed a case of alleged forgers of an act of Parliament.73CJ vi. 87a. But this was his final appearance in the Journal. Doubtless a marked man on account of his support for the militia and possibly also for over-enthusiastic endorsement of peace negotiations, he was secluded at Pride’s Purge.74W. Prynne, A Vindication of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1649), 28 (E.539.5).

Thereafter Sands withdrew or was excluded from Surrey affairs. However, he regularly attended meetings at the Middle Temple, where on 24 November, a month after Whitelocke, he had been called to the bench.75MTR, ii. 971. This would provide a context for possible appointments as a Middlesex justice of the peace in 1652 and in 1656.76C181/6, pp. 234, 245, 346. Sands was buried at Leatherhead on 23 December 1658.77Leatherhead par. reg. Letters of administration were granted to his daughter, Katherine Shepard, but the Randalls estate descended to John, his seven-year-old son from his third marriage, who sold it in 1700.78PROB6/35/3; Trans. Leatherhead and District Loc. Hist. Soc. ii. 81–3; Al. Ox. s.v. John Sandes. No further members of the family sat in Parliament.