SANDYS, Samuel (1615-85), of Ombersley, Worcs.

Samuel Sandys’s grandfather, Samuel Sandys†, had purchased Ombersley in 1582, and had been resident there from 1594.24P.F.W. Large, ‘Economic and Social Change in North Worcestershire during the 17th Century’ (Oxford DPhil. thesis, 1981), 57-65. His great-grandfather was Edwin Sandys, archbishop of York under Elizabeth, and both Samuel Sandys and his cousin, William Sandys*, continued to enjoy leases of church lands acquired as a result of their ancestor’s clerical eminence. Like the neighbouring families of Pakington, Lyttelton and Windsor, the Sandys family of Ombersley built up their status quickly, taking advantage of the absence of aristocratic dominance in their part of Worcestershire, but Samuel Sandys’s grandfather achieved a consolidation of the estate at Ombersley at the expense of alienating the goodwill of tenants on the manor. There were many legal cases from the 1590s until the 1620s in which Sandys and the tenants disputed the level of entry fines on holdings there: Sir Thomas Lyttelton* was, with others, commissioned to resolve these differences in 1622.25Large, thesis, 57-65, 75; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 441; 1623-5, p. 517. Both Samuel Sandys’s parents came from families with a long record of service in Parliament.

Samuel Sandys inherited Ombersley at the age of eight, when his grandfather and father died in quick succession in 1623. On his coming of age, his marriage to the daughter of a distinguished civil lawyer was a careful arrangement by his guardians, but there is no evidence that he entered public life before his election at the age of 24 as burgess for Droitwich in the Short Parliament. He was elected on his own interest as an owner of salt-pits (‘bullaries’) in the town, but his youth and inexperience worked against his making any mark on this assembly. He was re-elected in November 1640; his fellow-burgess was the courtier Endymion Porter, who replaced John Wylde, fiercely critical of the government, who became knight of the shire. The Droitwich voters were not opting for the virtues of experience when they selected Sandys, but like Wylde, he was local and had an interest there. Nomination to the Worcestershire bench in Sandys’s case followed his election to Parliament.26C231/5 p. 434.

With other members from marcher counties, Sandys was named to the committee appointed to draw up charges against the earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†), specifically to investigate an allegation that Sir Percy Herbert kept a public arsenal at his own disposal.27CJ ii. 75b. Sandys evidently did not throw himself energetically into Commons business: this, and one to investigate the revenues of a Hereford hospital, were the only committees he sat on in this Parliament.28CJ ii. 160a. He took the Protestation on 18 May 1641, but kept a detached view of the dignities of Parliament. 29CJ ii. 149a. In January 1642, in an altercation between the servants of some Members and the guards of Parliament, Sandys was reported as having indicated that he did not want his servant punished for any presumed assault: ‘If it be my footman, lay him not by the heels’.30CJ ii. 400b; PJ i. 207, 214. The inference drawn by the reforming Members was that Sandys condoned behaviour which might lead to the diminution of parliamentary authority, and that he was something of an aggressive supporter of the king.

Sandys’s career at this point offers close parallels with that of his neighbour and future brother-in-law Sir John Pakington, 2nd bt.* Like Pakington, Sandys was young, recently-introduced to the county bench of magistrates and named in June 1642 in the king’s commission of array issued at Doncaster. Unlike Pakington, however, Sandys was singled out from the outset for active military service. On 21 June he was commissioned to command a horse regiment in Worcestershire, placing him at the centre of the king’s early efforts to mobilise military support by inviting the gentry to bring in horses.31Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 92. On 14 August Sandys provided four horses, and the moral pressure on critics of the king to do the same provided the backdrop to political events in the county that summer. At the midsummer quarter sessions, Wylde and Humphrey Salwey* persuaded the grand jury to frame a presentment declaring the commission of array to be illegal.32Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 96. At the following assizes, in August, the emerging royalist group, Sandys among them, framed the assize grand jury’s repudiation of the lesser court’s protestation.33Worcs. Archives, 899:192/ BA 1714 p. 248. The assize grand jury urged that the Protestant faith should be defended against Catholics and sectaries, that the king should rule by the laws of the land, that the liberties of Parliament should be upheld, and that the local militia should not be called out. In view of Sandys’s already-received commission, the last of these desiderata was a pious sham, but the presentment showed how much of the consensus of November 1640 remained.34Three Declarations (1642), 3 (BL G3808.10). Sandys’s position as a defender of episcopacy is further suggested by the 133 signatures gathered from Ombersley on a petition at Epiphany quarter sessions 1642 against schism and dangerous doctrine.35Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 76.

Wylde was a much more powerful figure in Parliament than either Pakington or Sandys, and on 20 August he had read in the House a warrant from Pakington and his associates that had demanded contributions from Wylde to their cause. Arguing that the commissioners of array intended to kidnap him, Wylde secured the expulsion of Pakington, Sandys and Sir Henry Herbert on the same day.36CJ ii. 729a. From then on, Sandys worked energetically to organise the military support for the king in Worcestershire. Charles’s confidence in him is suggested by the commission to him (20 Nov. 1642), authorising him to raise 1,000 foot in addition to the horse he was already commissioned to command.37Worcs. Archives, BA 11167/iii. Four days later, the House of Commons issued a warrant for his arrest as a delinquent, for raising troops against Parliament.38CJ ii. 862a.

In January 1643, Sandys was made military governor of Evesham and adjacent Bengeworth, although his authority did not extend over the civilian population, which remained under the government of the corporation.39Worcs. Archives, BA 11167/i. This made him the most senior serving royalist soldier in the county, and by March instructions were being given to the commissioners to raise contributions to support his troops. For the rest of the war, relations between the civilian population and the demanding local royalist soldiery were strained, and even as the first levies were being raised, Sandys faced mutiny from within his regiment.40Harl. 6851, ff. 130, 135. He regularly attended meetings of the Worcestershire commissioners of array at Worcester Guildhall in the spring of 1643, unlike Pakington, whose dispute with Sir William Russell, governor of the city, kept him away.41Bodl. Rawl. D.918 f. 145; D.924 ff. 148v, 151, 152, 153, 154. In April the quarter sessions grand jury was persuaded to endorse the principle of regular payments to Sandys’s regiment, and in May Sandys called on the head constables to help summon the populace to Worcester to repel parliamentarian attacks on the city. Sir William Waller* led such an attack from Gloucester on 29 June, which Sandys and his brother Martin Sandys successfully repulsed.42Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 117, 126.

Sandys’s forces were deployed on occasions with regiments of the king’s field army, and were not always confined to county defence duties. His regiment saw action during the king’s assault on Gloucester in the late summer of 1643, for example, and suffered losses of over 20 men killed on one occasion.43WO55/1661 f. 19; WO55/459 f. 400; Jnl. of Sir Samuel Luke ed. Philip, 144. His success in building up his forces may have been one ingredient in his own quarrel with Sir William Russell, which broke out in October. Pakington had seemingly had his reservations about Russell since March, but now Sandys became his greatest critic, alleging that Russell had ‘dealt unfaithfully with his majesty and the country in his accounts’. Russell had criticised Sandys to Prince Rupert as early as July, and now attempted a spirited defence of his own conduct, counter-arguing that Sandys had refused to move from Worcester when he was ordered to join his troops with Sir William Vavasour’s brigade. Further allegations against Sandys were that he had restricted the levying of contributions from the civilian population, that he had opposed the taking of supplies to Worcester from Bewdley and had blocked the payment of arrears of pay to Russell’s regiment. The result of the quarrel, in which Sir Ralph Clare† played a major part against Russell, was that Russell was the loser, and henceforth played a minor role in the conduct of the royalist war campaigns.44Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 131-46; Add. 18980, ff. 86, 103.

Sandys was summoned to the Oxford Parliament, and was there long enough to sign the letter to Essex calling on him to use his influence with the Westminster Parliament in the interests of peace.45Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 573. He could hardly have been there for more than a few weeks at most, however, since his military duties were ever more demanding. The dispute with Russell had served to strengthen Sandys’s status as senior commander. He was active in the spring of 1644 in fortifying Evesham, and in July all the foot-soldiers in the county were ordered into one regiment of 1,000 men, and his horse regiment of 400 was organised into seven troops. Twenty-three parishes in a corridor from Stourbridge down to the far south of the county around Shipston-on-Stour were made to support him financially.46Harl. 6802, ff. 71, 75, 106; Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 153, 155. In March, Sandys’s horse was ordered from Evesham to the Forest of Dean, to relieve the regiment of the 2nd earl of Cork (Sir Richard Boyle*).47Worcs. Archives, BA 11167/vi. These increasing responsibilities did not develop Sandys’s self-confidence, however. In March 1644, Sir Gilbert Gerard wrote to Prince Rupert conveying Sandys’s concern that Rupert might have heard ill of him in the Russell affair, and seeking royal reassurance.48Add. 18981, f. 85. Sandys was evidently concerned that local manpower resources were being spread too thinly; in the summer he joined the other commissioners of array in requesting a concentration of troops in the county.49Add. 18981, f. 222.

From January 1645, Sandys was effectively governor of Worcester, replacing Sir Gilbert Gerard, though he retained command of his horse regiment. He supported Prince Maurice’s hard line against the Worcester citizens: those who could not endorse the protestation of support for the king were not fit to receive the benefits of living within the garrison. This created conflict between him and Henry Townshend of Elmley Lovett, ever concerned about the burden of royalist taxation on the local populace.50Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 188. Sandys was from 1643 regularly fêted by Worcester corporation with gifts of wine, sugar and tobacco (with even a pipe to smoke it), but it had long been the prudent custom of the leading citizens to sweeten any who might have influence: the royalist commanders did not reciprocate, holding suspicions of their true allegiances.51Worcs. Archives, shelf A10, box 3, vol 2, city acct. bk. 1640-69, unfol.; Bodl. Firth c.6, ff. 57, 275. Sandys later noted that only when he was governor of Worcester did he receive any pay for his military service.52Wells, Hist. Great Level i. 383. The material rewards of his governorship were not in themselves tangible enough to persuade him to stick to his post. His regiment fought at Naseby (14 June 1645), but Sandys doubted his standing with the royalist high command.53Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, 123, 156. The king wrote to Sandys from Bridgnorth in September 1645 assuring him that rumours that he had lost royal favour were groundless, and that he indeed was ‘a person of whom I have a more than ordinary value.’54Worcs. Archives, BA 11167/vii. In November 1645, the king wrote to Sandys asking him to leave Worcester to help other royalist commanders, and urging him to ‘hinder as many as you can to play the fools’. These were expressions of confidence, but by 26 February 1646 Sandys had resigned his commission as governor: his resignation was accepted with what seemed genuine sadness.55Worcs. Archives, BA 11167/xi. Townshend, by this time no friend of Sandys, was fierce in his criticism

Whether it be a thing fatal to all governors not to remember what they were, or the want of discretion and moderation being still like a young man ... he fell off from his good friends and commissioners with him; he forgot his supporters, loved so much the soldier and his ranting ways, that an envious emulation possessed him against them, thwarting all their actions.56Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 225-6.

Sandys was at Hartlebury when it was surrendered by William Sandys*, and was at Worcester when it finally surrendered to Thomas Rainborowe* in July 1646: the remainder of his regiment marched from the city as part of the ceremony of surrender.57Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 208, 210-11, 262, 264; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 456. According to Townshend, both Samuel and William Sandys showed a less than healthy inclination to surrender garrisons: part of the deal in the surrender of Hartlebury was that both men would avoid sequestration. Col. Thomas Morgan was keen later in the 1640s to be seen to be sticking to his word in assisting Samuel Sandys in this respect: he had a financial interest, in that he profited from Sandys’s composition fine.58Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 225-6; PA, Main Pprs. 7 Jan. 1648; CSP Dom. 1645-47, p. 333; CCC 1297; CJ v. 65b. In fact, the House of Commons was discussing the terms of Samuel Sandys’s composition on 9 July, two weeks before Worcester garrison, with Sandys still an occupant, surrendered. Certainly Sandys did very well to get his fine of one tenth set at £2,090, and still better in February 1648 to have it reduced to £1,045.59CJ iv. 609ab, v, 422a, 426a; CCC 1296-7; Add. 5508, f. 196.

During the 1650s, Sandys seems to have been involved on the margins of royalist plotting in Worcestershire. He was not on Major-general James Berry’s* list of suspected persons, but there were reports that he was with Thomas Windsor (formerly Hickman, styled Lord Windsor) the leader of the Worcester correspondents of the insurgent leader, Col. John Penruddock, and that he was in London in the autumn of 1655, talking to Sir John Pakington, the most suspected of the Worcestershire royalists. He was involved in the plot known as the Great Trust in the summer of 1659, along with Windsor and Sir Ralph Clare: Sandys and Pakington were arrested on 22 July for their complicity, but nothing came of the arrest, probably because of the deteriorating national political situation. He was still a committed partisan of the king early in 1660.60Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy, 143, 242, 259, 298; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 158; CCSP iv. 536, 549, 558. Defying the ban on former cavaliers’ standing for election, Sandys was returned for Droitwich in the Convention. In April, after Charles II had been proclaimed, he, Pakington and Sir Ralph Clare were the most prominent signatories of a declaration vindicating themselves from rumours that their vengeful behaviour was preventing reconciliation and settlement in Worcestershire. George Monck* commented on their timely intervention, which reassured the king.61Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 276-7.

Sandys’s personal finances had been wrecked by his long period of military service in the cause of Charles I. A post at court was due recognition of his loyalty.62Carlisle, Inquiry, 182; LC3/2. Before the civil war he had borrowed heavily to invest in the Bedford Great Level scheme, with his cousins Miles Sandys senior and junior. Between 1655 and 1660 he claimed to have paid off £24,150 of these debts, but he now sought a prominent place in the government of the Bedford Level company. He took over the interests of his late cousins as the executor and heir of Miles Sandys junior, claiming 2700 acres of his. The offices of bailiff and conservator, which he occupied between 1663 and 1673, gave him a seat on the board of directors of the company: his shares were held in trust by the company for his sons, Edwin and Samuel.63Wells, Hist. Bedford Level i. 111, 343, 352, 355, 358, 382, 383, 456, 458, 460; ii, 399, 480-5. A private act of parliament in 1665 allowing him to alienate lands to meet his debts was another step in recovering solvency.64SR v. 568. Relations with the tenants of Ombersley remained uneasy, however, in a pattern that would have been familiar to Sandys’s grandfather.65Large, thesis, 80.

He and Pakington represented the county in the Cavalier Parliament. Townshend noted a libel circulating at the time of election against Sir Ralph Clare, whose interest was easily overwhelmed by those of the successful candidates.66Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 325. In this Parliament he came into his own as a parliamentarian, and was active on many committees, particularly those relating to Worcester and Worcestershire. He played the part of a country cavalier, generally backing the Court in the progress of legislation. While moderate in his attitude to punishing recusancy, he was unsympathetic to nonconformists. In the 1670s he was counted on as an independent member who could be relied upon to vote supply to the crown. During Danby’s administration he became more outspoken in his denunciation of popery, but never came to be relied upon by the exclusionists as an ally of theirs. In his last years in Parliament he acquired the sobriquet ‘Gallant Old Sam’, and gave up the county seat to resume his representation of Droitwich. After his death his seat passed to his son, Samuel, who had represented Droitwich throughout the Cavalier Parliament. His grandson represented Worcestershire from 1695 to 1698, and his great-grandson, after sitting for Worcester from 1718, was raised to the peerage in 1743.67HP Commons, 1660-9, iii. 386-9.