SANDYS, Sir Miles, 1st Bt. (1563-1645), of Wilburton Parsonage, Wilburton, Isle of Ely, Cambs.
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Education
b. 29 Mar. 1563,1 3rd s. of Edwin Sandys, abp. of York (d.1588) and Cecily, da. of Thomas Wilsford of Hartridge, Kent; bro. of Sir Edwin* and Sir Samuel*. educ. Merchant Taylors’ g.s. 1571; Peterhouse, Camb. 1578, BA 1579-80, MA 1583, fell. 1581-2, (Queens’) 1585-8. m. (1) by 1591, Elizabeth, da. of Edmund Cooke of North Cray, Kent, 8s. (5 d.v.p.) 3da.; (2) 20 Nov. 1626, Mary, wid. of one West of St. Mary Aldermanbury, London, ?s.p.2 ?ordained deacon by 1588;3 kntd. 11 May 1603;4 cr. bt. 25 Nov. 1611.5 d. by 29 Apr. 1645. sig. Miles Sandys.
Jnr. proctor, Camb. Univ. 1588-9;9 kpr. (jt.), York House, Westminster 1593;10 j.p. (Lindsey) Lincs. 1598-1617, Essex 1600-2,11 I. of Ely 1602-at least 1609, 1617-at least 1640, Cambs. 1608-at least 1636;12 commr. oyer and terminer, Home circ. 1602,13 Norf. circ. 1635,14 gaol delivery, I. of Ely 1602-at least 1645,15 inquiry, manorial boundaries, Cambs. and I. of Ely 1602, Gt. Fens 1605,16 sewers, London 1606,17 Gt. Fens 1608-30 (jt. recvr. for commrs. of drainage tax, I. of Ely 1630), I. of Ely 1609, 1644,18 common lands, Stretham, I. of Ely 1609;19 collector, aid Cambs. 1609,20 (jt.) 1613;21 sheriff, Cambs. and Hunts. 1615-16;22 commr. swans, I. of Ely 1620, 1630,23 subsidy, Cambs. 1622, 1624,24 enclosure of Gt. Fens 1624,25 Forced Loan, Cambs. and I. of Ely 1626-7;26 dep. lt. Cambs. by 1628-40;27 commr. assessment, Cambs. and I. of Ely 1643-d.; sequestration of delinquents, Cambs. 1643, levying money 1643, defence of Eastern Assoc. 1643.28
Adventurer, Bedford Level drainage 1632.29
Quarrelsome and ruthless in the pursuit of his own interests, Sandys has justifiably been described as ‘the most notorious of a group of aggressive parvenus’ in the Cambridgeshire fenland.30 A younger son of Edwin Sandys, Elizabethan archbishop of York, Sandys was admitted to Merchant Taylors’ School in April 1571 with his elder brothers Samuel and Edwin. After matriculating as a pensioner at Peterhouse, Cambridge in 1578 he embarked upon a fruitful academic career, graduating as both BA and MA and securing fellowships at Peterhouse and Queens’. While at Cambridge, Sandys befriended several eminent or rising churchmen and college officials, including Richard Bancroft, the future archbishop of Canterbury, then rector of nearby Teversham, whom he appointed godfather to one of his sons in 1597; Humphrey Tyndall, bishop of Peterborough, dean of Ely and president of Queens’, to whom Sandys dedicated some verses while a fellow at Queens’;31 and Dr. Richard Swale†, president of Caius College from 1582 and subsequently chancellor of Ely diocese. Swale and Tyndall were also godfathers to Sandys’s children.32 These friendships were undoubtedly encouraged by Sandys’s father, who marked his son out for a clerical career at an early age. In April 1581 the archbishop bestowed upon him the next reversion to the Yorkshire prebend of Strensall, although as Sandys was then a minor the grant was made out in the name of his brother Samuel to his use. In the event, on attaining his fellowship at Queens’, Sandys was installed as prebend of North Newbald, a position which he exchanged for that of Weighton ten months later. The archbishop’s ambitions for his son allegedly resulted in Sandys’s ordination as a deacon.
At his father’s death in July 1588, Sandys, then Cambridge University’s junior proctor, inherited some unspecified leases, as well as silverware and other goods.33 By the early 1590s he had married the daughter of Edmund Cooke, the owner of a large tract of marshland in north Kent. In 1593 he and his older brother Edwin were jointly appointed keeper of York House, the London residence of the archbishop of York. His appointment to the bench in northern Lincolnshire during the late 1590s suggests that he briefly resided there, but his addition to the Essex bench in June 1600 indicates that he subsequently moved to live with his brother Samuel at Woodham Ferrers. In 1602 he resigned his prebend, thereby rejecting the career path laid out for him by his father. At around the same time he was removed from the Essex bench, having acquired, during the autumn of 1601, two manors in the Isle of Ely where, through his friendship with magistrates such as Richard Swale, he was well-connected. The first of these properties was Stretham, situated on the north bank of the Ouse, which he leased from the Crown at an annual rent of just over £45.34 The second, which lay south of the river, was the nearby manor of Willingham, comprising 1,689 acres.35 To these properties Sandys later added Wilburton rectory, which he rented and which became his permanent residence from 1608, and the manors of Sutton and Mepal, which he leased from the dean and chapter of Ely.36 The cost of purchasing Willingham from the queen amounted to £2,069.37 In order to recoup this outlay and turn a profit, Sandys sold property in Yorkshire for £2,000.38 Moreover, he also set out to enclose and drain as much of his new estate as possible, regardless of the interests of his copyhold tenants. In order to overcome the latter’s opposition, he decided to revive long-neglected manorial duties, such as agistment and labour services, and to pursue his tenants vigorously through the law courts until they agreed to the enclosure of a proportion of the fen common.39 These tactics, which have been described as ‘manorial blackmail’, aroused considerable anger among his tenantry, but they produced some early results, as in October 1602 Sandys was awarded the right to enclose around 250 acres of common land in two fens by the bishop of Ely following an acrimonious dispute involving an assault on Sandys’s bailiff.40
Sandys was knighted at the Coronation in 1603. Soon thereafter he attempted to persuade the new king that the drainage schemes he had commenced on his estate were for the public good. He was almost certainly one of the Cambridgeshire landowners who introduced several pieces of fen drainage legislation to the first Jacobean Parliament in 1606.41 At that time he was resident in the capital, for he not only had a house there but in December 1606 he was even added to the local sewer commission.42 None of the drainage measures was enacted, however, apart from the bill to allow his wife’s family the right to drain Plumstead marshes.43 The main reason that the fen drainage bills failed was because they attracted widespread opposition in the Commons, but they also incurred the wrath of the king who, while out hunting, had learned from four leading landowners of the essentially fraudulent nature of Sandys’s scheme. Sandys remained undeterred, however, and pinned his hopes on the Cambridgeshire sewer commissioners, whose ranks he had joined by April 1608. However, his hopes were soon dashed, for in July 1609 he clashed with some of the leading commissioners during a meeting held in Ely. Two eye-witnesses subsequently related that, after supper, Sir John Cotton† declared that he wished to inspect and repair existing drains rather than carry out the new works then planned, whereupon Sandys accused him of retracting an earlier promise to allow both sets of works to proceed together. Matters became heated when Cotton, supported by Sir John Cutts† the elder, demanded that Sandys report his progress regarding the new works to the rest of the commissioners. At this Sandys exploded with rage. ‘I am as good as you’, he told Cutts, ‘a gentleman as well born (both by father and mother) as you, and of as good knowledge and memory as you, and somewhat better, being younger than you’. In reply, Cutts tartly advised Sandys to ‘remember your speeches, Sir Miles, for you shall hear of them again’.44 Shortly thereafter Sandys was dropped from the Isle of Ely’s commission of the peace, of which he had been a member since July 1602.45
Sandys’s highly developed sense of his own status undoubtedly contributed to his decision to purchase a baronetcy in 1611. By April 1613 he was bailiff to the bishop of Ely, a position which he probably owed to Humphrey Tyndall. In the following year he sought election to Parliament, having perhaps been alerted by his brother Sir Edwin to an impending assault in the Commons on the newly created baronetage.46 He was subsequently returned for Shaftesbury, presumably on the interest of Cambridgeshire’s lord lieutenant, Thomas Howard, 1st earl of Suffolk, who was also lord lieutenant of Dorset. However, Sandys was initially doubtful of gaining a seat at Shaftesbury, a town with which he had no prior association, and therefore contacted Suffolk’s brother Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, chancellor of Cambridge University, who was closely associated with the creation of the new rank of baronet. Through a secretary, Northampton nominated Sandys for one of the university’s parliamentary seats. As a former proctor and Cambridge fellow, Sandys was popular with the university’s scholars, and during the election, held in the university’s Senate House on 2 Apr., Sandys received an overwhelming endorsement from them. However, the college heads were determined to return one of their own number, Dr. Barnaby Gooch*, master of Magdalene, and consequently, following the vote, the deputy vice-chancellor announced that Sandys was ineligible on the grounds of non-residence, and that Gooch, who had come third in the poll, would therefore be returned in his stead. In the chaos which ensued the scholars left the building en masse chanting ‘you do us wrong’ and ‘a Sandys, a Sandys!, and made for neighbouring King’s College, where they drew up their own return in Sandys’s favour. When the sheriff endorsed their certificate in preference to the one penned by the vice-chancellor, Sandys’s election was assured.47
On reaching Westminster, Sandys plumped for the University rather than Shaftesbury.48 Though a parliamentary novice, he was immediately appointed to the committee for privileges (8 Apr.), but thereafter he played little recorded part in the House’s proceedings, though he presumably took a keen interest in the baronetcy debate of 23 May. Like his brother Sir Edwin, who was also named to the privileges’ committee, he was nominated to consider the bill for continuing or repealing expiring statutes (8 Apr.), and also to the committee for communicating the House’s fears concerning undertakers to the king (13 April). His other appointments included committees to consider proposals to limit the number of legal actions (24 May) and enfranchise county Durham (31 May). In addition, on 7 May he was named to the committee to discuss two bills which aimed to supplement and explain existing legislation regarding the repair of the highways.49
Sandys served as sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in 1615-16, and was subsequently fined £20 for negligence in executing process.50 In 1617 he was re-admitted to the Isle of Ely bench. He attended the sewer commissioners’ meeting held at Wisbech in May 1618, along with his eldest son Miles, at which it was resolved to construct a new drain through Willingham and Cottenham fens and improve existing drainage at Wilburton.51 Sandys was clearly instrumental in helping his fellow commissioners reach these decisions, but his apparently unauthorized construction of the work known as Bathing Bank, an earthen dam which prevented the eastern outlet of Willingham Mere from overflowing and inundating newly enclosed land, infuriated his neighbours, many of whom protested that their property was frequently flooded as a result.52 A peaceful campaign against the dam was orchestrated by his fellow sewer commissioner Sir John Cutts* the younger, but popular opposition was such that in June 1619 a demonstration involving about 2,000 people was held at Ely, which aimed to disrupt a meeting of the sewer commissioners. When this disturbance was referred to the Cambridge assizes for investigation, the judges urged the parties concerned to reach a peaceful settlement, but Sandys commenced proceedings in Star Chamber against the demonstration’s ringleaders.53 Opposition to Bathing Bank continued, however, for in September 1619 the bishop of Ely took witness statements from the parties involved.54 Sandys attempted to derail this investigation by complaining that gentry objections to his dam masked a personal hostility towards him, but in November the Privy Council received a report from two senior judges dismissing this claim.55 The final outcome of the case is unknown.
The Bathing Bank controversy taught Sandys nothing of the art of conciliation. In November 1621, he effectively declared war on his Willingham tenants, whom he accused in Chancery of over-grazing their cattle and sheep, of refusing to perform manorial services and of occupying land which properly formed part of his demesne. His aim was to force them to agree to surrender a further slice of fen common, but after the matter went to arbitration it was merely decided that each landholder should be required to feed his beasts on the fens in proportion to the acreage he held. This was not the ruling which Sandys had sought, and in October 1622 he busily gathered signatures for a petition to have the land divided equally between all the claimants.56
Sandys’s persistence, and the heavy-handedness of his behaviour, was not merely the product of greed but was a response to a serious crisis in his finances which threatened to plunge him into bankruptcy. In February 1618 he had entered into a bond for £6,000 as a guarantor of the debts of his wife’s brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Josselyn, who was engaged in an expensive attempt to improve Littleport and Upwell fens. By 1622 Josselyn was in serious financial trouble, and was demanding that Sandys pay off his debts, which allegedly amounted to £16,000. After a series of complicated legal manoeuvres, punctuated by the distribution of a libel against him at Stourbridge Fair by some of Josselyn’s supporters, Sandys seized control of his kinsman’s Cambridgeshire manor, which he then proceeded to purchase for a nominal £300. He subsequently paid off £2,800 worth of Josselyn’s debts from his own pocket.57
In September 1622 Sandys averred that neither he nor his fellow sureties would be ruined if they were forced to pay off Josselyn’s debts in full.58 However, this was mere bravado, for during the course of legal proceedings with Josselyn, Sandys allegedly entered into a fictitious bond with one of the farmers of the pretermitted customs in order to claim the privilege of the Exchequer in actions for debt.59 Fear of being imprisoned for debt may also explain why Sandys returned to parliamentary politics in 1621, as membership of the Commons automatically gave him immunity from arrest.
Sandys probably owed his Huntingdon seat to his fellow sewer commissioner Sir Oliver Cromwell*, who lived just outside Huntingdon and was himself no stranger to serious financial difficulties. However, it is also possible that Sandys exercised personal influence over the borough’s electors, as his estates lay along the Ouse between St. Ives and Ely. Once in Parliament, Sandys played only a minor role in its proceedings, making no reported speeches and being named to just 16 legislative committees. A handful of these appointments may have reflected the interests of his brothers, Sir Edwin and Sir Samuel, who had also been returned. His inclusion on the committee for the bill to allow the Virginia and Somers’ Island Companies a monopoly over the tobacco industry (3 May) was surely prompted by Sir Edwin, the Virginia Company’s treasurer, while his inclusion on the committee to consider a measure to prevent the selection of impoverished jurors (19 Apr.) followed a speech delivered by Sir Samuel, who criticized the bill on the grounds that it pried too far into men’s estates.60 All three brothers were added to the committee to consider the House’s grievances on 2 May.61 Perhaps the most striking of Sandys’s nominations in 1621 was to the committee for a bill which sought to give Lady Jermy possession of one third of the estate of Sandys’s fenland neighbour, Sir Simeon Steward* of Stuntney (1 May).62 Sandys’s attitude towards this measure is easy to imagine. Like Sandys, Steward had previously been a leading fen drainer, but after reaching an agreement with his tenants over common rights he had sided with the commoners against Sandys during the disturbances of June 1619.63 Sandys never forgave Steward for siding against him, and several years later accused Steward of corrupt dealings as Cambridgeshire’s collector of purveyance composition for the royal Household, a charge which formed part of the substance of a Star Chamber case brought against Steward by the Crown in 1628.64
None of the committees to which Sandys was named in 1621 appear to have reflected the particular interests of his constituents, although his name was placed on the committee for the bill to sell Peyton manor, Suffolk, alongside that of his fellow Member for Huntingdon, Sir Henry St. John (27 April). As a burgess of Huntingdon he was also entitled to attend the committee for the bill to authorize the sale of the Huntingdonshire manor of Fletton (4 May).65 Several of the committees to which he was appointed dealt with legislation of concern to any magistrate, such as measures to ensure that actions against justices and constables for false imprisonment should be heard in the county concerned (20 Mar.), to regulate innkeepers more effectively (28 May) and prevent abuses of licences to beg (22 November).66 As a landowner faced with potentially chronic financial difficulties, Sandys may have been particularly interested in the measure which aimed to speedy up and simplify the process of pleading for licences of alienation, a long and costly exercise (19 Mar.), and reduce the statutory rate of interest to eight per cent (7 May).67 Sandys is known to have attended the committee for the bill to allow the lands of the Catholic peer Viscount Montagu to be used to discharge certain trusts, to which he was named on 15 March. His interest in the measure has not been established, though one of Montagu’s trustees was Sir Francis Englefield, against whom Sandys later provided damning testimony in Star Chamber.68 It is unclear whether Sandys was genuinely concerned with the other bill committees to which he was appointed. These dealt with the abolition of trial by battle (13 Mar.); the 1548 Chantries Act (22 Mar.); the excessive use of gold and silver in clothing (21 Apr.); the conveyance of the Yorkshire manor of Temple Newsam to Lord D’Aubigny and his wife (1 May); and the sale of the lands of the deceased fraudster Thomas Frith for the benefit of his creditors (26 May).69 Sandys’s remaining appointment was to help draft a bill condemning (Sir) Giles Mompesson’s* alehouse patent (21 April).70
Sandys is known to have expressed an interest in a bill which received a first reading on 7 March. This concerned a fine of £1,440 which in 1609 had been laid on a former sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, Sir John Cage, by the commissioners of sewers for the Great Fens. The commissioners had subsequently agreed that the fine, which was never paid, should not have been imposed, as Cage had not committed any offence in refusing to levy a rate on the towns within his shrievalty for new drainage works. However, their clerk had neglected to record this decision in his minute book, and when a new clerk took office in 1616 he reported the fine to the Exchequer, which prosecuted Cage for debt. Although Cage sued the clerk for making a false certificate, and was awarded damages, there was a risk that he would lose a second related case ‘for want of form in strictness of law’. As one of the sewer commissioners who had imposed the original fine upon Cage, Sandys was naturally interested in this bill, but he must also have been concerned for the fate of the clerk, Nicholas Massey, as Massey was his estate steward. His views on whether the measure should go forward were canvassed by one of his parliamentary colleagues, and are recorded on the back of a surviving breviat of the bill. They appear to have been unfavourable, which may help to explain why the bill never received a second reading.71 The only other mention of Sandys in the records of this Parliament was on 1 June, when it was noted that he was one of 11 sureties who stood bail for Sir John Bennet, who had recently been expelled from the Commons for corruption and was, like himself, a former proctor of Cambridge University.72
Sandys remarried in November 1626 at the age of almost 64. There is no evidence that he sought re-election to Parliament before 1628 when, following the decision of Sir John Cutts* and Sir Edward Peyton* not to stand, he was returned as senior knight of the shire for Cambridgeshire. He left no trace on the records of the 1629 session, and in those for 1628 he received only three mentions. These concerned his appointment to committees concerned with the complaints directed against the Cornish deputy lieutenants, who had allegedly interfered in their county’s election (9 May), a bill to amend a word in the 1624 Act to enable Vincent Lowe of Derbyshire to sell land to pay off his debts (16 May), and the recently established commissions to compound with recusants (24 May).73 Following the dissolution Sandys retired to his estates, donating £100 towards the cost of building Peterhouse’s new chapel in 1629.74 In 1632 he was allotted two shares in the earl of Bedford’s scheme for draining the Great Levels, but neither he nor his eldest son Sir Miles ever saw the benefit of their investment.75 In June 1638 he declined to attend the Council Board to discuss the recent outbreak of rioting in Wicken Fen, pleading the infirmities of old age.76 During the Civil War he was appointed to several important county committees by Parliament during the Civil War, despite his advanced years. He drew up a brief will on 10 Dec. 1644, in which, after making provision for his servants, he assigned the residue of his estate to his son Sir Miles. His final request, as recorded in the will register, was to be buried at ‘Strenham’, a copyist’s error no doubt for the chapel he had built for himself at Stretham. The precise date of his death has not been established, but his will was proved on 29 April 1645.77 None of his direct descendants sat in Parliament.
Ref Volumes: 1604-1629
Author: Andrew Thrush
- 1. E.S. Sandys, Hist. of Sandys Fam. i. 88.
- 2. Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. xlii), 118; Sandys, ii. ped. C; Reg. Merchant Taylors’ Sch. comp. C.J. Robinson; Al. Cant.; St. Mary Aldermanbury (Harl. Soc. Reg. lxi), 116.
- 3. T. Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence, 586.
- 4. Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 106.
- 5. C66/1942/15.
- 6. Bodl. Rawl. C368, f. 84.
- 7. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1541-1857 iv. York Diocese comp. J.M. Horn and D.M. Smith, 48, 64.
- 8. Add. 33467, ff. 135v, 182.
- 9. Historical Reg. of Camb. Univ. to 1910 ed. J.R. Tanner, 390.
- 10. CSP Dom. 1591-4, p. 325.
- 11. C231/1, ff. 50v, 92v; 231/4, f. 34; C66/1549, 1988; Cal. Assize Recs. Essex Indictments, Eliz. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 497, 531.
- 12. C181/1, f. 3v; 181/2, f. 96; C231/4, f. 42; C66/2859, m. 30 dorse; C193/13/2, f. 24v.
- 13. C181/1, f. 15.
- 14. C181/4, f. 196v.
- 15. C181/1, f. 32; 181/5, f. 258.
- 16. C181/1, ff. 32, 122.
- 17. Lansd. 168, f. 151v.
- 18. C181/2, f. 62; SP14/47/82.
- 19. W. Cunningham, ‘Common Rights at Cottenham and Stretham’, Cam. Misc. xii. (Cam. Soc. ser. 3. xviii), 261.
- 20. SP14/43/107.
- 21. E403/2732, f. 93v.
- 22. List of Sheriffs comp. A. Hughes (PRO, L. and I. ix), 14.
- 23. C181/3, f. 13; 181/4, f. 56.
- 24. C212/22/20.
- 25. C181/3, f. 126v.
- 26. C193/12/2, ff. 4v, 17v; T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 2, p. 144.
- 27. Harl. 4014, ff. 2v, 47v, 55v.
- 28. A. and O. i. 90, 111, 140, 146, 227, 293, 538.
- 29. Hunts. RO, D/DM19/3/1.
- 30. C. Holmes, ‘Drainers and Fenmen’, in Order and Disorder in Early Modern Eng. ed. A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson, 182.
- 31. W.G. Searle, Hist. of Queens’ Coll. Camb. (Camb. Antiq. Soc. ix. and xiii), 359.
- 32. Sandys, i. 232-3.
- 33. N. Country Wills ii. ed. J.W. Clay (Surtees Soc. cxxi), 137.
- 34. E112/71/158.
- 35. Calculated from C2/Jas.I/S19/64.
- 36. Add. 5847, f. 12; C2/Jas.I/E7/39.
- 37. Cunningham, 184-5.
- 38. C54/1867.
- 39. Holmes, 182, 193.
- 40. M. Spufford, Contrasting Communities, 122-5; VCH Cambs. ix. 405.
- 41. CJ, i. 207b, 277a, 298b, 414b.
- 42. CLRO, Reps. 26, f. 359; Lansd. 168, f. 151v.
- 43. C.J. Smith, Erith, 65; SR, v. 1146-7.
- 44. Harl. 5011, f. 14v.
- 45. His name does not appear among the list of commrs. appointed in 1614: C66/1988.
- 46. Sir Edwin went on to report the petition against the baronetage to the House: Procs. 1614 (Commons), 320, 325, 327.
- 47. Camb. Antiq. Soc. Procs. xvii. 204-9.
- 48. HEHL, Hastings ms Llx3.
- 49. Procs. 1614 (Commons), 33, 35, 76, 170, 334, 389.
- 50. WARD 9/594, unfol.
- 51. Add. 33466, f. 13.
- 52. VCH Cambs. ix. 399.
- 53. Lindley, 38.
- 54. CUL, UA T.XII.1, nos. 4, 22.
- 55. APC, 1619-23, p. 96.
- 56. C2/Jas.I/S19/64; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 420, 455.
- 57. Lindley, 39; C3/381/1; Add. 5808, ff. 118-19; C24/607/62, p. 16. For the connection between Sandys and Josselyn, see Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. xlii), 118.
- 58. Add. 5808, f. 118v.
- 59. E112/86/147.
- 60. CJ, i. 582a-b, 605b. Sandys was twice named in error to the cttee. for the jurors’ bill, the second time doubtless in error for Sir Samuel.
- 61. Ibid. 602b.
- 62. Ibid. 600b; CD 1621, vi. 119.
- 63. APC, 1618-19, p. 475.
- 64. SP16/26/77; APC, 1626, p. 29; Northants. RO, FH2815.
- 65. CJ, i. 593b, 606b.
- 66. Ibid. 563b, 628b, 641b; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 199.
- 67. CJ, i. 562a, 611a.
- 68. Ibid. 554a; HLRO, main pprs. 22 Feb. 1621; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 545.
- 69. CJ, i. 551a, 568b, 584b, 598b, 627b; Nicholas, i. 363.
- 70. CJ, i. 586b.
- 71. Eg. 2651, ff. 76, 77v; CD 1621, v. 278 (name wrongly rendered as ‘Gage’). For the identification of Massey as Sandys’s estate steward, see C2/Jas.I/W23/14.
- 72. LJ, iii. 151b.
- 73. CD 1628, iii. 336, 429, 593.
- 74. T.A. Walker, Biographical Reg. of Peterhouse Men, ii. 31.
- 75. Sandys, 234.
- 76. CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 493.
- 77. PROB 11/193, f. 24v; W.M. Palmer, Episcopal Vis. Returns for Cambs. 55.