TWO EARLIER SANDYS INCIDENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 50, 27 August 1938, Page 27

TWO EARLIER SANDYS INCIDENTS

In the House of Commons an M.P. i referred to the fact that another Sandys, more than 300 years ago, was concerned in a question of Parliamentary privilege, writes F.,-G. PrinceWhite in the "Daily Mail." That was Sir Edwin Sandys, curiously enough an ancestor of the House of Ppmmons' present Mr. Sandys. Sir Edwin, son of an Archbishop of York, was a dominant figure in Parliament during the reign of James I— indeed, much too dominant for his Sovereign's liking. He claimed absolute freedom of speech in the discussion of any matteraffecting the welfare of the country, and held that this right was lifted above all powers, the King's included. .Ever ready to proceed in this conviction,; he frequently said' things that made the Commons rather nervous. There came a day, in 1614, when his guiding principle led him to affirm openly that the King's authority rested on the consent of the people, and to declare that there were reciprocal conditions of this relationship "which neither King nor people might violate with impunity." James was furious. A few weeks later, on the dissolution of Parliament, 'Sir Edwin was summoned before the Privy Council on account of his free speaking. However, he remained so staunch in his attitude, and used so much reason and clear sense in his answers, that he went from the Council "without taint or touch." ; Nevertheless, he was ordered not to leave London without special permission, and was compelled to give bonds to appear on command. ; There was no Parliament for six years after that incident —and it was npt until then that the Commons had a' chance of saying what they thought about it. The matter was brought forward among the earliest business, and on a heavy vote it was decided to peti-

tion the King, submitting that by the summons of Sir Edwin Sandys before the Privy Council a breach of the privilege of free, speech had been committed. Apparently the satisfaction of arriving at such a decision was sufficient for that particular Parliament; at any rate, nothing more was done. A few months afterwards, Sir Edwin found himself locked up in the Tower. Natuisally, the Commons believed he was a victim of the enemies of free speech, and they did not conceal their belief. James took counsel, and at the end of a month Sandys was out. The King never ceased to regard him as a thorn in the flesh. Once James advised: "Choose the Devil if you will, but not Sir Edwin Sandys." In your article "The Case of Sandys, M.P., 300 Years Ago," no reference was made to what became of our ancestor, Sir Edwin Sandys, and his defence of the rights of free speech in the House of Commons, wrote Lord Sandys to the "Daily Mail" a day or so later. King James, hearing that Sir Edwin was due to address the House, appeared to hear his speech, upon which Sir Edwin, instead of delivering it. rose and said, "I spy strangers." This so annoyed the King that he promoted Sir Edwin to the office of "Lord of the Plantations," which meant banishing him to Virginia. " .. . . It was in Sir Edward's house that the first American Parliament was held. Some years ago they sent over from Washington to have a copy made of a fine picture of Sir Edwin I have here. I understand it is now in the [Senate House. Lord Sandys is the fifth Baron. The first Baron Sandys was a lineal descendant of Edwin Sandys, Archbishop of York, whose second son was Sir Edwin Sandys, who entered Parliament in 1586.