GROVE, Thomas (1609-92), of Ferne, Donhead St Andrew, Wilts.

Descended from an ancient Buckinghamshire family, the Groves had settled in Wiltshire by the late fifteenth century, acquiring an estate at Ferne in the parish of Donhead St Andrew and other lands on the Dorset-Wiltshire border by the end of the sixteenth century.19VCH Wilts. xiii. 129-30. The family also built up strong connections with the town of Shaftesbury in Dorset, four miles from Ferne: various Groves had sat for the borough in sixteenth century Parliaments, and William Grove, uncle of Thomas, served as the town’s recorder from 1614, and owned a large house there.20Hutchins, Dorset, iii. 3, 7, 40; Municipal Recs. of Shaftesbury ed. C.H. Mayo (Sherborne, 1889), 9, 51, 53. Thomas Grove’s upbringing reflected his family’s local status. In 1627, he was admitted to study at the Middle Temple, where his maternal uncle, Thomas South, was master of the bench, and in the following year he married the widow of his Shaftesbury cousin, John Grove. After his wife’s death three years later, Thomas Grove married a local widow – that of Robert Henley of Leigh – whose father was a Wiltshire landowner.21M. Temple Admiss.; Hutchins, Dorset, iii. 568; Wilts. RO, 865/5.

Before the first civil war, Grove did not play an active part in county politics, but in 1642 he emerged as a parliamentarian, and in February 1643 he was named as one of the commissioners to raise forces and money in Wiltshire for Parliament’s war effort.22A. and O. Grove’s factional affiliations in the mid-1640s are hard to pin down. In about December 1645 he was returned as a ‘recruiter’ MP for the Somerset borough of Milborne Port, in what the Presbyterians denounced as an ‘illegal election’.23The Scotish Dove no. 115 (24 Dec. 1645-1 Jan. 1646), 910 (E.314.2). His fellow MP, William Carent, owed his election to the influence of the prominent Somerset political Independent, John Pyne*, and Grove may have been returned on the same ticket. It is unlikely that he enjoyed a strong proprietorial interest at Milborne Port, for his residence at Ferne lay some ten miles east of the borough in Wiltshire.

Despite his possible links with Pyne, there are indications that Grove’s true sympathies lay closer to the Presbyterians, not least when it came to religion. He attended the Commons and took the Covenant on 28 January 1646.24CJ iv. 420b. In June he was in Hampshire, where he was a party to the marriage settlement of the future Presbyterian, John Bulkeley*, whose wife seems to have been related to Grove.25Hants. RO, 1M53/449-50, 1179. He was back in Westminster by 4 August, when he was named to a committee on a petition of the inhabitants of the church in Tuthill Fields, Westminster, within the 11th Presbyterian classis, seeking maintenance for their minister.26CJ iv. 632a. Grove was again given leave to go into the country on 28 August.27CJ iv. 658a. He remained in Wiltshire and north Dorset for much of the autumn, and during the hard-fought elections for Shaftesbury in October supported the local Presbyterian, John Fitzjames*, who relied on his ‘assistance and voices (which I know to be much and many)’ to secure the support of the corporation for his election.28Alnwick, Northumberland MS 547, ff. 46-7. As Fitzjames told Robert Hunt* on 20 October: ‘I have written to Mr Groves, and shall (if all be straight) steer very much by his compass’.29Alnwick, Northumberland MS 547, f. 49. Fitzjames seems to have over-estimated Grove’s influence, however, as he was not elected.

Grove had returned to Westminster by the 30 October 1646, when he was named to the committee to consider the appointment of sheriffs.30CJ iv. 709b. In December he was added to the committee of privileges and named to a committee to consider a clause in the agreement with the Scots for the transfer of the king into Parliament’s custody.31CJ v. 14b, 30a. Although Grove’s involvement in parliamentary affairs over the next few months was patchy, there are further signs of his attachment to Presbyterian church forms. On 31 December he was named, with Denzil Holles, Zouche Tate and others, to the committee to consider complaints against non-ordained preachers; on 10 February he joined Anthony Nicoll on the committee for a bill to appoint Samuel Austen as rector of a Cornish parish; and on 23 March he was added to the committee for regulating Oxford University.32CJ v. 35a, 84b, 121a. On 4 June he was appointed to invite the Somerset Presbyterian, Thomas Manton, to preach to the Commons, and at this time he became the target for London sectaries, who denounced him ‘with scornful speeches and offensive carriage’.33CJ v. 198a; Harington’s Diary, 52-3. Yet in political terms Grove was aloof from the Presbyterians and may even have favoured the Independents: he was absent from the Commons during the Presbyterian coup in July; on 18 August he was named to the committee which condemned the ‘forcing’ of the Houses; and, after a period of leave, in October he was involved in drafting fresh propositions to be sent to the king.34A. and O.; CJ v. 205a, 278a, 292a, 330b, 346b. Grove continued to attend Parliament during the early weeks of 1648, being named to committees to consider the grievances of the people (4 Jan.) and to scrutinize an ordinance for indemnifying the tenants of Catholics and royalists against prosecution for supporting Parliament (29 Jan.).35CJ v. 417a, 447b.

Grove was granted leave of absence to ‘recover his health’ on 15 March 1648.36CJ v. 498a. His return to Westminster at the end of April coincided with the first stirrings of the second civil war, and Grove became more active in the Commons. Particularly striking is his involvement in business concerning London and the militia. On 27 April he was appointed to a committee to examine a petition from London, and on 4 May he was named to the committee tasked with settling the militia.37CJ v. 546a, 551a. On 18 and 26 May he was appointed to two committees to maintain good relations with the common council of London, and to settle the City militia during the renewed civil war.38CJ v. 565a, 574a. On 13 June he was again included in efforts to settle the militia and the following day he was one of those chosen to consider the recent rising in Kent.39CJ v. 597b, 599b. Grove appears to have been absent from mid-June to the beginning of October, when he acted as teller with Richard Norton against a motion to separate Coventry from Warwickshire in the administration of the militia ordinance.40CJ vi. 42b. During the autumn Grove at last threw in his lot with the political Presbyterians. On 9 October he was named to the committee on an ordinance to raise money for the defence of Parliament against interference from the military, and on 13 October he was named to another committee to provide money for the commissioners treating with the king on the Isle of Wight.41CJ vi. 47a, 51a. It was no doubt his involvement in the peace process that led to Grove’s seclusion from the Commons in Pride’s Purge on 6 December.42A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5); Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 375.

Grove’s exclusion from Parliament did not lead to his immediate removal from the local administration, and he continued to be appointed to the Somerset assessment commissions in 1649 and 1650 despite the dominance in the county of the Independent clique under John Pyne.43A. and O. In August 1654 Grove was elected as MP for Wiltshire in the first protectorate Parliament, and although he shared the scruples of other Presbyterians about accepting the ‘recognition’ of Cromwell as lord protector, he was soon won over, with Thomas Gewen* writing on 10 October that Grove, with Bulkeley and ‘many more will go in with us this week’.44Archaeologia, xxiv. 140. In the House, Grove became a leading member of the aggressive Presbyterian group that challenged the very foundations of the protectorate. On 7 December he was named to a committee to consider votes on revising the Instrument of Government; on 13 December he joined Bulkeley as teller against allowing the Government Bill to include provision for the protector and Parliament to share responsibility for religion; and on 13 January he was named to a committee to consider what revenues should be settled on the government in the new bill.45CJ vii. 398b, 400b, 415b. Grove’s concern for an orderly religious settlement can also be seen in his appointment to committees to consider uniting parishes and allowing corporations to raise money locally for the maintenance of ministers (7 Dec.), the ‘particular enumeration of damnable heresies’ (12 Dec.) and to counter the blasphemous publications of the Unitarian, John Biddle (12 Dec.).46CJ vii. 397b, 399b, 400a. He was also involved in financial measures, being named to committees on the transport of corn (12 Oct.), the relief of poor creditors and prisoners (25 Oct.), the taking of accounts (22 Nov.) and the business of the ‘merchants of the intercourse’ (4 Dec.).47CJ vii. 375b, 378b, 387b, 395a.

After the dissolution of the Parliament in January 1655, Grove appears to have softened his attitude towards the protectorate, and was soon on fairly good terms with Secretary John Thurloe* and even with Oliver Cromwell* himself.48Bodl. Rawl. A.28, p. 52. With Roger Hill II* – another west country lawyer – Grove may have been one of the attorneys employed by the state to prosecute John Penruddock and his fellow royalist rebels at the Salisbury assizes in April 1655.49Som. RO, DD/PH/224, f. 208v. In the final months of 1655 Grove was appointed to the protectoral council’s committees on trade and the relief of Piedmontese Protestants.50CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 1, 100. Yet Grove was not uncritical of the regime. In December 1655 the major-general for the western counties, John Disbrowe*, found Grove reluctant to serve under him in the Wiltshire commission to secure the peace of the commonwealth, ‘he being honest and able, though tender’.51TSP iv. 300-1. Grove explained to Disbrowe that ‘I cannot undertake any business of consequence, till I have had some serious thoughts about it, and have debated it with mine own weak judgment, that my conscience may be clearly satisfied in what I do’.52TSP iv. 301. Grove appears to have accepted the necessity of pursuing ‘old enemies’, but had fears that ‘there may be some scruple in the manner of doing this’: a reference to the decimation tax on royalists that maintained the major-generals and their militia companies.53TSP iv. 301. Other aspects of government policy (such as the suppression of dangerous sectaries) accorded well with Grove’s sensibilities, however. In Wiltshire, Grove’s activities against the Quakers earned him the reputation of being ‘a pestilent fellow against Friends’, and in Dorset he worked with Edward Butler*, John Fitzjames* and James Dewy I* in imprisoning Quakers.54SP18/130, f. 46.

In August 1656 Grove was returned as MP for Wiltshire in the second protectoral Parliament. Although he attended the House at the beginning of the session, and was named to a committee to attend Cromwell with a declaration for a fast day on 22 September, his scruples caused him to withdraw from the House altogether by the beginning of November.55CJ vii. 426a. On 7 November he wrote to Thurloe explaining that he had left ‘not from any spirit of opposition or passion, but merely from tenderness and dissatisfaction’, adding that the ‘stick lies … in the oaths and engagements that have formerly been taken … to maintain, according to my place and calling the liberty of the people and the privileges of Parliament’. He was emphatic that the Covenant, ‘being as I think the most serious and solemn that ever was taken by men’, should not be compromised by the protectorate.56Bodl. Rawl. A.44, f. 114. By the new year of 1657 Grove seems to have calmed his conscience, and he returned to the Commons, where he was named to committees on petitions and land grants, and on 31 January was chosen to attend Cromwell with a declaration for a day of thanksgiving for his survival of the Sindercombe plot.57CJ vii. 477a-b, 484b, 488b, 490b, 491b, 493b. Grove also took an active role in religious affairs. He was named to committees for propagating the gospel and maintaining preaching ministers (9 Feb., 31 Mar.) for the better observance of the Lord’s Day (18 Feb.), and to investigate the treatment in Bridewell of the Quaker, James Naylor (28 Feb.).58CJ vii. 488a, 493b, 497b, 515b. He was also a reporter and teller (with Thomas Bampfylde) in favour of amendments to the bill on catechising considered on 16 March.59CJ vii. 504b, 512a. Grove went on to report the findings of the committee on the Lord’s Day on 3 April, and in June argued that enforcement should cover private houses as well as public places, for if not ‘you give liberty to private houses to be as profane as they please’.60CJ vii. 519b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 261, 264.

Grove’s concern for good order may have encouraged him to join other Presbyterians in giving his guarded support to the new civilian constitution unveiled on 23 February: the Remonstrance, soon to be renamed the Humble Petition and Advice. On 12 March he was named to the committee which considered the judicial role of the new upper chamber, the Other House, and the next day he was teller with Bampfylde against providing a generous financial settlement to support the government and the armed forces.61CJ vii. 502a, 502b. The religious settlement was of obvious importance, and on 19 March Grove was included in the committee on a clause allowing liberty only to those ministers subscribing a ‘confession of faith’.62CJ vii. 507b. Making Cromwell king may have been more of a problem for Grove, and he was conspicuous in his absence from the list of MPs who voted in favour of kingship on 25 March; nevertheless, two days later he was included in the committee sent to the protector to agree a time and place to present the new constitution, including the offer of the crown.63Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5); CJ vii. 514a. On 9 April Grove joined Broghill, Wolseley, Bulstrode Whitelocke* and other prominent ‘kinglings’ on a committee to answer Cromwell’s doubts about the proposals, and on 24 April he was named to a committee to consider his response to the 16th article.64CJ vii. 521b, 524a.

After the protector’s final refusal of the crown on 8 May, Grove was involved in moves to revise the Humble Petition. On 19 May he was named to the committee to consider how to define and limit the powers of the protector, but he was not satisfied, as on 22 May he and Thomas Fell were tellers against the committee’s recommendations.65CJ vii. 535a, 537b. Despite his earlier opposition to the notion, on 30 May he was named to a committee to inspect the treasuries to see how the money specified to maintain the government might be raised.66CJ vii. 543a. On 15 June he was appointed to a committee to consider how officers of state would be chosen under the new constitution and on 23 June he was named to a committee to draft the oath to be taken by Cromwell as lord protector.67CJ vii. 557b, 570b. Grove, with his heightened sensitivity to oaths and oath-taking, was not the obvious person to make this decision. On 24 June he duly raised objections ‘against any oath at all in this case’, warning that such a requirement ‘will but keep out the conscientious and let in those that make no scruple of any oath’.68Burton’s Diary, ii. 290. Despite his reservations about the new constitution, on the same day Grove joined Joachim Mathews* and Bampfylde in defending it against those who wanted to introduce last-minute changes, telling the House: ‘I hope you would not, at first, break the Petition and Advice’.69Burton’s Diary, ii. 298.

Grove’s deeply equivocal attitude towards the protectorate is illuminated further by two incidents in the late spring and early summer of 1657. In a speech of 30 April, on whether legislation passed by the Rump should be ratified by the present Parliament, he claimed to have ‘as great an opinion of the Long Parliament as any man’, but went on to condemn the ‘violence offered to them’ by the 1648 Purge, adding that the Long Parliament MPs ‘were not infallible’. By its actions, insisted Grove, Parliament had undermined its claim to be ‘the representatives of the people’. Even more controversially, Grove also attacked the high court of justice, whose actions ‘I cannot give my consent to’, although he stopped short of condemning the execution of the king.70Burton’s Diary, ii. 85-6. In a letter to Henry Cromwell* dated 9 June, Anthony Morgan* reported that the proposal to grant Charles Fleetwood* lands in Ireland had been opposed by his ally, John Disbrowe*, ‘as he said out of kindness to him’, adding ‘I cannot tell whether Bampfylde, Godfrey, Grove and that gang did it upon that account’.71Henry Cromwell Corresp. 281; Burton’s Diary, ii. 199. There was no doubt that by this stage Grove was an enemy of both the commonwealthsmen and the army interest, or that he was a key member of an increasingly confident and well-organised Presbyterian group. It seems that his support for the Humble Petition was caused not by enthusiasm for Cromwell but by fear of the alternative.

The death of the protector in September 1658 ushered in a period of political instability, which allowed radicals such as John Pyne to reassert their position in the west country. In reaction, a number of former Presbyterians (notably John Fitzjames and Anthony Ashley Cooper*) sponsored their own candidates, and it was probably on this interest that Grove was elected as MP for Marlborough in Wiltshire in January 1659. Grove seems to have supported the new protector, Richard Cromwell*, who was known to be favourable to the Presbyterians, and he also maintained links with Henry Cromwell*, the lord lieutenant of Ireland, whom he commended for his efforts to ‘own and countenance the ways and people and truths of God, and the ministers of Jesus Christ’.72Lansd. 823, f. 237; cf. Henry Cromwell Corresp. 467. In Parliament, Grove again worked closely with those Presbyterians prepared to countenance the protectorate. According to the Scottish agent, James Sharp, in early March Grove was one of the ‘chief’ of those who ‘sway to the protector’s party’, alongside John Swynfen, John Birch, Richard Knightley, Lambarde Godfrey and Thomas Bampfylde.73Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 156. Jerome Sankey concurred, telling Henry Cromwell* that Grove, Swynfen, Bampfylde, Godfrey and their allies ‘fell in with the court party’ in support of the Other House, because they hoped to preserve the rights of the old peers ‘upon the account of the Covenant’.74Henry Cromwell Corresp. 473.

Grove’s commitment to the Covenant is not in doubt. On 5 February he was named to committees to consider promoting godly ministry in northern England and Wales, and from 11 March he was outspoken in his defence of the right of the Scottish MPs to sit in the House, on 18 March attacking Serjeant John Wylde for his long-winded legalism with the waspish comment that he marvelled ‘at his wisdom to cite so many precedents of a case that never was heard of before’.75Burton’s Diary, iv. 123, 166, 184. On 19 March he joined Bulkeley as teller against forcing the Scottish MPs to withdraw from the House while their eligibility to sit was discussed.76CJ vii. 600b, 616a, 623b. When the issue was debated in the House on the same day, Grove poked fun at those who claimed ‘60 Members will overbalance you’ with the retort: ‘if you be as united as they, they cannot!’77Schilling thesis, 249. His own argument harked back to the Covenant, and the bond between the two nations established then: ‘Union is most desirable with brethren Protestants, nay Protestants of the best profession of the world. This is a superlative. How pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!’ A few days later Grove was one of the English Presbyterians named to the committee of Scottish affairs.78CJ vii. 623b.

Grove’s unpopularity with the commonwealthsmen increased at the end of March. On 29 March the House debated the declaration that would authorise the forthcoming fast day. The fast was politically charged, as it would require the approval of the Other House, and tensions soon led to personal snubs. When Sir Henry Vane II took the opportunity to call the Parliament ‘rather a prudential constitution than a Parliament’ on 29 March, he was called to the bar by Grove, seconded by Bulkeley.79Henry Cromwell Corresp. 488; Burton’s Diary, iv. 294. When on 2 April Grove moved an amendment that the declaration would include a clause ‘to implore a blessing from God upon the proceedings of this present Parliament’, Vane retorted: ‘I like the clause well, I wonder how it was omitted’ – a remark deemed to be ‘an ill wipe to Mr Grove who brought in the declaration’.80Burton’s Diary, iv. 332-3. This was not merely a political issue, moreover. Grove’s involvement in drafting the declaration, working with Nathaniel Bacon*, James Sharp and various London ministers, had turned it into an attack on ‘erroneous opinions and practices’ in religion, and especially ‘abuse of liberty of conscience’.81Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 161-2; Burton’s Diary, iv. 300, 328n. He was also said to have criticised the current arrangements in debate, ‘taking shame ... for neglecting to settle the government of the church’ and allowing the proliferation of heresies.82Ludlow, Mems. ii. 60. In retaliation, John Sadler* reminded the House ‘that when the children of Israel were delivered out of Egypt they … worshipped Baal and set up a grove’.83Clarke Pprs. v. 283. On 30 March Grove and Bulkeley were named to a committee to present reasons for the fast, and Grove reported this declaration to the Commons on 2 April, and it was agreed on 5 April despite further opposition from Vane, who ‘spoke against the declaration, principally because of the clause touching toleration’.84CJ vii. 622a, 623b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 343.

Once the declaration for the fast day was agreed by the House, the thorny question of how to present it to the upper chamber was considered. A committee, including Grove, was set up to consider this on 6 April; and it was resolved on 14 April that Grove should take the declaration to the Other House for concurrence – a measure which had the effect of recognizing the new House’s authority.85CJ vii. 627a, 639b. He duly led the delegation to the Other House which received them with traditional ceremony.86Burton’s Diary, iv. 426-8, 434. The incident angered the republican commonwealthsmen, and in particular Edmund Ludlowe II*, who accused Grove and his friends of being members of a ‘cavalier party ... all of them attending like so many lackeys at the bar of the Other House’.87Ludlow, Mems. ii. 60. Such impressions can only have been reinforced by Grove’s appointment to a committee set up on 18 April, which aimed to defend the protectorate against the army.88CJ vii. 641b; Hutton, Restoration, 37. The army forced the dissolution of Parliament three days later, and the protectorate collapsed in May.

By the new year of 1660 the fortunes of the Presbyterians had begun to recover, as George Monck* faced down his opponents in the army and marched on London. At this time, Grove reappeared on county commissions, and in February, when the secluded Members of the Long Parliament returned to the House, he again took his seat at Westminster.89A. and O. Grove sat in the Commons during February and March, and his committee appointments again suggest that he was interested primarily in maintaining religious and political stability. He was named to committees for settling religion (29 Feb.) and approving ministers (2 Mar.); he was added to the committee for militia (25 Feb.) and named to committees on securing loans from London and settling the City militia (29 Feb.).90CJ vii. 853a, 855b, 856a, 858a. He was added to a committee to repeal former sequestrations acts on 1 March, and between 3 and 13 March was named to a committee on Christ Church, Oxford, and reported its findings.91CJ vii. 856b, 860b, 871a, 872b. Whether Grove actively supported the restoration of monarchy is uncertain. He readily served in the Convention Parliament in April 1660, sitting for his local town, Shaftesbury. He was listed by Lord Wharton as one who was likely to support a Presbyterian church settlement. But his hopes of a Presbyterian resurgence under Charles II soon faded, and his political career petered out soon afterwards.92HP Commons 1660-1690.

Grove’s religious ardour, which had characterised his career in the previous 20 years, continued to play a dominant part in his life after the Restoration. By the late 1660s Grove, and his son, Robert, were sheltering ejected Presbyterian ministers from south-west Wiltshire, including the former vicar of Donhead St Andrew, Peter ‘Praying’ Ince, and Compton South, who was related to the Groves through the Souths of Swallowcliffe.93VCH Wilts. xiii. 137, 152-4. Conventicles, held on the Grove estate at Ferne, attracted up to 200 and 300 people in 1669 and 1674 respectively.94VCH Wilts. xiii. 137, 154. Seth Ward, the bishop of Salisbury, excommunicated Grove in 1670 for his habitual absence from church, and the chapel at Ferne was raided in 1677; but Grove’s reputation as a Presbyterian stalwart continued to grow, and Richard Baxter lauded him as ‘an ancient Parliament-man, of as great sincerity and integrity, as almost any man I ever knew’.95M. Sylvester, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), part iii. 86. Grove had settled his estate by the time he wrote his will in February 1689, and left only minor bequests to relatives, servants, local ministers and the poor of Lower and Upper Donhead. He died in 1692 and was succeeded by his son, Robert.96PROB11/413/403.