ANDERSON PELHAM, Hon. Charles (1781-1846), of Manby in Broughton, Lincs.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 8 Aug. 1781, 1st s. of Charles Anderson Pelham*, 1st Baron Yarborough, and bro. of Hon. George Anderson Pelham*. educ. Eton 1793-6; Trinity Coll. Camb. 1799; continental tour 1801-3. m. 11 Aug. 1806, Henrietta Anna Maria Charlotte, da. of Hon. John Bridgeman Simpson* of Babworth Hall, Notts., and h. of her mother, his 1st w. Henrietta Frances, da. and event. h. of Sir Thomas Worsley, 6th Bt., of Appuldurcombe, I.o.W., 2s. 3da. suc. fa. as 2nd Baron Yarborough 22 Sept. 1823; cr. Earl of Yarborough 30 Jan. 1837.
Master, Brocklesby hounds 1816-d.; recorder, Grimsby 1823-32, Newport, I.o.W. 1825-32.
Lt.-col. 2nd regt. N. Lincs. vols. 1803; capt. N. Wold yeomanry 1805; lt.-col. N. Lincs. yeoman cav. 1831; v.-adm. Hants and I.o.W. 1831.
Anderson Pelham entered Parliament soon after his return from Paris, where he had been taken ill after a continental tour.1 Coming in on the family interest for Grimsby, he followed his father’s line, joining Brooks’s Club 2 June 1803 and supporting opposition. Listed ‘Windham’ in March 1804, he voted with them in both the divisions of 23 and 25 Apr. that brought down Addington. Listed ‘Grenville’ in May, he voted against Pitt’s second administration, which labelled him ‘Fox and Grenville’ (September 1804) and ‘Opposition’ (July 1805). He voted for the censure and criminal prosecution of Melville, 8 Apr., 12 June 1805. He supported the Grenville ministry and voted for Brand’s motion following their dismissal, 9 Apr. 1807.
In 1807, though rumoured to lack the nerves and money for a contest, he successfully offered himself for Lincolnshire as a friend of the outgoing ministry. He was also returned for Grimsby, but unseated on petition. In that Parliament the Whigs regarded him as one of their ‘thick and thin’ supporters. At the time they claimed this (March 1810), it had been true; he had also joined the ‘Mountain’ in supporting Folkestone’s motion for an inquiry into abuses, 17 Apr. 1809 and Madocks’s alleging ministerial corruption, 11 May 1810. From February 1810 his attendance, though not his loyalty, became questionable. He voted for sinecure and parliamentary reform, 17, 21 May 1810, but took a month’s leave of absence for illness on 1 Jan. 1811 and is not known to have attended for the rest of the session. In 1812 he supported opposition to the orders in council, 3 Mar., voted for Catholic relief (as also in 1808), 24 Apr., the sinecure regulation bill, 4 May, Stuart Wortley’s motion for a stronger government, 21 May, and opposed the leather tax, 26 June.
In the session of 1813 Anderson Pelham’s only surviving vote was against the vice-chancellor bill, 11 Feb.: he was absent, favourable, on the Catholic question. In May 1815 he resumed voting, regularly supporting retrenchment. His only known speech before 1820 was in favour of the county petition against the property tax which he and others presented on 18 Mar. 1816, though it was disparaged by Sir Robert Heron, a more advanced Whig, as a Tory rather than a Whig concoction.2 In 1817 he opposed the suspension of habeas corpus in February and June and subsequently the use of informers by government, 5 Mar. 1818. On this question he had consulted his father at the outset and found him somewhat alarmist, but decided that a Whig ‘in doubt’ should take the line he did. He took his cue from Lord Milton, by whom he now proposed to be guided in his politics. His father approved his conduct.3
Anderson Pelham was sorely tried in the county election of 1818 when Sir Robert Heron offered his concurrence and nearly upset the applecart. His decision to remain neutral confirmed Heron’s contention that he was an ambivalent Whig, and as he was, even on the hustings, a ‘very bad’ speaker, much ill feeling was created.4 He headed the poll, in which Heron was defeated, and signed the requisition to Tierney to lead the Whigs. He had voted for Tierney’s motion on the resumption of cash payments by the Bank, 1 May 1818, and did so again, 2 Feb. 1819. He further voted for Tierney’s censure motion, 18 May. He was considered lukewarm about parliamentary reform, having opposed Burdett’s motion of 20 May 1817, but voted for burgh reform on 6 May 1819. He was in the minority the following session until 2 Dec., when he opposed the seditious meetings bill; but on 6 Dec. joined the Whig alarmists in supporting ministers.5 Heron described him in 1823 as ‘an unwilling convert to moderate reform’: he had since 1806 returned a Member for Newtown on the strength of his wife’s inheritance.6 He died 5 Sept. 1846.