This Member came from a junior branch of the Pelhams of Laughton in Sussex and was the first cousin twice removed of Thomas Pelham*. Pelham inherited lands in several counties, including Lincolnshire and Sussex, to which he added by marriage and purchase; he also had some interest in the iron industry both in Sussex and in Ireland.
In 1603 Pelham joined his brother-in-law Lord de la Warr (Thomas West†) in signing the Sussex petition in favour of puritanism that was drafted shortly after the Millenary Petition was presented to the new king.
Pelham was named to 17 committees in the first Jacobean Parliament. Three of the six to which he was named during the first session were for church bills, and the first of them, for reform of the ecclesiastical courts (16 June 1604), was entrusted to his care. A bill on ecclesiastical government was also delivered to him when it was referred to the same committee three days later. There were no further recorded proceedings in respect of either bill.
In the second session Pelham was named to only two committees, to study means of providing for a resident and learned ministry (22 Jan. 1606), and to consider another bill on ecclesiastical government (25 Feb. 1606).
During the fourth session Pelham was embroiled in legal troubles, possibly as a result of financial difficulties arising from the failure of the 1607 bill. Sir George More sought privilege for Pelham on 21 Mar. after a Chancery writ ordering Pelham was served on him. The matter was referred to the committee for privileges, and although parliamentary protection was finally granted on 2 May, doubts surfaced three days later after it emerged that Pelham was actually the plaintiff. As a result the case was referred back to the privileges committee. On 26 Apr. Pelham himself moved for parliamentary privilege concerning a further suit that was being heard in the Exchequer, whereupon the serjeant-at-arms was sent to stay proceedings. On his return, however, the serjeant reported that the lawyers for the prosecution were determined to proceed if called upon by the court. Moreover, an unnamed Member objected that, as Pelham had recently given his consent to the hearing of the suit, and his opponents had retained counsel, the case should be allowed to proceed. The Commons remained unwilling to waive Pelham’s privilege, but asked Pelham’s opponents informally to halt proceedings, which they agreed to do. By 3 May, however, Pelham had evidently withdrawn his objections to the suit, as permission ‘for Mr. Pelham to proceed in the Exchequer notwithstanding a former stay’, was requested by Anthony Irby.
Pelham was named to four committees in this session. These were to consider another bill for the preservation of timber (22 Mar.), an explanatory bill on highways (30 Mar.), a bill concerning Leadenhall market (19 Apr.), and some petitions submitted by messengers, possibly the servants of the serjeant-at-arms (17 July).
Pelham did not sit again, but in 1614 he again promoted a bill to allow him to sell his lands to pay his debts. Although vigorously opposed by Sir Henry Poole, who unsuccessfully moved to hear counsel for Pelham’s children, so that they ‘sustain no prejudice’, it was committed on 17 May after (Sir) Henry Carey, who was married to a Pelham of Laughton, replied that the bill was not intended to prejudice the heir, ‘for the heir doth follow it’. Poole nevertheless had his way on the third reading (23 May), when the bill was rejected by 201 votes to 133.